MAOIST.WS
Maoist Information Web Site
Maoist movie reviews
Unwanted sexual attention = U$A: "Obsessed" raises questions about
racism and the patriarchal privilege of white female-biology adults
in the United $nakes
Obsessed
Starring Idris Elba, Beyoncé Knowles and Ali Larter
Directed by Steve Shill
Screen Gems and Rainforest Films
PG-13
108 minutes
2009
Reviewed August 2009
[contains spoilers]
A white female, Lisa (Ali Larter), temps at the workplace of a Black
professional male, Derek (Idris Elba), and comes on to him. Derek
rejects Lisa's advances (which include what would be considered a
sexual assault in any context if done by a male to a female), and she
harasses and pursues him so aggressively that it threatens his
marriage and his job and exposes him to a potential sexual harassment
accusation. Derek puts himself in a vulnerable position by
socializing and drinking with people from his workplace, including
females, outside work, and arouses the suspicion of his Black wife,
Sharon (Beyoncé Knowles). Sexual assault of Derek is shown and
implied, but "Obsessed" revolves around perceptions of various forms
of sexual harassment and marital infidelity connected to the
workplace. The movie is set in the United $tates.
In recent history, Black males have intermarried with whites more
than Black females have intermarried with whites, so there is some
basis to have a movie depicting Black intramarriage from the point of
view of relations between a Black male and a white female. Upon
reflection, though, I was not happy to hear the words "kill the
cracker-ass 'ho" shouted by lumpen-influenced people watching this
movie. Anyone who thinks that intermarriage, Black males' dating
whites, or male infidelity, does more than imprisonment to take
potential Black male partners away from Black females is wrong. As
for intermarriage, Black females intermarry in large numbers, too.
Part of why more Black females don't intermarry so that Black female
intermarriage is equal to Black male intermarriage is that
pornography makes white females more desirable. With the shift in
attitudes toward miscegenation, it became necessary to make Black
females less desirable to white males, make white females more
desirable lest they lose prospective white husbands and partners more
valued than Black males, and control Black males by policing and
imprisoning them. (Part of white females' response to the sex ratio
situation with Vietnam War conscription/enlistment and change in
males' attitudes toward miscegenation was as if continued attachment
to heterosexuality could make whores out of white females, but white
females settled into a privileged position in heterosexuality
relative to oppressed nationalities.) This history of the
Euro-Amerikan female has been suppressed and should be uncovered,
even if it makes Black females uncomfortable. The U.$. state is
partly a dictatorship of the white gender aristocracy. At this point
in time without a state for the Black nation, there would be more
Black female intermarriage with whites if Black females weren't
excluded from desirability. Concerns about Black-white dating should
wait until after the Black nation has a state or Black nationalism
seeking statehood is on the upsurge. Too much anxiety about
Black-white dating at this time on the part of either Blacks or
whites contributes to racism against Blacks. To the extent that there
is not a strong Black nationalist movement in the United $tates,
revolutionary Black men who are a minority of Blacks at this time,
and an even smaller minority of the U.$. population, have to deal
with that condition as a fertile situation for racist incidents, not
act like violent state and vigilante racism does not already exist
while obsessing about cross-cultural dating.
The real outrage is not intermarriage or Black male infidelity
involving white females, but the fact that white females can make
false accusations against Black males and get away with it because of
racism regarding Black-white relationships and Black males more
generally. This impacts Black males regardless of lumpen status. The
reason college-graduate Democratic Party writers, trained to glorify
and whitewash white females, hate "Obsessed" and oppressed
nationalities love it may be that "Obsessed" stirs up accurate
suspicions about white females and the state. Though she is partially
redeemed by eventually realizing that Derek is telling the truth, the
detective handling a hotel incident contrived by the white antagonist
character Lisa is herself white. Ideas discouraging cross-cultural
dating within the First World or within the Third World are clearly
wrong, but Black-white relationships are prone to racism. That is the
accurate reason, if there is any, that Black males should avoid
dating white females: a private decision not to date whites because
of racist danger. Oppressed nation males in general should privately
avoid dating -- entirely -- in white-majority imperialist countries,
because racism is a threat regardless of whom oppressed nation males
date. For example, Black males are seen by Black females as more
harassing than white males though the perception is inaccurate
(despite having certain determinants). This becomes important if, for
example, the behavior of white males, whom a Black female may not
interact with, defines what is acceptable and normalized sexual
attention. And, regardless of what Black females think, white males
see Black males as more harassing than white males.
