#HOW can you rightfully argue that sexism is systemic

[secondwhisper]

"Transmasculine people who claim to be adversely affected by sexism are bioessentialists cloaked in progressive language, discrimination on the basis of ""biological sex"" isn't real!"

Oh right, sorry. I forgot that sexism in medical research means that endometriosis, ME/CFS, migraines, post-concussive syndrome, Raynaud's phenomenon, and so many other conditions are only understudied in women. Of course endometriosis For Men™, ME/CFS For Men™, migraines For Men™, post-concussive syndrome For Men™, Raynaud's phenomenon For Men™, etc., are all well-funded fields of research and totally understood. Medical research cares only about the gender of an individual patient, not the association of a condition with people of a certain gender. Patriarchal devaluation of women's health, women's illnesses being treated as fundamentally hysteric, and (peri)cissexist reductions of any individual to the reproductive system(s) they were born with clearly only affect people whose gender is woman, nobody else.

Wilfully ignorant motherfuckers.

[masterthespianduchovny]

Let’s take age off the table, I know shocker for me, the other thing that bothers me about this development isn’t that it can’t develop into something serious without major sacrifices happening if they stay together.

And that doesn’t it right with me.

Society loves romanticizing that “if it’s true love, a sacrifice doesn’t feel like a sacrifice.”

Girls are especially conditioned with this belief. On average, girls and women give up far more for love and a relationship and a significant amount gross to resent this in some capacity. They have to tell themselves that their relationships and kids made the sacrifice all worth it. And can’t express regret at the road not taken.

It’s why the saying, “you can’t have it all” is mainly directed at women and almost never men. Because, in comparison to women, men tend to have it all. Men are less likely to give up careers or take a step back in the name of love. And, when they do, they typically have more opportunities for them than women.

And the same goes for people of color. Their is rampant racism and hiring discrimination, so Black people have to move more carefully professionally.

Which brings up to the Sam and Rebecca storyline.

Both of them love and are invested in their careers. Their relationship jeopardizes either or one both of their professional goals and desires.

The idea that they can and will get over this because “love” is so dangerous because this relationship had massive red flags and was problematic from the word go and they both knew and know that. It’s not like they dated without personal attachment, and then a professional opportunity presented itself.

No, they voluntarily entered into a relationship that can only end in disaster.

If they stayed together and went public, there is no way in hell Sam could stay on the team.

Which means Sam would be the first one to take a professional hit. Sure he could go to a new team, but we wouldn’t know where that would be, if he would have to be traded/loaned, and if where he went would even be beneficial for him as a player. There is also his rejection taking a hit, because even tho they will pat him on the ass, his professional cred will have taken a massive hit.

And, for real, what owners do you think will be okay with a professional player having that kind of access and intimacy with another owner?

Sam’s professional development would also take a hit. Remember how Sam was struggling with Richmond at first, until Ted problem solved why that was? Remember how his stats was taking a hit? Remember how ted constantly advocated for Sam as a player and utilized him in a way that was appropriate for him and, in turn, his confidence not only returned and flourished under Ted.

And we saw how Jamie reacted when his loan was terminated. We saw the difference of play and what it did for his confidence training under ted v not.

I’m not saying Sam needs ted and can’t succeed without him, however, coaching arent a one size for all. Some coaches work better for some than they do for others. Some players need certain types of coaches and only respond to one specific coach.

Sam’s development is threatened by not only losing a coach, but having to play for a new team, learn a new system, and make bonds with new players. It may not seem like it, but switching teams, esp when don’t want to, is hard on players.

Sam would be voluntarily setting back his career to be with Rebecca, which may harm him in the long run.

With Rebecca, most have noted that she’s been treated like shit in the media and, in this case, it would be rightfully so. We shouldn’t be arguing that just because Rupert’s gets a pass, Rebecca should too. We should be arguing that Rupert needs to be criticized just as much if not more for what he did. Professionally speaking, Rebecca actually deserves far more criticism than Rupert. He just ran a mediocre club, she’s unintentionally undermining it by dating a player, which reeks of massive irresponsibility on her end.

