Sex In The Diamond District: Race, Love, And Relationships In Washington
by Latoya Peterson, originally published at Jezebel
Note: As I mentioned before, I’m not really interested in writing on racial issues for the Jezebel audience. However, my analysis always incorporates race, gender, and class, and I was interested enough to comment lightly on this story. I am in the process of writing a longer piece about race, dating, and the specifics of dating in DC, published for the Racialicious audience, probably for sometime next week. Oh, and one more thing – these pieces are intended to explore some of the broader societal issues that impact dating, including stereotypes and societal expectations. This is not a chance for people to jump on their soapboxes and dole out advice (unless someone in the comments specifically asks). Please focus on the issues, not what black women “need” to do. – LDP
“Helena Andrews is 29, single, living in D.C., and might be the star of a black “Sex and the City” — stylish, beautiful and a writer desperately in search of love in the city.” And so it begins.
The article revolves around Helena Andrews, an author who recently sold and optioned her memoir, which is described as a series of satirical essays about being an urban black woman in Chocolate City.
However, taking the long view of Andrew’s life – and what broader conclusions can be drawn around race, gender, and region – often forces the article to stumble. For example, this description of Andrew’s life works from the archetype of the sassy, single, chick-lit heroine mashed up with BAP overachiever stereotypes:
A journalist who has written for Politico and The Root, Andrews says her book attempts to reveal what’s behind the veneer. In a series of essays, Andrews documents the lives of so many young black women who appear to have everything: looks, charm, Ivy League degrees, great jobs. Closets packed full of fabulous clothes; fabulous condos in fabulous gentrified neighborhoods; fabulous vacations, fabulous friends. And yet they are lonely: Their lives are repetitive, desperate and empty. They are post-racial feminists who have come of age reaping the benefits of both the civil rights movement and the women’s movement, then asking quietly: What next?
Fabulous gentrified neighborhoods? (Is that before or after all your cool friends move out because no one can afford the rent?) How can your life be repetitive, desperate, and empty if you have fabulous vacations and fabulous friends?
And don’t get me started on the post-racial thing.
The small glimpses we are shown from the book appear to have the potential to be hilarious:
The disappointment as you end up at the bar once again, committing straw violence in your drink (stirring the drink frantically and unconsciously).
Much of the focus of the piece comes back to this key premise, that all of Andrew’s problems seem to stem from:
“For a lot of black women, especially young successful black women, we have a lot of boxes on our master plan list checked off,” Andrews says. “We think happiness should come immediately after that. But that is not always the case.”
Love is much too hard to find and when these women do, it may go all wrong because of issues that are too complicated for statistics, Andrews says. She is quick to say, “There are tons of black families who are healthy and good.” Even so, black women are more likely than white women to grow up poor or otherwise struggling financially; to be fatherless and to experience a myriad of other societal and/or familial dysfunctions. Ironically, the “issues” can also include being a “strong” woman: the can-do, opinionated type many black women become after growing up in a matriarchal household, the type with whom some men still just can’t deal.
The idea of love as another item on the to do list doesn’t really make sense. It doesn’t happen on a timetable. It’s as Kelis sings in Millionaire: Saks Fifth Ave don’t sell affection. So while doing things like earning a degree or landing a good job can be accomplished with focus, dedication, and follow through, love is messier kind of alchemy.
I mean, think about it. To get into a relationship with someone, you generally need two people to be: currently or soon to be available; in the same physical proximity (or internet savvy enough to be on the same website); into the same types of hang out spots, or to have enough in common to cross paths; both need to find each other physically attractive; and both need to be at a time in their lives when they can afford to spend the time to develop a relationship.
Throw all the other preferences out of the window – the list above is enough to make anyone’s head spin, and we haven’t even personalized it yet.
The article continues, revealing that Andrews may also have a habit of setting herself up for failure:
“I went on a date last night with Cornrows,” Andrews says, using the nickname that her friends have given the man. “I got in his car and there was this strawberry smell fragrance. I had to roll the window down by hand. I assume it’s paid for.”
Cornrows, she says, seems nice, but that is the problem. “He can put together coherent sentences, but they are not in any way related to my life,” she says. She laughs, but catches herself. She knows the man is trying hard. She also knows Cornrows doesn’t stand a chance.
“I’m a mean woman. I don’t date nice people. That’s why I’ll be alone for the rest of my life. I will always have to settle.”
This sentiment is one that quite a few of women can relate to. This guy is nice enough – but still not quite enough to be what Andrews is looking for. Many on the Post site seem to think that Andrews has overly high expectations. But a large part of this is the fantasies sold about life. Just as there is an entire industry around the idea of having it all, there is also one at selling the easy relationship. Sister Toldja has a hilarious take on the quintessential black romance movie Love Jones, saying:
I know many people have been let down by this movie. Talk about setting the stage for great expectations. I think sisters take it especially hard. Showing Love Jones to a group of Black women in their early 20’s is like showing a bunch of Iranian kids a Disney World brochure. Dream all you want to, kids. But that trip probably ain’t happening for you. [...]
Okay, so maybe I don’t have the longest list of reasons as to why I shoulda had a real life LJ experience by now, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t. Because I should.
And I’ll tell you why I haven’t. Because brothers like this don’t exist in real life:
I don’t mean brother like Larenz Tate. I am talking about Darius “groove in yo’ left thigh/tryna be the funk in yo’ right” Lovehall. This man was phenomenal. He was a poet. He cooked breakfast. He respected a woman who brought him home after the FIRST NIGHT. He was fine. He had great friends (except for Bill Bellamy; but I think dudes all got one Bill Bellamy-ass friend). And even when he got Nina started smoking cigarettes, it was sexier than anything the average man can do on his best day.
