Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Free Speech, Too (letter from Chicago student to NYT)

Parents Forum
121

@alh This topic is very current in SJW seminars that I have sat in on and in blogs I have read- I think it is an important (convoluted?) point…Thanks for bringing it up. I confess I was also only able to read the first couple of sections before skipping to her conclusion.

Let me preface that my son and I, he from his anti bullying SJW work and me from sitting in the back of these workshops listening in and reading articles and links he sends to me, have come to the tentative conclusion between ourselves that there is a difference in speaking for someone as to experience vs speaking up for someone in support for their experience. “Up-standers” have an important role in anti bullying work and in spreading the message.

Here is where we are stuck in the theory to only let the oppressed group speak out or up at all about oppression relating to that particular group- numbers.

A minority group is a minority in one big respect bc there are less members in that group. I read there is a high school in Wisconsin that has never had any black students. Is it in the best interest of those (white) students then to never learn the problems/frustrations/experiences of black students because there aren’t any to speak up for themselves about those problems? And if they did get a black student at that school -would he/she feel comfortable speaking up?

I’m pretty sure I just read a theory/ research about group think and how hard it is to be a minority in a group and voice your true thoughts viewpoint … yes its the Spiral of Silence Theory https://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/spiral-of-silence/ “Fear of isolation when the group or public realizes that the individual has a divergent opinion from the status quo.
Fear of reprisal or more extreme isolation, in the sense that voicing said opinion might lead to a negative consequence beyond that of mere isolation (loss of a job, status, etc.)”

So because there are less numbers of a minority group in essence word doesn’t get out and they remain oppressed. Thoughts?

122

But we are all part of non-oppressed groups in some regard, and oppressed groups in others. It’s not as though we have big stamps on our forehead. And I for one despise being lumped in with “all other white people” as if we all have the same uniform culture. My culture (such as it is) doesn’t have very much in common with someone from rural Alabama, or someone from Wyoming, or someone from Beverly Hills, even though we might all be white women.

123

runswimyoga: post #120 - Thank you for that link.

*So because there are less numbers of a minority group in essence word doesn’t get out and they remain oppressed. Thoughts? *

It reminds me of this book I read when it first came out. Maybe you know it already? Although the world has changed a whole lot in ten years, I think his basic arguments hold up fairly well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covering:_The_Hidden_Assault_on_Our_Civil_Rights

It’s been out so very long, there is a pretty good (and easy to read! :slight_smile: ) wiki summary.

124

We can’t control how others define us but we can define ourselves.

This doesn’t mean groups of people aren’t oppressed.

Many people think I am a NY Jew in real life but I’m not. :slight_smile:

125

Well, you can wait to be sufficiently heard, or you can just put your head down and do the work and succeed. I note that many members of the Asian immigrant community don’t waste too much time worrying about whether they are sufficiently “heard” by white America; they work hard, study hard and get the job done.

BTW, all you do is hurt yourself by conceptualizing yourself as a “marginalized group.” It just promotes wallowing in victimhood and looking to be offended even by minor things. It’s simply not how strong people act. Without getting political, do you think HRC, Condoleezza Rice, Madeline Albright, Michelle Obama, Oprah, etc. walk around thinking of themselves as “marginalized” because they are women (and some of them are black)? Is this even remotely the self-image you would pass on to your child – every morning, when you get up, look in the mirror and remind yourself that you are marginalized and oppressed?

126

@Alh Thanks for the link- I haven’t read it- points on Wiki all make sense - Im going to look into that more. I know it is something I hear from people all the time “I would never know your son is gay, he doesn’t look or act gay” or “as long as its not in my face I don’t care what they do”. My husband even says “its the drag queen gays that ruin the support for equality…” like??.. (I try to set him straight)

Worse to me though is there is SO MUCH INFIGHTING within lgbtq advocacy groups these days, i.e. whose voices deserve to be raised up and whose don’t due to their perceived privilege or less privilege …that it convolutes the message and sometimes you end up having the oppressed become oppressors to others. My son and I feel a little different about this, but to me, while all of the theories are important to be aware of, the actual practice of them can be the downfall of identity messages. It drives me crazy.

