Femininity and Black Masculinity at Morehouse

The large uproar about Vibe magazines ‘Mean Girls at Morehouse’ article is certainly grounded and based along two lines: What is right, and what is Right. The touchy-ness of the issue makes it too difficult for one to distinguish between either of them. However, at its deeper core comes a deeper question: Is the concern based on the students’ fears of Morehouse becoming a “school for gays?” Is the commotion over this topic really about a dress code? How about homosexuality?

Ironically enough, the conversation is about neither of them. The conversation is strictly about black masculinity.

Just as when we are to talk about racism, we are talking about white supremacy. For any critical thinker, it is important to identify the heart of the matter. However, before we go any further we must accept the following:

1. Morehouse is a school for homosexuals. If one is nearing the end of his high school experience and is homosexual, Morehouse College will likely enter the realm of his interests. Any objective person would be more than aware of the relatively large gay community at Morehouse College. If students are willing to accept this reality, it will help us understand that homosexuality will always be a component of the school, whether the administration will allow it or not. Morehouse’s strict all-male population, centered dead-smack in the center of Atlanta- One of the nation’s gay capitals- attributes to the schools popularity amongst homosexual students. It also attributes it to Morehouse’s growing popularity because Atlanta is a fast growing city.
2. There are serious cases of homophobia at Morehouse College. Despite the dress-code being aimed at all types of controversial “cultural uniforms”, students at Morehouse continuously aim- justified or unjustifiably- at the .05% of students who are actually cross-dressing. Meaning that a select few have been magnified in the hyper-sensitized, reasonably-insecure psyches of many black males attending the school.

However, it is critical that we address the heart of the issue. Morehouse had been created in 1867- shortly after the “emancipation” of enslaved blacks throughout the south. The school is created with the intention on educating men. Seeing that the school has no vocational roots, it is clear to see that our founders identified education as the method of use to rust the chains of slavery. More importantly- almost every black institution spearheaded by black males in our society has one underlying goal in mind:

Rebuilding the psyche, image, and respect of the black man.

We are talking about black men who could not defend or take care of their families. Any self-conception of manhood they could fathom they were not allowed to publicly exhibit without adhering to the consequences of such behavior. These were men were forced to step off sidewalks while white men walked on them. These were men who were beaten, castrated, and hanged for glancing at white women. And these were men who were not allowed to eat dine, or even speak to a white man a certain way. Read Born to Rebel, Dr. Mays’ autobiography, and he will tell you about his various encounters with white men on Pullman Trolleys who would directly insult him face to face. Though that is prejudice and could have happened to black women too, man-to-man, it is considered and understood as an attempt to demasculinate another man.

These temperaments transferred culturally onto to black men today. Black men- more than any other demographic- may be the most concerned about the image that he sends to the public. He understands that the “system” (media, policy, or economics) is concerned about making him as silly-looking and as non-a-factor as possible.

Meanwhile, there is Morehouse College- a school that professes its students to be a remedy to the historical devaluation and demasculation of the black male. One of the reasons that black males profess their sexuality so much is because the system has not allowed them to be a “man” in any other sector but the bedroom. Morehouse’s focus, like all black male organizations- be it fraternity or business organization- is to rebuild the black masculinity that has been taken away from them for centuries.

We are not beyond the days of racism or its residue. Men consciously and unconsciously are still attempting to rebuild their masculinity. For a black man still cannot comfortably be black and be male simultaneously. In this sense, we cannot- and refuse to- identify with individuals who are black males who have no desire to be men. In fact, it is an outrage to some.

And yes, image is also inclusive to manhood. That’s the essence of culture. Cultures are only cultures when they have developed a set of shared values. Interestingly enough, also included in culture is the possession of a set a shared symbols! Symbols are images! Within our culture, for one to profess themselves to be a man they have to ascribe to the cultural and symbolic tenets of manhood- and many of them are superficial. It is similar to Christianity. A symbolic tenet of Christianity is the acceptance of the cross for its symbol- because if you and I have different definitions for what the cross is symbolic for, it becomes difficult for us to share the religion. When one says they attend a school for men- particular image comes to mind. Cross-dressing does not fit that image. The morality of this reality is not of importance, but if we must… It is important to know that every culture has a defined set of female and male roles- the role of the male is called masculinity. Morality is developed by cultural values, and if one goes against those cultural values they are deemed immoral.