I talk about intermarriage in this review even though "Obsessed"
depicts Black intramarriage among other reasons because "Obsessed" is
part of a continuum of movies dealing with various types of
Black-white intimate relationships. For example, last year's
integrationist movie "Lakeview Terrace" (2008) depicts a male Black
police officer who resents a Black female--white male married couple
who has moved in next door and has sex in a place that the cop's
children can see. "Obsessed" is better, because it focuses attention
on the white female role in the state in relation to Black
cross-cultural relationships.
Racism aside, regarding pornography, when feminists point out that
white females support pornography, that arouses little or no
controversy. The response is often like "so what," not to mention
actively pro-pornography arguments by the gender aristocracy. Yet,
when feminists point out that white females use sexuality for
advancement in different areas of life including career -- not just
dating, as is usually the focus of discussions -- that brings a
resentful let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag moment for many, even when it is
known that males with certain characteristics that have nothing to do
with their competence, or their performance objectively, get promoted
over others, etc. Sometimes, there is a fear that recognizing that
white females make use of sexuality will make ending sexual
harassment of females more difficult (which is wrong, as I will
discuss). In "Obsessed," Derek's company worries about a sexual
harassment suit. Derek is an executive, and Lisa is a temporary
worker in a clerical occupation.
"Obsessed" portrays white males at workplaces (Derek's co-worker
friend and Derek's boss) as womanizers; "locker-room" talk can itself
be sexual harassment. To this, I would respond that white males have
long been critiqued, and that it is time for a feminist critique of
the gender privilege of Euro-Amerikan females, not just white or
Euro-Amerikan males. But, even this typical portrayal of males in
sexual harassment movies points to a problem. If males like working
around beautiful females consciously or unconsciously and not just as
secretaries, can any females take advantage of this consciously and
unconsciously? And if they do, what are the consequences for other
females, for example, and do these consequences necessarily undermine
white females as a group and suppress them into gender-oppressed
conditions? Today, U.$. females do complain about other U.$. females'
getting ahead allegedly with their looks, and the response of some
gender aristocracy leaders is "get over it" and "life's not fair."
Others tell discontented females to try harder to "own it" and "work
it." Gender aristocracy leaders unite gender aristocrats for
workplace heterosexuality and succeed in spite of differences among
gender aristocrats. One writer in the career counseling context tells
females to "dress for success," "[c]ommand the room with your own
figure flattering apparel" and show "great legs."(1) "Dressing well
and an awesome haircut has always given me an advantage, whether I
was the best candidate in the interview or not." "Dress for success"
is the widespread and innocuous-seeming signal that utilization of
sexuality and a kind of sexuality-related exchange are acceptable in
the workplace. In sexually integrated workplaces, the male deployment
of "dress for success" (and "casual dress") is similar in effect to
the female use, beyond sex distinction with the tie and such. Even if
attractiveness is accurately associated with all desired
qualifications and competencies as has been suggested and the
association is not self-fulfilling, the introduction of beauty and
style as factors in workplace and employee interactions poses
problems for ending sexual harassment and other gender-privileged
practices.
Even white U.$. females with skills and education comparable to or
better than males' make use of sexuality. They have "reasons," which
may not be laudable. One is to overcome the good ol' boy network --
sometimes to take the place of males in that network. Use of
sexuality at workplaces initially for dating (as opposed to be
courted in high school or college or at church-connected activity),
but not for employment or career advancement, can end up being use of
sexuality for career competition with other females. Sixty years and
before, it would have been much less correct to say white U.$.
females got jobs through sexuality, contrary to the idea more common
in the past that females who leave the home to work are having
extramarital sex to do so -- and paradoxically contrary to the notion
that sex-for-employment was more common in the past because of
females' lower socio-economic status then. In the 1940s, white
females either weren't working outside the home, or were employed,
but for the most part not in jobs that males would have had if
females didn't have sex to offer employers and bosses. Taken to
extremes, the image found in movies of a boss exploiting the
secretary for sex as a condition of employment distorts history.
