(not)Happy About THIS!

Throwback Post: Choosing a Man is like Choosing Peanut Butter

2010-03-10T19:37:00.001-08:00

I have always hated making decisions.

Decisions are stressful for me. Simple ones like whether to buy a shirt in red or blue are paralyzing. When I’m shopping and I’m faced with such a difficult choice I typically give up and choose neither. I’d rather make no choice at all then to make the wrong one.

Inevitably, when I leave the store I wonder if not making a choice at all was actually, in fact, a bad choice.

My lack of decisionmaking prowess is an issue every month when I shop for peanut butter. I LOVE PEANUT BUTTER. I keep one jar of peanut butter at work, and the other jar in my bed. Yes, in my bed. PB is high protein filling, and delicious. If I get hungry in the middle of the night, I feel around for my peanut butter, pop the jar open, grab the spoon wrapped in a napkin on top of my nightstand and dig in. I keep a bottle of water on my nightstand as well for these emergencies.

Since I love PB sooooo much, you would think I prefer a particular brand. I don’t. Every month when I purchase two jars of peanut butter I compare price with chunky vs. creamy. Then I try to remember all the brands that were killing people. I try to avoid those, but if they are really tasty I’ll buy them anyway. I can’t commit to a PB in fact, I can barely choose a PB to settle on.

I’ve stood in the PB aisle for up to 20 minutes and just ended up grabbing the 2 PBs closest to me. I can tell you right now, just grabbing the nearest 2 resulted in regret many times. So now when I can’t make a decision, much like shirt shopping, I leave the store without PB in tow knowing damn well I don’t like to sleep without it!

I have the same relationship with men that I have with peanut butter.

So many choices…so many possibilities…so hard to choose one. And when I can’t, I ditch them all and start over. I’m either with a lot of peanut butter, I mean men, or without any! In other words, I’m either not dating anyone at all or dating like 7 people I can’t keep straight or choose between.

Everytime I meet a man I compare tall vs. short, skinny vs. chunky…one minute I’m in the mood for Clinton Portis, next minute I’m in the mood for Robert from Day 26—no correlation at all. But unlike a jar of peanut butter, you can’t just hurry up and finish a man so you can try a new one.

All I need is 2 spoonfuls of PB to know if I like it, with men, it takes much longer to figure out if this is one of those brands that be killing people…or, if the time/emotional price is too much to pay for a sampling. All of these questions come in to play when I consider committing to a product or a relationship.

Right now none of the men that I am getting to know have enough of the right qualities…I have a feeling I need to ditch this bunch and try something new. A couple months ago, I tried almond butter and nutella to replace peanut butter. I liked it.

Not sure what the metaphorical equivalent is when it comes to men…but until I solve my PB commitment issues, I think my relationship commitment issues will persist.

Paying Teachers is Not the Answer

2010-03-07T22:18:00.000-08:00

I ran across a story in Newsweek about why failing teachers SHOULD be fired. This article, written on the cusp of a controversy in Rhode Island where teachers who were making, on average 74K a year, balked at spending additional time with students. The superintendent threatened to fire them.

From what I can discern, he did the right thing.

Teachers don't have it easy. I think most of us know that. But overall, teaching is still a cushy enough job that people who can't decide what to do with their lives choose it as a fall back plan. I can't tell you how many of my friends who couldn't make it in their respective industries, or couldn't decide on a job path to pursue, "settled" into teaching citing benefits, job security, and summers off as perks.

People typically don't voluntarily 'settle' into truly shitty careers--even in a recession. Okay you have to stay late and spend time at home grading papers. I get it. But how many of the rest of America stays late at their jobs and takes work home on weekends? I'm not sure why we expect teachers to be different, especially in an increasingly competitive society.

I look back on the time spent in public schools and it amazes me how woefully underprepared I was for college. It didn't surprise me when a former classmate of mine informed me that 50% of students in my hometown end up dropping out of school.

I heard someone hypothesize that the reason teachers are so shitty today is because teaching was a job traditionally held by the smartest women in a community. But nowadays those same women who would have taught have gone on to climb the corporate and government ladder. I think there's some validity to this. Can't you just imagine Hillary Rodham Clinton teaching a class of 5th graders had our country not progressed enough to handle a female Secretary of State/Presidential candidate? This is, of course, a very harsh way of saying "those who can't do, teach."

It's also only part of the issue. The unfortunate fact is that the difficulties with education in America is not the fault of teachers. America as a whole does not place a priority on education. However, every time I see teacher's unions, political candidates, and education experts talking about pay and performance, I wonder why there isn't more of an emphasis on fixing curriculum and quality of life at work. Surely, those types of fixes would make teachers a lot more comfortable in the long-term. Liking your job and feeling appreciated and successful means more than money to most people especially if you've entered a field that you love.

All in all, I can't support throwing more money at teachers. Teaching doesn't happen in a vacuum...so while money may pacify individual teachers who are doing as good a job as they can within an extremely flawed and limiting system, it does nothing to prepare our nation's children for future success over the long haul.

5 Star N*GGAS and Mice

2010-03-03T01:20:00.001-08:00

How are these two things related? Well...remember that mouse I mentioned about a month ago? He's become all types of bold. He's in my bedroom right now and I am afraid to put my feet on the floor. A little part of me wants to shoot at it, but I know that's dumb. Or is it? Anyway, @zeralyn recommended I watch this video to make myself feel better. I now have the whole rap memorized. Warning: Explicit lyrics.

I would love to hang out with these dudes!

New Marketing Plan: "Helping" Black Women

2010-03-02T19:34:00.000-08:00

I was reading Alison Samuel's Newsweek article on the John Mayer incident--an incident which I also wrote about, but not in a context specific to black women. I loved Samuel's post and thought it was the best one on Mayer's recent comments that I've read so far. What Samuels did was eloquently and effectively make the point that Mayer's comments are 1. Relevant and 2. Impactful as many have feverishly sought to argue otherwise.

Basically, she argues that men like John Mayer hold the power in this country (and arguably all over the world) to define what beauty is, what it looks like, and how much it weighs, among other influence such men hold in areas that impact black women everywhere from the entertainment industry to the boardroom. In that sense, Mayer's comments are at the very least revealing of a prevalent way of thinking, and at most symptomatic of a greater issue in society that we don't quite know how to fix.

Beyond the article's emphasis on Mayer, what stuck out to me was this line:

All of this has left me to wonder: Is it open season on black women? Are we in a time where openly disrespecting and insulting women of color is OK and without consequence?

To this, I respond, yes. Not only is it open season and okay to insult black women, it is the new marketing plan for blogs, magazines, and books alike. Say anything negative about black women and watch your blog hits go up. Tell black women where they lack and that you aim to help and watch your book sales and buzz go through the roof.

Recently, the Huffington Post uploaded a terribly executed piece entitled "What Black Women Can Learn from the Kardashians." If there was ever anything black women could learn from the celebrity-obsessed Kardashian clan, I assure you it appeared no where in that piece. It was one of many titles floating around the web designed to draw black women readers under a veil of self-help.

A Belle In Brooklyn posted an "Open letter to angry and bitter black women." As perpetually perky as I am, the letter, however good intentioned made me angry. But when I read the comments section, I officially became ENRAGED! The post garnered over 200 comments mostly from women who wasted no time testifying to the "perceived" bitterness of other women--their friends, mother's, aunts, and acquaintances. Like so many of these types of posts, it turned into a bash fest...no nuance in sight.

It doesn't stop with blog posts and web publications. Jimi Izrael, a writer who refers to himself as a culture critic of some sort, has now released a book called "The Denzel Principle," in which he aims to help black women understand why they can't find a good black man. I haven't read it, but I'm sure it fits under the same umbrella as does Steve Harvey's book, "Act like a Woman, Think Like a Man," in which a 3 times divorced COMEDIAN who married his current wife after cheating on his former wife with her (allegedly) gives black women words to live by.

Harvey's book is a top seller and I'm sure Izrael's book will be as well. There is a growing cadre of black men from Tyler Perry to TD Jakes who use their work to dress down black women under the guise of "helping" and providing inspiration. I don't know whether to be more frustrated with the writers of these books or the women who support such work in what I believe is an honest effort by black women to take personal responsibility for their lives. Unfortunately, these types of books are less personal responsibility and more personal attacks.

My week came full circle with a Washington Post article profiling an author who has dedicated an entire book on how black women should actively look outside of the black community for partners--I don't disagree with her conclusions and found her statements regarding the book fairly thoughtful, but I can't help but wonder when all this will end.

As black women achieve greater financial success the desire to go about the process of healing their home life grows stronger. Black women have become more solution-oriented and balance-seeking as the dynamic in society shifts to one that leaves room for us to embrace our own brand of empowerment and also put it to use. But it's sort of hard to feel empowered when everything you read makes you feel defensive.

This is not to say that the bloggers, writers, and authors of these articles and books are mal-intentioned. Nevertheless, it pains me to see black women consume massive amounts of negative feedback at such a fast clip. I've already hit a wall.

Facebook Sent Users' PRIVATE (and Sexy) messages to Random People

2010-02-26T23:46:00.000-08:00

My relationship with Facebook is sort of like my relationship with cable. I don't want it, don't use it all that often, but I have it because, well, everyone else does. I don't have many good things to say about facebook at this point--funny because 2 years ago I loved it. But now, I don't know how to use a lot of features (I can't, for the life of me, figure out how to see ALL the updates from people I'm friends with), and I live in fear that Facebook will make yet another huge privacy change or update while I'm not paying attention.

One of my goals this week is to scrub my account of all pictures and status updates before making a final decision about whether or not to delete it. It was really at the prodding of others that I signed my blog up for a 'fan' page...which I actually do see as useful, except for I hate the word 'fan' and the lack of control I have over certain page components.

FB has made a number of missteps over the past year, in particular with regard to user privacy. While perusing these here innanets, I ran across yet another Facebook privacy fail. For a few hours on one night, Facebook sent the private messages of some of its users to unintended recipients. Can you imagine? We all know the "interesting" conversations that take place behind the scenes in social media inboxes from twitter direct messages to Myspace mail, we've all sent things we'd rather not have anyone else see outside of the intended target.

