A woman was hired to investigate racial harassment after a suicide. Then she encountered it herself
S ALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A Black woman hired by a northern Utah school district to investigate racial harassment complaints the year after a 10-year-old Black student died by suicide says that she, too, experienced discrimination from district officials.
Joscelin Thomas, a former coordinator in the Davis School District's equal opportunity office, alleges in a federal lawsuit that district staff treated her “as if she were stupid," accused her of having a substandard work ethic and denied her training and mentorship opportunities that were offered to her white colleagues.
“From the beginning of her employment, Dr. Thomas was treated differently than her lighter-skinned and non-Black coworkers and was subject to a hostile work environment,” the complaint states.
Thomas was part of a wave of new hires in 2022 after the U.S. Department of Justice ordered the district in a settlement agreement to create an office tasked with investigating and addressing reports of racial harassment. The order stemmed from a 2021 federal investigation, which uncovered widespread racial harassment of Black and Asian American students in the district just north of Salt Lake City, including hundreds of documented uses of the N-word and other derogatory epithets over a five-year period.
The civil rights probe found that Black students, who make up about 1% of the district's 74,000 students, had been disciplined more harshly than their white peers for similar behavior. District officials admitted to federal investigators that years of discipline data demonstrated a trend of staff treating students of color differently than white students, but the district had done nothing to correct the disparities, federal investigators said.
Several Black students had also told investigators that their white peers referred to them as apes, made monkey noises at them in class and told them that their skin looked like dirt or feces. Inappropriate comments about slavery and lynching sometimes went unpunished, and Black students recalled being told by their peers, “Go pick cotton” and “You are my slave.”
The district’s racial issues came to a head just two weeks later when Isabella “Izzy” Tichenor , a Black and autistic fifth grader, died by suicide after her family said she was relentlessly bullied by her classmates at Foxboro Elementary School in North Salt Lake. The 10-year-old's parents blamed her death on what they called an inadequate response by school administrators, whom they said were aware of the bullying but did nothing to stop it.
Tichenor, the only Black student in her class, had kids regularly calling her the N-word, telling her she was smelly and teasing her for being autistic, according to a lawsuit filed by the family. District officials admitted last year that school staff had mistreated the girl and agreed to pay her family a $2 million settlement after initially defending how it handled the bullying allegations. They also announced a separate $200,000 settlement shared between three Black students who said they experienced daily racial harassment.
LINK TO SEEDED ARTICLE; https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-woman-was-hired-to-investigate-racial-harassment-after-a-suicide-then-she-encountered-it-herself/ar-AA1mQbQu?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=177d7810c34041769b72521cec3f0d41&ei=35
OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE REMOVED WITHOUT WARNING.
Tags
Who is online
408 visitors
It seems that racism is alive and well today in America.
Let the denials began.
This article does not come as a surprise from anyone who's spent any time in the area.
utah was in my sales territory years ago. I consciously planned my trips around not spending any of my own money there, since 10% of mormon income went to support a tax scam church.
It is not only in Salt lake City, it is everywhere to varying degrees.
From the article:
Yup, pretty degrading and remember the school district had to pay $2 million to settle a DOJ lawsuit. Not only Davis but the state of Utah has had a racist problem for decades.
It’s amazing how much tax payers have to pay to clean up after government worker malfeasance.
Slow learners, apparently.
Salt Lake City, Utah - wow. One would think a heavily Mormon group of people understand what it is to be bad-mouthed and marginalized because of their belief system. And stand against hatred and racism.
Racism is a sickness. Bullying others is a sickness. Call both what they are!
Exactly - wow. Several years ago the Riverside CA, Moreno Valley School District to pay $27M to settle lawsuit over student's bullying death. I think it's the largest in the nation, at least then. The student body at their is 6% White, 12.6% Black, 2.5% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 74.3% Hispanic/Latino, 0.2% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.7% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Guess the sickness of racism permeates all of our sub-cultures.
Let me make something perfectly clear to you and if you don't receive it "perfectly" at least receive it the best you can! I don't care what or who it is that is a racist or hater or bully, it is all SICKNESS and all such people should get the mental help that is out there to help them get better.
You can continue your 'mission' of pulling down stats from little known problem areas of this country and the world, and I would hope you can do the same with offering solutions to end the racism, hatreds, and bullying brought on by any and all of these SICK human beings.
Thanks for the ''information'' but this is about racism in Utah from a school district that has already paid out over $2 million and was under DOJ. Seems that the white racists are as stupid as they are racist and that's just the adults.
You may want to research the history of Utah and racism against blacks and Indians. It's well inbred especially with the Mormons.
Here is the story your referring to.
Sounds much different than bully it is deadly assault and instead of you making a legit comment it's your MO to ''look over there, they did it too'' and in this case you don't know what your talking about.
Yes, and I replied to a comment expressing surprise that Mormons can be racist.
I don’t know that it sounds much different:
I doubt from just these articles, that we really know the circumstances of the two tragic deaths.
If you think that school bully is restricted to racism, or even predominantly due to racism or is proportionally unique to Utah, then “you really don't know what the fuck you talking about”.
And did your usual, ''look over there they did it too''. Your MO
Nowhere did I say that or infer it, don't try to pull that BS. I unfortunately know racism in Utah, especially among the Mormons, personal experience so to say. Best you learn something before showing you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
My wife is a school teacher in a largely minority area, unfortunately she knows racism there. She sees a lot of Black racism from Hispanics and Middle Eastern kids, so I know a bit of what the fuck I write. Many here think it’s impossible for a non-white in America can be racist. What the fuck do you think of that?
We were discussing Utah not wherever you live. Between you and wife you could author an article on racism from a minority perspective. Yeah minority perspective put your brain to work.
