Microaggressions

[kimmy]

It all comes down to Cultural Marxism.

What does that even mean?

I've heard "cultural Marxism" before (from the Gamergater-supporting Breitbart writer Milos Yiannopolos) but I don't know what "Marxism" actually has to do with what's going on.

Who are the "cultural capitalists"? What is "cultural capital"? Who has "cultural capital"? Is "cultural capital" being taken away from its rightful owners and redistributed to "cultural laborers"? Who owns "cultural means of production"? What *are* the "cultural means of production"? Is the "cultural economy" a zero-sum game? If social media has allowed the "cultural proletariat" to participate in the "cultural economy" to a greater degree than ever before, does that mean that the "cultural capitalists" have had their "cultural capital" taken away? Are the "cultural capitalists" no longer able to use "cultural capital" to extract "cultural interest" to obtain "cultural income"? Are their "cultural landholders" as well? Are they able to obtain "cultural rent"? What is "cultural land?" Is "cultural land" also being redistributed to the "cultural proletariat"?

This idea of "cultural Marxism" sounds very interesting, but it leaves me with so many questions.

-k

[kimmy]

The problem is that right now it's the SJWs in positions of power in our society.

haha, sure it is.

A lot of it is about ethics in gaming journalism, but that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative.

And yet you keep referencing this Milos guy who insists it's a war against "Cultural Marxism", whatever that is.

The gamergaters want to have their cake, and eat it too, while insisting there's no cake the whole time.

-k

[WIP]

No, it was about ethics in journalism and later fighting SJWs trying to infiltrate journalism.

First off, since I didn't know what the hell this crap was when I saw SJW tossed around, I look to Wikipedia and find that "Social Justice Warrior" is a concocted pejorative to try to mock and vilify any activists concerned about social justice, and persecution of disenfranchised groups in our modern, extremely unequal society....guess who's side I'm on?

No, it was about ethics in journalism and later fighting SJWs trying to infiltrate journalism.

So, the few women who find their way into the He-man Women-Haters Club are just making it all up!

But some of the females that disagree with gamergate dismiss all arguments gamergate puts forth because they view disagreement as due to sexism.

I am sure as hell not going to blindly accept the narrative of the rightwing knobs who create terms like SJW, to try to shout down their critics.

And people like you blindly accept the mainstream/SJW narrative because it fights with various narratives that have existed for a while.

Anyway, Anita Sarkeesian and others are now at the UN trying to convince the UN to censor everyone:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/

Well, since I waded in this deep to the latest rightwing outrage of the week, I find the Breitbart outrage is because Sarkeesian's group is concerned about ALL forms of cyber abuse directed at women around the world...of all different backgrounds, and NOT just the narrow targeted range of misogyny that the right will stamp put a stamp on approval on (crimes committed by Muslims).

Millions affected globally, but most countries still failing to effectively address growing problem

Date : 24 September 2015

New York, 24 September 2015 – A new report released today by the United Nations Broadband Commission reveals that almost three quarters of women online have been exposed to some form of cyber violence, and urges governments and industry to work harder and more effectively together to better protect the growing number of women and girls who are victims of online threats and harassment.

The report notes that despite the rapidly growing number of women experiencing online violence, only 26 per cent of law enforcement agencies in the 86 countries surveyed are taking appropriate action.

Entitled Cyber Violence Against Women & Girls: A Worldwide Wake-Up Call, the report was released earlier today at an event at United Nations Headquarters in New York by the Commission’s Working Group on Gender, which is co-Chaired by UNDP Administrator, Helen Clark, and UN Under-Secretary-General and UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka. Working Group members, which also include representatives from the tech sector and civil society, hope the report will mobilize the public and private sectors to establish concrete strategies aimed at stemming the rising tide of online violence against women.

Without concerted global action to curb the various escalating forms of online violence, an unprecedented surge of ‘cyber violence against women and girls (cyber VAWG)’ could run rampant and significantly impede the uptake of broadband by women everywhere, the report contends. It notes that cyber VAWG already exists in many forms, including online harassment, public shaming, the desire to inflict physical harm, sexual assaults, murders and induced suicides.

- See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2015/9/cyber-violence-report-press-release#sthash.IrtBqD1h.dpuf

Yeah, we don't need girls on our internet!

