Send to friend
Barack and Michelle Obama might be the perfect couple, but women need to think about cutting their guys some slack—even if they don’t show up in a bulletproof limousine.
Like just about everyone else last week, I read “What Single Women Can Learn From Michelle”—Jenée Desmond-Harris’ sista grrl power manifesto—with keen interest. After all, I’m just as concerned as the next guy with staying up on what “successful black women, with college degrees, ambitious careers and five-year plans” are really thinking.
I ought to be—for 10 years I’ve been married to a woman who fits that exact description.
You can’t argue with Jenée’s thesis: her coterie of pedigreed, upwardly mobile black women have to dig deeper for unseen potential if they’re looking for “Mr. Right.”
But if Barack Obama Part Deux is what it’s going to take to satisfy them, then her advice is going to leave a lot of women single as hell.
Personally, I blame Dwayne Wayne. Those endless reruns of your favorite episodes of A Different World get y’all completely twisted when it comes to evaluating a potential mate. But that’s beside the point. Here are a few tips to straighten things out:
Stop comparing regular guys to Barack Obama.
I can only speak for myself—I’m biracial, went to some pretty decent schools and spent most of my 20s in a cramped bachelor pad—but that’s where the comparisons to Barack Obama end. There’s nothing cool or Kravitz-esque to see here—I’m the other kind of mixed guy, in need of a tan and a fade. Picture Benjamin Jealous after six weeks on Survivor.
If my wife had held me to the presidential standard, I would have never had a chance.
There’s nothing wrong with admiring Obama’s style, but if he’s “the black Prince Charming ideal” that women are saving themselves for, then it’s pretty much a wrap.
Hopefully every woman finds a successful, well-rounded life partner. But if any of you are holding out for a future U.N. high commissioner who’s also won an Olympic bronze in tennis, makes sushi at home and DJs at his own club on weekends, you really need to get a grip.
Stop comparing Barack Obama to regular guys.
There’s an alternate universe out there where Obama is a polo-playing, Zen Buddhist neurosurgeon who dates Tamron Hall and hollers at Lebanese pop singer Elissa on the side. But no one’s going to vote for that guy, so the real Obama—the Punahou Playa—has to dial it way back, and the press room pimp stride is all that’s left over.
And know your own limitations, ladies. I mean, you’re intelligent and sexy and all, but unless you’re a female equivalent to the Dos Equis guy—the most interesting woman in the world who smells like Chanel No. 5 24 hours a day—accept the possibility that it’ll take more than pilates and a master’s degree to snag the next Barack Obama.
Stop looking at his checkbook and start updating your playbook.
Just because a man can “afford” to pay for $15 apple martinis doesn’t mean he wants to. Sometimes the guy buying rounds of shots is on his third bankruptcy, and the guy drinking $2 Miller Lights owns three rental properties.
We’ll do what we have to do to get your phone number, but in case you hadn’t noticed, there’s a recession going on. If you start sizing up a man for all he’s worth right now, you’re letting him know up front that if things get too far, he’s on the hook for a three-karat rock and a mortgage on a beach house in Oak Bluffs. And if he knows that already, he might flee.
Start paying attention (and maybe get your eyes checked, too).
Apparently, Ms. Desmond-Harris and her girlfriends have spent a good portion of their eligible bachelorette years crossing brothas off their lists for such Poindexter-ish infractions as appearing to be “someone who would like Star Trek.” They’d even drop kick Obama for his (alleged) law school era “hint of goofiness.”
That’s a damn shame, ladies.
Whatever else you do, you don’t write someone off because he’s still hanging onto those gold lamé Hammer pants—you never know when they’re going to make a comeback.
True—guys go for looks first and fill in the rest later. But by the same token, we’re not letting a winner slip past us just because her ponytail is tucked up under a ball cap.
For example, I happened to go to college with Sanaa Lathan (really). I didn’t know her, she didn’t know me, and I had no idea she’d wind up being a movie star—but if I saw her on campus in a pair of sweats with no make-up on I could still see that she was fine.
