Trackbacks & Pings

1. Palin’s Going Rogue | Xenia Institute on 12 Nov 2009 at 1:55 pm

   [...] Black Men in the Age of Obama: 4 Things CNN Got Wrong | Racialicious [...]

Comments

1. atlasien wrote:

   Eddie Long is such a sleazebag.

   A friend of mine told me some stories she heard of what goes on at his New Birth megalomaniacalchurch. He’s conducted anti-gay campaigns to try and root out closeted gay men who are active in the church. He makes the church members (especially women of course) publicly bow and scrape and apologize to him for any sort of imagined fault.

   He’s even spreading his special brand of patriarchal feudalistic narcissism around the world… I recently read about a church in New Zealand where the bishop, Brian Tamaki, is Eddie Long’s “spiritual son”… He had 700 men sign covenants/contracts saying that Tamaki is their spiritual father. Which means, among a gazillion other things, that they are never allowed to interrupt him, criticize him and have to stand when he or his wife enters the room.

   Eddie Long will sometimes say mealy-mouthed, fake-tolerant things about the “gay lifestyle” but that’s only because he knows there are a lot of gay men in Atlanta, and he doesn’t want to entirely cut off their flow of money to him.

   Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 10:13 am ¶

2. Jus' Plain Ol Me wrote:

   “This phrase “gay lifestyle” is inaccurate and offensive. It implies people willfully choose to live a different way.”

   Maybe it is because I am “on the outside looking in” but you have completely lost me on that one. When did the word “lifestyle” become a bad word or “dog whistle” speak that was intended to be negative? It’s not like that used some generic nebulous term like “alternative lifestyle.”

   I guess I am viewing the term “lifestyle” from a cultural perspective. For example, there may be certain cultural norms or traditions in the Black, Asian or Hispanic communities (food, music, dance, worship, familial structure and hierarchy, celebrations of certain events) that might be accurately described as being a part of the Black, Asian or Hispanic lifestyle or culture. (Of course, not all Blacks, Asians or Hispanics follow these traditions.) I’m just not sure I would be offended if someone referred to some of these traditions as a “lifestyle.”

   Couldn’t we argue that there is a lifestyle (or culture) applicable to the LGBT community. I would argue that almost any group that could be carved out from others in any capacity shares a certain culture or lifestyle without even accounting for whether those individuals chose that lot in life. (Consider: various religions cultures, a culture among the disabled or the deaf, a culture or lifestyle that exists with lower socio-economic individuals.)

   How does the word “lifestyle” imply that being gay is a choice any more than “Hispanic lifestyle” or “Southern lifestyle” for someone Hispanic or born and bred in the South?

   It seems that the author of the post limits the panelists’ use of the word “lifestyle” to serve as a stand-in for nothing more than “lifestyle = homosexual sex.”

   (I realize I am risking being called a unintelligent self-hater or something for not getting the critique of the word lifestyle, but I am trying to understand. I also realize that I didn’t watch the program at issue, so many they said the phrase in a certain tone that changes this issue.)

   Mod Note - Because saying there is a “lifestyle” attached to race, sexual orientation, etc is a sure way to perpetuate stereotypes. See the links in my response at #7 for more info. – LDP

   Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 10:26 am ¶

3. Celeste wrote:

   *big huge eyeroll* they actually talking about “down low”?! Way to distract away from the actual problem of heterosexual HIV transmission, I wonder how many more women will get infected because of this misinformation.
   AA’s should be supporting the rights of LGBTQ to live openly, not scapegoating them! 1. Because it’s right and 2. Because it would decrease whatever small % of HIC that’s spread by “down low” activity.

   Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 10:41 am ¶

4. yassibassu wrote:

   yeah, not surprised in the least from CNN.

   Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 10:50 am ¶

5. Ameth wrote:

   I couldnt agree more with you,black people are confused about how to accept those who are different than the norm “black folks”. Including homosexuality, and especially homosexuality in the church. Many black Christians takes everything literally about what the Bible says about homosexuality in the old testament. But the truth is, JESUS changed all of that. Because JESUS came to save the world, and not to destroy it. The new testament says, that GOD loves all of us in spite of our sins. None of us is perfect. And GOD does not distinguish any sin as being worse than another sin. It’s human nature to compare sin.

   thanks for posting !

   Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 10:52 am ¶

6. Eva wrote:

   I cannot believe they’re still talking about the “down low.” It’s a myth folks. Black men are NOT on the dl any more than white or Hispanic men are. CNN should get their heads out of the sand and talk to real people. I first heard about “down low” in the early 90’s and it wasn’t about black men.

   Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 11:10 am ¶

7. Seattle Slim wrote:

   @Ameth,

   True but that can be a bit problematic only because we are supposed to be working on ourselves to be stonger and at some point overcome that sin. We are not supposed to be perfect, but we are supposed to be actively engaging in purging that sin from ourselves, therein lies our spiritual maturity. So Gays, would have to be working on not being gay anymore.

   I may not agree with homosexuality, but they are people like me, and they sin like me and God loves me just like He loves them. I’m actually pleased that Ref. 71 was passed up here, and am glad that they can, just like me, have the same rights I am entitled to.

   I am irritated that the are doing the whole “down low” is why we have HIV rates that are through the roof thing. Way to obfuscate!

   Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 11:39 am ¶

8. Political Pete wrote:

   Brother J,

   This comment it written in love man. I appreciate your criticism of the show, but from the title of the article I thought it would be broader. There were many things that were not discussed during the show, but 3/4 of your critiques were about homosexuality or the way it was discussed.

   Just a piece of advice, you lose credibility when you write random ambiguous ad hominem attacks like “I know there’s speculation about at least one brother on that stage. But he’s not out so, it doesn’t count.”

   Given the serious tone of your article, that simply was not a good fit. Not to mention that the framing of homosexuality as a “lifestyle” is still a subjective opinion. There are some who chose the lifestyle, but that doesn’t make the discussion about them have less merit.

   When you make absolute statements like “homosexuality is not a choice,” you tacitly agree that if it is a choice, it is wrong.

   Brother there are PLENTY of resources discussing black male issues. PLENTY. I’m not sure what outlets you are searching, but there is a plethora of media, magazines, etc speaking directly to black male issues.

   Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 11:54 am ¶

9. honeybrown1976 wrote:

   Eva, men on the “down low” is not a myth. Being on the down low has nothing to do with race, as there are men of all races practicing unsafe sex with multiple partners.

   Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 12:28 pm ¶

10. oddrid wrote:

    Great post, great points. Thanks jbrotherlove!

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 12:39 pm ¶

11. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Ok, general statement.

    There are gay POCs. If you cannot understand there are gay POCs, then this is not the blog for you. So I am banning anyone who comes with the dumb shit on this one.

    Secondly, “the down low” and “the gay lifestyle” are phrases that have been historically used to scapegoat and denigrate the GLBTQ community. Though some members of the community do refer to “the life,” it is often used outside of the community to connote a sinful, hedonistic way of living. See here:

    http://www.gaylifestyle.info/

    In reference to the down low, it has also been used to propagate harmful myths about same gender loving men and designations about sexuality, often linked to the growing AIDS crisis.

    I highly recommend Keith Boykin’s Beyond the Down Low:
    http://bit.ly/1UYHXk

    And also these interviews with him:

    http://gothamist.com/2005/06/08/keith_boykin_author_beyond_the_down_low.php
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4537252

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 12:53 pm ¶

12. atlasien wrote:

    Actually, even using the phrase “Southern lifestyle” is a bit iffy. First, it’s often used in a very elitist way by non-Southerners to look down on Southerners for being lazy, racist and poor. Second, if it’s not used in that sense, you need to specify what kind of Southerners — race? Class? Urban? Rural? — and if you don’t, some kind of Southerner is going to disagree strongly with whatever the “Southern lifestyle” is defined as. You can make a few generalities about Southern values, e.g. hospitality, but beyond that, using the word “lifestyle” isn’t warranted.

    “Lifestyle” implies that all members of the group live their lives in very similar ways, go to the same events, schedule their activities in similar ways. It’s meant for occupations or very closely knit groups. There’s a bartender lifestyle, a rock’n'roll lifestyle, a jetsetting celebrity lifestyle, an Amish lifestyle (but not, say, a “Christian” lifestyle). If you use lifestyle about a group that doesn’t fit together like that, you’re flattening out all the differences within the group. The “gay lifestyle” is always used to flatten out class differences among gay people, most often in homophobic ways to encourage straight people to resent gay people for supposedly having all this money that they irresponsibly spend on having fun and throwing fabulous parties unlike all the hard-working family-sacrificing responsible straight people.

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 1:29 pm ¶

13. Cindy wrote:

    The term gay lifestyle has held a negative connotation for at least 20 years. It is not an inside community term but a derogatory descriptive utilize by anti-gay establishment. That’s why it is offensive.

    Using the “down-low” descriptive to explain HIV rates is a smoke screen diversion. Blaming 10% of the population for 100% of the problem doesn’t address the real problem. HIV rates are caused by unprotected sex…regardless of the partner parings. It’s time for the discussion to venture away from the down-low excuse and focus on real prevention.

    Every facet of the community needs out gay African American voices . It is necessary for the black community, the community at large and within the gay community, which has its own problems with racism.

