Consider one EJ Graff: self-absorbed lesbian extraordinaire.
![[Image: 11gn0g7.jpg]](http://i46.tinypic.com/11gn0g7.jpg)
Graff recently penned a piece at Slate (in the XX blog, remember that) about her adopted black son and her and her homosexual partner's dismay over having to explain Critical Race Theory to her black son.
Lesbian, feminist, XX blog at Slate, Critical Race Theory...
The fact this story purporting be about race and how it relates to raising of black children pops up in a blog expressly directed at women tells you this piece is for women and is about women. The black boy is nothing but an object for Graff: a boy to signal to others she isn't racist and cares about black people, an object to be blogged about and openly contemplated over, an object that will is and will continue to be her indoctrination project.
Still, on the surface, this piece could be taken as two worried mothers concerning themselves sick with the fate of their black son and how he will value himself as a black man in America.
However, that wasn't the point of the piece. It was about Graff. Pop quiz: what is her partner's name and her son's name?
They mention right out of the gate her son has trouble sleeping now after viewing the "42," a movie about Jackie Robinson. She also inserts, in her son's story, that she and her homosexual partner have trouble sleeping, as well. They are the direct the cause of their son's psychological state and they know it. Narcissists can feel guilt, but never admit to it. Graff needs - and can use - racism against blacks as a shield against her own using of her son.
![[Image: CarterIII.jpg]](http://knownameblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CarterIII.jpg)
Graff states he hears "n*gger" all the time in his favorite songs, but nobody in the comments wonders why a 10 year-old is listening to explicit rap lyrics. This a huge red flag about Graff's parenting when a person barely double-digits is hearing all sorts of words and learning about adult situations with no adult guidance. This is where Graff's abortion of an attempt of parenting comes in.
Her son claims "no one" cares about race stuff anymore. He has black friends, white friends, etc. He knows black parents, interracial parents and all that. While he is naive, he is just 10. Considering his youth, letting him have later realizations about race is best. There is no sense in cutting off someone's youth too soon - it can and will have bad results.
This is where Graff and her partner reveal their homosexual narcissism.
They force their unnamed black, male object to watch "42." Graff rolls her eyes at Robinson's "admiring" wife. Of course, to her readers she is signaling how sexist and antiquated such a woman is. No, her son won't have an admiring wife, he will have a coequal partner in which they consensual negotiate the frightfully gendered waters of male dominance in heterosexual relations.
Graff also rolls her eyes about how cheesy and unrealistic the movie is about Robinson's teammates are when divesting themselves of personal racism. While Graff may very well have a fair point about the cheesiness of that part of the movie, she has a serious issue with the idea of one divesting themselves of untoward prejudices.
Graff tells her son about how America is constructed around white super-structures that expressly exclude and marginalize black people. This structure reinforces a racial caste system in which white people are empowered at the expense of black people. Note two glaring omissions here that are always at the heart of any Critical Race Theory expose - the lack of any other race than whites and blacks and the denial of individuals to divest themselves of racial prejudice.
Pushing this thread again, there is a reason people like Graff hyper-focus on the false dichotomy of blacks and whites: so as to avoid the realities of other races in society. Graff doesn't want to see any one discrete identity group to achieve before her group does, so she fakes a sincere interest in other groups as a way of simultaneously inserting herself in said group's success and her way of handicapping them. Take a successful Arab woman. If presented with said woman, Graff would cough up some stock praise for said woman, then intone she is so happy that said Arab woman managed to overcome race/religion/being female, etc. She always will ask how the Arab woman did so. In that line of questioning, she is trying to de-legitimize the Arab's woman success while also trying to one-up her. At the very least, Graff will try to instill in her a sense of fear - you need to be afraid of Islamophobia, male privilege, etc.
