Friday, September 21, 2007

Where is the Love?

In keeping with my latest theme of "pet peeves with the IR community," I must mention an ongoing irritation with an almost knee-jerk, negative reaction expressed by many IR sisters to any and everything black. It's almost as if in embracing the freedom to experience life and love wherever it may be found in the global village, many sisters have had to cope with a tremendous, heretofore suppressed, rage against the bc, which they feel has made every effort to encourage them to sacrifice their own happiness and prevent them from achieving the greatest possible joy and satisfaction in their lives--a perception that is, unfortunately, often true.

I've been loathe to address this issue, primarily because I think that the increased willingness of BW to challenge and criticize DBRBM in the same way that they would any other group of people who have done us great harm, is a healthy, positive, and necessary development. Even if no BW was dating IR, ALL BW need to abandon the Cult of Black Manhood, with it's periodic ritual sacrifices of BW, that has gripped the black community for decades--and arguably done us as much harm as any other identifiable force in our society as a whole. This Cult has left too many sisters struggling to raise children alone in poverty: denigrated, unhealthy, vulnerable to exploitation and violence, bearing the burdens of an entire people on their shoulders without acknowledgement, but with plenty of blame to spare. Anytime it is exposed, I am happy.

However, that doesn't mean that a sister's willingness to criticize BM when the criticism is merited justifies a wholesale descent into stereotypical attacks on blackness itself, which is frankly what I have witnessed among many sisters all too often on IR blogs. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from honestly exposing their own painful experiences within our community, or from reaching whatever conclusions their own reason lead them to reach about those experiences. Clearly, sisters have and do put up with way too much, and frankly, a lot of us have simply had it. However, statements about how "all" or "most" black people are stupid, fat, impoverished, ignorant, criminal failures are simply false-- and the fact that black people are making these statements does not make them any less racist.

In the same way, pointing out the destructive havoc that DBRBM wreak in our community does not mean that we have to join the mainstream amen chorus that deems them white America's sole bogeyman. Do I think O.J. killed his wife? Despite having purposely avoided the media circus surrounding his trial (just I did with Robert Blake's, and am doing with Phil Spector's), I'm pretty sure he did. Do I seethe with outrage that he used money and celebrity to buy his way out of the prison term he deserved? Not really. People have been buying their way out of the prison terms they deserve since the inception of the American criminal justice system, and they will keep doing so. I don't believe for a minute that all of the white Americans so outraged by the injustice of O.J.'s acquittal (or Michael Vick's dogfighting, or Barry Bond's steroid abuse) are really so invested in the value of human or dog life, the faults of our criminal justice system, or cheating in sports--if they were, they would be just as outraged when the victims are black and the perpetrators are white. Pointing out this hypocrisy is not the same as "defending" DBR behavior. It is realizing that most DBR behavior--which is perpetrated against black women and children--is only enabled by focusing exclusively on such behavior when it touches white victims or offends white sensibilities.

As a black woman, I can't afford to prop up a system that is based in part on the idea that human life has relative value--and that deems mine, my mother's, and aunts, and cousins, and friends, and all of you sisters who read these blogs and deserve only the best--as less than worthy. Quite frankly, this is the clear and unmistakable message when 13 years after Nicole Brown's death, we are still supposed to be mad at O.J., and the police haven't even bothered to figure out where Stepha Henry is. For every O.J., there are 100 DBRBM abusing, exploiting and abandoning black women and children--where is the hourly CNN update for them? Too many of us seem comfortable with the explanation that those sisters deserve whatever they get--even as we weep for Natalee Holloway and Jesse Davis, women who hardly conducted themselves with perfect seemliness--but who still didn't deserve to have their lives stolen from them.

Sisters, all I'd like to see is a little consistency, combined with a lot of self-preservation. Wrong is wrong, whoever does it, and whoever they do it too. But our first consideration must be ourselves. If sisters are engaging in self-destructive, mulish behavior, I'm the first to say so. But I'm also the first to point out how simply spectacular most of us, and I always will be. Let's not forget the former even in the face of the latter.

89 comments:

EmergingPhoenix said...

Aimee - I am soo happy you brought this up. I am seriously distressed today, after a conversation with another IR inclined black woman. We were discussing the relative worth men in general put on black women, and I concluded that black men don't treat us any better than the pool of ALL other (possibly racist) single men. Although my point was to say that you basically take the same chances of being devalued no matter what race you date, it still saddened me how low we are valued by society in general, regardless of how much we do or contribute to society. I know my worth, but on a daily basis, I have to deal with waiters who will single me out of a table of non-black women and treat me ALONE poorly, men who will literally push and shove me with no regard, and then turn around and apologize profusely to a non-black woman, etc. I really am just fed up. I stayed up until 4am discussing this crap, and my distress is written plainly on my face. I almost called in sick to work. I mean why get the degree, make good money, keep myself in good health, good grooming, impecaable style *cough*. Had to throw those last two in, LOL!!! I stil haven't lost my humor...but I digress.

The other woman is a little older than myself, and already married and divorced. Her desire was to see other bw experience a loving marriage and she felt passionately about seeing men who actuallly appreciate and value bw. We were being hit on by two white guys. the one who took an interest in me, was soo obviously a loser. He was slovenly dressed (we were at a dress to impress event), bragging about having a brother in the NFL (coat tails anyone), BRAGGING about being unemployed and not doing ANYTHING, and rude when I didn't show him much interest. I know his general low class is not an indication of me, but I was really upset, when he made it a point to paint a different picture when our non-black female friends were around. All of a sudden he was a "publisher" who was taking a "break" to travel and enjoy SF as a tourist (say it with me folks – UNEMPLOYED W/ NO PROSPECTS). I was upset, b/c he felt that his crap would be enough to impress me, but he knew he had to embellish on his status to impress the non-black women in our group. That and the conversation I had, with the black woman has just really got me in a funk today.

=(

EmergingPhoenix said...

Oh, and I almost blogged about it for some therapeutic relief, but you beat me to it. =P

In regards to OJ, I was talking to a white guy about the whole thing, and I made a very similar comment to him as you posited. I told him, that OJ, "getting away with murder", is not anything new. That has always been the reality of the justice system. You throw race into the equation and people lose whatever common sense they had going in. There have been studies that show that people actually score lower on IQ tests after having racist thoughts (whatever race you are). The amount of energy, delusion and denial that it takes to convince yourself of the foolishness, must kill brain cells...LOL!! maybe that should be the next campaign.

RACISM KILLS BRAIN CELLS!!!

=)

Pamela said...

It is sad to think that in many circles we as bw are not valued. It can be pretty blatant. I have experienced this in 4 bcs. Most of the trouble for me has been in that setting. There are probably some that are not like the places I have been. I chose to skip the bc for now. I can truly say that I have received much respect as a woman in the past two churches I have attended. It's one thing when you value yourself as I do myself. It is really nice to have that respect from others.

When I was younger I went through a lot times where it was pretty evident that people were trying to send messages that they did not approve of me in some form. I don't think I have experienced anything obvious like ep recently experienced. I'm a bit more secluded these days because of being a caretaker so I have not had as much of a social life like I want to have. I hope to never experience that anymore. At least I have enough sense to dismiss what how they treat me. Anyone that does that is way beneath me.

pioneervalleywoman said...

Fantastic, Aimee!

It is important to remember, that although we might be dating or married interacially, we are still black women, and to take pride in that, regardless of the societal messages that would denigrate.

I too, agree that it is important to call out sexism and racism in our lives. But that doesn't mean that we have to demonize unnecessarily or overgeneralize.

It is just as bad as the naive perspective that excuses all bad behavior in the community and refuse to engage in critique.

Daphne said...

Gotta have balance, think circumspectly on the issues of the BC, DBR men and women, and blackness in general. No swinging to the other end of the proverbial pendulum, as it is just as damaging, as PVW references. Got it.

Anonymous said...

How come I only encounter women like all of you via posts on the internet??? Don't any of you ever leave your homes so I can meet one??

Halima said...

lol

i agree and aimee, i think bw are in the process of 'coming out' from a place of affliction and deep hurt, so i often dont expect them to be stoic and politically correct in all their prononcements. within limits i let them have their say because it can be very easy for them to 'clam' up and put up pretences as they are always instructed to do.

its very hard to moderate my blog when the posts climb and so what i have taken to doing is adding a countering statement if a comment beyond the pale is made. other bw have also taken to doing this like saying, 'i wouldnt go as far as saying....'.

many of us need our 'primal scream' time before we settle into sensibleness (i see that a lot on my blog) i notice however that the Bc expects bw with a dagger in her ribs to be rational and moderate, i think its all part of theme of denying bw their logical reactions to situations as i have blogged about, and how the community holds bw to an unnatural 'spartan' standard.

well we are grateful for blogs like this were balance can be restored after the primal scream period!

Ruth LaMorena said...

Aimee, thank you for blogging about this topic! I have read many blog post comments that make sweeping generalizations that, as the mother of a little bm, are hurtful to me. Not ALL (bm, wm, lm, am) of any "group" of men is DBR, or abusive, or on a superfast rollercoaster to hades. Like Halima wrote, some of the commenters' pain radiates from the screen as I read their comments and I sometimes give a
"pass" for the sweeping generalizations in the comments because of that pain. And I can understand that for those women, ALL (fill in the blank) that they have associated with may be that way - that just means they need to find other (fill in the blank) to associate with.

In my current social environment, I have wondered if I need to check my "blackness" at the door in order to be acceptable to some possibly IR-inclined men. That's no easy feat for the woman who earned her degree in studying the African Diaspora. Actually, watching LaVerne and Christopher's wedding video helped me realize that there are men who will accept me the way I am - the same way I would accept him.

and re: anon @ 2:22 a.m. - Hey, we leave our houses everyday (gotta pay the bills). We may work with you, go to the same place for coffee as you, may shop in the same department store as you...You don't know what's going on in my head until you talk to me. I'll post tonight about a conversation I had with a friend of mine about this very issue...

http://meditationsonreeducation.blogspot.com/

pioneervalleywoman said...

Re our "blackness" and IR:

I agree that it is important to have a time to express our rage and pain at the sexism and racism we experience, as a means of venting, and also as a means of moving forward.

