Black Girls Rule!

2011-06-06T15:01:00.002-04:00

I Ain’t Saying She’s A Gold Digger . . .

The image of the black woman as a Gold Digger has evolved along a strange and peculiar path in the black community. The Gold Digger has only recently joined the Jezebel, the Mammy, the Mule, and Sapphire in the pantheon of stereotypes which are inflicted on black women; but the Gold Digger is unique in one way: her image is almost entirely the creation of black people.

Arguably traceable to hip hop (the gift that keeps on giving to the “community”), the Gold Digger is a woman (almost always a black woman according to black people) who seeks material and economic rewards in exchange for sex. She is a conniver, who only pretends to care about a man for who he “really is,” when she is actually only interested in his money and what he can give her; if the man she is with did not have money, then she would not be with him. The Gold Digger is dishonest and disloyal; she claims to be in love when she is not; and when the well runs dry, she immediately moves on to the next sucker. While the Gold Digger combines qualities of the whorish Jezebel and the evil Sapphire, it is her greed that distinguishes her. The Gold Digger is after the deep pocket, and she will do anything to empty it. The most infamous Gold Digger is, of course, Robin Givens; but popular wisdom says that any (black) wife/babymama of a professional athlete or entertainer fits the bill, or really any black woman who has any financial expectations of a man at all.

What I find most peculiar about the vehemence and timing of the rise of the Gold Digger image is its intimate tie to both the increase in poverty of black men and their absence from the black community. It is black men who the Gold Digger supposedly targets; but it is black men who have the least gold to dig. Perhaps, the Gold Digger’s detractors might argue, black men are the only men the Gold Digger can get. That still doesn’t explain why Gold Diggers would suddenly be so prevalent at a time when AIDS, imprisonment, unemployment, and hostility to black women have decimated the number of black men available to target. Shouldn’t Gold Diggers be disappearing, like bison, along with their prey?

I don’t think that it is an accident that the rise of the Gold Digger image has closely paralleled the real-life explosion of single motherhood in the black community. As more and more black women raise children alone, with the sole relationship between themselves and the fathers of their children (if any relationship exists at all) being mediated through courts which mandate the distribution of meager child support payments, black men grow ever more resentful and detached from their children and the mothers of those children. The woman who was initially nothing more than a sexual object becomes nothing more than an outstretched hand. Essentially, the Gold Digger image arose from this detachment and resentment—black men who were “unable” and unwilling to play the provider role insist that the problem is not their irresponsibility, but black women’s greed. Thus, black women have been demonized for doing what any and all women must—seeking support for their children and families.

An additional testament to the power of the Gold Digger image can be found in how many black women have embraced it, and seem invested in policing other black women for signs of inappropriate greed and interest in black men’s wealth. Their anger runs the gamut from seething with rage at the fripperies of the “Basketball Wives” or Tamar Braxton, to expressing disgust with the avarice of friends, sisters, or cousins who pursue “too much” child support or only date “certain” men. These women have embraced the idea that men do not have any particular obligation to provide for their families—not because men and women are “equals” (these are hardly fire-breathing feminists—they generally have nothing but contempt for other women); but based on the premise that if a woman “opens her legs” for a man, she should be held solely responsible for any result—such as a child. Implicit in their beliefs is the idea that it is outrageous, unseemly and bizarre for a black woman to be cared for or supported by a man. It is sadly obvious that many black women have never witnessed the spectacle of a man providing for a black woman and her children, and therefore find it easy to accept that a woman seeking such a provider is somehow deviant, even evil.

Such critics are passionate in declaiming their own selflessness in relationships and worry a great deal about the suffering that the Gold Digger’s “victims” either are or will experience. Their unstated assumption is that these “victims” would be better off with “good sisters” like them. But rarely do these “good sisters” question why the “victims” have chosen the Gold Digger over women such as themselves, who seem to ask so little from a man.

This is a stark contrast to how women and men of other cultures view what Evia repeatedly refers to as the “vetting” process for choosing a mate–which includes, in part, what he will contribute materially to the union. I found an article by the writer Bene Viera, author of the blog “Writing While Black,” that she published in response to the random ignorant ramblings about the alleged gold-digging tendencies of black women by someone calling himself Slim Thug. She contrasted the real-life forced financial independence and lack of expectations of black American women with the normative values of other cultures, solicited from readers, when it comes to judging what makes a man worthy as a potential mate:

Riya Anandwala from Mumbai, India said: From the standpoint of the Indian tradition, a family, even today, would want a very well-settled man for their daughter. The definition of well settled may differ from caste to caste, but the man has to earn well enough to feed the wife. Even if the woman's family is not that settled, they would want a guy better than what they are.

German Vigil a Latino male from El Salvador added: In my culture it is very necessary to provide for your family. It is the man's sole responsibility. Ask yourself what woman does not want a man that can or has the means to take care of them.

Linshan Li from China also weighed in: Most Chinese women are under a lot of economic pressures and they are looking for a man who can provide them with some semblance of financial security...It is common that a Chinese man has to provide a house/condo/apartment for the marriage before the girl he wants to marry says yes.

Lastly, Andrew Anderson from Sheffield, England commented: The concept of a woman marrying for money is far more prevalent, and I don't think it is viewed in a negative light. If someone had come up to me in the street and said "which group do you most associate with gold-digging?" I would have said White, middle class women...or Jewish women.

If a black American woman dared to articulate an expectation that a man should be “better than what she is” financially, or assert that it “is the man’s sole responsibility” to provide for the family, she would probably be facing a lynch mob within the black community. This is one of the main reasons that intelligent black women need to detach from the black community.

Not because your goal is to lay about eating bonbons, dripping in diamonds, while your husband toils thanklessly day and night–I am not advocating the “princess” lifestyle that I have discussed previously. The point is that if you want a life of health and growth, you need a partner–and a partner must be at least an equal. No matter how wonderful a man purportedly is “on the inside,” if he brings nothing tangible to the table he needs to take his wonderful insides to his equal, and partner with her. Remember, all those people telling you to “date the garbage man,” or “smile at the brother with a broom” are basically telling HIM to date up. This is a concept that is almost unheard outside of the black community, but it has become the norm in America between black men and black women. This is where the irony of the Gold Digger image comes into play: to whom does it most appropriately apply?

But that’s the good news about the Gold Digger label: since it is a creation of the “community,” it is probably the one label that is easiest shed. All you have to do is walk away from it.

Clinging to the "Black Card"

2010-07-27T20:08:00.000-04:00

In response to my last post, I wrote a response that addressed the unfortunate phenomenon of black women desperately struggling to hold on to their “black cards.” This struggle is typified by black women who deep inside recognize that, on a practical level, they must explore their options romantically, professionally, educationally, and in every other manner; but who emotionally , cannot let go of their attachment to the “community.” As I noted in my post, too often I encounter BW who date/mate IR on the "downlow," but who are still desperately trying to hold onto their "black cards.” Despite the fact that they sometimes form romantic attachments to non-black men because they must, since these are the only viable mates available, they go out of their way to emphasize their love and preference for "the black man." They idealize "black love," and even though they often seek the highest quality non-black mates for THEMSELVES, they encourage other black women to "hold out" for their black knights in shining armor, reassuring these dupes that their black princes will come if only they lose weight, stop talking so loud, stop being so aggressive, stop pursuing higher education and threatening professional accomplishments, stop having babies out of wedlock, etc. They are militantly "pro-black," except when it comes to advancing the interests of black women and children being victimized and exploited at the hands of DBRBM. Then, all of a sudden, they are full of excuses, and want to return the conversation back to the big, bad White Man. They are consistent suckers for the bad poetry of DBRBM hypocrites who rhapsodize about "Nubian Princesses" they wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, and are adept at looking the other way when these warriors for the community parade their white-skinned women through police brutality protest organizing committees or Juneteenth picnics.
These women are deceptively distinguishable from the obvious mules who promote the explicit “nothing but a black man” agenda. They will reasonably note the numbers of black men who are unemployed and unemployable, in prison, in interracial relationships, and who simply refuse to marry black women and father black children; they express empathy for the multitudes of black women who, as a result, cannot find worthy mates and form healthy families as a result. Unlike the conspicuous mammies, they will often pursue professional success, healthy families, viable communities, and worthy mates for themselves, even while continuing to espouse the “black power” party line for other black women. Much of their venom is reserved for black women who are insufficiently supportive of black men, since it is of utmost importance to them that the “community” recognize that, regardless of their personal choices, they are super duper black, and they know that “blackness”=endorsing any and all black male behavior, no matter how evil or destructive. The last thing they want is to be labeled as “bougie,” “acting white,” or a “sell out.”
The conflicted nature of these “sisters” makes them incredibly dangerous to black women who are in the process of escaping the pathology of the “community.” Since they don’t look or act like the typical mule, they can initially seem like worthy allies in the effort to build new and improved lives. Unfortunately, their seductive facades will encourage many proud black women to welcome them into their lives, where their poison will undermine your positive efforts to move forward with self respect. Always remember: you were born black, you live black, and nothing can undermine your blackness. You don’t have to prove your authenticity to anyone. And anyone who demands that you do so is not your friend.

Hating Black women

2010-07-14T14:00:00.002-04:00

I recently came across a book written by a self-described “touring stand-up comedian, day trader, filmmaker and lecturer” named Rajen Persaud. The book is entitled “Why Black Men Love White Women.” I found the book’s title startling, primarily because it explicitly acknowledged a fact of which many in the black community are acutely aware, but that is rarely openly discussed: that black men love white women. Not only do individual black men love individual white women, but the collective Black Man loves collective White Womanhood. Accordingly, it was not the assertion that black men love white women that in and of itself startled me; it was the fact that a black man was openly and unreservedly admitting as much.

While many black men actively express love, admiration, and desire for white women, that loving white women is an inherent part of black manhood in the West is not something that black men like to openly admit. Their adoration of white women is an uncomfortable fact for many black men to face, since this love seems to play neatly into stereotypes about uncontrollable “animal” lust for white flesh that black people, especially black women, have actively campaigned against. Lynching, Black Codes, Jim Crow: all were strongly premised on the stereotype that black men want white women so badly that unless severely restrained, they will force themselves on any and every white woman they come across. Additionally, and perhaps more significantly, black men are deeply uncomfortable with the conundrum presented by loving the daughter, the sister, the very womb that produces their declared enemy. Even Mr. Persaud seems incapable of facing the centrality of this latter issue, since, despite his refreshing candor in titling his book, its gravamen has as much to do with hatred for black women as it does love for white women. As a sampling of his chapter headings suggest (“Soiled”; “Media: Hollywood, Phillis, and Halle”; “Black Women are Gold Diggers”; “Sisters Have an Attitude”), facing the significance and practical implications of their love of whiteness is difficult for many black men. Instead, these emotions are channeled into loathing of black women, which is justified by cataloging black women’s myriad “shortcomings.” This allows black men to claim to be proud and self-loving, while simultaneously adoring and esteeming all things white.

Mr. Persaud begins his book with the contention that any exploration of black male love for white women must begin “with the white man.” This is a common-place tactic; it is difficult for black men in the West to begin any discussion or critical analysis of any issue without circling back to white men, especially if the resulting discourse will be less than flattering to black men. It is not that white supremacy is irrelevant to the Mr. Persaud’s analysis; it is that such a focus provides little insight into why black men have so passionately and heedlessly embraced this particular element of white supremacist ideology. This vagueness is reminiscent of Betty Friedan’s “problem that has no name.” Except this problem does have a name: racio-misogyny, i.e., hatred of black women. It is simply a name that black men refuse to face or speak aloud.

Whether denominated as racio-misogyny or not, the root of black male hatred of black women (and the fruit of their wombs, black children), is the conceptualization of women as objects. Objects have relative value, and in the hierarchy of feminine objects in the West, the value of black women is low. As Mr. Persaud puts it, black women are “soiled,” stigmatized by a history of oppression and exploitation as used, valueless goods. When black men look at black women and children, they see the shame of emasculation, of inadequacy, of the inability to protect and provide. And rather than being enraged and inspired by this experience of being unmanned to fight for their dependents, black men seek to escape them, and the pain of feeling like less than men. Instead of confronting white men (which would be dangerous and possibly lethal,) they focus their frustration on the defenseless that no one will defend.

White women, on the other hand, have the highest value as objects. To men who feel like nothing, a white or white-skinned woman is a tangible accomplishment; a thing that they can point to which immediately frees them from the burden of blackness. In the words of Frantz Fanon “By loving me she [his white woman] proves that I am worthy of white love. I am loved like a white man. I am a white man. I marry the culture, white beauty, white whiteness. When my restless hands caress those white breasts, they grasp white civilization and dignity and make them mine.” (Emphasis added). White women are the prize, and black men are eagerly claiming that prize after the exhausting struggles for manumission and Civil Rights. They may not have gained real access to equal work, equal pay, equal wealth or equal opportunity; but black men have gained access to the bodies of white women. In the face of so many losses, possessing a white or non-black woman feels like a sufficient win for many black men. Thus, black men embrace the pornified Big Black Brute role that at least grants them psychological dominion over women in search of titillation and sexual adventurism--all while the “community” languishes, and, ironically, black boys and young black men pay the greatest price for the neglect and escapism of their fathers.

But racio-misogyny does not only ensnare and victimize black men. It also controls the hearts and minds of the “loyal opposition,” i.e., brainwashed black women, who play a crucial role in enforcing the “community’s” Anti-Black Woman agenda. It is black women who actively degrade and insult dark-skinned black women while treating light-skinned women with almost worshipful admiration (go to any black “entertainment” website to see examples of the mocking belittlement that the Williams Sisters, Naomi Campbell, Tamika Raymond, Foxy Brown, etc. are subjected to, vs. the unquestioning adoration reserved for Rihanna, Beyonce, Alicia Keys, or the latest “exotic” video vixen/“jumpoff”). It is black women who attack and demean black women who seek child support and active fathering for their children as “gold diggers” and evil nags. It is black women who denigrate unwed black mothers for their OOW childbearing, as if such women conceive through the process of Immaculate Conception. It is black women who attack black women who date/marry interracially, while defending the interracial mating prerogatives of black men Thus, we witness the sad and bizarre spectacle of black women (most of whom are not and never will be married), living vicariously through morally questionable white women like Kim and Khloe Kardashian, Kendra Baskett, Nicole “Coco” Austin, and Vanessa Bryant, based solely on these women’s relationships with black men. Black women can even be seen taking sides in the disputes manufactured by the celebrity media between these women, excitedly proclaiming themselves “Team Rihanna” or “Team Kim.” Just as DBRBM long for white and “exotic” women to fill the void within, mulish black women long for the love of black men, even if the only way they can experience it is to fantasize themselves in the real-life positions of the non-black women that these men actually want. How else to explain the predominately black female audiences for VH1 “reality” dating programs such as “For the Love of Ray J,” “A Real Chance at Love,” the “T.O. Show,” “Ochocinco: the Ultimate Catch,” etc., in which black women watch black men romance dozens of mostly non-black/biracial women, while the audience chooses their “favorites” among the female contestants to cheer on--in a competition in which no one who looks like the audience members, no matter how beautiful, would ever be chosen to compete?

It is black women above all who are the most entrenched and active promoters of the “Black Love Paradigm,” which both esteems any and all relationships between black men and women (regardless of the quality or functionality of said relationships) above all others, and contends in the face of all objective evidence that there are multitudes of worthy, functional, black-women loving black men ready and eager to marry black women, father black children, and provide for black families. This belief is the dearly held meme of the mule crowd, the lifeforce that sustains them, and the only way it can persist in the face of reality is for the true believers to continue a sustained assault on any and everything about other black women, from their hair to their complexions to their figures to their very characters. At the root of all of this denigration is the need to bolster and justify black men, no matter what they do. Mules understand instinctively that the only way that the conduct of black men vis-à-vis black women, children and the precious “community” can be legitimized is if black women are utterly demonized. And like loyal mammies, they reflexively cradle black men to their bosoms, while simultaneously undermining other black women at every turn, understanding implicitly that this is what they must do if black men are to reclaim their tattered and prized “masculinity.”

It is absolutely crucial for black women who want the healthy, happy lives that they deserve to recognize that the very foundation of the currently formulated black community is constructed around the devaluation of black women and children. It is no more and no less. Loyalty to this community requires disloyalty to your own well-being and your very survival as black women. This is not simply a matter of who you date or marry, though one’s choice of mate is a crucial factor in the ability to escape this quagmire. The same caution and discretion must be exercised in one’s choice of friends, acquaintances, neighbors, business and professional colleagues, and even those members of your family who you choose to include in your life. Detaching from this dysfunctional, pathological community must be job one!

The Princess Diaries

2009-08-18T14:52:00.002-04:00

It has become commonplace, from “Toddlers and Tiaras” to “My Super Sweet Sixteen” to “Bridezillas” to hear young ladies declare “I’m a princess!” Since few to none of these creatures seem to actually be either hereditary royalty or the offspring of a monarch, it is left to the viewer to determine from their behavior in exactly what way these charming creatures in some other way fit the definition of “princess.”

Whether it’s “The Prince and Me,” “Princess Diaries 1&2,” “A Cinderella Story, “Ella Enchanted,” “Pocahontas,” “Mulan,” or Disney’s long-awaited black princess, princesses are everywhere. Even “Sex and the City” fits the mold in many ways; the princesses were a little long in the tooth, and the knight in shining armor took his sweet time coming to the rescue. But where, other than a fairy tale, could a woman—I mean girl—afford a Manhattan pied-a-terre and a vast wardrobe of Gucci, Prada and Manolo Blahniks on the salary of a freelance sex columnist? So what makes a contemporary American princess?

First of all, princesses (unlike queens) are young. Dewy and unthreatening, princesses do not rule, and neither exercise nor seek power other than over the people in their personal lives. Coincidentally (or not?) princesses are also “beautiful.” They always have long, flowing hair, tiny noses, pouty mouths and large, glowing, innocent- looking eyes. Even, as in “Sex and the City,” where the princesses are not young and not really beautiful, they act young, and everyone else reacts to them as if they are beautiful. A parade of princes fall at their feet week after week, as do a cascade of glass Jimmy Choos with nary a price tag in sight (princesses don’t worry about the price).

Second, and seemingly contradictorily, reality television princesses are also “bitches” and “divas.” They don’t “take sh-t.” They demand respect, but they do not give it. They are spoiled and materialistic; they love and expect expensive cars, clothes, handbags and jewelry, things; but they rarely seem to work to earn these goods themselves. Parents or boyfriends and husbands are to provide them, and if they fail, there is hell to pay. “Selfish” and “self-centered” are the terms that immediately spring to mind when one thinks of the princess.

Third, princesses are not expected to actually do or accomplish much of anything. As part and parcel of the long and gloried history of feminine passivity, princesses simply are. The sole exception to this inertia is the time, effort, and (other people’s) money invested by the princess into her appearance. Hair bleach, extensions, tanning, plastic surgery, diet drugs, cosmetics, mani-pedis, tooth whitening, clothes, shoes—the princess spares no effort or expense when the cost is devoted to her physical person. Even when the princess has children (in order to solidify her financial and emotional hold over her husband and family), their main role is to serve as outward displays of the princess’ own beauty and material achievement (the low-rent version can be seen on “Toddlers and Tiaras”). Their clothes are perfect (and expensive) and they are never mussed.

And why does the princess deserve this worshipful treatment? Because she is so lovely and special. She will bluntly declare that she looks better, IS better than the other girls. She is thinner, she is prettier, she has bigger (or has purchased bigger) breasts. She has the highest standards. Other girls are jealous. They want to be her. They wish they had her Mercedes, her Chanel bag collection, her four-caret canary diamond. If those other girls claim to have different standards, different values, to want something more substantive out of life, they are lying. They’re simply rationalizing their inability to be the princess.

The princess, has arguably become an ideal for a certain kind of young white woman. Informed by feminist concepts of choice and independence, but lacking in any real principles, such women believe strongly that they have the “right” to do whatever they choose; but have no desire to put any effort into working towards such a choice. They want both freedom and dependence, and their dream is a life free of responsibility to others. And, as strange as it may seem, those princesses deemed most attractive (e.g., Paris Hilton) manage to achieve this dream. The crème de la crème get to be famous for nothing, pursued by paparazzi and paid to attend night club openings. The rest marry anonymous rich men for money, men who often grumble about wanting women who “want me for me,” but seem to disproportionately end up with princess trophies.

