Marc's Blog

Marc's Blog

Twenty Questions

198 Comments

img_1407.jpg


Since I have no life, I often ponder lots of random questions. Here are 20 that have been on my mind lately:

1) Now that he’s led the Giants to a SuperBowl and another dominant season, will people finally admit that Eli Manning can play?

2) Aren’t you surprised as hell that President Bush pardoned rapper/producer John Forte?

3) Could the Knicks have handled the Marbury sitation any worse?

4) With all of these Clinton-era throwbacks in the Obama cabinet, doesn’t it feel like Hillary won the election?

5) Speaking of Hillary Clinton, didn’t Obama trash her foreign policy credentials 6 months before choosing her as Secretary of State?

6) Does anyone believe women on a first date when they pretend to reach for their wallets to “pay the bill?”

7) Isn’t it hard to feel sympathetic for the automotive industry after they thumbed their noses at environmentalists and consumers for decades?

8) At the same time, isn’t everyone being tougher on them compared to the equally unscrupulous banks?

9) Who the hell keeps casting Cuba Gooding Jr. in ghetto roles?

10) After getting outshined on the Ludacris new album, shouldn’t Jay-Z stop appearing on tracks with Nas?

11) Isn’t it a shame that T-Pain is getting credit for the current synthesizer craze, when Roger Troutman did it decades ago?

12) If Plaxico Burress was really worried about his safety, why not hire a security team instead of carrying an illegal weapon?

13) Has there ever been a less funny television show than Tyler Perry’s “House of Payne?”

14) Why do people take MySpace and Facebook so damn seriously?

15) Why do people always pretend that the seat next to them on the train is occupied?

16) Before Michelle Obama, would Salon.com have written an article about any First Lady’s butt?

17) Isn’t Charles Barkley right to say that Lebron James is being disrespectful to the Cleveland Cavs by talking about his 2010 free agency?

18) Why do people look in the tissue after they blow their noses?

19) Does anyone believe a boxer or a rapper when they say they’re going to retire?

20) With all other Philly teams underachieving, is it baseball season yet?

198 comments

  1. Tanya - December 7, 2008 8:00 pm

    Vic,

    WOW!!! You thought I was attacking your MANHOOD, when I suggested that a girl left you for someone who drove an ESCALADE???????????

    That means you’re equating what a man drives to the voracity of his manhood!

    ““when all else fails, they attack your manhood…”

    …I told ya.

    this shat is too easy.” – Big Vic

    WOW!!! You too easily exposed yourself!!!

    Allow me to inform you dear Vickie:

    What a man drives, has absolutely NOOOO bearing on his manhood whatsoever!!!

    Maybe you feel bad b/c you don’t push an Escalade, but women ARE NOT judging your MANHOOD by it! OK!

    But whether a man lets a woman he’s dating pay for dinner or not, DOES!!!

    People do lie loudest when they lie to themselves. But with ME, that is NOT the case!

    I’m very grateful for everything GOD has given me. Particularly my looks! When your blessed with the Beauty AND Brians that I have, you don’t have to lie about anything!!!

  2. Tanya - December 7, 2008 8:24 pm

    *Edit

    Of course I meant VERACITY, not voracity! lol

  3. Tanya - December 7, 2008 8:33 pm

    Also, just wanted to mention:

    While I was at my friend’s house we watched “Half Baked”!!! (I forgot how funny that movie was.) It was on BET last night, did anyone catch it???

    Well, remember that part where Dave Chappelle’s character goes on the date with Mary Jane? lol All his character had was $8!!! And he said, “This date couldn’t have come at a worst time, I’m BROKE!!!”

    But he made that $8 work!!! Even his broke, pothead character still understood his position as a MAN, and his responsibility to pay. He didn’t try to manipulate Mary Jane into paying, he didn’t suggest or encourage her to pay, and I’m sure if she offered to pay, he would NOT have let. He just maned up and made that $8 work!!! And they had a great date!

    I think that part of the movie holds relevance to this discussion!

  4. Tanya - December 7, 2008 8:50 pm

    JJG,

    “I don’t understand why a woman cannot be independent/progressive and semi-traditional at the same time.” – JJG

    Don’t worry about Rob saying an independent/traditionalist woman is a contradiction!!! Rob often struggles to makes sense! :)

    A woman can absolutely be independent and traditional all at the same time! A woman can be fruitfully employed and self-sufficient and STILL require/appreciate her man being a MAN, and taking the lead.

    A woman can be strong, powerful, and rich, and still let her husband be the Head. Like you said, there can not be two Heads! You don’t have to dumb yourself down and give up your job to have a REAL MAN who leads and heads his family.

    “I also believe that a wise man listens to his wife/girl as he governs the household. She is his closest advisor outside of God and he doesn’t suppress her.” – JJG

    You are absolutely right!!! And as I said in #133, “Of course, a wife is to assist her husband in that financial, spiritual, and physical support, BUT, the man is the Head.”

    Girl hold on to your righteous West Indian values! I’m right here with you! We can be independent AND traditional. In fact, it’s the most prosperous of hybrids!!!

