For the Privileged

A few days ago I transitioned from my old-new-home back down to my new-home-in-my-old-city. I lugged boxes around in 100-degree weather like the wonder woman I tend to be, and when I got down for a break, I reviewed a message from a concerned male acquaintance asking how he as a recipient of privilege (as a male) could move beyond that privilege to aide in change and revolution.

Instantly, with much sincerity and love, I applauded his efforts at acknowledging himself as a recipient of privilege on the basis of his maleness - and in comparison with Black females alone. It has been my experience that getting men of color to acknowledge privilege is a difficult task. The thing that is important to remember is that we are not only one thing; we do not only have to be one thing. The problem that a lot of people have with Black women and feminism/womanism/women's rights is that these ideas are centred around the oppression faced as women, versus the oppression on fronts of our color. Unfortunately for women of color, racial and gender-based oppression can come both separately and together. Also, while men of color (among other classifications) are discriminated against as a result of their color, they are often give special bias as a result of their maleness - hence, "privilege." My answer to moving beyond privilege is that acknowledging it is the best way to start. I mean, if you know you're in a privileged class in our shitty socially constructed hierarchy, then the best thing you can do initially is to acknowledge the privilege and educate other members of your group who don't identify as privileged understand what privilege is and the role that it plays in our society - both historically and in a contemporary context.

The next question, though, was this: if he (and others) know and can acknowledge that there is a disparity in the treatment of men and women, white people and persons of color, the rich and the poor -- what is their incentive for evening out the playing field?

This question always reminds me of those using-religion-to-justify-morality statements; surely someone who is able to acknowledge and fully understand how they have benefited by privilege, in a society that allows the construction of social and systemic inequality on the basis of any characteristic they do not control, should feel for the disadvantaged on want to change it just on that basis, right? Surely there should be no incentive for doing the right thing beyond their own conscience and consciousness, right? I don't know the answer. I don't know that there is an incentive beyond feeling for the those who are disadvantaged and oppressed in a modern and allegedly intellectually advanced era.

Be Righteous.

Also, for more posts on privilege, click here to a post I wrote a while back. It has links to some good work done on acknowledging male privilege in the Black community.

Vagina Dentata (nom nom nom)

In fairness, I'll warn you that this post is a bit graphic and sensitive. There may be triggers or even a major level of discomfort provided in this post. It isn't exactly pretty, and I'd warn you to proceed with caution.

When I was in college (just a couple years ago), my best guy friend was a film major. Some people may express that I haven't seen many films (but I haaaave), but I do love flicks. One night, my good friend and I were hanging out and we ordered a pizza and decided to watch a movie called "Teeth" - an indy horror flick crossed with a little black comedy. While he spent much of the film utterly terrified, I just loved it. Roll tape!

Scared yet? This poor young girl was involved in some church cult group and her boyfriend, also a member of the abstinence only squad, took her to a cave in whatever bum cluck town they were in and tried to rape her. And her vagina bit his penis off. And throughout the movie, various males attempt taking advantage of her and suffer the same fate, and the poor girl - a virgin at that - cannot figure out what's wrong with her. Hey, we were all a little confused our first times, right?

A little later in real life, there were talks of developing a condom that would simulate vagina dentata to a less than lethal extent, but the idea floated and then disappeared. Until 2010: the year of Rape-aXe - a female condom type device that is inserted in the vagina and bites grasps on the rapists penis in a painful, but again non-lethal, way.

I know what you're thinking: with all the pro-woman propaganda I share on my blog and in real life, I'm bound to be pro-anything-to-take-the-dicks-off-of-men, right? Well, surprise surprise! I find this device and its concept to be problematic; yes, seriously! Blind-sided you, eh?

While I understand all those cute little preventative techniques they teach young college girls that's supposed to prevent them from being raped, we know that the majority of rapes are acquaintance rapes. If women (and men, even) felt it necessary to protect themselves around the people that they are familiar with, there would be a lot fewer acquaintance rapes. And, on that same note, if women (because there is only a female version of this device available) are preparing themselves to be nervous and on pins and needles at every turn awaiting a blitz by a total stranger, the chances of that happening are slim which makes the necessity for the device illogical in that regard.