In this case, one of the receivers of 128 private messages not meant for his eyes, happened to work for the Wall Street Journal. I have a feeling if not for these messages going to a reporter, we would have never known about this glitch--a glitch that FB has yet to explain.

Worried About the Wrong Thing: Tavis Smiley/Al Sharpton Edition

2010-02-23T18:22:00.000-08:00

If you haven't heard, Tavis Smiley and Al Sharpton got into a bit of a tiff yesterday. Smiley appeared on the Tom Joyner Morning Show yesterday morning and gave a convoluted monologue in which he accused Sharpton, among other prominent blacks, of saying that President Obama doesn't need a black agenda. Smiley is part of a growing cadre of black pundits who seem to believe Obama is getting a pass on racial issues. [I don't have even 1/3 of the energy it would take to explain how it is inherently impossible for Obama to receive such a pass, but I digress...]

Sharpton got wind of Smiley's comments and had Smiley call into his own show to discuss. Sharpton wasted no time berating Smiley for misportraying comments that he and other popularly quoted activists have made.

The sticking point was a quote that appeared in the NY Times in which Sharpton was quoted as saying that President Obama is "smart not to ballyhoo a black agenda." Smiley isn't convincing me when he says that he interpreted the quote to mean that Sharpton doesn't believe Obama should promote a black agenda. I think it's pretty clear that Sharpton was encouraging President Obama to be savvy in his approach to any sort of black agenda--not to eliminate it entirely.

Whatever the case, here is the latest example of public figures arguing about the wrong thing. I have no idea what Smiley or Sharpton mean when they say "black agenda," but I do know this: Black activists and thinkers aren't giving President Obama much to work with in terms of specific policy recommendations and regulatory suggestions. What I see is our most prominent black leadership writing books, organizing shows, and pursuing punditry. In other words, there is a push to promote thought rather policy.

Unfortunately, very few blacks are pursuing opportunities at think tanks, nor are they conducting research nor are they pursuing lobbying careers or even careers in program management for the Federal government. So many are focused on writing books and speaking on panels. Unfortunately, even most of the books that are written by black political 'thinkers' today are OBSERVATIONAL not research-based. Much of black discussion is centered around and promoted by academics, a circle that is largely inbred, lacking true political relationships, and decidedly more liberal than the rest of the black community. Out of touch is one way I would describe the circle of black thinkers who have become most popular in the blogging and punditry world.

At some point someone has got to do the dirty work of assisting the President in pushing through a political agenda that benefits black people and I'm sorry to report that blogging, writing books, attending conferences, and giving speeches simply isn't enough to get things done. Someone has got to write legislative texts, comment on proposed regulations, and actually perform the research that lawmakers and lobbyists use to justify positions. We have too many Michael Eric Dysons and not enough Robert Drummers.

Certainly, there should be people who lead the discussion of what the big picture of a 'black agenda' might look like, but what happens when everyone is discussing and no one is acting?

If President Obama has ideas in mind that he believes should be implemented that are specific to issues that disproportionately impact black people, he still can't move on them without catalysts and people to execute those plans. So while Smiley and Sharpton focus on their radio and TV shows and panels, I wonder who will actually do the work they both seem to believe should be done. Work that is behind the scenes and devoid of the publicity so many seem to crave.

A Glimpse Into My ADD Mind...Keys, Purses, Confusion

2010-02-21T15:43:00.000-08:00

Inside my head:

"Where did I put my keys...oh I know on the coat hook, I've been pretty good about putting them there." *goes to coat hook* "Shit! Not there. Hmm. Oh yeah, they're probably in my purse...I remember thinking that keys should probably be kept in my purse since I never have my keys without my purse. Well, unless I go running...or a quick run to the store...maybe putting them in my purse isn't such a good idea especially since I change purses almost everyday...

I should probably put them on my lanyard. But then again I don't take my lanyard to work. I guess I could start though? I could probably make a couple extra sets of keys, put one on the coat hook, one on the lanyard, and one in my purse. I should write that down before I forget. I need a piece of paper. Oh no no no. I'll put it in my phone! Well...I've been trying to keep a paper calendar since it's more visual than the phone so yeah I'll put it there...but then again I can set alerts in my blackberry.

Hmm maybe I'll write it in my calendar AND my phone. Good idea. Double backup. Where's my calendar. Shit! It's at work. I'll put it in my phone now with a reminder to write it in my calendar when I get to work. Okay, where's my phone? Probably in my purse from yesterday. Which purse did I carry yesterday? I don't remember. Shit. I wonder what I wore yesterday. That's so weird. I don't remember what I wore haahah Oh well..." *checks nearest purse*

"Damn. Not there. oh god, I'm gonna be late for work" *runs upstairs and searches frantically for phone, runs back downstairs* Ugh! WHERE THE FUCK IS MY PHONE. *gets angry...hears it ringing...gets happy... and runs back upstairs, finds phone behind bed* "Ah! Here it is!" *looks at the time* "Oh god! I've gotta get out of here. *runs back downstairs* "okay, time to go. Shoot, I forgot my lunch. I wonder if I even have time to grab it." *paralyzed in thought* "I don't know...I guess I could buy something at work. But then again, I'm trying to eat healthier. *still standing still thinking...5 minutes passes* hmm, maybe I'll just grab a protein shake. Dammit, I forgot to make it last night. Okay, let me get out of here." *grabs purse and laptop goes to the door* "Oh Shit! Where are my keys?"

10 Reasons I DO Follow People On Twitter

2010-02-17T19:47:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's post on the top 10 reasons I don’t follow people on twitter got passed around quite a bit. In particular, reason #7. I felt that I should follow up with a positive post letting people know why I DO follow people. I encourage everyone reading to please share what makes them follow someone. Perhaps your comments can help those poor souls who are constantly begging people to follow them or who are confused about why their follower numbers are fairly stagnate.

BE FAHN! [English translation, be good looking or attractive]. There’s nothing like scrolling through your timeline and seeing the photo of someone who starts your inner ignition. I’ve heard some people say they never follow based on looks. I suspect that’s because they are, themselves, not attractive—or don’t consider themselves to be so--and are seeking to make the world a fairer place. But unfortunately, the world isn’t fair. America is not a meritocracy and neither is my twitter timeline! Looks do get people ahead. Just ask Sarah Palin. It’s not my job to change this dynamic, after all, I’m just an innocent victim of society’s dreadful obsession with the physical. I will say that looking good won’t prevent me from unfollowing you. But if you’re cute I’m more likely to give you a chance in the first place. Once I’m following you, you are more than welcome to be vapid, but if you’re offensive or corny looks won’t save you.
Tweet about Television and Movies. I don’t watch TV or movies but I love to hear about them and ask stupid questions. If you follow me on twitter, you’ve probably already answered one of my silly questions like “What is Lost?” or, “I keep hearing about this movie called Avatar, is it new?” In my world there is no such thing as a spoiler, I’d rather someone tell me about a movie than have to sit through it myself. If I follow people who tweet about TV/movies I can be aware of what’s going on without actually being aware of what is going on. I find value in those tweets.
Signal your Country ways. I have met some of my favorite tweeters simply because we bonded over our southern and country ways of thinking and communicating. For example, I twit-met @smashedthehomie and @creolepimp the bloggers behind Elegant Ignance and Creole Pimp Chronicles after we spent about 2 hours going in on the hashtag #yeencountry. i.e. #yeencountry if your neighborhood doesn’t have a candy lady, and other such non-stereotypical southern observations.
Start good social, sports, or music discussions. By “good discussion” I don’t mean…”ladies, does the size of his penis matter?” Of course it matters, that’s about the dumbest question in the world that still gets a response. Another example of a stupid discussion is “Jay-Z or Nas?” I’m sorry, is it 1996? Exactly how is that relevant? I’m looking for engaging RELEVANT conversations. Some of the best discussions I’ve seen are sparked from personal experiences that people have had and perhaps they are looking for some feedback from their followers. I am also likely to follow those who tweet their political perspectives provided they’re not decidedly liberal or conservative. I’m also a HUGE football, MMA, xtremesport, and tennis fan, so I follow a lot of sports tweeters, but you gotta know what you’re talking about! Casual observations don’t count.
Make me laugh. I can’t explain this one because everyone has their own sense of humor. What’s funny to some is offensive to others. What’s sad is that some people are very funny in real life but not so much on twitter. So if you are one of those people, don’t feel bad b/c there are plenty of people who are cool on twitter and lame everywhere else. This is God’s way of creating innanet balance.
You run a Faux Account. I have followed all types of fake accounts from Drakes knee to the Fake R Kelly. Those accounts are often hilarious.
Tweet about Southern hip hop. Aside from Baroque Pop, southern hip hop is my favorite genre of music. I have followed people after they tweeted random obscure UGK verses or vintage Outkast lines. If you remember Drama or Lil O, you can probably get an instant follow!
Alternative lifestyle? I love following people who have alternative lifestyles whether you are stripping, swinging, or living in Antarctica, I will probably be curious about your daily life depending on how you tweet about it.
You tweet to me a lot. This is the most effective way to get a follow. Only thing is, it can’t be fake. Some people try to tweet you a bunch of small talk and compliments because they think if they stroke your ego you will follow them. Well, my ego is already the size of the innanet, so I’m more interested in people who want to engage with me than I am in those who compliment me—although I surely do love compliments. Lol
Have networking potential. Twitter is a great networking tool. I met my fabulous web designer on twitter--@huny (my new design will up in a couple months). I’ve also met other bloggers, screenplay writers like @skinnyjeanius, super talented stylists like @apuje, and promoters like @2hood4hollywood. I’ve also reconnected with talented college-mates like the amazing celeb stylist @chandarenee and the head of Vitalize Entertainment @rondelonline.

All in all, to be followed by me or anyone else, your tweets need to be valuable in some way. If you’re not on twitter to promote something, it’s hard to know what of your life will be valuable enough to another person to make them follow you. That’s all the more reason to just be yourself!

Feel free to use the comment section to list reasons you DO follow folks…the comment section on the previous blog is still open for those folks who want to post their twitter pet peeves!

