It’s a statement I’ve heard a million times: “I’m not racist/homophobic/sexist, but…”. Usually, that “but” is followed by some sort of racist/homophobic/sexist/otherwise ignorant comment: “I’m not homophobic, but I don’t think gays should marry”; “I’m not racist, but I’m against affirmative action”; “I’m not sexist, but I don’t think women should have the right to choose”. Well, I’m not trying to be a bitch, but each of these statements reveals the simple fact that you are, in fact, about to exhibit prejudice.
You see, back in the era our grandparents and some of our parents grew up in, being overtly racist/homophobic/sexist was acceptable. Now, when my friends and I talk about the overt prejudice displayed by our grandparents, we chalk up their offensive beliefs to them being a “product of their generations” and thank God (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) that times have changed. But how much have we as a society really moved on from the prejudices of past generations?
Social psychology would argue that prejudice hasn’t gone away by any means. Rather, it has become more frowned upon by society as a whole, and therefore more subversive, which brings me back to the phrase, “I’m not (insert term here), but…”. These statements are really nothing more than symbolic prejudice. Rather than going away, discriminative concepts have simply changed- old prejudice has been replaced by modern prejudice. In symbolic discrimination, instead of overtly stating contempt for a group of people, references like gay marriage, affirmative action, or abortion rights are used as symbols for a specific group of people. Symbolic prejudice makes labeling discriminative thinking more difficult to label and call out, and therefore makes it more difficult to change.
So what are we to do? Do we march around, calling people out at every turn for their possibly prejudiced comments? That’s probably not the best way to go about influencing change in people. However, if ever you find yourself in conversation with someone who begins their statement with “I’m not…but…”, maybe it would be a good idea to have them think about what they’re about to say. Challenging beliefs by making people self-reflect can be a much more effective method of change than flying off the handle and making them regret ever entering a conversation with you (although, of course, handle-flying is sometimes permissible). Generally speaking, if you have to preface your statement with an “I’m not…but…” as justification for the comment you’re about to make, chances are you’re about to make a prejudicial comment.
ShoutOut! James Madison University 
We talked about this for a little bit today, but I find the “I’m not a_____But_____” just as annoying as the “Why are you minorities complaining? We gave you the basic legal right to do something White Men could do since the inception of this nation about 200-300 years after they could do it.” OR “We ended slavery!” OR “We let you go to university!” OR “We let you vote!” Like gee, thanks. I’m glad America ended that mass epidemic of slavery that was just this random problem that no one knew how to solve and wasn’t, you know, instituted by the government or nation itself.
You know, I’m so glad white people are still the arbiters of discussions on race in America. Without them saying no, I might think they were racists! phew. Glad that all got cleared up.
So here goes: I’m not racist but I sure think you darn minorities sure are a whiny bunch and don’t you know its worse for you in that one really poor war-torn country that is in conversational vogue right now when making such comparisons? –It is like the running script of Fox News!
LikeLike
Understanding that you did said “generally speaking”, and did not really make any generalizations yourself, your argument is slightly flawed.
Personally, I’m against affirmative action. This is not because I’m racist (I’m not white, and I understand that you don’t have to be white to be racist). This is because I don’t believe anybody should get a job or be denied a job based on their race. If a white person and I are completely on par with each other with our qualifications (and how often does that happen? We would have had to have the same exact education and experience), I don’t want to get the job just because I’m a minority. I want to get the job because I’m more qualified, or more suited for the job, or because I made a good impression on the employer. I don’t want a handout because I’m brown.
And I know plenty of people who aren’t homophobic, but still don’t believe gays should marry. Some of my best friends have really good friends who are gay, but because of their personal or religious beliefs, they still don’t agree with the idea of gay marriage. A sort of “if that’s how you choose to live your life, and what you believe, then fine, I’m ok with that, but I don’t agree” mindset. And they don’t treat their gay friends any differently than they would their straight friends.
Same goes for your “I’m not sexist, but I don’t think women should have the right to choose” argument. I, quite personally, am tired of people shedding a negative light on opinions that they don’t share with others. That’s why we have the terms “Pro-life” and “Pro-choice” as opposed to “Anti-life” or “Anti-choice”.
Just because a person does or does not hold a certain opinion, does not make them prejudiced. It just means they stand for something.
LikeLike
While I can see flaws in the examples provided, I personally don’t think that is a flaw in BlondeRedhead’s general arguement, which I think is solid regardless of her chosen examples. I can see your points about affirmitive action and the semantics of pro-life vs. pro-choice (But I think when male politicians enact and support pro-life agendas, it is VERY much steeped in sexism. They use sexist arguements to support their cause all the time.) But I do have to disagree about homophobia and anti-gay marriage. My argument may sound a little abrasive because tone does not carry well over the internet, but it is not intended to be demeaning or condescending. I really appreciate your comment, because it allows me to clarify what, I think, is homophobic in one being anti-gay marriage.
If I had a mindset of– “A sort of “if that’s how you choose to live your life, and what you believe, then fine, I’m ok with that, but I don’t agree” mindset.” about my heterosexual cisgender friends, well, I’d sound pretty silly wouldn’t I? Because they didn’t choose to be straight right? I know a lot of people who have said the same to me, and its the assumption that heterosexuallity is normative and anyone else is a sexual deviant. Its pretty much like how white and male has become the normative privileged neutral stance in our society: so is expressing heterosexuality. So denying civil rights to a group because one personally believes they do not deserve them? That is discrimination. Simple. I don’t care how nice they are to their gay friends. This is secular marriage, not under the church, and it provides legal rights, protections and privileges. The supossed “morality” involved with marriages (when half end in divorce, and some people marry for those legal entitlements/financial reasons and not love or a desire to procreate) is moot when its a secular issue. Almost as dangerous as heteronormative thinking is the conflation of marriage before the state and marriage before the church. The sate has no business as to the gender of consenting adults who are basically signing a contract.
