
Mirror, Mirror
2011 was a rough year for media conscious black women. It
seems predators, of all shades and of walks of life, joined hands in systematically
profiting from their assaults on black women’s minds and bodies. “Life Always”,
a right to life group, sought to portray black women as the number one killers of black people. And, apparently, black skin and two x chromosomes = will NEVER be married
(gasp) or a failed marriage unless she actually does the “unthinkable”
and weds a white man, which isn't a real solution because – according to Psychology Today and rock solid data from an e-dating site – there just ain’t enough interested
white men to go around. Hard times. Now, with the
good-girl-gone-stinking-rich and Michelle Obama subject to racially
charged insults, even the pinnacle of success offers black women no protection from white racist
contempt. But fear not! Peterson and Leonard ride to the rescue with “Attacking the Black Woman”: a
piece which is to black male “feminism” what Madea is to manners.
Who’s Yo' Daddy?!
What might be humanity’s oldest conquest strategy stays in place not only by the instigating violence, but by a secondary one: turning “victim” responses to ends that serve the oppressor/protectors. And so, in a macro-political sense at least, men `protecting’ women from sexism is something like a fox bravely stepping forth to guard the chicken coop from coyotes.
Petersen and Leonard’s “solidarity” is signaled by their
use of part-time feminist catchwords, like ‘voice’ and ‘silence’; by
referencing requisite tropes: the gaze, the body etc. and quickly name dropping “Jezebel”
and “Mammie”. It makes me wonder if they “got the memo” about Diane Caroll’s
“Julia”, Tatyana Ali’s “Ashley Banks”, Felicia Pearson’s “Snoop”, Kellie William's “Laura Winslow” or the one about public
personas like Lisa Leslie, Jean Grae, Condi Rice, Oprah Winfrey and Tyra Banks? In “Attacking the Black Woman”, the fairer sex can only be tragic objects requiring rescue. I’d think it all very fox-like, if not for Petersen and Leonard’s ham-fistedness. I mean, the article’s url is: http://loop21.com/life/protecting-black-womans-body-when-no-else-will.
One ought not make too much of this though. It must be a
mislabeling. Anyone who’d pay a bodyguard to watch an assailant kick his/her
ass then rattle off a dull post-beatdown analysis should hire these two. “Attacking
the Black Woman” did nothing to protect no one but falls into a womanist clap-trap where Leonard
and Petersen “play knight”, eschew critical engagement, alternate readings or meaningfully
working into their analyses the uncomfortable implications of black women’s choices
and agency. Yet, women are none too
gently reminded of the omnipresence of social violence - and who the real
protectors are. “Attacking the Black Woman” benefited from and reproduced the
interfaces and relations that serve the “twisted ideology” that Petersen and
Leonard supposedly defend “the black
woman” against.
In this, I’d like to think that Petersen and Leonard were
simply ignorant. But they admit that ass-fixation diverted from concerns about food
justice, "In calling her a hypocrite, claiming that her body precludes her from having a voice, the Rep's rhetoric policies Michelle Obama's activities and her desire to challenge the ways in which access to quality and healthy food is a fundamental issue". Okay. But,
do they return to that fundamental issue – or give it any attention? Nope. It’s all protecting asses.
Fact is, it’s easier to mine a preoccupation with social
(i.e., white, male) acceptance and play ju-ju master in our fetishization of status
(i.e., whiteness, maleness), than to illustrate the necessity of co-operative,
issue-focused, results-based approaches to the complex social factors that impact
our lives. Predictably, “Attacking the Black Woman” ends with the go
nowhere-forever “kumbyaism” of : "When congressional representative and magazine editors have yet to get the "Humanity: Black Women Have it Too" memo, the war for gender and racial equality seems much too far from being over". If anyone took Debra Dickerson’s End
of Blackness seriously, we should by now know that “gaining equality by
attacking ___ isms” is a fool’s errand; a mis-orientation that does little but
re-create – or at least leave ample space for – white ascendancy. And, well, poodle-faking reynards
too.
Rear-View

