It's never a good sign when a piece starts with:
Man, who is this dude, and why is he such a dick?
Name calling in the opening paragraph is usually a bad sign. Name calling to start the opening paragraph is usually a very bad sign. Not bothering to contact the "dick" in question is, well, poor reporting. In any case Shannon was apparently perturbed by the discussion of porn that went on last night and this morning. She opens with:
I sat quietly through the whole 'it might be circumstance' and of course, the ridic porn apology shit[I think an issue is that people equate porn with sex, and the issue is that good sex involves two people interacting in a way that both people enjoy, and porn is all about one sided performance- no personality- a black woman isn't a human being with her own preferences, likes and dislikes! she's a ghetto ho! , a race to the bottom in terms of sexual acts[I can't even imagine what could be worse than the modern state of porn and what bodily features on women will be considered gross and wrong next
Not for nothing but yeah. porn is generally speaking sex. In some cases it's putting on leather, determining "safe words", getting strapped to some wooden device and being whipped until orgasm. In some cases it's women crushing roaches. In some cases it's women stepping on testicles, slipping items into urethras. It is sometimes really huge women and really skinny men. Sometimes it's really old men and really old women. Sometimes it's really old men and really young women. It's sometimes diapers and taking a poo or piss.
porn is a LOT of things that make a LOT of people sexually aroused. None of it appeals to every consumer but it's all out there.
That I was able to even write all that shows how weak the sentance:
that people equate porn with sex
Because clearly porn is a lot of things to a lot of people. Secondly that long list also shows that the persons involved are the only people who are qualified to judge whether "both people enjoy." Not outsiders. Not me. Not Shannon. Sorry. I don't understand why people are turned on sexually by getting whipped but it's not my business. It's not Shannon's either.
The statement:
and porn is all about one sided performance- no personality
Can't be proven. How does she know this? All those people, the men and the women are not agents in their own behavior. Really? There are pages and pages of online video that will utterly disprove this statement. But most people, including a large percentage of so called "feminists" simply do not want to admit this. Why? Well that's a whole other conversation and there's a lot to cover here.
Such statements like:
a black woman isn't a human being with her own preferences, likes and dislikes!
Is absolutely without foundation. Firstly those women decide IF they will "perform". They decide whether they will accept the compensation. They decide WHO they will and will not perform with. They decide WHAT kinds of intercourse they will engage in. Feminists have a term for this: agency. I wont even discuss those women who direct and produce porn cause clearly to Shannon these people do not exist and have no agency.
Anyway that's not even the worst of it. No. Shannon's top is apparently blown by the following statement I made:
I'm leery of this one because I have come across a number of proclaimed feminist who feel that if a man so much as looks at her, it is sexual harassment. Seriously. I have actually had this discussion. Simple attempts to engage in conversation in public was deemed sexual harassment. I'm serious about that one too. What bothers me is the usual loud silence by other feminists when these things are said and posted on certain feminist websites. They call it "creating a safe place for women". I call it tolerating and allowing the promotion of BS. Fact is that among normal human males and females, the fact that we as a species are poly-estrous means that "mating season" is every day of the week. Human males and females try to get each others attention every day of the week. It is normal. There are a lot of men who go way overboard on their attention seeking. This is where culture and proper parental upbringing (particularly fathers and father figures) come into play.
This was in reference to a point of black male privilege made in the article I referenced that said:
94. I am able to be out in public without fear of being sexually harassed by individuals or groups of the opposite sex.
What does Shannon have to say about that?
first:
I enjoy the idea that men will magically come in and save everyone. This is a common fantasy in the black community, that if only a STRONG BLACK MAN would HEAD THE FAMILY, everything would be alright. Of course, there's not really anything we can do to make individual men do this, and if they do, there's still the real issues of poverty and racism to tackle. It also makes it seem that black women doing tons of work don't count just because we don't have penises[yes, a few black women have penises, but they aren't accepted by this crowd]. And the whole I WAS JUST GETTING HER ATTENTION mess. Really, dude, don't apologize for those assholes.
Notice that Shannon does not address my experience of self proclaimed "feminists" who have made the claim that merely looking at a woman is harassment. I would think that Shannon would want to make sure that the reader knows in no uncertain terms that she does not co-sign such a position. But no. I suppose that Shannon has no problem with that.
