Dr. Tommy Curry - Failure of Black Studies and Intersectionality

[AlainLocke]

I have been listening to "Man-Not" via the C.O.W.S. Radio book club -- and in addition to Misandry -- one thing he really focuses on is Black Feminist/Black Feminism.

Which I understand.

But, the way he presents the conversation and data makes it appear Black Feminist = Black Women GroupThink. Like it's the key voice of Black Women.

He focuses on Feminism and how white women have used and continue to use some black women as their mouthpiece. And he has a hyper focus on Black Feminism.

As a C.O.W.S listener and student of how to combat Racism/White Supremacy -- it seems like his focus should be on White Supremacy and how that solely has worked to deepen (or try too...) the divide between black men and black women.

The focus on Black Feminism makes it appear that the majority of BW -- are Anti-BM and Anti-Black Family - --- and -- to me -- seems to create more division instead of healing and understanding.

White supremacy ideology (systemic racism) and patriarchy -- the overlapping domains used to support white male domination -- are the primary problems affecting BM and BW - anything else - such as Black Feminism - is a symptom of it.

When I go into the comments on articles about "The Man-Not" it is really sad. It's not productive in healing any gender issues and clearing up misinformation.

It's casting more blame and division amongst each-other and not White Supremacy.

If I am reading this wrong - please let me know - as I am really trying to understand it all.

Thanks

His major issue is with how Black men and boys are not allowed to be studied without the lens of Black feminism and the lens of Black feminism puts Black men and boys as patriarchs. Which is a problem because Black men aren't patriarchal...we are actually like the most progressive group in the USA and also one of the poorest. Our social hierarchy isn't like White people but Black feminism is modeled off of White feminism. White women answer to White men. White men lead households. White men have money and power.

So like when Black feminists get on a national radio show say some shyt like the leading cause of death of Black women is Black men (which isn't true)...then we have a problem...

Because it feeds into 18th century stereotypes of Black men as violent and brutish. And they get that rhetoric from the academy.

And it's kind of fukked up when these same types of Black feminists be in Black Lives Matter...asking for justice for slain Black men and building a platform off dead Black men...then demonize Black men.

So what Tommy Curry's overall argument is Black feminism is wrong about Black men. Black women do not suffer because of Black men but due to White Supremacy. Black men aren't patriarchs. We don't behave like patriarchs and most importantly we don't have power like patriarchs.

Dr. Tommy Curry ultimately wants an accurate representation of Black male life in the academy and Black feminism's representation of Black male life is in the way.

 

[xoxodede]

His major issue is with how Black men and boys are not allowed to be studied without the lens of Black feminism and the lens of Black feminism puts Black men and boys as patriarchs. Which is a problem because Black men aren't patriarchal...we are actually like the most progressive group in the USA and also one of the poorest. Our social hierarchy isn't like White but Black feminism is modeled off of White feminism. White women answer to White men. White men lead households. White men money and power.

So like when Black feminists get on a national radio show say some shyt like the leading cause of death of Black women is Black men (which isn't true)...then we have a problem...

Because it feeds into 18th century stereotypes of Black men as violent and brutish. And they get that rhetoric from the academy.

And it's kind of fukked up when these same types of Black feminists be in Black Lives Matter...asking for justice for slain Black men and building a platform off dead Black men...then demonize Black men.

So what Tommy Curry's overall argument is Black feminism is wrong about Black men. Black women do not suffer because of Black men but due to White Supremacy. Black men aren't patriarchs. We don't behave like patriarchs and most importantly we don't have power like patriarchs.

Dr. Tommy Curry ultimately wants an accurate representation of Black male life in the academy and Black feminism's representation of Black male life is in the way.

Thanks for explaining

Yes - I agree on many of BW who label themselves "feminist" are anti-BM. But, my worry - is their voice is seen as the everyday BW's voice -- and leading to many Anti-BW comments and feelings.

I have to disagree on Black men not being patriarchal. They are -- and always have been. It's truly a disservice to our fathers and male ancestors to say they weren't.

I don't know anybody who wasn't led and raised by a Black man - and a line of Black men in their families. From fathers, to grandfathers to uncles -- and other males who stepped in when one couldn't.

Today - the myth is only creating what was projected and falsely attached to our families and Black men.

I was going to create a thread on Matriarchal being a myth - with sources -- that document the beginning of the myth -- and how it spread.

But, I'll post some info to check out next...I think I am going to go ahead and do the thread soon. I have lots of notes from my research on it.

 

[David_TheMan]

I have been listening to "Man-Not" via the C.O.W.S. Radio book club -- and in addition to Misandry -- one thing he really focuses on is Black Feminist/Black Feminism.

Which I understand.

But, the way he presents the conversation and data makes it appear Black Feminist = Black Women GroupThink. Like it's the key voice of Black Women.

He focuses on Feminism and how white women have used and continue to use some black women as their mouthpiece. And he has a hyper focus on Black Feminism.

As a C.O.W.S listener and student of how to combat Racism/White Supremacy -- it seems like his focus should be on White Supremacy and how that solely has worked to deepen (or try too...) the divide between black men and black women.

