Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Herman Cain and the Hyper-Sexual Black Male Sterotype

    Posted by Shannon Love on November 7th, 2011 (All posts by )

    Is it just coincidence that Herman Cain is now facing the same charges of sexual impropriety as Clarence Thomas? Of all the charges to level, why have both of the most prominent black conservatives of the past 20 years been targeted by sexual allegation? Why don’t white conservatives get similarly accused? Why does the Left seem to find such charges against black conservatives so credible? Why do charges of sexual impropriety against conservative black men”stick” so readily in the minds of the Left?

    I think that the Left has fallen into a psychological rut worn deep in our collective cultural conscience by a century of scientific racism. I think they are all primed to see black men as sexually impulsive. That is why they instantly think such charges as credible.

    Classical racism (pre-WWII) held that non-white races were less evolved away from animals than whites and therefore had more animalistic natures. Under the non-Darwinian concept of evolution ascendent at the time,  the “scientific consensus” held that natural forces were pushing all living things along a predetermined development towards some “higher” or “perfected” state. In humans, that meant our brains grew larger, increasing intellect and emotional control but at the same time weakening the body.

    Non-whites were believed to be less evolved and therefore mentally and emotionally inferior but with the relative strength and stamina of animals. In a time when most men still performed manual labor for a living, the era’s progressives argued that the “lesser” races had an unfair advantage in the free-market when it came to competing for manual labor jobs so the government had to step in. Most Jim Crow laws, unions and immigration restrictions on Asian were supported by the era’s progressives with the argument that “greedy” business owners would hire non-whites because they could do the job better without paying attention to the “socially responsible” need to maintain white supremacy.

    One side effect of seeing non-whites, particularly black people, as more animalistic, was that they were also seen as being more sexually virile.  However, they were also viewed as being more animal like in having far less sexual self-control and more likely to give into impulses. In a time when people had direct exposure to the highly aggressive and dangerous sexual behavior of bulls, stallions and boars, it was easy to see the supposedly more animalistic black males as poising a similar danger. That is where the idea that black men looking at white women poised a danger comes from this concept. It got a lot of innocent men and boys killed.

    Many African-American thinkers today maintain that the fading echoes of this old concept still resonates within our cultural subconscious and that we are all, regardless of race, primed to see African-American males as overly sensual and sexually impulsive. While being stereotyped as virile is boon to the teenager and college aged, being seen as impulsive in any way is detrimental to rising to positions of trust and authority. Many black men still feel they are viewed as impulsive and thoughtless.

    Given this history, shouldn’t we be asking just what is driving accusation of sexual harassment against first Clarence Thomas and now Herman Cain? Why these particular allegations against the only two African-American male conservatives to seek high Federal office?

    The acts that Anita Hills alleged, even if taken at face value, were trivial acts. Did Thomas’ race and sex amplify the significance of those acts in Hill’s mind?  Moreover, were they amplified in the minds of the Leftists who sought to bring Thomas down? Did Cain’s secret accusers likewise assume that a black man, even an older, educated black man, must be sexually impulsive and magnify innocuous comments into something sexual and aggressive?

    Does our collective legacy of racism drive us all to we assume that the faintest hint of sexual suggestion on the part of a black man must represent the tip of an iceberg of animalistic sexuality? Do women, even black women, feel more threatened by the comments of black men than those made by other men?

    Most worrisome, do these charges gain instant traction on the Left because of cynical political calculation or because of the Lefts’ latent racism? When faced by an African-American male who refuses to defer to them, do they revert to cultural subconscious racism and assume that the offending black man must be sexually dangerous?

    I think it quite possible.

    One of the defining aspects of Leftism is a complete lack of individual moral introspection. Leftists have an unshakable faith in their own moral rectitude. They are the elect and the rest of us are the damned. Leftists never stop to wonder if subtle, inherited racism influences their thoughts and actions.Believing themselves immune to such failings, they never defend against them and always fall prey.

    Racism is a moral failing Leftist definitely believe themselves immune to. They won’t admit that in their hearts, they see African-Americans as lessor people, ever trapped in an infantile state and always requiring the benevolent protection of the noble white Leftists.

