Feminism, Race, and Sexist Dating Guides
by Latoya Peterson
One of the many issues I have with feminism is how my racial identification is treated as a problem, separate from the “real issues” that feminism seeks to deal with – despite the fact that the world perceives me as a “black woman” rather than a “woman.” (The “white” that goes before “woman” is silent.) My race is supposed to go unmentioned and unnoticed – until, there is some kind of “black culture” thing to tsk-tsk and blame on the inherent sexism in the black community.
So, it was with great trepidation that I clicked on a header post from Feministing. Titled “Dating Advice from Assholes: ‘Stop Treating Women Well,‘” Ann summarizes a Washington Post article about yet another crappy book about how to catch a man.
Titled “The Re-Education of the Female” (charming, right?) some bama basically regurgitates the same bullshit being spouted at women since time eternal – cook, clean, fuck, and STFU. The cover lets me know that my initial eye-roll was the right reaction.
Boooo!
Now, Ann’s post was cool, and I was about to click off to some other part of the internet, but for some reason, I decided to read the comments.
The first ten or so were cool, expressing general disgust at the ignorant sentiments. And then, we get to this one:
I echo the sentiments already expressed. I am disgusted by this.
I am also disheartened by the fact that this filth is targeted at black women. I have a feeling that black women generally (but not all, of course) would be more susceptible to these ideas. There seems to be an a fairly strong sentiment among many black women that they need to stand by “their” men, as though they are disgracing themselves and their heritage by dating outside of their race. I have several times seen reference to the shrinking number of black men due to incarceration and consequently a shrinking dating pool, the implication always seeming to be that women have little choice but to date in this pool. Furthermore, there is the specter of single motherhood looming over black women. I fear that the expectation that black women date black men and the fear of scarcity of good black men will cause the women who identify with these issues the most to buy into these horrid ideas for fear of ending up alone otherwise.
*sigh*
Paging the white savior – the Negro women need your guidance!
Comments like that one just make me weary when dealing in feminist circles because they embody the assumptions that take place around communities of color. The person making this comment appears to have a very small amount of knowledge about the black community and our struggles, which that person then creates a full scenario from small bits of knowledge, ending in the flawed conclusion. Oh, these poor weak minded black women with their silly notions of racial preferences in dating – especially in their situation!
And there are more where that came from:
This is the kind of literature that is marketed to the Black community? No wonder there is an growing trend of internalized racism and adoption of oppression especially with Black females. At one point they are told that their sexuality is not only taboo but also animalistic and dangerous and now they have moved into full-on exploitation and submission because men command it. [...]
And my favorite:
More fodder for the “thug life” culture!
Awesome!!!
*snark snark*
Thug life culture? There are black people on the cover and it suddenly equates to Thug Life? WTF?
Oh, and I can’t forget this gem:
[...] Let’s face it ladies, there is the “what is” and the “what should be” — and the former (patriarchy) is the norm … not “gender-equality”. In the black community, patriarchy is even more expected, acceptable, than in less patriarchial, more feminist-educated, communities. Few black women prescribe to dutch dating or reciprocating taking a guy out. And because there is so much racism, poverty, and lack of feminist education in poor and low income communities, one can expect lots of testosterone males and women who love them — including “thugs”. [...]
Around the time the first comment I quoted dropped, I sent an email around to some of my girls with this ridiculousness. M. Dot was motivated enough to go into the thread AND to write a blog post on it. But luckily, some other folks decided to call out the bullshit:
What bothers me is the unanswered (anywhere in the article) question of just why the Washington Post dedicated time and space to a signing in a basement in Cherry Hill, NJ.
There are plenty of good books by black men. Are any of them getting this kind of coverage?
So why focus on this book in order to conclude that, “Maybe feminism is dead. Or maybe women are just humoring Moore (and men everywhere), reading his book and others for a good laugh.”
I’m not saying this book isn’t ridiculous (because, yeah, clearly it is). But again, a black man writes an anti-feminist book and it gets negative press coverage.
Meanwhile, the author cites Greg Behrendt as another example of these “unvarnished ilk,” and if you click on the linked name, you get to a sympathetic article in which Behrendt is quotes as an expert on relationships.