I know I have definitely been there, Emerging Phoenix, of being what I have always seen as my fabulous self, but feeling that I might as well be invisible, because to put it mildly, I don't fit "mainstream standards of beauty."

But what is this notion of checking our "blackness?" Forgetting who and what we are? Buying into some neo-liberal utopia that race no longer matters in American society?

We bring to our relationships all of who and what we are, blackness included. Nothing is getting "checked" because my husband is white. I am still dedicated to scholarship and teaching that addresses topics of race and gender. I am not going to be erasing myself, and my husband loves me as I am.

To anon at 2:22:

Yes, we are everywhere, on the internet, at our jobs, in our classrooms, grocery shopping, doing laundry, hanging out at the local library, at the local bookstores, concerts, etc.

But you wouldn't know who we are. We can be anybody and everybody. The question is whether you would notice us if ever you saw us...

Classical one and other bloggers have been talking about a Barnes and Nobles night for IR-minded folks to meet.

I've been thinking too, about this notion of "stoicism," and addressed it on my blog, as "Black women and the Suffering Jesus.."

PVW

http://episcopalienne.blogspot.com

luvlybrowngirl said...

From reading the first few replies to your post, I was beginning to think I missed the point of it.

I didn't think your point was to get an "amen" about how black women are devalued. We all agree on that. Instead, I thought your point was to not paint the whole black community as negative.

Thanks Pioneervalleywoman for reiterating what Aimee was saying, which was
"... that it is important to call out sexism and racism in our lives. But that doesn't mean that we have to demonize unnecessarily or overgeneralize [about the whole bc]."

This is an opinion with which I whole heartedly agree. I have said, on many ocassions, on these IR blogs that I know too many progressive and dynamic black people to ever disrespect them by generalizing like that. I, like Aimee, am an amazing Black woman and it is due to the influences of the Black people who raised me, mentored me, encouraged and supported me. They developed in me the self-confidence and love which allowed me to consider myself worthy of the love of ANY man.

Praise God for them.

And, Aimee, I love you, girl. You're real.

Oh, and to "anonymous" who wants to know where us fabulous sisters are, we're wherever you are. You just have to be sensitive and attentive. Approach and BEFRIEND those Black women in your neck of the woods. From that may develop greater possibilities. ~*smiles*~

SheCodes said...

I co-sign halima's sentiments.

There is a measure of healing that is needed before one can be expected to be 'fair and balanced' in their assessment of the black community.

I definitely agree that there are many people in the bc that live decent, moral lives. Many who would never abuse bw... however:

My outrage lies with the apathy of that important group concerning the damage that is being wreaked by the DBR faction.

One day, future generations will look back at our group of bp and marvel at how unwilling we were to actually defend and rescue the concept of blackness from self-annihilatory belief systems.

I no longer feel the need to constantly balance my criticisms of the DBR with 'props' to the 'good bm'. I will do that when the good bm start standing up to the DBR in our defense.

(cue Marvin Gaye music here: "Makes me wanna holla, throw up both my hands..." )

EmergingPhoenix said...

Ruth said, "and re: anon @ 2:22 a.m. - Hey, we leave our houses everyday (gotta pay the bills). We may work with you, go to the same place for coffee as you, may shop in the same department store as you...You don't know what's going on in my head until you talk to me."

THANK YOU!! I feel the same way. If you just openly conversate with me, you will learn a lot about me. I will feel free to be myself, and you will find that I am a host of things, and really just trying to enjoy life. But if you approach me like I am some stereotype, I may cut the conversation short, and I definitely will lose any interest I had. I used to try and speak to the ignorance, but life is too short and you can't enlighten everyone, nor was I ever licensed to do so.

I think you have to let bw vent,and I am pretty surprised at how judgemental even other bw can be when you are in the process of doing so. Considering we all know the pitfalls and negativity black women can face, you would think that sisterhood and understanding would be more common among us.

Anonymous said...

Interesting posts.

Anonymous said...

How come I only encounter women like all of you via posts on the internet??? Don't any of you ever leave your homes so I can meet one??

September 22, 2007 2:22 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where are you Anon?



pioneervalleywoman said...
"I am not going to be erasing myself...."

Amen.

Anonymous said...

Greetings from the UK

I don't know if I'm correct in my understanding but from what I read (paragraphs 3&4) you're trying to say that for any criticism, self-criticism or others, to be worthwhile it's necessary to avoid holding up stereotypes as easy targets. If, because it will make our targets easier to attack, we attach to all those who attract our ire "one-size-fits-all" labels and espouse formulaic reasons for their behaviour, then we also withdraw our respect for their potential for freethinking and conscientious behaviour (and the possibility to change their ways). Reducing people to robots or animals is no encouragement for them to change. People often act like sheep but it's through their own individual reasoning and free will, not some mental hard wiring, that they find reasons to do so.

But I have to say you undermine any argument when, of the O.J. case, you say "I'm pretty sure he did" it and throw in Barry Bonds. I ask you to think about why you feel you're in any position to make any judgement on them when you're not party to O.J.'s trial, his wife's murder or Barry Bonds training regime. You condemn the mainstream media's "amen chorus" but seem to have ingested some of their prejudice and arrogance. It's alright to say "I'm not in any position to pass judgement". As for the influence of money, it didn't get Mike Tyson off did it?

"Wrong is wrong, whoever does it, and whoever they do it too" so true. As your moral compass points in the right direction, please pass judgement (or not) on how you see the facts and don't simply accept the judgements of a hysterial and dishonest media.

SheCodes said...



Anonymous 4:21 said:

If, because it will make our targets easier to attack, we attach to all those who attract our ire "one-size-fits-all" labels and espouse formulaic reasons for their behaviour, then we also withdraw our respect for their potential for freethinking and conscientious behaviour (and the possibility to change their ways). Reducing people to robots or animals is no encouragement for them to change.



Actually this is the best argument that I have heard so far opposing the 'DBR' label. It's also a concept that I have struggled with in the past.

When I learned about and began using the term 'Damaged Beyond Repair', it was to describe a certain group of people who have crossed a threshold of disfunction -- a 'reprobate mind', if you will.

Not all dysfunctional people are reprobate. There are healthy people, damaged people, and damaged beyond repair people. To me, DBR are those people who either lack the moral integrity or the critical thinking skills to ever change.

A former idealist, I struggled with this notion. However, I have struggled with this mentality first hand -- no amount of logic can change it, no moral argument can be received, because there is no underlying concern by those people for truth.

I actually see this kind of moral relativism even in the Jena 6 case. Thousands marched to "Free the Jena 6" due to unequal applications of the law.

However, the white boy who was beaten is not the one who hung the nooses. It was a vicious beating that was not tied the noose incident. I had to ask myself, 'if a random black boy was beaten to unconsciousness by six white teenagers, would I believe that extenuating circumstances should allow them to be freed, with complete impugnity?'

The answer is no. I want JUSTICE, which should be a commensurate prosecution and sentence that a non-black group of thugs would receive for jumping an individual.

But to 'free' the Jena 6, in my mind, makes us unwitting participants in upholding a skewed and unfair concept of justice.


P.S. I did watch the O.J. trial, and have reached my personal level of comfort that proof of his guilt had been met.

SheCodes said...

Also I want to clarify what I am saying about the Jena 6: yes, I do believe that racism was involved in the treatment of those boys.

I am also saying is that being targetted by racists doesn't magically make them 'innocent' of wrongdoing.

If a white gang of thugs beat up a black boy for something other black boys did I would be screaming bloody murder. We must hold ourselves to the same measuring stick that we hold up for others.

Anonymous said...

Shecodes, you're very well-spoken. To that person who asked where I am, I'm in northern California (where the girls are warm, I heard once).

Let Love Rule said...

Shecodes,

I agree with your postings, but on the other hand there is a larger question of equal justice. I've heard one of the parents agree that the children should be punished, but the question is to what degree (attempted murder?) AND whether it's right to let whites (who had reportly ganged up on a bp the week before, which may or may not be a rumor) get away with the same crime.

Anon 6:29 pm, that was me who asked where you are (pressed the wrong button).

Now that I know where you're from, I can say that there's no excuse for you not to meet available bw, for there are plenty in NorCAL many of whom gladly date IR. So it's on you, Anon. You're not looking.

SheCodes said...

Hey LLR,

If white kids ganged up and beat a bp up, then they should definitely be prosecuted as well. You're correct when I say 'equal protection'.

I would say on the face of things that attempted 2nd degree murder does sound extremely excessive, since the victim was able to attend a function later that day.

However, I know first hand that a beating can be attempted murder. I was violently attacked once, beaten to unconsciousness and almost lost my life by one crazed man. (I had a subdural hematoma)

So kicking an unconscious person in the head can definitely be attempted murder. In this case, though I don't believe that it was.

Daphne said...

shecodes, what you have articulated regarding the Jena 6 is something that's been on my mind all week without knowing exactly how to express my thoughts.
I'm certainly glad you recovered from your attack, shecodes. We are much better for it.

This demand for justice is interesting in light of the lack of the BC voice regarding such injustice in the Dunbar village case. What bothers me most is that there is no well-publicized rallying cry of support for that mother and her son. Maybe it's because she's not American, maybe it's because the crime was presumably black on black, maybe it's because she was a black woman victimized by someone other than a white person, maybe it's all of the above.

Let Love Rule said...

Shecodes,

We are not in disagreement in anyway. Unless those boys were defending themselves, they should not have ganged up on someone and they should be punished.

But of course another elements which is missing in the analysis, and how this differes from just a random violent attack, is that there is a issue of racism.

Apparently the bp had felt intimidated in the school for some time. Then the 3 nooses went up in a tree a black kid sat under AND school and city official thought there was nothing wrong with that, calling it a prank. Given the sad history of lynching in this country, hanging nooses in a tree as a sign of white supremacy is sick. It's not just a normal school yard prank.

So to compare this situation with a random act of violence or Dunbar is not quite right. As for Dunbar, I understand that there was a rally, I believe it was 1000 people who encircled the area and prayed.