Some have argued that since Sam and Rebecca have great chemistry and this could be something great, maybe Rebecca should sell her club.

Fucking, excuse me?

Regardless of how Rebecca originally felt towards the club, she has grown to love it and has a deep attachment. She even takes genuine pride at her ownership and trying to get them to succeed.

Some are really saying that a woman should sell her club to be with a man she shouldn’t have gotten involved with to begin with? Like, I’m hearing that correctly??? (Yes, this has been said.)

So in a profession where women rarely own clubs and a professional she enjoys, is a because she should give up for love?

And if this relationship doesn’t work out, which it most likely won’t, them making these massive sacrifices won’t be “no big deal, I’m glad I took the risk.”

It would be, “what was I thinking selling my club/fucking over my career?”

Rebecca’s media problem wouldn’t go away with her selling the club, she’d still be dating a footballer and mags would still write about her. This is a fucking juicy story. It would take years before this wouldn’t be in constant rotation. Even if they both went away, this story wouldn’t die and would hang over AFC Richmond like a dark cloud.

Love isn’t going to make Rebecca stop caring about what the media says about her, esp if they’re right in their criticisms this time around. That criticism practically ate her alive. She’s going to feel like the monster she thought she was in season 1.

Especially since this is going to be way worse and more frequent.

And do you imagine that she keeps her relationship with Keeley or Higgins? Do you think she doesn’t become a pariah?

So a woman who already went through a humiliating and public divorce, then gets into a relationship that increases attacks and criticisms on her ten fold, and she sells her club to be with this dude (hypothetically, of course), do y’all think Rebecca doesn’t feel even more isolated and lonely? Do y’all think that Sam’s love is enough to compensate the massive loses she’s taken? That nothing else matters because she has him?

Some want to pretend like it’s no big deal, but either they don’t understand the implications or they think just because it’s fiction it doesn’t matter, but it does. It does matter what they’re saying and what they’re not saying. Because if it’s fiction and doesn’t matter, why complain about how raze is being portrayed as well as gender?

Age can’t be treated as unimportant because it’s a fictional pairing, yet racism and sexism doesn’t. That’s called inconsistency and cognitive dissonance. Either all of these things matter or none of them do and, yes, in this case it is all or nothing.

I’ve explained enough why this age difference matters and to pretend it means nothing because “he’s an adult.” Like man, young adults are truly fucked if older people feel this way. If older people feel their responsibility and obligation for protecting younger people stops at 18.

And, perhaps, this explains why people don’t understand the other complexities and nuances of what this relationship is fucked up. Or why they’re downplaying it.

As someone once said, “all art is political.” This and these discussions are a politic of sorts and so many people are missing the mark, yet are only advocating and having nuances discussions on this topic advocate for a problematic and detrimental relationship.

[teafortwo29]

Gloria Steinem says black women have always been more feminist than white women

 WRITTEN BY Leah Fessler @LeahFessler  December 08, 2017

Gloria Steinem sets the record straight on black women's leadership. (Marla Aufmuth/Getty Images)

Gloria Steinem has been at the forefront of American feminism for a half century. But she’s never seen activism quite like today’s #MeToo movement.

“Clearly, at this moment in time we are gaining our voices in a way that has never happened before,” said Steinem, the co-founder of Ms.magazine and Women’s Media Center, at the Massachusetts Women’s Conference in Boston on Dec. 8.

Many women have found a sense of unity and purpose in #MeToo—a movement launched ten years ago by Tarana Burke, a black activist, and energized this year in the aftermath of sexual harassment and assault allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. But while Steinem is heartened by this moment, she believes the quest for gender equality will not succeed if the mainstream movement ignores an essential reality: Black women have always been at the heart of feminist activism.

Speaking with American comedian and writer Phoebe Robinson, Steinem outlined the #MeToo movement’s blindspots, the importance of intersectional feminism, and how to continue dismantling sexual harassment and misogyny in the months and years to come.

