Black Journalist Cries RACISM because She WASN’T Molested

Black Journalist Cries RACISM because She WASN’T Molested

File this under “Why I never try to please Leftist!”

As we say in the country, “Ain’t this some sh*t!” A black woman cries racism, because a sexual abuser overlooked her for white women.

From Esquire, “My Experience at Charlie Rose Went Beyond Sexism”, Rebecca Carroll writes:

In 1997, I joined the production team of Charlie Rose’s popular interview show. I was the only black journalist on staff. At the time, there was little to no recognition of what it meant to be black and female in a workplace dominated by white men. Twenty years later, in this watershed moment of examination and reckoning as one powerful white man after another is disgraced following allegations of sexual misconduct ranging from harassment to assault, we’re still not talking about the ramifications for black women—or the broader connection to structural racism in America.

take our poll - story continues below

What is your top alternative to Facebook? - FIXED

  • What is your top alternative to Facebook?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Black Sphere updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: SHOCKING: Global Climate Change Alert MUST READ

… And while many of us on staff were subject to Charlie’s unsolicited shoulder massages and physical intimidation, as he towered above us at a height over six feet tall, the women Charlie preferred and preyed upon—at least that I witnessed—were white. It was an environment that all but erased me, while simultaneously exploiting me as a black woman.

(…)

In America, the most desirable woman in the room—the most sacred, coveted, enshrined woman—has always been the white woman. …

To be clear, I’m not suggesting it would have been preferable for Charlie to have preyed upon me, too—but rather, his sexualization of white women was a manifestation of gendered power dynamics in the same way that his not sexualizing me was an expression of racialized power dynamics.

So now it’s abusive when a woman is NOT sexually abused?

I’m just trying to stay up on the Leftist logic here.

From this vantage point, Charlie Rose had no way to win. In fact, my bet is if Rose abused nobody, the Left has a statute that covers that. Something like, “Black women at PBS file charges against Charlie Rose. He is accused of in no way offending them at disproportionate levels than he doesn’t offend white women.”

But the story of additional racism is intriguing as well. Here’s more of her story.

Six months into my position at Charlie Rose, Charlie promoted me from writer to producer.

So Carroll was promoted within six months. How racist and sexist of Rose.

But then Carroll goes on to describe the work environment.

The environment, though, felt increasingly toxic and degrading. Nearly everyone on staff was publicly berated almost once a week, taking us to task on our journalism skills or sensibility about what does and doesn’t make a good show. We witnessed his lecherous behavior toward female staff and guests. Charlie openly objectified the women on the show, talked about their sex appeal with male guests, and derided more than one female staffer about who she was sleeping with in front of the entire staff.

I don’t believe Rose held Carroll as a slave! Despite the “public berating”, Carroll was free to leave.

Moreover, I’m sure Rose wanted things done right. But in the world of snowflakes, any pressure at the job “triggers” them. The person whose name is on the show can’t expect people to be good at their jobs.

However, most interesting is what Carroll says she witnessed. “Lecherous behavior” towards female staff and guests. I’m guessing “female” guests?

Her interpretation of Rose’s comments on female’s sex appeal seem jaded. I don’t know of men’s sex appeal being discussed by other straight men. And using “sex appeal” to describe someone is not lewd, in my opinion.

All this said, why doesn’t Carroll just leave?

She continues to imply that Rose is a racist, where she writes:

His language around race felt consistently coded. Charlie demanded I book the black guests he wanted but previously had been unable to get—black guests of a perceived level of respectability and intelligence (Sidney Poitier)—while dismissing the black guests I pitched, (Vivica Fox, for example). He accused me of pushing my own agenda several times, memorably when I pitched a panel on hip-hop. (I did not hear my white colleagues receive criticism that they were pushing any sort of agenda when they pitched potential guests and segments.)

Interestingly, Carroll admits that Rose didn’t discriminate against black guests.

He just wanted who he wanted, like Sidney Poitier. However, according to Carroll, Rose’s “coded” racism showcased when he didn’t want to book has-been Vivica Fox.

Further, Rose didn’t want to do a show on hip-hop, which Carroll took personally.

I can tell you about pitches as an insider. Most pitches are rejected. As for guests, timing is of the essence.

And again I ask: Was Carroll held hostage by this job?

This woman complains about everything. She was promoted after six months, and began pushing her agenda. She supposedly witnessed bad behavior, but said nothing and stayed. Then she became upset when she wasn’t a victim of sexual abuse.

Why would anybody hire a Leftist is beyond me.

 

 

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.