The focus on Black Feminism makes it appear that the majority of BW -- are Anti-BM and Anti-Black Family - --- and -- to me -- seems to create more division instead of healing and understanding.

White supremacy ideology (systemic racism) and patriarchy -- the overlapping domains used to support white male domination -- are the primary problems affecting BM and BW - anything else - such as Black Feminism - is a symptom of it.

When I go into the comments on articles about "The Man-Not" it is really sad. It's not productive in healing any gender issues and clearing up misinformation.

It's casting more blame and division amongst each-other and not White Supremacy.

If I am reading this wrong - please let me know - as I am really trying to understand it all.

Thanks

You need to understand as you start to study more, that you take the work your review on the standard that it was written on, not what you wish it was written as.
curry opens up the book telling you the target of this book is extremely limited to academia and feminist theory within academia.
I would suggest you read the actual book if this portion wasn't read to you in the audio analysis.

So with that being said how you take this on an attack on anything but liberal intersectionality theory and its origin and use as a tool to attack the black male makes no sense to me, to the point where I would say either you haven't read the book or understood the words being read.

As for the internet, it isn't real life.

 

[xoxodede]

The Black Father and Black Male Role in West Africa

The most striking feature of African family and community life was the strong and dominant place assumed by the men .... The children were provided a quality of care and protection not common to modern societies for they belonged not alone to their father and mother, but also and principally to the wider kin group (1968:40).​

The Black Father and Black Male Role During Enslavement and Reconstruction

• Women were generally seamstresses and nurses, but even here, the foreman was male (Genovese, 1974:127). Genovese concludes that females were "equal" to males only at harvest time. Indeed, planters listed families under the male head whenever possible; issues of clothing, food, etc., were done through the males, and any sale of foodstuffs by slaves was handled by the male (1974:142).

• Blacks were strict disciplinarians (Queen et al., in press) in spite of white doting of black children. This was largely due to the fact that they knew discipline was important to the master, but it was also likely that what went on in the slave quarters often had to be kept from the master. Blassingame states that in the quarters black males often castigated their owners, became providers and protectors, and exercised authority, while he was meek and obedient only in the fields where his children seldom saw him (1976:100). It was fairly easy to dodge the master or overseer much of the time on large plantations.

• In accomplishing this the male slave played a significant role in meeting his family's needs of daily subsistence, and may have offset nutritional deficiencies in their diet (Genovese, 1974:486). These activities gave the husband some status (Genovese, 1974:489). Indeed, hunting and learning to trap became symbols of "manhood and slave boys eagerly awaited their turn to learn (Genovese, 1974:487). Before that, children were attended to by their fathers with songs, stories, and gifts (Blassingame, 1976:95).

• Men also built furniture for the family or roomed off the cabin for privacy. Blassingame states, "The slave who did such things for his family gained not only the approbation of his wife, but also. gained status in the quarters .(1976:92).

• Another route to status for men was to successfully fill the difficult role of protector. Guttman found that men who protected their. women from beatings and exploitation often paid with their own beatings or with their lives (1976:485).

• He claims that these actions were not infrequent (1976:484), and concludes that "In view of the risks, the wonder is not that more black men did not defend their women but that so many did, especially since the women had to caution restraint or risk their men's lives" (1976:485).

• A male also took the initiative in preserving his family in case it was somehow broken. Even the sale and forced breakup of families did not successfully destroy the family. Often masters granted passes to men to visit families on other plantations although sometimes at infrequent intervals (see Queen et aI., in press).

• Many case histories attest to the fact that male slaves had strong feelings towards their wives and children. Genovese quotes a crippled slave at an auction: "Yes, sire, I kin do ez much ez ennybody and marsters, if you'll only buy me and de chillum with Martha Ann, God knows I'll work myself to death for you" (1974:4- 56). Billingsley (1968:65) quotes another slave: "The greatest desire of my life is to give my children an education and to have them form virtuous habits." The extended family was important among African cultures and marriages were most commonly monogomous. The kinship unit provided care for children usually from the father's sister; however, it was mainly the father who shouldered the role of the care and protection of his children in all West African societies (Billingsley, 1968:43).

• Other case histories show that even in broken families the male slave had a strong bond with his wife and children left behind. The runaway Henry Bibb wrote of his decision to escape; "To be compelled to stand by and see you whip and slash my wife without mercy when , I could afford her no protection ... was more than I felt it the duty of a slave husband to endure" (Billingsley, 1968:9). J.W. Logan wrote his master, "Be it known to you that I value my freedom to say nothing of mother, brothers, and sisters more ... than my whole life (Billingsley, 1968:63). Other slaves bespeak the mourning of separation. Abrean Scriven wrote his wife, "My dear wife, for you and my children my pen cannot express the griffe I feel to be parted from you all" (Queen, et al., in press). Blassingame concludes, "In no class of American autobiographies is more stress laid upon the importance of stable families than in the autobiographies of former slaves" (1976:212).

