Black Women, Black Men and Friendships

There was a sweet spot in time where I had several great friendships with Black men. I don’t mean my mid 90s high school years friendships with Black boys that were characterized by conversations about annoying IB or AP English assignments and Tupac vs. Biggie debates in the library before the water gun/water balloon fights after the school day ended. I don’t mean later on in adulthood when there was a specific relationship type (i.e. a past dance instructor, co-worker, client) that made the relationship too formal, or in some cases, a guy tried to alter the professional relationship into something romantic, which I did not want. I mean right in between there. Undergrad.

Since no one I hung out with in college was specifically there to meet a spouse, and we were somewhat more evolved than our water gun fight days, I really enjoyed the company of Black male friends in college. I attended a PWI, but all of my friends were Black women and Black men with the exception of a few Latinos and other people of colour. Just as Beverly Daniels Tatum wrote about why all of the Black kids sit together in the cafeteria, that same cultural, psychological and emotional protection from stereotype threat, microaggressions and overt racism is desperately needed by Black students at PWIs.

I attended a different college from many of my high school friends for my freshman year but ended up transferring to their college for the latter three years and graduated from there. During that first year, I visited them on some weekends and hung out. (I met a Pakistani male buddy with whom I used to ride with since I didn’t have a car freshman year; his girlfriend attended my friends’ college.) We would crack jokes, roam the Student Union, attend step shows and comedy shows, watch movies, fall asleep in each others’ beds or stay up for days at a time without sleep but with plenty of laughs. Some were single and some dated. There were waves of sexual tension (my group was primarily heterosexual with a few bisexual people floating in and out of who we hung out with) but other than only two major arguments, one freshman year, one sophomore year (caused by two people; a group intruder who was a relative of one of my friends and by one of the group members that ended up being a very toxic friend; I wrote about her before), everything seemed fairly peachy despite this. What I learned then is that friendship with a man is not solely the absence of sexual tension or attraction. That reduces friendship to deciding that having sex is what makes it not a friendship or having sex automatically makes it romantic love. It’s definitely more nuanced than this.

One of my past high school classmates, a Latino man, had a group of Black male friends that we began to hang out with too. When we (my current best friend and I) reflect on this, it was a bit wild because after only a month of knowing them, we spent weekends at their house, slept over and watched movies. We never had any sexual contact with them whatsoever. (I did have one date with the Latino guy, but it went nowhere.) They technically could have harmed us, but never did. At 33, I don’t sleep over men’s houses that I barely know. At 19, they were brown Care Bears to me. One was a cop. He was bisexual. One was a heroin dealer. He was heterosexual. One was a wannabe rapper. He was heterosexual. One was I genuinely believe an escort for older wealthy Black women (as was the whisper among the friends), but till this day, I am not 100% sure. He later came out as gay but identified as heterosexual at the time. They were all 3-10 years older than us while our Black male (and a few other men of colour) friends from high school were the same age as us. We had a real variety there. We (a few of my Black female friends and them) had these long conversations for hours at a time about sexual politics, dating, marriage, family, our majors, money, entertainment and more. Good times. (I also had a Black boyfriend my freshman year of college at my school before I transferred, and I was good friends with his three close Black male friends.)

Until my recent years on Twitter where I tweet with feminist Black men, I had a LONG gap of time (between undergrad which ended in 2001 and 2009 when I joined Twitter) when I had no consistently regular conversations with Black men. I don’t mean street harassment, which I despise. I don’t mean with coworkers (which have been rare for me; I’ve rarely had jobs where Black men were employed on a similar level; they were always janitorial staff or executives and neither seem to mingle with middle management). I don’t mean past photography clients. I don’t mean past boyfriends (though my last long-term relationship ended 2003 and the last time I went on an actual date was 2008). Not casual conversation at Black business mixers (which I don’t like) or in other social situations (which I tend to duck from as an introvert). I mean that everyday, day to day laugh and smile, consistently talked to in a positive and/or deep way that I had in undergrad. While I’ve had some amazing times in my 20s (such as traveling, which undergrad cant compete with) and a few now in my early 30s, in a way, I understand why people refer to undergrad as “the best years of your life.” In a way, the experiences that I allude to here were unique to that time of my life.

The question then becomes…why?

Naturally after college, people move away, contact drops off, relationships fade. It’s common. Thus, I knew that some relationships would be on an hourglass. Conversely, two of my closest friends are from college, one I knew since high school and a third one didn’t attend college with me, but I’ve know since middle school. They’re all Black women though. Relationships with them were preserved; relationships with the Black men I knew during undergrad are transient (hello on holidays) or non-existent now.

To be clear, none of these men were the disgustingly irritating Nice Guy™ types who feign friendship hoping to get laid because they are entitled assholes; these men were real friends. What changed this is the pressure of societal expectations.

After college, people are expected to find a career, marry, buy a home and procreate (and this all reveals heteronormativity, capitalism and heterosexual privilege, no less). Platonic friendships are assigned immediate devaluation after high school, let alone college, for those who are privileged enough attend. (In a way, people seem to treat true friendship as something for kids or teens.) Then there’s the time factor. College is busy yet there is always time to “hang out.” Because adulthood is so restricted because of capitalism and sexism, the mixed gender socialization of college becomes incredibly unique, outside of couples hanging out together or dating/sexual scenes. Further, as these men began to marry and procreate, my close women friends remained single (though a few married). Because of patriarchal constructions of sexuality, “outside” women are viewed as “threats” to heterosexual relationships so many heterosexual men begin to distance themselves from friendships with women as they get older and past college years.

As Black feminist scholar Patricia Hill Collins writes:

For many heterosexual Black men and Black women, dominant constructions of Black male and Black female sexuality often limit the ability to form nonsexualized, loving friendships.

This is true. What’s worse is many Black men who’ve never experienced quality friendships with Black women and ascribe to patriarchal notions of masculinity influence men who do not. Thus, they’ll question those men if they aren’t trying to sleep with, control or dominate Black women. There’s rarely room for nuanced relationships for heterosexual Black men and heterosexual Black women (not specifically speaking of the relationships that gay Black men and heterosexual Black women have) because of how our manhood and womanhood, respectively, are constructed in a racist and patriarchal society.