  5. R.oB. - December 7, 2008 9:17 pm

    While we are on the list of West Indian values, I was taught well by my father and by example of my grandfather on its dark side. Patriarchy for real. My grandfather had MAD outside children, so many that they were still meeting each other at his funeral! My father told me how he could be. Married or not, if “Gonzie” was in a house with his woman, he was the MAN of that house and my father had the lumps to prove it. He saw how the women folk had to deal with the deprivations of that kind of society. It’s something he vowed never to repeat. He taught me with tears in his eyes so I would never do so. Boy did he have stories.

    My grandfather’s legacy lives to this day. He married a beautiful and dutiful woman who was like a third grandmother to me and my sister. He so controlled Auntie’s life that after he died she was unable to live on her own without a man in the house. She ran a tight ship in that house off the allowance my grandfather gave her. And it was a really nice house, but now it’s all gone to hell because she was unable to live alone and with her health failing it’s virtually impossible now. Even when the man is loving, this “natural role” leaves women vulnerable. (Why do you think widows are an object of charity in the Bible?) I’ve seen that in my family over and over and over.

    So my language is harsh because I’ve seen what patriarchy does to women even when it looks good, i.e. chivalry. And I get emotional, because it’s personal. Real people that I love dearly have been devastated by it. If it produces bad fruit, it’s not a good tree. PERIOD.

  6. Tanya - December 7, 2008 9:30 pm

    R.oB.,

    “He knew chivalry is a show, either of love or of lust.” – Rob

    Chivalry is NOT a show! Chivalry is respect and deference.

    You DO NOT have to love or lust for a woman to open the door for her.

    A man should open the door for, not only his wife or prospect, but for the old lady he doesn’t know, the little girl who lives across the street, and for the woman who is married to another man. A true man is chivalrous to ALL WOMEN!!!

    Chivalry is NOT what you do for a woman b/c you want something from her (love or sex). Chivalry is what a MAN does b/c he understands the role he plays in life and his responsibility to care for and protect others, particularly WOMEN!

    You talking about your friend who ONLY did chivalrous things to get sex is so off base here! Why do you have to always take things to a ridiculous, irrelevant extreme? I’m sure there are men out there (majority even) who do NOT engage in chivalry (let a woman pay) who will go back to there friends and say “Yeah that hoe PAID for my meal, AND I banged her!”

    There are men who use chivalry JUST to get “some”, and there are men who PIMP woman to pay for, not only their meals, but all their expenses (car, house, bills, etc.). There are chivalrous men who are illegitimate and there are (far more) men who are non-chivalrous that are illegitimate. That’s NOT what we are talking about here.

    What we are talking about is whether a man allowing a woman he is DATING, to pay for that date, devalues or effects his manhood!!!

    AND MY ANSWER IS YES!

    “So spare me your weak, foolish insults.” – Rob

    I never insulted YOU. If you feel insulted b/c I said a man is NOT a MAN if he lets a woman pay, so be it! But my sentiment, whether you choose to admit it or not, IS a universal consensus!

    “After 3 years of dating, 2 years engagement, and 8 married I know exactly what I’m talking about.” – Rob

    All you know is YOUR WIFE! If she settled for you, allowing her to pay for her own meals while you guys dated, then count your lucky stars!!!

    But if you have been with her for 13 years, all you know is HER. You couldn’t have dated that many other women, if, as young as you are, you have already been with your wife for 13 years!!!

    I know men! I’ve not only dated a whole lot of them, but the majority of my friends are men. And I have multitudes of men approaching me on a daily basis. I’m very observant and I’ve picked up on how good men behave and how bad men behave. Not to mention, I come from a huge family of nothing but MEN. I see, and know, how my cousins operate and why!

    So I think I might be a bit more well versed in dating and the consequences and likelihood of certain dating patterns, than you!

  7. R.oB. - December 7, 2008 9:36 pm

    JJG,

    After 8 years of living in a happy equal marriage, I can tell you that divorce does not occur because a man is not the Head, i.e. the one with all the responsibility. My wife and I are a team and we basically decide by consensus on family issues. We have not had strong disagreements over the important stuff, because on the big issues we try to support each other’s needs and look for a solution to works for the entire family.

    That said we still have the male/female archetype at work day to day. My natural instinct is to protect and provide. My wife’s is to defer and support. I’ve seen it in my family, at work, and at church. Women defer to men tacitly, in invisible ways. This occurs esp. when women suck it up when men are in the wrong. So I deal with that by remembering no matter how enlightened I’d like to think I am, I’ve got plenty of unconscious patriarch in me.

    And since my family is going to Florida for Christmas, I’ll have to manage that especially hard since West Indian parties have very specific gender roles that men and women should play. Managing my wife’s umbrage will be my main task! ;-)

  8. R.oB. - December 7, 2008 9:49 pm

    Tanya, you routinely insult me all the time so yeah I call them weak and foolish. Weak because that’s what they are intellectually. If you can’t respond, insult the person. Foolish because they have no basis in fact. And just for proof:

    Those 13 years are with my wife. I’ve been dating for real since I was 17 that would count for 7 years dating girls and women, then 3 with my wife, then 2 engaged, then 8 married. I’ve dated women 10 years my senior and my junior (but not by so much!!!!). Interracially. Intraracially. Seriously. And not so seriously. The only thing I’ve not done is date outside my gender.