Whether masculinity is defined is semantic. The answer to your question is the image that enters your mind when the term ‘masculinity’ is mentioned. The Morehouse administration and the student body share a collective conception of what masculinity is within this culture. And we see cross-dressing as a potential threat to the status of respectability that we have been attempting to build globally for nearly 200 years. We see cross-dressing in the same sense in which Big Mama’s House, Madea, and the Nutty Professor see it- as comedy. We see cross-dressing making Morehouse College the butt of jokes, not the spark of conversation. And as much as Morehouse should stand above the masses as far as understanding diversity- we are also aware of how this particular diversity could hurt its reputation. And at Morehouse- that is all we have! No money, no significant donors, no large endowment- only reputation. And seeing that reputation is likely what brought you (the reader) to this school, it becomes easy to correlate its reputation to its bottom line. Even a cross-dresser should understand the threat such an image has to Morehouse.

This may be the only institution where black masculinity is so cherished. Because it is an all-black male school in America- I need not to express the other misconceptions that Morehouse College has to guard itself against (examine the Rick Ross situation). An all-male school dealing with femininity certainly tilts the bucket over in an environment where we are still not completely viewed as all men. Most of it is negative media. However, we refuse to allow self-inflicting damage.

What is Marriage?

This blog was birthed out of a conversation I had been recently engaged in. I facetiously asked a friend of mine : “So what exactly is happening when you get married?” After receiving the expected responses or typical responses, I began to think about the social acknowledgments of marriage. I have attempted to draw them out in the following:

1. Marriage places the two of you in a bond strengthened by God and it places a sacred unity between the two that no longer makes lust for each other sinful, nor casual fornication. Marriage places two souls together for eternity.
2. Marriage is the acknowledgment that you have found your soul mate, and that you are bound together- “through sickness and through health”
3. Marriage shows that you are “equally yoked”, meaning that you shared the same values and are “cultivated” in manner similar to each other. This typically assumes that you have the same faith, customs, traditions, etc.

There is certainly more to tease out when it comes to the assumptions about our spiritual or social respect for marriage. However, even beyond that, I would like to acknowledge some of the more-personal assumptions and acknowledgments we make about this “sacred” unity:

1. Married people are less likely to cheat because they have made their acknowledgment of their commitment to you in front of God (However, I have never heard any priest or minister ever mention anything about commitment in marriage).
2. Married people tend to live in more stable homes. Its our basic belief that a mother and father being in the home provide the best foundation and building blocks in order to raise healthy and functional children.

Despite many of the notions I have attempted to place into this conversation, when it comes to marriage, no one seems to identify the basic tenets of marriage without super-fabrication, or some sort of romanticization of the act. We have continued to deny this one word and how it impacts such a unity.

CAPITALISM

For those of you that may not truly understand what capitalism is, then you and I may disagree strongly. Many people may understand capitalism as simply a form of economic policy so as to talk about China being a mixed economy with some elements of capitalism. Before we are to proceed, we have to acknowledge that capitalism is a political movement. Capitalism is a way of life, or more importantly, a system that turns a market into ANYTHING. As you watch ‘For the Love of Ray J’- capitalism. Jersey Shore- capitalism. Pornography- capitalism. Hip hop videos and black culture- capitalism. Religion- capitalism. It’s a way of life that has turned everything sacred into a political and economic process. In its basic form, it is expressed in terms of investment. It takes the valued culture and attachments one makes about marriage, life, God, and their children, and turns them into to materials made to be invested upon and profited upon.

Before I am verbally attacked, I would advise you to acknowledge that profit, like in capitalism, is not always measured or evaluated in dollars and cents. Coca-Cola can send some free Coke to Haiti just to make the people feel as if they care. It is because in this system, they understand that your emotions, dreams and ideas can quickly be turned into a dollar. Artist simply do not rap just for the sake of art, but for the sake of being compensated for their inner-most discretions and indiscretions. This is not the nature of man, for those that may think so.