While I admit it is challenging, I still think it is possible to have friendships in adulthood between heterosexual Black women and heterosexual Black men. What stands in the way is often as small as our social/labor circles not mixing (a factor that I know of for sure because of my long gap in adulthood without close Black male friends) or as large as rejecting patriarchal notions of gender that dictate that only for sex, dating, marriage, and/or procreation, or worse, misogynoir (i.e. street harassment, physical violence, rape) can we ever cross paths.

Even when dating or marriage occurs, much of why it fails (beyond the pressures of external sociocultural factors) is because it’s not rooted in friendship. Separated couples often state this upon reflection and therapists often report this. This reveals how truly important friendship is.

Related Post: Black Women and Friendships

On Scandal: “Olivia Pope,” Sexual Politics and Privacy

As a fan of Scandal, one thing that I have always loved about Scandal is “Olivia Pope’s” personal, business and political power and the fact that she can make the choices that she wants for her life, no matter how excellent or how flawed the choices may be perceived by the other characters on the show or of course, the viewers, whether stans, fans, non-fans or miserys.

While there were times where I rooted for “Olivia” and “Fitz” as a couple, examining the nuances of their complex relationship and what ultimately pulls them together, and other times when I was not feeling them, last night’s episode (Season 2, Episode 20: A Woman Scorned) brought something else to mind.

A measure of privacy regarding the physical sexual intimacy part of her sexuality is completely non-existent and not by “Olivia’s” own choice. When I speak of privacy, I don’t mean the actual secrecy and deception that is involved in extra-marital affairs, nor am I placing a value judgment on them externally, because other than “Mellie,” “Olivia” and “Fitz” in such a situation, external value judgments get really annoying here. They often involve respectability politics and misogyny. If they didn’t, men would face the same level of social disregard and disrespect for affairs as women do. However, they do not. The “other woman” is always the object of shame, not the man who took wedding vows with someone else and broke them.

The privacy that I am speaking of is how the other characters either invade her space with their knowledge, their surveillance or even their knowing yet uncomfortable silencing or condescension around her affair. For example, “Cyrus” knows about the relationship and has made incredibly misogynist remarks to “Olivia” regarding it. In one episode he condescendingly asked whether or not “Fitz” used a condom with her, in reference to the pregnancy of the intern “Amanda” who also had an affair with “Fitz.” In another episode, he condescendingly asked “is your vagina apolitical?” in response to “Olivia” declaring herself apolitical. Anytime “Olivia” backs him into a corner in one of their political face offs, he tends to retreat to misogyny. However, though he is gay, she never retreats to homophobia. This is interesting to me considering they are supposed to be friends.

And the surveillance? Just…wow. “Billy” recorded “Fitz” with “Olivia” in Season 1. “Cyrus” watched “Olivia” with “Fitz.” “Fitz” watched “Olivia” with “Edison” and even had photographs made of their moments together. “Jake” watches “Olivia” because “Fitz” told him to. “Jake” also slept with “Olivia,” and recorded it, which “Charlie” saw because he broke into “Jake’s” home under “Cyrus’” request. In every situation, “Olivia” is more of a sexual object to watch, mate with, or attempt to control despite her having an incredible amount of power. (To be clear, understandably, some women find sexual empowerment in being watched or filmed and even in voyeurism/exhibitionism. But as clearly seen in episode after episode, ANYTIME “Olivia” realizes that she is being watched, she gets ANGRY or scared. “Huck” regularly sweeps her home for bugs.)

It appears that her entire team knows about the affair now, though how and when each person realized what was going on, I am not fully clear on (perhaps that episode where in “Olivia’s” absence, they decided to tell each other the truth about everything they know). “Harrison” seems to always know everything, but respects their relationship and her authority enough not to judge her or question her. His loyalty is fascinating but sometimes his silencing around “Olivia’s” affair with “Fitz” is awkward and says more than if he actually said something. “Huck” knows, because of the entire team, “Olivia” seems ironically emotionally closest to “Huck.” (The Seven Fifty-Two episode revealed this.) In last night’s episode when “David” asked about who “President Grant” is “banging” and the staff all hurriedly walked away, it felt like everyone was in “Olivia’s” space and it felt like some of her power was drained away by that reaction.

Now, certainly “Olivia’s” career and firm involves invading spaces and boundaries, gathering information, breaking codes, rules and laws, taking, removing, changing, altering and plethora of things that teeter on the seesaw of moral relativism. The show is not about “villains” and “heroes” but humans amidst a gradient of grey. Thus, I am not interested in interpreting this as solely “others” invading “Olivia’s” space and nothing else. However, the invasion that seems to occur specifically around the sexual aspect of her relationship with “Fitz” is bothersome. While the general image of a White man and Black woman conjures up images of sexually oppressive politics in general for some (though I think such an interpretation still needs a nuanced view by those who make it), it’s not their sheer existence as an interracial couple that loves deeply, is incredibly problematic and is intensely aggressive and sexual that I am speaking of here. It’s the nature of the policing and invasion of that intimacy by almost every man in her life.

As Black feminist scholar Patricia Hill Collins writes:

Black women’s sexuality has been constructed by law as public property—Black women have no rights of privacy that Whites must observe.

Black women’s sexuality (whether controlled through rape as slaves, gynecological experimentation for centuries, eugenics, through social welfare legislation or through controlling and stereotypical images) has always been constructed as public and without Black women’s control. “Olivia” herself challenges this construction, but the invasion by the men in her life speaks to this construction.

As Black feminist scholar Barbara Omolade writes:

White men used their power in the public sphere to construct a private sphere that would meet their needs and their desire for Black women, which if publicly admitted would have undermined the false construct of race they needed to maintain public power.

The factor of race cannot be ignored here. “Fitz” would not solely lose his power because he cheated, but because “Olivia” is Black and viewed as an “opposite” to “Mellie,” despite them actually being quite similar. In last night’s episode, “Fitz” described “Mellie” as brilliant, focused and logical. The same could be said of “Olivia” who has a similar pedigree despite not having the long history of family money that “Mellie” has, which “Fitz” mentioned in a past episode.