As I understand from the illustrations, the device is identified as a "condom" but it works a bit more solidly, like, say, a diaphragm. So this condom-diaphragm hybrid sits in a lady's vagina as she awaits a sexual act against her. Does anybody not see anything wrong with the fear factor? And beyond that, who tested this? What if it doesn't work correctly and hurts the woman, or doesn't work against the perpetrator?

This part could get graphic; consider the previous statement your warning!
So, a woman is being raped by a man. He goes in and out, but in the "out" action, this device chomps down on his man parts, right? This is painful. Is this just painful enough to stun the perpetrator into whatthefuckjusthappenedIgottagetouttahere? Or is it more like holyshitthathurtandIcan'tMOVE? If it's the latter, how is a potential victim to call the police or get to a safe place with a rapist laying on top of her?

Also, I'm very worried about the potential misuse and abuse of the device; what's to say that there is not a woman who is attempting to teach her cheating boyfriend a lesson? Yes, I'm sure it would be assault. I'm also sure, though, that it creates another dynamic to victimization of sorts. I'm not saying that majority of women would do something like this; I'm not attempting to turn my back on rape victims or the act. I am saying, though, that there are quite a few screwed up individuals in the world, unfortunately, and I could see immature-but-sexually active girls and women majorly misusing the device.

While I could drone on and on about my qualms with this device, the most important of them all is this: the problem with rape isn't women, it's R A P E. The condom is another way to scare women into feeling perpetually vulnerable and it isn't solving the problem of rape, but rather compounding, complicating, and completely avoiding it. I understand the good intentions behind this advice, but instead of working on illogically calculated preventative tactics to "avoiding" rape, why not focus on educating young girls and boys about appropriate sexual behavior and why any forms of forced sexual acts are wrong? I know that there are women (and children!) who do everything "right" and still wind up in situations where they are abused or assaulted. And you know why that is? It's because they only have control over their own behavior. By introducing a device that supposedly shifts the focus to the victim, it disallows for sympathy in a situation where their control was temporarily taken from them. A single person can only control themselves; the actions that another person forces upon them - no matter what the circumstance - was not a choice made by them, but by the other person. Thsi device is attempting to put the "power" in the victims hands, but it discounts the psychological and emotional aspects of rape/sexual assault and only focuses on the physical. I'm of the opinion that with all the guilt and shame that comes after being victimized, a victim might be effected negatively by the thought that they may have hurt another individual and are at fault in some way or another.

Just think about it.

Be Righteous.

It's All Effie's Fault..?!

First of all, I'd like to apologize for my absence in the last several days. Though this post will be brief, I will be back in full force eventually. You see, I've been living my life like a string of parabolas and the down part of the spiral included a trip-turned-unpaid-vacation down the highway to home(though not incredibly pleasurable). Experiencing a loss is something every person has to grow to experience and accept, and I had to turn on my ability to nurture in order to soothe my family's hurt. A huge pet peeve of mine, though, is people constantly questioning whether or not I'm okay; so dear readers, if any one is out there, I guarantee you that I am absolutely fine and I appreciate your thoughts of encouragement in advance.

I left the city to head home last Saturday morning after punching out at work in the morning, and I was hardly tired. As a matter of fact, I ended up staying at work an extra few (okaaaay, thirty) minutes to finish "The Banality of Heterosexism" before getting on the road. Unfortunately for me, my trek was filled with far too many stops (maybe I was tired, maybe I was bored), traffic, and a phone conversation with a former friend.

Somehow, throughout the conversation, the question of my current love life came to light. I'm not the type of person that delves into my personal life with too many people as it relates to my relationships and decision making, and sometimes less is more. Besides elaborating on my being single and content, I also spilled the beans on a rat guy I was seeing, and actually liking, who actually had a hundred couple other "girlfriends", all complete with the same nickname, other than me. I wasn't incredibly heartbroken, as I dumped him weeks before even realizing that he was just awful. That's right, even with the broken dates and bullshit excuses, there was still some inkling of what I thought was a combination of good person/shitty boyfriend left, and it was the most peaceful "I'm just gonna walk away" thing I had ever done.
...until it wasn't.

