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

A Black Woman Does Not Have To Perform Stereotypes To Have A “Personality”

I am always highly suspicious of people when they suggest that a Black woman “doesn’t have a personality.” Everyone has a personality. Personality refers to the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual’s distinctive character—what makes them different from someone else. Thus, while Black women share sociopolitical characteristics and have common experiences based on our social location, we each have differing personalities (even if characteristics such as MBTI also reveals overlap).

It’s rarely a matter of a particular Black woman not having a personality. It might be one that people do not like (though few know how to critique Black women without using “isms”). It might be one that people do not have enough exposure to in order to make a judgment of. Perhaps that Black woman is an introvert and these people, like most Americans, have a persistent bias towards extroverts over introverts. In fact, many people seem to define “personality” as “extroverted expressions.” Perhaps these people bring out the worst in her, either through their own bigotry or by being assholes, in general. Perhaps these people only associate ONE WORD emotions with the labyrinth of nuance that is personality. How eager are some people to label a Black woman’s entire personality as “bitter.”

Many times when I’ve heard people suggest that a certain Black woman (famous or non-famous) didn’t have a personality, it was because they felt that she did not conform to external constructions of Black womanhood (though they don’t always realize that this is what they are suggesting), either through historically racist controlling images (mammy, Jezebel, Sapphire), stereotypes shaped by White supremacy, racism, sexism and capitalism just as much as misogynoir (welfare queen, welfare mother, Black matriarch, “corporate” Black “maneater”, “evil” single Black woman, “hoochie” or “whore”), or patriarchal labels via binaries (“strong” vs. “angry” or “queen” vs. “bitch”).

I’ve encountered Black men who will literally write a Black woman off as “fake” or “phony” or “boring” or suggest that “she has no personality” if he cannot place her in one of these racist and misogynoirist categories. They reject how White supremacy in the media shapes Black manhood (though many still embrace patriarchal masculinity, which is a construction via White supremacy) but will gladly suggest that all Black women are like reality shows etc. And here’s the thing, for the ones who are argumentative like reality shows, so what? Men don’t argue? I won’t even bother citing the violence and wars that manifest from their arguments. White women don’t argue? They do the same things on their reality shows without being expected to represent “all” White women. The luxury of male privilege and White privilege allows this.

Next time a person decides that a Black woman doesn’t have a personality, I will be interested in knowing if she’s simply an introvert, disinterested in the person making the assessment or expected to be a one-dimensional stereotype and not a person.

I am interested in full human beings. Black women are full human beings. Black women do not have to perform extroversion or be 1-dimensional stereotypes to have personalities.

Shonda Rhimes and Scandal Remain On Top

I just read a GREAT piece in The New York Times called Network TV Is Broken. So How Does Shonda Rhimes Keep Making Hits? by Willa Paskin. She reports that Scandal now gets 8 million viewers per week. It is the number one drama at the 10pm slot on any night, on any network and with the coveted 18-49 year old demographic. It hangs with the network television big dogs like CSI, and gets more viewers than beloved cable shows like Game of Thrones and Mad Men. It’s also the number one show on network TV among Black people.

The piece also contains an interesting test for people to really examine if racism and sexism are shaping their responses to Scandal and to Shonda Rhimes herself:

Try this blind test: A politician and a workaholic have a passionate extramarital affair that endangers their careers and national security. A scheming Washington insider murders an innocent and makes it look like a suicide to further his own career. A person assumes a false identity after a gruesome incident and uses that identity to build a new life. To protect his legacy, a man preemptively murders a former ally once essential to his success.

These are all descriptions of plot points on “Scandal” — but also on “Homeland,” “House of Cards,” “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad,” respectively. “Scandal” may not look or feel like TV’s other prestige dramas, in which (usually male) antiheroes mix it up under the oversight of an (almost always male) auteur who has complex feelings about entertaining his audience. Rhimes feels no such ambivalence.

Mmm hmm.