Meanwhile, I can’t find a marginally attractive and reasonably interesting man to give even half of a flying fuck about me.
I had a different read on Love Jones (I enjoyed it but it could have been subtitled “Massive Failures to Communicate”), but Toldja’s point is what’s important. Nothing comes easy, but a lot of women are convinced these kinds of men don’t exist at all.
But, speaking as someone who is a DC area native, there are lots of men that fit every type of profile around town. Hell, if you want a man that’s good with words, who will tinge love poems with sweet vulgarities, they are plentiful. Last night, at Busboys and Poets, I didn’t see Darius Lovehall, but I did see “Have You Ever Made Love to a Poet” Marc Marcel:
Many of the commenters over at the Washington Post site latched onto Andrew’s admissions of bitchery to justify everything from racism to continuing black gender wars to anger over what passes as WaPo worthy. However, buried deeper in the article, I found this small segment more compelling:
The genesis of Andrews’s book came from a conversation a few years ago between Andrews and Gina, a social scientist who lives in Los Angeles. They wanted to start a blog to explore “why black women can’t find a man.” The day she talked to an agent about this idea and pitched it as a book, one of her sorority sisters committed suicide.
It jarred Andrews. “We stopped. Discussed what happened. We think each other’s lives are fine. You got a good job. A good place to live. You will handle it.” But some people can’t handle it. “She looked like any other successful black woman,” Andrews says of her friend. , “Good clothes, stylish. Ivy League degree, master’s.” Nobody saw it coming. She won’t discuss the details, but you can see it in her face, the mind racing over the why.
This darker theme drives the fear behind narratives of singledom and success. What does it mean if you achieved everything, checked off all the boxes on the to-do list, and still feel empty? And realize this emptiness comes from realizing that the stories we were sold about “a good life” may not be what we want, and the one size fits all American Dream is confining? What if searching for a relationship wasn’t really about the dynamics between men and women, but about having the last piece to a puzzle we are told will unlock true happiness? And what if, even after achieving everything on the list, it still isn’t what you want?
Sometimes, our quest for love and companionship is really a quest for affirmation and answers. As Andrews asks:
“People keep talking about the black single woman in D.C. But do you know who she is? Does she know what she wants? They should stop saying we have it all together. . . . I am that single black woman in Washington, D.C. Why is she single? This is who I am. Tell me.”
Successful, black and lonely [Washington Post]
Revisit- Love Jones: The Greatest Lie Ever Told [The Beautiful Struggler]
Official Site [Busboys and Poets]
Official Site [Marc Marcel]
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
m.dot wrote:
The social costs of Assimilation are worthy of being explored and I am happy that this books is centering Black womens subectivity on the matter.
This is the framework that I use when looking at Black women’s success narratives.
Given the Fact, that we have been dealing with being, Jezebels, Sapphires and Mammies since the 1600’s, so they can miss me with that book title.
Why I gotta be a Bitch? Whose interests are
being served by calling us that?
Oh Word, Black President and Black Bitches, eh?
I am going to write about post about this, But I want to read the book first.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 12:15 pm ¶
PPR_Scribe wrote:
It may be worth exploring why a book/movie on this topic is gaining an audience in this particular point in our history. There have been other times in the US when the relationship/marriage/childbearing status of Black women has been a focus of the wider society. Most often the reason for this focus has nothing to do with the concern for Black women (and/or Black men, Black families, Black children…) Often Black women’s sexuality (including our partnering) is important because it is an issue for others.
In that respect, I think this new slant on Black Educated Middle Class Black Women Who Can’t Find Mates! may be the flip side of the “culture of pathology/poverty,” Black matriarchy arguments that were prevalent last generation. The class issue is key here, IMO.
Here is a situation in which BW are doing what they are “supposed” to do as far as *not* bearing children early and out of marriage, who are being productive citizens, who are not “dragging down” the rest of society, etc.
Yet, once they have achieved what they are “supposed to,” they are not marrying and having one or two children as an offset to those Black women still stuck in the pathology culture. This is, I believe, also partly what is responsible for the focus on Black women and *Black* men: We are also supposed to be “bringing along” the Black males so that they, too, won’t drag on society in their own special way.
I think there are more elements to it than this for why there is broader interest in these types of stories. But I think this is at least part of it.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 1:26 pm ¶
Niki wrote:
Very thoughtful analysis. Instead of “choosing a side” in the never-ending black gender wars, it’s important to delve into the deeper issues at work here and how it all fits into the big picture. No understanding will ever be gained if successful and single black women are stereotyped as either miserable and bitter mules or as social-climbing “martinis, maki rolls, & Manolos” types who exist merely to crush men’s egos. There are lots of nuances in between.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 1:50 pm ¶
Versai wrote:
“What if searching for a relationship wasn’t really about the dynamics between men and women, but about having the last piece to a puzzle we are told will unlock true happiness?”
I think that this is key–being sold the idea that a certain perfect life is obtainable simply by having all of the puzzle pieces/goals checked off. IMHO, the search for perfection never stops.
If every straight, black woman found and was engaged to a black prince charming–the relief of accomplishing THAT goal would be replaced by the quest for the “perfect” wedding ceremony. (Which, of course, would fall mostly on the woman to achieve.)
Then, after the ceremony, the wife is then responsible for making sure the relationship stays a happy one (a gazillion magazine articles on how to keep him from straying, 25 things you should know about your man!) etc.