While it is intellectual lazy to simply write “Olivia” off as a ‘Jezebel’ who doesn’t have sexual agency, as many have tried to do, it is important to note that while the men in her life either proclaim loyalty to her (i.e. “Harrison,” “Huck”), lust for her (i.e. “Jake”), platonic love for her (i.e. “Cyrus”) or romantic love for her (i.e. “Fitz”), at times, they seem to operate in invasive ways that reek of male privilege and complicated racial/sexual politics regarding the sexual aspect of the relationship she has with “Fitz.” Even the spoiler for next week reveals “Cyrus” running into the actual bedroom where “Fitz” and “Olivia” just made love and are still in bed, to tell them to get out. Despite “Fitz” being the President of the United States and his boss and “Olivia” being his friend, he still feels that he has the right to do this?

Last night, I did and also did not want “Olivia” to go back to “Fitz.” I felt the conflict that she must have felt, which the incredible writers have conveyed all season long and even in Season 1. It’s clear that their relationship is not solely about sex but a deep and obviously hard to fully break bond of love, friendship, and admiration of each other. At the same time, it’s incredibly turbulent, possessive, and at times, emotionally abusive in both directions. It’s one of the most complicated portraits of love (and I don’t think love, in general, is only the absence of pain) that I have seen on television, and it is clear that despite the invasion and/or domination that the men in her life (including “Fitz” himself) seem to want to have in regards to her relationship with “Fitz” she ultimately has the space to make the choices. She’s willingly playing tug of war. She’s willingly moving away from or closer to him at any time. And no matter how excited or angry it makes viewers feel, she’s exhibiting choice. It’s empowering to me, even when it excites or angers me.

I’m trying to think of an interesting outcome for the season and for the show overall, if that outcome is not “Olivia” with “Fitz.” Will she find joy alone or will a new man that is in no way connected to “Fitz” appear? (Notice that ALL of the men in her life are connected to him or fear his power—the luxury of him being President.) Or, like the complexities of real life often play out, will she end up alone or with him, but never completely happy? (Let’s be real, right now the best relationship on the show is “Cyrus’” and “James’;” I applauded that authentic intimate moment in last night’s episode; a milestone for network television.)

As a fan, I am not certain as to what I want right now for “Olivia.” I am certain that I love that Scandal has me thinking about complex issues on a consistent basis in a way that no other drama does.

Black Couples In Television/Film - Casting and Colourism

It’s very rare to see a heterosexual Black couple cast on a show or film where the Black woman has a darker complexion than the Black man. “Uncle Phil” and the first “Aunt Viv” on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and “Carl Winslow” and “Harriet Winslow” on Family Matters comes to mind. The only problem with these examples is that they are from shows that ran from 1990-1996 and 1989-1998, respectively. (I do recall that in In Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close [2011], Viola Davis’ character’s ex-husband is portrayed by Jeffrey Wright, who has a lighter complexion than her.)

It’s 2013 though. The pervasiveness of “light” = “beautiful and feminine” and “dark” = “masculine” persists. Colourism. Eurocentric beauty ideals.

Alice Walker defined colourism as “prejudicial or preferential treatment of same-race people based solely on their color” in In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens, her ovarial [seminal what?] work where the term womanism was born, though it spoke to a long legacy of Black women’s anti-oppression work that precedes the term. She raised a biracial daughter and documented the differences in experiences among Black women with passing privilege (i.e. Soledad O’Brien, Mariah Carey) or light skin privilege (i.e. Melissa Harris-Perry, Goldie Taylor) and brown-skinned (MIchelle Obama, Angela Bassett) and dark skinned Black women (i.e. Viola Davis, Alek Wek). (To be clear, she did not specifically mention these women; I am just providing examples to illustrate the variance in complexion.)

Upon re-reading the book this year, I thought about how though I never experienced preferrential treatment for my complexion because I am not light skinned, I was never called “dark” or “ugly” solely for my complexion, being somewhat just “brown” and not considered light or dark. Another thing that came to mind earlier today is that I was expected to “ally” with light skinned Black girls against dark skinned Black girls and mock them, but still accept my “place” as not as pretty as the former. I wonder if any other Black women who aren’t considered light or dark experienced this as a girl? There’s a great deal of nuance in the experiences of Black women based on skin colour, hair texture and hair length, despite all Black women facing marginalization in this society for race and gender. The latter is why the former is often ignored or at times, aggressively silenced.

While the few times that I do see a media portrayal of a Black couple with humanity, I feel pleased about that, two things still bother me 1) the fact that if they are heterosexual, the Black woman will most likely have lighter skin than the Black man 2) the fact that they are heterosexual. The minimization or non-existence of LGBTQ couples in television and film, especially if they are Black is staggering. Yes, I know about “Cyrus” and “James” (cisgender, gay White men) on Scandal, for example, but again, pointing out one example of something does not mean much when I am discussing the full scope of representation.

I’ve noticed the same thing in TV commercials as well—when a Black couple is cast. In multiracial commercials, often times a Black woman with a darker complexion will be shown alone while the Black man is near a Black woman with a lighter complexion or a non-Black or White woman altogether. Other times, no Black women are cast at all.

Whether anecdotal stories from Black people, reading literature or reading blogs, articles and scholarly journal articles, a familiar tale surfaces. Men are taught to prize beauty and women are taught to prize income/status in a patriarchal society. After reading @FeministaJones’ essay If You’re “All That”, Why Are You Single?, where she mentioned studies that explain looks/intelligence/income and dating correlations in society, it reminded me of this very notion. As beauty continues to be defined by Eurocentric norms, both on screen and off screen, many Black men will be paired with a partner of a lighter complexion, both on screen and off screen. (This is why the Obamas on first appearance are also noticeable; I don’t see many Black couples like them, where the woman has a darker complexion.) Colorism, internalized White supremacy and Eurocentric beauty norms does impact perceptions of beauty and permeates dating. 

When Black women who are significantly lighter than Harriet Tubman and Nina Simone, for example, are cast to portray them, again the message is received that 1) dark skinned Black female actors cannot even be cast for roles portraying women who look like them 2) Hollywood and society at large cannot bear to see dark skin on screen, even when the portrayal is historically accurate.

Related Posts: Where Are The Black Writers Of Television Shows?, Black Funds For Black Films?

