Hip-Hop vs. America, II: My Thoughts

The BET Special is back and this time they dealt with the relationships between black women and men, a topic for the ages. I really like the intellectual wing of BET, BET News, too bad its only a seemingly minor venture for a company that is concerned with keeping the masses numb (I'll talk about my dissatisfaction with BET on another day). Yet, this special was good. I love the mix of intellectuals and hip-hop artists/industry people and media insiders. It allows everyone to have the opportunity to speak and represent their different industries. However, this time, it seems that the Hip Hop/industry people came with a bit of a chip on their shoulders. They were really on the defensive from the start and it seems like the show opened with yelling and screaming. While the program was great, I still feel that it is too short of a program for BET. They need to do something major on this issue (kinda like CNN's Black in America coming in July), but I doubt we will see that anytime soon. I must say though that I am completely appalled by the comments and ideology of Rev. Eugene Rivers. Rivers is a Pentecostal minister and "christian activist", however he had some incredibly conservative, narrow-minded and misogynist viewpoints. He tried to make the argument that Black Women wanted to see more strong black men and not an increase in strong black women. At first I couldnt believe a man who preaches the gospel could make statements that were so unfair, unjust and misogynistic. One of my favorite intellectuals, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson (who was also on the panel and began to look increasingly more frustrated by Rivers) on the first part of this special last year coined the term "ecclesiastical apartheid" to describe the way in which women constitute 75-80% of the congregations but cannot lead the church, and not only did Rivers scoff at the use of the term, but also at the idea that there was a problem. He said that since Black Women weren't on the whole leaving the Black Church then there was no problem. As Dyson and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (another respectable brother who is on my blogroll), tried to explain the misogynistic pathology that these women have ingrained in them, Rivers refused to accept this idea and even resorted to referring to David Banner as "Doc", commending him for agreeing with his claim. This is a problem that I have with the Church as a whole. Well, one of the many. Its my honest opinion, that the Church has been used for so long to subjugate different groups of people (i.e., non-christians Post-Constantine, Blacks during Slavery, and now women). The Bible is read with an oppressive ideology and once a group steps outside of the realm of the oppressed, they take on that "empire" theology that all is well with the world because all is well with them. If they see someone from the oppressed group actually making it, they believe that it is very possible for everyone of that group, not understanding that the person is the exception, not the rule. We as black men (and I'll be the first to admit that I haven't always been the best at this, but I am working on it) need to stand up for the black women who love us unconditionally. We need to see strong black women on TV, who are focused on making a change to the patriarchal system that controls the world right now. And since everything in the Black community seemingly starts in the church, it needs to start with more black women, and women in general, being put into the leadership roles within the church. We need to end the patriarchal pathoology that America has pimped since the beginning. We need a change and we, as Black Men in America, need to stand arm in arm with Black Women in pursuit of that change.


Update :

Thank you to Tommy D for asking a very relevant question about the pathology that Black Women, and women in general, have that affects them. What Dyson and Hill were referring to in explaining that there are women in power positions, but are still held captive to patriarchy is the fact that patriarchy looks for a certain type of women to lead. The woman must, in many ways, be very much like a man. Look at the Democratic primaries. There was a lot of sexism thrown at Hilary, especially after she cried on national TV. People began to question her ability to lead because she was showing too much feminine emotion. That is the problem with this patriarchal pathology it forces a stereotype of what women in power should look, or act like. And the common standard is a woman who can hang with the good old boys as long as she doesn't try to take over or make any distinct changes. Hope that explains the baseline problem with patriarchal systems.