• In the event of a total breakup, remarriage led to new male role models. Guttman expresses the importance slaves attached to this. "Stepfathers everywhere reportedly treated their newly acquired children as if they had been their own" (Guttman, 1974 :486). If there were no remarriage an uncle, cousin or older brother often gave child- .ren a male role model. Runaways had to overcome their feelings toward their family before they could effect their escape. Sometimes this was the biggest obstacle (Blassingame, 1976:111). Blassingame further states, "The simple threat of being separated from his family was generally sufficient to subdue the most rebellious 'married' slave" (1976:80). Of those who decided to escape, Guttman writes, "Surviving letters to kin reveal their loneliness and guilt" (1976 :265). Often though, slaves gained the freedom of their family or, if single, married after escape, as did Fredrick Douglas (Willie, 1981:6).

• The evidence exhibits the male's importance within the family. Corrobating such evidence, Fogel and Engerman state that "It is not true that the typical slave family was matriarchal in 'form' and that the 'husband' was at most his wife's assistant. Nor is it true that the male slave's only crucial function was that of siring offspring" (1974:141). And speaking about the male role under slavery, Genovese puts it more forcefully, "A terrible system of human oppression took a heavy toll of its victims, but their collective accomplishments in resisting the system constitutes a heroic story" (1974 :491).

• "If many lived up to their assigned irresponsibility others, probably a majority, overcame all obstacles and provided a positive male image for their wives and children" (1974: 492).

As you can see -- the Black man/father has always been leading BW and the Black family -- even when enslaved -- and faced and living in the most violent and demonic WS environment. If you research during enslavement, reconstruction and Jim Crow -- the Black man was protecting and providing for his household, immediate/extended families -- and neighborhoods.

​

 

[xoxodede]

The report that dropped in 1965 -- was when the myth and issues started....


When it was first applied and used on The Black Family:

Best known as the “Moynihan Report,” it launched the career of its author, who became a professor at Harvard University, a top adviser to President Nixon, and a four-term U.S. senator representing New York.​

The issue was first brought to national attention in 1965 by sociologist and later Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in the Moynihan Report (also known as "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action").[1] Moynihan's report made the argument that the relative absence of nuclear families (those having both a father and mother present) in Black America would greatly hinder further Black socioeconomic progress.[1]​

Read it here: The Moynihan Report: An Annotated Edition - The Atlantic

The Report was racist rhetoric:

Convinced that “the Negro revolution . . . , a movement for equality as well as for liberty,” was now at risk, Moynihan wanted to make several arguments in his report. The first was empirical and would quickly become indisputable: single-parent families were on the rise in the ghetto. But other points were more speculative and sparked a partisan dispute that has lasted to this day.

Moynihan argued that the rise in single-mother families was not due to a lack of jobs but rather to a destructive vein in ghetto culture that could be traced back to slavery and Jim Crow discrimination. Though black sociologist E. Franklin Frazier had already introduced the idea in the 1930s, Moynihan’s argument defied conventional social-science wisdom. As he wrote later, “The work began in the most orthodox setting, the U.S. Department of Labor, to establish at some level of statistical conciseness what ‘everyone knew’: that economic conditions determine social conditions. Whereupon, it turned out that what everyone knew was evidently not so.”​

He also described, through pages of disquieting charts and graphs, the emergence of a “tangle of pathology,” including delinquency, joblessness, school failure, crime, and fatherlessness that characterized ghetto—or what would come to be called underclass—behavior.

Moynihan may have borrowed the term “pathology” from Kenneth Clark’s The Dark Ghetto, also published that year. But as both a descendant and a scholar of what he called “the wild Irish slums”—he had written a chapter on the poor Irish in the classic Beyond the Melting Pot—the assistant secretary of labor was no stranger to ghetto self-destruction. He knew the dangers it posed to “the basic socializing unit” of the family. And he suspected that the risks were magnified in the case of blacks, since their “matriarchal” family had the effect of abandoning men, leaving them adrift and “alienated.”​

The argument of Black Matriarchy:

"The Myth of the Black Matriarchy" argues that black women were seen in a threatening way and their position in the family has resulted in the psychological castration of the black male and has produced a variety of other negative effects. These negative effects include low educational achievements, personality disorders, juvenile delinquency, etc.
​

How the report HURT the Black family -- and reduced funding:

A consequence of these trends, Moynihan emphasized, was a “Startling Increase in Welfare Dependency” among American Negroes. Largely because of broken families, he wrote, 56 percent of nonwhite children received means-tested public assistance at some time in their lives under the nation’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which mainly assisted female-headed families. By contrast, this figure was 9 percent among white children. Stunned to discover that the number of new AFDC cases opened for nonwhites was increasing even as nonwhite male unemployment rates in the prosperous early 1960s were slowly decreasing, he speculated that something deeper than economic hardship alone was beginning to damage lower-class black families, which were falling apart even as the overall economy was exhibiting vibrant growth.

