Category:

Acquiesce to Overdetermined Models of Masculinity?

6/18/2013

I promise,
if I have a seed Imma guide him right...
Why you got these kids' minds,
thinkin' that they evil?
While the preacher's gettin' freaky,
you say honor God's people...
Is God just another cop?
Waiting to beat my ass, if i don't go pop?...
It's hard enough to live now,
in these times of greed...
You gotta find a way to make it out the game.
- 2 Pac, Blast 4 Me

I, like millions of Americans, use Facebook. And, on Father’s Day the outpouring of love and affection for the nation’s fathers was great to see. Some of us, unfortunately, have not experienced relationships with fathers, but we have been lucky enough to have male role models - sometimes supplied, sometimes sought out. I have been lucky enough to receive wisdom from the Julian and Les Bonds, the James Bufords, the Dr. Dwayne Smiths and a whole host of respectable male figures who populated the Black House on the campus of Stanford University. While I listened intently to what these men may have had to say – for they were and are examples of success in America – what I found astonishing was that these men would say one thing when gathered around black men in a backroom somewhere and, yet, have a totally different persona and demeanor in public, especially when around white people. In private, the men would seemingly empathize with the plights of the young men that they were charged with mentoring. And, while I – we – may have received some tools on how to perform accordingly in corporate settings, we received no guidance on how to be black men in America (or maybe we did). Instead, all we received was a “handbook of acquiescence.” Do not pay attention to the injustices that you may feel…black folk have always had it hard, why should it be different for you all…do not look at what others have done to you, fix your shortcomings. Black men are designed to acquiesce to the feelings of double consciousness (more like a multiplicity of consciousness in this postmodern world) that permeates our very souls in America. It is a terrible feeling.

Perhaps, it is our fault – the young men of my generation – for investing too much trust, too much understanding, in these men who are seemingly like us. I know that I have become tremendously disillusioned with the journalist and TV personality Stephen A. Smith lately. As a member of Omega Psi Phi, Incorporated, Smith has really surprised me with the level of advocacy with which he espouses adherence to the handbook of acquiescence. As one who travels all around the United States expounding on black men, black manhood and black masculinity, I find it very heartbreaking that Smith does not use the platform earned and the voice developed to speak more publicly and openly and honestly about the plight and challenges of black men in America.

Stephen A. Smith Skip Bayless Cari Champion

I watch ESPN’s First Take, starring Smith and Skip Bayless and hosted by Cari Champion, routinely. One of Smith’s favorite sayings is, “a fair is a place where they judge pigs.” I have interpreted Smith to be suggesting that life is not fair for anyone: so get over it. With particular reference to black men and racism that may exist in America, Smith has been noted as saying,

Nobody wants to hear excuses… Nobody wants to hear, “They’re keeping me down.” “No, you’re keeping yourself down”… “Saying that is an excuse to accept mediocrity. You’re looking for people to blame instead of looking in the mirror.” (Bell)

Ironically, Smith made this statement at the commencement ceremonies at Winston-Salem State University (why do these speakers always make these statements to the very people who have not made excuses and who have worked diligently and hard to attain their respective levels of success?). Then as a panelist on the CNN special, Black in America, Smith demonstrated not only his internalization of the handbook of acquiescence, but also provided insight regarding why he, in particular, will not give an honest explication of racism and the trials and tribulations of black folk, and black men specifically, in America. When the moderator, Bob Evans , who happened to be the Deputy Editor of Essence magazine, asked the question, to no one in particular, “Does the heighten racism [in Amerca] surprise you or disappoint you?”, the following transaction took place:

Ben Jealous: It was disappointing but not surprising. Racism so infects our national discourse that we still think the majority of crack users in this country are Black. White people are 65% of crack users.

Stephen A. Smith: If I went on my radio show and said that, we’d have a problem.

Tricia Rose: Why?

Stephen A. Smith: I’m in 207 markets across the country and most of it is Middle America, which is a term for white America. They don’t want to hear that.

Tricia Rose: How do you know?

Stephen A. Smith: Because the White folks who make the decisions, who show you the numbers, will point out that White America does not want to hear it. It is like pulling teeth to get them to engage in a dialogue about race.

Stephen A. Smith: “You should have your own show on CNN!” [to Soledad O’Brien]

Sheryl Underwood: Tell me why?

Stephen A. Smith: If you give her that platform, what is the likelihood of her addressing the very issues we are discussing? She is not going to hesitate. (Bell)

After watching and hearing the program first hand, I had to seek out the show’s transcript so that I could be assured of understanding what I heard. It became evident that Smith does not only advise other black men to acquiesce to the social regularities of America, but he himself is also an adherent of the handbook of acquiescence. Here is a man heard in over 207 media markets in America and he is afraid to discuss issues that may be not only of importance to Smith as a journalist, commentator and writer, but to the health and security and understanding of black men in America collectively. And he once criticized Donovan McNabb for not speaking out on behave of black players while a member of the Philadelphia Eagles? I distinctly remember Smith making the following statement: “What I saw from Donovan is not something most black men relate to, because you want somebody with a voice to use it– not somebody with a voice to be quite like Donovan was…” (mofopolitics.com). Really? And do you, Mr. Smith, use your voice and platform in a manner to which most black men can relate? And how does Smith get to function as the arbiter of that to which most black men can relate, when he equivocates so consistently with regard to his ideas about what constitutes blackness? Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Smith has internalized America’s dominant ideological outlook regarding the understanding and representation of blackness, in general, and black men, specifically.

Smith on niggas, blackness, black men and human beings.