So, yeah, stupid book and stupid author, but I question the effect of it being covered as it is in the Wash. Post, and I wonder what it says about this blog–which doesn’t generally cover the works of black authors–when it holds this one black man up as an example of antifeminism even as white feminists have spent a ridiculous amount of time insisting that black women aren’t doing enough to distance themselves from these very men and, in so doing, somehow qualify as “good feminists.”
[...] This book is symptomatic of patriarchy, nothing more nothing less. It isn’t any more or less pathological or dysfunctional than the dominant white mainstream narratives we see on TV and in the movies.It may be more crass and upfront, but its message appears to be the same. “Shut up, make me a sandwich and don’t get fat”. [...]Posted by M. Dot
“There seems to be an a fairly strong sentiment among many black women that they need to stand by ‘their’ men…”
Tammy Wynette, Phyllis Schlafly and Laura “The Surrendered Wife” Doyle are black? Well, damn, Allegra, I never knew.
Posted by Violet
“There seems to be an a fairly strong sentiment among many black women that they need to stand by ‘their’ men…”
Can someone tell me how strong this sentiment is? And where? And from who? And did somehow Black women invent this? I keep having people who are not Black and female like I am tell me that this is apparently the law of my community. I would like to know how I have missed it. Or even better yet, the historical reasons why people who do feel that way might actually do so.
In general I would really like to know why so many so-called feminists, can eagerly ignore Black women’s criticisms of mainstream white feminism, or completely ignore women of color feminism in general, but can go out of their way to ponder this sort of bullshit when presented by the mainstream media?
Never mind. I have a migraine from this foolishness already.
Jezebel, which discussed the same topic, had a much more nauanced take on the entire subject – multiracial mocking ensued. When a comment was posted that could be interpreted a couple different ways, the commenters there did something shocking – discussed the concept of racist statements like adults:
briardahl at 01:45 PM on 08/28/08
@BeckySharper: I didn’t say it was racist, Becky; I said:
- I dislike the casualness of the mental leap from one example of a man to the whole of black men in particular (and not, say, men who write books, men from Washington, or men who wear pleated pants)
- I think if you want to suggest that this guy’s mentality is common among black men and specific to black men, you should argue that point directly and seriously, and not just loosely suggest it’s the case
- I dislike the built-in assumption there that black women’s dating options are necessarily limited to black men
There is some light back and forth in the comments about racist assumptions and statements, and in the end, everyone was clear that (1) the comment in question could be interpreted in a few ways (instead of some of the blatantly racist comments on Feministing) and (2) that one book, from one author, cannot stand in for the black community as a whole.
Simple right?
And yet, for some reason, that logic can sometimes escape people who have to work with different communities. They lose sight of the fact that many problems, at their core, are the same – just different communities add their own twist to the mix. The line of thinking becomes “this issue is strange and unique to this community,” not “this community has a unique manifestation of the same issue.”
Now, funnily enough, I was researching an article on the messages presented to men and women in the context of dating guides about a year ago.
I came across a lot of books – spanning across communities – that had me wondering how the hell this stuff got published.
Now, there were books marketed toward black readers:
Books geared toward white readers:
And books that made me think “If blacks have to take credit for the ignorant musings of Dante Moore, what is the explanation for this shit?”:
I mean seriously.
And before I forget…
And will someone please explain Mystery?
This is all you, white folks… I see your black pathology and raise you a Pick Up Artist.
(This video is Mystery describing his method. Dating is just like a video game, y’all. Input = output.)
Yeah You – N.E.R.D (from the Seeing Sounds album)
(3) I stayed specifically with the discussion of black communities and white communities with dating books because books geared toward folks outside of the black/white binary tend to be fetish guides. (Think: "How to date a white man," "Sex secrets from the middle east," "Dating Asian Women.")
Sample text :
Yeah, I left that alone for my own sanity. Maybe for another article... - LDP]
(Cross Posted to Feministe)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Celeste wrote:
I read The Rules and He’s Just Not That Into You. I think the latter was way better than the former. I think the whole “submit to your man” is more religious and in this context Christian than about black or white culture. My step-sister actually put the words “obey” in her vows when she got married (to a white guy and he thought it was great). My mom and I *both* cringed when she actually spoke the words. I’ve heard this whole “submit to your husband” stuff from many Christian outlets both black and white and it turns me off everytime. In my marriage whoever is best at the task at hand leads.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 6:59 am ¶
stella wrote:
“This is all you, white folks… I see your black pathology and raise you a Pick Up Artist.”
