DEV Community

Discussion on: Sexism, Racism, Toxic Positivity, and TailwindCSS

 
sroehrl profile image
neoan

It seems to me that we have different interpretations of what "it is human" means.
What I meant by that is that being defensive (and likely to go overboard with it) is a human trait. This does not mean that it is justifiable or ethically sound, it just means it's natural in the sense that we know this psychological phenomenon well. And yes, that makes it "natural" in the actual sense of the word. This is true for various forms of aggression and is not automatically linked to a societal structure but rather to our "monkey brains" not having adapted yet to a modern, complex and dense society. However, of course it can be depending on conscious or subconscious intent. My problem was that you didn't point to any argument supporting this connection. Instead, you declare it as inherently connected due to a patriachical society.

I am not denying that structural issues exist in society. As a matter of fact I want to address those just like you do. However, your article seems to be picking up on something that I cannot identify as being the cause of such issues. To be frank, it reminds me of the saying "When all you have is a hammer, all problems need to be nails".

Folks like you... white American men? You realize I don't need to assume that? You stream on Twitch and readily share that information about yourself. Do you think it's a coincidence that I could have assumed that and have been correct, based on your statement?

About this paragraph: I am not sure whether I should be honored that you looked me up, or disappointed that you didn't bother to start a video for at least one minute (which probably would have given away that I am not American). However, that isn't the point.
Way more important is: No, I do not see how my opinion could only have been voiced by a white male like myself. What you are implying here is sexist and condescending and the fact that you are the one who is entitled to say things like

This is about a system that gives folks like you the confidence to literally dismiss reality to defend something someone did wrong by minimizing it in a historical rewrite.

is the clearest indication there can be that you aren't a convincing force against toxicity.

I just don't see the connection to identity, nor to "the system".

I understand that. I hope you can understand that I do, and that's why I've written what I have.

Yes, of course I realize that you wrote that as that is the way you see it. I didn't assume you wrote this as a hit piece. In the same way, me having a different assessment is the reason why I engaged in the first place.

 
cher profile image
Cher

What I meant by that is that being defensive (and likely to go overboard with it) is a human trait.

I agree with that, and there can be dozens of reasons why someone may be more reactive than someone else (I'm bipolar, autistic, and I have ADHD, so I'm familiar with being this way). I'm not saying he is being defensive because he's racist or sexist, in fact I'm not calling him those things at all.

...depending on conscious or subconscious intent. My problem was that you didn't point to any argument supporting this connection. Instead, you declare it as inherently connected due to a patriachical society.

I didn't point to any connection to intent (or support therein) because I don't care about his intent. I care about the impact and the structures that exist that enable this behavior to begin with.

When all you have is a hammer, all problems need to be nails

While I understand how this is being gathered, it's more like, "Everyone needs to learn when to use a hammer, and when to use a nail gun, but not everyone is held accountable in the same way when they use the wrong tool and create damage as a result of not using the correct tool." And I say this hesitantly, as I feel like it's a bit dehumanizing to compare what happens to people in society to carpentry.

I am not sure whether I should be honored that you looked me up, or disappointed that you didn't bother to start a video for at least one minute (which probably would have given away that I am not American)

Neither. I have watched you Twitch in the past, and I looked you up because I didn't want to assume anything about you given your branding here. I assumed you were American because you and your company are based in New York. I wouldn't assume you weren't a citizen based on your accent.

No, I do not see how my opinion could only have been voiced by a white male like myself.

I didn't say that. If I thought that, I wouldn't have looked you up. I'm pointing to a pattern here of this type of response, not saying that it is an impossibility that anyone else could or would break that pattern.

What you are implying here is sexist and condescending and the fact that you are the one who is entitled to say things like

There is no such thing as reverse sexism. While I may feel entitled in some aspects, this certainly isn't one of them.

is the clearest indication there can be that you aren't a convincing force against toxicity.

Ok.

In the same way, me having a different assessment is the reason why I engaged in the first place.

