Why Did We Poke the Bear?
Why do we poke the bear? In a figurative sense, why do we challenge authority? In a literal sense, why are we entertained to take jabs at and make peaceful (unless provoked) but powerful brown beings angry?
The short answer is: 1) to get a reaction, 2) because we do not believe them to be real, and 3) as an ego stroke to test and position our prowess against a being perceived more powerful than we are.
Anecdote: In the office, someone sent an email, copied all the heads, and asked why I had not addressed an issue that I was not responsible for. They humiliated me in front of Executive Leadership. In undermining me, they made me look foolish in front of the very people I sought to impress. Because I fought tooth and nail against all odds and -isms to obtain my position, I snapped with fury and sent a scathing response. I was defending my livelihood and wanted to protect my reputation against lies.
It felt like Bruce Lee in a martial arts movie. We all know the scene: Lee is surrounded by a circle of enemies, and he comes out swinging. If he does not self-defend, he will be defeated/jumped/bullied. In this case, I felt the need to launch a verbal counter-attack because I was threatened on all sides. I dealt with insubordination, the unspoken perception that black women are inferior, and a misrepresentation of the truth. I had to defend myself because silence could be deemed as acceptance.
I was reprimanded and told I should have taken the high road.
I was reminded by another woman that promotion requires mastery of emotional intelligence and that these types of attacks would be more common the higher I climbed. I was extremely frustrated because the attack against me did not seem necessary. Nonetheless, I understood that management was correct that authority makes one a target.
Being a minority and a woman is oodles of fun! It means being categorized as angry and aggressive or even masculine when standing up for yourself, and like all women (black, white, brown, or other), being deemed overly emotional when responding to provocation. I am painfully aware of the angry black woman stereotype, the emotional woman stereotype, and the unqualified minority stereotype. So, I try to overcompensate by being overly competent and unnaturally pleasant to everyone in the work environment.
However, I had a moment similar to what Kamala expressed in her interview with radio host, television personality, and author Charlamagne Tha God.
In an otherwise casual interview with the Vice President, Charlamagne questioned the President’s authority. By doing so, he challenged the Vice President’s authority, an unprecedented authority for a woman, an Asian, and a black person. She likely overcame inconceivable obstacles to secure her role. In response to his defiant question, she paused, most likely weighing the “angry black woman” stereotype against “silence deemed as acceptance,” then reacted rashly. For a woman of her stature, this could have been avoided but is most certainly understandable. Man or woman, regardless of race, having one’s authority undermined and being boldly disrespected is infuriating.
As a woman and a woman of Asian and African lineage, there is no doubt that our Vice President continues to experience career hardships, insubordination, microaggressions, and discrimination. Every man and woman of all races and political affiliations understands this.
While Asians, blacks, and women are not above reproach, it seems mean-spirited to attack their credibility in professional settings. It is especially frowned upon to critique someone based on race or sex if the pundit is not a minority or woman. From an optics standpoint, a non-minority male discrediting or challenging a minority or woman looks like bullying.
Criticism of black women is viewed as acceptable if by another minority.
The fact is, Kamala’s position requires that she be challenged. She is not immune to critique. Her job and the President’s job are re-competed every four years. The opposing political party must find ways to effectively challenge her to win over the incumbent.
So, in the case of Kamala, the question is not why but;
How do we poke the bear? Poking the Kamala bear is a political strategy.
Days after the interview, Charlamage was lauded by conservative news outlets for his “journalistic excellence” and bravery in challenging authority. He was praised for receiving the aggressive, angry reaction from an otherwise “easy-going” and relaxed black (Asian) woman who smiles and giggles too much by the opponent’s standards. The opponents reveled in her anger because they did not believe her peacefulness and composure, nor the emotional intelligence displayed to date to be real.
I think we are onto something.
The surge in black male conservative pundits on various news platforms may be but is likely not a synchronicity. More and more often, black men are positioned on conservative news platforms and outlets, sitting front and center on panels to critique Kamala. These news outlets do not typically or regularly employ black male journalists. In fact, they are nightly news shows where all of the talking heads are typically white.
However, when Kamala makes headlines, a black male pundit seems conveniently positioned front and center.
Although Charlamagne does not identify as a conservative, that black men would be positioned to discredit and provoke a black woman in power is hardly a coincidence. It assists with the optics. Black men are completing an act that, if white men did, would be considered racist.
It is politically strategic, but not on the surface.
Something strange is happening in the African American community. There seems to be a smear campaign against black women. It could be the timing of the increase in popularity of the “red pill/men’s rights movement,” but black women as a collective seem to be the subject of massive online critique and racism. As of late, I have felt an unhealthy and unwarranted loathing of black women by their counterparts.
The source is mostly social media videos, and it comes under the guise of relationship advice, touted by the “black manosphere” or through black media personalities on popular apps. There are sprinkles of hate in the comments sections of popular black entertainment blogs that say things about black women too vulgar and indecent to repeat.