Remember black women’s legacy

“We are kind of at a tidal wave point right now. But we need to remember that this all started over 40 years ago with defining the word sexual harassment,” Steinem told Robinson. In 1975, the term “sexual harassment” was coined by feminists at Cornell University. A few years later, feminist activist and lawyer Catharine MacKinnon developed the legal framework arguing that sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination.

Then, Steinem continued, three black women filed successful sexual harassment lawsuits: two against the US government, filed by Paulette Barnes and Diane Williams, and one against a bank, filed by Mechelle Vinson. Vinson’s case, accusing her former supervisor of repeated harassment and rape, eventually led to the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1986 decision that sexual harassment was a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

“All three of these women were black. And these black women now symbolize the fact that [sexual harassment] is certainly is more likely to happen to people with less power in society than to people with more power,” said Steinem. She went on to note that law professor Anita Hill, also a black woman, brought sexual harassment to the forefront of public discourse with her 1991 testimony against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

Yet more often than not, white feminism and mainstream American culture have overlooked the invaluable contributions of women of color. This injustice has led many, including Quartz’s Corinne Purtill, to rightfully charge that #MeToo hijacked black women’s work on race and gender equality.

Foreground intersectionality

“Women of color fought the battles that brought society to this point, where even the faint hope of change seems possible,” writes Purtill in Quartz. “To use that work without ensuring that this broken system is replaced with one inclusive of race, in addition to gender, is not partial victory. It’s complete failure.”

Steinem echoed the same message when Robinson asked whether today’s feminists fail to uphold the importance of intersectionality—a feminist theory introduced by civil rights advocate and law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, also a black woman. Intersectional feminism examines the overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination that women face, based not just on gender, but on race, sexuality, socioeconomic status, physical ability, and other marginalized identities.

“The problem and what [many feminists today] are not saying,” said Steinem, “is that women of color in general—and especially black women—have always been more likely to be feminist than white women. And the problem I have with the idea that the women’s movement or the feminist movement is somehow a white thing is that it renders invisible the people who have always been there.”

If you don’t believe her, consult statistics, says Steinem: In the early 1970s, when Ms. Magazine published its first national poll, over 60% of black women said they supported the women’s movement and feminist issues. Just 30% of white women voiced support, says Steinem.

Things aren’t so different today, Steinem explained, pointing out that black women voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, while a majority of white women voted for Trump. Steinem attributed part of the split to the way that married white women vote “in the interests of their husbands’ income and identity because that’s what they’re dependent on.”

Women of color, by contrast, are necessarily aware of systemic biases in their everyday lives; they are far more likely to actively oppose oppression. Said simply: We are not born sexist or racist. Rather, systemic racism and misogyny socializes us, in Steinem’s words, “to believe that we are ranked, when in fact we are linked.”

Raise our girls to be more like cats

Given the pervasiveness of sexism, sexual harassment, and misogyny, Steinem says we must actively shift the way we socialize young girls and women. Her solution: Raise them to be more like cats.

“Have you ever tried to touch a cat,” Steinem asked me, when I inquired how we should raise the next generation of feminists. I nodded, and she made a swatting motion with her hands. “Cats don’t let you touch them. Cats tell you what they’re going to do, and that’s that.”

What’s phenomenal, says Steinem, is that before children are fully socialized to fulfill traditional gender roles, they instinctively act like cats. “Babies are not born as ‘girls’ or ‘boys.’ Babies are born human, period,” Steinem explained. “And little kids say it so wonderfully when they say things like, ‘It’s not fair,’ and ‘You are not the boss of me.’ Those statements are the basis of every social justice movement. We need to hang on to that.”

Such cat-like instincts were quite literal for Steinem, who did not attend school much until she was 12 years old because her father moved frequently. Subsequently, she says, when someone attempted to kiss her on the cheek as a young girl, she literally bit him, breaking his skin and making him bleed.

