Talk:Microaggression/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Origin

The edit addressed the issue of clarifying the origin of the term microaggression by citing the original source, a well-referenced source definition, and citing the most common currently cited current definition of the term. Due to these changes, the previous section of the page reporting on the origin of the theory was deleted. Additionally, the edit clarifies that other marginalized groups, in addition to racial minorities, are subject to acts of microaggression.Lacey.Clark (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a link to white guilt?

What an odd link, more than anything that feels like someone's crappy attempt at aggression itself. An attempt at saying 'heh, this isn't real, this is just white guilt". What the heck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.224.117 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The term is much broader than race

I understand that the article covers other minority groups affected by microaggressions and that originally the term was coined in regard to race, but I think this article could really be expanded to talk in more detail about microaggression in the context of LGBTQ, microaggressions against women and other groups who have claimed this term as useful in describing our own situations, without detracting from its original meaning. To the people above who claim this is a non issue, the fact that you are claiming this in the first place is part of the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.122.4 (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, but articles must be found about this or some editor with microaggression issues will have problems with it. My opinion is that just because there aren't references doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't being experienced, but that's just me. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed Bias

I have removed most of the bias for this. If I can find references relating to gender, sexual orientation, and disabilities, I will write about those in the article. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Rape is a gender microassault???

Gender microassaults can be described as overt sexism: "being called a sexist name, a man refusing to wash dishes because it is 'woman's work,' displaying nude pin-ups of women at places of employment, men making unwanted sexual advances toward women, sexual harassment, and [rape]."[7]

What the... sexual harassment and rape are examples of microassault? Sound like plain assault, to me. Perhaps someone with access to the source (Wing, D.W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: race, gender, and sexual orientation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc., p. 169.) could look up the original in context and make sure it's fairly represented here? --Chriswaterguy talk 06:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And murder is just a "disagreement" between two people >_>

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.204.214 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm sorry, but this is probably the least neutral Wikipedia article I've ever read. Instead of presenting the issue from both sides, the whole article reads like it's a justification for the idea. Am I supposed to believe that no reliable sources have criticized the idea that being racially colorblind is a form of assault, or that rudeness is a form of oppression? There's a distinct lack of even basic phrases like "Proponents argue", the article instead opting for just flat-out stating that this idea is valid. 75.118.51.238 (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree - these ideas are clearly ideological and should be reported neutrally as opinion rather than something with a clear factual or legal basis. If the idea of "microaggression" or interpretations of what constitute such is disputed by a valid, verifiable source, that criticism needs to be discussed in an NPOV manner as well. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As some (many?) have mentioned already, this article is patterned through the postmodern/post-structuralist ideology. It's also insidiously Eurocentric and panders to the European world-view. Most of these humanities-related Wikipedia articles – particularly the English articles – have a heavy dose of Eurocentric bias. If your complaint is that this article should be identified as an opinion/perspective, then there are plenty of other Wikipedia articles that are in need to being reported as opinion/world-view. Eyeofpie

WTF Wikipedia?

I haven't had such a laugh since my last visit to Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Come on, there must be legitimate criticism of this theory. Especially, the patronising view this article alludes to, that is of minorities ("people of color" and LGBTs) and women, as if that they're the only conceivable ones to effected by racism/sexual discrimination/sexism. Perhaps, this could be rewritten to specify this is within the territory of a feminist/other white knight philosophy paradigm. To be honest, in reply to the comment above: yes I do believe linking to white guilt is apt for the article in its current state. --Inops (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Microaggression" is one of those terms like "privilege", "cissexist" and even "racist" that will be of utmost importance to students at universities and colleges - and absolutely useless after they graduate. Some things are better left forgotten, since this term is synonymous with "nitpicky whining". San Fernando Curt (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) San Fernando Curt

Noted. If you want to make a point about something, it's probably best to not be so dismissive and rude. I read this section trying to find what the legitimate opposition to the article was (especially considering its template for {{npov}}). That said, neither your comments nor inops were constructive. Pity, because we cannot improve the article without that. And so you know, I never graduated college, only spent a transitory period of time there, and I consider the term to be useful. Note that we also have microexpressions which are indeed considered valid. I think if you look there:

Microexpressions occur when a person is consciously trying to conceal all signs of how he or she is feeling, or when a person does not consciously know how he or she is feeling

you will see that this is probably quite relevant to this article. xoxo, ... aa:talk 16:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it can reasonably stated within the article, that is within the realm of a ideology, and in scientific terms is purely a hypothesis. My concerns would be addressed if the authoritative -- "this is the way it is so" -- language was replaced with language liked "claimed", "according to the hypothesis", etc. I think a suggestion for a discussion of this article's bias is constructive. BTW, the NPOV-tag was added after I, not sure of the other commenter, posted this.

"Microagression" can be applied in common parlance without the idealogical, and the holier-than-thou, undertones described in this article. --Inops (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"according to the hypothesis" smells like WP:WEASEL to me. ... aa:talk 14:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Right now, the article reads in an authoritative manner. It implies that, rather than being espoused a specific group, the term is factual.