Yet, the ugly details aren't included and since they don't really matter, I only shared that the person that I very much liked at one point, and even more quickly bounced back from, turned out to be the very deserving object of my disgust.

The friend on the phone, a Black man himself, allowed me into the world of "how Black men think"; as he began to postulate, I rolled my eyes all the way down ninety five and even caught myself almost kicking my feet up on the dash and munching on popcorn.

The gospel according to him was as follows: since I am a plus sized lady, Black men think that I am easily controlled as a result of a lack of self esteem. Therefore, if I don't want to be treated like shit, I need to be a size two. Easy enough formula, right? As he expanded upon his theory, I did not find myself upset at his preachy "I know Black men as a Black man"-itudes; I giggled because I thought it to be one of the sillier things I had heard. His explanation for this was the "fact" that the only Black men I am to ever attract (by my own fault, no doubt) are looking for a woman that they can impose their views on; as a matter of fact, he even threw this little diddy in the mix: when a Black man dates a Black woman, she's the most shapely, finest goddess that he can find -- but when they go after white women (again, to impose upon), they're always "nasty looking". Yes, folks: it was all Effie's fault that Curtis dogged her

...word? Well, on top of this conversation being utterly random and disgustingly stitched together, I find a few faults with this logic:

1. That some Black men take offense to this idea that any Black man is or could ever be controlling (ergo, abusive) in one context, but will justify it in another.
2. That this one Black man speaks for the lot of Black men.
3. That I'll never have/have never had a "successful" relationship because of my appearance and not my other attributes.
4. That plus-sized = ugly, lowered self-esteem having wenches who are chosen by these men.
5. That aforementioned wenches never have a say in with whom they choose to enter relationships.
6. That skinny women do not have self esteem issues or relationship problems.
7. That non-"nasty looking" white women are not interested in or dating Black men.
8. That plus-sized women are of less value than average-to-skinny women.
9. That any one person is to blame for another party's actions.
10. That there are not men (or for argument's sake, women) who enjoy a little more..erm..fluff.

...and that is just to name a few. Now, I didn't take this as a personal attack because obviously, I think this is utter foolishness. Could I stand to drop a few lbs? Sure, but when I do, it isn't because I'm attempting to draw attention from another person. I don't think that I should even seem combative in saying that I date; I've documented a few dates on here on the blog and the people that I encounter are interesting enough. I don't think I should even have to harp on the fact that I'm satisfied with the person that I am/am becoming, and that my singlehood is by my own volition. Sure, we would all very much enjoy companionship, but having no anchor to anything right now (and being the personable anti-social that I tend to be), I can up and move away as I am currently contemplating any time the mood strikes. And honestly, I believe I'm always "fly" (actually a nickname given to me by an former boyfriend) and of all the attributes that might keep me single - Black power fueled with feminism, opinionated nature, inability to produce a successful joke, Billy-Bad-Assedness, heavy flow (read: straight-up-inappropriateness when I'm trying to tell a joke, ha!) - my appearance is the least of my concerns. Lastly, I don't think that I should have to elaborate on the fact that the way I am online - forward, opinionated, sometimes-bitchy (and even sometimes offending) - is exactly the way I am when I click "sign out" - which pretty much rules the no-confidence-and-lowered-self-esteem malarkey instantly. More than anything, this was all very amusing before I opted to hit him with the shrug-and-"I'mma let you finish"-move; I hung up and continued rolling down 95 as pleasantly as I began my journey.

I don't have control over another person's actions; that mickey-fickey decided for himself to cheat and go in the direction that he would - and he has total ownership of that. Other people's problems are...well, they're their problems.

Know that. Smile. Be Righteous.

Save The Males! *Eye Roll*

This morning began a little disastrously. I woke up to my phone vibrating; it was my aunt calling from outside, needing me to give her truck a jump. She doesn't know how to use cables, so I rolled out of bed, slid on my flip flops, and grabbed my keys. Half asleep, I attached the cables and sat in my truck. The temperature was a lot cooler than I anticipated. Definitely too cool to be outside in my nightdress and flip flops, but I didn't mind. After I finished, I went back inside and debated between breakfast and more sleep, and I chose breakfast. While heating up the skillet, I turned to CNN to catch the last bit of American Morning and, boy, was I in for a treat!

