In this chapter we hit all the fun topics: feminism, intersectionality, racism, balancing a checkbook, appliance warranties, paint drying… okay, I threw the last three in there to make the list more exciting, but you get my point. Critical race theory is just a small part of critical theory as a whole. I like to think of it as a flaming dumpster fire on its way to the landfill. Gender racism is just the love child of critical race theory and critical gender theory. This unfortunate match is something that even the people who created Tinder would be ashamed of, but it’s something Kendi has a passion for, so let’s get into it. Kendi starts out the chapter by defining Gender Racism and Gender Antiracism.

“GENDER RACISM: A powerful collection of racist policies that lead to inequity between race-genders and are substantiated by racist ideas about race-genders.
GENDER ANTIRACISM: A powerful collection of antiracist policies that lead to equity between race-genders and are substantiated by antiracist ideas about race-genders.”

I’m not very surprised by the definitions above because the unwarranted injection of race into an issue is something I have come to expect of Kendi. This is how critical race theory fits into the general scope of critical theory itself. We must relate all perceived inequities to each other in order to bolster each individual case. The reason gender is so powerful is because it is an example of inequity caused biological differences between the sexes, something we can’t prove in any significant way for differences between races. Men and women are different. You don’t need to be a rocket surgeon to understand this difference. Men and women are not different in terms of cognitive ability or personality characteristics like aggression but more different in terms of interests and life focus. This leads men and women to take different paths (on average) which result in certain unequal outcomes. There are exceptions to the rule and human behavior is always changing, but that doesn’t mean we must wholesale reject these differences and pretend they aren’t there. Kendi adds race into the gender equation in order to validate claims of inequity caused by racism, or…. you know… the thing: racist policy.

Kendi continues the beginning of the chapter by talking about black feminism. Kendi also gives his own mea culpa by stating, “I arrived at Temple [University] as a racist, sexist homophobe.” I’ve always imagined the secret password for every man to get into a ‘feminist club’ is “racist, sexist homophobe” because it’s a favorite phrase of the modern-day feminist, people known for a great sense of humor, but I digress. Kendi goes on to talk about the black patriarchy and how the “Black Power movement emerged” because of “the struggle against White men for Black power over Black women,” but I will spare you the headache by moving past this critical theory nonsense. The relevant part of this chapter is Kendi making the argument that the absence of black fathers isn’t a key aspect that causes inequity, and he does it in some pretty dishonest ways, even for his standards.

“The panic around the reported numbers of single-parent households was based on a host of faulty or untested premises: that two bad parents would be better than one good one, that the presence of an abusive Black father is better for the child than his absence, that having a second income for a child trumps all other factors, that all of the single parents were Black women, that none of these absent fathers were in prison or the grave, that Black mothers never hid the presence of Black fathers in their household to keep their welfare for the child.”

A lot to unpack and correct here. First, when a comparison between a two-parent and single-parent household is made, we don’t assume the two-parent household has two bad parents and the single-parent is a perfect parent. That is an extremely dishonest way to represent that premise, but Kendi recognizes it is the only way to disarm it. 0 for 1.

Second, an assumption of an abusive father, as if there was no such thing as a non-abusive father, is very similar to the first point. Set aside the fact if a white person made this argument, they would be called a racist immediately for assuming black fathers are abusive, the premise isn’t we must force abusive fathers to stay in the home. So, unless Kendi is willing to say most fathers are abusive or black fathers are disproportionately abusive, he is 0 for 2.

Third, a two-income family typically places a child into an environment with more resources and, according to Kendi’s own logic from previous chapters, a child with more resources will almost always lead a better life. I don’t personally think that is the case, and Kendi also seems like he believes this isn’t the case here either, but Kendi has repeatedly made poverty and violence a single-variable equation that can only be corrected by adding more resources. Kendi conveniently sidesteps his own logic to make a point here making him 0 for 3.

Fourth, statistically a majority of single-parent households include only the mother. This has biological and social causes that lead to mothers being the responsible single-parent, and Kendi calls out “Black mothers” explicitly in his final point. 0 for 4.

