charles hamilton + rihanna: hitting is not cool.

seriously… is anyone else into this charles hamilton thing?

1.

It’s interesting because when Chris Brown hit Rihanna, people took both sides but for the most part there was a general consensus that it was “messed up” on some level. Charles Hamilton getting punched by his (ex?)-girlfriend Briana, on the other hand, is circulating as some funny sh!t!

In my opinion, Briana’s violence against Charles Hamilton (all of which we have is the public display. who’s to say what goes on behind closed doors) is just as unacceptable as Chris Brown hitting on Rihanna. Violence is not okay regardless of if it is physical, verbal, emotional, whatever, and regardless of the genders of the people involved.

Why is it that violence against women is more regularly acknowledged as wrong, and violence against men is seen as excusable (and in some cases, empowering)? (How often is a woman setting a man’s stuff on fire/throwing things out the window framed as positive?) And why is it that women hit men with the expectation that they should not/will not get hit back? It seems that we analyze and judge how acceptable violence is based on certain circumstances: size of the people, what one did to “deserve it,” degree of intimacy/time spent together, frequency of occurrence. Among the types of violence that we tend to not take seriously is domestic violence where the aggressor is a woman and violence in non-heterosexual relationships.

What’s interesting is Charles addressed his relationship on his blog:

First, I can’t escape how I feel about Briana. I opened my heart to her, and we spiraled where we spiraled. I’m glad that matters of the heart (and fist) is public entertainment (as said with sarcastic smirk), but the fact of the matter is, I LOVE TO NO END. I’m the kind of person that, I told her to hit me HARDER next time. Knock me the f*ck out. I deserved it. I mean, that punch was on behalf of… lol… every Charles Hamilton ex-girlfriend, every rapper I sh1tted on, every teacher that I f*cked with, every cop I harassed… I deserved such abuse.

I’m not here to psychoanalyze anybody, buuuttt .. ! What are your thoughts? love is complicated, sure. we’ve all been in situations that, in retrospect, weren’t right. it’s very difficult sometimes to draw lines in your own relationship, and more difficult to draw them for others. However, nobody ever deserves abuse. It doesn’t matter how large or small the scale nor what one supposedly did.

2.

This video seems like Hood News caught up with Charles and Briana for an impromptu make-up interview. Please don’t watch the whole thing, it’s painfully awkward.

3.

(it’s 10 min)

So… by the time that i get around to the third video, I’m just confused.

It’s almost like Hamilton wants to use the punch as some kind of catalyst for publicity … after the fact. Or he’s just addressing it so much that it’s no longer amusing? Or, he’s providing us with a tool for discourse around violence in personal relationships that is different from the usual man against woman story. He seems like a smart (or at least self-aware) person, so I can’t help but wonder why he’s approaching “the punch” the way he is.. in an almost satirical yet somewhat seriously introspective way. I’m intrigued by his willingness to make his dealings with post-punch relationship public, although I can’t figure out if it’s working to his advantage…

I’m also interested in the fact that this is all happening by way of independent/DIY/new media (youtube, twitter, etc). (The “counseling session” was someone videotaping a computer screen of a live chat.. whaatt?) What does it mean when you can produce/broadcast your own hype? Whether it’s bad or good (which, for Hamilton, is debatable), it generates exposure. It gives us the power to image ourselves as celebrities. Particularly, if we can get enough people to watch our stuff, other folks will come across it and assume we are important/worth watching simply because it seems as though other people do. we can become “well-known for our well-knownness”. Hamilton, who seems to be a pretty computer-geeky type guy anyway, has exercised a surprising degree of control over his publicity (especially as a rap artist signed to a major label). But to what end?

And how useful is his session with Briana? Are we as upset about them still being together (judging from the blog) as we would be if Rihanna and Chris Brown put out a video? Is it “not so bad” because she just socked him once?

Since I’m writing about him, I did listen to some of his music. He puts out some creative stuff. a little annoying, but i like it. like drake and cudi.

oh, btw this is his single:

Is it just me or is that a KP and Envyi sample? 6th grade, what’s good.

Queering Black Politics: Reconsidering the Black Single Mother Argument

RE: Daniel Moynihan, Bill Cosby, et al, and their argument that black women birthing babies without husbands is the reason for dropout rates, poverty, and crime. Two words: played out.

