Conference turris::womannotes-v2

I find it amazing, and also shameful, that I react this way.  

--bonnie

    I find it amazing that you assume that "we white folks assume every
    other person is white until we have it proven otherwise."
    
    I don't. (:-])
    

It's _____centrism.  I've spoken about dealing with my own in this file
before.  I think we all do it, in some ways, and I think we are all unaware
of 90% of it.  Look into yourself and ask how much you do assume about anyone
you meet/hear about/etc...

Do you assume she's male? Do you assume she's white?  Do you assume she's
heterosexual?  Do you assume she's American?

The list goes on.

A subtle form of racism/sexism/___ism.

D!

    Why is it shameful? You have to assume people are something...why
    would you be ashamed that you default to your own race? 
    
    Gail

    re: .4 (Gail)
    
    � You have to assume people are something...
    
    Why?
    
    Steve

    Because otherwise you assume they are nothing.
    
    I picture all noters as having this glowing, greyish-white skin,
    with dark features, a face wider than it is tall, and champagne
    beige hair.  I'm always wrong; it doesn't bother me.
    
    							Ann B.

    .6:
    	Thanks Ann.  {i wish i'd figured out how to say that.}
    

    There is an article on this subject in the latest issue of Ebony
    magazine.  The issue of "what are you" can be a very touchy issue
    with some people who spend their whole lives coming to terms with
    this question.  The basic root of the problem as stated in Ebony
    is the fact that darker is perceived by socity as "lesser"...

<                            -< Speak for yourself >-

I was.

Bonnie is white, as am I.  That is the "we" that I meant.  I know that some
other white people do this as well.  I, like Bonnie, have been trying to 
overcome my assumptions, as I hope others do who automatically assume 
my sexual orientation as hetero.

         Carol 

    I don't think we need feel uncomfortable about using as a template our
    own identifying characteristics.  We pretty much have to make *some*
    assumptions or we can't think at all, it's just too hard!
    
    The trick comes when we finally learn what the person's *real* race or
    sexual orientation or sex or accent or whatever is like:  if we don't
    feel as comfortable as we did in our ignorant she-must-be-just-like-me
    state, THAT's the hint that we need to start doing some soul-searching.
    
    						=maggie

	My first response was that of course I assume everyone to be white
	because that is the majority. I'm not white, so it's not ethno-
	centrism on my part.

	On further soul-searching I realized that I don't always assume
	white. I'm just as likely to assume they are black/hispanic if
	they are criminals of some sort.  

	Last year I used to live in a not_so_safe neighbourhood. I could 
	often hear people fighting and screaming. One day I looked out when 
	I heard a fight and saw two men. They were white. When I saw them 
	I suddenly realized that I had assumed they would be non-white.
	This assumption wasn't at a conscious level. If someone had asked
	me what race they were before I saw them, I would have said ' I
	don't know.' It was only because they *were* white that I became
	aware of my assumption.

	I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe we (some of us) need
	to look into ourselves and our assumptions. There maybe more to
	it than ethnocentrism or the necessity of having some template.

	Manisha

A few thoughts.  First, like Steve said, I don't see why it is necessary
to assume anything about someone, particularly their skin color.  I mean,
everyone has to be born somewhere; but when I talk with someone I make
no assumptions about what state or country (well, I'm not perfect on that
one) they were born in.  That is because what state they were born in is
not relevent to the conversation.  Similarly, I see no need to assume
what color hair some one has, what their sign is, or what their sexaul
preference is.

Secondly, I don't think the real problem lies in assuming that someone
falls into some majority category.  (This ties in to what I was talking about
earlier in another note.)  It seems reasonable to assume, if you must assume
something, that the person you are talking to is a white heterosexual, since
the statistics are with you.  The trick in overcoming centrism is to
remember that it *is* an assumption, with no basis behind it, and that you
could be wrong.  I think the problem is that people (everyone, I think, 
including me) sometimes gets so used to making assumptions, and so used to
them being *right* (if they weren't often right, you would quickly change your
default assumption) that you forget that it is an assumption, and then act
as it that assumption is a verified fact.

