British College Students Protest Tuition Hike in the U.K. – So What are American Students Waiting For?

When I was in high school – junior high, even – I dreamed about college. I dreamed about being able to attend on a scholarship and make a life for myself that most of my family never thought possible for themselves. I spent years perusing college books and catalogs, essentially shopping for the perfect university in the perfect location. Sadly, no one ever advised me to spend as much time looking for a scholarship. Sadly, no one ever quite impressed upon me just how expensive college is, and just how much money I would have to somehow produce out of thin air to be able to attend the college of my dreams. Yeah, there were a few full scholarships available to some of the brightest. Brightest equaled and still equals "Bright and brilliant test takers." Tough luck for the "Bright but sucky test takers." I fell into the latter category: excellent student (in advanced courses, straight A’s) but average test taker.

So, like many students of my generation, I got stuck with some student loans for undergrad. I didn’t end up at the school of my dreams (Brandeis) because I couldn’t afford it, although I got in. I ended up at a tiny private liberal arts in the middle of the Ozarks, and when I look back on it, it was absolutely the best college experience a student could hope for. A top notch education that left me with manageable student loan debt. My loans from undergrad don’t compare to what I’ve heard from others.

Then, I managed to get into grad school on a fellowship, no money out of my pocket. And, while in grad school, I realized that this is how school should be. Free. That’s right. If they can do it in Germany and elsewhere, we can do it here. Free, state-funded higher education. After all, the right to an education should not be denied to anyone. But when we make education unobtainable (and undesirable, even) by virtue of being unaffordable, we deprive people of that right.

When the British government announced that it would hike tuition to 9,000 pounds ($14,000) a year, triple what it had been (something around 3,000 pounds), students took to the streets and parliament. They protested. That’s right. Students actually said, “Holy shit, it’s gonna cost me a kidney just to get an education. That ain’t right.” And they rallied together.

Some Americans might view the reactions of the British students with amusement. “$14,000?” we might scoff and laugh, “I’m paying 30 f-ing thousand a year! What a bunch of wimps!” But guess what? We are the wimps. We are the wimps for letting our government, the parasitic banks that profit from our student loan debt, and the equally parasitic universities that profit from their relationship with the banks from which we take our loans…we are the wimps for letting these institutions screw us and cripple us with debt that some of us will never be able to repay. See, the British students’ reaction stem from the fact that they, like those in several European countries, are accustomed to paying very little (very little compared to us, anyway) and, in some places, nothing for a higher education.

In Germany, for instance, colleges (although they are not colleges in the sense that we understand them) are mostly free – while some students have to pay around 500 Euros ($650) per semester in administrative and tuition fees. In Britain, tuition generally ran about 3,000 pounds a year ($6,000) in contrast. Still cheaper than the U.S – hell, most students here would be lucky to pay $6,000 a semester at a 4-year university, public or private (unless you pay in-state tuition). My undergrad, a private school, was always around $8,000 per semester and that was in the early and mid-2000s. Nonresident undergrad tuition at the University of Iowa, for instance, is currently $11,000 per semester. I won’t even mention how much my law school tuition is – hint, it’s ungodly.

Because I think every human being has a right to an education, I think it is unacceptable to let our government, banks, and universities continue to infringe upon that right by making education unaffordable, by every year jacking up the tuition. I have been more fortunate than some others, able to get scholarships and fellowships throughout all of my education. But I am no less infuriated about the loans that I racked up in undergrad and that I'm now piling up for my living expenses. I am no less infuriated about the lonas and debt that my classmates have racked up and continue to rack up. Nothing can justify forcing students into lifelong debt for the sake of an education, something which we all need to survive and to grow in this ever-changing world. A serious and enduring student protest against such injustice and greed is long overdue. British students are protesting and fighting this outrageousness. So, what are American students waiting for?

Played Out Like an 8-Track: The Mythology of the Down Low

So, the media’s obsession with the single (and, apparently, miserable) successful black woman? Played out, right? Well, guess what? The media’s obsession with down low black men, likewise, is played. Played out like an 8-track. On one hand, all the successful black women are single and miserable–some of them just attitudinal ball-busters that don’t know their place–and, meanwhile, all the successful black men are on the down low and giving HIV to their wives or girlfriends. Stop the madness, I say! These mythologies, while based in some truth, need to be retired. And, no, I don’t mean locked away in a closet (pun intended), I mean burned to ash. They are not doing any of us any good.

But since I’ve already written about the media’s obsession with single successful black women, I have no intention of writing about it again. Right now, I need to let loose about the down low mythology that the media seems to have a real jones for at the moment.

From Oprah, to D.L. Hughley and Sherri Shepherd, everyone seems to be harping on about the specter of the disease-carrying, heartbreaker of scorned straight black women: the down low black man. The black man who is ostensibly “straight,” who dates, has sex with or is married to a woman but who also secretly has sex with men. On a class level, he’s often a successful black man, an ideal black man: great career, seemingly has his act together, seemingly responsible, etc. The DL Dude breaks the hearts of women and further breaks their bodies by infecting them with HIV, so goes the rhetoric.

There are multiple problems with this rhetoric:

1. It displays a refusal to acknowledge the existence of bisexuality as a legitimate sexual identity

2. It fallaciously assumes that all closeted black men are dating women

3. It implies that non-heterosexual men, gay or bisexual, are abnormally promiscuous

4. It implies that non-heterosexual men, gay or bisexual, are disease carriers by nature and are responsible for the HIV epidemic in black American communities

First, our country is preoccupied with dualisms and either/or ideas. A person is either gay or straight. Black or white. We constantly demonstrate our narrow-mindedness and fixation on dualisms every time we say Obama isn’t acting black enough or, as the Tea Partiers seem to think, that because he’s “black” (rather than biracial) he only cares about black people. Likewise, we constantly demonstrate our preoccupation with dualisms every time we treat bisexuality like it’s a phase, every time we make movies or TV shows (*cough* The L Word) that erase or vilify or pathologize bisexuality. Personally, I have met very few “straight” people who say they have only been attracted to the opposite sex and very few “gay” people who say they have only been attracted to the same sex. Many people just seem to be attracted to people, but only act on their attractions with certain people (be those certain people of the same sex or opposite sex or both). However, everyone is free to pick their label: straight is no less legitimate than gay. But “bisexual” is less legitimate…apparently.

