Black male bashing!

http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_guest_2.html

Interesting read, as most of his blogs and commentary are spot on and eloquently; intelligently thought out. Watch out for those feminazis they come in ALL colours.


Let me get this out of the way: is sexism present in every major society and culture? Yes. But, Black male-bashing - especially about violence and gender issues - is a perennial American sport that never seems to wane in popularity. We expect such anti-Black male behavior as a matter of course from white media pundits and some white feminist theoreticians. However, Black male-bashing is especially disappointing when it comes from a notable person in the Black community, one who claims to be concerned with issues of Black self-esteem and Black "self-lovvve." (I'm always suspicious about someone who blathers on about "lovvve" all the time, like some pop psychology, "New Age" 'therapy' placebo.) Unfortunately, as listeners to Bell Hooks on the San Francisco, KQED-FM, public radio show, "Forum," discovered on January 27, 2003, this Black feminist author falls into the category of out-of-context Black male pathologizing. It seemed more an exercise in Black cultural self-hatred.

Appearing on the program along with acclaimed author, professor and public lecturer Michael Eric Dyson, Hooks was ostensibly invited to discuss her latest book, "Rock My Soul: Black People and Self-Esteem." But her statements on the program (whether or not they accurately reflect the content of her book) focused, of course, on Black (especially male) psychopathology - not on Black self-esteem. By doing so, Hooks feeds into the smug and superior fascination that white media programs, such as Michael Krasny's "Forum" show, seem to have with cataloguing everything that is supposedly pathological or deficient with Black people - especially with Black males.

Hooks even sniped at Dyson, asserting that his latest book containing practical suggestions for improving the Black community, including gender relations, is well beyond the intellectual capacity of young Black men. Yet she claims that young working/underclass Black males in the ghetto are all clamoring for her academic books on feminist theory. Such Black underclass males are now, no doubt, abandoning hip hop slang in favor of post-structuralist, post-post-modernist, critical theory argot. I can just hear the bloods now: "Indubitably, the narrative of our lives is bound to descend into nihilistic miasmata vis-à-vis a discursive self-actualization of our sublimated faculties."

On "Forum," the "pathology" Hooks concerned herself with was what she purports to be a sheer "epidemic" of Black male low self-esteem. This, host Michael Krasny posed, could be evidenced by the so-called tendency of Black male celebrities to become involved in relationships with white trophy women. To judge by the tone of Hooks' response, a foreign person unfamiliar with American society would imagine that this at-best numerically occasional practice (concentrated in - imagine that! - the status-conscious Hollywood and sports milieu) is nearly ubiquitous. As if every red-blooded Black male in the country is desperately running out to marry a silicone-enhanced blonde. In truth, the attention given to this subject during the program reflects more host Krasny's or Hooks' distorted obsessions, rather than its true overall significance in the national Black community. Additionally, I assert that Black male physical abuse of even white trophy wives - abuse emphasized by Hooks - are not events inherent to Black males, but have everything to do with how men of any color seeking trophy wives tend to regard them as property.

Even more revealing than Hooks' inflation of the phenomenon into a raging epidemic is her bizarre theory of the supposed cause of such behavior: Black male sexual trauma, she claims, caused by suffering sexual abuse in childhood, which she asserts is common within the Black community. Similar "trophy wife" hunting on the part of white alpha males - the winners get the tall, skinny, leggy blondes with the pouty lips and the big breasts - is seen as a reflection of superficiality, ego, and the generalized commodification of women endemic in American society. Whereas, when the same behavior occurs in Black males, it is attacked as an especially Black pathological problem.

