5 thoughts on why Jan Brewer should keep her fingers to herself

Jun 2008
8,944
731
Texas
#4
No point in reading the OP, it was written by a racist.
No. It was written by a black who is outraged by white privilege, white attitude, and the disrespect towards the first black President. In other words, outrage at white racists. Naturally, other white racists would be outraged by the piece. Who else?
 
Dec 2006
87,869
65,950
In the Witness Protection Program
#6
the article is a piece of shit. Jan Brewer behaved badly because she is disrespectful and mannerless and angry. Don't go blaming her behavior on the rest of us. "white women's privilege" my ass.
 
Jun 2008
8,944
731
Texas
#7
the article is a piece of shit. Jan Brewer behaved badly because she is disrespectful and mannerless and angry. Don't go blaming her behavior on the rest of us. "white women's privilege" my ass.
TR, the article is not a piece of shit. Did you read it? If the high heel doesn't fit, why are you putting it on?
Check:

2.) White privilege conditions white people not to see white rage. However, it makes them hyper-aware of Black threat. Newt Gingrich is white rage personified. And for it, he gets loads of applause. So is Jan Brewer, but usually we think of white rage in masculine terms. Gender stereotypes condition us not to see white women as being capable of this kind of dangerous emotional output. We reserve our notions of female anger for Black women. Such hidden race-gender logics allow Brewer to assert that she “felt threatened,” even though she was trying to handle the situation “with grace.” Now look back at the picture: who is threatening whom? Couple white rage with white women’s access to the protections that have been afforded to their gender, and you have something that looks ironically like white female privilege. Yes (yes, yes), the discourse of protection is based upon problematic and sexist stereotypes of white women as dainty and unable to care for themselves, and yes, these stereotypes have caused white women to be oppressed by white men. But remember, gender does not exist in a racial vacuum. It is performed in highly racialized contexts, and history proves that what constitutes oppression for white women in relation to white men, dually constitutes privilege for white women in relation to Black men. (I’m not spoiling for a fight today, so anybody who feels uncomfortable with such assertions should probably go read some Patricia Hill Collins, Black Sexual Politics and then try again.) What I know is this: 100 years ago (less than, actually) a Black man even standing that close to a white woman would’ve gotten him lynched. (Seriously, I just discovered that even accommodationist Booker T. Washington was beaten in New York in 1911 for talking to a white woman.) And I know that if a Black woman had wagged her finger at Bush II or even Bill Clinton, we would have seen her faced down, handcuffed, with Secret Service swarming. When your race and gender grant you opportunities to be treated with dignities that others don’t have or conversely, to heap indignities on those people, that is what we call privilege. Deal with it."

What he was talking about was the whole "male-female" dynamic. Some women naturally have issues with men, patriarchy, and women being viewed as "weak", "second-class", or "subservient". But you don't take it out on the President of the United States. And you have to take into consideration "appearances". Emmett Till, as recently as 1955, was lynched for allegedly "whistling at a white woman". The dynamic between white women and black men, have plagued society, white men, and convention since the first slave stepped off the ship in 1619. The Mandingo Effect is real and tangible. But the image of a white woman with a finger in the face of a black man, harkens back to the days of slavery, and not the genteel, well-meaning Bette Davis as Jezebel, singing with the pickininnies, nor Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara, being rescued by Big Sam, as rogues try to molest her on a bridge, but the slavemaster's wife, putting the black slave in his place. Not at all sympathetic.

Hell, you have your own problems with some men of your own race, relegating you to subservient roles. Some 'round these parts. I don't see you raging at them.
 
Dec 2006
87,869
65,950
In the Witness Protection Program
#9
I read the article. It's bullshit and divisive....typical of what you post. Jan Brewer is a bitch, that's for sure. But to liken what she did to a slave and his female owner? Pure unadulterated flame fest. Pure and simple.

And you're off you're rocker if you think I'm subservient to any man. Have you not read my posts?
 
Likes: Roshi
Jun 2008
8,944
731
Texas
#10
I read the article. It's bullshit and divisive....typical of what you post. Jan Brewer is a bitch, that's for sure. But to liken what she did to a slave and his female owner? Pure unadulterated flame fest. Pure and simple.

And you're off you're rocker if you think I'm subservient to any man. Have you not read my posts?

From a typical man's point of view, you are (subservient) , whether you think so or not. Do I agree with the point of view? Absolutely not. I'm a feminist. Nevertheless, it's a societal reality.

The article, in my opinion, was quite accurate and "telling". Quite often, the truth does not "go down well". You're completely ignoring the symbolism and the history.
I don't flame. I educate.
 

Similar Discussions