Jump to content
IGNORED

In defense of tone policing, and a rant


2xx1xy1JD

Recommended Posts

I've been told that "tone policing" is a Very Bad Thing.

Here's a basic definition that I found:

Tone policing is the act of using the messenger's method of delivery against them, as justification to dismiss the message, when they have a stake in having said message be accurately received. It is the act of disregarding the substance of someone's argument by focusing on the way it was conveyed. A tone argument focuses on delivery as a means to sidestep the issue at hand. It is a derailment.

Now, I understand that this usually comes up in the context of internet discussions, as opposed to real life. I understand that this term was started by people who were often oppressed, who got comments about how they sounded angry and hostile when they dared to talk honestly about how they felt about their oppression. I get that "gee, you sound really hostile" sounds utterly dismissive. I get all that.

But that said, here are the reasons that I will unapologetically tone police, and why I think that it can be a very necessary thing:

1. Part of my job is to tone police my clients. They are hiring me because they have problems, and need someone to help them make their case effectively. Sometimes, that means telling them to sit down and shut up in court, or to stop sending angry emails to their ex. Part of my job is to make my client sound reasonable, to control outbursts and to make sure that they are putting their best foot forward instead of sabotaging themselves.

2. If my client is polite and reasonable, I will absolutely take the emails from the ex with the f-bombs and use them as Exhibit A, as I argue for a restraining order, supervised exchanges, sole custody, etc.

3. If someone, esp. in real life, is getting really loud and angry and verbally abusive, I am not going to continue the conversation. I can and will walk out.

4. Sometimes, your tone IS the message. It says something about you. If you are getting really loud and losing your cool, that message will be "I'm a hothead". If you are continuing to be that way after a warning, or you are really getting in someone's face, that message may be "I am disruptive and possibly threatening". People may question your mental stability. If I am having a reaction that seems completely out of whack in a situation, that's going to reflect on me and my thinking. For example, when Cabinetman is clearly pushed to the edge by a Christian blogger suggesting that mutual respect is a good thing in marriage or claims that going without sex for a few days is the very worst thing that a man can go through - his over-the-top reaction shows that he's a freak.

5. If people aren't tone-policing you to your face, you can be sure that they are doing it behind your back. Police officers, social workers, teachers - they are ALL noticing your tone, and judging it.

6. In the world of activism, you need to make alliances and gain support from others outside of your core group. That's how you get things done. You can't do that effectively if you don't play nicely with others.

7. Don't tell me that you are angry or oppressed as a way of excusing hate speech or violence. Period.

8. Understand that you don't hold some magic key to your social media rantings or speeches. Anything that you say, anywhere, can and will be used against you and your cause. If you make a hateful comment, even if you think it's private, expect that it will turn into "cause X is really motivated by hatred of group Y".

9. You don't have to love "the mainstream organizations", but don't fuck things up for those of us who do activism within the mainstream groups. You aren't a speshul snowflake just because you decide to be angrier - other people with the same life story have made different choices. If people have worked damn hard to build bridges and alliances and gain political support for a cause, and if those people have made it crystal clear that they want any marches or demonstrations or rallies to be peaceful and positive, please respect that. Understand that if you decide to be a hot head and fight with someone who offends you, you have just ruined the efforts of a lot of good people and totally undermined your cause.

If you want to be part of a radical organization, fine. [Well, not fine, but I can't stop you.] Just understand that if your gang of thugs insist on acting like thugs, mainstream groups will not want anything to do with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree and think you articulate what I've been trying to find a way to say very well.

In my opinion, if someone asks a question - that is not 100% obvious troll - and you tell them to fuck off and die in a fire and "it's not my job to educate you" - then you are failing at activism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tone police guests in my house who are blatantly offensive, yells at, or threatens anyone in my house. It's exactly one sentence. "Get the hell out of my house.". As for tone policing in public, I don't. Where I live, trying to tone police racist, sexist, homophobic, fundie assholes will give me a stroke. I will give them an OMFG WTH look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree and think you articulate what I've been trying to find a way to say very well.

In my opinion, if someone asks a question - that is not 100% obvious troll - and you tell them to fuck off and die in a fire and "it's not my job to educate you" - then you are failing at activism.

YES! I forgot about that "it's not my job to educate you" line.

Look, if you want a dedicated board or group to provide support, start one. Make it private, or at least require some sort of approved membership prior to posting. Understand that this may provide your private, safe space for support (if you figure out how to do privacy and screening properly - remember, there is almost nothing that stops a good troll or disgruntled member from spilling the beans), but it is not going to help your activism much.