The $200.00 Date Conversation On Twitter Must DIE

I crack up laughing (and get annoyed) when people start the $200.00 date conversation on Twitter. It’s so pervasive that I cannot even mention the word “date” without someone trying to make the conversation about the price of the date and nothing else. I remember tweeting a post about dating and someone added the #200dates hashtag to my tweet thought it had nothing to do with this. Ugh.

Jill Scott already schooled people on what they can do on a date in her song “A Long Walk,” so let’s revisit the lyrics.

You’re here, I’m pleased
I really dig your company
Your style, your smile, your peace mentality
Lord, have mercy on me
I was blind, now I can see
What a king’s supposed to be
Baby I feel free, come on and go with me

Let’s take a long walk around the park after dark
Find a spot for us to spark
Conversation, verbal elation, stimulation
Share our situations, temptations, education, relaxations
Elevations, maybe we can talk about Surah 31:18

Your background it ain’t squeaky clean shit
Sometimes we all got to swim upstream
You ain’t no saint, we all are sinners
But you put your good foot down and make your soul a winner
I respect that, man you’re so phat
And you’re all that, plus supreme
Then you’re humble man I’m numb
Yo with feeling, I can feel everything that you bring

Let’s take a long walk around the park after dark
Find a spot for us to spark
Conversation, verbal elation, stimulation
Share our situations, temptations, education, relaxations
Elevations, maybe we can talk about Revelation 3:17

Or maybe we can see a movie
Or maybe we can see a play on Saturday (Saturday)
Or maybe we can roll a tree and feel the breeze and listen to a symphony
Or maybe chill and just be, or maybe
Maybe we can take a cruise and listen to the Roots or maybe eat some passion fruit
Or maybe cry to the blues
Or maybe we could just be silent
Come on, Come on

Let’s take a long walk around the park after dark
Find a spot for us to spark
Conversation, verbal elation, stimulation
Share our situations, temptations, education, relaxations
Elevations, maybe we can talk about Psalms in entirety

Or maybe we can see a movie
Or maybe we can see a play on Saturday (Saturday)
Or maybe we can roll a tree and feel the breeze and listen to a symphony
Or maybe chill and just be, or maybe
Maybe we can take a cruise and listen to the Roots or maybe eat some passion fruit
Or maybe cry to the blues
Or maybe we could just be silent
Come on, Come on

Let’s take a long walk around the park after dark
Find a spot for us to spark
Conversation, verbal elation, stimulation
Share our situations, temptations, education, relaxations
Elevations, maybe baby, maybe we can save the nation
Come on, Come on

See…plenty of things to do without determining if a date is “good” or “bad” based solely on the cost of the meal or event.

I don’t really date often in recent years (cannot muster the interest needed to engage), but when I did, I did plenty of things that did not involve spending $200.00 to “prove” anything. I’ve never required it of a man and I would never spend it myself. This idea that anyone who doesn’t spend this much is being “cheap” or is a bad person to date is deeply involved in classist thinking. Not everyone can afford $200.00 for a date even if some can afford ten times this amount for a date. The poor shaming involved in conversations about dating is really irritating to me.

Anyway, you see the part “or maybe we could just be silent?” This…is everything. Shared silence, together. Not sleeping. That’s too easy. Awake. This could be the introvert in me speaking but I find this beautiful and underrated.

Related Posts: “Divide and Conquer,” Passive Aggression and Bad Dating Tactics, Nice Guys™ and Race, Black Women’s “Unreasonable” Dating Standards, 2 Bad Dates, 2 Mediocre Dates, 2 Great Dates

A Black Man Blamed The Onion’s Attack On Quvenzhané On Black Women

I read many of the essays in defense of the talented, smart and beautiful 9-year-old Academy Award nominee, Quvenzhané Wallis, as I mentioned when I quoted one of those essays. I also recommended two of those essays in a past Read This Week feature.

In one of the exquisite essays in defense of Quvenzhané Wallis that I read on Clutch, I saw a very disgusting comment posted by a Black man—a comment that seems to have been removed, but a portion of it was captured in other people’s comments.

When you do not support the men who are your natural mate., you are on your own, no one to protect, provide or to promote your beauty, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.

When I first saw the comment, I tweeted about it and disregarded it because honestly, I am used to the scenario of Black women being attacked by anyone in society, and Black men finding a way to defend the attacks against us. We live in a victim-blaming, kyriarchal society where many people seek to identify with their oppressor, as to them, that is “at least” better than being oppressed, as if this misguided identification changes the experience of oppression; it doesn’t. (To be clear, not every Black man engaged this way. For example, LeVar Burton was outraged about The Onion’s attack on Quvenzhané.)

However, this comment truly started to bother me; I looked at it again and felt that it needed to be addressed, not solely because of this one Black man who posted it, but because so many Black men also believe it.

“Support?” Black women do not support Black men? The Black mothers raising children (and sadly mourning children—Chicago right now, for example) when the fathers leave (due to choice and/or situations created by White supremacist capitalist patriarchy), the Black women pursuing education and earning more to help add income to the homes with two parents and the Black women keeping homes and lives afloat for over a century when they could get domestic work (though suffering psychological warfare from White women and sexual abuse from White men while doing this work) because Black men had a harder time getting work due to racism, don’t count? Loving them, believing in them and even staying with them despite disrespect, abuse and violence—what so many Black women do—doesn’t count? The millions of happy marriages, LGBTQ relationships, friendships, and brother/sister relationships between Black men and Black women do not count? Unless every single Black woman ideologically accepts Black patriarchal subjugation, sexism and misogyny, then the practical support that Black women give Black men daily, amounts to nothing, apparently.

“Natural mate?” Not only is this heteronormative, it’s ridiculously ahistorical considering the fact that Black men marry outside of their race at a rate unmatched (with the exception of Asian women who marry White men). Black women are the least likely to marry outside of their race, though it is not solely because of racial loyalty, but also because of the way Eurocentric beauty myths and feminine devaluation manifests uniquely for Black women. To be clear, I am not condemning interracial relationships; I am suggesting that a Black man suggesting that every Black woman is automatically heterosexual and wants a mate BUT is solely the reason why a Black man is not her partner is problematically heternormative, bigoted and ahistorical. It sounds like recycled garbage from a CNN or Dateline “dating exposé” on Black women.

