Is it the skin she is in, or her character?

A lot of young folks today, may only be familiar with Cameo, if at all,  for the song word up. But 30 years ago this hit by Cameo was one of many thought provoking songs black artists  put out, that tackled political and social issues relating to our presence in amurdikkka. And they did it while getting you to dance your ass off while thinking at the same time. Songs like James brown “I am Black and I am  Proud” was our very own black national anthem during the turbulent 60s and early 70s. While this song, skin I am in, addresses the issue of racial inequality in that shit hole country,  some one with a deeper overstanding of race-ism would also see it as an issue of colorism among the descendants of a stolen people, imprisoned and enslaved to enrich generations of whites.

This short video below is among many that purports to tackles the issue of colorism in a more direct way from the point of dark-skinned black women (and one mulatto). Check out what they have to say…

This is a necessary discussion that black women and black men should have often and separately , before we decide to have the discussion with each other. Colorism among Afurakan people was never a thing before we first came face to face with the Neanderthal like Hyksos back in the day. And even then the colorism was still not the disease we currently experience, but for invasion of the Arabs and the modern western Europeans who invaded Afuraka, seeking to destroy every fabric of our existence by introducing the ism of race as a concept and a science, into the lexicon and psyche of the planet. So there’s that!  The video predictively promotes a theme of women complaining about not feeling attractive or treated like they are invisible, being overlooked by black men, by showing mainly overweight or obese or otherwise regular looking females. Usually when I see a video of women talking about lucking out with men, they are usually attractive women complain about those men unable to meet their delusional standards. These delusional standard are something most black women get from white women without the validation that white women get in a white and gynocentric society.

The video was embedded in an article that was put out by the UK-based Guardian Newspaper. The article which I am including parts of it in this post, will be dissected in an attempt to show how women in general, and black women specifically, are often the architect of their own demise, The article started off with a declaration within a question. I dropped a picture of the author of the article, Dream McClinton who is a Guardian US editorial fellow.  A position that is best suited to college graduates with prior professional reporting and writing experience. Which means she is an intern writer.

Image result for Dream McClinton

By looking at her image would you say she is unattractive? No! She doesn’t appear overweight, so that’s not it. So it must be other factors that prompted her to write an article about her failure to meet a suitable black man. And she insists it has to do with her color. The article is titled Why dark-skinned black girls like me aren’t getting married and starts out with the author, scrolling through a dating site. In her own words,  swiping left to dismiss men she deems unacceptable, or swiping right to express interest.  “The first eligible bachelor appears – not my type, I swipe left. Then another follows – too young, I swipe left again. Ten swipes in, and I find myself texting my eldest sister this was a bad idea. A feeling of vexation settles over me.

I am not sure what her type or what too young really is, since she herself looks young. What we see so far is a typical person on a dating site, correctly passing over profiles they are not interested in and saving those they find interesting. She is making judgment calls as is her right. But what pray tell is her criteria. The reader never quite get a glimpse of what it is. And just for the record, most dating sites are geared to capture the phenomena of todays dating scene. Which means a majority of men and women go on dating sites for a hook up, anonymous sex or sex with out commitment. If there is a connection, which I have heard happens, great! However, please do not be deluded. Dating sites are equivalent to the bar scene without the dressing up, music or expense. On dating sites people can lie or obfuscate as much as the want to, even to the point where they are skinning out their asses, showing their cunts and dicks, yet talking about they looking for meaningful relationships. The kind of shit women put up on their profile is ridiculous. The demands they make incredible superfluous. Many I have heard have been on dating sites for a long time and netting nary a date, much less a series of them. So when a woman or a man goes on a dating site and complain about a lack of match, I tend to look at them side eyed.