There is no arguing against the fact that at times throughout their careers, both Kobe Bryant and LeBron James have been vilified as the worst types of black men in America. And, the argument could be made that both Bryant and James were, in part, to blame for providing the screens and landscapes onto which America could paint them as the big-lipped, dishonest ravishers of white female domesticity and sexuality that the men were to become. But the ease with which Smith displays his internalization and views and acquiescence to such a position is just awful; Smith has no problem referring to black men such as Bryant and James as niggas on the national airwaves of America for all to hear. He has found himself in hot water for using the n-word more than once on First Take. The first time he said it was in December 2011, referring to James as “this nigga” (Lee). More recently, during an airing of First Take on October 25th, 2012, Smith expressed his disbelief that Kobe Bryant would miss time with an injury by saying “nigga, please” (Petchesky). Now, we can debate whether Smith was referring to Bryant or just speaking to black men in general. But, he said it.

December 12, 2012. In response to a statement made by journalist Rob Parker about the Washington Redskins’ quarterback Robert Griffith III – Parker said, “He’s kind of black, but he’s not really” - Smith stated:

First of all, let me say this: I’m uncomfortable with where we just went…RG3, the ethnicity or the color of his[white] fiancée is none of our business, it’s irrelevant, he can live his life in whatever way he chooses. The braids that he has in his hair, that’s his business, that’s his life, he can live his life. I don’t judge someone’s blackness based on those kinds of things. I just don’t do that. I’m not that kind of guy. (Smith)

In this case, Smith alerts his audience to two strains of racial ideology working in his make-up, simultaneously. First, he espouses aspects of the post-Civil Rights ideology which suggest that we are all created equal and that we all should be able to live how we choose, regardless of America’s historical use of constitutive constraints regarding what should and should not be considered that which reflects blackness. Then he let us know that while he is not judging Griffith’s blackness based on the criteria laid out by Parker, he does judge blackness. Smith has criteria for blackness. Griffith, as his refusal to comment on his historical role as a black quarterback in the NFL indicates, is a human being and should be allowed to live as such. Terrell Owens and Chad Johnson: those are black guys.

Enter the curious case of Chad “Ochocinco” Johnson. I could write an entire book on Johnson and the complicity of some black men regarding their sometimes damning representation in America. So, it is difficult to use him as an example of one judged a bit too harshly by Smith; yet, I will. For I believe that Smith’s criticism of Johnson reveals more about Smith than it does Johnson. But first, the case of Johnson.

Johnson was released earlier this week after serving seven days of a thirty day jail sentence for probation violation. If you are unaware of how Johnson found himself in such a predicament, then please allow me a moment to recap events. Johnson met, seemingly feel in love with and then married VH1 reality-show star Evelyn Lozada, of Basketball Wives (funny, she was no one’s wife), after meeting the woman on Twitter and dating her on her reality-show. Their wedding also presented the opportunity for the couple to film another reality show, which was broadcasted to the world. Johnson, in the mist of this social media roller coaster, was moved from the New England Patriots to the Miami Dolphins, which happened to be featured on the HBO reality-show Hard Knocks. After assaulting his wife, either in response to her disgust that he may have been adulterous and may have practiced infidelity, or, in response to his disgust that Lozada allegedly had been the sex-kitten of Cash Money CEO Ronald “Slim” Williams, Johnson was publicly released from the Dolphins on television and was eventually sentenced to twelve months of supervised probation for the assault on Lozada – he head-butted her.

Evelyn Lozada Chad "Ochocinco" Johnson

In the aftermath of such a public fall from grace, Johnson disappeared from reality television, social media and the pubic eye – emerging now and then on ESPN’s First Take. He was on an image rehabilitation mission attempting to demonstrate to both the NFL authorities and the state authorities that he was and is a solid citizen worthy of just one more stint in the NFL. Then he missed an appointment with his probation officer. Such an occurrence required an appearance before a judge to explain why he did not report to his probation officer, or risk having to serve out the remainder of his probation in an actual jail. While solidifying a plea agreement with Judge Kathleen McHugh, Johnson smacked his male judge on the buttocks – in good ole NFL fashion – which prompted the judge to throw out the plea agreement and then sentence Johnson to thirty days in jail. The whole saga led Stephen A. Smith to go on a racial and social diatribe.

During the June 10th, 2013 airing of First Take, Smith went off on Johnson. He began by saying, “I cannot even put into words how disgusted I am…at this man right now” (First Take). He then proceeded to put into words his view of Johnson as an idiot. Here are the highlights of what Smith had to say:

Skip has been incredibly fair to this man [Johnson], this show [First Take] has been incredibly fair to this man, this network [ESPN] has been incredibly fair to this man, this COUNTRY has been incredibly fair to this man…Imma be very, very clear…I understand this is going to be controversial, but it needs to be said. You slap your attorney playfully in court…you are a BLACK man! In court!...the judge…Kathleen McHugh…I don’t know any men named Kathleen…You [Johnson] don’t have the common sense to know that you can’t be in court, playfully…what is wrong with him? I don’t understand it, I don’t get it. It doesn’t make sense to me…the HEIGHT of idiocy…I can’t believe he could be that idiotic! (First Take)

There is a lot to unpack here. First, we begin to understand that Smith’s conception of fairness equivocates. He tells an audience of graduating university students that fairness does not exist (remember, a fair is where they judge pigs?); but, all associated with ESPN, including the United States of America, have been incredibly fair to Johnson. This country!? No more than twenty seconds later, Smith admonishes Johnson for not acting accordingly as a black man in a courtroom in America. Without saying it directly, Smith alludes to the generally accepted and understood notion that black men are treated differently by the American legal and criminal justice system in comparison with other Americans: read white Americans. He acknowledges that Judge McHugh is a female judge, but will not go near the fact that she is a white female judge. That, while Smith is espousing to be controversial, would be a bit too controversial. Middle America does not want to hear that. Or, perhaps his role is to only be controversial to black communities. He ends by imploring the audience to consider Johnson’s idiocy – for not acting as a black man should act in court – while the black female, Cari Champion, and the white patriarch, Skip Bayless, look on approvingly. It takes Smith’s good friend and peer, Jason Whitlock, to explain what is really taking place with Smith and his role on First Take, especially with regards to black communities.