I don’t wish to argue about whether or not black women are having children without being married, or whether or not it is occurring at a rate that is disproportionate to white women. I’m also not concerned about the supposed increased happiness and longer life spans of married people, or whatever.

I’d like to dialogue about what I perceive to be the problem of discussing black politics and “black issues” as though black people are one homogenous group with identical desires, family structures, and ideals. Black politics are not white politics in blackface. The old habit of acting as though black life is a poorer colored version of middle class white life has never been appropriate and it certainly is not now. The thing is, the American family is becoming increasingly queer. And this applies not only to the black family — although that’s primarily what I’ll be referring to in this post — but to families across racial groups. We are still having conversations about issues as though the Eurocentric “ideal” of the nuclear family is the norm and the model, and it is not. We have to accept that different family structures exist, are prevalent, and do work, and confront the fact that the discourse and policy propagated by the nation-state make it extremely difficult for queer families to survive.

Queerness in the black community — black folks are gay, not all black people are married, there are many multi-generational black households, and so on — is either ignored as though it doesn’t exist or referred to only as deviant. Why are we blaming single black mothers for the problems of a failing educational system and poorly designed social welfare programs that are supposed to act as some kind of end-all? Why do we have so much trouble turning to the state and looking at its role in perpetuating structural violence against non married (non heterosexual) households?

The 2000 census showed that the nuclear family now makes up just less than 24 percent of families in the United States. While in 1960, when nuclear families made up 45 percent of all households, the lie that the average American family was nuclear may have been closer to the truth, it is now merely unabashed rhetoric intended to generate a perceived norm and inspire conformity. What is more, the number of households that consist of people living alone or with people who are not related (which are curiously being called “nonfamily households”) make up about one-third of all households.

I want to point out that nuclear black families do exist, and have in the past, alongside other family arrangements. Before Moynihan declared in 1965 that the problem with black america was that “nearly one-quarter of negro births are… illegitimate,” and “almost one-fourth of negro families are headed by females,” 74 percent of all black families were maintained by a husband and wife, and 22 percent were headed by women. Interestingly, by 1982, almost two decades after the implementation of policy that followed his report, black families maintained by married couples had dropped down to 55 percent, and single mother households rose to 41 percent. (Check Survival of the Black Family by K. Sue Jewell.)

The principal problem with the argument that intergenerational crime and poverty are due to the prevalence of single black mother households (aside from its sexist undertones) is that it centers blame on the family structure itself — which is queer — as opposed to the state-sponsored hostility that incriminates that family structure and makes it so difficult for single-mother households to survive. The fact of the matter is, through policy, the nation-state systematically discriminates against single-mother households and other queer domesticities that are not husband-wife-child. There are federal and state policies that not only encourage marriage, but also actively discourage other forms of love and commitment by granting multiple economic and legal privileges to married couples. These privileges include sick leave to care for a loved one, crime victims’ recovery benefits, and estate tax benefits . Because single mothers are excluded from such benefits, and left only with the prospect of becoming entangled in the cobwebs of the U.S. welfare system, their families end up suffering more severely from substandard economic conditions than ones that mirror the nuclear mold.

The same is true for other queer domesticities that do not reflect the heterosexual patriarchal norm. The United States government’s pro-marriage policies are similarly hostile towards people who cohabitate, but are unmarried (be they heterosexual or not), and towards people of queer sexualities. In all but five states, queer couples are outlawed from sharing a union that is recognized by the state. And of course for the couples that do acquire such a union, their rights are only recognized within the boundaries of that state. If you’re a gay married couple in Massachusetts, you’re fine, but as soon as you drive into New Hampshire your marriage is no longer recognized by, nor protected under, the law.