Marriage is the same way. Though, before we begin to elaborate on marriage, lets understand what marriage really is:

1. Marriage is a way that people or persons fiscally tie their emotions with the other.
2. Marriage is also a tool in which people use to be looked upon favorably, understanding following the model of “family man or woman” will create benefits opportunity-wise and financially down the line
3. Most of all, in this system, marriage is purely legal, economic (generates billions in revenue as far as employment, marriage officers, clerks, counselors, pastors/priests/rabbi’s, wedding planners, RINGS, etc.), and superficial- for most of it lacks any cultural components of cultural emphasis (tradition and culture are not always synonymous because tradition without the understanding of culture is pointless- its like not knowing why men take their hats off in the building).

Lets understand that in my first list of acknowledgments concerning the social acknowledgments of marriage, all of these components are or should be acknowledged before marriage is even there. If someone has lied to you before marriage, they likely will lie to you after marriage. If you were never equally yoked before marriage, you wont be after the ceremony. And if God had not been in the relationship before marriage, God wont be there after it. The crucial components that make a relationship sustainable are things attained through spending time together, and just because you have exchanged a ring and have some religious figure talk to you about how God will be on your side will not change anything. Is the bond never felt before marriage?

Also, people only believe in these super-spiritual notions about marriage while its convenient for them. They are only equally-yoked until he or she cheats, or gets fatter, or loses some money or loses a job. They are only soul-mates until the man decides to get abusive and the vows and all the other decrees quickly fly out the door. The divorce rate in America has never been larger, and its because once the materials or exhilaration of the marriage declines, so does the value. As soon as one feels as if they are not receiving profit for their emotional investment, that’s when the partnership, the merger, or the business- regardless of how much the two have gained together- closes up. Then, the law creates a severance package, which is used a contractual tool. When a football team decides to waive a player, it means that they still have to pay the players' salary until the the contract runs out. This is partially a tool the players union bargains for to keep team owners from aborting contracts early and coaxes them into remaining faithful to their contractual obligation, which was to have the player through “sickness and through health” until their contract expires. In marriage the contract is a life time, and unless you do not have a ‘no-waive-clause’ (prenuptial agreement), you will likely lose big.

But isn't that the essence of capitalism? Its a place where Where you place your eggs in one basket. Shouldn't marriage be one of those things where the partner says: “I love you, and you are worth going broke for if this doesn’t work out because I am giving you my all, anyway… I have no problem losing opportunities for you because I love you and I am not worried about my individualistic welfare because I am never planning to become that way because we are soul-mates for eternity.”

Nope.

Because in capitalism, you place opportunity and resources over the companion. Re-read what I said: capitalism turns EVERYTHING into a market, even the things we hold sacred. It reverses and usurps its meaning, taints it, and it becomes something completely opposite in what its intended to be. Marriage no longer becomes a spiritual bond but becomes superficial BONDAGE, where I stay faithful to my wife not because I love her, but partially because I do not want to lose what I have gained. I come home at night, make love to my woman not because I simply want to please her, but also its in my best economic and legal interest to keep her pleased. I want to works things out- not just because I truly would love to have my wife here, but because of the economic and legal pains we would both have to go through. There is nothing sacred about that, and if that’s the marriage you want, you can keep it. Love is one of those things that should not be bolstered by material comfort. It’s a gamble. Besides, the alimony will never heal those wounds, you’ll still be bitter despite you winning custody or you retaining the house.

The problem inherent with this line of thinking is that many of us are consistent with our thinking patterns. If behind our companion we see a legal and financial obligation, then certainly we will see it behind our children! Our children today are immediately seen as a mouth feed or a body clothe instead of a spirit to nurture. And then your children will see you as a spoon to feed them and wallet to clothe them. And we’re all too familiar of what happens when any group of people see each other as a utility- you begin to FEEL like one.

