I’ve always been a scientific-minded person. But I’m also a black woman with enough good sense to value the simple truth that we are the living fruit of our DNA (i.e. ancestors), whether they have a spiritual presence in our lives or not. Enuf said on that. I had gone to bed last night puzzled by the French actress Catherine Deneuve having made a derogatory comment about the sexual harassment movement. I woke up this morning with this rich and raw conversation clearly fixed in my head.
The sexual harassment movement is a way for white women in America to exercise power within and therefore reinforce the male patriarchy. While this particular movement is new, it has various other permutations, including what Ms. DeNeuve described as Christian puritanism, that had arisen at different moments in history. It reinforces the system because it gives women the sense that they have influence within it. At any point they can bring down the most powerful men. While males rail against it, they allow it, knowing that the alternative, the dismantling of patriarchy itself is the real battle that has been warded off.
Please stop hyperventilating with rage for a few minutes and let me explain. The basic premise of sexual harassment is female virtue. But what that really means is that there are virtuous women and well. . . unvirtuous women. Since prostitution, or human trafficking or whatever the politically correct terminology is for the profession might be, actually exists, we know that women engaged in this other profession cannot accuse men of “sexual harassment”. In terms of numbers, are more women seen as prostitutes or virtuous? And a woman does not have to be a professional prostitute per se. She need merely be, sufficiently non-virtuous that she might be seen as the sleep-around type who encourages slaps on the butt.
Yes, a few famous black actresses are “virtuous women”. But the other 18 million are not. Even from sociological studies we know that black girls as young as eight are considered to be “more mature” than white girls of the same age (even though in reality such is not the case). The institution of slavery was a way of creating a legal line, all female slaves were sexually assaulted. So that white women in the South had the line drawn for them. After slavery, it was the basis for the lynching of black men because of the presumption of white women being raped. That was on the basis of testimony of innocent ? white female victims.
Now sexual harassment is not rape. So, let’s not start yelling about this black female diarist condoning or advocating rape.
As long as America draws a line between virtuous “white women” and unvirtuous “non-white women”, then sexual harassment will be a place for white women to exercise their prerogatives as female members of the patriarchy.
And let’s not pretend that any amount of bringing down important men here and there is going to change the power balance or the class balance in America.
What did removing 2 Democrats accused of sexual harassment from Congress change that will be of help to non-white women?
Friday, Jan 19, 2018 · 7:01:28 PM +00:00 · Constance Hilliard
Since I’ve just read the 15th commenter (more or less) who’ve said the same thing, I need to clarify something, which I thought was obvious. “Virtue” like everything else in an unequal relationship is ABOUT POWER. WHO after all decides who has virtue? I’m sorry if the nature of racism is not as obvious to some readers as it is to me and other victims of it. Which label sticks? Who decides whether the conversation is about ethics or oranges? It’s the one affixed by the person with the most power, which in white society tends to be white people.