It hasn't gotten the same media treatment as Jena, I know. But once again the circumstances are different (which doesn't excuse the lack of media attention that violence against bw generally receive).

Let Love Rule said...

Shecodes,

We are not in disagreement in anyway. Unless those boys were defending themselves, they should not have ganged up on someone and they should be punished.

But of course another elements which is missing in the analysis, and how this differes from just a random violent attack, is that there is a issue of racism.

Apparently the bp had felt intimidated in the school for some time. Then the 3 nooses went up in a tree a black kid sat under AND school and city official thought there was nothing wrong with that, calling it a prank. Given the sad history of lynching in this country, hanging nooses in a tree as a sign of white supremacy is sick. It's not just a normal school yard prank.

So to compare this situation with a random act of violence or Dunbar is not quite right. As for Dunbar, I understand that there was a rally, I believe it was 1000 people who encircled the area and prayed.

It hasn't gotten the same media treatment as Jena, I know. But once again the circumstances are different (which doesn't excuse the lack of media attention that violence against bw generally receive).

Daphne said...

But once again the circumstances are different (which doesn't excuse the lack of media attention that violence against bw generally receive).

Do we know if the women and children of Dunbar had been intimidated for some time? My impression is that safety within the neighborhood has been an issue for some time.

I'm not implying that the Jena 6 case should not have come to light. I just don't understand why there is not as much outrage when it comes to highlighting issues within the black community. In addition, my understanding is that the media by and large did not provide major coverage on the Jena 6 until recently. The support and rally was more of a grassroots effort, specifically via the blogosphere. I got all kinds of links to petitions with details on what was going on. It certainly proves that blacks can come together, regardless of what mainstream media does.

Let Love Rule said...

Gina McCauley's blog whataboutourdaughters talks about this alot.

Apparently there were many, many reported incidence in Dunbar Village. And I suppose the point is that when bw are the victims of crime the "community" doesn't rally around them, unless the offenders are white.

It's my understanding as well that the mainstream media largely ignored Jena until the march.

Miriam said...

I also agree, Aimee,

In my journey in life, I really had to explore a lot of parts of me. One of them was blackness.

I think if anyone takes the time to explore it, they would see the great beauty in it.

Even before they meet their non-DbR bm in shining armor, they need to show their partner and themselves that they DO LOVE THEMSELVES. otherwise it allows for anyone to continue to treat them as if there is what to hate. They must be fore themselves, for anyone else to be for them.

SheCodes said...

That is correct:

The mainstream media had no interest in the Jena 6 incident until they were shamed into covering it because of the impending march.

The Dunbar Village and other situations like it do not garner the same attention because black women and girls are not considered worthy of defense or protection by a great many activists in the black community. We are not the 'protected class' like in many other cultures.

Our culture turns normal mores of protection on it's head, and makes alpha black males the perceived victims and are then afforded 'protected status'. Women and children are left to fend for themselves.

I've been thinking about this a lot today...

I have even noticed that unassuming, gentle kinds of black men do not get the same level of mobilization than the more aggressive types, either.

Moreover, the exceptionally high homicide rate of black men by other black men has not sparked black outrage and mobilization.

The bc mobilizes when a percieved white power structure exercises authority over alpha black men using less than deferential techniques.

The black community will continue to devolve until it learns to love itself more than it hates racist white men.

Halima said...

The black community will continue to devolve until it learns to love itself more than it hates racist white men.

This statement basically wraps it up shecodes!

and let me add that we are the ones who will 'yank' the so called community up by the 'scruff of its neck' to begin to act with commonsense. Thats why we should be happy to be called 'sell out' and 'not black enough', because these accusations show that we succesfully operate outside the destructive 'herd mentality' and will be the catalyst for necssary change in the values and automatically assumed position on things within the BC . the mere fact that we exists, introduces the culture of critical analysis to the herd paradigm which bc readiy adopts.

Its the dessenters and those who refuse to tow the party line like IR women etc that force others to rexamine their 'received wisdom' and this will introduce critical conversations and cause that dearly needed shift within community thought!

pioneervalleywoman said...

Shecodes:

The Dunbar Village and other situations like it do not garner the same attention because black women and girls are not considered worthy of defense or protection by a great many activists in the black community. We are not the 'protected class' like in many other cultures.

Our culture turns normal mores of protection on it's head, and makes alpha black males the perceived victims and are then afforded 'protected status'. Women and children are left to fend for themselves.

Halima:

Thats why we should be happy to be called 'sell out' and 'not black enough', because these accusations show that we successfully operate outside the destructive 'herd mentality'

It's the dissenters and those who refuse to tow the party line like IR women etc that force others to re-examine their 'received wisdom' and this will introduce critical conversations and cause that dearly needed shift within community thought!


My reply:

So true, so true.

Yet, bw who are dissenting from the party line, are seen by some black nationalist types as white supremacist tools!

In their view, Evia and Halima are part of a movement to turn black women against black men and tear apart the black family.

But isn't the war against black women and children by the men of their communities the real danger?

It's true, some of those black nationalist types who would talk about the Jena 6 or mention the West Virginia case, have had little to say about Dunbar Village.

I guess these types of cases, involving black women and children as victims of black men, don't amount to an "assault on black folks' sanity."

Anonymous said...

shecodes said:
"P.S. I did watch the O.J. trial, and have reached my personal level of comfort that proof of his guilt had been met"

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but not everyone's entitled to pass judgement. The media's presentation of controversial events are nearly always skewed with assumptions that on closer inspection are not quite as conclusive as they would like to portray (DNA and fingerprint evidence are not infallible). I'm not saying O.J. didn't do it but simply that the public are in no position to pass judgement based on what the media allows to filter through, without any sort of knowledge of how to properly assess evidence. The media always poll's the public about person X's guilt, yet most of public don't have a clue about fundamental legal concepts such as habeas corpus, right to silence and double jeopardy, let alone the accuracy of DNA evidence. Rarely do the media even attempt to provide an explanation. There have been plenty miscarriages of justice based on evidence that seemed far more damning than what O.J. faced.
I thought part of the post was about avoiding dogmatic condemnation. If you have a "personal level of comfort" with jailing O.J. or anyone else without proper knowledge of how to assess powerful evidence, the I'm confused.

Anon UK

pioneervalleywoman said...

Anonymous 4:21 said:

If, because it will make our targets easier to attack, we attach to all those who attract our ire "one-size-fits-all" labels and espouse formulaic reasons for their behaviour, then we also withdraw our respect for their potential for freethinking and conscientious behaviour (and the possibility to change their ways). Reducing people to robots or animals is no encouragement for them to change.

My reply:

On the other hand, if one is surrounded by people who are damaged and dysfunctional, idealism in the hope they will change should not be an excuse for sticking around toxic individuals.

For too long, many women have been told to "stand by their man," and try to help him improve, when instead they should have been gone long before.

Their first focus should not have been in getting safety for themselves...Not listening to people who would downplay the seriousness of their situation, tell them that it is their fault, or that the perpetrator's needs matter too, or that they should concern themselves with social demands to protect his image or protect him from arrest.

pioneervalleywoman said...

a typo in my last reply:

Their first focus should have been in getting safety for themselves...Not listening to people who would downplay the seriousness of their situation, tell them that it is their fault, or that the perpetrator's needs matter too, or that they should concern themselves with social demands to protect his image or protect him from arrest.

SheCodes said...

Anonymous 12:37,

Yes, you are definitely confused. Perhaps it's because you are not as familiar as to how the legal system works in America.

Our legal system operates with something called 'reasonability', which means that a juror is a layman, who does NOT need to have prior knowledge of "fundamental legal concepts such as habeas corpus, right to silence and double jeopardy" or even DNA.

And jurors are the ones who decide if that person goes to jail, not the lawyers, who have such advanced knowledge.


Moreover, American private citizens have every right to believe whatever they wish to believe, and are not legally bound to consider ANY evidence AT ALL except they are on the jury for that trial. I can believe that O.J. shot John F. Kennedy if I want to, it's my right.

I am wondering what distinction that you are trying to make between 'forming an opinion' and 'passing judgement' in light of the fact that it's clear that none of us are jurors.


Also, it is either profoundly naive or disingenuous to believe that DNA and fingerprints aren't compelling evidence in any trial.

Let Love Rule said...

Illogical Anonymous UK Troll said...
(DNA and fingerprint evidence are not infallible)....the public are in no position to pass judgement based on what the media allows to filter through, without any sort of knowledge of how to properly assess evidence...If you have a "personal level of comfort" with jailing O.J. or anyone else without proper knowledge of how to assess powerful evidence, the I'm confused.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Troll,

You forget that OJ WAS FOUND GUILTY by a jury of his "peers" in a civil trial. A jury which did reviewed the evidence, which is why he's still paying out the a** for his crime.

And if DNA and fingerprint evidence is insufficient then all those wrongfulling convicted individual who were released based on dna should be back in jail.

lara said...

Why the hell are we talking about OJ, no one gives a damn about him. Only media is giving him unfair attention. I wish they would focus more on dunbar and west virgina cases. Those really need our attention.

Let Love Rule said...

Aimee said...
"Do I think O.J. killed his wife? Despite having purposely avoided the media circus surrounding his trial (just I did with Robert Blake's, and am doing with Phil Spector's), I'm pretty sure he did. Do I seethe with outrage that he used money and celebrity to buy his way out of the prison term he deserved? Not really."


Lara,

We're discussing OJ because Aimee and Shecodes expressed an opinion that illogical UK troll didn't like.

But you're right there's not enough media attention on cases that involve bw as victims, which was also apart of Aimee's and Shecodes' points.

Miriam said...

just thinking out loud...

re: not enough media attention.

If we had enough ....clout, power, money,I dunno whats, i'd say we should start helping each other out in regards to taking care of female victims and taking preventative steps that such things don't happen again.

At least we have blogging. It seems like the new 'word of mouth' way to get info out. It seems to be having an effect on BET...

Anonymous said...