Whitlock writes, in an article entitled, “Memo to ESPN, Stephen A.: Enough BS,”

First Take…It baits Negroes to act like n---as.

That’s the job. For years, ESPN pitted a parade of attention-starved, mostly black stooges against Skip Bayless to legitimize and sanitize Skip’s over-the-top attacks on Terrell Owens, Chad Johnson, LeBron James and all the other low-hanging black fruit Skip could reach from his debate chair. The parade of stooges failed to properly protect Bayless. You could still see he was an insecure, disingenuous version of Glenn Beck.

Enter Stephen A. Smith, desperate to re-emerge as a high-six-figures TV celebrity, desperate for his next hit from the TV crack pipe. Smith campaigned for the role of Skip’s beard.

Recognizing that its black viewers couldn’t resist Skip’s bait, ESPN doubled down, making Smith an equal partner in the show and re-imagining First Take as the black barbershop of sports talk. The rap-music bumpers, the black, eye-candy female host, the guest appearances by rappers and Smith are all an attempt to make Skip’s negro-baiting palatable, marketable and justifiable.

The show has been dumbed down and ghetto-ized. An environment has been created that entices Smith and others to bojangle and stoop to Bayless’ level of discourse. Terrell Suggs was celebrated for coming on the show and calling Bayless a “douchebag.”

Stephen A. Smith is the villain in this scenario. Smith has enormous broadcasting talent. Dancing for Bayless is beneath Smith. He also has the intellect to see how ESPN and Bayless are using him. Smith could be the Adam Schefter/Chris Mortensen of the NBA, a high-paid, invaluable information-and-insight guru. But taking on Yahoo’s Adrian Wojnarowski is hard work. Dancing for Bayless is easy. Being half of ESPN’s hip hop, N-word-dropping sports show makes you more popular with celebrities. It’s fun.

Smith has fallen for the okeydoke.

I’m no fool. This is a horrendous look for black journalists. Where are the standards? How will we have any credibility the next time a white broadcaster says anything remotely racist if we sit quiet while Smith gets away with this?

Smith owes us an apology. (Whitlock)

FoxSports' Jason Whitlock

Whitlock’s sentiments, coupled with Smith’s adherence to the handbook of acquiescence (or better yet, reflecting Smith’s adherence to the handbook of acquiescence), led me to believe that he owes America, and black communities in America specifically, an apology. He runs around condemning, criticizing and demonizing black men in America, while purportedly working in the furtherance of black manhood and masculinity, only to publicly espouse a position reflective of anything but a purposeful and healthy black conception of black manhood and black masculinity. But, as the article entitled, “The Rise, Fall and Rise of Stephen A. Smith,” suggests, after giving “ESPN the impression [that he] wasn’t fully engaged in this [being the black guy that ESPN wanted], that[he] was always looking for greener pastures,” Smith was fired from ESPN (Bunn). Smith says of the firing, “I [understood] ESPN’s position when they had given me the platform to showcase what I do best and yet everything they threw my way did not seem to satisfy my appetite” (Bunn). Perhaps Smith once had an appetite to speak more honestly about black athletes and the plight of the black male athlete in America. But after being let go by ESPN and having to find a way to make a living with FoxSports (they hoped he’d become the black Glenn Beck of sports) and the Tom Joyner Morning Show (I believe that Tom is a Q-dawg, I could be wrong though – black frats!), Smith repackaged himself and reappeared as the beard which gives legitimacy to Skip’s not so thoroughly disguised niggardly representations of black male athletes and entertainers. I mean these guys have had Lil’ Wayne – that historian of all things Emmett Till and that lover of the dark hued black woman (he does not like dark-skinned black women, Champion is not an attractive woman in Wayne’s eyes; he prefers the ambiguously racial African American woman) – on the show on numerous occasions. Along with 2 Chainz, Joe Budden, Wale, Nelly, LL Cool J and so on and so forth. If this is what it takes to be successful as a black man of letters in America…I, for one, refuse to acquiesce!

Works Cited

Bell, Harold. “Winston Salem State Graduates Bamboozled: Stephen A. Smith Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth.”

                        http://bmia.wordpress.com/tag/stephen-a-smith/

Bunn, Curtis. The Rise, Fall and Rise Of Stephen A. Smith

  http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/12/03/the-rise-fall-and-rise-of-stephen-a-smith/

“ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith: “Most black men” can’t relate to Donovan McNabb.”

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/06/04/espns-stephen-a-smith-most-black-men-cant-    relate-to-donovan-mcnabb/

First Take. ESPN. 10 June 1013.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-3b4cBKkLY

Lee, Amber. “The 20 Dumbest Things Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith Have Said.”

  http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1566187-the-20-dumbest-things-skip-bayless-and-
  steven-a-smith-have-said/page/14

Smith, Michael David. “ESPN commentator on RG3: “He’s kind of black, but he’s not really””

  http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/13/espn-commentator-on-rg3-hes-kind-of-
  black-but-hes-not-really/

Whitlock, Jason. “Memo to ESPN, Stephen A.: Enough BS.”