We offered to bring a prominent person, who was at Stonewall, to meet with a group GSA students and talk about his experiences at Stonewall. They refused to have him or listen to him because he is a white cis gay male and they think they are so inundated with the ways that white cis gay males think that they don’t want to hear from them any more. We had to tell the guy "sorry the kids don’t want to hear about your experiences bc of your race and sexual orientation…

@cobrat great post! I agree but Yes, in SJW circles today the theory IS to ONLY let oppressed group members speak out- no one else. In some lgbt groups they think that allies should be silent supporters. I get where they are coming from, but It drives me crazy bc thats telling allies “your views are not valid enough to speak about” and if people are silenced its easy to lose their support and interest. It further keeps people separated from empathy.

LOL, ok don’t judge, but I was reading a celebrity magazine article in the airport one day about why Giuliana Rancic has been kicked off of Fashion Police -

Apparently, she in a snarky way, dissed another female star’s dreadlocks on a show. Giuliana became inundated w tweets/ messages from hundreds of viewers about how inappropriate her comments were and how harmful they were in perpetuating stereotypes and cliches about what a successful woman should look like. Men and women of all races spoke up and out to Giuliana.

In reading Giuliana’s apology I heard a phrase that I liked and made me think- from a transcript of it-
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/giuliana-rancic-makes-somber-air-777592

“I just want everyone to know, I didn’t intend to hurt anybody, but I’ve learned it is not my intent that matters — it’s the result, and the result is that people are offended, including Zendaya, and that is not OK. Therefore, I want to say to Zendaya, and anyone else out there that I have hurt, that I am so, so sincerely sorry. This really has been a learning experience for me — I’ve learned a lot today — and this incident has taught me to be a lot more aware of cliches and stereotypes, how much damage they can do. And that I am responsible, as we all are, to not perpetuate them further. Thank you for listening.”

This is what stuck with me-

"it is not my intent that matters, it is the result and the result is that people are offended … this has taught me to be a lot more aware of cliches and stereotypes, how much damage they can do. And that I am responsible, as we all are, to not perpetuate them further. "

That is why I called @Pizzagirl out in the other thread about the micro-aggression. I knew it was just a hypothetical and that her intent was not to smear a group, but I wanted to speak up how hurtful and damaging perpetuating the cliche a stereotype of gay marriage =sin going to hell is.

We are all responsible in some way to uplift. So for me, its moderation. try and read/understand theories and where others are coming from but also to use my voice to speak up in support where and when I can and hopefully I am not trying to speak over someone in my quest.

PS I knew pizza girl would stand up to me about this and not be stifled. so I didn’t fear speaking over her. :slight_smile:

127

“Yes, in SJW circles today the theory IS to ONLY let oppressed group members speak out- no one else. In some lgbt groups they think that allies should be silent supporters. I get where they are coming from, but It drives me crazy bc thats telling allies “your views are not valid enough to speak about” and if people are silenced its easy to lose their support and interest. It further keeps people separated from empathy.”

Nicely put. Look, it was horrible when some people were shoved to the back of the bus. The solution, however, is not just to arbitrarily shove others to the back of the (metaphorical) bus. This “now only YOU may speak” isn’t any better than the previous state of affairs.

Apologies for the source but here’s an article relevant to what runswimyoga was talking about. Students at Colorado College attempted to ban a film dealing with the Stonewall riots - that was as pro-gay as could possibly be. Was it conservative right-wingers offended by the university trying to shove homosexuality down everyone’s throat? Hardly. It was the LGBTQ association, who claimed that “this film is discursively violent” and "reinforc[es] a hierarchy of oppression” because the colors weren’t represented in just-the-right-proportions-to-please-them. Unbelievable.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/09/college-kids-try-to-ban-a-pro-gay-film.html

This is the kind of dispute that wins-the-battle-and-loses-the-war.

128

Except it’s just opinion that those from the “dominant majority” have to spend more time listening to “marginalized groups” and otherwise shut up. What gives any of you the authority to decree that it has to be so? That’s the part we don’t get. How all of a sudden the supposedly “marginalized” get to dictate what’s up. How about we all get equal say in any given debate or issue?

129

I don’t think anyone is trying to dictate. I think its more about if you want to be inclusive of diversity in your group, keeping these points in mind is helpful for inclusive communication.

130

I’m not so sure that some of the “marginalized groups” are really in favor of diversity. They want control to swing back to them.

131

Especially when certain conversational behaviors which are considered fine or at least tolerated by the larger mainstream society when practiced by members of the dominant majority and immediately attacked or criticized when it’s done by those not part of that group.