Pay attention, ladies.
It’s beyond our comprehension how a woman could sit next to a future Barack Obama in class for a semester and conclude that he’s a scrub because “he drank hot chocolate instead of coffee.” Seriously—is this what we’re up against? Because that hot chocolate order can get changed to a no-whip white mocha real fast if you know what I mean.
Start dating white, Asian and Latino men.
And while we’re on the subject, how about trying Something New?
Not into white guys? That’s too bad because I’d be willing to bet that Bill Clinton has dated more black women than Barack Obama.
Black women hoping for a monopoly on black men have to realize that they’re like General Motors in a Toyota world—either develop your own hybrid technology or prepare to go out of business.
The bottom line: Single women should avoid using Barack Obama’s résumé as a job description for a position they’re trying to fill or treating their next boyfriend like a prospective applicant.
Life’s not a Destiny’s Child video, you’re not Beyoncé, and the cat who just scooped your McFlurry isn’t Prince Akeem. So if a man (or woman—hey, it’s 2009) meets 83 percent of your criteria and you still let him pass you by, just keep that in mind when the next Michelle Obama gladly takes him and his corporate, grad school-impaired game off your hands.
David Swerdlick is a regular contributor to The Root.
Comments
Straight to the point and keeping it totally real, honestly ask yourself if YOU have most or all of the same qualities (and assets) you seek in someone else as a mate.
Too often, many of us hang-on to shallow, superficial, false or trendy standards and never stop to realize that even we don't measure-up to what is desired in a possible good and lifelong mate — or, as my grandmother always said: "Some grow-up, others just grow older."
As for the many relationship games (perpetrated by both Black men and women), and finding the so-called ideal mate: The best way to win the game is to STOP playing it.
Lastly, how many will admit they didn't or wouldn't give a so-called ordinary or plain 'Sista' or 'Brotha' a second look until they were seen strolling with someone other than a Black mate?
Again, "Some grow-up, others just grow older" — sometimes alone, lonely and/or still unfulfilled.
Dennis Moore — Publisher — http://www.POTUSworld.com — ppceo@potusworld.com
Thanks for the response.
There may have been some misunderstanding about what I meant. (This may be my fault, as I may not have proofread sufficiently after editing out a lot of other things that I originally wanted to say.)
When I said, "If a woman isn't bringing anything to the table on a 'Michelle' level (by which I mean, coming to the table offering something commensurate with what she expects from a partner), is it reasonable/fair of her to hold every potential mate to a 'Barack' standard?," I wasn't referring specifically to the Type-A professional women. I included the parenthetical so that "Michelle" and "Barack" in the analogy can be defined as qualities other than educational and socioeconomic attainment. My point was that, whether inside or outside of the professional context, women (people really) have expectations of their partners that may not hold of themselves, or that they may not be frank in their self-perception.
Even in the professional context, though, I do think that Swerdick is making a point about what women bring to the table, which is why he says,
"And know your own limitations, ladies. I mean, you’re intelligent and sexy and all, but unless you’re a female equivalent to the Dos Equis guy—the most interesting woman in the world who smells like Chanel No. 5 24 hours a day—accept the possibility that it’ll take more than pilates and a master’s degree to snag the next Barack Obama."
The original article doesn't quite say that women aren't bringing that much to the table, but it does make the following point:
"And let’s be fair. We expect men to resist what society tells them about ideals when it comes to us—God, help the brother who admits a preference for skin or hair displayed on every magazine cover; or the arrogant fool who holds out for his own Clair Huxtable, not acknowledging that The Cosby Show was fiction. We’re justifiably upset when unrealistic standards are imposed on us, but many of us don’t seem to give black men any breaks in return when it comes to the superficial."
All this is to say that it doesn't seem reasonable to get upset about men's superficial deal-breakers but hold that a loosening one's one's own deal-breakers constitutes "settling." Or that it's unfair of a professional man to compare every potential partner to his mental image of Claire or Michelle (and thus lament when, in his own mind, he can't find any "good black women"), but okay for women to hold men to such a standard. (Of course, I'm not talking about you specifically, but just about this kind of mentality.)
