CDBurns

In the words of Yoda, "not so subtle, that was." smh

You centered your discussion on the negative effects of Leslie's characters. This is a discussion on reinforcing stereotypes and the detriment it creates for Black folks. You then utilized cause and effect to state that her actions create perceptions. I disagreed with that statement because it doesn't matter what Leslie does, the people who perceive us in a certain way are going to do so with or without Leslie/Madea. 

My argument is that combining the two to establish that Leslie's actions create a crop of women acting a certain way is wrong. Women who act like Leslie's characters existed long before Leslie and will exist long after. She could disappear tomorrow and this could change things, but I think history shows that it wouldn't.

The reinforcement of stereotypes is a very important topic that doesn't have to be qualified by attaching the behavior of one person (an actress) to the topic. Although I do understand that she is a good example for your discussion and in a paper I couldn't say anything against it because it does prove the point.

(Lol, I never do simple :-)

I think people always show who they are no matter how hard they attempt to conceal it. Words, lack of words, actions, images all have the ability to undercut the image a person attempts to present.

For instance if a person attempted to pass themselves off as something they aren't, I don't think many of us have a problem telling if that person is being truthful. Those who can't see through the facades are being willfully ignorant. They are choosing to accept the facade as truth because it allows them to be who they are although they aren't... get it?

Media manipulates people. Music manipulates people. Almost everything we do is in an attempt to manipulate people. The manipulation can be adverse or positive, but everything we do is for manipulation. There isn't any avoiding this as manipulation allows capitalism to function and we all have to earn money. Those of us who don't have to earn may be in a better position to avoid attempting to manipulate, but I don't know many monks.

Cynique, you are being manipulated by every response posted. Does the manipulation work? Yes, if you respond and even if you don't. You can't unsee information posted. So even if you don't respond the images, words, sounds have shaped you in some way. Manipulation by its definition is unavoidable.

1. handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner:

   "he manipulated the dials of the set"

   synonyms: operate · work · turn · pull
2. control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously

I think we have to separate the discussion of perception from the discussion on the reinforcement of stereotypes.

If this was purely a discussion on the reinforcement of stereotypes you wouldn't have this back and forth from me at all. I am in complete agreement and I have been for over 20 years. When I was in grad school my professor told me I had to cut myself off from the story and just let the story be. I told him, Black people can't do that. When I write I represent the majority by default. My statement, which I created and I've seen everywhere since I've said it, Black people do not have the privilege of anonymity. The group is the person and the person is the group. Is it fair? No and it shouldn't be this way, but it is. The person who is able to distance themselves from their art and create has more opportunities. When you realize the power of your creations and you write with that in your subconscious, unfortunately it can constrain you and limit your reach. We are in agreement on the reinforcement of stereotypes, but perception is what it is.

I am always pretty upbeat, but when Pioneer and I were talking he was arguing that Leslie Jones is creating a new generation of loudmouth women. My point was to say, no she isn't. The perception of who Black women are and Black men are will always be what it is. Leslie no more reinforces the behavior of Black women than Ru Paul shapes the behavior of Black men... damn as I wrote that I realized that there are more effeminate males out there now so Pioneer might actually have a point, LOL!

I think I failed to explain my statement clearly. When I responded to Pioneer with that statement I was addressing that no matter what Black people do or have done, they have always had to deal with the perception of being 3/5 or not as well-groomed or well-mannered as White people. When I made that statement it was to say no matter how refined we are those people who look at us as niggers, porch monkeys, coons, etc. will always look at us as such (people change of course). With this as my qualifier does it make sense for me to say this now? Because no matter how well-behaved or well spoken we are, we are still not given equal respect, so why worry about it as it relates to White folks? Actually forget White people, Black people see other Blacks as less than and no matter what some people do, this perception among Blacks remains unchanged.

In regard to Hip-Hop I think the artform has completely failed Black people. I've said that on a number of threads here on the site. I have always thought that as the music and art in the Black community goes so goes the people. I even argued the chicken or the egg scenario. Which came first the Black movements or the music. I established this scenario by explaining that the talking drum allowed for the transference of information in African culture and that the first thing that slave owners took from the African was the drum. They took the music. I also conveyed that you can barely distinguish what came first in African American history the field song or the field song as activism. I've discussed this in detail here by talking about field songs all the way up to Freedom Songs and the essay by Bernice Reagon. We are in agreement on Hip-Hop.

