Beyonce Says Big Ego, but Ruth says, “Eat your [damn] eggs, Walter Lee”
So, why is it that every time I talk about black women’s lived experiences feeble-minded always on the black woman’s titty black man hollers in his best tonka truck voice, “We got it hard not black women
?” Wow. My first immediate response is, “Did I say anything negative about the black man?” No. My second response is, “Did I even use the male pronoun in any part of my statement?” No. So, how is it that you, Mr. Beans and Rice eating barefoot and pregnant needy black man, are offended, wounded, and betrayed by my acknowledgement of black women’s stories? You see, Beyonce calls it your big ego. I simply refer to it as your broke-down Napoleonic black male privilege having @$s. I know the tone of this blog seems reminiscent of Erykah Badu’s Tyrone and Beyonce’s Irreplaceable, but my intent is not to lyrically serenade you with all the ills black men have visited upon black women, but to say that I am sick and I am tired of the, “I am black man and the world is on my shoulder boo who who” whine every time I mention anything about black women.
I mean, I can say, “I as a black woman sneezed today,” and the black man would counter, “I have a sinus infection.” I as a black woman could slip and fall and the black man would argue for dear life that he invented the slip then fall movement. I can say, “As black woman I love my vagina,” and the black man would say, “Not as much as I do (hearty John Coffy from the Green Mile’s laugh).” I can say, “I scraped my knee,” and the black man would moan like an old southern Baptist minister, “I am quadriplegic . . . I am so oppressed.” Really, is it that important that you, Mr. I am an Endangered Species, be the center of attention all the damn time? When I go to the bathroom, I have to seriously think about how my brown poop will oppress you. When I sleep at night, I have to think about how my dreams will challenge your manhood and rival your oppression. I am so over, “The world is against me” black man’s dirge. Go sing that song to a group of people who care, people like Tiger Wood’s wife and even they are tired of your big ego.
Well, initially, this week, I had intended to write a scathing critique of Oprah’s show, Half the Sky, where she talked about global oppression of women. And of course for Oprah and her white soccer mom’s audience global oppression of women can only occur in non-westernized countries like India, Burundi, Tanzania, and China. Therefore, the idea that violence can happen to women of color like Jamiesha Corner in her own Chicagoan’s backyard seems to escape her
multi-billion mogul’s mind. In another post, perhaps next week, I will return to what I call Oprah-ism which entails a hearty dose of captain-save-a-negro-and-third world woman-syndrome. However, if you want to read a great commentary about the captain-save-a-negro’s syndrome, please read summer’s Captain Save-a-Negro: A Primer.
So, I was going to write about the Oprah’s show, but then a group of black men on the education for liberation’s list-serve decided that they would challenge the premise of a study guide we created for the movie Precious by saying how the movie oppressed them as black men. Then they proceeded to bombard my personal email account with their foolishness and black man’s dirge. For many days we resisted the desire to respond because these particular groups of black men are fundamentalist in their black male dirge’s beliefs and plus I had more important things to do like eating cereal and tying my shoe.
Well, we eventually responded with a black feminist analysis of the situation and that seems to have ended the assault of emails into my personal email account. However, I am still appalled by the fact that this group of black men felt victimized because we were talking about a movie that features the faces and lived experiences of black women. It’s kind of like Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun where Ruth Younger tells Walter Lee, “Eat your eggs, Walter Lee.” And of course, Walter Lee is offended and begins this black man dirge, “I got me a dream and the woman says eat your eggs . . . Help me now to take a hold in this world somehow . . . I tell you I got to change my life because I’m choking to death and all you say to me is eat these eggs.” 
Yes, black male stroking his third arm melodrama. What Walter Lee fails to see and what the black men on the list-serve do not understand is that eating your eggs and the Precious’ study guide is not about them. It is about the black woman. It is about her-story.
I know there are many interpretations of Ruth’s words, “Eat your eggs,” but I think she was also saying that I have dreams too, but as a black mother and wife I have to get up every morning and fix the eggs. Ruth was telling her-story when she told Walter Lee to eat his eggs and we were telling our story when we created and sent out the study guide for the movie Precious.
Beyonce sings:
It’s too big, it’s too wide
It’s too strong, it won’t fit
It’s too much, it’s too tough
He talk like this ’cause he can back it up
Yeah right, sounds like more black man complaining to me. So, to all the black men out there who have a problem with black women telling their stories, you all can kiss the backside because we will continue to tell our, her, stories. Now what.
tell ’em why you mad, fallon!
tell ’em why you mad, fallon!
ugh. i can’t! (and by that, i mean, the responses to the guide for Precious you were trying to create). i mean…it’s a rant, to be sure. but i think it’s necessary for us dudes to hear…often. we don’t reciprocate…it’s not (generally), “let’s figure out how this negatively impacts black women”…the desire for schools to teach black boys is really about (re)securing a masculinist ideal for community moral “uplift”…
eh. all that to say. i feel you.
ugh. i can’t! (and by that, i mean, the responses to the guide for Precious you were trying to create). i mean…it’s a rant, to be sure. but i think it’s necessary for us dudes to hear…often. we don’t reciprocate…it’s not (generally), “let’s figure out how this negatively impacts black women”…the desire for schools to teach black boys is really about (re)securing a masculinist ideal for community moral “uplift”…
eh. all that to say. i feel you.
“captain-save-a-negro-and-third world woman-syndrome.”
I Love You.
Girl, I dontevenknow you. But this here ^^^^. Wow.
Omg. Omg. I just got goose bumps.
“captain-save-a-negro-and-third world woman-syndrome.”
I Love You.
Girl, I dontevenknow you. But this here ^^^^. Wow.
Omg. Omg. I just got goose bumps.
@Summer,
Sis u know I could of used more expletives . . . lol.
@Ashon,
Thanks. I just get so tired sometimes.
@M.dot,
Thanks so much. I love your blog Model Minority. I am going to add it to my toolbar. Well, I can’t take full credit summer wrote “captain-save-negro” I just added Oprah fascination with “third world” women.
@Summer,
Sis u know I could of used more expletives . . . lol.
@Ashon,
Thanks. I just get so tired sometimes.
@M.dot,
Thanks so much. I love your blog Model Minority. I am going to add it to my toolbar. Well, I can’t take full credit summer wrote “captain-save-negro” I just added Oprah fascination with “third world” women.
Waves @ Summer. Hey Love.
@ Fallon. Where is this Study Guide?
I have been meaning to post an Post Precious discussion w/ Moya, Lex and Ma’ia. I would love to include this study guide. Do you have a link?
~R
Waves @ Summer. Hey Love.
@ Fallon. Where is this Study Guide?
I have been meaning to post an Post Precious discussion w/ Moya, Lex and Ma’ia. I would love to include this study guide. Do you have a link?
~R
Wouldn’t the superior approach to focus on both issues! I agree that black women have great problems in society but are they greater then the problems that face both sets of people. Come on Fallon.
Wouldn’t the superior approach to focus on both issues! I agree that black women have great problems in society but are they greater then the problems that face both sets of people. Come on Fallon.
Whoa @ Joel for exemplifying the exact thing that Fallon is raising! She just said can we talk about black women for once with out someone saying, “Well what about the Black man?” We don’t have to talk about things together for them to be equally important.
falloncalmdown.com?! really? Thanks Joel for proving the point by offering the “superior” approach.
Whoa @ Joel for exemplifying the exact thing that Fallon is raising! She just said can we talk about black women for once with out someone saying, “Well what about the Black man?” We don’t have to talk about things together for them to be equally important.
falloncalmdown.com?! really? Thanks Joel for proving the point by offering the “superior” approach.
“superior” is nothing but a reduction of difference, which is to take a masculinist, male approach to (any) topic. a mess.
“superior” is nothing but a reduction of difference, which is to take a masculinist, male approach to (any) topic. a mess.
Fallon, thanks for this. You make some important points. Sometimes folks gotta prove they’re more oppressed than the next person. Unfortunately, many men do that and, in the process, pick fights with women when sisters make visible their own struggles. It’s a shame.
Peace & Blessings.
Fallon, thanks for this. You make some important points. Sometimes folks gotta prove they’re more oppressed than the next person. Unfortunately, many men do that and, in the process, pick fights with women when sisters make visible their own struggles. It’s a shame.
Peace & Blessings.
I can’t speak to what transpired during the meeting because I was not present and I am still unclear as to why the actions of the black men who were at this meeting are representative of all black men. I am certain there is some logic to the translation, so permit me to feign ignorance concerning that point. On another note, I happen to think I am different in that if you sneezed, I would say “bless you” or offer you a tissue. If you slipped, I would offer you a hand. If you mentioned loving your vagina, I would respond that you have a right to. You also have a right to refuse or be indifferent to such niceties just like you should have a right to a space where you can discuss, articulate and share her-story without being undermined. I guess you also have the right to mock black men if you want but I would like to know what constitutes an appropriate response to the larger issues you raise, of which the Precious study guide is part? Also, I wonder whether the point can be made without mocking…and that question is more rhetorical. Your exegesis is no serenade but “mr rice and beans eatin” sounds a lot like “you must not know bout me…” or “dirge” as you refer to it. Last time I checked, no oppressed group is cornering the market on suffering hence, the comparison of oppression is a useless conversation. To quote the rapper Talib Kweli, it is like “slaves on a slave ship talking about who got the flyest chain.” I am happy to stay in my lane or “eat my eggs” as you suggest. What is interesting about the scene you chose to illustrate your point is Ruth tells Walter Lee to man up in a dignified way. Apparently, that “recipe” is lost on some…now how about them eggs?