Unmarried couples and their children are at an extreme economic, social, and legal disadvantage as a sheer result of their supposedly aberrant family structure. In such families, children do not have automatic access to the resources, benefits, and entitlements of both parents, such as employer-provided dependent health care; couples and their children are not protected by social security against a variety of risks such as survivor benefits in the case of death of a spouse; and partners are not acknowledged as next-of-kin in the case of medical emergencies. Through its unfair treatment of queer sexualities and domesticities, the nation-state has essentially transformed civil rights into privileges, granted to citizens based on the assumption of performed heterosexuality. It is an assumption of heterosexuality because while heterosexuality is inferred from marriage, similar to love, it is not a necessary component of marriage. There are marriages that exist for convenience, and for the sole purpose of receiving the multiple benefits conferred upon spouses by the state and federal governments

All of this being said, it is important to acknowledge that black people have queer domesticities and sexualities. In terms of queer domesticities, single-mother households are just one form of black queer familial organizaiton. K. Sue Jewell writes about “serial families,” which is the movement from one family structure to another. Examples of this would be a black female and her children returning to her family of orientation following a divorce, or black men and women traveling from town to town establishing temporary living arrangements with various black families during the mass migration of blacks to the North. There are also what have been called “familial constellations that exist as autonomous units or within families” such as a single-parent family that exists within a nuclear or extended family structure. Furthermore, there are multigenerational houesholds in which the grandmother is the primary caretaker of the children, or where there is a group of sisters raising children together, etc

Re: sexuality – not all black people are heterosexual. I’ll assume I don’t have to cite examples to prove that.

My point is that queering the black agenda (and the national agenda) is necessary. There are privileges that many queer American families are being excluded from, and like it or not this includes black families. The right to see your loved one in the hospital should not be contingent on sexual preference nor marriage status. The partners of single (black) mothers should be able to claim the child on their employer health insurance. Households headed by uncles and grandmothers should be able to file joint tax returns. If one partner dies, the other should be granted automatic inheritance in the absence of a will. These are rights that are kept not only from queer people of all colors, but also from nonqueer people who do not reap the benefits of acting as a nuclear family.

I’m not trying to say that queer family structures are invariably functional, just as I don’t believe the nuclear family is. I’m also not trying to belittle wife-husband-child (nor “husband”/man on his own, since I’m sure I’ll be accused of that as well). I’m trying to reconsider and rephrase some popular arguments. We talk about absent fathers without mentioning the prison-industrial complex. We talk about single-black mothers more than we talk about anti-queer federal policy.

The problem is not that people are different. The problem is not that girls aren’t marrying. The problem is not that black women are reproducing. The problem is that the dominant ideology governing what is socially acceptable and legally rewarding works to systematically discriminate against queer ways of life, including unmarried lifestyles, living without a pronounced male head of household, or being a single parent.

No, the black family does not always resemble the patriarchal nuclear family that has been deemed the most successful and productive. Yes, black single mother households have increased over the last four decades, and yes, a number of black children come from single-parent households. We should use these realities to question the formation of exclusionary norms, rather than to lambaste black morality with underlying aspirations to assimilate. Discourses around proper sex and family structures have regarded black families as violating social and moral code, while social welfare policies and pro-heterosexual marriage policies have cunningly made maintaining queer family structures particularly economically onerous. In order to constructively organize (and queer!) black politics, we cannot ignore the presence of black sexualities and domesticities on the periphery of dominant discourse, and the role of nation-state in perpetuating and punishing this queer positionality. We have to affirm our family structures, and redirect our criticisms towards the nation-state and its undeniable role in policing sex through criminalization of the black queer.

Old People Queering Love

a belated tidbit from the break…

i’ve been hanging around older people more than usual the last few days. it’s made me realize the ways in which old people are so… queer.

i know quite a few old folks who are divorced, or whose spouses have passed on. they are now 65 and dating again, getting engaged, falling in love…? it’s been interesting to see old people actively participating in this discourse on love, in these processes of getting butterflies, learning each other, being newlywed. activities that old people are not supposed to feel nor need anymore, because they are no longer sexual beings.
we are used to seeing old folks who are married, and have been for years and years and years. if not that, then they are alone, with the company of family or those people we hire to keep them company. we tend to view their sexuality as static, whether they are in an admirably functional marriage or by themselves.
by engaging in sex and love in their postfunk years, old folks are queering love. they are reinserting themselves into a dominant discourse that has placed them with children, ‘the gays’, and disabled folks as people who don’t participate in the everyday goings on of sex and love. we have rendered old folks void of all desire.
by hitting the club, having a lady friend, making allusions to an existing libido, old people are queering the normative model of love as being necessarily young.
they are getting married (which is an easily accessible mode of reentry into the normative), sometimes for the 3rd or 4th time, but they’re old so it’s queer. furthermore, their families thereafter generally do not reflect the projected ‘norm’ of the nuclear family, so that is queer. old folks are expanding the parameters of discourse in ways that aren’t so recognizable. some of us might acknowledge that two men having sex is queer but what about two 60 year olds fucking for a night in a motel somewhere? i mean, how queer is that…