Dude get out of the 50's. As I said before, just because you have internalized misogyny doesn't mean everyone else does. Stop projecting.

No, I recognized that I am as subject to accepting at an intuitive, subconscious level, many things that I reject at a conscious level. And the only way to clear up any behaviours and motivations that are unwanted, is to stop occasionally and apply a little reflective analysis of our actions from time to time. And then there's those who prefer to live in denial and claim to others that they are never racist or sexist etc.!

Edited September 27, 2015 by WIP

[kimmy]

Only a fool takes offense where they know offense was not intended.

That's a rather simplistic view of things. Most of microaggression provided here-- in the U of California brochure, for example-- aren't just social miscues, they're miscues that inadvertently reveal ignorance.

To again reference my experience with salesmen... if the guy starts off explaining what a "gigahertz" or a "gigabyte" is, what's the real message?

In his mind, perhaps he is thinking "I am providing helpful information! yay me!" but the message he's given me is that he has assumed, based on my appearance, that I'm an idiot.

It's not an "unintentional offense" in the sense that I've gotten a mistaken impression of his attitude. My read on his assumptions is correct. The "unintentional offense" is that he didn't mean for me to realize he thinks I'm an idiot. That's the only part of this interaction that was unintentional.

And I'm not going to flip out, or call the Human Rights Commission, or anything like that. But it'll affect how we interact. You can say that's foolish, but if somebody tells you they assume you're an idiot, isn't that likely to affect your interaction with them? Do you think the salesman is more likely or less likely to get a sale after treating me like an idiot? If I do decide to buy something, and the cashier gives me a receipt that says I can go online and fill out a survey for a chance to win a prize, do you think I'm likely to provide positive feedback or negative feedback? Do you think I'm more likely or less likely to go back to that store in the future?

If people were robots, then stuff like this wouldn't matter, but people aren't robots and so it would be helpful for people to understand how to interact with each other more effectively. Especially if your livelihood depends on successful social interaction.

-k

[Argus]

That's a rather simplistic view of things. Most of microaggression provided here-- in the U of California brochure, for example-- aren't just social miscues, they're miscues that inadvertently reveal ignorance.

Don't all social miscues reveal ignorance? And aren't most of them based on something other than race or gender?

To again reference my experience with salesmen... if the guy starts off explaining what a "gigahertz" or a "gigabyte" is, what's the real message?

In his mind, perhaps he is thinking "I am providing helpful information! yay me!" but the message he's given me is that he has assumed, based on my appearance, that I'm an idiot.

Or maybe he does that to everyone, male or female, because in his experience, it's better not to assume the person he's talking with knows. How many manly men with broad, hairy chests do you think might be confused about the difference between them? How many lawyers in $5k suits would look at you blankly? Maybe the mistake is your assuming he is being sexist when he's not.

It's not an "unintentional offense" in the sense that I've gotten a mistaken impression of his attitude. My read on his assumptions is correct. The "unintentional offense" is that he didn't mean for me to realize he thinks I'm an idiot. That's the only part of this interaction that was unintentional.

I dunno. I'm pretty sure I can quickly call a few friends who wouldn't know what the difference was, and they're not idiots. Mind you, one of them is kind of a technophobe, but he's very smart and he can build houses from the ground up.

If people were robots, then stuff like this wouldn't matter, but people aren't robots and so it would be helpful for people to understand how to interact with each other more effectively. Especially if your livelihood depends on successful social interaction.

Yeah but... aren't they supposed to learn basic social skills while, you know, socializing with people? Are we really at the point we need to organize and establish rules so we can point out to individuals when they're doing something socially dumb?

How many times, let's say in dating, do men and women completely misinterpret what the other meant? Hell, how many times in marriages do men and women completely misinterpret each other? It's a part of life. And while I'm all for more open communication I doubt universities are going to be the ones to do it.

Let's go back to the OP and its examples of microagression. Do you really think 'I believe that the most qualified person should get the job' is a microagression, a social error which people might be offended by?

Edited September 27, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Don't all social miscues reveal ignorance? And aren't most of them based on something other than race or gender?

So, it's about somebody making an assumption as to motives/reasons behind behavior ... kind of like we all do, agreed. People on MLW do assume, openly sometimes, that anti-social behavior is due to someone's religion, gender, political leanings, or that they're motivated by greed and so on.