However, the men who lose the princess lottery often end up bitter and frustrated. They can be found grousing on message boards about the perfidy of “American women,” and perusing mail-order bride websites. They postpone adulthood, growing addicted to an online world of perfect and compliant porn goddesses and physically remote 18 year old Ukranian and Filipina child brides. Oddly, it is not necessarily the expectation of dependence that American men seem to resent most about the princess. After all, who is more dependant than a mail-order bride--a 20-year old who may not speak the language, cannot legally work outside the home, and will be deported if she leaves your “marriage”? No, what these men resent about the princess is her expectation of both equality and entitlement. The mail-order bride, and the Asian geishas (of their fantasies, of course) to whom they now flock, will be grateful. She won’t presume to be an equal decisionmaker in your home. She won’t expect you to come home after a long days work and to help her change diapers or vacuum the living room carpets, and she certainly won’t complain that the Joneses just bought an Escalade—she probably never heard of an Escalade. Just about anything you provide will seem impressive and abundant. She knows how to take care of a man and a family. She has real values, values "American" women seem to have lost.

Certainly, the American men who are fed up with the plethora of blonde princesses sound perfectly awful. Their rage, misogyny, and resentment of women seems unreasonable, disproportionate and just plain scary. And their inclusion of ALL American women in their screeds is particularly unfair—after all, the one thing that BW in particular have NEVER gotten as a group is the opportunity to be spoiled and indulged by our men—frankly, WE have been the ones doing the spoiling. And yet, do we want to distinguish ourselves from the princesses? Don’t we DESERVE to be indulged? That’s certainly what the princesses argue.

I think the problem with this line of thinking is twofold. The first is that there are many ways to get what you deserve, and approaching potential mates with the demand that they “spoil” you is probably not the best way to ensure that they will do so. Men are notorious for preferring to make their own decisions; which is why they will happily shower a woman with diamonds and furs as long as they believe such gifts are their idea. Universally, the attributes that men seek in women (beyond physical beauty) are modesty, gentleness, sincerity, kindness and generosity. The man who actually seeks a bitchy princess is usually so insecure that he needs a glittering trophy to bolstering a sagging sense of manhood. You do not want this poor creature coming home to you every night, even if home is a 7-bedroom townhouse on the Upper Eastside—you will NEVER make him feel like enough. Self-esteem is not the same as self-aggrandizement.

Second, BW are in competition. Maybe we don’t like thinking so, but this is a reality. There are simply more men than women, and the statistics reflect that there are increasingly more women than men who are well-educated, professionally employed, and actively seeking marriage and family—this is in every race. In a competition, you play to your advantages—and if one of our advantages is that we possess many of the traditional feminine qualities that men find attractive, despite the stereotypes that say otherwise, why would we try to adapt to a role that men find distasteful and that is not part of who we really are? I just read an article in this months Marie Claire which expressed alarm about the number of ultra-rich white moguls marrying Asian trophy wives—though reluctant to express it, many WW are running scared. And yet on every reality show, there is always the token BW with a tiara perched on her head proclaiming herself a “princess” or a “diva,” and making a spectacle of herself—and being judged much more harshly for it than the WW doing the exact same thing, of course. You know, just because WW do something doesn’t mean that we have to model it. Their way isn’t always the right way—clearly, even WM don’t think so. We need to learn to recognize what our own advantages are, and work them!

Good Hair?

2009-08-03T13:11:00.002-04:00

From etonline.com:

What defines 'Good Hair'? Chris Rock explores this sociological phenomenon from the African-American point of view with hilarious results in his new movie . . . In theaters October 9, 'Good Hair' finds Rock traveling all across America and even to India to find out why we do what we do to look our best -- or stand out from the crowd. Rock visits beauty salons, barbershops, conventions, scientific laboratories and Indian temples to explore the way hairstyles impact the activities, pocketbooks, sexual relationships and self-esteem of the black community.

Ice-T, Nia Long, Paul Mooney, Raven-Symone, Maya Angelou, Salt-n-Pepa, Eve and Reverend Al Sharpton all share their candid points of view for this raucous expose, prompted by Rock’s 5-year old daughter, Lola, who asked him, “Daddy, how come I don't have good hair?”

News of this movie prompted some interesting reflections on my part—first, how Rock, like most conventionally successful black men, married “light with long hair,” and how, like many such men (for some reason, Eddie Murphy is always the first that comes to my mind) he has a daughter(s) who more closely resemble him in color, facial features and hair texture. I’ve often wondered what do such BM say to their daughters? How do they reassure them of their beauty, when their own choices make fairly clear what they consider beautiful? Maybe I think of Rock and Murphy because I’m familiar with the communities that Murphy formerly lived in (and Rock still does) in Northern NJ, and the schools that their children would attend, and it gives me pause to think about their little black daughters with their full lips and not “good” hair in these rigidly materialistic, overwhelmingly white environments, where all the other girls and mommies---including their own—are lighter-skinned and looser-haired than they, and where all the boys—including their own brothers—will likely be pursuing those other girls. There is very little flexibility in what is considered pretty for a young woman in towns like Alpine and Saddle River.

But I’ve also been thinking about the way that BW themselves perpetuate these beliefs about “good” and “bad” hair, as well the way that BW perpetuate colorism more generally. Whether it is the almost worshipful tone with which BW talk about the beauty of performers like Rhianna and Beyonce (I remember my aunts laughing about how my grandparents would argue about who was more beautiful: Dorothy Dandridge or Lena Horna—the more things change . . .), to our complete silence as visibly BW are literally blacklisted from black-controlled media, to the genuine self-loathing often found at sites like the longhaircareforum.com, where BW speak with awe about the beauty of white, Asian and Hispanic friends while berating their own hair, BW ourselves have all too often adopted the very color prejudices that are so regularly turned against us. I’m hardly advocating the kind of hostility and bitterness based on color and hair texture so often used to divide BW from each other, since those divisions are so utterly false considering our common interests—consider the “video vixen” conundrum for instance, which first began with the exclusion of darker BW, and now increasingly excludes BW altogether--a circumstance that arose because BW were encouraged to focus on resenting each other instead of challenging the “brothas” doing the casting and, above all, turning off the degrading imagery.

What I argue for instead is that we step back and think a little about the way we ourselves look at color, features and hair. However you choose to wear your hair, how do you feel about it in its natural state? How do feel about other women’s natural hair? How do you feel about your nose, your skin, your eyes, your body shape, everything about yourself that denotes “blackness”? Have you allowed yourself to be manipulated into silence on these issues by others, who’ve encouraged you to believe that neither their, nor your own, colorism is relevant, and that any acknowledgment of such on your part is sign of “jealousy” or “low self-esteem”? Have you ever watched a program like “106 & Park” and saw something wrong with dozens of black girls wildly cheering images of BM romancing white and Latina women, images where they don’t exist accept as an audience? Suppressed your irritation as Will Smith lustily pursues Eva Mendes, while his wife plays a female eunuch on TV? Think about it.

2009-07-23T17:10:00.005-04:00

I recently finished a book by former Washington Post bureau chief for southern Africa, Jon Jeter, “Flat Broke in the Free Market: How Globalization Fleeced Working People.” Well-researched and well-written, the book not only provides a factual analysis of the deindustrialization and privatization processes, but follows Jeter’s travels around the globe as a black American reporting on his own first-hand experiences and eyewitness account of the impact of neoliberal economic policies on the lives of everyday people.

To me, one of Jeter’s most fascinating portraits is his depiction of a young black woman from Chicago named Sonia, who is both struggling to complete her education and advance professionally while simultaneously seeking Mr. Right. I think you will agree, after reviewing excerpts from the book in red, and my responses in black, that Sonia presents too many sisters with a sad cautionary tale:

“. . . I am thirty-three years old and I am ready—no, let me say I want to be married and have children, just like my mama was when she was my age and her mama was when she was my age. Why is that so hard nowadays?”

Why indeed?

Here in the United States, wealth for African Americans is, on average, about $.58 for every $1 in the hands of whites. But . . . a black married couple has about $.88 for every white couple’s $1 . . . All of which is to say this: to truly get ahead, Sonia needs a man.

Doesn’t sound like Sonia is the one who needs convincing. Then again, does Sonia need just any man?

Childless and a year into a Ph.D program in education at DePaul University here in Chicago, Sonia would seem to have a lot going for her. She lives in the largest black community in the country. She owns her own home, a car, and even a small apartment building . . . she is a catch: petite, personable, and pretty. With blonde highlights in her hair she resembles Mary J. Blige. She makes a mean vegetable lasagna. “A brother could do worse than me,” she says . . .

But does a brother agree?

For blacks in Chicago, marriage is approaching obsolescence. For every one thousand adult blacks living in the city, twelve people were married in 2006 (emphasis added). That’s six marriages, a rate that is comparable in Port-au-Prince, Washington, D.C., or the Gaza Strip.

Well. It appears that a brother does not agree.

For every one hundred black women in Chicago between the ages of twenty-two and thirty-four, there are only sixty-eight black men in circulation [alive, unimprisoned and not in the military] . . . Nationwide, more than half of all women are single; for black women, the ratio is two in three. Forty percent of all black women have never been married . . . Paradoxically, the marriageable pool of women has been enlarged for young, single professional black men (emphasis added), who recognize that their prospects put them at a premium and allow them to cast a wider net when searching for a wife. Eligible black men have seemingly limitless choices, and not just among black women. Black men enter interracial marriages at a higher rate—9.7 percent—than any racial or gender group other than Asian women. That’s twice the rate of black women, who intermarry with other races less than anyone else in the United States.

Gee—faced with this set of facts, what should Sonia do?

“So here are your choices if you are a black woman,” Sonia says. “I can share a man because he’s dating another woman and she may be black, or Mexican, or white, or Asian . . . Or I can try to make peace with a blue-collar man who resents my education and always wants to know where I’ve been and who I had lunch with today and who might hit me or even kill me one day if the answer is not what he wants to hear. I can maybe date a white guy, but chances are not good that he will want to marry me. White men might want to fuck us, but they ain’t usually trying to take a sista home to meet Mama, especially not a sista like me who is darker than Halle Berry. Or I just go solo, maybe adopt or have a baby without a husband and raise it by myself.”

There you have it. Lady Sings the Blues: the A capella version. If you date a BM, be prepared for a lifetime of racio-misogynistic DBR drama. If you date a WM, he’ll just screw you, but never marry you, unless you can pass the brown paper bag test—i.e., he’ll treat you just like DBRBM do. Your best choice is simply to adopt, alone. Or do something, alone. Above all, accept being alone.

. . . Sonia is not necessarily opposed to dating a white man. She dated one a few years back, and a few others have approached her on campus. But it’s been her experience . . . that white men fetishize black women and other women of color. “I know that in talking to my girlfriends who have dated white men, and in my own limited experience, white men typically seem to have this image, this fantasy of a hypersexualized, almost animal-like black woman . . . ”

My. That sounds downright scary. What woman wants to be perceived as “animal-like”? I may be sappy, but I just love it when my husband says things like “you’re just so soft and sweet and beautiful.” I assume that’s how every woman wants her man to feel about her. Of course, hubby can say some naughtier things too (smile); but if this has been Sonia's experience, no wonder she’s afraid!

On the other hand, it doesn’t sound like her experience with “brothers” has been too hot either—Jeter recounts a tale of a parolee warehouse worker masquerading online as a telephone repairman—still a catch, the elusive “BMW.” The only reason that one didn’t work out is because that “brotha” lived in a half-way house in Boston and didn’t have money for airfare to fly to Chicago, i.e., HE rejected Sonia. He also describes a man who took her to see Dreamgirls and then back to his clearly-decorated-by-a-woman apartment. In other words, thirty-three years of run-of-the-mill DBRism doesn’t seem to have turned Sonia permanently against BM, nor even to have made her more wary of the cads among them. Why the double-standard?

“I know this is not how every white man is, but from what I can see, white men love them some white women, and that’s why most black women love them some black men. They don’t all love us black, but most brothas don’t really have any alternative . . . ”

So this is the gist of it—in Sonia’s mind, WM just love WW, and most BM have no choice but to settle for BW. So BM it is! So much for “loving her some black men.”

“. . . People don’t want to own up to reality, but when you get right down to it, don’t nobody want black people, and especially black women, for any reason other than to fuck them in some ungodly way.”

This is so heart-breakingly sad, there really are no words. But isn’t this, at root, what many BW believe—that we are the bottom of the barrel? That the only men who want us are men who have no other choices, men who are worthy of nothing better, or those who want to practice perversity in the dark of night? Isn’t that why so many of us accept babymamahood and the mantle of embittered muleship?

So our dear Sonia stays in an on-again/off-again relationship with Anthony—a self-employed ex-con exterminator, who managed to wean himself from drugs after over a decade of addiction, but who can’t cure his bruised ego of the discomfort of dating a better-educated, more conventionally successful woman. After two years, he still won’t marry Sonia because he wants a stay-at wife, but doesn’t have the resources to afford such a luxury.

Jeter titled the chapter of his book devoted to Sonia’s saga “Things Fall Apart” after the Achebe masterpiece. But what has really collapsed are the sad and flimsy internal defenses that the many Sonias out there have constructed around their hearts and souls, the rationalizations with which they’ve convinced themselves that they are bereft, hopeless—that they have no choices. That nobody wants them, that they are essentially “ungodly.” Once you believe this, where is your hope? What are your chances? You've doomed yourself. Wherever she is, I can only thank Sonia for her candor, and hope that other sisters recognize that the only reality that you have to own up to is the one you make.

Hello--It's Me

2009-07-21T17:31:00.001-04:00

First of all, I would like to extend my heartfelt apologies to all the readers of this blog for my neglect over the past year. I have been seriously ill, and have not had the energy to pursue much of anything other than the struggle to regain my health.

I am feeling much better, and my recovery has led me to appreciate so many things I once took for granted. Like many young, healthy people, I didn’t know what it felt like to be weak, or unsure of what my physical capabilities would be from day to day. I didn’t know what it felt like to be unsure or afraid of the future—or uncertain of whether I would have a future.

But one thing of which I am now sure is the true meaning of “in sickness and in health.” As much as I have discussed interracial relationships in the abstract here, I have kept my own relationship private, and I will generally continue to do so. But my truly wonderful and selfless husband deserves every acknowledgment that I can extend to him. I am incredibly blessed and humbled by the depth and breadth of his love, which has revealed itself even more beautifully in my time of need than it ever could have during the best of our times together.

To my husband, I can only say again—as always, I love you. And to the ladies of the blogosphere, just know that there are good men out there. Never settle.

The Big Sort

2008-07-16T15:27:00.003-04:00

One of the books I have been reading recently is entitled "The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded Americans is Tearing Us Apart." The book, written by journalist Bill Bishop with retired sociology professor Robert G. Cushing, argues that Americans are segregating themselves more than ever--by political beliefs and life-style. Well-educated liberals have been flocking to Portland, Oregon while conservative Evangelicals are swarming the exurbs of Phoenix, Arizona. Of course, Mr. Bishop assumes when he speaks of "Americans," "liberals," and "conservatives," that he is talking primarily or exclusively about whites; despite the fact that the white population of this country is steadily declining, it is hard for many whites to lose the habit of thinking of themselves as "people" who have varying characteristics, while thinking about others as just that: "others," who are monolithic and generally, can be safely ignored.

However, Bishop's insight about white working- and middle-class settlement habits does have some value to us as well, even if it is a value that he perhaps would not recognize: it explains why increasing numbers of black women are willing to seek out interracial relationships.

As Bishop points out, ideology and "lifestyle" considerations are shaping where greater numbers of Americans choose live, and those they choose to live around, than ever before. Bishop views this sorting through the prism of "Democrats" and "Republicans," and while most Americans probably lean more towards one party or the other, I think this kind of labeling is probably less than useful, considering the number of people who, if asked, would reject identification with either one. "Liberal" and "conservative" may be more constructive labels, but ultimately it is the sorting by a wide variety of values and lifestyle choices that characterizes the way that people choose to live today in the United States, a sorting that cannot neatly fit within traditional, narrow definitions, even if people all too often feel compelled to try and fit themselves within the existing constraints in the absence of any other options for socialization.

"Unchurched," pro-choice, affluent professionals with advanced degrees can be found in the suburbs of Dallas, but they are often clustered in the gentrified lofts of New York and L.A.--even if only psychologically. Born-again, blue-collar, anti-gay marriage activists without college degrees can be located throughout Manhattan, but more and more they are flocking to the suburbs of Orlando, Florida and Charleston, South Carolina. These are certainly generalizations, but the statistics reflect a kernel of truth to these images that cannot be ignored.

This "sorting" process has not bypassed black women, and it has worked a fundamental change in the way many of us view romantic compatibility and relationships. While race still has huge importance in our society, a black women who loves old-school hip-hop--AND Japenese anime, rock-climbing, and Foucault--can find a population of black men who share her interests, but she will find an even larger population of non-black men who do. This isn't because black people are monolithic, but because as education and affluence frees more people--including black women in particular--to focus on their individual interests and needs, it inevitably renders race merely one of many touchstones of attraction and compatibility--or may even render it largely irrelevant in the individual case. Similarly, sisters whose lives revolve, for example, around their Pentecostal church and sharing their faith, may find a dearth of men among their congregations--and if their faith is paramount in their lives, it may well be more important to them that the men they consider marrying share their beliefs as much, if not more, than their racial background.

Bishop finds this "clustering" phenomenon disturbing, because he fears the fault lines that it has created in white America. But for black women with options, choosing men based on shared values and interests is ultimately freeing--and healthy. Rather than a retreat to groupthink, for us, it is an escape from it. And while we can be as susceptible as anyone to a rigid of closing of our minds to different ideas, the very act of refusing to be restricted by race in choosing our mates serves as a tremendous opportunity to liberate us from knee-jerk thinking and reaction. Instead of continuing to huddle in "clusters," we are becoming more and more empowered to choose to be open. For us, this is a crucial opportunity, and I hope more and more sisters grab hold of it.

Reinterpreting Wesley Snipes

2008-05-28T09:48:00.003-04:00

Wesley Snipes, by Laura B. Randolph
Ebony Magazine, September 1991,
v.46 n.11 p84

Hollywood's Hottest New Star Talks About: His Divorce, His Days on the Streets and Why He Doesn't Have 'Jungle Fever'

"I like a woman who is aware of her womaness in its universal form; a woman who isn't defined by what she's been told, or what she's been dictated to believe she's supposed to be. Those are the women who attract me. Women who allow that to embody them . . . and at the same time they're not in conflict with you because you're a man. They see the interconnectedness and the necessity of having a man--not a boy or male but a man--in their life. A woman who has that going on, she will grab my attention every time."

And, unlike the object of his onscreen character's desire, she probably won't be White. Though he allows, "If two people love one another that should be all that matters," offscreen, Wesley Snipes definitely doesn't have jungle fever. "It's more important to me to try and develop a good . . . relationship between a Black man and a Black woman," he says. 'That's the agenda right now and that's totally where my head is -- to redefine the image of Black male/female relationships and how important and valuable they are. We have to work on that tip. Once we work on that and relate to one another on a personal, professional, sexual and social sense, then we can venture out. Until then, we ain't ready for it."

Wesley Snipes, by Lynn Norment
Ebony Magazine, November 1997, v.53 n.1 p188

On the personal level, Snipes, a divorced father of a "precocious" 8-year-old son, Jelani, says he enjoys spending time with "spirited" women. "Either the hot-headed ones or the ones who just think they're divas," he explains. "I like them because they have spice and creativity. I like a woman who reads. I think a number of my
relationships [ended] because she didn't read and we didn't have anything to talk about.... But I'm not into the ones who want to jump up and fight and get loud. That's not my flavor."

The Asian model and restaurateur he introduces as "my lady, Donna [Wong]" has been Snipes' companion for the past year and a half. When asked if he dates Black women, he says: "Primarily all of my life I've dated Black women.... Oh, most definitely. Oh, my God. Mostly. But it just so happens that now I'm dating an Asian woman. It's different. Different energy, different spirit, but a nice person." He says he is not ready for marriage; nor is Donna. "She's got to learn to deal with the love scenes in the movies first," says Snipes as he chuckles. "Got to get to a place where it's very comfortable."

Wesley says he realizes that there are Black women still who get an attitude about Black men with Asian, White or Hispanic women. "I know we've all been hurt, and we're all very wounded," he says, addressing Black women. "We have to acknowledge that, both male and female, in the Black experience. We're a wounded people. And we want to possess and we want to own. We don't want to compromise. We feel like we've compromised enough. But in any relationship you have to compromise. There's no way around it. And I say to Black women also, Brothers who are very, very successful, or who have become somewhat successful, usually it's been at a great expense, unseen by the camera's eye.... "He doesn't want to come home to someone who's going to be mean and aggravating and unkind and who is going to be `please me, please me.' He doesn't want to come home to that. He doesn't want to come home to have a fight with someone who is supposed to be his helpmate. So it's very natural that he's going to turn to some place that's more compassionate.... You've worked hard and you deserve to come home to comforting. And usually a man who has that will appreciate it. Because I've never known one cat, all those cats I've hung out with and still hang out with, who found something that they really, really like and didn't go back to it. They all go back. It's very simple."