No surprise at all, there is a white contingent on NT that believes there is no racism in America.
The ball is in your court put up an article or shut up.
How do you know that they're white? And if you don't, why do you think they are?
They told me, simple.
[deleted]
Okay....
??
[deleted]
I was discussing racism from a much broader own perspective than a single state.
That’s not me, I see racism across the geopolitical and racial spectrum here.
I don’t need to shut the fuck up until someone proves me wrong.
The article is about Davis School District in Utah, not a broader perspective.
I'm sure it isn't you and without a doubt, you see racism across the geopolitical and racial spectrum here. Considering that we have a very limited number of minorities on NT the racial racism must be tilted in one direction.
Of course, you don't but you have been proven to be trolling, and not having much experience or knowledge re the subject.
I guess that the challenge to post or author an article re racism/racist is too much to ask.
Indeed but racism isn’t restricted to there.
Why do yo find my comments on national racism as trolling.
Do it isn't, but this article is regarding this particular area and state which has a very long history of racism.
Since I've explained to you on more than one occasion you keep up with the national scene etc. that why it's trolling.
As I requested you can write an article on it from a national perspective..
What is racism?
What is the basis and history of racism in the human species?
Is racism (or sexism) classified as a mental illness that can be cured by therapy?
I would google and cite references of studies on this issue, but I am interested in your opinion on how this issue can be dealt with to cure our species of racism.
You may want to research the history of Utah and racism against blacks and Indians. It's well inbred especially with the Mormons.
Apparently racism was common in Mormon communities. I googled it-- it seems many of them have changed (for the better) but there are still many groups who are quite racist.
Racism isn’t an isolated incident. Don’t understand why you want to minimize it it to a small geographic area.
Good questions. I. . . see racism as easy to quit, . . .because I have never hated anybody for being what they are as flesh/skin or sexuality. All my life I have been fascinated by the beauty of skin we all wear and the character of women.
Can racism be cured? Damn! That is a reaallly good ask.
I would say yes racism can be 'cured' by simply liking people of all kinds. Now that I think about it. . . I do have a cure for racism: It's getting involved with people who you have an 'ought' or fault against as a people. That is, if you dislike black people - "invite" yourself to a group of several blacks and see how it goes. If one has a dislike of women socialize with them in intimate settings whenever you can and just talk.
What one will discover is people are mostly eager to talk to others.
Do you have any advice for those who have been discriminated against and feel deep resentments?
Would that apply to religious sects, also?
So if the Christians would congregate with Muslims then religious differences would be resolved once the Christians were educated on Islam?
Uh, if you are not invited to socialize with women in "intimate settings", then stay the fuck out - this is common etiquette regardless of if you are male of female. Otherwise, you are a stalker and a restraining order may be in your future.
About what?
And if that is successful, maybe the Christians could learn to congregate with, enjoy and respect the viewpoints of atheists?
Why do you put "intimate settings" in scare quotes? Because the word, "intimate" means so much more than kissing or sleeping together- it means sitting together alone, talking together alone, or spending extended time together. There is no "stalker" or "fatal attraction" thing called for by my writing.
Anything: chit-chat or in-depth.
I can strike up a conversation with anybody—short of a 'pure' bigoted person who simply won't even respond. That is, prejudiced people generally will act as if they don't hear you or see you when you are speaking and/or standing directly in front of them. For such people, . . . don't push them to speak or open up because it may not be nice what comes out of their. . .spirit.
I do not answer questions presented to me by MAGAs. It always turned upside down and sideways as it becomes questions about questions. Please, make statements-not questions-to me and I will see what I can do in reply.
I meant what I wrote.
Women usually know the social norms of engaging in conversation with other women and wouldn't be attempting to socialize with a woman they disliked.
Some men, on the other hand, see women as a commodity to be used for their pleasure.
There is no reason a man, who hates women, should be harassing them. Women have no obligation to entertain or educate these men on any aspect of being a woman. All we need and desire is that these men go fuck themselves at their leisure and stay the Hell out of our lives.
Harsh reply. But, okay. Personally, I do not know of any men who mistreat or brutalize girls or women.
My reply to you early on, was about how matters between sexist men and women can be made better by the man/men putting forth the effort to listen. . . not agitate or antagonize further. I am looking for fair treatment between the sexes and how to make that happen when it does not. . . not just to let it continue to fester and live. You asked. I answered. Talk between people is how I do 'it' and how I see 'it' working.
I will admit I am a little 'jarred' by your approach to this area of the question you asked me. So, if the above reads a bit disjointed. That will be why.
I'm sorry: Apples and oranges.
Religions have general guiding principles and teachings which are set in stone and accordingly divide people (separate them) along its lines. It is not the same thing as racism or sexism, per se. Though, I am fully aware religious people can be racist and sexist.
More. One can invite oneself into a 'circle' of religious people for discussion, but one is likely going to find that the truer a person's devotion to their beliefs (whatever they may be) the harder it becomes to persuade them to open up to something Other.
It is not the same thing as racism or sexism - it is religion. It is a belief system.
Really? Give me a topic that complete strangers with different backgrounds can safely discuss other than the weather?
Most friendships happen organically due to common backgrounds and interests. I have met few boys/men (or girls/women) who have an interest in learning the history or background of other cultures in or outside of school, work or play unless it is forced on them.
Women are far more adept at social interaction than most men. Google for more info on that if you care about understanding it.
Men tend to be competitive and less verbal than women. This makes it more difficult for them to form basic friendships, much less ones with depth that are lasting. This is why singlehood is more emotionally and physically dangerous for men than women.
Then there is the issue of avoiding all people with assorted personality disorders such as psychopathy, sociopathy, borderline, narcissistic personality disorder, etc.