    When you have issues with me and others you routinely resort to sarcasm and insult. That’s your M.O. from jump. Well, that and YELLING!!!!

  9. R.oB. - December 7, 2008 9:56 pm

    BTW, what Master Hoe does is not so extreme. He was an outlier only because of his skill at bedding women. Most of the cats I knew/know were/are in it to get laid, and that’s what my father-in-law taught my wife. Now he was a man who walked the talk. He really took care of my mother-in-law and I was impressed. But he was the exception rather than the rule. So to me, chivalry is all sizzle and no steak.

    Typo above: …I as 16 that would count for 6 years dating…No two-timing wifey!

  10. ~JJG~ - December 7, 2008 11:11 pm

    RoB,

    I don’t think that the only variable that causes a marriage to dissolve is having two heads in the household, but I have witness divorces that occurred because there was no clear leader in the relationship and there were power struggles. In so saying, I still believe that the man is the head of the household and we will just have to differ on this one.

    Additionally, your viewpoint begs the question of whether or not you would think differently if you had a daughter (you only noted that you have a son, so I am assuming you don’t have a daughter). I am curious to know. Also, what’s up with the idea that chivalry is conducted merely for sexual conquest? This is not true. My father, brothers, and 5 year old nephew have all been chivalrous towards me. I do not believe that chivalry equates to patriarchy. Being chivalrous is about being courteous and polite towards that one you care for, like, and/or love, even if it’s only for that moment (referring to your friend, the “Master Hoe”).

  11. econwhat - December 8, 2008 12:31 am

    LOL, Pretty Wings, LOL

  12. Mrs. Rivers - December 8, 2008 1:58 am

    “When you have issues with me and others you routinely resort to sarcasm and insult. That’s your M.O. from jump. Well, that and YELLING!!!!”

    I cosign that whole-heartedly!!!

  13. Mrs. Rivers - December 8, 2008 2:10 am

    WYLTK:

    I agree with the others. You got a good head on your shoulders and you know the signs of a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ seed. Just stay true to yourself and your values. Your prince charming will come along.

    With regards to this whole creation story example & JJG’s response:
    Yes, if you believe in the second creation story, woman is made from Adam’s rib. But right after that story, it mentions a ‘man will leave his family and follow his wife’ (I’m going off the cuff here because I dont feel like pulling out The Good Book.)So there is a dual leadership role in marriage: a man is the head of the household, but he does follow and respect his wife. and he makes all decisions based off of the welfare of her and their children.

  14. R.oB. - December 8, 2008 4:21 am

    JJG,

    If I understand you correctly, those power struggles are symptomatic of the cause of the divorce. A house divided falls regardless of who is head of it or who is trying to be head of it. Power struggles don’t indicate love, they indicate abiding selfishness.

    Perhaps I’m being too harsh on chivalry itself. If you take out the gender roles, then I think we have a duty to be chivalrous if we claim to love one another, esp. the least of these. But I have no respect for social graces, class systems, and other social constructs because they are not trustworthy indicators of a good and gracious heart. They are features of a game. I’ve seen too much hypocrisy, sometimes egregiously (Master Hoe), to give them much credence. My father-in-law was chivalrous to a fault, but I knew what kind of man he was. He did out of a store of love. But when Jesus spit fire on the Pharisees who were paragons of public virtue by the way, he spoke of them being like whitewashed tombs. I guess I see that today in Master Hoe who found himself exactly what he wanted: a nice subservient, man-is-head-of-the-household wife. Her submission feeds his ego. He’s always chivalrous to women. Always. Never heard him disrespect a woman within earshot of one. Ever. So his wife status is closer to a pet than a partner and I find that repugnant, but to each his or her own. Incidentally, he’s not really a friend of mine. How do you respect someone like that? I’ll give him some dap, ask after him on the agape level, but that’s it.

    Mrs. Rivers,

    My only point was that there are two stories that exist for either side: whether you are a woman inferior or woman equal type. The first story is right up the equality alley. The Bible used to support patriarchy is the same used to support feminism. The same Bible used to support slavery supports freedom to the oppressed. It’s the humans that do the using that are the cause of the problems. ;-)

  15. DCI74 - December 8, 2008 10:32 am

    *ducking left and right from the Scripture Missiles…why am I not surprised the thread went in this direction once again???

    Very interesting reading R.o.B. and Tanya ahhh smh…

  16. ~JJG~ - December 8, 2008 11:29 am

    RoB,

    By no means is my viewpoint a declaration that a wife should be subservient to her husband. Never that! It is about leadership, not dictatorship. Being the head of the household does not justify a man making decisions without consulting his wife. As I noted previously, a wise man listens to his wife. A wise man values his woman’s thoughts, ideas, and feelings. It is about mutual respect and honor. It is a two part equation. The Good Book also notes that, “husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church…” Duck DC, duck. Lol. If a husband adheres to this, then subservience and dictatorship is not an issue, because God is not a dictator to us (the church).

    RoB, I also agree with you that these social structures “are not trustworthy indicators of a good and gracious heart.” These social structures are relative, subjective, and flawed.

  17. ~JJG~ - December 8, 2008 11:30 am

    Mrs. Rivers,

    I cosign on your thoughts: “a man is the head of the household, but he does follow and respect his wife. and he makes all decisions based off of the welfare of her and their children.”