I'M SO HOOD! Celebs Rock my Favorite Fashion Trend

2010-02-17T19:30:00.000-08:00

I am obsessed with hoods!

So when I ran across the first photo on the left of Kim Kardashian at the BeBe Fashion show, I had to put up a post! Hoods are my favorite fashion look right after leather gloves (which Kim Kardashian is also wearing) and off shoulder shirts.

I have 4 hooded sweatshirts, 3 hooded blouses and 2 hooded dresses. I don't know what it is, but hoods make me feel sexy. They're also a sort of security blanket. I've been known to sleep in a hooded shirt every now and then.

My favorite fashionista is Rihanna, also pictured above. She's also been wearing a lot of hooded dresses and sweatshirts dresses as of late.

I guess this trend is heating up because for a long time it was hard for me to find items with hoods attached. Now quick google search yielded hooded tops and dresses on web sites from overstock.com to macys. The dress below is only $33 on Overstock!

10 Reasons I'm not Following You on Twitter

2010-02-17T05:57:00.000-08:00

For a lot of us, twitter has come to be the premiere social media tool. But make no mistake, twitter can be laborious--at least in the beginning. In order to really enjoy the medium, you have to put some time and care into putting together a good list of people to follow. A friend who recently joined twitter said he didn't like it because everyone wants to be followed and no one wants to be a follower...I understand his frustration. If you're interesting and can convey that over 'type' you WILL be followed, that's not to say you will amass thousands of followers but certainly enough to engage. The hardest thing about twitter, to me, is getting people to understand that getting followed depends on a lot of factors, many of which are not personal. I put together my own little list of reasons I don't follow people...as you can see some of them are rational, others are not.

The majority of your tweets are about celebrities. Seeing as how I’m famous in my own mind, I’m not sure why I’d want you to tweet profusely about some other celebrity (aside from me).
You’re under 25. I will be turning 28 next month and I am finding that the under 25 crowd is often a little more than I can take. I do follow some youngsters, I consider them to be grandfathered in. Nevertheless, Trick loves the kids, but @whymelawd doesn’t…necessarily.
You’re a woman. I’m all for vagina power, but twitter gives me access to men of all types. I like to take advantage.
Most of my timeline is already following you. This may sound like a weird disqualification. However, when you are following two people who tweet back and forth to each other their entire conversation appears on your timeline. Sometimes this can be overkill. Apparently, I’m not as nosy as I think. I don’t need to be in every.single.conversation.
Yeen talmbout shit. If your timeline is full of tweets like “yo follow me, I’ll follow you back,” “hey yall, I need more followers,’ chances are I will not be following you any time soon. Just tweet like normal and you will gain followers…unless of course “normal” includes tweets like “what a beautiful day outside” or “sandwhich for lunch, hmm DELISH!” Tweeting isn’t easy…but it ain’t that hard either.
You’re from the North. I have had my fill of Northerners on my timeline. If every tweet is about how disgusted you are by Gucci Mane or how you hate when people pronounce “you ain’t” as “yeen” or that “aint ain’t a word” the likelihood of me following you is slim to bitch please! Some of us are country. Get over it. *scrolls through 90 Gucci Mane songs on my ipod*
You retweet every compliment you get. As bitter as people on twitter can be sometimes, overall people are very nice. I get random compliments from people all day long about my blog or my picture or my tweets. I think it’s so sweet! But I am used to getting compliments, just as I am used to giving them out pretty freely. Apparently some people aren’t, because you RT every kind thing someone says about you. RT’ing compliments is tricky because sometimes if you’ve written something that people are praising it’s nice to let others know that feedback has been positive…it can help entice them to give your post a read as well. Other times, it just seems…well…weird and desperate. It’s the primary reason I typically do not follow celebrities like myself.
You’re not attractive to me [and yes this applies to women as well]. Sorry.
My timeline is already full. I don’t know if I will ever follow over 250 tweeters. It took me forever to follow more than 90 people. Then I got stuck at 150. Now I’m at 216. I may be interested in following more people but I’d like to keep up with the timeline I have. Baby steps!
You don’t have a profile picture. [See #8]

I will be completely honest, I really don’t care if someone follows me back when I follow them. In fact, a lot of times I PREFER to follow people who aren’t following me back. That way our relationship is exactly how I like my relationships…they give…I receive. So, if I’m not following you, don’t take it personally, it certainly doesn’t mean I don’t care about what you have to say. I respond to everyone, even if, as @thetillshow says, I respond “93 hours later.” Some of the people I’m NOT following give more interesting responses to my tweets than people I am following. But everyone uses their twitter account differently. This is just a little insight into how I use mine.

Follow me @whymelawd (or don’t…it’s up to you…)

I'd love to hear others' nit picky reasons for why they don't follow people...

Jimmy Johnson can go...LONG? New Extenze Commercial.

2010-02-15T18:30:00.001-08:00

If you know me, you know that I RARELY, watch television. Last night I was up late doing God knows what with the TV playing in the background. I heard a familiar voice talking about the male penis...I look up and it's Jimmy Johnson (yes, that Jimmy Johnson, former Cowboy Coach-turned-Fox-football-analyst Jimmy Johnson). I was in shock.

This reminds me of the time I saw the Bob Dole Cialis commercial! T.M.I. Using well-known formerly powerful or macho men to sell products is nothing new as companies use these icons to try to appeal to the male desire to be virile. Johnson's colleague Howie, also an analyst on Fox, was at one time shilling memberships to nutrisystem for men. I get it that. But something about Jimmy Johnson selling extenze...a product that I thought was a scam for a long time...just seems weird. I'd feel more comfortable if Johnson (hahahhahha his name is Johnson!!) were selling Viagra or some other erectile related drug, but Extenze is about penis SIZE not function.

Here's a quote from the Extenze web site:

There is simply no reason any man should feel short changed with the size of their penis, when you can take Extenze and get that bigger, harder penis you have always wanted. You only have to take one each day to see the kind of results so many have already experienced. It works with your body to naturally increase your penis size with time. It sounds so simple, because it is!

Does this mean that up until recently Johnson had a small Johnson? But he's so cute! :-(

John Mayer Apologizes for Using the "N-Word"

2010-02-10T13:52:00.001-08:00

Rocker John Mayer used his twitter page to apologize for gratuitous use of the word "nigger" today. Word of John Mayer's interview with Playboy magazine surfaced this morning, and immediately created a firestorm of both criticism of his words and outright dismissal of such criticism across the web. In the interview, he managed to break almost every rule in the book of public relations as well as the book of generally being a good person.

The excerpt for which is apologized is the point in the interview at which he brought up the possibility of him having a "hood pass":

MAYER: Someone asked me the other day, “What does it feel like now to have a hood pass?” And by the way, it’s sort of a contradiction in terms, because if you really had a hood pass, you could call it a nigger pass. Why are you pulling a punch and calling it a hood pass if you really have a hood pass? But I said, “I can’t really have a hood pass. I’ve never walked into a restaurant, asked for a table and been told, ‘We’re full.’"

[2 hours before posting this blog, I dropped my white pass in the snow and am still on a desperate search to find it. If you have any information regarding my white pass, please post it in the comments section.]

Not sure who asked him this question...or if it was every really asked (many people like to use the strawman technique when they wish to tackle a certain topic without being asked--see what I did there?); but for some reason, Mayer seemed to believe he was accomplishing 'something' with his out-of-blue statements. So far, the only thing he's managed to accomplish is to make people, like me, wonder what he was thinking.

The Playboy interview was riddled with boastful tales about his sexual conquests and a very weird moment where he refers to the actress Kerry Washington as 'white girl crazy.' He rounded out his quest to offend every group on the planet by referring to his penis as a white supremacist.

Let me make it clear...I'm not offended by Mayer's statements. I'm not angry. I'm not riled up. (As a woman, especially as a black woman, you always have to preface your displeasure with such statements.)

What I am is intrigued by Mayer's thought process and misguided humor. Mayer's statement on having a "hood pass" shows that he understands that there is NO SUCH THING as a "hood pass." Yet he completes that same thought using a word that, in the same paragraph, he acknowledges that he's not allowed to use under any circumstances.

Here's a man who's known for his brilliant mastery of words. I don't see Mayer as someone who is ignorant or careless with his statements. That makes me wonder even more whether he believed there'd be no feedback to his words--notice I didn't say backlash.

In other words, I don't view his statements as off the cuff ramblings of some thoughtless celebrity. And I wonder why he felt it necessary to go out of his way to 1. use the word nigger 2. to paint an explicit picture of his lack of attraction to black women and 3. to be insulting toward a black female fellow entertainer who had NOTHING to do with this interview beyond Mayer's decision to mention her name (and sexual habits?).

Combine that with his less-than-gentleman-like comments about his previous "loves" and I wonder if he cares about his image at all? It's one thing to give off a little assyness in an interview, it's something totally different to be repeatedly offensive and to randomly overshare in an insulting manner.

He refers to his arrogance in his twitter apology, and he says that perhaps its time to stop being so 'raw' in interviews...I disagree. It's probably time for him to start re-evaluating his beliefs and intentions. The rawness of his words is what I can respect...but using his language mastery and forum to hurt people is more concerning.

She's A Maaaan Eater!

2010-02-09T15:25:00.000-08:00

I remember when Nelly Furtato released the single "Maneater." I loved it IMMEDIATELY.

A taste of the lyrics:

Maneater, make you work hard

Make you spend hard
Make you want all, of her love
She's a maneater
make you buy cars
make you cut cards
make you fall, real hard in love
She's a Maneater, make you work hard
Make you spend hard
Make you want all, of her love
She's a maneater
make you buy cars
make you cut cards
Wish you never ever met her at all!

I thought it was great to hear a woman sing about dating freely and putting men through a few innocent paces. I didn't really think about the song's implications.

But recently this topic has come up quite a bit.

A few weeks ago, Tillshow issued a string of tweets about maneaters, a group of women he defines as those "who consciously use sex appeal & flirtatious ways for self-satisfaction without care for males' feelings."

A month or so ago, I guy I was seeing at the time said I "chew men up and spit them out." I've been called out on my maneating ways many times over the years, and have dismissed people's comments out of hand. I figured that if a man came along who could actually hold my attention longer than 5 minutes my urge to cop and drop men will subside.

