In the song Beyonce talks about how she knows the man is cheating on her and that she is not putting up with it. She reminds him that he is not irreplaceable, therefore, she can (and does) have another man just like him “in a minute”. She lets him know that she is done buying him things and that he can no longer live at her house.

After really listening to this song and watching this video, I realize this is the epitome of the contradictory messages that young women are fed today. On the one hand, she knows a guy is bad for her so she is kicking him out. That’s one point for the self-empowering feminist. On the other hand, she is determined to replace him and the entire song is about how quickly she can replace him. That’s minus one point. Then she kicks him out. Does the point get taken away or added? I am very traditional in my approach to relationships. I don’t think a woman should ask a man on a date. I think the man should pay for dates. I think a man should have a job whether a woman has one or not. And I would not, under any circumstances, allow a man to live with me. However, that is also because I don’t believe that people should cohabitate. I think that people should live together only within the sanctity of marriage. But, that’s beside the point.

The question is: Is this a praise or mockery of feminism? While one can argue that it is encouraging to women that she got the courage to kick the man out and took his car back and his jacket and his necklace. On the other hand, is this what feminist want? To be in the position to take care of a man, and then do it? Doesn’t she feel dumb for buying him all of that stuff like a sugamama? In saying that, I don’t mean Beyonce in particular. I mean the character she is playing must feel dumb. I mean, Beyonce herself has a song on the same album as the one this track appears on that is aptly titled, “Sugamama”. In it, she promises a man to be just that.

Moving on, in the music video, Beyonce spends half of it nearly undressed. Only the lyrics, “I can have another you in a minute” contradict the supposed message more than Beyonce being half-dressed. From a feminist and a womanist standpoint (although I don’t profess to be either), there has to be irritation. But, then again, some feminists take pride in what they call the “sexual freedom” of women. This is, the fact that women can have sex as much as they want without facing emotional repercussions. I disagree…but then again I would never try it.

In short, Beyonce’s video shows a confused young woman who is willing to live with a man that she clearly shouldn’t trust, take care of that same man financially (she even calls him a cab at the end), and promptly find another one. Two points for feminism…I guess.

I was more disappointed in not only the Beyonce video, Irreplaceable, but also with the response videos. I can’t help but wonder who has enough time on their hands to spend it remaking a music video? I guess we all have our own personal timewasters. Mine was watching those YouTube posts.

The male version was more repulsive than the actual song. I think he took it to an unnecessary level of seriousness. He even says , “its my name that’s on your last”, therefore implying that were married. And he has another girl in the shower? This is a prime example of backlash to feminism. Beyonce’s song was a lot lighter than the male version. His was very focused on the sexual…then again Beyonce was half-dressed the entire time.

Either way, the song was ridiculous and made more so when hundreds of people decided to remake it.

Male:

Female:

The most obvious similarity between the welfare recipients in “Bush Mama” and “Dreamgirls” was the fact that both women were Black. This is disheartening to me because it is yet another example of how Black women are oftentimes portrayed as the “welfare queen”. Movies are the most common in media formats that portray Black women in this unfavorable light.

To me, Bush Mama was a perfect portrayal of the stereotypical Black woman “welfare queen”. The only digression from the normal depiction is the fact that the woman was not young. Oftentimes the “welfare queen” is thought to be a young woman just outside of her teenage years….at least starting out. “Effie” in Dreamgirls was a young girl applying for welfare for the first time. Bush Mama was like a progression of Dreamgirls. It was as if Effie would have grown up to be like the main character in Bush Mama.

In both movies the welfare recipient was, at one time, involved with a visible man. I know that sometimes these women do not know the identity of the father; this was not the case in both movies. I haven’t decided yet whether that is good or bad. It is good in the sense that it makes the recipients look less like jezebels willing to sleep with everyone and more like women down on their luck that happened to meet a man in the same situation as them (poor). Well, in Bush Mama at least. But this is bad in the sense that is portrays Black men in an unfavorable light as well. It makes it seem as if no Black men take care of their responsibilities. I feel as though Black women have embraced this stereotype in regards to their sons, brothers and boyfriends. But that is beside the point.