When asked for clarification, Snipes emphasizes that he is not saying that a Black woman can not be that type of woman a man wants to come home to. "Not at all," he declares. "Absolutely not. That's the point. I want to come home and I don't want to argue. I want to be pleasing, but if I ask you to get me a glass of water, you're going to say, `Them days is over.' Please. Come on," Wesley says. "A man likes that. I don't know why. It's been that way forever. It makes him proud, you know, like when the guys come over and your lady comes out with a tray of food and says `I made this up for you.' And the guys are like, `Oh man, you've got a great women.' And the man says, `Yeah, I do.' A man will appreciate it when you're kind and when you're nice. "For successful women, it's hard," he continues, obviously quite comfortable and articulate on the subject of relationships. "The competition is fierce. And if he's a man of success and power who happens to be handsome, of course you're not the only one who thinks he's handsome. But you don't have to punish him because of that once you get with him. Don't punish him because somebody else likes him."

Continuing with his openness, Snipes says he's had his heart broken more than once, and at times by Black women. "Most definitely. Most definitely," he says. In his new film, the dramatic love-triangle "One Night Stand" hearts are broken as Snipes' character is caught in a love triangle between two beautiful women--one of whom is blond(Nastassja Kinski), the other Asian (Ming-Na Wen) . . .

"One Night Stand" originally was written for Nicholas Cage, but Cage was preoccupied with another film. The director sought Snipes because he wanted someone with a strong acting background but who also would be attractive to Nastassja Kinski. "It was never an issue of the interracial aspect at all," Snipes says, adding that "the only thing we don't have in this film is a Sister."

He says there were discussions concerning whether his character's wife should be Black or whether she should be White. "Early on there were concerns about the Black community reminiscing to Jungle Fever, and missing the point of the story," he says. "So we didn't want to go that route. And I've done a lot of movies where I've had White women as my co-stars. That would have been kind of redundant. So I said, `Well, let me go either Spanish or Asian. That's something unusual.'"

Wesley Snipes has been in the news recently primarily because of his troubles with the Internal Revenue Service. The 45-year-old actor was sentenced last month to three years in prison on three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file income tax returns since 1998. Wesley Snipes has long been notorious among black women, however, for a different reason—for his being an icon of the specific type of interracial dater that black people often state they resent above all others: the one who not only dates “outside his race,” but justifies his doing so by insulting and belittling the members of the opposite sex of his own race. This loathsome reputation was earned by Mr. Snipes through the above statements quoted from at length above from the second article featured in Ebony magazine where he discloses his relationship with Ms. Wong, who is apparently now his wife.

I remember reading this article, and yes, finding it pretty offensive. It seemed to rely implicitly on the most common stereotypes about black women (“mean and aggravating and unkind, argumentative, unyielding, blah, blah, blah). Yet, at the same time, I tried to take Snipes at his word, and view his words from the perspective that he claimed to be offering them, as equally applicable to both black men and black women in the dating world. And viewing his statements from a gender neutral perspective (even if he did not actually express them in that way), he articulated an uncomfortable but very real factor that does haunt many relationships between black people, romantic and otherwise: the way that the stresses we face as a people in the larger society effect the manner in which we interact with each other.

Typically, those black people who oppose IRRs who bother to formulate a non-emotional rationale for their opposition usually found their reasoning on the belief that no other people can understand this stress, this “woundedness” that Snipes refers to, and that attempting to explain to clueless non-black (especially white) partners what we have to cope with would only add stress to a relationship. How would you feel coming home to a white husband or wife after being called a “nigger” in traffic? Or worse, being denied a job you were qualified for, or a promotion you had earned? Could they even comprehend what it means when you show up for an interview which HR had expressed nothing but enthusiasm about, only to see their faces fall when YOU walk through the door? Can they really empathize when you express frustration with always being last hired and first fired, with always having to be twice as good to get half as far? What if your lover, your best friend, that one person who is supposed to have your back, dismissed your distress, and suggested that you simply wore the wrong shoes or hairstyle, or someone else was just more “qualified”?

However, what Snipes expressed was the other side of this equation—what if coming home to someone who doesn’t bear that particular burden is not additionally stressful, but less so? Are there benefits to sharing life with someone with a “different energy,” as he put it?

One of the main reasons that black women have often reacted with such knee-jerk resentment to IRRs is precisely because, too often, black men’s preference for non-black women is expressed in terms of such women possessing a “lightness” and “ease” that black women do not—a lightness that, to the extent it exists, comes at least in part from not having the same kind of struggles with our society that black men try to escape by pursuing non-black women, and, of course, from having a level of support as women from their men that black women have not enjoyed. To be rejected not only because you bring the same involuntarily shouldered burdens to the relationship as the man, but also the additional burdens of his neglect, hostility and exploitation, has often been too much for black women to bear.

As Halima’s concept of racio-misogyny articulates, for some black men, sexism against black women is not merely a function of gender but also of race—resentment is derived as much from black women’s nappy hair, dark skin, broad features, “lack of femininity,” the way in which her blackness precludes her from being the trophy that Snipes describes (“the guys are like, `Oh man, you've got a great women.' And the man says, `Yeah, I do. ”)--as it is from her being a woman. His words here remind me of the scene in “Their Eyes Were Watching God” in which Tea Cake brags about the fair-skinned Janie’s susceptibility to bruising after a beating. Black equals strong, loud, unsusceptible to bruising--mule-like in toughness and resiliency. As Snipes notes, a man wants to be proud of his woman: he wants someone pleasing, someone compromising, someone compassionate—to him. But as Snipes acknowledges in passing, black women, who must cope with many of the same stresses as black men, plus others that black men don’t experience, may also want these some qualities in a mate. And while black women are constantly discouraged from being too black, too loud, too angry and too tough, these qualities are considered the sine qua non of black manhood in our society. When a black woman finds a man who is comfortable in his manhood without the barrier of this armor, is she expected not to find the experience as appealing as all the black men who have lauded the comparative “softness” of non-black women?

I have always argued that there is no group in Western society that is more restricted from being gentle, nurturing, vulnerable, and humane than black men. Our history makes it clear how this restriction has occurred, as well as it’s tragic results. But, today, much of the enforcement of “hardness” for black men in our society comes from other black men and the “community” at large. Robbed of other avenues of achieving manhood, too many brothers settle for a caricature of masculinity that consists of little more than the ability to brutalize and exploit others without conscience. And while we must always remember the historical roots of this tragic phenomenon, as black women, we are not somehow obligated to lay down and sacrifice ourselves too it. We, like Mr. Snipes, have a right to enjoy a “different energy” in our intimate relationships, to be respected, to be pleased, to come home to peace and compromise. Certainly, that energy can be found with a black man—but it might also be found with a non-black man, and if it is, you should feel no more guilt or shame about that fact than Mr. Snipes. While many have argued that a to reject a damaged brother, especially one damaged by racism, when you have it in your power to nurture him “back to health” is a betrayal, your first concern must always be what cost will such nurturance impose on you? Certainly the mean, aggravating, unkind women that Mr. Snipes left behind for Ms. Wong could probably use some “nurturance” as well, but is that really Mr. Snipes’ responsibility? Would it even be the most effective way for him to have a positive impact on his people’s well being as a whole—to attempt to save one angry woman from herself? In the same way, we as black women must be grateful when we find that “different energy” in our personal relationships, that peace and security that allows us to blossom in every aspect of our lives, and empowers us to be that much more effective in all that we do. We deserve that as much as Mr. Snipes.

"Married White but Dislikes Whites"

2008-05-07T11:46:00.003-04:00

The title of this post was the heading for a thread on Black Voices discussing the following article:

Cobb officials critical of commissioner's comments: Annette Kesting was to speak at church about black history

By JEREMY REDMON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 04/07/08

Cobb County commissioners voiced support of county employees Monday in reaction to an inflammatory speech fellow Commissioner Annette Kesting gave at a Marietta church recently.

"It is unfortunate that commissioner Kesting would comment on race and religion, which has no bearing on how our employees perform their duties and serve the public," Commissioner Helen Goreham said Monday morning.

Commissioner Tim Lee said of Kesting's remarks: "It is safe to say, I don't share her point of view on the employees or the work environment."

An official with the Anti-Defamation League called Kesting's comments "unfortunate."

"Some of her remarks sounded offensive to me," said Bill Nigut, southeast director of the Anti-Defamation League, "but I wish we would just get past just reacting and find a way to deal with discussing race in an environment free from accusation."

Pleasant Grove Missionary Baptist Church in Marietta had invited Kesting, the county's first black commissioner, to speak as part of the church's 21st Annual Black History Celebration.

But in a rambling half-hour speech, Kesting decided to touch on other topics as well, including what it is like to work in the county government headquarters.

In an interview last week, she stood by her comments, but later softened her position.

"I love my enemies. I pray every day with my enemies because I have to go up on the third floor and work with white women," she said in her Feb. 17 speech, which was captured on a video for sale at the 1,200-member church.

Kesting, the lone Democrat on the county board, said she had been "lied on" and "talked about" as commissioner and added that she senses "evilness" surrounding her when she goes into the office.

"You would be amazed seeing the people I work with at the county. They are not Christian people," Kesting said.

Kesting told the audience that "you can't blame everything on the white man" and mentioned that she married one. She continued: "A lot of white folks are mad because I married a white man because I am a black woman," she said. "Why? They would marry a black man if he got money. OK?"

Last week, Kesting said she does not count white women among her enemies, despite what she told the church. She also said she represents people from other religions in her racially diverse south Cobb district and gets along with them.

Kesting said she used her speech to respond to questions she said she got from the public about what it is like to serve as the first African-American commissioner in the county. She said her talk was in keeping with the theme she was invited to address.

"My remarks at Pleasant Grove Missionary Baptist Church were intended to motivate and inspire women in the church to keep moving towards a better life for themselves and their families," she said in a statement she issued through a county spokesman Friday. "I am really sorry that my remarks offended some members of the church and hope that we as a community can continue to work together."

James Jackson Jr., chairman of the church's deacon ministry, said Kesting may have dwelled on herself too long in her speech, but he wouldn't mind having her back to speak . . .

Cobb Commission Chairman Sam Olens, who is Jewish, said he was not offended by Kesting's comments about non-Christians because he sensed she was talking about "loving God" as opposed to criticizing other religions. But he said he was "embarrassed" about how the church might view the county after Kesting's speech.

"The county embraces the diversity of our residents and views that diversity as a strength," Olens said. "It is unfortunate when personal comments detract from our service to the community."

Needless to say, the spin that was placed on Commissioner Kesting's rather odd (as described) speech at Black Voices was that she "hates white people but married a white person--why"?

This reaction reminded me of how one of my cousins responded when I told him I was dating a white man -- "You?! Soul sister #1?" He's always teased me about being so "militant," so me dating a white man to him was just grist for the mill.

The serious issue, of course, is whether it is possible for a black person to date a white person without larger racial issues intruding? If so, must the black partner in an interracial paring inevitably take a certain uncritical, racially "neutered" position? Can you love a white individual and still recognize and oppose white racism?

Many people would argue "no." One of the primary black criticisms of IRRs is the argument that who you choose to love reflects your own racial self-esteem, and that choosing to love a white person thus reflects a lack of self-love for one's black self, as well as contempt and lack of love for other black people.

Most of us here have long rejected such arguments; but I have seen them being raised again, such as in the context of my prior blog on standards: do you have lower standards for white men than black men? Is the "magic" of whiteness in our white supremacist society so powerful that many blacks will "settle" for a less than impressive white mate, just to somehow revel in their whiteness?

And yet, the question that such arguments always raise for me is what are we supposed to hate: racism or the white race? If it is racism, we should hate it whenever and wherever it manifests itself, and that includes among black people. As Halima has pointed out in discussing the phenomenon of "racio-misogyny," the black community has developed a particular hostility for black women that represents not only a sexist, but a racist dynamic; black women face contempt from other blacks not only for their womanhood, but specifically because of their black womanhood. Does this racio-misogyny thus preclude black women from having healthy relationships with black men? Should we only be partnering with other black women? Are we somehow "spitting in the faces" (as I have seen it phrased more than once) of our black female ancestors by being with black men despite black racio-misogyny?

Such arguments are clearly premised on the idea that your spouse's individual character cannot be separated from his race, and that differing races inevitably present an insurmountable barrier between lovers of different races. But, as I've argued above, this claim only makes sense to the degree that those with proper "self-esteem" can only fall in love with their clones.

A more subtle variation on this argument that I have encountered is the assertion that even if you happen to partner with a white person who isn't somehow representative of "whiteness" itself (including white racism), you and that person still live in different worlds. They enjoy white skin privilege and you don't; they will never understand what you face as a black person in the world, and can thus never provide you the succor and "soft place to fall" that a black person needs to thrive psychologically and emotionally in Western society.

This to me again, however, is a variation on the "clone" theme; it assumes that unless someone has shared an identical experience, they cannot possibly empathize with another's struggles with that experience. On the flipside, it also implies that as long as two people do share a similar experience on one plane, they will automatically empathize with one another, especially around issues deriving from their "common" experience. I hardly need to point out, that this is far from true.

In my own case, I am a black woman and my husband is a white man. He comes from an affluent, upper middle-class family, and I come from a working/middle-class family. He grew up in a tony suburb of NYC, and his father paid for his education in full. I grew up in working-class black city neighborhood in the Midwest, and paid my way through college and law school with student loans and scholarships. In other words, there are many differences between us-- substantial ones. But we both hate racism, sexism, and class oppression. We both love books and music. We both have the same sarcastic, irreverent sense of humor. He's even come to appreciate cats from having to live with them, since I am a package deal (I always come with a cat--just ask my mom!)

I have certainly been accused of "hating" whites, "hating" men, "hating" the rich, when what I hate is inequality and discrimination. For some people, hating the sin is inseparable from hating the sinner, and equating the sin to everyone who looks like the sinner is natural. But I don't think like that, and I believe most black women are capable of more nuanced and reasonable thought on the issues that confront us than the kind of simplistic dichotomies we are too often offered.

So no--I doubt Ms. Kesting hates whites, though she may well hate the white women she works with because of their treatment of her, or even because of her own misperceptions of that treatment--I won't prejudge them either. I don't think she is forbidden from being angry at, or pointing out, racism because her husband is white. Marrying a white person doesn't somehow mean you have "crossed over" to the other side, whatever that side is supposed to consist of. I am on the side of right. And the people who think they can recognize that side by the color of the people standing on it, are sadly in for a lifetime of unhappiness. I'm glad that we here know better!

STANDARDS

2008-04-22T16:03:00.002-04:00

I had an interesting experience at lunch with a number of co-workers, almost all black women, the other day that encouraged me to think about “standards,” and how we decide what is important to us in a potential mate.

As many of you know, I work for a large law firm, that pays its attorneys fairly well in exchange for a pretty grueling work schedule. As a result, I often find that my peers have developed an appreciation for the “finer things” in life that I don’t entirely share; I try not to judge it, because I am sure there are things I spend my money on that they could find fault with, but some of their choices are just not for me. Our conversation at lunch generally revolved around work, popular culture, etc., and then some ladies started discussing automobiles. There was a general agreement that the Lexus SUV was the vehicle of choice—the BMW just didn’t feel “luxurious” inside, the Range Rover isn’t dependable, the Mercedes looks like a minivan, and the Porsche Cayenne doesn’t even come with Bluetooth standard! Only I, and a first year who received a Lexus coupe as a graduation present for graduating from law school, didn’t own one of these automobiles—and believe me, I felt quite out of place with my little Chrysler!

From cars, the talk segued to weekend jaunts to Paris and St. Barths and finally, to men. One former co-worker, who had acknowledged on a previous occasion to being “bougie,” described a suitor who drove a white Mercedes convertible, and due to successful real estate investments, had retired from paid employment in his 30s. Another woman pointed out that you can’t judge a man’s wealth by his vehicle, and the first sister assured us that she makes no such judgments, but a man certainly can’t expect her to pick him up in her Lexus SUV or date her when he isn’t “pushing” something equally plush!

I joined in the laughter, but I wondered—what our are REAL standards? I know that many of these sisters were probably perfectly sincere—they could never date a man who did not have a certain level of education, a certain level of income, a certain level of wealth, a certain type of car, etc. I also know from prior conversations, that most of them wouldn’t even consider dating a non-black man. In NYC, or anywhere else in the U.S., this certainly makes their situation rather . . . challenging. The competition for men who meet this kind of criteria is fierce: not only do these sisters have to face off against other lawyers, doctors, investment bankers, engineers, and other professionals, but against models, actresses, and women who’s entire lives are invested in their looks. And, again, the pink elephant at the table is that many of the men that such sisters see as compatible don’t necessarily limit themselves to black women, or have any interest in black women at all. Unsurprisingly, I was one of only a few women at the table who was married, and ironically, my completely unpretentious, non-luxury automobile driving husband probably comes closer to the “baller” ideal being touted simply by virtue of family background and career trajectory than the husbands of the other women there who were also married.

Halima and Evia have blogged repeatedly about the need to help sisters “get free” by sharing with them as much information as possible about their options and their ability not to limit themselves needlessly. I agree wholeheartedly when the issue is simply one of not allowing the social expectations of others to dictate your individual choices; and yet, I am hesitant to directly address the choices and criteria of many of the women I know. After all, these women are in essence “ballers” of sorts themselves—they aren’t seeking anything from a man that they don’t themselves possess in terms of social status, education, income, professional achievement, etc. Just because I eschew flash, why should they? If they find flash attractive, can they ever feel real passion for a man who lives more simply but has more (in my opinion) substance? If you drive a Lexus, is it really so wrong to want your man too as well?

On the other hand, almost all of these sisters want to meet a life-partner and marry, but have yet to find him. In a city like NYC in particular, even the most forgiving standards do not place the odds in favor of a single woman. If a different approach could help, would it be better for them to take such an approach? Please note that I ask the above with full knowledge that I am speaking of a very tiny percentage of the single black woman population—that for most black women the problem is perhaps not needing “different” standards, but needing some standard other than race alone. However, I would like to hear what the women and men out there think about the role of “standards,” in finding a mate, and whether they make any difference at all?

"White Men Don't Want You!"

2008-03-24T09:49:00.001-04:00

While many black women cope with psychological or social hurdles in their path to dating interracially, one of the most potent barriers is the claim that black woman are unattractive, to non-black men and/or to men generally. This claim is generally hurled along two dimensions: (1) that black African characteristics such as kinky hair, dark skin, full lips and broad noses are simply unattractive on women and/or (2) that black women are more prone to obesity and less likely to properly care for themselves physically, and that it is this "self-neglect" that makes black women less attractive than other women.

Historically, the first level of prejudice was most likely to be openly displayed: black women were generally invisible in mainstream culture unless relegated to sexless mammy roles, but when they did appear as in anyway attractive, they were invariably light skinned, with narrower facial features and straighter hair than other black women, a phenomenon that continues to this day, though it is rarely explicitly acknowledged. Within the black community, black people also openly embraced the European standard of beauty, with elite black men almost invariably marrying light-skinned women, and all black women utilizing whatever tools they could find, from lye to skin bleach, to emulate the appearance of those women who were clearly most preferred.
In a post-"black is beautiful"/paper-bag test world, it is considered unacceptable to state openly that one considers blackness ugly. White people fear that making such statements publicly would result in them being called racist, and black people fear that making such claims would result in them being viewed as self-loathing. Unfortunately, merely because people stop saying things aloud does not mean that they have stopped believing them. Thus, a consistent riposte aimed at black women who express an interest in interracial relationships is the threat that non-black men will not find them attractive. The potency of this threat can be measured not only by the absence of black women from most mainstream images of feminine beauty, but even more so by the limited experience that many black women have had with being approached with the same assertiveness by non-black men that they have experienced with black men.