As long as the acquisition of things is the focus of true happiness, the goal post will always move just out of reach. And dealing with a boyfriend/husband as “thing” really cripples the foundation building that a relationship needs to be born/survive.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 2:09 pm ¶
bertie wrote:
I love how you broadened the issue. The Washpost article really had no insight on the plight of Black women in dating–but I think it was very unintentionally insightful about what happens to relationship consumerists when their personal relationship market hits a downturn.
The check off-list, the “winterboo”, etc were hints that relationsips for some are nothing more than consumable goods–something wanted for utility, status, often disposable, and ultimately unfulfilling as a supplier of long-term happiness. The word relationship in the statement about having the degree, job, house, etc. could have easily been replaced with words “and now I want a 60″ flat screen.”
When I first read the piece, I was pretty harsh on the author. But now with reflection, I actually applaud her. She’s confused, insecure, contradictory…in a word human. She’s the Kanye West to the 50 Cent that is the usual portrayal of “strong black women.” To paraphrase Kanye, we’re all insecure, she just the first (strong black woman) to admit it.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 2:30 pm ¶
Adrienne wrote:
Good observation Versai
“As long as the acquisition of things is the focus of true happiness, the goal post will always move just out of reach. And dealing with a boyfriend/husband as “thing” really cripples the foundation building that a relationship needs to be born/survive.”
The dynamics of getting into a relationship, sustaining it, getting what we want out of it is completely different than the dynamics of career and academic success.
I always cringe when in articles about this topic, the author goes down a listing of one’s accomplishments in career and academics in order to ask why she and many Black women like her isn’t in a relationship or marriage.
I always find myself wanting to know more about her emotional successes. I want to know why she feels she deserves a relationship if she describes herself as mean. What does she have to offer to a relationship emotionally if she feels she is mean, or is vague about what in Cornrow’s character is so wrong that he’s not worth getting to know after the air freshener.
We enter relationships through vulnerability and vulnerability isn’t what is required to do well in business, academics, career. . . yet we all have to have some of it to enter in a relationship with a man, I think.
And I didn’t see that in how she tells the story of herself.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 2:57 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
@Versai,
YES!
What struck me about Andrews was her materialism, which is an obsession with acquiring “possessions.”
She reacts to men, and even other women, as things, not humans.
This is why she is single.
A trinket doesn’t have much dimension compared to a human being.
A Mercedes Benz is an awesome piece of machinery, but a human being beats it every time. This is why she is single because she’s acquired everything, and expects to acquire human beings, love, and all that comes with it, as if she were some kind of hunter.
As a black woman, I am disgusted by her. We don’t need people like her. And if she’s that damned lonely, I am willing to bet that if she spent some time not being selfish, she’d feel happier about her life, and not stress being single.
Is she searching for love or another trophy for the mantle?
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 3:04 pm ¶
yassibassu wrote:
Commodification of romance, and all other aspects of life end up precluding the ability to be genuinely happy because of constant comparisons between new generations or permutations of products, real and virtual.
Why are we comparing black men to fictional characters in a movie?
What is the role of fantasy and marketing here, and how does the fantasy expose the underlying reality that these fantasies are an escape from or denial of?
Why do the men need to be black in the first place — why isn’t the emphasis on personal compatibility instead of race?
Is it just that there isn’t a great enough population of black men in the upper middle class for black-preferring single black female professionals to find a connection with?
Is all this more a function of the alienation from self and community that capitalism/consumerism facilitates, so that even success within the context of material wealth and social mobility can result in a failure to be able connect with other human beings in a meaningful way?
I think that the values that these women developed over their lifetimes as they became “successful” (wealthy) and upwardly mobile is what spoils the ability to find a satisfying relationship, since you can’t order a custom husband from the manufacturer. Aside from having to generalize about a population of SBRW who all have their own histories, pathologies, dreams, and desires, it seems to me that these women are suffering from the same toxic side effects that wealth and upward mobility produce. Namely, the reflex action of commodifying everything after a lifetime of being commodified yourself. (watch The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151#)
How much of this is a result of being sold a lifestyle that is profitable for companies that sell alcohol, clothing, and perfumes as sex/mance, and how much of this has to do with issues of class?
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 3:21 pm ¶
Val wrote:
I get the ‘who do these uppity, educated, Black women think they are’ vibe from these articles. It’s as if the real message is that if we were not so educated and successful we’d be happily married and just happy in general.
Also, I’m tired of the anecdotes rather than real analysis.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 3:47 pm ¶
lunanoire wrote:
Val, I also want real analysis:
1. current stats including all sexualities and states, since gay marriage isn’t legal nationwide;
2. current stats on unmarried, living together couples;
3. current stats on those who are single by choice, with questions probing deeply enough to determine whether they really think they have a choice;
4. current stats on married black women over 18. Where do they tend to live? In the suburbs? In rural areas? Are they deeply religious? What kind of spouses do they tend to have (personality, education, etc.)? Typical age of marriage? How much education do they tend to have? How often are they daughters of long-term coupled people? How did they meet their spouse? What kind of dating history did they have prior to marriage? What percentage of them are gorgeous and/or have less typical features (light skin, long hair, light eyes, etc.)? What percentage of them have a small/medium/large frame? What percentage of them perfer more traditional gender roles? What percentage prefer more egalitarian gender roles? And more ….
Anecdotes add flavor, but some people’s experiences ARE statistical outliers. This is not to invalidate anyone’s experience, but to shift the focus to broader patterns.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 4:13 pm ¶
Adrienne wrote:
Thank you yassibassu for bringing up comparing Black men to fictional characters and the point you made about commodifying.
