When I was young, Sunday mornings meant that my father normally cooked breakfast. Daddy made the same meal--- pancakes, bacon and sausage, which was accompanied by orange juice, hot tea and the New York Daily News, Sunday edition. As my sister and I got older, we advanced our reading beyond the comics, but what remained consistent for years was the Sunday morning soundtrack. More often than not we ate breakfast and afterward read the newspaper listening to Hal Jackson's Sunday Classics on WBLS-FM. It was on this program that I developed an appreciation for musical artists such as Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughn, Nat King Cole, Aretha Franklin, Johnny Mathis and John Coltrane. My father, a jazz enthusiast, never gave speeches about the superiority of this music over the R&B and rap that I loudly listened to during the week. Instead he let the music speak for itself. In turn I soaked up the richness of music and considered it, not just my parents music, but also my own. One of the best memories I have is when I took my father to see Nina Simone perform in NYC.
When my father died two years ago among the keepsakes that I wanted were his CDs. It was amazing to see that there were so many "doubles"---CDs that he had that I already owned. I also surprised to find a Tupac CD (albeit bootleg) as well as one or two rap CDs. It would have never dawned on me that he would have bothered to explore Tupac or Dr. Dre. In my youth although he tolerated rap being played in the house, he drew the line at it being played on his car stereo. It would be easy to flatter myself that my father bought these CDs to understand more about my interest and work with rap music and Hip Hop. In truth, I think that my father was interested in discovering music that were masterfully created and that had some cultural or social relevance. I suppose that once he got older he was willing to explore the possibility that rap could meet his standards.
This past Sunday I suppose that I was continuing my family's Sunday morning tradition. I was literally digging in the crates and came across some old tapes---among the treasures was one of a live party that was held at Tavern on the Green hosted by Hot 97 in the mid 1990s; another was a DJ Kool promo tape, containing the his song, "Let Me Clear My Throat" and I even dusted off RuPaul. It was wonderful to watch my three year old dance and sing songs that I had myself enjoyed. There was nothing too risque, the word nigger wasn't flying around----it was just fun music with crazy beats.
My son has plenty of children CDs, including jazz and classical music that I have carefully picked out. Additionally we supplement those CDs with easy listening adult music such as Jon Secada, Christopher Cross, Lionel Richie or Corrine Rae Bailey. Generally my husband and I have found music for kids to be too sacchriny (if that's a word). As a result we don't play children's music in our cars--since we live in the burbs we spend a fair amount of time driving. My husband is very into 1970s soul and funk (what I call family reunion music). When my son rides with him he's likely to hear a heavy dose of Stevie Wonder, The Gap Band, The Bar-Kays along with a smattering of rap. After riding with my husband our son started requesting Third Base's "Pop Goes the Weasel." Right now in heavy rotation in my car is Alexander O'Neal (which my son really likes); D-Influence and Kem. In the past I've played Alicia Keys, John Legend, Bob Marley, Gentleman and Jeff Majors to death. I like Common's Be, but was uncomfortable playing it with my son in the car because of its liberal use of the word nigger.
I am not suggesting that Alicia Keys is on par with Nancy Wilson. All that I know is that music was a place where my father and I connected. His musical tastes helped me to learn a bit more about who he was as a person---including the cultural influences that most resonated with him. I look forward to dancing with my son on more Sundays. He will probably mock me, as I mocked my father and mother's dance moves---but it will all be in fun. When they jumped up to dance to a fondly remember song, my sister and I also jumped up and joined them. I still smile at those silly moments that we shared as a family. I hope that music helps my husband and I provide our son with similar experiences. I hope that one day he will look back and remember his family with love.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Hooking Up: Is it Really Freedom for Women?
Is “hooking up” a sign of female empowerment or just another way for men to get sex on the cheap?
Like the old, one-night stand, “hooking up” doesn’t require any planning; much, if any, cash; and no commitment. Casual sex is nothing new, but better birth control and changing social mores have allowed some women to become players—--just like men. Surprisingly some people think that hooking up may be the new way to enter relationships rather than duck having one.
Right now there are at least two researched books on the market discussing hooking up: UnHooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both by Washington Post reporter, Laura Sessions Strepps and Hooking Up: Sex, Relationships and Dating on Campus by La Salle University Assistant Professor Kathleen A. Bogles. UnHooked concludes that a regular diet of casual sex impedes young people’s ability to form long-term relationships while Hooking Up asserts that while some activity is alarming, overall debauchery isn’t rampant on college campuses. The two book however do agree that unlike men, women who hook-up too often or are too freaky when they do hook-up get bad reputations. Moreover, while some high-achieving college women don’t want to devote the time necessary to date and cultivate full scale relationships, most women are disappointed when the hook-up doesn’t lead to something more. The subjects of both books are almost exclusively White, college-educated heterosexuals, so it’s unclear whether these findings are useful to the general public. Moreover, as far as I know there have been no longitudinal studies done about hooking up so these conclusions seem speculative at best.
