Why Asking "Why Can't 'Successful' Black Women Find Good Men?" is a Stupid Question

Why can't "successful" black women find a "good" man? It seems to be a controversial and thought-provoking question on the surface. But when examined more closely, it's a question that is bound up in heteronormative, reproductionist and sanguinuptial notions about men and women and family.  First, it is heteronormative in that it assumes that the role of women (and men) is to couple through the bonds of the socially constructed institution of marriage.  It also presupposes that women want or need to be married.  As if there is something wrong with women who either chose not or are not "honored" with having a man ask them to be married.  The whole premise assumes that for these black women, there is a problem because they can not find suitable mates.  And while it may be true that some women bemoan the unavailability of "good" men (often anecdotally blaming gay men and incarcerated black men), there are other women who are financially secure, have fantastic friends and as such, don't worry about finding a "good" man.

A Woman's Worth

I am one who believes in the power of media to socialize us, particularly children.  So, when I saw this "cartoon" I first laughed and then was taken aback at how true it rings. It's interesting to think that most (if not all) of the Disney classics featuring female lead characters are about the pursuit of a man. And while it'd be foolish to think that children (and specifically girls) think about femaleness and marriage in these terms, they still internalize its messages and start to play those out in life. 

I think there could also be a correlation between some of these characters/cartoons and the way in which modern day weddings have become expensive spectacles that are removed from the initial intent of a marriage ceremony -- which is simply to join two people in a legally binding contract in front of family and friends.

So, the next time you sit your son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandchild or the kid you're babysitting down in front of a Disney film to keep them entertained for a couple of hours, think about the unintentional message they may be absorbing.  

Is Homosexuality an Abomination?

Fantastic editorial about Leviticus as related to homosexuality.  What is particularly interesting is the author's central thesis, which is why do we care about homosexuality more than we do other things forbidden by the bible? I think it says a lot about our culture of heteronormativity that we fixate this one aspect of sexuality, and people like Joel Olsteen says things like homosexuality does not represent people being "God's best" (as if he or anyone for that matter truly knows what "God's best" is rather than our interpretation of what we think it is.

Framing Homosexuality via Archie

The comic strip Archie announcing that it would introduce a gay character to Riverdale was met by me with a yawn. But then I saw this video and this video



and then I realized the damage that media can do and that homosexuality is (and will always be) othered in our allegedly unbiased media culture.

Liberal Special Interests vs. The "Right" Thing to do

I can't figure out why supporting social issues is a "liberal special interest" but being opposed is "right." (Sarcasm)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/us/politics/17hospitals.html

What Traffic Jams Can Teach Us About Social Issues

Sitting in traffic on I-35 today, I came to a conclusion.  As I sat in traffic for miles only to find out that traffic slowed down only for people to look at the flashing lights on the side of the road.  And as I saw no one, myself included, stop to help, I wondered why can't people just mind their own business?

Tiger Woods: Celebrity Endorsement Counterpoint

According to Chris Rojek, one of the reasons that the concept of celebrity has increased recently is because of the commodification of everyday life. And Tiger Woods, in addition to his status as a world class golfer, has also become a world class commodity -- that is, until it was revealed that he has had a number of extramarital affairs. According to some of his sponsors including Accenture, Gatorade and AT&T, this "lapse of judgment," "violation of his marriage," "battle with sex addiction," or whatever one wants to call it, has tarnished his once pristine, monogamously married image as a marketing gimmick. And as such, they have chosen to sever ties with him as a celebrity endorser.

Maybe I am among the minority of people who don't buy a product simply based on a celebrity endorsement, but marketing expert Robert Grede believes that it is still a great way to attract attention, create excitement for products, and build awareness among prospects and customers. So, perhaps those companies who have dropped Tiger Woods are not necessarily damning him and his actions per se as much as positioning [insert company name here] as a company that stands up for "traditional family values" and "the institution of marriage."

