Thursday, September 18, 2008

O'Reilly's Fixation With The Angry Black Woman

Any black woman that dares to stand and be counted is often deemed angry by the privileged.  O'Reilly is the king of denial and regularly employees his white, male privilege to create bodies of colour as less than.  I could probably dedicate an entire blog post to him and his ignorance but others have already done so far more eloquently than I ever could. 

O'Reilly is determined to declare Michelle Obama an ABW (angry black woman). This commentary comes without him ever once examining his position of privilege in this world.  As an upper class white male, his body exists with great power, and this combined with his position as a media idiot spokesperson allows him to frame discourse. 

Michelle is an ABW because she is a woman that is educated, successful and opinionated.  Black women have historically fallen into three categories, the licentious whore (read: jezebel),  loving nurturer (read: mammy) or ball busting shrew (read: sapphire) .  Each stigmatization has the specific purpose of creating us as caricatures rather than real people.  These stereotypes are one dimensional and the basis of their existence is their reaction to their environments.  Black women are universally seen as objects rather than subjects; and personalities like O'Reilly perpetuate these images because it maintains white hegemony.

An autonomous woman that demands respect does not pander to the concerns of the white male power elite and is therefore a threat to their privilege.  While he views his questions as innocent interrogations in fact what they are, are an attempt to reduce her validity as a person.  If she is angry, the anger is deemed illegitimate.  Quite unspoken is the opinion that her anger is based in her refusal to capitulate to the white male power base.   Every ABW could be happy if only they would be more like Mammy or Jezebel.

image Unlike ABW's, Jezebel and Mammy exist to perpetuate white comfort and white rule.  Since slavery socially black women have been deemed no better than beasts of burden who ultimately exist to find pleasure in the service of others rather than in our own joys and freedom.  To decide unilaterally that we are subject rather than object is to declare manumission.

Emancipation simply cannot be tolerated because patriarchy and white hegemony depend on a support staff to maintain their rule.  If black women refuse to act in collusion with their oppression headship cannot be maintained.  Calling a WOC an ABW is a disciplinary action, and it is specifically meant to remind us of our place in the race hierarchy. 

Privilege assumes that we have no right to our anger.  It is irrational and based on emotion because our historical purpose is to serve.  To be angry is to deny the right of white males to their power.  The current power structure is a social creation and not an independent source of nature.  Osmosis, and fertilization, are acts of nature, encoding bodies with value and difference is a result of our desire to privilege.  O'Reilly is not more entitled to autonomy than any other living being and it is this fact that daily he works to fight against.  That Michelle will not offer him her breast for nurture or her genitals for pleasure means that she has decided her own worth.  If a WOC unilaterally decides that she is an equal rather than a subservient body,  O'Reilly and men of his ilk would not exist with privilege.  Like any other ruling group in history white males will not release or reduce their privilege and therefore when we hear the taunt of ABW we should understand it for what it is-- a call to war in the maintenance of white supremacy.


9 comments:

dollyspeaks said...

Bill O'Reilly's got no right calling anyone "angry" considering how obnoxious and foul-tempered he is on his show. He gets PAID to be an "angry" white man. And Michelle is about a million times more intelligent and eloquent than that jerk will ever be. Thanks for posting this, Renee!

Talair said...

It's not only white males. I know someone - a white woman - who after Michelle Obama's speech at the DNC commented that she didn't like her because she seemed "arrogant and entitled." I can't even begin to say how annoyed I was.

Daphne Shawn said...

All I can say to this post is Halle-freakin-lujah!!!!!! You're speaking so much truth that I'm ready to shout sitting right here in my office space. And to let you know, it's not just white men, it's men AND women of all races and creeds who continually discount the experience and perception of black women. I can't tell you how many times I've been told by men and women that I'm simply angry as if my anger has no reason or justification. And how when I speak up for myself, I'm seen as being emotional and overreacting. I can only pray that I ascend into a galaxy with elevated beings the next go round…

Steven said...

There seems to be more anger in this article than I've ever seen in O'Reilly or Michelle Obama...telling.

victoria said...

The picture that is posted next to your article is awful. Do you know its approximate date of printing?

Renee said...

@Steven...let me guess over privileged white male right?

Anonymous said...

Of course Steven is. Duh.

Jack Stephens said...

"There seems to be more anger in this article than I've ever seen in O'Reilly or Michelle Obama...telling."

Uh, yeah. Bill just characterized Michelle Obama is an angry Black woman. One should be upset by that; the type of anger that stems from racial oppression (that is, being angry about it) is completely different then the anger that stems from racial superiority (that is, being an angry white male who is angry at immigrants, etc.).

The language he uses also shows the fact that he knows race is being played within his comments. He characterizes her as an "angry woman" instead of an "angry Black woman" as most of his viewers will already associate that stereotype with her due to the color of her skin.

One good book on post-PC and post-civil rights language is "Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States" by Bonilla-Silva

The books talks about racially coded language and the importance of what it means when white people tend to stumble over words during racially charged conversations (or when they make conversations racially charged, such as Bill here).

Anonymous said...

This website is the most excellent website.