Tyler Perry’s For Colored Girls made that evident (*spoiler alert*) as Jo (Janet Jackson) confronts her husband, Carl (Omari Hardwick), about his sexuality. She has seen him checking out men, on the street, in theater halls, when they are out together. Jo asks him, “Are you gay?” In response, we see the pain on Carl’s face as he seems to be trying to figure out what he is. To society, he’s gay, and ergo, he’s not a man. He seems to plead with himself as he says that he’s a man and he repeats that, just before he finishes with, “a man who likes having sex with other men.” I may be an atypical theater-goer, but I genuinely felt this man’s grief as he tried to answer his wife’s question. I don’t know if I was supposed to feel that or not. Some viewers would say that I wasn’t supposed to empathize with him, that Carl was a typical unsympathetic villainous down low character. Indeed, in some ways he is unsympathetic and outright villainous, and in some ways not. The actor certainly brought a real sort of humanity to the character. But this doesn’t take away from the fact that I was disturbed by the “Are you gay” question.

Don’t get me wrong: it is a legitimate question to ask in a situation like the one between Jo and Carl. But why is “are you gay?” the first question that comes to mind when we find out a person, especially a man, is engaged in same-sex relations? Because we are programmed to believe that a man who has sex with men is a gay man, period. He couldn’t be anything else. There’s no turning back to women when a man let’s another man “bend him over,” as Jo said. Furthermore, when she received no real answer from him, why didn’t she follow up with, “Are you bisexual?” I don’t remember her asking that question (someone who’s seen the film, correct me if I missed that). The absence of this question or the mention of bisexuality effectively erases bisexuality as a legitimate identity in this scene. He is either gay or straight. And he’d better just pick one, rather than go around hurting people. That one little phrase would have added an amazing amount of depth to this scene, to her character and his character because the truth is simple: a man who has sex with men but who also dates and has sex with women might just be bisexual. In other words, he might just be attracted to men and women, perhaps to differing degrees. But the problem is that our culture doesn’t allow men (not even women, really) to express attraction to both men and women. Often time, if a woman finds out a man has been with men or is attracted to men, she doesn’t want anything to do with him as far as dating. And when men find out another man has been with men or is attracted to men, they often immediately label him as gay, whether or not the man has labeled himself that way. Indeed, many men who are attracted to both men and women, feeling pressured to choose either gay or straight, choose one so as to have some sort of identity that is at least acknowledged. I know I was probably bringing too many of my own ideas to the film, but I felt that Carl was going through this very dilemma during the film and especially during this moment.

Secondly, not all down low men are dating women. Some of them just remain single. There’s a thought.

Thirdly, just like Carl in the film, gay and bisexual men (via the down low mythology) are deemed abnormally promiscuous. They sex men anywhere and anytime, whenever they can get it. For instance, in the beginning we see Carl sitting in his car under a bridge, receiving oral sex from another man. We see him and some other dude checking each other out in the theater, while Carl is sitting next to his wife. We see him sneaking in late, obviously having procured some anonymous or random booty from some dude, and slipping under the covers next to his wife. The down low stereotype differs little from general stereotypes we have of gay men (think Queer as Folk and Ricky from Noah’s Arc) as being perpetually sexed by some random dude and/or constantly sexing some random dude. Clearly, as the rhetoric goes, gay men unlike straight men can’t have monogamous relationships. (I’m sure all the straight women are laughing at the irony of that one, as they tick off the number of trifling straight men they’ve encountered.) This stereotype becomes even more exaggerated when the guy is labeled as bisexual (even bisexual women have to deal with the whore stereotype), and it becomes outright vicious when the guy is labeled as a down low man.

This brings me to the fourth point: the viciousness of the down low “whore man” stereotype often receives its articulation through moralistic sermonizing about HIV and AIDS. Homophobia has become so ridiculous in black communities that we’ve decided to dupe ourselves (or let the media dupe us) into believing that the HIV/AIDs epidemic affecting us is due to the presence of down low brothers. It couldn’t possibly be due to lack of education, poverty and lack of access to good health care, and plain old poor personal choices. Nope. The down low brother is a disease, literally, according to the stereotype. Carl, of For Colored Girls, represents the stereotype of the down low man in its entirety: promiscuous, unfaithful, HIV carrier, a veritable killer of black women.

When is this madness going to stop, I ask myself? We have a real deadly epidemic on our hands, and rather than face its root causes upfront so that we can find a workable solution, we’ve (or at least the media) decided to blame it on down low black men. Yes, some black women have contracted HIV from brothers on the down low. But research (and general common sense) has time and again shown that women are contracting the disease from men who are not on the down low (or from men who at least report that they have not had relations with other men). Women are contracting the disease from straight black men. Like real straight black men. You dig? Women are contracting it from drug use and from drug users. Etc. It’s hard to believe that in such a life or death situation, as the current HIV crisis has presented us with, that we’d rather accept a lie than the truth.

