I stand behind my computer, paused in awe, not knowing how to begin this one.
The article is titled, “Why I Will Not March for Eric Garner”, and to the author’s credit, most black folks will not march either. Statistically speaking, it’s not the striking majority of the black population that engage in any given march. Take a person like myself — I will flat out state I will not march for Eric either. Sad, but true. But I will WRITE, which is my socio-political platform of engaging injustice. I speak, and I speak my mind… that’s what I do. One day perhaps, I will be a select speaker at a march. Dreaming? Maybe; but I’m prepared for that. But until then, my mode of addressing plights will be featured right here.
Once someone claims they are a “feminist”, the big question is asked: “well, what the fuck does that mean?” This translates into: well how crazy is this bitch we have here? Feminism is a very diverse grip of philosophy, and to one’s credit they do make a lot of fine points. Mary Wollstonecraft argued that raising women to be ornamental will have disastrous results on society. When I think of ornamental I think of that scene off of Coming to America with the beautiful N’Bushe Wright who brilliantly (yet comically) illustrates the inherent flaws in developing such a languid, shallow woman. You also have the utilitarian Harriet Taylor who argued that nonphysiological differences between men and women are socially constructed, and should be questioned. Simone be Beauvoir argued brilliantly the notion of women being sociologically designated as the “other” to a man’s “self” in the book The Second Sex. De Beauvoir was brilliant in her sociological analysis, pointing out that “No group ever sets itself up as the One without setting up the Other over against itself.” Men set up women to be “Others”, as De Beauvoir observed, and since men have the sociopolitical power, women come to see themselves as Others. This logical finding sounds familiar. You also have those as such as Gloria Steinem, Ann Ferguson, and Mary Daly. Marilyn Frye, who pointed out that sociological engineering between men and women runs so deep that it makes no sense. For example, there’s NO reason why razor blades are designated as blue/gray for men, and pink/lavender for women when the device does the same thing for both. Why is that? Perhaps we should question these things, both men and women. When we question the construct of our society maybe we can usher a better one.
A feminist’s place in this world is a unique, and difficult one; while technically NOT a minority, they are infinitely treated as one. Now this difficulty gets worse when one is considered a “black feminist”. So in redefining the “feminist” as a “black one” we find ourselves at square one — what the fuck does that mean?
First it should be noted that in being a black feminist, the black woman faces unique plights that the white or otherwise “white privilege granted” women do not. In addition, there’s a lot of issues with black women that are not full-heartedly addressed by prior white feminists. But in this special designation, does that mean that the black feminist is pitted against white ones? Does the black feminist absorb the teachings of ALL feminists holistically, or do they piss on the teachings of other feminists just because they aren’t black? What really defines a black feminist honestly? Because the last time this author came across a “black feminist”, she wasted copious amounts of time defending an imaginary side chick. Think about that for a moment.
So we have yet another self proclaimed black feminist making another illogical rant: comparing police brutality to sexual harassment. Oh, and also blaming black men for their plight, as if black men are the only ones who have a hand in hurting women. Um… yeah…
In the article you can see that the black feminist author attempts to front load the column with sympathetic words. While she gently attempts to caress the column into what she really wants to talk about, the pivot of discussion is still considered a vulgar turn. The author suggests that she will not “march for Eric Garner” — not because she has other venues to discuss such travesties of justice, but because… men, black men especially, do not march for black women. Totally paraphrasing here, but that’s pretty much her flawed, ignorant, idiotic point. While this woefully ignorant woman attempts to turn an issue of police brutality towards the black “Other” of society (thank you Ms. De Beauvoir, you’re one of the best), she does make a few valid points:
“I, myself, have spent hours trying to explain to otherwise thoughtful, intelligent men why wearing a tight dress is not sending an invitation to harassment.”
While I totally agree with the notion that men need to stop pulling the Short Skirt Card in regards to sexual harassment, I’ll point out that those men you are talking to are NOT intelligent. It’s not that fucking hard to figure out. While you did not state that those “intelligent men” you speak of are black, I have a nagging suspicion that it’s implied that they are. And on that note I’ll state to you that sexual harassment is NOT unique to just black women, the black race, and black men are not the sole owners of sexual harassment. This statement, while noble, is evidence of what type of circles you surround yourself with, and the pathetic black guys you surround yourself with are not the smoking majority of black men. Period.
“…there’s an inability by many Black men to acknowledge that Black women, too, have a right to move through the world without fear–that a woman should not have to avert her eyes and quicken her pace when she encounters men in public spaces.”
The word “many” is very interesting. Many can be a very small amount of people, and usually is. For example, what does “many” mean in this case? Does this self-proclaimed “black feminist” attempts to suggest that she understands this to be the sentiment of the MAJORITY (over 50%) of black males? Where is your data? What polls have you referenced? As a man — a black one, on top of the fact that you don’t speak for me, I’d suggest that most men would agree that women don’t have to avert their eyes and quicken their pace when they encounter men in public places. One thing about this brand of feminism is that instead of questioning society on a quest to make society greater, these bullshit girls attempt to make everything about attacking men, and in attacking men they attempt to speak of the mind of men. The mind of men is something that these women don’t fucking understand. While it’s totally acceptable that men don’t understand women, when will we figure out that women don’t know men either? Especially when they don’t do any research and talk from out of their asses? Just because men like fucking, it doesn’t mean women understand every aspect of men.
Continued on the next page
Pages: 1 2