ROFLMAO!!
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 6:59 am ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Awesome breakdown, Latoya. It’s so true that the racial stereotyping serves as a distraction from discussing sexism.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 7:37 am ¶
DiosaNegra1967 wrote:
*sigh*
latoya, when i first read this over at feministing….i threw up a little….
this mess is pathetic! all this guy is doing is putting down on paper the same crapola that i heard whilst growing up…why did WaPo even give this any coverage?
i feel sorry for the multitudes who purchased this (and the others you mentioned) wack excuse for reading material….and even worse for those who actually BELIEVE anything written in it!
…’scuse me while i go and wash my mind with soap….
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 8:31 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>My step-sister actually put the words “obey” in her vows when she got married (to a white guy and he thought it was great).
*Shudder* – I had a Catholic ceremony, and both my spouse and my priest were very clear that
“love, honor, and cherish” were to be used for both of us. I also selected readings (all pre-approved by the RCC) that defined love, not gender roles. But a lot of people don’t know they have those options – they seem to go for tradition over meaning/intent.
>I’ve heard this whole “submit to your husband” stuff from many Christian outlets both black and white and it turns me off everytime
What those “Christian” outlets fail to remember is the REST of that verse (From Paul, not a perfect early Church leader by any means), the one telling husbands to submit to Christ. That means acting like Christ, and it means treating a spouse as Jesus treated women: like a human being, an equal person, with free agency and rights and responsibilities and talents, not like a child, a dependent, or a slave, not someone to be coddled, ignored, or dismissed).
Makes me wonder how much of many Christian faiths (including my own) are followers of Paul, not followers of Jesus, since so many of the things they tend to support have no basis in what Jesus is supposed to have said, but in what Paul interpreted later from his own POV.
———–
As to the article… I cringed at most of these covers, having not read any of them. I don’t GET dating, seriously, I never understood the games that a lot of people seem to intuit. I barely know how to flirt and I never see anything coming until it’s far too late. But I dated just enough to get burned on gender, race, and orientation fronts, and to see how they all can intersect like a three-car collision. Yay?
As a visibly mixed woman (even if people didn’t know what mix), people couldn’t stereotype me until they knew what I was. By then, I think my cluelessness scared them off, if my defensiveness didn’t.
The only reason my spouse and I hit it off, I think, is that we were both 5th wheels when we met, and he’d dated interracially (various ethnicities, and he’s Latino) his entire adult life and honestly didn’t feel the need to categorize me before he asked me to dance. That was enough of a change from the status quo that it got through the defensiveness, and I didn’t have time to scare him off.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 8:54 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
Thank god for this post. My trip through the Feministing comments made me so incredibly angry. What upset me most of all was the realization that this book had become the stand-in for the approach of all black men to relationships by some of the very same people who hate to have the writers of pink stiletto-kick-up-cover, “get a man” books used as stand-ins for their approach to relationships. Or, worse yet, held us as the real or imagined dominant mode of relating to men.
But black men (and black women – those poor sad things) do not deserve the same regard.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 8:55 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ Latoya–
Explain Mystery? Should anyone seriously attempt to explain someone who raided the closet of Jason Kay from Jamiroquai?
Seriously though, I’ve noticed some white feminists use the category/stereotype of “Black men” (and/or other MoCs) to illustrate the worst atttibutes of “men,” thus setting up their arguments of why their (white) feminist movement as the best solution to women’s ills. (Of course, this usually is when such feminists want to appeal to WoCs to join “their” movement.), In other words, MoC become the straw men for the goodness of (white) feminism.
I co-sign with Carmen: brilliant analysis, Latoya!