If you are trying to be an activist and get the word out - then yes, it IS your job to educate people. Someone asking you a question is a golden opportunity to share your POV. Remember that there are 7 billion people on the planet - even if you just finished explaining for POV to someone else last week, chances are that you didn't have 7 billion people follow your Tumblr feed.

To me, it's also a bit elitist. You consider yourself to be educated, you use the latest buzzwords, and you feel free to put down anyone who doesn't do the same. Does it occur to you that not everyone has had access to the same education?

If it's not "your job" to educate someone else, how exactly do you think it will get done? If you want to give someone a link to a FAQ to avoid massive derailments, fine. That's a useful answer. A snarky "it's not my job to educate you" is not. What do you think will happen next? I'm guessing:

a. Person will have no interest in educating themselves. Instead, they will simply assume that your cause consists of rude nut jobs.

b. Person may, out of curiosity, try to educate themselves through the University of Google. You have absolutely no control over what they find, or even what search terms they use. An innocent search may lead them to hate sites which are completely opposed to your cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all make some excellent points, and I think tone is extremely important when dealing with others.

I was shopping with a friend of mine the other day, and we happened to overhear a a woman on her phone in the next aisle. She was taking a callback for a job interview, and we happened to hear the following:

"Well, if you had bothered to check my resume, you would have known that about me."

:pink-shock:

All I could think was, oh no, she did not just say that! My friend and I didn't bother to stick around for the rest of the conversation - we already knew she'd screwed herself out of a job. It probably would have gone a lot better if she'd been more respectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always say actions speak better than words and practice what you preach. People need to see what you mean rather than hear it (by that I do not mean violence). Words just lead to nothing except yelling and arguing. Where's the activism in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all make some excellent points, and I think tone is extremely important when dealing with others.

I was shopping with a friend of mine the other day, and we happened to overhear a a woman on her phone in the next aisle. She was taking a callback for a job interview, and we happened to hear the following:

"Well, if you had bothered to check my resume, you would have known that about me."

:pink-shock:

All I could think was, oh no, she did not just say that! My friend and I didn't bother to stick around for the rest of the conversation - we already knew she'd screwed herself out of a job. It probably would have gone a lot better if she'd been more respectful.

I am constantly shocked at how people shoot themselves in the foot by having pissy or disrespectful tones. I'm not exactly the type of person who can sell ice to an eskimo (I'm shy and don't think on my feet well), but I have the common damn sense to be polite and amenable to a person I want something from (i.e., a job!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd submit that there is a difference between tone policing and expecting someone to adhere to basic standards of not being an asshole. I could never fault anyone who experiences oppression for speaking about it in forceful, even angry terms. That doesn't mean I need to put up with them speaking about me specifically in those terms - even if I am a member of one or more of the demographics that has contributed to that oppression. It is not tone policing to refuse to tolerate being called names, being the target of slurs, or having violent threats made against you (which are all unfortunately things that have happened to me in the course of social justice-related discourse online).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd submit that there is a difference between tone policing and expecting someone to adhere to basic standards of not being an asshole. I could never fault anyone who experiences oppression for speaking about it in forceful, even angry terms. That doesn't mean I need to put up with them speaking about me specifically in those terms - even if I am a member of one or more of the demographics that has contributed to that oppression. It is not tone policing to refuse to tolerate being called names, being the target of slurs, or having violent threats made against you (which are all unfortunately things that have happened to me in the course of social justice-related discourse online).

I appreciate that you make this distinction (which unfortunately sometimes gets lost by those who think being angry and oppressed = license to do crappy things).

At the same time, I still don't get some of the anger over clear-cut tone policing.

Example:

"Fuck X for saying ABC"

"I'm surprised and disappointed that you are using that sort of language. It's really negative and don't help persuade anybody"

"Fuck you tone police!"

So, you can vent in whatever way you want toward anyone else, but nobody is allowed to offer any opinion or suggestion? Really?

If you just want to vent, fine. Turn off comments, turn on comment moderation, or go offline and vent the old-fashioned way by ranting in your room. Otherwise, deal with the fact that, just as you have an opinion about X, someone else may have an opinion about what you say.

Now, let's say that I'm an activist in the same cause. Tone may be a very important issue when it comes to tactics, as important or more important that some of the main demands and talking points. There's also the fact that you may be causing a negative impression that smears everyone, including me.