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/espn-stephen-a-smith-n-word-race-racism-skip-
bayless-first-take-102612

2 Comments

Game Theory and Sexuality

5/13/2013

0 Comments

Massive amounts of cash.
Different game theory,
wit’out knowin’ the languages’ll leave ‘em all weary.
Smack ‘em all silly,
wit’ the four-fifth. Really.
Please don’t get too near me,
actin’ all picadilly.
See, they be talkin’ that.
Never, ever walkin’ that:
life of extravagant livin’,
plentiful givin’.
Tryin’ to erase they memories as chil’ren.
Man, I can’t hear ‘em.
They accents is foreign.
And me,
I abhorred ‘em.

- from “How I Hunger,” found in Mental Disorders, Labancamy Publishing, 2006

In the May 6, 2013 issue of Sports Illustrated, Jason Collins acknowledges that he is a homosexual man. Since his announcement, Collins has received praise from two Presidents of the United States, has been interviewed by Oprah Winfrey, has received an award for courage and has been offered the opportunity to write his story by numerous publishing houses, according to some media outlets. Now that the initial media attention has began to subside, the hating – read reflective criticism – has begun. And, it is the nature of some of the reflective criticism that presents the opportunity for discussions regarding masculinist issues.

One of the first people to publicly criticize, or should I say analyze, Collins in a manner in need of public admonition was Chris Broussard. Broussard, one of my favorite sports analysts, reporters and journalists for ESPN, while referencing Collins’s sexuality, seemingly questions Collins’s religious and spiritual integrity. Following Collins’s announcement on April 29, 2013 that he would reveal his homosexuality in the upcoming issue of Sports Illustrated, Broussard, while a guest on ESPN'’s Outside The Lines, stated the following:

I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is.... If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be ... that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.

Before Monday turned to Tuesday, Broussard issued an apology and attempted retraction:

Today on OTL, as part of a larger, wide-ranging discussion on today's news, I offered my personal opinion as it relates to Christianity, a point of view that I have expressed publicly before. I realize that some people disagree with my opinion and I accept and respect that. As has been the case in the past, my beliefs have not and will not impact my ability to report on the NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA.

After Broussard’s statement, ESPN, as a corporate entity, released its own statement – in support of Collins and distancing itself from Broussard’s earlier statement:

We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.

The Broussard Incident (as I like to call it) reflects a number of problematic masculinist issues in my opinion. For starters, Broussard’s strength and power were undermined; Broussard’s apparent inability to envision the ever widening field of the “commodity” was displayed; Broussard’s antithetical stance to the public narrative was magnified; the importance of ESPN'’s economic interests in comparison with Broussard’s value as an analyst was explicated.

Strength. One of the most sought after criterion of middle-class patriarchal masculinity is strength. While we, men, have evolved from a tunnel focus on brute strength alone, our primal desire for strength manifests itself in a whole hosts of other arenas in our lives. In America, the power, clout and influence offered by one’s occupation usually suffices for the power, clout and influence that brute strength once supplied. In Broussard’s case, he has profited tremendously from being associated with ESPN, “the Worldwide Leader in Sports.” Such an affiliation has allowed Broussard to be recognized as an expert in the arena of sports, particularly with regards to professional basketball. He was a guest on Outside The Lines, in part, due to his expertise regarding all things basketball related. In theory, when Broussard suggests that due to the practice of homosexuality, Collins walks “in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ,” he is not only making a statement about Collins with regard to religion and spirituality, but with regards to character as well. Broussard ventures into the role of gatekeeper regarding who is of a rebellious nature and who is not; and, by implication, who is capable of acknowledging authority and following rules and who is not. Broussard functions as an arbiter of character in an arena – the NBA and its attendant entities – where the employees (the players) are heavily scrutinized, especially employee character and background. Broussard, however, is no NBA owner. He is not a GM. He has no strength – no power, clout or influence – in relationship to the forces that control the NBA and its message(s) other than that afforded to him by corporate partners of the NBA: like ESPN. And, ESPN only allows Broussard influence in the arena of NBA analysis. Broussard’s perspective on Collins was a distraction from the desires of ESPN; Broussard will not make that mistake again. Broussard may want to find strength as a man in an arena other than his occupation, for ESPN can and will diminish his influence when Broussard’s power, clout and influence are in opposition to the desires of the company.

Intelligence. Broussard is a smart guy. No manly American man wants to be thought of as dumb or stupid. We may not all be members of cum laude societies, but we like to think that, individually and collectively, we have an intelligence that is of value and that can be productive. Broussard’s level of intelligence, seemingly, allows him to understand the value of being recognized as a person of religious conviction in America (if only in a Machiavellian sense). He understands the role of Christianity as a “commodity,” a personal selling point, alerting those in his company that he is most likely like them. He states that he “is a Christian.” He does not seem to understand the value of one’s sexuality as a commodity in America in 2013. As Collins himself acknowledges in the Sports Illustrated piece, ten years ago about one-third of the U.S. population was in favor of same-sex marriage; today, almost two-thirds are in support. One’s tolerance of the sexuality of others has become a commodity in 2013. Broussard should be aware of this. He is a smart guy. Jason and his agent are surely aware of Jason’s sexuality as a commodity, as a way to “sell” Jason and capitalize on his assets.