    Because I missed the airing of the program I cannot comment on why jbrotherlove focused on issues for black LBGTQ as his 3 of the 4 negatives. I admit to being surprised by it.

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 1:39 pm ¶

14. 9jah wrote:

    My reservation with these panels is that they tend to be highly opinionative and cursory. We need a greater academic approach to issues in the black community and save the superficial rhetoric. Enough with the more “black fathers”, “black mentors” blah blah. Also, the racial narrative muddles the issue. We need to figure out what is socioeconomic, regional etc. Where these things interface, we need to determine the greatest causal factors and devise solutions.

    Is there something about black fathers’ melanin that compels them to up and run more than anyone else (assuming this is even the case)?. Of course not. Instead are prevalent mental health issues more at play? excessive drug culture? lack of proper education? I really like Oprah’s emphasis on education as The Way. It is a little simplistic but works as an overriding ideology. She focuses mostly on young ladies though.

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶

15. jen wrote:

    @justplainolme
    I think it’s helpful to illustrate how ‘othering’ ‘the gay lifestyle’ is when you use those to describe normative, dominant, hegemonic identities like ‘the white lifestyle’ or as previously added, ‘the heterosexual lifestyle’. That cracks me up to think about because Whiteness, compulsory heterosexuality, is not marginal or minority in terms of number and power and that’s what terming something as ‘a lifestyle’ does- it constitutes whatever it is describing as exotic or subordinate, different or abnormal. Its constructs a fictional location: a White heternormative socio-economically priviledged first world american citizen identity as the default through relationally constructing what is Not the typical representation or norm.

    I think ‘lifestyle’ is often claimed as a term of empowerment among subcultural communities- aka Punks who claim of their appearance to outsiders “this aint no costume, this is A WAY OF LIFE”
    !!!
    To which I obviously feel kinship, but perhaps more thought should be devoted to the ways in which subcultural members occupy and organize themselves with and around ideas of marginalization and resistance?

    And lastly, I think ideas of free will, choice, and ‘chosen identities’ are only inserted into these discussion to effectively curtail any productive outcome because we can sit here forever locked in debates about how what _ and _ determines our existence and how we came to ‘choose’ our identities blah blah blah that does not address our placement with a certain historical moment, certain geography, social location and how experiences and discourse constitute us…. this could go on!

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 4:07 pm ¶

16. Tomás wrote:

    I found the most tragic part of this to be the inability of our present generation to envision Black empowerment and progress outside of the heterosexist norm of the “Black family.” The fixation on “Black men” is a concomitant of this framework. These fall-backs have histories to them, to be sure (the purposeful esmasculation of Jim Crow, for example, based as it was on the fear of Black male sexuality). But as Audrey Lorde said a generation ago, “the master’s tools will not dismantle the master’s house.” Progress will come when we stop viewing the future from the narrow dictates of the past.

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 4:41 pm ¶

17. urban Suburbinite wrote:

    “as there are men of all races practicing unsafe sex with multiple partners.”

    Mostly with women.

    “HIV rates are caused by unprotected sex…regardless of the partner parings.”

    Cosign.

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 5:03 pm ¶

18. jbrotherlove wrote:

    Thanks to all for the comments and conversation.

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 6:05 pm ¶

19. jbrotherlove wrote:

    @Political Pete (and others): I purposely wrote about the gay angle of the CNN special because black lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer issues are what I (mostly) write about. The title is “4 Things CNN Got Wrong”; not “ALL Things CNN Got Wrong”.

    I agree the “speculation” line looks out of place here. But on my blog (from where the post originates), my readers had already pointed out at least one (closeted) gay man onstage. My comment was for them. Also, it’s not an “attack” if it’s true.

    Lastly, when I wrote the post, I couldn’t think of any publications dedicated to black mens issues. I’d be happy to be wrong. If you know of “PLENTY of resources discussing black male issues”, please list some (other than blogs).

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 6:12 pm ¶

20. ashlynn wrote:

    Ah, the down low.

    IMO, anyone who is not being open, upfront, and honest about their sexual history with their partners is on the down low. So it’s about time that we nip this idea of gay black men creeping and infecting helpless women (who certainly make many choices in regards to their sex lives as well) in the bud.

    Definitely cosign the gay is not a lifestyle movement here. As a member of the LGBT community, I resent being told that I CHOSE a life of being marginalized and stereotyped and denied civil rights.

    Also, who is the man wearing jeans and sneakers? I always feel uncomfortable for the one person who has to sit on a panel in casual clothing; it’s as if they are required to be the token hood dude who has to represent the whole of “urban” culture. I didn’t watch the show, however, so hopefully I’m wrong on that one.

