It also helps black women be wise when knowing when and how to pick their battles or allies. ESPECIALLY when confronted with a would-be ally or another individual who pulls rank.

What do I mean by “pull rank”? I mean that the person uses their position of privilege in a way that suggests:

- They are better than you

- They and their concerns are more important than you and your concerns

- You are obligated to follow them because of where they stand in a particular hierarchy

- You are to sacrifice your best interests and roll under the bus willingly

This thought came about thanks to the  recent discussion on Jason Collins. I do not know whether or not he personally intended to pull rank, but that’s pretty much what happened.

That’s why his ex-gf was thrown under the bus. That’s why so many openly gay women athletes were thrown under the bus. In the hierarchy, man trumps gay and it trumps woman. So people thinking GLBT rights is a completely united front where everyone’s best interest are given equal weight might want to keep that nugget at the back of their mind. This is often the case with movements that claim to be about everyone, but are really about who has the highest rank and how to expand their privileges moreso than everyone else’s.

Black women experience this from various movements and individuals thanks to intersectionality. It may be overt and direct, like a conversation with your boss. It could be subtle or indirect as well. In fact, many attempts to pull rank on black women are just that: Subtle and indirect.

Someone is always looking to tell black women how to think and feel about themselves, and if black women think and feel too much about themselves, here comes the rank-pull.

There are two situations where this happens.

The Sacrificial Lamb

There is a reason I do not like the “victim narrative” when it comes to certain ostracized and discriminated groups seeking rights (or just expanding what privileges they have that others don’t). It is a narrative that often requires sacrifice to get what is wanted. And what is often sacrificed is the image, happiness, and finances of black women.

Despite the fact that black women have marched, picketed, and paid dues on behalf of various groups, you will be hard pressed to find one where a black woman is the face of that group.

When you are giving so much to a cause that will not acknowledge you as an equal partner, you have been made the sacrificial lamb.

Or, if there is a situation where someone has a chance to garner positive attention for themselves or their cause and they can’t risk looking bad or getting hurt, they will stick the sacrificial lamb out front to take the hits. In Chess, the least important piece is the pawn. Yes, a pawn can win a Chess game, but not before so many of them have been sacrificed for victory.

A willing pawn is someone who accepts their lack of worth as it relates to someone who out-ranks them. These willing pawns offer themselves up as sacrifices so that the other person or group may benefit. And the hilarious part? The person benefitting a lot of the time won’t even acknowledge or thank the willing pawn.  Their privileged point of view tells them that it’s the natural course of action that the lesser lay down for their better.

Black women, so long as you have options and a functioning brain, it should be clear for you to see why you don’t want to be the sacrificial lamb for anyone else. Get as far way from individuals and groups looking to use you rather than try and better you.

It’s not Easter and you aren’t Jesus: Let somebody else pay it all!

The Ego-Boost

There is a lot of push-back from different people regarding an increasing number of black women realizing their worth and getting their life: They are losing a means of inflating their sad little ego.

For the insecure nobodies of the world, black women have often served as a quick way of feeling good about themselves. You will often find people eager to discuss why black women are undesirable, uneducated, etc. because it gives them a chance to ignore how lacking they are as individuals. It doesn’t matter what the race or gender is: People are ALWAYS looking to throw salt in the game of people they feel better than (INTERSECTIONALITY IS A HELL OF A DRUG). Which is why you have to pay close attention to the individual, what their motives are, and whether their actions say that they are for you or against you.

Many people who get an ego-boost through holding you back will try and pull-rank to remind you and others that they have something over you. This ego-boost is about them and not you. Just the same, you have to be careful because some people are so insecure that a failure to gain the appropriate response or a response that crushes their limited ego will lead to them trying to hurt or undermine you in anyway that they can. Which is why you need to STOP worrying about people who aren’t for you and limit your contact with such persons. The less is better and no, trying to put out feelers and build bridges isn’t going to work. You’re wasting valuable time.

People who pull rank to boost their egos are not looking to be your friend and ally: They are looking to ASSERT THEIR DOMINANCE OVER YOU.

When it comes to these people, you have to look at the situation, who they are, how they impact your life and what your options are. And move forward with the amount of care relevant to the impact this person can have on you. Try and judge your response according to your best interest, make a mental note of the type of person you are dealing with, and then simply limit your interaction with that person as much as possible if not entirely. Because they aren’t going to change and their opinion of your relevance to their ego isn’t going to change either. So why should you care? Worry about yourself and your best interests and do what you can to protect yourself from any fallout.