Furthermore, certain cited sentences are highly suspect of "begging the question" – "[assuming] the very point at issue in attempting to argue for it." For example, the article states that "questioning the existence of racial-cultural issues" is a form of microaggression. That is, questioning the validity of microaggression is considered a form of microaggression itself. This is bad reasoning, and leaves the arguer/dissenter in a defenseless position. Eyeofpie

Problems

This article does not discuss who came up with this theory, whether it is widely accepted (or to what degree it is accepted), what schools of thought are for and against it, who advocates and who opposes it, and what criticisms, if any, have been levied against it. It simply presents the theory as though it were a widely accepted fact, without any comment. I am therefore adding the POV tag. Please fix it to be NPOV if you are knowledgeable enough to do so by addressing the above issues. Kwertii (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Derald Wing Sue, a professor at Columbia Teachers College, may not be the originator of the theory, but he is certainly one of the most published authors on the subject. I agree that the article could use more context. Dialectric (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

An article from the American Psychological Association Monitor gives the origin of the term and provides some context. Dialectric (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The microaggression article is clearly an opinion piece instead of an objectively written definition. It pays only the most cursory mention that the phenomenon might not exist, with no exploration of that possibility.

In the examples of microaggression given, the arrow of blame could just as easily point in the opposite direction. The purported victim could in fact be the one who committed a microaggression on at least two counts. First, it has long been a tenet of social mores that it is considered bad manners to take offense if no offense is intended. The article even mentions that the words used to the purported victim might not have the intent that the victim ostensibly feels, but does not explore it.

Second, the supposed microaggression felt by the purported victim might in fact reveal prejudice on the part of that victim. For the last forty years or so, we have had a new variety of prejudice on the scene, the presumption of prejudice in others. This is where an ethnic minority presumes all whites to be racists, where a woman presumes that all men are sexists, where a Jewish person presumes that all gentiles are anti-Semites, etc. Expression of this new prejudice is just as offensive as that of racism, sexism or anti-Semitism. This concept is also unexplored by the microaggression article.

The microaggression article should not be included in Wikipedia without the comments made in this page.Baclark (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A number of people have raised issues with the theory, which is described clearly as a theory in the lead sentence. While reasonable criticisms of the theory have been raised, to be included in the article, any criticism needs a reliable source to support it, and few critical sources have been found so far. When I looked a few years ago, I remember finding some sources which were critical of Wing Sue's work specifically, but because they didn't generalize their criticisms to the broader concept of microagression, they didn't belong in this article. Someone with fulltext access to psychology journals might have better luck searchingDialectric (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits made, and edits needed

Just made some edits to the racial section. Throughout the article it looks like we have been careful not to speak in Wikipedia's voice, by avoiding stating things as fact, rather than placing them in theoretical context. However, there were a few remaining sentences here that needed tweaking. No appreciable change to the content was made, but I thought I'd give a heads up. Also, I removed the external reference (link doesn't exist, even if you add www. to it), and removed two of the internal links (ableism and Rules of civility...etc., the former for not being covered in this article, and the latter for being an archaic book unrelated to the content of the article.) These should all be minor edits in line with how we discuss other socio/psychological theory.

However, that being said, this article needs a bit of work. It seems wholly based in the proponents camp, without due weight to criticism of this theory(ies). I am not versed enough in this field to suggest sources, but I would very much like to see some balance achieved. This is a theory that's somewhat academically divisive; but we represent it as being pretty much a consensus. Additionally, there's some language (in the colorblindness section, among other locations) that sounds like it's from a college persuasive paper, not an encyclopedia. If some editors with greater interest in the field might take a look and try to tone sown/improve it, I think it would improve the article. improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.127.253 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Microaggression

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Microaggression's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named ":0":

• From Racism: Reilly, Kevin; Kaufman, Stephen; Bodino, Angela (2003). Racism : a global reader. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 15–16. ISBN 978-0-7656-1060-7.
• From Microaggressions in the Classroom: Sue, D. W.; Lin, A. I.; Torino, G. C.; Capodilupo, C. M.; Rivera, D. P. (2009). "Racial Microaggressions and Difficult Dialogues on Race in the Classroom". Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 12 (2): 183–190.
• From Privilege (social inequality): Twine, France Winddance (2013). Geographies of Privilege. Routledge. pp. 8–10. ISBN 0415519616.
• From Femininity: Millett, Kate (1968). Sexual Politics.
• From Stereotype threat: Inzlicht, Michael (2011). Stereotype Threat: Theory, Process, and Application. Oxford University Press. pp. 5, 141–143. ISBN 0199732442.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

So I take it Feminists use sexist microaggression all the time?

According to the theory of this article. Such as "99% of all rapists are men", "99% of domestic abuse is by males", even though it's starkly different in huge percentage amounts. Or even the assertion that you can't be sexist or racist against a men or whites because of a made up definition in which it's suddenly referring to "systematic oppression of a minority by a majority".

In fact, wouldn't the claim that "it doesn't apply to men/non-"coloured" because you don't experience what they do" be the very definition of microaggression? I'm sure if we're going to blatantly ignore the Freudian tier failings of this social theory and refuse to include a criticism section, then we are policy required to include the reverse instances of "microaggression" by Feminists, right? 106.68.127.88 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Harlequin

No, since non-coloreds and males gain from White privilege and male privilege, they cannot suffer from microaggressions. Those white males who claim they do suffer from them are just cry-babies who do not understand how racist they are, for not grasping the truth when it is told to them.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jeff5012,

Surely since women and people of color gain from American privilege, First World privilege, majority privilege, etc., they cannot suffer from microaggressions, right? To be sure, America already holds cultural, economic, and military hegemony over the rest of the world, and as economists at the World Bank have found, people who earn a salary of $34,000 USD are the top 1% earners in the world. Yet these same privileged sociologists, feminists, and social justice types (all of whom are American, of course) engage in the behavior that is signified as 'microaggression.'

