Thursday, February 17, 2011

Single by choice and what it means to me...

I’ve read the article from Tracy McMillian:

My reaction was to just roll my eyes & put the article in “the shyte that’s has nothing to do with me” & continue on my merry way in life. Then I saw another article & the talking heads have been going on & on & on about single women. And a married friend asked me why I'm still single.

So my answer was short & sweet: ‘I’m single by choice’.

‘All you single women say that. What does it mean?’, my married friend asked.

‘To me, it means I’m just not that desperate to have a man. I'm not willing to have a possible relatiohship suffer by settling for less than what I need in a partner.'

I’ll some of ya’ll a moment to let that sink in a bit some of you might not believe such an honest, rational answer from a single Black woman over 35 year old.

Now, singlehood sucks. Being a Black woman & single is like having the plague. Being a single Black woman over 35...might as well give up finding a man & invest in sex toy stocks. But that's not a the truth of being Black, single & over 35, as much as the talking heads want women to believe it & act accordingly so they can cry themselves a river of despair.

The idea of settling down just to have a partner makes many self actualized women run screaming. Oh wait, you never heard of self actualization?

Really good concept that more people should edcuate themselves on…makes me wonder why it’s not thought in high school but that’s another blog post: Basically, it means that once the basic needs are met-food, clothes & shelter-that person can concentrate on other needs/desires that being them fulfillment.

So you have a single woman, say…me. I have the basics covered so as I go through the world in search of a partner, I fulfill desires that I have to reach the full potential of my human self. Take classes, travel, invent the 1st hands free dreadloc re-twister (I really, really wish) but I think you get the point. None of these things negate my search for a partner. If anything, it heightens my value to a potential partner as an asset in their life.

But that’s not what the McMillans & the like seem to think.

They say single woman are shallow, bitchy, too picky or have high standards. Single women are angry from their past relationships that didn't end in marriage. Single women are sluts that fuk any willing & available man. Single women lie or have fake personalites. I call big, funking smelling bullshyte on each.

So shaming woman out of spinsterhood is the thing now? Think that’s going to help us off the shelf?? If anything, it makes singles want to super glue themselves to the damn shelf.

Like many woman that are single by choice, I know my preferences when it comes to men & I stick to them, PERIOD. And I have been called shallow & a bitch many, many times by men, Black men especially. This is how it usually works out in my experience:

I don’t feel men with boobs sexy & don’t want a man with boobs involved. Men are built with pecs, not boobs. Man with boobs approaches me, I politely reject his interest but I’m a bitch or shallow for rejecting the man with boobs because I'm single, Black & single & we should just be happy to be talked to.

Get the fuk outta here!!! I could be mean or hurtful & say what I really think of being approached by a guy with tits bigger than mine but I don’t; I’m polite, I have manners & use them every day. But as a single woman, a Black single woman at that, I’m suppose to feel grateful that some guy with a pair of DD shows interest in me?? Again, get the fuk outta here!!!!

What some of these talking heads seem to forget is everybody has preferences or standards. Some single women have realistic standards (yes, realistic standards…you didn’t read it wrong…it does happen) & won’t stray from that because they know, most likely from experience, that the possibility of settling below that standard won’t make for a good, long term relationship.

What’s a realistic standard? The man boob story says I like fit men, not fat or obese men but fit-as in non gluttonous or unhealthy. Here’s a few more off my own list:

• Gainfully employed in some way. Either as an entrepreneur or city working sanitation, it’s called again, gainfully employed.
• A good sense of personal style. (I hate having to re-dress a man. Dressing myself is a damn nightmare then I have to dress a man? Come on, Son.)
• Intelligent & not just book smart but practical knowledge of various current & past topics/events so the guy doesn’t have to google every word out my mouth.
• Have & show feelings like compassion, consideration, generosity, tolerance. The brooding, silent male types I have no patience for. My usual reaction is to pull up a box & scream-‘Pull the stick out your ass & be a human being!’
• Knows their self worth. When a man knows he’s the shyte & by his actions shows he’s the shyte, (without being shallow, needy or a complete asshole)the confidence of his character(not swagger) makes me point at him & say ‘that’s the shyte I need in my life & what do I have to do to make it happen?!?!’

Still giving me the side eye look? Well how about this: would you rather be single ‘doing you’ & getting yourself ready for a partner or involved with a man you don’t like/aren’t sexually attracted to because he’s not your type/treats you poorly by bashing your self worth at every turn/ isn’t attentive to you or your desires/makes you miserable with his cheating, abuse, etc?

