If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em?

So I’ve been reading Steve Harvey’s latest book lately and his discussion on standards makes me feel like I need to throw mine out the window rather than to keep them. He claims that if you lay your standards out on the table a guy will respect you more and go that extra mile to get you, but in my experience guys hit the ground running. They say if you can’t beat them, join them and I’ve been wondering if this saying ought to be followed when it comes to dating. I consider myself to be a beautiful, intelligent, sophisticated young lady who knows what she wants and how to get. And I don’t think I’m too picky when it comes to men- I mean I don’t really care if you look like Idris Elba, David Beckham, or even if you don’t have the sexy British accents they do. As long as you can respect me and my many wild opinions about stuff; and can hold a decent conversation with me we’re good to go. So why does it seem like finding these men is like finding a needle in a haystack? No wonder women fight each other over them!

The guys I’m finding think a decent conversation involves talking about sex, drugs and liquor, which I guess is to be expected when the first words they say to you upon meeting your acquaintance is “yo, Ma what’s your sign?” Can I get a “hello, my name is so and so, what yours?” Can I get a convo about politics? Current events? Football? Something intellectually stimulating?

Over the years I’ve dated a few different guys who’ve all shared similar characteristics, and now that I’m older and wiser I prefer my men to be as well. And sure, I’ve got some new standards- like no gold teeth, no drugs, and above all you’ve gotta have an education, but are they really that unreasonable that I can’t find anyone who meets those requirements?

What I am finding however is a whole bunch of men who don’t meet my standards. A whole bunch of rude, uncultured, selfish, stupid men whose only mission is to use women. Or, if I find a half decent guy, he’ll ruin it by saying something like “don’t be expecting anything from me.” I’m not asking for a week in the Caribbean once a month or anything that extravagant. But can I get invited to a nice restaurant (without a dollar menu)? A night at the theatre (for a play not a movie)? An afternoon at the museum (of fine arts not science)? A day of something “adventurous,” like a hike or rockclimbing? A picnic at the park? Something out of the ordinary?

Is it better to just sell yourself short and settle for less because it’s readily available, or is Steve right about holding out on the hope that there’s somebody out there worth waiting for?

Diggin’ For Gold

So, one of my friends said something today that reminded me of a topic I’ve been meaning to write about- gold diggers. Nope, I’m not talking about those who participated in the 1849 Gold Rush, I’m talking about the nickname men have created for women, and the song Kanye West dedicates to us. How sweet of them. My friend said something to the effect of “I don’t really like to spend a lot cuz women are gold diggers.” I’m torn because I support both men and women in this issue, and there are several definitions for the term. I support men in that women shouldn’t use men for their money. That’s actually degrading to me because I’d rather work and make my own money rather than use you for yours. However, I know a lot of men who use their women for money, too (my friend, who stated the above quote can also be quoted as saying “I need a rich woman. Don’t care about anything, white, black, whatever. Just rich, why marry down when I can marry up?”) We seldom hear them being called gold diggers so what’s up with the double standards?

Another point that’s somewhat related is Steve Harvey’s mention of the term gold diggers in his book Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man. He says something like gold digger is a term men created to keep women from demanding the financial support they deserve from a man. i.e. if men call a woman a gold digger she’ll feel bad asking him for child support money for her child or something to that effect. I half agree, again in support of both men and women. Sure men should take care of their children, but to create a term that gets you out of doing so is stupid, and ineffective cuz women who really need the $ for their children will demand it anyways. So this allegation makes men look stupid, assumes women are stupid, and is just eh. I get his trying to support woman in that chapter, but he could’ve done a better job.

Now back to my friend’s comment. This presents quite a paradox. If women expect a man to pay for dinner on a date you don’t like her cuz she’s being a gold digger (last time I checked it had something to do with chivalry, but perhaps that really is dead). But if a woman offers to pay or at least go Dutch (which reminds me, where’d this saying come from? Do they do this In the Netherlands or something, I’m confused) she’s acting all independent like she doesn’t need a man so you don’t like her. Either way, Steve Harvey’s assertion that men want to provide for us is incorrect, cuz if men wanted to provide for us they would be happy to pay for our dinner/movie ticket & popcorn/etc without callin us a gold digger.

And this brings me to another point- why are we still called gold diggers if we don’t ask for anything? For example, I don’t ask for much in a relationship. On the contrary I’ve always been dumped for the demanding ones. I’m fairly easy to please, I don’t ask for diamonds from Tiffany (or diamonds from anywhere else at all because of what child miners in Sierra Leone go through, but that’s another story; plus I’m completely ignorant of diamonds and honestly couldn’t tell the difference between a cubic zirconia and a diamond) or for Roberto Cavalli anything. I just buy myself what I want. This is viewed as my being “an independent diva who doesn’t need a man” and that’s not fair.

I’m not saying I don’t need a man in the sense of not wanting one cuz I wouldn’t mind havin’ one, but I don’t need one in the sense of my car note won’t get paid unless my man gives me money to do so, and if he’s gonna call me a gold digger cuz he doesn’t want to have to pay my car note or anything for me then yeah in that sense I don’t need a man cuz either way my car note’s not getting paid, right?

This presents a problem for women. Statistically, some of us are starting to make more money than men because more of us getting graduate & professional degrees than men are. So because we choose to keep going to school to make more money because we still don’t always get paid equally in the 1st place, and have to deal with men who don’t feel they should spend money on women, we STILL can’t catch a break?

This whole “you’re a gold digger, I’m independent” nonsense is taking away the intimacy, love, and mutual respect in a relationship and is replacing it with greed, competition, resentment, ultimatums, and all types of negative energy. What men and women need to accept is that we need each other, literally. We can’t procreate without one another (at least not the way God intended), and together we just make the world go ‘round. Why can’t we just give to each other and support each other without all the name calling? Isn’t it better to give than to receive?

I would love nothing more than to work because I want to not because I have to, and if it’s cuz a man is taking care of me financially then so be it. I don’t think that makes me a gold digger (and isn’t that what the Bible intends?) but “Unfortunately,” I don’t have a man at the moment, so pass me a shovel- I’m digging for my own gold.