It is extremely difficult to socialize with strangers because it can be dangerous to one's physical and mental health.
Fear of the "other" takes on many forms. Some of it is instinct - regardless of how accurate it is. If a neighborhood is deemed unsafe, people would avoid it.
Our country issues travel advisories on whether another country is deemed safe for tourism. Does that mean that no one in the country can be trusted? No. But it does mean that it is probable to be robbed, assaulted or murdered as a tourist in that country.
Racism and sexism are belief systems. Both are based on one group of people feeling superior (or afraid) of another group of people.
Religious sects also feel superior to other religious sects or people with no religion.
It all amounts to either competition (or fear) of others.
I've explained it several times, but instead of bringing the rest of America concentrate on Utah the history is amazing and most Americans don't know a damn thing about it or the wars, slavery, and murders that took place there. It's enough to keep an article going for days.
And here's the thing: That requires women to interact on, as you put it, intimate terms with men who have already decided that they hate women.
Maybe, those men could just stop hating first. Women say plenty in non-intimate settings by which they can and do show that, like men, they're a mix of good and bad (mostly good), that they just want to live their lives, take care of themselves and their families, and achieve personal fulfillment in their own way, the same as men. If some men find themselves unable to accept those ideas from women in non-intimate settings, they forfeit the right to expect any woman to want to interact with them one-on-one, in any capacity.
It's not women's job to disabuse misogynist men of their misogyny. Men are responsible for themselves and managing their own feelings, and those who have expressed dislike of women should absolutely not be surprised when women choose to avoid them.
What?! Sports. Politics. Sex. Backgrounds. Celebrities. Religion. Women. Men. Science. What you are looking for (Shopping). Boats. Fishing. Crime. Pollution. Trash. Homeless (problem). Landscaping (proper feeding and care of lawns/yards). Landscapes. Travel. Veterans benefits. Old-age (aging). War. Ukraine. Israel (with proper cautions taken) . . . Shall I continue?
If you can discuss politics, sex and religion with complete strangers on the street without having differences then why can't you do the same thing with the men on this site?
What type of a redirected question is that?! You asked me: "Really? . . . ." And I supplied you with many discussions topics which can take place on the 'spot' and do take place everyday on the planet somewhere. And you blew past it and 'turn it back on me'?!!
In discussions on this site I have had complete discussion with relatively "happy and satisfactory" endings. Of course, I have similar bad and relatively "unhappy and unsatisfactory" discussions too. I have read and seen you do similarly. Are you purposely trying to be rude?
The rest of your comment I can't relate to it. I am an easy-going person in reality. This place causes its own political problems for people who come here with an agenda beyond simply trying to wish the best for everyone—Others included. Don't confuse the 'locations.'
And finally this: Why can't you talk to the men on this site? I do talk and several of the men here are on my friends list. And then there is the well-used "chat" feature on this site that is used by me and members.
I wasn't rude in the least. You made my point perfectly.
On this site, we have moderators who give people points for going beyond acceptable rules of people airing their differences of opinion.
Off of this site, discussions that become uncivil due to differences of opinion can result in bodily harm or death.
You are so far 'out' that I am hard-pressed to ask you to return to the topic. For FEAR we will be checked for going there. A few comments can be explained, but "full-on" changes in the topic venue causes me concern. Also, I have been practicing staying within the scope of a topic more. So sorry.
That’s true about most people here and the history of any of our states.
I'm sorry. You've got the wrong person for this train of thought. The way the statement at 14.1.17
"I am interested in your opinion on how this issue can be dealt with to cure our species of racism"
came across to me is how do we make things better (cure) between people of different races and sexes. I replied.
It was not supposed to be a contest of wills in discussion. That is how I handle these situations, if they can be handled at all. Over my lifetime, I have changed some, many, people ideas about what it means to be black, homosexual, and a friend as both. I am sure of this one thing!
And since we are going there, I used to have a DIFFERENCE of opinion about girls and women who liked the boy (me younger too) and man I liked and we both slept with whether the girl/woman knew it or not. We were at 'odds' over men - yes, it happens. But. I got over that. I talked to the women (by this time) in my life and we got over it. The way we should. We either let the guy go or one of us 'departed' from the scene.
Why do I tell you (all) this? Because it is important to understand that when life is not perfect between people that there are things which can be forgiven and reset and renewed.
To this end, as life would have it I have equally if not more so - more female friends for the last 30 years than male friends. And they are heterosexuals too. I will be honest you-I call it 'karma' or fate because I damn sure did not see 'it" playing out that way.
Finally, to this end, I am confused as to why several females here give me the hardest time for just trying to speak and get better virtual discussions with them!
?????
I do talk to men on this site. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. I don't take it personally because I realize that I am NOT a man so I have never experienced life on any level that is just basic to their existence as a male of our species - their hormones, their emotions driven by their hormones, their societal expectations, etc.
Primarily, I come here to read about the women's life experiences and what is happening in their world and if it is progressing or deteriorating.
I'm lost as to what you want from this discussion. Good night. I am going to bed. Let me inform you of this before I depart: I come to you as an open-book with a sweet and pleasant attitude and it seems to me that I get run down for no reason I can discern. That must cease to be as it can not keep happening. . .on my end.
No, I'm responding directly to something you said.
That was you. Such interactions require the women's participation. Perhaps you should consider that women don't want to interact with men who dislike them. The men who dislike women can get over their dislike on their own time, without imposing their company on anybody else. If they can't manage to do that, they're not worthy of women's time or conversation.
Because you would impose the company of men who dislike us upon us.
This isn't hard to figure out. We're telling you exactly what the problem is here. If you don't understand, it's because you choose not to understand.
I have no idea why what I have written to you has not registered with you.
