|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 19, 2010 11:35:06 GMT -5
Shaniqua Prescott is quite the inverse of Akbar Williams. She insists that others look past her race and doesn't acknowledge affirmative action playing a part in where she is today, but she doesn't make any effort to conform...whatsoever. She wears her natural hair in various "funky" styles, gets offended when you misspell her unusual name, and even subscribes to several black woman stereotypes (such as occasional tardiness or spending too much time on personal calls). The more whitewashed Black higher-ups are somewhat embarassed by her and for her. She apparently takes pleasure in the fact that other people are uncomfortable around her and can be heard in an oft-repeated refrain of "yeah, but they can't say nothing, cause I'm good at my job, though!"
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 24, 2010 14:50:37 GMT -5
Fear of Commitment as a Relationship Strategy?
Oh, I done discovered some ish, ya'll. We all know about the classic male commitment-phobe (females do it too, but I need a pronoun for the rest of this piece, and "he" is it). This guy doesn't like titles, introduces you to folks as his "friend," and is interested in going with the proverbial relationship flow. Well, what's wrong with that? Glad you asked. I say, nothing at all. Until the the second part rolls around. Check the backstory
Part Deux
So Mr. Untitled also expects you not to date other people, marks a standing Friday night date on your calendar and has both your parents' Nextel chirp numbers in his phone. He may eventually start referring to you as his "girl," but is ready for a full-fledged fist fight when one of his boys inquires after you by the term "wifey." But as the weeks and months wear on, things begin to look a lot more relationship-like. In fact, you move in together (dual-signature lease and joint checking account not required). He occasionally reminds you that we're still just going with the flow that and that pressure to codify, formalize or God-forbid, legalize the relationship will not be tolerated. [/backstory]
Ok, so I was having late night coffee with a (male) friend of mine. Admittedly, it was very damn late at night, but being single and living alone prevents me from always noticing how things “look.” He got a call from his live-in girlfriend, whose voice I heard faintly on the other end. “umm ninja…you wanna tell me why the eff you ain’t in this house?” and so on. He calmly reminded her that he can be out at whatever hour he pleases given the fact that they are merely dating. Upon hanging up the phone, he turned to me and said, “Who she think she is? We’re not even engaged!” At the time, a nervous chuckle and a final gulp of my decaf au lait had to suffice, but upon further reflection, I thought to myself: Did that ninja just cite his own failure to commit as a justification for why he was breaking the (perhaps unspoken) rules? These folks share a household, and he’s pretending not to understand her right to be put off by his not informing her of his 1am whereabouts. Go figure.
An influx of similar examples came pouring into my mind. What about when the oft-repeated refrain of “but you ain’t my girl though!” which is designed to negate the other person’s right to be offended at some patently disrespectful behavior? Is this some super-secret Jedi crap that guys are doing now? Is this a way to reap the benefits of the woman’s commitment (i.e. Shorty is ironing clothes, packing lunches, and balancing your checkbook) without himself doing so (i.e. Homie is on cross-town movie dates at umpteen o’clock in the morning?). I think yes. And I find it to be hypocrisy of the highest order.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Aug 24, 2010 15:00:30 GMT -5
I'ma read the rest but I have to take a break after "nextel chirp numbers" Ill be back
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 24, 2010 15:10:01 GMT -5
LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Aug 24, 2010 15:10:15 GMT -5
Ok finished..
Honestly if the woman has accepted the arrangement then she must accept the arrangement. (all that it includes)
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 24, 2010 15:14:08 GMT -5
^^even if the man goes around changing the rules all willy nilly? i.e. one minute we're tight as leather pants, one minute you get to stay out all night with your homegirl?
|
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Aug 24, 2010 15:20:01 GMT -5
^^even if the man goes around changing the rules all willy nilly? i.e. one minute we're tight as leather pants, one minute you get to stay out all night with your homegirl? thats the thing ... he isn't changing the rules... he didn't say HE wasn't going to see anyone else. He said he didn't want YOU seeing someone else... He didn't say he wasn't staying out late.. He said he didn't like YOU staying out late. I think ladies sometime have the ill tendency to assume reciprocation .. not always the case. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 11:49:36 GMT -5
bump for Kyng.