Historically, women’s sexuality has been controlled through social institutions that sanctioned its expression only through heterosexual marriage. Therefore gender equality requires that women be able to self-direct their sexuality—it is central to their ability to exercise ownership of their bodies and to define their humanity. However in communities where far too many women are competing for a scarce number of viable partners (employed,straight men), it’s unclear whether a woman hooking up is exercising sexual agency or is merely paying the fee that she perceives is required to enter the relationship marketplace. If women are so down with hooking up, why then do so many of them become angry when the man stops calling, enters into a committed relationship with someone else or is not interested in parenting a child that resulted from their encounter? If the chief purpose of hooking up is to have no-strings sex, then it seems illogical for a woman to assume that there’s any more between her and the man than that evening’s booty call. In my mind a sexual free agent handles her business and then bids the man adieu, forever or until the next text—she’s not organizing her thoughts around the prospect of emotional intimacy.
Whether or not hooking up is liberating for a woman depends on whether or not she is being honest about what she wants from the man. If a woman is hooking up only to get some hot sex--—then more power to her. But if she’s hooking up, hoping that the sex will lead to a committed relationship, she’s probably playing herself. Sure it could happen, but she shouldn’t count on it. A good, platonic male friend used to say that men and women should have sex on the first date so that they’d know whether or not they were compatible enough to explore a relationship. According to him, there is no value in a woman waiting to have sex because if that’s all that a man wants he will bounce after getting it on the first night or the forty-first night.
He makes some good points, but years later I am still skeptical. I still don’t think that most men are that liberal minded. While I know few men who would pass up sex on the first night, I also know most of them would place the woman in the booty call category, instead of the relationship file. These men would always wonder about how many other men the woman had also done on the first night. It’s not fair, but it’s how it is. Personally I don’t believe in timetables for having sex, but I also have never mistaken a body shaking orgasm for love. Before I got married, at various points I wanted more than fun and excitement-—I wanted someone who knew and cared about me. When I was considering relationship candidates sexual attraction was important, but for me it was more critical that I learn what the particular man was about and figure out what besides his dazzling smile or laid-back cool did I like---that always took more than one night.
Like the old, one-night stand, “hooking up” doesn’t require any planning; much, if any, cash; and no commitment. Casual sex is nothing new, but better birth control and changing social mores have allowed some women to become players—--just like men. Surprisingly some people think that hooking up may be the new way to enter relationships rather than duck having one.
Right now there are at least two researched books on the market discussing hooking up: UnHooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both by Washington Post reporter, Laura Sessions Strepps and Hooking Up: Sex, Relationships and Dating on Campus by La Salle University Assistant Professor Kathleen A. Bogles. UnHooked concludes that a regular diet of casual sex impedes young people’s ability to form long-term relationships while Hooking Up asserts that while some activity is alarming, overall debauchery isn’t rampant on college campuses. The two book however do agree that unlike men, women who hook-up too often or are too freaky when they do hook-up get bad reputations. Moreover, while some high-achieving college women don’t want to devote the time necessary to date and cultivate full scale relationships, most women are disappointed when the hook-up doesn’t lead to something more. The subjects of both books are almost exclusively White, college-educated heterosexuals, so it’s unclear whether these findings are useful to the general public. Moreover, as far as I know there have been no longitudinal studies done about hooking up so these conclusions seem speculative at best.
Historically, women’s sexuality has been controlled through social institutions that sanctioned its expression only through heterosexual marriage. Therefore gender equality requires that women be able to self-direct their sexuality—it is central to their ability to exercise ownership of their bodies and to define their humanity. However in communities where far too many women are competing for a scarce number of viable partners (employed,straight men), it’s unclear whether a woman hooking up is exercising sexual agency or is merely paying the fee that she perceives is required to enter the relationship marketplace. If women are so down with hooking up, why then do so many of them become angry when the man stops calling, enters into a committed relationship with someone else or is not interested in parenting a child that resulted from their encounter? If the chief purpose of hooking up is to have no-strings sex, then it seems illogical for a woman to assume that there’s any more between her and the man than that evening’s booty call. In my mind a sexual free agent handles her business and then bids the man adieu, forever or until the next text—she’s not organizing her thoughts around the prospect of emotional intimacy.