Sixty years ago, World War II had just ended four years earlier.
White females were in the workplace because of the war. White males
who had returned from the war took jobs white females had, but there
was not the possibility of keeping those jobs by offering more sex.
Before the war, white females had fewer or no jobs in various
occupations. There did exist hiring discrimination against females,
with employment contingent on sex, even during World War II. A
minority of white females got ahead in that context by using
sexuality. Today, economic differences between white females and
white males in the United $tates are due more to class factors
(affecting males also, though fewer) and cultural discouragement of
females, not sex discrimination at the point of hire etc. That is not
to say that there is a white proletariat in the United $tates, just
that, during sixty years, the context in which white females attempt
to use sexuality became different. There is a new situation. The
gender privilege difference between white females and white males has
decreased. The relationship between white females and the state has
changed. The relationship between sexuality and occupations has
changed. More white females have careers than half a century ago or
even thirty years ago. In various ways, white U.$. females are now
highly privileged on a global scale, more than the majority of males
in the rest of the world. Sexuality has become more an edge, for
white females who may even be more qualified than males, and less a
resort against sex discrimination (one perpetuating sex
discrimination for the majority of white females). Euro-Amerikan
females may spend more money than anyone else in the world on
appearance, but if it is not sex discrimination when a male fails to
get a promotion because he does not "dress for success" as a male,
then the relationship between the white female use of sexuality and
sex discrimination needs to be rethought.
With regard to Black males, white U.$. females have gender privilege
comparable to Black males' gender privilege and frequently more than
Black males'. White females have access to Black males' bodies, while
Black males are subject to courtroom lynchings for alleged offenses
against white females. Some pseudo-feminism says that white females
can do no evil in sex because they are exploring previously
"repressed" sexuality and new femininities. Movies that negatively
portray females' sexual "expression," particularly outside marriage,
continue to be critiqued as they have been critiqued for decades. The
particular depiction in "Obsessed" may just be thriller movie
fiction, but the sexual privilege of white females is a reality.
Furthermore, male victims of female perpetrators of sexual assault
are disbelieved. Perhaps this has been the case for time immemorial,
but now there is a situation where the sexual coercion of white
females has changed and is less (individually and groupwise) and
disbelief of male victims of female sexual assault confers real
privilege to white females with respect to Black males. Disbelief of
male targets of female sexual assault no longer represents just male
paternalism and male sexual fantasies about female innocent and
purity -- though that paternalism and though fantasies play a role in
the context of white males' looking at interaction between Black
males and white or Black females. That white females have two X
chromosomes does not change the fact that the substance of the
relationship between white females, with access to leisure-time sex
with anyone, and lynched and disbelieved Black males is patriarchy --
patriarchy of white females over Black males. Neither does the
repression of Black males in courtrooms and prisons, instead of their
repression by a male relative within a household. Under certain
conditions of Liberalism and racism, white female-biology people can
subjugate Black males patriarchally and become men socially speaking
even just in relation to Black males, not to mention people in
Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The U.$. state is not just a male
state. It is a state of the female gender aristocracy. This state is
not working to end gender oppression of and violence against females
in general. Its relationship to white females is one of individualism
and white citizenship.