I just started reading this blog a few days ago, but man, there's a lot of commonsense, frank wisdom expressed here. The things you express here are said so, so many times among whites (I'm a white man). I remember my mother saying years ago, "If black women had any sense they'd start marrying outside their race." If black women stopped facilitating the dysfunctional behavior by accepting it, perhaps they'd realize their power, and black men would realize their need for them as potential partners in life and get themselves together (I feel the need to put in that must-say caveat - not all black men of course, need to get themselves together)(And also, of course, it's not incumbent upon black women, or any group of any type, to put their efforts towards reforming another group. I merely point out that black women perhaps possess this power, should they choose to exercise it in this manner.)

Halima said...

On the other hand, if one is surrounded by people who are damaged and dysfunctional, idealism in the hope they will change should not be an excuse for sticking around toxic individuals.

One thing i have also noticed in the bc is that bw have not been and are not allowed to make any comments on emerging trends or damaging sub-cultures among black males, until they are full blown cases. To me this is all about tying bw hands behind their backs so that they cannot 'head off' potential problems were men are concerned.

people who work in policy etc know that at a 20% rate, they need to be alerting folks to emerging trends. they go ahead to project about how things are likely to turn out in the future, but for bw we are not allowed that legitimate space within our community, to address sexism, misogyny until such a time as it has become a major problem, even then folks continue to make statements like:

'unless you have dated all black men, you cannot say that black men are sexist'. this effectively puts a halt on any 'nipping in the bud' that bw could have done before the problem gets out of hand.

My question is, are women of other races particuarly ww expected to confirm every white man as sexist before they can legitimately deliberate/discuss sexims as a function of masculinity in society?

Anonymous said...

hello shecodes,

Sorry I didn’t express what I really meant with the “not everyone's entitled to pass judgement” line. What I mean to say is that it’s unfair to pass judgement. Of course everyone has the right to think whatever they want however wrong, offensive and disagreeable to others. My point with mentioning habeas corpus and double jeopardy was not to spell out a juror’s duties or any supposed knowledge needed, but to illustrate the fact that many people, probably the majority (US, UK or worldwide), do not have an understanding of the basic principles on which a fair criminal justice works. During the O.J. trial there were countless polls in which the American public expressed their opinion of his guilt. Most answered yes or no, and a small minority answered “I don’t know”. Apart from the possibility that many were simply hazarding a guess, this shows thoughtless prejudice. Remember that a lot of those polls were held before the trial even started. Shouldn’t those polled have answered “I’m not really in any position to scrutinise the evidence and pass judgement”?

What I object to is the thinking that someone who hasn’t thoroughly scrutinised the evidence presented can know the O.J. case, or any other case, better than the 12 jurors who sat day after day in the courtroom. All anyone else can say after the jury says "not guilty" is "he's innocent" or "I don't know". The “well there was conclusive evidence but it was thrown out because of a technicalities and that racist cop” argument is worthless.

Here’s an example of the distinction I make between 'forming an opinion' and 'passing judgement'. From alleged reports of Phil Spector’s violent behaviour to women previously, his penchant for guns, the chain of events on the night of that women’s death and the descriptions of her injuries, I’m amazed it’s not an open and shut case. But I can accept that the jurors are at least as qualified or as intelligent as I am, have a better understanding of the evidence and have been presented with evidence by the court in the correct manner, to concede that it's unlikely I could make a better decision on a case I see only on TV. Unless I have solid grounds to dispute the evidence or legal procedures, I’ve got no reason suppose they made a wrong decision.

I just feel that the “where is the love?” post, which to me was a call to sweep away dogmatic prejudice, was undermined by copying the mainstream media’s obsession with assuming the worse whenever possible. If Barry Bonds is automatically assumed to be a steroid user through association with a former trainer convicted in the BALCO scandal then, from my own personal knowledge, every fitness trainer who works anywhere near professional bodybuilders is a steroid user because all professional bodybuilders use them.

Most coverage of the Jena 6 on various blogs has been down partisan racial lines, with many seeing the case as a cause celebre against a racist legal system. The response on this comments page have been heartening as they have shown that some people still hold that all those involved should be judge on their actions alone and that justice should, whether or not it is in this case, be blind. But given the American public’s presumptions about O.J. and, far worst, disregard for justice for the prisoners held in Guatanamo Bay, it would seem that many are a couple steps from lynching people.

Also I never suggested that “DNA and fingerprints aren’t compelling evidence”, but simply that they’re not infallible and shouldn't be assumed to be (especially with regard to handling and interpretation). DNA evidence always needs a through statistical analysis which varies widely from the techniques used and the samples collected.

Let Love Rule said...

Halima said...
... bw have not been and are not allowed to make any comments on emerging trends or damaging sub-cultures among black males, until they are full blown cases.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Halima,

Even when a problem is full blown bw are silenced.

And that's the point. Our experience and lives are devalued so much by this society, that we are taught to be silent no matter what the level of the abuse. And those women with the courage to speak up and out loudly are villified or ignored.

So we have to learn to speak and be heard. And IMHO, the emphasis on bm (usually religious) leaders who have their own (often selfish)agendas, is most problematic.

pioneervalleywoman said...

Halima:

My question is, are women of other races particuarly ww expected to confirm every white man as sexist before they can legitimately deliberate/discuss sexim as a function of masculinity in society?

Let Love Rule:


So we have to learn to speak and be heard. And IMHO, the emphasis on bm (usually religious) leaders who have their own (often selfish)agendas, is most problematic.

My reponses:

When American women became involved in the women's rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s, the white women in particular began with consciousness raising, sitting in each other's homes, talking about what their lives were like. They then strategized on what their next steps would be.

They attacked institutions, one by one, and they had no problems with going to war with their husbands, brothers and sons.

They used whatever means they had at hand, and found allies among progressive minded men. They didn't care if it meant war with the men of their group, they were determined, and they changed a society.

In my blog, let love rule, I address these issues of religion and the perspectives of male ministers, and black women considering the possibilities of developing a black women's liberation theology.

Aimee said...

Anonymous said...
Greetings from the UK

But I have to say you undermine any argument when, of the O.J. case, you say "I'm pretty sure he did" it and throw in Barry Bonds. I ask you to think about why you feel you're in any position to make any judgement on them when you're not party to O.J.'s trial, his wife's murder or Barry Bonds training regime. You condemn the mainstream media's "amen chorus" but seem to have ingested some of their prejudice and arrogance. It's alright to say "I'm not in any position to pass judgement".

But I am in a position to form an opinion on the subject of a publically, widely reported news story which has had an enormous impact on the a range of issues in our society, be they crime reporting, interracial relationships, or the reliability of police chain of custody techniques. I do not agree that the only people who have a "right" to an opinion on this or any other story are eyewitnesses or parties to their trials. His jury was charged with determining his legal guilt or innocence, and thus it is they who "passed judgment"; I just hold an opinion, which has exactly zero effect on his life.

My problem with the O.J. phenomenon was never that the general public formed opinions about his guilt or innocence; my problem was and is with the disproportionate amount of time, focus and vitriol directed at this one case, which made it clear that it wasn't really about the "evil" of O.J. or the value of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman at all, but about the continuing power of certain racial taboos and prejudices in our society. The Simpson case is just a prime example of Americans' insistence on talking around race in code language instead of being honest and direct with each other. I would like to see us being more truthful with each other about race, and more genuine in our valuation of all human life.

gatamala said...

I no longer feel the need to constantly balance my criticisms of the DBR with 'props' to the 'good bm'. I will do that when the good bm start standing up to the DBR in our defense.

The black community will continue to devolve until it learns to love itself more than it hates racist white men.


co-sign shecodes.

The relative silence about Dunbar Village reeks of hypocrisy and UNDERMINES any call for justice anywere.


I will say that I have no problem with the DBR label. I'm a pragmatist and feel that bw, in particular, are in dire straits. Sugar-coating and mollycoddling the situation and bm misbehavior won't do them any good either.

SheCodes said...


But I can accept that the jurors are at least as qualified or as intelligent as I am, have a better understanding of the evidence and have been presented with evidence by the court in the correct manner, to concede that it's unlikely I could make a better decision on a case I see only on TV. Unless I have solid grounds to dispute the evidence or legal procedures, I’ve got no reason suppose they made a wrong decision.


Ah, but that's where the naivete' comes in.

On the intelligence/qualification comments:

While it's very egalitarian of you to believe that 12 random laymen are just as smart and as qualified as you, reality proves that this is not the case.

We have people who have doctorates in philosophy sitting next to people who genuinely believe that Elvis is still alive sitting on the same juries. Everyone brings in their own prejudices, biases, and have their own reasons for being on juries.

I have sat through several court cases and have personally seen jurors eyes glass over/begin to nod off in boredom when dry math-based evidenciary information is given.

____________________________

On the 'knowledge of the facts' note:

Due to the fact that we now have full time networks (Court TV and the like) dedicated to specific court cases, that review the facts ad infinitum, complete with several exceptional attorneys giving opinions on those facts... I'm beginning to doubt that.

And yes, many times the public knows about evidence that the jury is shielded from that would have been damning or exculpatory due to technicalities -- and I have seen interviews of jurors who were shocked to learn of those facts after the dispensation of the case.

______________________________

My sister is a trial attorney and can tell you stories that would curl your hair concerning miscarriages of justice.

Even so, none of this clarifies what you mean by 'passing judgement'. My guess is that what you mean by 'passing judgement' is expressing the opinion that someone is guilty.

By the way, I like your writing style and I'm beginning to really like you, although I think you're full of well, 'manure'.

Anonymous said...

EVERYBODY PLEASE GO TO

http://foreverloyal.wordpress.com/

interesting IR convo

Aimee said...

Halima said...

i agree and aimee, i think bw are in the process of 'coming out' from a place of affliction and deep hurt, so i often dont expect them to be stoic and politically correct in all their prononcements ... many of us need our 'primal scream' time before we settle into sensibleness (i see that a lot on my blog) i notice however that the Bc expects bw with a dagger in her ribs to be rational and moderate, i think its all part of theme of denying bw their logical reactions to situations as i have blogged about, and how the community holds bw to an unnatural 'spartan' standard.