  18. Mrs. Rivers - December 8, 2008 12:04 pm

    Yes JJG. I was going to refer to the same scripture you quoted but couldnt find a way to sum it up without getting up to find the bible. Either way, I think you and RoB are going around the same circle (sort of). In both creation stories, and in the scripture you quoted from the New Testament, it could be interpreted that both men and women have a dual leadership role.
    After all – how can a man lead yet follow his wife at the same time? I think we need to stop looking at this as two individuals. When you marry, two become one. As long as you stay ‘one’ then power/leadership is shared. Its when someone loses that power that conflict arrises.

  19. BigVic4 - December 8, 2008 12:14 pm


    WOW!!! You thought I was attacking your MANHOOD, when I suggested that a girl left you for someone who drove an ESCALADE???????????

    Maybe you feel bad b/c you don’t push an Escalade, but women ARE NOT judging your MANHOOD by it! OK!

    You go from defining manhood…to me wanting an Escalade…to your “LOOKS”

    So, is that how your brain works?

    I see why you don’t have a man,

    you have the thought-process of a gnat.

  20. gigi - December 8, 2008 12:21 pm

    Can’t we just all get along?

  21. gigi - December 8, 2008 12:26 pm

    Post #170…these long post always indicate blog brawl…lol

  22. james - December 8, 2008 12:46 pm

    jjg, power struggles will naturally occur whereever there are two strong-willed people involved. for some couples, power struggles are merely foreplay. i would never refer myself as the head of my household, and i would laugh at my wife if she were to claim that place as well. a spousal-based team will always consist of alternating leaders, stepping up to do the things that they can do whenever they are needed–from cleaning a bathroom to planning for retirement or college savings plans.

    a long-term relationship should be designed to develop your strengths as a person, but should also be able to tolerate, within reason, your weaknesses as well. and sometimes, the things we are good at, enjoy, or at least tolerate doing will fall into some of the more traditional roles gender roles. some times they wont’t. it’s really not that big of deal, so long as your communication, respect, and sex-life remains intact, even after your had the worst of days and nights living with your parnter

    as for chivalry, i do believe in holding doors for people of all races, genders, and creeds. however, i would never put my coat over a puddle. i have a pretty nice coat. i would suggest walking around it, or jumping over it. i would give my coat to a woman to keep her warm, but it probably wouldn’t come without a few questions as to why she wasn’t dressed properly in the first place. i also believe that whoever wants to/and can afford to pay for any date should, and any combination thereof. i don’t believe in kissing on the first date. ever.

    i also don’t believe in seriously arguing about any of this, as we all have our own systems when it comes to this kind of stuff. furthermore, i’ve never seen anybody pretend to reach for his/her wallet on a date, so i have no experience with that despite having dated quite substantially before getting married. i have, however, been known to defer (not on dates) to my wealthier friends when it comes to the check. sometimes people just enjoy pulling out their wallets, flashing lots of cash or credit, and taking care of the entire business.

    regardless, it’s never inappropriate to discuss payment plans or ideas at any point during any meal. it shows a willingness to communicate openly and honestly, and will provide some insight into your companion’s thoughts and how they may or may not jive with your own.

  23. DCI74 - December 8, 2008 12:56 pm

    “When you marry, two become one. As long as you stay ‘one’ then power/leadership is shared. Its when someone loses that power that conflict arrises.”

    I agree with that Sammy and I’d go one step further and say problems also arise when one wants to overpower or domineer the other. I got that from watching my parents 34+ years of marriage and from some real conversations with my father. The two must become one, I am you and you are me.

  24. natural nubian - December 8, 2008 1:38 pm

    gigi, “blog brawl” is sooooo right! funny thing is doc’s initial 20 Qs became a blog convo about only 1. and i’m throwing blaxx under the bus for this one ’cause we were good ’til he wanted to explore his inner-entrepreneur by offering DC’s “services.” after that it the convo took an ugly turn :(

  25. wouldn't you like to know? - December 8, 2008 1:48 pm

    awww thanx you guys for the kind words! it’s really appreciated…

    it so much to read here, but i’ll just say this. even though i’m starting to feel like a broken record :/

    Tanya, just because a man allows a woman to pay on a date (if she offers) does not equate his entire existance as a man. to think that, is ridiculous in my opinion. Though i agree that there are some losers that would “take advantage” of a good woman, that doesn’t mean you can clump the entire species into one box. i’ve met some extremely great men, some i’ve taken out, some that have taken me out. and what they all have in common is…wait for it….they were all GOOD MEN. they were ALL good to me, and treated me like nothing of queen…and i in return treated them like kings…

    why is it that if a woman comes out of her pocket to do something nice for a fella…it has to be a “GASP” moment???

    i still don’t understand the big deal…maybe i am the hell naive.

    but don’t you think it’s fair for a guy to screen a woman too, and to see where her heart is?? is it fair to say that just because a person is of age and female, that she’s a woman?? i mean come on, you have some tack-heads out here that love to have their hands out, and think that a man MUST do xyz…but all the while she doesn’t know how to treat a man her damn self.

    just like DC has stated, a man likes to feel wanted and appreciated from time to time too! (for me, i do it ALL the time). it’s not going to kill us as women to approach a potential prospect and treat him to lunch. sometimes i fella may not notice you at first…but you may have noticed his fine ass all day. whatchya gonna do??? wait your life away for his late ass??? or are you gonna woman up and go for what you like??

    me, i choose to do the latter…

    and that is my take on this bullshit called life…

    peace!

