I just finished reading this book called We Real Cool: Black Men and Masculinity by feminist author bell hooks. It was a fascinating read and an insight to a concept that is not my own despite how I felt before.
Being a Black male (with multiracial heritage obviously) my eyes were opened by reading a book on Black Masculinity. It touched two of my identities, my target identity, being Black, and the agent, being male. As a result of reading We Real Cool I have reexamined what it means to be a Black male in the contemporary early 21st century. Most of my ideas, and other Black males as well, of masculinity are not our own, but rather influenced by a largely White racist, sexist, and capitalistic society. Black masculinity has never been our own since the time of slavery. Aspects of masculinity that are not our own include being violent, sexist, and patriarchal. As a result of this, we add to our oppression and aid a racist society in their effort to subjugate us.
Perhaps the most important thing I can share about We Real Cool is how I perpetuate oppression to members of the opposite sex. I add to oppression as a cisgender male because I benefit from male privilege, which puts down cisgender and transgender females. However as a Black Male I add to the oppression of females and my own. I do not allow myself to exhibit and display certain emotions that are conceived as feminine. I seek to gain power through profit at any and all costs.
Over the past few weeks I have critically examined the music I have listened to: Hip-Hop. Mainstream Hip-Hop music, despite its evolution over the past decade, is largely sexist due to its sexual objectification of women and its misogynist lyrics. I have been listening to Hip-Hop and Rap Music for as long as I can remember and I did not truly grasp the extent of the misogyny until I went to a Snoop Dogg concert at Occidental College. Before and after the concert, I realized how uncomfortable some women felt about Snoop's appearance. Many of the lyrics are sexist towards females, yet that is a prevailing attitude deep in my subconscious thoughts because I have been exposed to them for so long. However, I will be clear when I say this, I do not personally blame Snoop Dogg for rapping such attitudes towards women; instead I want to examine why he has such ideals.
Black men have been taught by our racist society that in order to be "men" we must have domination and control over our women and children. These ideals were not evident in the cultures of which we came from originally. In most cultures from Africa prior to colonization, women and men had equal control over the households. Unfortunately, we lost most of our culture as a result of being stolen from Africa and brought over to America. Whoever we were prior to slavery was erased and wiped from history, which the White Man controls. Henceforth, during and after slavery we have been taught largely Eurocentric models of masculinity and patriarchy, which is harmful to females.
The most important thing I want for people, especially young Black males like myself, after reading this blog post is this: as a Black person I lack power in racial relations even as a male. Our masculinity has been constructed by a sexist, racist, and capitalist society and thus we are still slaves especially when we hurt ourselves and Black females. We have to shift our values as Black men in an effort to help ourselves truly be free.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Elevation to Equality: A Critical Examination of Marriage Inequality Through Race and Sexuality (Final Version)
Marriage equality in the United States is a right that has been partially protected. While contemporary U.S. law protects marriage between couples of different races, it has generally limited the union to exist only between a male and a female. This is problematic, as most states have prohibited same-sex couples from marrying, instead demoting them to civil unions or domestic partnerships. White supremacists and heterosexists have both used their biased definitions of marriage as a hegemonic weapon of discrimination against subaltern non-whites and homosexuals.
The ban of interracial marriage by the hegemonic Caucasian society in the early to mid 20th century perpetrated the ideology of white supremacy at the expense of non-whites. Anti-miscegenation laws prevented whites from marrying non-whites. These Draconian laws were discriminatory to both white and non-whites as it restricted their fundamental right to marriage. However, the people most stigmatized by this law were minorities because of the pervasively racist climate in America at the time. As Peggy Pascoe states in “Miscegenation Law and Ideologies of Race,” anti-miscegenation laws were the “ultimate sanction of the American system of white supremacy” (Pascoe 49). Adding fuel to the system was scientific racism, a concept prevalent in the late 19th through early 20th century based on fraudulent and often contradictory evidence of racial inferiority. This form of pseudoscience is evident in court cases involving miscegenation proceeding Loving v. Virginia such as Kirby v. Kirby. Kirby v. Kirby, as noted by historian Peggy Pascoe, was a case heavily influenced by scientific racism as the courts determined the race of the defendant Mayellen Kirby, who was sued by her Caucasian husband Joe Kirby after discovering her mixed ethnicity (Pascoe 46-48). Only when the case Loving v Virginia was brought up to the U.S. Supreme Court were anti-miscegenation laws treated with strict scrutiny and found to be unconstitutional. It is Loving v. Virginia that did away with white supremacist society’s utilization of marriage as a tool of social injustice. The inequality of marriage was one of the most potent weapons of bigotry used to prove apparent racial inferiority of non-whites, yet it is not only been utilized against minorities but homosexuals as well.
