Hello! This a forum dedicated to discussion about The Panda Project's interview with L2 Eliana Rabinowitz on microaggressions. The article can be found HERE.

A couple of ideas for discussion: Please don't be critical of a person, but rather be critical of an idea. On that note, the discussion should be civil and reasonable. We understand that issues we confront are incendiary, but The Panda Project wants to promote healthy discussion, not one that devolves into ad hoc attacks and arguments based on pure emotion and no reasonable logic. Please don't invalidate others' experiences, and please share your ideas.

One question for consideration: What microaggressions, if any, have you encountered at Magic events, and how can we as judges do a good job of keeping them to a minimum for both players and staff?

We look forward to seeing what ideas you come up with!

Edited Jeremie Granat (March 31, 2017 07:01:45 AM)

Great article, I really enjoyed reading what you had to say and you're right. It is such a hard balance to hit between standing up for yourself and not wanting to be that girl who can't hang with the boys.

My FLGS is owned by a woman so I think I have been luckier than most in this department because she has an absolute zero tolerance for this sort of thing. However in other stores it has ranged from being able to hear the heavy breathing when you walk into the door to someone asking me to my face “Can I get a real judge?” On a basic targeting question. Things are getting better though, less people stare when I walk into a new game store these days but for a while it really felt like you were encroaching on the man cave when you walked in.

I've realized I've had to grow thick skin in order to stick it out, maybe too thick because there are definitely times I wish I would have stuck up for myself but instead took the passive approach. I think recruiting the game store owners to help out here, like taking suggestive posters down, is a good place to start. But having male judges on our side and also lending their voice is something we also need.

Megan, thanks for sharing your experience! You bring up a really good point, that often times microaggressions can occur at the LGS level, and can be even more painful when you're the only judge on the floor.

Some food for thought for everyone: Microaggressions happen to people of all identities. Why is it that the microaggressions towards women often are the most public?

Thanks a lot to Eliana and the Pandas for bringing this topic on the foreground with great explanations.

One aspect caught my attention though. The article focuses on personal interactions at a LGS or during Magic events, but says nothing about online interactions. Would they be off-topic? Many local communities have a forum or a Facebook group where they discuss about Magic or the next events in the vicinity; many players have their own Facebook page where they express their opinions. I can't help wondering whether a woman would really feel safe when she plays with players or even judges who behave nicely with her in person, but who are known online for using sexist microaggressions or even for being openly misogynistic.

Hi Loic,

Online interaction is not off-topic or out of scope. It might just not be the focus of the person being interviewed. The idea of the Panda project is to raise awareness on topics that are important to the interviewed individuals.

Someone else might find online interaction to be very important and we will then talk about it in that interview :)

Greets
jeremie

“If you notice anyone (player or judge) saying something that might make others feel uncomfortable, definitely say something to them,”

I can definitely see where this advice is coming from and absolutely agree with the idea behind it: everyone should feel welcome and judges should do their best to create such a welcoming environment. Having said this I don't agree with the advice given. The problem with it is that the set of actions which might make someone uncomfortable is just too large. If I were to go up to everyone who said something which might make someone feel uncomfortable I would be mostly chasing false positives while making those people feel uncomfortable I talked to. I feel like knowing when to step in and say something is very difficult to judge and from the discussions in my local Judge group (“is this playmat offensive? what do you think?”) I can tell that I'm not the only one who is unsure about when to step in.

Otherwise great article, good job!

Hi Laurent,

“Eliana says you have to pick your battles, and that means that mostly you
can’t address issues like this directly. Plus, there is definitely a stigma
against calling out behavior like using pet names. Doing so can make people
think you are just whining or being too sensitive, so it is tough to find
the right balance between speaking up to make the environment better and
not causing more trouble than it is worth.”

Take the given advice at heart, be ready to challenge things that might
make others feel uncomfortable but find the balance described by Eliana as
it is also very important.