LikeLike
Alright, so my “choose to live your life” example may have been a wrong choice of words, but you understand what I mean. What I meant was, “You live your life, I live mine, and we don’t believe the same things, but I won’t treat you any differently than I treat anyone else.” My argument was only that these people are not anti-gay, or prejudiced. Considering that prejudice is primarily defined as a feeling or opinion that is formed before thought or reason, and even secondarily, as any unreasonable feelings of a hostile nature, I can assure you that these people fall under neither category. I understand that my saying that cannot speak for ALL people who don’t support gay marriage (and I’m sure there are plenty that do fall under those categories of prejudiced), I am merely speaking for those I have encountered. The people I have encountered have formed this opinion with much thought and reason (and everyone’s is different).
My argument was only that people who don’t support gay marriage aren’t ALWAYS homophobic.
And I fully agree with your argument that marriage before the state and marriage before the church are two separate things, and should be treated as such. But “denying civil rights to a group because one personally believes they do not deserve them” as a definition of discrimination is slightly flawed. That would mean I discriminate when I say death row inmates shouldn’t be allowed to walk about freely, or own firearms. (Not that I am comparing homosexuals to criminals, mind you.)
LikeLike
But thinking of someone as “other” and not deserving of the same legal rights on the basis of which pairing of genders are entitled to those rights: (Male + Female = OK! Male + Male = NO Female + Female = NO) is discrimination. Because heterosexual people who think this are not personally losing any rights and are denying them to non-heterosexuals. That really is the text book definition of discrimination and oppression.
Recently, I heard a co-worker say (and this is true!) that she didn’t believe in interacial marriage or the mixing of races, and while she didn’t hate people who are in interacial relationships (her daughter is), she did believe it should not be legal. Sounds almost like the exact same argument. And I would be very hesitant to say this wasn’t racist. Because it is racist. Because, I don’t think anyone would actually believe she embraces people in interacial relationships if she thinks they shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. You can almost summarize her argument as “I’m not racist but I don’t think whites and blacks should marry.” And that IS racist right? And we wouldn’t just be like “She tolerates it, so I’d hate to call her racist.” And once upon a time interacial marriage was illegal in this country (and wasn’t overturned by the Supreme Court nationally until 1967 in Loving V. Virginia) and those were the exact same arguments used against it.
Which is kind of a crazy time warp mirror for the argument here. This IS a civil rights issue because certain couples, based on pairings of gender, are denied the same legal privileges that others can receive which include: reporting on taxes, hospital visitation, dealings with co-owning property, inheritence, health benefits, etc. This is NOT just wanting a piece of paper to make gays feel just as great and equal as straights. It is very much about having the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples have now. And to say that they cannot have them is anti-gay and just plain ignoring one’s heterosexual privilege. That cannot be spun to look positive. It is discrimination.
via Wikipedia: Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership (whether voluntary or involuntary) in a certain group or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards members of another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.
Sounds like ex-felons falls into that too.
LikeLike
Haha, you are turning my argument into all sorts of things that it’s not.
My ONLY argument here, really, is that people who don’t support affirmative action, gay marriage, or abortion are not ALWAYS racist, homophobic, or sexist. I think we can all agree that generalizations are mostly wrong?
My point is not to generalize or label people (especially negatively) based on what they do or do not support.
Let me get it off my chest that I do support secular gay marriage. But also that before coming to that conclusion, I come from a very strongly Christian background. Coming from that standpoint, it’s not easy to identify with either side. If I identify strongly with one, I’m frowned upon or even despised by any number of members of the other. I’ve met a lot of gay people who hate organized religion. I’ve met a lot of Christians who hate gay people. Hate on both sides exists, but isn’t always the norm. That, if anything, is my point. I know that Christians hate the bad rep they’ve gotten from the radicalists who picket and protest and spread hate. But that’s not all of us. It’s sad that the odd ones out are often the ones that stick out in people’s minds when thinking of a certain group.
And we all discriminate, in one way or another. It means we stand for something. It means there are things that we just don’t think are okay. If nobody discriminated against anything, there would be no order, which is the point I was trying to make with the death row inmate example. Discriminating (a better word would be distinguishing) between what we feel is right and what we feel is wrong is how we form opinions.
LikeLike
My argument was that it is essentially homophobic when one is anti-gay marriage but pro-straight marriage which was positioned against your agrument that is not. I am defending BlondeRedhead’s use of this example because the ONLY conclusive argument I can find that isn’t homophobic is if one wants to negate legal benefits via marriage to all, gay or straight. That is it.
But all I’m arguing against is your generalization that people can be not homophobic and oppose marriage. I say the two go hand-in-hand because it IS denying someone rights for essentially not liking what they do in their bedroom.
And discrimination is how we form opinions and maintain social order but you are against the use of generalizations? The defense of “It is just my opinion!” doesn’t work here, and that is a very flawed leap of logic when trying to argue against someone using such generalizations.
LikeLike