[jkyle]

Microaggression is, by definition, to casually denigrate others by repeating or affirming stereotypes for the purpose of discounting contributions or establishing the dominate class as normal and the minority class as aberrant or pathological.

It is the exact opposite of honest conversation and criticism.

Some examples would be dismissing a woman's analysis because "women are bad at math". Turning to the one female colleague in the room and telling her to go get some coffee. Suggesting that a minority is unqualified and a diversity hire. Labeling LGBT coworkers as psychologically unsound. Telling a woman she must not take her career seriously if she is pregnant.

Having a policy against toxic environments is not, itself, toxic. Even if it makes some men who hold the above opinions feel "on guard". Because they should feel on guard about not spouting such vitriol.

[tomjen3]

In theory. In practice lots of things can be seen more than one way.

You can ask the women to go fetch coffee because she is closests to the door, because it is her turn or because she is a woman.

In practice it means you never ask the women to get coffee, even when she is sitting closest to the door and you would have asked a man in the same situation.

And the trouble isn't that you have to actually shut up about racists shit, the trouble is you constantly have to ask yourself "could this statement be read the wrong way" - it is like posting everything you do on tumblr, where the term originated.

[jkyle]

Yes, but these things don't occur in a vacuum. For example, the word 'boy' was used demean african american males by whites for much of our history. Now even if they are, in fact, a young male using that word in reference to an african male is about as offensive as it can get.

It may be unfortunate that because men oppressed women for so long that there are certain conventions that have taken on offensive connotations. But I assure you, the inconvenience of getting your own coffee is nothing compared to the experiencing the history leading to that act taking on a negative implication.

I've never worked in an office where people took turns fetching coffee for each other as a matter of routine though I'm sure some do. I seriously doubt there's a wave of women refusing to take a turn in such an ordered affair. I personally know and seen of many, many women who've been told to fetch coffee for a room full of equals that are men.

> the trouble is you constantly have to ask yourself "could this statement be read the wrong way"

It's only really a trouble if you're in the habit of being casually offensive. If you're not, it's just a small check no different than when in a group being generally polite and respectful.

Ultimately, in my experience those who are most bothered and vocal in their complaints about being considerate tend to also be those that are most likely to do offensive things like objectifying women, making racially offensive remarks, etc.

> it is like posting everything you do on tumblr, where the term originated.

This is incorrect. Microaggression is a theory developed at Harvard in the 1970's by psychiatrist Chester Pierce. [1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory

[digler999]

> Some examples would be

none of those is micro. Those are egregious acts of sexism and discrimination in my book.

To me, a micro aggression would be very nuanced stereotypes and bigotry ( "let's have Wong do it, Chinese guys are great at math" ), or a condescending "let me know if you need help" from a male to female when she clearly already knows how to do it. Saying "I'll take it, this one's a man's job".

[kefka]

> Telling a woman she must not take her career seriously if she is pregnant.

I'm for equality, and the area around FMLA is not equal, by any means.

That issue is caused by the risk that women of child-bearing age have with regards to our laws on FMLA. Women (of child bearing age) are an inherent risk with strong legal ramifications if ignored. Once pregnant, they can effectively get up and leave their position. Depending what they were doing, can cause significant team problems. And the employer is required to provide their or a similar position back when they return. I'm sure the actuaries have calculated that risk appropriately.

To fix that, all gov't needs to do is apply FMLA to all parties in a relationship when one in it is pregnant. Then the actuarial cost equals itself out. Equality is approached.

[jkyle]

You won't hear any dissent from me when it comes to improving our lack luster family leave support.

However, telling a woman she doesn't take her career seriously is a different matter. You cannot assume to know that woman's situation, her commitment to her job, her resources for child care, etc. She may have a stay at home husband. She could have a full time nanny. Her commitment, as an individual, may be no more or less than any of her coworkers.

Further, U.S. law (as abysmal as it is) on family leave is egalitarian. Both men and women may take up to 12 weeks leave in a 12 month period after the birth. Two states, including CA, extend 6 weeks of subsidized pay to both men and women. Most companies extend the same "bonding period" allowance to both men and women (generally taken out of their base vacation).

The only exception I've seen that women get aside from men is an extra couple of weeks if they have a cesarean. But again, this is entirely up to the private company issuing the benefits. The state is equal in the benefits it allots.

Thus, dismissing a woman through this verbalization is more about stereotyping than any reality with regard to disparity in benefits. And the perceived risk is as much about cultural and corporate biases on care taking. Which is why it is a microagression.

[kefka]

> However, telling a woman she doesn't take her career seriously is a different matter. You cannot assume to know that woman's situation, her commitment to her job, her resources for child care, etc. She may have a stay at home husband. She could have a full time nanny. Her commitment, as an individual, may be no more or less than any of her coworkers.

I've never seen someone be that crass. Live and learn, I guess.

I was referring to managers and business people making choices with these actuarial decisions in mind. Of course they aren't going to say "you there is a woman, you sure serious about working?"... Instead, they're going to be paid lower wages and passed up on promotions. My justification is that this is the cost of the risk associated related to the FMLA.

[jkyle]

I'm confused how it's associated with the FMLA. The FMLA benefits apply equally to men and women (12 weeks unpaid in 12 months).