R KELLY IS TRASH AND SO ARE HIS BLIND FOLLOWERS

by Chuck Hobbs 

     Key: Ar-Ruh = R = R. Kelly

     ...While I understand the pathos behind Black men who cape for Ar-Ruh, including the fact that many were molested themselves and are still coping with that issue and/or their own sexual perversions, demons or sexual preferences, I am not as certain about many of the Black women who are doing the same. I am sure some Sister Ar-Ruh fans, too, are grappling with their own perversions, demons and sexual preferences. But it is odd; I was blessed to be raised by a mother and women in the Black community who often would give their last–even their lives if it came to that–to protect children. So, that I see many Sisters on social media writing “that little fast-tailed girl got what she wanted”–and worse–simply defies all reason from my vantage point. 

     In conclusion, “Surviving R. Kelly” provided some new details about Ar-Ruh’s prior criminal acts, but for the most part, it reiterated information that many of us already were reasonably aware of about his perverted predilections.
     But to be clear, it’s not about whether folks knew that R. Kelly was an old “Chester the Molester” 10, 15 or even 25 years ago when Aaliyah, then 15, burst onto the scene under his watch. No, the purpose of this documentary was to remind us all that sexual abuse is real and remains relevant, so that we can endeavor to prevent as many of these unfortunate occurrences as we possibly can in our homes, in our schools and in our Black churches.
     Ergo, asking “why watch what you already know” is akin to asking why anyone would read a book or watch a movie or documentary about anything involving a historical subject. We study history in hopes of not repeating past mistakes. This documentary is important because it allows us to confront how criminals like Ar-Ruh, and many others, both famous and unknown, commit rape–only to have it swept under the rug in our communities...

Read More: https://thehobbservationpoint.com/2019/01/07/r-kelly-is-trash-and-so-are-his-blind-supporters/?

~TheHobbservationPoint

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

PROTECTING R KELLY: A Joint Effort Between The Black Community & White Male Power Brokers

"Near the beginning of the series [ SURVIVING R KELLY], an infamous clip plays from a 2018 Facebook Live session. In it, Kelly addresses the latest wave of backlash against him, shouting out his supporters and blowing off his critics. Surrounded by boisterous supporters, he gloats, “It’s too late, they should’ve did this shit 30 years ago.”

And if black feminists were 
as powerful then as they are now, 

while he was still weak

(30 years back = not rich, not famous), 

AND he was not black-idolized by the greedy poor 

for getting rich in a white supremacist environment;

AND he was not making money hand over fist 

for the black men in charge 
of individual music companies X and Y

AND ALSO, more importantly, 

the white men in charge of the music industry,

THEN #MuteRKelly would, indeed, have worked

R. Kelly is dead right about it being 30 years too late for something like  #MuteRKelly to work on to stop a pedophile preying on black girls in 2018 

No diggity. No doubt. 

     Thirty years back, instead of coming together to take R. Kelly down --before his music caught on with little white boys wanting to absorb and appropriate black cool, the black community protected the endangered black male, (insert sarcastic tone here) the only ones REALLY suffering under white supremacy.

     When a black man or black woman truly believes that black women do not suffer white supremacy as much then further believe sexism and misogyny are not systemic and deadly (despite domestic violence rates in the black community) then you get what you've got 

-- a large percentage of the black community willing to rise up and protect any black man, no matter how obvious it is that he's a lowlife 

     ...even at the expense of little black girls.

I understand this, but I will never forget the black community's response to the 14 year old black girl child Kelly statutorily raped and urinated on.

"She knew what she was doing" was implied and straight up said by black men and ring-through-the-nose black women.

I'll never forget that traitorous bullsh*t.

all grown up now

https://www.thedailybeast.com/surviving-r-kelly-exposes-how-the-randb-singer-got-away-with-sexually-abusing-girls-for-decades

Never.

This is why I'm glad Aaron McGruder preserved some of the black community's patriarchal crap in a cartoon, a BOONDOCKS episode.