I talk to men on this site and get voted up by men on this site, and interact through the medium with men on this site. For good discussion and for rough discussions. So, you are out of order with this line of discussion.
Then, It would appear that neither you nor MO-Cowgirl are set up to be ambassadors of goodwill that CB was intending because neither of you will countenance his idea of conversation, and that is ok. I don't think that he intended that people who are not open to the idea of finding a common ground should necessarily talk.
Conflict resolution requires communication. Communication requires speaking and listening. If one is unable or unwilling to do both, then don't try. But if one wishes to explore other viewpoints or convey their own, then one has to be willing to listen to what is said.
I do not think that is what he meant. Could be wrong.
His writing isn’t always clear and he doesn’t like to be questioned on his intent or meaning.
At 4.1.17 I was asked:
At 4.1.20 I replied:
How anybody here can flip this on its head to write back to me what his or her OPINION is about the subject while poo-pooing a chance to turn a racist or sexist person into a better person is beyond me.
But also, we are so far off the topic now that well Kavika will just have to understand, I guess.
It is an opinion in response to a QUESTION. I can't impose anybody on you through the internet. Hell, they can't even see you, "call" you, or find your whereabouts! This is ridiculous. There is no problem here with the exception of what is being manufactured.
If you don't like what I opined, if you don't intend to sit down and help some guy or gal become better through simply talking it out, that is on you and it's not my problem - nor is it a problem that I am crafting for you or any other woman.
I am not accepting that.
Your writings are not always clear either, but I manage to get the gist of the conveyance. Because I am not petty.
Thank you for sharing, Thomas. That is precisely what I was communicating: Resolution, not persistence or defiance in the face of some boy or man trying to become a better person.
All of whatever this is started at 4 above, and for some unexplained reason has taken on a life of its own in comments!
Here's the problem with said ambassadorship, as I see it. It doesn't take into account whether the wronged party has any interest in fixing the situation. And for me, a misogynistic man is his own problem. He has no power to affect my life, unless I let him. It's not MY situation. Asking me to "fix" him is an imposition on me, and one I have no intention of allowing. I am not responsible for his misogyny, and he can fix it without my help, if he chooses. The fact that he has already chosen not to fix it himself bodes poorly for it ever being fixed. Such a misogynistic man could choose to listen to women in any context, not just one-one-one, and chooses otherwise.
I was raised in a very conservative church, and spent years thinking that homosexuality was wrong, a choice, and that LGBTQ people should not expect the same rights as straight people. I overcame that prejudice. I didn't ask or expect LGBTQ people to talk me out of it. I reasoned it out for myself. It was my problem to handle, and I did. I would never suggest that it's CB's job to help homophobic people overcome their homophobia, up to and including conversations in "intimate settings" with those people. That is not something to which he should have to subject himself to justify his right to exist.
As far as conflict resolution - there is no conflict if I choose not to participate, so there is nothing to resolve.
With respect, I think it is possibly the latter. This is not the first time he has hinted that it is up to women to explain to him what the issue is, then taken exception to the explanation.
It is not up to any adult to turn another "into a better person".
I control me, and deal with my emotions. I have no control over any other person. Asking a person to overcome the prejudices of another, at risk to their own emotional well-being, is not a reasonable ask.
There's a lot of judgment there for me not taking on the job of parenting another adult.
You have misrepresented my opinion and my attitude towards women in your remarks to Thomas. That is UNSAT. But it's okay because I can't correct what is right already. I have reread my remarks in entirety. I would change nothing of significance about it.
Then, perhaps you can ask MoCowgirl to rephrase her "ask" at 4.1.17 ASAP. Let her take ownership of her words to me.
You have doubled down on your opinion several times now.
That is putting the burden of managing that person's prejudices on me. I mean, literally, you said it's on me to fix somebody else. Don't tell me I've misrepresented you. You've said it several times now. We can all read.
Mocowgirl can speak for herself just fine. If you don't understand her, it's up to you to ask her to clarify. That, too, is not my responsibilty.
I have no idea of what you are complaining about. It was a simple opinion. Since you don't like it, let it go. But do not lecture me about not taking an opportunity to turn a jerk (racist/sexist) into a better person or a friend. You've got me all wrong. But, it's okay. I will get over it - I have no choice.
Thank you, Sandy. Let's shake on it virtually.
I'm allowed to have a poor opinion of your opinion.
And here again, we have you holding me responsible for another person's behavior, while claiming not to do so.
Where? I must have missed that part while writing it. . . Show me.
This is ridiculous. I am thinking about myself in this process of talking (not you). Let's stop as this going nowhere.
Good grief, man, just stop. You wrote what you wrote. Then wrote it a few more times, and now want to deny having written it.
I am talking about what I would do. As you have made it perfectly clear you would do nothing of the sort. Just stop, yourself.
Those were your words, to me. That makes it about me, not you.
This is what I wrote in its proper context:
And you make it perfectly clear (after all the back and forth) that you want nothing to do with it. So don't do it. I would do it as often as possible.
Do not lecture me about it being a dirty divisive thing to do. It is not so and I won't be sold that by you or anybody else!
What the fuck, CB? After denying your own many-times-repeated words, you invent words for me. That is really dishonest.
I won't be discussing "dishonesty" with you, Sandy. Are "we" done yet?!
You can discuss it or not, but I will be calling it out. We'll be done when you stop denying your own words or inventing words for me.
Whatever, Sandy. Call it out. I know what I wrote and I know what I mean/t. Nothing you have written today has changed my mind.
I did. And I can read. And you said what you said. The fact that nothing I've said changes your mind means you are ok with imposing the company of women-hating men on women. That's nothing to be proud of.