“On our own?” Black women BEEN ON OUR OWN. This is reality. Instead of this man examining how White supremacist capitalist patriarchy has impacted Black families for centuries, he adopts the notion that Black women are the pariahs of society, arbitrarily and rightfully. He, like many Black men, approach this topic as if their arms are too short to box with White supremacy. It’s easier to simply look “down” the hierarchy and blame whomever they view “below,” which would be Black women.

“Protect, provide or to promote your beauty?” First of all, this is unoriginal. He is playing off of the already problematic works of Steve Harvey (protect, profess, provide is Harvey’s lingo). Both Black men and Black women have been impacted by Eurocentric beauty myths so badly that Black people are running around and applauding Kendrick Lamar for having a brown-skinned woman in a rap video. This is viewed as a major achievement, so much so that no one will allow a critique of sexism or misogyny because he has this achievement in fighting against colourism. Thus, the idea that because Black women will not allow themselves to be subjugated by Black men enough (and I write “enough” because MANY Black women adhere to patriarchal norms, internalize sexism and brush away misogyny—they do exactly what Black men demand—and are still devalued) means that Black men will adamantly refuse to defend us amidst the White supremacist attacks that we endure, is ludicrous. Some are actively involved in presenting non-Black women as the only women that are beautiful to the point that we have to overly applaud a rapper for featuring a brown woman in a rap video. Thus, they already aren’t promoting our beauty. They simply want the same power that White men have, no matter how corrupt, so to critique that power is a bigger challenge than to try to replicate it intraracially. (I previously discussed this same perception of power in reference to Django Unchained.)

Further, the idea that Black men can “protect” Black women from White supremacist capitalist patriarchy is laughable. Why? Because we BOTH have been fighting this in both similar and different ways. And, how can Black men protect us from the very same model that they want to replicate? Further, it’s ahistorical because ignores how this very same destruction manifests in their own lives. They aren’t protected from Prison Industrial Complex, police brutality or poverty either. The only reason why specific beauty and sexuality criticisms manifest differently for them than for us is not because they are model protectors but because of how gender manifests in general; Black women are going to face different attacks because we do not have male privilege. We are subject to sexism in addition to racism. (There is a difference between a Black man claiming to “protect” me from White supremacist capitalist patriarchy…while being White supremacist, capitalistic and patriarchal himself [impossible] versus supporting me and standing with me against such hatred, and both of us standing up for each other.)

“You have no one to blame but yourselves.” If Quevenzhané deserves to be attacked by White-owned media groups, journalists and comedians because every single adult Black woman does not allow every single Black man to dominate, then there’s really nothing that I can say to Black men like this. The price of the ticket of their “love” is too high. If I have to be subjugated by Black men in order for them to “protect” me (which they cannot do, as they also deal with the oppression of White supremacy) from White people attacking me in ways that they also attack me, then I will decline. I’ve never seen protection that didn’t come without possession and domination, anyway. If support requires subjugation and protection requires possession, I will decline. 

It’s not solely White feminists and White women at large who have a problem with defending Black women; it is also Black men at times.

Any Black man that thinks that interracial or intraracial attacks on Black women are acceptable because we have not been obedient and oppressed enough by Black men to warrant “love” or “respect” from them or anyone else is drinking the kyriarchal kool-aid, and I view him as a threat, not an ally.

Related Essay List: Patriarchy, Sexism and Misogynoir - An Intraracial View

On Black Women…

Here are links to some of my writing on Black women on a plethora of topics, including womanist perspectives.

• Black Women Are Not Bitter
• Black Women and Friendships
• Black Women and Desire
• “You’re A…Feminist Blogger?”
• 7 Attacks On Feminism
• On Black Success…
• Black Female Physicians
• Black Women and Swimming
• 7 Things To STOP Saying To Black Women About Beauty
• Black Beauty Supply Store Ciriculars
• Salon Stories
• Natural Hair, No Ruler
• I Don’t Want To Be “Gone With The Wind Fabulous”
• White Women In Black Natural Hair Spaces
• “Keep That Talk On Colourism Quiet!”
• Silence On Colourism In The Natural Hair World
• Natural Hair Hierarchies?
• Black Women and Erasure
• Black Women’s “Unreasonable” Dating Standards
• Black Girls, Black Women and TV Commercials
• Mamsaphjez? (Scandal and Deception; Mammy, Sapphire, Jezebel?)
• If “Olivia Pope” Of Scandal Were White
• Black Female Millionaires + Non-Black Male Billionaires
• When Interracial Relationships Become Awkward
• Black Women, White Men, Dating and “Second Right of Refusal”
• Brag Much?
• Angry?
• Feminist Black Women and “The Black Church”
• Black Women and Travel

And in reference to womanism, some of my writing on the complications that White supremacy creates amidst feminism as proliferated by White feminists, as well as dealing with racial microaggressions from White women, as a Black woman.

• The Academe Was My Introduction To White Supremacist Feminism
• So Lena Dunham Is Your Pathway To Feminism? Ha.
• White Feminists Who Think Of Michelle Obama’s Identity As An Assault On Their Own Identities
• White Women’s “Chris Brown” Syndrome
• White Women and White Privilege: Telling Them NO
• White Women and White Privilege
• Not Interested In Your Matchmaking Services

Links to everything I’ve posted (including mentioned in my writing, others’ writing, photographs, videos, quotes etc.) on some of my favorite Black female thinkers, writers, activists, scholars, and artists: Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Michelle Obama, Oprah, Shonda Rhimes, Kerry Washington, Beyoncé, Solange,

Other popular catch-all tags on my blog: womanism, Scandal, natural hair

Related Essay Lists: Patriarchy, Sexism and Misogynoir - An Intraracial View, On Race…

Patriarchy, Sexism and Misogynoir - An Intraracial View

I recognize the amazing work that many Black men who are intersectional feminists engage in (and I don’t confuse benevolent sexists for feminists just like I don’t confuse White supremacists for feminists either) whether it is some of the ones that I talk to on Twitter, or mention here on my blog (i.e. Son of Baldwin, The Anti_Intellect Blog or Furious and Brave) or others out there, and like bell hooks mentioned, I speak about that good work and don’t pretend that there are no Black men interested in such work.