I think you're right, though, that people need to take a breath and get past the visceral and often incorrect emotional reaction in all these examples, and use their brains to think and communicate.

I'll let people make an assumption that I'm racist, or otherwise wrongheaded but they need to give me some idea of what I've done wrong. In that moment that they assume my opinions come from me being a middle-aged white male they're probably also assuming that I don't know better. So I'll take that assumption from them at face value if they can explain me what I need to do better.

[Argus]

I'll let people make an assumption that I'm racist, or otherwise wrongheaded but they need to give me some idea of what I've done wrong. In that moment that they assume my opinions come from me being a middle-aged white male they're probably also assuming that I don't know better. So I'll take that assumption from them at face value if they can explain me what I need to do better.

Well, once again, going back to the OP, an opinion that "I believe that the most qualified person should get the job" is a microagression would suggest that an opinion that we should tone down immigration is also a microagression. I don't need an explanation of what I need to do better from such people, for it's clear. I need to change my opinion to be the same as theirs is. And that's just not going to happen.

I was just listening to an interview with Christopher Hitchens, a famously atheist guy. He said the only time he was ever threatened with violence was when discussing Islam with a guy who worked for Bill Clinton, and offhand remarked that though there's no evidence Jesus Christ ever existed, there is considerable historical evidence for the existence of Muhammed. The individual concerned was a born-again Christian, and was infuriated that the existence of Jesus Christ was even in doubt. Now Hitchens hadn't meant to insult this fellow's Christian faith, and I suppose you could say that this was a 'microagression' in that he gave inadvertent offense. On the other hand, would Hitchens need to not speak his opinion on religion in order to be considered socially aware? Does he have to hide his atheism in order not to give offense to the very religious?

I think the proper thing in civilized society, is for people to accept that not all believe as they do, be it on religion or politics, and not get their panties in a knot (being deliberately microagressive here) whenever they hear or read an opinion which is in stark contrast to their own.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't need an explanation of what I need to do better from such people, for it's clear. I need to change my opinion to be the same as theirs is. And that's just not going to happen.

Well you're interested in discussing the matter online, why not in person ?

Does he have to hide his atheism in order not to give offense to the very religious?

I think giving offence is an inevitable result of living in society. He could have asked the angry man what his problem was. There's no certainty that it would have been worked out but if not then he could have had asserted his position reasonably and left it to the person with alien values to take an unreasonable position.

I think the proper thing in civilized society, is for people to accept that not all believe as they do, be it on religion or politics, and not get their panties in a knot (being deliberately microagressive here) whenever they hear or read an opinion which is in stark contrast to their own.

Absolutely. But I would go further as to say we shouldn't be afraid to find the right amount of openness with others in various social spaces, to find our points of disagreement and explore where our values contrast or align.

[Argus]

Well you're interested in discussing the matter online, why not in person ?

I'm not sure the relevance of that. I discuss politics and religion in person with people I know well enough to believe the possibility of them taking great offense at what I say is minimal.

I think giving offence is an inevitable result of living in society. He could have asked the angry man what his problem was.

The angry guy almost kicked him, and the angry guy made it very clear his problem was Hitchens stating that there was no real evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ as a real person. Having almost kicked him, the angry guy stormed off.

Absolutely. But I would go further as to say we shouldn't be afraid to find the right amount of openness with others in various social spaces, to find our points of disagreement and explore where our values contrast or align.

I think most Canadians who ascribe to Canadian social values probably align pretty well on the majority of things. This particular site is not a proper sampling of Canadians as there are so many here with deeply held ideological and social beliefs outside the mainstream, and deep hostility to those who don't have similar beliefs.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Argus

[cybercoma]

This idea of "cultural Marxism" sounds very interesting, but it leaves me with so many questions.

-k

This is a term that these radical right wingers have adopted that doesn't actually mean what they think it means.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure the relevance of that. I discuss politics and religion in person with people I know well enough to believe the possibility of them taking great offense at what I say is minimal.

Ok - but didn't you say "I think the proper thing in civilized society, is for people to accept that not all believe as they do, be it on religion or politics, and not get their panties in a knot ".

Why not discuss it with them, as you clearly have a problem labeling you as a tiny aggressor ? If somebody said to you "I think you microaggressed me !" what would you do ?

My response is to ask "why"... not because I think I'm wrong but to get clarity.