And I recognized that (which is why I responded), but I felt the basis of the way you engaged to be, as I said, dismissive and apologist on behalf of Adam because of how you've worded it. I'm willing to concede that this wasn't your intention, and thus, makes what I sound kind of asshole-ish.

 
sroehrl profile image
neoan

I assumed you were American because you and your company are based in New York. I wouldn't assume you weren't a citizen based on your accent.

I think that is fair, but let's me wonder why the label "American white male" was necessary.

I didn't point to any connection to intent (or support therein) because I don't care about his intent.

I know. The reason why I keep reiterating this is due to the believe that without this connection your claims have no grounds. As you notice online, the subject is heavily discussed. You seem to be under the impression that there either isn't enough vocal criticism or that there would be more if he would fall under a different gender/race markup. And I think that making such claims require evidence.

If you didn't imply that my opinion must necessarily originate from a "white male American", what did you mean by

Do you think it's a coincidence that I could have assumed that and have been correct, based on your statement?

There must be something that makes "my type of response" fall under a certain pattern, as you phrase it. Assuming you are too intelligent to base that on disagreeing with you, what did you want to point to?

There is no such thing as reverse sexism.

Maybe not (at least that term makes no sense how it is usually used), but there is sexism. And implying that an opinion has less worth based on what gender it originates from, is pretty much a textbook definition. And I personally cannot remember when I had to point to someone's genetic markup or heritage to make a legitimate point. As a matter of fact, this is the reasoning behind me getting heated here in the first place: rather than condemning Adam's behavior by itself, you tried to fit it into a box based on your own sensitivities. And again, that does not mean that I can be sure that this connection doesn't exist and certainly not that it rarely or never exists. I would have just expected arguments based on this view rather than relying on the - in my opinion damaging - approach of "it is always connected just due to the 'perpetrator' being a white man and all of us living in 'the system'"

[...] but I felt the basis of the way you engaged to be, as I said, dismissive and apologist on behalf of Adam because of how you've worded it

Fair enough, given that I didn't waste any time to declare Adam's behavior itself as questionable in favor of getting to my criticism right away. And I might not have phrased it as unambiguous as intended. But I guess we somehow managed to get our viewpoints across through it all ;-)

 
cher profile image
Cher • Edited

I think that is fair, but let's me wonder why the label "American white male" was necessary.

As I've said before, I'm a very visual, relational thinker. I imagine a person when reading, and I don't like to be incorrectly applying some mental model of who someone is. I like to challenge my own biases.

There must be something that makes "my type of response" fall under a certain pattern, as you phrase it. Assuming you are too intelligent to base that on disagreeing with you, what did you want to point to?

The problem I see is that the assumptions you make aren't based on any insight.

You wrongly proclaim that I have no insight here. The conclusion this leads me to is that you and I do not have the same framing, so you must not have experienced what Sara has experienced. That led me to believe that you are a man. Men of color, in my experience, also tend to have some overlap in framing, while your contention is a very clear line. Men with language barriers from having native languages other than English or coming from different cultures also tend to have experience with American men asserting dominance using public forum, passive aggression, and manipulative shaming.

You are right, it's not based on simply disagreeing with me. It's based on how you do so. However, I'd never simply assume any part of someone else's identity. I have no control over the picture that pops into my head, other than to 1) go get the proper picture of that person, and 2) continue to challenge my biases by doing in doing the former.

And I personally cannot remember when I had to point to someone's genetic markup or heritage to make a legitimate point.

And why do you think that is? Could it be correlated with the other statement, that I have absolutely no insight to write what I did?

Sexism and sexist bigotry and willful prejudice are really not the same thing. They are often used interchangeably, despite that one is a complex system of unconscious behaviors and expectations, and thus, imbalance, and the other is targeted, purposeful hatred. With sexism, it's easy to say, oh, you mentioned sex, so you're being sexist! But that's just not the case. Folks who are misogynistic are sexist and contribute to systemic sexism, but men who don't challenge sexism and capitalize on their privilege or power (knowingly or not) are not necessarily sexist, nor misogynistic, but do contribute to upholding a patriarchal system.

 
sroehrl profile image
neoan

You wrongly proclaim that I have no insight here. The conclusion this leads me to is that you and I do not have the same framing, so you must not have experienced what Sara has experienced.