![[Image: GHTeenHarrassment_GRAFF-e1326228142440.jpg]](http://ejgraff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/GHTeenHarrassment_GRAFF-e1326228142440.jpg)
Graff (as translated by 2Wycked):
The rhetoric Graff inflicted on her son has similar roots to the rhetoric Graff has used on young women - turning them into narcissistic victims. Graff's invocation of Critical Race Theory is troubling because not only is it some incredibly ideological fare that is needlessly intellectualized rhetoric, it is something a young boy who believes race issues are in the past. Maybe I'm naive, but I would be much more comfortable with my 16 year-old grappling with racial issues than my 10 year-old. Why inject race into his life earlier than it will be naturally?
The reason is narcissism. I suspect a reason Graff injected her ideas about race into her son's life was because he thought the world was indifferent to race. As a lesbian, that rubbed her wrong. Notice how she seemlessly injects interracial marriage and then gay marriage in the piece. She highlights not only her queer belief that gay rights is a natural extension of racial equality, but also that single motherhood and interracial marriage had to be accepted before gay marriage.
She injects more heated and highly debatable rhetoric into her prepubescent son, using Critical Race Theory in order to tell him that America has long mistreated blacks, women, gay people, etc. She tellingly lists blacks first, then coughs up women right after. Then she lists all sorts of categories of people that have faced more discrimination than women.
The article is blown wide open Graff confesses how difficult it is to know she can't protect her son from what may happen to him based on his race. Oh my - a parent can't do everything to ensure the safety of their child? Get over yourself, Graff, it is not about you and your ability to protect black people! She talks how deeply she empathizes with black parents and dealing with all the rank racism that abides in society. The humanity - a coach refers to one black child with the name of another black child! She then ends the paragraph with the gem of the article:
Is it scary, Graff? Does it keep you up at night? Tell us, how much does it bother you? You brought this black child into your life, free and clear of your own hand. Now, we are supposed to sympathize with the fact that you won't ever be able to relate to him racially? Fuck off.
She then links race and heterosexism and relates this to her son. Her son inquires about what is going on with respects to "hatred" and homosexuality. Suddenly, Graff has much to say, but nothing of substance to relate. She reassures her son that while she can't relate to racial prejudice, she faces it with respects to her sexuality. She sickly is proud of the fact she has inspired her son to not let the hate to get to him. Really, is that what you think you taught him?
In a gracious act of parenting, when her son complains of not wanting to sleep alone, she let's the privileged male into her bedroom and sleep at the foot of her bed. Her son begins to talk about interracial marriage, but Graff sagely tells him that interracial marriage is legal in all states, but gay marriage isn't yet.
Wait, how does a piece supposedly about race end with a sentence about the nonrecognition of gay marriage in many states?
![[Image: view.image?Id=725]](http://www.cfw.org/view.image?Id=725)
That is because it wasn't about her black son - it was about Graff. I mean, honestly, did we even learn the object's name? No, her black son's name was never mentioned. Not even once.
She is trying to insert homosexuality into the discussion of racism. It isn't surprising this article got dropped during the discussion of Trayvon Martin and his death? It isn't. It is Graff's intense desire to keep the discussion about female homosexuality. She may settle for a discussion about women or gay people in general, but what she desperately desires is a discussion of gay women, lesbian mothers in particular.
With her black son, she always has an audience to get approval from:
Ugh, SO brave! You go girl! #gayparenting
White coparents coping with white racism against zir child #fightracism
Homophobia & racism in one family??? #livegaystrong
Many comments discuss her bravery and facing racism head-on.
That was the point of the article, get approval from others that she isn't racist and hates racism, then inject homosexuality into the discussion. She doesn't care about racism, she just cares about herself. As such, she is only worried issues that affect gay women.
She got what she wanted in the end: an object she can meld and form into what she wants intellectually and psychologically, a platform to talk about herself and the social validation from liberals. Win, win, win.
Except for her son, of course. He loses in this "super-structure." That was the point, wasn't it?
Of course, he doesn't know it yet. There is only so much you can load onto a ten year-old in a single day.
