As part of my growth as a man and Christian, I'm really working on not expressing every opinion that comes into my head.
Seriously, I am.
Folks who knew me as a youngster could tell you all kids of stories about some of the rude and crass things I said and did. Honestly, when I think about that phase in my life, I'm quite embarrassed and I wonder why I was so obnoxious. Who knows?
In my quest to reform, I've been trying to let stupid people be stupid. That's a big task in today's world, but I've decided that it's not my job to always expose the stupidity of others and force them to confront and acknowledge it. I don't have to open people's eyes. If they would rather be blind, then I'll save my light for those wishing to see.
(That sounded kind of arrogant, but y'all know what I meant.)
But, I must admit that sometimes it's hard to keep my resolve. Just recently, a friend of mine told me a story that had me seriously considering how I would have reacted in his shoes, and to be honest, I think some of the old Big Man would have come out.
My homie was at a social gathering talking to this chick we both knew in college. The woman was going on and on about the depravity and uselessness of men, and my boy was pretty much letting her vent. Sometimes sisters just need that ear, you know?
Anyway, he said he was cool as she went through her long-winded tale of how some dude didn't make a move on her even when she pretty much threw the cooch at him. She was heated that the same cat later complained that he couldn't really tell that she was digging him. The dude said she should have just told him she was interested if she really wanted something to pop off.
Apparently the woman was upset by this. I guess she felt that it was the man's job to decipher her feelings and make the first move. Y'all know how women be on that selective chivalry and old-fashioned values kick in these modern times. They don't want everything the "old way" just the stuff they like.
Anyway, this woman couldn't believe that the dude tried to pass that onus to her. I don't really know how she handled the cat that "wronged" her, but she decided to let my friend know that his fellow penis bearer's behavior was symptomatic of a larger deficiency in men. So she said:
"Men of your generation are cowards."
(Record scratch)
What did she say?
See, I really hate when men or women make blanket negative statements about the opposite gender. It's not that I'm innocent of this practice, it's just that when I make my generalizations they are always correct and based solely on stringent research and careful consideration... Lol. Yeah right.
But, I really am irked when people make what I deem stupid comments about the opposite sex. Saying that men of my generation (My friend and I were born six days apart) are all cowards is just ridiculous.
It's particularly ridiculous when the woman making the comment has admitted that she feels this way because a dude she was digging didn't smash while she slept over in his bed.
I've heard too many stories from women about how they slept over with a dude, but didn't really want to do anything. It seems like in these modern times, an opposite gender bedmate isn't a guarantee of lovemaking.
Plus, as a man who has refused to make the first move on a chick sleeping in his bed because he didn't want to cede power to her, I can understand why dude held up. Sometimes you gotta lay ground rules if you want the relationship to operate on the correct wavelength.
But, before I go off on a tangent about the craziness inherent in relationships let me focus on this woman's comment and my friend's reaction. My homie bit his tongue initially, but her comment irked him quite a bit, and eventually he let this woman know that maybe her difficulties with men were due to one common factor: her.
Of course, she didn't take kindly to this observation, blew up and made a scene. Now I chastised my boy for expressing himself honestly because as every man learns early, women hate when you tell them that their problems are because of them. But, I had to admit that I would have been hard pressed not to tell the woman the exact same thing.
See, there are some lines folks shouldn't cross in conversation. You really shouldn't go about insulting entire genders, races, religions and the like. It's unseemly and it's almost like an invitation to a verbal or physical battle. I don't understand how this woman could presume to call my friend a coward, and then get upset when he made an equally personal observation about her.
I'm bothered by people who say offensive stuff, and then have the nerve to get upset when people respond with anger and frustration. Seriously, this chick tells a red-blooded man that all men of his generation are "cowards" and she doesn't think that's going to cause some friction? Clearly she actually believed her own hype. She actually thought that just because she says something, it must be fact, and all men should take it as such. Sorry, that ain't happening with a man with fully descended testicles.
I remember in a media law class I learned that there are certain words that are exceptions to free speech and if you say them you can't fall back on free speech if you get pummelled. I'm not saying this woman should have been beaten, but I'm saying she really should have put some more thought into her comments before she made them. Particularly if she was extra sensitive about folks offering her unsolicited, blunt opinions about her life choices and habit. It's really quite simple. If you don't want to get your feelings hurt, follow one easy rule:
Just don't go there folks.
Share
Pay Attention
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Monday, May 3, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Storytime, Again
Let's go back in time, to a magical place called The Mecca, where a younger, a slightly more rotund Big Man was seeking an education and sex. Not necessarily in that order.
My brother likes to say that I've always had a bit of "Betty Crocker" in me. For you folks not from the South, that means I'm a "cake baker" or the kind of cat that has been known to spend an unacceptable amount of time or effort in trying to have intercourse with unworthy females. I wasn't a full-blown "trick", but I've been known to make some questionable choices.
Anyway, back in the day, I made a date with a young lady who would eventually go on to be my wife. I'd been plotting on this woman for quite some time, but had held off on talking to her because I thought she was still dating a cat I played football with in high school. We weren't close enough friends that I wouldn't date her after they were through, but we were cool enough that I wasn't going to try to cuckold dude.
Anyway, I finally found out that Future Wife and Former Teammate were dunzo, and I made my move. Got the digits, used them to make plans for a movie date, and then began to wait for the Magic Hour.
Unfortunately, as I prepared for our outing, disaster struck in the form of my male ego and my ridiculous cheapness. Up to this point, I'd had some less than favorable experiences with taking young ladies out to what were considered "nice places" in college. By "less than favorable", I mean I wasn't getting the drawers. (Shout out to Martin Lawrence.)
Now, most likely this was due to other flaws in my game, not to a gold-digger mentality among these women, but, like many men, I didn't notice my flaws and instead blamed it on the women. I was young.
As I contemplated this state of affairs, I decided that I wasn't going to spend any money on Future Wife, and would instead invite her to have a Blockbuster night as our first date. By my logic, this was a good way to see if she was after my meager stacks or a decent young lady.
Sadly, when I broached this change of plans, Future Wife refused, and I would later learn that she was very sad that I saw her as a Blockbuster-in-the-dorm room kind of girl. We would eventually move past this in the months to come, but that's a story for a different day.
Anyway, I spun that yarn because I read a piece recently on the blog "Black and Bourgie" about the "pay to play" dynamic. Basically, the idea that men expect sex whenever they spend a certain amount of money on a woman. Each man has a different threshold, but apparently, all of us have a threshold. The blog post looked at the issue of what is an acceptable situation to have this expectation and what is not.
This issue fascinates me. I remember discussing this concept with my wife, and actually being horrified that she felt that it was reasonable for a man to expect sex if he spent money on her when she was younger. The fact that I was horrified might seem a little strange, since I had broken our very first date because I had the exact same expectations of women, but let me explain.
Like many men, what I WANTED to happen when it came to me getting the drawers, was not the same thing as I would RESPECT a woman for doing.
Does that make sense?
Sure, I would have loved for every woman to agree that a trip to the Cheesecake Factory was the Golden Ticket to parting some hairs, but I doubt I would have respected the women who made that choice. Like many young men, what I wanted from a woman was at odds with what I thought was respectable.
I know ladies, men are just as crazy as y'all.
Coming back to pay to play issues, I think that most men feel like if a woman allows us to spend money on them, particularly a lot of money, they should show some appreciation. And not that pat-on-the-back, "You are so sweet" kind of appreciation either. We want to know that you understand that for many men, spending our money is just as big of a deal as you laying down with us. Particularly for a cheap bastard like me, and my ilk.
But, on the flipside, we don't really want it confirmed that a woman we have actual feelings for, is up for sale. I mean, no man wants to know that the woman he cares about has a price tag. The next question in our minds, at least in my mind, becomes, "Who else can meet the price?"
Just like the always dangerous discussion about who many folks have notched your headboard, letting a man know that you think certain expenditures guarantee sex is a dicey move. Sure, you might have a cat who agrees with your sex threshold, but it's just as likely you'll find someone who finds your cost-benefit-analysis hopelessly skewed too high or too low.