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 8:57 am ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:
I read those comments over at Feministing, and I’m so glad you addressed them here. It’s incredible to me the way, as Delux commented, that people who are not black and not women can expound on the problems of black women, when in fact, they have no idea what they’re talking about.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 9:06 am ¶
Marjannaa wrote:
Latoya, you’ve encapsulated everything I felt in that piece regarding feminism and race which I couldn’t express due to the rage that I was inflicted with after reading the comments on feministing. Thank you.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 9:08 am ¶
gatamala wrote:
many problems, at their core, are the same – just different communities add their own twist to the mix. The line of thinking becomes “this issue is strange and unique to this community,” not “this community has a unique manifestation of the same issue.”
EXACTLY. The issues seem really strange or unique when one is unable or refuses to see humanity. It’s not just, “people are people”. It’s “yes, at the end of the day people are people AND…”
That first block quote takes layered issues (gleaned from the Innanets and Tyra) and reduces them into a passage w/o any nuance. What is she so afraid of anyway?
When I read this:
In the black community, patriarchy is even more expected, acceptable, than in less patriarchial, more feminist-educated, communities.
I floated face down up the river into the heart of darkness.
*****
If you want closure in your relationship, start with your legs ~ Big Boom
This is why I judge books by their covers.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 9:15 am ¶
Angel H. wrote:
I don’t even read Feministing anymore for those exact same reasons. However, I did leave a comment on that post.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 9:30 am ¶
Celeste wrote:
@TCS: I thought it was Jamiroqai, too! I had to read his description twice to convince myself.
@Lyonside: It seems that everyone forgets the second parts of that verse. However, I see the idea that I should submit to my husband, who in turn will treat me like the Jesus that my husband has submitted to a bit problematic, too. Even if the person you’re submitted to is a person who’ supposed to be all WWJD in his decisions it’s still saying that the woman should submit to a man acting in the place of a deity and I can’t go for that. How about we *both* submit to Jesus with the hope that He would inspire us both to be cool to each other.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 9:31 am ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
“They lose sight of the fact that many problems, at their core, are the same – just different communities add their own twist to the mix. The line of thinking becomes “this issue is strange and unique to this community,” not “this community has a unique manifestation of the same issue.””
Co-sign with Carmen and TCS: amazing!
The comments from Feministing are horrifying. Let me never be in an actual physical room with “feminists” who articulate such opinions – I’ll probably try and commit suicide with a stapler.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 9:35 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
> it’s still saying that the woman should submit to a man acting in the place of a deity and I can’t go for that. How about we *both* submit to Jesus with the hope that He would inspire us both to be cool to each other.
Actually, that’s my interpretation too, esp. since I ID as a liberal/progressive Catholic Christian that treats the JudeoChristian scriptures through a historical/sociological/anthropology/ “not to be taken literally, pretty much ever” lens at the best of times. [At the worst of times, it becomes a "how history and individuals have manipulated, misinterpreted, and downright changed and lied about Scripture for their own ends or to bolster their own biases, and how much is lost from sheer ignorance about what a story meant to the people it was intended for.]
But in deference to those who look at the text and take it as, well, Gospel, I needed to point out the interpretation that makes the most sense.
But yeah, personally, I find the idea of giving personal agency to anyone other than God (however one defines it) a Problem, and one worth getting into (within the framework I stated above. But it’s hard to do that with anyone who takes the JudeoChristian scriptures more literally than I do.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 10:26 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
@ Lyonside–Makes me wonder how much of many Christian faiths (including my own) are followers of Paul, not followers of Jesus, since so many of the things they tend to support have no basis in what Jesus is supposed to have said, but in what Paul interpreted later from his own POV.
Thank you so much for saying this, friend. I felt this way about Christianity for a long time, even when I was a Christian. However, I agree with Celeste’s analysis to your statement.
@ Thea–all I’m going to say is take that stapler and aim for the heads of those “feminists,” friend.:-D
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 10:48 am ¶
kanani wrote:
Excellent post, LaToya. I laughed my ass off when it came to those other dating books. It’s interesting. Book jackets and titles make a huge difference in the marketability of a book. The ones marketed to black women seem more to be about power “Play or be played.” The ones to the white women are more about some kind of pop psychology and lots of rules. “He’s just not into you,” “The Rules, “How to be a Super Hot Woman.”
You’re right. They deal with the same issue in a different way.
