In the wake of Gabourey Sibide’s historic nomination to the academy awards, there was substantial hand -wringing over her win and what is represented. I decided to have a little fun, and find all the white, morbidly obese, Academy Award nominees. Surely, all the folks who said she “cut a bad image for black women,” were wrong. Surely, their had to be a white nominee who cut the came profile as Sibide or, hell, Mo’Nique
So I printed out lists of all the Academy Award best actress nominees for the last 40 years. I blew it up and, careful not to look at it too closely, invited a friend over for some fun and regaling. I taped the blown up list to the wall and let the games begin.
The game, darts, but with a twist. The goal is to find out who can hit the grouping of names that has the fat white nominee. . .blindfolded. Each of use got 3 darts. If no one hit the name, the winner is the one who hits the nominee grouping by year. I was ready to go.
Larry went first. The first dart hit 1976:
1976 Faye Dunaway - Network as Diana Christensen
· Marie-Christine Barrault - Cousin, cousine as Marthe
· Talia Shire - Rocky as Adrian Pennino
· Sissy Spacek - Carrie as Carrie White
Liv Ullmann - Face to Face as Dr. Jenny Isaksson
No dice, but no worries. Two more tries. The second dart hit 2005:
2005 Reese Witherspoon – Walk the Line as June Carter
· Judi Dench – Mrs Henderson Presents as Laura Henderson
· Felicity Huffman – Transamerica as Bree
· Keira Knightley – Pride & Prejudice as Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Bennet
· Charlize Theron – North Country as Josey Aimes
Not quite. One more dart, but this time, a little to the left. THWAAP! 1989, gotta be a few here:
1989 Jessica Tandy - Driving Miss Daisy as Daisy Werthan
· Isabelle Adjani - Camille Claudel as Camille Claudel
· Pauline Collins - Shirley Valentine as Shirley Valentine-Bradshaw
· Jessica Lange - Music Box as Ann Talbot
· Michelle Pfeiffer - The Fabulous Baker Boys as Susie Diamond
DAMN, Larry, sorry about that, but hey, the Hard Lemonade should be well chilled by now.
I knew I would fare better. Blindfold wrapped tightly, I was ready to have at it. First dart:
1994 Jessica Lange - Blue Sky as Carly Marshall
· Jodie Foster - Nell as Nell Kellty
· Miranda Richardson - Tom & Viv as Vivienne Haigh-Wood
· Winona Ryder - Little Women as Jo March
· Susan Sarandon - The Client as Reggie Love
Ooo, so close. . . I think. Next throw, banner year, 1987
1987 Cher - Moonstruck as Loretta Castorini
· Glenn Close - Fatal Attraction as Alex Forrest
· Holly Hunter - Broadcast News as Jane Craig
· Sally Kirkland - Anna as Anna
· Meryl Streep - Ironweed as Helen Archer
One more try, OK. Maybe a bit lower
2000 Julia Roberts – Erin Brockovich as Erin Brockovich
· Joan Allen – The Contender as Sen. Laine Hanson
· Juliette Binoche – Chocolat as Vianne Rocher
· Ellen Burstyn – Requiem for a Dream as Sara Goldfarb
· Laura Linney – You Can Count on Me as Sammy Prescott
We’ve played this game several times, and are looking to switch up to Pin the tail on the Fat White Nominee, maybe with the supporting actress nominees. I’ve suggested these games to others, and one guy said the genius is that no one can win, and the game can never end. I’m not sure that’s true, but hey, I’m willing to be proven wrong.
And, oh yeah, our arms is getting tired
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Hollow Privelege
If you want a clue as to why Black sociological thought is jammed in neutral, look no further that the current du-jour concept of Black Male Privilege. It was coined by Dr. Jewel Woods and Dr R. L’Heureaux Lewis, who defines it as “a system of built in and often overlooked systematic advantages that center the experience and concerns of Black men while minimizing the power that Black males hold.”
Orwell wept.
It fancies itself as revolutionary, but it only takes the old paradigm (“black men you must do more”) and puts perfume and a new outfit on it. It purports to blaze a new trail of understanding, but ultimately leaves us chasing our tails as we have been for decades now.