Situations where rank is pulled on black women vary. What are some appropriate responses to dealing with people who “pull rank”? And bear in mind that there ARE situations where a black woman can’t just walk away…

Some would say that this conclusion is a bit premature.  Even President Obama’s highly contested Affordable Care Act of 2010 went through hundreds of amendment iterations, narrowly missed a filibuster in the Senate, and was finally brought before the United States Supreme Court only to later become the law of the land. Universal background checks could very well see the same fate.

About the Vote

A deeper understanding of the vote provides some clarity on universal background checks and gun control legislation in general. The vote that failed actually wasn’t one to make universal background checks law. Instead, it was a “cloture” vote. Put simply, a cloture vote is required to break a filibuster.

So, now you are probably wondering what a filibuster is. Well, basic Senate rules allow for a simple majority to pass a bill in most cases. But, when one party, in this case Republicans – the minority in the Senate – filibusters or denies the debate on the bill all together, a cloture vote must be taken to move past the impasse.  Filibuster rules in the Senate require a three fifths cloture vote or 60/40 majority in order to move past the road block and instate a vote on the bill being filibustered. In this case, both parties have been bickering back and forth on gun control for months. Each has taken advantage of the filibuster for a multitude of reasons.

Now, what is most significant about these proceedings is that, while four Republicans voted in favor of the bill, five Democrats voted against it. One of those Democrats was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV). For Senator Reid, voting “no” affords him the ability to resurrect the background check debate in the future. This implies that there is an intention to introduce the bill or some derivation of it on the Senate floor again.

So, What Does It Mean? Really?

So, while this vote was originally reported as a “defeat” in direct discord with preferences of over 90% of American voters, a more fitting description would be a delay. With the vast number of citizens, those in favor of gun control and those against it alike, supporting a major change in the way we handle background checks, these recent events point to a continued debate on the topic.

What will be critical over the next few weeks and months will be a continued movement toward legitimate dialogue between the political players in the DC Beltway. They have little to lose by compromising on gun control because this is a non-election year.  Nonetheless, recent events inspire hope that the conversation on gun control will happen in the very near future.

Meanwhile, we will continue to see gun advocates spewing hatred as we did at last week’s NRA conventions in Texas. And, we will continue to see the families of Newtown victims imploring action from their congressional officers seemingly to no avail. But, with the contention this thick, there just needs to be a few courageous voices willing to rebuke party lines in favor of the American people. Senator John McCain (R – AZ) has attempted to be that voice. Just a few more and we might very well be on our way to justice, equity, and fairness in the in gun control conversation.

Just 28% of Americans consider themselves feminists, with women twice as likely as men to use that label for themselves. And the latest Economist/YouGov Poll suggests that for women at least, feminism is generational, with the youngest women and those who came of age during the 1970’s feminist movement the most willing to use that label for themselves.

Here’s something significant:

The willingness of women to call themselves feminists depends on their age. Only 28% of women 65 and older say they are feminists (the baby boomers now make up only a small proportion of this older group); 41% of women between the ages of 45 and 64 say they are. This group would have come of age and political awareness during the 1970’s, when the feminist movement was at its most visible and perhaps most active.

The next age group, women between 30 and 44, grew up seeing some of the backlash against the movement, and just 32% in this group call themselves feminists. But now, with what may be a renewed attention to women’s issues (including discussion of women’s role in the workplace, and controversies over funding for contraceptives) the youngest women in this poll, those between the ages of 18 and 29, are just as likely as those between 45 and 64 to call themselves feminists.

I am in that age group that has denounced some aspects of feminism. I witnessed the wacky feminist theories gone amok and how families and children suffered and I’m not ashamed to say I was totally disgusted. Kids in daycare 12 hours a day and “studies” saying that was perfectly okay, bullcrap about how “resilient” children were even when you rip their families apart, the LIE that women can be both mother AND father, the self-centered claptrap about how your children are happy when you’re happy and can do whatever the phuck you want.

As far as the “free sex” goes…utter bullshit. I’m counseling a young girl in her mid-twenties right now who was fed that load of bull and is SUFFERING TERRIBLY because she was under the mistaken impression that you can be “friends with benefits” without falling in love and suffering over the fact that you have been replaced by a woman “good enough” to be the girlfriend and the wife.

It is things like the above that gives feminism such a bad name. Destructive theories that hurt people and families and cause emotional suffering.