"Save the Male." There's a group of rich white men that are trying to resurrect the "macho" man. Clothing stores are carrying "retrosexual" instead of "metrosexual" ensembles in an effort to bring back "manly" men. Colleges are wanting to teach "male studies" -- which, according to the report, discusses the biology of what makes a member of the male gender what he innately should be: powerful, dominating, and aggressive. They also shared that, in the 60s, life for the American male was so much simpler and as a result, of a higher quality. Things were sooo much better when the man was the head of the household, the breadwinner, the one in charge. Oh, and everything that we are doing in society today is "feminizing" men.

I didn't want to eat after that, because a few things ran through my mind:
1. This is ridiculous. People attempting to define what it means socially to be a man pisses me off as much as (the same) people attempting to define what it means socially to be a woman.
2. The 60s were only "simpler" for white men; Black men were getting hosed and beaten, and even still lynched. Oh, and the attitudes of the 60s also included the justification of beating a woman, since you were in charge and the head of the household. And people want to revert back to that?
3. Are men still whining about not having equal rights when women can't even have full protection and rights to our own bodies in the eyes of the laws, even up to new policies?
4. Who gets to decide what "masculine" actually means? And how? And why?
5. Is this just a way to bash women's empowerment without directly doing it? I can only imagine some paid white dude sitting back with his feet up and smoking a cigar saying, "if we can't get the women to act like 'women'...then we'll just have to be hyper-masculine! That will balance it all out!" followed by an evil laugh.
6. The report uses "machismo", which is supposed to be a negative term for the sexist and/or chauvinistic attitude of some in the Hispanic/Latin/Spanish-speaking world, as a positive modifier.
7. The comments on the American Morning live chat are sick; one dude commented that women in the work force creates a confusion of "roles" in relationships. Seriously?
8. Are the same people in charge of this "movement" also in charge of this whole Tea Party bullshit?
9. I'm sure that the "Male Studies" programs will get more funding than Women's Studies programs. I remember how the programs struggled - at every school I attended. #justsayin

Does this really have to be revisited? This makes me think of an anecdote told to me by an associate of mine:
As a kid, he grew up watching his father run the household as "the man". He witnessed his father being a rolling stone, doing whatever he pleased and coming home. Even, on some occasions, witnessed his father hitting his mother. Fast forward to the years where he was in his youth, guessing at relationships. He recycled the behavior that he saw because he didn't understand that 1. that wasn't the "right" way and 2. even if it was "acceptable" then, it wasn't appropriate for modern times. He used outdated techniques and failed in relationships early on because he didn't see a need for the social evolution in relationships. He was wrong.

I am not a "feminazi", as some would call it. I have strong opinions, I am vocal about them, I don't believe in "roles" in relationships, and I loathe most unneccesary labels.

Why are white men in powerful positions so stuck on how "disadvantaged" they are? What is the matter with accepting new attitudes? Even if it isn't for you, why does it bother you so much that younger men have a different way of life? It makes me sick to my stomach. It doesn't anger me that hetersexual men have "pride", but it does make me want to bang my head against the wall that words and attitudes adopted have an admittedly homophobic and/or sexist undertone; there's no righteous anger in it.

It's all very silly and confusing. So what if a man doesn't know how to do "manly" things like jump a car? I've got cables in the trunk, I can teach him! That's what relationships and human nature should be about.

Sigh. And woosa.

Be Righteous.

Let's Discuss: Robin Quivers!

While I was a little perturbed by Jamie Foxx's comments about the "Notorious Precious", especially in the wake of Howard Stern's verbal attack on Gabourey Sibide, I thought it was less malicious than Howard and Robin's comments. While not justified (or funny, really), it didn't seem to be fueled by hatred, just miseducation.

I have my feelings about Robin Quivers, Howard's token sidekick who happens to be a Black woman. I can sympathize with the idea that she has a "house n^#%a" personality: rejecting her own cultural identity, appearing to do whatever to please the master. I can see that. I understand that point of view and I am even willing to cosign.