However, I am NOT going to be silent on the impact of intraracial sexism, misogynoir and patriarchal thinking by Black men and its impact on my own life, Black women or the Black community. I have never been silent on this. Further, I am always interested in discussing it within the larger context of White supremacist capitalist patriarchy and kyriarchy itself because I don’t believe in arbitrary, de-contextualized blaming, as that is not analysis or Womanist work.

Like bell hooks wrote:

Everyone seems eager to forget that it is possible for Black women to love Black men and yet unequivocally challenge and oppose sexism, male domination and phallocentrism.

Below are some of my essays that I’ve written on this topic, some highly personal and others examine my experiences and Black women’s in a larger context.

• Black Male “Relationship Counselors” On Twitter Have Taken A Turn For The Worst
• Nice Guys™ and Race
• Black Men, Patriarcha​l Masculinit​y and Django Unchained
• Black Masculinity, Dating, and Twitter
• Black Women’s “Unreasonable” Dating Standards
• Submissive Is A Noun Now?
• I Don’t Have To Know You To Care
• Patriarchy Is Not Logical, Boo
• Patriarchal Thinking Is Hypocritical Thinking
• Here’s The Deal…
• “Lame” vs. “Thug”
• When Silencing Tactics Hit Home
• Look Somewhere Else. Ugh.
• I…Just Wanted To Take Your Picture
• Who Hates Black Men? Who Indeed…
• Race, Gender and Violence
• 2 Bad Dates, 2 Mediocre Dates, 2 Great Dates
• Delusions of Black Patriarchy
• How Internalized White Supremacy Ruined a Black-Owned Small Business
• A Tale Of Two Men
• The Faux “Allies” of Black Men
• The Truth About Black Love
• No…Your Educational Level Isn’t The Issue At The Moment…
• Not Interested In Patriarchal Labels For Women…
• Submission? Nope. Kthanxbai.
• Why People Listen To Steve Harvey’s Advice (Ugh…)
• Are You Sure He’s That…”Great?”
• A Great Compliment From A Man…
• Black “Conscious” Rappers and White Liberals Remind Me Of Each Other
• The Word “Unity” Has Become Funny
• A Core Problem That Black Women Face In Regards To Domestic Violence
• “But…We Look…Alike…”
• Why I Don’t Like Tyler Perry’s Work
• Politics and The Blackness Police
• Social Justice and Cultural Hierarchy
• Me. Black Men. Street Harassment. White Audience.
• That Awkward Moment When A 4 Year Old Boy Attempts Street Harassment  (I write a lot about street harassment and race, because I experience it every single day and primarily [though not exclusively] by Black men.)

Related Essay List: On Race…

Black Male “Relationship Counselors” On Twitter Have Taken A Turn For The Worst

In the past, I wrote about why Black people are sucked in by what I now call Black Hetero-Patriarchal Coupling Industrial Complex (this “advice” culture targeted at Black women functions to support White supremacy [by reinstalling notions that Black women are the most flawed of all women and need to be dominated the most], capitalism [involving the purchase “help” products in the millions, building the influence of Black men who do not truly love or respect Black women] and patriarchy [obvious]), and I wrote about it in relation to Steve Harvey’s work.

However, at much lower (in terms of money, power and platform) but still reasonably dangerous level, there are Black men advocating their same versions, or at times, even more dangerous versions of this “advice” meant to marginalize, control and even destroy Black women. While some of this “advice” comes from a place of them seeking “empowerment” for themselves at the expense of a Black woman’s agency—bad enough, some of it seems to come from a place of genuine ignorance, irresponsibility and…even hatred.

Yesterday on Twitter, one of these men (who has almost 30K people following these messages) actually advocated women NOT carrying condoms and relying on men to have them. In 2013. (He isn’t the only one of his ilk to do this either, just the most recent.) His justification is that women who have them must only think about sex (a ridiculous logical fallacy), are too “available” (what?) and are “devaluing” their worth, are disgusting (seriously?) and only the person with a penis should have condoms.

Beyond the patriarchy, misogyny and heteronormativity of this ignorance—no one’s worth as a human being is lowered from sexual activity and anyone involved in sexual behavior has the right to protect themselves and be concerned with their health—the sheer level of irresponsibility in this “advice,” especially regarding Black sexual health, is truly mind-boggling. Because of his “advice” style and audience, it is clear that this is specifically targeted at Black women. This “advice” is incredibly ignorant, irresponsible and wrong. To me, it is an act of hatred—an act of war.

The risks to health and life, the emotional duress (including increased likelihood of domestic violence and murder when one of these soon to be mentioned situations occur) and the financial burden of unplanned pregnancies, STIs and HIV/AIDS are supposed to be made by Black women so that a Black man can “feel like a man?” Is their self-esteem contingent upon our destruction and death? This feels like hatred.

According to me, and a few of the people I talk to on Twitter, these seem to be the requirements for these “relationship counselors”:

Requirements To Be A Black Relationship Counselor On Twitter

• Be a Black heterosexual man
• Have a pulse
• Have a smartphone/laptop or computer
• Have Internet access
• Have a Twitter account
• Smug avi wearing a suit is optional

There is no real bar of entry for this hobby or profession and the results have moved beyond general ignorance, Christianity-oriented manipulation and manipulation of science to promote sexism and misogyny, and patriarchal thoughts. It has moved past specific anti-Black woman misogyny, or misogynoir. It has now into moved an area where these men, whether purposely or inadvertently through ignorance are advocating our genocide as Black women. And, some Black women do not have the personal agency to reject this nonsense so instead, their internalized racism and sexism, in an appeal to be desirable to Black men who think this way, could eventually mean their illness or death. Some Black women have internalized the LIE that whatever we desire in partners is unreasonable to the point that they think “being a lady” which now means having zero sexual agency or empowerment, is more important than their freedom, their health and their life. Women cannot and should not count on men to have condoms and should make decisions on birth control and STI protection without men domineering those choices.

