May 30, 2012
Patriarchal mobilizations of the memory of Malcolm X

“Discussions about the alleged breakdown of the black family and the need for strong African American male role models serve as an important backdrop to the resurgence interest in and celebration of Malcolm X. Spike Lee’s X, which has, unfortunately, become the final word on Malcolm X for millions of Americans, is but an expensive Hollywood ending to a much longer period of reconstructing his memory. One of the many distortions has been the conspicuous inattention to gender politics. Malcolm’s own view of women, as well as the implications of a largely masculinized version of the black freedom movement, is uncritically accepted by many who invoke his memory.

In this revisionist reconstruction of the past, and especially in Lee’s film, Malcolm has been amputated from the larger social and political context of the 1960s to stand on his own as representative of an entire movement and era…What we are also left with is an erasure of the grassroots component of the Black Power and Civil Rights movements, especially the role of grassroots women organizers, who were the very backbone of groups like SNCC (the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee), MFDP (Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party) and, in a different way, the Black Panther Party. Organizers like Fannie Lou Hammer and Ella Baker have been literally “X’d” out of the popular—and unfortunately, most academic—histories, African American youth and others are left with the disempowering misperception that only larger-than-life great men can make or change history, and that this process of an individual rather than a collective venture. The struggle for black liberation is thus equated solely with the struggle to redeem black manhood, and with individual triumph over adversities and indignities.”

“What has been created in popular culture, according to historian Robert D.G. Kelley, is a “Malcolm safe for democracy.” While most portrayals of Malcolm, even twenty-second sound bites, display his incisive critique of racism, they systematically exclude any reference to his positions on other crucial issues such as imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, and, of course, gender…In most accounts, Malcolm’s patriarchal and sexist ideas, which regrettably remained static through most of his life, are either ignored, downplayed, or reinforced. For example, in the movie X, Betty Shabazz is portrayed uncritically as “the strong woman behind the great man.” No mention is made of the fact that she left Malcolm after the birth of each of their five children, or of her subordinate status within the context of their male-headed family. Furthermore, no mention is made of Malcolm’s own effort to grapple with and challenge the sexism that characterized most of his adult life. In a correspondance to his cousin-in-law, Hakim Jamal, in January 1965, Malcolm himself confronts this issue:

I taught brothers not only to deal unintelligently with the devil or the white woman, but I also taught brothers to spit acid at the sisters. They were kept in their places—you probably didn’t notice this in action, but it is a fact. I taught the brothers to spit acid at the sisters. If the sisters decided a thing was wrong, they had to suffer it out. If the sister wanted to have her husband at home with her for the evening, I taught the brothers that the sisters were standing in their way; in the way of the Messenger, in the way of progress, in the way of God Himself. I did these things, brother. I must undo them.

…The hero worship of Malcolm as a great black father and the uncritical acceptance of his retrograde views on gender, a weakness that he himself recognized, is quite consistent with the new culture of poverty theorists, who blame African American people—women, in particular—for perpetuating our own oppression, and who propose strong male-dominated families as the solution.”

—From the essay ‘Black Popular Culture and the Transcendence of Patriarchal Illusions,’ by Barbara Ransby and Tracye Matthews, anthologized in Words of Fire: An Anthology of African-American Feminist Thought.

October 19, 2011
Occupy movement occupies the same old shit

The hot chicks of occupy wall street has gotten an inordinate amount of media attention, the likes of which feminist, anti-racist, and radical contributions to the occupy movement can only dream of, and for the same reason: heterosexual white males dominate the discourse.

Defenders of the video/blog (mostly male) characterize it as a romantic, tender depiction of female beauty which empowers women. They reduce the lecherous male gaze to the innocuous adoring eye of a young boy with a crush observing his object of desire—a tactic which only reasserts the dominant male paradigm. Many people (mostly women) have objected to the degrading trivialisation of the female protesters, which we are told we should find ‘fun’ ‘lighthearted’ and ‘sexy.’ Feminists outraged over the ‘project’ have been accused of overreacting, of taking it too seriously, of failing to understand the aesthetic intention of the film-maker. We are not concerned with artistic subtleties or the abstract rights of men to “appreciate beautiful women” (after all, men claim and assert this right with the consistency of breathing). We reject the fundamentally sexist premise of emphasizing women’s appearance over every other aspect of their beings. These women’s political positions, identities, and activities rendered irrelevant by a male viewer who values their beauty above all. Yet we are so used to seeing women through the lens of male heterosexual desire, that this objectification is normalised, naturalised, and this particular instance appears very mild in comparison to the pornographic depictions of women plastered on billboards and crowding the pages of magazines every day. As one male commenter said, the video shows no blatant butt wiggling or cleavage; however, the male gaze in any form flattens and distorts female subjectivity. The film-maker may be pretending to care about the women’s politics, but he makes his objectifying intention quite clear in the title ‘Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall St.’

Surely this is good publicity for the movement, surely this will attract more support for our nebulous cause? Indeed using young women as eye candy to sell commodities, companies, concepts, and social change is a tried and true strategy for successful marketing in a society which universalizes male heterosexual desire. And perhaps the popularity of this thing will attract more men who want to look at women, and women who want to be looked at by men. If this kind of publicity is perceived as positive by Occupy Wall st. (as indicated on their forum http://occupywallst.org/forum/hot-chicks-of-occupy-wallst/) then the movement is going to end up being about as revolutionary as clothes spinning around in a washing machine; we’ll create about as much social change as the next election cycle. Because as long as we continue to uncritically reproduce the systems of oppression structuring this society—racism, sexism, classism—our movement towards a new form of society will only track the dirt of history across our nice clean floor.
-H

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »