A Black Man Asked “Whose ‘Side’ Are Black Women On?”

While I was perusing tags related to feminism on Tumblr, I came across a post by a Black man with a sentiment that I’ve seen many times. He posted a photograph of a Black man’s lynched corpse with a White woman looking at it with laughter. His commentary suggested that “feminazism” is destroying Black men (as its goal) and whose side are most Black women on, Black men’s or White women’s?

First of all, the fact that a Black man would conflate feminism with Nazism, when both Black men and Black women faced multiple holocausts during slavery is astoundingly ahistorical and hyperbolic. The word “Feminazi” rose to popularity via Rush Limbaugh. Funny how this “conscious” Black man quickly aligns with White patriarchy, and a racist at that, when the critique is of Black women.

Secondly, interestingly enough, he chose a lynching photo with no White men present. Why? Because his perception of Black men as victims can’t include critique of White men if assuming the patriarchal power that Black men (and White women) want to share with White men, versus questioning oppression itself, is an ultimate goal. Black men who heavily critique feminism and demand dog-like loyalty to patriarchy from Black women tend to want to mimic or share the power White men have. This means that they will never truly critique White supremacy itself, beyond what power they critique White women for (and some won’t even do this due to sexual interest in White women), because why critique the type of corrupt power that one desires? (I critiqued this very same line of thinking before, which fuels many Black men’s love for the film Django Unchained.)

White fear of Black male sexuality and economic, political and social competition is what fueled lynching as a practice. Even if the charge against a Black man was due to a White woman’s claim (and these same women watched and enjoyed lynching as an entertainment of “strange fruit”) ultimately White men had to physically engage in the practice of lynching. Thus, for him to choose a photo where no White men are present is quite telling. Oh and…Black women were lynched too.

Thirdly, some Black men just as some White women tend to view Black women solely as “sidekicks” to “their” causes, not women and humans with our own causes and needs, ones most definitely shaped by intersectional experiences. We aren’t only Black. We aren’t only women. He didn’t include any images/stories about Black men street harassing, committing domestic violence, raping or murdering Black women. He chose to show Black men only as victims and posits that Black women are responsible for Black men’s victimhood. This is fascinating since Black women, from Billie Holiday to Ida B. Wells were some of the most outspoken against lynching of Black men. Today, Black women like Michelle Alexander are incredibly outspoken against how Prison Industrial Complex impacts Black men. Black women are often deemed not to be supportive enough and ahistorical, decontextualized “evidence” is always proffered by Black men as proof. (Some even have the audacity to cite that racist and misogynoirist Moynhian Report from ‘65. Disgusting. Read Patricia Hill Collins’ critique of that report in Black Feminist Thought.) Amazingly enough, not interpersonally obeying patriarchal orders from Black men and in their perception, not being committed “enough” to being sidekicks of “their” causes versus full human beings and voices for our own and collective Black causes is viewed by some Black men as “aligning” with White women.

I can only laugh at this. They obviously have not heard any actual discourse and dissent between Black and White women, feminist or not. Black womanists/feminists and White feminists have not walked this magical path of unity that Black men seem to think we have, especially one based on destroying Black men. Black men who think so know nothing about women’s actual lives, I suspect.

The idea that Black women are just “copying” White women in terms of womanist/feminist theory and praxis proves again that some Black men know nothing about Black women beyond what they would like us to be, stereotypes and externally constructed notions of Black womanhood. (Once, one of my sisters responded to an extremely disgusting drawing posted on Facebook; it had the same sentiments of Black women being monsters out to get Black men and controlled by Whites.) If being a whole human being as a Black woman, not a sidekick of “team Black men” (or “team White women”) is viewed as a “threat” to Black masculinity, then Black men need to examine why our dehumanization is needed for them to feel like men. Will they ever be able to visualize and embrace masculinity without domination? At which point will they actually critique White men and White supremacy itself for the issues that they think dog-like loyalty from Black women is magically going to fix?

I am not on a “team” in that feminism is a gimmick; I am not going to choose between race and gender for sport. I am TIRED of Black men (and White women) suggesting this. At the same time, I am committed to the liberation of all oppressed people, which INCLUDES me and other Black women, as people, not platforms for Black men to stand on. Intersectionality or bust. I will not be anyone’s doormat, especially for wiping ahistorical boots with soles made of patriarchy, sexism and misogynoir.

“It was painful to realize that many men rarely consider reading what women write, or bother to listen to what women are saying about how we feel. How we perceive life. How we think things should be. That they cannot honor our struggles or our pain. That they see our stories as meaningless to them, or assume they are absent from them, or distorted. Or think they must own or control our expressions. And us.” - Alice Walker

What’s Really Going On With White Feminists’ Critiques of Beyoncé?

