When my older sister’s fiancé visited her at home, it was not
unusual for the two of us to play. He would take on the role of big brother
playing with his younger brother. Then, I grew up and was not enticed to play
like a boy anymore. Having lost a playmate, I understood that my sister’s
fiancé could be disappointed. However, the way he expressed his disappointment
made me feel that he had lost any interest in me and that I had become
invisible because I was a girl. This is what he said or what I remember him
saying “It’s too bad that I can’t play with Marie anymore the way I did before
when I could play with her like a boy.” This gender microaggression exemplifies
an institutional prejudice toward girls/women: girls/women measure less than
boys/men, and boys/men represent the valuable segment of society. A little
later, the same young man not liking the cleanliness of the bathroom exclaimed
“With three girls in the house, how can the bathroom not be clean?” Thanks to
my future brother in law, my future was clearly outlined and I had better start
right learning the ropes of a perfect house wife. Unfortunately, each incident struck
me with full force and I was unable to turn them into opportunities for greater
equity. It is only after turning forty
that I started to empower myself and whenever I felt strong enough attempted to
change incidents of that sort into teaching moments for equity. For example,
one of my daughter’s friends whose family enjoyed the help of a hired woman
remarked one day as I was cleaning behind the kitchen sink tap “You are finally
cleaning this” and I assured him that he could feel free to take care of this
whenever he felt like it. Not highlighting the young man’s rudeness and
offering him to notice his prejudice provided a better teaching opportunity.
Another example of
institutional prejudice can be found in the movie “Men of Honor” (2000) where
Carl Brashear, an African-American, dreams to become a Master Chief Navy
Diver. Brashear is confronted with
racism and has to overcome many hardships and obstacles. As I was looking for information on the movie
and the book written by David Robbins, I came upon a TV review raising a doubt
about the main character’s integrity, therefore invalidating the purpose of the
movie which to my understanding was to increase awareness on an American coming
from a minority group whose dedication to his country and his courage would take
him against all odds to the top level of his military career. Here is the quote from Simels’ review in
TVGuide:
“Heroes are hard to
find, so it feels churlish to carp about a film that tells the true story of
sailor Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding Jr.), who overcame systemic racism to become
the U.S. Navy's first African-American deep-sea diver. On the other hand, it's
a little odd that nobody involved — certainly not screenwriter Scott Marshall
Smith or director George Tillman Jr. — seems to have noticed that it's also the
story of a guy who literally cut off a limb to achieve a career goal. No
disrespect to the real-life Brashear intended, but reasonable viewers might see
this act as more masochistic and creepy than uplifting (Simels, n.a.)”
Interestingly, this
article weaves biases and prejudices with positive comments and succeeds in creating
a doubt in readers’ mind as to Brashear’s actual intention and the validity of
his racial struggle.
|
|||
Thanks for sharing. Learning to control our views pose to others are sort of hard. Some things we are tempted to comment on, but yet what we believe is a strong debate can be disrespectful/bias towards the other person.
ReplyDelete