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 But it doesn’t matter, this isn’t about personalities as much as it is an outdated worldview.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.