Man I knew about this, but I didn't know about this. LOL. One of the people I mentor is actually a sponsor for the event. In my skepticism I completely ignored it and thought possibly because I can't see how it turned out in previous years that it couldn't have been very good so I just overlooked it. As positive as I am, I have to think better of us and actually participate.  Maybe I will sign up as a vendor. Good looking out on making me check for it. I will let you know if I do the event.

The industry has done this to itself. When I attended book expos there was a feeling of intimidation, isolation and arrogance that was fine when there wasn't much to do. Now people have to be treated like they matter. I no longer need an agent to get a book out there. I don't need to sit and listen to someone, I can look at YouTube. My last "book festival" was the  San Diego State Writer's Conference which is one of the biggest in the country. That was forever ago. Since I've been here in Memphis most expos and conventions are centered around women and I haven't felt any desire to participate.

You are reading me correct. I'm not saying the use of their data could be used to argue the opposing idea. I'm saying that research is the same and can be built in the same way for any argument. I'm also saying that Facebook is simply a medium to convey some message to other people. If the study was to state that Social Media allows for the speed of misinformation to be done quicker and therefore it is a dangerous then I get that. I'm also saying that Social Media allows for the speed of information to spread in a way that benefits people as well. 

It seems to me that you are intent on validating the negative aspects of social media. That's fine and it can be validated. 
 

I tend to think about the positive aspects and I look at those. I get to see the growth of my old basketball players into adults. I have connected with my father's family, which is amazing since he didn't raise me. Social media has made the world smaller and for me and the people that I see on my Facebook or Twitter they are doing incredible things and positive things.

This does not mean that I don't see the negative. I just don't spend as much time speaking on the negative aspects unless it is in regard to business.

You two...lrs (laughing real soft) :-)

Pioneer you are reaching with that entire post you just wrote. 

Black women have always been the receivers of this shitty and unjust society. It has absolutely nothing to do with Leslie Jones. I said a while back that Leslie is one of two Black women. They are both the first black women to actually be cast members, not guests. The other woman would probably be a lot more "acceptable" to you since she's cuter and more "feminine". As far as how she is sitting on the couch... I guess having been a basketball coach and working with both girls and boys teams, I've seen a lot of girls who sit that way when they have pants on. They typically are playing a role. Like Cynique said though, it seems Leslie isn't playing a role at all. I don't know if she is or not, but her role has very little effect on the treatment or perception of Blacks in America and abroad.

Name me any point in the history of us in the US where we were considered respectable, lady like, and gentlemen.

We have always had to fight to overcome the perception. I have argued both sides of this and that's what I'm doing here. I have old posts where I say exactly what you are saying. I didn't finish the series but take a few and check these out. We are both saying the same thing, I'm simply arguing a different side right now: http://www.cbpublish.com/winter-in-hip-hop-essays-and-thoughts-on-the-problem-in-hip-hop-a-web-book/

I won't even write any more about that because you are acting and writing as if the recent trend of Leslie Jones, Madea or Precious or Empire is why Black people are in bad shape. It just ain't the truth man. Not in the least. Also Monique has been called much worse than Leslie.

Black people's problems are systemic, (Racist, patriarchial, historic) and it's self hate. That combination is what creates the issues for Black folks, especially Black women.

I don't think FB is on a decline. Facebook is a power brand now and their ability to consume and swallow other companies will keep it relevant for a very long time. 

I am in complete agreement with you as well. Last year when I did the 30 day project away from social media (which led to the book), I found similar results. By sticking with a limited amount of business interaction on social, I've redesign my site and the traffic and affiliate revenue has grown substantially. You are right on point overall, but I disagree about FB diminishing. 

While misinformation is more pervasive today, I think it is natural progression of lies and propaganda. If social wasn't here it may have took a bit longer but this is not a new thing. It is being done quicker now and that is all. 