What shall we call 'microaggressive' behavior that is directed at the privileged? We need to make this important distinction between the people suffering from real microaggression and this other behavior which you claim is not microaggression. By labeling critics and dissenters as "cry-babies" and claiming that they are too dimwitted/racist to understand the 'truth,' are you engaging in microaggression yourself? Or is it just 'plain' aggression?

Perhaps more likely is that micoagression directed at the privileged is revenge for those with bruised egos and unremitting inferiority complex. After all, feminists have been quick to declare abuse/sexism as revenge/male anger as a result of 'the rise of women' -- surely, the same effect is taking place when the underprivileged rant and rave against others for no other reason than privilege. It would appear the low-status, the insecure, and the pathetic have created a term to compensate for their inadequacy. Eyeofpie 19:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeofpie (talk • contribs)

Lede sentence

I'd like to suggest that people probably shouldn't significantly change the lede sentences here without first proposing revisions on the talk page. I say that because the history shows people adding and deleting words characterizing the microaggression concept as a theory or a hypothesis, and I think to add those words back into the lede, particularly as it's currently constructed, would be a bit nonsensical. Currently the lede says "A microaggression is a social exchange in which a member of a dominant culture says or does something, often by accident, that belittles and alienates a member of a marginalized group." There's no question that social exchanges exist between members of dominant and non-dominant groups. There's no question that dominant-group members say and do things that are experienced as belittling or alienating by members of marginalized groups -- the citations are full of supporting studies and anecdotes. So, I don't think there's anything in the current lede that calls for qualification as a theory or hypothesis: the current description is just a statement of fact. Exchanges exist, they sometimes are experienced as arising out of bigotry, and when that happens the name for it is microaggression.

I think the article would definitely benefit from well-sourced documentation of the controversy that surrounds the topic -- e.g., difficulties in determining whether a given exchange does indeed qualify as a microaggression (ie, is motivated by bias), arguments that microaggressions are blown out of proportion or don't happen very often, arguments that microaggressions are not very damaging to the minority-culture people experiencing them. But I think if somebody wants to re-insert the notion that the concept of microaggressions is itself simply a theory or hypothesis, the onus needs to be on them to support that notion rather than just asserting it.

The article is pretty bad! But I have faith it will continue to improve :) Thanks -- Sue Gardner (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your premise, I don't think anyone is disputing the idea of social exchanges between anyone or racist/sexist social exchanges, it's the concept of microaggressions the article fails to clearly define. The current definition falls short: "that belittles and alienates" because it is vague and has potentially a very large scope. What if I start a discussion with a colleague about the civil war and they know nothing about it, does that qualify as "making them feel alienated" what about belittled? They might feel like they're uneducated? If they're in a "marginalized group" does that make it a microaggression? The lede sentence is still far too vague. Some of the studies (as pointed out in the Balance section on this talk page) are incredibly poorly designed and don't hold up to scrutiny.

As you point out the biggest point of contention is "determining whether a given exchange does indeed qualify as a microaggression" and the page does not accurately describe that. The problem is we still don't have a proper definition of what a microaggression actually is and how it's different from prejudiced behaviour. All the examples e.g. "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." is just expressed prejudice? It's definitely insulting and discriminatory but what makes it a microaggression?

Would something like this be a better lede sentence: "A microaggression is a statement made during a social exchange which conveys prejudice, often accidentally, and without intended malice" . Even then I'm not convinced it really deserves its own topic/page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.29.184 (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Massive cleaning of this article

One of the most biased, Non-NPOV and discriminating if you're white, heterosexual and male.

I know this 201x decade has become the "Social Justice" decade, which will be all fine and dandy if it was actual justice instead of being mostly about resentful people who wish to take revenge on the white men, turning them in a sort of monster, for something a very small number of them do today or something their ancestors did, wouldn't this just create more resentment, anger and hatred?

This article in some points is outright racist:

"Studies[citation needed] show that a wide variety of people in the United States report experience with racial microaggressions, including Latino American, African American, European American, and Asian American people. Racial microaggressions are not limited by class or circumstance, and can be experienced by college students and upper-middle class professionals.[citation needed] For example, white students and professors seeming surprised when an African-American student makes a particularly insightful or intelligent comment in class,[18] and Asian students being pathologized or penalized as too passive or quiet.[9] One famous example of a race-related microaggression happened when during the 2008 U.S. democratic presidential primaries Joe Biden described Barack Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Sue wrote that while on the surface Biden's comment sounded like praise, the message heard by African-Americans was "Obama is an exception. Most Blacks are unintelligent, inarticulate, dirty and unattractive."

And in other points, implies that people from certain groups should be treated with great care as if their are made of glass or their feelings are made of it

"Women, including trans women, commonly report experiencing gender-related microaggressions.[citation needed] Microaggressions commonly endured by women include catcalls or wolf-whistling; the male gaze in an inappropriate context; being touched without permission; condescension; being ignored or frequently interrupted; and having their ideas at work attributed to others.[7] Some examples of sexist microagressions are "[addressing someone by using] a sexist name, a man refusing to wash dishes because it is 'woman's work,' displaying nude pin-ups of women at places of employment, someone making unwanted sexual advances toward another person."[11]

Microaggressions experienced by men primarily take the form of microinvalidation, where societal expectations consider it inappropriate for men to display emotional distress, or consider distress experienced by men less deserving of sympathy.[12] Men also commonly receive microinsults reinforcing the expectation that they will behave in a crude or violent manner.[13]

Members of sexual minorities commonly report experiencing microaggressions.[citation needed] These commonly include the sexual exoticization of lesbians by heterosexual men; linking homosexuality with gender identity disorder or paraphilia; and prying questions about one's sexual activity.[7] Transgender people are commonly misgendered, among other forms of microaggression.[14]"

All in all, I suggest a massive clean up of this article, getting credited sources that support this hypothesis, getting sources that criticize it, the proper format for an hypothesis.