McClinton like a lot of people in today’s society claim to use a dating apps, because, as she states, in her case men don’t talk to her any other way. Looking at her, I find it hard to believe. Is it her or is it that we live in a society where social media has totally destroyed one on one communication.  Making it difficult for most people to talk to another without awkwardness ensuing? Or is it that her personality or requirement does not mesh with what she is coming across? McClinton then continues into the article with a self-pitying comment of I’ve spent so much time trying to understand what is so unattractive about me that men shun me.” Typically like a lot of women who appears to have a degree and a job, she utters her first bullshit excuse. “At first, I thought it was because I was intimidating – a word I’ve heard used to describe me”. While not knowing her personality, to imply that she intimidates men is hard to fathom, but is something often used by women who are difficult to get along with. I do not think any intelligent or educated man would be intimidated but an intelligent or educated woman. Perhaps she deliberately interacts with men who ARE intimidated by an intelligent or educated woman, because she is choosing men outside of her social circle. I am not saying its wrong to do so. But if two people are from different social circle and more important, have difficulty relating, it falls to the one in the higher circle to accept the fact that they were “slumming”.  And those in the so-called lower social circle should know by then that they are out of their league. Out of your league is not necessarily an indictment on one’s intelligence or personality, but a narrative about social values.

Then McClinton interestingly says she concluded men shy away from her because  she was “not that interesting,” a line she  uses as her biography on social media. The energies she puts out there is attracting the results she keeps getting. McClinton finally decided it wasn’t all that but because of her “deep mahogany skin” ( her words). McClinton then launches into the article first by introducing the narrative and origin of colorism – the prejudice based on skin tone – and how it had stunted the romantic lives of millions of dark-skinned black women. She mentioned how women like her are not as valued as their lighter-skinned counterparts when seeking romantic partners. she talks about her childhood being a victim of colorism in grade school and in college by how men – particularly dark-skinned men – make disparaging comments about dark-skinned women and black women. This is not only true, but many dark-skinned women AND men can attest to the disparaging and spirit crushing abuse they get from other black people. Even other dark-skinned people.

McClinton goes on to explain that “like other systems of racial inequality, American colorism was born out of slavery. As slave masters raped enslaved women, their lighter-skinned illegitimate offspring were given preferential treatment over their darker counterparts, often working in the house as opposed to the fields. This order has since been perpetuated by systemic racism and internalized by black people. It remains alive even now, insidiously snaking into my life. I have many memories of being degraded because of my complexion, the most piercing is from middle school: two girls giggled in my Georgia history class during the showing of a documentary about slavery. As the film explained the origins of skin tone prejudice, one girl – biracial, hazel-eyed and the only other black girl in class – whispered that she would have been a house slave, but that I would have been a field slave. As the famous image of whipped Peter played on-screen, I sank down in my chair, silently greeting the weight of oppression on my 12-year-old shoulders. In many ways, nothing has changed since that day. Dark skin still not only comes with the expectation of lower class but lessened beauty, not to mention uncleanliness, lesser intelligence and a diminished attractiveness. Meanwhile, everywhere we look, women like me see successful black men coupled with fair-skinned female partners who pass the paper bag test – a remnant of the Reconstruction era, where the only black people worthy of attention had to be lighter than a paper bag. This “test” was even instituted in places such as historically black colleges and universities as an informal part of the admissions process. Today, this gradation discrimination remains. “It’s typical to see light-skinned black women as representing beauty in the black community and therefore being highly desirable for high-status spouses,” says Dr Margaret Hunter, who teaches sociology at Oakland’s Mills College and has studied the relationship between marriage and colorism for over two decades. Hunter sums it up like this: “Black women in general marry less than other races but darker-skinned black women marry men of lower social status than the lightest-skinned black women.”