I really like that Shonda Rhimes has spoken out (more than once, actually) on her resentment of the show being called a “guilty pleasure.” She called such a label “ridiculous” and “super insulting.” I find that women and men embracing this label for shows of interest to women just reveals sexism in our society. What man has ever called anything he watches a “guilty pleasure?” I know men that watch the most ridiculous reality shows and wrestling—which is a soap opera, and do not label the shows this way. The irony of Scandal is it is not woman-centric; it’s human centric. “Olivia” gets to be human too, not just a series of stereotypes. And, as the ratings reveals, men watch Scandal too.

Only two more episodes this season!

All Scandal posts on Gradient Lair

Examining White Supremacy and Heroism: When Both White and Black People Value White Lives More

I want to share a critically important comment that Son of Baldwin made on my essay On Charles Ramsey: A Black Hero Cannot Exist At The Intersection of White Supremacy and The Media

Everything Gradient Lair said, and, as I said yesterday: But please keep in mind that we are only really considered “good” or “heroes” when we’ve saved white people’s lives (perhaps because they believe only white people’s lives are worth saving; and perhaps, sadly, we believe that, too), when we’re acting as the Uncle Toms and Mammies of their imaginations, doting over white people’s children and acting as guard dogs for their safety (stories of heroism and life-saving within our own communities rarely seem to be newsworthy, but “black-on-black crime”, whatever that means, is a perennial media favorite). From Uncle Tom’s Cabin to Gone with the Wind to The Help to The Butler to the evening news, most whites can only see us as only subservient to their needs, nursemaids to their well being, necessary for their superiority, or dangerous to their acquisition of property. The more selfless for their own benefit we appear, the more they believe things are just the way they’re supposed to be. They don’t allow us the complexity of a full human life; they would rather that our lives remain in the margins, expressed only in the most distorted and inaccurate of extremes.

YES. Many Black people DO have more empathy for White suffering than our own suffering. I’ve seen Black women (and this really hurts) cry over experiences that White women have had yet turn a cold shoulder to fellow Black women. I’ve seen some scold their children harshly then overly smile and be kind to biracial or White children. White supremacy and internalized racism is why we absorb the idea that our lives are inferior and our pain doesn’t matter as much. (This and the hegemonic controlling image of The Strong Black Woman is used to fake “deify” us when in fact it is dehumanization that we absorb over time and allow our own lives and own pain not to matter as much.)

Then with Black men involved, they too have absorbed the message of the devaluation of Black life over White life (while Whites value Whites over Blacks). This is why a Black man could easily beat a Black woman and then save a White woman. Because Black women are dehumanized through racism, sexism and misogynoir, Black men learn the message that we are “less” feminine and “less” worthy of protection, and that protection can only exist with complete surrender to patriarchy. Because Black women are portrayed as “dominant” and White women as “submissive” (and this harms both Black and White women, they are sexist tropes where though we are placed below White women, they are not viewed as fully human either UNLESS juxtaposed to Black women), the message is received that White women are the only ones worth saving AND in order to be worthy of saving, one must completely submit to patriarchal domination, as a woman. 

Thus, saving someone White is deemed more heroic than saving someone Black, EVEN as the media will not allow someone Black to truly be a hero without the White supremacist clause that one must be objectified as a joke or a criminal.

(I totally agree with his comment above, especially when he mentions two things. 1) “Black on Black crime” as a unique pathology is a MYTH in that MOST CRIME is intraracial. PERIOD. There is no “White on White crime” label used, ever. I discussed this years ago in grad school and the White students were FLOORED that I would not accept this racist label for intraracial crime. 2) The construction of White saviors/Black servants/Black Magical Negros etc. in film and used as constructs to racially oppress. Read: this, this, this, this and this, just to scratch the surface.)

(via sonofbaldwin)

On Charles Ramsey: A Black Hero Cannot Exist At The Intersection of White Supremacy and The Media

Like many, I find it incredibly disgusting that Charles Ramsey can only be an object of humor/entertainment or an object of scorn. His humanity is stripped away, callously by the media and the public. These are the options provided to Black people in America, even in a situation where he saved lives.