And LaToya, I think after reading 100 dating books you need to come up with one of your own. Obviously, agents want to publish these…. in fact they’re looking for them. So go for it! And then… just leave a lot of blank pages and at the end write, “Work on your self esteem, and your perspective might change.”
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 10:58 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@ Celeste -
Don’t even get me started on “submission.”
@Stella -
thank you very much, I’m here nightly.
@Carmen –
Yup, it’s one of the reasons I prefer to have in house conversations. I hear some of this same dumb shit spouted from other black folks (more on that later) but it’s quickly countered. Some white people seem to take that mess as the gospel though.
@DiosaNegra1967 -
Man, it’s the same shit, different author. I didn’t even blink.
@Lyonside –
Here’s all you need to know. Men pursue sex. Women pursue marriage. If you go outside of these bounds, you are a deviant freak of nature. (The majority of the books I read cycle back to these themes, and a few choice others.)
@A.D. Nix –
Exactly. It’s like people saw blacks on the cover and lost all common sense. WTF do they think we are, mysterious negroids from the planet hood?
@TCS –
See, that makes it worse in my book. I love me some JK and Mystery is *clearly* biting! I bet he can’t do the Virtual Insanity roomwalk!
@thesciencegirl –
Word. People need to learn to fall back sometimes – you don’t need to be an expert on every fucking thing.
@Marjaana –
No prob.
@gatamala –
I floated face down up the river into the heart of darkness.
Shit, you must have passed me. I was the one slipping into my cement shoes, about to jump in…
@Thea -
You already know my feelings on the situation. And no suicide by stapler please, you’ll be reinforcing that study you just posted on.
@Kanani –
But what would I call it? Hmm…
“The Pimpcess Rules: The Secrets of Dating from Your Favorite Rappers! You Too Can be Da Baddest Bitch!”
“Tell that raggedy bitch to back off your man! 45 steps to catch him, keep him, and beat someone down without getting blood on your shoes.”
“If Sex Doesn’t Do It, You’re Screwed: 528 Sex Positions to Ensure You Can Keep the Man You Fought For!” (Shit, I could publish that on Cosmo Press.)
Or better yet –
“Y’All White Feminists Is Trippin’: The Definitive Guide to Black Dating, written by actual black folks.”
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 11:18 am ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
how about my simple suggestions to all desperate single people:
-STOP READING THESE STUPID BOOKS
-STOP DATING A SEXIST MORON
-STOP LETTING OTHERS TELL YOU HOW DATING, LOVE AND RELATIONSHIPS WORK
-STOP CONFUSING “LOVE” AND “LUST” TOGETHER
-IF A MAN TREATS YOU LIKE CRAP, DUMP HIS ASS!
-IF YOU’RE UNHAPPY BEING SINGLE, THEN SOMETHING’S WRONG WITH YOU!
god, people are fucking pathetic.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 11:21 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
>“Y’All White Feminists Is Trippin’: The Definitive Guide to Black Dating, written by actual black folks.”
I’d buy that, in hardback even!
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 11:50 am ¶
Angel H. wrote:
OH, HELLZ YES!!
Hey, Carmen and Latoya! This is a great idea for Book #2!
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 12:50 pm ¶
Adriella wrote:
“Y’All White Feminists Is Trippin’: The Definitive Guide to Black Dating, written by actual black folks.”
Amen!
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 12:54 pm ¶
Prometheus wrote:
I have to agree with Deaf Femin. Punk. I think what you see in the first main comment referenced is a real person’s experience with the African American experience. There are some good points in there, but I agree that many times that African American women do tend to fall by the wayside in Feminist discussions.
The sad part is that insecure women tend to like men who treat them like shit. Likewise, insecure men tendFrankly, I’m tired of hearing the idea that there are no good Black men etc etc, I think it’s turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 1:44 pm ¶
DiosaNegra1967 wrote:
“The Pimpcess Rules: The Secrets of Dating from Your Favorite Rappers! You Too Can be Da Baddest Bitch!”
“Tell that raggedy bitch to back off your man! 45 steps to catch him, keep him, and beat someone down without getting blood on your shoes.”
….dang! i even got a visual from that! LOL i’ve yet to beat anyone down WITHOUT messin’ up my boots! dammit!
