Catering to the Lowest Denominator

It wasn't long ago that I was speaking with a co-worker about why a particular office display was inappropriate. The piece in question was a "Hurt Feelings Report" which is the topic of another post. The point of this post however, is directed at the response I received from having made this correction. After explaining how this display did not coincide with our organization's values and that it would need to be removed, I was presented with the rebuttal that as long as our organization catered to the lowest denominator, we would continue in a downward spiral.

I've encountered this rebuttal before in various forms and phrasing. The basic concept is that once upon time when people weren't so 'sensitive' or 'politically correct', folks along better because we (as a society, or organization, or whatever unit of measure you prefer) didn't have to be so concerned about others' feelings. Let there be no confusion on this point, because this is key. Because those who so often claim to be irritated at "all of this PC stuff", are really irritated because it's inconvenient. That's what it comes down to doesn't it? Having to stop and consider another person's perspective, or heaven forbid actually forgo some of the privilege that enables one to be 'irritated' about something like the civil treatment of another human being because that might require one to recognize that their behavior isn't as acceptable as they would like to believe. You see, not doing this presumably left people ample time to do other, considerably more important things, than say, improving interpersonal communication, work relationships, and other silly things of this nature. But I digress...

"As long as we continue to cater to the lowest denominator..."

          I take issue with this phrase. Mind you, we're discussing people. So what then, does one mean by 'the lowest denominator'? Well, in order to better understand, I looked it up. The majority of the non-mathematical explanations centered on the use of the phrase by certain educators to describe the lowering of standards in the classroom so that all students were on the same proverbial page. At this point, I should mention that while it may not have been the intent of those who originated the phrase, if this can indeed be considered the point of origin, the terminology used seems to reflect a bias that is rooted in the institutional racism which is part of many such classrooms. That also, is part of another discussion...

So, my understanding of the phrase to this point is that the people to whom the phrase refers are considered to be beneath other people by some measure. Additionally, the phrase objectifies them entirely by reducing them to a number and not only a number, but the lowest number. And that's not even getting into the intricacies of what 'Catering' means in this context, but that too strongly resembles privilege if you take a moment and give it consideration.

So, to be fair, I suppose I should try to understand the perspective of those who consider treating people with dignity and respect to be something not worthy of their time because the people to whom we so often refer are not really anything more than a small, little, insignificant number. Something about that just doesn't set well with me. How about you?

Sexist Satire?

Yesterday, on two separate occasions as I was driving around town, I noticed stickers on the back window of a couple of pickup trucks. These stickers caused me to reflect on a number of things, as they often do. So, I included them below so that I could share those thoughts with you.

IF IT HAS

TITS OR TIRES

YOU'RE GOING TO

HAVE TROUBLE WITH IT

and

Sorry About Your Face

Nice Tits

          My first thought about each of these was wow. Not the kind of wow in which I

would look for someone to share in my delight at this bit of misogynistic satire, but the

kind of wow in which I lost my train of thought for a moment because I couldn't quite

understand what would prompt someone to put a statement like either of these on their

vehicle for all to see.

          The first sticker caused me to wonder whether the owner of the truck was in a relationship with a woman, or perhaps had a daughter. For that matter, did this person have any women in his life whatsoever who he respected, and if so, what did they think about his 'decoration'? More than that, to what kind of socialization was this person exposed that he would think that this advice is worth giving (whether anyone wants it or not)? Sadly, I doubt there was much, if any, reflection on these things when the decal was purchased and applied to the truck's window. More likely than not (and unfortunately in my opinion) the person who bought this sticker probably found a certain amount of humor in this little piece of life philosophy. It probably reflected something he had been told growing up because the men before him were also socialized to believe that women were not people to be respected or treated with dignity. Life lessons for these men include stories where women are just a compilation of parts whose only purpose is to meet a man's sexual desires and who couldn't possibly offer anything else of value. These are lessons, sadly, that if this person does have children, be they male or female, he will undoubtedly pass along to them as well whether he intends to or not. See, lessons like this don't often occur as a result of good ol' dad sitting little Johnny of Jill on his knee and sharing his version of life's wisdom. These are the lessons, like most that kids learn, from observing what good ol' dad does...like affixing a sexist sticker to his truck. And what message does the sticker send? Well, take a look at the message for what it is.

"If it has tits or tires, you're going to have troubles with it"

1. What impact do you think there is on referring to a woman, or any person for that matter, as "it"? Which, by the way, this short, demeaning quip manages to do twice.

2. Notice the comparison between a woman and a vehicle? Another way in which women are dehumanized and therefore devalued.

3. What's the moral of the message? "Women are nothing but trouble" seems likely.

          I had a slightly different reaction to the second sticker. To me, the second sticker reeks of that type of adolescent immaturity to which many males fall victim to as they strive to figure out how to deal with sex and sexuality. I still wondered what would prompt a person to put this kind of statement on their vehicle. I still believe that the owner of the vehicle probably found more humor in the statement than did I (especially considering my teenage daughter was in the vehicle with me as we pulled up to the rear of this truck at the red light).

          That being said, the second sticker is sending the same basic message as the first, just not in such explicit terms. The statement:

"Sorry about your face, Nice tits"

1. Tells women that men don't care about how they really look as long as they have nice breasts and that the true measure of their beauty rests in their bras.