Well, I partially agree with the framing differences as I wasn't talking about Sara or her experience at all, but whether or not the cause of what happened to her can be either directly traced back to sexism, racism or at least indirectly as an outcome of societal reaction based on the power structures in place. This is nothing to do with the fact that the backlash she received is unjustified and that I empathize with her, regardless of whether or not I can relate without being a Lebanese woman.

Let me phrase it as an example:

Let's assume two people are encountered fighting and can be observed as having different racial backgrounds. With a lack of any other information, we cannot jump to the conclusion that race is a factor in this dispute unless we have reason to believe so. Saying that racism exists and structurally measurable and therefore the exact circumstances or motivations for this particular struggle don't matter simply doesn't work. And responding to someone making that point by saying you have no idea how it feels to be of race/gender/background/origin x simply isn't intellectually processable.

I think it's great that you actively question your biases and prejudices whenever you notice an "image popping up" and think it's an exercise we should remind ourselves of as often as possible. My approach to focus on what is said rather than who said it. Which brings me to this paragraph:

And I personally cannot remember when I had to point to someone's genetic markup or heritage to make a legitimate point.

And why do you think that is? Could it be correlated with the other statement, that I have absolutely no insight to write what I did?

It is meanwhile clear to me that you assume that engaging with the content of what is written is strongly connected to the author for you. It made sense in the pre-digital world to evaluate how something is meant by investigating the speaker including pre-knowledge of the person, tone, facial expression etc.
That's why we still do it today. However, this is not how I (and I assume many others) engage on the web. I take your word as it is and as such disregard any background there might be behind the screen somewhere (actively and deliberately, as it is my method of avoiding bias). So saying that you have no insight wasn't in any way related to who you are or what experiences you have (or I have, for that matter) but to the fact that you lacked presenting any facts about the story that would suggest that your assessment is anything else but a hunch of a completely unrelated person. In this context is doesn't matter whether you are a woman, Lebanese or have or have not experienced discrimination in any shape or form. You voiced an opinion and I challenge that opinion, not you as a representative of whatever.

Your last paragraph aims at a larger, very complex topic we will probably not resolve here. My opinion is that claiming sexism as a "female only argument" or formulating sentences like

[...] , but men who don't challenge sexism [...]

instead of [...] , but PEOPLE who don't challenge sexism [...]

just want me to remind you of what you said before about challenging your biases. Over all, I think our ideological differences on this topic are that I aim for how I want the world to be, not on what I am against or who I blame for it. We have to overcome inequality, not change how inequality is structured. And I believe that one day in the future we can be there. And in this future the derogatory nature of expressions like "American white male" will be recognized just like any other form of sexism or racism (which doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge different levels of severity, of course). And I hope you will be around to understand it.

 
cher profile image
Cher

Let's assume two people are encountered fighting and can be observed as having different racial backgrounds. With a lack of any other information, we cannot jump to the conclusion that race is a factor in this dispute unless we have reason to believe so. Saying that racism exists and structurally measurable and therefore the exact circumstances or motivations for this particular struggle don't matter simply doesn't work. And responding to someone making that point by saying you have no idea how it feels to be of race/gender/background/origin x simply isn't intellectually processable.

If we peel back to what simply occurred, we'd never be discussing what we are discussing now.

We're not in disagreement when we strip it to "the dispute". We don't know his motivations, outside of that he clearly want to let her know he was upset. He did so in a manner that was passive aggressive, public, and manipulative. He has not apologized.

These are obvious facts.

My argument here, and forgive me, but I'm doing my best to articulate the difference, is that Adam's experiences have led him to feel safe to speak to someone like that online and subsequently not to even delete it or apologize for it upon reflection. Those experiences are intrinsically tied to how other people have treated him and a general lack of accountability.

For example, as a woman, if I spoke to a man publicly the way that he did, I would have immediately received a similar toxic pile-on that Sara did. I would have had to delete my post. But the bottom line is that I cannot react to people without considering the impact on myself, and as a result, I will not react to people without considering the impact on them.