To be clear, not all aspects of feminism have been destructive, but to continue to say that all the other crap is passe and not mainstream is to behave like an ostrich. Perception is reality. If people think feminist ideals are too radical, it’s about time the folks in charge rethink their own messaging, because they are LOSING.

This past Sunday, actor Jamie Foxx attended the MTV Music Awards. And, after lending his voice alongside other celebrities in a PSA for gun violence called “Demand a Plan,” it was no surprise that he showed up donning an anti-gun violence t-shirt. But, it wasn’t the message that garnered the most attention. Instead, Twitter crazies lashed out at Jamie Foxx for having a “nigger criminal” pictured alongside the innocents who were murdered in December at Newtown, CT. Implying that Trayvon Martin wasn’t innocent, these responses point to a much larger issue with race and politics in this country.

Responses to Jamie Foxx’s T-Shirt

What was most jarring about the Twitter responses to Jamie Foxx’s t-shirt was the incessant use of the word “nigger.” An old-timey term specifically designed to ostracize, other-ize, and demonize black people, this term only springs up when the intentional desire of the speaker is to malign a Black person. There really is no other purpose for the word. Here is a bit of the hate posted this week on Public Shaming. By the way, these are some of the more tame responses.

How to Racialize Murder

This country has done an absolutely stellar job of racializing just about everything. Certain foods are seen as “Black” while others are seen as “White.” Music, academic interests, books, and movies are deemed one race or another (further reiterating the point that race in and of itself is a purely social construct just waiting for some new person to add to it what he/she deems “racial”). But, it is truly amazing that we have successfully racialized murder.

When masses of Black children or young adults are killed by gun wielding murderers, the murder typically is seen as justified. If you just think about cases like Oscar Grant, who was killed by a BART Police Office while lying face down on the BART platform with no weapon in hand, or like Jordan Russell Davis, who was shot and killed randomly when an older White male became angry at the loud music he was listening to, these cases have been defended by some Whites because the assumption is that these young men were probably guilty of something. Now, whether that means that they no longer have a right to due process is none of those people’s concern. Instead, there is a certain justification in knowing that another black thug is off of the streets one way or another.

The Trayvon Martin case is no different. After folks heard the young man screaming for help, after his murderer, George Zimmerman, admitted to chasing him down and after Zimmerman admitted to shooting him in cold blood, he was still put on trial post mortem. I repeat, the deceased young man who had no criminal record (not that that matters anyway), had no weapon other than a bottle of iced tea and a package of Skittles, and was walking alone while talking to his girlfriend on the phone, was tried in the public eye after he was murdered.

Juxtapose this with the plight of those murdered at Newtown, Connecticut. Those poor children and adults were guilty of nothing other than attending school or work that day when a single assailant murdered them in cold blood. The entire country mourned and still mourns their loss. No one asked if the children were wearing hoodies. No one asked if any of the kids were black. No one checked anyone’s school records to see if they had ever been suspended. But, all these things happened in the case of Trayvon Martin.

This is how we have racialized murder in this country. We don’t care about crime unless the assailant is brown or black. We don’t care about gun violence until a school house full of White children is the target. And why is this so? Because this country is predicated, built upon, thriving on a continuous cycle of racial disparity that keeps haves having and have-nots not having. This is the world we live in. This is what we have come to be. I am not proud of it. But, it is true nonetheless.

How important can you be to a group, a country, or a community if you cannot even be sure that your death will matter? How civic can you truly be when your efforts are undermined by a relative minority whose words are venomous and scathing? How much can you truly believe the words “…one nation, with justice and liberty for all…” when a few idiots with a lot of power keep you from your liberty and your justice?

If this depresses you, I don’t apologize. Truth be told, it depresses me too. But, until we have REAL dialogue about race and race politics in this country, none of this will ever change.

This year, a group of black and white students decided that it was long past time for the school dances to be integrated. They set out to raise money from local groups and parents for their “new” idea. They even created a Facebook page. And, this wasn’t the first time this has been in issue. In 2007, another Georgia high school had their first integrated prom. And, in 2009, Charleston High School had their first integrated prom too.

In each case, the “separate but equal” proms were coordinated and planned privately by students and parents. None of the high schools actually sponsored these separate proms. Many of the supporters of separate proms cited “tradition” as the primary catalyst for the separate accommodations. In the case of Charleston, actor Morgan Freeman offered to sponsor the prom back in 1997. The school didn’t take him up on his offer until 11 years later. And, even after the school accepted the integrated high school prom proposal, some white parents STILL organized a separate prom for their kids. Tradition?