My advice is that women should never reveal that any expenditure means guaranteed sex, and they should never reveal that they had this idea in the past. Avoid this conversation, or debate, the same way you avoid the "numbers" question.
In addition, women should be very careful about how much money they allow a man to spend on them because an uneven exchange of funds has to be balanced out at sometime. Yes, free meals and gifts are nice, but the first rule of economics is that there are "no free lunches." Your tab is growing, and you have no idea how the man you're dealing with is expecting you to settle up.
For men, I would say never spend your money expecting sex. It's a losers' gamble. If a woman doesn't pay out, all you have left is complaining and whining and that's definitely not going to get you any cat. If you're spending money on a woman, just look at it as a loan to your momma. That money has no strings, and no expectation of return.
Finally, on last thing for the fellas. Always have a really good explanation when your wife asks why you thought she was only worth a Blockbuster night on y'all's first date.
Trust me on that.
Share
My brother likes to say that I've always had a bit of "Betty Crocker" in me. For you folks not from the South, that means I'm a "cake baker" or the kind of cat that has been known to spend an unacceptable amount of time or effort in trying to have intercourse with unworthy females. I wasn't a full-blown "trick", but I've been known to make some questionable choices.
Anyway, back in the day, I made a date with a young lady who would eventually go on to be my wife. I'd been plotting on this woman for quite some time, but had held off on talking to her because I thought she was still dating a cat I played football with in high school. We weren't close enough friends that I wouldn't date her after they were through, but we were cool enough that I wasn't going to try to cuckold dude.
Anyway, I finally found out that Future Wife and Former Teammate were dunzo, and I made my move. Got the digits, used them to make plans for a movie date, and then began to wait for the Magic Hour.
Unfortunately, as I prepared for our outing, disaster struck in the form of my male ego and my ridiculous cheapness. Up to this point, I'd had some less than favorable experiences with taking young ladies out to what were considered "nice places" in college. By "less than favorable", I mean I wasn't getting the drawers. (Shout out to Martin Lawrence.)
Now, most likely this was due to other flaws in my game, not to a gold-digger mentality among these women, but, like many men, I didn't notice my flaws and instead blamed it on the women. I was young.
As I contemplated this state of affairs, I decided that I wasn't going to spend any money on Future Wife, and would instead invite her to have a Blockbuster night as our first date. By my logic, this was a good way to see if she was after my meager stacks or a decent young lady.
Sadly, when I broached this change of plans, Future Wife refused, and I would later learn that she was very sad that I saw her as a Blockbuster-in-the-dorm room kind of girl. We would eventually move past this in the months to come, but that's a story for a different day.
Anyway, I spun that yarn because I read a piece recently on the blog "Black and Bourgie" about the "pay to play" dynamic. Basically, the idea that men expect sex whenever they spend a certain amount of money on a woman. Each man has a different threshold, but apparently, all of us have a threshold. The blog post looked at the issue of what is an acceptable situation to have this expectation and what is not.
This issue fascinates me. I remember discussing this concept with my wife, and actually being horrified that she felt that it was reasonable for a man to expect sex if he spent money on her when she was younger. The fact that I was horrified might seem a little strange, since I had broken our very first date because I had the exact same expectations of women, but let me explain.
Like many men, what I WANTED to happen when it came to me getting the drawers, was not the same thing as I would RESPECT a woman for doing.
Does that make sense?
Sure, I would have loved for every woman to agree that a trip to the Cheesecake Factory was the Golden Ticket to parting some hairs, but I doubt I would have respected the women who made that choice. Like many young men, what I wanted from a woman was at odds with what I thought was respectable.
I know ladies, men are just as crazy as y'all.
Coming back to pay to play issues, I think that most men feel like if a woman allows us to spend money on them, particularly a lot of money, they should show some appreciation. And not that pat-on-the-back, "You are so sweet" kind of appreciation either. We want to know that you understand that for many men, spending our money is just as big of a deal as you laying down with us. Particularly for a cheap bastard like me, and my ilk.
But, on the flipside, we don't really want it confirmed that a woman we have actual feelings for, is up for sale. I mean, no man wants to know that the woman he cares about has a price tag. The next question in our minds, at least in my mind, becomes, "Who else can meet the price?"
Just like the always dangerous discussion about who many folks have notched your headboard, letting a man know that you think certain expenditures guarantee sex is a dicey move. Sure, you might have a cat who agrees with your sex threshold, but it's just as likely you'll find someone who finds your cost-benefit-analysis hopelessly skewed too high or too low.
My advice is that women should never reveal that any expenditure means guaranteed sex, and they should never reveal that they had this idea in the past. Avoid this conversation, or debate, the same way you avoid the "numbers" question.
In addition, women should be very careful about how much money they allow a man to spend on them because an uneven exchange of funds has to be balanced out at sometime. Yes, free meals and gifts are nice, but the first rule of economics is that there are "no free lunches." Your tab is growing, and you have no idea how the man you're dealing with is expecting you to settle up.
For men, I would say never spend your money expecting sex. It's a losers' gamble. If a woman doesn't pay out, all you have left is complaining and whining and that's definitely not going to get you any cat. If you're spending money on a woman, just look at it as a loan to your momma. That money has no strings, and no expectation of return.
Finally, on last thing for the fellas. Always have a really good explanation when your wife asks why you thought she was only worth a Blockbuster night on y'all's first date.
Trust me on that.
Share
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Arrogantly, Ambiguous Cockblock
For much of my life, I've had more female friends than male friends.
Note: I'm talking about actual female friends, not chicks I hang around with the hope that I'll get to smash in their moment of weakness. There is a massive difference.
As a male friend, I have of course been asked to give my female friends advice on relationships, and I've also voluntarily supplied my infinite wisdom without prompting. But, giving advice to women dating other men is a tricky business, and I have always lived by two rules.
1. Never speak bad on another man, unless he has done unequivocally evil things. Always be the cat that's encouraging women to give dudes a second change.
I mean, you never know when you might need a second chance.
Plus, I've always believed that there is nothing lamer than a dude who bad mouths other dudes to chicks. So, I have rarely volunteered my opinion on the behavior of another man to a female friend, and I when I have asked a direct question I have tried to be as charitable as possible. Now, this rule can be bent if the dude and your female friend have an extensive and troubled history, but those occasions should be rare.
2. Never tell a chick that another man isn't "good enough" for her, or try to tell a woman her standards are not up to par.
This second rule is a serious one. Yes, I have sometimes felt that the women I know were wasting their time with certain men. Yes, this caused them heartache and pain.
But, I've always felt that when a man is telling a woman she shouldn't be with another man, he's actually trying to ease his way into that woman's pants.
Seems like what he's really saying is "That dude is wack, how did he get he draws instead of me?"
Now, one of my best friends told me I was reaching with this topic. She said that when you're friends with people you want the best for them. She compared it to a woman telling another woman that the guy she was dealing with is a loser. It's not about easing your way into the drawers, it's about protecting someone you care about from harm.
Honestly, she almost swayed me. I mean, there have been times when a female has suggested doing something for a man that I find ridiculous, and I've taken it upon myself to point out how stupid she sounds.
However, I usually point this out by asking loaded questions designed to make the person work through their stupidity on their own. There's nothing like having to defend an idiotic position or action to make you realize just how stupid you look. I have rarely, very rarely, just come out and said "That dude is scum and you're stupid for even dealing with him." It just feels wrong to me.
I guess in my heart of hearts, I've never wanted to be that lame dude on the sidelines throwing salt and cockblocking.
Plus, it's a bit arrogant to assume that I have a better idea of what's "good" for another adult than they do themselves. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but saying it feels a tad arrogant. So, I almost always err on the side of letting folks make whatever mistakes they want to make in relationships.
I read this blog the other day where a woman wrote about how she was talking to a male friend about a potential suitor, and the male friend said "Nah, he ain't up to your standards." Then I had somebody else tell me how one of their male friends, well technically an ex-boyfriend, told her that a new dude she was considering was a "downgrade."