Some have suggested, perhaps in a manner slightly sarcastic and full of satire, that Collins has employed simple game theory in his use of his sexuality at the end of his “less than stellar” NBA career. In his article for World Net Daily entitled, “NBA’s Jason Collins: Gay Superhero,” Matt Barber describes Collins as a “fading, 34 year-old free agent” who, “just as he was ready to move to the next level of his basketball career (couch, Cheetos and NBA 2K13 on his PlayStation)…may now have to contend with millions in product endorsements, speaking fees and, potentially, even a renewed NBA contract.” There may be a bit of haterade detected in Barber’s tone. The article begins in a tone reflecting envy regarding all of the attention that Collins has received as a hero and for being courageous for his stance on sports and sexuality. Responding to Collins being described as courageous, Barber writes,

With everything to lose and nothing to gain, Jason Collins, in one single, selfless act, has rushed forward to jump on that “homophobic” grenade of persecution each of his LGBT brethren, sistren and whatever-else-tren face daily. For every oppressed dude-digging-dude, chick-digging-chick or cross-dressing whatchahoozie, Jason Collins has “taken one for the home team.”

Danger? Fear? Difficulty? One can only imagine. Have you ever tried to fend-off a herd of undulating, adulating media-types and Hollywood celebs? Me neither. Guy could get slobbered on – might even skin an elbow.

Certainly, Barber exhibits a bit of jealousy regarding Collins. Here is Barber (presumably a heterosexual male) not receiving any national attention as a man of courage (and he probably is a courageous man, too), yet the gay guy receives accolades for his courage, from the President! For men like Barber, men like Cameron Kyle should be acknowledged as heroes, for their actions: not homosexuals like Collins, for their sexual preferences. He writes

Oh, sure, a bunch of those “Christians” and conservatives are up-in-arms over the president’s “bizarre priorities” – that he would personally call Jason Collins to congratulate him over “the love that dare not speak its name,” while completely ignoring a guy like Cameron Lyle.

Who is Cameron Lyle, you ask? Well, little chance you’d know. And why should you? He’s just some attention-grabbing track and field star from the University of New Hampshire who sacrificed his athletic career to undergo the excruciating process of donating bone marrow to a total stranger dying of leukemia.

Yeah, I know. What a prima donna. They call that “heroic”? Puhleeze. Sure, like in a 1950s kinda way. We’ve evolved. We’re talking “gay pride” here. So, naturally, Collins gets the call – a little “one-on-one” if you will – while Lyle gets the shaft.

It takes courage to donate bodily material to a complete stranger, not to live out your desired sexuality, according to Barber.

Did I mention that courage is a criterion of middle-class patriarchal masculinity? So here, Barber is upset because the gay guy fits the criteria of masculinity better that he, or perhaps Kyle. I say: men we need new criteria for masculinity if we are to live in tact, as full human beings. If we are to work on the hows and whys of the manifestation of petty jealousies within and between us; if we are to be the supportive partners to women that are needed for us all to develop our most; if we are to become our childhood dreams, then we must renew and reinvent ourselves. But, I will admit, Barber’s comments also point out the material gain that Collins stands to attain as a result of his announcement.

Simply put, game theory is strategic decision making. And so, if, at the end of a professional basketball career, Collins has concluded that he can facilitate his ability to continue to live in the luxury that over $34 million in earned NBA salary has afforded him over the last decade by embracing his homosexuality and selling his sexuality as a commodity to the American public, then so be it. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. The economic appeal of Collins and his story has already been felt by NBA executives:

Last season, Collins changed his jersey number to 98, out of heretofore unspoken solidarity with Matthew Shepard, the University of Wyoming student who was kidnapped and killed in an anti-gay hate crime in 1998. In the first twenty-four hours after Collins went public, No. 98 became the top-selling custom jersey on the Wizards’ Web site.

Yes, Collins stands to make a lot of money as America’s first active, gay athlete. I will say, however, that I am a little uneasy about the “extortionist” nature with which Collins’s impending free agency has been presented to potential NBA suitors for Collins’s services. NBA clubs have been placed in the position of being accused of homophobia if they do not offer a contract, at a minimum of $1.4 million, to Collins – an aging, NBA journeyman who has never averaged more than seven points a game. But hey, if Marcus Camby is still on an NBA squad, then I guess Collins should be. Someone should tell Broussard that he should broaden his horizons regarding the commodity as we continue to live in the machine that is America.

Difference. Difference is something that African American men have had to deal with since the inception of the thought of the Union. To alleviate the collateral damage that sometimes results from being different, African American men have sought middle-class patriarchal masculinity: to be just like all the rest of America’s men, white men. And, part of such an assimilation has been an acquiescence to Christianity as the milieu from which one draws one’s religious understanding and spiritual grounding. Some African American families, post-Migration, acquired identities reflecting such an acquisition of Christianity; perhaps, the Broussards are such a family. But, the criteria by which the mainstream of America’s population judges and evaluates its members have evolved, somewhat, since those days of yore (maybe, perhaps?). Broussard’s inability to recognize such an evolution only serves to underscore and reinforce difference of the very nature that his family seemingly sought to eradicate. Broussard is totally out of step with the public narrative regarding homosexuality. He is against it; the American public supports it. He finds himself at odds with the American public. A position not wholly unfamiliar to black men in America, but a position that Broussard’s occupation at ESPN suggests should no longer be a concern of black men like Broussard. (Too idealistic? Maybe).

With Broussard being an African American man of a light-skinned complexion, I did not like the idea of Broussard suggesting that Collins did not fit the criteria of a Christian: that Collins was in rebellion to Christ. I am quite sure that at some point in Broussard’s life he was, perhaps, teased for his skin. Perhaps his authenticity as a black child was questioned. I would ask Broussard to reflect on those instances, if they ever occurred, when he makes declarations about Collins and Collins’s rebellion of God and Christ. I would be willing to bet that Broussard’s distaste for those who question his authenticity as a black man because of his skin tone would be similar to Collins’s distaste for those who question his religious and spiritual authenticity because of his sexuality. I would hope that African American men – who suffer from the overdetermined interpretations of others – would not continue the cycle of projecting traits we find uncomfortable about ourselves onto others. Freud is dead. Let his shit die too!