I can’t speak to what transpired during the meeting because I was not present and I am still unclear as to why the actions of the black men who were at this meeting are representative of all black men. I am certain there is some logic to the translation, so permit me to feign ignorance concerning that point. On another note, I happen to think I am different in that if you sneezed, I would say “bless you” or offer you a tissue. If you slipped, I would offer you a hand. If you mentioned loving your vagina, I would respond that you have a right to. You also have a right to refuse or be indifferent to such niceties just like you should have a right to a space where you can discuss, articulate and share her-story without being undermined. I guess you also have the right to mock black men if you want but I would like to know what constitutes an appropriate response to the larger issues you raise, of which the Precious study guide is part? Also, I wonder whether the point can be made without mocking…and that question is more rhetorical. Your exegesis is no serenade but “mr rice and beans eatin” sounds a lot like “you must not know bout me…” or “dirge” as you refer to it. Last time I checked, no oppressed group is cornering the market on suffering hence, the comparison of oppression is a useless conversation. To quote the rapper Talib Kweli, it is like “slaves on a slave ship talking about who got the flyest chain.” I am happy to stay in my lane or “eat my eggs” as you suggest. What is interesting about the scene you chose to illustrate your point is Ruth tells Walter Lee to man up in a dignified way. Apparently, that “recipe” is lost on some…now how about them eggs?
@Sunny side up,
First and Foremost, my response is appropriate. Secondly, my blog is satirical meaning I use sarcasm, humor, and wit to shed light on a deeper issue of black male’s privilege. The use of imagery—“sneeze vs. sinus infection” or “scraped knee vs. quadriplegic”—are designed to over exaggerate the point of how black men assume that they should occupy the center of the conversation even when the male pronoun in its many manifestations are not spoken and how black women’s issues are minor and not serious compared to the “burden” the black man carries.
And of course, with this piece I am not saying that all black men are what I like to call “black male oppressed prognosticators” because some black men are not. Some black men understand the need to metaphorically stop speaking so that they can “hear” black women telling her-story.
And you’re right no one group has the lock on oppression. However, I will not disregard the fact that historically and socially black men’s issues—incarceration, homicide (i.e. Chicago black teenage males), drop put rates, estranged fathering—concerns, and dreams like Walter Lee’s take the center of public discourse and communal conversations while issues that shape black women’s lives are silenced because black women automatically occupy the intersection of two marginalized identities—female and black. Meaning, black women issues—reproductive freedom and gender-based violence committed against black women by black men—are silenced. Once again, you are right playing the oppression Olympics is pointless which is what my sarcasm was illuminating, however, to deny that black men’s issues are not prioritized over black women’s issues would be a unfounded historical lie.
Furthermore, you missed the point of Ruth telling Walter Lee to eat his eggs. It was not about telling Walter Lee to as you say “man up in a dignified way.” I could deconstruct the use of “man-up” in reference to this conversation to further prove my point of how we center maleness as the true center, but I digress. Ruth was not simply telling him to be quiet or as you put it “stay in his lane.” Ruth was saying I got up and cooked for my family. In the spirit in which she did it I am not sure. Perhaps she was happy to do it or felt it burdensome, but what we do know is that she made eggs.
As I stated in the piece, Ruth’s egg’s refrain was telling her-story that as a black mother and wife she has responsibilities which include working outside the house and doing domestic unpaid labor like fixing eggs each morning. So when she says, “Eat your eggs, Walter Lee” she is saying, “I have to get up every morning and fix the eggs before I go to work. And the least you can do is eat the eggs before they get cold.” Ruth was telling her story, but Walter Lee could not hear it because he was too busy belittling her and talking about his dreams as a black man.
First and Foremost, my response is appropriate. Secondly, my blog is satirical meaning I use sarcasm, humor, and wit to shed light on a deeper issue of black male’s privilege. The use of imagery—“sneeze vs. sinus infection” or “scraped knee vs. quadriplegic”—are designed to over exaggerate the point of how black men assume that they should occupy the center of the conversation even when the male pronoun in its many manifestations are not spoken and how black women’s issues are minor and not serious compared to the “burden” the black man carries.
And of course, with this piece I am not saying that all black men are what I like to call “black male oppressed prognosticators” because some black men are not. Some black men understand the need to metaphorically stop speaking so that they can “hear” black women telling her-story.
And you’re right no one group has the lock on oppression. However, I will not disregard the fact that historically and socially black men’s issues—incarceration, homicide (i.e. Chicago black teenage males), drop put rates, estranged fathering—concerns, and dreams like Walter Lee’s take the center of public discourse and communal conversations while issues that shape black women’s lives are silenced because black women automatically occupy the intersection of two marginalized identities—female and black. Meaning, black women issues—reproductive freedom and gender-based violence committed against black women by black men—are silenced. Once again, you are right playing the oppression Olympics is pointless which is what my sarcasm was illuminating, however, to deny that black men’s issues are not prioritized over black women’s issues would be a unfounded historical lie.
Furthermore, you missed the point of Ruth telling Walter Lee to eat his eggs. It was not about telling Walter Lee to as you say “man up in a dignified way.” I could deconstruct the use of “man-up” in reference to this conversation to further prove my point of how we center maleness as the true center, but I digress. Ruth was not simply telling him to be quiet or as you put it “stay in his lane.” Ruth was saying I got up and cooked for my family. In the spirit in which she did it I am not sure. Perhaps she was happy to do it or felt it burdensome, but what we do know is that she made eggs.
As I stated in the piece, Ruth’s egg’s refrain was telling her-story that as a black mother and wife she has responsibilities which include working outside the house and doing domestic unpaid labor like fixing eggs each morning. So when she says, “Eat your eggs, Walter Lee” she is saying, “I have to get up every morning and fix the eggs before I go to work. And the least you can do is eat the eggs before they get cold.” Ruth was telling her story, but Walter Lee could not hear it because he was too busy belittling her and talking about his dreams as a black man.
Also, I will say this; the oppressor always wants the oppressed to come before them meek and mild to discuss reconciliation as if both the oppressor and the oppressed are equal. It amazes me how your comment as well as Joel speaks to this tone that we should be more civilized and “appropriate” in our discussion of black male patriarchy. To that I say bah humbug. And if you want an analytical break down of bah humbug that would have to be another blog.
@Sunny side up,
First and Foremost, my response is appropriate. Secondly, my blog is satirical meaning I use sarcasm, humor, and wit to shed light on a deeper issue of black male’s privilege. The use of imagery—“sneeze vs. sinus infection” or “scraped knee vs. quadriplegic”—are designed to over exaggerate the point of how black men assume that they should occupy the center of the conversation even when the male pronoun in its many manifestations are not spoken and how black women’s issues are minor and not serious compared to the “burden” the black man carries.
And of course, with this piece I am not saying that all black men are what I like to call “black male oppressed prognosticators” because some black men are not. Some black men understand the need to metaphorically stop speaking so that they can “hear” black women telling her-story.
And you’re right no one group has the lock on oppression. However, I will not disregard the fact that historically and socially black men’s issues—incarceration, homicide (i.e. Chicago black teenage males), drop put rates, estranged fathering—concerns, and dreams like Walter Lee’s take the center of public discourse and communal conversations while issues that shape black women’s lives are silenced because black women automatically occupy the intersection of two marginalized identities—female and black. Meaning, black women issues—reproductive freedom and gender-based violence committed against black women by black men—are silenced. Once again, you are right playing the oppression Olympics is pointless which is what my sarcasm was illuminating, however, to deny that black men’s issues are not prioritized over black women’s issues would be a unfounded historical lie.
Furthermore, you missed the point of Ruth telling Walter Lee to eat his eggs. It was not about telling Walter Lee to as you say “man up in a dignified way.” I could deconstruct the use of “man-up” in reference to this conversation to further prove my point of how we center maleness as the true center, but I digress. Ruth was not simply telling him to be quiet or as you put it “stay in his lane.” Ruth was saying I got up and cooked for my family. In the spirit in which she did it I am not sure. Perhaps she was happy to do it or felt it burdensome, but what we do know is that she made eggs.
As I stated in the piece, Ruth’s egg’s refrain was telling her-story that as a black mother and wife she has responsibilities which include working outside the house and doing domestic unpaid labor like fixing eggs each morning. So when she says, “Eat your eggs, Walter Lee” she is saying, “I have to get up every morning and fix the eggs before I go to work. And the least you can do is eat the eggs before they get cold.” Ruth was telling her story, but Walter Lee could not hear it because he was too busy belittling her and talking about his dreams as a black man.
First and Foremost, my response is appropriate. Secondly, my blog is satirical meaning I use sarcasm, humor, and wit to shed light on a deeper issue of black male’s privilege. The use of imagery—“sneeze vs. sinus infection” or “scraped knee vs. quadriplegic”—are designed to over exaggerate the point of how black men assume that they should occupy the center of the conversation even when the male pronoun in its many manifestations are not spoken and how black women’s issues are minor and not serious compared to the “burden” the black man carries.
And of course, with this piece I am not saying that all black men are what I like to call “black male oppressed prognosticators” because some black men are not. Some black men understand the need to metaphorically stop speaking so that they can “hear” black women telling her-story.
And you’re right no one group has the lock on oppression. However, I will not disregard the fact that historically and socially black men’s issues—incarceration, homicide (i.e. Chicago black teenage males), drop put rates, estranged fathering—concerns, and dreams like Walter Lee’s take the center of public discourse and communal conversations while issues that shape black women’s lives are silenced because black women automatically occupy the intersection of two marginalized identities—female and black. Meaning, black women issues—reproductive freedom and gender-based violence committed against black women by black men—are silenced. Once again, you are right playing the oppression Olympics is pointless which is what my sarcasm was illuminating, however, to deny that black men’s issues are not prioritized over black women’s issues would be a unfounded historical lie.
Furthermore, you missed the point of Ruth telling Walter Lee to eat his eggs. It was not about telling Walter Lee to as you say “man up in a dignified way.” I could deconstruct the use of “man-up” in reference to this conversation to further prove my point of how we center maleness as the true center, but I digress. Ruth was not simply telling him to be quiet or as you put it “stay in his lane.” Ruth was saying I got up and cooked for my family. In the spirit in which she did it I am not sure. Perhaps she was happy to do it or felt it burdensome, but what we do know is that she made eggs.