I definitely hear you Halima. That is why it took me awhile to respond to a lot of the troubling comments that I've been seeing, because frankly, I was so pleased to see so many sisters speaking openly and honestly about their resentment and righteous (that's right--RIGHTEOUS--lol!) indignation the treatment of BW within the community and at the hands of DBRBM, that I hardly wanted to stem the tide of them working to get free.

What really inspired me to write this entry was seeing some sisters on your blog who (1) seemed angry at you for not exending your critique of the bc, DBRBM and mammyish women to BW and black people generally, and (2) people who seemed to have adopted the language of white supremacy to make their critques of black people, as if they have turned to IRRs for precisely the stereotypical reasons that we are always accused of--because we hate black people.

Well, I don't hate black people. I love my black self and my black family and all the incredible black people whose struggles and sacrifices have made it possible for me and many other black people today to have pretty darn wonderful lives for the most part. That doesn't mean I won't point out wrong when I think I see it, or that I believe I have the right to decide when others can do the same. It just means in particular that I will always put "black women first" as you have so eloquently insisted, and I will do so without apology--because we deserve it.

Anonymous said...

"I don't hate black people." I love my black self and my black family and all the incredible black people whose struggles and sacrifices have made it possible for me and many other black people today to have pretty darn wonderful lives for the most part.
***
I don't think one should HAVE to put a disclaimer : "I don't hate black people" every time one voices their opinion. If SOME people can't differentiate between DBRblackmen and black men in general or ANY man for that matter and constantly need for other people to be politically correct then that should be their problem.

Aimee said...

Anonymous said...

I don't think one should HAVE to put a disclaimer : "I don't hate black people" every time one voices their opinion. If SOME people can't differentiate between DBRblackmen and black men in general or ANY man for that matter and constantly need for other people to be politically correct then that should be their problem.

I don't consider the statement that I don't hate black people to be something I "have" to say as a disclaimer to a critical statement about DBRBM. I say I don't hate black people because I don't--it's my opinion, just as the other statements I make here are my opinions, and I do not feel compelled to express or suppress any of them.

The reality is that I think there are some people on IR blogs who actually DO hate black people and consider all or most of us (other than themselves, presumably) to be DBR. I don't share their opinion, and I can't shy away from saying so, anymore than I can shy away from using the term DBRBM when I think it is appropriate. I'm happy for others to call it as they see it, as long as they are happy for me do the same.

Trvlrgrl said...

Aimee...very good to see you addressing this issue! Just today I was thinking I was going to stop visiting the IR blogs because I'm really starting to wonder about the motivations of some women who post.

Dating and marrying IR should be about being open and receptive to love, partnership, and companionship regardless of race, not pre-selecting one race of men over another.

And I've also noticed a serious undercurrent of mercenary, self-serving, borderline golddigging in some of the postings on these blogs and I'm wondering what their real agenda is since it doesn't seem to be about love and partnership.

Also, since the subject has been raised again, I think the term DBR is counter-productive, unnecessarily inflammatory, and for the most part patently false. I just don't believe there are boatloads of people (barring the seriously mentally ill) who are "beyond repair". Frankly, I think throwing terms out there like this are an invitation to trolls.

When we use terms like this we are wearing our pain on our sleeves. If we truly want BW to embrace the range of relationship options available to them, I think we really need to center it around embracing love in all it's color, not denigrating and labeling others...otherwise these efforts will die on the vine.

JJ said...

trvlrgrl has it right. The DBR label is problematic.

When we use terms like this we are wearing our pain on our sleeves. If we truly want BW to embrace the range of relationship options available to them, I think we really need to center it around embracing love in all it's color, not denigrating and labeling others...otherwise these efforts will die on the vine.

Amen

"And I've also noticed a serious undercurrent of mercenary, self-serving, borderline golddigging in some of the postings on these blogs and I'm wondering what their real agenda is since it doesn't seem to be about love and partnership."

Amen

I said something similar on a blog once and got my head chopped off. Nice to see someone else expressing it.

Also as far as Jena 6. Prior to the Black kids beating up the white kid. A Black kid was beat up by a group of kids at a pary.


There was no attempted murder charge for them. Just a misdemeanor and they were sent home.

Both the kids were equally as injured. Sent to the hospital for a couple of hours and sent home.

That's why there is the "free Jena 6" chant/slogan. The white bos were freed for the exact same offense.

JJ said...

Also I don't think there is any excuse for giving pases on such behavior that many women on the IR blogs express.

We could argue that many black men (what some call DBR) are coming from a place of pain and that's why they exhibit the behavior they do.

But on the IR blogs that doesn't happen. They're crucifixed (and I'm not saying they shouldn't be) and no concessions are given for any reasons.

BW shouldn't be afforded the same in my opinion. Many of these comments are flat out of line and the women who make them need to be called to the carpet for such foolishnness. Not glad handed.

Those ideas don't help anyone and are just as racist if they were being expressed by a non-black person.

diva said...

I think that this was a well thought out post. I have seen a general negative attitude towards blackness. Since I am in a country (Japan) that does not have a black community I feel a strong need to present the good side of Black culture-women as well as men. I feel proud of who I am, wear, I came from, and how I look, and my peoples' history. In some IR groups/blogs I do feel like too many people are critical of non-whites in general and too many IR discussions are based on what's good about whites and bad about everyone else.

Let Love Rule said...

I think I understand where you're coming from ladies. But I don't agree that we should be "putting up a front" any longer when it comes to some of the problems in the bc. These problems have been ignored for too long and the only way to find a solution is to admit that there is a problem.

70% singleness rate. Violence and abuse of bw. These things can't be ignored any longer.

And women (especially young women) really need to understand that they have options and they should not allow themselves to be used and abused. As we've seen on some of these comments, some women don't understand that they should not be involved with some men. They don't even know what a healthy relationship looks like.

Calling some men DBR simply means that these men are not "fixable", you can not change them, and more importantly you are not meant for that type of drama. Find a loving, kind, COMMITTED mate whatever color, love yourself and be responsible to your own life and stay away from irresponsible, abusive men.

Shecodes said...

I am relatively new to the IR blogs. And frankly, I wholeheartedly applaud what Evia and Halima are trying to do.

I think that *some* people come to those blogs with preconcieved notions, read an offensive post or two from one of the readers, and attribute those responses to Evia and Halima.

There is a selective deafness at work -- the IR blogs have both stated over and over again that they espouse opening your horizons to GOOD men of any color. Somehow, it all gets twisted into 'all black men are damaged, all white men are all right'... usually when they start to point out damaging behaviors to avoid.

While I don't have to agree 100% with Evia and Halima, I have no problem supporting their effort with gusto.

Why? Because I think that one of the most critical problems in the black community is its unwillingness to police itself under the guise of being 'non judgemental'.

I am NOT CONCERNED about the finer emotional sensibilities of rapists, gangsta rappers, pimps or drug dealers.

A man who continually labels our daughters 'b*tch' and 'hoe' handle being labeled 'DBR'. They won't cry into their pillows at night. They will be fine! Trust!

I'm not here to give predators the warm fuzzies. They have already made it plain that they reject everything I believe in, and scoff and sh*t on any attempt to reconcile their relationships with right-thinking black women.

Conversely, if gangsta rappers and the like are shamed, ostracized or shunned for their behavior, who knows? They might suddenly come to the understanding that it's unacceptable to us and start changing their behavior.

What I do know with certainty is this: we have confused our youth by being complete milquetoasts concerning the extremely nihilistic, paternalistic and damaging world view that is preached with ever-increasing boldness by men and women that look like just them.

We have our tactics backward. We are lions when we should be lambs, and lambs when we should be lions.

You should be a lamb when you are around other lambs. You should be a LION when you are around lions. If you are a lamb around lions, you will become lunch.

SOME kind of clear delineation between the two idealogies must be made. Therefore, I will use the term DBR until a better one comes along.

The term DBR makes it plain that our skin might be the same color, but as long as they treat me as a hunk of meat to devour, they are not my family, not my brother, not of my culture, and do not deserve my respect.

I applaud anyone who can still feel compassion for those who are destroying our youth. Good luck in your efforts to stem the tide... and I honestly mean that.

But I will not be helping you with that conversation. I need to move on and build a new reality for my children.

Whether we like it or not, there is a cultural schism in the future the black community, because those who are contributing the most to the devolution of black culture have made it plain that they aren't interested changing, no matter how much you preach, beg, plead, bribe, or pray for them.

Eventually those who want a different morality and healthier world view will have to move on and build a world for themselves, instead of hanging in the wastelands. At best they can hope that those who eschew education, morality, and civil responsibility will see that the grass is greener and finally want to change.

Anonymous said...

Dam, Shecodes, that is some strong language. Much needed.

Shecodes said...

jj


Also as far as Jena 6. Prior to the Black kids beating up the white kid. A Black kid was beat up by a group of kids at a pary.

There was no attempted murder charge for them. Just a misdemeanor and they were sent home.

Both the kids were equally as injured. Sent to the hospital for a couple of hours and sent home.

That's why there is the "free Jena 6" chant/slogan. The white bos were freed for the exact same offense.


Actually this is what I meant when I said that we are using moral relavism and it is hurting us.

Let's deconstruct this for a second.

Fact:
A black youth was beaten up by white kids and nothing happened to them.

Question:
Was that good? Was that justice?

The answer is 'no' on both counts. And by demanding to 'free the Jena 6', we are demanding that the same injustice gets repeated.

By parroting the the wrongs that white people do, have we improved our situation? Are black kids LESS or MORE likely to get beaten up in an unjust world?

The CORRECT response to Jena 6 would be 'ARREST THE WHITE KIDS WHO BEAT THE BLACK KIDS.'

By demanding a free pass for all criminals, we are basically saying we want to be as wrong as racist white people are.

Halima said...

bw are used to censuring themselves and being 'reasonable' when they should actually be tearing their hair out and screaming blue murder. i think it is very unhealthy! and also many Bw arrive at blogs like mine as first port of call out of the 'suppression' they experince within the community so i am not about to censure bw on my blog and force them to adopt moderate language if they dont want and in truth, the bulk of them are very very resonable.

i am also very clear on my vision and were i plug into this thing.
thus anyone who feels uncomfortable is free as possible not to skip the blog or opt out of certain conversations. like i said, there are all these others 'reasonable' blogs for others to visit and contribute to.

thats the beauty of our ever expanding network and that is that there is something for everyone and we should not try to force 'uniform' behaviour on all our blogs.