Let's say I need to make an assumption about Jane Doe's skin color for some
reason. (Say, I am trying to create a mental picture of her in my mind.)
It makes sense to assume she is white.  Alright, fine, no problem.  But
say in my mind I forget to flag the part of Jane's description that says
"white" as "UNVERIFIED".  Sometime later, in exchanging mail with her, I
take it as given that she is white, and make some comment makes it clear I
think she is white.  (It doesn't have to be a racist comment...could be
something as simple as "Don't you hate how red your skin gets when you get
a sun burn?").  

This may seem like a small deal to you, but Jane probably hears this kind of
statement *all the time*.  The cumulative effect on her self-esteem is
quite likely to be negative - she is always *different*, *unusual*.  The
issue becomes even more clear if you assumed Jane was heterosexual when
she wasn't, and making comments about "What kind of men do you find attractive?"
or "Isn't he cute" or something like that.  How do you think Jane feels?
(If Jane was Carol DuBois, then clearly she wouldn't be happy about being
assumed heterosexual, as she said earlier in ths string, so there you have
it.  :-)

Basically, when faced with a lack of evidence, it is okay to assume that
which is most likely.  But you have to remember that it is an unverified
assumption, and to question that assumption each time you make a statement
or take an action that rests on that assumption.

And that, of course, is the kicker, the real nastiness about overcoming
centrism.  There are so many subtle, almost unnoticeable ways, where our
actions and statements are based on assumptions we *don't* *even* *know*
*we're* *making*!

D!

(I suppose in =wn= the most effective example to use is male-centrism.  Sure,
most hardware engineers are male.  But how would you female hard-ware
engineers feel if all your letters came addressed to Mr. Doe, if time after
time people you had appointments with looked surprised when you walked in
because they were expecting a man, etc.  Probably not so hot...  The
problem with statistics is that you forget that they are *only* statistics,
and not facts about individuals.)

    Okay this is a problem that relates to some things that I've learned
    about how people develop in their moral, psychological, psychic
    development. We tend to go through stages, from ignorance to prejudice
    to learning to identity....to over simplify it. One problem is that
    to the outsider an earlier stage sounds like a later stage.
    
    So a person who is very prejudiced will ask about the unknow stranger
    'is he/she jewish, catholic, etc...or gay or reject someone for��
    being black or asian...
    
    then the person grows and learns and passes through this stage to
    the point where they realize that there is a value in knowing that
    a person is a person of color or of a particular sexual identity
    etc...but it is still 'not okay' to ask such questions because it
    sounds to others like one is still in the previous stage of asking
    about difference to be perjorative rather than affirming..
    
    how do we ask 'is x black, asian, gay, female, whatever, without
    sounding like we are asking for perjorative reasons not supportive
    ones?
    
    Bonnie

    I'm with both Maggie and D!. My "default template" for making
    assumptions about another person is that the person is a white
    male. The reason for it is simply that I think of *myself* as
    an "average person", so I use my characteristics (white, male,
    hetero, etc.) as a bare-bones "sketch" for someone else. As more
    detailed information about the other person comes to light, I
    modify my mental sketch. I'm rarely surprised at finding out my
    initial sketch needs modifications.
    
    --- jerry

    I think Manisha's implied point is an excellent one, though:  if we
    have more than one template and select the one to apply according to
    "value", then we're in trouble.  I didn't say that very well and I'm
    not sure how to rephrase it.  What I have in mind is the kind of thing
    Manisha related of expecting the fighters in the street to be black,
    not because (I guess) she would have expected *anyone* in the street to
    be black, but because of the way she had "rowdy" associated with
    "black" in her head so that seeing two whites being rowdy was a real
    shock.  
    
    [semi-tangent: ]
    I think that's hooked to (as Karen Wharton and others pointed out in
    the Stuart killings topic) the white media.  There's a real economic
    value in representing the world to us (the white majority) in ways that
    reinforce whatever prejudices we have.  The more people who watch or
    read because it makes them feel warm and secure, the more money
    advertisers make and the more powerful and rich the publisher becomes.
    
    But it's killing us.
    
    						=maggie

    I still see no reason to make any assumption at all.  .6 is wrong in
    saying "otherwise you assume they are nothing".  That's not true -- you
    don't have to go with _either_ one statement _or_ another.  You can go
    with neither.  You do not have to choose.  Why would you need to assume
    something about a person's color and not their birthplace?  If you do
    not assume they are born in some particular place, do you assume they
    are nothing?
    