2. Tells other men that it's ok to devalue women as people and treat them without dignity or respect because their purpose is to serve as sexual objects for men. 

For those who may feel compelled to remind me that the intent of these stickers are jokes, I would like to offer the following:

 How do you suppose your mother, daughter, wife, girlfriend, aunt, grandmother, or other woman who is a part of your life would feel being the receiving end of that joke? How do you explain to these women that you're not really disrespecting them (and every other woman) because you don't really mean it? 

Do you think deep down that they really believe it?

Deep down do you really care about them?

Our Use of Language

Most people who attend any of my classes, or spend much time around me, will find out that I am very particular about the words I use. This is not to say that I pore over a dictionary or thesaurus every time I speak or write, although I do use both frequently. I do, however, make it a point to try and choose the word which best fits what it is that I'm trying to say. I have learned some lessons about word choice and language which I would like to share.

The first lesson is that of exclusive language. It has become fairly common for folks to use the word 'guy' when referring to any person, regardless of gender. The same goes for groups of individuals, even if all of the group members are female. The social context of the word 'guy', or its plural, has become gender-neutral. The issue with this is that not everyone in our society agrees with this context. Now most people don't go out of their way to correct someone who uses the word 'guys' when speaking to a mixed-gender group, though it is an incorrect reference. This is just one example of this type of language. Another, perhaps less forgivable example, would be the business owner who opens a meeting with all of his district managers, both male and female, with the greeting "Good morning, gentlemen". In doing this, the business owner has neglected the presence of his female employees. This is the same principle as using the word 'guy'. Both are incorrect and both exclude entire categories of people. Try this: for one month, replace the word 'guy' with a more inclusive word, or perhaps rethink what it is that you're trying to say, and cut out the introductory "Hey guys". Think about how this changes (or doesn't) the way you feel about those to whom you are speaking...and maybe how they respond to you.

The second lesson I'd like to share is that the words we use help to define how we think about people, things, or concepts. A simple example of this would be: "So I was waiting outside by the corner and this chick walked up...". 'Chick' is another commonly used word that refers to women and has become socially acceptable in many circles. The issue is that the word 'chick' denotes a lack of respect for the recipient. It may not be in the same league as some other words that I have heard men use to describe women, (and yes, I am including myself in that group, although you won't hear me use them any more) but does still qualify to be part of the club. The word 'chick' is just one way that we assume a flippant attitude toward women. Once our attitude has shifted from one which views a woman as a person worthy of respect, it allows for a transition that often results in a woman being viewed as a compilation of parts best suited for decoration or sexual gratification.

A third lesson I recently came upon is the concept of preventive facework. This may sound complicated, but I assure you, it is not. Simply put, this is how one tries to minimize the effect of the statement which follows the phrase. Here's a well known example: "With all due respect...". The person receiving this line, we all know, is about to be disrespected. The person using this line is practicing preventive facework, that is, he or she is about to say something potentially damaging to that person's 'reputation' and uses the phrase "with all due respect" to soften the blow. This also works when the person making the statement realizes the potential harm he or she may cause his or her own 'reputation', and uses a similar tactic. A great example of this lately was GOP Rep. Joe Walsh who made the following statement during an interview regarding President Obama's 2008 election: "Why was he elected? Again, it comes back to who he was. He was black, he was historic. And there’s nothing racist about this. It is what it is. If he had been a dynamic, white, state senator elected to Congress he wouldn’t have gotten in the game this fast. This is what made him different. That, combined with the fact that your profession” — another friendly tap of the bumper sticker —”not you, but your profession, was just absolutely compliant. They made up their minds early that they were in love with him. They were in love with him because they thought he was a good liberal guy and they were in love with him because he pushed that magical button: a black man who was articulate, liberal, the whole white guilt, all of that." Rep. Walsh may also need to do some remedial facework after that comment.

One last lesson I'd like to share is yet another that we are often exposed to, perhaps without realizing it. The lesson I am referring to now is the passive voice. More to the point, I am referring to the use of the passive voice as it relates to blaming the victim. The example of this I would like to share is the phrase folks may hear in connection with the victim of sexual assault...specifically, the phrase "she got raped". First, I would like to point out that if one looks up the definition of the word 'got', being the past tense of the word 'get', one will find something to the effect of, "To receive or come to have possession, use, or enjoyment of". I believe that very few people (and probably none who will read this blog) agree that definition belongs anywhere near a statement about sexual assault. Additionally, it's just bad grammar. Unfortunately, it is a remark that is often heard. For conversations sake, let's take a less volatile variation. We'll use, "She was raped". Almost the same, still passive voice, still serves the purpose of this example, and is widely used in reporting about sexual assault. "She was raped" is an example of a statement about a crime which focuses on the victim rather than the subject. There are several reasons why this is a problem in and of itself. Suffice to say, focusing attention on the victim of a crime does little to convey an admonishment of the crime. Rather, it allows for the scrutiny of the victim, which in the case of sexual assault, often deters people from reporting. A better example of this line might be "He raped her". By changing from a passive to active voice, two things happen: 1) the focus shifts back to the perpetrator and 2) the perception of harm toward the victim is kept closer to actual, rather than minimized.

This is probably a post which I will re-visit and modify or expound on as necessary. For now, I hope that these examples provide folks with some things to reflect on when it comes to how we communicate. As I have been told, words are a powerful thing. I believe that statement to not only be true, but also understated.