    They won’t  admit that Cain and other black conservatives provoke such a strong emotional reaction precisely because they refuse to act like dependent, subservient infants. The won’t admit to themselves that they are so quick to believe accusation of sexual misconduct against black conservatives because when blacks challenge Leftists the Leftists have no psychological barriers to reverting back to culturally inherited stereotypes about the supposed dangerous sexuality of black men.

    The Left thinks they’ve advanced so far but they haven’t. When tested they fail. All it takes is the least suggestion and they revert to the ugly past.

     

    29 Responses to “Herman Cain and the Hyper-Sexual Black Male Sterotype”

    1. Robert Schwartz Says:

      I meet Anita Hill. I had dinner with her at a Bar Association event. She seemed to be completely humorless, and kind of depressed.

      What ever Thomas said to her, I am sure he was just trying to get her to crack a smile.

    2. LibertyAtStake Says:

      @Robert Schwartz: Humorlessness is always the first clue you are dealing with a dedicated Lib.

      d(^_^)b
      http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
      “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    3. Tatyana Says:

      “He suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg, under my skirt toward my genitals,” she said. “He also pushed my head toward his crotch.”

      Ms Bialek said when she asked Mr Cain what he was doing, he replied: “You want a job, don’t you?”

      I guess, Ms. Bialek (for LAS from comment above: she is a registered Republican) was also depressed and lacks sense of humor. Such a witty joke – and she failed to grasp it.

    4. Lexington Green Says:

      A married executive getting into a car alone with a female other than his wife or a close relative was stupid, especially if he had any thought of running for office. This error of judgment probably disqualifies him for the presidency. It put him in a “he said vs. she said” situation if anything happened, or if nothing happened. He was opening yourself up to threats, smears and blackmail by allowing himself to be alone with a female. Iron rule: No conversation with a female without a witness present, especially no closed-door conversation with a female without a witness present.

    5. Tatyana Says:

      Note how the advice given by Lex is based on a premise that “a female” is lying, by default.

    6. Tatyana Says:

      Note also the verbal clues: “he” is an executive while “she” is a female.

    7. Lexington Green Says:

      I want to protect both parties. You should too. I’d give the same advice to both parties.

      I don’t assume she is lying. I do know that without a witness we will never be sure.

      No need for clues, the analogy is to the Cain scenario.

    8. Phil Says:

      He’s not just facing the charges now. He faced charges already and settled them out of court over a decade ago.

    9. Lexington Green Says:

      “… settled them out of court over a decade ago.”

      That resolved the litigation. It does not resolve his qualification to be president, which includes his personal character, and his judgment, both of which are now open to scrutiny. He seems to have had not plan in place to execute when this episode inevitably surfaced. That is very poor judgment. It is not possible to “wish away” an episode like this. It is political dynamite, and he knew that or should have known it. He should have outed himself a long time ago and defused it in advance, or probably the smarter course, not run at all. Good thing he did not get nominated, then have it come out.

    10. Tatyana Says:

      Phil, I heard that was just one of four accusations. Which, incidentally, I don’t think should count: if the sides reached the settlement and one of the conditions was that accuser will stop proceedings, she’s been paid off among others, for agreeing to this condition – she should not violate the agreement by making vague anonymous accusations now.
      Ms. Bialek is a different story.
      =================================
      There would be no need to protect both parties if one party would not behave in the way described by another.
      In other words, do not harass people, especially those who depend on your good graces, either in public or when nobody sees you – and you will not be accused.
      If I wanted to make a neutral statement I would not use terms emphasizing my respect to one party (“executive”) while dehumanizing another with pseudo-scientific gender indicators (“female”). Neutral way would be “male +female” or “executive+job applicant”, etc.

    11. Lexington Green Says:

      “… do not harass people … and you will not be accused.”

      No.

      People are harassed all the time. And people are falsely accused all the time. Both happen.

      Avoiding situations where either can happen protects both parties.

      All parties should be aware of the hazards and act accordingly.

    12. Shannon Love Says:

      Lexington Green,

      A married executive getting into a car alone with a female other than his wife or a close relative was stupid, especially if he had any thought of running for office.

      Awareness of such issues was much less back in the mid-90s when this was all supposed to have occurred. Today, I know you can get sued the other way if a straight male boss lets himself be alone with male employees but not female. The female employees can argue they are being discriminated against by not having equal access to the boss.