But it makes “sense” in a White supremacist and racist society and honestly didn’t surprise, only angered many people that I talked to. The fact that it never surprises us is a testament to how we endure and fight racism in this society.

In my post about Charles Ramsey on Storify, I mentioned the following (via tweets):

Realize that humoring via racist and classist memes and desecrating the reputation of a bystander who helped teaches people NOT TO HELP others. People are watching this and quietly deciding to themselves to stay “out of folks’ business” and who can blame them now? This is bad. If your name can be slandered WORLDWIDE for helping someone, people will definitely turn their backs on others now. Black criminals are treated like animals. Black victims are treated like criminals. Black heroes are treated like punchlines.

I am NOT applauding him having a domestic violence charge in his past. Who would other than other abusers and misogynists? My argument here is that I should NOT know his past record. WHEN has a background check ever been done on someone White who is hailed as a hero? Why is more known about this man than the men who kidnapped the women? 

The fact that he was willing to save White women (and Latina women can also be White or have passing privilege or White privilege) but may have abused a Black one in the past speaks to quite a bit in our culture.  Even so, the bottom line in regards to what he did, even with all of the politics of patriarchy, racism, sexism, Eurocentric beauty myths when framed with crime, classism, rape culture and more circling and intersecting this issue in every way, he STILL SAVED THEIR LIVES. 

Cops who abuse people, including their own families often, are called heroes in other situations. Soldiers trained to kill for imperialist, capitalist and xenophobic goals are called heroes even as many of them are responsible for the 26,000 unreported sex crimes against women in the military last year. The idea that a hero is a perfect human being (and Ramsey does not want to be called a hero anyway, he said so himself) is laughable. The very Founding Fathers and other worshiped White male historical figures were slave-owning racist rapists or White supremacist slavery apologists.

This is solely about RACISM and CLASSISM and nothing else. This is about maintaining the White supremacist myth that Whiteness is goodness and nothing else. That is what motivates this marginalization (and distraction from the real issues: kidnapping, human trafficking, sexual abuse and rape culture in an imperialist White supremacist capitalist patriarchal world) through “humor” memes and the slander via White supremacist, racist and classist media, period.

The Predictable Cycle of White Liberal “Humor” At Black Women’s Expense

The Onion and other “liberal” White comedians (see @scATX’s comment on “The Bill Maher syndrome”) love to engage in “isms” in their humor and expect not to be called out on it because they are, well “liberals.” They want feminists and other progressives to ONLY focus on Conservatives as “racists.” At this point, I am tired of the cycle below, which seems to be a recurring cycle.

White men with White male privilege + platform/money/power insult Black woman → the world laughs → Black women, womanist/feminist or not and true allies pushback → anyone who doesn’t like the “joke” is called stupid, obtuse, and/or has their tone policed → prominent White feminists defend insults → Black women, womanist/feminist or not and true allies pushback → White feminists engage in White Tears™ → a handful of Black people defend the attacks as well so that they can feel “powerful” and identify with the aggressor or because of internalized racism plus misogynoir→ a handful of Black men somehow blame Black women for the insult because we aren’t “submissive” enough or team up with White feminists against Black women → division among those who identify as feminist or not continues

The fact that White women are scrambling to defend The Onion, again, for their disgusting recent attack on Rihanna, after so many did the same for the attack on Quvenzhané is BORING, PREDICTABLE and ANNOYING. A few White feminists are not doing that, including @Shakestweetz who has a great post: The Onion Can Go To Hell.

It’s troubling to see the hypocrisy involved because when Donald Trump rationalized rape of women (read: White women, despite the fact that 30%+ of women in the armed forces are Black women) in the military, many White feminists were outraged on Twitter. Why is it wrong for Trump to rationalize rape but okay for The Onion to mock Rihanna as a victim of domestic violence just to make some “point” about Chris Brown? (Some White women are very invested in painting Chris Brown as the only example of domestic violence.) Further, how is it that White male celebrities who engage in similar behavior or their White female victims are not used as satire points by The Onion? White supremacy and casual racism to justify it; White privilege to pretend it is not happening.