As I stated in the piece, Ruth’s egg’s refrain was telling her-story that as a black mother and wife she has responsibilities which include working outside the house and doing domestic unpaid labor like fixing eggs each morning. So when she says, “Eat your eggs, Walter Lee” she is saying, “I have to get up every morning and fix the eggs before I go to work. And the least you can do is eat the eggs before they get cold.” Ruth was telling her story, but Walter Lee could not hear it because he was too busy belittling her and talking about his dreams as a black man.
Also, I will say this; the oppressor always wants the oppressed to come before them meek and mild to discuss reconciliation as if both the oppressor and the oppressed are equal. It amazes me how your comment as well as Joel speaks to this tone that we should be more civilized and “appropriate” in our discussion of black male patriarchy. To that I say bah humbug. And if you want an analytical break down of bah humbug that would have to be another blog.
First and Foremost, my response is appropriate. Secondly, my blog is satirical meaning I use sarcasm, humor, and wit to shed light on a deeper issue of black male’s privilege. The use of imagery—“sneeze vs. sinus infection” or “scraped knee vs. quadriplegic”—are designed to over exaggerate the point of how black men assume that they should occupy the center of the conversation even when the male pronoun in its many manifestations are not spoken and how black women’s issues are minor and not serious compared to the “burden” the black man carries.
And of course, with this piece I am not saying that all black men are what I like to call “black male oppressed prognosticators” because some black men are not. Some black men understand the need to metaphorically stop speaking so that they can “hear” black women telling her-story.
And you’re right no one group has the lock on oppression. However, I will not disregard the fact that historically and socially black men’s issues—incarceration, homicide (i.e. Chicago black teenage males), drop put rates, estranged fathering—concerns, and dreams like Walter Lee’s take the center of public discourse and communal conversations while issues that shape black women’s lives are silenced because black women automatically occupy the intersection of two marginalized identities—female and black. Meaning, black women issues—reproductive freedom and gender-based violence committed against black women by black men—are silenced. Once again, you are right playing the oppression Olympics is pointless which is what my sarcasm was illuminating, however, to deny that black men’s issues are not prioritized over black women’s issues would be a unfounded historical lie.
Furthermore, you missed the point of Ruth telling Walter Lee to eat his eggs. It was not about telling Walter Lee to as you say “man up in a dignified way.” I could deconstruct the use of “man-up” in reference to this conversation to further prove my point of how we center maleness as the true center, but I digress. Ruth was not simply telling him to be quiet or as you put it “stay in his lane.” Ruth was saying I got up and cooked for my family. In the spirit in which she did it I am not sure. Perhaps she was happy to do it or felt it burdensome, but what we do know is that she made eggs.
As I stated in the piece, Ruth’s egg’s refrain was telling her-story that as a black mother and wife she has responsibilities which include working outside the house and doing domestic unpaid labor like fixing eggs each morning. So when she says, “Eat your eggs, Walter Lee” she is saying, “I have to get up every morning and fix the eggs before I go to work. And the least you can do is eat the eggs before they get cold.” Ruth was telling her story, but Walter Lee could not hear it because he was too busy belittling her and talking about his dreams as a black man.
Also, I will say this; the oppressor always wants the oppressed to come before them meek and mild to discuss reconciliation as if both the oppressor and the oppressed are equal. It amazes me how your comment as well as Joel speaks to this tone that we should be more civilized and “appropriate” in our discussion of black male patriarchy. To that I say bah humbug. And if you want an analytical break down of bah humbug that would have to be another blog.
First and Foremost, my response is appropriate. Secondly, my blog is satirical meaning I use sarcasm, humor, and wit to shed light on a deeper issue of black male’s privilege. The use of imagery—“sneeze vs. sinus infection” or “scraped knee vs. quadriplegic”—are designed to over exaggerate the point of how black men assume that they should occupy the center of the conversation even when the male pronoun in its many manifestations are not spoken and how black women’s issues are minor and not serious compared to the “burden” the black man carries.
And of course, with this piece I am not saying that all black men are what I like to call “black male oppressed prognosticators” because some black men are not. Some black men understand the need to metaphorically stop speaking so that they can “hear” black women telling her-story.
And you’re right no one group has the lock on oppression. However, I will not disregard the fact that historically and socially black men’s issues—incarceration, homicide (i.e. Chicago black teenage males), drop put rates, estranged fathering—concerns, and dreams like Walter Lee’s take the center of public discourse and communal conversations while issues that shape black women’s lives are silenced because black women automatically occupy the intersection of two marginalized identities—female and black. Meaning, black women issues—reproductive freedom and gender-based violence committed against black women by black men—are silenced. Once again, you are right playing the oppression Olympics is pointless which is what my sarcasm was illuminating, however, to deny that black men’s issues are not prioritized over black women’s issues would be a unfounded historical lie.
Furthermore, you missed the point of Ruth telling Walter Lee to eat his eggs. It was not about telling Walter Lee to as you say “man up in a dignified way.” I could deconstruct the use of “man-up” in reference to this conversation to further prove my point of how we center maleness as the true center, but I digress. Ruth was not simply telling him to be quiet or as you put it “stay in his lane.” Ruth was saying I got up and cooked for my family. In the spirit in which she did it I am not sure. Perhaps she was happy to do it or felt it burdensome, but what we do know is that she made eggs.
As I stated in the piece, Ruth’s egg’s refrain was telling her-story that as a black mother and wife she has responsibilities which include working outside the house and doing domestic unpaid labor like fixing eggs each morning. So when she says, “Eat your eggs, Walter Lee” she is saying, “I have to get up every morning and fix the eggs before I go to work. And the least you can do is eat the eggs before they get cold.” Ruth was telling her story, but Walter Lee could not hear it because he was too busy belittling her and talking about his dreams as a black man.
Also, I will say this; the oppressor always wants the oppressed to come before them meek and mild to discuss reconciliation as if both the oppressor and the oppressed are equal. It amazes me how your comment as well as Joel speaks to this tone that we should be more civilized and “appropriate” in our discussion of black male patriarchy. To that I say bah humbug. And if you want an analytical break down of bah humbug that would have to be another blog.
I use the word superior to create a perspective shift on the situation. All people have problems and both sides are constantly playing the who is more oppressed game but I believe that both side are equally. If there are 2 problems with a bridge and there are two engineers working on the bridge and both keep highlighting their specific problems then nothing will be solved!
I use the word superior to create a perspective shift on the situation. All people have problems and both sides are constantly playing the who is more oppressed game but I believe that both side are equally. If there are 2 problems with a bridge and there are two engineers working on the bridge and both keep highlighting their specific problems then nothing will be solved!
@fallon: love your reading of that scene in arits.
@joel: employing the word superior in no way creates a perspective shift. it creates/reinforces a hierarchy. yes, all people have problems, but the fact remains that when black women want to talk about their “problems” many black men see that as an affront to their masculinity (or whatever) and feel the need to either 1. assert their own “problems” or 2. say things like “nothing will be solved!” if black women keep bring up their “problems.” isn’t it interesting how all of a sudden nothing will be solved because a black woman wants to talk about a few black men’s attempts at silencing her?
and to continue your problematic analogy, if neither engineer highlights his/her “problems” not only will nothing be solved, but the bridge will fail–epically.
come on, joel.
@fallon: love your reading of that scene in arits.
@joel: employing the word superior in no way creates a perspective shift. it creates/reinforces a hierarchy. yes, all people have problems, but the fact remains that when black women want to talk about their “problems” many black men see that as an affront to their masculinity (or whatever) and feel the need to either 1. assert their own “problems” or 2. say things like “nothing will be solved!” if black women keep bring up their “problems.” isn’t it interesting how all of a sudden nothing will be solved because a black woman wants to talk about a few black men’s attempts at silencing her?
and to continue your problematic analogy, if neither engineer highlights his/her “problems” not only will nothing be solved, but the bridge will fail–epically.
come on, joel.
@Joel,
I agree that playing the oppression Olympics is fruitless. My point as I made in the blog and in my response to Sunny Side Up is that: (1) Often when black women tell their stories black men see it as an attack on them especially when a woman is telling her-story about intra-racial gender-based violence against women committed by black men; (2)Often, there is a gender hierarchy of privileging, listening to, confronting, “mobilizing” for black male issues.
So, you’re right to say arguing over oppression is pointless, but we cannot disregard the fact that black men issues and voices are more readily heard then the voices, issues, and experiences of black women because we live in a socially constructed world that privilege heterosexual-maleness. Does this mean that black men are equal with white men? No, because of the intersection of race and other social identities, but black men do enjoy the fruits of black male patriarchy and of those fruits are that when they speak the “appropriate” hetero-capitalistic-patriarchal black male talk they are listened to over black women.
@Joel,
I agree that playing the oppression Olympics is fruitless. My point as I made in the blog and in my response to Sunny Side Up is that: (1) Often when black women tell their stories black men see it as an attack on them especially when a woman is telling her-story about intra-racial gender-based violence against women committed by black men; (2)Often, there is a gender hierarchy of privileging, listening to, confronting, “mobilizing” for black male issues.
So, you’re right to say arguing over oppression is pointless, but we cannot disregard the fact that black men issues and voices are more readily heard then the voices, issues, and experiences of black women because we live in a socially constructed world that privilege heterosexual-maleness. Does this mean that black men are equal with white men? No, because of the intersection of race and other social identities, but black men do enjoy the fruits of black male patriarchy and of those fruits are that when they speak the “appropriate” hetero-capitalistic-patriarchal black male talk they are listened to over black women.
