The White Flag

Submission. Men demand it, some Women refuse it.

According to Dictionary.com, submit is a verb meaning to yield oneself to another’s authority. In a society where power is everything, especially with women being recognized as equals within the past century, some women are more reluctant to relinquishing such “power” to anyone, especially a man.

Now there are several factors that may influence whether or not a woman submits: knowledge of gender roles and trust within herself and her partner among other things. All of these are dependent on the woman and her circumstance. Most gender roles teach women that they are to be protected by men as well as provided for because men are more powerful than they are. Men are taught that while they are to be these things to a woman that women are to maintain an optimal nurturing situation so that men can function at their fullest potential. While this is understood by a majority of both genders, the question of just what characteristics warrant submission remain up for debate.

As a woman, I see nothing wrong with submitting to MY man. Notice I said MY and not A; I think that’s where the confusion begins. I for sure will not be acting as a subordinate to everything walking with a penis. While my man will view me as his equal, I will still abide by the gender rules and allow him to BE A MAN. Submission doesn’t equal slavery! It is possible to obtain a power position in your employment and community and allow your man to lead your household while being respected at the same time.

Household? MY man? What?

Specifically submission, in some cultures, is reserved for THE HUSBAND. So really, if you’re not married to the man then you don’t have to submit to him, right? I guess that’s up to you whether you want to be a stickler of the rules or bend them a bit.

In my opinion most women will not have an issue with submission as long as the man PROVES he is worthy of such gesture. This isn’t the 1600s, where the notion of having a penis is enough for a woman to bow down to you. Clearly times have changed and the ideal and treatment of women have progressed greatly, therefore the demands a man must meet in order for a woman to ACCEPT his offer in marriage are held to a much higher regard. Back in the day every man got married despite his social stature; nowadays if you can barely take care of yourself you were left to be a lifetime player scouring the earth for a woman who will entertain a man-child. So yes, women require a substantial amount of work before she can comfortably let you take the reigns of power. If you haven’t EARNED her submission, do not EXPECT it nor DEMAND it.

With the same token, women must stop giving submission a negative taint to it by giving power over to men who have done little or nothing to earn it. The man can’t stand on his own two feet, he lacks good judgment, he doesn’t respect you nor view you as rib instead of a doormat/cum cloth, but you let him take control of your household?! It makes as much sense as an atheist priest. By submitting to someone you are saying that you trust that they will make the right decisions in regards to the both of you as well as guard you with his life. Why would you give that type of power to that type of man, then mar the definition and experience of submission when discussing it with others?! Unfortunately there are those who hold these experiences to be true without experiencing it for themselves; then again there are women who can discern between biased opinion and facts to reach their own conclusion on submission.

In summary, submission is given to those who earn it. If a man meets your qualifications to be a true head of the household, then fine. If a woman still will not submit to you then you may have some things to work on to make her feel comfortable. Both situations do not force you to stay and endure. The act of submission isn’t the issue, the character in question of submitting to is. Just my honest opinion. Nobody bows to the court jester though. *shrugs*

The Electoral College: Outdated or Political Saving Grace?

The recent King hearings got me to thinking about power and the way it is allocated in the United States government. I know, most would write about the implications on civil rights, especially in the Muslim community in this case, (and I may still) but I am struck by the fact that if the Democrats had maintained the Majority in the House, this would never have occurred in the 112^th Congress.

With the rise of the Tea Party and partisan politics and ideologies growing evermore divided, I’ve thought constantly about the Electoral College and its role in our Presidential election process. The Tea Party states that it is the voice of the everyday average American, who is angry about the direction our country is going in, and who plans on “putting America back on track”. If this is true, there’s a parallel to be drawn between the Tea Party and the “average American” voters of when our country was founded. Interestingly enough, the Framers put the Electoral College in place because they did not trust the electorate to decide the direction the country should go in.

Which led me to ponder the U.S. governmental apparatus and how our country is run? The Founding Fathers did a phenomenal job setting up the beginning structure of our government over 200 years ago, foreseeing many of the possible pitfalls our democracy could face. However, are there elements of our government that may be outdated in our currently political climate? Or are these institutions our saving grace?