JJ said...

I don't think in anything I said suggested that Black men who are against black women need to be saved, pampered, coddled or anything like that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It is high time that Black women constructed a femminist movement that addressed the rampant misogyny in the Black community.

Nor was I suggesting that anyone should change the policy of their blog. If you feel like giving folk a pass for their anti-black comments then that's fine. It's your blog.

My point was the I feel that anyone who is damaging and disparaging the black community needs to be called on it. Male or female. You don't get a pass from me because you feel like you've been mistreated by the BC or oppressed by the BC.

I'm sure there are men who feel the same way (rightly or wrongly) and many of the same blogs wouldn't think of offering a pass on bad black male behavior (and they shouldn't) so I don't see a good reason to offer a pass on bad Black female behavior.

I think it dilutes the message when such passes are given. That's just my opinion.

For me the message isn't about DBR but about Black women recognizing that there are other men in the world and to open yourself to the possibility of finding a GOOD man in whatever form he may appear.

Nor am I playing the moral relativist game by pointing out the hyprocrisy in the Jena 6 case.

The white kids were arrested. Charged with and convicted of a misdemeanor and sent home.

All I'm suggesting is that the Black kids be treated the same. A misdemeanor charge fits the crime NOT an attempted murder charge.

So I am seeking justice.

gatamala said...

Shecodes: your post was 100% spot on.

The term DBR makes it plain that our skin might be the same color, but as long as they treat me as a hunk of meat to devour, they are not my family, not my brother, not of my culture, and do not deserve my respect.


It never ceases to amaze me how casually we throw around the terms "sister/brother". Words of kinship have a serious, personal meaning for ME. "Family" is as "family" does. To be considered as such, one has to behave in a familial manner. When a threat comes from without we attack it as something destructive. When a threat comes from within, we keep it in the fold and allow it to wreak havoc on our lives. This makes no sense. Where is the shame?

Anyone who hurts bw/b people is an enemy - even if they "match".

****
We all know that Evia, Halima, Zabeth and even Gina take hits for their various stances. I realize that there is some "blowback" from posting on this and other blogs. I have taken enough hits in life to whether the storm and have no intention of circumscribing my thoughts, deeds and words ever again.

Aimee said...

gatamala said...

We all know that Evia, Halima, Zabeth and even Gina take hits for their various stances. I realize that there is some "blowback" from posting on this and other blogs. I have taken enough hits in life to whether the storm and have no intention of circumscribing my thoughts, deeds and words ever again.

Gatamala, I would never expect anyone to do that. The diversity of beliefs on the blogs is one of their main values in my opinion--it means that all kinds of sisters can come to them and realize that all the stereotypes they've been fed about sisters who "go there" are just that: stereotypes.

Some of us are liberal, some conservative, some progressive. Some are married, some happily single. Some are parents, some childless by choice. And we all have very different views on where the bc is going, and the best way for we as BW to empower ourselves and defend our interests. Admittedly, in my mind, there is a line--when people start referring to black people as "apes," or suggesting that BW and BM have played an equal role in the dysfunction in our community, and should be taking on an equal burden in correcting its path, I have to balk at that: I don't think history or the facts support the latter contention, and I think it would literally be dangerous for BW to continue to allow or energies to be sidetracked into trying to resuce an entire community that resists and disrespects our efforts, when we could be investing our energies quite successfully into ourselves.

But even when people say things I find hateful or trollish, I don't have a problem with seeing them expressed--the only time I have ever deleted anything here was when it was profane and involved a personal attack. I tend to think that even the vilest thought at the very least exposes the thinker--and sometimes, the ideas we like the least are the ones that end up challenging us the most.

Trvlrgrl said...

JJ said
For me the message isn't about DBR but about Black women recognizing that there are other men in the world and to open yourself to the possibility of finding a GOOD man in whatever form he may appear.


and an Amen for you to!

IMO, We need to recognize that when we use terms like DBR it undermines us...trick these men! This is about our health and well-being.

Yes, there are some trifling sorry men in the world and none of us should waste one bit of time trying to figure out what's wrong with them or how to help them. They are who they are...recognize them for that and move on.

Calling them DBR only keeps the conversation and focus on them, and keep us in a state of pain and anger. I just don't feel like it moves us to the next level which is actually living our lives to the fullest, embracing joy, love, and happiness, and blowing smoke at those men who don't deserve us.

That said, I understand where Halima is coming from. Her site is a first stop for many black women who need to vent their frustrations and connect with like minds. How about a conversation on coming up with a less derisive term to describe these men?

Anonymous said...

I don't want to start a debate on the Jena 6 - I realize it's outside the main topic. I agree that if the two cases (whites beating black; blacks beating whites) were identical, charges should be the same. But legal cases are fact-sensitive; two cases that sound the same can't always be charged the same. Prosecutors charge defendants with the charge they think they can prove, even if a higher charge might be warranted. If prosecutors don't have the evidence/circumstances/witnesses to offer a more severe charge that a jury will buy, they won't, because no prosecutor wants to lose a case because they over-charged (or for any reason). So, I think we'd need (and I don't think many know who comment on this on the web) the precise circumstances of the white-on-black attack in order to make a valid LEGAL comparison. Also, a larger point: when these circumstances arise, race gets blamed. But this prosecutors and his office and this police force are not made up of 9 year-olds. If they have such attitudes, would not such attitudes have come out through their work and/or personal lives EARLIER in their lives??? Black people are all around, and are involved in the criminal justice system. If these guys were motivated by such attitudes, I assume it would have shown before this - I'm sure they had plenty of opportunities throughout their professional/personal lives. I think a look at their history with black defendants will tell, one way or another. If there's no history of these attitudes influencing cases, I highly doubt race was a motivation here - all of the sudden they decided to activate their racist attitudes, in middle-age???

JJ said...

Anon you're obviously clueless and don't know the details of the Jena 6 case.

LONG b4 the case hit the mainstream there was an in depth story on the whole situation.

So perhaps you need to do the research and find out the details of the story yourself instead of questioning those of us who know the details.

Anonymous said...

I don't have to know more about the Jena 6 case. My whole point was that we need to know more about the OTHER cases - the white-on-black attack, and the history of this prosecutor - in order to determine whether race was a factor in the charges they imposed in the Jena 6 case. With more knowledge of the white-on-black attack we can determine whether the difference in charges was understandable. (Most just note that an attack on a black kid occurred and the defendant was charged with a misdemeanor). And, more significantly, with knowledge of the history of this prosecutor, we can determine whether race is a consideration in this person's choice of charges. Again, I HIGHLY doubt that a middle-aged man, who has been and is frequently in a position to charge black defendants, would all-of-the-sudden decide to charge black defendants differently, when he probably had thousands of opportunities to do so before. If this is not a trend, it would be hard to believe race was a motivating factor now.

gatamala said...

How about a conversation on coming up with a less derisive term to describe these men?


I understand why you don't like the term. I have no problem with it. Philosophically we come from different places. :)


To me, it emphasizes how grave the situation is. Too many bw (women in general) waste years and suffer abuse from men they think they can change. I've heard women rationalize abuse by saying, "the Lord won't give me nothin' I can't handle". This "faith" and "hope" has a positive, but such seemingly positive ways can have disastrous consequences. BW would do well to know when to cut our losses.

Let Love Rule said...

'If this is not a trend, it would be hard to believe race was a motivating factor now.'

Anon, you apparently understand nothing about the criminal justice system in America. Studies have already been done. And time and time again they show a pattern of discriminatory treatment of black defendants (harsher charges,sentences), for the same crime whites commit.

And let's remember there was an all white jury and serious racial incidents which Jena leaders dismissed and called pranks. These leaders were elected by the people, therefore are representative of the bias in the community.

Moreover to suggest that automatically this is a race neutral situation is truly to be color BLIND and ignore all the history (specifically in that region) that has passed and the racism which is still with us today.

Anonymous said...

Tagging THIS prosecutor, who imposed the charges HERE, with a label based on other people's behavior past or present, is not valid. Equivalent, I'd say, to calling all black women hos based on the behavior of those in music videos, or all black men criminals based on the percentage who are. Rather, again, let's look at the past behavior of THIS prosecutor, and not assume because he's white and works as a prosecutor, he must be racist.

And an all-white jury does not mean a racist jury, just as black man does not = criminal, or black woman does not = ho. And I don't know if this prosecutor was elected, but no matter. Rather than assume bad behavior because perhaps bad people elected him, let's - again - look at HIS behavior. Lots of assumptions here you make based on race - white prosecutor, white jury, criminal justice system, so must be a wrong decision. Look at THIS guy, not his skin color or that of the jury.

Finally, I didn't assume this is a race neutral situation. I merely said that a middle-aged prosecutor has a track record, and one does not out-of-the-blue, at that point in one's life, decide to act on race. Maybe he DOES have a track record of charging blacks and whites differently - if he does, then the decision here is suspect; but if he doesn't, it would be hard to believe he all-of-the-sudden decided, "Hey, I've been charging these black defendants all these years the same as white defendants. What am I doing! I should be charging them more severely. I've suddenly decided I don't like black folks." All I'm saying is: check the record - don't assume based on race, or his job, or where he lives, or the behavior of others. That's not right.

Let Love Rule said...

I'm not assuming anything. The fact that the prosecutor would charge a child as an adult with 2nd degree murder for a school yard brawl in a racially tense climate speaks for itself.

It's just a reflection of a long standing pattern of other racist prosecutors around the country.

And since I'm aware of the well documented racism which has been and is fundementally apart of the justice system, it only makes sense to acknowledge "the norm" until proven otherwise.

So how do you identify? white, black, other?

Halima said...

And an all-white jury does not mean a racist jury, just as black man does not = criminal, or black woman does not = ho. And I don't know if this prosecutor was elected, but no matter. Rather than assume bad behavior because perhaps bad people elected him, let's - again - look at HIS behavior. Lots of assumptions here you make based on race - white prosecutor, white jury, criminal justice system, so must be a wrong decision. Look at THIS guy, not his skin color or that of the jury.