I can no longer solely look at this irritating and disrespectful trend of “advice culture” as Black men trying to reclaim some sort of patriarchal power in a world where Black women are earning equal or more than them at times, earning 32% more college degrees and often are happily choosing relationship statuses outside of the heteronormative, patriarchal template. I now see this for what it is—a handful of Black men so desperate for power and influence that it matters more than our lives and thousands of Black women (following non-famous ones) and millions of Black women (following famous ones) deciding that hoping to be an object of a Black man’s desire is worth internalizing racism and sexism, accepting misogyny, fighting for a patriarchal and domineering relationship not worth their time and now…risking their lives.

This should be listed with other forms of abuse. This isn’t solely a “free speech” (as that doesn’t even apply but I know people will bring this up since no one has actually read the First Amendment) or a “well they don’t have to listen” type of thing. We LIVE in a patriarchal society, one where Black women are consistently devalued intraracially and interracially, and one where women, in general, are reared to feel inadequate if they aren’t in a relationship, no matter how abusive, and heed the advice of men, no matter how detrimental. While some will lazily say “it’s just a book” or “it’s just tweets” I know that this “advice culture” is not “just” words and can impact Black women—and Black people (since by proxy, them saying women aren’t “ladies” when they have personal agency corresponds to them describing fellow Black men basically as sexual brutes in the way of the White supremacist construction of their identities—internalized White supremacist thought here) just as badly as other forms of media can.

Thankfully, there ARE Black men (and many Black women) speaking out against this, on the very same platform, Twitter, where this lives. Even so, my concern is that the “typical” sexism and misogyny of these “advice” tweets (bad enough) have escalated into something worse and something that no Black woman should trust and no Black man should advocate.

Related Posts: Black Masculinity, Dating, and Twitter, Patriarchal Thinking Is Hypocritical Thinking

Love

When people suggest to me that romantic love is what occurs in the space where pain is absent, I want to laugh. It sounds childish and incredibly inexperienced to me. No, that would be total apathy at worst; slight indifference at best. That’s what occurs in the space where pain is absent. Indifference, not love, is the opposite of hate, as so many wise scholars have noted. When one doesn’t care enough to ever risk being hurt, one is indifferent.

Love and pain aren’t the same things but they are directly proportional to each other. The more you love someone, the more they can hurt you. The more you can hurt them. Love should mean that they choose to do everything in their power not to hurt you, and you do everything in your power not to hurt them. However, that’s not what always occurs.

Love can manifest in painful ways because the emotion exists while deterrents exist. They run together concurrently; maybe parallel lines that are bisected by particular incidents and other turbulent emotions. This doesn’t necessarily mean that love has evaporated and has been replaced by abuse.

The pain of a wife missing a husband in the military overseas is a pain felt because she knows what the love feels like when they are together. It is the pain of longing. The pain a husband feels when his wife dies before him is a pain felt because he knows what their life, their challenges, their connection, their love was like during their marriage. It is the pain of loss. The pain a child feels who has to bury her mother, one she feels was taken away too soon by an easily curable illness but poverty stood in their way is a pain felt because this child feels exposed, lost, guide-less and unprotected. It is the pain of abandonment. The pain felt when parents have to bury a child—a human belief that this violates the circle of life, the natural order of things is a pain felt because no parent wants to bury a child because it just feels…wrong. It is the pain of injustice. The pain a LGBTQ/SGL couple feels because the hatred in society might mean one or both of them cannot reveal themselves and remain safe in their love is a pain felt because external hatred imposes shame on the true beauty that they share between themselves. It is the pain of fear and uncertainty. The pain a woman feels when she loves a man that society deems she should not love—a society that deems she isn’t even worthy of love in the first place, and the man who loves her in return also feels this pain, is a pain felt because they know that breaking rules, norms, even others’ notions of “morality” is a pain that equals their passion, their desire, their love, and the quest to tip the scales in their favor is the challenge of their lifetimes. It is a pain of unbearable balance.

None of these forms of love are devalued by the presence of pain. Complicated by it? Yes. Devalued? No. Abuse? No.

When people desire painful love, it can mean that they desire pain as punishment for feeling love. They desire abuse as they don’t feel worthy of love. This is very common…and tragic. Or…it can mean that they desire love so valuable, so meaningful, so rich, and so true, that the propensity to feel pain and create pain is there—even at equal capacity—but the risk of a love so unabashed and powerful makes the risk of pain worth it.

The fact that babies die of SIDS, and kids are kidnapped, die from illness, are abused and are murdered, yet, people still choose to have them, to nurture new life, to parent, reveals that there is a form of love where the greatest risk possible is taken for what is viewed as a great reward. Simply because some people view perhaps sibling, platonic or romantic love, not just parental love, as love worth great risks, and possibly great pain, doesn’t necessarily mean they crave hurt or abuse (and they can still be clear on what abuse really is, and not accept it—all pain isn’t abuse, though all abuse is pain). It means that they value love. They want it in their lives.

Who are we to stop them? Who are we to deny them the chance?

If “President Fitzgerald Grant” Of Scandal Were Black

Kerry Washington stated that if the President, “Fitzgerald Grant” on Scandal were Black she wouldn’t have accepted the portrayal of “Olivia Pope” because it would be disrespectful.

I thought If the president on the show is Black, I will not do the show. Because to me, it was too important a moment. I didn’t want to do anything that compromised my relationship with the President or that made it seem like I had an insider view on the Obama presidency. I thought that would be so disrespectful and so against all the work that I had done.

I understand the allure of pretending that Kerry must “hate” Black men and solely thrives on being a love interest of White men. It doesn’t matter that she’s portrayed a love interest of characters that Jamie Foxx and Forest Whitaker, Black men, have portrayed. This works perfectly with the popular narrative that Black women hate Black men and the show should be off the air for that reason since it must be the only reason why Black women watch it. However, regardless of how alluring this misinterpretation is, it doesn’t actually surmise what her point of view seems to be. (I saw some people via Twitter engage this misinterpretation.)

I think “Broomhilda” from Django Unchained is a more problematic character than “Olivia Pope” and NOT because the former is a slave and the latter has a “fancy job” and is free. I understand the lack of critical thinking involved in such a hyperbolic stance as to why it’s a popular one. However, it’s not my stance. I’ve already written in detail why I don’t view her former role as the empowering feminist role that she sees it as and why I am not compelled by Django Unchained at all. Quentin Tarantino using a slave plantation for the filming, Kerry being whipped—the entire thing is where the disrespect is, not “Olivia Pope” possibly having an affair with a Black President.