But that's not really true. I can't speak for all women who may fall under the maneating umbrella, but I can say that when it comes to making playthings out of the men I date, it's not that I disregard their feelings. To disregard men's feelings I would first have to believe that men actually have feelings.

And I do...sort of.

I have been influenced by the barrage of messages that say men care about very little. In fact, men are the biggest purveyors of those messages. Men are constantly simplifying themselves to the lowest denominator e.g. telling women that men don't care if they are used for sex, that men aren't as 'into' relationships as women are, that men just don't get as 'worked up' about things as women do, or that men just do stuff 'to get the booty.'

Don't even get me started on the anti-male dating advice that men tend to dish out freely. I will never understand why so many men choose to portray themselves as simple-minded chest-beating lowlifes who are happy so long as they have a big sandwhich and a bigger ass on which to rest their drink.

Eventually, these messages can lead a woman to believe that it doesn't matter how you treat a man, he doesn't have the capacity to give a fuck about you anyway. Combine that with having a bunch of friends who have all been cheated on, lied to, and in come cases smacked around, and it becomes kind of hard to see a man as a human being rather than some predatory wild horse whose spirit you are obligated to break by the very fact that you have the ability to so. How can I pass up such a challenge!

When I look back over my dating history, I can say that I have a history of dating men who were nice to me. They showed me feelings that I ignored. Truth is, when you intrigue and charm a man they can actually fall for you pretty fast and hard. I have left a trail of hurt feelings behind me all the while thinking that the men who professed to care for me were being fake and weird. I can remember one guy I dated who was so so so so very sweet. He told me he loved me over the phone to which I responded, and I quote, "Okay I gotta go" and I hung up the phone thinking what the hell is his problem??

This is not to say that I don't place any blame on myself. I love boys and I love me and I love when boys do nice things for me. It's going to be really hard to break the habit of taking advantage of that. But I'm a lot older and smarter now, I'm not listening to all the messages in society (from rap music to male relationship bloggers) that reduce men's feelings to rare occurrences. I'm resolving myself to see most men as the fragile, sensitive, multi dimensional human beings they are, and hopefully making a commitment to one will come a little bit easier for me.

[After I'd written this post @MauiMescudi posted the following quote to twitter from an episode (21) of the TV Show Bones entitled "The Soldier On the Grave." I'd be interested to know what men think...

MauiMescudi

"Men aren't like us. They're much more fragile, and needy. The fact that they think we're the needy ones is a testament to our superiority."

In Defense of Groupies...

2010-02-09T13:50:00.001-08:00

(To view photo source, click here)

During the lead up to the NFL's Pro Bowl and Super Bowl in Miami, I grew very tired of all the groupie tweets, facebook statuses, and comments of real life friends and other acquaintances. Unfortunately, there is more to come. NBA All Star Weekend is coming up so we can all expect more of this type of commentary. I even expect people to try to be "creative" and combine groupie jokes with Valentines Day cracks. ahahah...ha?

Don't get me wrong, groupie jokes can be funny, but there seems to be an undertone of...of...of something deeper that annoys me a little.

To speculate on what that something is, I'll tell you my thoughts about some of the commentary.

A lot of men who complain about groupies are upset because the groupies don't want them. Groupies are often the life of parties. They came in various desired flavors...dark chocolate honies with curvy bodies and pretty faces. Exotic fair skinned women with voluptuous shapes and fun personalities. Everything from Jessica White types to Kim Kardashian look-alikes, the groupies cover the spectrum.

Unfortunately, during an event like Super Bowl they are simply not checking for regular dudes. In fact, they may NEVER check for regular dudes. And in the scheme of things, men need to get over wanting what they can't have.

Too many women complain about groupies because they see those women going after what they want (however unseemly), and believe that such "thirsty" pursuits of highly desired men are beneath them. Notice I said "pursuit." I have no doubt that if most of the women who complain about groupies were ever "approached" by this cutie here:

they'd happily oblige him his request. But once again, they don't want to be seen 'chasing him.' I guess they've never heard the phrase "A closed mouth doesn't get fed." [Maybe that's just a southern thing?]

The female complainers believe that those women shouldn't be out there "exploiting" themselves just to get close to a man, however rich, handsome, or connected even if they're both single and out to have a good time. All groupie-ism isn't sexual, sometimes women just want to flirt, take pictures, and drink free champagne. Apparently, even that is all too untoward in some people's eyes. Perish the thought.

In other cases, the women who complain didn't have the money, clothes, shape, looks, leave time, or other such necessities to go down to Miami and participate in the fun, and even if they did, they may believe that their personal chances of sleeping with or even chatting up a baller would have been slim to none anyway. (And they're probably right).

I won't even spend more than one line side-eying the batch of females who are THIRSTIER than neglected dogs and try to hide their thirst by throwing shade at party attendees.

The comments that bothered me the most were the ones from people saying that it's a shame for people to go to Miami for the Super Bowl if they don't know anything about football. Pardon? Why? Last year I went to the CIAA basketball tournament and didn't even realize there was basketball being played. I went down to enjoy the parties and to flirt with boys (regular non-balling but nevertheless handsome boys). Besides, nobody says you have to learn Brazilian history before going to Carnivale. Why is the Super Bowl or NBA All Star Weekend held to a different standard? Especially when the game/activity ticket prices are through the roof.

In general there is an obsession with loose women in this society, in particular in the black community, that I just can't wrap my head around. There is also a simultaneous effort to paint successful black men as victims of these coquettish women's feminine wiles even though part of what makes being a baller so appealing is that very same female attention.

All in all, the word "groupie' has become an umbrella term that is used by both men and women as part of a greater tendency to categorize and demoralize a female whenever her sexual behavior "appears" to be something other than what you personally find acceptable. And I must say, the tendency to call any woman who goes to these high profile events a groupie while exonerating from judgement all the men who flock down for the action is really offensive to me.

Leading People On: Are You Full of Shit?

2010-02-03T09:37:00.000-08:00

A male friend’s facebook status:

You women are funny! I kept it 100% with her from THE GATE! It’s not my fault if she caught feelings. I told her from jump, I’m not tryna get into a
relationship."

*sigh* Boys….and some girls.

Where do I begin?

The theme of “but you say she’s just a friend” comes up over and over and it’s one of the most frustrating parts of dating. In a nutshell, you meet someone, you begin to correspond, whether online, via phone, or by spending time together. It’s clear that there is an attraction there but not clear where it will lead or if the other person even wants it to lead anywhere.

That’s where things can get ugly.

Ideally, when you have a situation where you’re not sure if the other person is interested in exploring a relationship with you, you should be patient and not force things to be ‘defined.’ But I have found that this approach isn’t realistic because by and large, people are full of shit.

I have a friend who says that she believes that you can meet the right person at the wrong time. I agree with that statement. In other words, you can meet someone with whom you are totally compatible but they just got out of a relationship or they are sick or live too far away or are just generally unavailable emotionally or physically.

How you find out whether that person is unavailable or not all depends on how full of shit the person is. Usually, they will tell on themselves early on. But sometimes that person may not even realize they are full of shit. How you deal with finding out the person is unavailable all depends on how full of shit you are. I bring to you, Exhibit A, ME.

I have been on all sides of this equation. I have ‘dealt with’ a guy who told ME that HE wasn’t interested in a relationship. So, I got into my comfort zone when seeing him. Over time, it was clear to me that despite his claims that he didn’t want a relationship he was starting to develop feelings for me. But I told myself, he said he didn’t want a relationship so his newly developed feelings are his newly developed problem—not mine! In the end, he was really hurt when he finally confronted me about what our relationship is, and found that I wasn’t remotely interested in being his girlfriend. In a different situation, I was getting to know a guy and it was unclear whether or not he was interested in being with me, so I asked. He reacted like a damn fool. I was hurt and it was hard to cut him off. I allowed him to continue to lead me on until I finally had enough strength and good sense to unfollow his foolishness for good. In several situations, I was the one who was emotionally unavailable and justified my behavior because I’d told the guys that were trying to get to know me that I wasn’t interested in anything serious.

Bottom line, in each situation I was a jackass because I either took advantage of someone or allowed someone to take advantage of me.

There’s an undefined area in between meeting someone and dating someone in which you are getting to know a person but there is no commitment or EXPLICIT romantic interest. Some people may refer to it as friendship but I think that’s a misnomer for a few reasons.

“Friendship” implies that things are totally platonic. But you and I know that although that undefined area may not have a name, there’s nothing platonic about it (although things may become platonic later). Don’t think so? Compare your behavior with this new person to your behavior with the friends that you already have, you won’t find many similarities.

This undefined area is so fuzzy and indistinct that it brings out the asshole in 98% of the population, in particular, those who carry penises around with them.

This is not to pick on men, but to acknowledge that men are particularly skillful at making replica bonds and then, when a woman shows that they’ve developed feelings, the man says “You couldn’t tell these bonds were fake? Did you look at the tag?!” How horrifying to find out what you thought was a Gucci bond is actually an Ucci he got off Ebay.

A lot of us have walls around our hearts formed by the bricks of our bad experiences. The more bad experiences, the higher the bricks stack up. Now you want to be loved but not love. You want to be dishonest yet not deceived. You want to get to know someone without being self-aware.

'This undefined area allows people to achieve all of those things in one fell swoop. It is this undefined area that people who have commitment or intimacy issues will try to drag out forever and ever so that they can have the attention of an attractive person of the opposite sex without having the grown up responsibilities that should accompany it. That goes for both the person who is unavailable AND the person who is being led on (which is probably part of their pattern of being attracted to unavailable people).

Knowing this, I pay CLOSE attention to a man’s behavior during that undefined phase. It lets me know whether I am going to engage in a “cop and a drop.” A “cop and drop” means I enjoyed your ______ (attention, penis, affection, conversation, money, distraction) while it lasted and now I’m done because you are ______ (full of shit, a jackass, not my type, better off as a friend, meeting me at the wrong time) and now I’m going to _____ ( include you in my friendship circle, never talk to you again, burn some photos of you in effigy) [notice I didn’t include “lead you on or allow you to lead me on to believe this could be something more” as an option. We off that.].