I also think Black men should be included in the dialogue too. Hill Harper has a new book that adresses the complexities that making dating and relationships problematic for women and men in the Black community.
Somehow the thought of mainstream media offering their own spin of this makes me cringe.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 4:15 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
val, are you referring to the articles we did on the site or articles about this issue in general?
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 4:22 pm ¶
Versai wrote:
“I think that the values that these women developed over their lifetimes as they became “successful” (wealthy) and upwardly mobile is what spoils the ability to find a satisfying relationship, since you can’t order a custom husband from the manufacturer.”
Though articles like that target black, upwardly mobile women, I think it’s a mistake to believe that the husband/boyfriend as commodity attitude is a specific class one. Speaking strictly in stereotypes here: for every black woman with a college degree who is trying to “acquire” a man/husband because that’s the next thing on her “happy” checklist, there is the black woman without the degree who sees a man mainly as a puzzle piece for her financial stability.
(One of these stereotypical views may be more “acceptable” than the other, but the result is still the same–i think.)
We live in a society that is supposed to value heterosexual love/relationships and family, yet women and men are taught to think of each other as objects/acquisitions/things/conquests/etc–not as human beings.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 4:24 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
Good point about timetable. 29 seems too young to form conclusions about emptiness.
I have the book on order so don’t know whether it covers this analysis. Black women with bachelors degrees far outnumber black men with such degrees, and educated black women have closed the income gap with educated white women, per the JBHE. Given cultural tendencies of women across race (I think) to marry “up,” these numbers appear relevant. As Andrews appears to be focusing on the lives of college-educated with with “great jobs,” she is talking about the women in the JBHE study.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 6:46 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
I hit send too soon and didn’t fully state the JBHE finding:
“Educated black women outperform educated white women by a large margin, but black men with a bachelor’s degree still have incomes far below white men with a a similar level of education.”
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 6:50 pm ¶
Val wrote:
@Wendi
No, not the articles here on Racialicious. I’m talking about the pieces on this in the MSM. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. What I read here is the analysis that I like. I want more of it.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 7:12 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
I think that this is key–being sold the idea that a certain perfect life is obtainable simply by having all of the puzzle pieces/goals checked off. IMHO, the search for perfection never stops.
Exactly. Versai. You never know what life will throw at you. Your or SO may cheat, you or SO may get sick, you or SO may lose a job. Then what? Treating lifelong companionship as something to get done as opposed to a work in progress is a straight shot to divorce and/or mutual unhappiness.
I must say, this article came across as life imitating art…and by art I mean that chick-lit SATC-type shit. I know there is much more to Helena et al. than that.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 7:56 pm ¶
andrea wrote:
“This darker theme drives the fear behind narratives of singledom and success. ”
Yes, ladies, because if we don’t marry, or marry “up” or at least well, or if he leaves or cheats, then we are worthless, unlovable failures or worse- bitter bitches. Didn’t you know?
I actually do think that alot of us internalize this and do lose sight of our well being and our independence. And many of us get destabilized, depressed and paralyzed. Or find ourselves in awful relationships that looked so good ‘on paper’.
Which is why discussions like these on racialicious are SOOO important – to decolonize our hearts as much as our brains.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 9:34 pm ¶
m.dot wrote:
@yassibassu
You ask AWESOME questions.
Why do the men need to be black in the first place — why isn’t the emphasis on personal compatibility instead of race?
============
What are the structural forces that impact whether or not Black women choose to date non black men? What are the forces that impact our desire/willingness to date women?
Is it just that there isn’t a great enough population of black men in the upper middle class for black-preferring single black female professionals to find a connection with?
=====
What are the benefits or drawbacks of using a deficit model? Doesn’t this assume that Black professional men WANT/DESIRE Black professional women?
Is all this more a function of the alienation from self and community that capitalism/consumerism facilitates, so that even success within the context of material wealth and social mobility can result in a failure to be able connect with other human beings in a meaningful way?
=======
Capitalism requires that we feel both alienated from our work and each other.
What does Black women putting THEIR sexual and spiritual needs first look like?
Not the needs of their partners, their families, their jobs.
Ironic, we spend hella time telling low income black children to pull their pants up and to not be so loud, so that they should assimilate? For what? To be alienated in a 9 to 5. I don’t romanticize what it means to be impoverished in the wallet, but the time is ripe for a conversation about the social costs of assimilation.
The school/job/school sandwich is a lonely grind. I would imagine that MEN know this more than we do, based on the tight jacket of hegemonic masculinity, this will not be discussed. In fact, patriarchy forbids a conversation on it.
Posted 17 Dec 2009 at 11:33 pm ¶
Karen L wrote:
@PPR_Scribe, You wrote: There have been other times in the US when the relationship/marriage/childbearing status of Black women has been a focus of the wider society. Most often the reason for this focus has nothing to do with the concern for Black women …. Yet, once they have achieved what they are “supposed to,” they are not marrying and having one or two children ….
I really think that it’s no coincidence that partnering and childbearing is systematically difficult for middle- and upper-class BW and at the same time affluent WW are being highly encouraged to bear children. You can hardly pick up a “white” women’s magazine these days without finding an article that wags its finger at women who wait too long to have children, i.e., take fertility for granted. And heard of “three is the new two” and “competitive birthing?” I definitely associate those phrases with WW.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 2:02 am ¶
reality wrote:
@Seattle Slim (and others who have commented on this)
What struck me about Andrews was her materialism, which is an obsession with acquiring “possessions.”
She reacts to men, and even other women, as things, not humans.
This is why she is single.