Obviously, the fact that I and many black women like me have happily dated, partnered, and married non-black men makes it clear that there ARE non-black men who find black women attractive, and the fact that so many mixed race people, most of whom are the offspring of black mothers, have existed throughout history is a testimony to the fact that there always have been. Nevertheless, I have been hesitant to write about this issue, even though I have seen it repeatedly come up in posts here and at other blogs. This is primarily because, in many ways I fit neatly within our society's parameters of "conventional beauty": I'm fairly tall, a size 6, with biggish breasts, a small waist, and curvy hips, with smallish, even facial features. Probably more importantly, I went to private, highly desegregated schools for most of my life, and my parents made a point of exposing me to a variety of people and cultures. This has given me a certain "social ease" with a variety of people that may not come naturally to those who have been socialized in more segregated environments, even if they don't have segregated attractions. The result has been that I haven't had a particularly hard time meeting men of different races--picking up on social signals, displaying interests in recognizable ways, shared interests in music and popular culture, etc. What I want from this post is for other sisters to share their own experience on this topic, especially the sisters who have also managed to date men from across the racial spectrum, and believe they have some tips to share with sisters who have the inclination, but aren't sure they know exactly HOW to actually meet the interesting, worthwhile men that they're interested in. Please share!

Race and Gender, Part II

2008-03-04T13:49:00.003-05:00

I did it! I don't get my results until May, but just finishing the NY Bar Exam itself feels like a huge load off of my shoulders. I returned to a ton of work at the office, but at least I have a bit of breathing room, and a bit of time to devote to the blog!

In any case, like most Americans, much of my non-Bar related attention has been focused recently on the presidential race, and more specifically, on the Democratic primaries. I should state from the outset that I don't consider myself a Democrat or a fan of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama; but the contest between them has fascinated me for a reason I'm sure many of you could guess (though, of course, it has been rarely addressed in the mainstream media): the echoes of earlier conflicts between black men and white women, and the complete invisibility of black women as a part of the political discourse on the issue.

As we know, much of the white suffragist leadership after the Civil War actively opposed the grant of the vote to the black freedmen under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution in crudely racist terms, appealing to white men's sense of race loyalty and white supremacy in an effort to win the vote for themselves instead of the recently freed black man. As Susan B. Anthony wrote about the issue:

While the dominant party have with one hand lifted up TWO MILLION BLACK MEN and crowned them with the honor and dignity of citizenship with the other they have
dethroned FIFTEEN MILLION WHITE WOMEN - their own mothers and sisters, their own wives and daughters - and cast them under the heel of the lowest orders of
manhood.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton warned white men that giving black men the vote instead of "their own mothers and sisters, wives and daughters," would "culminate in fearful outrages on [white] womanhood, especially in the southern states."

Though both Anthony and Stanton had been ardent abolitionists, their opposition to slavery had less to do with a belief in the equality of the races than in the idea that the inhumanity of slavery was not only cruel to blacks, but debasing to otherwise superior whites (just as many "liberal" whites today support affirmative action only to the degree which it provides "diverse" experiences for white students and workers--the primary wrong redressed must always be the threat imposed to the interests of whites). While they did not believe blacks should be slaves, though also did not believe that blacks should have the same rights and social status as whites--which is why, unlike black feminists like Frances Ellen Harper, they did not advocate suffrage for all (including all male and female citizens), but rather, suffrage for white women instead of black men.

Today, Gloria Steinam complains of a similar perceived relative advantaging of black men at the expense of white women as reflected in the Clinton vs. Obama race, asserting in a recent New York Times op-ed:

Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were
allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power,
from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible
exception of obedient family members in the latter).

While many black men seem certain that it is black women who are their traitorous enemies, they are strangely forgiving of white women, who have a long and continuing history of appealing to white men's basest instincts in an effort to maintain a relative advantage over black men--even if it means remaining in an inferior position to white men. In a similar fashion, many black men who seem perfectly comfortable seeing white male and white female CEOs and millionaires grumble incessently about Oprah, and reject any positive claim about black female achievement--while seemingly comfortable with material and social inferiority to any and all whites, they are outraged by black women's attempts to achieve greater wealth, education, and power, seeing any upward movement on our part as somehow being at their expense.

What the two groups share, as always, is their comfort with the invisibility of black women as anything other than as props or as silent, mulish support for their interests. We are not presumed to have interests of our own, separate and distinct from either group's, and our proper role appears to be simply laboring silently on behalf of the "struggles" of whoever chooses to claim us when convenient. If either Hilary or Barack has considered crafting a special message to appeal to black women in order to win our votes, I have yet to hear it--both seem to assume that we "belong" to them, and are only roused from their black woman-induced slumber if it appears there is a revolt in the ranks--in which case they are properly outraged by our "betrayal."

Well guess what: I am a black woman. I believe in equality for all, but I unapologetically advocate for the interests of myself and my sisters first and foremost: I don't "owe" black men or white women my support. I want to see more black women in the professions, in higher education, in positions of political power and business influence. I am concerned about our physical and mental health, and about the special challenges we face as mothers. I am outraged by our exclusion from public visibility, from the political theater to the beauty industry. And nobody gets my support for free. Wherever you fall on the political spectrum sisters, make sure that your support comes with a price. We must properly value ourselves before we expect the same from others--even our supposed "natural allies."

Blameless White Womanhood

2008-01-22T14:31:00.001-05:00

The Britney Spears debacle has managed to pierce the veil of my all-consuming (though involuntary) focus on the applicability of the parol evidence rule, primarily through sheer, unavoidable, repetition. In all honesty, however, Ms. Spears' case has long nagged at me for another reason--the way in which it encapsulates the tendency of our media, and our culture more generally, to rationalize the bad conduct of white women in ways that will render them "blameless."

I do not know Ms. Spears, and I have been as irritated by the strangers who would presume to judge her harshly as by those inclined to spout endless excuses on her behalf. She may well suffer from post-partum depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or any combination of the above or some other form(s) of mental illness; not being a therapist, of the professional or armchair variety, I can't speculate about her mental health.

Nor am I suggesting that genuine mental illness, in and of itself, is somehow not "real" and cannot provide a genuine explanation for aberrant behaviors. What I am referring to is the use of mental illness (or abuse, or any other concept) as a means of reducing Ms. Spears' culpability for her behavior and garnering her sympathy instead of blame.

Many in the public insist that Britney "must be crazy," because she has behaved erratically and irresponsibly, at least as the media as has portrayed her. But having grown up with a mother who was a therapist, and who treated many addicts, I know that perfectly "sane" junkies and alcoholics behave in similarly erratic and irresponsible ways when it comes to their children and their lives in general. It is atypical for the public to express much sympathy for the average addict-mother who treats her children like possessions, to be alternately "loved" and utilized as a cudgel in order to manipulate family and friends to do their bidding when they would otherwise be inclined to wash their hands of the ne'er do well.

Yet whether it be Britney Spears, Susan Smith, Karla Faye Tucker, Paula Yates or Mary Winkler (all the latter of whom, of course, committed horrific crimes), the American public seems more inclined to look for ways to excuse white women of responsibility for their crimes, than to hold them responsible in keeping with our general "get tough on crime" resolve. This disconnect is particularly jarring when it comes to the differing treatment of black and white mothers.

For instance, though white women are marginally more likely to use drugs while pregnant, black women are substantially more likely to have their newborns tested for drug exposure. Similarly, black women are also significantly more likely to have the care of their children investigated, to be adjudicated "negligent," and to have their custody of their children either suspended or terminated as a result.

Above all, and in a not at all unrelated point, the portrayal of black women's "bad behavior," is distinctly different from that accorded white women. First of all, black women are generally ignored as individuals by our media and our culture. Instead, our presence is reduced to purportedly representative stereotypical imagery, that permits our individual existences (and narratives) to be eliminated from public view. Thus, when a black women engages in wrong-doing (or, all too often, even when she does not) or is victimized, there is no effort made to "figure out" why she may have done what she did or to consider how her victimization may have come to be. Her blackness is considered explanation enough for bad behavior (just as her blackness becomes irrelevant when she does something good--then, we "just happen to be black), and her blackness renders her victimization invisible, or even culpable.

Secondly, the process is in many ways reversed for white women--their images are the primary focus of our media and culture, and anything "bad" that happens in their lives (whether it is done to them or by them) requires intensive examination, analysis, and explanation. Thus, white female wrong-doers are almost always portrayed as suffering from some sort of mental or emotional illness, and white female victims are typically sanitized to the point of sainthood. Essentially, white women are always "victims," always blameless, regardless of their conduct and its consequences for others. Admittedly, some white feminists have struggled with this imagery, recognizing that the downside of being placed on a pedestal is a severe restriction of mobility. But most white women have either blithely embraced or silently accepted the benefits of presumed purity, the presumed purity which is the bedrock of white supremacy. This presumption of purity is the implicit fount from which sympathy for white "bad girls" in popular culture, from the "Runaway Bride" to Lindsay Lohan to Paris Hilton, beneficently flows.

And this imagery has powerful consequences for black women of which we must be aware, particularly since we have historically been posited as the white woman's "impure" foil--the mule who carries the burdens of all the stereotypes about feminine badness that infect our patriarchal culture, while white women are purported to embody all that our culture has determined to be feminine "good": she is the good mother vs. our bad mother, the good wife vs. our bad wife, the lady vs. our whore, June Cleaver vs. Sapphire.

My point isn't that we should view white women as the "enemy, but that we should understand how our culture perpetuates images of white vs. black womanhood that are false and destructive--and that we must acknowledge the extent to which white women not only benefit from this false dichotomy, but do so willingly. Just as we have had to face the destructive role that DBRBM play in black communities, we must also face the fact that others among our supposed "natural" allies are not always on our side, and may be unwilling to forgo their own relative privilege in order to take on the challenge of forging a healthier society for all of us. As black women, we must always remember to place our own interests first, and to carefully analyze the motivations of those who would claim a share of our efforts, while rejecting any part of our struggles.

Sharing the Wealth

2008-01-02T14:06:00.000-05:00

Apologies to all for my neglect of the blog—with my new job came the obligation to prepare for another bar exam, so anytime not spent on billable hours I spend trying to remember when the Rule Against Perpetuities does and doesn’t apply (don’t ask!).

In any case, the new year has put me in mind of resolutions, since for many, January 1 tends to act as a catalyst for change, or at least promises to do so. For all of my sisters and those who love us out there, I hope that you will agree with me that one of the most important resolutions that we can make (and keep) to ourselves is to get our financial houses in order.

Black women as a group have lower individual incomes, lower household incomes and assets, and less income stability (i.e., last hired, first fired) then virtually any demographic group in this country. We still collectively face real and daunting barriers to our material progress, not the least of which is that we are less likely to be married and more likely to be the sole or primary supporters of households with dependents that lack secondary incomes. These challenges make building financial security both more difficult and more crucial for black women than for virtually any other group. All too often, we are the safety net in our communities—and thus have no soft place of our own to land when inevitable financial calamities strike.

This will only be increasingly true as the U.S. enters a recession that will have negative economic ramifications the world over. I’m far from a financial guru, but I’ve lived and observed enough to come to some general conclusions as to the best ways to both protect and enrich ourselves financially in an increasingly uncertain economic climate:

1. Save and Invest FIRST!
This one is nothing that we haven’t all heard before, but it bears repeating since so few Americans actually do it. Many of us have come to rely on credit cards and home equity as “emergency funds,” letting our precious earned income flow through our fingers to taxes, consumption, and any and every expenditure BEFORE we pay ourselves. Thus, we become trapped in a downward spiral, where increased debt requires increased debt service, thereby further limiting the funds available to commit to building our own financial security.

If you find yourself in this spiral—STOP! Before you pay rent/mortgage, buy groceries, pay MasterCard or Visa, your first and foremost creditor is YOU. Quite often people say “I can’t afford to save—after all, I have to eat/have a place to live/clothes to wear, etc.” However, in the event of a financial crisis, you will not have the ability to pay for any of these things without having savings to tap. It is better to put aside a dollar BEFORE paying anyone else anything, than to put away nothing at all. Too often, if we can’t afford to save large amounts, we become discouraged from saving anything at all—a recipe for disaster. Credit in the coming years will become harder to access and more expensive than ever, which makes having cash on hand more crucial than ever. Whatever your needs may be and whoever you may owe, start paying yourself SOMETHING today.

2. Pay Down Debt
Another “no brainer” most readers will say—we all know we should, and most of us try our best to do it. What tends to undermine our efforts is the factor discussed in point 1: the lack of savings means that we must rely on credit to finance needs (and too often wants), so as soon as we reduce a debt, it simply climbs back up again. This is why it cannot be said too often: pay yourself first, pay for needs (necessary food, necessary shelter, necessary clothes and medical care) second, and pay debt third. Ironically perhaps, the only way to retire debt for good is not to make it your number one priority.

3. Learn to Distinguish Wants and Needs
Americans and other Westerners have often been raised in such an atmosphere of affluence and materialism, that we identify our very selves with our money and possessions. This is dangerous, because when you derive your identity from something, you are dependent on it—i.e., you need it. Thus people scoff at poor children who long for iPods and overpriced tennis shoes, when many solidly “middle class” adults are financially capsizing because they put 50% or more of their income into having the “right” house in the “right” neighborhood. Why? Because to be “middle class” requires living in a “middle class” neighborhood, driving at least two “middle class” vehicles per household, wearing “middle class” clothes, sending your children to “middle class” schools, etc. Too many Americans haven’t heard the news: all but the highest incomes have been stagnant for decades, while the costs of maintaining a “middle class” lifestyle have blown through the roof. In other words, many Americans are really no longer “middle class,” simply because we increasingly no longer have a “middle class.” We have the top 20% of income-earners and wealth-owners, and everybody else, just like most of the countries in the world.

This inability to recognize the fundamental change that our economy has undergone is the root cause of the “dot.com bubble,” the “subprime bubble,” and all the bubbles to come: Americans can no longer depend on earning a middle class income, so they have been reduced to trying to scramble into the top 20%, through stock-trading and selling each other overpriced houses (to paraphrase Paul Krugman). I have strong opinions about what our response to this crisis should be on a collective level—but on the individual level, I think the answer is unavoidable: we in the majority need to withdraw from the consumer society, and stop defining ourselves through our possessions.

For example, we have friends who thought my husband I were “nuts” not to buy a home in the NYC metro area over the past five years: a home is your best investment, with the tax writeoff it’s cheaper than renting, mortgage rates are lower than ever, etc. Left unsaid was the presumption that those who can afford to buy (i.e., the "middle class"), buy, while only poor losers rent. We are educated, earn good incomes, can "afford" to buy--in other words, we are "middle class." So why haven't we bought?

Because a home should not be your “best investment”; it should be a place to live, just as your car is a means of transportation, and nutritious food is fuel for your body. Your goal in purchasing such items is not to mistake them for investments, but to minimize their cost while maximizing their utility. Certainly, historically, residential real estate has steadily increased in value—but that doesn’t mean that it always has or that it always will. Today, millions of people are learning this lesson the hardest possible way: through foreclosure, insolvency and bankruptcy.

For too many Americans, their homes have become, in the words of Elizabeth Warren, a “cement life raft,” that they cling to desperately, even as it pushes them ever deeper underwater. All around us we can see the disastrous consequences of 125% ARM mortgages and home equity loans, used to increase the “value” of our “investments” through the installation of granite countertops and stainless appliances—after all, realtors insist, “middle class” buyers expect nothing less, and we should always be looking for a buyer—right?

My point isn’t that no one should buy a home, or even that our needs are concrete and uniform. After all, if you live in NJ, you need a heavy winter coat; if you live in Florida, you probably don’t. My point is only that we must all look closely at our own lives in order to determine what we really need vs. what we only want—our perhaps have been taught to want—instead of allowing our consumer culture to convince us that we are what we drive, where we live, the clothes we wear, and thus can’t afford to stop spending, least we cease to be meaningful and worthwhile beings. Today, our friends don’t call us “nuts” anymore for renting a modest home that we can afford, and instead saving and investing the excess that would have gone into purchasing a home in currently overpriced Bergen County. We will buy when houses are affordable—and we will decide what “affordable” means for us, not a bank, realtor, or mortgage broker.

I would appreciate it if some of the smart, savvy sisters and those who love us out there who often share their wisdom on this blog will expand on the thoughts I have shared here, and share some of their best financial insights in response to this post. We only have ourselves to depend on, so sharing your wisdom means sharing the wealth!

Jason Whitlock and the New KKK

2007-11-29T13:07:00.000-05:00

Not generally being a fan of professional team sports, I was not familiar until recently with Jason Whitlock, who has become one of the most prominent black sports columnists in the United States. He writes for the Kansas City Star and AOL Sports. Considering the dearth of black people employed in professional journalism in this country this is quite an accomplishment, though Mr. Whitlock’s rise to prominence in the field of sports coverage, where his commentaries focus almost exclusively on black athletes, makes his “success” a little less surprising. It has long been common in the mainstream press for black voices that would otherwise be marginalized and ignored to be provided a prominent platform as long as they are saying what white people want to hear being said, especially about other black people.

Mr. Whitlock has built his career recently on his critiques of DBR behavior among black professional athletes, attacking Pro Basketball in particular for being too “gangsta,” “violent,” and “hip hop.” Mr. Whitlock was especially incensed by the this summer’s NBA All Star weekend in Las Vegas, which he compared to “the yard at a maximum security prison,” dominated by “the Black KKK,” that “Instead of wearing white robes and white hoods . . . has now taken to wearing white Ts and calling themselves gangsta rappers, gangbangers and posse members. Just like the White KKK of the 1940s and ‘50s, we fear them, keep our eyes lowered, shut our mouths and pray they don't bother us.” The recent murder of Washington Redskins player Sean Taylor has only increased the vociferousness of Mr. Whitlock’s attacks on this new “Black KKK.”

Considering his disdain for the vileness of DBR behavior and the violent degrading imagery common to so much of the music and culture that accompanies such behavior, I found Mr. Whitlock’s silence on the Dunbar Village incident absolutely deafening. It also surprised me to hear him defend Don Imus’ employment of that same degrading imagery and language to insult the Rutgers Women’s Basketball, stating simply that “A man who degrades himself wastes his time demanding respect from others.” I found this statement puzzling, since of course, the Rutgers Women are not men, and have done nothing to degrade themselves. Why then is it a “waste of their time” to demand respect? Mr. Whitlock insisted that “Imus isn’t the real bad guy,” and stated without an iota of proof that “I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy headed pimps and hos.”

Of course, this disconnect began to make sense when I learned that Mr. Whitlock had worked with, among other “gangsta rappers,” the 57th Street Rogue Dog Villains, and helped produce a Kansas City Chiefs theme song that’s performed by the very types Mr. Whitlock claims are ruining the black community. It also fit in neatly with his references to himself as “Big Sexy,” a “playa” who’s enjoyed the well-publicized hospitality of Hugh Hefner and the Girls Next Door—apparently, a white woman selling her ass deserves Mr. Whitlock’s grinning approbation, while a black woman scholar-athlete deserves to be freely insulted and scorned by any and all comers, regardless of how she conducts herself.

Mr. Whitlock is a perfect illustration of why DBRBM and the “new Black KKK” are not only to be found in white Ts, riding spinners. All too often, he is the self-described “educated brotha,” who “fears them, keep his eyes lowered, shut his mouths and prays they don't bother us” when confronted by thugs—but has plenty of courageous disdain for black women. He can snicker at other black men who “Bojangle” for a living, while he indulges in the ultimate minstrelsy: demeaning black women, leaving BW and children vulnerable and unprotected before predators, while he sits like a big black puppet mumbling a script for ESPN. Mr. Whitlock has nothing but contempt for “babymamas” but like any good “playa” there appears to be no Mrs. Whitlock on the horizon. Unlike Bill Cosby or Oprah, who have made similar complaints similar to Mr. Whitlock’s, he can point to nothing that he has offered those of our young people who are smart, hard-working, and committed to bettering themselves. Indeed, when a group of such young women were publicly attacked, he supported their attacker. He can attack DBRBM as cardboard cutout stereotypes that embody white fears, but he can’t get to the heart of the damage they inflict on the black community, because that might require that he look at men like himself, and the yawning void they have left in community, which the DBR have happily filled. Physician, heal thyself.

Unpopular Opinions

2007-11-16T11:13:00.000-05:00

I've always felt that history is there for us to learn from, NOT, carry as a burden and I'm learning that unfortunately that's the case for many peoples of all backgrounds in the USofA. Saying that, what I'm missing from the black community on a large scale is wholesale acknowledgement of their own duplicity in the problems that are plaguing their communities. What whites think, shouldn't be a focus to excused the attitudes of so many under-achieved black people, but it seems they use this as a measuring stick, give up and, continue the annihilation cycle. Personally, I've been lucky to have had parents who were immigrants and instilled in us the power of education. We spoke standard English with a Caribbean accent and were teased mercilessly by many U.S. born blacks, who "resented" that our level of the English language obviously was higher than theirs and on top of that we were seen as the teacher's favourites. On our way home we were chased if we ever were alone and sometimes beaten, because they assumed we thought we were better. My parents worked hard and finally were able to move out of that neighborhood and it was upward for us from then on. My older siblings are outstanding adults who have moved back to our island home for fear of raising their kids in black communities that were constantly on self destructive trips.
Cee
___________________________________________________________________________________________
This message was left on Classical One's blog in reference to his recent post discussing Bill Cosby and Alvin Poussaint's recent book about the problems that they recognize in the black American community, and how they believe these problems should be resolved. I would like to extend my congratulations to Cee for being lucky enough to be born to immigrant parents. She is clearly proud of her heritage, and feels blessed that she came from the background that she did.