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 2:07 pm ¶
Juan wrote:
I really need to do something about my addiction to clicking on links. Evening though that was how I first found this site, but the shit on feministing? *frustrated angry babbling* It’s like some people can’t even look at a picture of Black people or even look at the word without turning shit for brains. GUH
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 2:12 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
@ Def Feminist Punk:
As a guy that has ended up in the “friend zone” more than once, I’ve passed this advice along to MANY black ladies that got humped and dumped (only to be on the booty-call merry-go-round) by either:
a) the player
b) the baller
c) the money man with the nice car
d) Dexter St. Jock
e) All of the above
The dude that wrote this book is a loon. And women that date cats that buy into that book are loons, too. I’ve seen this from both angles, actually, right here in the DC Metro.
On one hand, you’ve got some ladies here that are single and pissed about it, so they wait for a decent chap to speak to them, and they burn him like mesquite just for excusing himself for reaching for the cocktail napkins and no, honey, I’m not interested in you. But with that attitude, we can see why you’re holding down the bar like Shaq in the low post.
On the other hand, there are ladies that are OK with being single and are waiting for that right guy to appear or be discovered. Problem is, these ladies don’t wear a uniform. You’ve got to experience some of them to find out where they stand. Same with the ladies: guys like having sex or, at worst, ogling booties and boobies. You KNOW this going in. Question is, is the guy you’re having that first dance with at the hip-hop club willing to wait for you to decide where you want the relationship to go (quickie on the couch, movie-dinner-convo-Courvoisier-mo’betta-onthecouch, or peck-on-the-cheek-let’s-be-peeps, or thisdahubbyrighthere) or will he start breathing hard and grinding on your leg while he sweats through his fake Versace shirt?
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 2:15 pm ¶
Kanani wrote:
LaToya,
Yes, you must write this book! I’m already thinking about your appearance on Oprah!
Though I think in order to reach a larger demographic and increase your sales, you might consider:
“Trippin: The Definitive Guide To Dating For Everyone (Including White Feminists) By Actual Black Folks”
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 2:18 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:
See, here’s my favorite book title out of the thread so far, y’all–Learn to Fall Back Sometimes: How to Be an Anti-Racist Ally.
And, no, there will be no author photos in Jamiroquai hats.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 3:07 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
GREAT POST!!!
Laughing my ass off about the Pick Up Artist (what a douche!), “Trippin’” by “actual black folks,” and the “white” that does before woman is silent. Like the “t” in ballet! Bwahahahahaha!
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 3:39 pm ¶
Winn wrote:
Latoya, you have got some work to do. “Y’All White Feminists Is Trippin’: The Definitive Guide to Black Dating, written by actual black folks” is just waiting to be written. I will be first in line at the book signing. Just please don’t let this get co-opted by Hollywood. Next thing you know, this thing will be Wayanized or Perryfied beyond recognition, and we’ll just be shaking our heads, muttering “Damn!” under our breaths in embarrassment…again.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 5:00 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
@Winn,
LOL! You said “Perryfied” and “Wayanized.” I’ve tried to avoid Tyler Perry movies, but then I realized: just because he’s able to get a movie done doesn’t necessarily mean he speaks for me or “us” or my family, etc. So I watch and enjoy the flicks without worry. He is, however, playing on a tired old stereotype of the old, fat, sassy black Sapphire stock character and then gives it the ol’ Flip Wilson by playing it in drag.
That’s why sportswriters like Bill Simmons of ESPN says stuff like why black men dressing up as women is so funny while ignoring “The Kids in the Hall,” “Benny Hill” and other Brit humor that does the exact same thing. MEN in drag is funny. What some white folks (men, in particular) do is bring the mentality that black men in drag represent a latent homosexuality to black men without realizing that latent homesexuality is present in white men, too.
As for Wayanization, I saw him on “The Black List” and honestly, if his comedy is buffoonery, then what exactly IS Jim Carrey talking out of his butt? Mainstream society and black folks’ shame at being played as biological mysteries/objects of wanton fetish lust/etc. is why we call it buffoonery or minstrel shows/blackface. Nobody watches Jim Carrey and then sees a white co-worker and then assumes he can make his face contort into “The Mask.” Hopefully, the white guy looking at job application doesn’t see “Fly Guy” from “I’m Gonna Git You Sucka” when deciding if I get a job or not…..