But sustaining this attitude is nearly impossible when we constantly teach little girls to be pleasing. “We dress girls in dresses that button up the back, in clothes they can’t even dress themselves in. There’s so much training to be passive, and to wait for somebody else,” Steinem explained. “So we need to look for and demand internal changes in the way we act, and the way we treat our family and friends, in addition to demanding external changes.”

Fight for bodily integrity

The patriarchy will not tumble overnight. Steinem believes that many people still misunderstand what drives sexual harassment. “I think we still have not quite got it out there that sexual harassment and assault are about power, not sex,” she said. Understanding that sexual harassment is about the drive to dominate, humiliate, and demean other people can help provide clarity about what constitutes inappropriate behavior, especially for men who ask questions like, “Can we not hug women anymore?“

“The fact that our bodies belong to us, that’s the beginning of democracy in my view,” said Steinem. “Women have a harder time with democracy because we happen to have wombs, and patriarchy wants to control reproduction. And racial cast systems only make democracy harder for women of color. But the fact is for both men and women, our right to govern our own bodies, and use our own voices is fundamental to democracy. So if we can carry it forward in that way it’s very helpful.”

One of the most important ways to carry forward this bodily integrity, says Steinem, is to acknowledge that not everything is sexual harassment, and that we all are responsible for calling out behavior that feels inappropriate so to ensure lines do not blur.

“If a guy is commenting on our appearance in a flattering but uncomfortable way, if we comment back, they’re shocked, because we’ve taken the ability to define our boundaries and our desires,” said Steinem. “So we need to keep talking to each other—we can’t have men take this moment and say, ‘now I can never interact with women,’ or vice-versa.”

Activism doesn’t stop with social media

Among the many lessons to learn from black women’s leadership in the fight against sexual harassment, says Steinem, is that activism requires real-life, consequence-ridden work. Social media posts followed by complacency does not count.

“Obviously it’s a great gift to be able to communicate [on social media] and know you’re not alone. This is huge. But we also have to remember that pressing send isn’t actually doing anything,” said Steinem. “So we need to focus on the practical steps we take in the world. The obvious ones are how we spend our money, who we reward and who we don’t, and who we vote for.”

This is not to say that tweets and Facebook posts are meaningless. When it comes to real-life and social media activism, Steinem says it’s not an “either-or” situation, because activism is “an arc.” “Consciousness always comes first, before action,” she said. “And consciousness can come from typing #MeToo, and knowing that you’re not alone—knowing that the system is crazy, not you. It’s not about making a value judgment, it’s about seeing a full circle of consciousness, to activism, to change.”

Remember the simple rules of democracy

If you’re not exhausted by today’s political climate, Godspeed. For the rest of us, it’s okay to acknowledge that we’re overwhelmed, and probably craving hibernation, says Steinem. Waves of exhaustion and even hopelessness are inevitable in the fight for social justice, she assures.

However, to prevent ourselves from normalizing sexual harassment, we need to ground our activism in two fundamental values: intersectionality and democracy. Steinem explains:

“If you have more power, remember to listen as much as you talk. And if you have less power remember, to talk as much as you listen. That can be hard when you’re used to hiding. Keep yourself in the present, and don’t obsess over what you should be doing, or could have done differently. Talk to people, don’t get isolated, and remember to empathize, because almost everybody can be changed and transformed.”

https://qz.com/1150028

[teresatranbooks]

Dear Blog,

Prompt: Write a new blog post with your reaction to the Beuhler chapters that you read for task 3 this week. How does Beuhler's work match with how you view your new role as an English teacher? What experience did you have with YAL in middle or high school? You will go more in depth with Beuhler and YA pedagogy in the fall. 

Beuhler’s Chapters 1 and 2 discuss reading YA books with passion and purpose, and viewing YA literature as complex texts as teachers who will one day teach and share YA books with their students. 