If You Liked It Then You Shoulda Put A Ring On It: Beyonce and Socially Conservative Ideology

Let me say upfront that Beyonce is my choice poison. If I had to choose one musical artist with a crappy message who I could listen to for the rest of my life, it’d be her (beating out weezy f baby only because of her music videos). I love Beyonce. She is my favorite overachiever. You can find me any day naomi campbell walk-ing back and forth in my bedroom to “Freakum Dress” or trying to shake my derriere to “Single Ladies”.

THAT BEING SAID

Beyonce is like the feds when it comes to promoting a conservative social agenda. She alone is policing social behavior like bill o’reilly is paying her do it. The whole time I’m getting down to her jams I’m just like “dang b! thats jacked up!” The messages in her songs almost always encourage patriarchy, female subservience, and heteronormativity like a mug! –pretty much conformity overall (including gender conformity) to the socially conservative status quo. In her songs, Beyonce celebrates the oppressive power dynamic that exists between men and women, while simultaneously trying to imply that women can utilize the subordinate position in a heterosexual romantic relationship to empower themselves. If he doesn’t marry you, step! That’ll show him who’s boss. She perpetuates this entanglement of systems of inequalities, such as marriage, with other concepts that have been socially constructed such as love and gender.

And i understand she’s talking to her audience and that many girls and boys can relate to what she’s saying, circumstantially. But I just wish there could be some critical analysis of her implications, and maybe the tweaking of a few words here and there. The fact that she legitimizes only certain expressions of ‘love’ (commitment), masculinity and femininity, and what that means for young girls and boys who are trying to shape their identities, as well as for grown folk who are expressing themselves in alternative ways. Also how those particular expressions that she endorses are part of the larger structure that keeps people in their places, acting as productive bodies for the economy. I want whoever is on her team to at least consider these ideas, and how they could alter her message to communicate a more progressive politics on gender, sex, sexuality, and certain institutions.

Now for kicks, I want to highlight some lyrics that have stood out to me as being particularly annoying and as leaning right of center. Please, add some if you have any! or argue with me about how Beyonce made “Independent Woman” or whatever.

Lyric: If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it.
Translation: If you liked it – “It” most likely refers to a woman here, and perhaps one’s relationship with her, or her sexual abilities. If you liked the woman you were with, you should have married her because not only is that the only way to keep a woman but it is the only legitimate form of recognizing love.

Lyric: Pull me into your arms. Say I’m the one you own. If you don’t you’ll be alone. And like a ghost, I’ll be gone.
Translation: This is why you put a ring on it. Marriage has historically been about who has property rights over women. So tell me you own me, it makes my heart warm.

Lyric: You need a real woman in your life. Taking care of home and still fly. And Ima help you build up your account. When you’re in those big meetings for the mills, you take me just to compliment the deal.
Translation: I’m a trophy wife. When you make business deals, you tote me along like a new car. I’m your favorite prop. Oh, and I can clean the kitchen, wash clothes, cook your dinner, AND put your durag on, all in monolo blahnik heels.

Lyric: I can do for you what Martin did for the people. Ran by the man but the women keep the tempo. It’s very seldom that you’re blessed to find your equal. Still play my part and let you take the lead role, believe me. I’ll follow, this could be easy. I’ll be the help whenever you need me.
Translation: I’ll validate your masculinity by letting you take the ‘lead role’, because the only way I know how to support you is by ensuring that you feel control over me. I’m comfortable fading into the background and being your hot assistant sidekick. You’re the block, but I’m the lights. You’re the diamond, and I’m the little glimpse of light that makes you shine.

I can’t even start on “If I Were A Boy”… that’s like a whole nother blog in itself.

These are just a few examples trying to illustrate why Beyonce is one of the biggest, albeit flyest, proponents of a retrograde conservative ideology that is restrictive to everyone’s expression, normative and non-conforming alike. It either traps you within (with limited options of expression and often oblivious privilege) or marks you outside (in what is sometimes a more intimately liberated but nonetheless socially and politically marginalized space).