In the 1970s and 1980s, as trends like these began to arouse widespread commentary, conservative writers such as Charles Murray blamed public welfare programs for undermining black family life in the U.S. Other conservatives since the 1980s, misreading Moynihan’s message, have cited his report as evidence to support cutbacks in social spending and to call for a moral revitalization of black culture.
​

Due to Moynihan's report -- many docs - and reports made by white men came out -- to support the findings -- and to take the heat off them -- aka White Supremacy/White Males.

Both the Baltimore Sun and the New York Times ran a series on the black family in 1983, followed by a 1985 Newsweek article called "Moynihan: I Told You So." In 1986, CBS aired the documentary, The Vanishing Black Family, produced by Bill Moyers, a onetime aide to President Johnson. He affirmed Moynihan's findings.

​

Overall Stance on the now Infamous Report:

Moreover, the report’s ambiguities and contradictions as well as Moynihan’s decision to discuss racial inequality primarily in terms of family structure produced confusion over its aims. Many liberals understood the report to advocate new policies to alleviate race-based economic inequalities. But conservatives found in the report a convenient rationalization for inequality; they argued that only racial self-help could produce the necessary changes in family structure. Some even used the report to reinforce racist stereotypes about loose family morality among African Americans. Meanwhile, left-wing critics attacked Moynihan for distracting attention from ongoing systemic racism by focusing on African Americans’ family characteristics: Moynihan’s leading critic, William Ryan, famously charged him with “blaming the victim.”​

Black Families in White America, by Andrew Billingsley, published in 1968 and still referred to as “seminal.” “Unlike Moynihan and others, we do not view the Negro as a causal nexus in a ‘tangle of pathologies’ which feeds on itself,” he declared. “[The Negro family] is, in our view, an absorbing, adaptive, and amazingly resilient mechanism for the socialization of its children and the civilization of its society.” Pay no attention to the 25 percent of poor ghetto families, Billingsley urged. Think instead about the 75 percent of black middle-class families—though Moynihan had made a special point of exempting them from his report.​

Moynihan's lies exposed:

Blackwell (1975: 40) estimates that 70 percent of all black family units have two parents living in the home and Willie, in 1981 after Reaganomics had begun, writes that eight or nine out of ten black men still held jobs and six or seven out of ten black families are two parent families (1981:11). This contrasts with the stereotype portrayed by Moynihan and others.
​

Effect of the report today -- Even Obama is lost:

The Audacity of Hope ,President Barack Obama complained that some “liberal policy makers and civil rights leaders had erred” when “in their urgency to avoid blaming the victims of historical racism, they tended to downplay or ignore evidence that entrenched behavioral patterns among the black poor really were contributing to intergenerational poverty.”​

 

[xoxodede]

You need to understand as you start to study more, that you take the work your review on the standard that it was written on, not what you wish it was written as.
curry opens up the book telling you the target of this book is extremely limited to academia and feminist theory within academia.
I would suggest you read the actual book if this portion wasn't read to you in the audio analysis.

So with that being said how you take this on an attack on anything but liberal intersectionality theory and its origin and use as a tool to attack the black male makes no sense to me, to the point where I would say either you haven't read the book or understood the words being read.

As for the internet, it isn't real life.

I am currently reading his book -- and checking and reading his citations.

And no - I didn't state that. I didn't state anything as an "attack on intersectionality theory." You're reaching and projecting -- and trying to speak for me. Please give me enough respect to not do that.

I stated:

The focus on Black Feminism makes it appear that the majority of BW -- are Anti-BM and Anti-Black Family - --- and -- to me -- seems to create more division instead of healing and understanding.

White supremacy ideology (systemic racism) and patriarchy -- the overlapping domains used to support white male domination -- are the primary problems affecting BM and BW - anything else - such as Black Feminism - is a symptom of it.

When I go into the comments on articles about "The Man-Not" it is really sad. It's not productive in healing any gender issues and clearing up misinformation.

It's casting more blame and division amongst each-other and not White Supremacy.​

I take it as misguided fault and blame. The problem is White Supremacy/Racism -- not BW -- nor even Black Feminist and their anti-BM many spew.

Though Black Feminist have a voice -- and can influence some of the rhetoric against BM -- as well as BW -- should be checked and silenced.

They do not represent BW as a whole -- nor does it create the image of BM in the eyes of BW. Nor should it be read by those who read Dr. Curry -- as the groupthink of BW.

I also stated -- if you go to any article or video - or thread where Dr. Curry is discussed -- you see Anti-BW comments. I know Dr. Curry doesn't intend for that to happen off his work -- but it's happening. Therefore - strengthening the divide -- instead of educating and healing it.

 

[AlainLocke]

Thanks for explaining

Yes - I agree on many of BW who label themselves "feminist" are anti-BM. But, my worry - is their voice is seen as the everyday BW's voice -- and leading to many Anti-BW comments and feelings.

I have to disagree on Black men not being patriarchal. They are -- and always have been. It's truly a disservice to our fathers and male ancestors to say they weren't.

I don't know anybody who wasn't led and raised by a Black man - and a line of Black men in their families. From fathers, to grandfathers to uncles -- and other males who stepped in when one couldn't.