Like Cee, I am also lucky. I was blessed to be born to black American parents in the United States in the post-Civil Rights era. Thus, I have enjoyed the benefits of the struggles of my black American ancestors: living in a country with a black population that collectively enjoys the greatest wealth, highest average annual income, and highest average educational attainment of any significant black population on the planet. Because of my black American heritage and the struggles of my black American ancestors, I have had the opportunity to attend private schools, travel all over the world, have access to the best health care, clean drinking water, indoor plumbing, electric lights, and the millions of other advantages that I and other Americans simply take for granted. Because of my ancestry above all, I have had the drive and ambition to pursue those opportunities to the fullest, and have had a whole cavalcade of role models, from Dr. King and Malcolm X, to Bill Cosby himself, who are not only known to me and other black Americans, but are universally admired, from Thailand to Uruguay to Finland. I have a precious legacy like no other, and my gratitude for it is fathomless.

That I am proud of who I am and where I come from should really go without saying--shouldn't everyone be? But, inevitably, there will be people who respond to this post as if I have written something obscene. Black Americans are the one group who are supposed to never, ever, express pride. Inevitably, someone will bring up crime statistics, marriage statistics, and out-of-wedlock birth statistics. They will likely point to other groups that have "succeeded" where black Americans have "failed." If I dare point out similar "failures" among those groups, I will be soundly admonished, even called a "bigot," and soberly reminded of the history of imperialism, colonialism, racism and oppression that these people have suffered that have contributed to the conditions in their home countries that they have often compelled them to come to the U.S. for higher education, jobs, and quite often, citizenship. On the other hand, black Americans must never mention history in discussing any problems that may persist in our community--history is history for others, but for us it is simply an "excuse."

Also relevant is the expectation that, as Americans, we will share in America's "guilty conscience" about U.S. economic colonialism and cultural imperialism--that we will cower in shame as many white Americans do when confronted with America's history of bad acts across the world. However, I'm not ashamed of being a black American--as I said, I am proud of it. Black Americans didn't engineer "Manifest Destiny" or plop a McDonalds on every street corner in the universe. We opened the doors that allowed freer entry to this country for more diverse populations, and allowed them to access greater opportunities once they got here as well. While it has always been a rite of passage to "Americanhood" to participate in the all-American pastime of distancing oneself from American blacks, that has never stopped us from continuing to progress, even in the face of those among us who embrace DBR behavior.

Yes, black American pride has become an unpopular opinion, and I imagine there are some, if not many, who will be offended that I dared to express it. But proud I am. I can only hope the same for all of you, whoever or whatever you may be.

Childless by Choice?

2007-11-07T12:43:00.000-05:00

For most of my life, I have assumed that I would be a mother one day. I have a wonderful mother, and wonderful grandmothers, one of whom I was particularly close to. Virtually all the women I admire most are mothers, and for well-educated and "successful" BW, there is always the implicit message that it is especially important that we reproduce: that not only our own families, but our community and our people NEED the children that we would rear.

Certainly, too many black children grow up in poverty and with a lack of opportunity; and when one has been blessed with both material good fortune, and a loving, healthy, and supportive family background, it seems that all the crucial ingredients are there to provide a perfect foundation for successful parenting. Indeed at our wedding, both sides of our families cheerfully prodded us for information on when they could expect to see a baby--when my husband stoutly suggested no time soon, everyone laughed and assured him that it wasn't up to him. The assumption was that (1) it was up to me, and (2) I, of course, wanted a baby.

Except, I don't. One of the biggest obstacles I had to overcome in seriously dating before I met my husband was the number of men that I met who were committed to being fathers. This is perfectly natural and to be expected--I certainly don't fault the marriage-minded men I met whose own biological clocks were ticking. It's just that my clock never started. And there is a part of me that will always feel a little guilty for that.

It's not just the "Talented Tenth" pressure to have babies for the Race. It's not just the generalized assumption that all normal women want to be mothers, and that there is something wrong with any woman who doesn't. It's not even that I am an only child, and I know that my mother would love to have grandchildren. It is also the part of me that sees so much need among the young, and realizes that I have much to offer a child(ren) as a mother, including all the wonderful qualities in my husband that our child won't have the chance to experience. I wonder, are we simply selfish?

But then I have to remember that no matter what you have to offer a child, materially or emotionally, what children need above all is to be wanted--passionately. I like kids, but I've never been one of the women at the office who drops everything to coo at a co-worker's baby. They make me smile, in the same way that I prefer cute kittens and cats, and even dogs, to their grown human owners--they're usually so much more pleasant. But that intense, overwhelming longing for a baby that so many women describe--that I have never experienced. Meeting a man that I was compatible with who felt pretty much the same way felt like a miracle for me.

Selfishness, in our eyes, would be to have children simply because we can and because it is expected of us. I see enough children around me being raised almost indifferently by au pairs and nannies because their fathers work 100 hours a week and their mothers, who supposedly "stay home," spend most of their time tanning and shopping, to know that a child can be an accessory, and that money can't make such a childhood "good." I assume that the people I describe "love" their children, just as reporters always insist that Britney Spears "loves" her children. But in my mind, love is action, not just something you feel or don't feel. If I can't know, right now, before I even contemplate pregnancy, that I deeply want to be a mother, then I have no right to bring a child into the world.

To be childless by choice, especially in the black community, feels like the last taboo. The last thing I want is to retreat into a bubble of self-interest, to ignore all those young faces in need. But I've had to recognize that what I have to give must be shared in a role other than mother. And I think that facing that fact honestly, with myself and others, is probably the greatest gift I could give any potential child.

The "Rules" Redux

2007-10-29T13:19:00.000-04:00

In visiting the comments sections of number of blogs, I can't help noticing a certain pessimism among a number of the commentators who have shared their experiences in the dating scene. Some women have had bad experiences, and many have concluded that the bloggers are much too "optimistic" in their assessment of the availability of non-black dates to BW. Many sisters in particular have noted with disappointed that they have visited personals sites and noticed that many of the men whose profiles they have perused seem to make a specific point that they are interested in anything but a BW.

As an initial point, I would like to note that I have been careful not to suggest that any specific percentage of the non-BM population are interested in BW. Considering America's racial politics, I recognize that there is still a stigma attached to IRRs, and a stigma attached to dating BW in particular. As a result, I think there is still a social barrier to non-BM either seeing BW as viable dates/mates, or approaching them socially, so even when the attraction is there, it is not as likely to be acted on as other, more socially acceptable attractions.

However, I also believe, that considering the overall demographics of the U.S., that there are still more non-BM interested in BW than there are BW period, let alone BW interested in non-BM. So I still think focusing on the men who aren't interested probably isn't very constructive. As BW we should do everything in our power to defend our beauty and reputations so that our attractiveness as everything from employees to mates is improved--but if 1 woman has a pool of 100 men to choose from instead of 500 men, it isn't as if the odds are seriously against her even as things stand today.

Thus, reading these comments has made think back on my own adventures in the world of online dating and in the dating world in general. Many women, who like me, are happy, unashamed womanists who would never want a relationship based on game-playing or manipulation, will find the advice that I have culled (successfully) from tomes like "the Rules" and what sounds like the similar "He's Just Not That Into You" (which I haven't read) to be somewhat disheartening. If you find a man attractive, why not just approach him? If you want to call him, why not just call him? If you like him, why not just ask him out? Male friends and potential dates will almost always assure you that this is a wise path to take, and make it clear that they find it incredibly flattering when women do the pursuing, the calling and the asking, and take some of the undeniable burden off of their shoulders.

My only response to any of this is to note that I agree with it 100%--theoretically. I don't see any reason, on a philosophical basis, why a self-supporting adult can't ask a man out and pay for his dinner, or send him a first "wink" on a dating site. On a practical, experiential and real-world observational level, however, I can only acknowledge what I have repeatedly found to be true--when women approach and pursue men, it rarely leads to a happy relationship. Even typing these words is hard for me, because I wish they I had not found them to be true, but the reality is that I have found them to be true--again and again.

When I see sisters noting all the men on dating sites whose profiles exclude BW, I can't help but think "why do you even know what their profiles show"? I think the tried and true method for using such sites still stands: you put up a profile with a great, recent photo(s) of yourself, describe who you are and what you want in detail, and then choose your dates from the men who respond. I know many women will argue that this is passive, as if you are sitting in a tower waiting to be rescued by Prince Charming. I disagree. It is making it clear that you are available to Prince Charming, and then lets Prince Charming reveal his charm in order to win your favor. It's called courting. The question is would you rather choose from a pool of men who you find attractive, or from a pool of men who you find attractive and who also find you attractive?

That's the same reason why I've never been a big advocate of the initiating eye contact game. To me flirting starts with going out into the world looking your best with a friendly, happy demeanor. If a guy catches YOUR eye, and you're interested, you can hold his glance for an extra moment so he knows his approach wouldn't be entirely unwelcome; but searching out the cute guys at the library or museum just seems like asking for trouble. Sometimes women forget, but men can be cruel and predatory when it comes to the sexual pursuit of women.

Even the "nicest" guys can interpret even the mildest aggressive interest as desperation, which they will cheerfully exploit. Job #1 is always taking care of yourself, and that means letting him come to you, a process most men enjoy anyway. The same man who will sweet-talk the girl who does all the calling and goes dutch on dates only to dump her after the first time they have sex, will happily send flowers and pick up every check for the woman who makes it clear she likes him, but remains slightly elusive. This might smack of your grandmother's retrograde "buy the cow, milk for free" advice, but all people--male and female--tend to value what they have to work a little bit harder for.

In the end, all of us have to do what feels right for us and our personalities. A loud, blooming orchid can't be a shrinking violet, and some ladies will find this whole discussion ridiculously inapplicable to them. I always say, do it your way. But my whole purpose here is to share the benefit of my experience, both my own and what I have observed. I hope it can be of use.

Love and Marriage?

2007-10-17T15:16:00.000-04:00

As everyone here knows, I am a recent newlywed and a strong advocate of healthy, happy marriages and relationships. Married people generally live longer, healthier, wealthier lives than their single counterparts, and societies and communities with large married populations tend to share the same characteristics of greater relative stability and affluence. As social animals, human beings need each other, not merely to thrive, but to survive.

Therefore, I understand the perfectly natural desire to seek out companionship and love. It is sad that so many young black women are actually encouraged to view this wholly natural and healthy desire as suspect and greedy, as if wanting a loving relationship with a decent man is somehow pathological. But the inspiration for my last post about “taking stock” was conversations that I have witnessed, on and off the blogosphere, in which young women have expressed a desire for relationships that struck me as somewhat premature.

I say this because while healthy relationships are an incredibly constructive force in the lives of both individuals and communities, unhealthy relationships exert an equally destructive force in the lives of those who live them and live around them. There any number of reasons why relationships go wrong, but I have always been a strong believer that most relationships that fail do so ultimately at conception—the parties enter into them for the wrong reasons, at the wrong point in their lives, with the wrong partners, or without the emotional wherewithal to sustain coupledom over the long-term. And the main motivation for making and sticking with these wrong choices, even after we realize their wrongfulness, is loneliness and the fear of being alone.

More than once when I was single, I went on a second date or gave a guy a third chance because I was able to convince myself that I was being “open” and flexible. In reality, I just didn’t want to be alone. That is normal; but we have to recognize such longing for what it is, and ensure that it doesn’t entrap us in a situation that we will eventually grow to regret. There’s nothing wrong with being “just friends,” as long as you both know that’s what it is.

I also think it is crucial to make peace with yourself, so that the goal of marriage or a long-term relationship doesn’t become all-consuming. I think because of the diminishing role of marriage in the black community, some of us have adopted a focus on marriage which borders on the obsessive. As positive as marriage can be, I have never been a believer that marriage, in and of itself, can make an unhappy person happy. Nor do I think it wise to put so much of the responsibility for your own well-being and fulfillment in the hands of another, which is necessarily the case if you feel that you must be married to be complete. Plenty of single people lead joyful, productive lives, and plenty of married people are miserable drags on society. A bad marriage doesn’t do anyone any good, and bad marriages too often result from desperation.

None of this is said to discourage black women from seeking serious relationships and marriage with worthy men. I adamantly reject the message that discourages black women from aspiring to marriage, that encourages them to settle for “man-sharing” and “babymamahood,” or to accept decades of celibacy rather than exploring every available option for finding the partners we want and deserve. I just think that it is important to recognize that you cannot have a good relationship with a man if you are not content within yourself. Do you like what you see when you look in the mirror? Do you enjoy what you spend your days doing? Do you have a plan for your life beyond finding a husband? Our marital choices are crucial, but so are the choices we make about our careers, in caring for our health, in maintaining our relationships with our families, etc. Always--always--empower yourself, by making your life as full and complete as you can. To gain a man but lose yourself is truly a hollow "victory."

First, Take Stock

2007-10-09T12:14:00.000-04:00

As my fellow webophiles know, IRRs are a perennial favorite topic of conversation at most black message boards and blogs, despite the fact that most posters at such boards regularly express their indifference and disdain towards such relationships. One popular response to the latest breaking newsflash on the sellout of the day is to insist that said black person is “ugly” and the poster “wouldn’t want them anyway,” and that their white partner is “ugly,” “desperate,” a “loser,” etc.

This of course, is an interesting response on many levels, particularly from people who consider themselves so “pro-black,” that they would never “sellout” by dating a white person. They clearly view any black person who dates a white person to be “selling out,” i.e., somehow elevating themselves vis-à-vis other blacks by dating a white person, any white person--otherwise, how else could they be characterized as “selling out,” i.e., compromising their “racial integrity” in exchange for some kind of gain?

By the same token, they equally believe that any white person who dates a black person, any black person—no matter how beautiful, talented, successful, or accomplished--has somehow degraded themselves, reflected in the commonly stated belief that only “bottom of the barrel” whites date blacks, and the extreme aspersions generally cast on the characters and appearances of the white partners of black mates. Despite the overt professions of black pride that often accompany these complaints, such responses betray a clear belief that for black people, dating white is dating up, and that for white people, dating black is dating down. This is not how I define pride.

What often intrigues me more, however, is how common it is for the posters making such harsh judgments about the physical appeal of the couples at issue to include photographs of themselves that make it clear that they are inferior in physical appearance, not only to the couples they are critiquing, but probably to most people in general. This disconnect is particularly striking when the same posters make constant assertions about their “fineness” and desirability to the opposite sex.

We live in a society that has generally elevated “high self-esteem” above all other character traits as a value to be respected and admired. We inculcate it into our children from infancy, and both pity and despise those who do not think sufficiently well of themselves. “You have low self-esteem,” we hiss derisively at those we wish to cut to the quick. Yet, all too rarely do we ask, high self esteem based on what? Why do most people think so well of themselves? Should a stupid person think themselves intelligent? An ignorant person think themselves knowledgeable? An ugly person think themselves lovely? A cruel person think themselves kind? Increasingly, this is exactly the result we are getting, especially among our young, whose “self-esteem” we have so carefully nurtured to be “high,” rather than accurate.

One result is reflected in my last post, about disgruntled lawyers and law students who are embittered that they are failing to earn the $160,000-per year incomes post-law school that they had come to expect. While many of their complaints about the costs of legal education vs. the opportunities for legal employment are valid, the sense of thwarted entitlement that underlies so much of their complaining reflects the inevitable crash that afflicts the high self-esteem generation when they encounter one of life’s unavoidable pitfalls. They experience tremendous outrage, bitterness, and frustration, but they haven’t the slightest bit of initiative to make change or actually improve their lot. This is because their self-esteem is high, but not accurate—they think very well of themselves, but they’re actually quite average, and their lack of genuine specialness is revealed as soon as they have need of it—and realize it isn’t there.

In the same way, many of the women snickering at Venus Williams’ and Halle Berry’s dates have a seriously delusional view of their own relative appeal as women. Certainly, a woman is more than her face and body; but when both your outer and inner package are sour and negative, it may be time to forget about maintaining “self-esteem,” and think about taking stock. This is especially true for a woman who is seeking a relationship.

For black women, who face constant criticism from without, taking such an inventory from within is often fraught with pitfalls. The flipside of the constant hectoring to have “high self-esteem” in our society is the equally constant diminishment of the value and worth of everyone who deviates from rigid ideals of beauty and accomplishment. Typically, claims of “high self esteem” are simply a façade for deeper layers of self-loathing. That is why so many of the same Mammy/Mule types who are quick to crow about their “thickness,” and to laugh at Mike Nilon and Gabriel Aubry, are equally quick to lap it up when chastised for being “WTE/ABW” who are responsible for their own aloneness. They eagerly smile at black man in the street, and always give a brother a chance, even if he's “getting back on his feet,” after a stint in the penitentiary or a long period of idleness. They save their bile for black male sellouts and other black women.

Yet, despite their “high self-esteem” and “racial pride,” their relationships often fail, and they end up feeling like damaged goods—but they have no language for examining themselves critically that will actually be honest and constructive, no process that starts with the premise that they can have value as women, and have relationships that work. All of the criticism aimed their way is designed not to help them improve, but to render them even more vulnerable to exploitation. And since they believe it’s essential rationale—that to be black and a woman is to be worthless—they can never actually be better than they are. They stay stuck in a place where they remain prey, beasts of burden carrying everybody else’s weight and trying to keep other sisters in the same place. Their single “joy” is in the false pride of not having “sold out” because they just have too much “self-respect” for that.

It is so important for all of us who want the most out of our lives to first take stock of ourselves—not based on the destructive messages that so many of us have been programmed with since childhood, but based on the hard-won values and understandings that we have gained through developing real self-esteem and insight into ourselves and our goals. There’s no point in pursuing a relationship with another person without first understanding ourselves, and being prepared to bring the same maturity and stability to the table that we must demand of our partners. Don’t be like too many sisters who stay stuck, stay vulnerable, and hide their pain behind false bravado.

Be Prepared

2007-10-02T11:25:00.000-04:00

This post may seem off-topic at first, but if you bear with me, I think it’s relevance will become clear. A recent front page article in the Wall Street Journal discussing one of the dirty little secrets of the American legal profession made me start thinking long and hard about the tremendous shifts which our society is undergoing, and the affect those shifts will inevitably have on personal relationships.

Entitled Hard Case: Job Market Wanes for U.S. Lawyers: Growth of Legal Sector Lags Broader Economy; Law Schools Proliferate, the front page article published in Monday’s Journal set-off something like shockwaves in the legal blogosphere because it formally unmasked one of it’s bitterest, most high-profile “celebrities”: Scott Bullock, who is better know at sites like JDJive and JDUnderground as “Law is for Losers” or “L4L.” Mr. Bullock is a 2005 graduate of Newark’s Seton Hall University School of Law, a school ranked in the “second tier” of all accredited American law schools by the all-knowing U.S. News and World Report. In the article, Mr. Bullock candidly acknowledges having accrued more than $118,000 in law school debt which he is forced to support on an income of $50,000 a year as a personal injury attorney in Manhattan, despite having graduated in the top 1/3 of his law school class. Mr. Bullock, who asserts that high school friends employed as electricians and plumbers earn considerably more than he does, deems his law degree a “waste.”

The article includes a number of other similar tales of six-figure debt, unemployment, temporary work for $20-$30 an hour, and entry-level positions offering $33,000 per year with no benefits. Though few people outside the profession seem to recognize this fact, most lawyers know that while the number of positions available for attorneys and the average salaries achieved by most attorneys has stagnated or shrunk, the number of law schools and law school graduates, and the cost of paying for a legal education, have all exploded.

This state of affairs has produced incredible bitterness among many law students and lawyers, who are typically people who have spent their entire pre-law lives succeeding and being rewarded for their success. They have always gotten the best grades, and the highest scores on standardized tests, and thus they have usually grown to believe quite fervently in the legitimacy of these measures of quality and merit—after all, it is easy to believe that a system that says you are the best is judging properly. They have always done the “right thing” as the system has defined it, and now the system has made it clear that they are failures. They are sure that the problem is the law schools have misled them by encouraging them with false reports about the rates of employment and earnings of their graduates to overinvest in a worthless degree.

