Your current interest in philosophy might have you believing that you are discovering the meaning of life. But others may think that you are evading the real issues by throwing around complex ideas and using too many big words. Although you could be trying to find truth, you can appear more cavalier in your approach than you realize. There's no need to change what you are doing as long as you are sensitive to the reactions of those around you.
along with last night's blog post, have moved me. So I'm admitting a few things:
I spend more time watching reality shows than reading. No,I'm not junkie. Ok, I like them, but I can quit wheneva I get ready...
I frequent gossip sites, which normally inhibit my desire to write - cause some of them are SO much better than me. My favorite is http://crunktastical.net. F*ckery deserves snark, and they do it so well.
I finally got those Red Christian Louboutin Rolando's, but I bought the knockoffs (b*tch please - I ain't crazy,and they sold out before they got marked down). And. They. Are. Fierce. And I don't care who judges me :-P
Me and My best friend E spend as much time grossing each other out with poo jokes (blame it on aging and an appreciation for a good dump) or topping each other's dating horror stories (trust, what I post is only the tip of the iceberg) as we spend talking about trying to change the world...
I know I'm not that deep. Really I'm mad shallow & elitist (like Chris Rock said, I hate n*ggas). But I force myself to have balance.
My steaks on a good day are medium, but mostly medium rare, and occasionally bloody.
I'm a pack-rat, not that I like clutter, but always feel like I have better things to do.
The vocab is only cause my daddy taught me to, and I loved that about him.
I enjoy dropping the f-bomb heartily, not because it's shocking or my vocab isn't extensive, but because it just works well.
I had to look up what my twittscope meant about me being cavalier (and I'm not haughty :-P )
I've stayed away from politics/economics/social theories for a while - because honestly I twitter (see twitter box at right) - and the people I follow, both via blogs/twitter do politics so much better than I. But this is truly sticking in my craw.
I was...ok, let me be honest...I believe I was watching the True Blood season finale on 9/18, and left HBO on because I was in shock, lol. But I caught Real Time with Bill Maher, as his guests were:Journalist Matthew Continetti (editor of The Weekly Standard, contributing writer to the Washington Post and the LA Times); historian Annette Gordon-Reed (The Hemingses of Monticello, Harvard Professor); author Jeffrey Toobin (staff writer at The New Yorker since 1993 and the senior legal analyst for CNN); former health insurance executive Wendell Potter; and comic David Cross.
And (of course) the first topic of discussion was Obama's health reform efforts, debates regarding it, etc....and the following discussion snapped me back to reality:
Bill Maher: Are we (Americans) a good people? ......what is it about the American character that allows us to do what no other nation in the world does, which is make a buck off of breast cancer?
Matthew Continetti:I don't think it's the American character...I think it's the American political system.
Bill Maher: But doesn't one lead to the other?
Matthew Continetti:No, not at all...you can have....
note: this is where Bill & I both simultaneous pumped the brakes
Bill Maher: Our political system is not the outgrowth of our character?
Matthew Continetti:Well, our political system was created 200 years ago, so it's not going to reflect the characters of people.
Bill Maher: The system we have now does not reflect the system we had 200 years ago.
Matthew Continetti: Well, it's also the case that as government grows, and lobbyists are able to get their way, what the lobbyists want is to protect the status quo......I want a competitive marketplace....I want to go in another direction, where you have a free market.
Jeffrey Toobin: This is why we don't have....why we have the system we do. Because people like Matthew genuinely believe that the market is the answer to virtually all problems...and that is a well established view in this country across the board...
...and I totally agree with Jeffrey. And I find this both maddening and terrifying.
I zoned out as they debated the Healthcare public option vs. single payer systems, and whether or not a "free market" could work in the health insurance industry. I zone out - because I couldn't get past Matthew's awkward marginal response to Bill Maher's original question: "Are we a good people?" It was almost as if the idea of a collective "us" (i.e. Americans) being a good people was antithetical to him.
"Good? Pssshaw - America is soulless. The free market should step in, to avoid us making moral decisions, and the government being charged to execute/implement them."
The conversation continued, with some discussion about whether compassion should be expressed by the government spending money, whether Bush was compassionate (!), etc. And as it continued, the only thought that crossed my mind was that Matthew had no experience or frame of reference with America's collective social conscious, so his responses shouldn't be surprising.