______________
I disagree that this is why she and other women like her are SINGLE. I think there are women of all races/ethnicities for whom marriage is commodified and still get married. I do agree however, that it doesn’t mean they will be happy or that these marriages will last. More than likely they won’t given the divorce rate. Why there seems to be a NEVER MARRIED phenomenon among black women is the issue. I just don’t think educated black women want anything different than middle class women have ever wanted. Historically this has meant a man with a college degree, a good job, who comes from a good family, and for most Americans, someone with a shared culture. Why this is difficult for “successful” black women seems to stem from a complex set of circumstances and history that needs to be explored. There was a time not too long ago when it was ok for young women to go to college with the intent of finding a husband. But in the past ten years at least, the ratio of black women to men in college has been quite disproportionate. And the common desire and expectation to “marry up” (whether right or wrong) as someone mentioned, is less likely to be fulfilled for well-educatd black women. I’m glad that these issues are being explored here.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 6:39 am ¶
bdsista wrote:
m.dot writes: Ironic, we spend hella time telling low income black children to pull their pants up and to not be so loud, so that they should assimilate? For what? To be alienated in a 9 to 5.
well as a middle school teacher, we tell all kids to pull up their pants, cover their stomachs and not be loud (they are ALL loud in middle school) because they have to assimilate and learn middle class culture to make it in a middle class white oriented society. You don’t have to like it, but Algebra by 8th grade means you can take Honors and AP classes and are eligible for certain science and math and even english courses in high school, it means teaching them early how to look and dress when they apply for internships and summer jobs and have ACCESS to the opportunities that their white counterparts has as a part of privilege. Assimilation is not always fun, but you can assimilate in a job for 8 hours and be yourself outside of it depending on what satisfaction the job or the results of the job bring you.
Ok back on topic, this has been the best discussion on this article to date, I am also going to throw in the idea that for those who also ascribe to DuBois talented tenth ideology, that the advancement of the race suffers because those women who are able to offer the best to their children and rear them with the same advantages as their white peers, then we are looking at a whole future generation that will be lost or nonexistent because these black families will fail to exist. I have heard these comments in some convos but people don’t want to bring it up because they don’t want to seem elitist. But the dialogue is along the lines that more children in the black community seem to be born to the youngest, least educated andless financially stable women, as opposed to the more mature, educated, financially well off women and how does that impact us in the future? We don’t see that occurring at the same level in the white community.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 10:19 am ¶
Moni wrote:
Bdsista, I think a great number of these conversations ARE elitist. Its like the only women who matter or are truly deserving of happiness are the highly (ivy league) educated non-mothers. Those of us with non-ivy league pedigrees or with (god forbid) out of wedlock children are totally left out of the conversation. There is this sense of ” I am better than you, I have a degree and no kids; I know why no-one wants you, but I am deserving…” I face similar issues as the women mentioned in these articles, plus I am currently partially responsible for raising the next generation of African Americans (well, one of them). I would like to engage in the discussion, but every time someone lists off all the things that makes these women so successful, being childless is one of them. So I suppose having multiple degrees, my own place, a great job (well I will, lol) AND raising a child on my own makes me, and the many black women out there like me, LESS successful…and understandably less desirable…and definitely not even worth talking to or about…
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 11:39 am ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
@ Octglore #14 and #15,
As the JBHE stats suggest, it’s not that there aren’t enough black men gaining from a college education, it’s just that our female counterparts have progressed more financially in terms of closing the economic gap in pay that has historically plagued black men.
In a previous thread, I posted how my income changed from the time I met my wife until now, a few years into our marriage. I think Miss Andrews is “blaming” a certain population (black men) for a problem that not all of us are responsible for. Now, a black guy using/selling drugs or dating numerous women just because he can or a fraudster or a user? Throw those guys out of the equation for a moment, ladies, but the rest of the guys that you see at your office? Guys with college degrees? They are out here in corporate America full well knowing that even if they do a great job, they make a fraction of what their white peers do. And some of us can accept that, live with what we make, and make do with it. But what’s really effed up? Is having women of our race act as if they are “settling” for a black man that doesn’t make us much money when stats bear out that some of the things holding these men back are societal.
It’s just as superficial to do that, as a lady, than it is for a guy not to date a black woman because he wants long-flowing hair or a skinnier waistline or bigger boobs or lighter skin. In some cases, a lady can’t change some of those things to please a man. Conversely, a black man can’t change the fact that the powers that be won’t allow him to make what a similarly situated white man can earn to support his family. Did Miss Andrews ever give one single thought to that side of the equation? She’s being intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid. A “winter boo?” It’s a funny plot device for a movie, I get that. But she’s also got to realize that some people (white folks, included) are gullible and believe that this is true-to-life and ALL black women act this way.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 12:12 pm ¶
Eva wrote:
@reality:
“There was a time not too long ago when it was ok for young women to go to college with the intent of finding a husband. ”
I went to college during that time and I hope that time NEVER comes again. If you want to talk about neurosis and pressure, just go to a school where that was the main reason for going there. It’s NOT a pretty picture at all. I think that might have turned me off to getting married, seeing so many of my friends turn themselves inside out, like a pretzel, drop out of college to get married, then in two years many of them were divorced, two kids and no degree. Great.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 12:45 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
Girl, I’ve got two kids, previously divorced, but I am with a long-term SO, and we’re looking at getting married 4 years later lol. Oh goodness, when we do get married, our kid will be two lol.
Don’t you worry what others say. I often get that impression, but I just go on ahead and invite myself to the party. Not everything happened “in order” but I’m still doing just fine.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
Correction: previously married, now divorced
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 1:06 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
@Reality,
I agree with what you’re saying but at the same time, she seems to want to marry a walking degree that happens to breathe and has a phallus.