mind ya'lls business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Aug 26, 2010 12:01:03 GMT -5
She was probably at the house the next night too. **shrugs**
People can only treat you bad to the degree you allow them to treat you badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Aug 26, 2010 12:02:38 GMT -5
^^even if the man goes around changing the rules all willy nilly? i.e. one minute we're tight as leather pants, one minute you get to stay out all night with your homegirl? thats the thing ... he isn't changing the rules... he didn't say HE wasn't going to see anyone else. He said he didn't want YOU seeing someone else... He didn't say he wasn't staying out late.. He said he didn't like YOU staying out late. I think ladies sometime have the ill tendency to assume reciprocation .. not always the case. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 13:33:14 GMT -5
ill tendency to assume reciprocation? from someone who shares a household with you and who has professed their love for you? What's ill about that?
and as for "that's the thing...he isn't changing the rules...he didn't say HE wasn't going to see anyone else" is that BS. Straight up.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 13:34:12 GMT -5
People can only treat you bad to the degree you allow them to treat you badly. lol @ how many people of both genders use this phrase to excuse trifling or patently disrespectful behavior toward their significant other. I think I probably just don't like for people to make their issues into other folks' issues. It's like: Dog, you were wrong. How you gonna holler out "well if she didn't allow me to..." looking for absolution? Grow up. |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Aug 26, 2010 13:50:06 GMT -5
I say that because regardless of how cliche' it may be, it's absolutely true. You can't control how someone else behaves.
That dude will continue to treat his live-in like that until SHE decides to changes the situation. Otherwise, why would he change?
Is it shitty? Yes. Is is immature? Maybe. Is is how this thang goes down? Unfortunately, yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Aug 26, 2010 13:56:02 GMT -5
ill tendency to assume reciprocation? from someone who shares a household with you and who has professed their love for you? What's ill about that? You're reasoning isn't ill per' se ... the assumption is ill... He may love you.. doesn't mean you're his girlfriend... ok.. you stay together but he has already told you we aint official.. the bottom line .. YOU AINT OFFICIAL.. you have accepted the terms to play house under an unorthodox arrangement... that has allowed him to justify foolywang... you want to prevent this.. don't accept the terms... and thats thing!! Who's denying its b.s.  Its total foolery but it is what it is.. homeboy got a nice arrangement with hella loop holes that his can logical justify... he can always go back to we aint official... as long as he knows that he has told you that.. he doesn't have to feel anyway about anything.. you the one abiding by the rules he set... *jordan shrug*... make better decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by ReignMan19 on Aug 26, 2010 13:56:48 GMT -5
That dude will continue to treat his live-in like that until SHE decides to changes the situation. Otherwise, why would he change? Exactly!!! |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 14:09:29 GMT -5
so...in my example, was the dude (who stayed out w/his homegirl despite having a live-in GF) wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Aug 26, 2010 14:16:31 GMT -5
Wrong? I don't know if I would go as far as to say that he was wrong but he's at least an asshole.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 14:28:36 GMT -5
why wouldn't you go as far as to say that he was wrong? Is there any circumstance where a person could be out, for leisure, essentially on a date with another person at 1am who purposely chose not to inform his live-in SO and yet still be in the "right"? #seriousquestion
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Aug 26, 2010 14:36:21 GMT -5
ill tendency to assume reciprocation? from someone who shares a household with you and who has professed their love for you? What's ill about that? You're reasoning isn't ill per' se ... the assumption is ill... He may love you.. doesn't mean you're his girlfriend... ok.. you stay together but he has already told you we aint official.. the bottom line .. YOU AINT OFFICIAL.. you have accepted the terms to play house under an unorthodox arrangement... that has allowed him to justify foolywang... you want to prevent this.. don't accept the terms... and thats thing!! Who's denying its b.s. Its total foolery but it is what it is.. homeboy got a nice arrangement with hella loop holes that his can logical justify... he can always go back to we aint official... as long as he knows that he has told you that.. he doesn't have to feel anyway about anything.. you the one abiding by the rules he set... *jordan shrug*... make better decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 14:47:20 GMT -5
