UGa Chi Phis declared 'open season' on black women?
 

(Nasty column in the local newspaper)

Black women demand respect

By MELODY McCLOUD
Published on: 09/12/06
Why are black women so increasingly ignored, abhorred, disrespected and rejected in this country?
Who declared "open season" on us, and why?
Increasingly over the past decade, the media have projected images of black women as battered about, cast down, kicked aside, ignored, denigrated and disrespected at the will of all who take delight and sport in doing so. It is tantamount to a public flogging in the modern-day town square — the media, the Internet, TV, movies and music videos.
The latest venue? The University of Georgia in Athens, where Chi Phi fraternity pledges flashed naked images of black women to passers-by. Why? Because they could. It's acceptable sport in the 21st century. They're just black women; who cares? One student told a reporter he thought it was funny. It's not.
The late comedian, Rodney Dangerfield, enjoyed a lifetime of fame and fortune and received many a laugh saying, "I don't get no respect." Many of today's black women may feel Dangerfield's battle cry is one they, too, can claim. But hardly any are laughing.
More and more, black male models and actors are readily cast opposite white and Hispanic women, to the blatant, total exclusion of black women. Magazine ads frequently engage colorism — favoring light-skinned blacks over brown-skinned ones. Lighter black women often get the sexy ads and poses; they're positioned to look soft and desirable while brown-skinned women are posed stern, frowning and even masculine with bald heads.
It also seems that the media are ever eager to show black women as "crazy " — think U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), model Naomi Campbell, Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth of the TV show "The Apprentice" and others — but won't allow others to be heard or seen. It seems, "well, there's Oprah," so that's all the room they'll allow for "good" black women.
Sadly, too, those blacks in position to present black women in a better light, including Oprah, often fail to do so. Tyler Perry and Martin Lawrence, more so, get rich on the image of the fat, gun-toting, loud black granny.
Shonda Rhimes, the black female creator/producer of "Grey's Anatomy," has the black male character sleeping with Asian Sandra Oh (who brushes her teeth in the kitchen sink), while Chandra Wilson, the lone black actress on the show, is "the Nazi."
And MTV — whose president, Christina Norman, is a black woman — recently aired a cartoon to young Saturday morning viewers entitled "Where My Dogs At," which had black women squatting on all fours, tethered to leashes. In 2004, U.S. Army reservist Sgt. Lynndie England subjected Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib to the same denigration and was convicted and sentenced to prison. Where is the justice for black women?
Someone must speak out against this societal poison. White women aren't going to say anything because they readily benefit from negative images of black women. Many white men — media executives, and obviously some UGA frat brothers — are having too much fun and cash flow at the expense of black women's dignity and social value; and sadly, many black men are inexplicably silent, standing on the sidelines.
This year, I wrote Marc Cherry, creator of the hit show "Desperate Housewives." Normally, to see a black woman get a recurring role in the No. 1 prime-time network program would be a major coup, a step in the right direction for American media and black imagery. But alas, once again, the lone black woman — on a show that mostly deals with sexy, alluring women with kinky trysts and family matters — is portrayed as a psychopath who chains her son in the basement.
I suggest congressional hearings to effect a tangible change in the depiction of women in music videos. Black women who participate in such videos must stop; there are better, more respectful ways to gain acceptance. Black men need to step forward: Say and do something. Honor your women. Speak to young boys.
Black film and music producers need to be socially conscious and think what effect the images they set forth have on the community and the world. White media and ad executives must advance past colorism; they also need to cast black actresses and models of all hues in loving, desirable roles.
White parents need to stop teaching racist attitudes to their offspring. And UGA students need to find something else to do in the town square. Denigrating and disrespecting black women is not a sport. It's sad that members of the Chi Phi fraternity think it is.

Dr. Melody McCloud is a physician and writer living in Roswell.

I love it. Good Lord.

Black parents need to stop teaching racist attitudes to their children.

OMG the article is over the top.

Diann Carrol was the first Black Female star to be kissed by White Male Star.