Today - the myth is only creating what was projected and falsely attached to our families and Black men.

I was going to create a thread on Matriarchal being a myth - with sources -- that document the beginning of the myth -- and how it spread.

But, I'll post some info to check out next...I think I am going to go ahead and do the thread soon. I have lots of notes from my research on it.

Feminists and gender theorists aren't talking patriarchal in the everyday family sense...

They are talking about it in the feminist sense. That men wield total power, have privilege over and oppress women.

Black Americans aren't patriarchal or matriarchal, we have gender equality. Black men can't and don't oppress Black women (as a group). Black women have been going to school and working forever. Black men don't really expect Black women to follow our lead and do what we say (I personally wouldn't want a woman like that). Black women don't really be beholden to Black men values and expectations like that.

Like a real Patriarchal society is Saudi Arabia.

Tommy Curry doesn't talk about everyday Black women or the roles of Black women when he talks about Black feminism, it's strictly academia focused. I don't consider Black feminists to represent the everyday Black women. My momma might be some girl power shyt but it's never been on some...

"Black men need to stop killing Black women and oppressing Black women."

My sister doesn't even really care about feminism. Most women don't even consider themselves feminists.

The everyday expression of Black female political identity isn't based on victimization of Black women by Black men. That's some academia shyt.

We really talking about this weird Black Twitter feminist crowd thats inflammatory and inaccurate and so far...I haven't seen many of them that are actually American DOS. So I really don't really understand where they get this idea of what American Black men and American Black women relations is like besides like bell hooks books.

But even then just data wise and the political opinions and leanings of Black men...we aren't comparable to the feminist idea of Patriarchy...but Black men don't get studied like that...that's Dr. Tommy Curry's problem with feminism and particularly Black feminism.

Dr. Curry's book isn't real world everyday experiences of American Black men and women.

It's mainly for academics and those that study American Black men and women.

 

[David_TheMan]

I am currently reading his book -- and checking and reading his citations.

And no - I didn't state that. I didn't state anything as an "attack on intersectionality theory." You're reaching and projecting -- and trying to speak for me. Please give me enough respect to not do that.

I stated:

The focus on Black Feminism makes it appear that the majority of BW -- are Anti-BM and Anti-Black Family - --- and -- to me -- seems to create more division instead of healing and understanding.

White supremacy ideology (systemic racism) and patriarchy -- the overlapping domains used to support white male domination -- are the primary problems affecting BM and BW - anything else - such as Black Feminism - is a symptom of it.

When I go into the comments on articles about "The Man-Not" it is really sad. It's not productive in healing any gender issues and clearing up misinformation.

It's casting more blame and division amongst each-other and not White Supremacy.​

I take it as misguided fault and blame. The problem is White Supremacy/Racism -- not BW -- nor even Black Feminist and their anti-BM many spew.

Though Black Feminist have a voice -- and can influence some of the rhetoric against BM -- as well as BW -- should be checked and silenced.

They do not represent BW as a whole -- nor does it create the image of BM in the eyes of BW. Nor should it be read by those who read Dr. Curry -- as the groupthink of BW.

I also stated -- if you go to any article or video - or thread where Dr. Curry is discussed -- you see Anti-BW comments. I know Dr. Curry doesn't intend for that to happen off his work -- but it's happening. Therefore - strengthening the divide -- instead of educating and healing it.

I said how you take this as anything BUT an attack on intersectionality.

Off the top, seeing how you replied to my post, I see you probably try to read too fast to the point you don't really understand what you read.
I would suggest you slow down and read it sentence by sentence so you clearly understand what you are reading, instead of rushing through and guessing or making up what you see.

 

[xoxodede]

When feminists and gender theorist aren't talking patriarchal in the everyday family sense...

They are talking about it in the feminist sense. That men wield total power, have privilege over and oppress women.

Black Americans aren't patriarchal or matriarchal, we have gender equality. Black men can't and don't oppress Black women. Black women have been going to school and working forever. Black men don't really expect Black women to follow our lead and do what we say (I personally wouldn't want a woman like that). Black women don't really be beholden to Black men values and expectations like that.

Like a real Patriarchal society is Saudi Arabia.

Tommy Curry doesn't talk about everyday Black women or the roles of Black women when he talks about Black feminism, it's strictly academia focused. I don't consider Black feminists to represent the everyday Black women. My momma might be some girl power shyt but it's never been on some...

"Black men need to stop killing Black women and oppressing Black women."

The everyday expression of Black women isn't based on victimization of Black women by Black men. That's some academia shyt.

We really talking about this weird Black Twitter feminist crowd and so far...I haven't seen many of them that are actually American DOS. So I really don't really understand where they get this idea of what American Black men and American Black women relations is like besides like bell hooks books.

But even then just data wise and the political opinions and leanings of Black men...we aren't comparable to the feminist idea of Patriarchy...but Black men don't get studied like that...that's Dr. Tommy Curry's problem with feminism and particularly Black feminism.