      Basically, its damned if you do, damned if don’t. I think the only solution at this point is recording yourself 24/7.

    13. Lexington Green Says:

      “… the only solution at this point is recording yourself 24/7.”

      Not necessary. Just always have a third person present as a witness.

      It deters all kinds of bad impulses having a third person around, as well as creating a more or less objective source of information about any incident or confrontation.

      People in the 1990s knew about these issues.

      My mother was taught this when she was in teaching college in the 1950s, never be alone in a room with a student even for an instant. If you do you are opening yourself up to false accusations, blackmail, etc. Always have one or more other people present.

      Protect everyone, including yourself, by following the simple, time-tested rules.

    14. Tatyana Says:

      Avoiding situations where either can happen protects both parties.

      Theoretically, sounds like a good advice. On practice, one party – in position of a jobless applicant – has no reason to be afraid the other party, one in dominating position of power, will accuse the 1st party of sexual harassment. Falsely or on merit. Try to picture Clinton accusing Monica or in this case – Cain accusing Bialek.

      That just does not happen.

    15. Lexington Green Says:

      The jobless applicant may fear being sexually harassed, subjected to some suggestion that granting some sexual favor will result in favorable treatment of the application.

      Clinton or Cain or others in a position of authority, including females, though that is less common, could be accused of that, whether it was true or not.

      A denied job applicant may seek some advantage by making the accusation, again, whether it was true or not.

      That is what I meant when I said that both kinds of false statements happen. They obviously do.

      Everyone should be careful.

    16. Shannon Love Says:

      Tatyana,

      Note also the verbal clues: “he” is an executive while “she” is a female.

      I don’t suppose it could be because we are in fact talking about a specific incident in which “he” was an executive and the “she” was female? why shouldn’t Lex use the nomenclature of the actual event under discussion?

      In other words, do not harass people, especially those who depend on your good graces, either in public or when nobody sees you – and you will not be accused.

      Hah, that a very funny joke! You were joking weren’t you? If not, then you are shockingly naive.

      You obviously have not taken corporate sexual harassment training. If you did, you have been told repeatedly that intention has nothing to do with whether you harass someone. Legally, “harassment” is something that occurs in the mind of the accuser. If the accuser interprets some action of the accused as being harassing for any reason, then it is.

      The entire system is premised on the idea that women never make false accusation and that therefore all accusations are automatically true. All presumption of innocence is tossed out the window. Once an accusation is made, it is up to the accused to prove themselves innocent. It’s the classic witch hunt dynamic in which merely the accusation is enough to condemn.

      Worse, just the existence of an accusation can destroy a man’s career. It’s an exact analog to how in the past the gossip accusation of adultery or promiscuity could destroy a woman’s social and family life. People always assume that where there is smoke there is fire.

      Given that businesses will usually settled based on a cost calculation with no concern given to defending the accused reputation and you have a rich hunting ground for amoral and greedy women who see a pay day in every accusation. A woman (and it is almost always women) can make an accusation but say they will settle for tens of thousands instead of hundreds. The number crunchers note that it will take something north of $200,000 to defend such a case so they settle just save the money.

      In short, sexual harassment law today has little to nothing to do with preventing actual sexual exploitation of employees. Given the economic motives to lie and exaggerate, the presumption should be that the accuser is lying. In any case, basic justice requires the presumption of innocence and the presumption of innocence boils down the presumption that the accuser is lying or mistaken.

      If I wanted to make a neutral statement I would not use terms emphasizing my respect to one party (“executive”) while dehumanizing another with pseudo-scientific gender indicators (“female”). Neutral way would be “male +female” or “executive+job applicant”, etc.

      Whoa, whoa, whoa! It’s neutral to say “male+female” ? What about the transgendered you insensitive raging bigot?

      Just kidding.

      However, this kind of language “gotcha” crap suggest you spent to much time in college taking classes in fields whose titles ended in “studies”. It’s nothing but crypto-fascist/communist evocation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in which people like you claim that there is one TRUE pattern of language use which indicates morally acceptable thought. Any deviation from the pattern is taken as evidence of immoral thought.

      The concept is garbage. The meaning of words and the patterns their use evolve constantly. There is no one TRUE pattern at any given time. More over, there is not a scintilla of scientific evidence to back up the contention that word use choices and cognition or intent are linked.