190.204.139.190 (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, although the studies referebced that make claims about microaggressions are of very poor quality, there's little in the way of critique. This academic paper: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/63/4/275/ scruitises Sue (the main author referenced on this page). I'll look through it and find an applicable quote. However, it looks like proper scientists have more important things to do than disproving weak hypothesis like microaggressions. The biggest issue this article has is that it does not accurately describe the difference between discrimination and "a microaggression".

Merge with "Discrimination"

Discrimination more commonly refers to specific acts of disadvantage. While the root cause may be similar (prejudice against nondominant mode - racism against people of colour, sexism against women, ableism against disabled people, oppression of homosexual and bisexual people etc), there is a lower level of direct harm from verbal slurs and jokes which means that it passes beneath the threshold for complaint to an authority.

Disagree with "There is nothing on this page which describes anything that isn't covered by Discrimination" (Kay)

and the article does nothing to highlight the differences between Sexism and a Sexist Microaggression or Racism and a Racist Microaggression.

For example: "Common race-related microaggressions include black and brown-skinned men being stopped and searched by police for no reason" how is that a microaggression and not just racist behaviour? - The motivation is racist, but the being stopped and released falls below the threshold for complaint. Repeated small aggravations build a picture of discriminatory impacts but individual instances are not seen as discrimination.

The page either clearly needs to state the difference between a microaggression and discrimination such as sexism or racism, and include examples, or be merged with the discrimination page.

As an example: "Microaggressions commonly endured by women include catcalls or wolf-whistling; " What makes these fall into the category of microaggression and not sexism? How is a microaggression different from other types of discrimination?

The Perpetrators section says "microaggressions are subtle" but catcalling and wolf-whistling is definitely not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.29.184 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not a great article (yet) and some of the problems you point out are real, but that's not an argument for a merge. Microaggression is a legitimate topic -- there have been books written about it, it's gotten lots of academic study and is discussed fairly frequently in the media. Sue Gardner (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Merge, though I also see problems with this article. There is plenty of RS sourcing to support an article on microagression theory, independent of 'discrimination', whether or not one finds the arguments behind the theory valid. One significant thing that has been missing for some time from the article is scholarly critique of/opposing the microagression framework, which would give this article more balance.Dialectric (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I also oppose, and am removing the merge tag per consensus here. Discrimination is quite long, already longer than the recommendations at WP:LENGTH, so adding anything there is not ideal. There is significant referenced content here that (while problematic--I'm leaving the other tags) is notable enough to deserve its own article. It isn't clear to me why this article is at Microaggression theory instead of Microaggression. The criticism section specifically says that a theory of them is poorly developed, and the rest of the article discusses microaggressions per se, not a theory of them. Rigadoun (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism Section

An IP editor recently removed the criticism section with the summary criticism section obviously shoehorned in for the sake of false balance, as admitted by the editor who added it without any associated content. While there may be legitimate challenges to the sourcing used, because the content is sourced, a discussion should take place prior to removal. While articles on the whole should be balanced, individual edits do not necessarily have to be as long as they are supported by reliable sources.Dialectric (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The allegation of "false balance" is clearly unfounded. This is material that is verifiable and relevant.

The one point of concern is the sentence "In the absence of a clear definition of what constitutes microaggression, the use of the word "theory" puts a patina of science on the word that isn't supported by research." It's unclear if this is meant to be supported by the preceding citation, which is behind a paywall. Regardless, I think that single sentence is WP:UNDUE. Microaggression theory, like critical theory or patriarchy theory invokes an alternative usage of the word based in its pre-20th-century connotations, rather than meaning an empirical theory. These are bodies of work with roots in the Frankfurt School that explicitly rejected empiricism. While its true that microaggression theory is unscientific, griping about use of the word theory is an unnecessary bit of PoV, even with a valid citation.

The note to expand the section is clearly unwarranted. There is no requirement that such a section exist or be of a particular size. The material within would be better to integrate into the article. The first paragraph of the section could fit in "Description and prevalence" while the second could go in "Effects".

Rhoark (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the "patina of science" sentence you point out is a problem unless the relevant quote is included in the citation. If another editor thinks this sentence should be removed or struck, I support that action.Dialectric (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a problem of NPOV if not directly attributed, which we can't do without a positive attestation as to its source. If an editor doesn't come forth to verify its sourcing, it needs to go. @Wcoole: Rhoark (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Against whites?

Microaggressions are present in many forms and include more issues than race relations. Bullying due to socioeconmic status is widespread and independent of race.

Just because an issue does not affect you it does not mean it does not exist. Unless you know what it is like to walk in a person's shoes do not try to speak for them. This is arrogant and ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.147.141 (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole article comes across as ludicrous to me. It seems to have no credibility to me primarily because it is completely one-sided. I am on the receiving end of both personal and institutional "microagressive treatment" all the time. I think that at least half if not more of the people you talked to would think that this is a ridiculous article--whether or not there are studies--which are notoriously manipulable--support them.

