Black Men x Love x Domination

Carry Out the Four Modernisations of the Fatherland (2007) by Kehinde Wiley

I have been thinking a lot Love + Domination + Black men.

Two weeks ago, I had a fever and couldn’t sleep so I was up dumb early, and I decided to re-read bell hook’s “The Will to Change” and I found that it offered a straight forward analysis of why Love is the opposite of domination and how patriarchy is the glue that holds this domination puzzle together.

hook’s main argument is that when we raise our boys not to feel they grow up to become men who do not know how to Love. #ummp.

I will provide some excerpts from the book below, along with some comments.

Men and Change

Men cannot change if there are no blueprints for change. Men cannot love if they are not taught the art of loving.

Consider this blog post and the other post, on Black masculinity as an effort to open, and continue a conversation about Black people, Black boys + men and feeling.

On Love and Domination

To know Love, men must be able to let go of the will to dominate. They must be able to choose life over death. They must be willing to change.

Game for Free on Women’s Unwillingness to Deal with Men in Pain

We cannot heal what we cannot feel, by supporting patriarchal culture that socializes men to deny feelings, we doom them to live in states of emotional numbness. We construct a culture where male pain can have no voice, where male hurt cannot be named or healed….Most women do not want to deal with male pain if it interferes with the satisfaction of female desire.

This kind of hit me in the gut because I asked on Twitter about men being allowed to feel. And MZ (if I recall correctly, I didn’t screen cap it:/) stated that men can express their feelings to women, but women may not be receptive nor willing to hear it.

This floored me.

This forced me to think about the times in which I did not want to deal with the man when he was in pain.? I then asked myself, did I create the space for such an expression to occur. I stay thinking about it, not just with men, but with my whole crew and with myself as well.

Defining Patriarchy

Patriarchy is a political social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.

Gives a whole new meaning to listening to “Bitches ain’t shit but ho’s and tricks.” #ummhmm.

bell hooks on Loving a Man But Resenting His Feelings

He was right. It was hard for me to face that I did not want to hear about his feelings when they were painful or negative, that I did not want any image of the strong man truly challenged by learning of his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Here I was , an enlightened feminist woman who did not want to hear my man speak his pain because? it revealed his emotional vulnerability.

Feminist need to reflect on how we treat people too. We human. We make mistakes. We grow. #Ummhmm.

Men Women and Power

We claim our power fully only when we can speak the truth that we need men in our lives whether we want them to be or not. That we need men to challenge patriarchy, that we need men to change.

Wow. Talk about we are in this I Love when writers remind me of this.

The idea that how we raise our boys shapes the kind of men that they will be is incredibly interesting.

Isn’t this a more useful discussion than “why heterosexual middle class Black women can’t find a ‘good’ man?” #ummhmm. Peace to Negro men and women who talk about Black women to pay they mortgages and car notes.

Why is it that we force little boys to suppress their feelings then we are surprised that they turn into men who can’t feel and simply want to dominate?

For men readers, have you shared your feelings with a woman recently? Was she receptive? How did it turn out?

For women readers, to you give the men in your life space to be in pain and show emotions other than rage/anger? How does this work.

REALLY looking forward to your feedback.

Domestic Violence: What Would You Do?

I hate the term domestic violence.

Domestic serves to modify and soften the word violence.
It seeks to make it a less threating more acceptable
kind of violence. And thats a problem.

Think about this fact.
42% of women murdered in this country, are
killed by lovers, partners spouses. This means that
by and large, we get killed by men that we love, men
that we are intimate with.
(I am not sure of the statistics of
women who are killed by their female partners,
but the rate of women killed by their male partners
is currently tracked, so I will go with it for now).

Now me and this dude go hard, he’s family,
So if he says, “Yo, you been picking at me”,
I knew he was serious.

It all stems from a conversation last week where he
mentioned that he had to break up
a fight between a dude and a girl. He went on to say
that if he see’s a dude that is clearly bigger,
and hitting on a woman, he is going to do something.

I responded saying, I believe that if you
are violent You Are Violent, and if you aren’t violent
then you aren’t. This, “I don’t hit girls sh-t” is
for the birds.

Looking back. My answer was too theoretical
and apparently didn’t fly with his version of
hood reality.

Earlier today, he mentioned that my response didn’t make
sense. He went on to say that after he played his role
and tried to break up the fight and left, the dude punched
the girl in her neck. She was taken to the hospital
for that injury and also because she drank to much.

He was angry at me because I said that it wasn’t his role to
get in the middle

My position was that you are either for violence or against it.
This ” I don’t hit girls sh-t ” was some outta-pocket hair

That ain’t cut the mustard with him.”What happens when you get in it to defend the
girl and the dude comes at you?”

dig dug: “In that case, they weren’t gonna come at me.
They know me and they know that I will go bad on them”. “I forgot that you have a thick is invincibility
strand”. He remains quiet.

I cleaned up my previous statement and said, alright blood,
I should have said that these situations should be judged on
a case by case basis. I also added that my experience has
shown me that you can come in between a man and a woman
and in trying to defend her she starts attacking you,
presumable for hitting her man.

I acknowledged that there is no easy solution to those situations.

dig dug: Yeah, you right about the case by case basis too.

me: Yeah. I should have said that last week. Plus. I think
that the “don’t hit girls thinking is dangerous because what
stops a person from saying that YOU CAN DO SOMETHING
to a girl BECAUSE she is female”.

He acknowledges what I said with a pause, he doesn’t
outright agree with me. I sensed that he knows that I have
a point, but he is going to continue to stick to his Gemini guns
because he can’t help it.

dig dug: Plus, I know you different form me, you a liberal. What, I’m a liberal, then what are you then?
dig dug: I ain’t no liberal. You probably gonna vote for Hillary Clinton.
I bet you was in Berkeley last week protesting the Marines.
me: ***Cracking up laughing. What. Why you say that? You
are so scandalous. Did you find out your voting eligibility?
Who you voting for?
dig dug: The old dude, the grandpa.
me: McCain? Why?
dig dug: Because he a grandpa, he deserve to win.
me: ***shakes my head, but I am happy the argument is deescalated.

The bugged out thing, is that if I ever got myself into a squabble,
dig dug would be the first person I called because I KNOW he is
that thorough.

That was a hard conversation y’all.


Do you intervene if you see a man putting
hands on a woman?

Does it matter if you know them?

Would you intervene if they were strangers?

Why or why not?