In conclusion, I surmise that marriage should simply be a public acknowledgment of unity. It becomes a place where the community sees and holds each other accountable. In addition, I would love to see my Queen and I not buy each other rings, but rather get tattoos or a marking that we only identify- which acknowledges the unique and particular bond that we possess. She has no need to change her last name to mine, for her identity is just as worthy as mine. Nor do we need to go through the legal ramifications of marriage. We can simply have this ceremony without any paperwork. I want cultural relevance, not political or economic. I want the spirit there- a sincere acknowledgment of our emotions. I want my ceremony to be a celebration of what we have already established, not what will happen in the future because all we ever really have is the present. It’s a pledge of commitment because it is made to the public, an official joining of the families, and the development of tradition and a culture. That’s the way marriage should be.

Mr.Right ( Exploring the Male Role in Relationships)

Man is a knot into which relationships are tied - Antoine DeSaint

As I began to write this blog post on the " male " role in relationships, I cannot help but ponder upon my past experiences. I instantly began to remember my past perceptions of relationships and the perceptions that had been developed by a smorgas-board of social institutions. Some of which include my West Philly up-bringing , my families' thoughts of what men should do in relationships, and the Christian understanding of what it means to be a man and how he should function. With great influences such as these I began to develop a bias or set definition of how I was supposed to "act" when I was with that special young lady.

One of the first beliefs that I was taught was that "men should be a gentlemen at all times". Wow, thinking on this now explains a lot about how socialization can be subtle. I was socialized to believe that I was supposed to be this "perfect Renaissance man" who should never make mistakes and satisfy his woman no matter what. This concept is pure non-sense. It is totally impossible to be perfect and I would venture to say it is insane to believe you could be the "perfect" man.

So, what is the current role of the male in relationships? Lets look at a few roles that men typically play:
Protector
In speaking with several men on my campus about the male role in relationships all of them said " my job is to protect". They all said it with passion and fervor. Protection is critical for men and women. Men get a great sense of pride in knowing that they can keep their women safe and women gain a great sense of comfort in knowing that despite the situation, their man will take care of "it". Thus making the male role of " protector" a tremendous load to lift.

Provider
This concept can be traced to a variety of sources . One source I want to talk about is the biblical understanding of male provision. According to the Book of Genesis ( Gen 3:19), God tasks the man with providing for the woman. This in turn has carried over into our "Judeo Christian" understanding of the male role as a provider.

Do you believe that this should still be the case or have we grown out of this phase of human socialization? A few things to consider is the countless implications that come from this notion.

They include but are not limited too male dominance, female inferiority and a society based on the rule and reign of men. This had all been triggered by the notion that men should be providers which makes them do anything to provide so that they will not feel powerless.

I have only begun to scratch the surface of this critical question. It is my hope that you now consider the male role in relationships. Men, start to think of the roles you play and why you play them. Women, begin to examine the roles you want your man to play and the roles your father has played. After this we can has a elaborate conversation on this issue!

‘Mars Dilemma’ Series: 'NO HOMO, OR HETO'

If we are to talk about masculinity and manhood and this ‘Mars Dilemma’, as my colleague creatively calls it, we must consider the origins of such a dilemma. Where do the notions of masculinity even come from? Who creates the notions, and the rigid definitions of masculinity? I feel as if it is safe to acknowledge that the culture creates the role that male and females play, and the physicality plays a very small role- especially in today’s society, where fighting wars are opened to both men and women (at least in American culture). A male or female develop their identities from the culture around them. All social behavior is learned. An individual carves his/her personality based on the societal pressures around them. If an individual is raised in an culture in which he has to “man” up, he will man up based on his interpretation of manhood. But unfortunately, he is often not given a choice in how the message is interpreted, though he may believe he consciously chose to act like a “man”- the culture has made his decision and has interpreted for him already, and the same applies to the female.

I am not suggesting that there is something wrong with the culture doing that. What I am suggesting is that power that culture has over our motivations and our conscious thought. We adapt and adopt cultural ethos without even thinking, and unless exposed to a culture outside of your own, we usually arent even aware of something called “culture”- we assume it’s the natural way of living. However, I am writing here today to make a larger indictment of the circumstances I have addressed thus far.

If culture creates our conceptions of femininity and masculinity, than what is homosexuality and heterosexuality? Many will argue that heterosexuality is NATURAL- meaning that we are born with it. And in the same token, many homosexuals will argue that their homosexuality is NATURAL- that they were born gay. Please excuse my language, and I hope that it does not ruin the integrity of my writing:

Both of these notions are bullshit.