As for the expectations element, his response is clearly due to a mismatch in expectations. That's just psychology. Again, his experience in a majority-power white, patriarchal, AND American nationalism, society have led to having different expectations. I attribute this to be because of systemic sexism because that aligns with my experience and what I've seen in this space specifically, including with Adam's interactions with others. I don't like the idea of looking for evidence about Adam specifically to enhance that argument, because Adam himself is not what I'm criticizing, rather his behavior as an example and the broader context that this happens to women in tech, and especially women of color who aren't American far more than anyone else.

saying that you have no insight wasn't in any way related to who you are or what experiences you have (or I have, for that matter) but to the fact that you lacked presenting any facts about the story that would suggest that your assessment is anything else but a hunch of a completely unrelated person

I can understand that this is what you meant to communicate, but your assessment as to why is actually faulty, it comes back to what I've described previously. I'm not talking about Adam as a person, again, though I can understand it's difficult to separate his behavior and the system that enables that behavior from him, considering that we are talking about what he has in common with specific issues within that system.

just want me to remind you of what you said before about challenging your biases

I used misogyny and sexism to try to illustrate the differences between bigotry and systemic inequities that leave groups of people marginalized by the majority homogenous groups. Misogyny is specifically the hatred of women, and chose to use that because the term exists, it allows us to articulate the contrast of sexism from bigotry against women.

And in this future the derogatory nature of expressions like "American white male" will be recognized just like any other form of sexism or racism

I think that there's this implication that the folks with the most power are experiencing inequality or inequity because we use that term, and that the term is offensive or derogatory. I don't know how to explain why it's not, and I think my education on this particular vector of contention is a stack of books and 30+ years of experience in this country would be impossible to lay out in the comment section of DEV.

I hope you can try to believe that when I say that, I'm not intending it in a derogatory way, nor do I hate men, other white folks, or other Americans. I just want us to recognize when we have privilege, and when we're using that privilege as a weapon, even if it's not on purpose. Sometimes self-preservation is the weapon, and it's really hard to decide what you want to do with that.

I wish you all the best, but I have to step away from this. Thank you for the civil discourse.

 
sroehrl profile image
neoan

TLDR; I realize that you had many time consuming discussions going on, and I thank you for your time. I fought with myself of whether or not I'll answer as I know it's going to be tempting to keep the chain going, so read at your own risk. Otherwise: all the best.


He did so in a manner that was passive aggressive, public, and manipulative

Yes, as stated, these are obvious facts.

[]... is that Adam's experiences have led him to feel safe to speak to someone like that online and subsequently not to even delete it or apologize for it upon reflection.

See, and here we disagree. I don't know Adam, what happened to him, what kind of person he is, nothing. The only relevant question is hidden in your next sentence:

For example, as a woman, if I spoke to a man publicly the way that he did, I would have immediately received a similar toxic pile-on that Sara did.

This is the core question, isn't it? Is that (still) true, or is that a self-fulfilling prophecy? If it's true sometimes, how structural is it? Those are difficult questions as measurement is hard. As I see it, that is the issue with how we go about truth-finding. Often our confirmation bias lets us say stuff like

I attribute this to be because of systemic sexism because that aligns with my experience and what I've seen in this space specifically

I don't question your experience. I just wonder if it's automatically applicable just because it fits a pattern you created for yourself. And I find that at odd from my perspective. Here is what I don't understand:

  • You keep saying that you don't want to criticize Adam as a person.
  • You point to certain behaviors that I will translate into a laymen "like a spoiled child"

And hence, and this is what I don't get, you remove personal accountability from the person in order to blame a greater system while you expect society to blame (or produce a back-lash for) him. So how is this system ever going to be overcome if personal responsibility is not an option? Or do I have to read between the lines, and what you are actually saying is: "I want to call him out but can't because I am a woman"?