Seems like telling somebody a suitor isn't "up to their standards" is a backhanded compliment at best, (After all, it's basically saying you lack the ability to see who is compatible with you) and an egregious cockblock at worst. Now, the situation may not be as bad when it's a woman speaking to another woman, or a man talking to another man, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
So, am I wrong, is this really just an innocent and helpful practice, or is it an arrogantly, ambiguous cockblock?
Share
Note: I'm talking about actual female friends, not chicks I hang around with the hope that I'll get to smash in their moment of weakness. There is a massive difference.
As a male friend, I have of course been asked to give my female friends advice on relationships, and I've also voluntarily supplied my infinite wisdom without prompting. But, giving advice to women dating other men is a tricky business, and I have always lived by two rules.
1. Never speak bad on another man, unless he has done unequivocally evil things. Always be the cat that's encouraging women to give dudes a second change.
I mean, you never know when you might need a second chance.
Plus, I've always believed that there is nothing lamer than a dude who bad mouths other dudes to chicks. So, I have rarely volunteered my opinion on the behavior of another man to a female friend, and I when I have asked a direct question I have tried to be as charitable as possible. Now, this rule can be bent if the dude and your female friend have an extensive and troubled history, but those occasions should be rare.
2. Never tell a chick that another man isn't "good enough" for her, or try to tell a woman her standards are not up to par.
This second rule is a serious one. Yes, I have sometimes felt that the women I know were wasting their time with certain men. Yes, this caused them heartache and pain.
But, I've always felt that when a man is telling a woman she shouldn't be with another man, he's actually trying to ease his way into that woman's pants.
Seems like what he's really saying is "That dude is wack, how did he get he draws instead of me?"
Now, one of my best friends told me I was reaching with this topic. She said that when you're friends with people you want the best for them. She compared it to a woman telling another woman that the guy she was dealing with is a loser. It's not about easing your way into the drawers, it's about protecting someone you care about from harm.
Honestly, she almost swayed me. I mean, there have been times when a female has suggested doing something for a man that I find ridiculous, and I've taken it upon myself to point out how stupid she sounds.
However, I usually point this out by asking loaded questions designed to make the person work through their stupidity on their own. There's nothing like having to defend an idiotic position or action to make you realize just how stupid you look. I have rarely, very rarely, just come out and said "That dude is scum and you're stupid for even dealing with him." It just feels wrong to me.
I guess in my heart of hearts, I've never wanted to be that lame dude on the sidelines throwing salt and cockblocking.
Plus, it's a bit arrogant to assume that I have a better idea of what's "good" for another adult than they do themselves. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but saying it feels a tad arrogant. So, I almost always err on the side of letting folks make whatever mistakes they want to make in relationships.
I read this blog the other day where a woman wrote about how she was talking to a male friend about a potential suitor, and the male friend said "Nah, he ain't up to your standards." Then I had somebody else tell me how one of their male friends, well technically an ex-boyfriend, told her that a new dude she was considering was a "downgrade."
Seems like telling somebody a suitor isn't "up to their standards" is a backhanded compliment at best, (After all, it's basically saying you lack the ability to see who is compatible with you) and an egregious cockblock at worst. Now, the situation may not be as bad when it's a woman speaking to another woman, or a man talking to another man, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
So, am I wrong, is this really just an innocent and helpful practice, or is it an arrogantly, ambiguous cockblock?
Share
Monday, March 22, 2010
Lame Losers Lamenting Life
Warning: This is a public service announcement for all well-meaning brothers and sisters across the land. Please heed the message provided below and conduct yourselves accordingly.
It has come to the attention of the Lunatic committee that there has been an alarming increase in backbiting and complaining among black men and women in regards to the state of black love.
The committee has decided to call this the Quad L disease because it really boils down to lame, losers, lamenting life.
This spate of whining has been noticed by the majority media, which has subsequently pimped it out as a way to provide fodder for books, articles and other sundry forms of entertainment.
The Lunatic committee would like to reiterate its documented position that this new "crisis" in black relationships is not, in fact, new.
Nor does the committee believe it is a sign of the end times. Moreover, the committee is sorely disturbed by how many men and women are willing to cast the blame on the opposite sex without taking a good hard look in the mirror.
Consequently, the committee feels compelled to issue the following public service announcement to protect well-meaning brothers and sisters from their bitter and blind counterparts.
It is our hope that this warning, and the guidelines that accompany it, can maintain some happiness in the hood.
1. Any black man or black woman who inserts the phrase "See, that's why I don't deal with black men/women" into ANY conversation is not worthy of air. They should be shunned, and if possible, they should be showered with hot piss. (Shout out to CNu.)
Not only is it a blatant example of self-hating coonery to indict your race based on your own limited interactions within that race, but it takes a special person to actually vocalize these feelings to people of their own race.
Hot piss for you!
2. Anyone who enjoys engaging in extended diatribes detailing the ills of black men/women must be able instantly provide references that attest to their own impeccable character as a mate.
These references cannot be family members, and must have proof that they themselves are not Quad L sufferers.
All complainers who cannot provide these references or show independent proof of their impeccable character should be slathered with steaming caca.
Slathered I say!
3. All adults or near adults seeking to enter into a productive relationship must swear a binding oath to hold their prospective mates to the same standards they themselves are willing to live by.
To be clear, this does not mean that you expect your mate to live the same way you live, or that you expect them to think the same way you think.
This means that for every benefit of the doubt you extend to yourself, every shortcoming you overlook, and every excuse you make for your own failures, you must be willing to extend the same courtesy to your mate for whatever they desire.
So, if you have a habit of spending too much money on clothes because of your love of fashion, it is not enough to allow your mate to spend money on clothes as well. Instead, you must allow them to spend an inordinate amount of time sating their video game fetish to truly be making an equal sacrifice.
If you are unwilling to make this pledge, shut the hell up about what men/women won't do in relationships.
4. Anyone who inserts the phrase "Why do black men/women do this?" into a conversation must be able to provide three examples of black people they know doing said activity. Furthermore, they must be able to document how this activity is unique to black people.
If a person is unable to document said activity as something unique to Negroes, it can no longer be used to denigrate black folks, or as a reason for complaining.
If you are too much of a Quad L sufferer to abide by these rules and cease your petty and counterproductive complaining, the committee has an observation and a suggestion.
First, you suck at life.
Second, please take a vacation from Earth.
This has been a message from the Lunatic committee. Questions and comments can be left at the end of the post, or directed to the email address listed on the right.
Sincerely,
Big Man, Chairman and Emperor.
Share
It has come to the attention of the Lunatic committee that there has been an alarming increase in backbiting and complaining among black men and women in regards to the state of black love.
The committee has decided to call this the Quad L disease because it really boils down to lame, losers, lamenting life.
This spate of whining has been noticed by the majority media, which has subsequently pimped it out as a way to provide fodder for books, articles and other sundry forms of entertainment.
The Lunatic committee would like to reiterate its documented position that this new "crisis" in black relationships is not, in fact, new.
Nor does the committee believe it is a sign of the end times. Moreover, the committee is sorely disturbed by how many men and women are willing to cast the blame on the opposite sex without taking a good hard look in the mirror.
Consequently, the committee feels compelled to issue the following public service announcement to protect well-meaning brothers and sisters from their bitter and blind counterparts.
It is our hope that this warning, and the guidelines that accompany it, can maintain some happiness in the hood.
1. Any black man or black woman who inserts the phrase "See, that's why I don't deal with black men/women" into ANY conversation is not worthy of air. They should be shunned, and if possible, they should be showered with hot piss. (Shout out to CNu.)
Not only is it a blatant example of self-hating coonery to indict your race based on your own limited interactions within that race, but it takes a special person to actually vocalize these feelings to people of their own race.
Hot piss for you!
2. Anyone who enjoys engaging in extended diatribes detailing the ills of black men/women must be able instantly provide references that attest to their own impeccable character as a mate.
These references cannot be family members, and must have proof that they themselves are not Quad L sufferers.
All complainers who cannot provide these references or show independent proof of their impeccable character should be slathered with steaming caca.
Slathered I say!