Sexual behavior, like almost all SOCIAL behavior, is learned. The only thing natural about a human is its nature to breathe- because as an organism, its prime function is to intake oxygen. A human does not come out of his/her mother’s womb desiring a vagina to go into, or a penis enter inside them. I would like to enter this term into the conversation. Sexual Preference.
Preference happens when an individual is given a choice. When multiple choices confront an individual, they develop a preference- which is something one is inclined to. However, lets not lose the critical essence what the term choice means. We are all familiar with the emphasis on raising your children right to make sure they make wise choices. So, that allows us to assert that an individuals choice (preference) is largely influenced- if not completely- by an individuals upbringing, or socialization. So to drive my point home- my sexual preference is a social behavior, so my sexual preference is based upon how I have been socialized.

I understand what I am saying and the implications of it. No one wants to admit, especially heterosexuals (like myself)- that their preference is simply based on the way they have been socialized. My heterosexuality is just as much a socio-cultural decision as an individuals homosexuality. Most want to say that they are biologically drawn to the opposite sex, just as homosexuals would argue they have been biologically driven to like the same sex. How a child receives a message is just as much a roll of the dice as to which sperm cell will reach the fertilized egg. All we can assume is that the child will adhere to the dominant culture, which warrants that an individual become heterosexual. Then, critics will attempt to ask me why are individuals on the “down low” if they did not have a natural inclination for the same sex? One can be socialized to like both sexes as much as to one or two- its not always a choice of one or the other. However, if someone understands the social consequences of “coming out of the closet”, wouldn’t that be the reason they stay in? That’s like when a black person, who has been socialized to speak slang, gets inside a board room- they understand the social consequence of showing their “blackness”, so they keep it in the closet, and show it only in an environment permissible to those behaviors. Those who go on to change their sexual preference are individuals who are still going through socialization- they are not individuals who go through an epiphany, and finally recognizing their “natural“ inclination. Its similar to when elders are socialized to behave a certain way. It is a never-ending process. However, certain social habits are always harder to change once one becomes older.

Then, others may assert that they have been liking a particular sex “since they’ve been 5 years old.” Does socialization not occur immediately at birth? Socialization begins immediately, right around when a newborn baby is placed in a room with a blue or pink blanket, named Rodney, or named Renee. Then critics will point to the animal kingdom and say “well, animals have sex with the opposite sex”, as if animals do no undertake a form of socialization or possess a culture.

To really drive home my point, I look to the African-American community. As a student of the prestigious Morehouse College, I am certainly not ignorant to the attention given to the homosexual community at Morehouse. In addition, I do not close my ears to the pressing issue of many black males being “down-low” and the epidemic of homosexuality amongst African American males throughout the country. However, lets consider the facts.

70 % of African Americans are born to unmarried parents, compared to 40 % for whites and 48% for Hispanics. In addition, 67% of African American children are reared in single-parent households, headed by the mother. We must understand, if we as a community are raised majorily by women, we are bound to be socialized like women in many ways. High sensitivity that females are culturally allowed to have are transmitted amongst the men of the community. However, if we combine that kind of sensitivity with testosterone and physicality that men possess, it can lead to homicides, domestic assaults, and extreme male-on-male violence (which is also socialized) . As a child, I wore my towels under my arms after getting out the shower, I didn’t wear towels at my waist. Black males become just as obsessed with beauty as women do- we work hard to get waves, nice clothing, and spend just as much on shoes as women do, and may place more of an emphasis on them. With these being established, it is obvious that if you are reared by women, you will take on some of the behaviors, mannerisms, and psychological patterns that women possess. So why would it be foreign to think that some attractions- which many women verbally profess, fantasize, and long for- that women possess would also be transferred onto men- hence the very large African-American male homosexual population. And though there are many other factors Id like to elaborate on, however, my point is to show that these are factors that derive from SOCIALIZATION- and we have to be more acknowledging to power of socialization and culture- and though our culture promotes heterosexuality, homosexuality has always been a component of Western Culture- from President James Buchanon, to Napoleon, to the Ancient Greeks.. It is not as much of choice as we like to think it is. But it is certainly not natural. Whether you are gay or straight.

-Derrick Reed

The "Mars" Dilemma: Defining Masculinity

Our society is filled with a host of acceptable terms that we are forced to internalize. Many of these concepts have elaborate theoretical definitions, without unambiguous explanations . One such concept is masculinity. Masculinity for the purpose of this blog ,is manly character. It specifically describes men and boys, that is personal and human, unlike male which can also be used to describe animals, or masculine which can also be used to describe noun classes

How do you begin to tackle this sociological phenomenon? Do we start from the current state of men in our community? Should we talk about the factors or forces that pressure men to be "masculine". Despite the angle I will come from, I will seek to address a host of issues associate with masculinity today! I will try to pave a clear path for a rocky argument. I will simply speak on the "Mars" Dilemma ( continual conflicts that arise from male identity).

Masculinity in of itself is a easy concept to understand, it's simply manly characteristics. The difficult part of this concept are the factors that are associated with it. One factor I want to talk about are the pressures to be "manly" that is place on males in our society. When a baby boy is first born we start the " masculinity" identity process by simply identifying particular clothing that a boy should wear. We adorn the boy in colors like blue,red, green and other dark shades. From these colors people will identify the baby as a boy even if by physicality they look like a girl. If we see a baby wearing yellow we automatically associate it with being a girl.


Another pressure that is place on males takes place when they are around the age of five. We tell boys that they must "man up". They are not allowed to show emotions ( cry) or anything traditionally associated with famine behavior. They must be tuff ! We also tell them that boys are not supposed to play with dolls but rather action figures. If they do play with dolls they are deemed a " sissy". Action Figures are more appropriate because they involved physical action and aggressive combat.

Once that boy matures in age, the societal pressures to be a man become greater. During the high school years he often has to take on the dominant male role in his house hold . The young man must carry out the maintenance of the home internally and externally. From tediously cleaning up the kitchen and taking out the garbage to cutting the grass and painting the porch the young man is responsible. One interesting thing that comes from this labor is the comment that follows if the young man does not comply. Parents say to him " you must be a man and take responsibility".

At the ripe age of eighteen the young man hears the ever provoking statement , " You must get a job, if a man dose not work he does not eat". From this statement we conclude that being a man involves working hard and providing . While I don't disagree with this sentiment I believe that there are other necessities a man needs to be effective in society. We usually do not put a strong emphasis on education. Education is seen as an option! Community members often say the stupidest comment of all times, " College is not for everyone". Suggesting that higher education is for an elite group of people with extraordinary talents. The sad reality is that one day this young man will be a father and will pass his value system on to his children. Everything he vales good or bad will be transferred unto his offspring. Creating another generation that does not view education as essential to survival.

Between the ages of twenty and fifty the man must maintain his male mystique and sustain himself and all that fall under his care. He must deal with the constant voices in his life that want him to complete task, listen, give and take advice and the list continues. After this time period he reaches the brink of "Elder hood". Elder hood is where he must become a community advisor and guardian of traditions in his sphere of influence. In this stage men often feel like they must teach and instruct the youth on life lessons. From the minute the baby boy is driven away from the hospital to the day he lies in the casket, there are pressure that he must face because of his physicality and genetic make up. The man is expected to handle these pressure with dignity and pride, because he is a "man'. All of these pressures make for one tremendous task that I call the " Mars" dilemma.

-Marcellus Taylor

Abortion: Should men have the control?

With the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, the precedent had been set- abortion is legal . The decision was highly influenced because of an emotional appeal that had been made by the Roe party. Her attorneys suggested that men (who were the decision makers) are in no position to deem abortion immoral because of their lack of empathy to- or experience of- being a woman. The topic of abortion is obviously a sensitive issue, because it borders the line of many sensitive subjects; the female anatomy, religious doctrines, our beliefs of right and wrong, and our own prescriptions on life. However, as we modernize the issue, the question becomes: Who controls whether the abortion happens? And if there is a disagreement between man and woman about getting an abortion, who has the last say? This argument, given the sensitivities I have aforementioned, involves way more than jurisdiction. Just because the woman houses the body (some people consider it a fetus) surely cannot mean that she possesses primary decision of the fate of the child, does it? Two people play a role in conception, so two people should play just as vital role in deciding what is rejected, so to speak. However, I think at the heart of the argument, there is even a larger issue- yet so simplistic. Who controls the decision to abort or not to abort is easily answered based on your response to the following question: Who does the baby belong to? The man or the woman?

