March 2009 Archives

...but I am having a LONG anti-peen moment.

I'm not feeling the peen - or the brothers attached to them. It wasn't one incident that's pushed me over the edge, but their collective behavior as a whole.

what makes a "man" good?:: The glad-handing and congratulating themselves for having a "job, a car, a home and being triple D free, no Drugs, Drama, or Diseases" - as if they deserve an award for that. Ninja please - that's just the entrance fee. That doesn't make you a "good" man!

I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer had a job, car, home and health insurance! Shyt, John Wayne Gacy was triple-D (at least until he got caught)!

polygyny, thy name is playa:: And all the discussions that accept/promote this idea of "educated, professional black male scarcity". Yes, of course men would buy into that - that fear breeds insecurities and competition for the prize: namely them. And not for anything, but the whole "the reason why a women can't get/keep a good man" latest phenom is working a particular nerve in my booty as well. Social-media approved polygyny isn't any less annoying than self-approving polygyny. In other words: just because you CAN date myriad and sundry chicks at the same time and everyone seems to be cool with it, doesn't make it acceptable behavior.

Peen - the vaginaDryer:: In other words - I'm sick of men. How sick you ask? So sick, in fact - that attractive men are like aspic or lemon juice on the vajayjay: a vagina dryer to say the least. See that attractive group of brothers over there? Oh them? Yes, they're cute - but I'd rather have a new pair of Via Spigas. Or a V-8. Or a pack of double-A's for my BOB.

So sick in fact: that If Alonzo (Training Day Denzel) walked into my house, butt-booky-a$$ nekkid, with a fresh caeser and goatee, and asked me to glaze his mustache, I'd hand him a baker's dozen of hot Krispy Kremes. That, my friends, is a whole new level of jaded and bitter, even for me.

The new Peter Pan:: It's as if there's this new breed of men, that possess incredible self-centeredness. So self-indulgent, in fact, that although they "know" that they're treating the women in their lives badly, they have no knowledge or understanding of the depths of this mistreatment - or the impact. There are levels, my friends - and these brothers have hit behavioral rock-bottom, without understanding it. Their insecurities show themselves as arrogance combined with selfishness, and we count it all self-confidence. Blah!

In their minds, they are so compelling, so awesome, so "together" in all other categories: career, appearance, education, intelligence, creativity, talent, looks or success - that they're 'allowed" to be completely self-indulgent and so narcisstic that it damages anyone that comes into contact with them. They're allowed, because men are scarce, and good men are even scarcer, and we're all "adults", and there are no commitments, so no one should get hurt, right?

These are the brothers that cheat, then blame their woman's lack of sexual expertise for not keeping them at home. These are the brothers who refuse to commit, blaming their harem for not being the "right woman" - when in fact, they never got to know any of the harem on more than a superficial level.

Joysticks:: All these Peter Pans - self-indulgent, refusing to mature and grow-up, Toys-R-Us "good men" are just joysticks. They're good to play with for short periods of time, and they look good inside the box. Hell, if once you break the box open and really put them to work (er, horizontally that is?) - they may even bring a great deal of joy...lol.

...but after a couple of turns at the game, they break or come up short.

They're lacking in moral character, they're lacking in values, they're lacking in all the areas that truly make a man "good". Or even if they're not completely lacking - they rarely spend enough quality time with a woman to show her. Or are secure enough to invest in her.

I know I've thrown in the towel and said I'm done many times here before. The difference, this time, is that I've already got some time in, chilling. And chilling has become more appealing than dating. And that's more than a little scary.

I came across two interesting little ditties about marketing ya dayum self, Fame, celebrity, persons and Persona recently...

From Fame Game (more on that later), an excerpt of an interview with Erin Callan, the former CFO of Lehman Brothers, on becoming a Wall Street Celebrity:

What mistakes did you make? You can’t be naive about the press. I had a lot of positive exposure but didn’t recognize the opportunity for significant negative exposure. Exposure becomes celebrity, and you get a persona. That persona got away from me and the firm. There were so many pieces to it, not least of which was the phenomenon of a woman CFO on Wall Street.

And Fame Game's take on this?