Here's a board-relevant example: Let's say that someone is an evangelical Christian, who believes that the best way to do their thing is by being a really good example to others, serving others and being nice to everyone. They spend their lives doing this. Do they have a right to be pissed off when WBC, PP and other fundies do or say some pretty awful things? They know that it sounds awful, period, and that it also sabotages their work.

Here's another example. On a public board for Jewish moms, I suggest that it's not productive to scream anti-semitism when it's not warranted, or to compare the Israeli government to Nazis when they go against settlers. I believe that crying wolf (or starting rumors without a solid basis in fact) hurts the Jewish community, because it detracts from real cases of anti-semitism and makes people less likely to take real complaints seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be really bad about losing my temper explosively and getting bitchy and having a nasty tone when frustrated. Completely unhelpful with anything. I'm glad in the last few years I've been able to hold it together better. I think reading respectful observations like this would of been helpful. It's really hard to not get aggravated when dealing with conflict for some people ( snarky insurance, cable, phone company customer service reps would drive me over the edge very quickly) , although, oddly, I did manage to handle very stressful situations and verbal abuse and physical threats very calmly at my own job.

In online communications I'll usually manage to keep it together, unless someone is calling me a fucking idiot for having x instead of y opinion, then I'll, too often, devolve and do the same.

Anyway, thanks for this thread, it's very helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tone police guests in my house who are blatantly offensive, yells at, or threatens anyone in my house. It's exactly one sentence. "Get the hell out of my house.". As for tone policing in public, I don't. Where I live, trying to tone police racist, sexist, homophobic, fundie assholes will give me a stroke. I will give them an OMFG WTH look.

I hear ya! Same here. I don't tolerate it in my home because I feel it's unnecessary and they don't pay my bills so they really have no say here. In public, I give a "look" (or just think WTH) and move on. I've learned to accept that there's assholes, and sometimes they have something to say about me. Whatever. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES! I forgot about that "it's not my job to educate you" line.

Look, if you want a dedicated board or group to provide support, start one. Make it private, or at least require some sort of approved membership prior to posting. Understand that this may provide your private, safe space for support (if you figure out how to do privacy and screening properly - remember, there is almost nothing that stops a good troll or disgruntled member from spilling the beans), but it is not going to help your activism much.

If you are trying to be an activist and get the word out - then yes, it IS your job to educate people. Someone asking you a question is a golden opportunity to share your POV. Remember that there are 7 billion people on the planet - even if you just finished explaining for POV to someone else last week, chances are that you didn't have 7 billion people follow your Tumblr feed.

To me, it's also a bit elitist. You consider yourself to be educated, you use the latest buzzwords, and you feel free to put down anyone who doesn't do the same. Does it occur to you that not everyone has had access to the same education?

If it's not "your job" to educate someone else, how exactly do you think it will get done? If you want to give someone a link to a FAQ to avoid massive derailments, fine. That's a useful answer. A snarky "it's not my job to educate you" is not. What do you think will happen next? I'm guessing:

a. Person will have no interest in educating themselves. Instead, they will simply assume that your cause consists of rude nut jobs.

b. Person may, out of curiosity, try to educate themselves through the University of Google. You have absolutely no control over what they find, or even what search terms they use. An innocent search may lead them to hate sites which are completely opposed to your cause.

I feel like "it's not my job to educate you" gets taken out of context pretty often. I find it's usually used when someone has failed to even do basic research about a certain topic or when someone gets up in arms about the use of a certain term like "cis" or "transphobic". e.g. "I am not cis! I am human!!11" It gets hella old after a while and it's easy enough to just say fuck off.

You're far less likely to encounter the "it's not my job" response when you've googled and maybe found contradictory information or ask for a better breakdown of a certain idea or construct. For instance, I was taking a summer class about the psychosocial aspects of disability and society. Although I'm disabled, I don't really mind the use of 'person with a disability' vs. 'disabled person'. My professor, on the other hand, insisted on the use of "PWD" over anything else. One of my friends who uses a wheelchair disapproves of 'PWD'. I went ahead and asked her why, since she's the better authority than a textbook or a person without a disability. She explained that her disability is part of her identity and that PWD more or less erases that. Also, PWD generally posits disability as a negative trait or aspect of a person.

Generally speaking, "it's not my job" is used when the person asking the questions is being really belligerent and generally an asshole.

