It's something that's problematicbut isn't overt enough for you to call someone a Nazi or member of the KKK or something. I think it's a silly term because "micro" makes it sound like it doesn't matter, but they're still obvious.
"That's great work for a woman!" would count as a micro aggression under this thinking. Obvious sexism but people get away with it so we call it micro. Or "positive racism" like saying that Asians are good at math. That gets demoted to a microaggression under this framework when we should just call it a racist remark.
I think your first example wouldn't be considered a microaggression by most. A microaggression is more like consistently talking over women in a group, without anyone realizing or rectifying it. It's intended as a term to recognize these subtle, ingrained behaviors that reinforce discriminatory and dominating hierarchies, while also acknowledging that they're not largely consciously intended to reinforce them, or that they're easy to ignore in isolation. But when part of a broader culture of oppression and consistent patterns of behavior, microagressions indeed contribute to said culture.
Nah, my first example actually fits perfectly in the framework commonly used in academia, which is where this comes from. Saying, "you did a great job for a woman" would be considered a microaggression so long as the person saying it can plausibly be thought of as actually expressing a compliment but "not knowing better" about the obvious sexist nature.
Your perception of it as more than a microaggression is a good example of my problem with it. In our context, we see it as obviously sexist and can even perceive it as something someone would say ironically to make fun of (optimistically perceived as) antiquated versions of sexism. This is what we should expect to see when people start to shy away from slurs and stereotypes, i.e. when people get called out and we see some kind of progress. The sexism didn't change - just the context in which it could be justified as societally acceptable or rationalized. So why should we call it micro? We shouldn't marginalize our own rejection of systems is oppression.
Edit: here's an example of some microaggressions from the most-cited work on the topic:
During the interview, the vice president seemed very casual and relaxed. She noted, however, that he referred to male employees as "Mr. X" and to female employees by their first names. Several times he called her "Kathy." She thought about telling him that she preferred "Kathleen," but didn't want to alienate her potential employer. She very much wanted the job. When she inquired about the criteria the company would
use to hire for the position, the vice president joked, "What do you need a job for, anyway? You can always find a good man."
Like... the things they call subtle aren't actually subtle to the targets nor to you or I. They're only subtle in that they're embedded into society at the time and are typically socially accepted or theoretically on their way out but still forced on people through power imbalances.
It's something that's problematicbut isn't overt enough for you to call someone a Nazi or member of the KKK or something. I think it's a silly term because "micro" makes it sound like it doesn't matter, but they're still obvious.
"That's great work for a woman!" would count as a micro aggression under this thinking. Obvious sexism but people get away with it so we call it micro. Or "positive racism" like saying that Asians are good at math. That gets demoted to a microaggression under this framework when we should just call it a racist remark.
As you can tell, I'm not a fan.
I think your first example wouldn't be considered a microaggression by most. A microaggression is more like consistently talking over women in a group, without anyone realizing or rectifying it. It's intended as a term to recognize these subtle, ingrained behaviors that reinforce discriminatory and dominating hierarchies, while also acknowledging that they're not largely consciously intended to reinforce them, or that they're easy to ignore in isolation. But when part of a broader culture of oppression and consistent patterns of behavior, microagressions indeed contribute to said culture.
Nah, my first example actually fits perfectly in the framework commonly used in academia, which is where this comes from. Saying, "you did a great job for a woman" would be considered a microaggression so long as the person saying it can plausibly be thought of as actually expressing a compliment but "not knowing better" about the obvious sexist nature.
Your perception of it as more than a microaggression is a good example of my problem with it. In our context, we see it as obviously sexist and can even perceive it as something someone would say ironically to make fun of (optimistically perceived as) antiquated versions of sexism. This is what we should expect to see when people start to shy away from slurs and stereotypes, i.e. when people get called out and we see some kind of progress. The sexism didn't change - just the context in which it could be justified as societally acceptable or rationalized. So why should we call it micro? We shouldn't marginalize our own rejection of systems is oppression.
Edit: here's an example of some microaggressions from the most-cited work on the topic:
Like... the things they call subtle aren't actually subtle to the targets nor to you or I. They're only subtle in that they're embedded into society at the time and are typically socially accepted or theoretically on their way out but still forced on people through power imbalances.