What most of those people complaining can’t (or won’t) recognize is that what we're undergoing here is a shift in the structure of our economy, not simply in the structure of the legal profession. As the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman loves to point out, globalization has created an economic system where there is a tiny elite of “winners” and their elite class of servitors (doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc.) and a huge population of “losers.”

Of course, Friedman likes to pretend that the sorting process is controlled by “merit”--but the reality is that this is the way the world has worked through most of human history--small elites control most of the power and resources, while the masses who actually do the producing own nothing. The reality is that now, middle and upper middle class white Americans, who at least on a global scale thought that they were part of the elite, are realizing (or should be) that they are actually part of the mass--and they don’t like it.

They want to pretend the problem is that they were sold a bill of goods by dishonest law schools, without acknowledging that they really had no meaningful alternative to going to law school to achieve what the ultimately were after--an elite lifestyle. The problem isn’t that the schools lied to them (though they did)--the problem is the schools couldn’t deliver what they promised, whether they admitted it or not, because the system can no longer deliver--the sham of “upward mobility” is itself being exposed as a fraud. And while more people are recognizing the fraud, most can't face it's true nature--that it’s not about choosing the “right” educational program or buying a house in the “right” market with the “right” kind of loan, any more than it was about choosing the “right” internet stock in 1999. It’s about a system that's breaking down, irretrievably, a way of life that's over: a world in which white middle-class American children who can always expect to do better than their parents.

What does all this have to do with personal relationships? As Evia often points out, the choice of a partner is crucial, and I think it is more so now than ever before. I’ve always been loathe here to give advice about what to look for in a man, since I think who a woman is attracted to and why she is attracted to him is so individual, and rightly so; nor do I consider myself an “expert” on picking a man for anyone other than myself. But I have been reading some handwriting on the wall that I think some other people may be missing, and it is relevant to the issue of choosing a partner.

There are some qualities that I think are consistently important across time: WHAT WAS HIS RELATIONSHIP LIKE WITH HIS MOTHER? Loving, respectful, affectionate—but not tethered? WHAT WAS/IS HIS FATHER'S RELATIONSHIP LIKE WITH HIS MOTHER? I remember my husband telling me not long after we met that his father truly adored his mother. When a man grows up in a home where he sees his mother being adored, he learns how to adore. DOES HE LIKE WOMEN? No, not is he heterosexual (though this will come in handy too). Does he genuinely like women as people, not just as potential sexual targets? Many people, men and women, don’t really like women, and such people will usually end up treating you as a woman quite shabbily. DOES HE THINK YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL? Do you want anything less?

HOW DOES HE DESCRIBE HIS DISPUTES WITH OTHERS? Is anything ever his fault? Does he ever play a role in the problems he experiences in life? Or is he a perpetual victim, constantly being abused and taken advantage of by the maliciousness of others? Please believe—one day YOU will be one of the malicious “others” who is out to get him if you get involved with a man like this.

In terms of a partner who will help you thrive as our society undergoes tremendous change, WHAT IS HIS WORK ETHIC? IS HE PERSISTENT? IS HE FLEXIBLE? Is he easily defeated in the face of adversity? Does he expect everything to go his way, and fall apart when it doesn’t? The New York Times recently did a story on the number of American men who have simply dropped out of the job market, and usually the marriage market as well, who have essentially given up on doing anything more than subsisting in the face of struggle. A man’s work ethic and persistence are not just about the income he earns—they’re about his unwillingness to give up when the going gets tough. The going is getting tougher—are you prepared? Is he?

HOW DOES HE HANDLE HIS RESOURCES? Is he thrifty? Efficient? Does he understand the value of investing for the future? Is he overly concerned with impressing other people or enjoying transitory material pleasures? IS HE GOAL ORIENTED? Is there some significant achievement in his life that he can point to that he undertook to accomplish and then went on to actually attain—a degree, a job, a triathlon, anything?

These are some the values that I have found key in making a man a potentially attractive long-term mate. We all have our own individual list of qualities that we find appealing, but as our world changes, we have to be aware of how those changes can affect our lives, and how we can prepare to meet the challenges they present. One of the most important ways to prepare is to make sure that the man by your side has as complete an understanding as you do of what you’re up against.

STOP SAYING THAT!

2007-09-27T11:28:00.000-04:00

Many of the responses to my last blog expressing my disappointment in some of the anti-black commentary I've encountered from BW at IR blogs raised another concern that is shared by a number of sisters in this community: the use of language, and whether what we choose to talk about, and how we choose to talk about it, reflects our sense of empowerment and ability to achieve our goals of a happy and healthy life.

In particular, some sisters have argued vehemently against use of the term "Damaged Beyond Repair Black Man," claiming that it amounts to little more than derogatory labelling that reflects an unhealthy continuing obsession with the very men that the women who frequent the blogs claim to be disinterested in. Why not focus instead on the kind of men we want, rather than the kind we don't want?

Halima, Evia, and many others defend the use of DBRBM with equal vigor, asserting that the word is simply a tool that serves as a means of warning sisters of a potential danger to their safety and sanity so that can protect themselves against that danger, and actually find the kind of relationship they want and deserve: i.e., forewarned is forearmed.

I tend to agree more with the latter position; but what I find more interesting is why certain words seem to generate so much more concern than others. For instance, in Halima's latest post she provides a brief "something new lexicon," which includes, among other concepts, both "DBR" and "Mammy ideology," referring to the mentality which animates black female defenders of DBRBM. Strangely enough, I've noticed that people rarely if ever complain about the use of the term "mammy," though it certainly has connotations that are arguably more "derogatory" and historically freighted for BW than "damaged beyond repair" is for BM. Why then is the response to this term so much more muted?

Additionally, I find it puzzling that because a BW is interested in dating IR, the assumption is that she has no further reason to ever think about BM. First of all, many BW who want to date IR are simply attracted to a variety of men--INCLUDING BM. Secondly, no matter who a BW dates, she is still black, and likely has a black father, black brothers, uncles, cousins, friends, and acquaintances; she will likely live in a community with a large population of BM that she will have to relate and navigate, even if she preferred not to. She will still turn on her radio or TV, open a book or a magazine, and encounter images of BW created by BM--images whose repurcussions she will have to cope with. It's not as if BM simply disappear from the landscape of the universe of a BW when she dates IR.

Some may argue that even if a BW in an IRR may still have a perfectly legitimate interest in BM, an IR dating site is not the place for her to discuss that interest. In terms of my blog, I can only point out that while IRRs are a strong focus here, it is not the ONLY focus--I stated right from the outset that my purpose was to create a "black girl's haven," where BW and all those who love and support us could come to talk and exchange information and ideas relevant to all facets of our lives. In terms of the IR blogs generally, the reality is that the response of BM specifically, and the bc more generally, to BW in IRRs is a relevant experience for many women who date and marry IR. To tell such women to focus on finding the man they want, without focusing at all on the context in which that relationship will evolve, isn't entirely fair. It may not seem like it, but finding men is the easy part. Creating a healthy relationship that will work over the long haul, in an often hostile world, is the real challenge--and it is that challenge that I believe really motivates most of the women who seek out these blogs to seek them out.

In any case, I'm always uncomfortable with the idea of telling others what not to talk about. Even when people say things I hate, I prefer to confront and respond to them (or ignore them, as the case may be) rather than argue that certain discussions shouldn't happen at all. As much as I may not have liked to see someone claiming to be a BW at the BW's IR Circle arguing that BW love thugs, I don't kid myself that if I didn't see that statement being made there, it would mean that sort of mentality doesn't exist. Sometimes an issue is raised as much as it is BECAUSE it has been so powerfully suppressed--thus, it shouldn't surprise us that a group of BW who gather to support each other in getting free of one taboo can't help but struggle to get free of another as well--the taboo against criticizing BM within the community. If we stop saying it here, will it go away? Should it?

Where is the Love?

2007-09-21T18:35:00.000-04:00

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.

One Drop, Today

2007-09-17T22:08:00.000-04:00

As my egregious neglect of this blog reflects, I have leapt into the world of BigLaw with both feet--and it's as demanding as I was warned it would be, plus some. Luckily, (at least so far), I seem to have landed in a good group of talented people, so I expect to learn a lot as well as work a lot.

Of course, BigLaw means Manhattan--and I wasn't really looking forward to returning to work in NY. From the time I was child I've loved NY--it always seemed like some distant, fantastical planet full of unique and magical people and places. Now--it's full of Starbucks and people who work at BigLaw firms (and I-Banks). They all had so much fun at their Hamptons sharehouses over the summer, and they all got such great deals on their new places in the Financial District! (or Harlem! It's much safer now, you know!)

Okay, I'm not being entirely fair, since most of the people I've met have been perfectly pleasant. But this new experience has only made me think a little more about my occasional discomfort with other "communities" of which I am a part--including the "IR community," if there is such a thing.

This thought arose in particular in response to yet another article (this one in the latest Marie Claire) where Rebecca Walker (nee Leventhal) yet again disucsses how painful she found it to be considered black as a child and what a challenge it was for her to come to terms with her biracial identity. I don't say this to dismiss whatever Ms. Walker may or may not have had to contend with in her life, or to suggest that the distinct struggles that biracial people face generally are some less important are compelling than those faced by black people. Nor am I one of those black proponents of the modern one-drop rule, who insists that anyone with any black ancestry is required to identify exclusively as black or be labelled a "sell-out" or "self-hating." I'm sure her description of shame and self-loathing resonates with many people of African descent in a white supremacist world, not just biracials.

I guess my mild irritation arises from the consistency of this theme in Ms. Walker's work and public pronouncements, almost as if she has embraced the role of professional tragic mulatto. All too often, there's a thin line in such narratives between resentment of the racism that treats blackness as a taint that pollutes those otherwise humanized by straighter hair and lighter skin--and resentment of blackness itself, as an actual pollutant, an anchor that traps the Rebecca Walkers of the world in a dark abyss that they can't escape.

Equally irritating is that, all too often, this frustration and resentment seems to be aimed exclusively at black people. Certainly, you will rarely hear white people angrily complaining that Halle Berry is a black "sell out" for screwing Billy Bob Thornton on film or Gabriel Aubrey in real life. On the other hand, you will also rarely hear white people calling Halle Berry a white anything. While black people are generally active and explicit participants in the Contemporary Cult of One-Drop, it's continued existence is not solely or even primarily a product of black insistence.

While white parents, family members and friends may be more accepting than blacks of your identity as non-black, do they accept you as white? Do they view biracial identity as genuinely distinct from blackness, or simply another form of blackness? I am truly eager to learn, as I am sure many of the other visitors to this site are as well--who may themselves be biracial, or who may one day be parents of biracial children. Please share your perspective on this issue.

The 'Superbad' Syndrome

2007-09-04T19:05:00.000-04:00

Let me start this blog by noting that I haven't seen Superbad, and this isn't a review of the movie, which I have heard is quite funny. The Superbad Syndrome I refer to isn't a critique of the film itself, but refers instead to the emblematic theme that is repeated in much of the the advertising I've seen for the movie: the longing of nerdy/skinny/fat/unpopular/poor guys for conventionally hot and desirable girls as a triumph of the spirit with which we should all identify. "Great," I thought as I watched the commercials. "The ugly guy gets the hot chick--again."

Whether its the King of Queens, Yes, Dear, According to Jim, Knocked Up, Beauty and the Geek, or anything starring Jack Black or Rob Schneider, the image of the Schlub and the Supermodel is iconic in our culture. Implicit in this image is the idea that it is natural and normal for all men to desire conventionally beautiful women, even when the men themselves are conventionally ugly. Vague, poorly articulated "theories" of evolutionary biology are utilized to support the assertion that every man has a biological imperative to seek a harem of 20-year old anorexic blonds with breast implants as a function of the need to reproduce their genetic heritage.

Strangely, such theories are rarely propounded to support the idea that women long for young, tall, muscular men for the same reasons. We rarely see movies or television shows in which wisecracking fat women or homely AV-club chicks get the hot captain of the football team--not unless their "homeliness" can be overcome by little more than removing their glasses and letting down their hair to reveal a beautiful swan.

And the idea that women might seek wealthier, more successful men with a greater capacity to be breadwinners and support families on the basis of the same forces of "natural selection" is roundly rejected; it isn't "nature" that inspires such preferences in women, but materialism and greed. The message is clear: men have a right to have standards; women do not.

As usual, this reasoning is taken to a punitive extreme with black women, who are routinely excoriated by "brothas" and "sistas" like Sabrina Lamb, who argue that black career women are "just too picky," because of their unwillingness to smile warmly at broom-wielding strangers on the streets of NYC.

Lamb does not explicitly explain what being "too picky" means, other than being "hell-bent on marrying a corporate brother" or failing to forage the "safe havens" where "good brothers" have allegedly sequestered themselves: "the barbershop . . . financial workshops . . . night school, political campaigns, sporting events or out on the back porch."

While BW who want to meet men must stop spending their free time hanging out with girlfriends, BM don't have to change anything about how they spend their discretionary hours--indeed, they don't even have to leave their backporches.

Lamb insists that a "good" BM is not hard to find--but she doesn't provide much substance to her description of what makes a BM "good." On the other hand, what makes a BW "good" is not her education, professional achievement or financial independence, but her "softness," and her willingness to skulk around barbershops and backporches hunting for a man (which hardly comports with traditional notions of "softness" and femininity, by the way). Since BM neither have to rely on achievement OR effort to be "good," that doesn't leave much more than the Superbad Syndrome to tell us what makes such men worthwhile: we are told at the outset that they are the protagonists for whom we should be rooting (see, e.g., www.encourageabrotha.com). Unfortunately, real life is not a movie or a sitcom--in real life, knowing what you want and respecting yourself enough to insist on it is simply part of healthy maturity.

For example, I never cared much about a man's income, but I cared very much about his money-management skills, frugality, and demonstrated ability to live within his means. These are important values to me. A large income, educational attainment and a successful career may be important values to other women, for perfectly valid reasons. My point isn't that women should also hold out for 20-year old blonds with washboard abs, or reject janitors and pudgy shlubs. My point, as always, is that our choices must be reflections of our own values, our own interests, and our own assessments of what will make us happy in life.

This is why I've never had a problem with a BW who, after thoughtful reflection, decides that her mate must be black, and is at peace with whatever the consequences of that choice may be. My only critique has been of sistas who (1) decide that their mate must be black, and then insist that their chances of finding such a mate are the same as women with no such criteria, and (2) waste precious life energy gnashing their teeth and tearing their hair over random BM who feel no such "loyalty."

When, as I mentioned above, that I could never marry a man who could not live within his means, I knew that living in America, that would drastically reduce the pool of otherwise marriageable men that I had to choose from--conspicuous consumption and keeping up with the Joneses is a way of life for most Americans. While I believe in marriage and recognize it's important role not only to individual, but societal well-being, I was also comfortable with the possibility that my particular standards might mean that I would not find the right "one," at least not right away. I was confident the time would come, and made sure to stay attractive, social, and above all, relaxed. But I was happy with myself, my family, my friends, and my career; my life was full--now, it is simply fuller.

I know sistas who prefer BM who have the same perspective, and they have nothing but my respect. Whatever your choice, it is right if you're at peace with it. If you're angry, frustrated, fearful, and feel powerless in the face of your future, it is not right. This is how the Sabrina Lamb's of the world can prey on such BW's insecurities: they never articulate precisely what these women are supposedly doing "wrong." They never point out precisely what they should be seeking that is "right." They simply create apocryphal tales of snooty gold diggers who only want "corporate brothers" and refuse to smile at "regular" BM.

In Ms. Lamb's "Superbad" fantasy world of ill-defined "good brothas" and hard-headed career women, smiling more and being soft are all that's required to get what you need. You don't have to figure out what you need first, and you certainly don't have to expect the men you encounter to actually fulfill those needs. Just stop demanding Jaguars and five-star dinners, and your blue-collar "Diary of a Mad Black Woman" prince will drop into your lap like manna from heaven.

Remember ladies--life is not a movie. In real life, you write the script, and must what qualities are "heroic." Don't serve anybody else's agenda.

So--What Can We Do?

2007-08-29T21:37:00.000-04:00

Many of the bloggers and blog posters have reached a consensus: we as conscious BW must confront the forces in the media that continue to marginalize and stereotype us, whoever they may be.

The question then becomes, as many posters have asked, how? I think knockoutchick and Evia have provided excellent answers that deserve highlighting:

knockoutchick says:

WE have the power as Gina over at (What About Our Daughters?) WAOD has shown. All of us can effect change in our own worlds. For instance we can suggest a black girl as local beauty queen in our towns. Choose a black girl to mentor. Tell little black girls they are beautiful. Question the news cycle sole focus on the perils of WW only. And most importantly, stop buying products and services from those that belittle us.

And Evia again points out the crucial role of bloggers in spreading the word:

I find that a lot of bw don't even know about the various events going on in the country that might or do impact us negatively because they don't know where to go to get the info. So, in terms of products and services, we need one or two people to set up a blog or site that provides info about these products and services that belittle us--kind of like a bw's 'defamation clearinghouse' where we could all go to get info about people, products, and services that defame us. When the info is scattered, sistas just don't have time to look for it.

Please don't discount the importance of opening up another line of communication as a means of empowerment. I can provide a recent example from my own field that shows how fast and effective spreading the word and expediting a response can be in making change:

Cleary Gottlieb has a bad hair day - Talk about a Glamour don't.
Vivia Chen/The American LawyerAugust 27, 2007

It seemed like a nice frothy summer treat for some hardworking gals at a hard-driving law firm . . . the women lawyers group at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton invited an editor from Glamour magazine. The topic: the dos and don'ts of corporate fashion.

First slide up: an African-American woman sporting an Afro. A real no-no, announced the Glamour editor to the 40 or so lawyers in the room. As for dreadlocks: How truly dreadful! The style maven said it was "shocking" that some people still think it "appropriate" to wear those hairstyles at the office. "No offense," she sniffed, but those "political" hairstyles really have to go.

By the time the lights flicked back on, some Cleary lawyers -- particularly the 10 or so African-American women in attendance -- were in a state of disbelief. "It was like she was saying you shouldn't go out with your natural hair, and if you do, you're making a political statement," says one African-American associate. "It showed a general cluelessness about black women and their hair."

The episode also produced a "mixed reaction" along racial lines, says this associate. "Some [whites] didn't understand what the big deal was ... but all the black associates saw the controversy."

Cleary Gottlieb's managing partner, Mark Walker, who heard about the incident from some of the attendees, also saw trouble. Soon after the event, Walker issued an e-mail that denounced the hair commentary as "racially insensitive, inappropriate, and wrong." Calling the beauty advice "appalling," Walker says, "You don't tell people that their physical appearance is unacceptable, when certain characteristics are associated with a racial group." He asks, "What's the alternative? Straighten or bleach your hair?"

As for the identity of the editor, neither Cleary Gottlieb nor Condé Nast Publications Inc. (publisher of Glamour) would say. Indeed, almost all of the half-dozen Glamour editors contacted for this story professed not to have ever set foot in a law firm. "Cleary what?" asked several.

And Walker says he has no idea whether the editor who sparked all this controversy is a well-known fashionista. Not that Walker would know, even if Anna Wintour herself crossed his path. "Who is she?" Walker asks. "I really don't know people in the fashion industry." (If you have to ask, she's the editor of Vogue.)

So did the Glamour editor realize how many feathers she ruffled? Walker says that the speaker was "spoken to by one of the women partners" and that she sent an e-mail apology. "I assume she was oblivious; I doubt she's racist," says Walker. "She wasn't thinking and said something hare-brained."
Or is that hair-brained?

Bloggers Fan the Fury Over Hairstyle Advice to Cleary's African-American Lawyers
Vivia ChenThe American LawyerAugust 27, 2007
Geeky Wall Street law firms don't usually make the style pages. But Cleary Gottlieb has become a fixture on at least a dozen hipster blogs -- including gawker.com and jezebel.com -- in recent weeks.

As reported in the August issue of The American Lawyer, sparks flew after a Glamour magazine beauty editor spoke at the firm's women's luncheon this summer. The editor's edict that black lawyers avoid Afros and dreadlocks infuriated the firm's African-American lawyers.

Judging by the traffic on the blogs, that fury has spilled well beyond the halls of Cleary Gottlieb. One reason for the strong reaction is that the issue of hair style has long been a hot button topic for African-American professional women. "Whether you let your hair go natural or straighten is a very touchy subject," says one black female partner at a New York firm.
Though Cleary hosted the event, Glamour is getting most of the heat. "I'll never buy Glamour again," was a typical refrain in the blogs. Not surprisingly, Glamour is engaged in damage control. In an e-mail statement to The American Lawyer, the fashion magazine repudiated the beauty advice, and characterized the editor as a "junior staffer" who spoke "without her supervisor's knowledge or approval." Moreover, the statement said that Glamour has a "longstanding commitment to inclusion and diversity."

