Is it sexism when I tell you that my girlfriends manicurist married my doctor? What if I told you that the manicurist had to work for years to afford the engagement ring that he bought the doctor? Do we assume that the woman worked in the nail salon? I am not sure of that is sexism or just par for the course.
Is it racism when you cross the street to avoid three casually-dressed black guys walking toward you? I do. Would you step aside for three well dressed white guys? Criminals don't buy suits?
I cannot help but acknowledge that there is some prejudice in the world and I don't pretend that it is justified. Some things, however, are just the way things have been. I cannot say this is right or wrong, but when I walk into the Mouse's Ear I don't expect a sausage-fest swinging from the pole like a butcher shop (butchers are always men, right?). Should things change. Change is good. We are all still evolving. One day no one will be born with wisdom teeth, cutting a hole in the dentist's (man, white) business, forcing him to lay off his hygenist (woman). This post really has no resolution and I no longer expect any of you to answer, but I want you all to think. Why is it that "He's so well-spoken/articulate" only applies to non-WASPs? And that includes us Southerners. No one expects us to be intelligent and articulate. What kind of ism is that?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
More than three decades of life experience, several Degrees and fatherhood and I still sit here blogging about fart jokes and bad movies...ahhh progress!
3 comments:
"Would you step aside for three well dressed white guys? Criminals don't buy suits?"
First, everyone is prejudiced. Second, they are justified in being so. Often I find the degree to which one is not prejudiced is the degree to which one refuses to accept reality or flat out fails to learn from experience. Instead of the traditional view of prejudice as a trait of provincial white men, I would suggest prejudice as a necessary element of success and predictable result of life’s experiences. As 3L N.J. often says “You know why they call it a generalization? ‘Cause it’s generally right!”
It is the manifestation of one’s prejudice may be fairly considered “right or wrong,” not the prejudice itself. The prejudice itself may be better described as accurate or inaccurate. The hick who slings slurs at a black man he has never met is a fool, whose manifestation of his prejudices is justly labeled “wrong.” The American who thinks Germans drink warm beer and slug cheap wine has an inaccurate prejudice, but I hardly it is ethically wrong.
Prejudice is a question for economics. The advertiser who promotes Panera Bread Co. in East Knoxville and McDonalds in Sequoia Hills will soon be out of a job. The same is true for the insurance agent who gives the same auto ins. rates to rich young frat boys in red convertibles and middle aged soccer moms in vans.
Now comes the discussion that irks me so- frick’n semantics screw everything up. How are all my above assertions incorrect? The Oxford English Dictionary defines prejudice as “[i]njury, detriment, or damage, caused to a person by judgement or action in which his rights are disregarded; resulting injury; hence, injury to a person or thing likely to be the consequence of some action.” This usage of the word prejudice is first noted in 1290 and seen primarily in legal texts. (How ironic that judgement is spelled with two /e’s/ in a historic legal text). Contrast this with another definition of prejudice, also found in the O.E.D: a “[p]reconceived opinion; bias or leaning favourable or unfavourable.” Unfortunate for me, modern dictionaries tend to lean toward the first definition, even outside of legal context. This leaves us with no English word for a “pre judgment” derived from neutral observation.
Well screw that, ‘cause a prejudice that walks you beside the “three well dressed white guys” and not in front of the “three casually-dressed black guys” might just save your wallet.
-Dude
forgive the many typos- I was in a rush.
I eschew your stereotyping of your reader as one who fails to comment! Wasn't that the point of your poignant and more controversial (just what I ordered, thank you) blog topic?
To rely detrimentally, to any degree, on a stereotype is to generalize as you said. Now I shall commence to spouting.
Generally speaking, humans are distrustful, cynical, wary of the "unknown". As such, it is not only natural to lack initiative to expose ourselves to the mystery that is the stranger but easier (hello theory of water-let's take the easy road) to assign said strangers into categories for our interaction convenience.
Since we have circumvented the pesky effort and risk associated with recognizing any sort of in-depth quality about anyone, we can only assign folks into categories based on our immediate perception of them. Those perceptions must be based on characteristics of first impression: height, weight, skin color, fashion sense, accent, gender, etc.
Is it right?
I don't know. On the one hand, generalizations are generally true. So if you take an average person, that is a person who likely doesn't exist in reality but rather represents the person who would be in the middle if one set of crazy made up for the opposite end of crazy, you've got what generally occurs.
So by assigning categories and crossing the street in response to a generalization, you will likely avoid the negative polar end. Your wallet will not get stolen, your cross will not be burned, your plane will not crash into a skyscraper in a crowded metropolitan.
But simultaneously, you miss out on the positive end of the polar spectrum. You won't get to absorb the poetry of a gangsta rapper, the kindness of a muslim classmate, or have your tire fixed in the rain by a guy who just happens to be the 19-year-old from smalltown America who had to be a mechanic and high school dropout to feed his 17-year-old wife and their unexpected baby.
On average, you will walk away unscathed. On average you will avoid tragedy. But on average, you will avoid the opportunity to see why stereotypes are bullshit.
Now, onto the stereotyped.
I'm a girl. Not only do I have an obsession with three-inch heels, but I have all the internal and external parts necessary to prove it. So immediately, it is assumed that I am destined to make cornbread and babies. I should love makeup and housekeeping. Or conversely, I don't do any of the above and I'm a lesbian.
I also have a fairly obvious southern accent. Thusly, I'm a fan of going barefoot and to some degree illiterate.
I'm from a farm. This accelerates my level of "dumbass" and makes me an expert in cattle and square dancing.
On average, all of these statements are true. But I don't see these as defining qualities.
I want babies, I own makeup, I don't wear it, I hate cleaning and I LOVE boys! I can change a tire, artificially insiminate a cow, back a trailer, as you dear author know, and LOVE going barefoot.
But if you have a distaste for the stereotypical southern female who grew up on a farm, you won't ever figure that out.
NOW THE CONTROVERSY.
I exploit my own stereotype. There is nothing better than going into a situation, especially one where there could potentially be a power struggle, and playing to the probable perception.
Poor, dumb, and country can go a long way in life.
Do I owe it to mankind to "prove myself"? I think no--fuck you.
Do I owe it to myself to "prove myself"? I think no--fuck you.
I didn't always feel this way--that I've got nothing to prove to the common man. My life is considerably less stressful.
On the other hand, I think that I'm selling myself short, and that is in and of itself stressful.
I also think that I'm selling short those who came before me: Sacajawea, Susan B. Anthony, Flannery O'Conner, Eleanor Roosevelt, The Tennessee presidents, that guy who wrote books without sentences--you know the one from Mississippi, Loretta Lynn. They didn't pave the way so that I could encourage people to apply the same old labels.
I think there is an answer to your blog. I think we are all ironically guilty and innocent of generalizations and stereotypes, and the ratio of those qualities fluctuates not day-to-day, but with every strange face we meet.
But regardless of whether we suffer as victim or perpetrator, regardless of what degree we are culpable or injured, we cannot help but be affected by it.
So I guess, in a matter of speaking, it generally doesn't matter.
Post a Comment