But, herein lies the insidious nature of “tradition.” Tradition will cause some folks to do some truly asinine things. Tradition drove these black and white parents to organize separate proms for groups of friends who hung out together, played sports on the same teams, and grew up in the same churches. All this in the name of tradition. Their argument was simply that the proms and homecomings had always been that way. So, why change them?

Well, quite simply, because it is wrong. It is wrong for any high school student in this country to feel like they can’t spend the crowning moment of their high school career with their friends regardless of their race. And, the parents who thought these separate proms were cute and quaint should be ashamed of themselves. This country has been racially desegregated for over half a century, yet these folks were just holding on to it because of “tradition?” That is purely ludicrous.

Sadly, there are still many other high schools, mostly in the South, that suffer from a need to hang onto poor traditions like this one. And, while these students received mostly positive reinforcement for their cause, they also received bigoted, racialized responses as well. Some white parents kept their children away from the integrated proms. Some students tore down their signs or spouted slurs at them. And, for what reason? Because they wanted to spend prom in one room. One room just like the classrooms they share, the restrooms they use, the gym they practice in, the restaurants they dine at, the department stores they patronize, and every other federally desegregated institution in this country.

In my humble opinion, this seems like black students had to accept the separate proms just because white parents didn’t want their kids to go to prom with them.

Can you say racist? I don’t like to throw that word around all willy nilly. I really don’t. But, what other reason is there for this type of shenanigans?

According to the LA Times, he said the following of Harris.

“You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake…She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country — Kamala Harris is here…It’s true.  Come on…And she is a great friend and has just been a great supporter for many, many years.”

The President’s supporters have noted that the Pres has been known to call both men and women “good-looking.” And, he has a habit of informality in his oratory. Many admire him for his ability to bring levity in such a contentious field of combatants. But, others claimed that the comments were insensitive and sexist.

Nonetheless, on Friday, the President reportedly called Harris directly to apologize for the “distraction” his words may have caused. And, while those efforts seem to have quelled the concerns of blatant sexism and brutishness toward women, the apology likely will do little to lessen the sensitivity powerful women have in the political spotlight. Being a dual minority, Harris has likely faced repetitive obstacles on her path to attorney general. And, dealing with negative tropes about “strong” black women has probably influenced her political career thus far. But, does that mean the President owed her apology?

In many ways, it seems that folks are often looking for something negative to say about virtually everyone. From Michelle Obama’s minced words this week about being a “busy single mother” to the President’s obvious compliment of a long time friend, it seems the media is willing to jump at literally anything that paints the First Family in a negative light. And, for what reason? I get that they are the First Family. And, in many ways, they seem pretty perfect. But, at what point do they get to be normal human beings? Maybe I am idealistic and completely disconnected from reality, but I would hope that President Obama could call a beautiful woman beautiful without being sent to a proverbial firing squad.

What do you all think? Was an apology necessary? Or was it just a bunch of media hype that the President had to acquiesce to once again?

I tried to get a copy of the open letter she wrote in Princeton’s newspaper, but I guess the rabies has spread enough to scare those folks into taking it down. What whimps!

But Pattan refuses to go away quietly, and I admire her guts to stand up for herself against the clusterphuck that’s come her way. This from her piece in the Huffington Post:

I sincerely feel that too much focus has been placed on encouraging young women only to achieve professionally. I understand that this can be seen as retrogressive, but for those women who aspire to what used to be thought of as a traditional life with home and family, there is almost no ink addressing personal fulfillment outside of the workplace. Specifically, finding lifelong friends and the right partner with whom to share a life and raise a family.

Again, I understand that all women don’t want marriage (to men or other women) and or children, but for those that do, identifying the right partner is critical. One of the criteria by which I am defining the right partner is someone with shared educational and intellectual appreciation. Yes, that can be found after college and outside of Princeton, but the concentration of outstanding men (and women) will never be greater than it is as a student. I wanted to encourage the wonderful young women on Princeton’s campus to take advantage of this while they can. From a sheer numbers perspective, the odds will never be as good again.

It’s been suggested that we release “marriage” from government, give it entirely & symbolically over to religious institutions, and use civil unions under law for all couples gay and straight. I would love to live in that world. Perfectly logical. Hell to implement.”Marriage” is an understood concept universally, even by it’s strongest critics. With thousands of years of history predating all the major religions and implemented planet-wide (with varying standards), what it means doesn’t have to be explained, and expectations in law and society are quite stable. Full faith and credit amongst the states, and almost perfect cross-border recognition between countries.