Could it be that some people, dare I say blacks or Hispanics, might be more than a little hypersensitive? I know Wikipedia is dominated by editors with left-leaning politics, but seriously: doesn't someone else think this article might be a little skewed? 71.106.159.145 (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You clearly cannot understand what the article is talking about. Has none of it resonated with your stupid brain? Do you know nothing about history? Are you blind? People get defensive about being racist because it is now out of fashion but racism is a reality both overt and covert. What you have written just conveys your assumed superiorty and you can't see anything but this default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.147.141 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that some people, dare I say straight white cisgendered men, might be more than a little insensitive to the experiences of people unlike themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.235.131 (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2011

I have experienced this, been on the receiving end of this alleged typed of 'aggression'. Many times. Of course, being a white male, I'm also expected to just accept it. Why is that? Several of the comments, mostly by some 'unsigned' person(s), exhibit prejudicial tendencies and aggressive verbosity. But, hey, that's just my opinion. DBDave (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Microaggression is real, despite the bias of the article. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This entry is ridiculous, "microaggression" is just another tool invented by white race-panderers for use by minority race-hustlers. In a nutshell "microaggression" says to so-called "people of color" that any racial slight you can dream up is real and worthy of reparations.72.174.8.136 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole "microaggression" thing was created by a black Harvard professor so of course it is one-sided. It really is one-sided. Asian-Americans perform better than whites statistically and they get a part in this so why don't whites? I am white and I have multiple times had "minorities" make prejudiced statements about me. I have even seen minorities being prejudiced towards other minorities like a black towards a Asian etc. It crosses all skin colors. I hate that because whites in America make up the largest portion of the population that we somehow are the only bad people. I find it racist and so simplistic because not every white person has some nice middle or upper class life. Some of these things considered microagressions are just absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.194.49 (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Gender Section

I've added to the gender section because it's not clear what differentiates sexist behaviour from a microaggression. All the examples given can be labelled pure sexism. What makes them a microaggression and not just sexist? If they fall into both categories, what is the difference between sexism and a microaggression. Better examples would help clarify the section.

Balance

This article needs some balance. Has nobody criticized this in academic literature? 173.117.162.131 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if nobody has. I took a paper from the references at random: "Perceptions of Racial Microaggressions among Black Supervisees in Cross-Racial Dyads" and had a look at the method. Is this what can be passed off as science in Psychology these days? Shocking. Look at how they selected their participants. One of the criteria for becoming a participant is: "those who had experience regarding the phenomenon under study". It starts off by filtering out anyone who doesn't support the hypothesis and then doesn't provide a control group. They select 10 (Yes, what an impressive sample size! No room for error there I'm sure) without any kind of control group. This gets a Jadad score of... 1 for documenting the dropout then basing the findings on anecdotal evidence obtained by asking leading and vague questions such as "[your] supervisor may have thought at times that you were overly sensitive about racial or cultural issues." The other papers I skimmed through didn't fare much better. I'd be surprised if no academics have questioned the merit of some of these studies. 10:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.173.21 (talk)

The "soft sciences" aka social sciences are largely subjective. There have been some professors who have actually submitted bogus academic articles they wrote up and they actually got published by some journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.194.49 (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Information for Consideration

Racial Microaggressions

Brief and routine verbal, behavioral or environmental humiliations to an individual in a daily setting. This humiliation can be international or unintentional, but they are communicated as hostile or negative racial slights and insults that can potentially have a harmful or unpleasant psychological impact victims. This microaggression is often outside of the conscious awareness of the perpetrator, invisible, and subtle in nature.

Four Dilemmas

Clash of racial realities – did the person engage in a microaggression or was there a simple misinterpret the perpetrator’s actions

The Invisibility of Unintentional Expressions of Bias – The perpetrator of racial microaggressions usually are sincere in the belief that they acted without racial bias.

Perceived Minimal Harm of Racial Microaggressions – If perpetrator is confronted, they believe that the victim is overeating

Responding to Microaggressions – A bunch of questions are raised for the victim of microaggressions (should I confront them, is it worth it, am I overreacting), making responding to microaggressions very difficult

Yuskhawas (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Thanks, @Yuskhawas:, this looks really interesting. Were you going to add this to the 'race or ethnicity' section? Could you please consider elaborating on the 'four dilemmas' you mention - were they developed by any particular scholar, or were they just presented as such in the video you cite? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Freshmen

Yuskhawas (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a great abundance of scholarly information that can be found on microaggression that can be used to further elaboration on the subject in order to make it sound unbiased. I, with the help of a partner, will be adding information on the topic of microaggression theory and correct any spelling/grammar that I come across

Over the course of the next few weeks i will be editing this article. I hope to change the wording so that the article is more objective. I also intend to add information from scholarly sources and find peer reviewed support for information that has already been included. HarryBaumeister12 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, should be interesting. Rhoark (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm new to wikipedia and I will be working on this page for an assignment. Ashton.Ramsingh (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Source reliability

I note that a claim in the article is currently sourced to writing on shakesville.com, which is a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. That doesn't sound like it meets WP:RS; the website FAQ indicates a propensity towards... less-than-professional language, I don't see an editorial oversight policy, and if the blog post's author, Jeff Fecke, is an expert in the field, that's new to me. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly not a sterling source. To defuse PoV editors, I wanted to source information about male microaggressions from the most nakedly biased pro-feminist source I could, so that's how this citation came about. As far as oversight, the editorial control wielded by its founder, Melissa McEwan[1], is reputed to be iron-fisted. The site's search function easily turns up a history of corrections. Rhoark (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: has now also expressed reservations about these sources. Since I agree they're not the best, I'll leave this alone for the time being until there's more time to review the literature. Rhoark (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Conscious or not?