What I am not willing to cosign is the below video of Jamie Foxx and co on "The Foxxhole" taking the disrespect to another level.

...of all the things to "joke" about, continual molestation jokes? Corey Holcomb, an apparent regular personality on show, was the main issuer of such jokes. There's nothing funny about molestation. Also featured in the video is slut-shaming and lesbian bashing and tran/gay-bashing toward the end (after the caller).

You know, I don't really have a problem with "counter attacks" that are justified and logical in approach, but this was just distasteful.

I'm not sure how much Robin Quivers acknowledges her black/womanness, but it just illustrates, to me, that these things aren't invisible to others, no matter how much you are willing to ignore them; Black women are attacked on all sides. Even as a survivor of child sexual assault/molestation, she is being shamed for someone else's actions.

Shame on The Foxxhole. How distasteful.
Be Righteous.

Fat Black Chicks

I felt obligated to respond to this as a fat Black chick as defined by..all of America and, apparently, Howard Stern. I loathe Howard Stern. I had a really good friend in college who loved Howard Stern and whenever we'd hang out or go some where, he'd turn it to Howard Stern for whatever reason, and it would frustrate me greatly.

Now, I didn't see Precious for many reasons, including but not limited to trigger warnings. I fully intend to see it at home, but it's difficult for me, I suppose, because the themes presented are very real despite the fact that they're "entertainment".

I did, however, sneak and read "Push" trying to be grown when I was 13 or so, and even though it was graphic, I got it. I understood everything that was presented and I thought that it was a great read. I even suggested my mom read it, without fearing punishment, because it was so real. I plan on purchasing the movie and watching it alone.

Add ten years, a movie is made of it. Some people are boycotting it because of racist themes. Some black men people even just recently posted on facebook about Monique's appearance, and unshaved legs, and losing weight. It's frustrating to know that no matter how successful you may become, people will continue to define beauty not by how real or successful you are, but by fitting into the box that "real", non-Hollywood people struggle to fit.

Beauty has always been more than physical for me. People always say that, but when they are tested they don't really own it, sadly. That reminds me of something I saw once, I can't remember which television show or movie said it, but there was something about no matter how "attractive" (read: skinny) a fat girl becomes, she'll always internally be the sweet fat girl who let people walk over her because it's all she's always known. Let me reiterate a point in another post I made: I've always thought I was cute, self esteem issues seldom rooted from what people said to me (or not to me) about my appearance once I got older, say fourteen or so. I have some pretty high self esteem and I'm probably as big a jerk now as I'll ever be (if that's what being direct and clear with people is called), whether I change the way I look or not. I guess being the big sister to an all-star athlete brother and a light skindded with good hair sister made me the least attractive of the three by conventional standards, but not unattractive.

Anyway, enter Howard Stern (and his Black woman sidekick Robin, and I will reserve my opinions on her):

Now, I personally think the girl is lovely. Fat doesn't mean ugly. Fat doesn't mean ugly. FAT doesn't mean UGLY. Neither does dark skinned or nappy headed or any other adjective you want to throw out. She's a human being.

I was going to write a post similar to this days ago about good old Mediatakeout posting awful things about Gabourey. If we can't congratulate and uplift one another, how do we expect this dude (or anybody else) to?! Sheesh.

Aside, I even watched Oprah extend congrats to the winners, even though my feelings are a little more love-hate with her than other people in the industry. And Monique paying homage to Hattie McDaniel was incredibly moving. So, my dear "fat Black chicks", in the words of Mr. Stern, I just want you to know that I know how frustrating it is to be torn down, being a woman and Black, but also being overweight. It's silly that, in many cases, people will not even want to get to know you on that basis alone. But remember that beauty goes way beyond that, and keep your heads up. It isn't losing weight that will make you beauty. If it were, there wouldn't be so many skinny people searching for ways to be pretty. This isn't about losing weight, it's about loving yourself and doing big things (no pun intended) regardless of what the nay-sayers say.

Isn't it bad enough that we feel forced to relax our god-given hair, or wear weave, and have big butts, and lighten our skin. I was really going to go in hard on Mediatakeout once more, but then I thought of a question that Malcolm X often asked: Who taught you to hate yourself?
Be Righteous.