One of Beuhler’s tenets is in order “to learn, grow, and thrive, what all of these students need is...a wide landscape for reading” (Beuhler 3). That is, most students view reading as a chore, because for many of them, it is something they have to do, over something they want to do. It is an assignment. It is an expectation. It is another box they have to check off the list or a line they have to cross of on the agenda. And because they’re required to read mostly classics written by dead old white dudes, they’re “cut off from the larger world of literacy” (Beuhler 3). Because students aren’t directly told or handed diverse reading options, they fall out of love with reading and don’t develop that muscle of reading for later on. That is why many students, my friends, and myself included, over the years, began to repeat the sentiment of “I’m not much of a reader anymore.” It’s depressing!

But as Beuhler states in his chapter, students must be given a balanced reading diet. They need room (specifically time and space) to discover new books written by people who aren’t dead old white dudes. They need motivation to seek out those books. They need to hear from their teachers that them reading for “fun” and as a “hobby’ is not only good for them, but also encouraged in their ELA classroom. There needs to be room for students to develop their own reading tastes and reading stamina, but they can’t do that if they’re not allowed to employ a sense of agency within their choice in books. It is only through this sense of agency and a diverse palette of YA books will students begin to see reading as less of a chore, and more of a fun activity they can’t wait to do. 

This text also made me think about the multiple ways I, as teacher, can do to encourage this love and space for YA literature in the classroom. First, I want to create a space where students who already possess a love for reading YA books outside of the classroom don’t have to steal time to read inside the classroom. In other words, I want my classroom to be a place where students will have a dedicated time to read their contemporary YA titles and keep reading logs about them and talk about them with their peers. I don’t want my students who already consider reading as a hobby to ever feel like they have to sneak around me and the state-mandated curriculum to read their YA books -- and then be afraid I’ll take their books away from them, like the many times teachers did this to me. (I still think about these moments all the time...even in college. I lowkey have some trauma from that LOL).

Second, I want to create whole entire units around YA literature. But this might require going against state standards and school subject departments. So how can I make the case for YA lit in the classroom? Beuhler suggests marketing them as an outlet and/or case study for students’ personal and academic growth. The thing about YA lit is that it is entirely written for them. “YA list offers a way to meet students where they are now -- not just as readers, but as teens who are still figuring out their place in the world...YA lit honors that process of self-discovery” (Beuhler 3). When students read YA lit, they grow as the main characters grow. When students read YA lit, they see their personal journeys and feelings of adolescence (going from young child to young adult) paralleled in heightened and relatable ways. When students see themselves reflected in the literature they read, they end up feeling less alone in the world and develop a sense of community with other students who feel similarly. 

When we think about young adult students, we also think about puberty. We think about the multiple weird strange awful beautiful changes that happen physically, emotionally, mentally, and socially for them. We think about our own experiences during that time and how equally tumultuous it was for us. YA lit offers itself as a space for students and people in general to put their feelings and weirdness somewhere, where it’s private and peaceful and doesn’t make adolescence any more more embarrassing than it already inherently is.

In addition, when students read YA lit, they grow as readers. “If students in our classrooms might not have been readers in the past, but they can become readers now -- if we create conditions that support their individual development” (Beuhler 6). When making the case for YA lit in the classroom, I will emphasize how YA lit creates that confidence within students to believe that reading is something they can do. YA lit inherently has qualities that push students to motivate themselves to continue reading and develop a stronger reading muscle for heavier, longer, and more complex YA texts. YA lit makes reading accessible, breaks down barriers, enhances reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, and promotes a sense of creativity, all of which are qualities state standards try to achieve for students but can’t. 

And third, Beuhler talks about how his favorite YA novels are “those that defy categorization” (Beuhler 27). I think about how not only young teens, but kids and adults and seniors are reading YA lit more and more over other categories. Why? It’s because YA lit does so much at once to fulfill their reading and personal needs. They’re complex and rich and tackle so many relevant themes and experiences, but probably most importantly, they model a development arc that many folks are always secretly seeking. That sort of adventure of becoming into one’s own and developing confidence as a person with better informed opinions and forming new friendships and relationships with people. For kids and teens, it’s the excitement and hopefulness of growing older and breaking away from adult authority and becoming your own person. For adults and seniors, it’s the nostalgia and also hopefulness of returning to what youth was like and experiencing new things again. Because there is so much complexity in YA lit, it will require a complexity when teaching YA lit. 