Fifth, many absent fathers might be in prison or dead. The death of a father that results in a single mother is extremely unfortunate, but what percentage of single parents are single because of death? Also, the disproportionate murder rate for black men may contribute to a higher number of kids without fathers. Black men are also disproportionately imprisoned. Take those two factors and mark them up to racism and Kendi may have a valid point, but racism as an underlying cause for crime is a contested idea at best. So, Kendi’s argument would have to be that racism causes black men to die or go to prison leaving black children, especially black boys, to grow up and continue the cycle. Sure, that argument makes sense. We must make sure we eliminate racist policies. The problem is we can’t really identify racist policies, using the actual definition of racism and not just a measurement of outcome, so it would be hard to eliminate laws without a severe negative trade-off. The other thing about policy that isn’t explicitly racist or violates any other rights is we know what is legal and illegal. We may not always like what is deemed illegal so we should fight and vote to legalize it, but just because you don’t like a law doesn’t mean you have the right to violate the law and there be no consequences. My point here is if you know what you are doing is illegal, it is ultimately a matter of personal agency that keeps you out of jail. The best way to stay out of jail is to not commit a crime. When you find yourself stuck in a cycle of crime, it is ultimately up to you to stop the cycle. You can’t just blame other people for your actions. Bring this back around to single-parenthood and… I honestly have no idea what point Kendi was trying to make with this one. Single parenthood is not bad because fathers might be dead or in prison? This somehow makes the single parenthood rate less troubling? Kendi is going to get a big ‘L’ on this one. 0 for 5.

And sixth, “Black mothers hid the presence of Black fathers in their household to keep their welfare for the child” is the worst justification for single parenthood I’ve ever heard. The ironic part about this is in the following paragraph Kendi brings up how political scientist Charles Murray blamed “the welfare system” for black single-parent households as if he were racist for saying it. I guess as long as you label yourself an antiracist, you can get away with dishonest arguments like this. That’s 0 for 6 and a batting average that wouldn’t even land you on the Baltimore Orioles roster.

The next topic is the only topic that is less interesting than modern-day feminism, intersectionality. Kendi describes some of the origins of intersectionality using the logic of critical race theorist Kimberle Williams Crenshaw explaining how intersecting identities can result in more or less oppression.

“White women’s resistance to Black feminism and intersectional theory has been self-destructive, preventing resisters from understanding their own oppression.”
“Male resistance to Black feminism and intersectional theory has been similarly self-destructive, preventing resisters from understanding our specific oppression.”

How depressing must it be to believe in this garbage? Always seeing everything through the lens of oppression must take a heavy toll on your mental health. And this gets to the center of critical theory in general and why it produces no positive value by design. Critical theory makes no attempt to make things better, but only to make more efficient tools to call out more oppression. The first quote above is like a sales pitch to purchase some oppression capital. The second quote is taking a dump in the middle of the floor and calling it art, and if I don’t see it as art, it’s only because I don’t understand this specific kind of art. Both are con jobs. Gender racism is the same thing.

“This is the gender racism that caused millions of men and women to hate the strong White woman running for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton.”

Yes Kendi, you nailed it. No one like Hillary because of gender racism. It definitely wasn’t because she threatened women who claimed to be sexually assaulted by her husband, had a proven track record of corruption, and was the face of a political class everyone hates. It was that darn gender racism at it again.

“Gender racism is behind the thinking that when one defends White male abusers like Trump and Brett Kavanaugh one is defending White people; when one defends Black male abusers like Bill Cosby and R. Kelly one is defending Black people.”

This one is frustrating to me. Literally no one believes in this racist idea except for all the people calling everyone else racist. No one cares that Trump or Kavanaugh are white, just like no one cares that Cosby and Kelly are black. This is also the second time Kendi brings up a Supreme Court Justice who was very blatantly falsely accused of sexual harassment/assault for clearly political reasons. Kendi brought up the Anita Hill case against Justice Clearance Thomas earlier in the chapter because Kendi needs to bring Justice Thomas up as much as he can as an example of a black man not falling in line with the oppression narrative. Kendi now uses Justice Kavanaugh’s name even though it was very obvious his accusers ranged from bad political actors to insane people. Kendi ends the chapter by jumping back into intersectionality.

“Intersectional theory now gives all of humanity the ability to understand the intersectional oppression of their identities.”

Yes, the gift the whole world wants: a new way to divide ourselves. White privilege stock is plummeting while oppression privilege stock is skyrocketing. Instead of finding ways to better our lives, we are more interested in findings ways to make everyone else’s life worse. It’s easier to fall down a hill than it is to climb it.

Thanks for reading my rant style review of the fourteenth chapter of How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi. Please let me know if you find this useful. My goal here is to explain each chapter enough and in a somewhat objective way so others don’t waste their time and money on investigating this material themselves. I know this kind of goes against the logic of investigation where you want to read the source material yourself and build your own conclusions, but this is a very shallow read that does not strain the mind, in any positive way at least, like any proper academic book should. Please leave a comment with your thoughts.

Thanks for being a part of the Engineering Politics Locals Community!