What, if Anything, Do You Regard as a Microaggression?

[Debater Slayer]

As a feminist, what, if anything, do you regard as common examples of sexist microaggressions?

I have encountered some misinterpretation of the term "microaggression" from people who assumed it to be a condemnation of anyone who inadvertently says or does something discriminatory--in this case, sexist--as an "aggressor." I think a thread like this detailing examples of microaggressions from different perspectives could be useful.

Personally, I almost never use the term, because I find that there's often a more or equally accurate way to say what I mean without the risk of misunderstanding I outlined above. However, I'm interested to learn more about some examples of what others apply this term to.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'll steer clear of the examples part of it, and leave that to those who more regularly experience this.
But basically I wouldn't see it as inadvertent comments. Neither would I see it only as deliberate acts of sexism, though. Using myself as an example, I've become more aware of how my words might impact others, and hopefully this leads to a reduction in unintended negative connotations for others around me. I was never deliberately sexist, but I would say at times I was probably negligent of how my words might be perceived. I knew I wasn't sexist, so anything I said wouldn't be sexist too (basically).

I wouldn't see things that way now, and take more care accordingly.

It seems like the sum-total of micro-aggressions which is impactful. As a man, I actually do experience micro-aggression sometimes, but it's at such a sporadic level, and each one in and of itself is so minor, that it's really not worth even acknowledging, let alone acting on. But at some point, constant minor acts add up to something quite frustrating and impactful, and that is my understanding of micro-aggressions.

Much like you, I never actually use that term, though. I sometimes worry we try to box the world up into a million concepts and ideologies, when in actuality it's much blurrier and blended. But that's another topic entirely.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate behavior. I find things like "microaggressions" to be the epitome of "first world probleming" bigotry and prejudice.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate behavior. I find things like "microaggressions" to be the epitome of "first world probleming" bigotry and prejudice.

In your opinion, what difference does it make if someone calls certain inappropriate behaviors "microaggressions" to distinguish the subtler examples from more pronounced ones?

I personally often avoid describing any genuine grievance as a "first-world problem" since I realize that almost any given society's issues are relative in their intensity: compared to starvation in, say, Somalia or Yemen, a lot of pressing issues could still arguably qualify as "first-world problems." And compared to starvation and civil war in, say, Syria or Afghanistan, starvation alone or civil war alone is less intense than a combination of both.

In my opinion, societies should always try to do better instead of minimizing their problems at a certain point by comparing those to ones of societies that are in much more dire situations and labeling the former "first-world problems" and such.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In your opinion, what difference does it make if someone calls certain inappropriate behaviors "microaggressions" to distinguish the subtler examples from more pronounced ones?

It makes it seem as if there is any meaningfully significant way to differentiate between "levels" of prejudiced behavior. In the end it's still prejudice, it's an unproductive discussion to add new labels and definitions that ultimately add nothing to the discussion.
I see it as being in a similar realm as victim olympics.