Now, I agree that the workplace may not be the right place to have these discussions but if you end up in that arena anyway I think you can probably safely ask why they're offended.

The angry guy almost kicked him, and the angry guy made it very clear his problem was Hitchens stating that there was no real evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus Christ as a real person. Having almost kicked him, the angry guy stormed off.

Seems pretty unreasonable to me.

This particular site is not a proper sampling of Canadians ...

I disagree but only on a hunch and I doubt any of us could (or should due to thread drift) validate it either way.

[cybercoma]

I think you're right, though, that people need to take a breath and get past the visceral and often incorrect emotional reaction in all these examples, and use their brains to think and communicate.

So if someone implies that you're a moron because you're a blonde woman, you should stop being so emotional and stupid when it upsets you. Is that what you're arguing here? Or if you're a person from First Nations and someone implies, intentionally or not, that you're a lazy welfare bum, you should not be upset and if you do get upset that's only because you're too stupid to think about it? Or how about if you're a Jew and someone makes some off colour remark about you being filled with greed? No big deal. Don't get emotional about it.

Your argument sounds like one of those dudebros that does something to injure or harm someone and then turns around and says, "it was just a joke, bro. Lighten up."

Edited September 28, 2015 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

So if someone implies that you're a moron because you're a blonde woman, you should stop being so emotional and stupid when it upsets you.

I don't think I would ever counsel anyone to not be emotional. You can have your emotional reaction then take a breath and think about what to do next.

In your example it's so unreasonable as to warrant just walking away.

My advice, from the last page:

"that people need to take a breath and get past the visceral and often incorrect emotional reaction in all these examples, and use their brains to think and communicate"

By 'incorrect' I didn't mean to imply that an emotional reaction itself is incorrect, but that it may be based on incorrect conclusions. That, in my experience, happens far more often than it happens that the offender meant to be extremely offensive.

[Hal 9000]

This is a term that these radical right wingers have adopted that doesn't actually mean what they think it means.

I dont understand, are you saying that Marxism doesn't exist or that it doesn't exist in the western world or that political correctness is not part of the Marxist belief system?

I'm not radical by any stretch, but it's pretty clear that Marxism is alive and thriving in the western world.

[kimmy]

I dont understand, are you saying that Marxism doesn't exist or that it doesn't exist in the western world or that political correctness is not part of the Marxist belief system?

I'm not radical by any stretch, but it's pretty clear that Marxism is alive and thriving in the western world.

"Marxism" certainly exists, but what cyber and I were getting that is that "cultural Marxism" is an inane construct.

-k

[kimmy]

Don't all social miscues reveal ignorance?

I failed to convey the idea was trying to express.

Offering a pork-chop to your Jewish friend is a social miscue resulting from ignorance.

Talking to the blonde lady in small words because you assume she doesn't know anything is a social miscue resulting from ignorance too.

The difference between the two situations is an element of personal disrespect. There's not much reason for your Jewish friend to take it as a personal insult that you aren't familiar with his dietary customs. On the other hand, when somebody inadvertently lets you know they think you're an idiot, it's kind of hard not to be a little annoyed.

And aren't most of them based on something other than race or gender?

Well, sure, and that was a complaint I raised early on in the thread.

I think the idea itself is quite reasonable, but the official definition limits the scope of the discussion to race and gender issues; I don't think my own experience actually counts as a real microaggression in the official sense, since the blondes aren't a disadvantaged minority group.

I think the general idea makes sense as a way of describing something we've probably experienced in some way or another. Interactions that while not overtly insulting are none the less annoying and upsetting.

Or maybe he does that to everyone, male or female, because in his experience, it's better not to assume the person he's talking with knows. How many manly men with broad, hairy chests do you think might be confused about the difference between them? How many lawyers in $5k suits would look at you blankly? Maybe the mistake is your assuming he is being sexist when he's not.

If it happened once it would be easier to shrug it off, but when it happens with some frequency, it's hard to overlook. Hypothetically maybe a particular salesman might be that inept, but as a group they've kind of lost the benefit of the doubt.

As the old saying goes, "you never get a second chance to make a first impression". Whether by malice or by ineptitude, he's made my day a little shittier and it's going to be harder for him to sell me something. It just is.

Yeah but... aren't they supposed to learn basic social skills while, you know, socializing with people? Are we really at the point we need to organize and establish rules so we can point out to individuals when they're doing something socially dumb?