As a teacher, I want to change the conversation about YA lit, dismantling the idea that it’s a category mainly for teenage girls, which, btw, what the hell is wrong with THAT? So what if it is mainly saturated with stories for and about teenage girls? Most of the books students have had to read have been led by boys and men and written by men -- and students of all genders have had no trouble reading them. But when suddenly girls’ and women’s perspectives are prioritized in narratives, or a category is predominantly centered around the experiences of girls and women, suddenly it’s beneath people and not as complex as other categories? Can someone say SEXISM?. While some people might argue that that is not why they view YA books as not nearly as “complex” as the classics, I think there’s no mistake that gender plays a big part in informing that particular mainstream point of view about YA lit. 

Furthermore, alongside Beuhler, I also believe that “sometimes calls for increasingly complex texts are really code for keeping classic literature at the center of the curriculum” (Beuhler 28). More specifically, I believe that most people’s calls for “complexity” in their reading, what they’re really calling for is either 

(1) books written by dead old white dudes about the American Male ExperienceTM where they find excuses to be racist or sexist or BOTH (fun!) and argue that it’s a relatable part of being an American Man (which ew! and wow, the bar is low), OR 

(2) books written by BIPOC authors that focus on the “Authentic” experience of being BIPOC, but mostly as a vehicle for white folks to fetishize the trauma and pain of BIPOC, without neither the actual empathy and compassion for BIPOC, nor the active commitment to creating systemic and individual change against the trauma and pain that BIPOC often face living under the white capitalist patriarchal police state that these books are often thematically preaching about.

Here’s the thing. YA lit definitely can perpetuate those same harmful practices that the classics often do. In fact, some YA novels already do. I can point to many of the YA Book Twitter drama that rightfully calls out problematic books, such as The Black Witch, on the daily. However, YA lit has shown over and over again that it can reach far beyond its intended target audience and tackle complex themes without infantilizing, again, their intended audience...which is young teens. The thing about literature and education and the passing on of information in general is that if you are an academic or a student or a teacher or an individual and you can not relay your perspective and/or argument in such a way where another person can understand it (even if they might disagree with it)...you have failed. 

YA lit is an example of when perspectives and themes and experiences that are often considered “complex” is successfully communicated to a young teenage audience because of its accessibility. If a classic cannot reach a bigger audience or in this case, reach a young teen demographic, it’s not because of a complexity that YA lit “lacks,” it’s because of the unnecessary, often racist and sexist gatekeeping in classic literature that privileges upper class white folks and their experiences which are often communicated in a language only other upper class white folks can speak and understand. Think about how many classic books are written in AAVE, aka African American Vernacular English? Most people will think of Toni Morrison or James Baldwin...but those are only two Black authors. Two. Out of how many white authors? However, I can think of countless YA lit books written not only in AAVE, but also different Chinese, Spanish, and African dialects by Chinese, Spanish, and African authors. As a teacher, I want to use all of these arguments and evidence I’ve just laid out to argue for the case of YA lit in the classroom. 

I always viewed my role as an English teacher as one with deliberate purpose. I’ve always wanted to be more than just an English teacher. I wanted to be the one person whose students would go to when they finished a book and wanted someone to listen to them rattle off about the parts they liked and didn’t like. I wanted to be the one person whose students would look to when they got bullied by other students or teachers and protect and comfort them, especially my fellow students of color. I wanted to be the one person whose students would ask for book recommendations and ask to read over their writing projects because they trusted my opinions. I wanted to be the person I needed when I was younger. If I can’t go back in time to the past, I’ll make sure I become that person in the present for the kids of the future generation...

And I’ll start with introducing them to YA lit.

