Racism Is a Drag

But so is patriarchy. Tyler Perry has done it again, responding to charges of coonery against Madea with no sign of accountability or humility. NoMoreDownLow recently posted a clip of Mr. Perry responding to claims that his widely publicized character, Madea, is coonery at its worst. His response, "People need to chill. Let that shit go!" Check it out:



Last year, upon the release of "For Colored Girls," I wrote a brief piece on my thoughts of Mr. Perry I called, "Madea Goes to College." Not only should Tyler Perry invest in the art of accountability, it appears he too, should be looking into the history of Blacks in cinema.

Donald Bogle traces a genealogy of Blacks in American films in his book, "Toms, Coon, Mulattoes, Mammies & Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in America Films." After the backlash "The Birth of a Nation" received for its sexually aggressive brutish Black buck, Bogle argues cinema had to play it safe making Black men jesters instead of sexual predators. He goes on to state, "Because the guises were always changing, audiences were sometimes tricked into believing the depictions of the American Negro were altered, too. But at the heart of the various guises, there lurked the familiar types."

Now, to those who see a Black man in drag as emasculating, HA! The idea of emasculation is proposterous, especially since it has commonly been used against Black feminism. In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." The idea of a Black man in drag for capitalistic exploitation in a European-dominated industry is a different story. For Perry (and audiences) to completely ignore the history of Black men in film, especially as they relate to comedy, in his commentary and films is ignorance at its finest. It appears Perry does not realize that not only does Madea buy into the racist imagery of the mammy, the fact it is a man in drag performing the mammy makes it a double whammy. Madea, the double whammy mammy.

The Christian Patriarchy Movement & "Stay At Home Daughters"

by JuJuBe

"Daughters aren’t to be independent. They’re not to act outside the scope 
of their father. As long as they’re under the authority of their fathers, fathers have the ability to nullify or not the oaths and the vows. Daughters can’t just go out 
independently and say, ‘I’m going to marry whoever I want.’ No. The father has 
the ability to say, ‘No, I’m sorry, that has to be approved by me.’”

No, the above quote is not from 1910. It is not even from 1960. No, it is not from those days long ago when the only role that a woman could conceive of filling was that of a wife and mother. Nope. This was a recent quote from Doug Phillips, founder of the Vision Forum, a leading proponent of the Christian Patriarchy Movement.

Vision Forum Ministries is, according to its Statements of Doctrine, “committed to affirming the historic faith of Biblical Christianity,” with special attention to the historical faith found in the book of Genesis, when God created Eve as a “helper” to Adam. According to Christian Patriarchy, marriage bonds man (the symbol of Christ) to woman (the symbol of the Church). It’s a model that situates husbands and fathers in a position of absolute power: If a woman disobeys her “master,” whether father or husband, she’s defying God. Thus, women in the Christian Patriarchy Movement aren’t just stay-at-home mothers -- they’re stay-at-home daughters as well. And many of them wouldn’t have 
it any other way.

The stay-at-home-daughters movement, which is promoted by Vision Forum, encourages young girls and single women to forgo college and outside employment in favor of training as “keepers at home” until they marry. Young women pursuing their own ambitions and goals are viewed as selfish and anti-family; marriage is not a choice or one piece of a larger life plan, but the ultimate goal. Stay-at-home daughters spend their days learning “advanced homemaking” skills, such as cooking and sewing, and other skills that at one time were a necessity -- knitting, crocheting, soap- and candle-making. A father is considered his daughter’s authority until he transfers control to her husband

Source

Now, I am a firm believer in a woman's right to choose what role she wants to take on in life. I am convinced that a woman who CHOOSES to be a stay at home mother, and to fulfill a more "traditional" gender role should be allowed to do so without being judged. But, I likewise believe that if a woman wants to pursue a full time career outside of the home, and eschew family life, she is entitled to do that as well. And, I do believe that a woman CAN balance a career AND a family, if THAT is what she wants to do with her life.

What makes this movement so disturbing is that the element of choice is nearly non-existent. A young girl whose family believes in the Christian Patriarchy Movement is NOT told that she is free to choose her own path. No, she is instructed from birth that her role is to serve the men in her life... first her father and then her husband. She is taught that a man is the ultimate authority, and any of her desires that conflict with the instructions of the man should be repressed, as they are evil in origin.