Wow Fallon! Interesting piece. I read your posts and I generally enjoy them and agree with the points you raise in them. I guess I haven’t read enough or followed you enough to determine whether or not this post is reflective of your overall style or if this is a departure from the norm so I guess I’ll refrain from making any assumptions. I do consider myself a feminist and I am always in favor of advancing women’s interest, However, when I read this piece, there was something about its tone which disturbed me tremendously. I think I’m with Joel and Sunny Side Up on this one. Not about the “misery contest” because (as evidenced in the above comments) I think we can all agree that pain is pain and no one’s supersedes the other. I was not privy to the messages the brothers sent you so I’ll tread carefully here in my assessment. I think in general, when a person or a group hears another person or another group voicing their pain, they, I think naturally, interpret it as the person/group reducing or ignoring their pain, just by the sheer fact that theirs wasn’t acknowledged. You know, “the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others?”
So what I’m hearing here (and not to assert that I am right and anyone else is wrong, but simply to offer another perspective here) is that the brothers felt that their pain was excluded and responded accordingly. Unfortunately, what I have learned about men is that (in general) many don’t know how to clearly articulate that they felt excluded because the male patriarchy you mentioned prohibits them from such. We must remember that patriarchy doesn’t only confer a great deal of power on men, it also burdens them with a great deal of pressure to display their manhood (i.e. maintain an unrealistic unemotional image). So, instead of the brothers saying, “my sister, I felt excluded when you said…”, they only way they knew how to respond was to challenge you and assert that their pain exceeds ours and etc etc etc. I think when we know this, it’s our job to show them compassion and simply say, “my brother I hear you, and my intention was not to exclude you, but on this day, I chose to focus on the sisters” instead of the sarcasm/satire (again, I didn’t read the messages they sent, it may have warranted your approach, but I just mean in general) Y’know? Just a thought.
I also have a different perspective on Oprah but this comment is long as it is so I’ll save that one. But, I’m curious about the reference to Tiger Wood’s wife. Was that an aside, or was it included to serve a particular purpose? Just curious. Anyhow, love your posts, keep doing what you do sis (btw great interpretation of the walter lee scene, insightful).
Wow Fallon! Interesting piece. I read your posts and I generally enjoy them and agree with the points you raise in them. I guess I haven’t read enough or followed you enough to determine whether or not this post is reflective of your overall style or if this is a departure from the norm so I guess I’ll refrain from making any assumptions. I do consider myself a feminist and I am always in favor of advancing women’s interest, However, when I read this piece, there was something about its tone which disturbed me tremendously. I think I’m with Joel and Sunny Side Up on this one. Not about the “misery contest” because (as evidenced in the above comments) I think we can all agree that pain is pain and no one’s supersedes the other. I was not privy to the messages the brothers sent you so I’ll tread carefully here in my assessment. I think in general, when a person or a group hears another person or another group voicing their pain, they, I think naturally, interpret it as the person/group reducing or ignoring their pain, just by the sheer fact that theirs wasn’t acknowledged. You know, “the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of all others?”
So what I’m hearing here (and not to assert that I am right and anyone else is wrong, but simply to offer another perspective here) is that the brothers felt that their pain was excluded and responded accordingly. Unfortunately, what I have learned about men is that (in general) many don’t know how to clearly articulate that they felt excluded because the male patriarchy you mentioned prohibits them from such. We must remember that patriarchy doesn’t only confer a great deal of power on men, it also burdens them with a great deal of pressure to display their manhood (i.e. maintain an unrealistic unemotional image). So, instead of the brothers saying, “my sister, I felt excluded when you said…”, they only way they knew how to respond was to challenge you and assert that their pain exceeds ours and etc etc etc. I think when we know this, it’s our job to show them compassion and simply say, “my brother I hear you, and my intention was not to exclude you, but on this day, I chose to focus on the sisters” instead of the sarcasm/satire (again, I didn’t read the messages they sent, it may have warranted your approach, but I just mean in general) Y’know? Just a thought.
I also have a different perspective on Oprah but this comment is long as it is so I’ll save that one. But, I’m curious about the reference to Tiger Wood’s wife. Was that an aside, or was it included to serve a particular purpose? Just curious. Anyhow, love your posts, keep doing what you do sis (btw great interpretation of the walter lee scene, insightful).
I agree with Tolu in that your interpretation of the Walter Lee scene is insightful…and I might be misunderstanding the point you were trying to convey. I also agree with Tolu regarding the tone of this blog post. I don’t purport to know, assess or judge your intentions however, in light of your explanation regarding the use of exaggeration, I would say it is a delicate balance – the act of utilizing sarcasm to highlight the absurd without coming cross as absurd yourself. Many attempt it, few do it well. If you were just venting because sometimes you just “get so tired” or you were being satirical, then I guess it is permissible to mock black men in the tone and style that you do. I am not suggesting there is a “right” way to get your point across but there is always a “better” way and the approach one takes of course, depends on what is the intended objective. On another note, I did not intend to suggest that we should discuss black male patriarchy in a civilized manner. I would ask you to consider that the arrogance of the “oppressed” can function to keep the “oppressor” ignorant which goes back to my original question of what constitutes an appropriate response. When Tolu states, “my intention was not to exclude you…” I get it, I over-stand and I am compelled to examine the ways in which I (as a member of the privileged group) might be contributing to the oppression and silencing of my sistren. If you were trying to make a similar point, I can tell you that as much as I wanted to be educated and enlightened, it was difficult for me to get past the exaggeration, satire and absurdity. Again, if you were aiming for the lowest common denominator then you hit the mark with precision. It is not your obligation or responsibility to educate us “beans and rice eatin’ barefoot pregnant needy wounded” black men but you are obviously intelligent and you have a forum which if used responsibly could be a clarion voice for us “walter lees” who are listening and genuinely want to hear and learn from the perspective you have to share.
I agree with Tolu in that your interpretation of the Walter Lee scene is insightful…and I might be misunderstanding the point you were trying to convey. I also agree with Tolu regarding the tone of this blog post. I don’t purport to know, assess or judge your intentions however, in light of your explanation regarding the use of exaggeration, I would say it is a delicate balance – the act of utilizing sarcasm to highlight the absurd without coming cross as absurd yourself. Many attempt it, few do it well. If you were just venting because sometimes you just “get so tired” or you were being satirical, then I guess it is permissible to mock black men in the tone and style that you do. I am not suggesting there is a “right” way to get your point across but there is always a “better” way and the approach one takes of course, depends on what is the intended objective. On another note, I did not intend to suggest that we should discuss black male patriarchy in a civilized manner. I would ask you to consider that the arrogance of the “oppressed” can function to keep the “oppressor” ignorant which goes back to my original question of what constitutes an appropriate response. When Tolu states, “my intention was not to exclude you…” I get it, I over-stand and I am compelled to examine the ways in which I (as a member of the privileged group) might be contributing to the oppression and silencing of my sistren. If you were trying to make a similar point, I can tell you that as much as I wanted to be educated and enlightened, it was difficult for me to get past the exaggeration, satire and absurdity. Again, if you were aiming for the lowest common denominator then you hit the mark with precision. It is not your obligation or responsibility to educate us “beans and rice eatin’ barefoot pregnant needy wounded” black men but you are obviously intelligent and you have a forum which if used responsibly could be a clarion voice for us “walter lees” who are listening and genuinely want to hear and learn from the perspective you have to share.
@ Tolu
“I think in general, when a person or a group hears another person or another group voicing their pain, they, I think naturally, interpret it as the person/group reducing or ignoring their pain, just by the sheer fact that theirs wasn’t acknowledged.”
This is your opinion and doesn’t hold true for how all of us interpret our world. I’m going to speak for myself and when I hear folks talk about the stuff that is going on with them I don’t immediately try to refract their issues through me. When disabled folks speak to me about ableism, my immediate reaction isn’t to try and make sense of it through my own pain, but to hear what the issues are. The connecting to myself comes after and most likely has to do with the ways I enact ableism.
I’m also going to challenge this all pain is the same rhetoric here because it’s not. I think we do all of our movements a disservice by trying to make this assertion. Our pain can be different and that doesn’t make one more or less real than the other. One of the things so often misunderstood by folks about feminists is our understanding of a gendered division of labor. This has happened in many cultures through out time but it hasn’t always included hierarchy. We can have things be different but not assume that one group is better because of it. Women’s work isn’t inherently problematic but when its placed on a lower rung of importance because women do it, that is a problem. So black men, we get it your pain is real but that’s not what we are talking about right now. This is different.
I find your comments and @ sunny side up’s so interesting if we shift the convo from intraracial politics to interacial concerns. @Tolu and @ Sunny side up, if a white man stepped to you on some my ” I felt excluded when you said…” would your response mirror “my white brother I hear you, and my intention was not to exclude you, but on this day, I chose to focus on the black people.” And if your answer to this is ‘yes, this is your response’ do you think there is room for black people to vent and voice their frustrations with white folks through comedy or satire ever? Additionally, how many times do we have to say this? Should black women preface every statement of speaking for and about themselves with “my brother I hear you, and my intention was not to exclude you, but on this day, I chose to focus on the sisters”?
Can a black woman vent and voice her frustration at repeatedly having to play this role of assuaging the male ego? I mean really, we have to say “we aren’t talking about you today but it doesn’t mean that we don’t love you any less” every time we attempt to talk about ourselves? And don’t we do that? Even in the situation Fallon speaks we also supplied the all too important sentence “we know all black men don’t . . .” because we always anticipate and are greeted with a level of distrust by black men that we are out on a mission to destroy them which continues to astound me.
Can we get with the fact that what happens in Precious, the film which was the impetus for the study guide, involves a woman choosing to set aside her own feelings for the black man she was trying to keep. Rather than kick him out of the house the second he tried to touch her daughter, she wanted to keep him so badly that she let him assault her daughter for over a decade! Black women continually sacrifice their souls for black men and we still need to verbalize that we aren’t being exclusive when we talk about ourselves?!
I’m also gonna say something else here on the oppression Olympics. Some people are more oppressed than others. period. Doesn’t mean that we don’t work to get rid of all oppression or that they all don’t have catastrophic impact but where you are located in the hierarchy makes a difference. Indigenous people to what we understand to be the Americas are more oppressed than black people in this land. The homophobia that Ellen Degeneres experiences is not the same as that experienced by an effeminate black gay boy using public transportation in a big city. The impact for each group or individual is different; they are not the same and for this reason we sometimes have to talk about things separately and with intention.