  26. wouldn't you like to know? - December 8, 2008 1:51 pm

    treated me like nothing LESS of a queen*

    Doc PLEASE get an edit button…

  27. DCI74 - December 8, 2008 1:57 pm

    Wyltk you are the best!

  28. wouldn't you like to know? - December 8, 2008 2:09 pm

    no no DC, that be you! ;)

  29. DCI74 - December 8, 2008 2:15 pm

    As a man I accept my role as being the aggressor when it comes to relationships but every now and then it’s nice to feel appreciated and not always feel like I’m the one constantly showing her how much she means to me and all she has to do is sit back and receive. The one thing about societal norms is that we as society dictate said norms, which ones we want to accept and live by and which ones we choose to ignore or change. If the societal roles say man should always pay and never a woman then does that also mean I should never cook for my lady because after all isn’t cooking a female thing?? See I don’t believe that nonsense especially considering the some of the world’s best chefs are men. My point is that society is not some abstract construct created by others that we are forced to live under, we are the architects and recipients of our own society.

  30. wouldn't you like to know? - December 8, 2008 2:30 pm

    “See I don’t believe that nonsense especially considering the some of the world’s best chefs are men.”

    DC i agree, cause my daddy can tear up a kitchen! mmmm mmmm good! i’m not trying to take away from some of you men, because i’m a universal lover, but ladies y’all need to check up on some of these west indian men! some of those fellas can throw down in the kitchen…

    yummy.

    sorry, i’m a fat jawn. carry on…

  31. DCI74 - December 8, 2008 2:40 pm

    Hmm fat?? Ms. Chong please!

  32. Mrs. Rivers - December 8, 2008 3:27 pm

    Okay Marc:
    We’ve had enough with 20 questions. When are we having the Holiday Party? We will be in Philly from the 24th through the 30th. I’d be more than happy to plan it this year! :)

  33. econwhat - December 8, 2008 6:15 pm

    6) Does anyone believe women on a first date when they pretend to reach for their wallets to “pay the bill?”

    Ok, lol, now what’s the concensus for question #6? ;)

    I wanna know cause the last “first date” I had didn’t require any money, it was spent dishing out food to the homeless folks while trying to get a second date, second date was climbing a mountain with her and a bunch of rowdy teen-agers, the way this is going third date will probably require me reaching into my pocket for my passport for some all expenses paid trip to Haiti…what am I doing wrong y’all…lol… no seriously! :(

  34. DCI74 - December 8, 2008 8:06 pm

    I feel you econ and you highlight perfectly that when you’re taking the time get to know someone it doesn’t have to be in the standard societal norms context. Some of the best dates I ever had was where the least amount of money was spent but the quality of the dates were better than I could have imagined.

    So Marc what’s up, where’s the party??

  35. gigi - December 9, 2008 12:30 am

    ECONWHAT,

    You don’t need any help…you are doing it purrrfectly. Actively pursing life with another is always better than sitting behind a table asking a bunch of questions, regardless to who pays.

    Women like men with a certain degree of firmness (I am assuming this is a heterosexual relationship). When it comes to the Haiti trip…simply tell her no, and you will be at her place to pick her up for dinner @ 8:00.

  36. BigVic4 - December 9, 2008 11:22 am

    “Women like men with a certain degree of firmness…”

    This is true.

    That’s why you gotta jack they a.zz up every now and then

    to let’em know you care.

  37. gigi - December 9, 2008 1:15 pm

    BIGVIC4

    What do you mean by jack????

  38. Tanya - December 14, 2008 6:04 am

    Vic,

    GET YO MONEY UP LITTLE NIGGA!!! (lol jokes, jokes!)

    “You go from defining manhood…to me wanting an Escalade…to your “LOOKS”. So, is that how your brain works? I see why you don’t have a man, you have the thought-process of a gnat.” – Vic #168

    Did you seriously not understand that my #150 was a DIRECT response to your #145??????????????

    You were the one that equated your manhood (or lack thereof) to not having an Escalade.

    All I did was ask (jokingly), if you were bitter b/c some chick left you for a dude with an Escalade. (And I only mentioned that b/c you were talking {bitterly} about girls wanting a dude with an Escalade on another thread a couple months ago!)

    In #145 You responded with:

    ““when all else fails, they attack your manhood…”

    …I told ya.

    this shat is too easy.” – Vic

    YOU clearly thought your manhood was attacked due to your lack of an Escalade. (which speaks volumes)

    So I simply responded in #150 with:

    “What a man drives, has absolutely NOOOO bearing on his manhood whatsoever!!!”

    In #145 YOU stated:

    “We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves.” – Vic

    This was you clearly casting doubt on my previous statement about my success, LOOKS, and healthy relationships.

    So I responded in #150 with:

    “I’m very grateful for everything GOD has given me. Particularly my looks! When your blessed with the Beauty AND Brians that I have, you don’t have to lie about anything!!!”