See, Matthew, like so many people now, is a product of the 1980's, and their collective consciousness is capitalist; their guru is Gordon Gecko: ">
Greed, indeed, is good.And the free market defines/clarifies/purifies it all. (and if it wasn't clear, yes - that is sarcasm).
what's a collective social conscious you ask?:: I can remember being a kid in the 1970's, and being held captive in class watching movie reels of public service announcements ranging from the benefits of nuclear energy, why littering is bad for the environment, why it's good to eat breakfast, why you should listen to your parents (Timmy was forever making bad decisions, wasn't he?)... to not drinking the stash of brightly colored liquids underneath mom's sink:
But also, I can remember PSA's about the role of government in our lives, and the 3 branches of government, and how bills are passed, and why (as good American citizens) we're required to participate in the voting process. Now, mind you - it was all propoganda, granted. But it did create a spirit of collectivism (well that, and those air raid drills which were terrifying). We were in this together. And together, we knew (from these movie reels) what was important to us: family, values, taking care of each other, participating, making a difference. Oh, and brushing our teeth.
the decline:: whose idea was it to take all this out of the minds of our youth? Out of the classroom, and off Saturday morning tv? I can remember watching cartoon's in the 1990's with my daughter, and it seemed like most of them were geared toward combating our declining moral values, than instilling any values in us, they talked about STD's, and not smoking, internet safety, and not being prejudiced. Ok, I get it - I know what NOT to do. But when did we teach the kids what they SHOULD do?
We took values out of the classroom, off of popular media, and left it strictly to parents, even as we said "it takes a village". And what happened? We created a nation of Matthews. The idea of a collective social conscious totally escapes them. Then we wonder why the idea of socialism is completely abhorent to them. But someone should've created a PSA about Socialism, Communism, Democracy and other socio-economic/political ideologies, so they'd truly understand the concepts they so freel bandy about.
But back to the original question:: Are we a good people? Matthew's answer seemed like deflection. It was a classic non sequitor, or if not that - at least an appeal to common practice, which in this case is free market capitalism, which obviously is the only solution to our nations' problems.
This premise that capitalism/free markets is the only solution is flawed. We haven't taught our children that there may possibly be other options that are not only applicable, but viable, in certain applications. We haven't taught them that those other options may have value. Don't get me wrong - I couldn't live in a purely socialist country. But universal health care is far from socialist. And we never taught our children that. Hell, a lot of us know this, but are willfully ignorant because it serves us well to promote Capitalism.
Right now, I've love a SchoolHouse Rock remix, that illustrates our insurance system for the masses. And an animated Supernews explanation of Socialism/Capitalism/Deomcracy and social consciousness for Matthew. Not that I think he'd actually watch it. SMH
I'm reposting this because...well...frankly....I'm tired of men, in the guise of being pseudo-relationship experts or doling out advice to women about how to be in a relationship like to blame the women, black women in particular...without using those other four fingers of the hand to point back at themselves. And because - even 5 years later, it's still relevant, maybe even more relevant, since it seems we bought into the hype these articles started....but that's w whole 'Nother post. From August, 2005:
---------- the original post follows ----------
Disclaimer:: Despite her use of fancy-a$$ words, or socio-political/psychological context, the following IS intended to be saga's RANT. Take from it what you will.
I've been reading more articles than I care to recount, and a good amount of message board responses, to the whole "The Problem with Black Women is..." jawn. Since March 2003 (and probably before), when Newsweek graced news stands with some theories on the dysfunction in African-American relationships, recounting the divorce & marriage rate statistics, and with notable African-American women debating whether our expectations were reasonable, and whether we should "settle", this topic has been floating up to the pop-culture surface in the African-American community, like a turd that just won't flush. And then there's:
~ Jill Jones piece for the Washington Post
~ Rev. Willie Wilson's comments cited in the Washington Blade. Note: click here for a bio on Rev. Willie Wilson.
~ Blacktown.net (note: I won't even try to preface that one with an explanation).
< sigh >
I happen to be one of "those" women. The kind that makes a decent wage, is preternaturally single, and can't seem to find a decent man. Now, don't get me wrong - I will be the first one to shine a light on my emotional baggage. But can an intelligent black woman get a break?
The problem isn't that the black woman "abandoned" or subverted the structure of the African-American family with our attempts to achieve professional success or financial stability. The problem is that black women responded, as well as we could, to changes in our environment, and now we're being lambasted for it.
I, personally, was raised in a two-parent household, where both parents HAD to work in order for the household to survive. Now, who was the larger wage-earner wasn't the issue with my family. The issue was whether or not the wages being earned were enough to sustain us.
Jump to now, and I'm working within cultural constraints that prevent me from creating that same two-parent household. Misogyny has become rampant and almost acceptable as the news media has propagated the "decent black man shortage" and popular media (think: music videos & popular TV shows) has continued to propagate negative images of black women almost exponentially. There are factors on a macro-level that inhibit my ability to find a suitable mate, such as the declining economy, declining marriage rates, and the divorce rate that hit a record high plateau.
And let's talk about the DL for just a second, shall we? I've mentioned my feelings about this before in this space, but just so we're all clear - the DL is media-propaganda, designed to perpetuate paranoia, to sell more books, more videos, and more cd's. There has been a closet for years. AIDS & HIV has been around for years. Promiscuous sexual behavior has been around FOR YEARS. These issues are loosely correlated, one of these things doesn't necessarily "predict" the other, so if you address just one, it won't automatically fix the others. The paranoia related to the DL hasn't and will never correct any of these issues, so frankly I for one feel as if the topic had it's time. The DL is not why I can't find a decent man, but the paranoia related to the DL is.