I also beleive Captain Kirk , Kevin Costner were a couble of others. James Shatner may actually a first on a TV series.

If a women looks and acts pretty, they will likely be more apt to be looked upon with favor.

Not everyone is A raving beauty are they?

But isnt it in the eye of the beholder!

Agreed.

Uh oh...can "socially unconscious GreekChat" handle another thread on race (and its intersection with gender)?


:eek:

Captain Kirk and Kevin Costner kissed? That's hot.

Sorry Tom, I couldn't resist.

I had a crush on Kirk.

:D
Your welcome!:)

This Translation brought to you by the letter Y
 

Translation: This is off the hook!

A complete sentence. *faints*
Captain Kirk kissed Kevin Costner. Difficult because James T. Kirk is fictional and Kevin Costner is, as far as I can tell, real. James Shatner does not exist either.

Kirk and Uhura's kiss was the first interracial kiss on a TV series. (AFAIK)


Only pretty women are liked. (When I find a women, I'll let you know

You all aren't so hot either, are ya?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

/Translations not guaranteed for any reason.

"Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!" ;)

This is just the kind of article I was afraid would come as a result of this incident.

In many respects I agree with what ElephantWalk said above- the mistrust and racism runs both ways and is counterproductive for all.

One can argue an imbalance in the ability of some races to oppress other races, but when it comes to racist feelings that generate mistrust and conflict, everyone is guilty. It is a human thing- born in fear and isolation.

This is one of those "life ain't fair" situations folks. Those 7 guys, Chi Phi at UGA, the Greek system at UGA, and the Greek system nationwide just took a hit over an incident that was likely not nearly as maliciously crafted as it has been portrayed in the media.

I expect most people who have read the article have the same positive or negative feeling about Greeks that they did beforehand- but surely some folks have gone over to the negative, or at least had negative feeling re-enforced.

The author of this article has pointed out some specific examples of media portrayals of black women as caricatures of a dominated figure- but she has failed to point out that the media hype over this incident (including her article) is part of the problem.

Race is a sensitive issue and this is one more case where an inappropriate incident is being elevated to an extreme level in order to further a much larger agenda. Notice that the author of the article mentions getting Congress involved in the solution to the portrayal of black women in music videos. It is not just about Chi Phi.

When incidents like this are used to frame the national debate, it just further separates both sides.

To put it another way- I have been out of college for a few years now. I have lived and worked in the real world. Black women as a group in the US, especially the significant percentage who are single working mothers, ARE in a very bad position that is not entirely of their own making. This is a very real and urgent problem that needs to be addressed.

But using the bad decision of some kids to make that point does nothing to further the cause. It just creates resentment.

In the end, however, this all started when those 7 guys made a decision to do something very inappropriate that they should have known would draw this kind of attention. And yes, they MADE that decision. You can only use the "I was forced to" (i.e. the hazing) argument so far. At some point you have to make your own decisions about how your actions will reflect on you and those you associate with- regardless of whether others are trying to influence those decisions.

I do not think, based on the facts known to date, that Chi Phi has been fairly treated in this article. And this will not be the last mention of it I fear.

But this is the reality that could have been forseen.

The Risk Management issue here is that any fraternity needs to gather its pledges together the DAY they are formally tapped in and let them know the ground rules. Not just the rules of how to conduct one's self, but the rules about who is allowed to give orders and who to approach among the officers if something like this incident is ever ordered.

We may never know if these guys did this on their own, or were prompted. But the risk management approach I mention above should deal with that assuming the chapter does not consider this action acceptable.

On a somewhat related note, today at work, a lady on the phone told me that she wanted to talk with a "black person" because I didn't seem to be too concerned about her problem....this after she kept insisting that she moved to WA State because a certain GA county's law enforcement agency and district attorney were out to get her. She kept saying that she was off her meds (yea, I can see that, lol.). I was trying to help her but she wouldn't give her name so I could look up her case!