But while some, like Laura Kipnis assert that marriage is an equal-opportunity oppressor, trapping men and women in a life of drudgery, emotional anesthesia, and a tug-of-war struggle to balance vastly different needs, others believe marriage is an institution that needs to be preserved and protected (especially from the gays). These opposing positions largely support a Western ideology. Watch maker, Tag Heuer is continuing its use of Tiger Woods in its advertising, particularly in China, where the number of mistresses one has increases street cred.

But what really should be the test is whether anyone was less likely to drink Gatorade (or prohibit their children from doing so) simply because Tiger Woods, adulterer extraordinaire, endorses the product. Did it really come down to the fact that these companies were not seeing the return on investment from the Tiger Woods endorsement deal and this scandal provided an easy way out? After all, our culture is all about consumption and businesses are all about making money.

Follow up to Marriage Equality Post

This video is really disturbing because it really points (again) to the sheer arbitrariness of the government sanctioned definition of marriage.

Is this the Institution of Marriage We're Supposed to be Protecting?

Marriage equality seems to most often be a fight happening in the courtrooms and at the ballot boxes in America. And we've had seen celebrities like Sarah Silverman say that she will not get married until all people are allowed to get married. And on one hand, it's a very noble stand to take. However, I have to take my hat off to an Orlando artist, Brian Feldman, who simply said he was willing to marry any woman who showed up at the courthouse to shed light on the idiocy of excluding gay men and lesbians from the institution.

There is no way that he can legally be stopped from marrying a total stranger who is also a woman. There (presumably) is no mention of love or no mention of him being selective in any way. He didn't say the woman needed to be attractive, needed to want to start a family or anything -- just be willing to get married to him. Is it a publicity stunt, sure. But the best publicity stunts are the ones that make us laugh and then make us think. If two complete strangers can go get a marriage license and then get married, what is really the harm in allowing to adults of the same sex to do so as well?

Many will argue that marriage is the building block of the family structure to which I have two counterpoints: 1) there are children born every day to single women and are often raised without contact from their biological father; and 2) there are couples who simply choose not to have children even when they are married. In fact, according to a 2007 Pew Research Center survey, Forty-one percent of Americans said children are "very important" to a successful marriage -- down from from 65 percent in 1990.

Lastly, and I think this is the most important point of all, who does it really bother and how are individuals affected? If there are hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian married couples in the world, how does that affect any of us? If we are heterosexual, does allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry destabilize our relationships? I don't think it logically can (unless you were married to a person who had same sex attraction to begin with).

Is Monogamy an Outdated Concept?

My initial response upon reading this story in The New York Times about monogamy in gay relationships was to wonder whether or not this was research to substantiate a long-held stereotype regarding promiscuity, particularly about gay men. And I've been around the block enough times to know two things about research 1) many subjects will tell you what they think you want to hear, and 2) a researcher can find research (even among numbers) to substantiate his or her initial hypothesis.

But upon looking at a post on Facebook from a friend and looking at the responses he received, the jury was split. Many think that monogamy is an outdated and unrealistic goal for marriage, while others believe it to be a cornerstone of a functional relationship.

Then upon re-reading the article, I changed my frame of thinking. I think the central issue here is the idea that culturally, we equate sex with love rather than as something carnal. Most people have at one point or another had sex with someone they don't love (and in some cases don't really even know). So, if we can have these carnal expressions and have them be no big deal, then why is monogamy such a cornerstone of long term committed relationships?

The chief researcher, Colleen Hoff, a psychologist and director of The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality at San Francisco State University makes the distinction that, "with straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

I think the takeaway is that as we hear people saying that marriage needs to be strengthened (by excluding gay men and women from the institution), what perhaps needs to happen is a reexamination of what the institution really means in modern times.

As Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book, "It's Not You, It's Biology" says "In 1900, the average life span for a U.S. citizen was 47. Now we’re living so much longer, ‘until death do us part’ is twice as challenging."