Many of the blog commentators, however, think that the fashion community could learn some style points from big law firms. Wrote one blogger: "I suspect that the Glamour editor had no freakin' idea that law firms are far more accepting places these days than the mainstream fashion world."

Law firms cooler than the fashion world? Imagine that.

Just that fast the word got out--and just that fast, Glamour faced a backlash that they knew they would have to respond to. We still need to know who this "editor" was, and we need to continue to hold Glamour's feet to the fire (along with Vogue and Cosmopolitan and all the rest)for their persistence in maintaining a discrimnatory and exclusionary status quo that considers BW's natural hair, natural skin color, natural features, natural existence "political" and "inappropriate" for their pages--though they certainly welcome our dollars.

Whoever can start the "anti-defamation clearinghouse" will have plenty of support from all of us. But, of course, as knockoutchick noted, there are so many actions we can each take now. Write Glamour an email, making it clear that your natural hair is not a "political statement," and cc: three of their major advertisers. Call your local station and ask them if they're planning a story on Stepha Henry. Keep reading and posting to these blogs so that you're aware of what's going on, and can share your knowledge with us even if you can't start a blog of your own. It all starts with communication!

Who DO You Love?

2007-08-27T13:28:00.000-04:00

At the Black Women's IR Circle, a number of posters have recently expressed discomfort with what they perceive as the "white male-centric" focus of many of the IR blogs. These women have noted their own interest in Asian and Hispanic men, and even their distate for WM. Does IR for BW have to = WM?

Of course not. My husband is white, but I have pointed out before that I am one of those lucky women who has always been attracted to a wide variety of men, and also realized at a relatively early age that I should take full advantage of that attraction to find exactly what I was looking for in a partner in terms of real compatibility, rather than race. I encourage all sistas to do the same, and I have never seen advice on any of the blogs that contradicts this position. My entire purpose is to encourage BW to always seek the best wherever it may be found, and any good man who adores you from your eyebrows to your toes is to be enjoyed for the treasure he is.

On the other hand, I speak from a specific place (the United States) which has a specific population. For women seeking eligible, compatible men, they are probably best served by seeking men in those groups that contain the largest number of potentially eligible, compatible men--and for women in the U.S., Canada, and Europe, that will be WM. Siginificantly as well, for American, Canadian and European women, they will generally have more in common with men who have been reared in these cultures, even if those men are white, then they will with men reared outside of those cultures, even if those men are not white. Very often, we our encouraged to consider ourselves part of some monolithic "people of color" united in interest against "the white man," which often isn't a very accurate depiction of our real world experience.

Additionally, I must also speak honestly from my own experience--and my experience dating Hispanic men specifically has not been particularly positive. I have found that many Hispanic cultures are freighted with the same sort of racism, colorism, and anti-BW discrimination that can be found in the black American community. I have found the same disdain for dark skin and blackness among Asians, especially for dark women--all you have to do is look at the most esteemed female beauty icons of China, India, Korea, Thailand, etc. to know exactly what I'm talking about: the women are often literally white-skinned, and have often had their eyes and noses surgically "enhanced" to look more "Western," i.e., white.

Perhaps ironically, I have found that WM are the least likely to be color-struck, and the most likely to find BW's dark skin, tightly curled hair, and full features beautiful and appealing. Since I also find my features beautiful and appealing (LOL!) and have no interest in altering them, I can only be with a man who appreciates me as I am, unbleached and unaltered. I have often heard the same thing from AW in explaining their own preference for WM, who they say appreciate their natural slanted eyes, broad noses, and golden skin in a way that many AM don't.

Again--this only reflects my experience. I know that plenty of BW have had bad experiences with WM, and good experiences with AM, HM, and BM for that matter, and I would never discount that--and I would never tell any woman to exclude an entire group of men from her dating consideration. I always say if he makes you laugh, he has a good character, and you get that little "flutter" in your stomach when you hear his voice, it can't hurt to let him take you to lunch. **shrug**

I just think that sometimes the congruent trap to "nothing but a black man" is "anything but a white man." I would never presume to tell anyone who to be attracted to or date; but abiding by these kinds of artificial restrictions is quite simply a trap. Always do what feels right, but don't exchange one straight-jacket for another.

DISAPPEARING ACTS?

2007-08-21T11:21:00.000-04:00

As you all know, I pulled my own "disappearing act" last week to get married and enjoy a little time off with my honey, family and friends. The honeymoon won't be for a few months though, since I will be transitioning to a new job in the next few weeks (because I never bite off more than I can chew--no, not I!!) and DH has some work travel of his own to attend to. In any case, thank you all so much for your warm wishes on our recent union. It feels great!

I wanted to open up discussion this week about a very complex issue that has been troubling me for some time now: the connection between popular images of black women, and our sexual and romantic desirability to men generally. It is an issue I've touched on before here in discussions about everything from mainstream advertisements to pornography, because I think that the power of imagery in contemporary society to shape male and female perceptions of appropriate partners would be hard to overemphasize.

Most modern societies have evolved from the point where parents and clans arrange marriages for offspring, to providing only slightly less formal community meeting places for choosing appropriate partners (church, socials, friends of family), to the current environment where our only guidelines are the broad-based and increasingly vague criteria of class, race, gender, sexuality, age, "chemistry"--and our own allegiance to these concepts.

Now that our choices are almost entirely our "own," the role of of socialization and social imagery in teaching us how to choose our mates has become increasingly important. For many Westerners, for better or worse, the mass media has replaced church, family, and virtually every other institution of significance in guiding our decision-making processes for choosing our careers, our homes, value systems, and our mates.

What this means for black women is that, even as we make incredible strides in the real world, the negative and false imagery that predominates popular representations of us has become arguably more dangerous than ever. The seductive, promiscuous light-skinned Jezebel, and the big, dark, dominant, emasculating, sharp-tongued Sapphire/Matriarch all share one trait in common--they are deviant. Regardless of how restrictive or degrading the mainstream feminine "ideal" may be for other women, black women are always defined in opposition to it--and thus men are taught that to desire us is to indulge a fetish, rather than to engage a normal urge. We are not only forbidden fruit (like black men), we are a marginalized and perverse taste. That is, when we are visible at all.

For too long, we have neglected to address this negative propaganda campaign against us, and its devastating impact that is now revealing its destructive consequences in the lives of so many young black women. As usual, the focus of the "community" has been on negative images of black men, and ameliorating the effect of those images on black men. Many of us assumed that once black people gained positions of authority in the media, that destructive images of black women would naturally improve; instead, we have seen that black men and women who hold such positions seem more eager than ever to cash in by throwing us under the bus or eliminating our images altogether. This is intolerable.

This is why we must insist on making our voices heard on this issue. Sisters touched on this question at the Black Women's IR Circle under the "Permission to Survive" post, where some questioned whether we should bother "boycotting" black male celebrities who insult and belittle black women, and consistently choose non-black mates. I agree with those who posited that such men have every right to choose to partner with whoever they wish, and that our greatest focus should be on finding our own healthy, happy relationships--but I also agree with those who insisted that when someone attacks and undermines us, we must make it clear that we will not accept such treatment. This is not merely an issue of "hurt feelings" or "freedom of speech": this is about the freedom and opportunities that will be available to young black women, their right to love, the acknowledgement of their beauty and femininity. No one must be permitted to attack our womanhood with impunity.

As one of my very wise uncles pointed out to me when I was a child, in this country, we vote with our dollars. No choice you make with a ballot will ever mean as much in the first instance as who you give your money in America--or who you withhold it from. We as black women have gained much power in this arena, and it is time for us to leverage it. Think of the movies you see, the songs you download, the magazines you read, the television shows you watch, and all the commercial products whose advertisements support these endeavors. Do they employ black models and actresses? If so, are they portrayed as feminine and romantically attractive? Are they portrayed stereotypically? Are we included at all? As efforts like Gina McCauley's http://whataboutourdaughters.blogspot.com/ campaign against the hot mess that is BET's "Hot Ghetto Mess/We've Got to Do Better" make clear, we can make a difference--we do have power. Now let's exercise that power!

Just Married!

2007-08-19T12:50:00.000-04:00

Please forgive my neglect of the blog--Friday was our Big Day, and even a simple, modest wedding these days requires a lot more planning than I anticipated! It was a lovely ceremony, and I'm just relieved and content that we've formalized the bond that we've already shared for so long. Life is good, and we're very grateful for each other and our wonderful family and friends--including our friends in the blogosphere!

"Sisters" and Friends?

2007-08-13T10:33:00.000-04:00

BW in interracial relationships can often cite a number of incidents during the course of their relationships where BM have responded to their choice of partner with puzzlement, contempt, hostility and even aggression. For the most part, we understand the racial/sexual politics of American society, and recognize that the effort of strangers to make our personal relationships part of their larger battlefield is simply one of the expected complexities of choosing a life unrestrained by the prejudices of others. However, we often have more difficulty coping with the judgments that we sometimes encounter from other BW, who often seem especially eager to establish their "pro-black" bona fides by making it clear to BM critics that they are just as angry about BW/WM IRRs as they are about BM/WW IRRs.

Why would our own sisters turn on us? They live in our communities. They see the women struggling to raise children alone--they often ARE those women. They go to the churches where the only men are the preacher and the deacons, i.e., the one's collecting all the money and making all the decisions. They feel the fear of walking down the street alone, of being harassed like dogs, of locks on windows and doors, of never feeling safe. They turn on the radios and the televsisions, where we are invisible except as objects of derision and ridicule. They know the drama and the pain of "hood romance," where not only marriage, but fidelity, mutual respect, trust, and honesty are all considered absurd "bougie" conceits--where relationships are open warfare in which the goal is to play them before they play you.

If they're lucky enough to have mothers, aunts and grandmothers who struggle and sacrifice to get them to college, they know that the "brothas" start opening up their options right there on those college campuses where they're outnumbered by sisters 2- and 3- to -1; today, those same "brothas" probably started opening up their options in junior high and high school. How often were they mocked and ignored for not having long, "good" hair like the "Spanish" girls? How early did they learn to accept their place: to be first in line to attack other BW for being too obese, having too many OOW babies, having too much fake hair, being too picky in our choices of men, being too lax in our choices of men, being too ________________?

And yet, these are the very "sistas" who now warn that the "black community" is in danger of disappearing due to the threat of IRRs. So this "community" will somehow thrive if the majority of its women continue doing what they're doing now--spending their lives sporadically alone? Forgoing love, companionship, security, stability--and not incidentally, depriving their children of these crucial elements of healthy development? Remaining silent in the face of their own obsolescence?

The answer that these sisters give when pressed is typically a variation on the theme that "Black Love is what continues the Black race" and IRRs = racial suicide. As one sister recently described it, "IRRs are a plot by the white man to eliminate Black love and eventually the Black race." I addressed the irrationality of this argument in Point 5 of my "Questions and Answers" blog from August 5; but the bigger issue to me is the extent to which black love continues to exist independently of IRRs. After all, if the continuation of the black race is dependent on BM and BW marrying one another, than IRRs are essentially irrelevant--even if we accept the logic of this rationale, IRRs don't equal racial suicide, the unwillingness of BM and BW to marry each other equals racial suicide. Why then do these sisters point to US as the "problem," instead of addressing all those complaining, unmarried "brothas" who have suddenly discovered the critical importance of "black love" to the health of the race? Isn't "black love" not only about marrying BM, but about our relationships with each other, and ourselves?

We are indeed in danger now. But that danger arises from us marching like lemmings to our own demise by trying to police each other's behavior--for whose benefit? Our own? Our children? The "community"? Sisters are dying of AIDS, diseases arising out of sedentary lifestyles, poor diet and stress, domestic violence and violent crime--we are dying from lack of care. Has the "community" stepped up to provide that care? The "sistas" who choose to put their energy into mourning the "black prince who got away" and chiding BW who won't stay in their place will unfortunately end up on the dust heap of history. It is WE who choose loving partners and who choose to care for ourselves, who set a positive example for other sisters. It is in providing that care and leadership that WE will survive and ultimately insure our survival as people.

“Why Talk About Black Men At All?”

2007-08-08T11:55:00.000-04:00

Since Dionne Walker’s AP article “More Black Women Consider ‘Dating Out’” appeared earlier this week, it has quickly spread as a topic of discussion across the Web, after being broadly reprinted everywhere from the Guardianto CNN. Featuring our “own” Rosyln Holcomb and Evia Moore, the article focused generally on the increasing numbers of BW dating and marrying interracially, and contained some discussion of the reasons for this growing phenomena.

In the wake of this increased focus has been an increased scrutiny of the blogs and message boards where sisters gather to meet and discuss their interest in, and experiences with, interracial relationships. One consistent criticism that both pre-dates Ms. Walker’s article, and has been amplified in it’s wake, has been the claim that BW in interracial relationships focus inordinately and unnecessarily on BM. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, this assertion is based on the assumption that BW in interracial relationships need an “excuse” to date out, and therefore engage in “BM-bashing” as a justification for their desire for non-BM. Why mention BM at all, we are asked?

I would never presume to speak for any other bloggers or for sisters in interracial relationships more generally on this issue. However, the subjects that I choose to discuss here are based on my interests, and what I see and hear around me from other sisters in terms of their challenges and concerns. My own decision to date interracially was not strictly happenstance—I have always been attracted to a wide variety of men, but as I began to think about marriage, I began to realize I could easily go months without meeting a compatible BM, while I was encountering compatible non-BM on a weekly and sometimes even daily basis. This inspired me to do what those of us from academic families typically do: a little research.

That research made it clear to me that my individual experience was one that educated, middle and upper middle class BW who were interested in marriage were experiencing in increasing numbers. While I had been raised and socialized with the expectation that I would eventually meet and marry a compatible BM, I didn’t experience the absence of such a man as a “crisis” or a “shortage.” For me, it was pretty straightforward: my priority was ultimately to build a great life with a great guy. Since there were still plenty of great guys out there, nothing crucial about my plans had changed, anymore than meeting more guys who were 5’10 than 6’2 would change my plans.

Nevertheless, I did recognize that for BW for whom race isa crucial factor in a choice of mate, there isa shortage, and I would feel dishonest if I didn’t point out that I think these women are probably selling their opportunities short as a result of their perspective; this was one of the reasons I chose to discuss the role of narrative earlier, because the story so many BW tell themselves of “I must only be with a BM/there is a BM ‘shortage’” is an important force that prevents too many sisters from having the life that they want and deserve.

It would also be dishonest of me not to address the social pressures that BW who date and marry interracially often face, and to confront the source of those pressures and point out some of the key reasons they are illegitimate. There are lots of wonderful men out there; if you want to maximize the number of great men available to choose from, race is criteria that it would be wise to discard. This is not a statement of judgment or a statement of blame: it is a statement of fact.

Will there be people who see such a statement as “BM-bashing”? Sure. Will there be people who will decide that women who articulate such considerations must be “desperate”? Probably. But to my mind, desperation is a fear response, and nothing is more desperate than someone who refrains from speaking what she knows is true because she is afraid that people will call her false names and think false things of her. I know who I am. I know what my motivations are. I know that I am not an angry or embittered person, and that I have no interest in bashing anyone.

Therefore, I sometimes discuss BM here: because BW who date and marry interracially are constantly confronted with the question of whythey are not with a BM (see my prior post, “Questions and Answers.”) To simply answer honestly “because I met this non-BM and fell in love with him” is rarely satisfactory to questioners, who will take any inclination to ignore them as a sign that you have been intimidated into silence by “shame” over your “desperate” choice. As a haven for sisters who are attracted to all kinds of men—and who refuse to be controlled by the fear of rejection, or the fear of being called a “sell-out,” or on the basis of any other fear—I am more than happy to provide a forum for us all to express our own reasons for our choices: because ultimately, it is all about us.

Questions and Answers

2007-08-05T15:37:00.001-04:00

Halima and Evia have recently blogged on the importance of sisters "spreading the word" to each other about the world of options available to us, and the crucial importance of empowering ourselves to go after those options as the birthright they are.

I want to address a related topic, for those sisters who have already stepped out to exercise their options, only to find themselves faced with the stern disapproval of not only strangers, but sometimes their nearest and dearest.

I come from a family that has always had tremendous racial pride, but has also put the well-being and happiness of the family above all else--so while they were somewhat surprised by my interracial relationship, their ultimate concern was whether I was being treated as I deserved. Once they were reassured on that score, they were were as happy for me as my fiance and I are happy together.

I know some sisters don't have it that easy, and must cope with family, friends, and acquaintaces who are challenging, unsupportive, and even hostile to their relationships. Any relationship requires nurturing, and healthy communities invest in healthy relationships, which are the foundation of a thriving and ascendant people. It's a shame that instead of being supported in their positive choices, from which all around them will also reap the positive benefits, too many sisters instead face isolation, scorn, and stereotypical questions like these:

1. I thought you were "pro-black"?

While the people who raise such questions rarely define what they mean by being "pro-black"--other than either being with a black men or being alone--for me, the response to such a query would be fairly straightforward: I was born black, I will die black, and I will live every day in between black. I love my blackness and I love black people--indeed, I love humanity, with all it's flaws and foibles. There is no contridiction between loving my black self and loving a smart, funny, confident, sexy, honest, strong and compassionate white man. It is because I love myself that I recognized that the quality of this man and the love we share are a crucial component of building the life that I want and deserve.

2. Don't you feel like you're betraying your ancestors?

To me, this question has never made anymore sense than asking "aren't you betraying all the women who've been raped and beaten by men when you date men?" I am a heterosexual woman and I am attracted to men--I don't somehow "honor" women who have been victimized by rapists, abusers and murderers by shunning good men who treat me well. In the same way, I do not somehow "honor" my black ancestors who suffered through slavery and discrimination by shunning good white people--and yes, they exist.

Additionally, this question is rooted in a mentality that views racism as an evil that is simply inflicted on blacks by whites. It does not acknowledge the role that black people can play in inflicting racist discrimination on each other--in particular, the way in which DBRBM openly denigrate, abuse, and discriminate against BW based on their race and sex. Would it be reasonable for me to judge all black men based on the discriminatory acts of DBRBM?

3. Can he really understand you?

Better than anyone ever has. Just as in any couple, we have differences as well as sharing commonalities. I personally could not be with a man who was not empathetic. I know that it is certainly possible for a white person to be in a relationship with a black person--perhaps even to "love" a black individual--while still being racist. I couldn't be with such a person, anymore than I could be with a BM who hated my skin, my hair, my features. I've never been with a man who has been through exactly what I have been through--that would be impossible. Luckily, a person doesn't have to have had your experiences to be able to relate to them, and to understand your struggles and triumphs.

4. Couldn't you find a black man?

Probably--but I didn't. I found this man, and instead of rejecting him in the hope that I might find a black Mr. Right someday, I decided to live my life for today. It has not been my experience that incredible people with whom you experience intense chemistry pass through your life on such a regular basis that walking away from makes sense. Life is short.

5. What if all of us started dating white? Wouldn't black people disappear?

Considering that black people in Africa and throughout the diaspora, significantly outnumber white people, it seems unlikely that interracial mating between blacks and whites could result in the disappearance of black people; if it could, we would have disappeared a long time ago, since miscegenation has been going on since the concept of "races" first evolved. It seems that the greater danger to the our community here is the growing numbers of BW who are living their lives entirely alone.

Obviously, there are usually no "right" answers to such questions for the people asking them because they oppose interracial relationships for BW, and perceive a danger in them that they don't perceive, say, in BW suffering in bad relationships with BM or no relationships at all. I don't think for a second that a sister owes an explanation to such people; but part of the purpose of questions like these, whether the person asking is conscious of such purpose or not, is to intimidate. Whether we choose to answer them or not, all that matters is that our responses reflect our own confidence in, and happiness with, our choices. Nothing will help "break more sisters out of jail" than seeing the joy and serenity that love and freedom brings to a well-lived life!

As a sidenote, everybody check out "More Black Women Consider 'Dating Out'"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=3447674&page=2. Evia, Roslyn Holcomb, and the role of blogs in encouraging sisters to expand their options are all prominently featured!

The Role of Narrative

2007-08-02T10:37:00.000-04:00

Self-narratives--the stories that we tell ourselves about our lives that connect personally significant events in the past with our present and future experiences--are a crucial factor in our ability to shape our direction in life, and enable us to achive the goals that we have identified as important and valuable for ourselves. Such narratives--ranging from the story of how our parents met to our first day of school to the senior prom--shape our perception of the world in which we live, and shape our responses to the people that we encounter, as well as shaping our sense of identity.

