Role Play

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson said people should know your their roles and shut their mouths.

I hadn't been a wrestling fan since Hulk Hogan first introduced the world to ripped t-shirts, but like many young men, I liked The Rock when he burst on the wrestling scene during the late 1990s. Although by then I knew the matches were faker than Steve Harvey's old hairline, I still found The Rock interesting. He had a certain swagger about him that had cats all over the world calling each other, "jabronies."

But, it was The Rock's cutting catchphrase that really turned him into a star. I mean, I can't think of a more effective put down than telling someone to "know your role and shut your mouth?" It's really quite perfect.

However, things can get a little more difficult when we talk about knowing our roles in real life. Particularly when we're talking about men and women.

See, some conversations I've had since the Chris Brown/Rihanna saga began have made me re-examine how I view my role in life and how I see the role of women. For example, I don't know about the rest of you guys, but when I think another man is behaving in a manner unbecoming a man, I tend to say "he's acting like a bitch."

Now think about that. That's kind of disrespectful to women. I'm assigning the negative characteristics of one man, to the entire female gender and using a pejorative to describe women for good measure. Not cute, right?

The thing is, I'm quite sure that more than a few of us, men and women, have made similar comments. Not only are these comments degrading to women, but they also seem to force men into pre-conceived roles of manhood. Men who are gossips, or messy, or "soft" are often seen as being less than full men. Yet, we as a society have made it clear that the macho male roles of the past are no longer acceptable either. So, many men are operating in a sort of limbo, where they are chastised for not being manly enough, but then criticized for being "too manly."

Let me be clear. This is not an attempt to excuse domestic violence or an attempt to rationalize it. It's not even related to domestic violence. It's really about what each of us see as acceptable male and female behavior.

After all, women haven't escaped this confusing morass. Women are told to be independent, to "have their own." They are asked to be caring, but strong; soft, but tough; a real rider, but also the type of girl who knows how to let a man be a man. Shoot, the old saw that most men want a "lady in the streets and freak in the sheets" is yet another example of the schizophrenic behavior men expect of women in order to fulfill some fantasy they've carried around for decades.

It's becoming increasingly difficult for both men and women to know their roles. Most individuals have conflicting desires when it comes to the role of their mates, but most of us aren't honest with ourselves or others about that fact. We expect the world of the opposite sex, and then act surprised when we're constantly disappointed.

Can y'all smell what I'm cooking?


Share

What Celebrites Can Teach Us

I'm about to step in it.

Since the majority of the folks who read this blog are women, and typically of a liberal bent, I'm pretty sure that this post is not going to go over well. But, I just finished having a rousing debate with one of my homegirls and I want to discuss this issue. To be clear, I do not support domestic violence and I understand to some degree how many women have their lives turned into living hells because of it. Please check out the post with that in mind.

What the eff is up with C-Breezy and Ri Ri?

That's Chris Brown and Rihanna for those of you who don't get your celebrity news from Bossip. Anybody remotely connected to pop culture knows that one of the hottest young couples in America has split in dramatic fashion amid reports that Chris Brown went upside his girlfriend's head the night of the Grammy's. He got arrested, she's in hiding and rumors are flying about what the hell happened.

So, me and my homegirl got to talking.

It started innocently enough with an instant message from me that said "So, is Chris Brown just an abusive boyfriend?"

What I meant was, given the various rumors flying around, was this incident a sign that Brown thinks putting his hands on women is normal, or was this a momentary lapse of control sparked by extraordinary circumstances. See, if Chris Brown was the second coming of Ike Turner, well I had no sympathy for his high-yellow ass. But, if he was somehow put under incredible stress before cracking, then I might understand things a little more.

Of course, my homegirl didn't see it that way.

Her response was complex in its simplicity. She said "Well he did abuse her, so yes, I say he's an abusive boyfriend." Before I go any further let me give y'all some background. My homegirl is the type of chick that might bump "Survivor" and "Independent Women" on her alarm clock if she didn't think Beyonce was a horrible songwriter. She is uber-liberal, with a smidgen of black nationalism thrown in, although she keeps up with every new show the Disney channel releases. What I'm trying to say is she's the type of woman who has no patience or sympathy for men who don't understand that their fists do not belong on a woman.

Her response tripped me up though. See, as a man, I think there is a stark difference between a boyfriend who has hit you and a boyfriend who is abusive. For example, say your boyfriend comes home from work and finds you doing the horizontal mamba with another man in the bed he bought for y'all at Rooms To Go. In a fit of anger, he lashes out and slaps you.