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 5:27 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
The first quotes given by Latoya are not aptly phrased, but I (white) have heard an over-30 highly eligible black woman complain about the selection of available marriage-quality, college-educated, reasonably employed black men – scarce, apparently, at least locally, perhaps because most of them have married already. My take on this is that it is an exaggerated example of the situation facing educated white women over 30 not willing to “marry down” in terms of educational or professional status (the assumption that a man of lower educational or economic status than the woman will not be happy in the marriage). One anecdote does not make a study.
In any social situation where the gender ratio is seriously skewed, eg, the state engineering school, the scarce gender has a certain degree of dating power. If you look at overall demographics, black men have that potential power over black women who desire black men. The rule of thumb is that there will be some jerky (scarce gender) and some doormat (abundant gender) in these situations. Unfortunately, occasionally one of these people gets a publishing contract.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 6:01 pm ¶
kerrita k. wrote:
am i crazy or are there more women responding to this post than men? do men read these books? or even feel like they need these books to ’snare’ women? the presumptions about black male/female sexual and gender relations are nuts – and like we WOC need someone to explain feminism to us. like white women own feminism – and the middle class enlightenment it apparently springs from. *shudder* all around.
-kerrita k.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 6:33 pm ¶
Restructure! wrote:
This is why I stopped reading Feministing.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 8:10 pm ¶
lunanoire wrote:
@ DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!!
regarding the last statement, i think that a desperate, unhappy single person may read these books because they think something is wrong with them. I assume that you meant that if a person is unhappy, it is his/her responsibility to change it (please correct me if I’m wrong).
I don’t see what’s so bad about wanting to be in a relationship. Aren’t humans social beings? Isn’t it a common occurrence? I think there are things a person learns about him/herself and about relationships that come from experience. Then again, these are just ideas as I have never had a relationship.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶
Kandee wrote:
My vote is for “Y’All White Feminists Is Trippin’: The Definitive Guide to Black Dating, written by actual black folks.”
@Deaf Feminist Punk – you need to write the forward!
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 9:48 pm ¶
browne wrote:
Latoya when I went to Feministing I saw that post and thought the same thing. The same thing being, “You never really bring up race and this is what you use to discuss it?”
And that book isn’t about race or the oppression of black women by black men, but about a sexist jerk and that goes across ethnic lines (as you did a great job at demonstrating so no need for me to go into examples.) This black men are MORE sexist and black women tolerate it reminds me of the all Asians get ostracized for dating outside their community. It’s that brand of racism, which I guess would be the positive racism that people pull out when they are only trying to help.
The kind of help that makes you think, “If this is what you call help, then how would you hurt me?”
Can feminism ever get over it’s racism, well they would argue that this very racist post wasn’t racist (even if the sad person who did write it was black or another POC, I don’t know, but racism has nothing to do with the race of the person doing it) and if you refuse to admit you have a problem. You are doomed to die in the street with a bottle of Thunderbird in your left hand and a lotto scratcher in your right.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 9:49 pm ¶
InJM wrote:
@27
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought of Jamiroquai when they saw that hat.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 10:24 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:
If that Mystery guy came up to me in a club, I’d simply laugh hysterically in his face and turn around. If you pick up a dictionary, his picture would be under “World’s Biggest Douchebag.” He makes me want to puke.
In regards to the topic, I know that a lot of white feminists forget race and don’t take it into factors, and/or make assumptions and ignorant comments. I’ve been guilty of it in the past.
And I think that Carmen said it perfectly: “It’s so true that the racial stereotyping serves as a distraction from discussing sexism.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 1:58 am ¶
DiosaNegra1967 wrote:
phil deeze: you are made of awesome! you mentioned dexter st. jock AND benny hill in the same thread…..
damn!
uhmm…..didn’t that guy “mystery” have a reality show where he had 10 guys “learn” how to pick up women? i coulda sworn i saw him on TV….which is just one of the many reasons i’ve since turned it off…..