[fabulizemag]

Navigating my complicated relationships with Beyonce and Michelle Obama

New Post has been published on https://fabulizemag.com/navigating-my-complicated-relationships-with-beyonce-and-michelle-obama/

Navigating my complicated relationships with Beyonce and Michelle Obama

Even my Superheroes have weaknesses…

I remember the first time I saw Destiny’s Child on TV. I’m an 80s baby so girl groups weren’t new to me but there was something different about Destiny’s Child. They embodied the soulful voices of girl groups of yesteryear while appealing to mainstream media as En Vogue had done—plus they were young. They weren’t a niche girl group that was attached to a specific music trend, they were setting the trends.

Destiny’s Child unapologetically became part of American’s English lexicon with words like bugaboo and bootylicious. Even with the changing of the group members and their internal drama, Beyoncé handled herself like a true professional and that’s nothing short than admirable.

But isn’t that typical of Black women? When we are put under pressure we make diamonds? You can rightfully argue it’s a hurtful cliché used negatively against us that sets us up for seemingly unattainable goals that nobody else has to abide by. But that ruthless, passionate work ethic is what I and many others love about Beyoncé. She consistently beats the odds as a Black woman and she’s that chick.

That’s why my relationship with her is so complicated and it’s not just with her, it’s the former First Lady Michelle Obama, too. Two international renowned Black women who undoubtedly will go down in history for their achievements and both who have been criticized unfairly by whiteness and racist pundits are not without their flaws.

But I don’t like talking about my heroes’ flaws under a white gaze because their flaws aren’t up for them to analyze because their criticism can’t be racially unbiased. For me, my criticisms( at least, I think) seem to be layered. It’s hard for me not to want to mention them when I discuss their husbands’ actions because, in my heart, I don’t feel they are unaware of their husbands’ plans. I refuse to believe these smart and successful businesswomen aren’t protecting their families’ interests when their men make these questionable and in some instances, regressive declarations.

But Patriarchy?

Yeah, patriarchy. Patriarchy is trash. I’ve toyed with the concept that for Beyoncé, patriarchy is a major hindrance to her personally and professionally. For the sake of argument, let’s say Jay-Z did initially engage with Beyoncé when she was 18-years-old, he was already about 30 and no matter how successful she was at the time it’s never a good combination for older men to date younger women. Their intentions are usually rooted in grooming young women; molding them and having the ability to manipulate them emotionally and mentally (which to some extent he did when he admitted he cheated on her) paired with the fact she’s witnessed her own mother sacrifice and tolerates similar behaviors from her father. I’ve taken all this into consideration when it comes to analyzing Beyonce from a Black womanist lens but none of that can really explain her branding aesthetic of social justice.

If she didn’t use social justice in her work, yall would call her a coon!

Not necessarily. During the Civil Rights Era, a lot of artists used news and politics as a motivator and backdrop for their art. You can listen to many Black artists between the 60s and 70s and find numerous records that became the soundtrack for what we know identify as the soulful sound of liberation. Not every artist was an activist and that’s ok and my point. You can make music for the people if you wish but it’s a different ballgame when you believe you are the voice of said people.

I don’t hate Beyonce because she’s a multi-millionaire. I believe she’s worked extremely hard to be where she is in her life and I hope she’s happy. However, as a millionaire, it’s impossible for her as a brand to fundamentally be “for the people”. Wealthy people are never for the (poor or working-class) people and have no real interest in liberation because liberation, especially Black liberation involves eating the rich. As the poor, marginalized and working-class culture shifts, so does the identity of what is socially responsible and what is not. The wealthy need the poor to exist for them to remain wealthy. Without the poor and working-class, who would attend Beyonce’s concerts? Who would buy her merchandise? When was the last time you seen wealthy influencers rocking Ivy Park? That’s no shade at all but it is the truth.

I wish for Beyonce to use her position and power and flip shit upside-down. Now that’s she’s secured her seat at the table I want her to flip that muthafucka over and open the doors for everyone else and not just a select few. When powerful women marry and are involved with powerful men who have questionable actions as they relate to marginalized people, you have to ask yourself, are these women complicit or are they putting the batteries in their men’s back?