3. All adults or near adults seeking to enter into a productive relationship must swear a binding oath to hold their prospective mates to the same standards they themselves are willing to live by.
To be clear, this does not mean that you expect your mate to live the same way you live, or that you expect them to think the same way you think.
This means that for every benefit of the doubt you extend to yourself, every shortcoming you overlook, and every excuse you make for your own failures, you must be willing to extend the same courtesy to your mate for whatever they desire.
So, if you have a habit of spending too much money on clothes because of your love of fashion, it is not enough to allow your mate to spend money on clothes as well. Instead, you must allow them to spend an inordinate amount of time sating their video game fetish to truly be making an equal sacrifice.
If you are unwilling to make this pledge, shut the hell up about what men/women won't do in relationships.
4. Anyone who inserts the phrase "Why do black men/women do this?" into a conversation must be able to provide three examples of black people they know doing said activity. Furthermore, they must be able to document how this activity is unique to black people.
If a person is unable to document said activity as something unique to Negroes, it can no longer be used to denigrate black folks, or as a reason for complaining.
If you are too much of a Quad L sufferer to abide by these rules and cease your petty and counterproductive complaining, the committee has an observation and a suggestion.
First, you suck at life.
Second, please take a vacation from Earth.
This has been a message from the Lunatic committee. Questions and comments can be left at the end of the post, or directed to the email address listed on the right.
Sincerely,
Big Man, Chairman and Emperor.
Share
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Yeah, You Ain't All That
Arrogant was a word often used to describe me in the past.
Blunt, crass and self-absorbed might have been thrown around as well. Some folks have called me cruel and a bully. I'm not proud of this, but those are the facts.
When it finally got through my head that maybe I wasn't walking the way I wanted to walk, I decided to start changing. Those of y'all who have tried to change some personality traits can imagine how I'm struggling with that task. But, as I struggle, I still progress.
But, with all my flaws, I do have some strengths. I used to believe one of those strengths was a lack of color bias. Growing up in New Orleans, you learn pretty quickly that color bias ain't a fantasy. Folks down here take "colorstruck" to a whole new level, and as a result dark-skinned folks, particularly little girls, can have a hard life. Until recently, I never saw myself as being affected by this. I've always liked a variety of women in all shapes, sizes and colors, so I never considered myself "colorstruck."
Then a friend of mine sent me this link and I had to re-evaluate my self image yet again.
If you click the link you'll find a photo gallery of black women who have made the transition from relaxed hair to natural hair. I like natural hair, my wife has a big ol' afro and I cornrow and twist it for her all the time. It's a quality time tradition we started when she was pregnant with my oldest son, and it's continued through the years.
I always assumed that I didn't have a hair preference. But, when I looked at those pictures, I found myself oddly drawn to the pictures with relaxed hair, even though the person in each photo was the same. I found myself thinking of the relaxed hair as "neater" or "prettier" and that's when I realized I had a problem.
The dreaded Sickness.
That's what my friend and I call it. That friend had the same reaction as me when she looked through the gallery despite the fact that she's transitioning to natural hair right now. We both know that black women's natural hair is neat and pretty and wonderful, but yet we couldn't honestly deny being drawn to the relaxed hair.
The Sickness is insidious in that way. Even if you take the time to educate yourself on the way European beauty standards have been foisted on vulnerable black people, you are still susceptible to that brainwashing. Just when you think you've eradicated all traces of Sickness from your mind, and you're congratulating yourself on that accomplishment, another manifestation of the Sickness will rear its ugly, pimpled head.
It was humbling and startling to come to the realization that I was carrying around this hidden bias. Not only did it remind me that I always have work to do if I want to reach my personal goals, it also made me wonder what other biases are lurking in my subconscious. Are there other forms of the Sickness hidden in the recesses of my poor brain that will only be revealed under stress? Will I be out with my kids one day chilling and then suddenly start regurgitating racist pap that would make Larry Elder proud? It's unnerving.
I guess I'll just have to forge ahead and trust my training in the rules of blackness to keep me safe in the future. It doesn't help that I've found out that most of my favorite movies from my youth were chock full of racist stereotypes as well.
Only the Good Lord knows what's in my mind...
Share
Blunt, crass and self-absorbed might have been thrown around as well. Some folks have called me cruel and a bully. I'm not proud of this, but those are the facts.
When it finally got through my head that maybe I wasn't walking the way I wanted to walk, I decided to start changing. Those of y'all who have tried to change some personality traits can imagine how I'm struggling with that task. But, as I struggle, I still progress.
But, with all my flaws, I do have some strengths. I used to believe one of those strengths was a lack of color bias. Growing up in New Orleans, you learn pretty quickly that color bias ain't a fantasy. Folks down here take "colorstruck" to a whole new level, and as a result dark-skinned folks, particularly little girls, can have a hard life. Until recently, I never saw myself as being affected by this. I've always liked a variety of women in all shapes, sizes and colors, so I never considered myself "colorstruck."
Then a friend of mine sent me this link and I had to re-evaluate my self image yet again.
If you click the link you'll find a photo gallery of black women who have made the transition from relaxed hair to natural hair. I like natural hair, my wife has a big ol' afro and I cornrow and twist it for her all the time. It's a quality time tradition we started when she was pregnant with my oldest son, and it's continued through the years.
I always assumed that I didn't have a hair preference. But, when I looked at those pictures, I found myself oddly drawn to the pictures with relaxed hair, even though the person in each photo was the same. I found myself thinking of the relaxed hair as "neater" or "prettier" and that's when I realized I had a problem.
The dreaded Sickness.
That's what my friend and I call it. That friend had the same reaction as me when she looked through the gallery despite the fact that she's transitioning to natural hair right now. We both know that black women's natural hair is neat and pretty and wonderful, but yet we couldn't honestly deny being drawn to the relaxed hair.
The Sickness is insidious in that way. Even if you take the time to educate yourself on the way European beauty standards have been foisted on vulnerable black people, you are still susceptible to that brainwashing. Just when you think you've eradicated all traces of Sickness from your mind, and you're congratulating yourself on that accomplishment, another manifestation of the Sickness will rear its ugly, pimpled head.
It was humbling and startling to come to the realization that I was carrying around this hidden bias. Not only did it remind me that I always have work to do if I want to reach my personal goals, it also made me wonder what other biases are lurking in my subconscious. Are there other forms of the Sickness hidden in the recesses of my poor brain that will only be revealed under stress? Will I be out with my kids one day chilling and then suddenly start regurgitating racist pap that would make Larry Elder proud? It's unnerving.
I guess I'll just have to forge ahead and trust my training in the rules of blackness to keep me safe in the future. It doesn't help that I've found out that most of my favorite movies from my youth were chock full of racist stereotypes as well.
Only the Good Lord knows what's in my mind...
Share
Monday, November 16, 2009
Holla We Want Pre-Nup!
What does marriage mean to you?
I once told my wife that before I started really getting serious about marrying her, I never thought about marriage. I mean, I considered it in passing, you know as something I definitely wanted to do one day, but I didn't spend much time pondering what marriage was all about. From what I can tell, this is pretty much standard procedure for most men. We aren't conditioned to spend time day-dreaming about marital bliss, instead we're taught to avoid it as long as possible.
With that said, I always knew that when I got married, it was a forever kind of thing. When I proposed to my wife, I prefaced the actual proposal with one last discussion about how we both had to be committed to marriage for it to work. I didn't want any misunderstandings about what marriage was going to mean for both of us.
However, one thing I never considered was a pre-nuptial agreement.
According to the link I posted, pre-nuptial agreements are all the rage these days, and I can't really blame it on that damn Kanye West. From what I can gather, it seems that a lot of folks view pre-nups as a safety net to keep their marriages on track and protect themselves. You know what I think about that?
They need Jesus.
Nah, seriously though, they might want to check with the Big Guy if they want a safety net. Because I'm pretty sure that little piece of paper is not going to make anybody's marriage any better, and it probably won't even make your divorce easier at least according to the article.
