The interrogation of intersectionality's narrative coherence is what Black Male Studies scholars question. The historical, social scientific, & conceptual basis of the concept has yet to be justified beyond "feminists say so." @LordHasan makes this point explicitly in his book BMS scholars are asking a very simple & verifiable question. Ethnology was the science of racial difference from the 1830s to the early 1900s throughout the Anglo-world based on male degradation. Racial hierarchies were based on male lineage.

Files continues to assert that empiricism (a method of inquiry based on sense data) is white, while psychoanalysis (most readily associated w/ Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, & Carl Jung) is Black. Yes, BMS catalogs health disparities among BM & others racialized males. It offers a theoretical diagnostic to understand how racialized males are oppressed by patriarchal kinship systems in Western societies.

Again this is misrepresenting mate selection among Black people & women generally. Educated BW do not marry just as educated or more financially viable BM b/c they sex ratios among Blks is highly skewed & histories of discrimination target BM.

https://twitter.com/Chatnigga101/status/1904259927197323734

This is not an argument a/b sexual attraction or couplings, this is a/b marriage which are two different things in the literature. Women select mates based on hypergamy. This as well as women preference for benevolent sexist men is well established in social psychology.

So intersectionality is now becoming suspect amidst genocide but when it was used as a tool to erase the deaths of Black males at the hands of white vigilantes & the state, I among others just misunderstood the idea. Intersectional invisibility literally said the deaths of BM should not be the measure of oppression. Threadcraft extended intersectional invisibility to say focusing on BM victims of police homicide & white vigilantes erased the private violence BW suffer. This drew no suspicions. Yet over Gaza this is when the idea becomes scrutinized...

These "gotcha" posts really demonstrate a lack of the ability to read. The issue is not Cleaver's queerness--it is his rewriting of homosexuality & homoeroticism in the prison. As I said in the chapter, Cleaver's homosexuality (he doesn't use the word gay), is not the focus.

https://twitter.com/nigritie/status/1608534889867145217

Cleaver draws attention to the operation of the prison. Why may you ask, b/c the ongoing theory of Black masculinity was that it was homosexual due to its errant masculinity--a hedonistic expression of lust w/o care or fantasy. Cleaver challenges this view of

I have really enjoyed Rawls & Duck's book entitled Tacit Racism. Thanks @TrevonDLogan for the recommendation. I find sociological texts that tend towards theoretical orientations the most fascinating & this book did not disappoint. Yet again, this text found through a survey of Black males that Black men do not share any of the ideas of white masculinity in their understanding of maleness or manhood. This finding was a prominent aspect of my criticism of mimeticism in liberal arts disciplines.

This is what happens when u can only think through identity & a pathological framing of masculinity. BMS argues that the condition of being a BM is birth from nihility. Identity does not matter in a system that sees all BM as defined by the will of others. This is why all BM

https://twitter.com/DrMaDMo/status/1608128837765763075

suffer similar fates. All BM sexuality is deemed the destroyer of others. Just as all BM lack the power to self-define. The disabled BM is killed, raped, castrated for being the superpredator, just as the ssl BM is. I point out the failure of gender place upon the BM.

Now Robin. I am more than confident that if you ask the 4 Black students in the Fanon & Foucault graduate seminar in 2001 they would adamantly state the issues w/that course was not a/b my view of masculinity, but rather how you & the other white students treated the 1st Black

https://twitter.com/doctaj/status/1608139359844188160

graduate students ever admitted into the graduate philosophy program at DePaul. The issue was that you & other whites in the class refused to read Fanon, refused to cite text, & choose to make BSWM a/b how offending he was too white women.

So this is what is so interesting. There are two assumptions that make this a ridiculous claim. First, patriarchy having a causal relationship to IPV has been extensively studied among whites for almost 30 years. The clinical evidence has shown that the presence of male victims,

https://twitter.com/DontQuot3Me/status/1607960558523002880

the similarity of beliefs a/b violence & control among women, & the prevalence of IPV among sexual minority groups mean that male domination as theorized by Duluth is incorrect. So as a universal causal factor this view fails to demonstrate significant next to other factors

Someone asserted that Social Dominance Theory is the same as Black Male Studies. It is so disappointing when you realize that many academics just can't read, & I mean this literally. They don't understand words on a page that simply do not align with their previous thoughts. First, the late Jim Sidanius & Felicia Pratto's work is exceptionally rich & empirically informed. Sidanius has produced one of the most debated & verifiable accounts of social stratification in the 20th century. His recognition in the field of psychology & sociology is undoubted

The defenses to intersectionality by philosophers confronted w/the multiple failures of the theory by empiricists are hilarious to me. They literally just say a new version, never seen before, can accommodate Curry's criticisms. What would this look like? They say it's not Social Dominance Theory, its not Black Male Studies, it's not anti-feminist, it is not based on a redefining of patriarchy...what exactly is it? Oh, right...it's "let's make shit up."