Marriage inequality was not only the weapon of choice reserved for white supremacists, but also for heterosexists against homosexuals. In a largely heteronormative society, marriage between same-sex couples in the United States has been illegal, save for the five states of Massachusetts, Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont (Vestal) . Instead of marriage, some states allow civil unions and domestic partnerships, which have some but not all of the benefits that a marriage is guaranteed. Section 3 of The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) interprets marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman.” Barbara Cox argues that the government denies same-sex couples the fundamental right of marital equality because it is trying to make marriage “an exclusively heterosexual institution” (Cox 143). The attempt to elevate the power of marriage as a privilege solely for heterosexuals is also evident in California’s ratification of Proposition 8 in 2008. The voters that passed Proposition 8 as well as the California government that ratified it were essentially influenced by their extreme heterocentric ideology. However, in 2010, the constitutionality of Proposition 8 was successfully challenged at the U.S. District Court level in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger. It was ruled unconstitutional and is currently being appealed to the United States Appeals Court. Because both the state and the federal government tries to make marriage exclusively heterosexual, gays are forced to choose either civil unions or domestic partnership options in the states that allow them. Cox continues by stating that even the use of the terms “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage” is not recognition of same-sex couples’ fundamental right to marry (Cox 143). Cox further adds what social ills arise as our heteronormative society continues to use the term “same sex marriage”:
“When those of us who advocate for marriage quality refer to the marriages as we want as “same-sex marriage” or gay marriage, we may be encouraging the courts, the legislatures, and the public to understand that we are seeking something different from the fundamental right to marry that individuals in opposite-sex couples enjoy” (147).
The use of the term “same-sex marriage” and the limitation on homosexual couples to civil unions are both practices that make the broad concept of “marriage” a right only heterosexual couples can retain.
As a result of the heterosexist and white supremacist society elevating their hegemonic ideals over subaltern rights through marriage, they effectively rendered non-whites and gays as second-class citizens, although in different ways. The key difference between the discrimination of both non-whites and gays is that both whites and minorities were mutually disallowed from marrying, thus inadvertently denying a fundamental right to the hegemonic white supremacy. Unlike the miscegenation laws of the past, the denial of marriage to same-sex couples does not inhibit the marital rights of heterosexual couples. Thus, heterosexuals are not denied any of the marital privileges offered to them, unlike whites were in years past under anti-miscegenation laws. However, racial minorities and gays still share a similarity in that the laws influenced by hegemonic ideals turned them second-class citizens because their fundamental right to marry has been denied.
Heterosexists and white supremacists have socially constructed United States law as a way to prevent homosexuals and non-whites from “harming” traditional conceptions of marriage. Despite the evidence that strongly suggests non-homosexual marriages as harmless, opponents continue to argue that marriage between same-sex couples harm heterosexual ones (Head). For example, the language the word “Defense” in the Defense of Marriage Act is a way the government eschews marriage between same-sex couples by reasoning that it is not safe to society. The use of the words synonymous with “defense” is recurring throughout law such California’s Proposition 8’s other name “California Marriage Protection Act.” Evident in the language of laws is the government trying to “protect” marriage between heterosexual couples from an “invasion” of homosexuality or other non-heterosexual orientations. As fellow colleague Jonathan Pardon noted in his essay "The Connection Between Interracial and Same-Sex Marriages," same conception of “protection” existed with anti-miscegenation laws, the goal of which was to prevent interracial mixing between whites and non-whites (Pardon). Such similarities are further proof of how the hegemonic power will attempt to demonize subaltern groups and make them socially deviant. Portraying them as dangerous towards the dominant traditional forms of marriage only adds to their discrimination. The institution of heterocentric and white supremacist ideology used marital inequality as a weapon of “defense” for traditional values concerning marriage.