Greets
jeremie

I think there is also a really interesting conversation to be had about how we as judges handle microaggressions which are not directed at a group we are closely connected to. While I generally feel like I can make a call on sexuality or gender-related comments, since they affect me personally, I would feel less acutely aware of things which affect people based on their race or disability, for example. By that I don't mean that I find those things less important, but more that I may sometimes not notice something or feel less certain about whether something is inappropriate because I don't have a good enough understanding.

Great article. Microaggressions can be hard to wrap your head around and I like that the article addressed that people can mistake talking about it for whining or being oversensitive and went on to demonstrate how they really add up.

Some surveying that we did last year with Planeswalkers for Diversity showed that people who aren't part of a group observe discrimination happening less often which makes it easy for players to think that those who talk about this stuff are making mountains out of mole hills when actually these things are quite prevalent. This is an interesting dimension on top of it which is that many things that discourage inclusivity simply aren't recongized as problematic even if they were noticed in the first place.

Originally posted by Jeremie Granat:

Hi Laurent,

“Eliana says you have to pick your battles, and that means that mostly you
can’t address issues like this directly. Plus, there is definitely a stigma
against calling out behavior like using pet names. Doing so can make people
think you are just whining or being too sensitive, so it is tough to find
the right balance between speaking up to make the environment better and
not causing more trouble than it is worth.”

Take the given advice at heart, be ready to challenge things that might
make others feel uncomfortable but find the balance described by Eliana as
it is also very important.

Greets
jeremie

Hi Jeremie! I feel like you might have missed the point of what Laurent was trying to say, so allow me to try to rephrase, if I may be so bold: The idea I got from Laurent's comment (which is one I personally agree with) is that, while there are some things that are obvious that might cause someone discomfort (e.g. calling a female judge “babe” or “honey” or whatever, or asking for a “real judge”, which is actually just an aggression rather than a microaggression imo, and even as a male judge if someone said that to me there would probably be a UC - Minor penalty following up in very short order), there are a lot of things you might not think of which might feasibly cause someone to feel uncomfortable. Therefore, the line being set at “might cause someone to feel uncomfortable” is a very very strict (and likely unintentionally strict) line. As an example of how strict the line is, allow me to take an, unintuitive but still definitely within the set line, example which affected (emphasis: past tense) me personally. As an important note, I have to emphasize that everything I am about to tell you is fact and not devil's advocate trolling, so please take it with the amount of gravity and seriousness it deserves, despite how silly it may sound:

When I was in grade 5 (I'm currently 29 years old so I'm going WAYYYYYYYY back), I was the kid in class who was bullied all the time. That's just how it was. It sucked, but not really the point right now. In any case, the point is, at one time the teacher was giving a lesson or something and I had forgotten my pencil case that day. So I asked one of my classmates if I could borrow a pencil to take notes. My classmate, smart-aleck as he was, gave me a white colored pencil, to make notes on, obviously, my white paper. From then on, it became a meme that my classmates would tease me by using the word “white” or “white pencil” or so on. This went on for the course of most of the remainder of the school year.

Subsequent to this, for a number of years, the word “white” triggered me slightly. Nothing that I would jump on people about, and to be honest I didn't want to jump on people over it because it would have appeared weird to the people around me, particularly those who didn't know the history (I changed schools a couple years later and left all those idiot kids behind) and I didn't want to be “that guy”. At the moment, it's been almost two decades since then, so the word “white” no longer triggers me and I'm totally over it, but for a time, it did.

Now, I believe Laurent's point is that, based on the story above (which, again, I assure you is 100% true), one could consider that the word “white” could make some players uncomfortable (incidentally I have been playing Magic since I was in grade 2, so I was a Magic player during this period as described above). Should a judge step in whenever a player says the word “white” to another player because it might make someone uncomfortable? (I believe we can agree the answer to this is a very clear and resounding “absolutely not”.) Why or why not? (This question is a little more nuanced and I'd like to hear your answer)

Edited Lyle Waldman (March 31, 2017 06:08:24 PM)

Something I'm always concerned about when addressing microaggressions is what people's perception of me would be if I do say something. I often feel the pressure to just let it go because I don't want other (male) players to think I'm being overly-sensitive or difficult. Often times, the individual or the people around them don't even realize or think that what's been said is misogynistic to begin with. It's not fun when you become labelled as such-and-such because you stand up for yourself.