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:07 am ¶
Crystal wrote:
Latoya, my love for you grows. I too read the article at Feministing, but I only made it through the first few of the stupid-ass comments. I second your sigh. Thank you so much for breaking it down today! And in a way that has brought the smile back to my face. Thank you, thank you.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:48 am ¶
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
@lunanoire:
yes, it’s natural and perfectly normal to WANT to be in a relationship. But people need to learn how to be happy being single, too.
Not everyone is destined to find “that one soulmate.” and some people don’t fall in love til they’re in their 30s, 40s, whatever. It’s different for every person.
So I am saying: peoplel need to learn that it’s OK to be single and still be happy in life.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 10:57 am ¶
lm wrote:
“Paging the white savior – the Negro women need your guidance!”
*smirk*
*stifles raucous unladylike laughter*
(I’ll say something more erudite later; I just had to let LP know how much I felt that)
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 4:09 pm ¶
Clnmike wrote:
“am i crazy or are there more women responding to this post than men? do men read these books? ”
No we do not, in fact most men and the brothas in particular tend to ignore any book that tells you how to get keep or please a woman.
We prefer trial by fire.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 5:21 pm ¶
queenofsheba wrote:
Seriously though, I’ve noticed some white feminists use the category/stereotype of “Black men” (and/or other MoCs) to illustrate the worst atttibutes of “men,” thus setting up their arguments of why their (white) feminist movement as the best solution to women’s ills.
Yup. Another example of the stereotype of MoC (with the exception of Asian men) as hypersexual or hypermasculine (where, in many “feminist” discourses, masculine=bad!).
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 8:57 pm ¶
Horserider wrote:
I am also disheartened by the fact that this filth is targeted at black women. I have a feeling that black women generally (but not all, of course) would be more susceptible to these ideas.
I get that black women can be very defensive when others see what they would rather have concealed. I get that black women really dont want to, in addition to everything else they go through, become an object of pity to white women but i really dont see anything amiss with the statement above.
To my understanding the commentor was simply saying that with the precarious relationship situation facing black women (70% of black women, not white or asian women are single) it is a real possibility that black women are being targeted by business savvy people preying on their need for a solution. This is what i got from the quote above, nothing more nothing less. i certainly did not read the above quote as suggesting that this reaction is or will be limited to black people. Reading the above quote (without extra sensitivity) it is clear it contains an assumption that if or when white or asian women experience unprecedented numbers of singleness, their anxieties could be similarly preyed upon by opportunists.
I ask, can a legitimate space be created within general analysis and what is deemed as acceptable discourse, for black women in particular to talk about their specifics without it being perverse. I get that this might not be the main objective of racialicious but do we not think that this knee jerk, defensive approach of, ‘Everyone does it, you do it too and I have proof’, might just be doing black women and men a disservice by shutting them down and not allowing a space to honestly explore how their situation can be different, reversed or even similar.
I would love to pretend that this book is not targeted at black women but i cant pull it off, it is targetted at them and therefore it is not a long stretch that their current dating situation is exploited. its not just about the cover design its also about the fact that Zane, an author who focuses her ‘art’ at black women, is presenting. So yes it is valid to see and explore this one within a ‘black’ context.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 7:14 am ¶
L. wrote:
“Reading the above quote (without extra sensitivity) it is clear it contains an assumption that if or when white or asian women experience unprecedented numbers of singleness, their anxieties could be similarly preyed upon by opportunists.”
Mistake #1: assuming that the “70%”* are suffering in their singleness. I know several black women that are happily dating around (I’m one of them, and I’m not checking for this book by any means). Furthermore, that type of thinking leads many to believe that the “70%”* are desperate. I think that people need to re-examine the idea that when a woman is single, it is because she has no choice and is desperately in search of a relationship (and I’m guessing that in order for the relationship to actually be considered so, it must be a marriage).
* I put the 70% in quotes because thats a really suspect number to me, considering what qualifies as “single” and all the other factors that go into why a person is single.
ps.- If 70% of black women are single, then who makes up the 50% divorce rate of this country? Should we then say that nearly 50% of non-black women can’t sustain a marriage?
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 1:54 pm ¶
lunanoire wrote:
L.-
The 70% rate includes approx. 40% never married and 30% divorced.
The age range for this stat is 15 or 16 (yes, it’s THAT low), and includes queer women, women living w/ a SO, women dating around, etc.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