At some point you just have to be honest with yourself. After a certain age, you don’t make many friends of the opposite sex with whom you exchange contact information after flirting just so that you can be that person’s platonic friend. Feelings on either side are not 'really' a surprise to act otherwise is dishonest. And whether you like it or not, you have a responsibility to be careful with other people's feelings. If you think otherwise, you’re probably one of the jackasses I’m talking about. If so, please re-read this post and do better.

xoxoxoxo

Overheard and Outdone: Jermaine Jackson and Ross Edition

2010-01-19T16:32:00.001-08:00

HEY AIN'T THAT RANDY'S BROTHER?

Every now and then I hear things that just leave me speechless. Today I’m posting two of those things. The first thing I heard was Jermaine Jackson on the Rickey Smiley show this morning. In case you didn’t know, Jermaine and the other original members of the Jackson 5 have a reality show in which they are profiled while they work on a new Jackson 5 er 4? album. I’ve only seen one episode of the show but from the beginning it’s clear that Jermaine likes attention and sees himself as the star of the family. This, in direct contrast to the more level headed brothers, Tito, Jackie, and Marlon.

I was a little surprised to hear Jermaine on Rickey’s show since I’ve heard Rickey repeatedly say that he things Jermaine is ‘NASTY’ for "dealing with" his little brother Randy’s ex-wife. I have a feeling Jermaine isn’t aware of those comments. AND THANK GOD because if he were I may not have heard the fuckery that I surely did hear.

Highlights...

6? of Jermaine’s 7? children have names that start with the letter ‘J’. Jermajesty, Jafar…umm…some other ones. And then a daughter named…Autumn. He said he ran out of ‘J’ names. That's an interesting comment since Autumn’s middle name is Joy. I believe Jermajesty is a grown man now and even this many years later, Jermaine was still delighted to tell Ebony, Rickey’s co-host, that Jermaine and Jermajesty have almost all the same letters!! *excitement* WHO KNEW!

*sigh*

The highlight of the interview was when Jermaine said that he was trying to "catch up" to his father in terms of how many kids he has, but lamented the fact that he couldn't because his father had all his kids by the same woman (that's not exactly true but...).

That prompted them to ask Jermaine how many wives he's had. His current wife, said Jermaine, is his 4th. And he said he KNOWS it's gonna work out because she, Halima, is 'real' and from a different country (Afghanistan) and she's worldly and...and...I don't even know what else.

Before he could finish, they asked him if Halima was the wife that had been previously married to Randy. Jermaine said that NONE of his wives were ever married to Randy and he immediately changed the subject back the reality show even though he had been rambling on and on about personal matters. It was such an abrupt turn that you could hear Rickey and Ebony snickering the background. IT WAS HILARIOUS.

If audio is posted, I will link to it. In the meantime this is the link to the Rickey Smiley audio archives. I missed the part where Jermaine discusses his hair! So if you heard it or have the audio pleaseeeee let me know!

HOW NOT TO GET DONATIONS

On a separate note, I was in my favorite store the other day (Ross) and I heard the following exchange between two older black ladies, one a cashier, the other a customer.

Cashier: Would you like to donate $1 to the American Heart Association, it could help save someone's life.
Customer: No
Cashier: What? You don't wanna save any lives?
Customer: I save lives everyday.
Cashier: What, you a nurse or something?
Customer: Yes I am.
Cashier: Oh ok so you're a nurse, very nice. Wait, you're a Doctor?
Customer: No, I'm a nurse.
Cashier: Well, Drs save lives! Nurses just get people ready.
Me: FALLS OUT ON THE FLOOR.

And hell no, the customer did NOT donate a $1 to AHA!!

Reflections on Race and Gender in the Workplace: Is it My Race or My Sex?

2010-01-18T12:17:00.001-08:00

Today is the day we celebrate the accomplishments of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King--a man who helped to inspire generations of people with the dedication he showed to a

dvancing civil rights in the United States and across the globe. Holidays that honor transformative figures and events are opportunities to reflect on our past, present, and future. I will admit that I don't always see holidays as anything more than a much-needed break from the daily grind. But on this particular King holiday I broke from that mindless tradition as I remembered something I'd read recently regarding civil rights.

A couple weeks ago, I was thumbing through one of my favorite books. "Speeches That Changed the World: The Stories and Transcripts that made history." I keep this book on my desk at work...I get random urges to look through it and compare my my own personal speechwriting for my principals to the speeches by vital figures who've come before.

On that day, I opened the book to a speech Shirley Chisholm delivered before Congress on May 21, 1969 in support of the Equal Rights Amendment--legislation that proposed to prevent discrimination based on sex. I'd never read this speech and before I could even begin, the following words jumped out at me:

"As a black person, I am no stranger to race prejudice. But the truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am black."

Chisholm's words reflect a deeper kinship with her white feminist counterparts than I'd previously realized. She delivered those words at a crucial point in American history. Dr. King had been assassinated only a year before and that year also marked the beginning of Vietnamization as President Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam. The political climate in 1969 was a very intense one as black America struggled with the gap left by Dr. King and the country found itself still in the midst of a war they began to fear would never end.

That Chisholm addressed the rights of women at such a divided time in our nation's history is a striking contrast to the issues that dominated American thought in 1969 and, I believe, shows the commitment she had to equal rights, in particular the rights of women. That fact, caused me to think about my own lack of commitment to advancing women's rights as I've focused more often on the impact of race. I'm wondering if I should reconsider my perspective.

The bulk of Chisholm's speech is focused on debunking the myth that women are "different" or somehow in need of additional "protection" from jobs or roles deemed too tough or intellectual for females. At the time of Chisholm's speech to Congress, the ERA had been introduced in every legislature for 40 years straight. Still, employers, including the Federal government were not prohibited from posting job announcements that excluded women or developing and using doubly pay scales that reflected differing pay based on sex. Chisholm remarked:

"It is obvious that discrimination exists. Women do not have the opportunities that men do. And women that do not conform to the system, who try to break with the accepted patterns, are stigmatized as 'odd' and 'unfeminine'..."

This part certainly hit home.

As many of you know, I write for a living and my career as been spent in politics and government. In the 10 year span of my career, I've worn many hats. I've been an assistant to a PIO, worked on the campaign trail, and lobbied, among other things. Most recently, I served as a spokesperson for an Agency where toward the end of my tenure it became very clear to me that I'd been discriminated against. I even considered filing a complaint--something that I'd never thought I'd do.

The environment at my previous job was one of young white women who, I believe, undertook deliberate efforts to continuously exclude from power anyone who wasn't like them (white, under 40, thin, and decidedly whitebread). A sort of Stiletto Bush World, this brand of discrimination doesn't just omit blacks, it rejects nontraditional women, including white ones, and older people of both races and sexes. It also completely emasculated the VERY FEW white men who held positions of power and the even fewer black men who languished without care or career development. I am not an expert on work place racial and gender-based dynamics, and I have struggled to connect the pattern of power indicated there to larger trends and have been as yet unsuccessful.

However, I do know that never before in my career had I felt that I was treated differently based on race and sex in a way that impacted me negatively until then.

Working in politics, I have been typically surrounded by white men. Around white men, right or wrong, I have been my most comfortable. I've always felt that these men didn't see me as a woman, but as a man in a dress who just happened to not be white. On some level, I believe, I've benefitted from white men's tendency to view me as defeminized and simultaneously as both devoid of race and a double minority (which gives them a way to appear more diverse and tolerant with my hiring).

I also think that I have been allowed a trust and respect not immediately afforded to their white female counterparts who I've seen white men, in turns, dismiss as mother or wife prototypes (bitches and nags), sex objects, or, especially in the case of many younger white career women, as little girls who should be seen and not heard.

In my time working around and for white men, I've never been talked down to or ignored. But I have experienced such treatment by white females and black men and have seen white men subject black men and white women to such treatment. This is not to say that I haven't witnessed active discrimination by white men. But this discrimination, as I've experienced it, is part of a larger effort to keep them in (by them, I mean their trusted and vetted networks and ilk), not necessarily to keep others out due to a negative perception of that group. Exclusion of people like me by white men has been mostly a byproduct (that I have overcome in many cases) not a deliberate effort as I've experienced with other groups. The type of discrimination that I've faced by white women is yet another hurdle I see in developing a kinship with them or even black men as it pertains to issues in the workplace.

Chisholm pointed out the many roles from which women were barred or not represented at the time. She didn't bother to distinguish between white women and black women leading me to believe that if a white woman was elected to a board of directors, Chisholm would have seen that as a victory on the part of all women whereas I would only view that as another victory for white women. As I see it, wins for black women come in the form of black female accomplishment specifically--no other type of achievement counts.

This subject came up often while Secretary Clinton was running against President Obama during the primaries as the media made a point of asking black women in so many words, "Whose side are you on??" Overwhelmingly, black women sided with President Obama feeling a black man in the highest position in the land is a more personal victory than a having a white woman serve that role. I agree with this, but wonder if Secretary Clinton were black, would we have felt a deeper kinship with her than Obama. For the record, had a black woman run against Obama with the same platform and agenda as he, I would have broken the law in order to vote for her more than once. My thinking has also led me to defend Condi Rice on several occasions and to be more angered by the media's treatment of Michelle Obama during the primary season than Obama himself.

I wonder about others' experiences and how they view current workplace dynamics, not just politically speaking, but on the grander scale of public, private, NGO and corporate work. I can say that up to this point in my career, I believe the discrimination I have faced has been because I was black and not because I am female--although being black and female has come with its own set of very specific challenges and differential treatment that I've only begun to understand.

(Wo)MAN vs. Mouse: Let the Best Beast Win!

2010-01-13T16:27:00.001-08:00

So yesterday evening as I was diligently packing a 400 calorie lunch (it takes about 45 seconds), I almost caught a heart attack and an animal cruelty case! A mouse scurried from behind my dog's bed and ran into my coat closet--a closet I refuse to ever open again.

I'm not afraid of mice. However, they are filthy and I don't want it touching me or anything that belongs to my child!! They are creepy with all their scurrying around and dipping and dodging. I'm sayin doe, why you runnin fa?