I find it even more disgusting that all the people who are storming off about this film, as if it’s the worst thing ever created—marring the reputation of black men, mangling Shange’s beautiful work, and whatever other excuse people find—that few have included any discussions of this obvious problem in the film. Perry’s own mysterious sexuality makes the portrayal even more disconcerting. I hesitate to say that he seemed to be channeling some of his own anxieties and frustrations in the disclosure scene between Carl and Jo, as the camera remains close up on Carl, who looks like he’s on the verge of tears as he talks. But rather than discuss this, many of the bloggers, male and female, seem to feel more comfortable writing Perry off as a self-hating black man and/or a self-hating homo. Either way, their silence on this issue implies, on some level, that they saw no problem with this stereotypical portrayal. In other words, they seem to have a problem with Carl being gay/bisexual (“dang, the black man can’t never get a break! First, he’s a rapist and a gangbanger, now a homo?!) rather than with him being written as a disgusting stereotype of homosexuality or bisexuality: as a disease-carrying, promiscuous, heartbreaker down low black man. As I’ve written before, I love the film. I’ve hated all Tyler Perry productions before this film, but I admit that he gained some of my respect with this film. That does not prevent me from calling the film out on its problematic—perhaps plain homophobic/biphobic—portrayal of Carl’s character. Like Oprah and others, Perry played a broken record with Carl’s character. And let’s just put it this way, that record was wack from day one.

"Daddy By Default" - Book Interview with Pat Tucker

Not too long ago, one of our GuestBugs, Brilliance shared a relevant topic with us about the importance of fathers in the lives of their children and the detriment that occur when there is an absence of the father.  If you missed it then, feel free to read it now: http://junebugtalking.blogspot.com/2010/09/best-father-around.html

The subject of absent fathers is not new and unfortunately, a common occurrence than it should be, but, what is not quite as talked about, but just as significant (and disturbing) is PATERNITY FRAUD.

Even if you have never heard of paternity fraud, the name says it all - one parent falsely accusing another of paternity.

In an effort to enlighten others on the subject of paternity fraud, Author Pat Tucker has released her long-awaited novel, "Daddy By Default" which explores the destruction a case of paternity fraud causes in the life of an innocent man and his wife, a 'working-the-system' mom, and blameless child. 

JuneBug Talk recently had the opportunity to interview the author, Pat Tucker, on this emotionally gripping, Zane-presented, novel and this is what she had to say about the facts behind her story:

Daddy by Default

 
Unsuspecting men may discover the hard way that missing a deadline can be costly in more ways than one. Author Pat Tucker has created a tale about Paternity Fraud and why every man needs to know his state’s laws regarding the topic. Daddy by Default is about a defiant man who is stuck paying child support even after DNA determines he’s not the child’s biological father. Not possible you say? DNA has freed men from death row, led to the release of innocent men from prisons; quite surely it can be used to free a man from the financial obligations of a child he did not father correct? The answer to that question relies heavily on which state said father resides.

JuneBug Talk: First of all, for those who haven't read your book, what is Daddy by Default about?

Pat Tucker: Daddy by Default is heart-wrenching story about a married couple whose relationship is shaken to its core by a false arrest. Parker and Roxanne Redman have been trying to start a family for years, following another miscarriage; Parker is arrested for delinquent child support. Only he hasn’t fathered any children. The story tackles the often emotional and tumultuous drama involved with family law cases.


The story also highlights the importance of knowing the Paternity laws in one’s state, as they vary state to state. Currently there are 21 states in which DNA testing will not relieve a man of child support payments even if he’s not the father of the child in question. In those states and others, missing a deadline could leave a man financially responsible for a child until the child is 18.

JuneBug Talk: Why should we go out and get a copy?


Pat Tucker: This story is a glimpse of reality for so many men in the world today. Everyone who loves a man knows a man, or cares about a man needs to read Parker’s story because it can happen to anyone.

JuneBug Talk: Who do you think would enjoy the book the most and why?


Pat Tucker: Daddy by Default is steeped full of dramatic events, vivid scenes, and witty dialogue. This novel will appeal to avid readers and those searching for an authentic story of unrelenting determination and triumph.

JuneBug Talk: What inspired you to write Daddy by Default?


Pat Tucker: As in most of the stories I pen, real life news stories inspired me to write this story. As a Journalist, I often come across stories that I find unbelievable and they stay with me. The plot for Daddy by Default was one such story. Once I began to research real life cases involving the growing problem of Paternity Fraud, I felt this was an issue that deserved more attention.

June Bug Talk: What do you think our legal system (i.e. child support system) could do better to resolve the problem of paternity fraud?

Pat Tucker: The legal system needs to catch up with the advances in technology. Let's face it, 20 or even 10 years ago, we didn't anticipate DNA would be used in the ways it has today... lawmakers should try to keep up with technology and allow cases that challenge outdated laws to stand as a model for change.


June Bug Talk: Culturally or socially, rather than legally, what do you think we could do to deter women from committing or seeking to commit paternity fraud?

Pat Tucker: We can make it easier for the truth to come out, that way women won't be tempted, whether by accident or on purpose. There will always be cases where mistakes are made, but helping young women to better respect/love themselves will go a long way toward offering up more options. I know there are malicious people out there, but for the most part, I don't think anyone sets out to intentionally mislead others. (maybe that's just me being naive)
 JuneBug Talk: Since many black folks grow up without their fathers, why should we be discussing paternity fraud rather than paternal abandonment? What makes this issue as pressing or more pressing than paternal abandonment at the moment?

Pat Tucker: Statistics indicate paternity fraud is on the rise... that means there are tons of men out there paying for children that aren't theirs. Let's give credit where credit is due. Are there other problems? Sure, but I don't think it's a matter of picking one over another, I think it's about raising awareness and educating our young people about the choices they make. National figures indicate the majority of men who owe money for child support are poor men, under employed men or unemployed men, but with statistics also indicating a large number of those men may not be said child's biological father it tells me we need to start at home. We need to start with moms and dads (where present) talking to our young people before careless choices are made. Let me get off my soap box, but I will say that it's up to us to turn things around in our own community and we start one child at a time.


JuneBug Talk: In writing this book, what would you like your readers to take from it?

Pat Tucker: I wanted to raise awareness about a problem I think many don't know about. When I tell people that DNA technology has freed innocent men from Death Row, but that same technology won't free men from child support payments in some states, many think it's just my crazy imagination going wild again... but the facts are there, we need to work together to raise the level of awareness and let people know that they all need to know what the paternity laws are in their respective states. That's what I hope readers will take from Daddy by Default.