In THE TRIAL OF ROBERT episode, Huey (the wanna be activist,) wanted R. Kelly to held accountable for peeing on the little black girl while Riley (the wanna be criminal) wanted R. Kelly to keep on making music, keep on being rich, being male, and therefore being a black hero.    

Too many black folks thinking paralleled Riley's.

And just like the Catholic Church can't be absolved from protecting those pedophile priests and gymnastic officials (and a host of unnamed others) cannot be absolved of covering for Larry Nassar, the patriarchy soaked black community cannot be absolved of R. Kelly.

Let me stop to say this again: I don't care what white folks are doing with their predators. I care about little black girls. That means I want our predators thrown in the trash.

And I say this just having heard from a video of an ex-bunny, ex-f*ck buddy of of the repulsive old lecher Hugh Hefner, a buddy of Cosby's. According to Hefner's ex, Holly Madison, author of DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE, Hefner referred to the quaaludes he gave young girls he persuaded to sleep with his repulsive, wrinkled ass, as "thigh openers." And he was

Quaaludes were also the drugs that Hefner's friend Bill Cosby used to allegedly drug and rape multitudes of women. In a recent case, model Chloe Goins claimed that Cosby raped her in the Playboy Mansion in 2008, and alleged that Hefner "conspired" with his friend in her assault... 

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/bjvyvw/dont-mourn-for-hugh-hefner

Despite the responsibility the black community bears for raising R. Kelly high enough that he became white-famous, it was the white men in power who really counted when it came to discounting little black girls, raped by Kelly, as nothing

---girls of all shades really, because any white woman not married to a white man has a fairly low status too.

Brock Turner's barely there prison sentence for raping an unmarried white woman should have showed everybody, except white women in denial, that white men mostly care about protecting other white men. Larry Nasser managing to skate for years despite sexually assaulting little white girls, should be telling us all the very same thing.  Married white women have high status, but even that is a secondary status conveyed to them by their white husbands, which means they are one divorce away from...

Yet, the other group that powerful, white male power brokers protect tooth and nail are other men that make them money, and that includes a bunch of rich, quasi-powerful, performer-class black men like Bill Cosby and R. Kelly, who can be seen as the Larry Nassar of the black community.
White male power brokers, that work behind the scenes, don't offer the same level of protection to black men that they offer white men who rape, but the protection is significant.   
Again, Hugh Hefner, who referred to the quaaludes he gave to young women as "thigh openers," got away scott free (unless you believe in hell)

But make no mistake, the white men in who own football teams are the only ones with power enough 

-protect the Darren Sharpers from rape accusations so he can continue to play football -- right up until the player retires his revenue stream (mostly) dries up. 

-allow the R. Kellys' and a whole host of others to continue with their careers, despite rape accusations involving young girls.

The white man's decision 
to protect a black man 
is based on whether or not 
that black man has the ability 
to make money for him,
 hand over fist.

For example: 
When Cosby quasi-retired, 
they cut him loose.

However, this white male protection is not often afforded to black women. Truth be told, there's not much evidence one way or the other, as there haven't been a bunch of black women in positions of power until relatively recently (Shonda Rhimes, Mara Brock Akil, Ava DuVernay)
But patriarchy being what it is, hypocritical men will punish a woman who does anything that can make a man imagine a tramp-stamp on her forehead --money or no money, apparently.

EXAMPLE:  

Les Moonves, recently taken down by #MeToo at CBS, did everything in his power to destroy Janet Jackson's career after her wardrobe malfunction at some concert of sports arena.  

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Apparently, there is not wrath like the wrath of a hypocritical man whose patriarchy has been scorned via a woman acting, in his opinion, like a tramp.

As for how R. Kelly got away with it so long? 

First of all, 

any conversation aimed to answer this question 
that does not begin 

by talking about how Jerry Lee Lewis, 
whose career was destroyed(?) by

his decision to marry his 13 year old cousin 

then end 

by talking about Elvis dating a 14 year old Priscilla 

until she was old enough to marry

and getting away with it,

contains an incomplete answer

Elvis may not have been the first white man to get away with preying on girl children, but Elvis' white male protectors set a high profile example for a lot of people that followed. 