This argument is so simplistic i dont know if it deserves any intelligent response.

And what does bw = ho have to do with this particular discussion i must first ask? is that some sort of 'appicable example' or a sly way of tossing an insult at black women. indeed since we are on the issue of ho's and insulting bw, maybe we should talk about ww and their overwhelming representation in the porn industry and how it should qualify them for 'ho-dom' long b/4 bw!

An all-white jury is an aberration and in the US with its history and Jena in particular, it is simply and vehicle for dispensing a racist brand of justice, no more no less, proof not required!

The fact that we date and are for IR here doesnt mean we are soft in the head, so you might want to take your 'logic' somewhere else!

Anonymous said...

Teenagers can get charged as adults. It is by no means that someone under a certain age cannot get charged as an adult, particularly as I believe this kid had a record. And the fact that it can be termed a "school yard brawl" does not diminish the crime - brawls, wherever they occur, can be charged as crimes. I am SURE that, had the subsequent attack on the black boy not occurred, many who now protest would not have been up-in-arms had the white boys attacking the black boy been charged as adults. I'm SURE in that case, many would not have been calling it a mere "schoolyard brawl"; in fact, I'm SURE Sharpton, et. al, would have been marching for serious charges, not minimizing the crime.

Second-degree murder is kind of a catch-all charge - if one cannot be charged under other murder statutes. And unless one knows the statute in that state, one cannot comment on whether the charge was silly. Just throwing around the term "second degree murder" doesn't tell us that the charge is excessive, unless we know what 2nd degree murder MEANS under that state's statutes. This is all a species of what I'm talking about: assumptions made (about the prosecutor, about the jury, that 2nd degree murder is excessive, that the white-on-black attack and the black-on-white attack were factually similar and thus should be charged the same), rather than: looking at the prosecutor's record, looking at both crimes to see if they should or should not be charged the same, looking at the 2nd degree murder statute to see if in fact the charge was excessive. Too, too many hear "white jury" "black defendant" "white prosecutor" and make assumptions. Isn't making assumptions based on race something you oppose? And to say the history of the criminal justice system justifies tagging anyone in the criminal justice system as a racist is again, equivalent to calling all black women hos based on music videos, or all black men criminals based on those who are, or all black women who date white men a female of Uncle Tom (whatever that is).

Don't understand, "How do you identify?"

I apologize for starting this discussion, since it's off-topic from the blog.

Anonymous said...

The hos comment was in no way a comment on black women, only a way to illustrate the inherent problem with making assumptions based on race, as the assumption that a white jury could not be fair. Use whatever example you want: use white women in porn as an example if you want - it would be equally flawed to assume all white women hos because some white women appear in porn. Don't mean to offend, just trying to illustrate. Won't drag this on any longer. Enjoyed the discussion.

Halima said...

oh you were trying to offend alright!

like i said we arent soft up in here. You could have used more appropraite examples but i guess the one close to your frame of mind had to do with bw and ho's; a cheap, thinly veiled shot at bw, which you have been pleased to repeat again and again.

you picked your example with malicious intent wether you were consciously aware of doing that or not.

but i am done with this dialogue with you!

Anonymous said...

Alright, I said I was done but I can't leave out there the impression that Halima has of my intent - must respond to it. Of course I chose black women to use in my example intentionally - after all, it's a safe assumption that most women on here are black and would see - and FEEL -personally, clearly, the FLAW in making assumptions based on the race of the prosecutor/jury. I assumed it would be OBVIOUS to a group of black women on this forum that all black women are NOT ho's because some black women appear in videos. That's why used this example - because you KNOW the assumption in that case is FLAWED. Besides, it's always the best example to use assumptions based on race as a "control" example because we have decided as a society that such assumptions should not be made. Just like all white folks are not anti-black just because some white folks are. My whole point was let's examine the prosecutor's record rather than assume because he's white he must have something against the black kids. Maybe he's acting on race-based attitudes - and so the protests are valid - or maybe not -but my point was not to assume based on race and history. Finally, you should gather something about me - as a man, a non-black man - that I'm reading THIS blog, Halima and anyone else who finds offense in my comments. You can make assumptions from my mere readership that I'm not intending to offend black women. Now I'm finished. Again, sorry for unintentionally opening a Pandora's Box.

Let Love Rule said...

By how you identify I mean ethnically.

The problem anon is that you seem unwilling to acknowledge racism in the society. You would like to me to look at people "individually" as racist, when we know for a fact there is INSTIUTIONAL racism. From what gets criminalized, who gets criminalized, and how those who are criminalized are sentenced.

In addition, the "reverse discrimination" arguement is often a way to ignore that racism does exists and to ignore history. Unfortunately, it is not the same if a white group of people beat up a black person (particularly in the South), because of the sad history of racism in this country.

That doesn't make it less wrong that a black group would do the same thing. But to ignore the context in which these events occur I believe is to err.

At anyrate I tired of arguing with you. If you would like more information there is an entire field of study called critical race theory which deals with the legal system and its bias. The scholars are well respected and include Derrick Bell and Kimberle Crenshaw.

Let Love Rule said...

I figured he was a white man (could be wrong) with little experience of racism and even less knowledge using a "color blind/reverse discrimination" approach, ignoring history and the facts.

Educate yourself first, then you'll offend less.

Notice how shecodes demanded equal justice, not made excuses as to why the white guys got off.

Sandra said...

Anonymous, please get off this blog. I come to this blog to learn useful information, not to hear your pseudo-intellectual dribble. We have the facts - there is no need to obfuscate by using theoretical arguments. The facts here speak for themselves - 2 sets of kids (one set white), one set black, do the same thing and yet one set (white) gets off with a slap on the wrist while the other set (black) gets charged with attempted murder. Bring the same charge against BOTH sets of kids, and don't stack the jury in a way that results in injustice or at the very least the appearance of injustice. Charge BOTH sets of kids with the same crime, and protect society against all of these boys who like to use violence to settle problems.

Evia says : said...

However, statements about how "all" or "most" black people are stupid, fat, impoverished, ignorant, criminal failures are simply false-- and the fact that black people are making these statements does not make them any less racist.

Aimee, I don't normally read IR blogs that are not connected to my blog, so I can't be sure of all the blogs you're referencing. I definitely agree that it's flat out wrong to say "all" in any situation involving human beings.

I sometimes feel though that even if the terms "most" or "some" "many" are used in certain contexts, opposers/attackers jump on those qualifiers too. So if we can't use "most" "some, many," and yet we want to talk about significantly harmful things that some blacks increasingly do to each other, maybe we need to discuss other terms that we can use? I've noticed that even when statistics are used, they also get attacked and discounted.

This is why some bw have remained unaware and/or just kept silent (not me--LOL!). There seems to be no acceptable language/terms that bw can use to talk openly about what they're experiencing and observing vis a vis the bc and DBRbm. Maybe the goal has been to rob sistas of the language/terminology in order to stifle the thoughts, feelings, awareness?

I haven't personally experienced any hell from bm. I've been told a lot that I am no longer qualified to discuss bm or the bc at all since I married a wm, yet, all black women are impacted by racism and sexism--no matter what.

In the same way, pointing out the destructive havoc that DBRBM wreak in our community does not mean that we have to join the mainstream amen chorus that deems them white America's sole bogeyman.

I've never quite understood the objection to the DBR term because it does not encompass ALL black men. If we don't have a term to isolate and identify who exactly we're talking about, then who and what exactly are we talking about? Also, it seems to me that severe harm to ALL bm does occur when we don't pinpoint who exactly among them is perpetrating havoc because the implication would be that ALL bm are wreaking the havoc. SOMEBODY is definitely doing it! It's almost like some of us (not you) are trying to pretend we don't know who the perpetrators are.

Or maybe I'm not understanding what some commenters are saying.

I would love it if we could just not talk about bm AT ALL on these IR blogs. That would make sense to me. However, some sistas have been to hell and back with "some" black men and they're obviously trying to figure out what happened to them and why. These women obviously have nowhere else they can feel safe talking about these experiences. So they talk about their pain on the blogs, and they also still write to me personally. There are NO acceptable forums for many of these issues to be discussed in the typical bc!

So I agree that we could and maybe should ignore all trolls who defend DBRbm and stop talking about bm totally and completely since supposedly sistas who come to IR blogs want to just "move on." However, somehow I don't feel justified telling bw they can't talk about their experiences.

Aimee said...

Evia says

I sometimes feel though that even if the terms "most" or "some" "many" are used in certain contexts, opposers/attackers jump on those qualifiers too. So if we can't use "most" "some, many," and yet we want to talk about significantly harmful things that some blacks increasingly do to each other, maybe we need to discuss other terms that we can use? I've noticed that even when statistics are used, they also get attacked and discounted . . . some sistas have been to hell and back with "some" black men and they're obviously trying to figure out what happened to them and why. These women obviously have nowhere else they can feel safe talking about these experiences. So they talk about their pain on the blogs, and they also still write to me personally. There are NO acceptable forums for many of these issues to be discussed in the typical bc! . . . I don't feel justified telling bw they can't talk about their experiences.

Evia, I can point out to you the exact post at Halima's blog that gave me serious pause:

I never got the insults until I entered the larger ignorant world of blacks. I'm sure many damaged black women on here would've passed up my cousins because they weren't gangsta or dark enough. And now you complain. I guess you're finally tired of "keepin' it real" and "keepin it gangsta".

Certainly, statements like this reflect a lot of hurt, and it isn't my place to say that the person who said it should have put it another way, or used other words. But I do not consider the women at these blogs "damaged," and I can't co-sign someone who feels free to complain about the "larger world of ignorant blacks," but then implies that other sisters' complaints are nothing more than the self-inflicted result of "keepin' it real and keepin it gangsta." So no--my point isn't to demand that people use or not use certain words, or to stop anyone from saying their piece. But I'm mos def going to say mine--and ANYBODY who denigrates and stereotypes BW in this way is going to hear my mouth--LOL!

pioneervalleywoman said...