Think about it in terms of the old experiment of standing people in a line and telling the first person one thing and then asking the last person what was said. Dis and Misinformation will always be around. Social has its good qualities. While many people form their opinions based on the info on social, a lot of people get good information. 

You can definitely get a feel for public opinion on social, you can also be misinformed. The fact is this study does nothing but verify that likeminded people share and report the same things. If you get rid of Facebook tomorrow those people would be on the porch sharing misinformation, or they would be at the pub/bar/club agreeing with each other about whatever it is being discussed.

Any person looking to condemn social as a threat could have written this. Any person looking to establish the opposing argument could have written a similar 6 page report. if Social media is a threat to society, then Hitler must have had one of the best computer networks in history right?

Likeminded people congregate. Maybe Facebook allows this to happen at a much faster rate, but I've seen kids at a school, without a social network or computer get the message out to jump another student during a 50 minute class. I guess now it would only take one minute, but the result is basically the same. 

I'm sure if Leslie reads this she will appreciate you saying she has something nice, lol.

Nigerian women actually carry the same loud, boisterous demeanor as Black American women. They wouldn't call each other bitches, but the loud, jovial spirit is something that is actually very African. I know you will say that they aren't fighting and cussing... but to be honest I'm out everyday and this is not the norm for the women I encounter. It seems to me you are being manipulated by the media in what you see in Black women.

I mean I can't judge an entire group by dating one family (and when you date one, you date the family) but I dated an Ibibio woman and her aunts, sisters, mother, all were loud, loving women who were very outspoken to an extent. Once again, I don't really look at the negative in a lot of situations because nothing comes from that. I look at the potential of what a person or a situation is. In Leslie you have a part of a duo of the first sisters on a very important show. Social programming happens, but I also see opportunity. 

I really can't understand how Black folks spend so much time condemning every aspect of Blackness. If we laugh and crack jokes we're cooning. If we are uptight and straightlaced we're Sambos. If we are demure or soft spoken we lack backbone. It appears that Blacks can't ever get it right and never will because we all have to bear the responsibility of the culture and the people. It's unfortunate because it seems that we would rather have nothing than have an opportunity to gain something. I am not excusing poor behavior, or shitty music or crappy television, I'm saying that all of these things make up the diversity of a people.

You keep saying that Leslie represents all of the bad qualities... I say she is providing an opportunity for the next person to come along and do it better than she has. I'm also saying that if Leslie wasn't around, or Monique or any number of women who are loud comediennes, people would still say what Black men and women are.

Isn't it time to stop worrying about what everybody else thinks and celebrate and focus on us?

There is a Black woman on a primetime show that has produced some of the great comedy minds in America. This woman is not a traditional "beauty". She has two major films in or headed to the box office. She is a spokes person for a major company. 

While it is definitely argumentative that her representation is negative (I don't see it as such) these are good accomplishments.

I don't know Leslie, but what I see is a persona. It is one that she is using to exist in Hollywood and she has a right to do that. Your observation of other cultures in comparison to Black women is surprising considering how much you appear to understand the treatment of Black women in America. Based on the treatment of Black women in America and the continued treatment of Black women in America their defense mechanisms are going to be much different than any other woman you will encounter. 

The idea that a woman who can be publicly hanged will ever become anything other than demure is completely and utterly absurd. The comparison you make doesn't make sense at all. A woman who has been beaten down as many women in countries abroad will remain beaten. They may eventually fight, in their own way, but it is hard to change what has been placed upon you.

Now counter that with how Black women in this country have been forced to adapt to their situation and their defense mechanisms are a necessary reality in this society. They have to be straddle the line of strength and being reserved. It's a duality that I don't think any other man or woman in this world has to face.

I never said Black women aren't to be criticized. I said the behavior that is exhibited has a reason and that reason is justifiable. You've chosen to say it is not justifiable. We disagree and that is fine. However, I don't agree that Leslie perpetuates any thing by her behavior. She is playing a role. She is allowed to do so to make a living for herself. Her role does not influence or represent Black women. If Leslie is a new actress, this idea of the loud, obnoxious, oversexed women has always been here well before Leslie stepped on the scene. When the sister is being interviewed she is on point and that is the thing that I look at. I simply won't judge someone for the character that they play. I can't pay her bills and I won't deny her the right to earn a living. I don't think it affects or shapes thought. I get that entertainment is influential. I really do. I've argued on this message board that music can change things so I'm not naive to the power of entertainment and perception... but in this instance she is breaking ground and doing her best and in the process her roles are getting better. 