For 40 years black women have driven the engine of discourse in black society. The debates of the pathologies that afflict Black people are framed to absolve black women of all responsibility, whilst painting them as perpetually put upon and beleaguered. This narrative has been the paradigm of Black discourse, and its one-sided-ness has only served to make those pathologies grow in scope, not shrink. Any challenge to this narrative at its core is met with reflexive inertia, whether it be black men being shouted down by black women at both formal and informal discussions—I see you brothers nodding—arrogant academic refusal to engage the matter honestly and without presumption, or in the case of popular media, rejected by gatekeepers seeking to pander to black women’s insecurities. Meanwhile, our socio-economic barometers have only gotten worse, and worse still. Only recently, through the miracle of blogs, social networking, and video sharing, has full panoply of black male thought on our problems been on display. And before these can take full purchase in the terrain of ideas—BOOM! —another escape hatch for black women to abscond from their volitional choices
I decided to read the “Black Male Privilege Checklist” in its entirety, as should you. But first, it’s important to understand feminist orthodoxy and its sclerotic effect on academic thought. It starts with an article of faith, that the structure of societies are erected (ostensibly in a vacuum) by men for men, to the diminishment of females. In black America, it has been the springboard for black women to redefine their sex roles, while not challenging the strictures that define black men by their ability or willingness to do what “men are supposed to do.” Herein lies the paradox. The fatal flaws in feminist influenced thought and research is that it 1) fails to recognize Feminism may have changed how women view themselves, but not how they view men, 2) assigns all gender roles to construct and not evolutionary biology 3) conflates burdens with privilege
The issue with the checklist is not that it is completely inapplicable; is that it is both boldly presumptuous and leads to more questions than it answers.
Some beg the question, and balance out easily when those questions are answered. For instance, #77, “I have the privilege of marrying outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women marry.” Does he consider “why”? Or #19 “If I am raped, no one will assume that "I should have known better" or suggest that my being raped had something to do with how I was dressed.” True. . . you’ll only be derided as a punk and told “men can’t get raped”. Or #14, "My looks will not be the central standard by which my worth is valued by members of the opposite sex." Again true. The converse for women would be “My sexually desirability will never be based on my bank account or fame.”
Others are downright silly. 21. “I can live in a world where polygamy is still an option for men in the United States as well as around the world.” Dr Woods and Dr Lewis, before I introduce you to Warren Jeffs, let me suggest you not presume that polygamy did not sometimes serve the greater good, particularly when societies often lost a sixth of their men in one day to battle. The man who took on the additional woman bore the cross of their safety, nourishment and protection. No sexual Shangri-La, that.
Others reflect what Dr. Warren Farrell calls “feminism as fluoride”—we drink while not knowing its there. Take # 26, “When I consume pornography, I can gain pleasure from images and sounds of men causing women pain.” This is Dworkinism at its most malignant, mirroring radical feminist thinker Andrea Dworkin’s comparison of sex to “wartime invasion and occupation.” This is not only an attack on sex itself; it paternalistically ascribes masochism to the female participants.
Of course, any objections to this checklist are paternalistically pooh-poohed as analogous to white denials of self-evident privilege (“poor brothers, they can’t see the obvious”) or collectively addressed using straw men techniques. This imbalance mirrors popular media, which omitted the broader black male perspective in these discussions. And no, Michael Eric Dyson doesn’t speak for all of us.
Dr Lewis, a professor of sociology at City College of New York, has contributed to this work with his paper “Shadowboxing the Self,” which he read at Morehouse College last year. I took a listen to this as well.(See it here)
The ironic subtext in both Dr. Woods and Dr. Lewis’ positions is that there is no discussion of women’s attitudes on theses topics.
· Never a recognition that black women view men who aren’t hyper-masculine as weak
· Never a question as to why the male group most pre-disposed to revere women (raised by “strong” women as centerpieces of the family) feels aggrieved their peer women.
· A nod to how video images affect how we are viewed as sexual consumers, but never a corresponding nod to how 40 years of hearing from our women that we are deficient affects how we are viewed in the greater society.
· The references to male hyper masculinity in hip-hop culture, but no reference to black women in popular culture who have stated in their music and their mate choices, this is what they like. (Beyonce’s “Soldier,” anyone?)
It’s not as if black women’s attitudes are hidden. They’ve chosen buffet style feminism; gorge themselves on Fillet of Strong Independent Woman, but demand to be rescued from Thug Beefcake-induced indigestion.