It also illustrates exactly why mocowgirl and I (and other women) decline to attempt to reason misogynistic men out of their misogyny. They've chosen their position. We can explain ourselves to them, as I've done here, and they will likely refuse to accept or understand our explanations, anyway.
It's an exercise in futility that you would foist upon us.
I am proud of what I wrote, Sandy. Nothing you have written today has changed my mind.
Says the guy who also says he won't answer questions from MAGAs. Don't you want to "make them better people?"
You're judging me for not doing what you won't do.
Yes. When MAGAs demonstrate that they want to be better people who do not persist in writing mocking comments about questions (of all things). Yes. BTW, is this a new 'discussion' about to be 'lit'?
I'm not judging you, Sandy. I want MAGAs to be better people too, in fact I want us all to be better people, Sandy.
It's not a new discussion. It's pointing out a double standard, one in which you let yourself off the hook for not doing that which you want me to do.
Okay. Then it is as I stated at: 4.1.78.
Bullshit. Your words multiple times above say the exact opposite.
Who said that any party has been wronged? It could be that people are just walking 'round thinking thoughts in their heads. They know that society teaches all people are created equal, so to relieve the cognitive dissonance they take CB's advice and talk to someone about it. Who do they talk to? I do not believe that it was CB's intention to suggest that people who are in some type of relationship in which one party feels put upon "just talk it out." I think that he was saying to "put oneself out there", to put oneself, as the harborer of the prejudice or whatever, out of one's normal comfort zone and communicate with someone of the "disrespected" group.
Congratulations on escaping orthodoxy. So you did not have any interactions with, even of the briefest kind, with any LGBTQ people? Any people who argued on their behalf? I mean, it is perfectly acceptable, commendable even, to have, purely based on logic, reasoned out that all people are created equal.
I believe that his choice of wording could have been better, and that "Intimate settings" might mean something different than you are assuming, as in it can still be in public (eg. an intimate concert space), just not making declarations to the world at large. Once again, I could be wrong. Language and usage are imprecise. I think you are talking at cross-purposes and he was not suggesting that it is yours or his responsibility to justify anything, especially if you are at odds with the person.
Whatever, Sandy. Then I judged you. I hope you are satisfied one way or another.
Thanks Thomas for sharing.
I was asked for my OPINION on fixing racism and sexism (which now has gone the way of the do-do bird at this point) and I opined. It is a good opining. I live by it as I will talk to anybody who wishes to talk to me. . . being reasonable in doing so.
Of course, as a life-long homosexual, all my life I have had to talk to people. . .about me in one form or another. . .including the haters. Goodness! I do it here on NT.
So it is not an issue for me to get in somebody's face or help him. . .or her. . .get over their dislike—okay hatred of me. So yes, I would talk to a racist or a sexist individual or group (maybe?) in hopes of them changing for the better (certainly not the worse).
You win, Sandy. I am whatever you say I am. Have a nice rest of your day.
Ok, then, judged wrongly. Misogynists judge women as "less than" simply on the basis of their sex. Surely, you can see how that would make women feel like the "wronged" party here? If a sexist man can't figure out from listening to the statements women in general make publicly that there is no excuse for believing we're "less than", then what, realistically, is talking one-on-one to a single women supposed to accomplish? Why is changing his mind HER burden to bear?
Also, I submit that the above conversation more or less proves that the person in search of explanation is not especially likely to accept it when it is offered. I don't think CB is misogynistic, but he has refused to accept the explanations of 2 women who disagree with his suggestion that sexist men should seek out a remedy for their sexism in conversations with women, whom CB absolutely does judge, multiple times, for not wishing to participate.
The people I know who are LGBTQ were not out at the time, so my interactions with them as LGBTQ people were pretty much nonexistent. They were not advocating for themselves, and were actually brought up similarly to how I was, and were in denial of their orientations because of that. I listened to LGBTQ people and their allies' PUBLIC statements, and examined my prejudices. I did not need to put anybody on the spot to arrive at other views, and now only regret that I may have contributed to their emotional discomfort before overcoming my prejudices, before they were out.
I am interpreting the "intimate settings" as pretty much any conversation that is one-on-one or occurring in a small group. I do not believe he referred to sexual intimacy, nor even to very private settings. To me, such settings put the person discriminated against at risk of emotional harm. They are likely to be called on to justify themselves for being, in the case of women, basically members of a group that comprises over half of the population, as the result of pure chance. To me, it puts the person discriminated against in the position of having to justify their existence and immutable traits to somebody who has already prejudged them on the basis of those traits. Many members of marginalized groups have already internalized some of that prejudice, have fought hard to overcome it, and do not need the barrage of arrows to their self-esteems.
It is emotionally risky, and generally unproductive, to attempt to manage the emotions of anybody other than oneself. Unless I attack a man in the name of all women, if he is discriminating against me for being a woman, that is a "him" problem, and not a "me" problem. "Him" problems can't be solved by me. They can only be solved by him. I solved my "me" problem. I pay sexist men the compliment of believing they can do the same, if they so choose.
Since I am mentioned in that comment: That is your opinion and you are entitled to it just as I am entitled to opine on mine. Of course I am not a misogynist, my writing and views toward girls and women have displayed support for girls and women. Full stop. So this whole 'situation brewing here' is unfortunate. But, does serve a good purpose. .. we are talking to or at each other! BTW, that is what we do on NT as I have read that people in "silo" only get echoes coming back at them when they address an issue. We are 'better' on NT (I hope).
Yes, I can and do.
I did not say it was anybody's burden in particular. We know that when people change it is because of a desire to change. If people do not want to change, it is difficult if not impossible to make them change. Just look around the site.