The social media apps and entertainment blogs (with mostly teen and 20-something audiences) tout negative tropes of jezebel (hypersexual), sapphire (sassy or angry), and welfare queen (ratchet) black women.
Conversely, the conventionally positive traits of higher education, wealth, entrepreneurship, financial independence, prominence, and interracial marriage (specifically with white men) are being communicated as negative traits by men in all economic spectrums within the black manosphere lawyers to retired salesmen to craftsmen and entrepreneurs.
The black manosphere’s platform (with audiences of all races, ages, and genders) and their ideology have snowballed until it has become an avalanche that seems to aim to bury and destroy the confidence and credibility of black women. It is divisive. It is also irresponsible.
I have been overwhelmed with cognitive dissonance, the psyche racked with trying to make sense of the notion that a group of men, who only two years ago, black women marched across the country for, now openly and collectively express strong disdain for on a romantic and human level.
The derision did not make sense until it did through a series of revelations, including a recently published article written by a black man on a conservative site that belittled Kamala based on her race alone, claiming she was a “diversity hire.” This made the hate train against black women make sense:
Party politics may be at play.
If such a proverbial or actual campaign against black women exists, who would fund said campaign? Who or what would promote and allow the use of tropes, racist epithets, and denigration of black women? Could it be political opponents whose top competitor is a liberal black woman? Could these aggressions be funneled anonymously through black men, social media, and the use of bots and trolls in comments sections of entertainment sites? It could be that black men voluntarily offer hatred toward black women by using epithets and racist slurs without being checked by gatekeepers. Or, it could be that the black manosphere’s self-hatred is being exploited, and they are being used as the cat’s paw.
The bots on entertainment blogs comment sections, black manosphere’s attack on black women’s collective character on social media platforms, and the use of black men as conservative “journalists” in the news serve two-fold: 1) it separates the black base (into black women and black men who do not support black women) — which has been historically democratic and 2) it specifically targets a potential (vice) presidential appointee.
So, there we have it; Why do we poke the bear? To provoke and dismantle the credibility of authority. We poke to get a reaction.
How do we poke the bear? Using unsuspecting, status-seeking black manosphere to divide the democratic ticket and support the conservative political agenda (which is to win an election).
Like the Bruce Lee analogy, black women are being challenged on all sides, bullied. This is likely because there is potential for the next leader of the free world to be a black (Asian) woman.
This is why we must be responsible for the information we present about black women on these platforms and spaces. Lack of censorship is great because it allows humans to expose their truest thoughts and productively address the root cause of issues. However, black men projecting slurs and epithets at black women is harmful to the community. It extends beyond the cutesy battle-of-the sexes realm and feeds into black women's greater perception of inferiority in professional and political arenas. It negatively impacts the distribution of wealth and power.
There are parts of the country where the black population is almost non-existent. States such as Maine, West Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Idaho, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania have areas where the White population (voters) is 80% or greater.
Due to the demographics, people (voters) in these states may not frequently or ever engage with a black woman. They cannot relate.
Their only reference to associate black women with is content televised through news, sports and entertainment (rap music), and social media. If all they see is negative coverage, ad-hominem attacks, slurs, and epithets, how will that influence their decision to vote for or hire a woman of color to the executive office?
Conclusion:
Black content creators, journalists, and pundits must be more responsible with content and commentary related to black women and should cease the promotion of misogynoir.
If black manosphere content intends to truly bring to light the issues that affect black men and the black community, such as men's rights, financial literacy, economic empowerment, mitigation of low marriage rates, then focus on those things. Conduct research backed by credible sources—critique within the boundaries of decency. Focus on facts and data and posit effective questions and solutions to problems. However, low-brow, non-intellectual talking points, like name-calling (black women are all fat, unattractive, “night riders,” “bed wenches,” etc.) and ad-hominem attacks (diversity hire) against black women serve no positive, productive purpose.
In the short term, it may be entertaining to get a reaction, a rise as an ego stroke to test and position prowess against (black female) authority. In insulting black women, the manosphere may garner a few (or thousands) likes and shares, increasing income and followers. They may even be given a bigger “stage” and platform to promote misogynoir such as front-page news or a spot on a prime-time show.
But, please consider: Morals and integrity should be considered in journalism and social media commentary. Without morals, we dig ourselves into a hole. Once standing on that big stage, you may not like what is looking back at you. What comes to mind is how Dave Chapelle’s entry-level comedy on the same network Charlamagne hosts his show included heavy use of the “n” word. Chapelle expressed how disappointed he was when, as he was increasingly paid more, he was given a script to read using “hard-r” language and racist stereotypes that mocked him. He was the entertainment but also viewed as a clown.
Those who employ you or encourage you to disparage others are not laughing with you as you degrade black women; they are laughing at you. Be responsible.
If not careful, the bear you poke could be your own.
Readers, whenever you see hatred being promoted against black women, online, please help to fight the bullies. Hash #protectblackwomen.