I kinda get it. But, some men do have the power to oppress BW. Just like some BW have the power to oppress BM. As a whole -- no -- due to as you stated -- BM nor BW -- having the power to do so in the system of White Supremacy. As, BW are under the same WS system as BM.

Is he saying that is false?

I don't know what kind of household everyone grew up in -- or current relationships many of us are in -- but BW do follow BM lead -- and her family and household is led by her man/husband. Even when a woman makes more than a man -- it's plenty of household/relationships - where the man still leads. And the woman still works -- and is the woman in the home -- cooking, cleaning, being a mom and wife. But, there are also situations that custom for each couple - but they usually come up with those roles together - to make it work.

What values - do BM have that BW don't have -- or wouldn't want to follow?

Tommy Curry doesn't talk about everyday Black women or the roles of Black women when he talks about Black feminism, it's strictly academia focused. I don't consider Black feminists to represent the everyday Black women. My momma might be some girl power shyt but it's never been on some...

"Black men need to stop killing Black women and oppressing Black women."

The everyday expression of Black women isn't based on victimization of Black women by Black men. That's some academia shyt.

​

That's what I thought too -- but I don't think many of those who read his work make the distinction between Black Feminist and the everyday BW.

I challenge you to read the comments where he is discussed -- it's gender wars and "black women destroyed the community" -- x 2 --- all up and through.

 

[AlainLocke]

I kinda get it. But, some men do have the power to oppress BW. Just like some BW have the power to oppress BM. As a whole -- no -- due to as you stated -- BM nor BW -- having the power to do so in the system of White Supremacy. As, BW are under the same WS system as BM.

Is he saying that is false?

I don't know what kind of household everyone grew up in -- or current relationships many of us are in -- but BW do follow BM lead -- and her family and household is led by her man/husband. Even when a woman makes more than a man -- it's plenty of household/relationships - where the man still leads. And the woman still works -- and is the woman in the home -- cooking, cleaning, being a mom and wife. But, there are also situations that custom for each couple - but they usually come up with those roles together - to make it work.

What values - do BM have that BW don't have -- or wouldn't want to follow?

Tommy Curry doesn't talk about everyday Black women or the roles of Black women when he talks about Black feminism, it's strictly academia focused. I don't consider Black feminists to represent the everyday Black women. My momma might be some girl power shyt but it's never been on some...

"Black men need to stop killing Black women and oppressing Black women."

The everyday expression of Black women isn't based on victimization of Black women by Black men. That's some academia shyt.

​

That's what I thought too -- but I don't think many of those who read his work make the distinction between Black Feminist and the everyday BW.

I challenge you to read the comments where he is discussed -- it's gender wars and "black women destroyed the community" -- x 2 --- all up and through.

Yeah but he's saying the same thing you are saying and what most rational Black men say...

Yes...Black men do terrible things to Black women...but it's not a systematic and group level effort...like other men have done throughout history...

Dr. Tommy Curry does recognize the domestic violence but he according to our population data as Black people... it's bi-lateral. We fukk each other up equally. And it's due to White supremacy destroying our lives as a whole.

In regards to Patriarchy...

I mean...I am not White and don't know how White households as run...but let's put this into historical context of what a Patriarch is according to White people since we are Westerners and been around White people forever...

White people look at Black people relationship behavior and don't see a patriarchy and they never did...

White people looked at us in the and said..."Black women have a say? Where they do this at..."

They said the fact that Black women have a say and have freedom...that we as Black men are not patriarchal and we are feminine and childish because we don't rule over our female counterpart.

When White women wrote about feminism in the 50s...the foundational texts by Betty Friedan...

They said their life is like a prison. They can't go anywhere. What the man said typically went. They couldn't participate in public life.

Was a Black woman's home life like a prison? Is a Black woman's experience with the Black man like that?

We as Black folks talk about men leading and women following as like a formality and it's mostly aspirational talking. Like achieving White 1950s relationship standards and structure is life goals for us.

My dad is the man of the house but it's formality. He's kinda like the Queen of England...she rules but it's like a formal thing, she can't really tell nobody what to do. He doesn't actually rule over my mother. He never ruled over me as a child. My mom does what she wants. My dad doesn't tell her what to do. What my dad said never just went. My dad considers my mother's and me and my sister's input in any decision he has ever made regarding the family. My mom has an graduate level education. My mom has regularly travelled without my dad. My dad supported my mother's education efforts. My dad has supported my mother's career.

My dad have my mom wash clothes and shyt...and she does housework...that's it...that's not patriarchal...for periods of time my dad has also done housework while my mom didn't do any.

My mother has never been secondary to my father.


From the standpoint of White people in the late 1800s...Black men were not patriarchs...we are equalitarian. And that's a good thing. What we have is a facsimile of a patriarchy, we talk all that shyt but compared to other groups...it's not what it we think it is. It's pretend. It doesn't really go down like true patriarchal cultures such 1950s White America, Islamist fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia...where women have no say. Women are ruled over by their fathers, uncles, brothers and sons.

Black women have a lot of power in the family and society unlike other groups of women pre Second Wave. White feminists considered Black women as feminist goals.