Hooks fails to place certain sexist behavior on the part of a small subset of Black males into context as a mere reflection of the superficial gender standards and ills of American society as a whole. This is precisely because the rules of analysis - and white acceptance - set forth by the establishment and media require acceptance of the premise that Black males - albeit with "the good Black" provisional exceptions - are fundamentally different than other human beings. Under this analysis, Black males are, at root, not only fundamentally different, but uniquely pathological, uniquely predatory (especially sexually) and misogynist - in Hooks' words, sexually immature, traumatized and dysfunctional. Those white and Black feminists who at least implicitly accept this general premise get rewarded. They are awarded, fêted and, most importantly, regularly invited back to white highbrow social and media forums. They are well paid for such service. Some of them even get highly promoted, white-celebrated movies.

Therefore, Black feminists who wish regular access to, and rewards from, the white establishment cannot state the simple truth: that many Black males absorb, to a greater or lesser degree, the sexism and sexual standards of the dominant society. (In the music industry, particularly when it comes to rap - the current benchmark and 'font' of Black male pathology - such sexism is often promoted or imposed by white corporate executives over more socio-politically conscious songs.) Nor can such Black feminists state - and be regularly invited back - that any positive, viable and lasting corrective measures must address sexism in the larger surrounding white society; that the larger society, too, must change in how it considers and values women. Rather, Black feminists and pundits typically must promote and expound fundamental Black male "difference" as a given, and must find a uniquely "Black" pathology for the problem. Racist liberal white feminists can thus safely use Black males as the whipping boy, via some Black feminist surrogates. This helps such white feminists avoid any additional backlash and further bad blood from the white men who control media and social institutions, and on whom such white feminists may ultimately depend for employment or personal and social relationships. It lets white guys off the Hook.

Hooks' assertion that Black male self-hatred based on widespread childhood sexual abuse is the significant factor in any sexist behavior, appears to be the price of entrance that Hooks must pay for being given a regular, celebrated voice in white-controlled media and publishing.

Hooks would never presume to characterize white male sexism in the same way, by arguing, for example, that typical sexist behavior by Italian-American males is a pathology of the Italian macho culture, or that similar behavior by Irish-Americans stems from a feeling of deep-seated inferiority to Anglo culture, let alone supposed rampant child sexual abuse among either ethnicity. For reasons we all understand, she better not talk about Jewish misogyny in Israel, as Jewish-American feminist Andrea Dworkin has done. Nor would any mainstream broadcasting or publishing outlet give Hooks a forum to assert such views. Indeed, Hooks specifically implied that Jewish/Israeli society (any society - except Black, I guess - that has suffered a holocaust) is not sexist! But when it comes to Blacks, "uniquely" pathological arguments are not only permitted, but encouraged by a white institutional system of rewards, and it is white liberals who often seem to love, suitably couched, Black-bashing the most.

I wonder if Hooks really does care about the well-being and social health of the Black community, rather than just getting fêted by whites. It is the responsibility of Black intellectuals to resist these white encouragements toward the pundit sport of Black pathologizing, not to give in to them. At least in instances like these, Bell Hooks has gravely failed - and to all our detriment.

 

bell hooks is just a aunt jamaima femi-nazi sick ass bitch.

 

..and what makes you any different than the raging feminazi Bell Hooks? The standard: appealing to the position of the overall lowness; the typical moral turpitude of Ad Hominem attacks. What is your actual position of women of this stature? Diamondlife's position may be unbecoming onto you, but he at least has a position on Bell Hooks.

 

First of all Just, a white racist's reason for calling a BW a bitch would be a whole lot different from the reason why I'm calling her a bitch. A racist would call a BW that simply because she is a black women. I'm saying that she is bitch because she fits the colloquial definition of one. For one she complains a lot about black men exclusively without saying anything about white men or any other races of men. How many times have you heard a man refer to a woman as a bitch because she had done something out of spite and hatefulness. bell hooks fit it to the tee. My calling her an aunt jamaima is self-explanatory; a black man who is a sell-out is called an uncle tom as is aunt jamaima is reserved for sell-out black women like bell hooks who loves nothing more than to show out for "massa" and make him/her proud. It's evident that in all of her books she does nothing but bash black men and says nothing about this racist society we live in. To say that her opinions are biased is an understatement.