Like I said, there are always going to be ideas of what Black beauty/beauty should be. I think because I'm 6-2 and 230 I've always liked taller women. I also like dark skin, but like I said before I like a lot of women that look different in a number of ways. Women that I thought looked good, or okay, most of my boys didn't think looked very good. I happen to think Leslie has a great smile, nice lips and great eyes. It's part of what allows her to create the characters that she does. Her face is able to contort and shift and because of this she has a tendency to look unattractive because the characters she plays are loud and brash. 

Unlike many I don't associate her character with her because I don't know her. She is a Memphis girl and Memphis women are often loud and will whoop and holler at the drop of a dime. It's a character though and not really how they are, it is almost a defense mechanism because men are overall pretty shitty dudes who are abusive and confrontational. Women have to create these personas. Leslie has created a persona that has allowed her to transition into film from clubs and SNL. That is a major accomplishment. She has a right to overreact to the ignorance on Twitter, but she could have easily and quietly pulled her page down and left it alone. However, she is an actress and she may feel she has a duty to stay in the public view to show girls that non-traditional looks can succeed in Hollywood and on the big screen.

I'm amazed we can make such a long back and forth about the looks of a sister. Then again... no I'm not. We place more emphasis on what women should do and be and act like than we place on how men should act and carry themselves. The people attacking Leslie primarily where men. But in a male dominated society founded on rape culture we expect women to be "demure" and less "manly" whatever the hell that means. 

That skit was very funny and interestingly enough would have never been done just a few years ago as SNL didn't have any black women. Kennan actually had to hold his own personal boycott against wearing another dress in a skit which forced SNL to find Black actresses.

I haven't weighed in on this very much. First I think Leslie doesn't look bad when she's made up. I also think her character or the roles she plays are entertaining. What I've always had a problem with is Black folks and their inability to allow Black actors/actresses to play the roles that are available to them while they wait for the characters that could be more thought provoking and challenging. It's very hard to get work as a Black performer and when a woman gets a chance to be in the not ready for primetime crew that has launched the careers of a number of Black entertainers then she should take it. I don't think she demeans or perpetuates anything. People are going to think what they want whether she plays these roles or she doesn't.

Since this is about her looks, she is boisterous and loud. I think she can be attractive if she wants to be just like I always thought Whoopi Goldberg could be attractive and was in some instances. Then again, I was one of the few people who thought Grace Jones was stunning, just as much as I think Halle Berry is stunning. I have friends who wouldn't date dark skinned women at all. I think guys who focus on certain looks as beautiful are guys that have the ability to focus on certain looks. I never thought of myself as a catch so I was always more open to women who weren't stereotypically beautiful and I think this whole conversation has missed my voice. Although Troy did make the statement that beauty is only skin deep. I agree with him, but I guess I would add that it is really that way for guys who don't feel that they can "pull" a woman that looks like the "ideal" beauty.

I don't think he will be elected, but if he is I don't think much would change. The perception of the country would suffer, but our day to day existence would continue forward as is. You would keep doing what you do and I would keep doing what I do. The US Government is a machine that runs regardless of what the President does. Those in power will maintain their control and those who are consumers will continue to consume. The average American is so far away from what happens at that level that they will never be affected by the actions of that position directly.

Uh oh...

These are just the facts and you're right. The thing is it would take our students 8 years of school to successfully do it with the remedial classes, but if our kids took the remedials at 2 year schools, added an Associates of Engineering/Comp Sciences (pick up an internship or start coding), use TAG programs (transfer guarantee), complete the final two years of Engineering/Comp Sciences, in 6-8 years we would be able to do these things... That should make you feel better. There is a course of study that is realistic and cost effective. The options are there, but we simply don't pursue that aspect due to ignorance. Even the worst student can complete the remedial courses at a JUCO and build the skills to attain the degree. It would take 2-4 years at a two year school, but the payoff would be incredible.