    My statements were ALL DIRECT responses to YOUR previous statements. I was following YOUR thought pattern. So if you think that going from “manhood” to “Escalade” to “looks” is a thought pattern on par with that of a gnat, your talking about YOURSELF!!! You silly goose!

    I see why you’re broke! You have problems following along. You have to be able to keep up in order to get that paper! ;)

  39. Tanya - December 14, 2008 6:46 am

    WYLTK,

    “Tanya, just because a man allows a woman to pay on a date (if she offers) does not equate his entire existance as a man.” – WYLTK

    Darling I NEVER said that!!! Don’t get like Rob and start taking things to a ridiculous extreme.

    I never said if a man doesn’t pay it defines his ENTIRE existence as a man. I said it TAKES AWAY from his manhood; meaning it lessens it, not defines it in its entirety.

    Why do you guys interpret my comments in such absolute terms???

    Of course when I offer my opinion I’m NOT talking about every single person in the entire world!!! I’m speaking generally, in terms of the majority, but mainly, in terms of my opinion.

    If I say, “black women have perms”. Of course I don’t mean EVERY single black woman in the whole world!!! I just simply mean the majority. So I don’t thinks it’s necessary, or productive, for someone to defensively respond with “That’s not true, ALL black women DO NOT have perms. I wear my hair natural”. That type of response is pedantic and wastes time. Because I NEVER said ALL. My statements ARE NOT ABSOLUTE!!!

    I DO NOT think it is a brush on ALL mens’ manhood if they don’t pay. I’m sure there are some (few) good men out there that would let a woman pay, for various reasons. A reason might be b/c in his culture the woman is the head and that’s what he’s use to! (like in the north eastern state of Meghalaya, India where the women are the Head and run the homes, businesses, and everything, and the men are the “stay-at-homes”)

    If you find yourself a Meghalaya man, and he lets you pay, he’s probably a good guy. BUT, the vast majority of men who do let you pay are, most likely, NOT real, good, men. (and I explained WHY in my numerous comments above)

    And that’s my final answer!

    There’s no intent to offend anyone, that is just my honest take on it! The end!

  40. Tanya - December 14, 2008 7:06 am

    WYLTK,

    “it’s not going to kill us as women to approach a potential prospect and treat him to lunch. sometimes i fella may not notice you at first…but you may have noticed his fine ass all day. whatchya gonna do??? wait your life away for his late ass??? or are you gonna woman up and go for what you like?? me, i choose to do the latter…” – WYLTK

    LMAO!!! I DO feel you on that!!! I totally understand your point there!

    I’m a very assertive, go getter kind of woman. But I’ve never felt the need to approach a man, and I prefer NOT to. (and believe it or not there is scripture that suggests a woman shouldn’t {but I’m not going there right now!})

    Please understand that I am NOT trying to tell you how to live your life, and I’m not passing judgment in anyway. You know what works best for you!!! Do you! I sincerely wish you the very best.

    I just shared my opinion on the topic, that is all!

  41. Tanya - December 14, 2008 7:47 am

    R.oB.,

    Why are you trying to peg me the Barbershop Bully!?!?!? :)

    I think I’ve already outlined quite effectively, on another post, that the “insults” I issue are in response to someone hurling one at me first! But that’s besides the point, I do need to take responsibility for my own actions, and I should never resort to calling anyone names, regardless. So I apologize!

    Honestly, you’re the last person in the ‘Shop I would want to insult. Although you have hurled and initiated insults yourself, I think you still have been incredibly patient and mature. I know there have been times when I poke at you a little bit (only b/c you leave yourself WIDE open and I just can’t resist!) and you’ve responded maturely and didn’t poke back. So I think well of you, and I truly don’t have anything against you. Moreover, I am very sorry if I ever offended you. It won’t happen again!

    I don’t insult you b/c I don’t have a response. I always respond, thoroughly! It just becomes frustrating when you hit 100 comments and it’s all repetitive, and it appears there’s no common understanding. So I throw a name out to get my frustration out, not to intentionally hurt you, or anyone else.

    In #146 you asked me to spare you the insults. But I honestly don’t think I said anything previous to #146 that was insulting. I would appreciate it if you would inform me of what it was that insulted you prior to #146, so that I can be sure not to do it again.

    Also, when I use CAPS, it’s NOT me yelling! I use CAPS to emphasize a word or point, or to highlight a phrase and cause it to stand out. My use of CAPS is identical to your use of italics, bold, and your fancy little gray sidebar! If, for some reason you think CAPS are more offensive than italics and/or bold, then please instruct me on how to italicize and/or bold text on this blog and I will gladly convert.

  42. Tanya - December 14, 2008 8:59 am

    R.oB.,

    In response to your #154:

    I really want to be careful how I address this, but I have to be candid.

    Although it seems you have a bit of animosity towards your grandfather (and maybe rightfully so), I’m sure there is something you admire about him, and I’m sure he was a good man is some way.

    However, I would venture to state that it was your grandfather who was the bad tree that bore bad fruit, not patriarchy itself.

    There are several people who abuse good things all the time. But that doesn’t make the “thing” bad, it makes the person bad.

    I referred to your “Master Hoe” friend as an off base extreme b/c he was obviously a bad person abusing a good thing (chivalry). So he served no valid purpose to your argument.