For example, I did know about Woody Allen marrying his step-daughter and sexually assaulting his adopted daughter. But I didn't know that Paul Walker, of FAST AND FURIOUS fame, got away with being a 33 years old man who could pick up his 16 year old girlfriends up after their 10th grade geometry class  --until a day or so after his death (Apparently he "dated" a bunch of underage girls.)

Secondly, any answer meant to address how R. Kelly got away with preying on little girls for decades that does not take into account black men's measuring their masculinity (the fake toxic version) by looking at what white men get away with is also an incomplete answer. 

Thirdly, any answer that does not address black women's being trained, almost from birth, to believe that black men are the ones most affected by white supremacy --and therefore the ones deserving of protection-- is also an incomplete answer because most of black female patriarchy is firmly rooted in fear of being accused of anti-blackness. 

     Woke black folks know that if a black woman comes down hard on any black man, even a predator or an abuser, she will be accused of wanting to be white or wanting to align with white supremacists.   

     And this sizable percentage of black women are even afraid to turn their backs on Stephon Clarke, who turned his backs on black women when he was alive. And a lot of feminist and non-feminist black women, both, are afraid to say "to hell with that rabid dog, XXXTentacion" or even simply ignore his death, period, despite the heinous abuses he admitted committing against women.  

   And while non-feminist, black women are finally rejecting R. Kelly in large numbers (at this late hour), over the decades it has been non-feminist black women that have been caping for the black men that hate black women, so much so that they defend a predator like R. Kelly.

Anti-feminist black women... 

--afraid of being rejection by black men--afraid of other internalized-sexism suffering black women just like themselves.--afraid of their blackness being questioned by black men and pick-me-s 

  ... perform their blackness so hard that they (along side anti-feminist black men) make black female victims afraid to speak too. 

     In other words, in the black community, woman's inhumanity to woman is, in part, based on a pseudo-black-solidarity. 
      
     Lastly, any answer that doesn't examine the history of rape culture in this country is a foundation-less answer
So now I'm trying to figure out why I would need to watch the R. Kelly Documentary on Lifetime.

1. I mean, I've been watching this monster for years and years, knowing he's a monster supported by most of the black community -- "most" until at least the last decade or so.
2. I've known for decades that his black female victims are counted as nothing in face of a black man's success within a white supremacist environment -- by black men and black women both.
3. And I've always known that any female who can (il)legitimately be called "whore" --even 14 year old girls who have been urinated on -- can be counted as nothing by a majority(?) of non-feminist/ non-womanist black men and black women and especially by anti-feminist black men and anti-feminist black women.

The only reason for me to suffer and watch this documentary is so that I can know the names of more victims and some of the people that enabled Kelly's career

--which would be the same reason I watched that movie about Jerry Sandusky; I wanted to know who knew what and when and how they turned away knowing Sandusky was raping children.

So maybe I want to know the same thing about those protecting and enabling R. Kelly. Maybe that's reason enough to watch all by itself.

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

SEEKING RELATIONSHIP: The Difference Between Pick-Me-s And Women With Self-Respect

Dianne Foster said,

Wanting to be "picked" isn't the issue. 

[Almost] all of us have a need to want to be with someone who is compatible and respects and cherishes us. 

That's not an issue.

It's when you kiss the ass of every dude that makes a post about what a "real woman" does or what a "respectable woman" does or you lower yourself to agree with every sexist and misogynistic post out there.

And you do it in hopes that one of those sad little ashy Negros will hop in your [social media] inbox and picks you.

And when they do pick you, you'll be miserable trying to live up to the standards of a man who isn't even worthy enough to wash your panties.

And the choir sang, "Amen. Aaaaah ha-ha ha-ha men. Amen."