These two movies reinforce the “public identity” of the welfare queen. It also reinforced the stereotypes of Black girls in general. In Dreamgirls, Effie claimed that the only thing she could do was sing. That underpins the faulty notion that all Black girls are good for is entertainment. What Effie’s character should have admitted was that all she wanted to do was sing, but that she was willing to do something else in order to take care of herself and her daughter without the government’s help.

Both movies never showed a favorable ending for the woman. Though Effie ended up singing with the girls at their finale, Dreamgirls never showed Curtis living up to his responsibilities or Effie severing ties with government assistance. In the mind of a person who wants to believe that these woman eternally soak up tax-funded government dollars, Effie continued her life as a welfare recipient. Bush Mama is the same way. There is no redemption at the end. No big life change that caused her to get back on her feet. Isn’t that what welfare proponents claim that is the purpose—to help people get back on their feet? Bush Mama shows no sign of that, and thus perpetuates the public identity of the welfare queen.

Bush Mama and Dreamgirls were both movies that the writer should have took more caution in choosing their plight in life. But, I guess the stereotypes run so deep, that it probably wasn’t even a second thought to portray these Black woman as typical.

White really spells out the Black women’s club movement and its inception, which I feel would benefit bobkat09 the most. I say that because the situations surrounding the inception reveal why the clubs were even needed. Plus, the situations surrounding the demise reveal the struggles that black women face today. Bobkat09 talks about how she thought that black women and white women shared the same struggles, White shows those stark, important differences between the two races. White’s book is intriguing and informative and any one would benefit from reading it.

For a moment, I toyed with the idea of inciting outrage by saying that I didn’t benefit from the Black woman’s club movement. I decided, for the purpose of this class, jokes may not be found harmless. It just seems so silly for me to say, “I benefited from the Black women’s club movement.” To me, that is the bigger joke because the reader who has read my introductory blog would just say DUH! Well, I’ll humor you and admit that my skin color reveals that I obviously benefited from the Black women’s club movement.

I will go further to admit, before reading this book, I had no idea what a Black women’s club movement was. I have heard of the Black feminist movement in passing, never really studied it and, quite frankly, never saw a point. I have always just assumed that being black is the most important thing and the most hated thing and being woman is secondary therefore black people (male and female) stuck together ferociously fighting for civil rights. Boy, was I WRONG.

This book took the cloak off the history of black male-female relations; therefore, revealing (at least to me) the reasons for the peculiar relationship that we as a black community share today. A lot of times history teachers in high school will try to pretend that the plight of black and white women were one and the same. The man was the breadwinner, the woman wanted to work, the women fought to vote, the black people fought for freedom and everyone lived happily ever after. If women’s studies was a grand eye opener to the predicament of women, this book takes it ten steps further and throws up brick walls between white men, white women, and black men. Finally, the black woman is left alone with her own special fights and struggles. Thus the Black women’s club movement is born.

I personally benefit from this movement because these are the women who fought for equal rights for black women. Also, Alpha Kappa Alpha was involved in this movement and I am a member of that sorority. Therefore, I am a beneficiary there as well. Had it not been for the club movement, the difficulty of black women may or may not have ever been brought to light.

The movement I know the most about is National Association of Colored Women. That is the movement that White talks about at length. “The bottom line was the eradication of racism…the superiority  women in black matters concerning the moral welfare of black people, and the equality of black men and women in everything else” (White 39.).  Black women involved in this movement were convinced that they were the saviors of the race. Most of the leaders of the movement were bi-racial or light-skinned, middle to upper-class black women. Their objective was to be totally free and in that set the race free. They wanted to be given equality with men, voting rights, stop lynchings, kill segregation, and promote education. They wanted to build the black home, and thus, build the nation.

The nation-building efforts definitely contributed to the nation as a whole. Someone once said, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If black people continued to be looked at as a “weak link” the United States could never build up to its greatest potential. If the country was divided over race and if black people were denied educational and political access, the country would not be strong. Black women ignited a flame in black men (whether they will admit it or not) and encouraged them to step up and be male leaders if they didn’t like a women leading them. This caused the Black race as a whole to rise up and be strong and fight against the prevalent stereotypes. This unified rise gave strength to the black nation. Black people unified (first the women, then around the time of Marcus Garvey the men united with them). This united front   encouraged the new black nation to fight against the larger nation and win. Thus removing the perception of a weak link, and causing this nation to grow strong. I am speaking in ideal terms because, of course, this nation isn’t where it needs to be entirely, but it is has made great strides in terms of acceptance and diversity than when these clubs were started. That, to me, is owed in part to this club movement.  