I do not applaud ANY man who engages in violence or violence apologism; it’s not “extra” bad if the man is Black, as that would be internalized racism on my part if I thought so.

When you represent a position of power (White, male, money, platform, media) and you use that power to facilitate the disenfranchisement of people already disenfranchised (and let’s be clear, even with beauty, light skin, cis, heterosexual and class privilege, NONE of that protects Rihanna from patriarchal masculinity, sexism, misogynoir or racism) then you aren’t funny, you aren’t progressive, you aren’t creative. You are simply a part of the machine—the propaganda, systems, structures and institutions that facilitate oppression in this society.

The Onion should check with Black Twitter on how to do satire. #whitehistoryclasses and #blackprivilege are a start.

Why Whites Call People Of Colour “Racist”

I have been called “racist” by White people whenever I specifically reject a legislative, political, media/film/art, or cultural manifestation of White supremacy. I’ve also been called “racist” for recounting any experience that I have had with racism. The actual act of naming what I heard or experienced is deemed “racist.” The naming, deconstruction and discussion of experiences of this nature is important, however. As Black feminist scholar Patricia Hill Collins notes:

Naming daily life by applying language to everyday experience infuses it with the new meaning of a womanist consciousness. Naming becomes a way of transcending the limitations of intersecting oppressions.

Apparently, what I actually heard or experienced is of no concern or consequence to Whites seeking to call Black people or other people of colour racist.

There’s two reasons why Whites call people of colour (especially Black people) “racist.” First of all, it comes from a lack of understanding of the term (through ignorance or willful ignorance and hatred), its history and its consequences. As long as “racism” is viewed solely as “one person being mean to another person because of their race” or basically solely as an individual and arbitrary instance of prejudice with equal social capital between the individuals, Whites can obscure or ignore the ramifications of the historical (whether implied, microaggressions or overt racism), institutional, structural and systemic manifestations of White supremacy (which does NOT require extremism to exist) and racism.

A Black person being insulted based on slurs that facilitate(d)(s) oppression and genocide for centuries and that same sentiment behind that slur facilitates the denial of a plethora of opportunities as well as supports a plethora of types of discrimination and punishment represents a different magnitude and scope of an insult versus a Black person “hurting” a White person’s feelings, even if the former is rude. Oppression is about more than hurt feelings. The latter doesn’t even begin to encapsulate what the former is. Further, individual acts of harm from a person of colour to a White person may be an insult, a tort or a crime—but it does not connect to violence (which is more than just physical) used to facilitate the oppression of an entire people. (Even so, because the criminal justice system is about punishing Blacks and “protecting” Whites, a White person wouldn’t have to have the expectation that a Black person would go unpunished for harming them. More convictions and harsher sentences are factors. Even Black adolescents face more punishment than White adolescents. In fact, Whites should fear Whites, in regards to the criminal justice system.)

Many times an insult is not occurring—it’s just a Black person adamantly rejecting White supremacy. The rejection of White supremacy and racism themselves is not “reverse racism.” Rejecting White supremacy is not then telling Whites to be “ashamed” of Whiteness, as they should be able to live and thrive without the lie that is the claim of inherent superiority. For example, I’ve had White women suggest to me that any rejection of Eurocentric beauty, including considering myself beautiful as a Black woman who looks nothing like them, and having a blog where Black women are celebrated visually, is being “racist.” By not making yet another space (since apparently, having their images dominate commercials, films, television shows, magazines, fashion blogs, print ads, books, stock photography and more is not enough), my personal space, dedicated to White women, I am then deemed ”racist” and “oppressing” White women. This is only a smidgen of the nonsense that I face when Whites choose to call me “racist.”