As a result of the white supremacist and heterocentric society utilizing marriage as a tool of discrimination against non-whites and gays, a deadly binary opposition was created that separated the hegemonic groups from the subaltern ones. The binary opposition between whites and non-whites is evident in the anti-miscegenation laws. Peggy Pascoe argues that the marital court case of Kirby v. Kirby set the tones for modern racial ideology (Pascoe 48). The case is significant in that it introduced racial ideology not through biology, as scientific racism did, but through other factors such as intellect, culture, and morality (Pascoe 48). These factors that determine race still reinforced the binary opposition between non-whites and whites. It is even more unfortunate that while anti-miscegenation laws have been long gone since Loving v. Virginia, the binary opposition between whites and non-whites has not. The binary opposition society enforces between heterosexuals and homosexuals are too evident through marital laws as well. An example is the use of the word “gay marriage” in many laws. As mentioned earlier, Barbara Cox argued that the use of the term “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage” is not recognition of true marital equality (Cox 143). This subtle use of language proves how society uses the word “marriage” as something exclusively heterosexual as opposed to “gay marriage.” The use of the term only creates the perceptions of gays inferior or deviant from our heteronormative society. The term “gay marriage” only creates a social separation between homosexuals and heterosexuals through the socially dogmatic perspective of marriage. As heteronormative society continues use of marriage to set a binary opposition between heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is only using the same method utilized by white supremacist society not too long ago.
The abuse of marriage equality by the hegemonic groups of white supremacy in the past and heterosexism in the present is an aspect both bigoted groups have in common when discriminating against non-whites and gays. A subtle tool such as marriage turned out to be a weapon of social injustice used against these disadvantaged groups. It is unfortunate that contemporary 21st century society uses methods that harken back to the racist 20th century society. Pervasive attitudes of discrimination against marriages of interracial couples in the past and same-sex couples in the present share few differences but are ultimately similar because the fundamental right of marriage was denied to them by a largely prejudiced society.
Works Cited
Vestal, Christine. "Gay marriage legal in six states." Stateline. April 2009, 2009.
Head, Tom. 10 Really Bad Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage . 2010.
Pardon, Jonathan. "Final Paper-The Connection Between Interracial and Same-Sex
Marriages." 6 December 2010. Blogger.
<http://jpatron808.blogspot.com/2010/12/final-paper-connection-
between.html>.
Pascoe, Peggy. "Miscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of 'Race' in
Twentieth Century America." Journal of American History 83 (June
1996):44-69.
Cox, Barbara. "‘A Painful Process Of Waiting': The New York, Washington, New Jersey,
and Maryland Dissenting Justices Understand That 'Same-Sex Marriage' Is Not
What Same-Sex Couples Are Seeking." 45 California Western Law
Review 139. Fall 2008.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Elevation to Equality: A Critical Examination of Marriage Inequality Through Race and Sexuality
Marriage equality in the United States is a right that has been partially protected. While contemporary U.S. law protects marriage between couples of different races, it has generally limited the union to exist only between a male and a female. This is problematic, as most states have prohibited same-sex couples from marrying, instead demoting them to civil unions or domestic partnerships. White supremacists and heterosexists have both used their biased definitions of marriage as a hegemonic weapon of discrimination against subaltern non-whites and homosexuals.
