Especially considering that the idea of Black men "being men" has been addressed in reasoning why maleness affects us completely differently in a white patriarchy.

Here are some quotes from elsewhere in the post.
I'd like to know what you think of them since you are literally cosigning someone who's namecalling.

"Black men are also victimized on the basis of gender by white patriarchy"

"One of the first significant critiques or expansions of the intersectional idea was the notion that structures of race and gender did not simply intersect but mutually and synergistically shape, reinforce, and constitute one another."

^That means that a "privileged" identity (such as maleness) may interact with a "subordinate" identity (such as race), in order to make one even less privileged than holding two "subordinate" identities. This is further explained in the next quote.

"When intersectionality was applied to black men, it was initially interpreted to suggest that “black men were privileged by gender and subordinated by race;” that is, black men sat at the intersection of the subordinating and oppressive system of race (black) and the privileged system of gender (men). Intuitively this notion seemed correct. It also seemed to support the dominant social and academic practice of examining the oppressive conditions that black men faced from a racial perspective. Yet, the interpretation of black men as privileged by gender and oppressed by race appeared incorrect in our observations of racial profiling."


White patriarchy operates according to "hegemonic masculinity" (R.W. Connell) which seeks to exterminate the Black male who is deemed a subordinate male threat. History corroborates this, as do present statistics. The Black male was not scientifically deemed a rapist by the American Ethnological Institute only because he is Black but because he is both Black and male. Same goes for astronomical rates of incarceration, police killings, and funneling of Black boys into special ed.

^^You should enjoy that last bit, since you are taking a look at history with your voting comment. We can go that route if you really want to examine the victimization of Black men throughout. I'm guaranteeing you that the chips will fall on my side of the argument. Is that a challenge you'd like to accept, sir?

Now...
I'm aware that it's very rare for you to type past one line one the boards, so perhaps I should also assume it's rare for you to READ past one line as well. I'm going to ask you to do it anyway. Generally, I've stuck to stats and rather academic discourse in here (aside from the two dismissive white guys), but you cosigned someone who referred to me as a "numbskull," so you've definitely made yourself fair game. It's not very surprising that the one person who did read what I wrote (Ike) came back and said "I don't disagree" and became at least a little more cordial after noticing I'm not namecalling or insulting anyone in my initiation of any discussion... although that would be a VERY easy route for me to take, considering someone in here has actually said I read too much.