The kind of tone policing that drives me up the wall is generally to the effect of "you're mean for telling me that I can't say 'x', because free speech' or 'you shouldn't be so mean because people don't listen to you that way'. Like, we've been nice about this. Now we're angry because nobody's been listening and they've either intentionally or unintentionally been really shitty. Sometimes, it's the internet activism equivalent of keeping sweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread came to mind when I was looking through the really old posts regarding Sparkling Lauren. Wow, FJ has really evolved into a MUCH more intelligent and compassionate site over the last year or two! I kind of blocked out how any disagreement with any of the not hive vagina, but actually hive vagina, views used to get the dissenter handed their ass on a platter - very rudely. I know cause I was often the dissenter :D and the whole thing would turn into a big " fuck You - no fuck YOU" thread for 40 pages.

I know it still happens sometimes, but not nearly to the same extent and there seems to be a much broader range of " acceptable" opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like "it's not my job to educate you" gets taken out of context pretty often. I find it's usually used when someone has failed to even do basic research about a certain topic or when someone gets up in arms about the use of a certain term like "cis" or "transphobic". e.g. "I am not cis! I am human!!11" It gets hella old after a while and it's easy enough to just say fuck off.

You're far less likely to encounter the "it's not my job" response when you've googled and maybe found contradictory information or ask for a better breakdown of a certain idea or construct. For instance, I was taking a summer class about the psychosocial aspects of disability and society. Although I'm disabled, I don't really mind the use of 'person with a disability' vs. 'disabled person'. My professor, on the other hand, insisted on the use of "PWD" over anything else. One of my friends who uses a wheelchair disapproves of 'PWD'. I went ahead and asked her why, since she's the better authority than a textbook or a person without a disability. She explained that her disability is part of her identity and that PWD more or less erases that. Also, PWD generally posits disability as a negative trait or aspect of a person.

Generally speaking, "it's not my job" is used when the person asking the questions is being really belligerent and generally an asshole.

The kind of tone policing that drives me up the wall is generally to the effect of "you're mean for telling me that I can't say 'x', because free speech' or 'you shouldn't be so mean because people don't listen to you that way'. Like, we've been nice about this. Now we're angry because nobody's been listening and they've either intentionally or unintentionally been really shitty. Sometimes, it's the internet activism equivalent of keeping sweet.

That is not my experience at all. In fact, I kind of feel like you are discounting my experience as non-existent, because it doesn't match up to what you have experienced. But, to each their own, I suppose. It's been my experience with internet "activists" (because, seriously, it's not activism to reblog shit on Tumblr), that they are fucking lazy assholes who use the idea of "oppression" to apply to situations that have nothing to do with being oppressed. And if you ask a question - legitimate or not - to be met with "fucking google it, it's not my job to educated you, diaf troll" is bullshit. If you are an activist, then fucking realize that it IS your job to educate people. That's part of being an activist. And people learn differently. A LOT of people will ask questions, and when someone is told to "fucking google it" they probably won't, they most likely will be turned off, and will not bother with you and possibly whatever the "cause" is anymore. It's rude, it's counter productive, and it's stupid to just tell people they are stupid and should die because they bothered to ask for clarification. We don't all come from the same background of knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat related, I can't stand the "You need to respect me!" line. I have no issue with people expecting to be treated with basic dignity and manners, but too often the people who throw that word out the most conflate "respect" with "agree with everything I say and just go along with it." They are also the most likely to be disrespectful (in the true sense of the word) towards others by shouting, name calling, and making personal attacks.

I find that very assertive people who have underlying insecurities seem to be the guiltiest of this. It was worse when I was younger, but I still see it in adults sometimes, and I really scratch my head at the cognitive dissonance of it all.

Added: Same goes for the "Don't I have a right to an opinion?" people. Um, yeah. Yeah you do. Just like I have the right to one, even if it happens to disagree with yours. No one was saying you need to be thrown in jail.

Sorry for the drift, I just really can't stand solipsism in others anymore and needed to vent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat related, I can't stand the "You need to respect me!" line. I have no issue with people expecting to be treated with basic dignity and manners, but too often the people who throw that word out the most conflate "respect" with "agree with everything I say and just go along with it." They are also the most likely to be disrespectful (in the true sense of the word) towards others by shouting, name calling, and making personal attacks.

I find that very assertive people who have underlying insecurities seem to be the guiltiest of this. It was worse when I was younger, but I still see it in adults sometimes, and I really scratch my head at the cognitive dissonance of it all.

Added: Same goes for the "Don't I have a right to an opinion?" people. Um, yeah. Yeah you do. Just like I have the right to one, even if it happens to disagree with yours. No one was saying you need to be thrown in jail.