The ban of interracial marriage by the hegemonic Caucasian society in the early to mid 20th century perpetrated the ideology of white supremacy at the expense of non-whites. Anti-miscegenation laws prevented whites from marrying non-whites. These Draconian laws were discriminatory to both white and non-whites as it restricted their fundamental right to marriage. However, the people most stigmatized by this law were minorities because of the pervasively racist climate in America at the time. As Peggy Pascoe states in “Miscegenation Law and Ideologies of Race,” anti-miscegenation laws were the “ultimate sanction of the American system of white supremacy” (Pascoe 49). Adding fuel to the system was scientific racism, a concept prevalent in the late 19th through early 20th century based on fraudulent and often contradictory evidence of racial inferiority. This form of pseudoscience is evident in court cases involving miscegenation proceeding Loving v. Virginia such as Kirby v. Kirby. Kirby v. Kirby, as noted by historian Peggy Pascoe, was a case heavily influenced by scientific racism as the courts determined the race of the defendant Mayellen Kirby, who was sued by her Caucasian husband Joe Kirby after discovering her mixed ethnicity (Pascoe 46-48). Only when the case Loving v Virginia was brought up to the U.S. Supreme Court were anti-miscegenation laws treated with strict scrutiny and found to be unconstitutional. It is Loving v. Virginia that did away with white supremacist society’s utilization of marriage as a tool of social injustice. The inequality of marriage was one of the most potent weapons of bigotry used to prove apparent racial inferiority of non-whites, yet it is not only been utilized against minorities but homosexuals as well.
Marriage inequality was not only the weapon of choice reserved for white supremacists, but also for heterosexists against homosexuals. In a largely heteronormative society, marriage between same-sex couples in the United States has been illegal, save for the five states of Massachusetts, Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont (Vestal) . Instead of marriage, some states allow civil unions and domestic partnerships, which have some but not all of the benefits that a marriage is guaranteed. Section 3 of The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) interprets marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman.” Barbara Cox argues that the government denies same-sex couples the fundamental right of marital equality because it is trying to make marriage “an exclusively heterosexual institution” (Cox 143). The attempt to elevate the power of marriage as a privilege solely for heterosexuals is also evident in California’s ratification of Proposition 8 in 2008. The voters that passed Proposition 8 as well as the California government that ratified it were essentially influenced by their extreme heterocentric ideology. However, in 2010, the constitutionality of Proposition 8 was successfully challenged at the U.S. District Court level in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger. It was ruled unconstitutional and is currently being appealed to the United States Appeals Court. Because both the state and the federal government tries to make marriage exclusively heterosexual, gays are forced to choose either civil unions or domestic partnership options in the states that allow them. Cox continues by stating that even the use of the terms “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage” is not recognition of same-sex couples’ fundamental right to marry (Cox 143). Cox further adds what social ills arise as our heteronormative society continues to use the term “same sex marriage”:
“When those of us who advocate for marriage quality refer to the marriages as we want as “same-sex marriage” or gay marriage, we may be encouraging the courts, the legislatures, and the public to understand that we are seeking something different from the fundamental right to marry that individuals in opposite-sex couples enjoy” (147).
The use of the term “same-sex marriage” and the limitation on homosexual couples to civil unions are both practices that make the broad concept of “marriage” a right only heterosexual couples can retain.
As a result of the heterosexist and white supremacist society elevating their hegemonic ideals over subaltern rights through marriage, they effectively rendered non-whites and gays as second-class citizens, although in different ways. The key difference between the discrimination of both non-whites and gays is that both whites and minorities were mutually disallowed from marrying, thus inadvertently denying a fundamental right to the hegemonic white supremacy. Unlike the miscegenation laws of the past, the denial of marriage to same-sex couples does not inhibit the marital rights of heterosexual couples. Thus, heterosexuals are not denied any of the marital privileges offered to them, unlike whites were in years past under anti-miscegenation laws. However, racial minorities and gays still share a similarity in that the laws influenced by hegemonic ideals turned them second-class citizens because their fundamental right to marry has been denied.