Ok this is long and I’m spent.
@ Tolu
“I think in general, when a person or a group hears another person or another group voicing their pain, they, I think naturally, interpret it as the person/group reducing or ignoring their pain, just by the sheer fact that theirs wasn’t acknowledged.”
This is your opinion and doesn’t hold true for how all of us interpret our world. I’m going to speak for myself and when I hear folks talk about the stuff that is going on with them I don’t immediately try to refract their issues through me. When disabled folks speak to me about ableism, my immediate reaction isn’t to try and make sense of it through my own pain, but to hear what the issues are. The connecting to myself comes after and most likely has to do with the ways I enact ableism.
I’m also going to challenge this all pain is the same rhetoric here because it’s not. I think we do all of our movements a disservice by trying to make this assertion. Our pain can be different and that doesn’t make one more or less real than the other. One of the things so often misunderstood by folks about feminists is our understanding of a gendered division of labor. This has happened in many cultures through out time but it hasn’t always included hierarchy. We can have things be different but not assume that one group is better because of it. Women’s work isn’t inherently problematic but when its placed on a lower rung of importance because women do it, that is a problem. So black men, we get it your pain is real but that’s not what we are talking about right now. This is different.
I find your comments and @ sunny side up’s so interesting if we shift the convo from intraracial politics to interacial concerns. @Tolu and @ Sunny side up, if a white man stepped to you on some my ” I felt excluded when you said…” would your response mirror “my white brother I hear you, and my intention was not to exclude you, but on this day, I chose to focus on the black people.” And if your answer to this is ‘yes, this is your response’ do you think there is room for black people to vent and voice their frustrations with white folks through comedy or satire ever? Additionally, how many times do we have to say this? Should black women preface every statement of speaking for and about themselves with “my brother I hear you, and my intention was not to exclude you, but on this day, I chose to focus on the sisters”?
Can a black woman vent and voice her frustration at repeatedly having to play this role of assuaging the male ego? I mean really, we have to say “we aren’t talking about you today but it doesn’t mean that we don’t love you any less” every time we attempt to talk about ourselves? And don’t we do that? Even in the situation Fallon speaks we also supplied the all too important sentence “we know all black men don’t . . .” because we always anticipate and are greeted with a level of distrust by black men that we are out on a mission to destroy them which continues to astound me.
Can we get with the fact that what happens in Precious, the film which was the impetus for the study guide, involves a woman choosing to set aside her own feelings for the black man she was trying to keep. Rather than kick him out of the house the second he tried to touch her daughter, she wanted to keep him so badly that she let him assault her daughter for over a decade! Black women continually sacrifice their souls for black men and we still need to verbalize that we aren’t being exclusive when we talk about ourselves?!
I’m also gonna say something else here on the oppression Olympics. Some people are more oppressed than others. period. Doesn’t mean that we don’t work to get rid of all oppression or that they all don’t have catastrophic impact but where you are located in the hierarchy makes a difference. Indigenous people to what we understand to be the Americas are more oppressed than black people in this land. The homophobia that Ellen Degeneres experiences is not the same as that experienced by an effeminate black gay boy using public transportation in a big city. The impact for each group or individual is different; they are not the same and for this reason we sometimes have to talk about things separately and with intention.
Ok this is long and I’m spent.
Quirky Black Girl, you raised some interesting points to my comment and after I submitted it last night, I realized that I may have not been as clear as I intended to be, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify myself. But first, let me say this:
To your point that “this is your opinion and doesn’t hold true for how all of us interpret our world” I think was clear in that I prefaced that statement with “I think” (meaning my opinion) and “in general meaning” (doesn’t hold true for all or at all times).
Second, when I stated “when a person our group hears another person or another group voicing their pain, they, I think naturally, interpret it as the person/group reducing their pain, just by the sheer fact that theirs wasn’t acknowledged” I was referring specifically to oppressed groups. I should have been clear on that. But, (to use your example that Amerindians are more oppressed than blacks) if you were to express your pain to an Amerindian, he may (and according to your assessment that his pain exceeds yours, rightfully so) assume that you are reducing or ignoring his pain. Oftentimes, that’s what oppressed people of different groups do. Let’s be real. I did not mention this to say that it’s okay for people to do that or that the brothers were right in confronting Fallon, I offered it to say, maybe they interpreted this way and maybe this is why they are so upset. No, I do not believe they were correct to confront Fallon in this way, but I also don’t think that their intention was to negate our pain either. Any black man who thinks that black women don’t go through hell aren’t even worthy of acknowledgment in this comment.
In addition, when I suggested that a more decent response might be, “my brother I hear you, and my intention was not to exclude you,” I did not mean to suggest that it’s the black woman’s job to pacify the black man anytime he feels dismissed. In fact, I’m saying here that we can dismiss him “I wasn’t talking about you today” but address him in a tone that is reflective of unity not disunity.
Let me offer this: although it’s been mentioned in the post that black men’s issues are always catered to and ours is silenced, I disagree. In fact, I think it’s the opposite. Yes, on a policy level, we’re always saying “black men need this, black boys experience that…” but how often do they get a platform like this where their experiences are addressed not at the policy level, but in an intimate way. Because we are women, we get to write books, in fact, anthologies on black women’s experiences which are personal and intimate. Maybe they were looking to Fallon to speak for them because they can’t or they won’t do it for themselves. I think it’s a complement that they feel that you can (or should) voice their pain for them. Now, of course you will say, then why the hell don’t they get their own blog and express themselves intimately there, but, they don’t do that, and I think that it’s something that’s symptomatic of patriarchy. Does it mean that it’s right of them to burden Fallon? No. Does that mean that she should feel compelled to assume that burden? Hell no. My comment was just to say, here’s another perspective, I think this is where the brothers were coming from, not to approve their behavior or their message.
Also, my intention was not to disapprove of the content of her message here but to raise the fact that maybe the tone of this may make it more difficult for brothers to come away saying, “oh, ok, my bad, the sister’s note was aimed specifically at sisters that day, let me back off.” Of course there is room for us to vent, however, as SSU asserted, if her point in this post was to speak directly to the sisters let us get a good laugh by mocking the brothers and go on about our business, then, fine, mission accomplished. But, if her intention was to address the brothers too, she may have lost them and her message might have fallen on deaf ears if they interpret this post to be mocking of them. I admit, black men’s “well, how about us” rant is rather annoying. But, I don’t think the response is, “damn, can’t a sister just say how she feel for once without yall beans and rice ass always trippin with your big ass egos?” You can address black women without alienating black men (unless of course that was the intention) which is how I read this post (not the precious post, that was on point).
Also, I think it’s true that “some people are more oppressed than others—period.” I don’t think anyone is disputing that. But, who is the arbiter of this and where is this book which lists the hierarchy of which group is the more oppressed than the other? I couldn’t say that overall the Amerindian is more oppressed than the blacks, or that Ellen D. is less oppressed than a gay boy on the bus. I think those assessments are overbroad. I would limit my assessment of who’s more oppressed to a certain context and a small set of circumstances rather than make a blanket statement like that.
Quirky Black Girl, you raised some interesting points to my comment and after I submitted it last night, I realized that I may have not been as clear as I intended to be, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify myself. But first, let me say this:
To your point that “this is your opinion and doesn’t hold true for how all of us interpret our world” I think was clear in that I prefaced that statement with “I think” (meaning my opinion) and “in general meaning” (doesn’t hold true for all or at all times).
Second, when I stated “when a person our group hears another person or another group voicing their pain, they, I think naturally, interpret it as the person/group reducing their pain, just by the sheer fact that theirs wasn’t acknowledged” I was referring specifically to oppressed groups. I should have been clear on that. But, (to use your example that Amerindians are more oppressed than blacks) if you were to express your pain to an Amerindian, he may (and according to your assessment that his pain exceeds yours, rightfully so) assume that you are reducing or ignoring his pain. Oftentimes, that’s what oppressed people of different groups do. Let’s be real. I did not mention this to say that it’s okay for people to do that or that the brothers were right in confronting Fallon, I offered it to say, maybe they interpreted this way and maybe this is why they are so upset. No, I do not believe they were correct to confront Fallon in this way, but I also don’t think that their intention was to negate our pain either. Any black man who thinks that black women don’t go through hell aren’t even worthy of acknowledgment in this comment.
In addition, when I suggested that a more decent response might be, “my brother I hear you, and my intention was not to exclude you,” I did not mean to suggest that it’s the black woman’s job to pacify the black man anytime he feels dismissed. In fact, I’m saying here that we can dismiss him “I wasn’t talking about you today” but address him in a tone that is reflective of unity not disunity.
Let me offer this: although it’s been mentioned in the post that black men’s issues are always catered to and ours is silenced, I disagree. In fact, I think it’s the opposite. Yes, on a policy level, we’re always saying “black men need this, black boys experience that…” but how often do they get a platform like this where their experiences are addressed not at the policy level, but in an intimate way. Because we are women, we get to write books, in fact, anthologies on black women’s experiences which are personal and intimate. Maybe they were looking to Fallon to speak for them because they can’t or they won’t do it for themselves. I think it’s a complement that they feel that you can (or should) voice their pain for them. Now, of course you will say, then why the hell don’t they get their own blog and express themselves intimately there, but, they don’t do that, and I think that it’s something that’s symptomatic of patriarchy. Does it mean that it’s right of them to burden Fallon? No. Does that mean that she should feel compelled to assume that burden? Hell no. My comment was just to say, here’s another perspective, I think this is where the brothers were coming from, not to approve their behavior or their message.