By her standards, I will be marrying down for a second time. My first husband was a piddly private in the Army when we got married. Neither of us had college degrees (although our language school pretty much qualifies as a junior college). He didn’t come from much. His mom was a hairdresser and they had previously been on welfare. She was a single mother and had a tough life on occasion.
Mr. Slim is very much blue collar (albeit with a certification/degree from a technical college).
It’s not about the kind of job/ degrees, and as I have gone through counseling it’s not about me either.
She’s looking at men through the lens she uses on herself, so she’s taking it out on others.
I wonder how much of this is bitterness because of her perception that because nothing’s been easy for her and she still made it, so therefore others must “get like her.”
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 1:13 pm ¶
metal mickey wrote:
I agree with some of the comments. Just because you have an Ivy League education and a great job, and you have good looks, doesn’t mean that you deserve a (wo)man. You have to deserve it by being a good person.
I agree to an extent because of our patriarchal culture men are intimidated by succesful beautiful women. However that is not the whole picture IMO personality plays a big part, as well as being in the right place at the right time. It seems from the comments that black women tend to narrow their focus on ‘a good black man’, I am not black or American so I do not understand the line of thinking. However I notice with a lot of South Asian women that they want to find a South Asian man with the same religion, similar families, similar values, good job, went to a good university, good looks etc. It strikes me that some of these criteria are important and some are not, and that maybe there could be more success acheived by broadening the horizon.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 1:43 pm ¶
PPR_Scribe wrote:
Karen L: Yes, there is an almost eugenics tinge to some of the mainstream interest in upper middle call, educated Black women’s lack of partnering and childbearing. It is an interesting perspective to examine this issue from.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 1:50 pm ¶
PPR_Scribe wrote:
*upper middle class*
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 1:50 pm ¶
deathblossom wrote:
*** Sorry, I pressed enter by accident. Stupid mobile.
I’m on my mobile, so forgive the lack of specificity, but I can’t be mad at these ladies for making a relationship seem like a “”material” thing because that’s how many of us have had to make it to where we are. I don’t think it’s that superficial and that it instead how some sacrifices have manifested. A lot of women, but especially black successful women, have to turn off the emotions to be accepted and respected by the peers and thus become more goal oriented. This ends up extending into the relationship realm, where people expect you to be more emotional and thus, more vulnerable to being hurt and used. I think women like Andrews have spent so long trying to avoid this that it’s now a problem when before, society basically offerred it as the only soltution. Basically, it’s a betrayal. I don’t think these women feel like they deserve it more so much as they feel that for all the hard work they did, they now deserve it less. They need to come to grips with the idea that as much as the world claims they like a successful woman, they still want her to act in a certain way and come back down to reality. Given the renewed emphasis on children, beating the biological clock, and now successful women wishing they’d skipped careers and had more babies, I don’t think 29 is too young. It’s actually kind of old. I live in MA and at 30, we have the highest average age of women having their first child.
So I find it wrong and unhelpful to sneer at them for what is really a society-induced defense mechanism, because it appears condescending. I do advocate some counseling to work through these potential issues, though.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 3:36 pm ¶
Mia wrote:
I think the possessions are things we acquire to compete with society. For the middle class woman these things are very important in assimilating. I think checking romance off their list means only one thing- they’ve never been in love, or felt as though they were in love. The media shows white first love as something you do at a young age, and for many black middle class women growing up in suburbs, that’s not necessarily a rites of passage. I think the deeper issue might be BW are not sure how to fall in love in today’s times. I mean who didn’t grow up watching Lisa Turtle on Saved by the Bell! No romance, some good friends, and plenty of parental expectations.
There are some funny, happy, outgoing, non-materialistic BW out there who are single. THese women are also told they don’t measure up to the black ideal. In plain text, happiness will only happen for these women when they stop caring. But that requires a person to restructure everything they’ve been taught as a child, and be willing to stand up- alone- and pursue life; And that’s not a black/ white issue, that’s a human issue.
We may get frustrated with these single sisters, but they are human- which means they have hangups, bad days, and for some- even worst personalities. When did having a great personality mean you didn’t deserve love. It certainly doesn’t for white women, so why would we relegate BW to being a bad match.
Is there love out there for BW in this situation. Yes, but it requires a few steps in another direction, that might make her ego a little less comfortable, and her friends and family much less responsive *read: proud*. Internet dating, blind dates, taking time to invest in the things that don’t make her money or appear successful, but make her happy- hobbies. Interesting enough, most of the girls I knew back home who did start a family at an early age, are in relationships, or find relationships quite easy to enter into. Ready-made families are being perceived as a sign of family values. Of course they aren’t men from Princeton, but if you saw them you wouldn’t care.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 5:13 pm ¶
octogalore wrote:
Phil @#24 — good point. It seems from the OP that Andrews didn’t suggest taking these institutional factors into account.
These stats (from same source) are interesting as well:
• Percentage of all black students enrolled in higher education in 1980 who were male: 43.8%
• Percentage of all black students enrolled in higher education in 2007 who were male: 35.2%
So, it seems like whereas in ‘80 the numbers of black men and women in higher ed were fairly similar, now there are 65% BW to 35% BM. As this is the population of women Andrews is talking about, these stats seem more relevant than the “opinionated” or “mean” verbiage Andrews uses in talking about herself and other BW.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 5:33 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
@ Octaglore,
I kid, I kid. But I’d be interested in the raw data. There might actually be more black males in college now by numbers than percentage. But maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part.