The definition says: Microaggression is a form of unintended discrimination. [], while without conscious choice of the user, [] but the examples given include insults that are probably deliberate (even if underhanded and deniable). If the definition of a microaggression relies on its being unintentional, this raises the problem of how (lack of) intention can be tested. It also conflicts with this: eventually, the term came to encompass the casual degradation of any socially marginalized group. An aggression can be casual and non-overt, but still deliberate. --176.0.10.91 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Does microaggression fall under Psychological analysis, or Cultural Sociology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:5D00:4A5:C0EA:5983:55B9:7BEC (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This ambiguity is potentially a fundamental problem. Unfortunately, without reviewing the primary source (which appears to be Dr. Sue's book and other writings) it's not possible to say for sure whether the ambiguity is in the source - but the quotations in the article certainly suggest it is (i.e. "generally unconscious", example given for "microassault" is clearly conscious racism, etc).

Which is a shame, because if you interbred this with Deleuze and Guattari's dual concepts of micropolitics/macropolitics, you could get a really useful working definition of interpersonal microaggressions that genuinely were unconscious (or at least not consciously admitted), which would be distinct from "macroaggressions" of consciously racist behaviours. Even more interestingly, given that D&G insist that the macro-/micro-politics distinction is not one of scale, but operates at all scales, you could start to talk of institutional and structural microaggressions as well, which ties in with the (controversial) concept of "institutional racism" included in the MacPherson report into the UK police's handling of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.

But this is all "original research" and thus inadmissible in Wikipedia terms. If the flaw is in the existing concept as it stands, then the thing to do is to find a source that points this out, and include it in the "Criticisms" section.Helvetius (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest(?): "Where microaggressions really come from: A sociological account" along with a paper by two sociologists referenced and extensively quoted in aforementioned article relating to the subject matter ("Microaggression and Moral Cultures" originally published in "Comparative Sociology", Volume 13, Pages 692-726, or a link to an ungated copy here:[2]), plus an upcoming post on the subject ("Later this month I will write a blog post laying out the implications of this extraordinary article"). Also mentioned, published in The Atlantic, "The Coddling of the American Mind". 99.170.117.163 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

References

(From the same blog as prior comment, more recent entries): "Obama speaks out against coddling campuses" and (sociologist authors of the paper referenced above) "Campbell and Manning Respond to Readers’ Comments". 99.170.117.163 (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a great addition to the article. So far, the article has only considered two things.... those who may be perpetrators of microaggressions, and those who may have become the subject of microaggressions. But it is good that there is a study where they took a step back and looked at microaggression itself and examined it, what kind of culture does it create?

It is very realistic to consider that some people may find being a victim to be attractive, so seeking victimhood is worth pursuing. 71.46.49.251 (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"denigrating" - really ?

I'm surprised to see the word "denigrating" used in this context ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Theory?

I have amended the page to avoid the use of the term 'theory'. A theory is defined as: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.. As a microaggression is not an observable phenomenon, the article is about the hypothesis of such a phenomenon existing in the first place. Labelling it a "theory" is scientifically inaccurate until such a time that the phenomenon is better documented. For example: Gravity is a theory that explains why matter attracts other matter, evolution is a theory that explains why there is such diversity in life on earth. Both of those are theories which explain an observable phenomenon. As the literature (Which often isn't very good as a poster on the talk page pointed out regarding one of the studies) regards the phenomenon itself, not the explanation of what causes a phenomenon using the word 'theory' is inaccurate. I have amended to the page to use the term "hypothesis" as it's far more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.114.141 (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

When I first read about "microaggressions," Sue did not label it as a theory. I think it describes a everyday phenomenon. But I don't know who has the right to change the title of the article. Jingqinxin (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a term, not a theory. The word "theory" should be removed from the title. Danwroy (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree Greglocock (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The use of the word "theory" in this context came from the halls of academia, where I live. The use of the word "theory" (inappropriate or otherwise) is meant to refer to not so much to the alleged acts of microagression, but to a way of understanding how these acts reflect certain attitudes and also to a way of understanding their effects on those who feel themselves to be the victims of such acts. Many who do not accept this theory can still speak of acts of microagression, whether sincerely or ironically. I hope this helps people understand why the word "theory" was used in the creation of the article. Pete unseth (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Microrape

I looked into the term microrape in the race and ethnicity section and read the paper "Gay- and Lesbian-Identified Law Enforcement Officers Intersection of Career and Sexual Identity," Charles 2013, cited as the source for the term "microrape." That paper references the paper "Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice" Sue et al 2007 and implies that the term "microrape" originated from Sue 2007.

Upon reading Sue et al, I discovered that the paper claims only three forms of microaggressions - microassault, microinsult, and microinvalidation. What is glaringly not present in Sue et al is the term "microrape".

Does anyone know anything about this? It seems to me that Charles 2013 made up the term "microrape" and mistakenly attributed it to Sue 2007.

Arakatka (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Next time just go ahead and fix it!!! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding this is some continual CHAN joke that is getting loped, however, as Arakatka has correctly pointed out there are only three forms of microaggressions - microassault, microinsult, and microinvalidation. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 02:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a Chan joke, as said by Arakatka "It seems to me that Charles 2013 made up the term "microrape" and mistakenly attributed it to Sue 2007." This is what the page suggests. You are incorrect in that there are three forms of microaggressions; there are three forms as postulated by Sue et al. The page says that Charles has a fourth term and lists it, this phrase is not in any way false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E001:4100:4167:E245:BD65:CCCA (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• The source, however, doesn't say anything close to that. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There is literally nothing false about the statement you keep deleting. This professional academic author who claimed this in an academic peer reviewed journal stated there is a fourth type of microaggression. You may disagree with the sentiment, but saying that this author contends there is a 4th type is not false. The attribution is to a different author, not Sue so you cannot say that it doesnt say that. Go read the source and if you need to go past the paywall, ask me and I can help you. I am a professor myself. The terminology used in phrasing this 4th type is not factually false whatsoever. Charles claimed there is a 4th type which has a significant amount of respect within the gender studies field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E001:4100:80F9:D7B5:4B5B:21FA (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's obvious I've read nothing that backs up anything you are claiming here, so why don't you just drop your sources now instead of making me ask you repeatedly over and over again for the info? Thanks!
  