JuneBug Talk: What are you working on next?

Pat Tucker: My next novel titled, Football Widows is a story about some NFL Coaches wives and their naughty behavior during the season, while their husbands are focusing on the game. In addition, I'm working on an independent film project. So soon, you’ll see me on the red carpet. And as always, I’m working on my next novel.

Daddy By Default

Available Everywhere Books Are Sold:

November 9, 2010

About the Author:

By day, Pat Tucker Wilson works as a radio news director in Houston, TX. By night, she is a talented writer with a knack for telling page-turning stories. A former television news reporter, she draws on her background to craft stories readers will love. With more than fifteen years of media experience, the award-winning broadcast journalist has worked as a reporter for ABC, NBC and Fox affiliate TV stations and radio stations in California and Texas. She also co-hosts the literary talk show, “From Cover to Cover.”



Known as one of the fastest writers in the country, Pat has wowed editors with her ability to turn out five to ten thousand words a day. But it's not just quantity that has Pat at the top of her game. The quality of her stories is what keeps the readers coming back. A much sought-after ghostwriter, Pat gets her greatest joy in creating her own stories. She is the author of six novels and has participated in three anthologies, including New York Times Bestselling Author Zane’s Caramel Flava. Email Pat at Sylkkep@yahoo.com

A graduate of San Jose State University, Pat is a member of the National and Houston Association of Black Journalists and Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc. She is married with two children. She also co-hosts the literary talk show “From Cover to Cover.” Facebook-Pat Tucker, Fan Page-Author Pat Tucker Readers-Facebook-Sylkkep PL Wilson-Myspace-Author PL Wilson-Myspace-Author Pat Tucker-Twitter_authorpattucker www.fromcovertocovershow.com

"Ordinary Brown Braided Woman": A Comment on For Colored Girls

“I had convinced myself colored girls had no right to sorrow and I lived and loved that way and kept sorrow on the curb, allegedly for you, but I know I did it for myself, I couldn’t stand it, I couldn’t stand being sorry and colored at the same time, it’s so redundant in this modern world. – Lady in Orange, recited by Loretta Devine

This is a film about the “ordinary, brown braided woman,” as recited amazingly by Gilda (Phylicia Rashad), invoking the Lady in Red (for those familiar with the book). It’s a film for and about women who don’t need any more apologies, who feel Jo (Janet Jackson) when she says, “I got sorry greetin me at my front door.” It's a film for anyone who has any interest and investment in the lives of ordinary, black women.

Tyler Perry, for the first time in his film career, has produced a work that begs the viewer to understand, relate to, and examine the lives of black women: our relationships with each other, with our mothers and sisters, with men. All of his other films purported to do this, but For Colored Girls is the first one that achieves this goal. Quite honestly the negative criticism from viewers astonishes me. And there's a LOT of it, much of which I read prior to seeing the film. After seeing the film, I can only assume that someone totally without connection to or empathy for black women could hate this film; or else someone who (perhaps understandably) simply can’t look past all of Perry’s previous debacles in order to see the gem that we have in his adaptation of Ntozake Shange's For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow is Enuf.

First off, all of the actresses were excellent and seemed to be fully invested in bringing their characters to life. The only weak links were Kerry Washington (Kelly) and Whoopi Goldberg (Alice), although the latter had some moments that were useful in helping illuminate the idiosyncrasies of other central characters. Kerry Washington, admittedly, wasn’t featured heavily in the film. But, nonetheless, her character evoked little sympathy from me. Perhaps it stems from my general issue with Kerry Washington as an actress: she's generally just kind of whiny in most roles. Whoopi’s character seemed underdeveloped and flat, but I think maybe she did as good as she could with the character.

The standouts? Kimberly Elise (Crystal), Thandie Newton (Tangie), Loretta Devine (Juanita), Anika Noni Rose (Yasmine), and Phylicia Rashad (Gilda). Sure, I just essentially named the whole cast. Quick summary of each character, respectively: utterly heartbreaking, deliciously complicated, hilarious fool in love, unfortunately innocent, and lovingly matriarchal.

Probably largely because of the strength of these actresses, Tyler Perry’s adaptation stands on its own, so much that I did not find myself comparing the film with the stories in Shange’s book. But he definitely stayed true to some of the stories and for that I applaud the man. On the level of writing, all was well done. The back alley abortion made me pause because, with the plethora of Planned Parenthood Clinics, I found it excessively stupid for one of the characters to seek out a back alley person to perform her abortion. However, I believe we were supposed to see this character as excessively naive, for even another character called her stupid when she found out about the back alley abortion. Additionally, the pace of the film picked up drastically and almost uncomfortably right after a pivotal moment between Crystal and Beau Willie (Michael Ealy), and the monologues suddenly started to come one after another, back to back. For a moment I was uncomfortable with the sudden rush, but that moment of discomfort went as quickly as it came because the women did such amazing jobs with their monologues.

The adaptation stands on its own also because Perry did a good job of adding some characters, significantly altering some, and creating nuances that separate the film from the original text. There’s the down low brother that one of the characters has to deal with, plus the cop played by Hill Harper. In addition, Gilda, a character I don't remember from the book, definitely adds a certain amount of cohesion that is necessary to hold the story together in film format. As far as nuances, I was struck by the subtle change in Yasmine's clothing style after she has her traumatic experience. After all his previous heavy-handed, overwrought films, I thought Perry would never grasp the importance of subtlety and nuance. Color me surprised.

While some male commentators have criticized the film, calling it black male-bashing because of its harsh portrayals of the male characters (indeed, during the staging of the play in the 70s, many male members of the audience walked out on several occasions), I think that any black man who sees this play and feels that Perry has personally affronted his black manhood needs to take a step back and realize that the film, like the book, is not about black manhood. Stop centering black masculinity in the discussion of a film that is primarily fixated on black women.