Does Shannon also disclaim the outrageous claims by some feminists that speaking to a woman one does not know in public is harassment? No. That's not important to her either. So half of the paragraph that she quoted goes uncommented on. Not so much as an "I've never heard that before". But I suppose that I am a straight black male "oppressor" (and a dick at that) my experiences and observations don't count. Anyway enough about me right?
So Shannon's sore point is the "Strong black man as head of household". Which was actually a critique of an earlier point of contention. I said in regards to that idea that the presupposition that strong black men (whatever those are) as head of household being an absolute negative has not been proven. For the not too bright that means I'm open to the discussions of the pros and cons of Black men as head of household. Lets supply evidence for and against. Secondly though I'm sure that many in the African-American community have idealized fantasies about a great deal of things, I never made such a claim. I repeat that my claim is that Strong black men (whatever they are) as head of household has not been proven to be definitively negative.
Shannon wanders on with:
Of course, there's not really anything we can do to make individual men do this, and if they do, there's still the real issues of poverty and racism to tackle.
In my experience and readings the idea of strong black men as head of household is a (not the) proposed plan to address poverty and racism since employed black men making wages that are enough to support a family addresses the issue of poverty (however imperfectly) and the resulting stable family units are safe spaces for black people to protect themselves from WS as practiced in the areas of people activity.
It is our job as academics, leaders, writers, etc to create and implement plans that create win-win situations for black men and women. That requires give and take and neither black men or black women get to dictate the terms unilaterally.
Finally with Shannons next to last sentence in that paragraph:
It also makes it seem that black women doing tons of work don't count just because we don't have penises[yes, a few black women have penises, but they aren't accepted by this crowd].
My, I do believe that is the second penis reference in this piece. Hmmmmmmm.....
Anyway, I don't know who's writing she is conjuring up, but it's not mine. Nowhere in my piece, or twitter conversation did I say or imply that black women's contributions don't count. I said that there are things that men, being males, contribute that cannot be replaced by a woman. And to correct Shannon's last point: Females with penises and men with breasts and other female apparati are called hermaphrodites/intersex. They are neither male or female and are therefore not men or women. And I'm not referring to those who underwent surgical changes. That's an entirely different conversation; and by the way, there's porn for that.
Shannon then decides to go further down the rabbit hole:
Assholes ruin it for everybody. You can't have it both ways. Either men can go and 'get a woman's attention' by following her down the street, making crude remarks, and touching a woman in an unwanted manner[really, would you want some dude who smelled like he took a bath in shit water doing that to you? then why is it OK for women to be attacked?] or you can nut up and say, hey, that's not cool.
I invite the reader to back up to the paragraph she quoted and look for where I excuse or accept crude public behavior by men towards women or said that attacking women in public was acceptable. I'll wait here.
Done.
Can't find it can you?
Exactly. So what is Shannon's problem? This is typical of many so called feminists. They will chuck other peoples arguments and attitudes on other people. They think that's acceptable because God forbid a straight male has the gall to:
a) Be right.
b) State something that makes absolute sense.
c) Defends everyone's right to speak to (not harass) anyone in public.
Shocking I know.
So far we have a total of three paragraphs that generally critique me for writing stuff I never wrote. Three paragraphs. Look I'm not he best writer in the world. My stuff has all kinds of grammar and structural errors but at least I have the decency to not ascribe arguments and statements to people that they have not made.
Now here comes the rant:
And talking smack about black women seems to be a special black male privilege. It's a shit sandwich! You work hard, get educated, and dude who ain't graduated from high school complain about how you're too fat!
I WOUlD have co-signed that first sentence. Cause in general I think black men get away with saying a lot of things about black women. But in this particular case Shannon is talking massive shit and I'm calling her on it. Secondly it's not clear from the language but is Shannon trying to imply something about my education or is she making gross negative generalizations about black men? And if so, why does she think doing so is acceptable?
While you're looking at his ass, and it's not exactly super fit!
I will have Shannon know that my ass is super fit. If she wants I'll send her a photo of it. I will say though that if she runs a mile in more that 7 minutes she can talk to the hand.
Anyway, Shannon's concluding statements are her own thoughts about stuff I didn't say or even remotely related to the topic at hand so I'll leave it alone. My suggestion for Shannon: If you're going to start a piece with name calling you better bring the pain in the form of verifiable facts and accurate arguments.
Ting and ting and ting.