Yesterday I posted a photograph of Beyoncé on Ms. Magazine with some probing questions that I have for the article, which included this text:

I will be interested in seeing if the article reveals the nuances of her perspectives (such as ones revealed in her documentary), whether they challenge or affirm patriarchy at times (as she, like many women do both) or will the article solely hold her to an unreachable standard where she has to be bell hooks to be feminist while Lena Dunham, not Gloria Steinem appears to be the bar of White feminism. Again, nonfamous womanists and feminists should not be overly THIRSTY for celebrities to validate feminism. At the same time, I am interested in reading more of Bey’s perspectives on self-esteem, empowerment, confidence, inclusion, sexuality, LGBTQ, friendships and romance/marriage, for example. (I am DEFINITELY not interested her (or anyone) being labeled “unfeminist,” as I wrote about before. That word, specifically, is problematic.)

Silly me; I originally thought the article was an interview. Apparently, it is not. Since yesterday, I learned that: 1) The article is behind a paywall and not accessible to poor women or anyone without a subscription. 2) The Facebook thread for the article is disgusting, as expected. Many of the comments have the typical misogynoir and respectability politics that people seem to have confused for feminism. 3) The thread itself ends with a question, which part of it reads “Has Beyoncé ‘earned’ her feminist credentials?” Credentials and feminism should NEVER be used in the same sentence. This reeks of the merge of White supremacy, “legitimacy” and education.

In my post on Storify today, Is Beyoncé Going To Be Critiqued By White Feminists Ad Perpetuum?, I shared some Twitter conversation on the topic and raised six points as to why this critique, in general, seems never-ending and is non-productive, three of which include:

1) White women want to control and police feminism, which is actually quite White supremacist and patriarchal. It seems that theist, cisgender, heterosexual, thin, middle class, White women in the West think that feminism is their plaything and country club. It isn’t. Even White women without some of these privileges still stand firm against Beyoncé in a way that they would not do to any White woman, feminist or not, celebrity or not. They still view Black women as “allies” to their feminism, not actual women or feminists.

2) Feminism tends to have an element of inaccessibility by class and education, which definitely connects to race. By class, of course, Beyoncé doesn’t have this issue. She can access whatever she wants in any space. She has a platform. However, many of those with literacy/formal education privilege do not want Beyoncé to be considered feminist because she is not an academic. Black women have to be bell hooks to be considered feminist, but the bar (which should not even exist for any women) for White feminists is Lena Dunham? Beyoncé has no college education and she was home-schooled for a lot of her education as well. She is not the picture of a “scholar.” But neither was Sojourner Truth. Neither were Black blues singers or Black women who worked as domestics. Many still were the faces of resistance for Black women.

3) Some women, both White and Black, view Black women’s sexuality as automatically deviant, even if that woman is heterosexual, with heterosexual privilege. White heterosexuality is deemed the “norm” of heterosexuality. Heterosexual Black women are still deemed sexually deviant, even if they have the privilege that lesbian, bisexual, queer and trans* Black women do not. Thus, Beyoncé being sexual with her art, despite being in a highly heteronormative, presumably monogamous, heterosexual marriage and being a mother is not “enough” to deem her “respectable.” The problem is respectability politics are constructs of patriarchy, NOT feminism. Then there is the concept of sexuality within art itself. When is it “too sexual?” The fact that Miley Cyrus in a White body is not deemed “dirty” for twerking, yet Black women and our bodies automatically make the dance “dirty” reveals this race-specific misogyny, or misogynoir.

The fact that Jenna Jameson (a White woman deemed “mainstream” now) is a porn star in a patriarchal society and receives less criticism for her sexuality than Beyoncé speaks to the racism involved in the perception of sexuality. Beyoncé has been blamed for everything from teen sexuality and poor health to sex trafficking, and people think this criticism is normal and logical. This reveals how deep racism and sexism runs in our society, as it pertains to Black women, specifically.

A Black woman does not have to pass a certain “bar” of entry that White women hold before she is “acceptable” to feminism and this suggestion is most certainly racist, especially since White women are automatically assumed to be feminist. Even White women who openly hated feminism, such as Margaret Thatcher, has had the label “feminist” placed upon her post-mortem. White women can be considered feminist even when clearly operating in ways that reinforce imperialist White supremacist capitalist hetero-patriarchy, like Thatcher did (examine her damn record, one that is as patriarchal and imperialist as any White male leader), yet Beyoncé is consistently attacked for not meeting some arbitrary standard as White women stand GUARD over feminism?