The lighter the shade, the higher the probability of marriage

I don’t want to repeat word for word what the author of this article was saying. I will let you read it yourself. However, I find that disingenuous people will strive to find evidence to back up the way they feel and think, even if it has nothing to do with whatever the challenges they currently face. I am not sure where the statement ” The lighter the shade, the higher the probability of marriage”,  come from. I believe from the same disingenuous place that often states that black men don’t marry black women. Or most black men marry white women. There is enough statistics on the internet that not only dispel that stereotype, but also the one which states that the higher probability of marriage is based on skin tone.  The subject of marriage is a subject that a lot of women refuse to tackle honestly and a lot of men are realizing is not worth their time. The MGTOW movement is an example of men who refuse to continue to play the game a lot of women are playing today. And marriage is one of the victims. Chances are men not wanting to marry is more about marriage itself than the tone of your skin. Also, if women choose to have sex before marriage, then forcing marriage on a man already comfortable with continuing to screw you, this makes it ass back wards and counter productive to what appears to be a comfortable situation. At least for the men. Because most women today want marriage, not because it is a necessity before sex, but because it is an opportunity to boost their image in other people’s eyes. The women who push hard for marriage AFTER having sex and babies, care more about what people may say about them and the fantasies they create in their heads about marriage. Marriage doesn’t cure anything if either party fails to bring value to the relationship, that wasn’t there in the beginning.

When it comes to dating, a lot of women in today’s society are facing a backlash that goes beyond just having dark skin. She and others like her confuse the two issues. On one hand you have a real issue of colorism that is being confused and mixed up with another completely different issue of personality. Women on dating sites and women dating period, want husband material inside a bad boy persona, while refusing to be wife material. Every time I see, hear or read about women’s complaint about dating, its all about what the men does and does not do for them. Yet ask women what they do for men, outside of a blow job or monkey back flip sex, they can’t tell you. Oh! They can tell you “I am a queen” or they have this education or that good job. They may say “I am black” or a woman or both, but nothing substantive.  Yet they will ask for substantive things from a man. The other thing with dating is women have certain standards they hold fast to. He has to be this Hight. This weight. Make this amount of money, education, background etc. When a man offers up his own standards, he is offending or even oppressing women. Look…I don’t go out of my way to choose fat or big/”thick” women ( two different things). I like petite women, but I also find statuesque women attractive ( yeah I know this is a wild swing here, but work with me). I love dark-skinned women and wouldn’t go out of my way to choose very light-skinned women. I love seeing women with low-cut hair or even a bald head. I am not all that enamoured in huge breasts or asses I can’t palm.  And I have a good size palm. Yet above all of that, I am an intellectual and I am sapiosexual. Which means if you and I click intellectually, I care less if you CAN do monkey back flip sex. As long as she can stimulate me intellectually AND has the requisite femininity  to match my obvious masculinity. These are my standards that a lot of women would find oppressive and or offensive.

Most women – not all who complain about the very real issue of colorism, tend to ignore how their personality may be the culprit and not a mans preference of shade. Colorism is a hot button topic that illicit serious emotional responses. It’s like women who falsely accuse a man of rape or sexual harassment, trivializing real victims of rape and sexual harassment. Please don’t think I am comparing the two issues, that are both serious in of themselves. What I allude to is how women tend to use certain hot button topic unnecessarily, because their feelings are hurt and they refuse to hold themselves or be held accountable for a glitch in their personality or values.  McClinton goes on to site the research of one Darrick Hamilton, a professor of economics and sociology at Ohio State University. Hamilton aggregated (look up the meaning) information from the 2003 Multi-City Study of Urban Equality to identify why so many dark-skinned women who date men remain bachelorette. His assessment was designed to show how the imbalance of eligible black males – taking into account high incarceration rates and a limited labor market – affects the marriage market. What such a research fails to show is how women tend to fish in the same pool for eligible men. The same city, neighborhood, class of men, culture of men ( what about black men from other countries) or even the same country. Everybody and his dead uncle knows amurdikkka has become a prison colony for black men of all income, education and class. Both dark-skinned and light-skinned, religious or political.

Hamilton’s research also showed that a scarcity in available “high-status” husbands (defined as higher levels of education, not growing up on public assistance, coming from neighborhoods that had less crime), effectively leave black men in control of the dating selection process. Who are these women and are they all of the same criteria he uses for “high status” men? Women are naturally hypergamous. Which means they will always look to punch above their weight class. Hypergamy is but one of the problem women have with dating. Because most of the high status men are NOT on dating sites. They have women chasing THEM and not the other way around. Which is what men do on dating sites. Chase women. According to Hamilton, his data concluded 55% of light-skinned women were married while only 23% of dark-skinned women had jumped the broom.