That's just it. These aren't *rules*. This is information that's being presented. Your momma probably told you to never ask a woman her weight or her age, but she probably didn't tell you to not just assume that the black lady is a janitor, because that's outside her realm of experience. The University of California brochure is intended to help you by providing advice that you wish your momma had told you but she couldn't because she didn't know it herself.

And suppose BestBuy looks through their customer feedback and says "gee, we're losing sales because our sales guys are unintentionally insulting blonde women by treating them like idiots." And they produce an employee information brochure with handy tips like that.

And if that happened, e^pi*i would frame it as "BestBuy snuffs free speech by issuing Orwellian directive telling sales staff what they can say to customers!!"

How many times, let's say in dating, do men and women completely misinterpret what the other meant? Hell, how many times in marriages do men and women completely misinterpret each other? It's a part of life. And while I'm all for more open communication I doubt universities are going to be the ones to do it.

And yet aren't people always clamoring for advice on how to interact with the opposite sex? I can't imagine a situation where providing people more information is a bad thing.

Let's go back to the OP and its examples of microagression. Do you really think 'I believe that the most qualified person should get the job' is a microagression, a social error which people might be offended by?

I think in many contexts it would be a perfectly reasonable topic to have a perfectly reasonable discussion about.

Conversely, I could also imagine a situation where somebody interprets it as a comment directed towards them. For example, it's not something I'd blurt out at a party where we're welcoming our new black co-worker to the team. I mean, somebody here at the forum still describes Barack Obama as "the affirmative action president".

-k

[Hal 9000]

"Marxism" certainly exists, but what cyber and I were getting that is that "cultural Marxism" is an inane construct.

-k

Why is it an "inane construct"?

[kimmy]

Why is it an "inane construct"?

Ever see the movie Spinal Tap? When St Hubbins is explaining the concept behind their new song "Sex Farm"? Take that scene, replace the word "sex" with "Marxism" and "farm" with "cultural", and that's basically about how smart "cultural Marxism" sounds.

As I wrote earlier, transplanting the concept of Marxism into this context leaves so many unanswered questions:

What does that even mean?

I've heard "cultural Marxism" before (from the Gamergater-supporting Breitbart writer Milos Yiannopolos) but I don't know what "Marxism" actually has to do with what's going on.

Who are the "cultural capitalists"? What is "cultural capital"? Who has "cultural capital"? Is "cultural capital" being taken away from its rightful owners and redistributed to "cultural laborers"? Who owns "cultural means of production"? What *are* the "cultural means of production"? Is the "cultural economy" a zero-sum game? If social media has allowed the "cultural proletariat" to participate in the "cultural economy" to a greater degree than ever before, does that mean that the "cultural capitalists" have had their "cultural capital" taken away? Are the "cultural capitalists" no longer able to use "cultural capital" to extract "cultural interest" to obtain "cultural income"? Are their "cultural landholders" as well? Are they able to obtain "cultural rent"? What is "cultural land?" Is "cultural land" also being redistributed to the "cultural proletariat"?

This idea of "cultural Marxism" sounds very interesting, but it leaves me with so many questions.

-k

[Hal 9000]

Ever see the movie Spinal Tap? When St Hubbins is explaining the concept behind their new song "Sex Farm"? Take that scene, replace the word "sex" with "Marxism" and "farm" with "cultural", and that's basically about how smart "cultural Marxism" sounds.

As I wrote earlier, transplanting the concept of Marxism into this context leaves so many unanswered questions:

-k

But you do know that political correctness and microaggressions didn't just appear out of thin air right?

[kimmy]

But you do know that political correctness and microaggressions didn't just appear out of thin air right?

And you're saying that's Karl Marx's fault?

-k

[Bonam]

"Marxism" certainly exists, but what cyber and I were getting that is that "cultural Marxism" is an inane construct.

-k

It's a construct that makes about as much sense as "social justice".

[Bonam]

I failed to convey the idea was trying to express.

Offering a pork-chop to your Jewish friend is a social miscue resulting from ignorance.

Talking to the blonde lady in small words because you assume she doesn't know anything is a social miscue resulting from ignorance too.

...

And suppose BestBuy looks through their customer feedback and says "gee, we're losing sales because our sales guys are unintentionally insulting blonde women by treating them like idiots." And they produce an employee information brochure with handy tips like that.