Whether or not hooking up is liberating for a woman depends on whether or not she is being honest about what she wants from the man. If a woman is hooking up only to get some hot sex--—then more power to her. But if she’s hooking up, hoping that the sex will lead to a committed relationship, she’s probably playing herself. Sure it could happen, but she shouldn’t count on it. A good, platonic male friend used to say that men and women should have sex on the first date so that they’d know whether or not they were compatible enough to explore a relationship. According to him, there is no value in a woman waiting to have sex because if that’s all that a man wants he will bounce after getting it on the first night or the forty-first night.
He makes some good points, but years later I am still skeptical. I still don’t think that most men are that liberal minded. While I know few men who would pass up sex on the first night, I also know most of them would place the woman in the booty call category, instead of the relationship file. These men would always wonder about how many other men the woman had also done on the first night. It’s not fair, but it’s how it is. Personally I don’t believe in timetables for having sex, but I also have never mistaken a body shaking orgasm for love. Before I got married, at various points I wanted more than fun and excitement-—I wanted someone who knew and cared about me. When I was considering relationship candidates sexual attraction was important, but for me it was more critical that I learn what the particular man was about and figure out what besides his dazzling smile or laid-back cool did I like---that always took more than one night.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Condi on Race In America
Okay... I admit it, I am a Condi Rice fan. She's razor smart, unflappable and stylish. I wish she was not repping for Bush and Cheney, but it is what it is. She's gotta take her lumps along with them regarding her record and policy initiatives (or lack thereof). I treat Condi (or the concept of her) like a relative whom I disagree with...I still respect her and have her back although we don't see to eye. Mind you, I don't have a problem with her being a Republican, just with her propping up those guys.
One area where I think Rice has been woefully misunderstood has been on race. As a daughter of the South, Birmingham to be exact, she had a sense of the danger and brutality of racial discrimination. I heard that she had been friendly with one of the four young Black girls who were killed in the 1963 church bombing. Consequently her parents left the South and continued to instill in her the idea that she could surmount any obstacle, racial or otherwise through excellence. The path of her parents as well as their social circle in effect was foundation for her political beliefs.
People want Condi to march in the street and wave placards as if there is only one right way to speak out against injustice. Condi believes that Black folks have the mettle to do want they need to do to succeed without depending on the government. Given her own life experiences Condi knew (as Hurricane Katrina attested) that had she and her family waited on the government to intervene and directly improve their circumstances, her life would have turned out VERY differently...and probably not for the better.
In a March 27, 2008 interview with the editorial board of the Washington Times, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was quoted as saying:
"Black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them, and that's our legacy."--
The nation's most prominent Black Republican, acknowledged that she had listened to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race relations in America. Moreover, she said that it was important that he gave it. Condi Compliments Obama on Race Speech
In commenting on the fact that Blacks didn't come to this country voluntarily, she gave the following take on the position of Blacks in American society: "We may call ourselves African Americans, but we're not immigrants. We don't mimic the immigrant story. Where this conversation has got to go is that Black Americans and White Americans founded this country together and I think we've always wanted the same thing. And it's been now a very hard and long struggle to begin to get to the place that we can all pursue the same thing."
One area where I think Rice has been woefully misunderstood has been on race. As a daughter of the South, Birmingham to be exact, she had a sense of the danger and brutality of racial discrimination. I heard that she had been friendly with one of the four young Black girls who were killed in the 1963 church bombing. Consequently her parents left the South and continued to instill in her the idea that she could surmount any obstacle, racial or otherwise through excellence. The path of her parents as well as their social circle in effect was foundation for her political beliefs.
People want Condi to march in the street and wave placards as if there is only one right way to speak out against injustice. Condi believes that Black folks have the mettle to do want they need to do to succeed without depending on the government. Given her own life experiences Condi knew (as Hurricane Katrina attested) that had she and her family waited on the government to intervene and directly improve their circumstances, her life would have turned out VERY differently...and probably not for the better.
In a March 27, 2008 interview with the editorial board of the Washington Times, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was quoted as saying:
"Black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them, and that's our legacy."--
The nation's most prominent Black Republican, acknowledged that she had listened to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race relations in America. Moreover, she said that it was important that he gave it. Condi Compliments Obama on Race Speech
In commenting on the fact that Blacks didn't come to this country voluntarily, she gave the following take on the position of Blacks in American society: "We may call ourselves African Americans, but we're not immigrants. We don't mimic the immigrant story. Where this conversation has got to go is that Black Americans and White Americans founded this country together and I think we've always wanted the same thing. And it's been now a very hard and long struggle to begin to get to the place that we can all pursue the same thing."