Graff recently penned a piece at Slate (in the XX blog, remember that) about her adopted black son and her and her homosexual partner's dismay over having to explain Critical Race Theory to her black son.
Lesbian, feminist, XX blog at Slate, Critical Race Theory...
The fact this story purporting be about race and how it relates to raising of black children pops up in a blog expressly directed at women tells you this piece is for women and is about women. The black boy is nothing but an object for Graff: a boy to signal to others she isn't racist and cares about black people, an object to be blogged about and openly contemplated over, an object that will is and will continue to be her indoctrination project.
Still, on the surface, this piece could be taken as two worried mothers concerning themselves sick with the fate of their black son and how he will value himself as a black man in America.
However, that wasn't the point of the piece. It was about Graff. Pop quiz: what is her partner's name and her son's name?
They mention right out of the gate her son has trouble sleeping now after viewing the "42," a movie about Jackie Robinson. She also inserts, in her son's story, that she and her homosexual partner have trouble sleeping, as well. They are the direct the cause of their son's psychological state and they know it. Narcissists can feel guilt, but never admit to it. Graff needs - and can use - racism against blacks as a shield against her own using of her son.
Graff states he hears "n*gger" all the time in his favorite songs, but nobody in the comments wonders why a 10 year-old is listening to explicit rap lyrics. This a huge red flag about Graff's parenting when a person barely double-digits is hearing all sorts of words and learning about adult situations with no adult guidance. This is where Graff's abortion of an attempt of parenting comes in.
Her son claims "no one" cares about race stuff anymore. He has black friends, white friends, etc. He knows black parents, interracial parents and all that. While he is naive, he is just 10. Considering his youth, letting him have later realizations about race is best. There is no sense in cutting off someone's youth too soon - it can and will have bad results.
This is where Graff and her partner reveal their homosexual narcissism.
They force their unnamed black, male object to watch "42." Graff rolls her eyes at Robinson's "admiring" wife. Of course, to her readers she is signaling how sexist and antiquated such a woman is. No, her son won't have an admiring wife, he will have a coequal partner in which they consensual negotiate the frightfully gendered waters of male dominance in heterosexual relations.
Graff also rolls her eyes about how cheesy and unrealistic the movie is about Robinson's teammates are when divesting themselves of personal racism. While Graff may very well have a fair point about the cheesiness of that part of the movie, she has a serious issue with the idea of one divesting themselves of untoward prejudices.
Graff tells her son about how America is constructed around white super-structures that expressly exclude and marginalize black people. This structure reinforces a racial caste system in which white people are empowered at the expense of black people. Note two glaring omissions here that are always at the heart of any Critical Race Theory expose - the lack of any other race than whites and blacks and the denial of individuals to divest themselves of racial prejudice.
Pushing this thread again, there is a reason people like Graff hyper-focus on the false dichotomy of blacks and whites: so as to avoid the realities of other races in society. Graff doesn't want to see any one discrete identity group to achieve before her group does, so she fakes a sincere interest in other groups as a way of simultaneously inserting herself in said group's success and her way of handicapping them. Take a successful Arab woman. If presented with said woman, Graff would cough up some stock praise for said woman, then intone she is so happy that said Arab woman managed to overcome race/religion/being female, etc. She always will ask how the Arab woman did so. In that line of questioning, she is trying to de-legitimize the Arab's woman success while also trying to one-up her. At the very least, Graff will try to instill in her a sense of fear - you need to be afraid of Islamophobia, male privilege, etc.
Graff (as translated by 2Wycked):
Quote:Quote:
You see, smart moms (you want to be seen as smart, right mothers?) you need to teach your daughter to be worried, very worried about her place at her job. Sigh. Nothing holds women back from career success quite like sexual harassment on the job. I get it, I get it. You don't want to go into the legal practice, a STEM field or owning a business anymore. That fucking patriarchy, those harassing males. Don't you worry, though, women like me are fighting tooth and nail to make sure that women will get equal access one day.