Calling her a femi-nazi is self-explanatory and if one were to just go to the bookstore and flip through her novel-long hate-filled diatribes one would have to come to the conclusion that she is sick. I mean there is absolutely no balance in her discourse.

 

What is with the ALL CAPS!?!? Are you screaming at me or something? ....and....I am not along the lines of Mr Harvard, more along the lines of Mr Oxford, though Mr Harvard and Mr Oxford have a close relation as they are both British.

This is the problem, Bell Hooks is ALWAYS 100 percent incorrect. You simply are not recognizing the racist tone in Bell Hooks' statements. :roll: The only racism you understand is that coming from black and white men. :?

 

Of course, the only racism you understand is that coming from black and white men and count Bell Hooks' rhetoric as the holy gospel. That is hypocritical! Not only are you a impressible myopic child, you also don't understand racism and choose not to understand black men or want to understand black men. Your 'reach' is racist feminist pundits like Bell Hooks' and her thought patterns are amongst that of fascism, Nazism, stalinism and other such empathetic narcissism. Yes, her opinions are always 100 percent incorrect! And....100 percent "misandrist."

Wait....let me slow down.......this may be too much for you to take in. You see, nowadays, I spend most of my free time mentoring young black and white men....though not surprisingly black and white men reaching IQs of 120s and the easiest way to appeal to their intellect is to fascinate them with my word play.



Diamondlife's comment is irrelevant to racism because he is not 'tying' to amateurly invent a "psychology" solely for black men and push these fascist like ideals to the overwhelming majority in the media.

 

You still haven't as of yet recognized Bell Hooks' racist rhetoric. By doing that you are only rationalizing it like a white supremacist would Nazism. Yet, you refuse to see the similarities. It isn't any more clear that the only racism you understand is that coming from black and white men. So, I rest my case! Myopia is only do upon the ambiguity of radical pundits' ideologues rubbish...you eat up, conscious or subconscious myopia is prevalent in all women, it sees no colour.

 

I do try my damnest to come off as a complete insensitive jerk, as a women's cognitive processes pays close attention to what they believe is hostile behaviour. In simplistic terms: misogynist comments is the only time they are listening to men, they ONLY emotion they expect men to show and actually take in what they say, respect it and remember it.

I will not abandon this point: radical feminism and nazism share similarities; because, they are structured on the same ideologies. Bell Hooks blatantly admits BM are inferior product; much like a fascist, she plays on the emotional strings of the less educated, easily influenced and economic starved. This is the same in every country and by adapting this rubbish she has made it a problem for BM everywhere...point blank!

You, of course, fall completely in line with it, therefore, making you and Bell Hooks one of the same. For instance, SOME is completely an ambiguous term, it basically means nothing when describing an empirical conclusion, especially in the case of Bell Hooks' rhetoric; never does she quantifies these guys or those guys but ALL of them. She is only a pawn of the puppeteer: white radical pundits.

 

You are trying to abandon the fact Bell Hooks' rubbish is racist and choose rationalise it by stating some of her assertions are correct. I am making it a point to bring your conclusions about Bell Hooks, what she says about BM and that train of thought, to the forefront of your consciousness. You damn sure is trying to repress it because the women in question is black and your very belief system is at jeopardy. Make a note to yourself, black women HATE black men as much as society and Bell Hooks does nothing but perpetuate it.

 

:twisted: Raise all shields!!! Shit's about to hit the fan now! :roll:

To 7Seven: Where, in this milieu, stands the Black Alpha female, if she exists?