Anarchists and a variety of alleged Marxists talk about how Catharine
MacKinnon tried to oppose pornography using the state or the
capitalist state, and Democrats chastise MacKinnon for trying to make
headway using conservatives. If I had to defend MacKinnon's action in
the context of "Obsessed," I would say that Catharine MacKinnon at
least was consistent, pursuing a legal approach against both sexual
harassment and pornography. Though MacKinnon reflects the gender
aristocracy overall and in other ways, the general anti-pornography
view in its own right does not represent the interests of the gender
aristocracy. The U.$. gender aristocracy is pro-pornography. The
gender aristocracy opposes strict dress codes for both females and
males. The gender aristocracy opposes outlawing non-work
relationships between bosses and subordinates. It retains the
workplace as a place for socializing, in a society where no
systematic steps are being taken to clarify class and gender
realities -- the context of socializing, prior to socializing --
because that society is a society of oppressors. The gender
aristocracy also joins its country's males in opposing contracts for
intimate relationships and formalizing dating. It justifies all this
with an ideology of "choice" and even "liberation" and then seeks to
legislate and litigate against males' overstepping the bounds of
sexual culture at work, a culture fueled by pornography -- a culture
encouraged by gender bureaucrats who talk about sexual harassment as
"crossing the line" (a line that in some cases expressly tolerates
"welcome" sexual attention and initial unwanted sexual attention) --
and "prevent" sexual harassment by talking about it in trainings etc.
For lawyers, financially punishing sexual harassment is more
profitable than trying to ban pornography. Accusations of Black males
are given plausibility by the fact that pornography exists depicting
Black males penetrating white females. As a group, Euro-Amerikan
females defend the 'ho system and are an obstacle to gender
liberation. The majority are gender oppressors and not a vehicle for
feminism.
In focusing on Euro-Amerikan females, this reviewer does not mean to
pit Black females against white females in competition for Black
males. That would be supporting the 'ho system. At one point watching
"Obsessed," I thought Sharon might be conspiring with Lisa against
Derek, but outbursts against white females over intimate relationship
matters do nothing to end patriarchy and usually perpetuate
ideological acceptance of it. The 'ho system leads to nowhere. It
ought to be critiqued. (At this juncture, I will point out the
obvious, that there is a 'ho question related to the appearance of
entertainer, producer Beyoncé in a movie. It is possible that
Black females such as self-described "bootylicious" celebrity
Beyoncé try compete with white females pornographically. Such
a strategy can do little to end patriarchy.) It is not that a
struggle between a Black female and a white female hurts both Black
females and white females as "women" as some criticism of the
"catfight" between Ali Larter and Beyoncé implies, but there
needs to be revolution, including revolution against a patriarchal
system supported by and benefiting white females. If I had to be
poetic, I would say that the appearance of Catharine MacKinnon, the
limitations of her work, and how most gender bureaucrats are worse
than MacKinnon, was necessary to illuminate the way forward for
gender liberation.
Most will sum up Lisa as "crazy" or "psycho." It is not clear what
Lisa's goal is. Does she want sex? Does she want a better job? Does
she want some of Derek's executive income? Does she want to replace
Sharon? Does she really think she can get any of that? It is easy to
speculate about the motivations of an individual in a fictional
movie. In reality, sexual harassment exists and involves males,
females, straight people and gay people all as perpetrators and
victims, and false sexual harassment allegations, which would not
exist without actual sexual harassment in society, also exist.
Neither should exist. Individualism combined with political
correctness making potentially discomforting discussion of white
females impossible is not going to end sexual harassment. It is not
that females invite sexual harassment with their clothing, for
example, or any sexual attention ("dress for success" is not "dress
for sexual attention" as "sexual attention" has been understood), and
not all "sexy" clothing is intended to be such. Rather, sexual
harassment exists and is oppressive and all of it can be ended by
eliminating its structural causes, including the eroticization of
power that presently marks all sex. There is a way to stop sexual
harassment in its entirety, and the gender aristocracy gets in the
way. The boyfriend-friendly pabulum that sexual harassment is "about
power" and "not sex" serves to perpetuate pornography and other
things that are a foundation for sexual harassment. Even if targets
of sexual harassment do not have particularly "sexy" clothing,
females' and males' use of style at the workplace contributes to an
environment in which some females are devalued and targeted. Contrary
to "Obsessed," which portrays the workplace female as "tempting," it
is actually not the most desired, "sexy" or forward females who are
targeted. The "about power, not sex" line may appear to understand
this, but does not, because it does not recognize or pretends not to
recognize that sexual harassment takes place amid a hierarchy of
style and desirability that white females are involved in
constructing and sustaining and which subjects some females to sexual
harassment and even some gay males to sexual harassment by straight
males. (Derek's gay assistant whom Lisa uses is vulnerable to sexual
harassment by various people, including straight white females.)