I can't deal! This is why I need a husband. I have a whole long list of things I need my not-yet-met mate to do. Number 3 on the list is kill shit. Numbers 1 and 2 are too explicit to discuss. You can see killing shit is top priority for me.

I ran out today after work and got glue traps. Glue traps are better than regular mouse traps because this way, when you catch the mouse he's still alive to kill. When I catch him and beat him I might even let him live so he can run back and tell all the homies that I DON'T PLAY THAT SHIT MY HOUSE.

Anyhoo, I am also calling an exterminator because judging by the scratching and bumping noises I hear there must be some sort of hole in my raggedy attic (it's not my house so I don't mind calling it as it is). In the meantime, I keep having random daymares of a mouse trying to tickle my feet in my sleep. I'm in my bedroom right now with my door shut like somebody lives downstairs. ugh

Simply put, there's only room for 2 beasts in this house in southeast. Me and my dog. This random squatter is not welcome.

Impressionable and On a Damn Jury!

2010-01-12T19:07:00.000-08:00

<======has been chosen for jury duty.

WHY ME LAWWWWWD!

No, seriously, why me?

There is no way on God's green earth I will make a good juror.

Like lots of Pisces I'm a very impressionable as well as indecisive and likely to drift off into a daydream at any moment. None of those qualities bode well for jury duty.

I've been impressionable ever since I was little. If two people are disagreeing I believe whomever is speaking at the moment.

Here's an example of a conversation between me, A, and B.

Person A: "B" is a liar!

Me: "B" Why do you lie so much?

Person B: I don't lie, "A" is the liar.

Me: "A" I can't believe you lie like that!!

Person A: I told you "B" is the liar.

Me: Oh that's right...wait...I'm so confused.

When I was in middle school I broke up with my boyfriend *David because *Richard said he liked me more. When Richard asked me why I stopped talking to him, I explained that David liked me more than he did. When he asked me how I knew I realized that I didn't know.

In a courtroom this would translate to me believing both the defense and the prosecution and the defendent and the victim depending on who is talking at the time. If the decision came to a juror vote, I would just raise my hand last and vote with the majority.

Hell if I know if someone's guilty or not. And I don't need that hanging over my head!

I got ADD anyway. Before I sit through a trial I will have to think of things to think about while I'm supposed to be listening to both sides. I don't think they could have picked a worse person to serve such an important civil duty.

I will do my best to be fair (given the bits and pieces I will probably hear) but I'm not too happy about missing the ProBowl in MIA (which is where I originally planned to be). I better meet a hot lawyer or something.

*names changed to protect the persuasive

Down for the Cause: Why Black Interests Are Not Being Met

2010-01-12T11:09:00.000-08:00

Right this moment a black person is somewhere lamenting some political, social, or economic need that black people, as a community, are not having met by government. Regardless of socio-economic status or geographical location, black people are not just concerned with the overarching business of the “people” of the United States but are also worried about their own community and where they believe they are being overlooked.

Unfortunately, most strategies used by individuals and also black or urban-targeted organizations are outdated, reactive, and lack particular direction or expertise. From the “nappy-headed ho” Don Imus incident to the most recent flap about Harry Reid’s comments regarding Obama’s complexion and speech patterns, blacks are discussing what’s being said rather than what is or what could be done. Furthermore, black people do not seem to be pursuing positions or entrepreneurial efforts that would assist black people in gaining advantages in the long-run.

For example, there is a detrimental deficiency of lobbyists, lobbying firms, trade associations, think tanks and researchers to staff them in the black community. Over the years these institutions have become the premiere places from which information is collected for inclusion in Federal and State legislation, Federal Rules, and even articles published via media outlets large and small. These institutions typically serve predominantly white constituencies (though they may have black members), and largely employ them as well.

To bring this to a ground level, say you are reading an article about the statistics regarding a successful black woman’s likelihood of getting married. You notice that there is a statistical breakdown of the location and marriagibility of black men but none for black women. You also note that though the numbers show what percentage of black women are single but fail to show how many of the successful black women even want to get married or have been married previously but now are widowed, divorced etc.

The (sub)standard reaction to this has been to blame the media for shallow reporting. Some may even accuse the media of undertaking a widespread effort to cause panic in the black community (cause they have time and resources and interest in that *scoff*). But others, like myself, would say that if there were black think tanks dedicated to the issues of marriage and family in the black community (a good example of this would be something akin to the Heritage Foundation, an organization that has been wildly successful in advancing its agenda) those numbers could have been readily provided to the media with proper context and messaging.

But alas, such a Foundation does not exist.

Another good example is the conversations surrounding the healthcare debate. I have heard numerous black people complain that the bill lacks the sort of provisions that would assist the black community in overcoming some of the gaps between the care they receive versus what whites receive. Many have blamed this on the “healthcare lobby” which, admittedly like all other ‘lobbies’ is lacking in color. Would black people have supported President Obama’s stance on lobbying if blacks had their own firms and were actively involved in decisionmaking? Moreover, would President Obama have worked so hard to reduce the influence of special interest groups if those special interests were more diverse?

I can’t help but wonder how the black community, with such a high number of purported “thinkers” and politically conscious members can suffer from a dearth of people participating DIRECTLY in advancing the type of research and governmental influence (lobbying) efforts necessary to help black people enter the coming age and serve both their foreign and domestic interests. And I still struggle to understand why long-supported and, in many cases, government subsidized, organizations such as the NAACP and others have failed to make related transitions.

As I write this article encouraging black folks to become BETTER political participators, President Obama is simultaneously attempting to both reduce the influence of lobbying firms (full-disclosure, I don’t agree with his position) and extending the government’s collaborative efforts with stakeholders to build policies that advance America as a whole.

However, because of the lack of black-focused groups, his administration will be hard-pressed to implement the types of policies most black people would support because there are very few to provide the information (i.e. make it easier and thus more feasible) for the administration to do so.

There are already many people who believe that President Obama has done “nothing” for black people thus far in his presidential term and that he should “already know” what types of legislation and regulatory action would be beneficial to the black community. I can also assume that these same people believe President Obama could undertake these efforts alone, that members of Congress alone write legislation, and that a fat man wearing a red outfit delivers gifts on December 25 of every year using a wooden sleigh pulled through the brisk night-air by cervids he calls by name.

Sadly, this is not the case. For every rulemaking effort, every legislative turn, and more, the public via established groups and organizations provide comment, research, and feedback. Government employees, executives, program managers, and legislators are all a part of the process, but are not, and could never be the process in its entirety. The feedback and information provided by think tanks and the like can not only steer policies but also help avoid unintended consequences.
A good example of an unintended consequence that could have been avoided with proper research would be the legal sentences for cocaine vs. crack possession and distribution. Black people, including the Congressional Black Caucus supported harsher sentences for crack offenders because they thought locking up violators would assist in diminishing the crack epidemic by taking those most likely to support it off the streets.

Today, we know that those rules have resulted in a conviction rate of black men disproportionate to the amount of black men who actually use or distribute drugs. Additionally, there have been issues with the execution of justice as well as arrests and other parts of the adjudication process.

I’m 100% positive a black think tank dedicated to judicial issues could have predicted that such legislation would have resulted in racial misapplication by looking at the history of black people’s involvement in the criminal justice system and the subsequent impact (recidivism, legal representation etc) on the community. They probably could have even suggested alternative legislation that would have helped end the crack epidemic that depleted so many black neighborhoods and families.

I have spent my career in Federal and State government, lobbying, and on the campaign trail. Over the years, I have watched black people show great passion for diversity and equal opportunity programs. As a result, many pursue jobs with limited advancement where the impact of their work is nearly singular and certainly more personal rather than broad-based. Examples of these positions would be human resources, teaching, civil rights, counseling, and other people-oriented jobs. Nothing is wrong with pursuing these careers or spear-heading your own efforts to own related-firms. However, until black people become key players in the political parts of the process, your value to it is the equivalent of watching Keith Olbermann and tweeting and emailing links to articles you agree or disagree with. In other words, you’re not very useful in the long run.

This shallow participation in and knowledge of our system of government and where, of course black folks fit into it, is part of the reason that black people are struggling to determine where they fit into President Obama’s priorities, and, arguably more important, the priorities at their local level of government (affordable housing anyone?).

I wish I had the answer for how to make widespread change of this nature, and also how to do it given the fairly small population of black people in the United States. I have seen firsthand the overlapping historical circumstances that make it difficult for black people to enter and be promoted within the types of institutions on which this article is focused. Further, some of the greatest black political minds with whom I’ve come into contact in my career (including me!) are working diligently toward national interests—not national black interests.

So, no, I don’t have the answer. However, I figured it was worth pointing out that while most black people wonder why they aren’t winning, I wonder when we’ll get into the game.

Why You So Fat? BIG Changes in 2010.

2010-01-11T16:07:00.000-08:00

As I said in a previous post, HAPPYaboutTHIS would become a personal blog. I'm still planning to have the site redesigned so it looks prettier (i.e. has more pictures of me) and archived articles are easier to find. But right now this ain't so bad!

Beyond alterations to HaT, 2010 is bringing lots of big changes for me. I'm now employed at a different Agency and have transitioned from spokesperson to full-time speechwriter. I'm making more money and can do more to dig myself out of the financial hole I've dug myself while partying too hard (and looking good doing it) over the past few years. I'll blog about those efforts too.

I don't really have a New Year's Resolution (besides finding a muscular someone with whom to rumble vertically at least 3 times a week without requiring me to talk to them), but I have set two goals for 2010.

The first one is to tackle my ADD cause umm, it's bad and getting worse. If you continue to read HaT you will definitely be hearing all about my ADD symptoms--you may even begin to notice them. The 2nd goal is to finally get down to a weight at which I am comfortable and to STAY THERE for good.

Since I've recently tried to make healthful eating and routine exercise a habit again, today's post is weight-related. The last time I got down to a size that I was totally happy with was my junior year in college...I maintained that weight up until I entered the real world where I worked for a lobbying firm. The hours were long, the commute was longer, and the breaks were short to non-existent. I was also living out in an exurb of Washington DC where I knew no one and felt isolated and tired all the time. I gained a bunch of weight. When I ate I either consumed too much or not enough and never the right thing. Despite knowing better, I did worse.