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 6:23 pm ¶

21. Montclair Mommy wrote:

    @ Political Pete: just to add to what jbrotherlove said in response, Racialicious just had an excerpt posted last week about the topics that writers choose to write about and how not choosing those topics that speak to them most clearly (ie: avoiding talking about LBGTQ issues as a gay man) is a form of “covering”. It was really interesting and I recommend looking for it. As for the “gay lifestyle” comments…I agree with you in that people should be able to CHOOSE to love a same-sex partner (if that is what you are saying) without feeling society’s judgments. But the fact of the matter is that for most people it is not a choice. IMHO, I do think that a person should be able to choose a partner based upon attributes other than gender identity if gender identity is not important to him/her/zir. HOWEVER many people (myself included), LBGTQ or S, are born with an attraction to one sex or the other. The term “gay lifestyle” is often used by the Religious Right to infer that it is a way of living that is chosen by the person–inferring that it has nothing at all to do with love.

    @ Jbrotherlove: loved the article. Agreed that calling someone closeted is not an attack–hey, its only an “attack” if you think being LBGTQ is a negative thing…and its not sooo

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 7:09 pm ¶

22. joe wrote:

    Anyone capable of thinking independently would have realized a long time ago that the entire Down Low Boogeyman was a media creation designed to sell books and generate ratings. It only made sense as a cause of the HIV epidemic in black women if black men were the only men in America engaging in that type of sexual deception. There are countless white men who are married with families and having sex with men secretly. Unfortunately, there are many people, both in and out of the media, who helped to spread this misinformation. Now that the CDC has studied the issue and discovered that men having sex with men accounts for only a tiny percentage of black women with HIV, it is too late to re-educate many people. The vast majority of African-American women infected with HIV were exposed through needle sharing and sex with an IV drug user.

    Posted 11 Nov 2009 at 9:24 pm ¶

23. Orville wrote:

    Well this is interesting, this down low bullshit is tired. There are gay men of many races that are in the closet that sleep with men. The term down low I feel is antiquated. I think the term men that have sex with men is a better word.
    I also notice that the segment is negative.

    There are OUT gay black men in America. E Lynn Harris just passed away this year but he’s a black gay male writer he’s one of America’s top selling authors!

    Gay black men do have a exist the dilemma is the media CHOSES to IGNORE black gay men that’s the problem!

    Hello, why didn’t Don talk to the people behind the black gay TV show Noah’s Arc?
    The Noah’s Arc movie was a huge success last year.
    Why was there no discussion of the hard work of black gay male artists and activists? No discussion about Noah’s Arc America’s first black gay TV show which showed black gay male love?

    because according to many readers on my blog they say Don Lemon is gay! I know Don is “supposed” to be “neutral” since he is an anchor for CNN but according to the readers on my blog he will well known within the African American LGBT community.

    Posted 12 Nov 2009 at 1:07 am ¶

24. Kjen wrote:

    @men on the down low being the cause of spread of AIDS in black women. I think this myth won’t die because it’s still comforting. It marries past prejudices with modern faux science. And it provides an easily evaded bogey man as in “girl, as long as you don’t screw a gay man, you’re safe!”
    But if the majority of new cases are being spread by heterosexual contacts, then the issue becomes much thornier and seemingly impossible – changing our whole notion of manhood. In a lot of circles, people still define manhood in a traditional manner. Men make the money and men need to have sex. Lots of it.
    Sure its said that men should be monogamous, but its understood that underneath that, that a man should be forgiven for his “sexual missteps” because he can’t help himself. Most times, the conversations become about the faults within the woman (what you weren’t doing for him) that caused him to stray. He’s a man after all, and men are meant to be sexual.
    I don’t see this ideal changing. At “best”, once the DL myth loses some more steam, people will turn to placing more responsibility on women – as in “if you ladies, would just stop having sex, you would not be contracting AIDS”.

    Posted 12 Nov 2009 at 10:38 pm ¶

25. c.n.edaw wrote:

    I think the “down low” myth won’t die because it doesn’t really force black women to be better stewards of their bodies and be more selective with sex partners.

    As long as so many black women can blame their poor choices on someone else (i.e. he deceived me into thinking he was straight) then they never truly have to take responsibility for the predicament they find themselves in.

    Not blaming the victim, just that when it comes to STD’s and unplanned pregnancy there’s a lot a women can do to prevent getting either and it often involves personal responsibility whether it be abstinence, carryng your own condoms, or just choosing not to get it on with some man you don’t know a whole lot about.

    Also the down low gay black man also is a convenient scapegoat for the marriage discrepancy in the black community. I can’t get a man because they are gay or gay and pretending to be straight.

    Generally speaking, religious black people use gay people as the scapegoat for a lot of things come to think of it…..

    Posted 14 Nov 2009 at 5:48 pm ¶

Post a Comment