Aimee, referring to a post on Halima's:

I never got the insults until I entered the larger ignorant world of blacks. I'm sure many damaged black women on here would've passed up my cousins because they weren't gangsta or dark enough. And now you complain. I guess you're finally tired of "keepin' it real" and "keepin it gangsta".

My reply:

Could this have been written by a man, a troll who criticizes bw in interracial relationships as rejecting decent black men (like him and his cousins) who might have been darker skinned, said women doing so when they were younger (and ignorant) only to go for the "gansta" type, but who are now seeking wm after having been through too much drama?

The wording sounds more like a man who is feeling pain over being rejected, and who feels the right to judge the women here who are involved in interracial relationships and presume that he knows who and what we are.

Just another troll to be ignored.

Evia says : said...

So no--my point isn't to demand that people use or not use certain words, or to stop anyone from saying their piece. But I'm mos def going to say mine--and ANYBODY who denigrates and stereotypes BW in this way is going to hear my mouth--LOL!

Okay, I hear ya, and as PVW says, we don't know exactly who it is who's doing this and don't know their motives.

Aimee said...

pioneervalleywoman said...

Could this have been written by a man, a troll who criticizes bw in interracial relationships as rejecting decent black men (like him and his cousins) who might have been darker skinned, said women doing so when they were younger (and ignorant) only to go for the "gansta" type, but who are now seeking wm after having been through too much drama?

Actually, I assumed when I first read it that it was just another troll, this one posing as a BW interested in IRRs, since it used all the typical troll fodder (BW all want thugs, BW just need to make better choices, BW get what they deserve). I pretty much ignored it as I try to do with most trolls, but I found the response it got, simply because the poster was posing as a BW in an IRR, was more disturbing then the tired ranting itself.

I was stunned at how quickly a place where, as Evia described it, BW who "have nowhere else they can feel safe talking about their experiences," so quickly accepted someone stating that THEY were nothing more than thug-loving chickenheads getting their deserved comeuppence. It was this response that made me think of Jesse Davis, Natalee Holloway, and Nicole Brown--how no matter what mistakes they made, the value of their lives and the outrage over their deaths were never questioned.

Here, a group of BW were being accused of something that is basically a streotype--loving thugs--and a streotype that did not fit the group being addressed at ALL. And yet, the women addressed essentially agreed with it. It seemed to be me that we were coming to a point where as long as your statement involved an attack on someone black, even other BW, there would be people ready to co-sign it, accurate or not.

The whole reason I was inspired by Halima and Evia in the first place was because they told the truth as they saw it and encouraged other sisters to do the same, and refused to be intimidated by the usual DBR/Mammy Soul Patrollers, who have actively ignored and promoted the abuse and exploitation of BW within our community. They encouraged BW to empower themselves, and
provided them the tools to do it. They've refused to the same tools as the exploiters who want BW to remain locked in self-loathing, either by telling them to "stay loyal" or by telling them "you're getting what you deserve." Those both boil down to the same message, and I won't endorse either one. I respect their beliefs about providing an outlet for all kinds of sisters to share their thoughts and feelings on a variety of issues. And that is all that I am doing here.

shocol said...

pioneervalleywoman said...

Aimee, referring to a post on Halima's:

I never got the insults until I entered the larger ignorant world of blacks. I'm sure many damaged black women on here would've passed up my cousins because they weren't gangsta or dark enough. And now you complain. I guess you're finally tired of "keepin' it real" and "keepin it gangsta".

My reply:

Could this have been written by a man, a troll who criticizes bw in interracial relationships as rejecting decent black men (like him and his cousins) who might have been darker skinned, said women doing so when they were younger (and ignorant) only to go for the "gansta" type, but who are now seeking wm after having been through too much drama?

The wording sounds more like a man who is feeling pain over being rejected, and who feels the right to judge the women here who are involved in interracial relationships and presume that he knows who and what we are.

Just another troll to be ignored.



I didn't see the original post, so I'm only commenting on the portion I see here, but I'm not getting a sense of superiority because this person is IR dating/married. Other reasons, yes, because of IR, no.

This could be a WM troll. If it's a black American male, he's probably upper middle class. Or, and what I really believe, is that this is a subtle swipe at black Americans. Since he/she referenced "keepin' it real" and "gangsta", I'm just going to assume they're referring to the black American community. There is just something about the phrasing of "larger ignorant world of blacks" that suggests someone who does not identify as black American. And there is a certain contempt as well. So I'm guessing, and I could be wrong, that the comment was made by someone of Carribean descent or continental African exercising his/her superiority complex over African-Americans. JMO

m said...

Greetings, ladies -

I've been reading for some time, want to express gratitude for your tireless articulation of your thoughts, and am just going to jump in.

Quoting Evia:
"I've never quite understood the objection to the DBR term because it does not encompass ALL black men."

Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I believe that those who are objecting to the term may be doing so because they believe that to use it to define a specific group would be to focus on the negative.

I don't think that's what's going on.

IMO, there's a subtle, but substantial, difference between identifying what -- or who, for that matter -- is bad (for BW) and focusing on what's good.

I don't think it's necessary to silence the naming/characterizing of negative behavior in men in order to focus on making better choices in men.

On the contrary, it seems to me that the ladies who use the term are saying that it's necessary to identify (and characterize by shorthand - hence, DBR) behavior that you DON'T want in a partnership in order to draw yourself a complete picture of what/whom you DO want and what characteristics would make positive choices for you in relationships.

As a matter of fact, for some people (especially those of us whom the BC has attempted to beat down by accusations of betrayal) it's an absolute prerequisite to finding a positive partnership to know -- and be able to tag (hence DBR) -- exactly what negative behavior looks like.

That DOESN'T mean -- I think I'm speaking specifically to trvlgrl and jj -- that you're focusing on the negative behavior to the exclusion of everything else.

But you've got to start somewhere.

Then you move on to selecting a better man -- from a wider pool -- to create a positive partnership for yourself.

(I'm speaking of the "universal you".)

Just my $0.02.

Anonymous said...

The Dunbar Village and other situations like it do not garner the same attention because black women and girls are not considered worthy of defense or protection by a great many activists in the black community. We are not the 'protected class' like in many other cultures.

I agree that in general black women and children and their victimization is NOT afforded the same level of coverage, but it is a falsehood to say that "activists" don't do ANYTHING about the murder of bw and children. That black people don't want to AT ALL protect bw and children. It is a shame that you all are ignoring the black people that HAVE mobilized in response to the Dunbar Village tragedy.


Our culture turns normal mores of protection on it's head, and makes alpha black males the perceived victims and are then afforded 'protected status'. Women and children are left to fend for themselves.

I don't even konw what that means. In my life I have read and seen protests and marches FOR all kinds of black people who have been overtly victimized by racism. Please give examples of what you mean.

I've been thinking about this a lot today...

I have even noticed that unassuming, gentle kinds of black men do not get the same level of mobilization than the more aggressive types, either.

Again where are you getting this idea from? Please show where "gentle" bm have been victims of racism but didn't receive the attention that "alpha black males” have received. It sounds like you are just making something up.

Moreover, the exceptionally high homicide rate of black men by other black men has not sparked black outrage and mobilization.

That is ANOTHER complete falsehood. The violence that goes on between black men RECEIVES a HUGE amount of attention and discussion in black political, grassroots organizations, and amongst regular black people. To deny this, is to deny reality. There have been NUMEROUS take back the street marches in different black communities around the country.

The bc mobilizes when a percieved white power structure exercises authority over alpha black men using less than deferential techniques.

That is JUST not true. Black people DO mobilize against violence and crime within the black community. Again why are you denying REALITY?

The black community will continue to devolve until it learns to love itself more than it hates racist white men

First the black community is NOT devolving. Where is YOUR proof of this? Understand I have seen STATS on violent, and non violent crime that SHOWS that crime in the black community has been SHRINKING since the 1970's. In terms of crime, education, money, political power, social power, black people are getting STRONGER. Our family structure is undergoing challenges, but that ALONE doesn't mean that we as a community are devolving.

SheCodes said...

Anonymous 10:15,

I stand behind every single word that I said... I will respond later tonight when I have more time.

Anonymous said...

there is a protected class of black people, especially when it comes to women.

rosa parks wasn't the first black woman to protest or be arrested for not moving for the bus but she had the right look and backstory for the "community" to mobilize behind her. look at her vs. the other woman and you will see why. even when black women are allegedly defended it's only in the context of sticking it to the white men.

i've been harrassed on the street by black men and no one black batted an eye. yet giggling and walking hand in hand with a nonblack man warrrants 2 black men stopping their vehicle and "making sure i was safe". imagine they even had the nerve to be befuddled and pissed off at me being uncomforatble being approached by 2 men i didn't know under those circumstances

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:15,

I stand behind every single word that I said... I will respond later tonight when I have more time.

You shouldn't because none of what you said is based in reality.
I didn't touch on this but the conclusion that you reached in what should have been done in the Jena 6 case was also VERY incorrect.
Your frame of reference is that "black people" are supporting wrong doesn't make any sense and shows that you have a skewed perspective on black people.
The idea that black people want those boys to get off without ANY punishment is NOT the truth. The one kid Mike Bell has ALREADY served 10MONTHS in an ADULT prison. Some of the other 5 simply had their charges "reduced".
Again, name one punishment ONE white kid has been put through in this WHOLE debacle.
Your perspective that in the FACE of such unequal treatment the only thing to do is to demand that the white kids be arrested is a JOKE and doesn't DEAL with REALITY. The reality is is that the racist criminal justice system has ALREADY let those white kids off and WONT be charging them with ANYTHING. So in the face of that the black people are just suppose to let the charges stand, let those young men DO YEARS in prison, so in your warped mind we wont be supporting bad behavior and "alpha males"? Amazing. What is being done in the Jena 6 case is the ONLY rational thing that CAN BE done.
You hold "black people" wrong for trying to get tha SAME justice that OUR criminal justice system gave to the white students, Amazing. Your label of wrong, of supporting bad behavior is DIRECTED in the wrong direction.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11:27.


That is the kind of idiotic, stupid crap that BM are allowed to get away with since nobody will stand up to them and take them to task. They have free reign to abuse BW, and I am sick and tired of it.