The percentages ARE down, but would you happen to have the raw figures? A school like UVa, for example, didn’t begin to admit blacks on a large-scale basis until 1971. That’s the year I was born. By the time the Class of 1994 got there, it was the first UVa class ever to have the children of UVa alumni in the student body which is a major milestone and accomplishment. That 23-year gap between when those youngsters graduated, got jobs, bought houses and had kids? That’s a mighty long time.
You’re looking at percentages between Tai and Randy and Tiger and Elin.
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 9:42 pm ¶
Paul Carrick Brunson wrote:
I was so moved by the WaPo piece on Helena that I produced a video response. I would love the feedback from the racialicious family (it’s work place safe): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1QElbYkPxY
Much luv!
Paul
Posted 18 Dec 2009 at 10:21 pm ¶
Nishani wrote:
I have to say I agree with many of the comments I’ve seen so far. However, I think if we draw back from the failures of this one individual to find a mate – because of personal flaw or not – there rests a larger (and it seems to me legitimate) question. Does the search for companionship really just boil down to having it all or the surface search for Prince Charming? Having a good job, traveling, and great friends lends itself to a life that is both fulfilling in career and personal development and just plain fun. However, to say one wants a companion that “fits you” does mean you have succombed to the fairy tale notions of finding the perfect commericialized, capitalist version of prince charming. Nor does it mean you dont appreciate the things you have because you want to have a partner – in life, for children, – whatever. For me that is the real issue at hand.
From my personal experience, I have dated men who were janitors, lawyers, and educators, etc. However, building relationships is a far stickier enterprise than how much of a check the guy has and if you both look right together at the office party. Locating someone who is intellectually, philosphically, politically engaging – I find is a difficulty many black women of ALL ages. This to me is the question that black women are faced with regardless if the person who is writing about the issue is crazy or not.
That being said, I dont think its important to sit around knashing teeth and throwing up our arms about the why of black women disproportionately being single. The question is what are the ways that we can challenge ourselves to step out of the box to explore options for ourselves. Does our mate have to be African American or can they be politcally attuned to issues of racial and economic justice. Do we have to have children or can we face the challenge of adopting. Do we have life partners or can we create a community who surrounds us and makes us feel included, loved, and cared for in such a way as not to leave a lot of space for lonliness. (because believe you me- you can be with a man and still be lonely). Can we accept the regular brother, who aint sexy, aint got a lot of money if he can have a conversation with our colleagues and be attractive because he treats us well (assuming looks is an important issue to you. Also let me note that not a lot of money does not translate to me as not being able to economically care for ones self- what I mean here is a man who simply doesnt make what you might make and can not go where you might be able to afford to go or do).
At any rate, crazy, self absorbed, mean chick or not, black women have some issues to face when dealing with the how, why, and search of finding a mate. Its a reality for many of us.
Posted 19 Dec 2009 at 3:55 pm ¶
Nishani wrote:
sorry my comment was so long!!!!
Posted 19 Dec 2009 at 3:56 pm ¶
brownstocking wrote:
I’m confused about this post, as well as Wendi’s post. What are we driving towards? I don’t feel we’re deconstructing anything significant.
In fact, it’s starting to feel like we’re jumping on the “DC Black Women Gots It Bad” bandwagon.
And we’re still getting “advice” that y’all assume we haven’t taken. This is Dating 101, people: hobbies, internet, fixups, other ethnicities, etc. Duh.
The question could about this “DC Black Woman” as representative of American BW, and how skewed that perception is. Those of us from elsewhere are unfortunately used to ATL, Chi, DC or NYC POC being the rep/focus shown on tv/in movies, but it’s still not OUR reality.
Posted 20 Dec 2009 at 1:14 am ¶
octogalore wrote:
Phil — yup, there are more black students by raw numbers now than 25 years ago (although I don’t have the exact figures). But that doesn’t change the fact that per the JBHW, there are almost twice as many BW as BW in higher ed. So to the extent BW of the population Andrews is talking about are looking for BM in their 20s, when they are either in college or grad school or post-school jobs, per those stats, whatever the raw numbers are, there will be almost twice as many BW as BM in those settings.
So based on the statistics alone, BW are faced with a more complicated decision in that regard, in that approximately half of them (taking into account the portion of BW who are not interested in men and any BM who may be with non-BW) will need to choose to look at men of a different race or educational background.
So anyway, point is that just looking at raw numbers illustrates some of the complications, without having to get into the judgments Andrews appears to be making about BW being “mean” or unreasonable.
Posted 20 Dec 2009 at 1:47 am ¶
octogalore wrote:
Sorry, typo, meant JBHE not JBHW.
Posted 20 Dec 2009 at 1:47 am ¶
delmar wrote:
I’m 35 single with a degree unhappy non-materialistic and have on occasion thought of suicide. Not all black women fit in the spectrum discussed here. I hate this type discourse because it doesn’t really represent ALL of us. Yeah, this article is highly elitist and polarizing to a fault.
Posted 20 Dec 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶
Nadra wrote:
Delmar, I’m sorry to hear that you’ve thought of suicide. Just want to let you know that you’ll be in my thoughts/prayers.
Posted 20 Dec 2009 at 7:12 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
@ Octoglore,
Maybe the lady in the Washington Post article is looking at the wrong age of black men, in general, if she’s looking at the twenty-somethings.
Even with a good degree from a great school, not everyone’s career takes off before 30. I “thought” when I got out of college, I’d be married by that point. Didn’t happen that way. Sure, it was depressing, but my career truly wasn’t where it needed to be, to my thinking, to be worthy of having a serious relationship on the marriage track. I didn’t want to be the guy that was married and couldn’t pull my weight.