The info needs to be verified and thus far has not been verified by anything I've read. This includes the Charles paper Gay and Lesbian Identified Law Enforcement Officers: Intersection of Career and Sexual Identity in which the term microrape was only recently attributed to him. Before that, the term was attributed to Sue. Wikipedia is not about facts, it's about verifiability and so far I'm (along with Arakatka) are not finding the term microrape among the writings of either Charles or Sue. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you being serious? We are talking about a theoretical page. There is nothing verifiable about anything within this subject. You are wrong in claiming that Arakatka says the term is not within Charles' paper. Charles' paper utilizes the source and Arakatka claims that. Like I said, I can get you access to the paper if you want to read it. Then you will see that Charles uses the term. All that the phrase that you keep deleting says is that Charles claims there is a fourth term. CHARLES SAYS THERE IS A FOURTH TERM! THAT IS ALL THE STATEMENT SAYS AND ITS VERIFIABLE BECAUSE ITS IN CHARLES' PAPER!!!! You are just making things up at this point. The phrase is not being attributed to Sue and is purely being stated as a suggested fourth type. There is no reason to delete it. The term "suggest" accurately reflects the academic paper referenced. Tell me anything wrong about that statement and I will stop arguing, but its a very soft statement with no absolute statements; it is literally just citing a paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E001:4100:61C5:645E:E6B:44CA (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• So... where is the proof? Yelling at me doesn't equate proof. Everything I've read (including that Charles paper) suggests nothing about microrape. In fact, in the article on Wikipedia the term was included in November of 2012, however, the paper that you're saying the term is from came out in 2013. This whole affair is pushing me to believe that microrape is now a citogenesis incidents. All roads lead back to Wikipedia itself as the original source of this term and definition. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing the bit. It seems as possible trolling. --Scicurious (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

See my comments here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Microaggression theory. The IP is correct that the term microrape does appear in the Charles, et al paper. But it's only a brief reference citing it to the Sue, et al paper. And everyone else is correct that it does not appear in the original Sue, et al paper. The problem is therefore twofold. Charles, et al is saying it's from a paper where it doesn't appear; and no RS appears to have defined the term as our article does. Considering the term has been in our article [3] from before the Charles, et al article was published in February 2013 [4] (the term appears in both the early access version published in February 2013 and the version of record from October 2013 [5]), the possibility it somehow came from here can't be excluded. So there's no evidence that Charles, et al actually made up the term as Arakatka suggested, it's easily possible someone else did, probably the IP who added it in 2012. And I have to agree I do find it suspicious that so many IPs keep on insisting adding back this term. Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

microbabble

" Jonathan Haidt points out that being a victim is at the height of this culture." Please could someone who knows and cares turn that sentence into the dominant cultural language of this wiki. Thanks snowflakes. Greglocock (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's in there already. I found, "Have Microaggression Complaints Really Launched a Whole New Sort of ‘Victimhood Culture?" By Jesse Singal [6] to be a rather good take on a lot of this! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 04:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It is in the article, but to a normal person it is to say the least a difficult sentence to make sense of. Do cultures have heights? Isn't there a better way to phrase this? Something like JH points out that the state of being a (self perceived ) victim is the most desirable status for those who take this sub-culture seriously. Or something. Greglocock (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly, this term began in 1970 and there are individuals at both ends taking the idea into optimal levels of absurdity. I also don't believe the honor/dignity cultures are well-defined here, which is what most of JH concept depends upon. However, if microaggressions cause a culture of victimhood, then wouldn't eliminating microaggressions, in fact, also eliminate victimhood? Problem solved! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 22:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Has anybody explained how "microaggression" is different than the behavior that has long been described by such simpler words as "rude", "unkind", "obnoxious", "vulgar", "insolent", "hostile", etc? The use of the term "microaggression" outside of certain academically-inclined circles in some statements to the media, such as at the U of Missouri after their president's resignation, has led to the use of the term "nanoagression" in some parts of popular culture, presumably independently coined by multiple people. This word seems to be used only in sarcastic and ironic ways. Pete unseth (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a useful and good term, and yes, the difference is that microaggressions are less detectable by others -- they are covert rather than overt. They are a subtle tool of bullying and manipulation. It's more hidden that overt rudeness but no less damaging and often moreso because of lack of visibility. Also, it doesn't necessarily promote "victim culture" but on the contrary it can be a warrior's tool to name what they are facing and stand up to it and confront it, which is the opposite of being a victim and "taking it". SageRad (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Additions to this page

Hi, I am a student in gender studies at LSU, and I am working on a Wikipedia project on Microaggression Theory this semester. I would like to bulk up the "Effects" section by discussing further how microaggressions may promote invisibility in society and hinder view of oneself or possibly how microaggressions impacts society as they stem from internalization of the oppressive systems of society. I am still in the process of doing research, but I would appreciate any criticism or assistance that one may offer. Amandaluh (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Propose move

I think this ought to be moved to "microaggression". Although the term "microaggression theory" is used in the literature, it is used with much less frequency than "micriaggression" alone: 30 hits on Google scholar versus 1,960 for just "microaggression". The title also might give readers the misimpression that the term is more controversial than it is. Does anyone object to this page move? --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. SageRad (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The article was previously titled "Microaggression". I renamed the article in September 2014, for various reasons. First you have to bear in mind that microaggression and microaggression theory are not synonyms. In the former case, the topic ("a microaggression") is one instance of a phenomenon. In the latter case, we are talking more generally about the study of a diversified phenomenon.