It's about black womanhood, which albeit necessarily invokes a discussion of black manhood. But, first and foremost, a black man misses the message(s) of the film if, during the entire film, he is focused on the men rather than the women. The monologue by the Lady in Orange, recited by Loretta Devine, encapsulates the central message of this film and of the book: we, black women, in our culture are perceived by others (and by ourselves often) as not entitled to sorrow, to emotional vulnerability, to weakness even. We are supposed to be strong and take all the shit handed to us, without complaint, without anger. Because, as my grandmother once said, there's no place for a weak, sad black woman in this world. Well, this film is about confronting and reversing that belief, in the minds of others and, most importantly, in the minds of black women. This film is not about pitying black women (as some commentators have alleged, associating its portrayals with Precious, etc.). It's about showing that black women can feel genuine sorrow and grief and pain and anger, and that that doesn't have to make us pathetic or angry bitches or whiny women looking for pity. It just makes us human.

Secondly, such male commentators fail to take into account the depth of the portrayal of the male characters in this film. Only one man, the rapist, struck me as irredeemably evil in this film. All the other males were clearly individuals with deep-seated issues that the film tried to highlight subtly. For instance, during the table scene between Crystal and Beau Willie, I think we are supposed to understand that Crystal feels sorry for him, that on some level we should feel sorry for him; this does not change the fact that we are supposed to want her to leave him because we know that he is poison to her and her family. People are complicated. In the world we live in, people who hurt us and do evil things often have complicated reasons for doing them, whether we know those reasons or not. While it’s important to safeguard ourselves from such people and take steps to empty our lives of such harmful people, in doing so we should always remember that such people are still human beings (even if such people seem to have forgotten their own humanity or the humanity of others). I think we are supposed to experience the same feeling during the last conversation between Jo and her husband, while not letting that sympathy excuse his behavior.

Needless to say, Jo and especially Crystal are also held accountable for the destruction that they allow these men to bring to their lives. Perry makes sure to reiterate the importance of all parties taking responsibility for the damage done.

So, I don’t think this film bashes black men. As a matter of fact, as I read some of this criticism of Perry's film, I was reminded of the type of one-sided, defensive criticism that The Color Purple (book and film) received from male commentators back in the 80s. According to my aunt, many black male commentators also talked crap about Waiting to Exhale back in the day, and that movie in no way bashed black men; there were numerous positive black male characters in that film. As such, I say these commentators need to cut out the petulant whining just because there's a Oscar buzzing film that centers black women.

For all the other commentators (everyone other than the black male commentators) who delivered negative criticism of the film, I don’t know what to say. Anyone who watches this film should know they are in for some gritty material. No one who knows anything about the book or who has watched the trailers should go into this film expecting a pretty story with a neat little ending. But that is what we’ve come to expect from Tyler Perry (pretty stories with neat little endings), so I understand why some critics went in with such expectations and left disappointed. But, alas, I’m proud to say that this is not just another Tyler Perry film. This is a different kind of Tyler Perry film. Yeah, there's still the Tyler Perry melodrama that can be found in all of his films. But this is one that begs its audience to think a little deeper, to be a little more patient, to listen and question. To think about the "ordinary brown braided woman," embodied by each of the characters. For once, Tyler Perry has produced a good film, a damn good one at that. And I'm pretty sure I never thought I'd use "Tyler Perry...film" and "damn good" in the same sentence.

Final sidenote: Thandie Newton was all kinds of crazy sexy in this film, and I’ve never found the woman attractive before. I’d watch it again, just for her.

For all of those who haven't seen the film, GO SEE IT! And for those who have seen the film, what are your thoughts?

Street Harassment and the Problem of WWF (Walking While Female)

I am writing this post in response to another blog post that I read. It was about street harassment, and it was a rather incendiary post, the language of which made me more than angry. While 99% of my experiences with street harassment have involved black men, I have no interest in using that fact to argue that black men are somehow more prone to this type of harassment, to perpetuate any racist stereotypes about black men. Unlike the woman in the other post, I think this is a problem that black men and women need to talk about, and wholesale accusing black men of being sexist assholes only prevents dialogue, and it obscures the problem. And this is a problem – a problem that has been talked about by feminists and women in general for ages. This is a problem that involves the way men are raised to view women and the way women are raised to accept certain behaviors from men. I'll say more on this in another post. Right now, I share my stories because I think the discussion needs to begin somewhere: why not with the personal? I share these stories because I think it’s time we talk about how oppressive it often is just to walk while female.

Some Spring Day in Downtown Springfield, Missouri - 2006

After locking my bike onto a rack, I cross the street. The street is typically empty around mid-day, and this day is no exception. I head to Mudhouse Coffee, ready to sit and do some hearty pleasure reading. Just when I make it to the other side, I hear, “Hey, hey, pssst!” I roll my eyes, thinking, “Oh, lord, leave me alone.” I turn around: this is probably my first mistake. “Yeah, come here,” says a black guy with a cap twisted to the left side, as he sits in the passenger side of his best friend’s car. Or maybe his brother’s car. Imagine how much I don’t care.

I offer a nod and resume walking. Then, I hear, “Come on, girl, how you gon do me like that?” Mudhouse is a block away, and I realize these idiots are going to creep beside me in their car until I make it to my destination.

This has happened a few times before. I was in high school in Little Rock the first time it happened, and I was out walking with my younger cousin who was visiting from Dallas. A car containing at least three guys pulled up, and two of them tried to holler at us as the driver crept at a slow pace. I tried to ignore them as they talked: “Yo, come on, I just want a number,” “You can’t give a nigga a number?” Before I knew it, my younger cousin turned to one of the boys, and yelled, “Boo nigga!” I almost fell out laughing. I almost felt bad for those boys. And either they were embarrassed or they thought she was crazy because they promptly drove off. I think I heard one of them mutter, “bitch” right before they turned the corner.

