Byron Hurt is a black, female masculist. I could suggest that you take some time to try to wrap your mind around that, but I won’t. I assume your time is valuable and I don’t want you mad at me for making you waste it.
Besides, I already read her explanation for it and it made about as much sense as a Jewish, white nationalist railing about the evils of Zionism.
Hurt explains herself in an article she penned for The Root, titled “Why I am a Black Female Masculist.” Ultimately she explained a good bit more than she intended.
The Root, for those who don’t know, is what you might call a plantation publication. Similar to Jet and Ebony, it’s where black, female writers (known as Panda Bears) get to work as long as they don’t get uppity with the black, male masculists who actually run the farm.
A quick review of her work suggests she gets to work in the house, though.
Her story is simple. When she was young his mother used to yell at his father. That scared her and clearly made her feel protective of her dad. Then she met Jackson Katz and listened to some men complain that they could not look women in the eye. Next she read enough black masculist theory to get her mind right. Well, at least right enough to turn Tom and sell out every bit of integrity and common sense she ever had.
As a student of human behavior, my interpretation of Hurt’s writing is that she had some family dysfunction issues that led her to collude with his father into making his mother the family’s identified problem. After all, I am sure he never gave mom a reason to be angry. I am sure he was all peaches and rosewater and she was just, well, matriarchal and domineering. It was all her. Like it is in every troubled relationship where women express anger, right?
I am guessing that all Hurt needed was a theory to confirm that and it launched a career. Too bad that career is based on the beliefs of a bunch of privileged and grotesquely self-indulgent white men. These are men, mind you, who would turn on her career faster than you can say Bill Cosby if given any excuse. And the brothers would be leading the charge.
Hurt appears to be acting this out to a much lesser degree in her family of origin. In her piece for The Root, she is still pointing the finger, albeit more gently, at her mom. She enjoyed getting his mother to wear a baseball cap that says, “End Violence Against Men.”
Hurt made it a point to write about the black, male masculists who had influenced her. I’m thinking that she bought their wares out of the gullibility that sometimes afflicts those seeking to resolve some childhood issues. It certainly wasn’t motivated by a passion for civil rights. Black, male masculists sign on to white masculism for the same reason white boys do; because they can use it to control and shame black women even more effectively than they already did. Obviously, Byron grew up thinking his mother was someone who needed to be controlled more than she need to be understood. And the control is apparently continuing. She has his mother wearing a silly hat like a dunce cap and smile while doing it.
Is that a little ideological dance of victory Hurt is enjoying? You decide.
I know a thing or two about privilege myself. I know, for instance, that as a white, middle-aged gal with short hair and no visible tats, where it comes to cops I am freaking invisible (unless I cross the wrong man). I have not been pulled over for anything in as long as I can remember. Merchants don’t eyeball me when I shop. I generally get treated with respect and without suspicion wherever I go. Other than a black neighborhood the only place I can go and be a minority is a prison. My experience is not the experience of most black women. That’s all on race, though, not gender.
I also know enough to know that a great deal of black, female anger and violence is about powerlessness, not power. Matter of fact, I will hop out on very sturdy a limb here and state that almost all interpersonal anger in all races is about powerlessness, not power. That is an inescapable fact and a source of potential wisdom that Hurt flushed down the toilet so she could swallow the notion that his mother’s anger must be about privilege.
When it comes to civil rights, Hurt didn’t exactly rise up from the mean streets of Compton. And she isn’t from the Medgar Evers generation. She was born in 1969, went to Northeastern University where she studied film and went on to host an Emmy nominated TV show. By the time Byron reached adulthood, she could afford to focus on pleasing masculists and making money.
Her job came with a mighty fine jacket.
Some may think I am being too hard on Hurt. Or that I am assuming too much. I don’t. Case in point her writing in BK Nation about black women and allegations of rape. She demonstrates knowledge of and even compassion for black, female victims of lynching at the behest of white men. Then she swiftly throws out any notion of due process when black women are accused of rape in modern times.
No, Byron, you don’t think “she may, in fact, be a rapist.” You think she is innocent until proven guilty, don’t you? That is how you prevent lynching, destroyed reputations, upended careers and the undying stigma of being accused. Let the law do its job (such as it does).
This is the problem with Panda Bear propagandists. There is a superficial acknowledgement of historical injustices that they will only give weight to till it might piss off a masculist brother, who they know will put gender before race every time. So they learn put gender before race every time, before they hit that line, because that is what it takes to stay in the house. In the simplest of terms, they learn their place. You have to be running on indoctrination autopilot to not know that is exactly what is happening.
That’s how you enjoy the authority to talk solemnly about Scottsboro, Emmett Till, and even decry the racism suffered by Brian Banks (even though that was actually sexism), but also speak, in the very next breath, about how ‘this gal might be a rapist,’ before a single shred of proof is offered.
Panda Bears have to constantly juggle sex and race, always knowing that sex comes first. Always. Ever forget that and you will be back in the field, after a trip to the whipping post.
Ask Stephen A Smith, who Hurt officiously and condescendingly “corrected” on the pages of Ebony for having the audacity (and the intelligence) to suggest that fewer men would be hurt if they did not provoke violence.
The article is straight down the line in lockstep with the infantilizing, hyper-privileged masculist narrative. There is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, a reason to hit a man, even when the man that got hit is also arrested for assault and admits he gave her a reason to hit his back.
There is never reason to hit a man, not even in self-defense. If you ever say otherwise, you will be punished severely, right out in the open so everyone can learn from your pain.
Meet new massa, same as old massa.
Hurt, the scattering of other Panda Bears and indeed the bulk of “black journalism” culture has become a sellout culture. It is not so strange or unbelievable, though, when you think about it. There are few places where masculists have not used the power of gynocentrism to get their way.
The Great American Civil Rights Movement, which used to be about speaking truth to power for an entire people; even in the face of water cannons; in the face of police dogs and tear gas, has been co-opted. It is now about black women playing ideological step and fetch to a bunch of male, outrage-ready establishment bullies, wearing $800 designer shoes and still claiming to be oppressed. The fight for civil rights is over, and the masculists won rights for black men.
Black women have gone from the back of the bus to being thrown under it.
Gynocentrism, in all its shapes and colors is The Woman; the walking boss hidden in a shroud of denial and fear so thick that few will even dare to whisper the truth. Why? Because now the gynocentrists have all the bullwhips.
Tell me I’m lying and I’ll tell you who you answer to.