Sorry for the drift, I just really can't stand solipsism in others anymore and needed to vent.

Thank you for the new vocabulary word! It perfectly describes most toddlers, many teens and way too many adults! Now how to slip " solipsism' into everyday conversation with a couple of people.... :think:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not my experience at all. In fact, I kind of feel like you are discounting my experience as non-existent, because it doesn't match up to what you have experienced. But, to each their own, I suppose. It's been my experience with internet "activists" (because, seriously, it's not activism to reblog shit on Tumblr), that they are fucking lazy assholes who use the idea of "oppression" to apply to situations that have nothing to do with being oppressed. And if you ask a question - legitimate or not - to be met with "fucking google it, it's not my job to educated you, diaf troll" is bullshit. If you are an activist, then fucking realize that it IS your job to educate people. That's part of being an activist. And people learn differently. A LOT of people will ask questions, and when someone is told to "fucking google it" they probably won't, they most likely will be turned off, and will not bother with you and possibly whatever the "cause" is anymore. It's rude, it's counter productive, and it's stupid to just tell people they are stupid and should die because they bothered to ask for clarification. We don't all come from the same background of knowledge.

'It's not my job to educate you' means 'it's not my job to educate you just because I am part of xyz minority'. It's really being taken out of context here. It's used in response to members of privileged groups using minorities' 'good behaviour' as a bargaining chip - basically either be nice and educate me in exactly the way I want, or I won't support you even though that's just the basic decent human thing to do. It's essentially a power exchange. Not all members of minorities are activists and it is not the job of minorities as groups to educate those with privilege over them. The concept of 'nice minorities' and 'mean minorities' is especially an issue for Black people. It's the responsibility of everyone to be a decent human being, which includes educating oneself about one's privilege and the lack of privilege of others, and if people don't want to do that it is not the fault of minorities. Ignorance is a CHOICE. Suggesting that minorities somehow keep those with privilege over them ignorant because they're just so mean is a nasty bit of kyriarchy-supporting respectability politics.

Edited to add that I'm talking about members of minorities being expected to represent/speak for their entire group just because they are a member of that group. Not talking about people with privilege being expected to support people as individuals - speaking just about group-to-group politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'It's not my job to educate you' means 'it's not my job to educate you just because I am part of xyz minority'. It's really being taken out of context here. It's used in response to members of privileged groups using minorities' 'good behaviour' as a bargaining chip - basically either be nice and educate me in exactly the way I want, or I won't support you even though that's just the basic decent human thing to do. It's essentially a power exchange. Not all members of minorities are activists and it is not the job of minorities as groups to educate those with privilege over them. The concept of 'nice minorities' and 'mean minorities' is especially an issue for Black people. It's the responsibility of everyone to be a decent human being, which includes educating oneself about one's privilege and the lack of privilege of others, and if people don't want to do that it is not the fault of minorities. Ignorance is a CHOICE. Suggesting that minorities somehow keep those with privilege over them ignorant because they're just so mean is a nasty bit of kyriarchy-supporting respectability politics.

Edited to add that I'm talking about members of minorities being expected to represent/speak for their entire group just because they are a member of that group. Not talking about people with privilege being expected to support people as individuals - speaking just about group-to-group politics.

Can you give an example of where you'd say that "it's not my job to educate you" would be an appropriate and useful response?

I just don't think that the average person with any sort of privilege, decent human being or not, necessarily goes around constantly asking themselves "what are all the ways in which I'm privileged?" and teaching themselves what that means. They're too busy either living their lives, or looking at cute kittens on the internet.

I would see it as annoying and awkward if someone expected me to be a spokesperson for every woman or every Jew. I've had that happen a few times, but while I consider it weird, I answer questions because (a) it's pretty obvious to me that the person asking really doesn't know much and I may have been the first Jew they ever knew, and (b) if I don't answer, I have no control over what bullshit they may believe or pick up from elsewhere. See my rant about my former computer tech who went from nice but ignorant guy to spouting neo-Nazi, Jew-hating conspiracy theories overnight, because he "found some stuff on the internet".

How can anyone be expected to support a cause that they don't understand? Is it realistic to expect the average person to simply have some sort of intuitive knowledge of something that is outside of their personal experience?