Grass cannot grow without its fertilizer- be it manure or water. However, water is pointless if there is no grass to grow. And fertilizer is just as insignificant if there is no grass to fertilize. However, to give authority to the woman to abort is to give sovereignty to the female- which thus eliminates the agency of the male. Furthermore, social constructs probably play the largest role in the decision. Some may argue because the woman carries the body, they feel connected to the new-born baby, and thus, bare a larger burden on the upraising of the baby, regardless of its fate. Also, given the social phenomena of the baby-daddy-never-around-drama, especially in the black community, society is more willing to give the decision to the woman, because 66 % of the time she is raising the child on her own, or without the help that she should have. With that reality, I would certainly consider giving the woman control to whether or not the child should be aborted. However, as I have mentioned, grass cannot grow without fertilizer, so the man has to be consulted or considered, or even given the majority decision. Given the social constructs, and various factors- such as the importance of father figures and male role models in a youths’ life, and the disappearance of such figures in the beloved community, I would suggest that the minority be given the control.

Men have to be in the drivers seat on whether or not an abortion should take place. Abortion is not a women’s rights’ issue, it is everyone’s issue. However, I am suggesting that if the chicken became an endangered species, and if all of humanity needs chicken- I would ask that chicken if it is okay to kill a worm or let that worm live. If a father says he doesn’t want the child, then why should the child be raised with only one parent who wants him. Even more discouraging, why would you have unprotected sex with someone who is not prepared for fatherhood (but that’s a larger argument). Also, if the woman really does gain attachment to the child during the fetus rearing process, even if she didn’t initially want the child- by birth wouldn’t she be welcoming to the infants‘ existence? As we know, this is not the case for men. Ask for the testimony of a single black mother who has been dying to get her child’s father involved. A man who is willing to be engaged in his children’s life is something that has to be considered, even if the mother is leaning towards abortion. The endangered element has to allow some potential mothers to adapt their perspective and allow the man to decide.

Ironically, he is given the choice any other time. He is given the choice to have sex with a woman. Then, he is often given the choice on whether to be protected or not. And even beyond that, he is often given the choice to ejaculate inside the woman’s body. Yet, he is given little authority when it comes to keeping or aborting a child. The fertilization of a fetus, child, pregnancy, etc., is almost always in the hands of man! The decision the woman makes to “lay down” for the man is only a part of the unity. The birth of the child is dependent upon the man’s action. The man literally controls the child. So with my logic, the actual birth of the child should be dependent upon the man’s decision. Once that very real reality is compounded with the societal need for fathers, then the decision is simple: Daddy will tell you yes. Sperm donor will tell you no. Listen to the man. It wont be the first time you will have been made vulnerable to his decision.

-Derrick Reed

WHO WE ARE ( Derrick Reed)

Derrick Reed is currently a junior attending Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA, hailing from Philadelphia, PA. Majoring in both African-American Studies and Psychology, his primary interests center the history of black people within the African continent, and throughout its’ Diaspora. Interested in how the African and African-American cultural narrative have “blended, adapted, and in some cases dissolved“ while confronting Western ideologies- Derrick has developed a passion for culture and society. As an aspiring academic, Derrick wants to teach history and sociology at the high school and collegiate level. Derrick vehemently believes that fundamental change “can only occur through education- not legislation, petition, or protest.”

WHO WE ARE ( Marcellus Taylor)

Marcellus Taylor is currently a junior at Penn State Harrisburg pursuing a degree in sociology. Marcellus is an active and progressive leader on campus. He is currently the student government association’s president and chief ambassador. Also, he is a member of the Black Student Union, Philosophy Club and Cause and Effect (community service club). For a career, Marcellus wants to become a professor of sociology and a founder of a Charter High School for boys. After graduation he plans to attend graduate school for sociology focusing on the sociological issues of family and education. Marcellus lives by the belief that “ education is essential for true achievement”.