It's disheartening both as a player and a judge when the situation is a “damned if you do, damned if you don't” kind of scenario. It sometimes feels like the only way to avoid it is to just not play. There are LGSs that I refuse to go to now because the mentality is just overwhelmingly sexist, whether it's conscious/intentional or not. Unfortunately, by not playing, it just reduces the number of women visible in the MTG community, and makes the whole thing worse.

I'm not sure if this is something other judges can relate to? I'd like to hear about how you guys approach the situation?

Edited Flora Li (March 31, 2017 05:24:21 PM)

Originally posted by Flora Li:

Something I'm always concerned about when addressing microaggressions is what people's perception of me would be if I do say something. I often feel the pressure to just let it go because I don't want other (male) players to think I'm being overly-sensitive or difficult.

This is the main reason that I think people who aren't directly part of the group but notice possible issues need to speak up. It's hard to find the balance of speaking up for a group of folks you aren't a member of rather than speaking for them, but it's worth trying.

I find the response “not cool” (or “not cool, dude”) covers a variety of microaggressions and gets me out of the interaction and on with the rest of my day. I'm not sure that it encourages the person to change the behavior but it does convey to those nearby that the behavior was noted and not appreciated.

Originally posted by Flora Li:

Something I'm always concerned about when addressing microaggressions is what people's perception of me would be if I do say something. I often feel the pressure to just let it go because I don't want other (male) players to think I'm being overly-sensitive or difficult. Often times, the individual or the people around them don't even realize or think that what's been said is misogynistic to begin with. It's not fun when you become labelled as such-and-such because you stand up for yourself.

IF you have the support of the store staff, think of it as reminding people that the comment was out of line with the standards of the community. You are an official at the event so you can approach the problem with a “just doing my job” attitude. Think of it as similar to the “family store!” reminder given for profanity.

If the store staff is part of the problem you're wise to take your business elsewhere.

Originally posted by Hannah Lissaman:

I think there is also a really interesting conversation to be had about how we as judges handle microaggressions which are not directed at a group we are closely connected to. While I generally feel like I can make a call on sexuality or gender-related comments, since they affect me personally, I would feel less acutely aware of things which affect people based on their race or disability, for example. By that I don't mean that I find those things less important, but more that I may sometimes not notice something or feel less certain about whether something is inappropriate because I don't have a good enough understanding.

Howdy Hannah,

First, let me self-report that I can empathize with your plight. In one case (I'm a queer identified judge), I find it a little more challenging to address matters of homophobic “bro” behavior. However, on the other hand I will not abide someone using the “R-word” because I used to be called that as a kid because of Aspergers.

Second, even with the point about the r-word, I more effortlessly feel confident addressing matters of racism, sexism, ageism, ableism… because I don't feel as if someone will come back and say I'm just advancing the “gay agenda”. After all, in many of these ways I"m checking my own privilege.

Third, if I may be so bold as to make a suggestion. The best way to be an ally is to listen to the constituent group you're looking to support …and believe them when they tell you what's going on for them. You don't have to know every historical way that people of color have been marginalized, stereotyped, and harmed …NOR must you suss them all out without fail… but when you have opportunity to engage said people, be wise enough to believe them about what they say about their struggles. …then, as you're able, respond accordingly.

I did a talk at the SE Regional Conference last year on Conflict De-Escalation and Inclusive Langue Strategies. IF the video goes up, I'll be sure to share it with you. I hope to do an enhanced version and will make my own recording. There are a number of scrips or comments (such as the very one given by Martha Lufkin above) that can aid any Judge in taking these matters seriously and as another aspect of education for our community.