And if that happened, e^pi*i would frame it as "BestBuy snuffs free speech by issuing Orwellian directive telling sales staff what they can say to customers!!"

-k

Have you considered Argus' point that maybe these sales clerks talk to everyone that way, not just blond women? Honestly, the one time I went into Best Buy to buy a computer, I was also talked down to and had the clerks explaining stuff to me as if I was an idiot. And I look like a freaking computer nerd or mad scientist. I, too, found it mildly annoying. But I didn't assume it was because of my race or gender or accent. Reality is most people really probably don't know the difference between a gigabyte and a gigahertz or other basic information about computers (especially if they are talking to a salesman or asking a question to begin with), so more often than not the ploy of "helpful explanation" probably works for them rather than backfires.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Bonam

[Bonam]

Offering a pork-chop to your Jewish friend is a social miscue resulting from ignorance.

Or failing to offer pork to your Jewish friend could also be a "miscue", given that a great many self-identifying Jews, especially in North America, eat pork and are not particularly religious. I am Jewish (and atheist - if that confuses you look up the definition of a Jew or any of my previous posts on the subject) as are several of my friends, and not a one of us has any qualms about eating pork.

One can just as easily "give offense" by assuming what someone might be offended by based on their ethnicity/religion/gender as by not assuming anything. Frankly when someone offers me a pork-containing dish and then reflexively apologizes and pulls it back and is like "oops, I didn't mean to offend you" offends me quite a lot (if I was looking to be offended), because they are assuming I am some kind of stone age religious nutcase who determines what I eat based on the contents of a millenia-old fantasy novel just because I'm Jewish.

[cybercoma]

"Marxism" certainly exists, but what cyber and I were getting that is that "cultural Marxism" is an inane construct.

-k

Oh, cultural Marxism is a thing. It's just not the thing that these radical rightwing bloggers seem to think it is.

These radicals throw it around like they throw around the term "SJW" as a pejorative. It's a way for them to describe their opponents' position in the Culture War. When cultural Marxism in fact dates back to the Frankfurt School. So here's where we find out why the term gets thrown around. The Frankfurt School was a group of neo-Marxist Jewish scholars who developed critical theory. It's aim was to critique society and culture (ironically, exactly what the radical right poorly attempts to do). So we have a bunch of Jews critiquing society. You know what "Cultural Marxism" is? It's a dog-whistle term for radical rightwing anti-semites who believe in conspiracy theories about a secret Jewish cabal controlling the world. A group of extremist bloggers picked up the term and ran with it because it appeals to white nationalists, who can't publicly proclaim their views but find kinship with others in online enclaves.

Now I don't know if HAL believes in that racist garbage or not. However, he's perpetuating their talking points by spreading this nonsense. Likely, he's just throwing around a term he read on a radical rightwing blog or heard other similar radicals use on internet forums without knowing much of anything about its origins or meaning. He probably just thinks Cultural Marxism is another way of saying "social justice."

I dont understand, are you saying that Marxism doesn't exist or that it doesn't exist in the western world or that political correctness is not part of the Marxist belief system?

I'm not radical by any stretch, but it's pretty clear that Marxism is alive and thriving in the western world.

You picked up the term from radical rightwing bloggers. That much is certain.

Also, I'm going to need a cite. Show me any Marxian text that discusses "political correctness." In fact, show me any Marxian text that discusses culture, since Marx was quite vehemently opposed to cultural philosophy being a materialist and all. Marx is regularly cited as "turning Hegel on his head."

[cybercoma]

I think the idea itself is quite reasonable, but the official definition limits the scope of the discussion to race and gender issues; I don't think my own experience actually counts as a real microaggression in the official sense, since the blondes aren't a disadvantaged minority group.

-k

It actually does. He likely talks down to all women, but especially blondes because of their stereotype. The scope isn't limited to gender and race. It includes everything from ageism to ableism. Microaggression theory serves to highlight how ingrained social hierarchies are. It shows that people perpetuate them unconsciously. Ask that sales person and he might say women are equal. He may even truly believe women are equal. Yet he treats them differently because it's so ingrained in his consciousness that electronics are a guy thing. It's not intentional, but it highlights the structural imbalances that people face and those can be a result of anything, not just race and gender.