Lean. Mean. Homophobic. Machines.

While I have spent some time in private school, I've majorly spent my educational career in the good old public school system, and I happen to think that I turned out okay. As a matter of fact, my high school was semi-new (I was the fourth or fifth graduating class) when I was enrolled, and it was one of the highest ranked schools in the country for most of its programs, though recently there has been debate about whether it should have it's magnet status pulled. In the last ten years, it's gone from the perceived public Ivy League to Dangerous Minds. As a matter of fact, I'm very good friends with a teacher there, and a student recently interrupted her class and beat a girl with a hammer. Yes, a hammer.

I started elementary in private school, and when my parents became dissatisfied with that, I switched to public school (and ultimately repeated kindergarden because of accredidation issues -- but since I was early, it wasn't a major set back). I was an early learner, always aced spelling tests and began reading novels at an early age because my dad made me begin reading newspaper articles before school when I was 6 or so. Third grade they were interested in skipping me but my mother was more interested in my being properly socialized, and as such was certainly in no hurry to move me toward the awkward time known in everyone's life as middle school. My parents made into a machine: school, leisure reading, basketball, ballet, tap-dancing, writing, reading Romeo and Juliet for school in the fourth grade, learning religion, excelling in foreign language, breaking me out of my shyness by appearing in talent shows and theatre productions, and having my school friends and my neightborhood friends. I loved my parents for this push to become a prodigy, but eventually the pressure that I was under became very much ingrained in the way I perceived myself and success.

Middle school I began at a private school and, again, transferred to public school. High school, I was publicly schooled all four years as a result of my being wait-listed for the prestigious science and math private school my junior year; this devastated me, especially because another girl in my school actually got into the school but would later transfer back to our public high school as a result of the other kids having back-alley abortions and taking drugs in order to feel successful. I eventually became grateful for staying at my school, and very proud of every opportunity I had, including being in the top two highest ranked choirs in the school, performing in state-wide competitions, being invited to sing at Carnegie Hall...and most importantly, I felt educated and unafraid to opine toward my teachers since a few of them felt as if I were too smart and active for my own good (smirk). I eventually decided to repeat the cycle of my education one more time and begin at a private school (since I was given scholarships), and I ended up transferring twice and graduating from a public university on time.

At any rate, I know that not every where is as lucky or successful as the public school system in which I was raised. Especially in relatively big cities and metropolitan areas. I do believe my cousins have spent the majority of their upbringing in private schooling, and in a sense I am grateful for that; I am semi-close with some people that were locally raised and I've heard horror stories of their upbringing in school both directly from them, and indirectly through their abilities to maintain a healthy, and "smart" conversation.

I think that private school provides a certain sense of social elitism, and that is a downside. However, I hope and pray(?) that kids enrolled in private academies learn what they need in order to grow appropriately socialized first, and secondly (but equally important) a lover of education. I don't have kids, and I often emphasize that fact when sharing my opinions about them. I think it's very easy for me to say what I would or wouldn't do in terms of parenting, and maybe that isn't fair.

Last night, my twelve-year-old cousin and I were sitting around being silly, and in our mindless banter, she asked if I would rather be one thing, or gay. I asked her if gay was supposed to be a pejorative, and I told her that she shouldn't use it negatively. I felt like this was my duty as the cool older cousin (and just someone who believes in doing the right thing). She replied, "well, all the gay people and lesbians and bisexuals aren't going to heaven. Did you know that? Because God says it's Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve." My cousins don't know that I am a mostly non-theist because while living under my aunt and uncle's roof, I think that the respectful thing to do is to allow them to raise their children the way that they see fit. It isn't a closeted thing with me; as a matter of fact, my aunt and I discussed religion just yesterday. I have no qualms discussing what I believe with people, but having two pre-teen girls is difficult enough in their adolescent rebellion and I think that I'd rather aid the transition than encourage deliberate disobedience when they don't even know why they believe what they believe.

I responded with my adult authority and plainly said, "Stop repeating things that you hear people say and do your chores." She responded with, "I didn't hear anyone say it, I read it. In the Bible."

