Here is another conversation. This one from Youtube channel, Breaking Brown with Yvette Carnell. It is all politics and I believe Yvette does an excellent job, she is a throw back to the type of women who spoke direct, plan and in pragmatic terms. I have to say I don’t think what we know as Black politics has a future. But, many are still playing the game and if you are going to play that game she seems to have a better take than the typical “Negro whisperers”, Harris-Perry, Dyson, Lamont Hill, Charles Blow and the like. She maybe to the left of me but I respect her courage, she’ll take on sacred cows and I don’t believe she is a true ideology and can be convinced.
The topic was 40% unemployment for young black men and of course incarceration naturally comes up. Reva calls in to intersectionality us. She wants to change a conversation about incarceration to a conversation about black women being erased.
Either these women are delusional with narcissistic personality disorder, cognitively not evolved to contemplate life without themselves at the center—same thing I guess. Or, they are orchestrated trolls with talking points that derail conversations.
Here’s a call from a woman named Reva, from Kentucky.
So even though black women are far far far less impacted, intersectionality has it that they still should be, if not put at the top of the issue, given equal time. Why, when that 300 rate is normal, along with everyone else? If this was some ‘achievement” stat and black women were in the norm with everyone else and black men were the outliers, they’d be talking about how much better they’re doing than the men. There is no issue where black men are doing worse than black women and the men are put at the top of the discussion list.
At each point: Yvette says children and quickly (move over black children) Reva injects, “and black women”. Yvette says issues from eviction, to debt, to all kinds of stuff, Reva injects “That are specific to us”.
“That are specific to us”, only US, those in that echo chamber who talks about nothing but US. If they were at all interested in climate change, infrastructure, globalization, terrorism (they aren’t) their angle would be telling you how those things impact black women in more and unique ways because you know, they are black women.
This next caller is Antonio Moore who appears on the show occasionally and has his own Youtube channel Tonetalks. Antonio Moore graduated from UCLA, and Loyola Law School. He is now a practicing Los Angeles based attorney. He writes for The Huffington Post, The Grio and Inquality.org. In recent years he worked as a producer on the Emmy nominated documentary entitled Crack in the System presented by Al Jazeera. It tells the story of the effects of Mass Incarceration, the Iran Contra and the resulting crack cocaine epidemic that swept across America.
The following are conversations that show why there is no end in sight to the black gender war. It shows why trying to engage with black women on this issue if futile.
We’re in a culture that’s intensifying its focus on consent (affirmative consent laws) and where reproductive rights (reproductive rights in advanced nations mind you) ranks above global warming, global terrorism and a shifting world economy. And yet women pretend to have the inability to grasp a simple concept central to everything that drives their politics (mostly, themselves and of course the children, but children secondary to women) and that is, choice. So they either don’t care or they’re pretending not to understand how forcing a man into fatherhood against his wishes creates resentment which has repercussions for the man and child. I’m going with the former, they simply don’t care. Black men were put on earth for their utility and that is it, they could careless about us beyond that. One’s individual sovereignty means nothing to people who think they’re your owners. So they benefit from not having to update software to view male/female relationships through a modern lens.
The first conversation is from Obsidian Media Network and Obsidian Radio: The Podcast. It’s on his channel and includes his commentary on a conversation between Allen Roger Currie and Ms Sophia A Nelson. You’ll see endorsed by with no links or quotes so, don’t get that?) I searched for the original video to leave a link for the entire conversation but it doesn’t look like it is still available. You might want to search Allen Roger Currie and Sophia A Nelson on YouTube. But it doesn’t matter, this isn’t about personalities as much as it is an outdated worldview. I don’t know Ms Nelson, had never heard of her until this, so again this is about a worldview, a zeitgeist that has outlived its time. And you know black people love to claim “I’m old school”; which is really a cop-out from having to think differently about a given subject. Well, at least the goal is to not have the men thinking differently.
For the purpose of what I’m doing here, just wanted to highlight the “definition belongs to the definer” comment so that it can be revisited later. But the first point here is to check her comment. There’s no real point to it, just a disconnected ramble.
Have a listen:
She starts off invoking Morrison, asking have you read Morrison or Alice Walker. My response is, do you read anything else? Do you think either of them gives a perspective on men or relationship that isn’t through the lens of female psychology? But I digress, I know the answer. So I’m waiting to be educated on the authors she mentions, see the connection but she leaps to another thought about Alice Walker, The Color Purple and questions, “Why do black men respond…”
My response (which should have been Currie’s response): When are we not “exposed”? Name a group that’s been researched and studied more than black men? Or consider the number of statues on the books over the years, regulating black men.