“Reverse racism,” as well as “misandry” and “heterophobia” are not forms of oppression. The oppressed deconstructing, rejecting and fighting oppression does not then make the privileged become oppressed. The privileged have no “right” to oppress, so losing the opportunity to oppress does not make the privileged become oppressed. If the privileged measure their freedom based on how much they can oppress or not, the know nothing of actual freedom. Nothing.

Whites ignore how White privilege protects them from racial oppression but does not for people of colour, especially Black people. They retreat to examining intersections where they may be oppressed (if they aren’t cisgender, heterosexual, White men in the socioeconomic 1% and living in the Western world)—intersections based on gender, class, sexual orientation, being trans*, weight and ability, while not realizing that despite any or all of these areas where oppression can manifest, they STILL have White privilege. Some Whites will ignore the experiences of people of colour who are women, poor, LGBTQ, considered overweight or have a challenge with a particular ability and by doing so, they can focus on how they themselves experience oppression while ignoring White privilege and matters of race. No country for nuance and intersectionality?

The second reason why Whites call people of colour “racist” is quite different. I’ve been in several graduate-level psychology classes where White students stated that being called “racist” is the absolute worse thing that could happen to them. I always wondered why saying or doing a racist thing didn’t scare them more than being called “racist.” What I realized is that some Whites will call a person of colour who called out their racism “racist” in an “I know you are but what am I” reductionist retreat. The defense mechanisms of projection and denial are to protect their egos. If there’s nothing they fear more than being called “racist,” then the best thing to do is to get that label “away” from them as soon as possible. By deciding that a person of colour rejecting racism is the “real” “racist” act, not the racist act that they or another White person was called out on, they can deflect and derail. A common derailment tactic is to assert in a whiny voice “all Whites aren’t like this.” Who said they are? Again, racism is not solely about individual to individual relationships; even when the discussion or action is between two people, it speaks to a greater experience impacted by institutional, systemic and structural factors. Further, an individual White person does not have to be racist in any way to benefit from White privilege living in a White supremacist society. As Mychal Denzel Smith writes In White People Have To Give Up Racism:

Not every white person is a racist, but the genius of racism is that you don’t have to participate to enjoy the spoils. If you’re white, you can be completely oblivious, passively accepting the status quo, and reap the rewards.

A lack of understanding regarding what racism actually is, the belief that White supremacy is “normal” in society, the inability to see the manifestations of racism because they do not experience them and are shielded by White privilege, as well as self-protection from the label that they fear most is why Whites call people of colour “racist” and from my experience, seem to take great pleasure in doing so when that person of colour is Black.

Related Essay List: On Race…

Read This Week

This is my 44th Read This Week feature. Each week I recommend essays, articles and/or papers/journals that I’ve recently read. Below are some great reads:

Radio Silence by Chelo Keys is a painful read but a very important one. She’s very honest about the manifestations of colourism (a product of White supremacy) in her life as an Afro-Latina and how knowing it is wrong and problematic didn’t immediately stop her from breathing a sigh of relief when her son was born not as dark as his father. It’s a painful reality that many Black women face and she was honest enough to share the experience.

How the 3/5ths Live by Stacia L. Brown is an exquisite essay. Just…read it. The way she uses language gives me goosebumps of pleasure, even as she wrote about something complicated and painful for me to read; the racist dehumanization of Black bodies and lives. The whole thing is excellent but that intro paragraph is EVERYTHING, especially regarding Whites who are certain that it is only “arbitrarily” their “hard work” that guarantees their current wealth.

Hey, White Liberals: A Word On The Boston Bombings, The Suffering Of White Children, And The Erosion of Empathy on Black Girl Dangerous is a good read. She mentions how the continued devaluation of Black life, especially of children, via media and society at large while the out pour of care exists for loss of lives of White people is problematic. (There’s actual evidence to support the inability of Whites to empathize with Black people; this is hot hard to fathom when a society is shaped by White supremacy.) Very important read.