I told her how did she know that I wasn't black. She said that "I sounded white".:rolleyes: so I transferred the call to my co-worker. The caller then told her that she wanted to talk to someone older. P said what was "young"? The caller said "25". P is just a few years shy of 60, lol.

It doesn't matter to me if you are purple with pink stripes and orange polka dots. If you don't give me your name, I can't help you. (Don't blame me if you got arrested!).

My best friend is a Chi Phi and we are both black, this is a real shame. But one person does not speak for all, etc. etc. etc. Hopefully, they will A) get kicked off campus and B) personally learn from this experience.

How do you know the Chi Phis had anything to do with this?

Why do you think an organization would be kicked off campus when they had two pledges do something offensive (not illegal) which cannot be directly tied to the organization?

It seems you're jumping the gun on a few points in making these assumptions.

I hate it when people use "racism" as a reason to kick people off campus. Just leave them be, and let them have a reputation as being racist. I remember when Auburn tried to kick off Beta a couple years back, only to have Beta file suit and Auburn blinked. I don't like a society that unnaturally punishes the way people think, generally, the direct result of their actions will be punishment enough. I'm not saying that the porn thing isn't worthy of punishment, but it shouldnt have anything to do with race. We need to stop trying to protect everyone's feelings.

It should matter to you if someone is purple. It means they are choking. Stop asking for their name and do the Heimlich.

Just kidding, just trying to lighten up the mood a little bit.

I think that society overall is racist, but that kneejerk reactions like banning chi phi's chapter isn't going to help anything. Really, though, the only thing Chi Phi is clearly at wrong for is giving bids to whoever thought this would be a good idea. It really is a shame, all the way around. A few dipwads ruin everybody's fun time and almost start a race war.

I also don't think that giving out porn is worthy of punishment. Their punishment will be being known as the fraterinty that gave out porn.

It's not only racially offensive, but sexually offensive. My opinion is only my opinion. Most likely that will not happen because it won't be taken as a very "serious" offense as that is the usual response when "boys will be boys" regardless of how stupid or offensive the act is. I'm taking a lot of Women's Studies courses this semester and the things I am learning about sexism and racism are really opening my eyes to the world and the way it involves myself. It was solely my opinion. That's all.

I hope you mean that it's sexually offensive to those who were forced to look at the pics, because it really can't be offensive to the paid models who voulentarily posed for the magazine, and were fairly compensated.

Have fun being poor and hairy.

Well, what you are proposing goes way beyond "boys will be boys" or whatever. It has nothing to do with that at all. You're talking about a government entity (the school) punishing a private organization for actions of its prospective new members, which are offensive, but caused no actual harm.

Let's say I find abortion to be absolutely offensive (I don't really). The University's chapter of N.O.W. or whatever feminist group has a rally supporting abortion rights. They go so far as to encourage abortion as a form of birth control, even going so far as to say that an abortion occuring well within the third trimester ought to be available on demand. Being offended, would you say that I ought to be able to expect the university to revoke their recognition of participating groups because they offended me? Why not?

Do you find the naked female body to be all that offensive? Why is that?

Stay away from art museums :)

Comparing the offensiveness of Abortion to that of racism? Heh? No point was really made in that scenario. Controversy surrounds the issue of abortion, but IGNORANCE surrounds racism and sexism. There's right and wrong. What they did was wrong. It WAS offensive if black women do find it offensive. That's reality. Y'ALL do not find it offensive because you are not in their shoes. Many of y'all are quick to down play the situation when something like this happens....

Anyways, I'm not surprised by this. It is UGA after all.

but would closing their chapter really remove any ignorance? I think it would only cause more tension and set up an "us vs. them" mentality or continune or worsen it.

No, it would not remove individual ignorance, but it would remove an organization from the campus that represents ignorance. I can't really think of any accredited 4-year institution that wants to associated with that. Can you?

Accredited 4-year insitutions have been associated with MUCH worse and managed to not complain about it.

True they have been. But now, it's 2006. The question is, do they CURRENTLY want to be associated with ignorance?