Compensatory masculinity is a foundational assumption made in white, Black, & intersectional accounts of Black male socialization. Introduced as a criminological explanation of Black male deviance & rape, it remains unquestioned & unsubstantiated in gender studies. Black Male Studies has not only shown the racist history of this idea, but used ethnography & social scientific research to refute the idea pushed in Black feminist & criminological accounts asserting that the primary coping mechanism of Black males is reactionary & violent.

If we are going to continue revising Royce to be multicultural & tolerant we might as well read and revise Chamberlain and Hitler. At least their view of loyalty was more material and concrete. Here is how academic philosophy operates. white philosophers decide among other white philosophers that they agree a certain white figure is not racist, or in this case Josiah Royce. These white philosophers create consensus that we will write articles citing each other saying

There is a lot of emotionalism surrounding the db8 BMS ignited b/c there is a growing realization that much of Black theory has no methodological rigor or accuracy. It's popular sentiment rationalized through a conceptual apparatus. A prime example is that there is practically no published research on the rape of Black men in the U.S. as a public health or criminological issue.

The ongoing project of turning Sylvia Wynter into a Black feminist is marked by the attempt to introduce into her work an antagonism with Black men and Black masculinity that simply does not exist. Wynter problematizes Black feminism for its acceptance of Man2. In N.H.I. Wynter is quite clear that the liminal position is occupied by poor Black men in the U.S., b/c the language and violence which defines genocide & indicates dehumanization is most readily associated with poor Black maleness.

There is a repetitive assertion that "if you are Black," you will vote democratic. When Clinton was running a/g Trump, the liberatory vote was voting for Clinton despite her belief that BM were superpredators & her role in mass incarceration. When Obama was running for president the same politics were put out in front. He didn't make a single policy directed towards Black people, but somehow we should just accept his universalist economic & healthcare policies as "being for us."

In graduate school, I wrote a paper on DuBois, Hegel, and Bacofen. The white philosophy professor told me that he would only grade the section on Hegel b/c DuBois was not philosophy. I have been in departments where white feminists would rave a/b supporting & being an ally to Black people, then explain to me how they taught bell hooks & Susan Brownmiller to show how Black men are rapists.

The very notion of sub-groups or intersectional groups within races was created by racist white criminologists to explain how Black males were uniquely deviant & criminal compared to Black women. This idea was later taken up by white & Black feminists as racial sexual stratification theory. The idea that males within groups have the same hierarchal arrangement as white males & white females were solely predicated on rape & violence.

Notice how the debates we see by academics & pundits are circumscribed by the need to satisfy the worldview of whites. The spectrum of "woke" scholarship must presuppose that there are Black groups who are outside the horizon of civil society. The endless rhetoric of Blackness as slave or non-being has no substance for these people, b/c they depend on replicating savagery amongst Blacks as the basis of their "high theory." BM are rapists, criminals, & pestilent b/c the gender theories of the 1980s said so.

Terry Crews being used to prove BM are WM is deplorable. For almost 4 years Blk ppl have endured Candice Owens, Diamond & Silk, Lynne Patton, and Omarosa Manigault...all BW all Trump supporters who disown racism, white supremacy, & make the lives of Blk folk worse. The hatred towards BM knows no bounds in this world. The difference is BM have been dehumanized so much by this pop-feminist white supremacism that any idea no matter how ridiculous seems to stick.

The debate we see happening concerning ADOS & reparations, specifically the work of @tonetalks, @BreakingBrown, @DarrickHamilton & @SandyDarity undergirds a much deeper material uncovering of racism & the institutional depth of white supremacy in this country. Regardless of how one thinks a/b the moniker of ADOS or Blackness more generally, the economic analysis focused on wealth gaps b/w whts & Blks indicates that racism is very much a/b the structuration of societies, how they are organized, & how economics dictate political ends.