Why is it that the lay person can rattle stats, off top, about black men but not any other group? Pick any social economic stat, what percentage of Asian men are say, in college or high school drop-outs? How about White men? How about Latino men? Can’t do it huh, can’t come up with a stat, off top, not even one that is wrong or a myth. Exposing black men is exactly what black women have been doing since the OG Becky, Ms Steinem put on, ghost wrote and labeled MS Wallace’s book, “the book that will change black male female relationships for generations” or something to the effect. All during the 80s/90s, on CNN, Nightline, and any platform that would shove a mic or camera; at sold-out venues for a traveling road show of comedian and actor turned authors. Branding the idea of “successful” black women and positioning them as more deserving than, “everyday” black women and superior morally, to black men. There isn’t a group of black men, public intellectuals, activist, actors, entertainers, talk-show host, etc. running interference when programs and funding is for black women or girls. No recruitment of highly visible black women to pen a letter to that blocks efforts like the one directed at My Brother’s Keeper.
More from Ms Nelson: With the guys who engage in this, I was upfront with you so I’m off the hook: She defines as foolish, immature and not something that is moving (me, I mean our) race in a productive direction. This is the, whatever is good for my group, is what’s best for the “community” argument; amazing how that conveniently lines up. Well, any guys agenda is just as valid as the one she’s espousing. Besides, hasn’t she read Toni Morrison, the definition belongs to the definer, not the defined. So you don’t get to define what is foolish or immature about our desires. To avoid serious relationships and babies is, considering the risk, logical. See Helen Smith, Men on Strike. Again, Obsidian ask the question and you can include Helen Smith, where is the Black Karen Straugham?
So what IS the definition, if not foolish and immature, of going ahead and having unprotected sex with a guy who has just been upfront with you? What is the definition of consenting to unprotected sex with a guy who has been up front with you, then carrying the pregnancy to term, having been told the condition? Didn’t he get consent to just hit it and be off the hook, weren’t those the terms she agreed to? What Ms Nelson and women like her want is, to agree and get the dick under his conditions but after getting the dick, renegotiate the terms. She did chose the correct analogy and it is very telling because the baby is the hook.
Next it is the babies canard, the hook indeed: 73% of our children are born out-of -wedlock. Here she let’s women off the hook for protection against pregnancy (but this doesn’t count in the, foolish and immature and not moving our race forward, meme).
She says it is not just a problem it is IMMORAL. Clearly she isn’t talking about the party that has solid legal protection, many many more birth control options, adoption or safe haven drop offs no questions asked, no deadbeat label.
Then she confirms the assumption that she isn’t talking about the women with her, “without daddies” comment followed by, “and the women are the only one’s left to raise those children because the brother’s have stepped off, deal with THAT! (I will in a moment). She says, emphatically, because she think she’s made a point or is certain she just checkmated Currie. I guess so because Currie chimed in with a weak response, as though he had his tail between his legs, “those are generalizations” and later with, “you both have strong opinions”. Well I didn’t hear the callers opinions but, nonsense. Her rant is conveniently circular self-serving and one-sided. It is a zeitgeist, it’s propaganda and demonstrably false. Showing how it is false is the response, not “those are generalizations”. This isn’t 1957, it is 2017 people need to update software. So until guys are not genuflecting to that rant, black women shaking their fingers at black men about babies, and start responding strongly in uncertain terms to that shit, they are flat-out simps. It is the last, leftover residue that those who claim “Red PIll” status must shed.
Brothers you do not ever have to engage in this conversation or a black woman shaking her fingers in your face about some grievance with, “black men”. For the most part you can avoid this drama. But if you’re looking for a way to think about it, here it is.
Again this is not 1957, it is 2017, so let’s, “deal with that”. The that being the babies canard, 73% of black children born out-of-wedlock. It take two to make a pregnancy only one person has unilateral control over whether a baby results. Carrying a baby to term by a guy you barely know, know has other babies, is a choice. Choosing to carry his baby to term against his will or without consent then turning to every one saying, “look what he did”, “he aint no good”, so I deserve help. Embracing what is now a brand, single-black mother (widowers excluded and some divorcees too) and pretending they’re helpless victims of sexually irresponsible men. She has ALL the options, take ownership over your body, choose one of the many birth control options and if you forgo all of those, demand that he wear a condom. If any of that fails, consider abortion, adoption or safe haven drop off. If you can’t afford the baby by yourself you are as reckless as the guy but moreso because YOU had more BC options and YOU made the unilateral decision to carry to term.
So with all those babies, we don’t know how many of those men truly wanted to be fathers. Consent to sex is not a consent to parenthood. Keep it in your pants isn’t a reproductive right, it is not solid legal protection. We do know being forced into fatherhood creates resentment and yet the women don’t care. And we also don’t know how many wanted to get away from the women instead of the babies. We also know that, the mom’s attitude toward the father is the number 1 indicator of whether he’ll be involved.