As Dr. Lewis said, “a man with a skirt can have a greater character than a man with his pants pulled up.” Indeed, and he will be free to date that character on Friday night in lieu of a woman
He consistently draws the wrong conclusion. In using the example of Dr. Martin Luther King dismissing the idea of women leading marches, he ascribes it to privilege and not, say, to the idea that for the first time in American society, black men were able to collectively stand up to protect their women from violence. In quoting our higher rates of domestic violence, and how hesitant we are to cooperate with the police during rape investigation, “he states that if we want to end violence against our men by the justice system, we must stop violence against our women at home.” Of course, this presumes the man started it, and ignores that black women of the past two generations are the most likely to initiate physical aggression on men. Maybe the reluctance to cooperate with police is recognition that 1) sexual assault is the crime most amenable to false allegation and 2) black women over the past 30 years have become savvy at using the police as tools of control for their men. This is against the backdrop of our conditioned response when the police are present—the words “stand up”, “hair”, and “neck” Come to mind. You pick the word order. Of course in other areas he pollyanishly begs for similar data to prove a common sense corollary (sloppy dress and lack of academic achievement)
The ultimate effect of this orientation is to give further disincentive to treat women as adults, which in the end serves to infantilize them. Agency is the touchstone of human decision-making. When you take away agency, you take away humanity, which in the end is silent misogyny.
Perhaps the best example of Dr Lewis’ myopia is an anecdote he related in his speech. At a seminar, a brother stood up and asked him, “well OK, what have we gotten?” Although this brother, like many, may have lacked the rhetorical acumen to mount a full-scale challenge, his point is well taken. Unlike White privilege, which is dismissed by those it benefits because it’s taken as a character attack, Black male privilege is just plain old counter-intuitive. The problem with academics is that, in this case, they foolishly think they can “outthink the room,” literally. Sometimes, the herd is right.
As academics, Dr Lewis and Dr Woods would be wise to look beyond their echo chamber. To again become relevant to current black men’s discourse, such myopia is a privilege they can no longer afford.
Orwell wept.
It fancies itself as revolutionary, but it only takes the old paradigm (“black men you must do more”) and puts perfume and a new outfit on it. It purports to blaze a new trail of understanding, but ultimately leaves us chasing our tails as we have been for decades now.
For 40 years black women have driven the engine of discourse in black society. The debates of the pathologies that afflict Black people are framed to absolve black women of all responsibility, whilst painting them as perpetually put upon and beleaguered. This narrative has been the paradigm of Black discourse, and its one-sided-ness has only served to make those pathologies grow in scope, not shrink. Any challenge to this narrative at its core is met with reflexive inertia, whether it be black men being shouted down by black women at both formal and informal discussions—I see you brothers nodding—arrogant academic refusal to engage the matter honestly and without presumption, or in the case of popular media, rejected by gatekeepers seeking to pander to black women’s insecurities. Meanwhile, our socio-economic barometers have only gotten worse, and worse still. Only recently, through the miracle of blogs, social networking, and video sharing, has full panoply of black male thought on our problems been on display. And before these can take full purchase in the terrain of ideas—BOOM! —another escape hatch for black women to abscond from their volitional choices
I decided to read the “Black Male Privilege Checklist” in its entirety, as should you. But first, it’s important to understand feminist orthodoxy and its sclerotic effect on academic thought. It starts with an article of faith, that the structure of societies are erected (ostensibly in a vacuum) by men for men, to the diminishment of females. In black America, it has been the springboard for black women to redefine their sex roles, while not challenging the strictures that define black men by their ability or willingness to do what “men are supposed to do.” Herein lies the paradox. The fatal flaws in feminist influenced thought and research is that it 1) fails to recognize Feminism may have changed how women view themselves, but not how they view men, 2) assigns all gender roles to construct and not evolutionary biology 3) conflates burdens with privilege
The issue with the checklist is not that it is completely inapplicable; is that it is both boldly presumptuous and leads to more questions than it answers.
Some beg the question, and balance out easily when those questions are answered. For instance, #77, “I have the privilege of marrying outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women marry.” Does he consider “why”? Or #19 “If I am raped, no one will assume that "I should have known better" or suggest that my being raped had something to do with how I was dressed.” True. . . you’ll only be derided as a punk and told “men can’t get raped”. Or #14, "My looks will not be the central standard by which my worth is valued by members of the opposite sex." Again true. The converse for women would be “My sexually desirability will never be based on my bank account or fame.”