      Words that in one generation are respectful are considered disrespectful in another. Just look a the history of the evolution the words and phrases to describe individuals with subnormal intelligence. It start with “touched” meaning “touched by god” but that was considered unscientific and therefore demeaning. So, a doctor coined the word “moron” from the greek for “little mind”. After less than 20 years, “moron” had become an insult so they coined another phrase from latin, “idiot”. Well, that became insult so we got “mentally handicapped”, then “challenged” and I think now we’re on “special”.

      This is just bullying behavior dressed up in pseudo-intellectualism. The bully and his/her/its buddies get to decide what the proper pattern is this week and then get to dominate and humiliate anyone who isn’t on the mailing list up to speed.

      So, stop it. At least on my threads.

      BTW, do you see black men as more animalistic and sexually impulsive.

    17. goofy Says:

      Bill O’Reilly–white conservative accused of sexual harrassment.
      Bill Clinton–white liberal accused of sexual harrassment.
      Mark Foley–white conservative accused of sexual harrassment.

      many many many others.

      This is a rediculous post. He was not a politician when the complaints were filed. They are in the press, not because he is a black man, but because he is running for president and he has skeletons in his closet (complaints filed with a settlement). It would happen to any other candidate who was found out by opposition researchers (in his own party, no doubt) to have something tangible in his past.

      But way to play the race card, dude.

    18. goofy Says:

      …or dudette.

    19. Andrew_M_Garland Says:

      A few thoughts along the lines of CSI (Crime Scene Investigation).


      Yahoo reports:

      // After dinner, the two were sitting in his car when she claimed he “suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals” and moved her head toward his crotch. //

      Cain is in the driver’s position at the wheel, Bialek in the passenger seat. They have been talking for a while.

      It is physically possible that Cain put his hand on Bialek’s leg, possibly sliding it up her leg. Reaching for her genitals from this position would be very difficult without cooperation. Bialek would have had to raise her skirt, unless she was wearing a miniskirt, which would have been provacative for this meeting.

      // Bialek: I was surprised and shocked, and I said, what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend,” Bialek recalled saying. “This is not what I came here for.” //

      Bialek’s reaction was to rebuff Cain’s advance, assuming there was one. She explains in social terms that she is not available, and isn’t interested in making out. She didn’t slap Cain or immediately leave the car, things she would likely have done if she felt threatened.

      It would be impossible, short of brute attack, for Cain to reach over, grab Bialek’s head, and attempt to guide her sideways and down toward his lap, missing the steering wheel, while Bialek resisted. What would be the point of that, as we can assume that Cain had his pants on? Was he going to hold Bialek’s head with one hand while he unzipped and maneuvered with his other hand?

      Bialek did not leave the car after this supposed brute attack. She asked Cain to drive her home, which he did.

      I infer that at worst, Cain put his hand on Bialek’s leg. The rest is a clumsy exaggeration. Bialek might have been friendly and flirty, wanting a job, and Cain misinterpreted Bialek’s demeanor. Bialek might have been angry and disappointed, rebuffing a sexual advance rather than getting a job.

    20. Tatyana Says:

      Shannon – are you sparring with a shadow? Putting not just words, but whole concepts into my mouth?
      Stop it.

      It’s not I who is the bully here.

    21. Shannon Love Says:

      Goofy,
      Bill O’Reilly–white conservative accused of sexual harrassment.
      Bill Clinton–white liberal accused of sexual harrassment.
      Mark Foley–white conservative accused of sexual harassment.

      O’Reily is not an office seeker.
      Foley wasn’t busted for sexual harassment but for solicitation of a minor based on concrete evidence.
      Bill Clinton, I’m am reliably informed by many in the media never “harassed” anyone.

      Overt sex scandals are nothing new and you probably find a rough symmetry in political outlook when they occur. However, sexual harassment complaints that originate years or even decades ago are something new.

      It would happen to any other candidate who was found out by opposition researchers (in his own party, no doubt) to have something tangible in his past.

      Really, like the way that many, many allegations about John Roberts were rigorously investigated during the 2004 election. HIs serial infidelity was an open secret in Washington but somehow the media never stirred themselves to investigate. Finally, it was the National Enquirer that uncovered that he was cheating on his terminally ill wife, fathered a child out of wedlock and embezzled money from his campaign donations to pay for it all.