Heterosexists and white supremacists have socially constructed United States law as a way to prevent homosexuals and non-whites from “harming” traditional conceptions of marriage. Despite the evidence that strongly suggests non-homosexual marriages as harmless, opponents continue to argue that marriage between same-sex couples harm heterosexual ones (Head). For example, the language the word “Defense” in the Defense of Marriage Act is a way the government eschews marriage between same-sex couples by reasoning that it is not safe to society. The use of the words synonymous with “defense” is recurring throughout law such California’s Proposition 8’s other name “California Marriage Protection Act.” Evident in the language of laws is the government trying to “protect” marriage between heterosexual couples from an “invasion” of homosexuality or other non-heterosexual orientations. As fellow colleague Jonathan Pardon noted in his essay "The Connection Between Interracial and Same-Sex Marriages," same conception of “protection” existed with anti-miscegenation laws, the goal of which was to prevent interracial mixing between whites and non-whites (Pardon). Such similarities are further proof of how the hegemonic power will attempt to demonize subaltern groups and make them socially deviant. Portraying them as dangerous towards the dominant traditional forms of marriage only adds to their discrimination. The institution of heterocentric and white supremacist ideology used marital inequality as a weapon of “defense” for traditional values concerning marriage.
As a result of the white supremacist and heterocentric society utilizing marriage as a tool of discrimination against non-whites and gays, a deadly binary opposition was created that separated the hegemonic groups from the subaltern ones. The binary opposition between whites and non-whites is evident in the anti-miscegenation laws. Peggy Pascoe argues that the marital court case of Kirby v. Kirby set the tones for modern racial ideology (Pascoe 48). The case is significant in that it introduced racial ideology not through biology, as scientific racism did, but through other factors such as intellect, culture, and morality (Pascoe 48). These factors that determine race still reinforced the binary opposition between non-whites and whites. It is even more unfortunate that while anti-miscegenation laws have been long gone since Loving v. Virginia, the binary opposition between whites and non-whites has not. The binary opposition society enforces between heterosexuals and homosexuals are too evident through marital laws as well. An example is the use of the word “gay marriage” in many laws. As mentioned earlier, Barbara Cox argued that the use of the term “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage” is not recognition of true marital equality (Cox 143). This subtle use of language proves how society uses the word “marriage” as something exclusively heterosexual as opposed to “gay marriage.” The use of the term only creates the perceptions of gays inferior or deviant from our heteronormative society. The term “gay marriage” only creates a social separation between homosexuals and heterosexuals through the socially dogmatic perspective of marriage. As heteronormative society continues use of marriage to set a binary opposition between heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is only using the same method utilized by white supremacist society not too long ago.
The abuse of marriage equality by the hegemonic groups of white supremacy in the past and heterosexism in the present is an aspect both bigoted groups have in common when discriminating against non-whites and gays. A subtle tool such as marriage turned out to be a weapon of social injustice used against these disadvantaged groups. It is unfortunate that contemporary 21st century society uses methods that harken back to the racist 20th century society. Pervasive attitudes of discrimination against marriages of interracial couples in the past and same-sex couples in the present share few differences but are ultimately similar because the fundamental right of marriage was denied to them by a largely prejudiced society.
Works Cited
Pascoe, Peggy. "Miscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of 'Race' in
Twentieth Century America." Journal of American History 83 (June
1996):44-69.
Cox, Barbara. "‘A Painful Process Of Waiting': The New York, Washington, New Jersey,
and Maryland Dissenting Justices Understand That 'Same-Sex Marriage' Is Not
What Same-Sex Couples Are Seeking." 45 California Western Law
Review 139. Fall 2008.
Vestal, Christine. "Gay marriage legal in six states." Stateline. April 2009, 2009.
Head, Tom. 10 Really Bad Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage . 2010.
Pardon, Jonathan. "Final Paper-The Connection Between Interracial and Same-Sex
Marriages." 6 December 2010. Blogger.
<http://jpatron808.blogspot.com/2010/12/final-paper-connection-
between.html>.