I’ve also noticed that some Black women and other women of colour do not want Beyoncé associated with feminism in any way, and unfortunately, their reasoning seems to be tied into respectability politics. They think choosing the “positive” side of patriarchal binaries is what feminism is about, such as being a “good” role model and exemplifying “perfect” womanhood, as dictated by theism and patriarchy. This is also a mistake. Even so, it seems that the largest voices against Beyoncé amidst feminist spaces are White women’s voices—probably because there are so many of them and because their voices are amplified due to White privilege. When most of them dissent, it hits a major blog or newspaper. When most Black women dissent it’s via tweets or personal blogs. The access points differ in scope. Even when a Black woman or another woman of colour writes about Beyoncé for a major publication, ironically (or not so) her views seem to match White feminists’ views against Beyoncé. Perhaps this is what it takes to be published.

Critique is important. No one is above it. But this perpetual critique of Beyoncé is no longer productive critique. (I am not sure that it ever was.) This critique is creating arbitrary standards that Black feminists have to meet that White feminists do not. This is racist antagonism towards Black women if they are loved, are considered beautiful and are successful. This is respectability politics and misogynoir masquerading as feminism. This is intellectual elitism. This is double standards—ones where Beyoncé’s experience with capitalism is evil but Sheryl Sandberg’s is good, where Beyoncé’s sexuality is deviant and Lena Dunham’s is empowering, where Beyoncé being married and a mother is just her succumbing to patriarchy but for White women, it’s deemed a powerful choice, especially if coupled with a career.

If White women view Black women as inferior and White feminists view Black feminists as inferior at worst or as “allies,” “sidekicks” or just Black women to “save” not actual feminists, at best, the problem is theirs, not Beyoncé’s or Black women’s at all.

White women need to stop guarding the invisible gate to feminism. It’s not a country club. That was never the point. Leave the gates and hierarchies for patriarchy.

Thoughs About Scandal Season 2 Finale

Some of my thoughts about that EPIC season finale of Scandal includes:

I love that “Fitz” was a part of their secret meetings. It was like a reclamation of power for him, versus being powerful yet a puppet of the group.

I cracked up laughing when “Cyrus” made the comparison of mentioning murder in front of the President to mentioning sex in front of the Pope. This is ironic since Presidents engage in “on the books” and “off the books” murder as a matter of imperialist and xenophobic practice in the name of “democracy.” Further, “Fitz” killed “Velma” with his own hands, so when “Cyrus” gets formal and almost annoyingly patriotic, it reeks of humor.

Apparently “Fitz’s” super power is cunnilingus. I ain’t mad. *whistles* *files nails*

I love the confidence “Fitz” has in “Olivia’s” career specifically, and how he distinguished her “fixing” him (what he doesn’t want since he wants to maintain his personal agency) versus being a good fixer in general (what he enjoys seeing her do). This is in STARK contrast to the way “Cyrus” utterly obliterated “James’” confidence regarding his career, in the previous episode.

“Cyrus” is a damn mess in a humorous and tragic way. The phone calls in the ambulance reveal the type of worker and patriot that he is that I cannot relate to and never will. It felt like a defining moment for who his character truly is.

“Olivia’s” plan for “Fitz” and herself that “Fitz” told “Mellie” in a disgustingly harsh way was an incredibly brilliant plan. It’s what viewers could expect of the most brilliant critical thinker on the show; “Olivia.” However, from the moment he said it to “Mellie,” I knew it would never come to pass. Life doesn’t work out that way, so perfectly and logically, especially when it comes to love.

“Cyrus” truly is an awful husband. I want to love him and “James” together but after that emotionally abusive scene last week, where he shattered “James” over his career, I can’t as much anymore. Once someone you love spits on your very vision for your life and your life’s passion? I’m done. (Personally, once a man shitted on my education, career, interests or vision, we never lasted days after that, let alone “forever.”) Their relationship in many ways is heteronormative in its abusiveness where “Cyrus” is the patriarchal and verbally abusive overly dominant partner. I still love “Cyrus” as a character, however. He’s more real than the heart attack he had. I was still glad when “James” came to comfort him in the hospital.

“Jake” ended up being a tricky figure. I felt equal anger and empathy for him as he originally exploited “Olivia” under job orders yet risked his life saving her in a way she could have never imagined for a fate that is unthinkable.

I love how deliciously cruelly “Sally” keeps on getting screwed over. The idea of her character is fascinating; provides the rubric of “right” that there is in the Republican Party. However, her ever getting power from “Fitz’s” hands cuts too close to reality and gives me the creeps.

I started to like “Quinn” more as “Huck’s” apprentice but her jumping in to torture “Billy” just irritated me. To be clear, there’s no reactive sexist reasoning for this; if “Abby” would have done it, I would have dealt better. “Huck” has years of killing experience in the Army and then the CIA; for “Quinn” to catch on so quickly with the annoying rambling thing she does? I was just irritated. And, “Huck” seems to be walking a fine line in his own life, especially after the 752 incident, so his reaction after “Billy” gave up the Cytron card information was sad.