Got to see a manifestation of this just last night on CNN when Don Lemon had to temporarily take the panel off the air when Corey Leandowski continued to talk over , interrupt, and otherwise dominate one of the panels and Don Lemon and that the other two panelists weren’t even able to get in a word and the second panelist who happens to be African-American barely got a few sentences in before being barraged with interruptions.

And Leandowski continued to talk over, interrupt, and otherwise dominate the following panel as seen below:

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/cnn-shuts-down-panel-when-corey-lewandowski-has-a-meltdown-blaming-clinton-for-birtherism/

This very behavior by Leandowski is the very thing marginalized groups fear will happen in their safe spaces or activist groups if they allow members from the dominant majority who haven’t demonstrated any cred at having firsthand experiences of issues/oppression of that particular marginalized group and/or treating them with civility and respect.

Especially considering what Don Lemon and the minority panelists who were constantly talked over and interrupted experienced is a common one most members of marginalized groups have experienced many times in their lives.

132

I agree that Lewandowski was rude, but he is simply an example of rudeness, not a Representation of All White People.

Here’s an example of a conversational behavior which is considered fine / tolerated by one group but attacked / criticized by others: Use of the n-word. Now, don’t get me wrong. I absolutely never use that word, don’t tolerate it in my house, etc. However, it’s interesting to me that the supposedly “oppressed” group not only gets a pass in using that word, but gets to make millions of dollars in doing so (Kanye West, etc.). Oh, wait. I suppose that’s “different.” It’s very 1930’s Germany to have different rules for who can do what based on ethnicity.

133

The theory is its powerful for the oppressed group to reclaim a word and make it theirs. LGBT have done it with the word queer.

You are free to use the word.

My guess is you don’t use it because there is so much hate/vitriol assoc w that word- why would you want to?? And, as you are not in that “oppressed” group, you are not actually “reclaiming it” as they are, so you feel using it is a slur (which it would be).

I would never say to an LGBT person “oh, you are queer” because I don’t like the connotation, even if it has been “reclaimed”.

134

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/opinion/sunday/coates-in-defense-of-a-loaded-word.html?_r=0

135

@Pizzagirl
As to the N word I can see your point. I’ve always found it offense irregardless of who is using it but, having been school in identity politics, I understand, in theory, the idea of reclaiming a derogatory term in an attempt to lessen its power.
My understanding of the use of the N word within the context of the African American community was broadened a bit by listening to a very interesting interview of Larry Wilmore by Terri Gross on NPR Fresh Air. He discusses how his use of the word at the White House dinner, while controversial, was appropriate and specific to the Black experience.
If you get a chance give it a listen. I’d copy here but I’m techno challenged…probably on YouTube

136

I am very impressed with some of these posts today.

I just thought I would write this because its true. :slight_smile:

@tonymom, I listened to the Larry Wilmore interview. I thought it was a good interview.

http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2016/05/03/476609967/fresh-air-for-may-3-2016

137

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/03/476598311/larry-wilmore-on-breaking-taboos-at-the-white-house

Here is part of the transcript of the show that addresses the word.

138

Interesting article, alh. A few things stuck out to me:

  1. I don’t agree with Al Sharpton on a lot but I liked this line: “If you call yourself the n-word,” said the Rev. Al Sharpton, “you can’t get mad when someone treats you like that.”

  2. The author had a point with how women use the b word to refer to themselves / their girlfriends, and it helped me understand the notion of reclaiming.

139

I thought tonymom’s article, posted by dstark, was excellent, and that the two articles, read together, are a good example of your contention that everyone in a group doesn’t necessarily have a single point of view.

The concept of reclaiming has been pretty easy for me to understand, since I spend a lot of time with gay friends who use reclaimed slurs as endearments towards each other. Since I’m not gay and reclaiming those slurs, I won’t ever use them as endearments, even if my intent is honorable. As runswimyoga wrote earlier, I don’t want to chance giving offence, even if my intent is honorable. And using those words would make me extremely uncomfortable regardless. But it makes me smile when my friends use them in that way; that the ugly and hateful words hurled at them in high school halls now have a completely different meaning, in this particular social context.

140

@Pizzagirl

2 EXACTLY!!! I find that a helpful comparison. Dear friend just diagnosed with breast cancer. Told her that she knows she's got her "bit** brigade" who will be there for her...

Now if a man at work called me a bit** because I am assertive, and don’t stand down…well then, we’ve got a problem :wink: