Let’s jump right on in, shall we?
Yes, I know…we sistahs are nothing if we aren’t a dangerous, hypersexual, unhealthy, emotional, and enraged mass of unmarried drama.
But worry not!
The Economist article has a solution to that unmarried part. And, since everyone knows that nothing settles a woman down like the guidance and leadership of a man through the sanctified institution of man-on-woman marriage, marrying black women off will likely address all of our other “problems” too!
Fuck the audacity of hope…let’s shoot for the audacity of being saved by a man!
Before you let those feathers get ruffled, please note that the editors at the Economist made a point of stating that they didn’t come up with the latest and greatest solution to the problem of free-range black women – wait for it…a “black male professor” wrote a something or other about it and HE is the one who “kicked up a storm”, so just chill that ass out and don’t blame the Economist for making sure that storm doesn’t die down.
Professor Ralph Richard Banks has a book out titled “Is Marriage for White People? How the African-American Marriage Decline Affects Everyone”.
In the book, Banks makes a point that others have made that black women are less likely to be married. Black women are less likely to marry someone who isn’t black and apparently our unmarried free-range status has a negative impact on society, so everyone and their lap dawg should encourage unmarried black women to seek out men regardless of race and get our stubborn difficult and in need of marriage asses married.
Pause...consider the issue several times…continue.
Allow me to retort.
The term “unmarried” assumes that the natural state of adult human beings is “married”.
The economic argument is that the lives of women are more stable and secure when married…my argument is that the only fix to economic instability for black women is equality - in education, hiring practices, and wages.
The theory that “unmarried” black women are a drag on society assumes that marriage is a solution, but I’m here to tell ya that marriage is it’s own worst marketer.
With a 50% failure rate…and assuming that Banks is right in asking whether marriage is for white people…why the hell isn’t anyone asking why white people can’t get the marriage thing right?
Divorce costs money…it takes a toll on families and has a huge negative impact on the lives of women…and yet Banks and those who enjoy chewing on the bone du jour of black women’s integrity aren’t turned on by exploring the impact that has on whether women consider marriage or on society at large.
I get it, though.
If a body starts an intellectual exploration with the assumption that marriage is the natural state of things and assumes that women who are not married should be married then that body’s intellectual exploration is narrowed to a conclusion that seeks to solve the problem of unmarriedness.
But Banks apparently has a heart. He doesn’t want sistahs seeking to solve our unmarriedness to marry down or have to share a man. His solution is for our own good…so we can have our own man to lead us out of the darkness of trying to live life on our own.
And never you mind that this shit would deny black women romance...that it reduces the union of marriage to a transaction…that is leverages black women’s agency to a hunt for a provider…that in assuming marriage is a solution it absolves society of the multitude of inequalities facing women…or that this exploration on top of the relentless study of black women as mothers, as reproductive vessels, as troubled and at risk and a drag on society and unhealthy and violent and irrational and difficult thus in need of taming…
…that this shit situates black women as the subject, our lives naked and on display, studied like the Hottentot Venus, and presented with the false choice of leveraging our womb and sexuality for the promise stability and safety.
Well, shit…if that doesn’t get sistahs off our lazy asses and out there in the dating scene looking for a cure…um, err…a man, I don’t know what will.