ill tendency to assume reciprocation? from someone who shares a household with you and who has professed their love for you? What's ill about that? You're reasoning isn't ill per' se ... the assumption is ill... He may love you.. doesn't mean you're his girlfriend... ok.. you stay together but he has already told you we aint official.. the bottom line .. YOU AINT OFFICIAL.. you have accepted the terms to play house under an unorthodox arrangement... that has allowed him to justify foolywang... you want to prevent this.. don't accept the terms... Oh, I can most definitely dig it. Just wanted both sides of the discourse to be out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach on Aug 26, 2010 14:48:33 GMT -5
why wouldn't you go as far as to say that he was wrong? Is there any circumstance where a person could be out, for leisure, essentially on a date with another person at 1am who purposely chose not to inform his live-in SO and yet still be in the "right"? #seriousquestion If he doesn't see her as his significant other, he'll never be in the wrong...in his mind. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 14:50:11 GMT -5
@ Coach--to be fair, in the example, they are in fact BF and GF, they're just not engaged. Does that change your comment at all? If not, cool. Just wondering how a person can justifiably not "see her as his significant other" if they've already decided that that's what they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Aug 26, 2010 15:01:22 GMT -5
*pops out ovaries and puts them in a Ziploc on a nearby table*
The young lady is wrong. Why should being in a relationship preclude him from keeping the female friends he had or making new ones? So what if he was out at 1 AM? You left out the part about y'all playing spades naked so I assume that y'all were in fact just friends. Homegirl has trust issues and was acting out because of them. She was probably feeling like a fool staying in this arrangement with no commitment and him being out just kicked her insecurity into overdrive. She's wrong as hayle.
*replaces ovaries and leaves*
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 15:03:34 GMT -5
she was wrong for what, exactly? For asking him where he was in an impolite way?
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Aug 26, 2010 15:04:47 GMT -5
for questioning where he was period. Her tone wasn't really the issue IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 15:07:49 GMT -5
*trying very hard to imagine why one does not have the right to inquire after their live-in partner's whereabouts at any time of day, especially @ 1am*
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach on Aug 26, 2010 15:10:32 GMT -5
@ Coach--to be fair, in the example, they are in fact BF and GF, they're just not engaged. Does that change your comment at all? If not, cool. Just wondering how a person can justifiably not "see her as his significant other" if they've already decided that that's what they are. Sure it does, but dude's definition and interpretation of "significant other" is obviously different. But to be fair (and correct me if I'm wrong), didn't they enter the same household with the understanding that she wasn't "official" and they were just dating? Just cause you've established a title doesn't mean anything if they're "just dating." That was a set up from the jump. He manipulated the situation in his favor and she's just playing along with it. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Aug 26, 2010 15:11:47 GMT -5
because whatever that person can be doing at 1 in the morning can be done at noon. You either trust them or you don't. This is just how I run my relationship; doesn't work for everyone I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 15:20:03 GMT -5
@ Coach--to be fair, in the example, they are in fact BF and GF, they're just not engaged. Does that change your comment at all? If not, cool. Just wondering how a person can justifiably not "see her as his significant other" if they've already decided that that's what they are. Sure it does, but dude's definition and interpretation of "significant other" is obviously different. But to be fair (and correct me if I'm wrong), didn't they enter the same household with the understanding that she wasn't "official" and they were just dating? Just cause you've established a title doesn't mean anything if they're "just dating." That was a set up from the jump. He manipulated the situation in his favor and she's just playing along with it. Umm, as for the couple, they moved in together after they became BF and GF. So, presumably they had some tangible level of commitment, it just apparently didn't (in his mind) rise to the level of him having to inform her of his 1am whereabouts and in her mind, it did. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Aug 26, 2010 15:20:51 GMT -5
because whatever that person can be doing at 1 in the morning can be done at noon. You either trust them or you don't. I think some people would counter this comment with: either you have something to hide or you don't. |
|
Its total foolery but it is what it is.. homeboy got a nice arrangement with hella loop holes that his can logical justify... he can always go back to we aint official... as long as he knows that he has told you that.. he doesn't have to feel anyway about anything.. you the one abiding by the rules he set... *jordan shrug*... make better decisions. 