He's never hit you before, but is he now an abusive boyfriend? To me, that's a gray area. One part of me understands that a man should never hit a woman unless he's attacked. Another part of me is appalled at the amount of disrespect inherent in a woman copulating with another man on the sheets that she shares with you at night. So, while my intelligent mind says, "Just walk away," another part of me says "Beat that ass!"

My homegirl thinks the part of me that says "Beat that ass!" is a damn fool.

She says that the only time violence should be an option in a relationship is in response to violence that is a legitimate threat. So, not only does she believe that it's unacceptable to smack your girlfriend after she reveals that she knowingly infected you with herpes, it's also unacceptable to respond to a physical attack by your girlfriend if you know that she's unlikely to really hurt you. As men, she says that we know that most women can't really hurt us in a fight, so we should just walk after taking their licks.

Obviously, that didn't sit too well with me.

But, instead of rehashing the entire argument, I'd like to return to an earlier point. When my friend gave me her definition of an abusive boyfriend, it grated on my mind. I haven't hit a girl since I was child, and my pops beat my ass for that one time lapse. But, as a man, I still understand how damaging it is to be labeled "abusive." It seems grossly unfair to earn that title for a one-time response to extreme provocation. What my friend seemed to be saying was that no matter what a woman does, there really is no reason for you to hit her.

Logically I understand this, and I plan to teach my sons the same thing. But, emotionally, it doesn't sit right with my view of the world. As a man, I learned early on that certain words and actions result in fights and if I didn't want to fight, I'd better be circumspect. As men, particularly as black men, there are unspoken rules to how you have to behave in public and private, and when those rules are broken, violence is often the response.

I wonder if this is just a fundamental difference between men and women. Amongst ourselves, men are trained to establish pecking order and hierarchies and one of the most common ways of doing this is by determining who can whip whose ass. I remember in college I slapboxed with nearly all of my friends to determine which ones I could handle in a real fight and which ones would be a threat. I never planned to fight them, but that knowledge was important to determining where I stood.

I know women have their own ways to establish dominance, but typically that does not involve violence. I wonder if that's one of the main reasons why men and women clash so often in relationships. Men may view certain actions by their mates as a threat to their dominance and respond in the same way they have responded for years. However, because women typically do not handle these types of dominance battles with violence, they are woefully unprepared when men take this route. Combine that with the physical strength differences between the two genders, and well things seem a little clearer.

I'm not trying to justify domestic abuse. There is no justification for that. But, sometimes violence within a relationship is not as clear cut as it seems and I wanted to explore those gray areas and try to determine what one of the causes might be.

Blame it on C-Breezy and Ri Ri.


Share

This Is Not A Joke

How many of y'all saw the comedy "How High" featuring Redman and Method Man?

It was a pretty typical stoner flick, with the two rappers, have a well-known fondness for cannabis, playing the role of stoners with hearts of gold. It had some funny moments, even if it will never be considered a masterwork.

Anyway, one of the characters I loved in the movie was a trifling pimp played by Mike Epps. Now, Mike Epps is a funny dude, and his character in this movie was perfect. The pimp, whose name was Baby Powder, was a bumbling preener, but he had a hilarious habit.

Whenever his "pimp-in-training" or one of his hoes would mess up, the pimp would you yell out "Where my powder!" Then once someone sprinkled a liberal helping of powder into his hand, the pimp would slap the shit out of whoever offended him. Like I said, hilarious.

Well, after I read this story in the New York Times, I wanted to yell out "Where my powder!"

'Cause somebody needs to be smacked.

Those of you who bother to click that link will learn that Obama's new $500,000 cap on executive pay has some New York denizens shaking in there $2,000 Gucci loafers. Seems that what to most of us seems like a ridiculously generous salary, doesn't seem so hot when you have the mortgage to pay on two homes worth $5.5 million, along with an assorted amount of other expenses. While the article goes out of its way to note most people struggling in today's economy won't shed any tears for these bankers, the mere fact that the piece was written seems to be an attempt to stir up some sympathy.

Epic fail.

It would be easy for me to just rail against the skewed values in today's society that make it a struggle for some folks to survive on $500,000 a year. If you check out the list of "expenses" described in that article, it's easy to come to the conclusion that rich people have very skewed priorities. It's even easier to hope that they get their just desserts.

What might be harder, is to see a little of yourself in these rich people. I know that several of my readers have had their pockets pinched in recent months, but most of us are still above the poverty line. We may not have everything we want, but seem to have most of our needs and a few creature comforts that might make other less fortunate individuals swoon.

