If you read the article and don't think it's talking about you, then you didn't understand the article. It's talking about 'Black Male Privilege', just because you don't think you oppress or hurt Black women doesn't mean you don't enjoy what they define as 'Black Male Privilege'. Just like a white person enjoys white privilege whether they're outright racists or not.
There's three main privileges in this country: Wealth privilege, white privilege, and male privilege. Unquestionably, if you fit into one of those categories, you enjoy those privileges, even if it's just the scraps. The article is highlighting black male privilege as if it's a real thing beyond the scraps. It makes dumb points like the attention that is paid to black males killed by cops as if we didn't ride for Sandra Bland. As if we didn't rally behind the missing girls of DC, or even recently, that poor girl who was murdered in the Chicago hotel. It makes dumb points tryna shyt on My Brother's Keeper as if that wasn't a direct reaction to what's happening to young black boys (more likely to be murdered or imprisoned, less likely to finish college as compared to black women). Calling black males out for shyt they actually do (abandoning their kids, terrorizing communities, abusing women) is fair game, but chastising us for incidental 'privilege' and using an inflammatory title to boot?
You have to ask yourself: what's the point of this divisive shyt? All it does is alienate an ally. I have no problem with calling out male privilege, but why single out black males? Don't black males get assailed enough?
And I don't even hate Jemelle. I stuck up for her and the Donald Trump is a white supremacist tweet, and I'd stick up for her again if I felt she was being punished for speaking truths like that. With this latest incident, I realize that ESPN as a company can't have its employees advocating boycotts of its sponsors, so I don't see what's unfair about her suspension.