The stock is based on information. The products that they've purchased, are purchases and not assets. The items purchased by the companies are often other internet companies that only have value if the people continue to supply information. That is a very shaky platform. It's not like a car company that struggles and can liquidate assets. These companies are often made up of 10-20 people and there isn't a tangible product that can actually be packaged and sold.

I say all of this to state that you're right about power and influence. It's controlled by the people and the people are the product. Social allows the people to be self -indulgent and the positive reinforcement of a like keeps them on the product providing search habits and desires which are then monetized. It diminishes the reach of other platforms that don't have the ability to aggregate data and it hurts the economy because there is nothing really to trade and sell. The primary point of capitalism and marketing is a tangible product. The US barely makes any tangible products. Social represents this country perfectly.

Google+ is no longer managed as a social platform. It is a gateway to live streaming with Google hangouts. It is also a part of the algorithm for search with Google.  You're right though, it's the hype around certain brands that makes them valuable. I was explaining to someone why the economy is built on a shaky platform. We talked about this a while back. 

People are trading Twitter and Facebook on the stock market!!!!!! I'm using exclamation points because it's insane to invest money into the stock for a company that can't liquidate anything!!!!! There is no physical product that is being traded! It's absolutely insane. It's the same as 2008 when investors where dropping big money on bad loans. There isn't a product that can be liquidated or sold or physically exchanged so the idea that social media internet companies are billion dollar industries that are publicly traded is insane.

Social media has absolutely zero value as a product and the effect of social is shaky because it is not a real "thing". 

LOL! touche... I do get what you're saying but playing devil's advocate creates a good discussion. No one will take the time to create a Black social network because no one is in the slightest interested in working that hard to educate the consumer. That really is the bottom line.

Now, in regard to the lack of interaction with your post, I've learned that people who are in "power" positions never respond to those who could potentially pull away from their audience. Your ability to move people to your platform is a threat to them because they honestly don't realize their real power is in building up platforms that aren't a part of the machine.

I've noticed people like the women in the video and men in comparable positions try at all cost to keep the lid on anyone who might be better at what they do (Know what I mean?) I've experienced this myself. It's a frustrating thing to deal with.

Not a bit. I've been analyzing this for a while. Not with the depth that you have by any means, but there really isn't any surprise at all. I'm sure for other people it will be a shock. Unfortunately they will compare your stats to the stats of public personas and they will continue to copy those in the public eye and share and give away their power.

Man I immediately posted this to CBP. Very, very, very, good insight.

I get what you're saying and while on the surface it seems simple that because they don't own it they don't have "real" power; you forget that the moment Black women remove their voice from Twitter it becomes an almost all white platform with the reach to 100 million people. 

I've always said that empowerment happens on many branches and it has to happen where we are and where we aren't. Some people march, some people raise their kids, these are both acts of empowerment of the group. Black women on Twitter bring balance, or attempt to, when other voices are speaking against Blacks. Now the obvious argument is that you don't have to bring balance if you aren't there in the first place because you wouldn't even know about the things that happen... but isn't that a bit naive and simple?

If Black women build their own Black twitter and it becomes haven where Blacks debate and discuss issues, it becomes like this message board. Like minded people share and build and more than likely those people are already conscious and they still don't reach the people who aren't interested. Does it empower them? Yes. Does it create the opportunity to expand and reach other cultures? Probably, but the idea that they aren't powerful because they don't own the platform is almost laughable. By this analysis no one will ever be powerful because no one is really self sufficient. We all work in the constructs of society. 

Troy AALBC exists because some hosting service grants you space. You own it, but you aren't powerful by your own definition because at any time that hosting service can get rid of you. Now if you owned your fiber optics and ran Cat5 wires for Ethernet and bought your server you will still be buying data from somewhere. There is always someone above you.

I get what you both are saying, but Issa and Awesome both have reached more people than they would have every been able to reach in their lives. That's powerful. Is it ownership? It is. Do I like the fact that we have to use other platforms to raise awareness about what we do?

No. I hate it. It sucks and it is frustrating, but in order to establish something you have to be where the people are because the people simply aren't educated enough to be where they can do the most good. I built an entire video series on what this topic is basically about.