What is a civil union? A convention defined locally by state, or even county? A legislative construct that is redefined every time power shifts from one political party to another? A new form of contract that will need decades of litigation to settle it’s rights and obligations in law?

Civil union is too fluid, vague and vulnerable (reversible) a concept to be reliable in protecting (the main purpose) and enforcing formal relationships. It only becomes stable in meaning when explicitly tied to the extremely well understood institution of marriage. In other words, explicitly marriage by another name, or actual marriage. If anything, let government keep “marriage” and give religions their sacred covenants defined however they wish. And believe me, they will define differently from each other.

If we do not actualize marriage for same-gender couples, or something virtually identical differing only in name, they will struggle endlessly with an unreliable and unsatisfactory construct approximating what they actually want and deserve, constantly assaulted by legal and legislative challenge. They would be better off with a Ta-Nehisi Coates marriage constructed out of a voluminous set of piecemeal contracts and filings.

This is not a chasm we can transit in hops. Only a complete leap will suffice.

—

Original Facebook Note HERE

And since there was absolutely no reference to it in Mexican television, I didn’t  have a clue until to took my daily dose of mental torture listening to 10 minutes of Rush Limbaugh.

Here’s the gist: The State of California is in the process of trying to repeal a law that was enacted to prevent gay marriage. The law is now being challenged in the courts.

Many people on the side for gay marriage summon the ghosts of Lovings Vs. Virginia, the poster children of interracial marriage. My question is this: is it a fair comparison?

But my lack of diligence did not keep me from catching wind of a recent bit of “WTFery” that happened on the show.

A model named Devyn Abdullah was being interviewed by none other than Wendy Williams when the following dialogue took place:

Wendy: Is it hard to be a black girl model?

Devyn: I don’t really consider myself to be a black girl model. I mean, I know what my ethnicity is, but I’m fair-skinned and I feel like I have an international look.

…..

As for the fallout, let’s just say Miss Campbell has a new wig to add to her collection.

Now here are some images of the model in question: (1) (2) (3)

Ms. Abdullah is a single mother from the Bronx who prior to her shot at modeling stardom was working three jobs to care for her family. She is a very lovely young African American woman.

However, her comment was simply unacceptable and if she has a brain in her head, she will apologize for it. And I don’t mean because a cellphone might go flying at her head from some random direction at any minute.

She should apologize for helping to justify the othering of black women everywhere on national freaking television.

I don’t care what this woman calls or considers herself. I don’t know her. And despite this brain fart, I wish Devyn all the best. But I am so TIRED of African American women acting like there is something wrong with black skin. Or even worse, avoiding identifying with black skin for reasons that are CLEARLY colorist in nature.

When I initially read about a controversial statement where she denied thinking of herself as a black model, I was full-on expecting something like, “I am just a model like everyone else, and I’m tired of people putting black women in a box. I’m just me.” I would understand something like that, but no. She went and said, “I’m fair-skinned….I’m international.”

It’s no secret that the fashion industry can get pretty stupid when it comes to black women or any woman of color. And I can understand wanting to avoid the pitfalls that come with fighting for a single spot in the show because a designer honestly feels they only need ONE black girl.

But how freaking DARE YOU sit there, with a dark-skinned model sitting next to you, and Naomi Campbell in the room (a woman who is a walking talking modeling legend, dark skin and all) and fix your mouth to say black skin is not international.

F-Y-freaking-I, there are black women all over the damn globe being fabulous. There have been black women of various shades breaking down all sorts of barriers so a a black girl could even dream about pursuing roles and jobs that decades ago they would have been laughed at for.

Black skin is international because a black woman can go anywhere she pleases. We do not need a passport to carry blackness from one place to another.

And to whom it may concern, this is why posts about recognizing the importance and feminine beauty of DARK SKINNED women is so freaking necessary. Because some light-skinned women apparently are not afraid to get on national damn TV and act a fool, and help further the stigma against being perceived as black, and especially, as dark-skinned. 

If you are a WOC and you don’t self-identify as black, that is your right and that is your business. I don’t hate or shade you. But if you fix your mouth to put down existing as a black, notably dark-skinned woman, you have issues you need to sort out. And in reality, the fashion industry is not the best place to do so. Because like it or not, they will take one look at you and say, “Sorry, we don’t want any black girls. Next!”

These barriers get broken down not by cooperation, but by acknowledgement and pushing back.