Some institutions CURRENTLY don't care until they are forced to care.

My point exactly. When an organization does something truly STUPID and IGNORANT, and the administration takes notice of this, they have to do something about it. There are MANY examples of this in the media. I doubt if any institution wants their reputation tarnished. So what point are you trying to make?

Yes, the similarity is that some people find all these things to be offensive. Are you going to try and tell me that your being offended is worht more than someone else being offended? That's pretty darned arrogant.

People opposed to abortion (again, I'm not one of them, but I think this is a great example) believe that abortion is the same as killing babies. What you are saying is that it's okay to offend someone who thinks you're promoting baby killing, but an action which states nothing racist, but makes you feel they had racial intentions is not okay? Those are some interesting lines you've drawn there.

So you'd like the government to protect you from things which offend people? Or just things which offend only you?

You're asking for the government to close an organization which can't even directly be connected to the event. Their only connection was that these (two?) kids were members and they were doing something which caused contraversy. So far, you nor anyone has been able to show the fact that Chi Phi is directly responsible for this.

You'd have the University penalize the entire organization without a shred of proof other than circumstance and speculation just because some probationary members did something maybe on their own accord which angered you. Am I not accurate?

Actually, it was a very apt analogy and a very valid question to you. If organizations should be booted from campus for being offensive, then what difference does it make whether the offense comes from ignorance or not?

Why do you assume that "Y'ALL do not find it offensive." Will you concede that one might very well find it offensive and warranting of a response but also believe that booting an entire organization from campus is not the appropriate response.

Again with the assumptions. The op-ed piece quoted in the original post says: "Chi Phi fraternity pledges flashed naked images of black women to passers-by." You may infer from that "the organization" in some way is responsible for this incident, but the article doesn't state that. Meanwhile, the Athens paper says:

Campus police said seven students and a visitor photographed people's reactions as they showed them photos from a pornographic magazine.

Chi Phi President Matthew Hughes said the chapter is "embarrassed" about the incident, which was not sanctioned by the fraternity. He would not say why the students displayed the pictures.

The fraternity is cooperating with the university on the investigation, he said. "We are trying our best to go down the right path," Hughes said.

(Full article: Ga. Frat Suspended for Showing Nude Pics; emphasis added. The suspension appears to bar the chapter from sponsoring any events while the investigation is ongoing.)

Please remember, we do not know if Chi Phi sanctioned their pledges to do this. It has been established that some Chi Phi pledges did it, but the membership has denied that this was a 'pledge project'. If the pledges did it on their own, they should be kicked out of Chi Phi. But, the fraternity chapter as a whole should not be punished because of something stupid that some guys - [U]who are not even members yet[U] did.

If it is proven that the chapters members got together and said: "Hey, how about this for a project to build cohension. We have the pledges take pictures of people's reactions to a porn magazine being shoved in their faces! And, better yet, let's make it a porn mag featuring black women!" "Yeah, man, that sounds like a great idea! That will totally build brotherhood and cohesion for the chapter!" If this scenerio is proven, I whole heartedly support sanctions against the whole chapter. But, not until it's been proven.

Why does it happening at UGA have anything to do with it?

The organization was never found to have had anything to do with it. It was a few dumbass pledges....just because the paper mentioned that they were Chi Phi pledges doesn't make the chapter responsible.

There are alot of 4 year accredited institutions that have had much worse than this happen.

And I found it interesting that you would say you "weren't surprised by this since, afterall, it is UGA." What is that supposed to mean?

I'm trying to understand what the women being black had to do with anything.

It offended certain people that white males were passing out pictures of a nude black female model. Those folks feel that their being offended is evidence that some kind of crime has been committed. They are seeking the punishment of those who offended them.

Doesnt some one get offended about something or offended by anything!

When it comes to white on black, it gets press, when it comes on black on white then it is a cover up?

LOL, I got it. I don't know, I just get annoyed by this stuff sometimes. Everything is about race. It's ridiculous. I'm more offended by the porn factor than the black factor.

LOL hell no