IMPORTANT MESSAGE: CONSTRUCTION AT LA SENTINEL OFFICE: Due to unforeseen construction work, our office is temporarily closed. We are operating business off site and still accepting ads and classified ads. View Company Directory.
Last week, I mused about the actual destruction being done by feminism in today's arena.
The question must be asked: "How could a woman's movement work within any race when it must move ahead without its male counterparts?"
In order for Black women to embrace Radical Feminism, they had to first embrace the notion that the men in their own race were their enemies.
This is a clear sign of the disorientation that Journalist, Activist, Author Midge Decter asserts that the Radical Feminist is plagued by under complete freedom of choice, which is essentially freedom from cooperating with a male partner.
Just as men need the balance of making choices with a female partner, women need the balance of cooperating with a male counterpart. However, Radical Feminism "freed" them from all of that, as we hear far too many women today exclaim: "I don't need a man!"
The embrace of the Black man as the Black woman's enemy explains why the first response to a discussion on the faults of women is that the person presenting those faults must hate women.
I get such responses to my writing.
Its clear that I don't hate Black women, but it makes the disoriented feminist believe that there is something to rage against and gives her the permission (in her own mind) to avoid discussing anything based on research, statistics and/or reality, as opposed to insulting me.
Decter makes a profound point. A woman who formerly had a constricted range of choices "must now decide everything essential to her." Whether to be serious about a career, whether to marry, whether to divorce, whether to bear children--everything is in her hands "to a degree possibly unprecedented in the history of mankind, a degree experienced by her as bordering on the intolerable." The responsibility is too much, the choices too many.
Does this statement imply that women are too weak to make such decisions? No. But it does imply that men and women should be interdependent, which is counter to the label of "Independent Woman" that is proudly worn by many of today's women.
An "Independent Woman" is free from depending on men for anything, because she is doing it all on her own. She doesn't need a man for anything, and according to many of these "evolved" creatures, a man would only hold them down.
Then why is it that those same women talk about how horrible men are for not giving them what they want?
The simple truth is that Radical Feminism should have stopped raging against a machine that began to work for them. But since it didn't stop raging, it began raging out of control.
Really, what is there to rage against since women are ahead of men in many arenas?
Decter's point becomes clear when those of us who refuse to indict Black men as the Black woman's oppressor/enemy recognize that feminism's politics lead women to hold the burden for making all of the decisions in their lives. And they must make these decisions alone.
Previously, when women were still "oppressed," they were "forced" to make choices of career, children and marriage based on what men thought, specifically the men in their lives.
Currently they have the "freedom" to make whatever choices uninhibited by man's oppression, yet any dissatisfaction is still the fault of man.
These choices lead many women to be single mothers and to grow old without marriage partners. And, for many disoriented women, these conditions are the fault of men.
However, after pissing in the water for so long, the disoriented feminists have discovered that they too, must drink that water. And some of them are making some hard-fought and long-coming admissions.
Some women are admitting that it's hard to make decisions for everything alone, even as some women are still making choices that will lead them to living alone, including choice of men and choice of politics.
Women have been raising boys alone, yet they have been unable to raise them to be what they need, because according to the same radical feminists, men are getting weaker while women are getting stronger.
Let me pose a question to Radical Feminatzis that I already know won't be answered: Aside from the fact that you think I hate women and that you think I am blaming the victim, what other reasons can you point to for the diminishing of men over time?
Let's spell out some of the contradictions in the Radical Feminatzi's messages: Men are now weaker and women are stronger, YET men are still oppressing these strong creatures.
Men are intimidated by strong women, YET strong women have raised them alone.
Women are so evolved that they are no longer victims, YET if we discuss any of their failings, we are "blaming the victim."
Women are excelling beyond belief, YET men are still holding them back.
I've heard some psychotic Feminatzis claim that women had worked out all of their issues and that the only problems left belong to men. That is insane and contradictory to human nature as we know it.
So, am I suggesting that women need to be lead by men?
Not at all.
But what I am suggesting is that if women aren't going to lead the entire race as Bill Cosby suggests, then they had better begin to find ways to work with men or we are all doomed.
Next Week: Feminism's Irrelevance
Darryl James is an award-winning author of the powerful new anthology "Notes From The Edge." James' stage play, "Love In A Day," opens in Los Angeles this Spring. View previous installments of this column at www.bridgecolumn.proboards36.com. Reach James at