Which is worse, outright discrimination or underhanded slights? Why?

Question

This is a question directed at either gender. Which is worse, being discriminated against in an outright and obvious way, or the underhanded slights which occur (possibly without the other person's conscious consent)?

Answer 1

Personally, I would say underhand slights simply because its always better if someone is upfront with you even if they are chauvanistic and ignorant. I would rather an honest enemy than a fake friend.

Answer 2

Underhanded slights, because they can rarely be proven in a court of law, where outright discrimination is easy to prove. ;-)

Answer 3

The outright discriminations such as locking people out of schools is of course the first order of business for a bigot.  Underhanded slights such as making Black or Hispanic first-graders remain silent in the back of the room with their heads down all morning everyday or sitting Jehovah's Witness children with their desks in a hallway during public school Christmas activities is of course the second order of business for a bigot.

In fighting bigotry, the initial legal protections for our rights that others fought for the "all of us" is our way as a society of helping each other.  That's how we rise in social consciousness. Fighting as a society for something like Title IX clears away the bigot's first order of business.  But, we then have to fight as individuals in moments of discriminatory underhanded slights.  That individual fight emotionally feels far more horrible than any abstracted outrage we might feel learning that women weren't allowed to vote until society fought for that right for women.  I associate the "social" fight for women's rights with First Wave feminism and the individual response to discrimination with Second Wave feminism.

As for the issue of acculturations that brainwash us and make us have subjective expectations such as "gender roles", and the so-called right of tribes of people to "protect" their precious neolithic cultural "ways" of locking women out of legal protections for their inalienable rights, I must say simply that maintaining ignorance and locking people out of rationality is both the first and second order of business for a bigot in this matter.  Oppressed people in pockets of the world, within weirdo religions / cults everywhere and within "traditionalist" troglodyte families need the help of SOCIETY to secure their fundamental legal protections, no matter where they are or how "precious" the local shaman's misogynistic holy book is.  

After first order business "transactions" have been completed, then it's up to individuals to make their own choices and fight for their rights using all the legal resources then at their disposal.  But, unless people have access to rational education, which is one of the goals of the World Bank's Millenium Group Goals, they cannot be rational enough to be self-determining.  In other words, society is now telling bigots that the NEW first order of business in a democracy is universal access to a rational education that affords people the ability to think for themselves rather than just blindly follow acculturated beliefs like mindless sheep all their lives and have no real "choice" whatsoever and essentially are children who lack the human critical-thinking skills required for self-determination.  Until people are educated well enough to be self-determining, society needs to stand by their side and fight for their rights.

Answer 4

Underhanded slights. "The truth is brutal, but the imagination's even worse."

Answer 5

The latter is worse, because you can't fight against them as effectively as you can obvious discrimination. Which is why 99% of discrimination (sexism as well as racism) is cloaked in this form today.

Answer 6

The underhanded slights of course.   We just saw a political campaign full of them.

Answer 7

I would think the underhanded way is worse, simply because it's a manipulation in terms to make it is seem politically correct when it's anything but.

Answer 8

Underhanded slights are far worse. When someone is blatantly discriminatory people will always recognize it and stand against it. Underhanded slights are harder to spot and harder to counteract.

Answer 9

Underhanded slights. I feel like if your going to do something be man or woman enough to own it.

Answer 10

You know what you are dealing with when it comes to outright discrimination.

People who usually practice underhanded behavior are usually pretty devious and always have alterior motives for their behaviors.

Answer 11

Before taking offense or getting upset by another's words, actions or deeds, I always consider their intent.  So, therefore, I find intentional acts of discrimination more offensive.  Often, what we might perceive as underhanded slights are merely poorly worded comments or an unintentional slight...

Answer 12

They are both just as bad.I try not to pay attention to them.