I've been forced, almost against my will, to economically empower myself, in order to survive. I've been forced, much to my own chagrin, to create a more appealing package (physically, mentally, emotionally and financially) to stay competitive in the hyper-competitive market that dating within the African-American community has become. I've been forced, again without my consent, to become the Alpha-Black-Female, in response to these societal, economic & cultural pressures.
And at the end of all this, what do I get as my reward? I get to be the root of all African-American dysfunctional family evil. Great.
At the end of this post, what would I like to happen? What would I like you to take away from this? That we (yes, I'll speak briefly for the myriad black women who are catching hell right now) tried as hard as we could to keep our families together. We tried, as hard as we could, to support our black men. We tried, as hard as we could, to understand that yes - they had & have it harder than we do. We tried, as hard as we could, to not only understand that they're emasculated in the media daily, but to also strengthen them and help ease their burden. And we tried, as hard as we could, not to be hurt when they turned their backs on us.
So.
I'm taking back my right to not be dehumanized or objectified. I'm taking back my right to not settle for just any man, and my right to have Standards and Expectations. I'm restoring my right to be selective about whom I date. I'm rejecting the theory that if I didn't demand equal opportunities, the black family would still be intact. I'm refusing to let the "DL" force me to look cross-eyed at every man I meet. I've worked dayum hard to create who I am as a black woman, and I will not allow pop-culture theorists turn that into some desperate-workaholic spinster, in order to explain why my community is in shambles. ENOUGH ALREADY.
Bestowed during a business meeting with some uptop colleagues about a collective venture, some marginally unpleasant tasks thrown at me that I got done quickly and efficiently, and me gnarling over the bones of those tasks, chewing gristle aggressively while asking "so what's next?"
Even as I'm floundering careerwise or transitioning from one role to another, I get it in.
So, I'm an MBA. I don't know how/when this happened, but it changed my life outlook in a very pragmatic way. I tend to look at anything/everything in life based on the perceived Return On Investment (ROI) and according to the bottom line (profit/what are you getting out of the deal?). And as driven toward a target as a bullet train toward its intended destination. I will run you over. You've been warned.
So it's sometimes hard for me to sign up for ISH, or co-sign ISH, if it's patently a losing proposition. I can be the ultimate naysayer, just because I don't see the margin. Or because an idea is not "sexy". For example, you think that personalized backpacks are going to be the hottest thing in 2010? "How much will they cost to produce?" "How much can we charge for them?" "Do you really think that we'll want to work THIS hard to make $1/bag? Really?!" I know I go hard. So, I tend to prep for the ride up front, to make it less bumpy and remove stops, before I fully commit. Sorta explains why dating in these crazy times is so unappealing to me, no?
My friends still consult me, and at times I barely know why, because I'm the hole-finder...the pinprick in their idea bubble. Call it pessimistic, cynical, fatalistic - or pragmatic (which is how I'd like to think of it) - the MBA-colored glasses rarely come off.
And in friendships/relationships - that would be a problem. A HUGE problem.
I come across as dour or too blunt. Negative. Dull (vs. vibrant). Although I'm fairly attractive, and as most people that know me say, I bring a lot to the table in friendship, relationships, business associations, partnerships, etc. Still - I'm a hard pill to swallow. I'm hard on my friends. I'm hard on the brothers. And as anyone knows me knows, I'm extremely hard on myself.
And I cannot BUY a date. Men rarely approach me, and those who do seem more than a little scared. And most people's feedback from initial meetings with me declares me aloof. Colleagues may respect me, but admiration? They'd state they never knew me well enough for that. While I can be "personable", right now I subconsciously find it a less-than-efficient use of my time. Not a good look.
So, I'm reading Hill Harper's new book "The Conversation". (I'm both enjoying it and rushing to finish so I can write a glowing review - so more on the book itself later). And I got a wake-up call...
The Unbearable Lightness of Being:: the fact is, that I lack a "lightness" of personality. I'm not bubbly. Based on my experiences with people (not just men) and my suspicions of the true nature of most humans - my subconsious assumption that "everybody uses everybody, don't they" - I'm not generating positivity, so I'm definitely not attracting positivity. Right around pages 96-98, Hill points out that those of us who have had baggage and think we've put our baggage behind us, may have "gotten over" whatever hurts we have suffered, while being indelibly changed by them - and not even realizing it. But he also suggests, it's completely within out power to do something about that.
In everything in life including business, there is a balance. "Going hard" is not a bad thing, but must be tempered by socialness, passion, creativity, innovativeness, grace, tolerance, patience and persuasiveness. And yeah, those better all be words...lol.
Yeah. I go hard. It explains so much, and yet I still have work to do.