When I look at causes that my husband and I support, it's because somebody educated us. LBGT rights: I remember that when my husband was a teen, he was pretty ignorant about this and whatever "knowledge" he had was pretty distorted. Then, he left his former bubble, realized that a bunch of his friends and colleagues were gay, worked in HIV health clinics, had a bunch of real conversations with people, and became a staunch supporter. Some thing with Native rights: when issues aren't in your face, you don't always know that they exist. My husband had a totally different perspective after 3 weeks on reserves on James Bay, because he had no idea beforehand about how devastating residential schools were, or how people were living with such substandard housing and plumbing in Canada, or how missionaries had destroyed the existing religion. When I read about Ferguson and other police shootings, and things like the CNN story today about conversations that parents have with their black teen sons, I realize that I'm privileged because of my interaction with police and authority is generally positive. I wouldn't know and appreciate just how different that would be if someone didn't tell me. When I can cross the US border in 2 min., I wouldn't know that it can be a problem for others until my FIL gets detained for 2 hours despite having a clean record and a Canadian passport, because he's a brown guy born in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re privilege:

Some stuff that made a difference for me in appreciating race privilege and acknowledging that fighting racism was about more than simply saying "we are all equal" or "I don't see color":

- this article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/living/pa ... hpt=hp_bn1

- Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink http://smithsonianapa.org/bookdragon/bl ... -gladwell/

As much as I would love the brag about being a wonderful parent, the truth is that 90% of the work has been done for me. Between my family and our community and their schools, they are on a good path and it would take a huge screw up to derail them.

I don't have to have "The Talk" with my son. I can be reasonably sure that he wouldn't be targeted by police unless he really did something horrible, and my daughters have even less reason to fear the police. They are also in an environment where success, esp. academic success, is simply assumed. They don't have to overcome negative expectations.

Gladwell's book was pretty simple, but it changed how I thought of the issue of racism. It's not just about consciously thinking that some people are better than others based on race. Someone can declare that they believe in equality, but when it comes to first, automatic impressions, they may still have racist reactions. When it comes to police - that difference can be fatal. In the Amadou Diallo case, the police officers who shot him weren't thinking "we hate blacks, let's shoot a black guy for no reason." Their instincts, though, were off so they kept jumping to the worst conclusions, and they did so largely because racist stereotypes governed their thinking on a really deep level. I hadn't thought about how first impressions can be racist, nor had it occurred to me that a computer program could measure implicit racism or that many blacks themselves could have racist results.

Getting back to "it's not my job to educate" - it needs to be someone's job to educate. Some of these points are simple, but they are not obvious. We need to educate and talk about these things, because if you don't do things like confronting subconscious racism and you take it at face value when people simply say "we treat everyone equally", you don't adjust hiring practices or question the use of first impressions over objective criteria, you don't review arrest and sentencing patterns and the use of discretion.

Also - sometimes, it helps to keep it simple. I had to look up kyriarchy, because I had never heard the word before. Apparently, it's a term that was made up in 1992, after I finished studying political science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/609 ... -it-nicely

Tumblr link was literally the first google hit from searching "it's not my job to educate you." I like tumblr; you CAN learn a lot there, just keep your critical thinking hat on and a bullshit detector handy. ;)

If it's difficult for a white reader to understand from a race perspective, consider it from a gender perspective, if you're a woman, or a class perspective, if it applies. Seriously, unless you're a straight, white, Christian, able-bodied, rich man, you should be able to relate to this on some level.

*all you's in this comment are general you, just to be clear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re privilege:

Some stuff that made a difference for me in appreciating race privilege and acknowledging that fighting racism was about more than simply saying "we are all equal" or "I don't see color":

- this article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/living/pa ... hpt=hp_bn1

- Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink http://smithsonianapa.org/bookdragon/bl ... -gladwell/

As much as I would love the brag about being a wonderful parent, the truth is that 90% of the work has been done for me. Between my family and our community and their schools, they are on a good path and it would take a huge screw up to derail them.

I don't have to have "The Talk" with my son. I can be reasonably sure that he wouldn't be targeted by police unless he really did something horrible, and my daughters have even less reason to fear the police. They are also in an environment where success, esp. academic success, is simply assumed. They don't have to overcome negative expectations.

Gladwell's book was pretty simple, but it changed how I thought of the issue of racism. It's not just about consciously thinking that some people are better than others based on race. Someone can declare that they believe in equality, but when it comes to first, automatic impressions, they may still have racist reactions. When it comes to police - that difference can be fatal. In the Amadou Diallo case, the police officers who shot him weren't thinking "we hate blacks, let's shoot a black guy for no reason." Their instincts, though, were off so they kept jumping to the worst conclusions, and they did so largely because racist stereotypes governed their thinking on a really deep level. I hadn't thought about how first impressions can be racist, nor had it occurred to me that a computer program could measure implicit racism or that many blacks themselves could have racist results.