It used to be that folks got pre-nups if they had a lot of money to protect. Now they're using them to make sure that coitus is regular and that the trash is emptied on time. Seems like pre-nups are the new nagging. If your partner isn't acting right, all you have to do is hold up the pre-nup and say "It's in writing."
Yeah, like that's gonna work.
News flash folks, you can't make grown folks behave. Ever. Adults are not children. You can't punish them, or spank them. You pretty much have to ask them nicely and hope for the best. If there is one lesson I've learned in marriage it is that God alone has the power to create change. Any time I try to handle God's work, I just wind up frustrated.
People who think pre-nups will prevent marital headaches are fools. It doesn't matter what's written down on paper, it matters what's in your mate's heart. If they don't want to behave properly, the pre-nup is not going to make them.
Personally, it just rubs me wrong to be entering a permanent union while at the same time planning your exit strategy. It strikes as defeatist. But, hey, what do I know.
I actually got married in the first place.
Share
I once told my wife that before I started really getting serious about marrying her, I never thought about marriage. I mean, I considered it in passing, you know as something I definitely wanted to do one day, but I didn't spend much time pondering what marriage was all about. From what I can tell, this is pretty much standard procedure for most men. We aren't conditioned to spend time day-dreaming about marital bliss, instead we're taught to avoid it as long as possible.
With that said, I always knew that when I got married, it was a forever kind of thing. When I proposed to my wife, I prefaced the actual proposal with one last discussion about how we both had to be committed to marriage for it to work. I didn't want any misunderstandings about what marriage was going to mean for both of us.
However, one thing I never considered was a pre-nuptial agreement.
According to the link I posted, pre-nuptial agreements are all the rage these days, and I can't really blame it on that damn Kanye West. From what I can gather, it seems that a lot of folks view pre-nups as a safety net to keep their marriages on track and protect themselves. You know what I think about that?
They need Jesus.
Nah, seriously though, they might want to check with the Big Guy if they want a safety net. Because I'm pretty sure that little piece of paper is not going to make anybody's marriage any better, and it probably won't even make your divorce easier at least according to the article.
It used to be that folks got pre-nups if they had a lot of money to protect. Now they're using them to make sure that coitus is regular and that the trash is emptied on time. Seems like pre-nups are the new nagging. If your partner isn't acting right, all you have to do is hold up the pre-nup and say "It's in writing."
Yeah, like that's gonna work.
News flash folks, you can't make grown folks behave. Ever. Adults are not children. You can't punish them, or spank them. You pretty much have to ask them nicely and hope for the best. If there is one lesson I've learned in marriage it is that God alone has the power to create change. Any time I try to handle God's work, I just wind up frustrated.
People who think pre-nups will prevent marital headaches are fools. It doesn't matter what's written down on paper, it matters what's in your mate's heart. If they don't want to behave properly, the pre-nup is not going to make them.
Personally, it just rubs me wrong to be entering a permanent union while at the same time planning your exit strategy. It strikes as defeatist. But, hey, what do I know.
I actually got married in the first place.
Share
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Daddies and Mommies
Could you be my daddy? 'Cause I need a daddy. Could you be my daddy, 'cause I need a daddy...
This blares from my radio at least once a day. It's the intro to Twista's new song about creating slippery walls in the nether regions of females, and it bothers me.
Is might just be me, but I find something disturbing about a woman singing about her need for a daddy, right before a portly rapper talks about providing her with sexual favors to make her feel good. Besides the fact that "daddy" is often a term used by pimps and hoes, just the idea that a grown woman is out searching for a father figure and is settling for somebody who has an erect penis and money is a problem to me.
And it's not just this song, it's many others. I hear these little poo butt rappers and their crooning counterparts talking about "lil momma this" and "baby girl that" and it makes me want to slap the black off somebody. You really want to have sex doggiestyle with somebody you call "momma?" Really?
Something is perverse about this whole movement to use terms like daddy and momma to describe people who aren't actually filling anything that resembles a parental role. In fact, I would say that this new state of affairs is even more troubling considering the fact that so many black folks seem to have difficulty filling the roles of daddy and mommy with their actual kids. Seems like men and women are more than happy to partake in the fantasy of being a daddy, mommy or child, but less than eager to actually deal with the harsh realities of those roles.
When did it become acceptable to become an adult searching for a mommy or daddy to engage in a relationship with? When did it become cool to be so incomplete as a human being that you need somebody else to raise you? In my mind that's never going to be cool, but it seems like I'm in the minority these days.
Who wants to be involved with somebody that needs a daddy or mommy? I would wager that the kinds of people seeking out relationships with immature and undeveloped individuals are not exactly the folks that are going to make your life great.
I'm sure that some folks will scoff at my anger. They will point out that I'm taking these songs too literally, that people aren't really looking for mommies and daddies, they just think it sounds sexy in a song. The thing is, I don't buy it. Music either reflects the current reality, or it projects a reality on its listeners that the musician would like to pretend exists.
The current state of black music is a reflection of the lack of development of so many young black people. I don't know when it happened, but clearly we have crossed a threshold where long held beliefs are no longer sacred, and most folks are cool with that. It used to be that being a daddy or mommy meant something more than the physical joining of egg and sperm, but that's changed. It used to be that independence was a sign of adulthood, but that's changed. We've all decided that what's cool now are random exchanges of bodily fluid designed to procure money or gifts or status. It's bogus.
And where are the real parents, dammit?
Share
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Girl, Shut Your Mouth
Y'all heard of this woman named Shanel Cooper Sykes?
I guess I'm late to the party, (I be on CP Time when it comes to cool stuff), but apparently she's sweeping the internet with her You Tube videos telling women to get it right and keep it there. The lovely Lisa Raye doppelganger seems to be delighting men across the country and comment sections devoted to her are littered with wedding proposals.
But, Mrs. Cooper-Sykes isn't beloved by everyone. She's not popular with some ladies who have accused her of pandering to male audiences with her comments about staying in the kitchen and staying fly. I had a close friend of my mine have a very visceral negative reaction when she was introduced to Mrs. Cooper-Sykes through various Facebook comments devoted to worshipping at her domestic altar. When I pressed my friend on the reason for her response, she said she couldn't put her finger on it exactly, but she knew the woman bothered her.
That, of course, piqued my interest.
My friend, she's one of my best friends actually, is what I would call a "New Age woman." She's not a fan of cooking or cleaning, is ambivalent about child rearing, and thinks that any man she marries is going to have to get in where he fits in. She says the only duties she assigns to her man are showering her with adoration, friendship and love, nothing more. Oh wait, and he has to lay good pipe.
Okay.
My friend eventually admitted that she was pissed with Cooper-Sykes because it seemed like the life coach was telling women that if they wanted to snare a decent man, they'd better embrace all of the traditional duties of womanhood. My friend, bless her soul, has decided that if that's what it takes to get a man, she's better off with her dog and her HBO.
Personally, I wasn't a fan of Cooper-Sykes' videos. Not because I disagreed with what she said, but because she was obviously pandering to men who think that the reason why they can't find a good woman is because none are left, when the real problem is that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. What I mean is that a lot of the cats complaining that women don't have their stuff together have the same problem themselves, but they are so busy lamenting their woes they haven't done any self-evaluation.
So, while Cooper-Sykes was right about what many men would consider assets in a woman, the peanut gallery cheering her on is bothersome. From my experience, the cats who are looking for a good woman, and who have their stuff together, have absolutely NO problem locating a decent catch. It is a buyer's market out there.
But, back to my friend.
Her comment about just seeking friendship, adoration and love sounded good, but it's been my experience that all that glitters ain't gold. She says she doesn't want a man to "provide" for her, but I wonder whether she would be cool with a dude who wanted to be Mr. Mom. I also thought her qualifications left a lot of room for interpretation. What men consider loving, adoring and friendly is often quite different from what women see that way.
I suggested to her that a good exercise for her would be to truly think about what duties go into making a life with another person, the day-to-day minutiae, and then be honest about what duties she would be willing to do for a man, and what she wouldn't. After all, whatever she wouldn't do would then either be her man's job, the job of a paid staffer, or it would never get down. From personal experience, I've found that many of us have become unconsciously set in our ways and we don't even realize this has happened until we try to build a new life with someone else.