    How many people visualize persons they hear about?  Is that why you
    need to fill in a color?
    
    
    				-- edp

	I usually assume about unknown persons that they have two
	arms, two legs, can see, hear, ....

	Dan

    <--(.16)
    
�    How many people visualize persons they hear about?  Is that why you
�    need to fill in a color?
    
    Got it in one, Eric, that's exactly why I do it.  And why I don't need
    to include birthplace in my template...it can't generally be perceived.
    
    						=maggie

    
    	re .12
    
    	D,
    
    	I have for years received mail addressed to Mr. Kinney and
    	have received phone calls of the same nature by persons who
    	absolutely did not believe I was not "Mr. Kinney". My voice
    	isn't even very deep (I have been told I sound tall, blonde
    	quite female. 2 out of 3 aren't bad. *8^}  )
    	All that due to the nature of the job I held. I was a hardware
    	engineer.  I have received apologies from those who insisted
    	I couldn't possibly be me but I tell ya, it does tend to create
    	an identity problem from time to time. *8^}
    	People DO make assumptions. These are based on where they have
    	been and what they have experienced. It is only natural and I
    	find myself not terribly offended when it happens but what does
    	worry me is that if I were to show up for say a job interview
    	or something of that nature and this assumption were to get in
    	the way...Now *that* would be a problem.
    
    	Re .17
    
    	Well, not everyone of us can see, hear, etc. I kinda think that
    	communication among ourselves via the tube is really good in that
    	respect.  The visual/auditory biases that might affect communication
        are not there.  Participants in these conferences are valued for
    	what we say and how well we say it (am I saying this right?).
    	The drawback, as I see it, is that sometimes people respond to
    	one another without really considering (or sometimes it seems that
    	way) that there is a real, flesh and blood person on the receiving
    	end who has feelings and sensitivities. We can easily tromp on
    	one another without ever intending to. 
    
    				kim_who_sounds_tall_and_blonde  *8^}
    
    

     I usually conjure up a mental image for an unknown person. It's a
    hardware level process, and is not under much control. I generally
    default to white, but I modify my assumption based upon whatever
    additional information I have. IE- If I talk to someone on the phone
    and they have a spanish accent, I assume they fit the hispanic
    template: dark hair, dark skin, and an hispanic surname. 
    
     Sometimes the name can give you some indication of which template to
    use, though this seems to be more often true with men than women (since
    women often change their names when they get married).
    
     I agree with =maggie in .10 completely. There's nothing wrong with
    making assumptions. Where the trouble lies is when we make value
    judgements based on the assumptions (and not the people themselves).
    
     The Doctah

But if I assume Ida B. Wells is white, and she's not, am I not depriving
blacks of credit for their accomplishment?  If young black women are 
likewise assuming the default is white, aren't they losing a valuable role 
model?

Am I not assuming that only whites built our country and contributed
the important developments of our culture?

Assuming the default is white male is NOT NOT NOT statistically valid!  For
starters, slightly over half the population is female.  Something on the
order of 25% is of another race.  So white male is maybe a third of the 
total population.  And yet we're all admitting we assume it's the default?????

I've spent most of my adult life fighting the assumption that if I'm in 
x position, I must be male.  Is it any better to assume by default someone's
white?  

"Assuming an unknown person is white by default" seems to me to be a 
concise, accurate summary of racism, pure and simple.

--bonnie

    I finally remembered, and I have to laugh, because it does show that
    we can strip away our assumptions when we need to:
    
    In college, there was a situation in which my fianc� owed a man some
    money.  The way it worked out was, I was to deliver it to the man's
    wife.  I asked how I was to recognize her.  My love breezily replied,
    "You shouldn't have any trouble; he's black."
    
    I thought, "Great!  This doesn't tell me *anything* about her looks."
    So I looked for a woman who looked like she was looking for a woman
    who was a stranger to her.  It worked.  (And except for being blonde,
    she was an average looking Caucasian woman.  And we had a nice talk.)
    
    							Ann B.

    Re .20:
    
    > There's nothing wrong with making assumptions.
    