    It’s a good thing to open doors for women and treat them with respect and extra delicate care (chivalry). But your friend abused it with mal-intent. That makes HIM bad, not chivalry.

    In that same regard, if your grandfather abused his position as the Head of the household, and caused pain to his wife and children, that makes HIM bad, not patriarchy.

    Patriarchy is alive and well in my entire family, and it was alive and well in my household growing up! My father was the Head, and he never abused his “position”. My mother is an independent women and her and my father were partners that lived and ran the house as one. But my father was still the Head, the chivalrous Head, an our home ran like a well oiled machine b/c of it!

    My mother was never a vulnerable figure (as you described your Auntie/grandma). And my patriarchal father raised me to be a strong and independent woman. I’m sure you can’t imagine me being “vulnerable” or subservient to any man!!! But I WILL allow natural order to take place and respect my husband as the Head.

    Further, my father was the Captain of the ship and constantly fulfilled those duties. But my mother was still capable and ready to take over at any point. As I mentioned much earlier on in this thread, in my discussion with Blaxx, my father had Bell’s Palsy when I was a kid and he was bed ridden for 1 month. During that time, my mother had to step up and take over the ship. She became the Captain. My mother had to serve as the Head and take care of us and the household. AND SHE DID! We never skipped a beat! My mom is a strong wife and she took over for her husband. Although my father was always the Head, she was able to confidently take over that position, and my dad encouraged her to be ready for that when they married.

    So patriarchy is NOT about abuse, and a man never wanting his wife to have any “power” or capability. It’s about a man recognizing that he has a GOD given dominance in his genes and that he is to take the wheel FIRST, but understands how to pass the wheel to his wife when needed. Likewise, a wife has to know when to give the wheel back to her husband, where it is meant to be (like my mom gave it back to my dad when he became well again).

    You stated in #154:

    “He so controlled Auntie’s life that after he died she was unable to live on her own without a man in the house.” – Rob

    I hope you can understand that your grandfather’s “control” over his wife is NOT patriarchy. Patriarchy, contrary to popular belief, is NOT man’s control over a woman. It’s man’s duty in relation to a woman.

    In addition, do you think your Auntie/grandma played any role in her own “demise”? She knew that there would be a 50/50 chance that he may depart before her and that she would have to take the lead at some point. Do you think she could of been more proactive in standing her ground and taking her “seat/wheel” in the household? Do you think she could have been more proactive in observing how he was tending to the home so that she would be able to effectively take over one day?

    Do you REALLY think patriarchy is to blame for her not being able to take care of the house after her husband died???

  43. Tanya - December 14, 2008 10:15 am

    R.oB. & Mrs. Rivers,

    I’m glad that you both understand that Adam and Eve is the “second” creation story. But from your comments regarding it, I don’t get the impression that you fully know or understand the FIRST creation story.

    Rob, as you mentioned, in the Torah is states that GOD blew breath into both man and woman. But the Torah does not state that, that woman was Eve! B/c it wasn’t Eve! It was Lilith, Adams FIRST wife!!!

    As I’m sure you both know, there are a few books of the Bible that are not included in the distributed version of the Bible. As you know the early scholars and theologians strongly believed that the majority of people would not be able to “handle” and properly understand certain books in the Bible, and so, they deemed it best to leave those books out. They feared that a slight misinterpretation of these books would be so damaging to society, that it would be best to just not include them in the Bible at all.

    Well, the first creation story, the story of Adam and Lilith, is one of those “lost books” of the Bible.

    Here’s the gist of that book:

    In the beginning, GOD blew breath into Adam FIRST, and then, in the same equal way, blew breath into Lilith. The time came when GOD instructed Adam and Lilith to procreate, but Lilith didn’t want to have sex with Adam. Lilith preferred to go far off into the Garden of Eden, and have sex with herself (masturbate, she was evil). When Lilith did finally decide to have sex with Adam she would ONLY have sex with him while she was on top. This angered GOD b/c when a woman is on top it is impossible for her to conceive.

    B/c Lilith would only be on top during sex with Adam, GOD punished her and turned her into an animal. (this is why women should NOT be on top during sex, b/c GOD punished Lilith for it) It is widely debated whether GOD turned Lilith into an owl or a snake. But most believe it was a snake, and in fact, that Lilith was the snake that tricked Eve into eating the apple.

    So since GOD turned Lilith into an animal, Adam was the only human in the Garden of Eden for a while, and this is where Genesis picks up.

    Genesis tells how GOD saw that Adam being alone was not good and while Adam was sleeping, he then took his rib to create Eve.

    The fuller book on the creation story tells how GOD didn’t want to blow breath into Eve in the same equal way he created Adam, b/c that is how he created Lilith and Lilith was no good. Therefore, GOD wanted Adam (man) to be dominate over woman, and that is why woman was created from man’s rib.

    So Rob, although you are right that GOD created Adam and Lilith in the same equal way, man was still created *FIRST*, which set the natural order, and that order was only solidified and intensified when GOD created Eve from his rib! This was the proper way. Man was not only created first, man was created more complete, as woman is only a small piece of man.

    So both the “first” and the “second” creation stories validate man’s position over woman. – Man’s position as the Head!