I think it's a good exercise for all couples to have a concrete understanding of what each partner does in a relationship so that we can truly appreciate our mates. I also think we need to understand each partner's roles and responsibilities. Too often, I've seen men and women (but typically women) have long lists of things that their partner should do, but struggle to figure out what their own roles are. Or, I've seen couples where people blindly accept the largess of their mate without seeing any responsibility to reciprocate.
I figure that once people, like my friend, truly understand everything they require from the other person in a relationship it will be easier for them to accept the requirements their mates place on them.
And they won't be so eager to shut up people like Mrs. Cooper-Sykes.
Share
I guess I'm late to the party, (I be on CP Time when it comes to cool stuff), but apparently she's sweeping the internet with her You Tube videos telling women to get it right and keep it there. The lovely Lisa Raye doppelganger seems to be delighting men across the country and comment sections devoted to her are littered with wedding proposals.
But, Mrs. Cooper-Sykes isn't beloved by everyone. She's not popular with some ladies who have accused her of pandering to male audiences with her comments about staying in the kitchen and staying fly. I had a close friend of my mine have a very visceral negative reaction when she was introduced to Mrs. Cooper-Sykes through various Facebook comments devoted to worshipping at her domestic altar. When I pressed my friend on the reason for her response, she said she couldn't put her finger on it exactly, but she knew the woman bothered her.
That, of course, piqued my interest.
My friend, she's one of my best friends actually, is what I would call a "New Age woman." She's not a fan of cooking or cleaning, is ambivalent about child rearing, and thinks that any man she marries is going to have to get in where he fits in. She says the only duties she assigns to her man are showering her with adoration, friendship and love, nothing more. Oh wait, and he has to lay good pipe.
Okay.
My friend eventually admitted that she was pissed with Cooper-Sykes because it seemed like the life coach was telling women that if they wanted to snare a decent man, they'd better embrace all of the traditional duties of womanhood. My friend, bless her soul, has decided that if that's what it takes to get a man, she's better off with her dog and her HBO.
Personally, I wasn't a fan of Cooper-Sykes' videos. Not because I disagreed with what she said, but because she was obviously pandering to men who think that the reason why they can't find a good woman is because none are left, when the real problem is that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. What I mean is that a lot of the cats complaining that women don't have their stuff together have the same problem themselves, but they are so busy lamenting their woes they haven't done any self-evaluation.
So, while Cooper-Sykes was right about what many men would consider assets in a woman, the peanut gallery cheering her on is bothersome. From my experience, the cats who are looking for a good woman, and who have their stuff together, have absolutely NO problem locating a decent catch. It is a buyer's market out there.
But, back to my friend.
Her comment about just seeking friendship, adoration and love sounded good, but it's been my experience that all that glitters ain't gold. She says she doesn't want a man to "provide" for her, but I wonder whether she would be cool with a dude who wanted to be Mr. Mom. I also thought her qualifications left a lot of room for interpretation. What men consider loving, adoring and friendly is often quite different from what women see that way.
I suggested to her that a good exercise for her would be to truly think about what duties go into making a life with another person, the day-to-day minutiae, and then be honest about what duties she would be willing to do for a man, and what she wouldn't. After all, whatever she wouldn't do would then either be her man's job, the job of a paid staffer, or it would never get down. From personal experience, I've found that many of us have become unconsciously set in our ways and we don't even realize this has happened until we try to build a new life with someone else.
I think it's a good exercise for all couples to have a concrete understanding of what each partner does in a relationship so that we can truly appreciate our mates. I also think we need to understand each partner's roles and responsibilities. Too often, I've seen men and women (but typically women) have long lists of things that their partner should do, but struggle to figure out what their own roles are. Or, I've seen couples where people blindly accept the largess of their mate without seeing any responsibility to reciprocate.
I figure that once people, like my friend, truly understand everything they require from the other person in a relationship it will be easier for them to accept the requirements their mates place on them.
And they won't be so eager to shut up people like Mrs. Cooper-Sykes.
Share
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Awwww Yeah. Now We Talking
Well, ain't this article interesting?
Go ahead, take some time and read it. I promise that if you're a black man you'll find yourself nodding your head, and if you're a black woman you might be ducking your head in shame. That's because that article rehashes one of the most popular conversations in the black community.
Why can't all these good black women find themselves a good black man?
The answer is simple.
Standards, standards, standards.
Y'all know I talk about standards and values a lot on this blog. I regularly exhort all of us to find a moral compass and then let that be a guide in our lives. Those of you who are regular readers also know I tend to suggest a moral compass based on Christianity, although I respect everybody's right to choose another route.
Standards are cool. They are important. But, sometimes standards can be the reason why the only thing you have to comfort you at night is a quart of Chunky Monkey and The Rabbit. (Yeah, I went there.)
The point of the article I linked was to encourage women to relax some of their unrealistic standards if they truly want to capture a quality man. The author lets women know that while most of them may make google eyes at Barack Obama now because of how he treats Michelle, back in the day he would have just been the corny brother with the funny name, big ears and lack of rhythm.
I think that's an interesting and necessary message for black women, and the general public to receive.
Don't worry, I'm not one of those perpetually scorned brothers who is always whining about how black women love "thugs." I hate those cats. Truthfully, while I was never Rico Suave, I still managed to pull a few shorties here and there.
I know that the reason women are drawn to thugs isn't about their flashy cars or nice clothes, although those help, it's also because of a certain confidence and swagger that those cats often display. A devil-may-care attitude is a bigger aphrodisiac than any luxury automobile, trust me.
Plus, there are millions of black women who are emphatic about their dislike of anything "thuggish." These women, often the ones with degrees and jobs, want a man that can match them in the professional and cultural world. But, they also want a cat that makes them feel safe and has a little "bop" in his walk. That's understandable, at least to me.
In fact, if black women only had the the aforementioned qualities along with some basic additions like honesty, intelligence and maturity on their wishlists for potential mates, well black folks would be marrying like Mormons. Unfortunately that ain't life. In real life, young, successful and attractive black women have more items on their wishlist then rich kids at Christmas.
It just doesn't add up. If your fishing in a pond with limited fish, you better ease up on throwing back perfectly good ones because their scales don't match your outfit.
Yes, it's important to be attracted to someone, and yes they must interest you. But, as the Root article points out, if you have a long list of demands that any man must meet before he can get his foot in the door, well you're probably going to miss some perfectly good gentleman callers.
A friend of mine told me recently that when men enter a relationship they have a core list of non-negotiables, while women often just settle for whatever they get. I actually think that's true in some cases, but it doesn't explain the totality of the situation.
See, Men have a list and it looks like this: Milk, butter eggs...
Women have a list that looks like this: Butter, but not that butter with the trans fat and too much cream. Although I do need cream, so it won't be nasty. Make sure it's the yellow butter, not the white one. But, I don't want Ronald McDonald yellow, it has to look real. And it better not be too soft, but I can't stand too hard either...What else was on my list again? Oh crap, the store's closing, better grab something before I miss out...
Men have non-negotiables about marriage and serious dating. Not so much with random interactions. Women have non-negotiables about random interactions, but when it comes to marriage, well that kinda goes out the window. The lure of the dream is too great.
Men, by and large, will give any attractive woman a chance. We may not settle down with you, we definitely won't marry you, but if we think you're reasonably attractive we'll give you a shot. It may only be a shot to have sex with us, but we will give you that shot.
I've noticed that women are much less forgiving when it comes to giving men that initial shot. They will deem cats unacceptable for "dating" because of seemingly minuscule problems. They may still keep these men as friends, (Or "mind whores" as I like to call them) but rarely will the relationship progress past that.
Women and men respond so differently because they have different goals in relationships. Men initially are worried about present gratification, while women are concerned about future gratification. So, many women don't want to deal with a man who doesn't seem like marriage material immediately because they view it as a waste of time. This only changes when the pressure to get married weighs so heavily on women that they are willing scrap all of their standards just to find somebody.