Lastly, the Broussard Incident illustrates that the economic bottom-line of a corporate entity far outweighs the value of and validity (or lack thereof) of perspectives taken by the corporation’s employees. Put another way, ESPN will not risk losing the economic relationship that it has with the American people because of some heartfelt remarks made by one of the company’s analysts. ESPN sells sports news. They sell it to poor people, rich people, old people, young people, straight people and GAY people. ESPN is “fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.” If Broussard does not have enough self-control, rationality and loyalty (all criteria of masculinity as practiced in America) to ESPN to understand ESPN’s commitment to the public it serves, then perhaps Broussard should not be working at ESPN. When presented in such as way, all of the independence and freedom of thought as a journalist that Broussard once believed he had is placed in stark relief: he is one who better damn well do as his superiors demand and command. Hence, his apology. And when episodes like the Broussard Incident happen, they can result in men like Broussard speaking of feeling emasculated by the company. That emasculation occurs because the criteria by which men like Broussard may be evaluating their masculinity is flawed. As long as men, particularly African American men, have a tenuous hold on the criteria of middle-class patriarchal masculinity, they will continue to experience periods of emasculation and the rage and anger associated with such emasculation. I tell you, we need some new criteria.

So, to everyone hating on Jason Collins: get a life. If you want to criticize him about anything, then criticize him for lying to that young lady for eight years. She will never get that time in her life back. And for that, I empathize with her. Although I believe that Jason should be afforded the space to develop a healthy masculinity that works for him, I do not believe that that masculinity should be in opposition to America’s feminisms; if anything, the newly created masculinities should function in tandem with and as a benefit to America’s feminisms.

0 Comments

So, What Exactly is Masculinity Anyhow?

5/3/2013

0 Comments

I originally intended to write about Jay-Z and his influence on masculinity in my first blog, but Jason Collins and his announcement made me scratch that. As is probably known by now, Collins is the first, active major league sports athlete to announce to the world that he is gay. Collins is also African American. His story is not receiving such attention because he is the first black gay athlete in America, but because, other than Martina Navratilova, he is the first active athlete who is gay. He has embraced the dialogue that his announcement has started and has been commended for his courage. I am not concerned with Jason’s intimacies and relations; what does interest me is what his performance insinuates and suggests for concepts of American masculinity in the twenty-first century.
Collins says he is happy to begin the conversation about gay athletes in sports; the conversation, however, cannot be contained by the sports arena. The sports arena simply serves as another conduit through which we can discuss matters of sexual orientation, sexuality and masculinity. And to those ends, Jason’s announcement caught the ears of some of my peers who would normally resist discussions of homosexuality and masculinity. But, because they are sports fanatics – and strict adherents to sports talkshows like First Take, Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption – they couldn’t escape the abundance of attention that Jason has received since Monday. I learned some pretty interesting things about my friends. About myself. I learned that I have a visceral reaction to men dressed as women. I learned that some believe, as one of my colleagues put it, that “Homosexuality is some white shit. Black folks didn’t play that before slavery.” And, of course, there was the admonition from one of my most pious of friends who believes that homosexuality is a sin against God and, while she could overlook an active, penetrating homosexuality, she could never see eye to eye with men who are passive homosexuals. I left my friends, feeling not so much upset, as confused. With them. And with myself. Some issues where in need of investigation: Why do cross-dressing men engender a visceral response in some heterosexual men? Is there any truth to homosexuality, at least among African American men, originating with contact with European civilization? Can we/should we allow for different types of homosexuality? Does it matter?
The idea that homosexuality among African American men began with and was influenced by contact with European civilization, more specifically the idea that American chattle slavery engendered homosexuality among black men, is nothing new. I have heard such an explanation of black male homosexuality while a member of many African American communities throughout my lifetime. What has surprised me over the years has been the fact that it has usually been African American women who posit such a claim. African American men rarely speak on issues of homosexuality with what could be acknowledged as any kind of depth. And, African American women writers have been even more graphic and forthcoming about
interracial homosexual bonds between white men and black men in their literature. In Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Harriet Jacobs hints of the sexual horrors suffered by a male slave at the hands of an overly-sexed homosexual master:

... when [the young master] went north to complete his education, he
carried his vices with him. He was brought home deprived of the use of
his limbs, by excessive dissipation. Luke was appointed to wait upon his
bed-ridden master, whose despotic habits were greatly increased by exasperation at his own helplessness. He kept a cowhide beside him, and, for
the most trivial occurrence would order his attendant to bear his back,
and kneel beside the couch, while he whipped him till his strength was
exhausted. Sometimes he was not allowed to wear anything but his shirt
in order to be in readiness to be flogged.