    If people were logical, that would be true.  But making assumptions
    about race is like using "chairman" for to mean a male or female
    person.  The technical denotation of the grammar is male or female, but
    that is not what it means to people.  People interpret the language
    with more meaning than its denotation.  Sexist language reinforces
    sexist stereotypes -- and racist assumptions reinforce racist
    stereotypes.  Sure, a person can "change" their assumption when they
    learn it was wrong -- but the damage is done; their mind has had that
    much more practice at associating a particular race with a particular
    class, social association, et cetera.  And if the assumption is shared
    with other people before being corrected, the damage gets worse -- the
    racial stereotype is spread and reinforced in other people.
    
    
    				-- edp

>    If people were logical, that would be true.
    
     Solution: teach peple to be logical.
    
     The Doctah

I feel like I beamed to the planet Vulcan here!  ;-)

One small point before I beam back to planet earth.

I see a lot of notes lately that seem to favor no distinctions among
people.   For example,  one note said it is racist to say that blacks
have darker skin that whites.   I think something has gone wrong here.
The direction this seems to be going is to have one universal bland
cultureless earth.  What I would rather see is that instead of denying
differences, we explore them in appreciation of the wonderful
diversity of peoples and cultures on this earth.  While we are all
made of the same wonderful matierial that everything in the universe
is made of and have the same concerns (what happens when I die, why am
I here, etc), each of us individually, and as groups interpret life in
many different and wonderful ways.  

Intent is very important.  Are differences being pointed out to gain
power over some other group or celebrate their diversity?  We all have
very valuable and wonderful traditions.  Let's not forget them!


john

>>    If people were logical, that would be true.
    
>     Solution: teach peple to be logical.
 
Yeah.  Tough, though.  I try, and then people complain that my notes remind
them of "Logical Thinking 101", a very boring course.  Or complain that I
am getting nasty and personal.  Or say "Yes, but this isn't a *logical*
issue, you can't approach it that way."

:-P

D!

re teaching people to be logical...

I don't think you can.  You can teach people to *use* logic, or to be able
to think logically; but there is a very good question whether people *are*, 
or are able to be, or even should *be*, logical.

Logic, after all, is only one aspect of human personality, and I suspect
that elevating it to be the most important aspect would produce a seriously
distorted human being.

And I think that the "being logical" that edp refers to would have to be 
something much deeper than "being able to think logically."  Several notes
here have suggested that stereotypes operate at a pre-conscious (and 
pre-logical) level.  The solution, then, is perhaps not logic but 
consciousness.  If the stereotypes can be recognized as such, and 
(internally) confronted, then perhaps they can eventually be updated or
eliminated.  

I am reminded of a comment on the retraining of ones feelings that I was
struck by (in a discussion elsewhere on an utterly different subject).  
I am paraphrasing very crudely from memory:

	Every time [the inappropriate feelings] appear, you must forcefully
	reprimand yourself, recognize that they are inconsistent with the
	basic moral principles you believe in, and truly feel how monstrous
	they are.  In a year or two they will start to get better.  Perhaps 
	in five years they will be gone.

	Oh, you wanted an easy answer?  Sorry.

-Neil

    I don't want to sound self-righteous about this - I don't know whether
    it's "right" or not - but I know it's possible to do without these
    standardizing strong mental pictures of people I haven't met, because I
    usually don't have them.  My evidence is that I've never been surprised
    by how a person I knew first by voice or writing looked (except for
    Raymond Chandler).
    
    To explain how this might happen without political motives:  I tend to
    idealize a bit, so my mental pictures may tend towards what I'd like
    the person to look like (that is, what would be "most interesting")
    rather than what the odds favor.  As a result, my original vague
    outline is often NOT a white male unless the writing screams "WHITE
    MALE" all over it.  Of course, given the odds, this vague outline is
    wrong fairly often, so I'm used to keeping it as tentative and easily
    adaptable as I can.
    
    Maybe the habit of imagining exceptions-to-the-rule speeds up my "Not
    ALL * are *" kneejerks.  Otherwise, I don't see any ethical points. 
    Thinking of straight white men as somehow "less interesting" doesn't
    seem like that firm a moral ground.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

    I'm chuckling about the number of white people (and I've met enough of
    you to be able to verify the statement) who responded to the base note
    asking how the rest of us do it.
    