CB may feel comfortable in being more forthright in such situations because he is male and was raised to "bear witness". The witness is not the same as he was raised, but it is still "truth" as he sees it. I am going to end my conjecture here. I just thought that you might be talking at cross purposes like I said before. Having said my piece, peace out.
a song for the three of you
People Make The World - The Box Tops
Definitely.
Men, who still need parenting, should be seeking out professional help to listen to and address their issues with how to properly interact with other people.
You don't. The proposed scenario does. "If you're a sexist man, go talk to women in intimate settings to get over that sexism" puts the burden of spending time in the company of people who don't like them on women. Nobody really wants to spend one-on-one time with people who don't like them. Men who don't like women should just leave them in peace until they've got a better grip on their emotions, then approach them as people they'd like to know better, rather than as people they're trying not to dislike.
I appreciate what you're saying, and what you're trying to do.
Absolutely.
Because I have spent several years researching human behavior, I could link numerous videos that discuss why it is imperative for healthy people to avoid ALL interactions with toxic people if at all possible. It is not possible to save people from themselves. Nor is it our duty to waste our lives attempting to do the impossible. Even professionals in mental health can't really change people.
Just men ?
That is not exactly what I read. In my brain it was "If you're sexist and you know it and want to change, go talk to a woman." While still not optimal, it is better than talking to Joe the Bartender.
Doesn't that sound a little bit more like what I wrote? Of course, you phrased the whole thing much better than I did.
[deleted]
A year or two ago, I saw a counselor for anxiety, which is something I've struggled with on and off most of my life. I didn't really want to take medications for it, as I suspected it was situational, rather than a result of any organic cause.
The most valuable lesson I took from those sessions was "You're only responsible for your own feelings. If you're make reasonable requests kindly, and others are hurt by that, those are their feelings to sort out." I had been taking on responsibility for "fixing it" every time my son got mad about something at school or work. I'd been feeling guilty every time I made a request of an employee to change a behavior, or pointed out a mistake they'd made and asked them to fix it.
So I stopped trying to fix my son's anger issues, and felt better. I made reasonable requests of my employees, as kindly as I could, but decided that it was not reasonable for me to feel guilty about expecting them to do their jobs properly.
And the change in my mood was more or less immediate.
My son got a grip on himself on his own. Maybe it was just that he needed to mature a bit. But whatever it was, he's a much happier person now, and we enjoy spending time together.
When I made those reasonable, kindly worded requests of employees, I found that other employees had been bothered by those same behaviors and mistakes. They'd been waiting for me to take the lead on addressing them, and I'd been too worried about hurting somebody's feelings to do so.
So, yeah, if I'm not going to take responsibility for managing the emotions of those close to me (and I'm not, for my own good), I'm sure as hell not going to try to manage the emotions of somebody not close to me, who dislikes me simply because of how I was born. I'm just going to walk away. Because life's too short, and fuck that guy.
No.
Men should avoid women who hate them.
I believe mocowgirl restricted her comments to me due to the context here - we were pretty much focused on sexist men.
It might not be better than talking to Joe the Bartender. Joe might be a feminist man and have some insights that would help, and wouldn't be as likely a target for sexist comments from a sexist man.
Perhaps. The approach I advocate doesn't require the participation of women in overcoming a man's sexism at all. It requires the man to overcome it before expecting women to give them the time of day.
I've learned the same lessons on the videos and articles that I have immersed myself in over the past 3 years.
I am drawn to learning and using that education to "problem solve". I am a magnet for needy people because I had trauma wounds I had never addressed so I could heal them.
I am learning to just say "No, I will not listen because I don't have the ability to do or to be what you need to make your life better." It was difficult at first but I have finally done the work to heal myself enough to establish normal boundaries that come naturally to healthy people.
I sincerely wish people all the best, but I am no longer setting myself on fire to make them warm.
Well said.
Thank you.
I think I picked up that phrase from watching Little Shaman videos on youtube. I have found her insight invaluable when it comes to dealing with and avoiding toxic personalities.
Maybe it was from Bruce Springsteen:
Sandy
That waitress I was seein' lost her desire for me
I spoke with her last night
She said she won't set herself on fire for me anymore
Great song, sang with so much emotion!
too.
.
I explained a long time ago what I meant by, intimate setting, (no close contact involved) and still it persist to be taken in some derogatory manner. It is what it is.
I think I see where the problem that blew up occurred (albeit should not have occurred).
This is what I wrote at 4.1.20 in response to an "ask" for my opinion:
In those instances that I used the word, "you" (in red) it was meant in a collective sense and it is may, might, possibly, is being interpreted by Sandy and Mocowgirl that I am imposing on a generic female to go make 'right' specifically with a sexist male. That was never the case.
If they would read closer, though I could have used the word, "one," the context: "If one has a dislike of women socialize with them in intimate settings whenever you can and just talk." - clearly puts the burden of dislike or hatred on the One doing the hating to initiative making better through constructive engagement (and just talk). The assumption being women will (care/be open) to listening.
Well, I feel strongly that I have written all I can to clear this up. Thanks!
No, it isn't. Unless you consider this to be derogatory:
That assumption is a problem, as is the judgement you heaped upon the female participants here who objected to the assumption.
I have faced up to what may have caused a confusion that has been "exploded" beyond all reasonable proportions. I am willing to let it die now. . . if you will. We all have had our 'say.' Can we give 'over' to the original topic now? I have nothing else to 'give' to this.
If you want to put an end to this, stop saying things like this:
when they're not true, and my words in black and white prove it. I told you I will call shit like that out when it happens.
I will go you one better. No miscommuncation or misunderstanding can occur if nothing is rendered. I will not address any comment in your or mocowgirl's direction about girls or women again.
You go right ahead.