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Carrie Bradshaw Meets the Housewives of NYC
Although I am not a fan of many reality shows, I like Bravo's "The Housewives of New York." Many blog posters have asked about Bethanny, the healthy food chef---basically why is she on the show since she is neither married nor has children. Perhaps she is a segue between the carefree, sexy single life promoted in Sex and the City and more staid domestic drama of husbands, kids and second homes in the Hamptons depicted on Housewives.
Anyway, last night Bethanny broke-up with her boyfriend Jason. Jason is divorced with three kids. Bethanny is in her late thirties, has never been married and wants at least one child....soon. A few weeks ago Jason would not discuss their moving in together. It seems that Bethanny point blanked asked him whether he would be ready to have a child with her soon, he said that he wasn't sure if he'd be ready in a year or two year...he didn't want to be put on a clock. Like any New York woman, she heard his response, panicked and decamped to a penthouse suite in South Beach to think and chill.
Jason is not wrong if he does not know if he want to have more children or to get married again. Bethanny is not wrong to want to settle down and start a family. Bethany's predicament raises the questions as to whether a woman should wait until she's 35 to decide to have kids. Moreover, if she does, is a divorced guy with three kids a great candidate. The cruel fact is that unlike men, women have a finite time to procreate. As Bethany's friend in SOBE told her,your eggs are getting staler each day.
In 1960, 70 percent of American 25-year-old women were married with children; in 2000only 25 percent of them were. In 1970, just 7.4 percent of all American 30- to 34-year-olds were unmarried; today, the number is 22 percent. It would be crazy to suggest that we go back to the old days where the chief priority for women was finding a husband and birthing some babies. However just as woman plan our careers to accomodate career and social objectives, perhaps there needs to be more awareness about planning to have children. The alternative is to be nearing 40 and frantically hoping that you can program the men that you meet to be in tune with your narrowing fertility window.
I was lucky, I had given myself until age 40 to have a child, the prerequisite being that I had met someone whom I loved who could also be a suitable father. I remember telling my then boyfriend (now my husband) that given my age that I may not be able to have children and would he be cool with adoption. I was in good health, but who knows--for some women their fertility is already over by age 35. He answered that he would love any child that we had together...that was enough for me. However the relationship hit some snags, there was a break-up and then a few months later we mutually agreed to reunite...we then married. Without a whole lot of hoopla, thought or planning, I got pregnant.
It worked out well for. I beat my deadline and I am happy, but if I had it all to do again, I would have gotten serious earlier about doing the personal work required to be in a committed relationship and to be a parent. Don't get me wrong, I had fun being single and I have some good memories, but once the excitement was over, I should have got my marbles and got. I believe that the situation won't come until you are ready to receive it....that meant changing my mindset and my hang-outs. In short, it's doubtful that you are going to meet a family-oriented man in the club. Anyway, I like having options and since love can't be rushed or guaranteed, time is also a big necessity.
Anyway, last night Bethanny broke-up with her boyfriend Jason. Jason is divorced with three kids. Bethanny is in her late thirties, has never been married and wants at least one child....soon. A few weeks ago Jason would not discuss their moving in together. It seems that Bethanny point blanked asked him whether he would be ready to have a child with her soon, he said that he wasn't sure if he'd be ready in a year or two year...he didn't want to be put on a clock. Like any New York woman, she heard his response, panicked and decamped to a penthouse suite in South Beach to think and chill.
Jason is not wrong if he does not know if he want to have more children or to get married again. Bethanny is not wrong to want to settle down and start a family. Bethany's predicament raises the questions as to whether a woman should wait until she's 35 to decide to have kids. Moreover, if she does, is a divorced guy with three kids a great candidate. The cruel fact is that unlike men, women have a finite time to procreate. As Bethany's friend in SOBE told her,your eggs are getting staler each day.
In 1960, 70 percent of American 25-year-old women were married with children; in 2000only 25 percent of them were. In 1970, just 7.4 percent of all American 30- to 34-year-olds were unmarried; today, the number is 22 percent. It would be crazy to suggest that we go back to the old days where the chief priority for women was finding a husband and birthing some babies. However just as woman plan our careers to accomodate career and social objectives, perhaps there needs to be more awareness about planning to have children. The alternative is to be nearing 40 and frantically hoping that you can program the men that you meet to be in tune with your narrowing fertility window.
I was lucky, I had given myself until age 40 to have a child, the prerequisite being that I had met someone whom I loved who could also be a suitable father. I remember telling my then boyfriend (now my husband) that given my age that I may not be able to have children and would he be cool with adoption. I was in good health, but who knows--for some women their fertility is already over by age 35. He answered that he would love any child that we had together...that was enough for me. However the relationship hit some snags, there was a break-up and then a few months later we mutually agreed to reunite...we then married. Without a whole lot of hoopla, thought or planning, I got pregnant.