I love what Beyoncé represents for Black girls in media. I love how she embraces hood aesthetics, social media conversations and creates art in a visual and musical form we can amp ourselves up with. My biggest (and honestly, probably my only complaint) is Beyonce’s tendency to use social media activism as a branding tool. Yes, I’m aware the Carters have donated money ( as they should) to Black Lives Matter and other families who’ve been victims to state sanction violence. I’m aware they’ve donated more money than I’ve ever made in a year ( and again, they should) but the idea that Beyoncé is a spokesperson for the poor or working-class Black woman or can relate to everyday struggles is, in my opinion, far-fetched and disingenuous. As long as the Black wealthy push the pull-up-your-own-bootstraps and coddle whiteness, they can never truly represent me.

However, the difference between Beyoncé and the former First Lady and even Oprah is that Beyonce is more likely to evolve— maybe. I always say that Black people are fundamentally conservative. White supremacy is ingrained into our DNA generations deep. Like many of you, I was proud to vote for Obama, twice! In his eight years in office, I saw the Obamas get treated with disrespect, endure racism domestically and nationally and be judged by standards they wouldn’t give the current joker in the office now if their lives depended on it. Michelle Obama was easily my favorite of the couple; she’s smarter than her husband, tall, beautiful and confident. I watched politicians, pundits and white feminists try to break her spirit and all she did was flip her perfect-coiffed hair at them. Who could have asked for a better first lady?

But as racial tensions steadily rose and the opportunity to stand for the working class and marginalized presented itself, Obama didn’t always take it. In all fairness, he had constant pushback from republicans in congress and they threatened him with impeachment every day. For a while, I reasoned with their lack of actions on certain issues. Let’s face it, you can’t be a left-leaning president and you definitely can’t be a left-leaning Black president, so he picked and chose his battles. But I started to feel the excuses I was making for the Obamas were biting me in the ass when Obama would get on TV and say certain things using certain lingo and speech patterns to essentially talk-down to poor Black people. When Obama told Black folks to call their cousin Pookie to go out and vote, he basically reiterated what white liberals do to Black voters; put the results of voting on the marginalized population in the country.

Ok, but what does this have to do with Michelle? When Michelle released her now New York Times Bestselling memoir, everybody and their mama went to buy the book and if they were lucky enough, they were able to see her in-person on her book tour. Some of the passages from her memoir come straight from Black respectability playbook of middle-class Blacks who feel they work harder than poor Blacks without acknowledging their access to resources. Michelle stated that racism and racial inequality are psychological and we have to help others overcome. That’s bullshit.

It’s bullshit because Black people didn’t invent racism; just like women didn’t invent sexism. It’s not up to the marginalized party to help the oppressor overcome their bigotry. In the United States, Black people have been writing about racial equality since they could write and the path to ending racism lies within white people. However, when Black people achieve certain access to privileges, they assume all Black people can do the same. For all transparency reasons, I grew up in a middle class household. Both are my parents are college-educated and my father had access to generational wealth. My experiences growing up looks different from others who did not have the resources I had. It took me being financially vulnerable as an adult to understand how the system treats poor people even when you are trying to help yourself. When you grow up in middle-class Black America you are reminded daily that you aren’t like other Blacks and anti-Black rhetoric is a foundation of distinguishing yourself from others.

If you are still here reading, thank you because I went in on a rant, but if you are still here reading I want to make it clear that I can appreciate these women for what they mean to Black people as far as representation goes. But we can’t be satisfied with the surface-level representation. We have to do more than root for everyone who is Black. We have to encourage and bring wealthy Black people to task beyond the aesthetic of Black liberation. Wearing berets and quoting our historical leaders in a bop isn’t enough. We are facing dark and dangerous times and if our Black wealthy won’t condemn all forms of white supremacy, they might as well take a picture with them. You know, like Mrs. Obama does with former President Bush.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my Patreon. Listen to Dainty Thug Podcast Episode The Woke Capitalist

7