Then DebLynn added,

And these miserable childish girls, at age 25 or 45, are incapable of raising men. They can only raise entitled little bully boys, a fraction of whom will become domestic abusers when they don't get their way. In the meantime, most of their daughters also become Pick-Me-s, a fraction of them become domestic abuse victims. 

White people are solely responsible for white supremacy despite coons, same as men are responsible for male supremacy (patriarchy) despite enabling pick-me-s. But the black community has tons more than its share of these enablers...because pick-me-s are weak-minded.

They believe it when black men say they suffer more from white supremacy than black women do and when they imply the impacts of sexism (from them) is negligible. And when black pick-me-s believe this, they also decide to believe that black men deserve extra breaks -- breaks like not demanding the basics of respect and loyalty for herself or her children.

Pick-me-s are not the source of the disease called "male supremacy" or "patriarchy." But they are very efficient carriers. 

Very.

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

WINNIE MANDELA ON FEMALE PERPETUATION OF PATRIARCHY

THE CURE:

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's Ted Talk: 
WE SHOULD ALL BE FEMINISTS(Funny and On-Time. Give it a five minutes)
https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_we_should_all_be_feminists

* * * * *
BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

UNDERSTANDING WHEN THE WORD "FEMALES" REALLY MEANS "BITCHES"

you will find they are using the term 

in an aggressive way.

Damon Young of VerySmartBrothas.com breaks down why using the term "female" can be problematic —and just plain weird.


The men and women who like to use this term and are aggressive about using "females" as a way to call women bitches aren't going to change. But some people have picked up this aggressive way of using the word "females" just by virtue of who they hang around. 

This is how word use changes, how word use is spread, by hearing and repeating. Language is alive and evolving so most of the time hearing and repeating and changing words so that things are more clear is a good thing. 

But not in this case. "Females" is negative code that means "bitches" and is aimed at women same as "Make American Great Again" is code for "We don't want you here" aimed at people who are not white 

Hopefully some people who see this video will start paying attention to the company they keep and realize, 

"Yeah...most every time I've heard someone say 'females' in that exasperated, superior, or ugly tone, that same someone could have used the word 'bitches' just as easily."

SUGGESTIONS:
Choose your company carefully. Don't let the misogyny creep up on you.

Watch your mouth. Don't inadvertently perpetuate misogyny

Share this video whenever you can.

THE ORDINARY RESPECTABILITY POLITICS OF GABBY DOUGLAS

Two Olympic gymnasts have expressed their disappointment in Gabby Douglas after she suggested that women should dress more conservatively to avoid harassment from [men].

Douglas defended herself against Twitter users who claimed that the Olympic gymnast’s tweet to Raisman was a form of victim-blaming.

“u misunderstood me. not blaming the victim at all. no man should look at any woman that way,” she tweeted to a profile under the Twitter handle @dwtsfishovskiy.

When @dwtsfishovskiy suggested that Douglas call on men to respect women, noting that it’s not women’s responsibilities to avoid being assaulted, Douglas replied: “It goes both ways.” 

Read More: 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gabby-douglas-aly-raisman-modesty-sexual-harassment_us_5a0f7920e4b045cf43717292

The problem is not with what Gabby said. The problem, as usual, is what she believes. And same as white folk who make racist statements, we can tell what someone believes when those beliefs come out of their mouths.

Gabby is only 22 years old. In my opinion, she is still young enough to say where you can say that male supremacy based belief of hers is her parents' fault. And her parents have been influenced by the black community at large. 

Black girls and young black women are taught to jump up and defend the oppressor from birth if the oppressor has been identified as "men", and there might be a chance that the oppressor group includes black men. That's why, I have very little problem imaging that Douglas is getting support for this among her family.

In fact, based on Simone Biles saying she's not surprised by Douglas' words, I'd be shocked to learn that her family does not go in for respectability politics when it comes to black men but embraces respectability politics wholeheartedly when it comes to black women. 