Getting back to "it's not my job to educate" - it needs to be someone's job to educate. Some of these points are simple, but they are not obvious. We need to educate and talk about these things, because if you don't do things like confronting subconscious racism and you take it at face value when people simply say "we treat everyone equally", you don't adjust hiring practices or question the use of first impressions over objective criteria, you don't review arrest and sentencing patterns and the use of discretion.

Also - sometimes, it helps to keep it simple. I had to look up kyriarchy, because I had never heard the word before. Apparently, it's a term that was made up in 1992, after I finished studying political science.

I'm pretty sure it was in one of Malcolm Gladwell's books that I read about a study that asking people to indicate their race before taking a test makes black people do worse on the test and white/asian people do better. His explanation was that black people know that there are lower expectations/stereotypes for black people, so it kinda bums them out or something and makes them do worse on the test, and the reverse for white/asian people.

Has there been a study showing that pointing out privilege (and lack of it) does something useful in society? It seems like it could just make the people with a lack of privilege feel defeated and therefore do worse, while giving people with privilege confidence, so making them do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I do know that subconscious racism and institutional racism are issues that the public sector has addressed in hiring.

My interviews for public sectors jobs were entirely different from private sector ones. No casual chit-chat, which was very common in my private sector interviews. There was always more than one interviewer, and a set list of questions. My responses were recorded. There wasn't much facial expression from the interviewers. The idea was that first impressions, "clicking", discussing common interests or people we know, etc. tend to favor candidates from the same background as the interviewer, and they wanted objective ways to see which candidate was most qualified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I do know that subconscious racism and institutional racism are issues that the public sector has addressed in hiring.

My interviews for public sectors jobs were entirely different from private sector ones. No casual chit-chat, which was very common in my private sector interviews. There was always more than one interviewer, and a set list of questions. My responses were recorded. There wasn't much facial expression from the interviewers. The idea was that first impressions, "clicking", discussing common interests or people we know, etc. tend to favor candidates from the same background as the interviewer, and they wanted objective ways to see which candidate was most qualified.

That's an interesting observation. I've sat on a lot of interview panels for public service jobs, particularly for hiring out-reach workers and social workers. Many of the programs were geared to meet the needs of a largely immigrant population and being bi-lingual/bi-cultural is a stated objective in hiring.

So I'm on this one interview panel and we interview a bunch of qualified candidates using a set question list. Minimal small talk, all the things you mention.BUT what stood out to many on the panel is that they didn't feel some candidates were showing enough self-confidence and they thought they might be too timid and not assertive enough in the field. The common trait was that they didn't look the interviewers in the eye when answering questions, they looked down. Because most of the people on the interview panel didn't realize that sustained direct eye contact with strangers is considered rude and disrespectful in the very group that the program was aimed at, and that the women interviewing for the position were part of!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you give an example of where you'd say that "it's not my job to educate you" would be an appropriate and useful response?

I just don't think that the average person with any sort of privilege, decent human being or not, necessarily goes around constantly asking themselves "what are all the ways in which I'm privileged?" and teaching themselves what that means. They're too busy either living their lives, or looking at cute kittens on the internet.

I would see it as annoying and awkward if someone expected me to be a spokesperson for every woman or every Jew. I've had that happen a few times, but while I consider it weird, I answer questions because (a) it's pretty obvious to me that the person asking really doesn't know much and I may have been the first Jew they ever knew, and (b) if I don't answer, I have no control over what bullshit they may believe or pick up from elsewhere. See my rant about my former computer tech who went from nice but ignorant guy to spouting neo-Nazi, Jew-hating conspiracy theories overnight, because he "found some stuff on the internet".

How can anyone be expected to support a cause that they don't understand? Is it realistic to expect the average person to simply have some sort of intuitive knowledge of something that is outside of their personal experience?