Perhaps most importantly, the stories we tell ourselves about our lives shape our perceived self-efficacy: our belief about our capacity to achieve, perform, and exercise influence over the events that affect our lives and the lives of others.

Self-efficacy is not only experienced on an individual level--it is also experienced collectively. Entire groups often share a perceived self-efficacy--or, as in the case of many black Americans, a lack thereof. Black Americans have been encouraged to view themselves as a monolith: a collective beset by crime, poverty, immorality, and failure. Any black individual or group of individuals who reject this mentality are subject to mockery for refusing to face "reality," which we are informed repeatedly consists of little more than a whole cloth of pathology--exceptions to the rule purportedly only serve to further prove it.

For black women, the narrative that we are fed combines heavy doses of self-flagellation and unending obligation, and always circles back to the same sad conclusion: we are always somehow "lagging behind." We used to be lazy and welfare dependant; now we are overworked spinsters, robbing black men of the jobs and opportunities that rightly belong to them. Our dark skin, full lips and and curvaceous figures used to be revolting; now that other women openly covet these features, we are simply all obese. We are both failing in our responsibility to unstintingly support the "brothas" in their (of course) infinitely more important and more difficult struggles, and simultaneously enabling those same "brothas" in dysfunction, by embracing thuggery and irresponsible babydaddyhood. As Alice Walker noted in her book of essays, In Search of Our Mother's Gardens:

During the sixties my own work was often dismissed by black reviewers "becuase of my life style," a euphemism for my interracial marriage. At black literature conferences it would be examined fleetingly if at all, in light of this "traitorous" union, by critics who were themselves interracially married, and who, moreover, hung on every word from Richard Wright, Jean Toomer, Langston Hughes, James Baldwin, John A. Williams, and LeRoi Jones (to name a few) all of whom were at some time in their lives interracially connected, either legally or in more casual ways. Clearly it was not interracialism itself that bothered the critics, but that I, a black woman, had dared to exercise the same prerogative as they. While it is fine for black men to embrace other black men, black women, white women and white men in intimate relationships, the black woman, to be accepted as a black woman must prefer being alone to the risk of enjoying "the wrong choice." This means, I think, what the first dismissal meant: that I am a black woman. Something is always wrong with us.

Many visitors to other blogs, who see the terms "mammy" or "mule" used to describe the self-negating black women who have wholeheartedly embraced the "something is always wrong with us" narrative, find such usages offensive--but what is a mammy but someone who places her master's needs above her own? What is a mule but a beast of burden, who staggers to support others as her own spirit flags? These are not pejoratives, they are descriptors. And as with any form of oppression, BW are restricted to mammy/mulehood not through explicit force, but through the perpetuation of self-destructive narratives, repeating loops of negative reinforcement in which BW tell themselves that they have no choice but to accept less than the best in life, that they are cursed to "lag behind," that to see otherwise is to be "unrealistic."

Because the mammy/mule/DBR/"crisis" narrative is not merely a matter of optimism vs. pessimism, of seeing the glass half full or half empty. It is a matter of what you will dare to do with your life. It is matter of what you believe is possible. It is a matter of whether you can even conceive of change--because if you cannot first see within yourself the capacity to be better and have better, you stay stuck. "Failure" and "pathology" become self-fulfilling prophesies.

Sound familiar?

"CRISIS"? WHAT "CRISIS?

2007-07-29T13:08:00.000-04:00

African Americans are in the midst of a social crisis that threatens the very viability of the black community. The core of this crisis is the deepening plight of black men . . .

Throughout America, but especially in the inner cities, African-American men are disproportionately surrounded by poverty, violence, mass incarceration and disease. A confluence of ills has long conspired to marginalize black men and track them into a trajectory of failure.

Quoted from Black Men: The Crisis Continues, by Salim Muwakkil, In These Times, http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2621/

Black women, when not scapegoats--think: single parent homes, juvenile
crime, and welfare--are after-thoughts. Black men's problems, we are to believe, are black people's problems . . .

Yet, without much public notice, black women have been taking care of business, and not primarily via lawsuit and bullhorn. As Woody Allen noted, 99 percent of success is just showing up--for application deadlines, for class, for birth-control pill refills, for each day on the job--and that is simply what black women have done. No magic. No treachery against black men. The continuing existence of racism, they deduced, is simply no reason not to try.

In recent decades . . . the number of African-American women earning bachelor's degrees has increased by three-quarters; the numbers attending law or graduate school have more than doubled. Between 1988 and 1998, the number of black families earning $100,000 or more almost doubled, driven largely by black women's increased earning power.

Quote from Post-Ghetto Fabulous: Coming to Grips with Black Women's Success, a review of HAVING IT ALL? Black Women and Success, by Veronica Chambers http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_4_35/ai_99988631

New statistics from the Census Bureau confirm the powerful economic advantage that accrues to African Americans who hold a four-year college degree. The most current figures, for the year 2004, show that blacks with a college diploma now have a median income that is 90 percent of the median income of similarly educated non-Hispanic whites. Blacks with a master’s degree have incomes nearly equal to those of whites with a master’s degree. Blacks with a doctorate actually have higher incomes than similarly educated non-Hispanic whites.

These are extraordinary achievements that have been consistently overlooked by most commentators . . .

When we break down the income figures for black and white college graduates by gender we find that the superior performance of black women is responsible for the progress that has been made. In 2004 black males with a bachelor’s degree had a median income of $40,329, which was only 79 percent of the $51,184 median income of similarly educated white males. Thus, a very large
racial income gap persists for black men . . . On the other hand, black women with a bachelor’s degree had a median income of $33,877, which was 111 percent of the $30,413 median income figure for non-Hispanic white women who
held a college degree. It is clear then that the strong income performance of black college graduates is largely due to the earnings performance of black women . . .

There is more good news to report . . . In 2004 blacks with a master’s degree had a median income of $49,716. This was 98 percent of the median income of non-Hispanic whites with a master’s degree. Furthermore, in 2004, the racial income gap for master’s degree holders closed substantially. In 2003 blacks with a master’s degree had a median income that was 88 percent of the median income of whites who possessed a master’s degree.

Once again, in percentage terms, black women fared much better against their white counterparts than did black men. Black women with a master’s had a
median income that was nearly 109 percent of white women’s median income at that educational level. Black men with a master’s degree had a median income
that was only 89.7 percent of the median income of white males with a master’s degree.

Quoted from Higher Education Is the Major Force in Closing the Black-White Income Gap, The Journal of Blacks in Higher Educationhttp://www.jbhe.com/news_views/55_closing_the_income_gap.html

As noted in one the the exceprts above, taken from a review of Veronica Chambers' book HAVING IT ALL? Black Women and Success, "Black men's problems, we are to believe, are black people's problems." Thus, the crisis that grips black men we are told is actually a crisis of the black community and of black people.

Yet, as the numbers make clear, black women have made extraordinary strides in recent decades. In education, careers, income, and even longevity, black women have gained parity with, and even surpassed many of their peers, despite facing obstacles that most women in our society have never had to cope with, let alone overcome. Indeed, many of the struggles that black women do continue to face are largely derivative: women of African descent who are most vulnerable to HIV/AIDS are those who are married and have only one sexual partner; most black women in poverty are single mothers of children who receive little or no support from their non-custodial fathers; increasing numbers of black women are being incarcerated for low-level drug offenses committed in support of their "man's" petty drug conspiracies.

In other words, those areas of black women's lives over which they exercise the greatest autonomy and control are the areas where they have achieved the greatest success. Nonetheless, black women continue to be burdened by the stigma of "crisis" and pathology that has less and less to do with many of our lives. This stigma follows us into schools, the workplace, and in our efforts to seek intimate relationships. Black women also struggle with the unique burden of being made to feel guilty for our achivements, as if the crisis that grips black men is a result of our incredible accomplishments, rather than the spur that has forced us to shoulder a disproportionate share of the responsibility for our families and communities. Asian women's superior academic and professional achievement has only made them more attractive mates, to Asian and other men. It has not defeminized them or made men feel "emasculated" by them; it has not encouraged Asian men to blame them for their own struggles or difficulties.

Conversely, instead of celebrating black women's achievements, and pointing with pride to this cause for optimism in the midst of despair, "the community" continues to alternately ignore, downplay or even disparage the value of black women's vibrant work ethic and unflagging commitment, despite the fact it is this very capacity that has kept "the community" going.

It is time for black women to reclaim our reputations and to start celebrating ourselves. We are truly incredible, and for men with drive, ambition, values and character, we offer a total package of womanliness and accomplishment that can simply be found no where else. No more hiding your light under a bushel ladies--Black Girls Rule! Never forget it, and never be ashamed to shout it from the rooftops.

"Sleeping With the Enemy"

2007-07-27T08:33:00.000-04:00

Black males typically feel angry when they see a white man with a black woman because to them, she is “Sleeping with the enemy.”

Quote from "Black Women Who Like a Little Cream in Their Coffee," by Matthew Lynch, Bahiyah Woman Magazine, bwmmag.com

Just got some real interesting info from a source regarding the most vocal opponent of the Hot Ghetto Mess Show and website. Like my mama told me, "aint nobody right". Watch whose lead you're following people. If anyone has more info to add or confirmation, let me know...

Word on the street is . . . she is part of a coterie of women who have organized themselves around Evia. As part of that coterie she blogs as Synamon. They began a few months ago under the guise of an interracial dating site. The site ain't about interracial dating at all. It is about spreading white supremacist ideas among black women.

Excerpt from the Myspace page of Jam Donaldson, the creator of the "Hot Ghetto Mess" website.

Halima, at the Black Women's IR Circle, recently blogged on the issue of "What is an Ally"? This is a crucial issue for BW to undestand, because if we cannot distinguish our own best interests, than we cannot distinguish who has our best interests at heart.

However, it is equally important that we understand "Who is an Enemy"? BW in interracial relationships with WM, probably more than any other group, must contend with the "sleeping with the enemy" charge hurled at them by members of their own community. Even BM involved with WW do not face this invective to nearly the same extent, since WW have generally been held less responsible for white supremacy and the sins of institutionalized racism than WM. Both WW and many BM have cheerfully promoted the concept that WW are "victims" too, and thus, no "betrayal" is involved in a BM becoming intimate with them.

The history of colonialism, the black holocaust, slavery, Jim Crow, and the continuation of institutionalized racism inevitably effects even individual relationships between black people and white people. Of course, it also effects individual relationships between black people and other black people as well. Black people are prefer biracial children for adoption over black children just as whites do. BM prefer lighter skinned, straighter haired women over darker skinned, kinkier haired women. As the existence of websites and television programs like "Hot Ghetto Mess" make glaringly obvious, black people today are some of the most brutally
exploitative traffickers in dehumanizing, stereotypical imagery of other black people. And just as there are whites who benefit from "white skin privilege" that provides them advantages in employment, housing, educational opportunities and the criminal justice system, there are blacks like Jam Donaldson and Reginald Hudlin (President of BET Entertainment) who also benefit from promoting white supremacy and black degredation.

The upshot of all of this should be clear: you can't determine whether you are "sleeping with the enemy" by the amount of melanin in his skin. When Jam Donaldson, who originally entitled her website "Nigga Mess," can claim that blogs devoted to supporting BW in having healthy, positive relationships with men regardless of race are actually "spreading white supremacy," it is clear that not only is her internal compass confused, but that she thinks that your's is as well. When DBRBM come to these blogs to slander and abuse BW, all in the name of "racial loyalty," they are not coming out of love for you. As you well know, these same men don't think any more highly of BW who are "loyal," and are no more loving or supportive of them. Their problem isn't that you have "betrayed" them, but that you will no longer make yourself available for them to betray you.

An enemy seeks to do you harm. A friend seeks to do you good. Friends and enemies do not come in specific phenotypical packages. No matter what happened yesterday or what may happen tomorrow, smart sisters never lose sight of these crucial insights, because we never forget what our own interests are. As the late Congressman Bill Clay like to point out "there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies: only permanent interests." Let your interests and your values be your guide, and your internal compass will always be resistant to these transparent manipulations.

"Every Brotha Aint a Brotha"

2007-07-25T14:24:00.000-04:00

Black women’s families had more objections to interracial relationships than
their Black male counterparts. Many relatives of Black women (especially male relatives) tried to protect their daughters/sisters/cousins from White men who
they felt would sexually exploit Black women. Given the history of White male
sexual violence against Black women this is not surprising. However, family
opposition also has the affect of denying Black women’s agency because their
judgment is held up to much more scrutiny than Black men in interracial
relationships.

Quote from RachelsTavern.com, a blog devoted to discussions of Race, Gender, and Sexuality from a Sociological Perspective

As a black woman in an interracial relationship, I am familiar with the discomfort often expressed by family members at the prospect of a beloved daughter/cousin/niece dating a non-BM. Though my family has come to love and respect my fiance because of his unmistakable love and respect for me, they certainly had more initial reservations about our relationship than they did about my prior relationships with black men.

Even more intriguing to me, however, is the issue of black male response to BW/non-BM interracial couplings, which it doesn't appear has been formally studied. The popular perception is that it is only envious, embittered BW who resent interracial relationships, while BM not only eagerly participate in such relationships, but liberally accept them regardless of who the participants are. This is surely the case where the relationship involves a BM and a non-BW.

But virtually all BW who have dated or married interracially know that BM are not nearly as accepting of their choices as they are of those of their "brothas." Certainly, sisters in the blogosphere know this to be the case, as even the briefest perusal of sites devoted to BW interested in interracial relationships reveals a consistent thread of hostility and anger from Damaged Beyond Repair ("DBR") BM directed at the very concept of BW seeking non-black companionship.

This hostility is expressed not only in outright attacks, but in subtler forms as well. Often, BM will simply insist that no other men are interested in BW, and that BW's efforts to date non-BM will thus fail. Sometimes they will encourage BW to seek BM from Latin America, Africa, or the Caribbean for relationships, instead of dating non-BM in their own communities. Often, dark hints are made of the "harm" that BW will suffer at the hands of Scott Peterson-type WM (who can also be found in abundence among BM, of course).

Often, the "brothas" making these complaints assert that they really don't care who BW date, but they don't want BW to criticizing BM as an "excuse" for our choices. However, as an initial matter, that doesn't explain why they would seek out blogs devoted to this subject in the first place, before they have any awareness that BM are even mentioned--obviously, no one goes to http://dateawhiteguy.blogspot.com/ unless they are interested in either dating a white guy, or interested in those who do want to date a white guy.

Secondly, our society is still largely segregated by race--socially, residentially and religiously in particular. That being the case, most adult BW who are seeking to date interracially will come from an experience of primarily dating BM--and no one can move forward into the future they seek without coming to terms with the past they are leaving behind. BW who want a different experience must figure out in exactly what way they want their future experiences to be different--which means they must look critically at their past experiences, and the people they shared those experiences with.

Above all, many BW most cope with substantial, well-documented social pressues if they seek to date interracially. Much of that pressure will come from other black people, male and female, who will deride her decision as "self-hating," "disloyal," and "selling out." For BW who have coped with less than respectful treatment from DBRBM, it is difficult for them to come to terms with the external pressure to conform to a version of "self-love" that often endorses standing by males who treat you badly, and decries pursuing relationships with men who will treat you well. Very often, the same family and community who stood by silently while their daughter/sister/cousin was being abused or exploited by a DBRBM will be quite vocal in their disapproval of her relationship with a good non-BM. Too many sisters learn the hard way, in the immortal words of Chuck D., that "every brotha aint a brotha."

As Halima of the Black Women's IR Circle has pointed out, many BW have had their internal compasses confused by such manipulations. They no longer recognize what their own interests are, and what behaviors they have a right to expect and a right to reject. Our community has become dependent on BW accepting a status quo that is essentially exploitative--that places disproportionate burdens and responsibilities on the shoulders of BW. And that is the real reason that so many "brothas" troll these blogs, full of vitriol and frustration: they see BW with options shrugging off the role of "mules of the world" and putting ourselves first for once. No longer are we content to wither away as a "reserve army" of spinsters and babymamas, ready at a moments notice to provide sex, support, mothering, shelter and anything else a DBRBM may require, with no expectation of reciprocity in return.

Unfortunately, as more of us free ourselves, the recrimination will only increase. Fortunately, what we will gain in meeting our own needs will far outweigh the momentary distress of an caused by an anonymous plaint.

"Ain't Black Love Beautiful?"

2007-07-24T09:08:00.000-04:00

How many times have we have we all heard these words spoken (usually by a black woman--isn't it odd how rarely black men express this belief?) in response to the latest candid photo of Will and Jada, Bill and Camille, Holly and Rodney, Denzel and Pauletta? And who could disagree? Black love--love period--is indeed a beautiful thing.

However, what is often implicit in these expressions of wistful admiration for "black love" are some more uncomfortable, often unspoken emotional beliefs--the belief that black love is increasingly rare and imperiled, and that other kinds of love ("non-black" love?) are in some way inferior or even threatening to the gold standard that is "black love."

Very often, the same black women who wax poetic in response to images of "black love" respond more acidly to the vision of black men with non-black women. This particular love is often dismissed as not being love at all, but a false, lust-driven form of self-hatred and self-annihilation, an expression of contempt for black women and blackness itself.

The resentment that many black women express towards black men in interracial relationships is often rooted in their very real experience of discrimination, both in the larger society and within their own communities. Few women have ever had to face the degree of character assassination and disparagement of their womanhood and feminine appeal that black women have had to cope with. When the very same black men who all too often have not only joined in mainstream contempt for black women, but have actively spearheaded the dissemination of hostile and demeaning images of black womanhood (see the essay "Virulent Racio-Misogyny in the Black Community" for an in-depth discussion of this phenomenon at http://dateawhiteguy.blogspot.com/,) simultaneously express their respect and appreciation for the beauty and appeal of non-black women, black women feel doubly betrayed.

However, black women's embrace of the "black love" ideal and resentment of BM/WW interracial relationships is also a product of black women's own refusal to consider pursuing relationships with non-black men. Many black women have concluded that racial loyalty and "self-love" requires that one only love those within one's own race, and they are angry that increasing numbers of black men do not seem to share this belief.

Ultimately, black women find themselves one of the least married demographic groups in American society, and many have concluded that the culprit for their plight is the accelerated abandonment by black men of their "duty" to marry black. What black women must consider, however, is what actions we can take to have the lives that we want and deserve. When healthy, attractive, intelligent, accomplished women are alone while there are available men who want to be with them, something is wrong.

The answers that black women get from the "community" as to what that something is all to often simply fall back on the same knee-jerk scapegoating that has become something of an addiction for the black community over the past 50 years. Whether the issue is single-parent households, rates of imprisonment for black men, the spread of AIDS, crime, poverty, there is always a simple explanation: the problem is black women. Black women themselves have come to accept and embrace this concept, and can often be found hectoring and cajoling their "sisters" to "do better."

In terms of declining marriage rates, the latest version of "do better" typically incorporates two contradictory concepts: black women must stop being so "picky" when it comes to black men and lower their gold digging standards; and black women must become more discriminating when it comes to black men, and stop pursuing "thugs" and losers. That perhaps there maybe some problems with the pool of black men from which black women have to choose is an idea that is rarely if ever seriously considered.

My version of "doing better" and finding "black love" begins with black women loving ourselves enough to pursue our own best interests. If you are smart, witty, charming, kind, honest, pretty, fit, and successful, and you want a man who is comparable and compatible, you are NOT too picky, and you do NOT need to change your standards. What you DO need to do is consider whether the pool of candidates from which you are seeking companions is actually sufficient. If it is not, you need to increase that pool--plain and simple.

Ain't black girls loving themselves beautiful?

Why "Black Girls Rule"?

2007-07-23T14:33:00.000-04:00

In my "mission statement," I wanted to make clear that this blog will act primarily as a place for black women and the men who love us to meet, communicate, exchange information and ideas, and enjoy each other's company! In time I hope to learn more about all of you, and to share more about my own life.

To provide a brief introduction:

I am a black American woman originally from the Midwest, currently living in the NYC metropolitan area. I am engaged to be married (in August '07!) to a white American man. Perfection is for the gods--but my life is damned good, and I want to share that good fortune with other sisters, and with the men who love (or want to love) those sisters!

This blog is dedicated to all of those fabulous women, and everyone with the discernment to appreciate them--this is YOUR forum to utilize in your individual journeys to achieve your dreams and maximize your access to every good thing the world has to offer. Now is our time!