That is, I'd be willing to bet that Douglas has been influenced 
by a heavily anti-feminist black community 
that will jump up and down and scream 
if someone suggests a young black man, 
like Trayvon Martin, 
was killed because of the way he was dressed 
WHO WILL ALSO whisper among themselves 
"what did she expect?" 
when a woman is sexually attacked 
should her skirt be deemed too high above the knee 
and her top too low on her chest.

In the black community, respectability politics is A-Okay to apply to black women but not black men.  This reflects that our house is divided. And a house divided against itself cannot stand.

The black community too often either stands against women or refuses to stand up for women  And black female patriarchy is one of the outcomes. Douglas is clearly a suffer.

She's young. So, I have hopes that she will recover. But it won't be easy. I say this because one of the strongest minds this country has produced has less courage than she should.

One of the most disappointing things I've read in the last few years regards Toni Morrison's refusal to identify as a feminist when her writings are so clearly feminist. 

Not only is Morrison highly intelligent, she likely not lacking in information on very many social subjects as a writer, especially not feminism.Therefore she knows feminism is not a "white invention" as touted by black men who want dog-like devotion from black women -- begging for favor, praying to be able to forgive even after being neglected or abused. 

Yet, Morrison has all but said she refuses to identify as a feminist because black women have a hard time with it -- NOT BECAUSE she disagrees with it.

I tried to understand this as being empathetic because this woman's intelligence intimidates me. I've even been so lacking in generosity and grace as to wonder if she simply doesn't want to negatively impact her book sales. But now that I've thought about it --for months now-- I think it is as simple as her deciding to be a follower instead of a leader.

If male supremacy in the black community to bend someone like Toni Morrison, what chance do young women like Gabby Douglas really have to get her mind right?

This isn't just about healing black women either. 

The thing that Gabby Douglas and whoever raised her do not understand is that they are calling all men, including black men, animals who cannot control themselves when she says a woman has to dress in a respectable way in order to not be attacked. Once you believe this, it's easier to believe there's an excuse for the behavior of Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and R. Kelly, and Brett Ratner

And once you provide excuses like "It goes both ways" then you're working to keep predators among us 

Let me be clear, I am fairly conservative when it comes to how people (not just women) dress. However, it's obvious that to me that its a good thing for women to be a lot freer than they have been in all ways, including clothing choices. 

I think men have no say about appropriate dress except when it comes to their own children, female and male.

But it worries me that there's no longer much discussion among feminist women about how women, as a group, might seek objectification and the male gaze through clothing. It's clear to me that young women, even feminists, are stunted mentally and emotionally when all they can think about is how attractive and sexy they are.

I seek beauty everywhere. I like making myself pretty, make-up, adding color to my face to my house to my workspace. I like feeling sexy and free. I think I am a very common woman in this way.    

But men have said being decorative and attractive is our only value as women. And we have a group identity as women the same as we have  group identity as black people. When white influence is too much black people discuss it. 

Similarly, when male influence is too much we need to be to discuss that too. But even feminists are afraid to do this.

 To me, how a woman dresses and the subject of sexual objectification and self sexual-objectification is not related at all to a man's right to touch a woman.  If a woman walks down the street butt-naked, that doesn't give a man the right to touch her.

Men need to learn to keep their hands to themselves. 

All of us learn this lesson in kindergarten. Men need to remind themselves. And cops need to re-learn to keep their hands to themselves too. Cops should have no right to touch anyone until they are at the point that they decide they have probable cause for frisking someone or are about to make an arrest.

Most black men already understand this about cops. That means they have a leg up on white men as far as being able to understand this in regards to never touching a black woman uninvited no matter how she's dressed. 

As men are the source of patriarchy, if the black male patriarchy infection rate goes down then black female patriarchy infection rate goes down. And if patriarchy levels are decreased, the black house is less divided against itself.

Maybe Gabby Douglas is saved in the process.

We learn a lot of the basics about a successful life in kindergarten. But some things become clearer as we become adults in a world saturated with white supremacy and male supremacy. And one of those adult lessons centers on what bell hooks said,

Feminism is for everybody. 