How many times have married or non-single women come crying their blues to their single girlfriend(s) about how their man treated them so badly or caused them a sleepless night by acting like a complete ass just to have to the same woman go back to the worthless ass because they don’t want to be alone??

Or better yet, how many times have a married or non-single women have run to their single friends, laughing & proud, about how they just schemed or abused the man in their life in some way to get what they wanted & that the guy would never leave her??

Naw, I’m worth more than that. The man I’d want in my life is worth more than that.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Stay the heck outta my womb!!!

Right off the back, I’m pro-choice. Yes, I said pro-choice. I like having reproductive right in this country. And being a woman of mixed heritage-Indigenous Indian, American Black & Bermudian Black, any type of government involvement where my body is concerned makes me very, very hostile.

As for my views on abortion, I don’t have any. To me, it’s between The Most High God (by whatever name you call It) & the couple making the choice, PERIOD. Costs & whether or not it’s morally right means nothing to me because it’s not my choice to make & I don’t want to influence anyone on such a personal choice, PERIOD.

So I finally read the HR #3 bill. If you haven’t yet, here’s the summary. It can be found on

Official Summary
1/3/2011--Introduced.No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.) Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion, including any medical deduction for such amounts or any credit for such an employer-sponsored plan. Prohibits the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District. Provides that such prohibitions shall not apply to an abortion if:
(1) the pregnancy is the result of forcible rape or, if the pregnant woman is a minor, incest; or
(2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician. Makes such prohibitions applicable to District funds. Creates a cause of action for any violations of the abortion provisions of PPACA. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of such provisions by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief, including an injunction or order preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until the prohibited conduct has ceased. Gives standing to institute an action to affected health care entities and the Attorney General. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to receive, investigate, and refer to the appropriate federal agency complaints alleging a violation of PPACA abortion provisions.

Now, from what I’m reading, they, those that proposed the bill, don’t want federal funds to pay for abortions. Oh, suddenly people worry about the tax payers money. Why did I have to fund a war for the 8 long ass years under Bush Jr.?? I sure as hell didn’t want to go to war with some little country. No national debate on that now was there?? (Sorry, back to point…) Funding abortions with tax payer money…current stats of abortion from the Census Bureau-

Looking at the stats, seems abortions are going down. White women still get more abortions than Black women & other nonwhite women so why the bill in the 1st place? Are the newly elected government officials really concerned about tax payer money or is it lobbyists? Well, here’s where the money trail...

Interests that support this bill:
• Christian Conservative
• Republican/Conservative
• Abortion policy/Pro-Life
• Churches, clergy & religious organizations
Top recipients for ALL supporting interest groups
Name Amount Received Vote On Passage
Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2]
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6]
Rep. Tom Graves [R, GA-9]
Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23]
Rep. Allen West [R, FL-22]
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]
Rep. Tim Huelskamp [R, KS-1]
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R, SC-3]
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4]
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44]

Sen. Patrick Toomey [R, PA]
Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV]
Sen. Marco Rubio [R, FL]
Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC]
Sen. John Thune [R, SD]
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH]
Sen. Mark Kirk [R, IL]
Sen. John McCain [R, AZ]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Specific Organizations Supporting H.R.3
• American Family Association
• National Right to Life Committee
• Susan B. Anthony List
• Family Research Council
• Priests for Life
• United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
• Concerned Women for America
• Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles
Interests that oppose this bill:
• Democratic/Liberal
• Women's issues
• Abortion policy/Pro-Choice
Top recipients for ALL opposing interest groups
Name Amount Received
Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23]
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1]
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13]
Rep. Judy Chu [D, CA-32]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5]
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5]
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8]
Rep. Terri Sewell [D, AL-7]
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1]

Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO]
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA]
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY]
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA]
Sen. Chris Coons [D, DE]
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D, CT]
Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV]
Sen. Al Franken [D, MN]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY]
Specific Organizations Opposing H.R.3
• National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
• Planned Parenthood Action
• NARAL Pro-Choice America
• National Council of Jewish Women
• Reproductive Health Technologies Project
• National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
• Catholics for Choice
• American Civil Liberties Union

Just by who's paying who, you can see were the lines are drawn. But at what cost to women? Don't we have say about what happens to our bodies & our taxes? Where's the public debate?? And really, what's next to unfunded?

During the Bush Jr. terms, agencies that give aid to foreign countries weren’t allowed give out information about family planning or abortions. For those that don’t know, family planning is birth control; you know condoms, IUD, etc. In some of those same countries, marriages for girls started as young as 12 yrs old & they were having babies. In some of those same countries, women were being raped & killed by the those in power. Is that fair or even humane?? And it seems those that sponsor the bill want US women taxpayer to have the same limitiation on their rights...I don't think so.