Have You Heard? Put-Downs in the Hall Identify the ism(s) associated with each of the following put-downs. “That’s so gay!” “You’re so ghetto.” “You don’t own anything from Abercrombie and Fitch?!” “Your mama…” “Buddha belly!” “Don’t be so stupid!” “That’s retarded.” “Don’t be such a b**ch.” “I can’t believe you listen to that music.” “Your name’s weird.” “I can’t believe she would wear that in public.” “Sissy” “You gypped me.” “Trailer trash!” “You throw like a girl.” “Kids these days don’t know the value of hard work!” “Did you forget to take your meds?” “Jewish people are so stingy.” “Aren’t all-girls schools for lesbians?” “That’s so lame.” “I can’t believe you didn’t know that!” “Your food stinks!” “Crybaby!” “You’re on crack!”

Put-Downs and Isms, developed by Rosetta Lee and Ava Erickson, Seattle Girls’ School

The Isms The following questions use racism as an example -ism. However, one could change racism to any other –ism, and the answer to the questions would basically be the same. What is the difference between prejudice and racism? Ism = Prejudice + Power Racism is more than prejudice or discrimination based on race. It is the prejudice and discrimination practiced by individuals and institutions of the dominant race towards the oppressed races. What is the difference between individual racism and institutional racism? Individual racism is a matter of the prejudices held and discrimination practiced by individual people, such as making jokes or stereotypes at the expense of Blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc. Structural or institutional racism is a passive form of racism that occurs when institutions or common practices are structured in such a way as to effectively exclude or marginalize people of color, which can be due, in part, to widespread individual racism within the organization or the society, but does not need to be. For example, the systematic profiling of members of certain races by security and law enforcement workers, the use of stereotyped caricatures of certain racial groups by institutions (like "Indian" mascots in sports), the under- and misrepresentation of members of certain racial groups in the media, and barriers to employment or professional advancement based on race are all examples of institutional racism.

Put-Downs and Isms, developed by Rosetta Lee and Ava Erickson, Seattle Girls’ School

The Isms Racism: Discrimination or prejudice based on race, and the power to enforce it. Classism: Discrimination or prejudice based on actual or perceived socioeconomic class, and the power to enforce it. Sexism: Discrimination or prejudice based on gender, and the power to enforce it. Heterosexism: Discrimination or prejudice based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, and the power to enforce it. Ableism: Discrimination or prejudice based on ability, and the power to enforce it. Ageism: Discrimination or prejudice based on age, and the power to enforce it. Ethnocentrism: Discrimination or prejudice based on ethnicity, and the power to enforce it. Christiancentrism: Discrimination or prejudice based on religion, and the power to enforce it Lookism: Discrimination or prejudice based on appearance, and the power to enforce it. Heavily influenced by other isms like racism, sexism, classism, and more. Intellectualism: Discrimination or prejudice based on education or experience, and the power to enforce it. Heavily influenced by other isms like classism, ableism, and more. Unfortunately, this is “the short list.” Discrimination and prejudice happens along so many lines in our society because we have so many groups and identities. The trouble is that we also have a tendency to turn “norm” into “normal” into “good” and mistreat people who fall outside of those lines while rewarding people who fit that norm. When that inequality becomes common practice or even institutionalized, so that people have advantages or disadvantages in that system based on their identity, you now have an ism.

Put-Downs and Isms, developed by Rosetta Lee and Ava Erickson, Seattle Girls’ School

Let’s use family structure to trace the norm-normal-good path: Norm:

Normal:

Good:

In the 1970 US Census, married couples with their own children made up 40.3% of all households and was the largest group of various household definitions (non-family households like single men and single women, other family households like married couples without their own children, single parents, etc.). This number makes the “nuclear family” a norm (something that happens on average, frequently, and/or in a pattern). When you ask a young person to describe his/her family, you would very frequently get a description of married mom, dad, and perhaps siblings. “It is normal to have a family made up of a mom, a dad, and children. Most families are this way. It’s the way it’s been. Watch TV, look at the politicians, or community leaders. Most of them are all married and have kids. It’s expected that everyone will grow up, marry, and have kids.” “How awful it is to be raised by a single parent. Kids really do need male and female role models.” “Adopted or foster? I don’t know – can a bond be as strong as blood?” “I pity those children of broken homes.” “She doesn’t want to marry and have kids? What’s wrong with her?” “How can gay parents teach strong family values?”

Institutionalized Bias: • The US Census bureau categorizes “family households” as married couples with own children, married couples without own children, and other family households. The government issues tax breaks for married people and children. A gay couple or single parent would be “other” in the government’s view of family. A single person supporting a niece would not be recognized. • Alumni magazines and postings most frequently have “weddings” and “births” as part of their celebratory announcement segments and updates. Newspapers have posted wedding announcements for decades. An unmarried couple living together in a committed relationship would not be recognized or celebrated in this system. • It is common social practice to have wedding showers, engagement parties, wedding receptions, and baby showers. Common social practice is to give gifts on many or all of these occasions. There is no occasion that is specific to the single person, the unmarried couple, or the couple who does not have kids unless they choose to create one. There is nothing wrong with privileges associated with these examples, but it is wrong that not everyone has access to them. One might say it serves most people, but in 2000, married couples with their own children constituted 24.1% of all households. In a world where 1 in 4 households is a “nuclear biological family,” it is an interesting exercise to count the number of households portrayed in movies and TV. Here, nuclear families are seemingly everywhere, adoptive kids are a point of drama, single people are dysfunctional lost souls looking for “the right one,” single parents mean well but can’t quite cut it as a real parent, and gay people appear as childless window dressing. Are they showing us the norm, the normal, or what they believe is good? Put-Downs and Isms, developed by Rosetta Lee and Ava Erickson, Seattle Girls’ School