It's like the organisation of the Game theory article. The topic is game theory and not games, even though there are various types of games which are described in the article. Game theory is the conceptual or theoretical framework for understanding games. We wouldn't have definitions for these games without game theory. Even though there is a Game article, it lacks the higher-order model and way of thinking about games that is essential understanding why we play. In the Microaggression theory article, we still lack a good description of that higher-order model—its development, how and why it has changed in 45 years, and how we know what we profess to know.

I suspect that when you put the emphasis on an instance of the phenomenon, you inadvertently invite the kinds of edits that once dominated the Microaggression article, in which so many of the contributions were caught up in the details of all the permutations of microaggressions. It made for a messy, bottom-heavy article with neutrality issues.

Personally, I would like to see the article mature enough to demonstrate that microaggression is rigorously defined; to summarize all those years of thought and research. I think about the readers who believe that microaggressions are postmodern fiction or leftist crazytalk. Wouldn't it be nice if the article actually demonstrated an empirical basis? It's true that the article doesn't magically inherit that from the title, but I do wonder if by losing the context it provides we take a regressive step into vagueness. I find it telling that even in the lead section right now, the surviving edit calls microaggression a "term". Does that mean that invested editors can't even say whether it's a theory, a model, a hypothesis, or anything meaningfully descriptive? Apparently, it's... just a word. —Ringbang (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight? "Impact of Microaggressions on Invisibility"

There has just been a large addition to the article under the heading "Impact of Microaggressions on Invisibility". It strikes me as unduly large for this topic, but might better fit under an article about "Invisibility". Should it be reduced to focus on Microagression, the topic of this article? What do others think? Pete unseth (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's disproportionate and tangential. For a section so large, it also relies heavily on a single text. It could be reduced to a paragraph or less, and integrated more elegantly into the article. —Ringbang (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. Not written well, hard to read and seems to be privileging the opinion of one investigator for an idea that might not be widely accepted. Also seems like lots of assertions that are hard to support with actual evidence- Pengortm (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Themes and categorization by Sue

It is not clear to me if this article should feature the categorization/themes by Sue? It seems to be just a suggested idea by one person and a bit of a laundry list without any clear justification or notes on whether Sue's categorizations make any sense or are deemed empirically supported. Pengortm (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Bryce Williams

My concern with the recent addition of Bryce Williams' case to this article is that it takes the example of a clearly troubled man, and presents it as though this is an expected, if not inevitable, result of subscribing to microaggression theory. Even the second article only mentions microaggressions a few times, and it makes no link whatsoever to any culture of victimhood. In fact, the only time it talks about victims is to refer to Bryce Williams' victims. I assert that even with the additional link, this is still original research, as it's drawing conclusions that are not at all presented in either article. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 23:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. From the two references, drawing the conclusion that Bryce Williams' actions have much of anything to do with "the victim complex caused by microagression theory", is difficult and highly speculative. The examples about watermelon, "field work" and "swing by a location" can hardly be interpreted as anything to do with microagressions, and are rather paranoid delusions. The article in Huffington Post hardly makes it any better, being highly speculative itself. So I remove this part about Williams from the article. Yikkayaya (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the previous version was not well sourced and amounted to original research. Nonetheless, conservative media do make this case and I will add this in with a new source that clearly makes this case. If there are critiques of the conservative case, that you come across, please add in as appropriate as well.-Pengortm (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Microaggressions in Pop Culture

I propose a new section of the page about pop culture instances of microaggressions. I just watched a video that summarizes a wide range of examples across various American films. I'm a new Wikipedian, so I'm asking what's the best way to cite the video and does it deserve its own section on this page? Thanks! Mbkg1002 (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Mbkg1002

References

We can learn from the "Minority stress" article

Minority stress is a B-class article that looks like it would make a good model for improving the organisation of Microaggression theory. It's a more neutral article as well. —Ringbang (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a great model to use. Mbkg1002 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Microaggressive Themes

I believe that racial microaggression isn't inflicted only towards African Americans, but also towards Asian Americans and Latino Americans. Microaggressions are typically described as a subtle, lowkey insults directed toward the person or a group of people. They are known as being "put down";insults that cause the person or a group of people to feel hurtful and dreadful. In this article, it doesn't explicit the eight common themes of microaggression that are identified

• Alien in own land
• Ascription of intelligence
• Denial of Racial Reality
• Exoticization of Asian American Women
• Invalidation of Interethnic Differences
• Pathologizing Cultural Values/Communication Styles
• Second Class Citizenship
• Invisibility

In one research study, the researchers have discussed, in terms of gender, that Asian women have experienced more racial microagressions than men because of the most common experiences or insults that they have heard were based on the micgroaggressive theme "Exoticization of Asian American women". It is the idea that Asian women are being stereotyped as being the exotic beauty and are the submissive type of women. They are seen as sexual materials for pleasuring the men's needs. However, the other seven themes does focus on both gender groups. Kliu38 (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone has added information from Sue et al. (2007)'s Racial Microaggressions and the Asian American Experience. I've been editing it for clarity. Toferdelachris (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

References