The method in which the President of the United States is elected is not democratic in nature, and what's more is that the inclusion of the Electoral College actually structures the Constitution to take votes away from the populace. It is understood that the creation of the Electoral College had a distinct purpose when the Framers were creating and drafting our Constitution. In those times, the average man was not an educated man and the Framers wanted to ensure that the person in power was qualified to lead this country. However, in the present time, the Electoral College is a way for influential people to elect who they want into power. Election of the President Article II Section 1 established the Electoral College, and this institution gave each state a number of electors relative to its representation in Congress. However, we must recognize that because each state has two senators this is not proportional to population. State legislators could choose whatever methods they saw fit to appoint electors and were granted permission to use their own judgment to choose the President. This boils down to two people from each state deciding for the whole state who should be America's next President- and that does not fit into the definition of democracy.

However, we all know that the Constitution of the United States has not been completely democratic from the very beginning. The United States has an extensive history of not granting basic civil and human rights to many of its people. Due to these acts of discrimination, people of color, women, the gay community, and many other disenfranchised groups are at a disadvantage in the American political system. It is clear why this is undemocratic because democracy involves people having the same power to affect change through their vote. Now, if certain groups are denied basic human and civil rights such as voting, this completely alters the political landscape and hands over power to one dominant group and takes away power from several other groups. This is turn causes those groups to end up in lower socio-economic classes do to this uneven distribution of power. It is important to not just HAVE the right to vote, but to EXERCISE it as well.

Which is why, even though the Electoral College has an immense amount of power in the Presidential election, I choose to vote, and I rally others to do so as well. You cannot complain about a democracy if you do not engage it. It may not be a voting year nationally or even statewide, but civic engagement is a full-time job.

Loving on YOU

This looks good, doesn't it?

Imagine, sitting on the table is a bowl of the freshest strawberries, grapes, and pineapples. The plate in front of you has shrimp linguini and a caesar salad as an entree. A bottle of Riesling chills in the bucket with wine glasses begging to be filled. Something is missing though….YOU.

And thats it….just you.

Don’t panic. Grab a paper bag if you need to and breathe into it. Contrary to popular practice….its okay to go out by yourself.

Taking yourself out on a date has to be one of the most relaxing things you can ever do. Some women get into the habit of waiting on Prince Charming to show them the best time of their lives that they waste time sitting idle instead of making that moment happen for themselves. Yeah we’ll go to the salon and get that fresh wash to rock while we grace the world with our presence…we’ll even go pick out that hot new nail color to put on your fingers and toes every two weeks. Retail therapy goes down MAYBE twice a month….but we let the self pampering stop there. NO!

Go all the way with it….take yourself out! Some women are afraid that it makes them look like a loser if they’re seen sitting by themselves in a restaurant, thats not necessarily true! Forget what everyone else is thinking for just a moment in your life and do you. Make your own dream date and do it! A little ego masturbation never hurt anyone! Sometimes you have to treat yourself to a good time and leave all others out of the equation. I’ve gone so far as to have booked myself a weekend getaway on the beach equipped with full spa treatment, dinner and breakfast, a shopping spree, AND watching the sunrise on the coast. Needless to say, I had a ball and came back more refreshed than ever! You can do it too!

I know everyone isnt for the New Years Resolutions and whatnot, but here is something I’m doing for myself in the year 2011. Im making a list of my Top 12 Dream Dates that I would love to go on…and guess what? I’m taking myself on them. I’m not eeeeven gonna write in an open space for a man on this list because who is to say that the space will be filled by someone worthy? Shoot this list is about me anyway and if I have to recruit someone else to give myself a good time we might have a problem. Well here is some of my list (in random order):

1) Go to see a play in a local theater, then follow it up by sitting in the lifeguard chair on the oceanfront relaxing in the depth of nature.

2) Candlelight dinner consisting of a home cooked meal, then riding down a country road listening to 90s slow jams.

3) Sitting in the car gazing at the stars and the autumn full moon.

4) DVD night watching my favorite television shows while pigging out on junk food.

Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera…

There is one dream date for each month of the year so that way I’m not slacking off one month looking crazy because I didn’t treat myself lol. But no more waiting on him to give me a good time! When I took myself out sometimes I noticed that I was approached even more by menfolk than if I were with a group of friends. Guys what are your first thoughts when you see a woman eating dinner or going out by herself? I can’t speak for men because I’m not one, so give us your thoughts here!

The moral of the story, ladies, is don’t be afraid to give yourself a good time. If you can’t enjoy your own company then how can you expect someone else to enjoy you?

Family Ties

So you meet a nice guy one day. You all exchange numbers and agree to go on a date. During this time you get to know him and meet a few of his friends and learn more of his reputation. You notice he’s quite the charmer and has a plethora of lady friends. Okay, no problem…that is until she (or they in some cases) call him “brother/big bro”.