I knew that ultimately it would be “Cyrus” to break up “Fitz” and “Olivia’s” reunion, and by showing the tape of “Olivia” and “Jake” to “Fitz” he again invaded “Olivia’s” sexual privacy. It fascinates that he continually referred to “Fitz” as a child in this episode and their love as a “romance novel.” People do associate passion (in general, for a person, a goal etc.) with youth or even naivety. I’ve always found their love a lot of things, always nuanced and not completely bad or completely good, but naive was not among them. Their level of passion is actually quite adult and brave, considering all that is up against them. But as to be expected, I knew the episode wouldn’t close with them together.

I am happy for “David” restoring his career. He outsmarted and tricked so many people and he didn’t murder or break heavy laws to do so. He did twist arms. But of all the characters, like “Olivia” said, he wears the proverbial white hat. Thus, her physically putting on the White hat that “David” left her was brilliant.

I KNEW that B613 leader “Rowan” was going to be “Olivia’s” father. Knew it. The way he felt he had a right to puppet, interfere or control her life in ways reminiscent of all the men in her life, despite her having enormous power and personal agency, felt like a parent and disturbingly so. He seemed on par with the way “Cyrus” behaves. If he gave “Jake” orders to sleep with “Olivia” then my previous posit regarding her sexual politics and privacy is affirmed yet again.

The way “Olivia” and “Fitz” parted ways and “Fitz” went back to “Mellie” and pathetically placed his head in her lap was truly pathetic. I died laughing at him and felt bad for “Mellie.” I did feel sympathy for him though when at first, she was hesitant to touch his head. All I could think was “if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.” But that’s a part of the pull of the show—the fact that he is literally trapped and powerless despite being theoretically the most powerful person on Earth.

The press greeting “Olivia” at the door was priceless. Who spilled the beans on the affair after the fact? “Cyrus” never would. He already helped destroy their reunion. Her father plays games but this game seems less about “Olivia” and more about getting “Fitz” out of office, if he did it. But why? I am sure that “Cyrus” would have informed “Rowan” that he already separated “Olivia” and “Fitz.” (I also like that she was about to go jogging when this occurred; it reminded me of episodes where she swims, which is visual resistance to the idea that Black women refuse to swim or exercise solely because of hair.)

This season has been great. This show has been EPIC. I literally cannot wait until Season 3 in the fall!

Below are my essays on Scandal from the show’s inception, with the most recent first and not including episode-specific notes that I shared after certain episodes. To see everything tagged Scandal, click here.

Season 2

• Shonda Rhimes and Scandal Remain On Top
• “Mellie” Can Be What “Olivia” Cannot; “Fitz” Can Be What “Mellie” Cannot
• On Scandal: “Olivia Pope,” Sexual Politics and Privacy
• When Scandal Haters and Fans Take It Too Damn Far
• Mamsaphjez? (Scandal and Deception; Mammy, Sapphire, Jezebel?)
• If “Olivia Pope” Of Scandal Were White
• If “President Fitzgerald Grant” Of Scandal Were Black
• Scandal: Exploring The Criticism Of “Olivia” and “Fitz”
• Why The Characters On Scandal Work
• Regarding Criticism On Scandal
• “Sally Langston”
• “Sally/Thomas” and Other Thoughts About Scandal, Season 2, Episode 8
• My Thoughts About Scandal’s 2nd Season (Thus Far…)

Season 1

• Scandal Worries
• Questions For Season 2 of Scandal
• The Great Music From Scandal on ABC
• Why Shonda Rhimes’ New Baby, Scandal, Is Awesome

Gradient Lair Is One Year Old!

I started Gradient Lair in May of 2012 and it’s a year old now! Today I reached exactly 2,500 subscribers on the dot. I hope that you have enjoyed my writing and my posts/reposts. Thanks for your interest.

My most important people in terms of my blog’s audience are Black women. Other than it being a safe space for myself, I made it for us. Because I also discuss critical issues in terms of those who face oppression, which includes a larger group than only Black women, I also welcome people who aren’t Black women, as long as they adhere to and understand what I wrote in my bio about the blog’s vision and type of content shared.

If you really enjoy my blog and want to show some support, visit the home page (www.gradientlair.com); there is a Paypal button there. No amount you donate is too small and it helps with domain registration fees and researching information (i.e. scholarly journals, periodicals) that is behind a paywall.

Thanks to those who send me those AMAZINGLY sweet Tumblr messages! I get choked up because when another Black woman tells me how much my blog means to her or compliments my writing, I get really warm and fuzzy! I also have received love mail from other people, not only Black women, and I appreciate it just as much. Thank you! Year two, here we go! <3