What's the White version of Elaine Brown?

What's the White version of Angela Davis?

What White woman you know was leading White men and White women...

In regards to the comments...

A lot of Black males wanna live like White males and want to rule and be powerful and all that...and the source of the White man's power has been the domination of White women...

So they read Dr. Curry's work and spew their dusty Hotep rhetoric and be all pissy about the missed opportunity to rule over Black women...and Black feminists rhetoric on the internet doesn't help...

Most of us here in this thread...don't feel that way towards Black women...I definitely didn't create this thread to shyt on Black women...

That's the problem with lay people reading social theory texts that are meant for academics...they take a little bit of information and weaponize it against groups of people don't like...

A lot of comments around Dr. Curry's work by Black men can be kinda cringeworthy...

 

[xoxodede]

I said how you take this as anything BUT an attack on intersectionality.

Off the top, seeing how you replied to my post, I see you probably try to read too fast to the point you don't really understand what you read.
I would suggest you slow down and read it sentence by sentence so you clearly understand what you are reading, instead of rushing through and guessing or making up what you see.

You're probably right. I apologize.

I don't see it as an attack on Liberal Intersectionality - due to many information presented and citations he references.

They are focused on Black Feminism, Black feminist and comparing BM and BW -- and how we are perceived via the lens of Whites/WS.

Is the stance that Intersectionality doesn't exist? I personally think it exist for both BW and BM.

But, I will finish reading and looking up his references and citations to see if I come to the same conclusion. I am ahead of the C.O.W.S. audio - as I am reading the actual physical copy.

 

[Neuromancer]

Yeah but he's saying the same thing you are saying and what most rational Black men say...

Yes...Black men do terrible things to Black women...but it's not a systematic and group level effort...like other men have done throughout history...

Dr. Tommy Curry does recognize the domestic violence but he according to our population data as Black people... it's bi-lateral. We fukk each other up equally. And it's due to White supremacy destroying our lives as a whole.

In regards to Patriarchy...

I mean...I am not White and don't know how White households as run...but let's put this into historical context of what a Patriarch is according to White people since we are Westerners and been around White people forever...

White people look at Black people relationship behavior and don't see a patriarchy and they never did...

White people looked at us in the and said..."Black women have a say? Where they do this at..."

They said the fact that Black women have a say and have freedom...that we as Black men are not patriarchal and we are feminine and childish because we don't rule over our female counterpart.

When White women wrote about feminism in the 50s...the foundational texts by Betty Friedan...

They said their life is like a prison. They can't go anywhere. What the man said typically went. They couldn't participate in public life.

Was a Black woman's home life like a prison? Is a Black woman's experience with the Black man like that?

We as Black folks talk about men leading and women following as like a formality and it's mostly aspirational talking. Like achieving White 1950s relationship standards and structure is life goals for us.

My dad is the man of the house but it's formality. He's kinda like the Queen of England...she rules but it's like a formal thing, she can't really tell nobody what to do. He doesn't actually rule over my mother. He never ruled over me as a child. My mom does what she wants. My dad doesn't tell her what to do. What my dad said never just went. My dad considers my mother's and me and my sister's input in any decision he has ever made regarding the family. My mom has an graduate level education. My mom has regularly travelled without my dad. My dad supported my mother's education efforts. My dad has supported my mother's career.

My dad have my mom wash clothes and shyt...and she does housework...that's it...that's not patriarchal...for periods of time my dad has also done housework while my mom didn't do any.

My mother has never been secondary to my father.


From the standpoint of White people in the late 1800s...Black men were not patriarchs...we are equalitarian. And that's a good thing. What we have is a facsimile of a patriarchy, we talk all that shyt but compared to other groups...it's not what it we think it is. It's pretend. It doesn't really go down like true patriarchal cultures such 1950s White America, Islamist fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia...where women have no say. Women are ruled over by their fathers, uncles, brothers and sons.

Black women have a lot of power in the family and society unlike other groups of women pre Second Wave. White feminists considered Black women as feminist goals.

What's the White version of Elaine Brown?

What's the White version of Angela Davis?

What White woman you know was leading White men and White women...

In regards to the comments...

A lot of Black males wanna live like White males and want to rule and be powerful and all that...and the source of the White man's power has been the domination of White women...

So they read Dr. Curry's work and spew their dusty Hotep rhetoric and be all pissy about the missed opportunity to rule over Black women...and Black feminists rhetoric on the internet doesn't help...

Most of us here in this thread...don't feel that way towards Black women...I definitely didn't create this thread to shyt on Black women...

That's the problem with lay people reading social theory texts that are meant for academics...they take a little bit of information and weaponize it against groups of people don't like...

A lot of comments around Dr. Curry's work by Black men can be kinda cringeworthy...

People use academia to weaponize their hurt. That's an issue and why I advocate for mental health in the black community.

 

[David_TheMan]

You're probably right. I apologize.

I don't see it as an attack on Liberal Intersectionality - due to many information presented and citations he references.