Others are downright silly. 21. “I can live in a world where polygamy is still an option for men in the United States as well as around the world.” Dr Woods and Dr Lewis, before I introduce you to Warren Jeffs, let me suggest you not presume that polygamy did not sometimes serve the greater good, particularly when societies often lost a sixth of their men in one day to battle. The man who took on the additional woman bore the cross of their safety, nourishment and protection. No sexual Shangri-La, that.
Others reflect what Dr. Warren Farrell calls “feminism as fluoride”—we drink while not knowing its there. Take # 26, “When I consume pornography, I can gain pleasure from images and sounds of men causing women pain.” This is Dworkinism at its most malignant, mirroring radical feminist thinker Andrea Dworkin’s comparison of sex to “wartime invasion and occupation.” This is not only an attack on sex itself; it paternalistically ascribes masochism to the female participants.
Of course, any objections to this checklist are paternalistically pooh-poohed as analogous to white denials of self-evident privilege (“poor brothers, they can’t see the obvious”) or collectively addressed using straw men techniques. This imbalance mirrors popular media, which omitted the broader black male perspective in these discussions. And no, Michael Eric Dyson doesn’t speak for all of us.
Dr Lewis, a professor of sociology at City College of New York, has contributed to this work with his paper “Shadowboxing the Self,” which he read at Morehouse College last year. I took a listen to this as well.(See it here)
The ironic subtext in both Dr. Woods and Dr. Lewis’ positions is that there is no discussion of women’s attitudes on theses topics.
· Never a recognition that black women view men who aren’t hyper-masculine as weak
· Never a question as to why the male group most pre-disposed to revere women (raised by “strong” women as centerpieces of the family) feels aggrieved their peer women.
· A nod to how video images affect how we are viewed as sexual consumers, but never a corresponding nod to how 40 years of hearing from our women that we are deficient affects how we are viewed in the greater society.
· The references to male hyper masculinity in hip-hop culture, but no reference to black women in popular culture who have stated in their music and their mate choices, this is what they like. (Beyonce’s “Soldier,” anyone?)
It’s not as if black women’s attitudes are hidden. They’ve chosen buffet style feminism; gorge themselves on Fillet of Strong Independent Woman, but demand to be rescued from Thug Beefcake-induced indigestion.
As Dr. Lewis said, “a man with a skirt can have a greater character than a man with his pants pulled up.” Indeed, and he will be free to date that character on Friday night in lieu of a woman
He consistently draws the wrong conclusion. In using the example of Dr. Martin Luther King dismissing the idea of women leading marches, he ascribes it to privilege and not, say, to the idea that for the first time in American society, black men were able to collectively stand up to protect their women from violence. In quoting our higher rates of domestic violence, and how hesitant we are to cooperate with the police during rape investigation, “he states that if we want to end violence against our men by the justice system, we must stop violence against our women at home.” Of course, this presumes the man started it, and ignores that black women of the past two generations are the most likely to initiate physical aggression on men. Maybe the reluctance to cooperate with police is recognition that 1) sexual assault is the crime most amenable to false allegation and 2) black women over the past 30 years have become savvy at using the police as tools of control for their men. This is against the backdrop of our conditioned response when the police are present—the words “stand up”, “hair”, and “neck” Come to mind. You pick the word order. Of course in other areas he pollyanishly begs for similar data to prove a common sense corollary (sloppy dress and lack of academic achievement)
The ultimate effect of this orientation is to give further disincentive to treat women as adults, which in the end serves to infantilize them. Agency is the touchstone of human decision-making. When you take away agency, you take away humanity, which in the end is silent misogyny.
Perhaps the best example of Dr Lewis’ myopia is an anecdote he related in his speech. At a seminar, a brother stood up and asked him, “well OK, what have we gotten?” Although this brother, like many, may have lacked the rhetorical acumen to mount a full-scale challenge, his point is well taken. Unlike White privilege, which is dismissed by those it benefits because it’s taken as a character attack, Black male privilege is just plain old counter-intuitive. The problem with academics is that, in this case, they foolishly think they can “outthink the room,” literally. Sometimes, the herd is right.
As academics, Dr Lewis and Dr Woods would be wise to look beyond their echo chamber. To again become relevant to current black men’s discourse, such myopia is a privilege they can no longer afford.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)