I've since lost the weight I gained that year but have not gotten back down to my previous size. Last year I had a metabolism test that indicated that my metabolism was near death and that in order for me to lose weight I would need to keep my caloric intake down to around 1100 calories. It was hard, but I stuck to it and lost a bunch of weight...but then February of 2009 I was diagnosed with a 5 inch fibroid tumor requiring a myomectomy. I had the surgery in July and had to take it easy for almost 4 months with only a little non-strenuous exercise here and there.

Now I'm feeling better and am ready to get back in to the game. I restarted my 1100 calorie diet last week and I am STRUGGLING to adjust. I'm not gonna lie. I have an attitude! I feel faint. *dramatic wave* However, since I've done it before I know I can do it again. Your body gets used to it. Once I increase my workouts I can SLOWLY increase my caloric intake to 1500.

All this talk about how fat I am has got me thinking about fat people, fat acceptance, and just being fat period. I had no idea that there were controversies between fat people about being fat! Some say accept your fat ass the way your fat ass is (esp. if your ass is actually fat!). Others say sure, you can accept your fat ass but you're gonna die! If you're looking for that debate here, you're in the wrong place. It's my personal belief that the only thing two fat people should ever argue about is who is gonna eat the last Popeye's biscuit. I'm totally down for that fight. I recuse myself of any other arguments. But I do wonder how much better I really look thin vs. fat and if it's worth all the effort I put in.

Please don't bore me talking about health. I'm not trying to lose weight for health reasons--kudos to those who are. I want to lose weight for purely cosmetic reasons and to increase the odds of getting pregnant some day.

But mostly cosmetic reasons....so I can go from:

(oo la la! I love Kim K!)

I even bought a Kim K poster to put up on my wall since she is my body inspiration (she and Selma Hayek). Unfortunately, my poster got ripped and I think I may have thrown it away. Kim are you reading? Send me another?

Anyhow, if I had Kim's body...talk about H to the Izzo (do you catch my drift?). Actually, no, I take that back...I wouldn't be a ho, I wouldn't let anyone touch me. In fact, I'd think I was better than everyone else and would only stop to scowl at people who dared to look me in the eye. By the way, this could really happen...yall know there's no bitchier person than a fat person who gets thin.

And I WILL be that person. As I'm blogging, I will share my exercise routine and food journal for your viewing pleasure.

But yall better leave comments now before I get skinny and stop reading them.

Why Are Celebrities So Ungrateful?

2009-12-22T08:28:00.000-08:00

On Saturday I was forwarded the Global Grind blog post by Gabrielle Union that was marketed as a commentary related to the death of Cincinnati Bengals Wide Receiver Chris Henry. My first inclination was not to read it. Though I’m not a ‘fan’ of Union, I do think she’s very talented, but have never known her to assert any social awareness. But since respectable people such as Hill Harper were saying that her post was “insightful” and thought-provoking I figured I’d read.

Unfortunately, Union’s post was a rant not so much about Henry but about the public’s obsession with celebrity and how it’s keeping us from focusing on our own issues and problems. In the post Union says that the public is trying to “live like Diddy when their homes are being foreclosed” and are focusing on chasing Tiger Wood’s wife around like animals rather than getting counseling for their own issues.

It was a fitting anti-tabloid culture rant for someone who has been heavily profiled in gossip blogs for the past two years as she openly gallivanted around with someone else’s husband. I’m not making a statement as to whether or not Union and Wade have done anything unseemly, I just think the content of her blog post was interesting given the circumstances in which she finds herself.

Union’s post was very insulting to her fans, who, without interest in celebrity culture she’d be just another girl on the block. [Beyond that, the post was also insulting to Henry’s memory. Why market a personal rant as something relative to someone’s tragic death (the cause of which is still not resolved) when nothing thoughtful was said regarding the deceased or the circumstances surrounding his death.]

That same day that I read and disapproved of Union’s post, the news about Brittany Murphy’s death hit the web. Comedian Lil Duval and Wendy William’s side-kick Charlamagne took to twitter to inform their followers that they are too obsessed with celebrities and shouldn’t be discussing the death of an entertainer because there are “other” more important things going on.
I can’t help but find this to be strange and ill-timed commentary coming from two men who are making a living in the entertainment business. Once again, without interest in celebrities they would be unable to support themselves or their families.

Also, Brittany Murphy's death, regardless of her fame and talent, qualifies for thoughtful discussion. Like many young women she struggled with life’s challenges: depression, drugs, anorexia, and possibly falling in love with a destructive personality. Her life mirrors far too many women's, and it’s a shame that two people would use the forum they’ve been given on a social network to lambaste people for wanting to express condolences for the loss of the life of someone with whom, if nothing else, we share our humanity.

It almost seems as though the lower level the celebrity is the more ungrateful they are for the attention they or others receive. C and D list black celebrities continue to complain about their mentions on YBF and Crunktastical even though pre-2005 (when those blogs started) our favorite has-been stars weren’t being sought out or kept up with. Now, they receive regular coverage and some of them have re-emerged in part due to the coverage provided by the black blogosphere. In fact, the black blogosphere and gossip rags can be credited with taking many niche black celebrities into the mainstream.

I won’t deny that the some of the attention the tabloids and blogs give certain A list celebrities has got to be annoying, and some of the gossip is hateful and mean-spirited. But it’s hard to feel sorry for someone like Kanye West, who has taken to his blog several times to complain about the attention he receives) when that is the lifestyle that they've actively sought knowing full well the implications.

Celebrities who like privacy live life lowkey like Beyonce or Johnny Depp, they don't parade around at every single industry party or go out of their way to flaunt their lifestyles.

(To Diddy's credit, I've never heard him complain about the attention his life receives.)

And let’s not pretend, as soon as the cameras stop following celebrities, they have their publicists arrange for cameras to show up so that ‘candids’ can be taken and distributed. And publicists also start rumors about who their clients are sleeping with to put their names back in the news. All so the celeb can take to a blog post and pretend like the attention is “all too much” *dramatic sigh*

Furthermore, it’s silly to imply that people can’t multi-task their life priorities. There’s no reason to think that you can’t get an inappropriate and slightly insensitive kick and giggle out of the Tiger Woods debacle while also staying abreast of the catastrophic collapse of the healthcare legislation originally proposed by the President.

In other words, you can both mourn Michael Jackson’s passing and realize that non-famous people die too. You can also read about the latest celeb’s battle with depression and also seek counseling for your own issues. In fact, you may actually become more likely to do so.

All I have to say to these ‘celebrities’ who are so tired of people reading and talking about ‘celebrities’ is this: If you want to deliver a big EFF YOU!! to the public, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised if we start to remember.

Taking It Personal

2009-12-17T12:59:00.000-08:00

Me and the blogger behind Elegant Ignance had a conversation about a month ago where we both expressed surprised at how many blogs there are. We both said that had we known that there were so many blogs, we probably wouldn’t have started ours. Someone then pointed out to Crystal, the writer of EI, that she has a different perspective than others and there being ‘a lot’ of blogs doesn’t make her blog any less valuable.

I started HappyAboutThis almost three months ago and I am still finding my voice. I want to balance my desire to write about what I am interested in verses what I believe people want to read. The more I read the blogs that are available I think there is plenty of room for my perspective.

There are some purposes that I definitely don't want H.A.T. to serve.

I’ll never issue advice--I’m not qualified to advise anyone on anything unless they are preparing for a speech, media appearance, or need other professional communications advice [If you need such advise, please contact me, I have reasonable prices and great recommendations].

This is most certainly not a sensational or satirical blog…they’ll be no titles like “10 things Black Men Can Do to Control Their Jumpoffs” or "How Lacefronts are Ruining Relationships." In fact, H.A.T. will not be a blog that focuses on relationships either.

Furthermore, H.A.T. is not going to be a political or racial discourse blog, although I do provide commentary of that nature and welcome such discussion.

So what should it be?

A few months ago someone I was following on twitter lamented the decline of the “personal blog.” The blog that follows someone’s life through ups and downs, not a niche subject blog i.e. limiting your writing to race or healthcare or dating etc. Personal blogs give readers regular insight into the writer's mind and allows readers to view and consume their opinions in context. I believe this is the biggest advantage of having a blog overall and I plan to take advantage.

Turning H.A.T. into a personal blog will be good for a few reasons. At least 2 times a week (I’m not exaggerating) someone tells me that I need my own reality show. People seem to be interested in me, what I do, why I say the things I say, and why I am so dramatic and without filter. Let’s see if that interest wanes once I’m handing out my fuckery several times a week.

Finally, taking this personal will make the posts less random. Readers will know why I’m writing about certain topics and will have a better understanding of why I believe the way I do. I am definitely a fan of "personal stories" (and I have and will continue to print OTHER people's personal stories on my blog such as Justin Cooper's tale of his bouts with depression and Greg C's story of 100lb weight loss). I think this blog will be a great place for those who like a lil soap opera while they peruse the web.

I am hoping that these changes will give me the opportunity to achieve a few goals with my blog.

• Grow my commentary writing (Place articles in publication etc.)
• Increase the precision of my writing (you know, nailing it on the head).
• Become more concise (nailing it on the head briefly)
• Start something and continue with it (I’m not disciplined whatsoever)
• Expand the number of viewpoints to which I have access (Please don’t be ignorant in my comment section *hovers over delete button*)
• Examine my own skills, abilities, beliefs and opinions (I like to be challenged, very few people’s opinions and skills sets are fully formed or perfectly expressed and executed, let's discuss!)

All of this, hopefully, with the help of some thoughtful readers.

The look of H.A.T. will be revamped pretty soon and I am considering switching from blogger to wordpress. However, in the meantime, posts will continue with a new slant starting Monday.

Feedback is welcome!

Single Black Women: Like a Broken Record

2009-12-17T11:04:00.000-08:00

There’s been lots of talk lately about single black women. In part, this is due to lots of articles in the mainstream media about how successful black women are increasingly not finding husbands but also because of an article profile of the writer Helena Andrews in the Washington Post. Andrews’s book, “Bitch is the New Black,” is a collection of essays on single black women that, although is not yet completed, is already scheduled to be a movie of some sort.