______________________________________
On a related note,
I think that the big problem with a lot of these discussions about the SBW situation is that there are really (at least) three different issues: (1) the general problem of BW/BM ratios; (2) whether professional women should date men with lower educational/professional attainment; and (3) whether professional women like Desmond-Harris' friends have reasonable expectations when it comes to professional/highly educated Black men. (There's also the interracial issue which this article briefly mentions.) In this discussions, though, they tend to get garbled together, so a point that related to one context ends up being transplanted to another.
For example, a lot of the commentary on both articles has focused on the first two categories, while the original article seemed to be largely about the third. If you go back and read the first piece, she says almost nothing about whether the professional woman with multiple degrees should date the garbageman or the mail room guy; for the most part she simply suggests that maybe women in the situation that she's describing shouldn't dismiss the guy (with professional credentials) who drinks hot chocolate rather than coffee or who's pants are a little short. (This article seems to follow the first's emphasis on the third question, but also seems to incorporate some of the other two a little.)
"While some men might seek to use the crutch that you mentioned, I don't that this is what Swerdlick had in mind. Simply put, just as women have expectations of the men that they want, men have expectations of women. If a woman isn't bringing anything to the table on a "Michelle" level (by which I mean, coming to the table offering something commensurate with what she expects from a partner), is it reasonable/fair of her to hold every potential mate to a "Barack" standard? I think that that's all he was saying. Given that at least some of the women looking for a "Barack" definitely aren't "Michelles," I think that this point and his explanation are apt."
@Helagramki
But where in either article did the authors allege that "type A" black women weren't bringing as much to the table as Michelle for potential Baracks? I don't think that point has been made in either of the two pieces. If anything, these past two articles seem to suggest that "type A" black women should be more open minded to the thought of taking up with black men that DON'T match their credentials. Last week's piece seemed to allege that there was an abundance of potential Baracks just waiting to be refined by "type A" black women, if only those women would let them. This week's article uses several different tactics to push the exact same agenda and reiterate the initial point of goading "type A" black women into reconsidering their criteria. Instead of there being an overlooked surplus of potential Baracks (like in last weeks piece), now, there's not only a dearth, but according to Swerdlick, it's unfair to hold "regular guys" to such a standard anyway (which is really ironic considering that there seemed to be plenty of potential Baracks to go around when black women were being called out last week).
If a "type A" sistah passes over a "not so type A brotha" then according to Desmond Harris, that brotha is an untapped reservoir. If after entertaining Desmond Harris' premise, that "type A" sistah reaches a breaking point and tells the "not so type A" brotha that he needs to call Tyrone, then according to Swerdlick, that's unfair because the "type A" sistah had no business comparing a "not so type A" brotha to Obama anyway, because that brotha was just a "regular guy." I think what we have here with these two articles is a case of "same ish, different day." Oh yes, the devices used to make the case may differ a bit, but it's still the same ish on a different day.
SanFran96,
That's one way of looking at it. But I suspect that the author's point is that many women are looking for a man who's already Barack 2.0, even though (1) Michelle herself fell in love with Barack when he was version 1.0, and (2) many women looking for Barack 2.0 are no "Michelles" themselves.
I agree with much of what was written but disagree with his statement that women shouldn't compare brothas to Barack. Women can learn a lot from Michelle. We see the Obama's as the ultimate successful couple, but how about when they met 18 years ago. Back then he was a struggling, poor, community organizer, driving a beat up old car with a hole in the floor on the passenger side, while she was a successful attorney making six figures! Yet she dated and eventaully married him. I don't think he said, 'just wait, one day I'm going to have you living in the White House.' Men should compare themselves to Barack because it teaches us to have ambition, be intelligent, well educated and find a partner who accepts you for who you are. Women can learn from Michelle by not judging a book by it's cover. How many sisters with Michelle's background would have accepted Barack 1.0, very few. The first couple are fantastic role models and finally for once they're ours.