I’m not thinking about that high school moment as these dudes harass me in Springfield. I am thinking about how annoyed I am. I look at the boy who’s talking to me, and all I can think is, “Negro please.” Just imagine Pam from Martin, the TV show, talking to Cole. That’s the voice I have in my head.

Finally, I turn to the boy – he certainly wasn’t acting like a man, so I dare not call him one – and I say in as civilized a fashion as I can manage, “I am not interested, okay. So, you go on” – I actually wave my hand, as if to shew them away – “and have a good day.” I didn’t smile. I didn’t mean it nicely. I meant, “Go on, now, before I get really real with you.”

He mumbles something along the lines of, “For real? Not even a number?” I don’t reply. Before they drive off, he offers, “You have a good day too, then, Miss Lady.” And that is it. I never saw the boy again.

Some Summer Day in Downtown Iowa City, Iowa - 2009

“Hey, hey, hey, slow down Miss Lady,” says an older black guy, in his forties probably. He has a chipped front tooth. I wonder why they are always calling me “Miss Lady.” I guess it could be “bitch,” so maybe I should be thankful.

I am crossing the street in one direction and he is crossing in the other direction, wearing baggy gray sweatpants and an ill-fitting white t-shirt. This man actually switches directions in order to walk alongside me. It’s the same man who once sat right next to me on the bus and proceeded to pester me with stupid come-ons for all of fifteen minutes, while I proceeded to make him feel like an idiot, again in the most civilized manner I could manage. “You know I’m your number one fan,” he told me the first time he talked to me on the bus. When I told him that was the stupidest thing I’d ever heard, that hopefully he was joking, he then explained that he’d seen me in the grocery store once and spoke to me, that surely I should remember him. I shook my head: “Nope. I remember faces. And yours ain’t one I’ve seen.” Then, I turned away to read my book. He continued yappering, and I essentially ignored him until he shut up.

This time, on the street, I waved him away, just as I’d done that boy in the passenger seat several years earlier. And, just like that boy, he quickly got the hint, said, “All right. I see how it’s gon be,” and turned in the other direction. He doesn’t bother speaking to me anymore when he sees me.

A Cold Day in May in Chicago - 2009

I am by myself on the University of Chicago campus, walking and taking in some of the neighborhood. The area starts to look a little sketchy and I take a turn onto a more pleasant looking street, where I find a coffeehouse. I get a soy vanilla latte and leave the coffeehouse. As I’m making my way back to the hostel on campus, this young black dude crosses the street to talk to me. He’s wearing a baseball cap, turned to the back and slightly sagging pants. He asks me my name and I refuse to tell him, but he just goes on, nicely: “Oh, I ain’t trying to be all up in your face or nothing.” I glance at him, trying to see what he’s about.

“I just wanted to catch up to you so I can tell you your style is hot. I like it,” he says. "I was telling my boy over there," he pointed back toward the corner where another similarly clad black man was standing, "and he was like, 'You oughta go tell her'."

My fro is standing high and I am wearing a light blue wool peacoat and wide flare (bell-bottom) pants. I probably look like I stepped out of a Shaft film. It’s late May and I am still wearing a peacoat. Thank you, Chicago, for your never-ending winters. “That's nice. Thanks,” I say to the man. He smiles, and as he stops to cross back to the other side of the street, he tells me, “Stay beautiful, sista.” I nod. I probably even smile a little as I say, “You have a good day, now!”

That last scene captures the majority of encounters I’ve had on the street with random black men. I wouldn't call what happened in that scene harassment. Maybe I didn't want to be bothered, but the man was respectful and kind. I have no problem nodding, smiling, or holding casual conversation with a stranger - so long as I'm not in a hurry. In fact, I like interacting with strangers. Makes me feel all connected to the world and stuff. But many women might consider what happened in that scene a form of harassment - a benign sort of harassment. While I wouldn't agree, I guess I can see where such women would be coming from. If you don't want to be bothered, you don't want to be bothered, and people should respect your right not to be bothered.

Like many women, though, I’ve had my share of run-ins with jerks, encounters more violent than the ones I’ve shared above:

• I spent second semester of my junior year in London. There, a dreadlocked light-skinned guy actually grabbed my arm in the middle of Piccadilly Circus one night and tried to make me drink from his bottle of Hypnotic. I shit you not. Although pepper spray was then illegal to carry in London - I only found that out once I left London - I was seconds away from spraying him. I must have hurled every curse word and hateful thing I could think of at that guy, as my friend dragged me away from him. I'm pretty sure I tried to spit on him.

• The first time I ever visited Chicago – junior year of college – I went with two white male friends, and when we ended up on a dodgy street at night, a couple of black guys tried to holler at me, yelling all kinds of tacky shit at me, like, “Damn, you fine as hell,” or “Damn, you a little skinny, but I like skinny women.” When I rejected them, they launched all kinds of obscenities at me, obscenities that mainly pertained to my being with two white dudes: “sell out bitch,” “cheap hoe,” etc. I ignored them and kept walking. Because it was my first time in a big city, it didn’t even cross my mind that their verbal violence could turn physical. Luckily, it didn’t. That same night, I was on the train with my two friends, when two black boys tried to videotape me and some random white girl on their videophone. They said some nasty, sleazy shit to me and that girl. The white girl looked utterly terrified. I, however, having already been thoroughly pissed off by the earlier encounter, turned and told the boys that I would fuck them up if they didn’t take that camera off of me at that moment. I know they could have hurt me, but I didn’t care. I’ve never been one to walk through the world fearful of men, letting them talk to me any kind of way. (It should be noted that my two friends didn't say a damn thing. They actually shushed me when I started going off on the two guys. I'm often amazed at how often men are complicit in the sexist-oppressive behavior of other men. Or else just too intimidated to oppose them.)