 

7seven, when ww run over their husbands with cars, tie them to the bed and stab them 200 times or write books like "Are Men Necessary?" do you ever come away with the feeling that they hate wm? I don't know if you even consider yourself to be a bm since mixed race people have a different category from blacks in the UK, and it's a well known fact that most of you date and marry ww rather than your own mixed raced women. A ww also wrote a manifesto called S.C.U.M. -- Society for Cutting Up Men. Just how do you interpret the feelings that ww have for wm in light of the fact that they obviously have many of the very same issues as any other group? Here are some excerpts from SCUM and you can read the entire manifesto if you like. The part I highlight in blue has your name written all over it. If bw hate bm do you think the feeling is mutual? Since bm harm each other more than anyone else does do you think hatred is part of that equation as well? Do you think Asian women hate their men due to the high numbers who prefer wm?

 

First and foremost, I consider myself as "black" any another deviation from its root is a ploy to be accepted by the overwhelming majority. I am consciously aware of ALL the negative implications that is incumbent to being "black" and I really don't give a shit; therefore, I make my own rules and luck -- besides, I like being the underdog.

This is exactly what is going: a conflict between culture and ideals. WW hate WM, as much as BW hate BM; as much as Asian women hate Asian men. Black men psychologically aren't any more hateful than......white men, and black women aren't any psychologically more spiteful than white women and vice versa. it is only a difference between social constructs.

It's a reaction from a sense of inferiority. I usually avoid using this term like the plague, but that is precisely what is going on. This 'sense' has strong primitive roots: a child feels inferior if he/she takes notice if they are not loved, so does an adult.

Along the line with the same logic, if a man is celebrated more, the women feels inferior and tries to compensate. In our culture, the man is highly celebrated....well......was highly celebrated...more than the women; but, part of that sense derives from the conscious relation to its unconscious; like the sense of disdain, it's an expression of the tension between conflicts. To make up for not being equally celebrated, women choose to represent an idea equal to fascism. Most dogmatism like S.C.U.M., feminism and other such foolish notions are based exactly on this discourse and thought patterns are along the lines of Friedrich Nietzsche's theology. Well, I just call it penis envy and you can call me an misogynist.

 

justhereforaminute,

I do not spew hate for black women, anymore than white women. Your attempt to create the infamous Straw Man was pathetic at best. You can not not lump in your conclusions of the somes.

Disclaimer: if you read any of my post to MistressB and flygirl, should eradicate you previous position.

 

Pathetic!? You have yet refuted my metaphysical principle on Bell Hooks relationship to nazism. You are pulling at strings and now attacking the man. It's the first sign of irrationality.

 

You have a major problem with women so all you do is angle for any weak theory which accommodates your own hatred. It's quite telling that you make such an effort to elicit and attract deep conflict at every turn. Why don't you tell us exactly what damaged women completely in your eyesight?

 

You see, I do not make knee jerk remarks like "black men are inferior" or concoct theories like "are men necessary?" In fact, do know what will happen to man if he even entertained those ideals openly? You do not see black men devising a "psychology" for black women solely on the theory of inferiority. All these backlashes are unintelligible.

In fact, you are so dumbfounded, you can not get your thoughts together when confronting a man of my intelligence, you seem too taken aback by it. I repeat, you can not lump your conclusions of the somes and protect your feelings of disdain onto me. Your emotions are primitive, like most women, it clouds your rational thought process.

 

Although you're flawed to the core, you still want the entire world to stand in awe of you. That's one of your biggest problems. Who can be but so bothered with such a man? Has any woman ever fallen in love with you?

 

:lol: Weak theory? Yet, you haven't as of yet disproven anything. You are basically saying: "Your position is stupid" and appealing to the overall meanness of my theories. You can not attribute personal qualities(like a women damaging you) to an argument without disproven the argument itself. That's irrational and poor psychoanalysis!

 

If he's as astute as he claims this shouldn't be a problem. 7seven just loves to aggravate any and all who happen to cross his path. Look over his comments.

 

You are a walking toxic dump whose only pleasure in life is playing "simple" games of oneupmanship. A lot of pieces have finally fallen into place now.