Also, my intention was not to disapprove of the content of her message here but to raise the fact that maybe the tone of this may make it more difficult for brothers to come away saying, “oh, ok, my bad, the sister’s note was aimed specifically at sisters that day, let me back off.” Of course there is room for us to vent, however, as SSU asserted, if her point in this post was to speak directly to the sisters let us get a good laugh by mocking the brothers and go on about our business, then, fine, mission accomplished. But, if her intention was to address the brothers too, she may have lost them and her message might have fallen on deaf ears if they interpret this post to be mocking of them. I admit, black men’s “well, how about us” rant is rather annoying. But, I don’t think the response is, “damn, can’t a sister just say how she feel for once without yall beans and rice ass always trippin with your big ass egos?” You can address black women without alienating black men (unless of course that was the intention) which is how I read this post (not the precious post, that was on point).
Also, I think it’s true that “some people are more oppressed than others—period.” I don’t think anyone is disputing that. But, who is the arbiter of this and where is this book which lists the hierarchy of which group is the more oppressed than the other? I couldn’t say that overall the Amerindian is more oppressed than the blacks, or that Ellen D. is less oppressed than a gay boy on the bus. I think those assessments are overbroad. I would limit my assessment of who’s more oppressed to a certain context and a small set of circumstances rather than make a blanket statement like that.
@ quirky…
1. fallon and the rest of black women can articulate their frustrations as they see fit to do so. at no point, did i express otherwise.
2. i don’t think intra-racial and inter-racial concerns can be considered an apples to apples comparison but if i was working with white people collaboratively on an issue then i would listen to their concerns about being excluded. and people who work with me generally don’t “step” to me rather they approach me with respect because i command what i give in kind.
3. on the matter of respect, i would respond to people’s behavior with class and decorum which is something that fallon has failed to do. either that or she is attempting to be satirical and is just really bad at it. my honest feeling is, if you are going to be disrespectful, own up to it. in calling a spade a spade, there is nothing “funny” about the way she mocked and degraded black men.
4. i think it is great that you don’t refract people’s experiences through your own and instead, you try to hear the issues. like i said in my previous post, i gave this blog post my attention with the hope of gaining some relevant knowledge. to fallon’s credit, her points are received but the way she articulated her points is what is problematic for me.
5. to address your comments about respective experiences of oppression, yes everyone has a different experience that varies along dimensions of severity and magnitude. what i said is that no one is cornering the market on suffering. in other words, you don’t gain anything by suggesting that you are suffering more than someone else. and even if your experience of suffering is qualitatively different than that of others, it doesn’t give you the right to make excuses and not “eat your eggs” nor does it give one the right to resort to name calling when people undermine their experiences.
i’m here all week…
@ quirky…
1. fallon and the rest of black women can articulate their frustrations as they see fit to do so. at no point, did i express otherwise.
2. i don’t think intra-racial and inter-racial concerns can be considered an apples to apples comparison but if i was working with white people collaboratively on an issue then i would listen to their concerns about being excluded. and people who work with me generally don’t “step” to me rather they approach me with respect because i command what i give in kind.
3. on the matter of respect, i would respond to people’s behavior with class and decorum which is something that fallon has failed to do. either that or she is attempting to be satirical and is just really bad at it. my honest feeling is, if you are going to be disrespectful, own up to it. in calling a spade a spade, there is nothing “funny” about the way she mocked and degraded black men.
4. i think it is great that you don’t refract people’s experiences through your own and instead, you try to hear the issues. like i said in my previous post, i gave this blog post my attention with the hope of gaining some relevant knowledge. to fallon’s credit, her points are received but the way she articulated her points is what is problematic for me.
5. to address your comments about respective experiences of oppression, yes everyone has a different experience that varies along dimensions of severity and magnitude. what i said is that no one is cornering the market on suffering. in other words, you don’t gain anything by suggesting that you are suffering more than someone else. and even if your experience of suffering is qualitatively different than that of others, it doesn’t give you the right to make excuses and not “eat your eggs” nor does it give one the right to resort to name calling when people undermine their experiences.
i’m here all week…
“i’m here all week…”
lmao!!!
sorry, i couldn’t resist.
“i’m here all week…”
lmao!!!
sorry, i couldn’t resist.
@sunny side up: Glad to know you’re here all week. For those of us who understand and resonate with the crux and tone of fallon’s piece, your comments are just a drop in the bucket to what we confront on the daily, so get comfortable…
What intrigues me about your overall response is that while you claim to understand Fallon’s points, you fail to get how your response to her tone perpetuates one of the fundamental points of the piece: when black women’s issues are the subject of public discourse, black men can’t see the forrest for the trees. If I may take the liberty to continue Fallon’s satirical run: …Black woman says “I’m sick and tired of feeble-minded black men co-opting conversations and discourse that should be about me.” Black man responds with, “Can you lower your voice and change your tone please, sister? It’s mocking and disrespectful to the brothers.”
Perhaps what you don’t get, Sunny Side, is that the tone Fallon chose to use is just as important as the points made within the piece. On the one hand, it reflects that all too familiar mixture of hysteria and rage that ensues for those of us who have experienced black men who snatch “alla our stuff” (in this case, our discourse) time and time again. As Fallon’s tone rightly reflects: the ish is so crazy, you have to laugh to keep from loosing your mind. Moreover, though, her exaggerated, over-the-top portrayal of the black men who co-opt black women’s discourse is right on par with the over-the-top audacity of those of you who personally insert yourselves into black women’s discourse, find a reason to cry foul and then proceed to act as though you have the moral and ethical capital to determine what is and isn’t a respectable tone for said discourse…all under the guise of wanting to “learn” about your privilege. This type of patriarchy in sheep’s clothing would probably be more suitable elsewhere (I’m sure Tolu would gladly welcome you to her site. She’d even sugar coat your paternalism in order to make it palatable for others to partake). But if you want to stick around and really take up the courageous challenge to, as you put it, examine how you (as a member of privileged group) contribute to silencing black women, I suggest that you begin by critiquing the root of the mad-ness, not the mad-ness itself.
Makes me wanna holla, indeed…
@sunny side up: Glad to know you’re here all week. For those of us who understand and resonate with the crux and tone of fallon’s piece, your comments are just a drop in the bucket to what we confront on the daily, so get comfortable…
What intrigues me about your overall response is that while you claim to understand Fallon’s points, you fail to get how your response to her tone perpetuates one of the fundamental points of the piece: when black women’s issues are the subject of public discourse, black men can’t see the forrest for the trees. If I may take the liberty to continue Fallon’s satirical run: …Black woman says “I’m sick and tired of feeble-minded black men co-opting conversations and discourse that should be about me.” Black man responds with, “Can you lower your voice and change your tone please, sister? It’s mocking and disrespectful to the brothers.”
Perhaps what you don’t get, Sunny Side, is that the tone Fallon chose to use is just as important as the points made within the piece. On the one hand, it reflects that all too familiar mixture of hysteria and rage that ensues for those of us who have experienced black men who snatch “alla our stuff” (in this case, our discourse) time and time again. As Fallon’s tone rightly reflects: the ish is so crazy, you have to laugh to keep from loosing your mind. Moreover, though, her exaggerated, over-the-top portrayal of the black men who co-opt black women’s discourse is right on par with the over-the-top audacity of those of you who personally insert yourselves into black women’s discourse, find a reason to cry foul and then proceed to act as though you have the moral and ethical capital to determine what is and isn’t a respectable tone for said discourse…all under the guise of wanting to “learn” about your privilege. This type of patriarchy in sheep’s clothing would probably be more suitable elsewhere (I’m sure Tolu would gladly welcome you to her site. She’d even sugar coat your paternalism in order to make it palatable for others to partake). But if you want to stick around and really take up the courageous challenge to, as you put it, examine how you (as a member of privileged group) contribute to silencing black women, I suggest that you begin by critiquing the root of the mad-ness, not the mad-ness itself.
Makes me wanna holla, indeed…
Jessica,
Your comment is appreciated and your points well taken. I still have to disagree.
I read the brother’s comment and I happen to agree with his position and I’m going to take the high road like he did and remain civil. I think that what we are both trying to convey (forgive me SSU and correct me if misspeak in your behalf) is that brothers listening to the message (ego, not precious) may tune out because of the tone. I think if you read our comments well, you’ll see that we both received the message AND neither of us justifies the position the brothers in question take. I think I made it clear that the brothers in question are wrong in misinterpreting Fallon’s Precious piece and UN-justified in their unfair confrontation. I merely suggested that this piece, ego, in response to the response to her previous piece, precious, may not be received well. That’s all. You can read into that how you see fit. Now, if suggesting that we be civil in how we address one another as black women and men in the way we address our issues makes me an apologist or makes me look like I pledge allegiance to patriarchy, then baby, I’ll be that. It’s comments like these which make the word “feminist” synonymous with “misandrist.” I can be a feminist and still say, “wow, my sister, the way you addressed the brothers was rather harsh. They MAY not have received your message.” Sorry to break it to you, but, being a feminist and loving black men are not two mutually exclusive concepts.
Also, I think I was very careful to steer clear of absolutes by saying “in general” or “I don’t know what those messages contained” and “they MAY have felt” and “based on what they said to you, your response MAY be warranted.” I believe I said those things. If you missed it, please check the record. The problem with “so-called” feminists is that they tend to have a visceral reaction to anything that sounds like “let’s not burn the men at the stake” and they take quick action or offense before confirming the facts.
The bottom line is, I disagree. I can do that. It’s quite possible that I understood all of what you said, all of what she said, and all of what anyone else said, and still disagree. Why that concept seems to elude you and anyone else who wishes to assert that I don’t know what I’m talking about or that my position is wrong is beyond me. I think we all make good points. I didn’t know either of us had to be right or wrong.
Also, thank you for plugging my site. Yes, I do blog too, except most of my blogs happen to be down at the time. I didn’t or wouldn’t reference my blog here because it’s not about me and I try not to disrespect other people in their personal space like that. But, you are welcomed to put up the url if you like. I know I would like that very much.
Jessica,
Your comment is appreciated and your points well taken. I still have to disagree.