      One would have to be shockingly naive not to see that any non-Democratic office seeking will not only face intense scrutiny but also that any allegations, no matter how poorly documented will be immediately broadcast as fact e.g. unsourced allegations about McCain ending up on the front page of the times.

      More to the point, isn’t it strange that the two most prominent black conservatives and the one’s seeking high

      But way to play the race card, dude.

      Well, sauce for the goose and all that…

      However, I think you may have missed that these allegation may exist because the women who made were acting from racist impressions of Cain’s actions. Perhaps these women felt threaten by actions or statements on Cain’s part that they would have let slip by if made by a white male.

      I wonder if there is any evidence that black males get accused of sexual harassment more than whites?

      I can’t prove my thesis because I’ve really only got to data points: Thomas and Cain. But, once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action.

    22. goofy Says:

      Really, like the way that many, many allegations about John Roberts were rigorously investigated during the 2004 election.

      I’m amused that you said John Roberts…I didn’t know our Chief Justice was such a bad boy.

      There were rumors about EDWARDS, true, but the press has always been squeamish about reporting rumors. There are plenty of rumors about prominant Republicans who are gay (Rick Perry, for one) who have never been outed by the mainstream press. There is a provable, tangible fact about Cain: women filed sexual harrassment complaints against him and were awarded settlements. I promise you, if the other GOP candidates had that info about Mitt, they would leak it to the press and the press would report it.

      However, I think you may have missed that these allegation may exist because the women who made were acting from racist impressions of Cain’s actions. Perhaps these women felt threaten by actions or statements on Cain’s part that they would have let slip by if made by a white male.

      Don’t know about the gag-order harrassment incidents, but I don’t think there is any interpretation of someone putting their hand up your skirt, trying to push your face toward your crotch, and then, when you object saying, “You want the job, don’t you?” I’m not saying that the accusation is true, but if it is, I’m sure it would be interpreted the same way if a white man did it. Likewise, what Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of was not ambiguous and would be interpreted the same way if a white man did it.

    23. Greg Hlatky Says:

      “Friends, do you want your pure, virtuous daughter to be ravished by the animalistic urges of a juicy, slimy, sex-crazed Republican?”

    24. LibertyAtStake Says:

      @Tatyana: A very humorless performance I must say.

      d(^_^)b
      http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
      “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    25. peterike Says:

      I don’t care if the stories about Cain are true.

      I’d much rather have an Alpha male with bad/awkward game for President, than the metrosexual, throws-like-a-girl, rides-a-woman’s-bike non-entity we have now. What’s worse, a President who likes to hit on attractive women, or one who has until now zero — count ’em, ZERO — known women in his life other than his wife Chewbacca?

      Strong, successful men always go after women. That’s the way the world works, and those are precisely the sort of men you want for leadership, not whipped mama’s boys or beta dorks. Feminists and the castrati in the media have doomed us to wimp Presidents for too long. The world is a rough and dangerous place, and thanks to Obama it’s a lot more dangerous now than it was four years ago.

      Who do you want in a room negotiating with Putin? Cain or Obama?

      The next President — assuming it’s a Republican — is going to have to face down the government bureaucracy in a major way. I don’t think any of them are ideologically quite there (except Paul). But you think Romney is going to fight for that? Cain at least has a chance. Too bad Palin has more balls than all of them.

    26. Tatyana Says:

      LAS: if you must…who am I to stand between a man and his duty.

    27. goofy Says:

      @peterike,

      That’s a charming worldview you have there: You dislike Obama because there is no evidence that he cheats on his wife. Lucky for you, Berlusconi is becoming available just in time to run in the Republican primary…And he has been such an effective leader for his country. Go Alpha males!

      Unluckily for you, women also get to vote, and most of us don’t see a man’s using his power over employment for sexual favors as a sign of either strength nor leadership. Nor do we see sexual assault as “awkward game.”

    28. Tatyana Says:

      Goofy,
      you, too, risk to be labeled a humorless lib. careful!

    29. tyouth Says:

      Show me the police report. Show me the warrant, or shut the F up.

      Well, that may be a little extreme, still….