Throughout this discussion, you've been the one calling for a cease-fire, while continuing to fire shots, yourself. Shots, moreover, that misrepresent my position and yours in a manner calculated to make yourself look like a victim.
If you want a cease-fire, well, I will, if you will. But if you keep waving both a white flag and a gun, it's not happening.
Ditto.
So how do they know if they have "overcome it"? I mean, are we like dogs so it takes on average twice as long to break us of our bad habits as it took to learn them? What if we tell a lewd joke? Does that automatically place us back at the starting line? I would imagine that the boundaries are in a large part dependent on the individual. No?
Something I am troubled by is the use of the phrase, "does not like" and the term "emotion" when used to describe sexism. The definitions of sexism that I have read tend to use the words "prejudice" and "gender", which are not emotions. Prejudice is a mindset, a way of viewing and ordering the world, not an emotion, and also not necessarily a feeling of like or dislike. Certainly, there is room for emotions and feelings of like and dislike combined with prejudice, but I don't think that it is a prerequisite that, because of a prejudice towards women, the male needs to be hostile towards women. Indeed, many men who are sexist like women and talk to women.
Say you meet this fellow at a BBQ. You chit-chat about the weather and sports and who makes the best potato salad. After a while an admittedly striking individual walks by and he blurts out, " Would you look at that! " Does this automatically shut him off from conversation forever? How, if at all, is he supposed to remediate himself enough to regain the ability to converse with you? Is an apology right then when he commits the faux pas enough? How would you know that he has sufficiently amended his ways? Who talks to him as a proxy for all women if no women are supposed to talk to him? The ones who didn't get the liberation memo?
This example, of course, is carried to an extreme. You, of course, bear no responsibility for anyone's emotions save your own, and need to fix nothing in someone else because you can't. I understand this better than you can know. Call me a bleeding heart. Call me a doormat. I will still keep trying to help people even if I haven't figured it out yet either.
I would say that, as soon as they can honestly say that judgments they would apply to women are judgments they would equally apply to men, they're probably good. No double standards about dress, flirtatious behavior, assertiveness. No assuming a woman is less intelligent or informed than men, on the basis of her sex. No assuming that she got her job due to affirmative action, or that she went to college to get her "Mrs" degree.
At that BBQ? No assuming that it's her job to look after the kids, or do the cleanup while the men relax.
And to my mind, prejudice that devalues a person is hostility. It may not be overt, but it is still hostile. It may not be expressed as dislike, but it might come out as assuming that the women working in an office, even those with the same rank and pay as the men, will take care of the catering order for a meeting, or the decorating, or seeing to it that birthdays are celebrated and gifts bought. It's harmful to women, because it imposes more work on women for the same amount of pay and, for lack of a better term "social credit". Sure, men who expect that may like women. But I bet they don't like women who won't take on the men's share of domestic chores and emotional labor quite as much as they like the ones who do. Their like is often conditional on the woman taking a subservient role.
Lewd jokes? They don't really bother me. But I'd say it would be better to avoid them until a man knows that the woman he's talking to doesn't mind.
No woman can be a proxy for all women. And I never said women aren't supposed to talk to him. They aren't supposed to be expected by others to talk to him. If they want to, great. If they don't want to, that's also fine.
It's great you want to help people.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Some of them, of course, were offered up tongue in cheek.
As for the helping thing, it is my contention that we help and are helped by many people almost every day. This help may be small, or large, or somewhere in between. It may be unintended or it may be completely intentional, but help occurs. Therefore, the concept of the self-made person is a myth perpetrated by those who do not want to share.
Thank you for the conversation.
I guess I should make myself a bit more clear on a point. I have no problem helping people, in general. I'm in health care. I participate in community service organizations.
But I'm not a counselor, and not qualified to help somebody change their way of thinking.
And from experience, I've found that, like mocowgirl, I tend to attract emotionally needy people. Sometimes, that emotional neediness verges into the territory of emotional abuse - somehow, it ends up being always my fault if they're not happy, in their minds, even if what's making them unhappy has nothing to do with me. I would end up being yelled at because a restaurant dinner was lousy ("Well, you picked the restaurant!"), or whatever. That makes me very wary of people who expect that others are available to remedy their own mental issues. It's emotionally exhausting to be put in that position, and nobody should be expected to do so for a stranger with preconceived bad opinion of her based on her sex.
And thank you for a civil conversation.
I hope that you didn't think I was criticizing you personally at any point. That was not my intention. My last comment was more exposition of personal philosophy than pointed at any one person and certainly wasn't intended to be self-aggrandizing.
My experience has been along those lines also.
I agree.
I didn't. We're good.
In Utah, Mormons are the majority, and have been known to marginalize other groups, especially those of African descent.
Yes, sketchily I have heard and read about Mormon prejudice against Black Americans. As Black Americans we have swallowed a lot of 'lumps' in our time in this country we love so much as home. We accept that change is impossibly slow and creeps along with its setbacks from "the usual suspects" - shall I state. But what else can we do? We persist in calling it out, debating it, and struggling with the people with poor character (racism, bullying, and hatred towards others) in hope that some (or all) will eventually or in swaths will come to think differently about another DIFFERENT human being and fellow citizen.
Thank you for sharing that information, Sandy. It is how we all learn and at times "keep up" or "catch up" with what is going on out there around the country and world.
One more thing: I am so 'frustrated' with the Church world and the foolishness that languishes in so-called, "holy places" that I am re-assessing a great many things about the Church and its frame-work. Frankly I am looking askance at the whole 'picture' that is supposed to be the brand: "Children of God." Plenty of what is going on in this church world of spiritually-minded people around and across the world DEFIES the truth of what is taught and modeled and that can, at least for me, be tolerated or accepted.
Utah is one of the most racist states in the union, sandy.