I read the brother’s comment and I happen to agree with his position and I’m going to take the high road like he did and remain civil. I think that what we are both trying to convey (forgive me SSU and correct me if misspeak in your behalf) is that brothers listening to the message (ego, not precious) may tune out because of the tone. I think if you read our comments well, you’ll see that we both received the message AND neither of us justifies the position the brothers in question take. I think I made it clear that the brothers in question are wrong in misinterpreting Fallon’s Precious piece and UN-justified in their unfair confrontation. I merely suggested that this piece, ego, in response to the response to her previous piece, precious, may not be received well. That’s all. You can read into that how you see fit. Now, if suggesting that we be civil in how we address one another as black women and men in the way we address our issues makes me an apologist or makes me look like I pledge allegiance to patriarchy, then baby, I’ll be that. It’s comments like these which make the word “feminist” synonymous with “misandrist.” I can be a feminist and still say, “wow, my sister, the way you addressed the brothers was rather harsh. They MAY not have received your message.” Sorry to break it to you, but, being a feminist and loving black men are not two mutually exclusive concepts.
Also, I think I was very careful to steer clear of absolutes by saying “in general” or “I don’t know what those messages contained” and “they MAY have felt” and “based on what they said to you, your response MAY be warranted.” I believe I said those things. If you missed it, please check the record. The problem with “so-called” feminists is that they tend to have a visceral reaction to anything that sounds like “let’s not burn the men at the stake” and they take quick action or offense before confirming the facts.
The bottom line is, I disagree. I can do that. It’s quite possible that I understood all of what you said, all of what she said, and all of what anyone else said, and still disagree. Why that concept seems to elude you and anyone else who wishes to assert that I don’t know what I’m talking about or that my position is wrong is beyond me. I think we all make good points. I didn’t know either of us had to be right or wrong.
Also, thank you for plugging my site. Yes, I do blog too, except most of my blogs happen to be down at the time. I didn’t or wouldn’t reference my blog here because it’s not about me and I try not to disrespect other people in their personal space like that. But, you are welcomed to put up the url if you like. I know I would like that very much.
And one more thing, had the roles been reversed and one of the brothers at this site chose to publish a post where his tone was similar to this one, except it was railing against the sisters, would you uphold that brother’s right to a space where he can talk to sisters in this way? (any one of you can answer that)
Personally, I would respond/comment to that post far more vociferously. (could be because I have a vagina and I’m slightly partial)
And one more thing, had the roles been reversed and one of the brothers at this site chose to publish a post where his tone was similar to this one, except it was railing against the sisters, would you uphold that brother’s right to a space where he can talk to sisters in this way? (any one of you can answer that)
Personally, I would respond/comment to that post far more vociferously. (could be because I have a vagina and I’m slightly partial)
You should listen to my new voice mail.
Seriously, I wish to recall two quotes by Bell Hooks:
“No other group in America has so had their identity socialized out of existence as have black women… When black people are talked about the focus tends to be on black men; and when women are talked about the focus tends to be on white women.”
“Making the choice to love {Though I would had even in a satirical way} can heal our wounded spirits and our body politic”
These two quotes I think speaks to the two conversations I read in the blog. Hooks pushes us to embrace “a love ethic” in all that we do, even in our frustrations of each other, though I understand not always easy to do. The reality is, we colored folks have it hard in the world, I don’t find dialogue on which gender – black men or women has it the hardest useful (though I would argue black women). We all need to come simply attempt to love ourselves and each other.
Fallon, you may respond, but I dont think I will…I simply dont have alot of time on my hands…lol
You should listen to my new voice mail.
Seriously, I wish to recall two quotes by Bell Hooks:
“No other group in America has so had their identity socialized out of existence as have black women… When black people are talked about the focus tends to be on black men; and when women are talked about the focus tends to be on white women.”
“Making the choice to love {Though I would had even in a satirical way} can heal our wounded spirits and our body politic”
These two quotes I think speaks to the two conversations I read in the blog. Hooks pushes us to embrace “a love ethic” in all that we do, even in our frustrations of each other, though I understand not always easy to do. The reality is, we colored folks have it hard in the world, I don’t find dialogue on which gender – black men or women has it the hardest useful (though I would argue black women). We all need to come simply attempt to love ourselves and each other.
Fallon, you may respond, but I dont think I will…I simply dont have alot of time on my hands…lol
@Tolu: I’ll resist the urge to fret too much over your attempt to identify what type of “category” of feminism I fall into and your assumptions about my love for black men. But I will say this: if you can be a feminist and put forth a palatable translation of Sunny Side’s take on things, I can be a feminist and say that I take offense to that particular take…no matter how its translated. Thankfully, there’s room enough in feminism for both of us.
I want to make it clear that what bothers me about Sunny Side’s comments, and by extension, your’s, is that in your efforts to get us to agree to a “civil” tone, you fundamentally dismiss the need for black women to express the strong emotions that lie at the root of matters like this (whether it be in the form of hysteria or rage). Fact is, blog pieces like this aren’t just a matter of political discourse; they are also a matter of personal, lived experience. When folks read a post like this and critique the “tone,” I see it as a contribution to the historical assault on black women’s wholeness. Instead of being encouraged to express what we feel and how we feel it, we’ve been historically trained instead to take the “high road,” be the “strong black woman”…lest we be demonized as an “angry” one. Your response (and Sunny Side’s) is part and parcel of that historical narrative and frankly, it’s a narrative that I wholeheartedly–and quite passionately– reject. Perhaps I should say that I’m not in favor of discourse that is demeaning and disrespectful in nature. But I also think there’s a ‘whole lotta room between prescribed civility and downright disrespect…and there’s plenty of room for authentic anger.
I also need to say word about your assumptions about who the intended audience is of the piece. I think it’s presumptuous (and indicative of Fallon’s overall point of the piece) to say that the black men who critiqued the precious study guide are the center and audience of her piece. Frankly, I don’t know who she was talking to. I’ll leave that to her to tell us. The only thing I can do is take it for what it is: one black woman’s commentary about a particular experience. As a black woman who is committed to feminism, I honor and take seriously her expression and meaning-making out of that experience. Sure, some folks may think the tone is not appropriate for persuading black men. But perhaps the piece isn’t about persuasion; perhaps it’s about testimony…and for me, a hysterical one at that.
@Tolu: I’ll resist the urge to fret too much over your attempt to identify what type of “category” of feminism I fall into and your assumptions about my love for black men. But I will say this: if you can be a feminist and put forth a palatable translation of Sunny Side’s take on things, I can be a feminist and say that I take offense to that particular take…no matter how its translated. Thankfully, there’s room enough in feminism for both of us.
I want to make it clear that what bothers me about Sunny Side’s comments, and by extension, your’s, is that in your efforts to get us to agree to a “civil” tone, you fundamentally dismiss the need for black women to express the strong emotions that lie at the root of matters like this (whether it be in the form of hysteria or rage). Fact is, blog pieces like this aren’t just a matter of political discourse; they are also a matter of personal, lived experience. When folks read a post like this and critique the “tone,” I see it as a contribution to the historical assault on black women’s wholeness. Instead of being encouraged to express what we feel and how we feel it, we’ve been historically trained instead to take the “high road,” be the “strong black woman”…lest we be demonized as an “angry” one. Your response (and Sunny Side’s) is part and parcel of that historical narrative and frankly, it’s a narrative that I wholeheartedly–and quite passionately– reject. Perhaps I should say that I’m not in favor of discourse that is demeaning and disrespectful in nature. But I also think there’s a ‘whole lotta room between prescribed civility and downright disrespect…and there’s plenty of room for authentic anger.
I also need to say word about your assumptions about who the intended audience is of the piece. I think it’s presumptuous (and indicative of Fallon’s overall point of the piece) to say that the black men who critiqued the precious study guide are the center and audience of her piece. Frankly, I don’t know who she was talking to. I’ll leave that to her to tell us. The only thing I can do is take it for what it is: one black woman’s commentary about a particular experience. As a black woman who is committed to feminism, I honor and take seriously her expression and meaning-making out of that experience. Sure, some folks may think the tone is not appropriate for persuading black men. But perhaps the piece isn’t about persuasion; perhaps it’s about testimony…and for me, a hysterical one at that.
@ jessica – since you have taken the liberty to run with fallon’s satirical rant and invited me to get comfortable, i’m going to take my coat off and have a seat. first, this “feeble-minded” black man thanks you for dignifying his comments with a response. and alas, we have more name-calling (brushing that dirt off my shoulders). fortunately for me, i did not come here to have my opinions validated…or respected for that matter. the wonderful thing about the internet is the democratization of the landscape in which public discourse is situated. my responses to fallon’s blog post do not intend to co-opt her-story or the african-american female experience and turn it in to an assault on my integrity. i am simply responding to an opinion piece, which Fallon made public by posting on the world wide web. it is nice to know that you have written off my attempts to engage in an honest and forthright discussion of black male privilege as disingenuous. but placing me in the category of the brothers you encounter on a daily basis who are always taking “alla your stuff” because you do not want to hear what i have to say is largely indicative of a tactic feeble-minded people utilize to leverage a discussion in their favor – i guess it takes one to know one.
secondly, if you’re claiming “discourse” as your own, know the boundaries of said ownership. it would be a different story if i “inserted” myself in to a private conversation, you would every right to holla, indeed. outside of taking black men to task PUBLICLY (albeit distasteful), which we rightfully deserve, i found the sistah’s commentary to be rude.
for the record, i am the least bit interested or concerned with telling adults how they should behave. so please know that you can shape the tone and tenor of your conversation as you see fit to do so and it really does not make a bit of difference to me. but don’t be disrespectful under the guise of pushing your inappropriate behavior off as satire (especially when such behavior is executed in a way that is bereft of any deft) and expect not to be put on blast.
@ tolu – “i put my hand to my heart, that means i feel ya, real recognize real and you’re looking familiar” – jay-z
i’m here all week…still.