My experience with this problem – street harassment – has admittedly been more fortunate than others. Guys usually smile at me or else speak respectfully to me. And when I refuse to speak to them, they usually turn and find some other poor girl to antagonize. Maybe I have some sort of look about me that says, “I really ain’t got time for bullshit.” I don’t know. What I do know is that some of my experiences have been far from pleasant, and it pains me to realize that I have been lucky, that some girls receive far worse.

Top 10 Total BS!! Propaganda in the Media, Society and World in general…. Today!

Have you ever sat down and said to yourself... “Self, why are certain things the way they are… what is the logic behind the information that was given to me?” I tend to do that from time to time, more so now that I’m a lot older and exposed to more and more. I don’t know about you guys… but I’m not one who takes to KINDLY to bullcrap of any kind: from friends, family and especially the media. So with that said, let me just go on my rant of what I believe is total BS that we are forced to abide by and or believe!






10. CAR INSURANCE- is it ILLEGAL to drive around without it??? I mean, I could understand if I was a bad driver and had a car accident or 2… but what about the people whose never had a ticket before??? What that about… if it’s the LAW to have car insurance… why isn’t it law and or cheaper to have HEALTH insurance?? So If my car breaks down… then its covered but if I break down and I’m unemployed… I’m screwed???!!!

9.40 hr work week- Why do I have to work this???? How about 20 hrs??? And more importantly… why do I need to work this in order to get benefits at my job… actually…. Why do I need a JOB in order to get mediocre health care benefits?? Can somebody answer me this?? Please???

8. Merchant charges- you ever been somewhere and in order to use your debit or credit card THEY CHARGE YOU???? WTH??? I have to PAY in order to PAY YOU??? And the cold part about it is that every company has to pay a fee whenever a customer decides to use their own bank cards… so why would you charge me something that ALL MERCHANTS HAVE TO PAY!!! And while we’re at it! ATM FEES! DIE PLEASE!!!!

7. Gratuity- while I’m on the money rant! Let’s talk about how this one! Hmm… Last I checked… the definition of the word GRATUITY meant
“: something given voluntarily or beyond obligation usually for some service; especially : TIP”
Key word… VOLUNTARILY without obligation… so… why is that.. this GRATUITY is demanded at restaurants in a party of 6 or more….. Huh?? Did I miss something?? Explain this to me?

6. TSA at the Airport-I don’t know how many time ive had my facial cleanser, Nair or anything liquid thrown away… come on… DO I LOOK LIKE I KNOW HOW TO BLOW UP A PLANE???? Yet we still have almost successful attempts to blow up planes… GOSH DARNIT! I WANT MY STUFF BACK! Matter of fact… this terrorist scare is bullcrap as well!



5. Obama is Muslim- first off … do we not all remember the whole scandal surrounding Obama.. CHRISTIAN PASTOR!! The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, the man who wed him and Michelle and baptized both his daughters??? So … does this make him Muslim?? His dad may have been… but Obama only spend 2 months of his life with his dad when he was 10… I hardly find that influencing. Besides… even if he WAS a Muslim, does that hinder him from serving as our leader? Does that make him less of one? Last I checked… Muslim was only a religion.

4. Prop 8 - my eyes have been open on why this was such a big deal! Although much opposed this law from the beginning, this law wasn’t enforced under Christian principles… like they would like you to believe… no its due to the lost in taxes the state suffers. If Gay were allowed to marry then they would gain the benefits of all married couples.. YET they are less likely to reproduce OR have children… in which would mean less taxes they pay to the state.. think about it.. if America was so set on “Christian Principles” we would all be forced into one religion…. Think about it for a sec ………….

3. Use of Bluetooth instead of cell phone -they say that by using a cell phone while driving you’re as safe as a drunk driver on the road… which I can agree… however…. What difference does using a bluetooth make???? Your still using the phone…. Does it really make a difference that the phone is NOT in your hand??? Who using 2 hands to drive anyway???

2. 2012- c’mon son!! Even if the world would end in 2012… do you think we are intelligent enough to KNOW ABOUT IT before hand???!!!!!???




1.Swine Flu – this scared people into the biggest frenzy ive ever seen!!! Why were we so scared of swine flu??? So a flu that I can only catch by touching something that may have been contaminated prior… that has the SAME symptoms as the regular flu…. Is suppose to scare me??? Just make sure everyone washes yours hands. That’s all you gotta do! Besides… did you know that the regular Influenza kills 800 people a week each flu season AND its AIRBORNE!?? But im scared of Swine??? WTH??? This was way over blown than it needed to be! And I BLAME THE MEDIA!!!
Well that’s my rant for BS things as for now… Readers???? What are some things that you find to be total BS that’s pissing you off

The Best Father Around

By GuestBug Brilliance

Being fatherless, in my opinion, does not mean growing up in a single parent household. To me fatherlessness, means exactly that: there is an absence of a father. If your father was never home, had an addiction that devastated your family then to me you’re qualified to say you’re fatherless. Or, like in the case of so many of us, our fathers were rarely or never there.

All I ever wanted from my dad was for him to call me on my birthday. Out of all the days in the year, I believed his daughter’s birthday would be one that he’d never forget. Yet, he managed to “forget” year, after year, after year. Due to my father’s absence I, like so many other women, was born with baggage. I suffer from an unbalanced mistrust of men. I can smell a no good dude a mile away. But, I can’t always detect a good quality man. Like many of life’s wounds, I am slowly healing-- learning to let go, and let live.

My experiences have led me to strongly believe that all little girls need daddies. Daughters often feel the absence of their fathers deeply. Angel Taylor belted these heartfelt words in a song about her father…

He took everything from us,

but he let us keep our fear.

He robbed the little picture called a family,

taken long ago, went away for so many years.

And it was as though

he took joy in listening to our tears.

And he would never apologize,

cause his pride was blinding.

An

gel Taylor, Best Father Around, Album: Love Travels

…while Chrisette Michele sung these words to her dad, in her song “Your Joy.”