“[Black men] have unnatural power within marriage markets that enables them to bid up cursory characteristics like skin shade,” Hamilton told me over the phone. In other words, the lighter the female, the higher the probability of marriage. “One of the results that we found was that [darker-complexioned] black women who have ‘higher status’ faced a greater penalty in marriage markets than those with a lower socioeconomic status.”  Again I have a problem with this research, because I wonder how and what criteria are used to select the subjects for his studies. I mean 23% is very low and I have seen a lot of dark-skinned women getting married. Some even to light-skinned men. YouTube by itself has a whole lot of people posting and celebrating their ceremonies. I have even had one female vehemently complain that Jamaican men do not marry Jamaican women. When I cite evidence from my own family and showed her news clipping of multiple marriages of Jamaican mea and women, she ignores those and still fall back to that very old tired story.  Just like in amurdikkka, people still use their own old and tired stories. McClinton points to Hamilton’s  research where she states, “I am the epitome of the “high-status” option. College educated, familial middle class background, age 16-30, able-bodied. But according to the equation, I haven’t the “social capital” (read: skin tone) to seek a quality match”. From my experience and anecdotal ones, such high status in a woman would at least be of interest to most men. So is the deal breaker, really about her skin or her character? And she barely talks about her choices. Does she chooses dark-skinned men herself?

McClinton commiserate with her other single friends, which is a red flag right there, and complain of seeing black men pass up perfectly eligible dark-skinned women. “Black men will say, ‘complexion doesn’t matter’, but they might give that lighter complexion woman who is very comparable to a darker-complexion woman a chance, when they wouldn’t give that darker-skinned woman a chance.” Again what kind of men ae you hanging around? If a black women tells me she only dates light-skinned men or white men or whatever, I don’t get twisted in my feelings but in fact chalk it up to a loss on her part. Everybody has a preference in potential mates, even down to the skin they are in. I will bet anybody some Mexican pesos that dark-skinned black women have their preferences for lighter skinned men, but men don’t get it as twisted as women do. Again, I am not dismissing the phenomena of colorism. But when is it truly a case of colorism and when is it a case of character issues?

For McClinton and her friends – “dark skin (is) Someone who is probably brown to dark skin. Someone with natural hair. Someone who is over the size of six,” she answers. “I would bet $5,000 every single one of my black colleagues have had that happen. Where they’ll come back and say, ‘Uh, well, he’s only looking for someone who is very fair’; or, ‘He’s looking for someone who is light-skinned’.”  This is reaching so far, that Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four would be hard press to keep up with her.

I am not going to continue pasting up the other stuff she says, because its more of the same, augmented by some anecdotal references. The bottom line is colorism is real. Colorism is a stain left over from white violence of imperialism, colonialism, chattel slavery and reLIEgion, that has warped our worldview of ourselves. Colorism affects black people more than anybody else. But just believe not everything is about racism ( just most things), everything is not about colorism when it comes to dating. No woman should go on a dating site looking for a man with high status, when she is competing with good time girls that are showing off breast, asses and vagina and expect men on these sites to treat them like high status women. Dating sites, even the ones who claim to be classy, like Ashley Madison or eHarmony, are peopled with women cheating on their men and men cheating on their women. These people want fantasies like white women, white men, Asians or Hispanic, threesome-foursome, cuck holding,  etc., etc.  They are not looking for high status people. In fact if McClinton really want something safe as a dating app, try Christian mingle. It’s not guaranteed, but she would find some kind of high status men there. Otherwise, go to places where high status men hang out and mingle there. She may find it out that perhaps it’s not her skin, but her standards, choices or character that is forever keeping her single.



2 thoughts on “Is it the skin she is in, or her character?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s