When I look at causes that my husband and I support, it's because somebody educated us. LBGT rights: I remember that when my husband was a teen, he was pretty ignorant about this and whatever "knowledge" he had was pretty distorted. Then, he left his former bubble, realized that a bunch of his friends and colleagues were gay, worked in HIV health clinics, had a bunch of real conversations with people, and became a staunch supporter. Some thing with Native rights: when issues aren't in your face, you don't always know that they exist. My husband had a totally different perspective after 3 weeks on reserves on James Bay, because he had no idea beforehand about how devastating residential schools were, or how people were living with such substandard housing and plumbing in Canada, or how missionaries had destroyed the existing religion. When I read about Ferguson and other police shootings, and things like the CNN story today about conversations that parents have with their black teen sons, I realize that I'm privileged because of my interaction with police and authority is generally positive. I wouldn't know and appreciate just how different that would be if someone didn't tell me. When I can cross the US border in 2 min., I wouldn't know that it can be a problem for others until my FIL gets detained for 2 hours despite having a clean record and a Canadian passport, because he's a brown guy born in Iraq.

But the point is that it's fine for members of minorities to educate someone, if they want to - the emphasis being on 'if they want to'. What's not OK is using the concept of 'model minority' and 'niceness' as a way to make minorities educate. It's not their job - it's the job of everyone to educate themselves. The whole 'minorities should educate' turns into basically saying that it's minorities' responsibility to make sure others aren't prejudiced, which is super harmful. It's saying that it's minorities' fault if others don't support them. It's fine for you to want to educate others, it's not fine to say that someone would support LGBT rights (or whatever) if they were nicer. Supporting minorities is just being a decent person, and shouldn't be reliant on the niceness of the members.

Yeah, the average person doesn't go around asking themselves 'what are all the ways in which I'm privileged' - but that's basically ally 101. It is not the fault of minorities that others have the privilege to ignore their own privilege.

And saying 'it's not my job to educate you' is a helpful and useful response when you're just exhausted from microaggressions and being around people in xyz privileged group is harmful for your mental and emotional and sometimes physical health. 'It's not my job to educate you' is usually done out of self-preservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the point is that it's fine for members of minorities to educate someone, if they want to - the emphasis being on 'if they want to'. What's not OK is using the concept of 'model minority' and 'niceness' as a way to make minorities educate. It's not their job - it's the job of everyone to educate themselves. The whole 'minorities should educate' turns into basically saying that it's minorities' responsibility to make sure others aren't prejudiced, which is super harmful. It's saying that it's minorities' fault if others don't support them. It's fine for you to want to educate others, it's not fine to say that someone would support LGBT rights (or whatever) if they were nicer. Supporting minorities is just being a decent person, and shouldn't be reliant on the niceness of the members.

Yeah, the average person doesn't go around asking themselves 'what are all the ways in which I'm privileged' - but that's basically ally 101. It is not the fault of minorities that others have the privilege to ignore their own privilege.

And saying 'it's not my job to educate you' is a helpful and useful response when you're just exhausted from microaggressions and being around people in xyz privileged group is harmful for your mental and emotional and sometimes physical health. 'It's not my job to educate you' is usually done out of self-preservation.

I'll agree that some discussions and debates DO get exhausting, and there's a point where you need to step back. I don't think that every single member of a particular group needs to be on call 24/7 to answer every single question. It's fine to have a private discussion, or say "I'd rather not get into that whole discussion now", or re-direct someone. I know I have my issues that are simply not up for discussion, esp. in hostile settings.

I'm not sure that "fault", though, is a useful concept here. Lack of support isn't a punishment for failing to educate - it's more of a natural consequence.

Group X, which experiences prejudice, has a vested interested in gaining allies and fighting prejudice. Whether or not it should be their job to educate isn't really relevant - if they want to get their message out and thereby gain the changes they need, they'll need to do it.

It's human nature to have blind spots, where we see our own experiences as normal and don't fully realize what others experience if it's not pointed out to us. Most of the general public never took Ally 101. [Tolerance education in schools is important and can produce students who are more likely to be sensitive to multiple forms of prejudice and privilege - but first, that education needs to be provided, and second, specific issues and challenges may still need to be explained.] How the average person who is not a member of Group X acts isn't merely about decency - it's very much about how they have been shaped by society and education. With work, attitudes can and do change. For example, we were watching Mrs. Doubtfire again over the weekend, since I hadn't watched it in years. When it was released, it came across as fairly progressive: it was set in San Francisco, there was an openly gay brother, the wife was the breadwinner, and the final message was that divorce isn't always the end of the world and families comes in all sorts of ways. Great, right? Well, while re-watching it in 2014, you notice the transphobia, the fact that the gay brother is basically there for comic relief, and the fact that the final speech about all types of families excluded any mention of children of same-sex couples.

Spontaneously waiting for others to educate themselves = most people remaining ignorant and unsupportive = no change that you want and need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.