My personal situation/career? It took almost 12 years after college to take off. I had to wait a lot longer than some of friends did. The women my age in college, most of them were married before 30 and then there’s the divorce monster. And the divorce monster doesn’t care how great a wedding was or how fabulous the husband dresses or if you vacation at Martha’s Vineyard, etc. Divorce doesn’t discriminate. It can hit any couple, any race, any socioeconomic strata, etc.
For the guys that are lotharios or playas or pimps, etc.? It’s easy to find a woman to bed down with or trick her into it, whatever the case may be. My friends and I always used to marvel at how many women we’d meet and we’d hear about the “crazy ex-boyfriend” stalking her and then come to find out, this fool’s got a NEW girlfriend and she wants to beat up the ex. It’s crazy.
Maybe some black ladies are just fed up with the whole scene and the demographics behind it and they’ve had “game” spit at them so much that all that noise makes it hard for a decent guy to stand out from the crowd.
Posted 20 Dec 2009 at 7:46 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
“You have to deserve it by being a good person.”
Oh, come on. Having a husband is a lot of things… but proof of character isn’t one of them.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/02/08/3558711-sun.html
Having a mate isn’t something that people “earn”, for better or for worse. Part of the anguish is caused by the feeling that some of these women have that they’ve earned it, and I don’t think the solution is in telling them that they chose the wrong set of flaming hoops to jump through. That, and black churches are full of a different group of women that have jumped through that set of hoops already and are still profoundly unpartnered.
A lot of advice to single women looking for husbands — specifically among blacks and evangelical Christians — says, in short, “improve yourself, but simultaneously, lower your standards”, or at least “make your standards much more amorphous and/or less commonly desired by other women” so that you’ll be more attractive to a larger amount of men than before, yet be simultaneously less selective than you were at the outset and accept dates with anyone who asks that doesn’t just ooze serial killer/sleazebag, because you don’t have any readily visible criteria regarding who’s “date material” anymore, everyone’s date material until they prove otherwise… during the date… which is kinda counter-intuitive… if a person goes on a big soul-searching endeavor and becomes a “better person” whatever that is, isn’t she going to naturally want a person even better than she originally did, therefore making her more selective? A moral equal, as well as an intellectual equal, as well as an attractiveness equal, as well as etc… a lot of male dating advice says “improve yourself, so you can afford to raise your standards accordingly”, but no such delicious morsels are waved in front of the woman seeking advice… only the hope that she may find some man willing to marry her and treat her kindly. Are many single women just masochists? If I were to pay $200 or so for a seminar, I’d want someone to tell me that I when I’m done doing what they say, Kal Penn and Rain are going to be fighting in the parking lot over my hand… but, I digress.
“Can we accept the regular brother, who ain’t sexy, aint got a lot of money if he can have a conversation with our colleagues and be attractive because he treats us well (assuming looks is an important issue to you. Also let me note that not a lot of money does not translate to me as not being able to economically care for ones self- what I mean here is a man who simply doesnt make what you might make and can not go where you might be able to afford to go or do).”
You meant “assuming looks aren’t important to you”, right? Because all of the pulled out chairs in the world won’t rearrange teeth for someone who’s concerned about the appearance of a mate, in addition to other qualities. Also, why are male physical desires considered sacrosanct – something to be worked around, by default – and female physical desires more likely to be considered frivolous and superfluous, despite the fact that women’s physical preferences are much less restrictive and standardized, already? In the long run, both genders get old and ugly, so why don’t they seem to get the same type of advice regarding mate’s looks?
Also, there’s more than shallowness involved when it comes to the commonly mentioned M.D. woman/janitor man combo. This scenario assumes that the guy is going to be totes fine with an imbalance like this that’s completely counter to traditional gender roles. Blue-collar folks being more religious and socially conservative in general, I don’t think that’s the case. But for some reason, you never hear what changes that that guy may have to make in his thinking/personal philosophy to make a relationship like that successful. If the guy does a job that demands a lot of physical labor that his heart’s not in/he doesn’t identify with strongly, the money’s not that great, turnover and competition for spots are high, society doesn’t hold people who do it in high esteem and that onus/burden on him to be the primary “provider for the family” is gone, he might just lose his taste for work – seen it happen. The man may demand that she overcompensate somehow for how her job has “hardened” her by making her work “double time” – she brings home the bacon and cooks it to replicate his domestic ideal. When gender roles line up with income, as they usually do, the lower earner usually voluntarily takes “career hits” in the form of staying home with kids temporarily or moving in the direction of the spouse’s promotion. Dude may not want to do either of these things, and may want the wife to do both to restore the natural order of things or “give him his turn/break.” If a woman is willing to compromise on her mate’s education and pay, but not more modern values that have been shaped by her class and educational background, she’s still going to have a difficult time finding a compatible blue-collar guy. I see a lot of that kind of thing… standards that look very expanded on paper, but not so much in reality, because the assumption is that attributes, experiences and beliefs don’t occur in clusters and influence one another…. like, “is not black but is attuned to racial/economic justice issues”… most black people live in the Deep South, very red states where race and political beliefs are highly correlated, blacks are the largest minority group by far, and social segregation is hella common. Adding that caveat is not likely to expand many peoples’ dating pool that much, if they share those circumstances. For many, it’s not all about money, it’s about education… a lot of women wouldn’t turn down a teacher. For many, it’s not about money, it’s about whether you chose your job or your job chose you — a lot of women wouldn’t turn down an artist or a musician who’s barely squeaking by, money wise.
Posted 21 Dec 2009 at 10:26 am ¶