It's easy for folks to say "What's it to you?" when they are not a group of men who have been defined by this very country as "not men", feminine, thugs, predators, (pseudo)scientifically classified as rapists, raped by slavers etc etc.

These snarky replies, especially from white males in here, display either a lack of historical awareness or the much more common white lack of concern/ flat out denial of Black people's history (men specifically in this case). There shouldn't be one America on this board who can't at least understand where you're coming from, given America's historical track record with Black men, even if they disagree with you.

The truth is that the struggle to define ourselves as men in America is one that persists, whether it's flat out rebellion against traditional, white patriarchal ideas masculinity or trying to live within such rules without being KILLED for doing so.

I say that so say that while Russell's expression of his Black masculinity is valid, so is your Black critique and concern for the way Black masculinity has been and continues to be stifled, attacked, abused and coerced by white patriarchal forces.

In other words, I ain't mad at cha. You or him really. It's shit both of yall don't control that decides what's the dominant image of Black men. Someone pointed out the other day that the NBA went nuts when Iverson was rocking durags, braids and baggy clothes. They implemented a dress code and say 'NO SIR! This will not fly in our league.' Yet, they don't care if ya boy rocks a dress. So like I said, Black men don't really control their image... not in that space anyway.