In my opinion, black women are in a difficult position. If they are convinced that they want marriage, they must accept the reality that they are facing a stacked deck and they may not be able to make their decisions under optimal conditions. That means reevaluating how they consider potential mates. I'm not arguing that women should settle for anything, but maybe they need to rethink exactly what Prince Charming looks like.
Before he rides away on his white steed.
Share
Go ahead, take some time and read it. I promise that if you're a black man you'll find yourself nodding your head, and if you're a black woman you might be ducking your head in shame. That's because that article rehashes one of the most popular conversations in the black community.
Why can't all these good black women find themselves a good black man?
The answer is simple.
(Black women) expect men to resist what society tells them about ideals when it comes to us—God, help the brother who admits a preference for skin or hair displayed on every magazine cover; or the arrogant fool who holds out for his own Clair Huxtable, not acknowledging that The Cosby Show was fiction. We’re justifiably upset when unrealistic standards are imposed on us, but many of us don’t seem to give black men any breaks in return when it comes to the superficial.
Standards, standards, standards.
Y'all know I talk about standards and values a lot on this blog. I regularly exhort all of us to find a moral compass and then let that be a guide in our lives. Those of you who are regular readers also know I tend to suggest a moral compass based on Christianity, although I respect everybody's right to choose another route.
Standards are cool. They are important. But, sometimes standards can be the reason why the only thing you have to comfort you at night is a quart of Chunky Monkey and The Rabbit. (Yeah, I went there.)
The point of the article I linked was to encourage women to relax some of their unrealistic standards if they truly want to capture a quality man. The author lets women know that while most of them may make google eyes at Barack Obama now because of how he treats Michelle, back in the day he would have just been the corny brother with the funny name, big ears and lack of rhythm.
I think that's an interesting and necessary message for black women, and the general public to receive.
Don't worry, I'm not one of those perpetually scorned brothers who is always whining about how black women love "thugs." I hate those cats. Truthfully, while I was never Rico Suave, I still managed to pull a few shorties here and there.
I know that the reason women are drawn to thugs isn't about their flashy cars or nice clothes, although those help, it's also because of a certain confidence and swagger that those cats often display. A devil-may-care attitude is a bigger aphrodisiac than any luxury automobile, trust me.
Plus, there are millions of black women who are emphatic about their dislike of anything "thuggish." These women, often the ones with degrees and jobs, want a man that can match them in the professional and cultural world. But, they also want a cat that makes them feel safe and has a little "bop" in his walk. That's understandable, at least to me.
In fact, if black women only had the the aforementioned qualities along with some basic additions like honesty, intelligence and maturity on their wishlists for potential mates, well black folks would be marrying like Mormons. Unfortunately that ain't life. In real life, young, successful and attractive black women have more items on their wishlist then rich kids at Christmas.
It just doesn't add up. If your fishing in a pond with limited fish, you better ease up on throwing back perfectly good ones because their scales don't match your outfit.
Yes, it's important to be attracted to someone, and yes they must interest you. But, as the Root article points out, if you have a long list of demands that any man must meet before he can get his foot in the door, well you're probably going to miss some perfectly good gentleman callers.
A friend of mine told me recently that when men enter a relationship they have a core list of non-negotiables, while women often just settle for whatever they get. I actually think that's true in some cases, but it doesn't explain the totality of the situation.
See, Men have a list and it looks like this: Milk, butter eggs...
Women have a list that looks like this: Butter, but not that butter with the trans fat and too much cream. Although I do need cream, so it won't be nasty. Make sure it's the yellow butter, not the white one. But, I don't want Ronald McDonald yellow, it has to look real. And it better not be too soft, but I can't stand too hard either...What else was on my list again? Oh crap, the store's closing, better grab something before I miss out...
Men have non-negotiables about marriage and serious dating. Not so much with random interactions. Women have non-negotiables about random interactions, but when it comes to marriage, well that kinda goes out the window. The lure of the dream is too great.
Men, by and large, will give any attractive woman a chance. We may not settle down with you, we definitely won't marry you, but if we think you're reasonably attractive we'll give you a shot. It may only be a shot to have sex with us, but we will give you that shot.
I've noticed that women are much less forgiving when it comes to giving men that initial shot. They will deem cats unacceptable for "dating" because of seemingly minuscule problems. They may still keep these men as friends, (Or "mind whores" as I like to call them) but rarely will the relationship progress past that.
Women and men respond so differently because they have different goals in relationships. Men initially are worried about present gratification, while women are concerned about future gratification. So, many women don't want to deal with a man who doesn't seem like marriage material immediately because they view it as a waste of time. This only changes when the pressure to get married weighs so heavily on women that they are willing scrap all of their standards just to find somebody.
In my opinion, black women are in a difficult position. If they are convinced that they want marriage, they must accept the reality that they are facing a stacked deck and they may not be able to make their decisions under optimal conditions. That means reevaluating how they consider potential mates. I'm not arguing that women should settle for anything, but maybe they need to rethink exactly what Prince Charming looks like.
Before he rides away on his white steed.
Share
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Challenge!
Okay, if you have some time and an inclination to read something long and involved, I suggest you check on this piece in The Atlantic.
Ok, the story is about a long running Harvard study that has sought to determine what makes people happy by following around a group of college students since 1937. These aren't just run of the mill college students. These are the creme de la creme and as such, their ranks include some of the most important movers and shakers of the past century.
Anyway, as I read the story, early on I was struck by something. The author makes a point of noting that the study only includes men. The author does not make a point of noting that the study only includes white people.
Now, as a friend pointed out, that might be because the study contained some black people. But, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that given the time, given the pedigree of the candidates and given the criteria established for choosing participants, it did not. After all, I doubt that many folks looking to choose the perfectly "normal" college sophomore on Harvard's campus in 1937 would have chosen a black guy. It's a guess, but I'd call it a good one.
I bring this up because it made me think about something. The study is supposed to have revealed some definitive truths about happiness for human beings, but the only human beings studied were relatively wealthy white men. Can a study of the lives of wealthy white men give us answers about life for everyone?
You know, I really don't know.
On one hand, my first response was, "This means nothing since nobody who looked like me, or had life experiences like me, was included."
Then I thought about. Black people often ask to be looked at as humans first. We ask people not to make assumptions based on our color. We stress that we have the same human characteristics as everyone else. So, if I truly believe this is true, why should it matter if no black people were involved in this study?
These men have the same emotions, the same strengths and the same failings as me, despite our different lives. At our cores, we share the same human foibles. So, ostensibly, I should be able to learn from what happened to them in their lives and apply that knowledge to my life. The truths discovered about them, should apply to me.
But, I'm not sure.
Because it goes back to the question of whether the most important part of human development is nature or nurture. After all, while the stock material might be the same, the lives lived by white men in 1937 and black men in 1937 were vastly different on average.
How much do those differences contribute to the emotions these men display, to the mistakes they make, to the values they hold dear and to the lives they live? The study found that certain decisions, like having a close relationship with a sibling, could make life much better, but does that hold true if that close relationship is shaped by poverty and discrimination? Does the relationship offer the same strength, or is it then a burden?
While we all may be human and our skin color largely unimportant on a genetic level, it is vastly important on a social level? Can we truly learn important truths about the human experience if we only study one race of human beings? Given the importance of race in this world, does that make sense?
I don't know the answer, but I thought it might be an interesting question for y'all to ponder.
If you accept the challenge.
Share
Ok, the story is about a long running Harvard study that has sought to determine what makes people happy by following around a group of college students since 1937. These aren't just run of the mill college students. These are the creme de la creme and as such, their ranks include some of the most important movers and shakers of the past century.
Anyway, as I read the story, early on I was struck by something. The author makes a point of noting that the study only includes men. The author does not make a point of noting that the study only includes white people.
Now, as a friend pointed out, that might be because the study contained some black people. But, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that given the time, given the pedigree of the candidates and given the criteria established for choosing participants, it did not. After all, I doubt that many folks looking to choose the perfectly "normal" college sophomore on Harvard's campus in 1937 would have chosen a black guy. It's a guess, but I'd call it a good one.