I had to take a deep breath and woosa. It's saddening to me. Is she learning this in private school? Does she think that this is right? Has she researched anything beyond the surface? I'm afraid that private school is turning my little cousins into lean, mean, homophobic machines. I know better than to engage and argument with a child, but I wish I had thought of something clever, like "did you know your new-found celebrity idol claims to be openly bisexual?" but I felt like this would create detriment in my point since I don't believe they should listen to Nicki Minaj, just for the sake of her explicit lyrics and the ditsy-white-girl imagery that she intends to create in the hearts of the little girls that are following her.

I wish I could reach them without feeling as though I'm stepping on anyone's toes. I think that the subtle pushes I'm giving them toward a more progressive mindset is a start, but is it enough?

If she were a little more mature, we could have had a more in depth and open discussion. Because I might not believe in virgin births or magical powers (beyond time travel..heh), but if Jesus were forrealforreal in my mind, I'd be in line with Sir Elton John. Oh, and he was Black.

Be Righteous.

The Safe Negro Match-Maker

Well, I know it's quite silly to take a (two?) month haitus from a blog that just started, but my life is seemingly a perpetual state of chaos. I did think of quite a few things to share with the blog universe, but the opportunity to sit and unload my mind was just too far buried under the long work days (and nights), and the moves that I've been making.

The good news? I'm back!

Well, something that I've been most interested in sharing with the rest of the internet is a series of incidents that occured between myself and a white woman that I worked with at one of my several jobs. While I understand that "2010" doesn't necessarily translate to social intelligence any more than "1910", it always befuddles me when people make racially based assumptions about a person they barely know. What's more is that in "post-racial America", people are losing sight of what's actually appropriate .

So, said lady is an intern, actually, and an older woman. She was sent to various local restaurants in search of donations for an event, and when she came back, the conversation was as follows:

Intern: I found the perfect man for you.
Me: (awkwardly) oh?
Intern: Yes. He owns the Zaxby's around the corner, and he is...well -- just a really attractive Black man.
Me: (Not feeding into it) Umm..oh.
Intern: I mean, just an attractive Black man.
Me: Um, well. i'm..not...really...looking for...anything.
Intern: Man! I didn't look to see if he had on a wedding ring. I've been married for twenty-somethin' years, and so I just avoid peeking at that finger at all.

Pause.First set of assumptions: I'm young and single (and likely discontent with being so), and as such, I would love anybody to hook me up with any Black man they can find. Because I only like men, and only if they are Black.

Me: (Ignoring intern and completing notes)
Intern: (to nearly everyone in my part of the office) Guys, I found the perfect guy for Livication!
Me: (long sigh)
Intern: (to me) He drives a really nice SUV too.
Me: (trying to avoid being rude) Oh?
Intern: Yeah, a Jeep I think. None of those rims on it or anything.

Pause.Second set of assumptions: She should be praised and glorified for having found my soulmate, since all you have to do is put a Black man and woman in the room together for them to fall in love. And no rims? He's a safe negro and not a thug, so I'll love him. Regardless of my upbringing or general taste, my having a college education automatically makes me more attracted to Blair Underwood than Lil Weezy.

Me: Please...stop...
Intern: I mean, I'm telling you...he's got money because he owns a Zaxby's.
Me: Isn't Zaxby's a fastfood restaurant?
Intern: Yeah, but he's the owner of this one.
Me: (long sigh, and then under my breath) Well, you know how us coloreds love chicken..
Intern: Oh, and his name is Samuel; a good, strong, Biblical name.

Pause. Third set of assumptions and major fuckeduppedness: Fact - Black people enjoy chicken. They can enjoy free chicken together. Also, those Coloreds are intensely religious; I'm quite sure that the fact that his name is Biblical will sway her toward him. Religion is okay to discuss in the work place because we are all Christians! For the record, I am without any formal religious affiliation.

After this, I walked out of the room for a while. She did, however, encourage the rest of the (white) volunteers to discuss this because she felt she had done something great. Telling her to lay off didn't help, and going off on her would have encouraged the angry Black woman to come out.

I could not have made up something more bizarre. It was completely surreal in the most awful and awkward way. I mean, what the hell? What part of any of that was appropriate?