They are focused on Black Feminism, Black feminist and comparing BM and BW -- and how we are perceived via the lens of Whites/WS.

Is the stance that Intersectionality doesn't exist? I personally think it exist for both BW and BM.

But, I will finish reading and looking up his references and citations to see if I come to the same conclusion. I am ahead of the C.O.W.S. audio - as I am reading the actual physical copy.

If you don't see it as an attack on liberal intersectionality, when he literally writes that that is what the book is devoted to and then describes the birth of intersectionality as a discipline and how those who champion it literally ignore some of the origins of the terms they use and how they echo a great deal of the established white supreemacist anti-black male rhetoric historically used with no regard for data that attacks their argument, I don't know what to say to you, except read the book again and take notes , because the things I said are stated multiple times in the book.

Off the bat again I see you has a ideological idol you want to protect though and its influencing your ability to actually absorb what the book states.

Its quite strange.

 

[AlainLocke]

You're probably right. I apologize.

I don't see it as an attack on Liberal Intersectionality - due to many information presented and citations he references.

They are focused on Black Feminism, Black feminist and comparing BM and BW -- and how we are perceived via the lens of Whites/WS.

Is the stance that Intersectionality doesn't exist? I personally think it exist for both BW and BM.

But, I will finish reading and looking up his references and citations to see if I come to the same conclusion. I am ahead of the C.O.W.S. audio - as I am reading the actual physical copy.

His stance is intersectionality doesn't capture class and accurately frame the treatment of Black men by White men.

Dr. Curry believes in Social Dominance Theory over Intersectionality...

Social dominance theory - Wikipedia
Social dominance theory (SDT) is a theory of intergroup relations that focuses on the maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies.[1] According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary intergroup behaviors—specifically institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. SDT proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies (i.e., legitimizing myths) provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors.

There are two functional types of legitimizing myths: (1) hierarchy-enhancing and (2) hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths. Hierarchy-enhancing ideologies (e.g., racism or meritocracy) contribute to greater levels of group-based inequality. Hierarchy-attenuating ideologies (e.g., anarchism and feminism) contribute to greater levels of group-based equality. People endorse these different forms of ideologies based in part on their psychological orientation toward dominance and their desire for unequal group relations (i.e., their social dominance orientation; SDO).[2] People who are higher on SDO tend to endorse hierarchy-enhancing ideologies, and people who are lower on SDO tend to endorse hierarchy-attenuating ideologies. SDT finally proposes that the relative counterbalancing of hierarchy-enhancing and -attenuating social forces stabilizes group-based inequality.
------------------

Dr. Curry has a more I guess Marxist view of things...

Like for Marx...there's class struggle...and classes...and classes fight over control of resources and at the top of the class structure are Capitalists...

So for Dr.Curry...

There is just Black and White people right?

White people dominate us through discrimination and violence.

And in any society where there is domination and subjugation of a group...the dominant men seeks to humiliate, criminalize and emasculate, infantilize and other the subjugated group of men...

That's why when we got lynched...they cut off our penises...and they had our corpses on postcards...

That's why they had the minstrel shows showing Black men as complete retards, child-like or societal degenerates...

That's why they had the caricature of the Jezebel...the Black woman that completely emasculates the Black man with her attitude and disagreeableness...

That's why they had a rape hysteria surrounding Black men being free from slavery...

That's why Black women were raped in front Black men and forcibly bred by Black men during slavery...

That's why Black women are either deemed totally undesirable or a symbol of animalistic sexual magnetism...so White men either don't want Black women or Black women are just sluts and that's how they justify raping Black women...

Intersectionality has Black men and women separate...

Black women deal this and Black men deal with that and it's worse for Black women...and White women do this and White men do that...

Where Tommy Curry's social dominance theory has us together...

Cause at the end of the day...we are someone's spouse, parent, uncle, aunt...etc...

LIke if I got my penis chopped off and lynched tomorrow...

My momma ain't gonna be like..."Well you know, Black women still have it worse because the intersectionality between race and gender..."

When shyt happens to us...nobody breaks out a chart and try to figure out what is worse..

Like what affect does it have on a Black female to see her brother, father, male cousin...in a patriarchal society...where the man is supposed to be a symbol of strength...get his penis...the symbol of male vitality...cut off...and the body of a Black man circulated through the mail

Or a Black male having his mother, daughter, sister, female cousin raped by a gang of White men and you can't really do anything about it because the KKK is gonna kill your family....think about how that emasculates a Black male in a patriarchal...you can't protect the women in your family from another group of men...

And let's not forget White women benefit from all of this...like White women ain't innocent...White women participate in the atrocities White men commit...

So Dr. Curry's argument is that White people and Black people are in this together...

There's no breaking down the groups into some like hierarchy of oppression...

White women benefit from the dominance of White men...

Black women suffer from Black men being dominated by White men

And ultimately we suffer because we are Black...

 

[AlainLocke]

@xoxodede

You should recommend some Black feminist works for us brehs to read since you reading Dr. Tommy Curry...

It's only fair...