There were blog posts that captured my thoughts relative to Ms. Andrews work and the plight of single black women. One was over at The Beautiful Struggler the other on Brandon Saint Randy. Finally, there was a brilliant and very concise piece written on Andrews and the plight of black storytellers over at The American Prospect that I wish I’d have written *shaking fist*.

Beyond those three, other blogs and blog comments that I’ve read lacked sensitivity toward this serious issue and mostly people took the broken record approach using their space in the blogosphere to remark on what black women are “doing wrong” and rehash all the ‘bad things’ they’ve seen single black women do, or, worse, to personally attack Ms. Andrews based off what little information was provided about her in the Post.

How dreadful.

If you read my blog or follow me on twitter, you know that I’m single, I live in DC, I’d like to get married and have a family, but I realize the odds are not in my favor. I’m not miserable, I don’t need to try online dating, I don’t need to smile more or date outside of my race. I also am not a successful bitch, I don’t look down on men who make less money than me, I meet men all the time, I’m not targeting the tall and handsome Ivy League graduate prototype, I’m not chasing thugs or athletes, I’m not overly conceited or confident, I’m not a snob nor am I bourgie, I’m not a mean person, I don’t need to lose weight to attract better men, people like me, and I have lots of hobbies. I’m a normal girl, I like myself, I like my life, men seem to like me, and being single is a breeze for the most part.

Now that that’s out of the way, you won’t have to (mis)use my comments section to tell me what I and women like myself (whatever that means) need to do to increase our chances of getting married. I don’t need or want your advice. Consider this discussion officially elevated.

Let me tell you why I’m single and why I worry about being single over the long-term.

Over the past 7 years of being single (yes, 7) I’ve met lots of wonderful men—hardworking gentleman with goals and plans to get there. However, in terms of compatibility, I have yet to meet anyone whose company I truly enjoyed or with whom I felt a strong mental and emotional connection and a sense that our lives were moving in the same direction. I’m not saying that this can’t happen, but the pool of men I’m swimming in is increasingly small as the statistics show. Love is a numbers game. I’m not winning yet and the reality is I may never.

It’s that simple.

My worries about being single don’t center around my present— they center around my future e.g. my desire to be a mother and have a partner with whom to raise my children, to have a live-in second opinion on financial and other personal matters, to build wealth and have a built-in support system…the opportunity to be a part of a team. Those desires and the LEGITIMATE worry that I won’t ever have those things (whether due to my own shortcomings or not) shouldn’t be dismissed by some silly writer’s pen and shouldn’t be used to categorize me as some single lonely bitter shrew. (see above)

Seeing what my single and older friends were going through, I decided that I was not going to let some mythological husband determine whether or not I became a mother. That, at least, I can control. I set a goal of adopting two kids: a boy a 31 and a girl at 33. I will be 28 years old March 2010.

(Raising a dog alone is hard enough! Two kids? I'm gonna be plenty tired!)

This morning, it occurred to me suddenly that if I plan to stick with this goal, I have 3 years to prepare myself...I'm close...but no cigar. Although, I make a lot of money I've also enjoyed my years being single (I've travelled A LOT, worn nice clothes, owned some nice cars, and pretty much partied it up *makes it rain on Zappos.com*). Now, I have 3 years to aggressively save toward a home and being able to go through a pricy overseas adoption. 3 years to move to a location where being a single parent won’t be so logistically difficult (I don't want to be a single parent in DC). 3 years to get to a place in my career where I will actually have time to spend with my kids who will have only one parent to on whom to rely.

I may not be in the position to adopt my first child at 31 as projected, but I am beginning to attack the appropriate life, financial and business planning to ensure that I meet my goals at some point. I am doing this as a team of one. Had I seriously considered the fact that I may never marry and may never have a second income with which to pay a mortgage and raise kids, I might have been a tad more responsible in my spending habits. But that's neither here nor there (or in the Mac store on South Beach, apparently...it's not at the Louis Vuitton store in San Juan Puerto Rico either--I checked there as well).

Being single may be a breeze now and relationships are definitely hardwork (my parents have been married over 30 years, I’ve seen a lot)…but marriage has serious benefits (both financially and emotionally), to deny that is silly, and even sillier still to act like women (or men) are wrong for wanting those benefits and worrying that it will never happen for them.

I am telling MY story so that as you peruse the internet and you run across stories written about single black women, perhaps you will be encouraged to practice some level of sensitivity. Try to see single black women as individuals rather than caricatures and member’s of a group that needs to be “set straight” about what they are “doing wrong.” Don’t assume we are all lonely. Don’t assume we are all “pining’ away. Don’t assume we want your advice. In fact, don’t assume we are anything other than individuals who are less likely than our white counterparts to be able to achieve the marriage goal---like so many other disadvantages we face as a result of the racial dynamic in this country.

I hope that’s not too much to ask.

You're Black Whether You Like It Or Not! Tiger Woods and How Misery LOVES Company

2009-12-02T09:42:00.001-08:00

I remember watching the Oprah interview in which Tiger Woods referred to himself as Cablinasian.

From Salon Magazine

Woods made his remarks on "Oprah," when he was asked if it bothered him to be called an African-American. "It does," he said. "Growing up, I came up with this name: I'm a 'Cablinasian.'" As in Caucasian-black-Indian-Asian. Woods has a black father (or to be precise, if I am interpreting Woods' reported ancestry correctly, a half-black, one-quarter American Indian, one-quarter white father) and a Thai mother (or, with the same caveat, a half-Thai, half-Chinese mother). "I'm just who I am," Woods told Oprah Winfrey, "whoever you see in front of you."

From that moment on, many black people were upset. They said Woods didn’t want to be black. They questioned why he made up a name for himself. They accused him of distancing himself in an effort to be unique or different. I remember thinking that it didn’t matter what Tiger said, some segment of the black community would be upset. If he said “I’m Black.” Then he would have been questioned about how his mother felt about his singular identification or how he can consider himself black when he’s so obviously mixed. Worse, some people would have undoubtedly said “He ain’t black!”

Now that Woods has been caught in a domestic issue, for some reason, black people have, once again, taken the opportunity to mock Woods for his racial identification and the fact that he married a white woman. It’s as though black people were looking for an excuse to drag him through the proverbial racial mud yet again--and then simultaneously wonder why on earth being called black makes him uncomfortable. (If you don’t see the irony in that sentence, God bless you)

Actually, let me correct that. Woods did not say he preferred not to be called black. Oprah’s specific question to Woods was about whether it ‘bothered’ him to be called “African American.” I’ve been a part of many debates about the use of the term African American vs. the use of the term Black. Personally, it does bother me to be called African American—do I object to it? No. Do I prefer the term Black American? Yes. It’s totally a personal choice based on my understanding of the history of blacks in America and what certain terms mean culturally, ethnically, and socially.

That’s why I believe that the way in which someone identifies themselves is personal. And the way that people interpret that identification is personal as well. People interpret statements through their own filters, many of which are, quite frankly, fucked up and ignorant and affected and jaded. When I hear black people complain that Woods doesn’t identify himself as “black” or that he doesn’t “acknowledge” is blackness enough or any other similar combination of criticisms about how he PERSONALLY identifies HIMSELF, what I hear, through MY filters is simple: “Mixed people think they are better than other black people and they are beneficiaries of certain privileges as a result. Damn I wish I were mixed.”

I believe many black people have a deep-seated resentment toward the privilege that many mixed people receive. Doesn’t matter how small the privilege, whether it be that white folks feel more comfortable around mixed people or that certain black men find mixed women more attractive. The criticisms of biracial people and the like, from what I’ve seen, stem all too often from an effort to knock that person off the pedestal on which some blacks perceive they sit i.e. “look at you now, you thought you were special, but you’re just another nigga. TOLD YOU SO!” [not sure what makes black people think that mixed people aren’t already painfully aware of their relative n*gga status]

Why else would black people be compelled to comment on how those who are readily identifiable as mixed choose to identify themselves? If Woods didn’t “look mixed” it wouldn’t be an issue. Why? Because there aren’t any perceived privileges to “just looking black” and therefore, no pedestal from which to knock them. And when people who don’t “look black” or at least not all the way black, don’t rush to visibly embrace all the consequences of being black, other blacks tend to feel personally rejected by that person –even if they don’t know the person or their history.

So many black people aren’t happy unless everyone that they personally perceive as black empathizes and identifies with them. And that’s fine, black people should contiue to exact change through the sharing of their struggles and experiences. And I too, question the Michael Steele’s of the world who seem oblivious to things like institutionalized racism or the impact of conservative policies on urban life etc.

But the problem is that many blacks not only insist that you empathize, they insist you suffer like them as well. And if you don’t appear to, you are subjected to a never-ending set of requirements: talk this way, wear your hair like that, call yourself black, mixed, mulatto blah! I could go on with all the many ways black people judge you upon finding out that you’re mixed. Sometimes I believe black people ask you what your race is just so that they can pull the right set of mocking talking points out of their arsenal. It seems to be that misery loves the shit out of company. And black people have made many a mixed person miserable by bowling over their right to have and communicate a different experience. And that is plain wrong.

Speaking of filters, based on my life experiences, I interpreted Woods’ statements to mean that he is many things none more important than the other. I felt he was trying to avoid a national conversation on the issue of his race and simply was disinterested in being remembered historically as the greatest “negro” golfer in history, an asterisk bigger (and more hurtful) than the one Phil Jackson put on the San Antonio Spurs 1999 NBA championship. In other words, “despite all your glorious accomplishments, you’re not the greatest golfer ever Woods, you’re just the great negro golfer. Oh and by the way, do you mind dropping off this “Best To Ever Play” plaque at Phil Mickelson’s house? Nevermind, I’ll ask that Vijay Singh to do it. He’s darker than you anyway, and I think he might come from ragpicking stock. No worries.”

The most poignant thing Woods said in his interview with Oprah was this: “I am whoever you see in front of you.” That’s a true statement. For all those who complain about how Woods identified himself in that interview or any other, it didn’t change your personal perception of him. You still have your opinion, however unfair.