Any PR person (or famehungry microcel) knows you have to have a persona. People don’t have time to get to know you and understand your context and personality. They have time to look at a picture of you and a headline, and then they generate a web of inferences that informs their idea of you, or, more accurately, “you.” Yet this description of the process is brief and incredibly clear. You get “exposure,” and then follows “celebrity,” and then you get a “persona.” If you were consciously playing the game you would have figured out your persona first, then set about seeking the requisite exposure to become a celebrity.

Velly intellesting.....

Oh, and about Fame Game - a word (or some words rather) from their founders:

FAME GAME is a rapidly-growing website that maps and analyzes your social connections and media attention to help you promote meaningful ideas, people, and organizations in culture. FAME GAME creates public-facing “social network” profiles for the 150,000+ most visible players in the New York media based on their cultural footprint.

From my cursory glance - FameGame appears to include featured profiles (celebrities), parties, projects, pictures and pr (news and editorial mentions) and along with the typical social networking aspects - it "ranks" people based on these characteristics (mostly on exposure). Their site also includes a blog, with editorial pieces such as Eric Callan's interview excerpt.

ok, but I digress. This idea of persona -> exposure -> celebrity extends far beyond the "famous" or celebrities.

We've all heard the adage about "first impressions". But how many of us manage our "persona" before those first impressions are made? And do we understand that we're always "on", always exposed and that this moment (and every moment that follows this) is an exposure leading to our "version" of celebrity?

Maybe I just missed the boat - being a nerd, I've had more than my fair of schlep in me of late, but.....

I've been fairly busy of late, primarily due to some work I've done in a semi-academic setting. I worked really hard academically, primarily to absorb as much information as could be crammed in my unusually large head. But in the process, I inadvertently created the "persona" or a diligent, hard-working and dedicated student - which aligned quite well with the parallel persona I'd created of a diligent, hard-working and dedicated employee. In this case, it's paying off, because (while I'm semi-employed) it's helping me maintain a steady source of revenue.

And in the process, I'm creating the persona of a diligent, hard-working and dedicated entrepreneur. Did I mention I'm working for ma dayum self? Yes, I am. And I'm conscious now....NOW, before things really begin to "jump off", that I need to work on that "persona" as diligently and hard as I work on my projects.

I alluded to this before, when I talked about Branding Yo Dayum Self, but I didn't dig down deep enough or make it clear enough for even ME to get it in my own personal life. So clearly:

• To work smart at your personal brand, you have to create your persona PRIOR to getting the exposure.
  
• You have to understand that every encounter is a potential exposure
  
• You, and I mean YOU - own that persona - you OWN your personal brand
  

Every encounter, chance or no - is an exposure. Who's watching you and managing your persona?

I can't find this story online, so my first blog in over 60 days is a straight news story:

Atlanta Area Business Fires Staff Via Text:

Facing a federal indictment in Gwinnett County, Access Business Services closed it's doors, and surprised its employees with "virtual" pink slips. Per WSB-TV, employees received notice via text messages that the company was closing permanently, and to not report to work today. However, not all employees received the messages - arriving to a box of letters explaining the firing, and elaborating by stating they "could make no comments on the delayed payroll" due to employees. One employee interviewed by WSB claimed that Access owed them $2,000, for backpay and commissions.

The telemarketing company is under indictment for telephone fraud, related to Access' business practices. Again, per WSB TV, Access sold preparatory exams for the Post Office Exam, which is problematic, because the post office isn't hiring. The court date is scheduled for next month, and the letters left for employees stated Access' closing is related to the court date.

Wow, so yeah - this is where the economy is at now? Via text message?

I hate to say I told ya so....but.....
I've been saying for a while now - that skillset you possess better be mobile, and like a nomad - you'd better be ready to pack your skillset and take it on the road. And make sure you can do what you do no matter WHO you work for....

Better yet - now would be a good time to make it do what it do for YOU. But that's another post.

Meanwhile, where have I been? Since I'm gainfully unemployed, I'm hustling. I left theGig for a better paying Gig, then got downsized. Meanwhle, I'm teaching, and freelancing, and writing and networking - anything to make the ends meet. Or preferably overlap.

I'm an entrepreneur. I'm making it do what it do for ME - but again, that's another post.

Firing via text? I might have to bust the windows out of somebody's car for that one. Real talk.