It worked out well for. I beat my deadline and I am happy, but if I had it all to do again, I would have gotten serious earlier about doing the personal work required to be in a committed relationship and to be a parent. Don't get me wrong, I had fun being single and I have some good memories, but once the excitement was over, I should have got my marbles and got. I believe that the situation won't come until you are ready to receive it....that meant changing my mindset and my hang-outs. In short, it's doubtful that you are going to meet a family-oriented man in the club. Anyway, I like having options and since love can't be rushed or guaranteed, time is also a big necessity.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
LeBron James, Vogue and Who Cares?
I bought the April issue of Vogue magazine that had LeBron and Giselle on the cover. I wasn't thrilled with the cover...LeBron looked brutish to me but I surmised that he was okay with the cover. It's not that I am ignoring the similarities between King Kong and Fay Wray pictures, it's just that given all the other things going on I can't get that excited.
Hattie McDaniels when criticized for playing ditzy servants in films she frequently said, "I'd rather play a maid than be one." Historically there have been an array of Black folks ready to act ignorant in front of the camera...including some modern-day rap artists and athletes. When these people are given an opportunity to make money or to gain exposure that will lead to money for them, they are not considering the implications of their actions on the masses of Black folks---they couldn't care less. In a country where "free speech" is used to condone ever manner of foolishness, there is no way of stopping Black folks from doing their minstrel posturing.
Maybe rather than looking to the White folks who run mainstream media outlets to become more racially sensitive, Black folks should concentrate on more vocally supporting the actors, athletes, activists, and other public figures whom they deem to be better representatives. Case in point, recently XXL magazine interviewed rap artist DMX and asked him about the presidential election. It was clear by his addled response that he didn't know what was going on---even who Barack Obama's was. Why in the world was the magazine even discussing politics with someone who had shown no prior interest or knowledge in the subject? Like the White folks who waste our time with incessant reports about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, Black folks spend way too much time promoting the most uncouth and unconscious folks available...then we get mad when they act out.
Most of us are no more ready to openly denounce LeBron James, than we are rap artist Ma Remy who was recently convicted of intentional assault in relation to a 2007 shooting or rap artist T.I who plead guilty to illegal weapons charges or Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick who has been indicted on perjury and other charges stemming from a cover-up of an affair with his former chief of staff. Remember, in the aftermath of Lil Kim's 2005 conviction for perjury and conspiracy in association with a shooting outside a NYC radio station, B.E.T created a reality program for her that became a top-rated show.
Check out Harry Allen's interesting article: Monkey See, Monkey Doo-Doo:How VOGUE “Honoured” LeBron James by Smearing Black People with White Supremacy & Gorilla Feces
Hattie McDaniels when criticized for playing ditzy servants in films she frequently said, "I'd rather play a maid than be one." Historically there have been an array of Black folks ready to act ignorant in front of the camera...including some modern-day rap artists and athletes. When these people are given an opportunity to make money or to gain exposure that will lead to money for them, they are not considering the implications of their actions on the masses of Black folks---they couldn't care less. In a country where "free speech" is used to condone ever manner of foolishness, there is no way of stopping Black folks from doing their minstrel posturing.
Maybe rather than looking to the White folks who run mainstream media outlets to become more racially sensitive, Black folks should concentrate on more vocally supporting the actors, athletes, activists, and other public figures whom they deem to be better representatives. Case in point, recently XXL magazine interviewed rap artist DMX and asked him about the presidential election. It was clear by his addled response that he didn't know what was going on---even who Barack Obama's was. Why in the world was the magazine even discussing politics with someone who had shown no prior interest or knowledge in the subject? Like the White folks who waste our time with incessant reports about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, Black folks spend way too much time promoting the most uncouth and unconscious folks available...then we get mad when they act out.
Most of us are no more ready to openly denounce LeBron James, than we are rap artist Ma Remy who was recently convicted of intentional assault in relation to a 2007 shooting or rap artist T.I who plead guilty to illegal weapons charges or Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick who has been indicted on perjury and other charges stemming from a cover-up of an affair with his former chief of staff. Remember, in the aftermath of Lil Kim's 2005 conviction for perjury and conspiracy in association with a shooting outside a NYC radio station, B.E.T created a reality program for her that became a top-rated show.
Check out Harry Allen's interesting article: Monkey See, Monkey Doo-Doo:How VOGUE “Honoured” LeBron James by Smearing Black People with White Supremacy & Gorilla Feces
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