Merging Masculinities: Gay (Black) Men in Pro Sports by Robert Reese of Still Furious and Still Brave is a good read. It wasn’t about Jason Collins specifically, but aptly applies. He challenges the notion of heterosexuality and masculinity being paired without room for nuanced perceptions of masculinity, especially in the world of professional athletics. He also speaks to how race is an incredibly salient factor in regards to rigid notions of masculinity.

Private Joy by Son of Baldwin is a great read. He examines the notion of sexuality BEYOND sexual intercourse. Yep…there’s more to it than that. He also examines the idea that certain expressions of sexuality are supposed to be “hidden.” As he always does, there’s great examination intersectionally here. Race, gender, sexual orientation and more. Fascinating essay that I truly loved reading.

Stay tuned for next week’s suggestions!

Read This Week

This is my 43rd Read This Week feature. Each week I recommend essays, articles and/or papers/journals that I’ve recently read. Below are some great reads:

How To Research & Info On Post-Slavery Oppression of Black Women is a Storify of tweets and text by me. I usually don’t include my own writing in a Read This Week, but this involves others as well. Basically a Black man suggested that Black women have not/do not experience oppression since slavery. His source? An Oxford dictionary definition of oppression. Our sources? Actual history, research, facts, and lived experience.

Rage Against The Patriarchy, Dr. Nikita Levy, and The Devaluation of Black Women by @blkgirlwithapen is an important read, though quite painful, naturally. Levy was (now deceased by suicide) a physician who exploited Black women’s safety and security by video recording gynecological exams at John Hopkins for decades. She questions this dehumanization amidst the history of sexual dehumanization of Black women’s bodies, in the healthcare system.

Baiting Black Men: Exotic Friends and Ethnic Social Circles by @AsiaBrown on For Harriet is VERY interesting and something I’ve never thought very deeply about because my friends have always been Black girls when young, Black women as adults. She mentions how some Black women befriend non-Black women and those women are articulated as “bait” for Black men (she names Black female rap stars who’ve mentioned this) and can possibly reveal self-hatred and hatred towards other Black women, by Black women. 

How To Be A Fan Of Problematic Things on Social Justice League is a really good read. Sometimes it is difficult to accept criticism of the media that we consume. Media is problematic because humans are. Media has “isms” because humans proliferate them. This post explains how to proceed with being a critical thinker and someone who consumes media.

And finally, I like this questioned answered where brashblacknonbeliever on Tumblr explains the difference between the derailment tactic of “we are not all like that” by Whites, versus Black and other people of colour REJECTING the White supremacist notion that people of colour are all the same. This distinguishing is critical.

Stay tuned for next week’s suggestions!

Brittney Griner and Race, Gender, Sexuality and Sports

I just read an article in The New York Times called Female Star Comes Out as Gay, and Sports World Shrugs, by Sam Borden and it is in reference to the awesome Black female basketball superstar Brittney Griner. She shined at Baylor University and recently became the number 1 draft pick for the WNBA team Phoenix Mercury.

In the article, Borden asks why her revelation is met with little response as the world awaits a professional male athlete to reveal being gay. The people he asked alluded to the sexism and stereotypes involved, which you can read in the article.

Though I cannot cite why this is the response she receives (insults or ignoring) from the perspective of a lesbian, as I am heterosexual and have heterosexual privilege, I believe it’s a combination of factors that contribute to this (stemming from patriarchy, male privilege, capitalism, sexism, misogynoir, homophobia), ones that allude to her intersectional experience, which includes:

Men’s sports are always treated with higher regard than women’s sports, period. No announcement from a female athlete is going to generate the attention that an announcement from a male athlete does, regardless of what the announcement is. Such a division is clearly seen in men’s NCAA sports versus women’s, let alone in professional sports. (Even in Olympic sports, male sports get more primetime coverage [outside of volleyball, track and gymnastics] and while most can easily cite Usain Bolt as the fastest man in the world, do they know that Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce is the fastest woman in the world? They’re both Jamaicans. This gender issue isn’t even accounting for the racist [and sexist] media issues regarding Olympic sports.)