-_____________________-

Am I the only one who gets a bit miffed when I hear about a guy who has a lot of “little sisters” and not by marriage or blood? For some reason, referring to a friend of the opposite sex as a sibling has become a not-so-discrete code name for a cut buddy who was denied a relationship but is sticking around in hopes that the decision changes. These type of individuals annoy me because in personal experience I’ve learned that because they do not know their role and don’t want to play their position they try to diffuse any type of connection you have with their “significant other to be/sibling”. I knowww I knowww, you’re supposed to be secure enough in yourself to not be bothered by the “other women” if you’re with him, but the constant friction from the outsiders the average person will not stick around dealing with people that he should keep in check….and even if he doesn’t keep them in check its still not a promise things will keep quiet. For instance, an acquaintance of mine was tragically killed at a young age. At the time of his death he was engaged. Unfortunately a boatload of “little sisters” came forward to express their grief in a disrespectful manner…describing intimate moments with him in the presence of the fiancee. I’m sorry, but stuff like that pisses me off. I’m the type of woman that likes special attention…not smothered…but enough that I know that I’m special and DIFFERENT from the other women you interact with. So if I get the same interactions as your “little sisters” were gonna have problems. My treatment needs to be enough that will tell THEM that I am the one he is dating and that I have a higher position on his social hierarchy than they do. Sounds petty, but its what I require. And IF I had it completely my way when things become a bit more serious I’d have him cut off the ex cut buddies.

WHOA you’re doing the most you say. Let me clarify. We know that some people become emotionally attached if the relations are plenty and satisfactory. Some folk become weak and in the fashion of humans being a creature of habit they “want that old thing back.” Seeing as though those who usually want that old thing back will do what’s necessary to get what they want (speaking from personal experiences and observation) they will become a problem for the establishment of something new for the “sibling”. I prefer not to have that problem, although men seem to never completely sever the ties between them and the ex-cut buddy…makes for good drama and entertainment I guess, but I digress. I will have enough on my plate trying to maintain the relationship with him, I don’t want any beef from a has-been.

So what happens? Do you push through and tell ole dude that you want them gone if you become official, or do you strengthen your self security to deal with them AND him? Speaking for myself if you have that much “extended family” I probably won’t touch you…your attention is too scattered to give me what I need. But since we live in a society where people keep their microwave dinners around for a rainy day these questions need answers! Dah well….hopefully ill figure this out by the time I need an answer….which won’t be soon.

Condom Conundrum

I'm 24 and I can say I've never bought condoms *gasp*. That seems so sexually irresponsible of me, and I'm sure someone reading this is thinking "Its 2010, what do you mean?" Now let me state for the record I practice safe sex...I've just never personally purchased the life jacket. I have gone with the significant other to purchase them, just never been the one paying. Maybe this has a lot to do with when I was in middle school and a few friends and myself decided to try and buy condoms to see what they looked like up close and personal. And just our luck our teacher walks into the store and decides to have a chat. We quickly stuff the condoms in an oven mitt and never did buy them. Also, I was involved with a guy who insisted on being the one who purchased the condoms. He did not trust it if he did not buy it. [he had a fear of someone trying to 'trap' him or something...but anyway.] That also contributed to my condom conundrum.

Ever since then I've always associated buying condoms with something I'm not suppose to do. Not like its not my responsibility, just that I get this overwhelming anxiety like someone is looking at me and thinking "She isn't suppose to be having sex." And I guess it can be said if I cannot muster the strength and courage to buy condoms I probably should not be having sex (lol). However, I'm sure I am not the only one with this problem.

Also, along with the fear of purchasing condoms, there is the question. How many condoms is just TOO many? I know it seems like a silly question, but at what point is it just too many condoms for a girl to have at her disposal. [Yes, it can be said with the state of STDs today there is no such thing as too much, but in this instance I am talking about perception.] At what point is it too much, and a girl is considered a slut. If he comes over and I open a drawer and let him choose from a plethora of brands/flavors/and textures..lol. I think then its boardering on being too much. I've read that a simple three pack is ideal for a woman, where she looks concerned enough with her health, but isn't giving off the perception that she has sex with so many men she needs her own condom facility. ***I need more men reading this blog so I can get male feedback on these IMPORTANT questions.***

In the end, my approach seems to be working for me, for now. I don't have to deal with the added cost of buying condoms (although I do have to foot the bill for the lingerie when deemed needed, which is rather costly) and I can say without a doubt I've never had an STD and I am not someones mom. :D


P.S. But maybe I might psych myself up and waltz into a store sometime in the near future and tackle this fear.

**this blog post was taken from my personal blog and re-posted for your enjoyment**