I bring this up because it made me think about something. The study is supposed to have revealed some definitive truths about happiness for human beings, but the only human beings studied were relatively wealthy white men. Can a study of the lives of wealthy white men give us answers about life for everyone?
You know, I really don't know.
On one hand, my first response was, "This means nothing since nobody who looked like me, or had life experiences like me, was included."
Then I thought about. Black people often ask to be looked at as humans first. We ask people not to make assumptions based on our color. We stress that we have the same human characteristics as everyone else. So, if I truly believe this is true, why should it matter if no black people were involved in this study?
These men have the same emotions, the same strengths and the same failings as me, despite our different lives. At our cores, we share the same human foibles. So, ostensibly, I should be able to learn from what happened to them in their lives and apply that knowledge to my life. The truths discovered about them, should apply to me.
But, I'm not sure.
Because it goes back to the question of whether the most important part of human development is nature or nurture. After all, while the stock material might be the same, the lives lived by white men in 1937 and black men in 1937 were vastly different on average.
How much do those differences contribute to the emotions these men display, to the mistakes they make, to the values they hold dear and to the lives they live? The study found that certain decisions, like having a close relationship with a sibling, could make life much better, but does that hold true if that close relationship is shaped by poverty and discrimination? Does the relationship offer the same strength, or is it then a burden?
While we all may be human and our skin color largely unimportant on a genetic level, it is vastly important on a social level? Can we truly learn important truths about the human experience if we only study one race of human beings? Given the importance of race in this world, does that make sense?
I don't know the answer, but I thought it might be an interesting question for y'all to ponder.
If you accept the challenge.
Share
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Commerce Without Morality
I decided to just post the sin I'll be discussing today in the title of this blog. For those of you unaware, we are still discussing Gandhi's Seven Social Sins and "commerce without morality" is today's topic.
Unfortunately, I feel like I've discussed this topic several times already with my previous posts. One of the endearing facets of American society is a business community that has skirted the rules to make a buck. Actually, I'm sure that's a part of every business community in the world, but since I live in America, that's the country I'm most familiar with.
Then I decided to look up the dictionary definition of the word "commerce" to hopefully get some new inspiration. What I found was not only does the word "commerce" relate to the financial world, but it also has some other meanings
According to dictionary.com, the word "commerce: can mean an intellectual or spiritual interchange; communion.
That definition resonated with me.
"Intellectual and spiritual interchanges" are an important part of my life these days. Whether it be chopping up world events with folks on the Internets, or trying to find a better connection with God and my wife, I've found that establishing different types of "communions" is important to living a fulfilling life.
The thing is, it's a struggle to maintain a rigid and unchanging sense of morality and self in everyday life.
For example, as a married man, I've learned exactly how difficult it is to live with and love another person. When I got married, I thought I understood what it took to maintain a healthy relationship. In fact, I thought it didn't seem as difficult as everyone made it out to be.
I needed to be slapped.
Have you ever noticed how easy it is in a relationship to begin to justify everything you do, and demonize everything your partner does? It's amazing how quickly we become perfect, and our spouses become the scum of the Earth when we have a disagreement. I also thought that my keen, objective mind (lol) would shield me from this behavior, but that was a farce. I'm just as susceptible to establishing a sliding scale of morality or ethics as everyone else.
I'm not talking about massive ethical lapses, like infidelity or abuse. I'm talking about the little things. Like complaining that your wife doesn't clean up after herself, right after you left your sweaty socks in the middle of the living room floor. It's admonishing your wife to be firm when disciplining the children, and then bribing your little boy with gummy bears to get him to stop crying. I think I do a good job of being just and fair with my wife, but, like everyone, I tend to cut myself a little slack.
If I value the practical things in life, my wife is more concerned with the emotional well being of our relationship and our children. My primary focus is whether they are fed, clothed and housed. Happiness and the rest comes after I meet those needs. But, my wife's focus is different, and while I may not agree with her focus, I need to do a better job of understanding that.
An ethical communion is one built on mutual trust and understanding. Like the communion between Jesus and believers, the communion between a husband and wife must be grounded first in love and forgiveness. That doesn't mean we must abandon all standards, but it means that we must maintain a heart open to reconciliation when we see sincere repentance.
I don't know about y'all, but that's been a tough pill for me to swallow. My internal ethical code tends to lean more towards the "eye for an eye" mindset, than the "love those who spitefully use you" way of thinking. Consequently, my communion, or relationship, with my wife and others has been lacking in all-encompassing forgiveness at times. It's not enough to say, "no big deal," you actually have to mean it.
As I've said before, well all need to establish some bedrock values, whether they be biblical or otherwise, and then strive to reflect those values to the rest of the world. That means taking tough stances and holding ourselves to higher standards. It doesn't matter if we're talking about traditional "commerce" or if we're talking about relationships. If we live our lives according to a sliding scale of ethics, we will soon find ourselves capable of doing anything.
And that ain't good business.
Share
Unfortunately, I feel like I've discussed this topic several times already with my previous posts. One of the endearing facets of American society is a business community that has skirted the rules to make a buck. Actually, I'm sure that's a part of every business community in the world, but since I live in America, that's the country I'm most familiar with.
Then I decided to look up the dictionary definition of the word "commerce" to hopefully get some new inspiration. What I found was not only does the word "commerce" relate to the financial world, but it also has some other meanings
According to dictionary.com, the word "commerce: can mean an intellectual or spiritual interchange; communion.
That definition resonated with me.
"Intellectual and spiritual interchanges" are an important part of my life these days. Whether it be chopping up world events with folks on the Internets, or trying to find a better connection with God and my wife, I've found that establishing different types of "communions" is important to living a fulfilling life.
The thing is, it's a struggle to maintain a rigid and unchanging sense of morality and self in everyday life.
For example, as a married man, I've learned exactly how difficult it is to live with and love another person. When I got married, I thought I understood what it took to maintain a healthy relationship. In fact, I thought it didn't seem as difficult as everyone made it out to be.
I needed to be slapped.
Have you ever noticed how easy it is in a relationship to begin to justify everything you do, and demonize everything your partner does? It's amazing how quickly we become perfect, and our spouses become the scum of the Earth when we have a disagreement. I also thought that my keen, objective mind (lol) would shield me from this behavior, but that was a farce. I'm just as susceptible to establishing a sliding scale of morality or ethics as everyone else.
I'm not talking about massive ethical lapses, like infidelity or abuse. I'm talking about the little things. Like complaining that your wife doesn't clean up after herself, right after you left your sweaty socks in the middle of the living room floor. It's admonishing your wife to be firm when disciplining the children, and then bribing your little boy with gummy bears to get him to stop crying. I think I do a good job of being just and fair with my wife, but, like everyone, I tend to cut myself a little slack.
If I value the practical things in life, my wife is more concerned with the emotional well being of our relationship and our children. My primary focus is whether they are fed, clothed and housed. Happiness and the rest comes after I meet those needs. But, my wife's focus is different, and while I may not agree with her focus, I need to do a better job of understanding that.
An ethical communion is one built on mutual trust and understanding. Like the communion between Jesus and believers, the communion between a husband and wife must be grounded first in love and forgiveness. That doesn't mean we must abandon all standards, but it means that we must maintain a heart open to reconciliation when we see sincere repentance.
I don't know about y'all, but that's been a tough pill for me to swallow. My internal ethical code tends to lean more towards the "eye for an eye" mindset, than the "love those who spitefully use you" way of thinking. Consequently, my communion, or relationship, with my wife and others has been lacking in all-encompassing forgiveness at times. It's not enough to say, "no big deal," you actually have to mean it.
As I've said before, well all need to establish some bedrock values, whether they be biblical or otherwise, and then strive to reflect those values to the rest of the world. That means taking tough stances and holding ourselves to higher standards. It doesn't matter if we're talking about traditional "commerce" or if we're talking about relationships. If we live our lives according to a sliding scale of ethics, we will soon find ourselves capable of doing anything.
And that ain't good business.
Share
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Raving Black Lunatic