However, let’s be real; we’ve had ONE Black President in real life, art imitates life, and Kerry Washington has worked with President Obama on his campaigns and in his administration. Her juxtaposition to him in real life would create unnecessary spectacle for his administration and the LIMITED space she already has to explore her character because she’s a Black woman would face major shrinkage. Further, many people’s concept of “Black love” as projected from their psyches to the media means that anything except married, heterosexual, monogamous is automatic offense and reduction to stereotype, no matter how nuanced and dynamic the characters actually are. The show would fail. I would probably still watch as long as the entire cast remained as powerful and compelling as they are now, but ultimately, the drama caused by some people’s unfulfilled desires in real life and the politics of respectability, which people already use to choke and demonize “Olivia Pope” would increase tenfold with a Black “Fitz.”

People STILL want this show to portray FLAT “positive” characters that they think leave no room for White criticism through the White gaze. Any presence of negative attributes, no matter how dynamic the Black woman character is means the character becomes one, two or all of the common stereotypes: mammy, Jezebel, Sapphire. It doesn’t matter if the character in totality is not these stereotypes. Any time she fixes a problem the audience can yell out “mammy!” Anytime she is physically intimate with “Fitz” or “Edison” the audience can hell out “Jezebel!” Anytime she argues with high powered men the audience can yell out “Sapphire.” The only problem is that the audience is DEAD WRONG. The audience has now gone past examining the totality of a character to labeling any single action as the entire character morphing into a stereotype, even when she has not. And, this lazy and myopic labeling is why based on watching the reaction to this character, I doubt any Black woman character will ever be acceptable, no matter how human she is, no matter how much work is put into her, no matter how dynamic she is, no matter how she easily transcends these three stereotypes or being boringly flatly positive. It makes sense though because Black women as people aren’t deemed acceptable either.

“Divide and Conquer,” Passive Aggression and Bad Dating Tactics

One of the more sinister, passive aggressive actions that some men engage in is their “divide and conquer” tactic whenever they’re trying to pursue one woman while she’s with another woman in public. The complaint that women traveling in “packs” makes it harder for men to talk to one woman is fairly common amidst dating conversations. Women out in groups at clubs or parties etc. make the risk of rejection and/or being laughed at, much higher for men, in some men’s minds. But not even just in packs does their apprehension seem like it’s at an all time high; even a duo intimidate some. They use “divide and conquer” tactics in three common ways, in my experience.

Beauty/youth as a divider:
I’ve had some men try the “oh…is that your mom?” line on either me or the friend I was out with. This is supposed to imply that one of us is “older” and thereby “less attractive” (since women are supposed to be naturally competing for men on youth and beauty in a patriarchal society) than the other, and make us hostile towards each other so that in fact it shifts from him fighting for attention from one of us to us fighting for his attention. The laughable part is that except for one woman (the second one I mentioned in a previous post) no woman I was with ever fell for this. We became that much more solidified in views and usually ended up laughing the guy away. And no, he was never simply making an honest mistake. I was always out with a woman within 3 years of my age and even worse, we were in settings (i.e. college, social groups) where it was CLEAR that there’s no way we were in such an age differing familial relationship.

Attention as a divider:
I’ve had some men be blatantly hostile or blatantly ignore me or the friend I was with, anytime we spoke, while focusing sanguine attention and compliments on the other. This tactic attempts to make the one receiving less attention “fight” harder to be included in the conversation and the become the “object” of attention, and also more likely to lower standards if the guy chose the one who “fought” harder. Also, it is supposed to set the two women at odds, so again, they are enemies in that situation, not him as the intruding and manipulative party. This one has never worked between any woman I was with when it happened. We actually discussed the tactic being used once we started to ignore or laughed the man out of there.

Second location as a divider:
This one is more complicated as the man might seem decent at first, but after asking for a dance or something that will require one of the women to leave, he tries to move her to a different area of the space, which would be fine, if he wasn’t actively making sure to divide the two friends for the rest of the ENTIRE evening. I’ve experienced this from both angles; a man trying to divide me from a friend and being the one divided from. Naturally because I find humor (amidst annoyance) in these behavioral games for which I already know the objective, I usually made eye contact with they guy (and laughed) or made eye contact with my friend. My friend would laugh and be back at our table in no time and the guy would be angry, which of course made me laugh more.

To be clear, in none of the instances I went out with a woman friend and this occurred, did we go out to “meet men” so we aren’t speaking of “cock blocking” (what an awful term…) incidents on our part, or anything like that. If I was with a friend who was interested in a man at that location, that would be totally fine, though if she fell for any of these stunts, that’d make me suspicious of her radar and her intentions with friendships. I don’t continue friendships with women looking to use me as an emotional place holder, or someone to be around and receive platonic feelings from until a man comes along who’s automatically deemed more important by virtue of being male and being a possible source of romantic feelings, which they privilege over platonic ones. And, as I mentioned above, only one woman I’ve had a long term friendship with had this stance so ANY attention I received over her (even from men not worth either of our time) was viewed by her as some sort deduction from her self-worth, so our friendship had bigger fish to fry than worrying about silly men and silly games. And eventually, that particular friendship ended, though overall, I have quality friendships in my life and have had very few of the real and dynamic ones ever end. (Not speaking of social media buddies or associates from social groups/past jobs [these two types are still cool], but instead the type of people who’d actually be at my funeral if I died, friendships that existed before the word “tweet” existed as a human verb or friends was a label on Facebook.)

It’s hilarious to me how with my closest friends (who are all Black women), my conversations about men are about the analysis of behaviors like these, more so than who’s “fine.” (We still talk about who’s fine though.) Beyond my ideological standpoint as a Womainist, these conversations are how I’ve been able to know which compliments are good and which are crap, and so many other things that have probably saved me a ton of headaches and mistakes.

I hate games outside of chess, UNO, spades, and Angry Birds, and definitely being in my 30s has made me even less receptive to “conquer” oriented games (especially since they rely on sexist ideas about gender) that passive aggressive men play. These games are literally almost as annoying as the passive aggressive shenanigans that Nice Guys™ get into.