    So, here's another answer from a non-white. It depends on where I am,
    and what input I have. When it comes to notes, I kinda "do the fuzzy"
    until I have more details. But in general, if I'm in Womannotes, I
    assume white female until I have more details. Or based on certain
    undercurrents I get from the note itself. When I'm in Blacknotes, I
    assume black male, unless I get female-type undercurrents. But I don't
    act on that assumption. I've been wrong enough times. When someone
    calls me on the phone, I make no racial assumptions. Again, I've been
    wrong, and my family jokes about how many people get UPSET when we call
    and the figure we're white, and we show up and they do this SERIOUS
    double take. I'm telling you, its sad, its tacky, its funny to watch.
    I mean, black people just CAN'T know proper diction, can they?
    
    When I'm with my friends, I'm listening for environment cues. If
    they're talking about other friends, assume black until told otherwise.
    And usually, someone will say "white person" if necessary. If talking about
    work-friends, assume white if last name sounds appropriate. Otherwise,
    wait for details. 
    
    Those of you who have been following Blacknotes may have noticed the
    "new noter on the block", left unnamed, who has come out with some
    of the most "unique" statements. About his pride in being a chauvanist,
    and how feminism seems like a selfish concept, and male domination
    being the natural order of things, etc. Rumor has it, that one of the
    reasons why he was being so hostile in the notes was because he assumed
    that all of the noters were young clueless women whom he could talk
    down to, patronize, and give the benefit of his wisdom to.
    
    If anyone needs an example of the dangers of making assumptions, try
    that one.
    
    But, I must say, I think its TRULY SAD that people make the assumption
    in WOMANNOTES that a given noter is male.

    
.31    When it was my turn to go the window, the person at the window said to
.31    her collegue in the next window "here is another one who can't speak 
.31    English" and started talking to me in Spanish just because I am of the 
    same 
.31    color.  I had to stop this lady and tell her that I do not know Spanish 
.31    and please speak in English.  And I did not like one bit of it as I
.31    felt like I was making a scene of it as everyone in that office was 
.31    staring at me.  At that one moment I wished I knew how to speak Spanish 
    
    You should have started in Indian, and then when she started to look
    exasperated, switched to English apologizing that you didn't speak
    Spanish, would English be more convenient?
    
    I think the worker that you dealt with has an attitude problem,
    sometimes a little humor helps.
    

    Templates are, to a degree, wrong.  They are also entirely natural for
    many, if not most, people.
    
    I noticed this myself recently when I read about a lawyer with a
    non-gender specific name.  Eventually the article clarified that the
    lawyer was a woman; I had assumed, until told otherwise, that the
    lawyer was male.  I don't think this is a good thing.  I think the
    whole business of "default values" is not a good thing.  I'm not the
    default (male) so I'm non-standard or uncommon or not expected --
    that's an implication of default values and I'm not happy with that.
    
    On the other hand, I think it's entirely natural to start tagging
    individuals with some rudimentary attributes to make them a little more
    concrete.  If they're something more than just a name, they have
    certain attributes and some are more easily distinguished than others: 
    gender, race, relative age, etc.  The obvious attributes are the ones
    we work with most commonly (when we see people as opposed to seeing
    their names) so it's not surprising that people fill them in.
    
    I find that becoming aware of the process leads me to begin overcoming
    the process.  When I catch myself following the process, I slap myself
    around mentally.  Kind of like breaking a pet of a bad habit -- tell
    it "NO!" and show strong disapproval and eventually it will learn not
    to engage in the "bad" behavior.

    
    on a slight tangent...
    
    Did anyone else out there in 'notesland' watch the miniseries...
    Common Ground?.  about the beginning of busing in Boston in the 
    mid-70';s?   Were any of you noters here/involved then?  
    What are your comments both on the movie, and the events themselves?
    
    deb
    (who was living in KY at that time..)
    

    I did not see the miniseries , but as a southerner who experienced
    busing personnally , and who watched the events on the news happening 
    at that time in Boston, I saw that the reaction to busing was much
    stronger and lasted much longer than it did in Tennessee.
    People are always talking about how prejudice the South is, 
    the North obviously has plenty of problems too.