Having the misfortune to make many visits there and knowing their history with blacks and Indians which is much worse than with blacks.
Wow. I have never been to Utah. This is informative. I thank you, Sandy, and yes Drinker of the Rye for sharing what you have on the problems of racism, hatred, and bullying.
It’s spelled Wry.
In the Book of Mormon Indians are referred to as ''Laminites'' I sure you know that entails and here is a good bit of information on it. BTW until a couple of years there were still selling dolls of Indians referred to as the ''Laminites''...
Sorry, I went from memory (as I am fond of just calling you, "Drinker") no harm meant.
No harm taken.
That is an interesting read. . . . Thank you for sharing it.
In addition to racism, from the little I know about the religion it seems there's a lot of generally strange beliefs.
I believe the religion started in-- of all places-- upstate NY. IIRC their found found a pair of magic glasses.....
I think they use the Bible (or parts of it?) but have some very unusual interpretations of what much of it means.
What do you know of the Mountain Meadows massacre?
Nothing!
(I hadn't ever even heard of it).
Angered by the emigrants’ abuse and fired by a zealous passion against the growing tide of invading gentiles, a group of LDS guerillas from around Cedar City decided to take revenge. Cooperating with a group of Paiutes who had already attacked the train on their own initiative, the guerillas initially pretended to be protectors. The guerillas persuaded the emigrants that they had convinced the Paitues to let them go if they would surrender their arms and allow the Latter-day Saints to escort the wagon train through the territory. But as the train again moved forward under the LDS escort, a guerilla leader gave a pre-arranged signal. The Latter-day Saints opened fire on the unarmed male emigrants, while the Paiutes reportedly murdered the women.
120 emigrants murdered at the Mountain Meadows Massacre | September 11, 1857 | HISTORY
Just for the record.
I happy that you brought up the Meadows Massacre, and of course you did bold this portion: the Paiutes reportedly murdered the women.
It's obvious why you did it since you're so transparent, but that aside I am very familiar with the incident and in my travels to the Ute and Paiute reservations in Utah visited the site which is near Cedar City. Most all written records from that massacre were destroyed and then Mormon historians became involved and the real story started to be put together. Here is a quote from the NPR record.
That time period in Utah was very warlike and it involved the Morons, US military and Native Americans.
What has never made any sense is that in that time period the Mormons were off killing and enslaving the Paiutes, this is of course is all documented.
So thanks for bringing up this part of Utah history as transparent as it was on your part.
They use the ''Book of Mormon''.
I know-- but I had thought they also use the Bible as well (i,e, parts of it only-- and they have their own unique interpretations of what it means)
They use both the old and new versions of the bible but with their own interpretation
My neighbor in CA was a Mormon convert. I attended church with her a few times (mid-1970s). I seem to remember my neighbor saying they used the Bible as their primary book and the Book of Mormon secondary. In practice, it was probably the Book of Mormon primarily, The Pearl of Great Price secondly and the Bible in the pews to justify their sect as the one and only true Christian denomination that was bound for eternal glory.
Not quite as transparent as you are.
Congrats as being the chosen seeder of the new majority.
Great retore, very impressive.
Thanks so much, I try to bring a variety of articles, everything from fashion, finance, world news, local news, history, and art the whole scale. Some are stuck on posting nothing but politics and whines about politicians, that's much like being stuck on stupid. A discussion site is more than politics. I'm sure you agree with that.
Oh, I was planning on doing a movie review of the new movie out, ''Murders of the Flower Moon''...A true story of what some scum did in the 1920s to kill off Osage Indians for their oil wealth with great acting and directing. You may want to the movie as it would be a great history lesson for you.
bummer...
If you can, you may want to check out some of the new Marvel show Echo on Disney Plus. It has a lot of Choctaw background and lore in it. People from the Oklahoma Chactaw Nation were consultants on the show.
a hilarious musical...
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. I just googled him -- apparently he's quite a "moderate":
Generally considered a moderate or centrist Republican , [3] [4] in 2020, Romney was the lone Republican to vote to convict Donald Trump in his first impeachment trial , making him the first senator ever to have voted to remove a president of the same party from office. [5]
Romney also voted to convict in Trump's second trial in 2021.
He marched alongside Black Lives Matter protestors, voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court , supported gun control measures, and did not vote for Trump in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.
And you say he is a "moderate."
My remark must be taken in 'context'
But only after you start to notice the quotes around the word moderate.
He got my vote in 2012. Pew polling shows a small majority of Dems and Repubs put less importance on compromise than getting their way. 36% of Trump supporters feel that way but 72% of Haley’s do.
I was a volunteer for him in 2012 and I hated his guts.
I got trapped in a traffic jam on the interstate thru denver beside his campaign bus which was headed from the airport to DU for a 2012 presidential debate. I opened the sunroof, stuck my middle finger up, and got on the horn. by the time traffic started moving again, I wasn't the only one...
You weren’t as smart as the locals:
A bright spot is something that failed to emerge as a result of the debate — Carmageddon . Denverites seemed to take seriously the warnings about traffic jams and stayed away from Interstate 25. Their precautions paid off with far fewer problems than could have resulted from the closing of a major artery during rush hour.
wrong interstate. as a local, I do know where the bottlenecks occur and at what times during the day. mitt's bus driver took the wrong route from the airport to the university. maybe his parents were also cousins.
Incredible.
... so much for the white horse prophecy.
So speaks the partisan.
the end of the deseret aristocracy for a generation.
time to order up another prophet from the utah/arizona border...
... 5 wife, 15 child minimum...
Racism is a sickness. Bullying others is a sickness. Call both what they are!
[deleted]
Racism is oppression. Bullying is oppression. Call both what they are!
[deleted]