Black woman are constantly stating what they are looking for in a potential mate. However, women fail to ask if they are the right person for what they are looking for? In order to find the right answer to that question, women need to understand that what men and women are looking for in an ideal mate is totally different. Let’s break this down. If you want an Armani shirt, it may cost you 100.00. If you want a footlocker t-shirt, it will cost you 5.00. The more requirements that one has, the more it is going to cost you. People work the same way. If you want a tall, handsome, educated brother that has a great job and is doing well for himself: It is important to understand that he understands his value and desirability level. This “Ideal guy” is probably going to choose a very beautiful younger woman. (Read my previous comments). Now it works both ways, a very beautiful woman may be high maintenance. I think women should be more realistic and understand that a woman’s physical beauty and youth plays a very important role in what “Mr. Ideal” desires. Successful men go after beautiful women who support them emotionally and have their back. Bottom line, that one needs to ask, if you want the "Ideal Black Man": Do you have the youthful beautiful looks and shape to get him? I know this sounds messed up or superficial, but it is true of allot of single “Mr. Ideal brothers” in their 30’s and 40’s. If you are going to be super picky, “Mr. Ideal” is going to size you up accordingly.
I really like your comment. Instead of arguing or providing the angry response to other people’s comments, you did just the opposite. You provided a comment based on a person being more objective and open minded. So many people are being too picky because they size up people to others instead of finding out what makes this particular person unique. The best thing about God's world is that we are all unique and have different personalities and dreams. You know that you are on another level of maturity when what you find attractive in your partner is the things that make him unique from other people.
Thanks
This advice from a lady that has 27 years of Married life under my belt. "Everything that glitters is not gold!" You have to talk to people find out things about the person, (Not just if he/she is good in bed) . It may take more that one conversation to get to know a person really well. Make people your friend first. Many who start out as friends turn into great lovers. Everything today is quick! Slow your roll! My Grandmother gave me the best advice I know! "Don't be so in a hurry to love a man, let the man do the loving!" When a man loves a woman he will give you the world!
Not to toot my own horn here, but I am one of those educated, well-traveled, attractive types of woman and I'm proudly in a relationship with one of those intellectual, Star Trek-loving types. We met as freshman in undergrad and I will admit that as an 18 year old who grew up around the thuggiest of thugs who wore their pants low and their their macchismo on there sleeves, I was hardly attracted to him. Though he was a tall, broad-shouldered young man, he lacked the thuggish swagger and brute confidence I had come to view as the epitome of manhood. Ha, and then I grew the hell up. The more I got to know him and the more I matured, I came to realize that he had his own style, his own unique swagger. And what I used to idealize as manhood I came to realize was a childish, one-dimensional caricature based on my experiences growing up (sans father).
Now, perhaps my story is a little different because, though you'd never know it from just looking at me, I'm just as big a geek at heart as my man. I love Star Trek, Tolkien, video games, etc. I had to grow up and realize that in order to find that "soul mate" I would have to accept certain things about myself as well as redefine what manhood meant to me. And as an adult in a long-term relationship with my partner, manhood isn't defined by money (though some kind of aspiration is a necessity), swagger or shiny things. Manhood is an acceptance of your humanity, a need to strive be a better person (and not necessarily defined by wealth), respect for the human condition and most importantly for me, a heartfelt conviction that women are your equals. It is this formula for selecting a partner that has brought a series of wonderfully interesting, earnest, creative and intelligent men in my life.
So no, I don't think that hunting for the next Obama is realistic or even healthy. Its just as bad as going after a man purely for his money---it's narcissistic, narrow-minded and frankly, shows a distinct lack of self-awareness.
As an aside, by opening my mind and heart to men outside of the childish, simplistic parameters I set for myself at 16, I have been in relationships with black men, Asian men and a white man---and the one thing they all had in common, no matter how vast the cultural differences, was that they respected me.
Preach Patra!!!
Great response.