@ jessica – since you have taken the liberty to run with fallon’s satirical rant and invited me to get comfortable, i’m going to take my coat off and have a seat. first, this “feeble-minded” black man thanks you for dignifying his comments with a response. and alas, we have more name-calling (brushing that dirt off my shoulders). fortunately for me, i did not come here to have my opinions validated…or respected for that matter. the wonderful thing about the internet is the democratization of the landscape in which public discourse is situated. my responses to fallon’s blog post do not intend to co-opt her-story or the african-american female experience and turn it in to an assault on my integrity. i am simply responding to an opinion piece, which Fallon made public by posting on the world wide web. it is nice to know that you have written off my attempts to engage in an honest and forthright discussion of black male privilege as disingenuous. but placing me in the category of the brothers you encounter on a daily basis who are always taking “alla your stuff” because you do not want to hear what i have to say is largely indicative of a tactic feeble-minded people utilize to leverage a discussion in their favor – i guess it takes one to know one.
secondly, if you’re claiming “discourse” as your own, know the boundaries of said ownership. it would be a different story if i “inserted” myself in to a private conversation, you would every right to holla, indeed. outside of taking black men to task PUBLICLY (albeit distasteful), which we rightfully deserve, i found the sistah’s commentary to be rude.
for the record, i am the least bit interested or concerned with telling adults how they should behave. so please know that you can shape the tone and tenor of your conversation as you see fit to do so and it really does not make a bit of difference to me. but don’t be disrespectful under the guise of pushing your inappropriate behavior off as satire (especially when such behavior is executed in a way that is bereft of any deft) and expect not to be put on blast.
@ tolu – “i put my hand to my heart, that means i feel ya, real recognize real and you’re looking familiar” – jay-z
i’m here all week…still.
Jessica,
You state:
[“in your efforts to get us to agree to a ‘civil’ tone, you fundamentally dismiss the need for black women to express the strong emotions that lie at the root of matters like this”]
And my response to this is that:
Again, you have misread my argument.
Again, you have taken an absolutist approach to my argument.
Again, there is room for both of our arguments.
Again, I never said that her response was inappropriate.
Again, I stated that under certain circumstances, it may have well been warranted.
Again, I never said that how the brothers “might feel” is justified.
Again I was offering another perspective (to counter her assertion that they all feel like a black woman using her space to talk about her issues is an assault on them).
So, again, check the record.
I disagree with you and again if you interpret that to mean that what I am saying is an assault on the black woman’s wholeness that’s your prerogative.
Just as you are entitled to interpret Fallon’s tone one way, you are also entitled to mis-read/mis-state/mis-interpret what I am saying here in response to her tone.
As a side note,
[I think that it’s presumptuous…to say that the black men who critiqued the Precious study guide are the center and audience of [this] piece]
Please point to the record and show me where I said this or help me understand how you drew this conclusion that this is my assumption.
Last, I can hear you. BUT I DISAGREE. You are free to reject part or all of what I am saying. If in by trying make your point you find it necessary to undercut or undermine my dedication to black women or feminist [i.e. “sugar coated paternalism” comment, et. al.], let me point out that you undermine your own dedication to feminism. I am a woman, just like you, and beyond that, you don’t know anything about me so how does it look when you attack your own kind because she disagrees with you on a minor (and I say minor because I didn’t say she was wrong, I simply said, let me offer you this alternate perspective) point? I personally think that approach is cheap and it weakens your argument.
Jessica,
You state:
[“in your efforts to get us to agree to a ‘civil’ tone, you fundamentally dismiss the need for black women to express the strong emotions that lie at the root of matters like this”]
And my response to this is that:
Again, you have misread my argument.
Again, you have taken an absolutist approach to my argument.
Again, there is room for both of our arguments.
Again, I never said that her response was inappropriate.
Again, I stated that under certain circumstances, it may have well been warranted.
Again, I never said that how the brothers “might feel” is justified.
Again I was offering another perspective (to counter her assertion that they all feel like a black woman using her space to talk about her issues is an assault on them).
So, again, check the record.
I disagree with you and again if you interpret that to mean that what I am saying is an assault on the black woman’s wholeness that’s your prerogative.
Just as you are entitled to interpret Fallon’s tone one way, you are also entitled to mis-read/mis-state/mis-interpret what I am saying here in response to her tone.
As a side note,
[I think that it’s presumptuous…to say that the black men who critiqued the Precious study guide are the center and audience of [this] piece]
Please point to the record and show me where I said this or help me understand how you drew this conclusion that this is my assumption.
Last, I can hear you. BUT I DISAGREE. You are free to reject part or all of what I am saying. If in by trying make your point you find it necessary to undercut or undermine my dedication to black women or feminist [i.e. “sugar coated paternalism” comment, et. al.], let me point out that you undermine your own dedication to feminism. I am a woman, just like you, and beyond that, you don’t know anything about me so how does it look when you attack your own kind because she disagrees with you on a minor (and I say minor because I didn’t say she was wrong, I simply said, let me offer you this alternate perspective) point? I personally think that approach is cheap and it weakens your argument.
@sunny:
i co-sign ( “i love you like cooked food” homie)
(yeah, i listen to jay-z too and if that makes me a hater, traitor, or an anti-feminist, see me, holla at me, look me up, I CAN be Googled!)
@sunny:
i co-sign ( “i love you like cooked food” homie)
(yeah, i listen to jay-z too and if that makes me a hater, traitor, or an anti-feminist, see me, holla at me, look me up, I CAN be Googled!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/05blow.html?_r=1
Such an article speaks to the heart of Dr. Wilson’s agruement
Are we supposed to feel bad for Chris Brown now? He beat a young lady….damn. Why does it always have to be about the black man this the black man that….its been a tough year for black/colored people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/05blow.html?_r=1
Such an article speaks to the heart of Dr. Wilson’s agruement
Are we supposed to feel bad for Chris Brown now? He beat a young lady….damn. Why does it always have to be about the black man this the black man that….its been a tough year for black/colored people.
I can’t get enough of this posting.
Which leads me to a thought:
This is doubly frustrating, because a lot of Black women are dealing with this situation along with and/or during adolescence with their Black mothers.
In my situation, she and my father had never had an ‘official’ relationship — she will even admit to having his baby to “always have a link to him.” Naturally, I have had issues in coming of age in relationship to men, aggravated by her marrying a total loser when I was 10. A man who told us point-blank that he was not my father and had no intentions of stepping up to the plate, I find that whenever I openly confess to my struggles with my molestation, eating disorder, rape, working in a predominately male environment, etc…she will ALWAYS tell me that “I have never had it bad as she has.”
ALWAYS.
I will not make demands on anyone to create a posting based on my thought, but it would be good to see other women voicing the same issue — the stress of carrying this and the above-mentioned frustration is what I would rather be reading in our Black publications — and how to cope, of course!
Thanks for speaking out,
Stacey
I can’t get enough of this posting.
Which leads me to a thought:
This is doubly frustrating, because a lot of Black women are dealing with this situation along with and/or during adolescence with their Black mothers.
In my situation, she and my father had never had an ‘official’ relationship — she will even admit to having his baby to “always have a link to him.” Naturally, I have had issues in coming of age in relationship to men, aggravated by her marrying a total loser when I was 10. A man who told us point-blank that he was not my father and had no intentions of stepping up to the plate, I find that whenever I openly confess to my struggles with my molestation, eating disorder, rape, working in a predominately male environment, etc…she will ALWAYS tell me that “I have never had it bad as she has.”
ALWAYS.
I will not make demands on anyone to create a posting based on my thought, but it would be good to see other women voicing the same issue — the stress of carrying this and the above-mentioned frustration is what I would rather be reading in our Black publications — and how to cope, of course!
Thanks for speaking out,
Stacey
I question if the rumor of her appearing pregnant is serious or not.
I question if the rumor of her appearing pregnant is serious or not.
This is an incredibly interesting article; I’ve read and seen Raisin in the Sun many times now (I’d consider it my favorite play, I guess), but I had never considered Ruth’s character in that way. Thanks for helping me see her role in a different light.
The only qualm I have with your argument is that it’s a generalization; which, as a member of the marginalized demographic of which you speak (being, african-american women), you should know to be a damaging currency with which to deal. No doubt; there are many men out there who are quick to what-about-me whenever a woman speaks her piece. But on the flip, there’s definitely dudes who are respectful, considerate, and genuinely interested in where the women in their life are coming from.
By all means, slap the whiners. But don’t disservice those gentlemen who continue to have your back. If you don’t have any males like this in your life, then maybe it’s on you to re-consider the group you’re running with.
This is an incredibly interesting article; I’ve read and seen Raisin in the Sun many times now (I’d consider it my favorite play, I guess), but I had never considered Ruth’s character in that way. Thanks for helping me see her role in a different light.
The only qualm I have with your argument is that it’s a generalization; which, as a member of the marginalized demographic of which you speak (being, african-american women), you should know to be a damaging currency with which to deal. No doubt; there are many men out there who are quick to what-about-me whenever a woman speaks her piece. But on the flip, there’s definitely dudes who are respectful, considerate, and genuinely interested in where the women in their life are coming from.
By all means, slap the whiners. But don’t disservice those gentlemen who continue to have your back. If you don’t have any males like this in your life, then maybe it’s on you to re-consider the group you’re running with.
Mens issues are sometimes always concentrated on the ego of men.*`:
Mens issues are sometimes always concentrated on the ego of men.*`:
men’s issues are always about money, career and women. those sort of things.,’*
men’s issues are always about money, career and women. those sort of things.,’*
mens issues are almost always rooted on women, money and power”‘:
mens issues are almost always rooted on women, money and power”‘:
[…] Beyonce Says Big Ego, but Ruth says, “Eat your [damn] eggs, Walter Lee” by Fallon W, 2009. […]
[…] Beyonce Says Big Ego, but Ruth says, “Eat your [damn] eggs, Walter Lee” by Fallon W, 2009. […]