Friday, October 8, 2010
TBA
The Muse in me has gone away
My spirit fades into oblivion everyday.
How did this happen and why?
How did my well of inspiration go dry?
Where did Satire go, did he find a place to hide?
Is he in the deep reaches of my mind inside?
We joked of LeBron James and Kevin Durant
Spoofing them while keeping them current
Then you decided to lose your sheer humor
Your legendary exploits reduced to a mere rumor.
Even I am unsure, perhaps it is Time
Passing me by while taking my rhyme.
Or it is the Devil who thieved my poetic soul
Leaving me this void, which used to be whole.
Perhaps it is this bulb in me that shone twice as bright
But lasted half as long and no longer provides the light.
Maybe it is I, the man that is me
I am not the same demigod I used to be.
I lack my passion, the fire, and poetic drive
I need to regain my spirit to be alive.
Perhaps I will journey to Hell like Dante before
And find myself with my soul once more.
And then I can begin to scribe that day
With doubts dead and my spirit to stay.
September 24, 2010
The Man That Is Me
Inside this exterior lies the man that is me
But treat me wrongly it will be our worst enemy
I have a shell of which is hard to break
Emotions that creates this façade I fake
I have done things most have never achieved
But I’m not hard in fact I’m simple to read
My emotional side exists but lacks any prevalence
Which matters not because it’s treated with little relevance.
Since I was a child I was treated so very cruel
By peers during my days before high school.
I have never felt the true warmth of a woman's touch
No affection for me exists, at least not that much
But I am kind you see, I am not always forceful
When I commit sins I repent very remorseful.
I am so tired of being ignored and rejected
By those I’m far above, by whom I should be respected
I am better than you or what you would want to think
My path to greatness and glory is about to reach the brink!
Don’t pass me by just because I am being real
Unlike other peons who fake how they really feel.
Honestly I can care less if you live or die
I’m not gonna please you by living Goddamn a lie
My power is enough to bleed the stars and the Moon
I can be adored and worshipped by all of you soon
I don’t want to be a monster or a Devil to thee
I just want to be accepted for the man that is me.
July 11, 2010
A Problem With Pitchers
The hurler stands atop his dirt mound
His mind barely blocking every little sound.
His challenger rises and steps to oppose
While the hurler accepts and heavily throws.
He hurls that leathery stone of his
Hoping the swinger to swing and miss.
It curves, it breaks, it slithers away
Only for it to be broken in the light of summer’s day.
The ball leaves no longer to be in sight
While the hurler’s arm loses all of its might.
Mistake and mistake repeated kills the rates
It’s time for a changeup, so declares the Fates.
And so the once mighty hurler begins to descend
To the bullpen where he’ll never escape again.
A Lover's Madness
Oh sweet, fragile, and hostage love of mine.
When did I first meet you, I can’t remember the time
You’ve put a spell and charm on my soul,
A soul of which is as dark as coal.
Oh sweet love, I will attend your institution,
And hopefully not mistake you for prostitution.
Yeah love, let me call you baby, boo-thang, and shawty
And accept these names, I don’t care if your attitude is haughty.
It’s time to see the Truth-no not Paul Pierce!
The truth is, behold! my love for you is all fierce.
Use your pretty head my dear and accept thee
For all my insanity and do not reject me!
Please please please, know that I must have you
Or else I will have nothing special to do.
Wait…timeout, why do you say we cannot be?
And how come I have never seen you in my sights to see?
Cease speaking love, I’m tired of being effin berated.
Sorry, I’ll stop using profanity and keep it G-Rated.
Alright love, now I’m really starting to get pissed!
Because right now I just found out that you do not exist!
So all this time I thought you were real
Now what the heck am I supposed to feel?
And now, love made me a joke of humanity.
Oh man…I really was in a pointless fantasy.
I was trapped in the Dream-no not Hakeem!
Oh no…I’m going nuts, I’m unwell, I mean.
I had a burning heart…which only love I desired
No wait…that’s something my madness just sired.
June 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)