Cause no one loves me just like you do

And no one knows me just like you do

No one can compare to the way my eyes fit in yours

You'll always be my father

And I'll always be your joy

These are two different songs, two different messages, but their feelings for their fathers whether negative or positive are deep. No matter what anyone says, fathers teach women two important things that a mother cannot teach their daughters.

1) How to treat a man

2) How a man should treat a woman

Fathers teach their daughters what men want by showing them their daily activities. Simple things like, knowing when your father comes home, he wants a little time for himself. Or when the game is on, don’t bother him. We also learn from watching them interact with other people.

They teach us how we should be treated—that we shouldn’t be cheated on, lied to, or beat on. They teach us that a man’s love isn’t demonstrated by sex.

Teacher, teacher, please reach those girls in them videos

The little girls just broken Queens, confusing bling for soul

Danger, there's danger when you take off your clothes…

~Janelle Monae, Sincerely Jane, Metropolis: The Chase Suite

So many girls grow up not knowing who they are. Fathers help you learn your value. To them you’re the ultimate prize, and they teach you that. Fathers protect their daughters¬¬– they may even be over protective. Not every guy is good enough for daddies little girl, and they’re right. Just any guy should not be good enough for us—though we often forget that at times. Fatherless daughters can’t learn these things from their mothers alone. I was lucky because my grandfather really stepped up and he showed me most of those things. He taught me my worth, which is more than enough.

So what do you think? Do little girls need their daddies? Are there voids that daddies can fill that mommies cannot? How has your relationship with your father impacted your life both positively and negatively? If you grew up fatherless, do feel you have emotional scars from his absence?

Contact Brilliance: guest.junebugtalk@gmail.com

The Problem I have with Home Wreckers

There's been a lot of commotion centered around the newly surfacing occurrences of home wrecking in our society; especially in our Celebrity world. Everyone, from social networking sites such as Facebook, to bloggers in the blogosphere, to news stations such as CNN is broadcasting every piece of information concerning the latest "home wrecker, "legal matters or what juicy gossip may arise. I'm sure everyone's familiar with the "Top 3" home wrecking women in today's Celebrity World; Alicia Keys, Gabrielle Union and Fantasia Barrino, but In all fairness, let me go on ahead and sum of the situation concerning these ladies.

Alicia Keys- Accused of breaking up the marriage of Rap Artist and Record Producer Kasseem Dean ( AKA Swizz Beatz) and former wife and Singer Mashonda Tifrere -Dean. Supposedly, the two have been secretly involved with one another for two years during Dean's marriage, but didn't announce their involvement with one another until after the divorce was finalized. According to MaShonda, she had suspicions of the love affair, but when she questioned the both of them, they denied their involvement. When in May 2009, both Swizz Beatz and Ms Keys announced the two's involvement, MaShonda grew upset and lashed out to Ms Keys in the infamous Twitter message addressed to Alicia. Now, Alicia Keys and Swizz Beatz have married one another and are expecting their first child in November

Gabrielle Union- Recently announced her involvement with NBA All Star Dwayne Wade, once his divorce from his Ex Wife was finalized. Like Alicia and Swizz, the 37 year old Gabrielle Union and 28 year old Dwayne Wade kept the relationship under wraps to avoid bad press or any other suspicions. Siohvaughn, Wade's Ex wife, has filed a $50,000 lawsuit against Union in the following months of the finalization of their divorce, accusing Union of many " inappropriate behavior including "engaging in sexual foreplay" with Wade in front of their two young sons, 8 and 2; and other accusations of endangering the boys mental and physical health

Fantasia Barrino- Who, might I add, received the BUTT of public scrutiny, is currently dating Antwuan Cook, who recently divorced his wife. The two have been involved with one another for over a year during the time Cook was married to his wife. Although Barrino claims that Cook and his wife were separated during that time, Mrs Cook didn't see it that way and filed a lawsuit against Barrino accusing her of "seducing her husband" and having an affair with him while he was still living in the home.Overwhelmed by the lawsuit, Barrino was hospitalized under the suspicions of attempted suicide. After this incident, news stations such as CNN took full coverage of her story, revealing to the media as much information possible, including claims that it was all a publicity stunt.

So what's the connection with these 3 stories? All of these women, some who you may have least expected, got involved with Married men, and not long after, these men end up divorcing their current wives and embark on relationships and even MARRIAGE with the "other woman." And seemingly, the Ex wife takes her frustration out on the other woman in the situation.

SO here's my Problem with these situations

Why is it... that not only the wives involved but the media, tabloids and press, tend to seek vengeance against the OTHER WOMAN in the situation and not the man? Last I checked, the man wrote and took the vows to stay faithful to his wife on their wedding, be a provider, protector and willing to work through whatever problems the two may have in the marriage. He and his wife set up a Home, kids, and at the time, a future to stay together "for better or for worse" and "till death due us part." Now that the husband steps out and violates his marital vows, it seems as if the Other woman is the one who receives public criticism, as if she had the upper hand in this decision to breach the marital contract between the man and his wife.

Now, let's not overlook the women in this situation who have been affected in the worst way in this situation. I don't want to down play their feelings by any means. I mean, I can only imagine how it must feel to have dreams and aspirations of a beautiful marriage, family and life, all to have it seemingly stolen away by someone else.

Little Known Fact ( and case in point):

How many of you knew about the baby girl named Nicole Jahna whom a woman by the last name of Sebastian gave birth to by Swizz Beatz back in July of 2008?? This child was conceived DURING his marriage to MaShonda. However, this particular incident was swept under the rug and overlooked by MaShonda. Now that he is currently involved with Alicia Keys, it's a completely different story! Why isn't Swizz Beatz held accountable for anything?? He clearly stepped out on his wife on more than one account with more than one woman.

And the WOMAN gets the bad rap???

Homes broken, dreams crushed and in most cases, finances in a bind, but, my question to these wives and the media in general... who exactly is the REAL Home wrecker?