Here Jacobs insinuates that the young master and Luke engaged in homosexual, or, at least homosocial, practices initiated and motivated by the perversities of the white master.
More recently, Toni Morrison, in her highly acclaimed novel Beloved, writes of the damn near rape of Paul D as he is forced to perform fellatio on white prison guards while in the Georgian coffle. Indicative of the common sexual exploitation of African American women by white men, the suffering of Paul D in the coffle in Alfred, Georgia, where the guardsmen’s ritual exploitation each morning of their black captives - fellatio at gunpoint – was one of many atrocities to be survived, Paul D’s plight reminds us that black men too suffered sexually at the hands of white superiors.
If we are to believe, as Pauline Hopkins reminds us, that fiction serves as a record of the inmost thoughts and feelings of a people, then both Incidents and Beloved would serve to underscore the belief held by some that homosexuality among African American men is in no small measure due to influences by and contact with white Americans of European descent. The history of cultural practices among Africans in the New World suggests that there is reason to reevaluate such a stance.
I want to make it clear that I am aware of white masters, and some among the white male population in general, who took sexual liberty with their slaves. In Tropical Versailles, Kirsten Schultz writes of slaves, male adolescent slaves, accosted and molested on the streets of Brazil by random, recently arrived Portuguese men. When one considers the fact that a master’s sexual liberties with his slaves were only limited by the master’s imagination, then it is not hard to imagine that a master with homosexual desires would act those desires out with his male slaves. But, the point that I want to make here is: some black men displayed sexual proclivities deemed other than normal outside the presence and authority of white masters. And under such circumstances we must acknowledge that homosexuality and homosexual acts were not always forced by a superior authority. Sometimes, as a result of unfavorable sex ratios in the slave setting and sometimes, as a result of institutional gender inversion in Africa, black men participated in consensual same-sex relationships.
In many locales throughout the New World, due to the intense labor demand, more male African slaves were imported than females resulting, at times, in a great disparity between the number of female slaves and male slaves on a given plantation, or arena of labor. Sometimes the ratio was as high as ten to one (male to female). It should not surprise us that male slaves sought out other males to satisfy their sexual impulses. Since the personal and private lives of slaves remained largely hidden from the master class, few of these homosexual encounters were ever recorded; yet we should not let the silence of the records keep us from asking how gender-isolated men either maintained or reformulated their sexual and gender identities. Some no doubt remained “heterosexual,” perhaps resorting to celibacy and/or self-gratification. Others became so desperate in their quest for sexual satisfaction that they resorted to bestiality – recall the scene that Morrison paints in Beloved. Before the arrival of Sethe, the men were found “fucking cows, dreaming of rape.” But I would suggest that, because the male slaves faced such isolation, some did recast their sexual identities as they reached out to their male peers for a combination of sexual and emotional sustenance. We see the phenomenon played out daily in America’s modern prison system and we saw it played out for entertainment value in the motion picture Life, starring Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence. Consider the relationship between Jangle Leg and Biscuit. Jangle Leg! Jangle Leg!
Records of slave societies, particularly in South America in places like Portugal, reveal several instances of same-sex behavior on the part of male slaves in the New World. For example, in Brazil, between 1591-1769, eighty-five sodomites appeared before authorities; thirty three were of color. The use of such historical records can give us some insight regarding the nature of same-sex relationships among male slaves in the New World.
The case of Joane, a “Negro slave from Guiné.” Joane and another Negro of Guiné were witnessed as they entered Joane’s place of work in the middle of the night. The unidentified Negro reported that Joane brought him to the place to sodomize him. It was later discovered that while Joane did wish to have sexual relations with the man, Joane preferred to be acted upon rather than do the acting. Joane was accused of seducing another man of African lineage, a Duarte. Upon questioning, Duarte acknowledged that he and Joane were partners; but, he was quick to boast that he, Duarte, was the active partner while Joane was the passive partner. Other incidents of cases of consensual same-sex behaviors have been recorded, mostly of peoples from Central and Western Africa. One of the more famous of these cases involved two slaves, Antonio and Frances. In his testimony Antonio describes how he and Frances met. He says that around June of 1647 Frances propositioned him, asking if he wanted to spend the night with him. Antonio accepted his offer, and the two had sex with one another. According to the record, this relationship continued, with the two men having sex on several occasions. It appears that their relationship ended only when the religious authorities stepped in and had Antonio sold off.
Even though some same-sex relationships were clearly enduring emotional attachments, others had less to do with loneliness and the search for affection than with flexible gender categories that apparently existed in various parts of Africa. The narrowness of Western gender constructions did not , and still today don’t, recognize this third gender category that some African men brought with them to the New World. As a result, men adhering to the flexible gender categories of some African societies were categorized as sodomites, as homosexuals. Men like Frances believed that they had the orifice (buraco) of a woman. He reports that there “were many in his country who had the same buracos who were born with them.” In addition to the buraco, Frances took on the dress and mannerisms of a woman. His admission suggests that there were many like him (back home…in Benin? Angola?) who were endowed with buracos and who dressed and acted as women. Frances’s gender and sexual choices were apparently an accepted part of his African society, an integral part of Frances’s identity which the New World sought to erase because he was a sodomite. In many New World societies, acts of sodomy had long been punishable by death, but in some locales the worst punishment was reserved for partners like Frances, the rationale being that masculine male penetration was a natural act, while feminine male reception was not. Such social and cultural vacuums in the Western mentality affected Africans and their descendants in the New World in profound ways, confining them to sexual, gender, and family categories that were alien to them…and confining…and constraining…and suffocating.
These cross-dressing men were so prevalent in some Central African societies that there was even a word for them in the language of Angola and Congo: jinbandaa. The term jinbandaa in Central Africa did not carry the same negative moral connotations that the term sodomite carried in the New World. Jinbandaa was significant in Central African religious beliefs. The stem of the word means medicine man and throughout Central Africa words similar to jinbandaa imply religious power. In fact, several revealing descriptions from the Angolan coast in the seventeenth century suggest that jinbandaas were a discreet and powerful caste in Angolan society. As early as 1606, the Jesuits in Angola described jinbandaas who were

extremely great fetishers, and being men went around dressed as women and they had by great offense called themselves men; they have husbands like the other women, and in the sin of sodomy they are just like devils.