Female athletes are always assumed to be lesbians UNLESS the media and public deem that they meet an almost hypersexualized version of femininity to derail such homophobic assumptions for misogynist ones. Further, the sheer act of being physical and competitive (as in sports) are associated with patriarchal notions of gender, so women engaging in sports is often viewed as being “male-like.” (We see the same type of rhetoric regarding women in combat, for example.)

Some people who claim to be tolerant (as if tolerance alone is enough) of LGBTQ people are only “tolerant” through a fetishized and disrespectful way; they’ll accept lesbians but not gay men, because in their self-centered minds, lesbians solely exist to “perform” for men, not as independent humans in their own relationships with their own meaningful lives. They do not see lesbians as a “threat” in the way that they do gay men, so to them, a female athlete “coming out” is not worth a response in the way a male athlete coming out is; in that their only response to the latter is anger.

Black women are already viewed as not “feminine” with the combination of racism, sexism, misogynoir and homophobia shaping these perceptions. Thus, it wouldn’t matter what her sexuality is to homophobic people; they already have negative views of lesbians and Black women in general, so Brittney existing at that intersection is a “duh, I already knew she’d be gay” reaction from some, a reaction shaped in stereotypes, not actual acceptance of who she is.

No one should feel forced to come out and no one who chooses to do so should be given disregard, silence or disrespect as a reply. Recognizing a person’s full humanity is embracing who they are completely—not who people want them to be or stereotyped them to be.

Brittney Griner is an exquisite athlete and seems to be a very confident young woman, comfortable in her own skin, sexuality and ability. As we’ve seen, a Black woman who is happy and self-possessed is deemed a threat to many and an object of scorn to even more. When a 9-year-old Black girl with confidence and talent like Quvenzhané could have so many angered in their seas of hatred, seeing nasty negative responses to Griner’s talent or purposeful ignoring/disregarding (and not because of acceptance, as I illustrated) of Griner’s sexuality doesn’t surprise me at all, actually.

I hope that she truly shines in the WNBA and enjoys doing it, and that her talent, skill and confidence continues to inspire.

3 Television Commercials Types That I Never See

I’ve mentioned before that I watch television commercials (as with any other media) with a critical lens, if I don’t change the channel altogether. I also explained why I am concerned with if/how Black girls and Black women are depicted in commercials.

Just this morning I saw a local real estate commercial, at least 8 (White women’s) hair product commercials and a car commercial. These 3 points came to mind, in regards to commercials that I’ve never seen or rarely see:

1. Residential real estate commercials that feature Black families, singles of colour (if they include singles at all, rare, anti-single bias is huge in our society), or 55+ seniors of colour if a senior living real estate commercial. (I know the history of racism and real estate, painfully.)
2. Black hair/beauty product commercials on a mainstream channel, and not just perm/relaxer product commercials on BET or Bounce, for example. I’ve never seen this. Black women spend BILLIONS on beauty products annually. Daily new natural hair products are released yet barely occupy many store shelves and definitely do not occupy media space outside of YouTube and panels, for the most part.
3. A car commercial that features a heterosexual couple where the wife is driving the car, not the husband. (Enter sexist assumptions here.)

Commercials, like other forms of media, from images, to television shows to films are often a medium to convey stereotypes and reinforce the status quo. This is why I rarely expect much from them, but also know that they cannot be ignored. There will be those that will state that commercials only exist to sell products and thereby cannot be art or do not create culture. I would argue that films theoretically exist for entertainment but are in fact propaganda first, and do SELL ideas, concepts and culture, whether accurately (almost never) or inaccurately (almost always).

I remind myself that art is not inherently good. Artists are not inherently noble. Art is not above critique. Art creates culture and can reinforce oppression. It imitates life; reflects the virtues and vices of our time. Art reflects culture and creates culture simultaneously.