If these club women had not stepped up and raised their grievances against both the white community and the black men, then no one may have ever known. Consequently,  the black nation would have never disagreed (strengthening the male side and female side) then united even stronger. Stereotypes would have continued to be perpetuated, black women would have continued to suffer in silence while fighting a half-hearted civil rights battle, black men would have been confused at the black womens’ situation and thus there never would have been the strength to fight the status quo. Thus black women, ignited a flame of insistence in terms of justice, that has yet to be put out.  

After watching, “Rush to Judgment”, I STRONGLY believe that Clarence Thomas would not be a Supreme Court justice if Anita Hill would have been white. She accused him of sexual harassment, but existing stereotypes of the oversexed black woman cut her credibility down to nonexistent. There is a clear gender inequality because here is a powerful man accused of taking advantage of a less powerful woman, but he was not punished. However, the outcome is not surprising considering the race of the parties involved.

It’s the classic “double negative”: black and a woman. Historically, the bottom of the totem pole. The least important.  Being a woman is one thing but being a black woman is worse in terms of inequality. The plight of women is not the same across racial lines. Women being stay at home mothers because they weren’t allowed to work is the history of white women. Black women, even today, seldom possess the option of staying at home instead of working.

The inequality against black women exists strongly today. Black women have constantly been left out of the push for equal rights. With the exception of traditionally low-paying jobs like maids and waitresses or the performing arts like music videos and BET, a person would be hard-pressed to find a black face among women moving up in the ranks. Look at Congress. How many women are in the Senate? Sixteen. How many black women? Zero. The first woman Senator was in 1922. The first black woman was in 1993. Obviously there is a gender inequality but racial inequality coupled with gender is astonishing. As hard as it is for a woman to gain equal footing with men, apparently for a black woman, it is impossible.

Instead of the high-tech lynching that Clarence Hill claimed to be a victim of, the case was actually a reaffirmation of inequality among black women.  Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the perpetrator was a black man. The case acknowledged and confirmed his position above, even if only one step, the black woman in terms of justice and equality.

This does not come as a surprise to me, a black woman. Although black men may claim to be betrayed, held down, usurped, degraded, etc by black women, they still have the clear upper hand. This is exemplified by cases like this one, rap music, and even statistics that they choose to ignore.  The triumph of Clarence Thomas clearly validated black women’s skepticism of the justice system, and proved, once again that black women get the short end of the stick more often than not.  But maybe that’s just me.

        Least important, is the fact that I am a junior, broadcast journalism major. One day I plan to be a national political correspondent. Oh, and lets not forget what I don’t consider the  most important or telling, but definitely the most obvious thing about me, I am a pretty Black young female.

        I don’t prefer the description “African-American” for several reasons. The first is that an ignorant white male a long time ago stripped an entire continent of its originality and differences, and replaced it with the word “African”. It was a long time ago and people are over it and even some natives of the continent call themselves Africans when they are in the United States of America, but its history is insulting.

        Also if someone can tell me where I am from in Africa then that person can call me African-American. If not, then please call me Black. Why? The word Black doesn’t dismiss this country of the plight of my ancestors as the word African-American does. To call me Black reminds the speaker that I am a person of no history except that of slavery. And an African-American is the person whose parents lived in Africa, but he or she was born in the United States. I, on the other hand, have no idea how far back my ancestors are from Africa and no one should forget that. I am just as “from here” as Native Americans, as far as I am concerned.

        Besides, contrary to popular belief, Black, to me, is not a negative thing. Black people are those who are born in this country and also don’t know how far back their ancestors lived in Africa. Black people have overcome slavery, imminent extinction and even Jim Crow. That is something to be proud of. Furthermore, I strongly believe no matter how many people soak money and time out of my peers claiming to be able to look at them and tell them what country they are from, no one will ever know for sure. I don’t know my true heritage and that is not because I am too lazy or uncaring to look it up as White people who don’t know there heritage must be. I don’t know because it is impossible to know. But, I don’t feel sorry for myself because I know my origin and destination are both in heaven. I don’t want empathy from anyone. What I want is to be described as Black. And there is no shame in that at all.  But then again, maybe it’s just me.