Another description reads:

…all of the pagans respect them and they are not offended by them and these sodomites happen to live together in bands, meeting most often to give burial services…This caste of people is who dresses the body for burial and performs the burial ceremony.

Three important points are revealed about the jinbandaas in Central Africa: 1) they were a discreet social group who lived together, 2) they were respected by others in the community, and 3) they performed traditional burial ceremonies and exercised a wide range of spiritual roles. Taken together, these three points produce a compelling argument for the religious power and respectability of the jinbandaas. In Central Africa, jinbandaas carved out their own third-sex (gendered defined) living space in society. The spiritual capacity of the jinbandaa was so universally known, it seems, that they were referred to not by their patterns of dress or by their sexual behavior, but by their roles as religious leaders. When these African men encountered the New World we begin to see the breakdown of the gender-defined organization of the society. So, I guess one could argue that it is after contact with Western white men that some African men become recognized as gay or homosexual; but, it could also be argued that some African men, while not classified as homosexual, exhibited - what would become recognized as - homosexual tendencies. What is clear is that modern Western standards of sexuality and gender did not fit African men and it seems that some African American men are still suffering from this in 2013: men like Jason.
Perhaps, cross-dressing men elicit a feeling of the uncanny in me (like the Jewish character Shylock engenders a feeling of the uncanny in Harold Bloom). Perhaps, I have internalized America’s fascination and idealization of middle-class patriarchal masculinity with its attendant visceral reactions to anything that seems to contradict middle-class patriarchal masculinity. I am still working through it. What I do know is: there were no such things as heterosexual sex and homosexual sex before the advent of the middle-class. All of this is spelled out very clearly (well, maybe not so clearly) by Michel Foucault in The History of Sexuality. Before the rise of the middle-class (think French Revolution, American Revolution), societies were generally divided into the upper-classes and everyone else. No one cared what kind of sex another person enjoyed (except the Church). If you were born into the upper class and the aristocracy, then you were always an upper-class aristocrat. If you were not born into title, then you would most likely never transcend your social class. The French Revolution screwed this manner of social organization all up. With the advent of the middle-class, the entrepreneurs, the New Men – those new to entering a new sphere of life – needed new ways of distinguishing the middle-class from the lower-class people from whom they had just escaped association. So, in the legal (penal and civil) sphere and the social sphere, new edicts and expectations regarding behavior were established. Some of these codifications pertained to sex. Around the end of the eighteenth century, marital sex between a man and a woman was defined. All other forms of sex (which had been practiced as long as man had been on Earth) were outlawed and deemed improper. Just think about it: there are U.S. laws still banning sodomy, in 2013. The middle-class, with its doctors and lawyers and orators and philosophers and…and..developed the discourse of sex and sexuality and what is permissible and proper. And any sex which does not lead to procreation is bad sex! Any concept of femininity which does not lead to procreation is bad! Any concept of masculinity which does not lead to procreation is bad! Middle-class conceptions of sex and sexuality not only suggest that any sex that Jason Collins has as a homosexual man is bad, but immoral (Church), illegal (law) and disgusting (social). And not only that, Jason’s masculinity should be in question for he does not fit the middle-class patriarchal conception of masculinity. I know what you are asking yourself: what the hell is middle-class patriarchal masculinity?
Middle-class patriarchal masculinity reflects the following criteria: nobility, intelligence, strength, articulateness, loyalty, virtue, rationality, courage, self-control, courtliness, honesty and physical attractiveness as defined in white Western European terms. Men, masculine men, reflect these criteria. If one is lacking in any of the above, then one may be lacking as a man. I find it ironic that Jason Collins, a member of one of the most respected African American, blue blood, upper middle-class families, feels confined, constricted by the demands of middle-class patriarchal masculinity. I mean, does Jason not reflect all of the above criteria? Yes and no. He was not honest with himself for fear of what others may have thought of him. Does that make him any less of a man? Yes, according to the above criteria. And that is what I detest regarding middle-class patriarchal masculinity. The criteria, especially for African American men, is damn near impossible to live up to. Jason had more access to the development of the criteria than most African American males and he found it stifling, suffocating. For African American men middle-class patriarchal masculinity is problematic; black men, at best, have a tenuous hold on these definitions. Few of the elements of middle-class manhood can be attributed to blackness. Especially if you have any kind of rhizomatic connection to the jinbandaa, which could live spiritually in your makeup. Attempting to live according to the principles of American middle-class patriarchal masculinity often leads to spiritual demise. Just ask Jason.
Nevertheless, middle-class patriarchal masculinity has been used as the ideal criteria by which America raises her young boys to men. And, as a result, African American men are trapped in cyclical, overdetermined roles of dominance, which have, at times, led to feelings of failure or feelings of lack. The failure of the folk spirit to embrace modernity during the Migration involved the failure of black male entelechy to carry that spirit as revealed in art – song and music, literature, drawing and painting - to Northern environs. Not hearing or seeing or feeling that spirit as expressed in art, some African American men seem to suffer from forms of impotence, from a kind of generalized inadequacy that speaks to aimlessness. To combat such impotence, we need to develop concepts of masculinity that work for us, in the twenty-first century. And in doing so, let us not forget that the travail of black mothers should be the conduit through which black sons acquire an understanding of masculinity that is at once both sexual and political, and impediments to this mean a confusion that could lead, at least, to spiritual demise. Thank you, Jason, for providing an avenue to present such a position to those in my peer group.

0 Comments

Acquiesce to Overdetermined Models of Masculinity?

Game Theory and Sexuality

So, What Exactly is Masculinity Anyhow?

Categories