    There are a bunch of stories about Lilith all over the internet, some half true, some totally false. Wiki even has an entry on Lilith, it’s not accurate though, and it does have a bit on Adam and Lilith’s relationship, but it’s not accurate either.

    Although the book of the full creation story is not in the circulated version of the Bible, the book is still available for those who wish to read it. It you go to your local Theologians Library you’ll be able to read the actually book and read the scriptures about Adam and Lilith.

    PS – Many lesbians worship Lilith, since she rejected having sex with Adam (man). I’m sure Timaree might have a few stories about Lilith for you if you ask her!

  44. econwhat - December 14, 2008 3:50 pm

    Tanya – I think you put the chivalry issue to bed once and for all. But, question: Shouldn’t you have you hands lifted up worshipping someplace today? :)

    Just curious! :)

    Also, you’ll be happy to know I enjoyed a double date lunch with the woman of my dreams yesterday and the other fellow and myself were all to pleased to picked up the tab for both of these wonderful women. Pray for my progress, please!!

    My intentions are VERY HONORABLE!!! :)

  45. Tanya - December 14, 2008 7:32 pm

    Hey Econwhat,

    No, I didn’t go to church this morning. And I don’t have a good excuse either! I just felt sluggish this morning and didn’t feel like getting dressed (its been a long week). But I’ll make up for it with a Wed. service. Besides, I prayer and read the Bible at home anyway!

    I wish you all the best with the “woman of your dreams”!!! Since you paid for lunch, it sounds like you’re already well on your way!!! ;)

  46. Average White Man - February 6, 2010 11:22 am

    Cuba Gooding…. an extremely talented actor. I enjoyr everthing he is in. His work with DiNero in “Men of Honor” was especially outstanding

    Unfortunately he is just not “leading man material”. like Denzel or Will.. Its not a Black or White thing its a “sex appeal” thing.

    His Whitte equivalent would be a guy like Anthony Hopkins… great talent but no bedroom eyes.

  47. mrs504koko - October 18, 2010 8:17 pm

    1) Now that he’s led the Giants to a SuperBowl and another dominant season, will people finally admit that Eli Manning can play? He can play, just not better than ‘Who Dat?’…oh yeah…..Drew Brees….GEAUX SAINTS!

    2) Aren’t you surprised as hell that President Bush pardoned rapper/producer John Forte? YES!

    3) Could the Knicks have handled the Marbury sitation any worse? I don’t do basketball….GEAUX SAINTS!!

    4) With all of these Clinton-era throwbacks in the Obama cabinet, doesn’t it feel like Hillary won the election? No.

    5) Speaking of Hillary Clinton, didn’t Obama trash her foreign policy credentials 6 months before choosing her as Secretary of State? It’s called Politics baby!

    6) Does anyone believe women on a first date when they pretend to reach for their wallets to “pay the bill?” Only a fool will believe a woman wants to pay the bill if she doesn’t pay the bill.

    7) Isn’t it hard to feel sympathetic for the automotive industry after they thumbed their noses at environmentalists and consumers for decades? Yes.

    At the same time, isn’t everyone being tougher on them compared to the equally unscrupulous banks? Yes.

    9) Who the hell keeps casting Cuba Gooding Jr. in ghetto roles? Cuba Gooding Jr.

    10) After getting outshined on the Ludacris new album, shouldn’t Jay-Z stop appearing on tracks with Nas? Yes but No. There are some whom wouldn’t give Nas a listen if Jay-z was not on the track.

    11) Isn’t it a shame that T-Pain is getting credit for the current synthesizer craze, when Roger Troutman did it decades ago? A crying shame! but a lot of us don’t take time to learn our real world history let alone musical.

    12) If Plaxico Burress was really worried about his safety, why not hire a security team instead of carrying an illegal weapon? In the words of Soulja Slim “Ain’t nobody gone ride like I’m gone ride for me and ain’t nobody gone die like I’m gone die for me.” R.I.P Soulja Slim

    13) Has there ever been a less funny television show than Tyler Perry’s “House of Payne?” Never in the history of television has there been a less funnier show…and yes ,I’ve seen homeboys in outerspace.

    14) Why do people take MySpace and Facebook so damn seriously? Because they do not understand the concept of mixing a personal life and the internet.

    15) Why do people always pretend that the seat next to them on the train is occupied? Because you’re black :)>

    16) Before Michelle Obama, would Salon.com have written an article about any First Lady’s butt? Salon.com was disrespectful. But in their defense when has there been a First Lady with such ample assests, you know a sista’s butt can make a sane person do some strange thangs!!!

    17) Isn’t Charles Barkley right to say that Lebron James is being disrespectful to the Cleveland Cavs by talking about his 2010 free agency? Again, I don’t do basketball….GEAUX SAINTS!!

    18) Why do people look in the tissue after they blow their noses? Cause we’re all nasty on some level ;)

    19) Does anyone believe a boxer or a rapper when they say they’re going to retire? Heeheehee, rhetorical question, you almost got me.

    20) With all other Philly teams underachieving, is it baseball season yet? ummmm. …GEAUX SAINTS!!!!

  48. mrs504koko - October 18, 2010 8:30 pm

    Correction to # 15…..because we’re black ;)

Have your say