Gender bureaucrats would rather refine the 'ho system, build a 'ho
system management bureaucracy, and defend style and pornographic
hierarchies, than undertake to support large-scale measures to end
sexual harassment structurally. The predictable
pseudo-feminist/pseudo-Marxist response to "Obsessed" that there
should be a balance between, or harmonious reconciliation of,
avoiding racism in sexual harassment cases and pursuing gender
justice, within the existing basic legal and social framework,
totally misses the point. Nor is the issue "women's justice" versus
"men's rights" -- a contradiction between two groups of oppressors.
Even more obnoxious is the racist idea that "cultural relativism"
should not get in the way of prosecuting Blacks for sexual
harassment. The majority of gender oppressors are male; the vast
majority of First World males are gender oppressors; these males and
their chauvinist and racist Western chromosomal-female allies will be
toppled by revolution, not by reformist and sub-reformist
pseudo-solutions that are fundamentally individualist.
Pornography impacts the Third World, for example, in interaction
between Euro-Amerikan females and migrants not shown in "Obsessed"
because of closed borders. Even the introduction of Shahrukh Khan in
Afghanistan subordinates Third World females and males, though
privileging a traitorous Third World minority; so would the
importation of Beyoncé. The point in talking about lack of
real progress on ending sexual harassment apart from racism is not
that U.$. females are gender-oppressed. On the contrary, both First
World males and First World females are at the top of a global
patriarchy. Forms of patriarchy exist inside the First World even
though First World females support and benefit from them as gender
oppressors. This is an extremely crucial point that even the most
astute people fail to understand. (Not grasping this point, and
saying either that the First World female majority is
gender-oppressed or that patriarchy does not exist as a system in the
First World, while apparently agreeing with MIWS on the labor
aristocracy is potentially inconsistent and even leads to the notion
that the First World has solved its class problems and to spreading
the lie that the United $tates is just a "free country" with high
living standards commensurate with its productive efforts.)
Patriarchy exists in the First World, though in an altered and
complex form due to both a majority of First World males' and a
majority of First World females' being gender oppressors. Likewise,
capitalism exists inside of First World borders even though the vast
majority of First Worlders are oppressors within a global capitalist
system, imperialism. Unemployment inside of First Worlders borders
has not been solved, and similarly sexual harassment inside of First
World borders has not been solved. U.$. females do not support sexual
harassment particularly or in every individual instance (especially
when it is perpetrated against them), and U.$. workers similarly do
not support unemployment, but U.$. females and female and male U.$.
workers each support a system. Just as First Worlders as a class
(different bourgeois classes in different First World nations) have
no basis to talk about liberating Third World people from capitalism,
First Worlders should shut the f**k up when talking about liberating
Third World females from patriarchy. Furthermore, as the First World
exports a type of class oppression and reaps the harvest, the First
World exports gender oppression and reaps the harvest. Racism is an
ideology underlying unequal exchange, and pornography is an
institution underlying international gender oppression. Things that
exist and happen inside the First World are a reflection of
oppression in the world as a whole, oppression fervently upheld by
First Worlders, who spread pseudo-solutions for its symptoms.
All the Catharine MacKinnons in the world could not get the gender
aristocracy to support banning pornography. Revolution with Third
World forces can end pornography, partly by striking blows against
capitalism. The Third World is a vehicle for feminism. Euro-Amerikan
females and their male allies attack the Third World and will be
crushed. The patriarchy will be destroyed by armed struggle and the
dictatorship of the proletariat. It is being undercut by the economic
struggle of the Third World bourgeoisie at the time of this writing
-- the real way in which both imperialism and patriarchy are being
weakened.
Notes
1. "Beautiful Hire: Are Good Looks a Hiring Advantage?"
http://www.careervanity.com/beautiful_hire_good_looking_people_hiring_
hire_money_advantage.htm