That's So Deep

So Amber,

I was reading the latest post on The Crunk Feminist Collective, a call for a “No Uncle No Uterus” campaign, and was thoroughly confused for a good minute till I realized it was a critique on another campaign, “NWNW.” And I had no idea what that was.

Thank goodness for Google. Turns out it means “No Wedding, No Womb” and is a campaign of 100+ bloggers writing in support of marriages before pregnancies in black communities.

And it’s apparently created a stir (I love the blogosphere). In my googling discoveries, I’ve found various critiques: one reporter writes, “Regardless, the bloggers associated with “No Wedding, No Womb” aren’t focused on the outcomes for children. The campaign is instead telling black women how they should act sexually. Reducing women to their childbearing capacity is right there in the title: Wombs are blocked off until matrimony.” Another writes, “While Karazin’s heart is in the right place, I have to agree that equating marriage with familial and economic stability is wistfully wrongheaded….I think what Karazin’s trying to get at, in our sound-bite culture, is that poor women, all women, need to value themselves enough to protect themselves from the avoidable pitfalls in their already difficult lives.”

Here I think are the critiques: having a campaign for marriage does not solve poverty; it does not address the institutional and historical causes for persistent poverty; it shames women and promotes a narrow view of family.

So first off, yes to all of the above. Making marriage the solution to poverty and violence is not a good solution. Marriage alone can not solve the inequitable policies hurting families (whatever those families look like). Nor does placing the responsibility solely on women solve anything. There is an element of “slut-shaming” to this, mostly because where are the men in this solution? What’s their responsibility?

But with all that said, I don’t necessarily want to jump on the “oh hell no!” bandwagon against NWNW. I wouldn’t sign up to blog for them, but when criticizing their campaign, neither do I want to deny that there is something going on when 72% of African American children are born out of wedlock. That “something” is not just one thing (or two or three), but I am hesitant to completely dismiss a discussion on marriage and relationships.

I don’t like it when ten year olds ask me “do you have kids?” before asking me if I’m married (or even have a boyfriend). I’ve written before about teenagers’ views on relationships and the brokenness of their understanding. Many of these teens come from families that do not have a solid two parent relationship – whether married or unmarried. In order to understand how to relate to one another, they need to see other strong relationships.

Let me be clear: there are hundreds of issues flying and dancing around this statistic. I think NWNW is too simplistic, lets men off the hook and ignores wider social and political problems. And really, it’s just another tired story about what black women need to do that CNN will probably run with analysis from a panel of “experts” (yay Steve Harvey!). And then there’s the whole issue of it being heteronormative…

But I do think it’s okay to ask (along with a million other questions), how do we solve gender/relationship/family issues on a personal and social level?

Let’s have a holistic approach to understanding the problems facing our children, young people and families. Let’s understand that marriage is only a good solution if it is healthy and stable – and fighting against that health and stability is sexism, racism, classism, all those damn “isms” and the policies that go with them.

And there are fantastic single moms and dads (aunts and uncles and grandparents) who raise healthy, supported children in this world. And there are married couples who don’t. For a variety of reasons. But, how do we address all those reasons? Is there just one campaign or solution?

No. It’s complicated. And so deep. I don’t know how to unravel it all….

My disclaimer: I’m posting this without feeling entirely comfortable with it. With every sentence I write, another sentence pops into my head that problematizes the one before. But since this blog is really a conversation, I’ll consider this post only the beginning.

Liz,

I’ve been in a bit of a funk (#Glee!) lately. I must admit that said funk is a contributor to why I haven’t posted for several weeks. There are so many topics that have been swimming around in my head, but to actually sit and write about them has proven to be pretty daunting. With that said, it’s no fun being in a funk and sitting around thinking about how you are in a funk just makes it worse. We kind of started this blog, on the “blogging as therapy” tip and if you don’t mind, I think that I’m going to take it back there for a little while.

As a first post on this “blogging as therapy” series, which is bound to become a trend (due to the funk), I’ve decided to tackle a topic that has become an extremely relevant part of my everyday life and that one reader (s/o to JCH!) suggested we publicly consider—the complicated intersection of male privilege, feminism, and relationships between men and women (platonic and otherwise). Deep (But really though, I just always want to talk about this. Let’s be real.)

I recently read an interview done by The Sexist, a blog on Washingtoncitypaper.com that focuses on sex and gender in Washington, D.C., entitled “Fucking While Feminist.” In the piece, Amanda Hess, blogger for The Sexist, interviewed feminist activist and author, Jaclyn Friedman.

In the interview Hess asks Friedman several questions about the difficulties of “dating while feminist” including whether or not she has a “feminist litmus test” that she references when getting to know a guy. Overall, I thought the interview was pretty light-hearted and entertaining, and I do think that Friedman brought up some very interesting points that I have considered in regard to my own interactions with men.

I don’t know if I would quite label myself a feminist for my own personal reasons, but I am one to actively challenge traditional understandings of gender and societal roles assigned to men and women. With that said, sexism has definitely become an important factor for me in forming relationships with men and to be honest has proven to be a very real source of frustration. How does one compromise? IS there a litmus test?

I recently attended a panel discussion on Black Male Privilege put together by the Brecht Forum in New York City. The panelists included Marc Lamont Hill, Associate Professor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University; Byron Hurt, award winning filmmaker, anti-sexism activist, and essayist; R.L. Heureux Lewis, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Black Studies at the City College of New York; and Mark Anthony Neal, Professor of Black Popular Culture at Duke University & author of “The New Black Man: Redefining Black Masculinity.” The discussion was organized and moderated by Esther Armah, international award winning journalist, playwright and radio host of Wake Up Call & Off The Page (WBAI 99.5 FM).

I went to the discussion skeptical about the fact that there were no women on the panel (except for Armah serving as the moderator) and eager to hear what was to be said because panel discussions on Black Male Privilege just don’t happen. Apparently, lots of other individuals felt the same way, because the place was packed. I arrived about ten minutes before the discussion began, and it was already standing room only. Armah began by asking each of the panelists if they thought Black male privilege was real and if so, how would they define it. Two and half hours later the room was still full, the discussion was still going strong, and I left feeling a little more hopeful about the Black community generally, and relationships with men in particular.

Going into depth on the panel would require a whole other post to do it justice, but a significant theme that each of the panelists continued to emphasize was that feminism is not just a women’s movement, and sexism is not just a women’s problem, it affects all of us. Although there are many benefits to privilege, there are also many limitations and constraints, which may be easier to ignore, but are just as damaging (interdisciplinary/cultural studies 101, but we are quick to forget). It is when we start to recognize the parts of ourselves that we are forced to repress and the ways that we are still put into boxes, even while claiming privilege, that we can truly begin to see that with these constraints none of us can ever really be whole. And really, what more can you ask for out of life than to be whole, intact, complete—fully content with who you are and in the ability to express yourself. Wholeness is the goal.

With that said, in searching for my wholeness, I would like to think that I have become a little more patient with individuals who are also searching for theirs, that is unafraid to be introspective and challenge their beliefs and opinions. So when it comes to friendship and dating, it may sound cliché, but I think an open mind goes a very long way.