Two tiny books that illuminate much

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

THE NEW JIM CROW & 13TH: REDUCING AND OMITTING BLACK WOMEN'S STORIES FOR AN ACCEPTED FALSEHOOD

That falsehood is black men are more affected by racism then black women. It just looks that way sometimes because black men have been doing all the telling of current events and history for so long...while refusing to look at certain aspects of the differences between men and women (sans race) when it's beneficial to do so


MEN, WOMEN, AGGRESSION, AND JAIL Men go to jail a lot more than women.  For me, it's easy to suppose that this is because men are more aggressive than women. And it's fairly incredible to me that some people will claim they don't see evidence of this in our society -- regardless of male aggression's source.

For decades if not centuries people, especially male people, have said that men are more "assertive" than women. 

• Men and women of yesteryear and this-year will agree when you're talking about men being "go-getters" at work or at play (sports, dating)...if they're not feminists. But when you talk about men being more "aggressive," these same men and women hang back to figure out if you mean "aggressive" in the negative or positive sense before they'll decide to agree or disagree.

If you say men are aggressive at work, male and female people (sans feminists) will agree all day long that they are. Some feminists will argue about whether this  "assertiveness" or "aggressiveness" should be entirely attributed to sociology or not

But I say men are more aggressive, whatever the source.

Comparing Aggressions

Men have put women down for "arguing with one another" for decades on end. That may be comparatively true in one sense. But I think women being able to argue is a positive, not a negative. 

The vast majority of women CAN argue strenuously, loudly, and for a longish time. The worst thing that will happen -- more often than not-- is that they'll stop talking to one another.  When men start hollaring at each other, everybody backs up because they know these men are seconds from coming to blows.  

When men are politicians arguing with other men that are politicians, those "blows" are "wars." 

Men are more aggressive. 

And people who are more aggressive go to jail more often. 

Whatever you think the aggressiveness of men is based on -- and it is "aggression"-- men are more aggressive in most all areas of life. Men are the ones that like sports where hitting is involved; it is men that leave the vast majority of dead bodies behind when there is domestic violence; men are the ones robbing most of the houses; men are the ones doing most of the murders.

This is true regardless of race and regardless of country.

On average aggressive white men, here, there, and everywhere out-strip white women at doing crime by a factor of 6 to 1 in most western countries.

CRIME & PRISON: A WORLD WIDE GENDER GAP

There are 84,731 people in prison in Britain and according to the latest figures, 80,915 of them are men. Less than five per cent of this country’s prison population is female, and the trend is similar elsewhere in the western worl

Prisons in Britain: 95% are men; 5% are women 

Prisons in France: 3% are women; 97% are men 

Prisons in Germany 6%  are women; 94% are men

The global median [for women in prison] is 4.3 per cent, according to figures from the International Centre for Prison Studies. 

Source

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11342408/Are-men-natural-born-criminals-Prison-numbers-dont-lie.html

The same is true of African American men when you compare them to African American women. Black men go to jail many- times-more as often as black women SIMILAR TO white men go to jail many-more-times as often as white women. In fact, white men go to jail 12 to 13x more than white women WHILE black men "only" go to jail 6 times as often as black women.

Therefore, there is no justification for attributing the high numbers of black men in prison as compared to black women to "black men experiencing more racism." The gap between black men and black women in jail is about gender, not race -- same as all other demographics.

If male aggressiveness of white men had them going to jail twice as often as white women but black men were going to jail eight times as often as black women, then maybe we'd have to look at black men experiencing "more racism." 

But that's not nearly the case. 

Men are nearly always upwards of 94% of those going to prison regardless of country. Men are always many multiples more of the people in jail than the women regardless of race or country.

You can see the racism effects of who is sent to prison when you compare black men to other men, including white men SAME AS you can see the racism effects when you compare different demographics of women in jail

In other words, the racism that leads to black men going to jail 6 times as often as white men shouldn't be seen as ANY MORE IMPORTANT than black women going to jail 6 times as often as white women.

