Microaggressions in Everyday Life - Derald Wing Sue

Скачать книгу

passengers and seemed to enjoy being noticed but also experienced a few stares as “lecherous.” Some women seem to face a double‐edged sword: wanting to be attractive and desired but also feeling objectified and treated as sex objects. The overt expression of sexual objectification often is communicated in forms ranging from overt whistles and catcalls to more subtle cues such as stares that make a woman feel as if she were being undressed in public.

      Third, referring to female employees by their first names and even calling Kathleen “Kathy” would not seem “disrespectful” if the interviewer did the same with male employees. Yet he consistently referred to men more formally by using “Mr.” and their last names. And by implying that Kathleen did not need a job but rather a “good man” to take care of her (even jokingly), the vice president sent a microaggressive message that women should be married, their place is in the home, they should be taken care of by a man, and Kathleen was potentially taking a job away from a man who has a family to support. This sequence of spontaneous and quick exchanges between the vice president and Kathleen trivializes her desire to find a job, treats her as a child, and does not take her seriously as a candidate.

      Fourth, when the vice president is asked how candidates will be evaluated for the position, he responds by saying that the “most qualified person would be offered the job,” that everyone is treated the same, that he did not see gender differences, that all have an equal chance to be hired, and that “people are people.” Interestingly enough, from that interaction alone, Kathleen concluded she would not be offered the job. While it is entirely possible that it was an erroneous conclusion, we should inquire as to how Kathleen arrived at such a belief. As we discuss in Chapter 2, the vice president's response reflects a worldview regarding the place of women in our society. Many women who hear the phrase “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” in the context of a job interview recognize this as a gender microaggression that communicates “women are not as qualified as men, so when a male candidate is selected, it has nothing to do with bias but concerns his qualifications.” Implicit in the interviewer's statements is the notion that he is incapable of gender prejudice because he is gender‐blind. People of color report a similar phenomenon regarding experiences with racial color‐blindness. The vice president is unaware that denial of gender differences is a microaggression that ignores the experiential reality of women and allows men to deny their own privileged positions.

      Heterosexism, like racism and sexism, can operate in overt and subtle ways (Nadal, Whitman, et al., 2016). Early conceptualizations of homophobia referred to fear of and aversion to gay individuals. Noting limitations of the term, Herek (1990, 2000, 2004) proposed a more nuanced terminology to better capture individual, institutional, and cultural forms of oppression directed at lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. He coined “sexual prejudice” broadly, as negative attitudes and hostility toward sexual minorities. He further defined “sexual stigma” as referring to society's negative stance toward anything not heterosexual and “heterosexism” as the ideological system that justifies denigrating sexual minority identity, behavior, and communities. Subsequently, researchers have differentiated old‐fashioned and modern forms of heterosexism (Cowan, Heiple, Marquez, Katchadourian, & McNevin, 2005; Eldridge & Johnson, 2011; Morrison & Morrison, 2003). “Old‐fashioned heterosexism” refers to overt expressions of antigay and antilesbian attitudes and behaviors, taking form in hate speech and hate crimes, for example. Similar to modern racism and sexism, and germane to our discussion of microaggressions, “modern heterosexism” refers to subtle expressions of bias toward sexual minorities.

      Nadal (2013) defined sexual‐orientation microaggressions as brief, everyday insults and invalidations that communicate heterosexist and homophobic slights toward gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer individuals. These microaggressions occur across social and physical locations—nobody is immune. Common examples involve comments in the classroom or schoolyard. For instance, a gay adolescent was frequently made to feel uncomfortable when fellow classmates described silly or stupid behavior by saying “That's gay.” The hidden message is that being gay is something negative or deviant. In another example, during a conversation among a group of male fraternity brothers, one guy said, “I love you man,” followed by “No homo” as a way to reassert his heterosexual masculinity. The hidden message is that it is not okay to be gay.

      Other examples often are evident in health care settings. In a mental health counseling context, for example, a lesbian client reluctantly disclosed her sexual orientation to a straight male therapist stating that she was “into women.” The therapist indicated he was not shocked by this disclosure because he once had a client who was “into dogs.” The microaggression involves the implication that being a lesbian is abnormal and akin to bestiality.

      In response to burgeoning scholarship on microaggressions and research addressing their effects on targets, critics have emerged. We have observed three common misunderstandings among critics about microaggressions theory and research: (a) making mountains out of molehills, (b) everything's a microaggression in this climate of political correctness, and (c) your analysis is flawed. We describe these below and also refer readers to Monnica Williams’s (2019) incisive article.

       Stop Making Mountains Out of Molehills!

      Critics have accused researchers of exaggerating the detrimental impact of microaggressions. As we explain throughout this book, microaggressions are constant and continuing experiences among members of marginalized groups in our society. If they happened just once or twice in a lifetime, perhaps targets could laugh or shrug them off. However, as Essed (1991) and others have suggested, these subtle exchanges are daily experiences. They are commonplace. Their cumulative nature assails the self‐esteem of targets, produces anger and frustration, depletes psychic energy, lowers feelings of subjective well‐being and worthiness, affects sleep duration, produces physical health problems, shortens life expectancy, and leads to suicidal ideation (Hollingsworth et al., 2017; Nadal, Griffin, Wong, Hamit, & Rasmus, 2014; Nadal, Wong, Griffin, Davidoff, & Sriken, 2014; Ong, Cerrada, Lee, & Williams, 2017; Solórzano et al., 2000; D. W. Sue, Capodilupo, & Holder, 2008; Williams, Neighbors, & Jackson, 2003; Wong‐Padoongpatt, Zane, Okazaki, & Saw, 2017; Yoo & Lee, 2008).

      Oftentimes undergirding efforts to trivialize and minimize microaggressions theory and research are notions that perpetrators neither want to change nor share their dominant‐group privileges with others. We have seen this among our White colleagues manifested in statements of moral superiority, such as “I could have interpreted your comment as an ageist microaggression toward me, but I didn't. Why are you so hypersensitive?”

       Everything's a Microaggression in This Climate of Political Correctness

Скачать книгу