When the voice of Bootylicious-ness herself dons
blackface and poses in L’Offciel Paris Magazine to “celebrate her African roots”, what
exactly is she saying?
Or what’s the message
when Naomi Campbell poses a top a chocolate bunny then later tries to use racial
outrage to rally the soldiers against Cadbury when in one of their ads she is “honorifically”
referred to as “dark chocolate”?
And, did Petersen
and Leonard read the communiqués that were the lives of women as diverse as Josephine Baker, Zora
Neale “signed your pickaninny” Hurston and some enslaved plantation mistresses? They too have used “sexualized, racialized” images to personal
advantage and fulfillment. In fact, even for feminists, these racialized gender
tropes, these reifications of former social-political strategies, are very much
part of what “authentic blackness” is about. On Mark Anthony Neal's "Left of Black", Hip-Hop feminist Joan Morgan, for example, talked about dreaming of
being like the ‘Lady in Orange’.

When a Colored Girl’s Best Intentions…Aren’t Really Intentions

Morgan doesn’t here define feminist takes on major social
issues or outline what “clear feminist issues” are. One would think that that respecting
a woman’s voice and agency is “clearly feminist issue” and “asking”
illustrative of that.
Let’s be frank. More times, “Men taking initiative” does
weird things to a woman’s right to choose. It got us the placating neo-chivalry
of “Attacking the Black Woman” and the runaway success of a certain cross-dressing man who Morgan and Sofia Quintero one day dressed down for taking the wrong kind of initiative: “If I had one
request for Tyler Perry it’s that if he finds the narratives of black women so
compelling then I would much prefer that he uses his access and male privilege
to enable black women to tell those stories” Quintero says. Morgan interjects to exclaim
“that’s Black Male feminism!”. At about 34 minutes in, she grows more
impassioned, “Historically as women of colour, our voice is all we have our
voice and our ability to articulate our stories has been all that we’ve had. Go
back to Phyllis Wheatley a slave woman her ability to read and to right poetry
at times is all we have. When you take that from us, when you don’t pull us
through doors that your male privilege allows you to walk through, you are
shutting us down in ways that are not only bad for one generation of
filmmakers, but… Ntzoke Shange’s work inspired me to write. So I don’t know
that a young person – back to your first question – goes to this particular
adaptation of for colored girls and says `wow. I want to be a woman who writes’
I want to be a woman who tells our stories. I think for that to be lost is
terrible.”

Can't Black Male “Feminism” Critique “Feminism”?
Black male `feminism’ - if I dare define it for myself – isn’t
just solidarity with women (i.e., “seeing that your ish is my ish”) but a
recognition of women’s capability and autonomy. It is eschewing propriety attitudes toward women, checking the ways that his identity and status demands impinge on women’s freedoms. Being an ally doesn't mean toddishly defending honor as Petersen and Leonard do, but by questioning
non-gender specific hegemonic processes. Even – and especially - those embedded
in “womanist” dialogues. These sensibilities are further developed and honed by listening – critically of course -
to women’s stories, realizing that it is better for all concerned if those
stories were in fact “theirs” to control.
Perry’s nod to and embrace of Black
women might’ve at first seemed affectionate – empathetic even. But it quickly
grew gripping as he fascinates them with a trauma-trolling
pastiche of race-gender pride, scandal, “justified” cruelties, religiosity and
‘tough love’ conservativism, an early iteration of the winsome, simpering “womanism” that infects neo-chivalric works like "Attacking the Black Woman". Similarly, as a group, anti-oppression academics do more than their bit
to reorganize and reproduce the oppressions they “attack”. So-called "social justice movements" devote more of their resources to centralizing
hegemony than do mainstream media. That - more than racially, sexually-charged
name-calling – warrants
our concern. In favoring
an “endless war” to the exclusion of intra-group co-operation that subverts the “mainstream” and creates alternatives, our responses – whether feminized or
masculinised – help “twisted ideologies” spin
ever faster; leaving their
victims rudderless,
forever fixing their sails to catch their hegemonic wind. Be it hot air or a brain fart.
What genius.
What genius.
Now. With all conflicts over “the
black woman’s body” – using it to get attention or protecting from the wrong
kinds of attention – who has bothered to concern themselves with how well women
nourish each other?
No comments:
Post a Comment