I think that there's this implication that the folks with the most power are experiencing inequality or inequity because we use that term, and that the term is offensive or derogatory

I actually have to laugh as if we knew each other IRL you would never put me in the corner you seem to put me in. It's just that you force me to play devil's advocate as the way YOU (not the mentioned we, whoever that is) use these terms is derogatory and a bit condescending. And if I wanted to follow your arguments, I'd say that you can't evaluate whether or not that's true as you don't have the experience of being a white male ;-)
But what I really want to say is: Labels have never helped society. It is the very same mechanism that caused society to function the way it does (you seem to call it patriarchy) and eventually we will have to realize that having no empathy with whoever we label as "part of the powerful" is not a solution. Privilege is complicated and facetted.
There is no world where putting a star on someone's chest to label them as Jews can ever be a good thing.

 
cher profile image
Cher

I realize that you had many time consuming discussions going on, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

See, and here we disagree. I don't know Adam, what happened to him, what kind of person he is, nothing. The only relevant question is hidden in your next sentence:

Let me clarify further.

It is a fact that he has not experienced an inherit disadvantage, bias, oppression, or prejudice based on his race, nationality, or gender.

confirmation bias

This is not that. I couldn't possibly, again, deconstruct years of experience and education on this topic here, but I implore you to go outside of this space and explore this topic with other teachers. This is a wonderful piece, albeit old: jstor.org/stable/1495382?seq=1

you remove personal accountability from the person in order to blame a greater system while you expect society to blame (or produce a back-lash for) him

I'm not intentionally doing either of these things. I just don't think it's justifiable of me to discuss who a person is when I don't know them, and the only thing I want to happen is for this to change, and while that does involve accountability from him, I don't expect it or want it from a back-lash, but rather from folks he trusts and respect (some of whom who reached out to me privately for further understanding).

I want everyone to be introspective of our expectations of others, and especially when we are in a position of power. And what folks don't often realize is how that position of power can simply be because of your nationality, gender, or race. What kinds of things am I unduly expecting of this person, and how often do these expectations seem to be similar to this group of people, versus my in-group? How will my behavior impact me, sure, but how will my behavior impact this person, and again, is there a pattern I can connect to my inherit biases toward my in-group?

We have such fleeting time here, squandering the ability to be introspective and leave society better than we found it, is in, my mind, repugnant.

"I want to call him out but can't because I am a woman"?

Unfortunately it's not that simple. I wish it were. I spent decades not recognizing why there were certain expectations of me, why I was talked over, why I was called aggressive while colleagues doing the same things were called assertive, why someone repeating the same idea I had made the idea great when it wasn't when I said it, and my favorite, why people explained to me the most obvious shit completely unsolicited.

It dawned on me, that I was often the only woman in all of these situations.

When you spend your life being assumed that you're not as capable as your peers, and all of your peers are men, and you start talking about it with other women, and they've had the same experience, and suddenly that starts expanding and opening your eyes to how the media and marketing and the wealthy have set you up to be treated this way, it's never just, "Oh, they think I'm stupid because I'm a woman". It's rather, they are being fed the same behavior programming garbage I have been, and they don't even realize what they are doing.

t's just that you force me to play devil's advocate as the way YOU (not the mentioned we, whoever that is) use these terms is derogatory and a bit condescending.

That is certainly not my intention, though I understand why you have the sense that it is. These are difficult topics and I don't believe our language is evolved enough to speak about them without it feeling like the onus is those who benefit from privilege to take responsibility for something they've been brought into involuntarily.

Labels have never helped society.

That's just simply not true. My labels have helped me find people like me, while in most of the spaces I've existed in in my life I've been ostracized and in the minority. It's human to group like things, and when you're the "not like the others" in a very homogenous groups, finding your person or people means everything.

Labeling by people in power on the oppressed has obviously never helped society. Race itself is a child of racism as a pathway to normalize enslaving other human beings. And obviously you allude to Nazi Germany with mentioning labeling Jewish people.

The only solution for this double-edged sword of groups is that all groups have equity, and we recognize when we're treating some folks with inequity that they frequently face by folks like us.

 
akusem profile image
Akusem

@sroehrl Just a message to thank you for having taken your time to respond to her that elegantly and politely. I (and many I think) couldn't have done it that way, Bravo !

Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more