The rhetoric Graff inflicted on her son has similar roots to the rhetoric Graff has used on young women - turning them into narcissistic victims. Graff's invocation of Critical Race Theory is troubling because not only is it some incredibly ideological fare that is needlessly intellectualized rhetoric, it is something a young boy who believes race issues are in the past. Maybe I'm naive, but I would be much more comfortable with my 16 year-old grappling with racial issues than my 10 year-old. Why inject race into his life earlier than it will be naturally?
The reason is narcissism. I suspect a reason Graff injected her ideas about race into her son's life was because he thought the world was indifferent to race. As a lesbian, that rubbed her wrong. Notice how she seemlessly injects interracial marriage and then gay marriage in the piece. She highlights not only her queer belief that gay rights is a natural extension of racial equality, but also that single motherhood and interracial marriage had to be accepted before gay marriage.
She injects more heated and highly debatable rhetoric into her prepubescent son, using Critical Race Theory in order to tell him that America has long mistreated blacks, women, gay people, etc. She tellingly lists blacks first, then coughs up women right after. Then she lists all sorts of categories of people that have faced more discrimination than women.
The article is blown wide open Graff confesses how difficult it is to know she can't protect her son from what may happen to him based on his race. Oh my - a parent can't do everything to ensure the safety of their child? Get over yourself, Graff, it is not about you and your ability to protect black people! She talks how deeply she empathizes with black parents and dealing with all the rank racism that abides in society. The humanity - a coach refers to one black child with the name of another black child! She then ends the paragraph with the gem of the article:
Quote:Quote:
it’s scary to know that he has to walk into this without a parent who can intimately identify.
Is it scary, Graff? Does it keep you up at night? Tell us, how much does it bother you? You brought this black child into your life, free and clear of your own hand. Now, we are supposed to sympathize with the fact that you won't ever be able to relate to him racially? Fuck off.
She then links race and heterosexism and relates this to her son. Her son inquires about what is going on with respects to "hatred" and homosexuality. Suddenly, Graff has much to say, but nothing of substance to relate. She reassures her son that while she can't relate to racial prejudice, she faces it with respects to her sexuality. She sickly is proud of the fact she has inspired her son to not let the hate to get to him. Really, is that what you think you taught him?
In a gracious act of parenting, when her son complains of not wanting to sleep alone, she let's the privileged male into her bedroom and sleep at the foot of her bed. Her son begins to talk about interracial marriage, but Graff sagely tells him that interracial marriage is legal in all states, but gay marriage isn't yet.
Wait, how does a piece supposedly about race end with a sentence about the nonrecognition of gay marriage in many states?
That is because it wasn't about her black son - it was about Graff. I mean, honestly, did we even learn the object's name? No, her black son's name was never mentioned. Not even once.
She is trying to insert homosexuality into the discussion of racism. It isn't surprising this article got dropped during the discussion of Trayvon Martin and his death? It isn't. It is Graff's intense desire to keep the discussion about female homosexuality. She may settle for a discussion about women or gay people in general, but what she desperately desires is a discussion of gay women, lesbian mothers in particular.
With her black son, she always has an audience to get approval from:
Ugh, SO brave! You go girl! #gayparenting
White coparents coping with white racism against zir child #fightracism
Homophobia & racism in one family??? #livegaystrong
Many comments discuss her bravery and facing racism head-on.
That was the point of the article, get approval from others that she isn't racist and hates racism, then inject homosexuality into the discussion. She doesn't care about racism, she just cares about herself. As such, she is only worried issues that affect gay women.
She got what she wanted in the end: an object she can meld and form into what she wants intellectually and psychologically, a platform to talk about herself and the social validation from liberals. Win, win, win.
Except for her son, of course. He loses in this "super-structure." That was the point, wasn't it?
Of course, he doesn't know it yet. There is only so much you can load onto a ten year-old in a single day.