So fuck all you want but stop having babies for provisions only, stop using babies as leverage, to garner sympathy or just because; or to punish/control the guy, stop the alienation. Have babies with guys who want to be fathers, stop the parental alienation.
And, at the end of the day, all this talk about, his ‘sponsibilites regarding babies is bullshit anyway. It is just a meme for the community to use against men and for women to paint themselves as victims for more of those goodies. If we truly cared, we’d start first by connecting the men who fighting a corrupt system to be in their kids lives. But, we find it more pleasing to shake our fingers at apathy and bad men than connecting children with men who want to be fathers.
As for the rest, relationship, marriage, meh, there is nothing else to say. We have passed the tipping point. We are where we are and it is what it is.
This is a re-print from another post. Think it deserves its own space.Converse a case study analogy
In 1974 Nike came on the scene (registered as trademark) and instead of evolving and adapting Converse shrugged arrogantly (or, poked out their lips, rolled their eyes) and said, “We’re Converse we don’t have to change or compete”. Converse was a conservative stodgy company of another generation that had gotten comfortable, slow and/or resistant to change and uninteresting. Nike, a hip flexible bold visionary company, zoomed right pass the king of the block. By 1980 Nike had 50% market share of athletic shoe market and went on to purchased Converse in 2003.
In the early 70’s the country was changing, over the next 30yrs the American demographic landscape would evolve. This would have an effect in many quarters, including interpersonal relationships–‘where boy chases girl until she catches him’.
In the American Black woman echo chamber there was a Converse like arrogance and the sentiment; we’re the shit, been the shit, where else are they (men) gonna go? By the 80s they had grown more comfortable. “I can do bad all by myself”, “I don’t need no man”, etc. was the battle cry. They exhaled (and flexed) on any and every platform that would shove a mic or camera in their faces. The tone then changed because the marriage numbers were embarrassingly low and they needed to explain to America why? Of course, you don’t want to admit that they aren’t beating down the door so presto, as deflection, you come up with plausible denials like, “can’t find a man”. Playing on all the stereotypes they new mainstream American would buy. Somewhere in there for a while it was, “Black men have more interracial dating options and it isn’t fair”. Hard to keep track though because it is all a self-serving convenient circular mind-fuck.
Anyway, black men heard how black women felt about them (what they were willing to say to mainstream America about their dads, uncles, brothers, cousins and friends) and quietly, without fanfare, voted with their feet. Except, that is, Jamal’s thirsty hit it and quit it dad (he told you) who is now in jail, dead, gone or not interested. (Spent their years snubbing one set of guys while they scratched and stumbling over each other for the same small 15-20% of the guys). Time passed and things got quiet, starting in the 90s women looked over their shoulders, expecting a sea of men groveling at their feet and to their surprise and no one was there. Things went from, where are they gonna go to, where did they go. (Which they then re-framed, packaged and sold as “abandonment”, again playing on stereotypes mainstream America is ready to buy). Many guys simply opted out, never to get married, others found the retail world of women; they come in all shapes, sizes and colors (plus the DR/ Rio) and discovered sweetness.
Having tasted sweetness, how it feels to not be a defense attorney or on probation ( I know how you black men are), how it feels when women actually like you; there is no turning back. Those men are not coming back, especially not to clean up yours and Ray Ray’s mess.
Most American Black women born after about 1970 don’t have the DNA for sweetness. The ones that do (you know who you are) are off the market by 30 or shortly after. The others, when they’re not cheer-leading or “uplifting” each other (gets heavy I know), they double down on browbeating, as some weird mating call.
All these years later, on a Friday night you can still see this scene from Waiting to Exhale. A bunch of women who should have been off the market years ago and now finding that, you can’t have it all (even Ms. Anne can’t what made you think you could?). Now, the “Only thing on the menu is crow!”
It would seem like introspection is in order but nah, they’re doubling down on what hasn’t worked because they (unless they escape the echo chamber, which I highly suggest) just do not have the technology. This, youtube beefs, lawsuits, flagged channels, boycott movies because of someone’s wife, etc., etc. is just what the unraveling looks like, got my popcorn.
It is all simply sour grapes. Black women fell for it, the delusion that they own black men (most think they do along with being morally superior-which is why any discussion, debate, etc. starts with the frame of: you’re guilty black man and we’re innocent). So we have the narcissism, that you’re at the center of a black man’s life, everything starts and ends with you and the delusion, that you can do something to reverse this. But it is neither here nor there, a black man’s life is for him to live and there is a world full of women.