• This gap between black women and white women has been decreasing in recent years. White women have been closing the gap between themselves and white men and every other demographic. They are going to jail more and more often for whatever reason. (It could be due to the near economic crash of 2007/2008. When people are broke, desperation, the willingness to be aggressive and crime probably increases.  Since President Obama had brought unemployment down so low --for white people anyway, white female criminality may decrease; black women going to jail for being black may go back to being 6x as often as white women -- if white racism constant and increasing under Trump. We'll see. )

What black men experience from white men, 

that leads them to go to jail more often than white men

is based on racism for sure.

But I'd also guess that, in part, 

what black men experience from white men 

is also based on white men expressing 

a hyper-masculininity type competitiveness

that's "normal" in a patriarchal society

I'll never forget seeing video of that white cop that grabbed a black man by the shirt and held on to him while "just talking" to him...while that black man was NOT under arrest. 

The black man took off his shirt trying to get that white cop's hands off him. That white cop grabbed him again anyway. To the black man's credit, he didn't take the bait. He did not punch that white cop's lights out like that white cop deserved. 

That white cop was communicating in a type of hyper-masculinity competitive language, "My dick is bigger than yours. I have power over you. You can't do anything about it."  I can't help but think that cowards like Darren Wilson are expressing the same thing when they shoot unarmed black men that "don't know their place." And I think a lot of wars and dropping bombs are men expressing the same things to one another. 

By the way, I don't think it's anywhere near a coincidence that white cops starting shooting black people, mostly men, like they were going out of style while the most powerful man in the land was black -- President Obama.  A black man with power over all white men, was something some white men could not stand still for....some, as cops, shot black people. Other's voted for an overt racist to be president the very first chance they got.

Only time will tell if I was right about this: It might be evident quite soon in the fact that cops shoot a lot fewer black and brown men now that the rich white Supremacist is president; when white people are scared due not having power, hey get violent. The authorities, the cops, the leading edge of white supremacy ought to be calmer now while the white joe six packs are emboldened to more overt acts of racism. We'll have to wait and see. 

But I digress 

Men are more often perpetrators of crime and more often victims of crime because - unlike women - they participate in aggressive and/or high risk behavior.  High Risk Behavior: In general, women don't go places at 3AM alone. Men will. That, for example, is one reason black men are more often in vulnerable positions when white cops decide to abuse their power.  

In other words, "experiencing more racism" is NOT the main reason black men go to jail more often than black women.

Black men versus black women is not the comparison you make if you want to talk about whether white supremacy is having more or less of an effect on convictions and jail terms. Instead you compare one male demographic to another male demographic. You compare men to men AND you compare women to women

Black men go to jail 6 times as often as white men.

Black women to go jail 6 times as often as white women.

Therefore books like Michelle Alexander's THE NEW JIM CROW and Ava DuVernay's 13TH should have focused on the incarceration of black women just as intensely as they did the incarceration of black men.

"Racism against black people" is not and never has been synonymous with "Racism against black men."

The Increase Women In Prison and The Browning Of Women in Prison

I was disappointed in Ava for leaning into this idea that black men's suffering racism is so very different that it justifies the erasure of black women. But in DuVernay's defense, I felt like 13th was a video version of Michelle Alexanders "THE NEW JIM CROW" and other black books on black history and black current events. 

I've yet to read a through comparison of how and when black women go to prison as compared to white women. So DuVernay didn't have nearly as much pre-fabbed material to use. But that's not much of an excuse for someone as educated and accomplished as DuVernay. Documentaries should cover new ground, no regurgitate someone else's mistakes.

The only place I've read a seemingly equal treatment of black women and black men in black history books is when a black feminist did the writing -- and even black feminists can make mistakes and not focus on black women enough.  And Ava DuVernay, I'm sorry to say, just proved this.


http://www.theroot.com/13th-and-the-invisibleness-of-black-women-1790857199