One of the most interesting things in the article was the justification that these rich people can't just save money like the rest of us because their sense of self is tied into the extravagant lifestyles they lead. At first that made my Bullshit Sense start tingling, but when I really thought about it, it made sense.

Don't most of us use certain goods or rituals to reinforce our feelings of who we are? It might be that daily trip to the coffee house, that weekly trip to the hairdresser, or that monthly movie that you just can't miss. For me, I could point to my big screen TV or the $700 machine I use to play cutting edge video games or my penchant for Polo shirts, although they are always purchased on sale.

Anyway, while most of us could get used to living without these comforts if we had to, it would seem like a pretty significant sacrifice. I've had firsthand experience dealing with someone who has to have certain little comforts or they feel like the entire world is conspiring to make their lives miserable. While these things may seem optional to me, they are life and death issues for that person.

Yet, for those individuals scrambling to feed themselves everyday, our "comforts" probably seem like ridiculous extravagances. They look at us the same way we look these rich people who spend $425 every two weeks on groceries for their tiny families. They wonder what right we have to complain.

What right do any of us have?






Share

Let Me Explain Myself

In response to yesterday's blog, regular catankerous reader Darth Whitey asked me a good question.

How would I feel if all the beignets in New Orleans were replaced with churros.

Those of you who read my last post know that it dealt with a push by conservative Italians to limit how much "foreign" food can be sold in certain areas of Italy. Those conservatives argue that "foreign" food is a detriment to traditional Italian culture. In my post I called this push what I though it was, an attempt to use racism to control economics.

Anyway, there are a couple things that I wanted to address in Darth's comment. First, the random selection of the word "churros" reveals a lot. While it's clear that Latinos and Hispanics are the primary immigrants to this country, they are not the only immigrants to this country. He could have chosen any ethnic food to replace beignets and he focused on churros.

Plus, given the unique culture in New Orleans it would have made as much sense to ask me how I would feel if beignets were replaced by funnel cakes or doughnuts. One of the fears of many New Orleanians after Hurricane Katrina was that the city would get "Disney-fied," and have its distinctive culture santized and re-packaged for mass consumption. Using the word "churros" instead of "doughnuts" exposes a lot about what Darth thinks are acceptable and unacceptable replacements for New Orleans' distinct food.

But, I digress.

I really want to discuss something else. See, the reason why I wouldn't have a problem with churros in the French Quarter isn't because I'm so hip and anti-racist, it's because I honestly don't care that much about New Orleans culture.

Uh oh, I'm about to get strangled with a Mardi Gras bead.

I like the city. I grew up here. There are certain quirky habits that I find endearing. But, I do not have the love affair with New Orleans that many of its paler denizens seem to have. (Seriously, the white people who actually still live in the New Orleans city limits LOVE this place. The ones who don't move to the suburbs and talk greasy about the city. Black people love the city too, but it's a different kind of love.)

It's probably because my parents were transplants to the city and never truly embraced it. So, while I picked up some of the city's lore through osmoisis, I was never indoctrinated like most New Orleanians. It's kinda like I know the steps to a dance, but I don't feel the rhythm all the way down in my bones.

Consequently, I wouldn't be dismayed if New Orleans' culture was changed by immigrants. After all, the reason why we have this current culture is because of all the different immigrants that came to the city over the years. We're a glorious gumbo of traditions, and that would have never happened if the dominant group refused to incorporate the norms of immigrants into their lives. (While I did oppose the Disneyfication of the city that was mainly because it seemed like that Disneyfication went hand-in-hand with getting rid of black people. If that hadn't been the case, I would be wearing my new mouse ears proudly.)

I think it's funny how threatened some folks are by the way immigrants change places. I'll admit that in the past I've gotten upset when I've gone to restaurants and stores where nobody spoke English and I couldn't make myself understood. However, I've learned to be more accepting of that. Most people try to carve out their own individual comfort zones wherever they go, and I've realized it's pointless to take that as a threat. Besides, when it comes to food, I'm a lover, not a fighter, as my moniker suggests.

People cling to traditions as if the fact that we've been doing something one way for a long time means it's wrong to change things up. We had been electing white men as president for a long time, but obviously change isn't that bad. Culture should be alive and constantly evolving. If a culture is set in stone, most likely it's a culture of the past that nobody really cares about anymore. The traditional New Orleans habits are nice, but there is no reason to believe this city can't be great if we create new habits. The same thing goes for Italy and the world.

I hope that cleared things up.

Share