Clutch: Princeton Mom Says Female Students Should Husband Hunt in College

Forgive my lack of a proper set up for this story, one with wit or something deep to draw you in. I can’t pull one together right now that has more depth than, “what the entire **** is going on?” So instead of giving you a bunch of symbols to replace the string of expletives I’d like to use, allow me to “use my words” and jump right in with the facts.

Last Friday, a Princeton alum from ’77 and mom to two sons, one who currently attends the university, wrote a letter for the school paper, The Daily Princetonian. It was billed as “what [women] really need to know that nobody is telling you.” The big secret? That matriculating women should be spending their college years looking for husband, starting in their Freshman year. I thought it was a satirical, something unexpectedly witty mocking the reams of bad advice that women are given to find a mate. But then I learned that Susan Patton, an Upper Eastside (NYC) Mom was entirely serious, and just like that, my whole head exploded.

When I was able to compose myself, I laughed an evil laugh. Because after all these years of Black women being pummeled with bad advice to relieve them from singleness, it’s sickly funny that our white counterparts are getting publicly heaped on for being single as well. Our misery just got company. And then I felt terrible, because I shouldn’t wish being piled up on for being single on any woman. Sorry, white ladies. My bad.

“For most of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably linked to the man you marry,” Patton warns. “You will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you.Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate.”

She also advises that women shouldn’t date men who are not their intellectual equal, nor should they date men who are younger than them (as in, if you’re a senior, you should only be dating other seniors.)

I’d tell you what else the page and half letter said, if I could actually read it. According to USA Today, where I located the nuggets above, traffic for the article literally crashed the newspaper site where it appeared. Womp.

Read more: here

The Root: Is the Worst of Reality Tv Over?

By now, surely you've been privy to the many discussions, petitions and open complaining over the image of black women on reality TV. There's been an ongoing discussion about this topic ever since Omarosa Manigault stiletto-heel-clicked into Donald Trump's boardroom for The Apprentice in 2004. Either she, the producers or both milked the Angry Black Woman shtick for all it was worth.

The deafening roar of backlash against reality TV seemed to be at a fevered pitch by the time Flavor Flav, Tiffany "New York" Pollard and the rest of the casts from Flavor of Love (and all its spinoffs) hit the air. But no, there was more ruckus to make over the stereotypes played out by a long list of women who called themselves "wives" -- whether they were married or not -- and "ladies" trying to navigate hip-hop and love, but not in that order of priority. Between the bullying, bottle throwing and club brawls, it got bad. Really bad. 

But maybe the worst of it is over.

On Sunday night, The Real Housewives of Atlanta wrapped its fifth season of Southern belles swilling, side-eyeing and shopping. And, also, working. The show has come a long way from where the series began when most of the wives, "wives" and ex-wives spent most of their days doing little more than lunching and looking pretty. These days RHOA focuses more on the women's business ventures, from selling sex toys to stun guns and taking on Hollywood. 

Nene Leakes, the only cast member to be featured in all five RHOA seasons, was once the poster child for bullying, using her slick (and loud) mouth and domineering size to intimidate other cast members (mainly Kim Zolciak, whom she physically confronted). But Leakes emerged this round as the voice of reason (and hilarious snark) in a relatively calm season, during which plenty of catty remarks were hurled and shade was thrown, but rarely the threat of fists.

Read more: here

The Grio: Bashing Kim K's 'Bump' Is Dead Wrong

I know you’re not a fan of Kim Kardashian. In 2012, the New York Post asked readers to vote for their most hated celebrity and ‘Kim K.’ came in a close second, after Casey Anthony, a mother found not guilty of killing her 2-year-old daughter. (Ouch!) So I apologize in advance for writing about Kardashian, and I only bring her up because there’s a compelling reason to do so.

Earlier this week, Kim made the cover of the New York Post and the caption declared “What the Frock?” Next to the headline was a picture of pregnant Kim Kardashian in a poofy dress that camouflaged her bump. Apparently, the Post, like so many of their readers, is no fan of Kardashian, and clearly not her clothing choices since she’s become pregnant. The Post‘s cover story — obviously the result of a slow news day– is just the latest jab. Ripping Kim’s weight and choice of maternity wear, which has mostly consisted of designer wares in larger sizes than usual for her, has become something of a national pastime with countless newspapers, gossip magazines and bloggers seemingly in competition to see who can be the most catty.

Kardashian isn’t the only woman to receive snark about her weight. Jessica Simpson, Amber Rose and Beyoncé all caught hell because of their expanding size, as if it’s unnatural for a pregnant woman to gain weight, or God forbid, still carry additional weight shortly after they’ve given birth.

Just yesterday, Amber Rose was  the latest recipient of the wrath when gossip blogs posted pictures of her enjoying a night out with her her fiancé, rapper Wiz Khalifa. MediaTakeout.com posted images that zoomed in on Rose’s stomach and thighs and the headline read, “We’re Starting to Wonder… Will Amber Ever Get Back to Being the Banger That She Was?” Clearly an editor was horrified that just five weeks after having a child, Rose dared to not have a flat tummy or toned legs.

A lot of people don’t like Kardashian and Rose, and take every opportunity to go in. I’m not here to debate their likability or ask you to love them. I am here to make sure the bashers out there understand the horrific message they are sending to soon-to-be moms and new moms, in or out of the spotlight.

Read more: here

The Root: I'm Taken But Want to Get Back With My Ex

"My ex is still in my life even though we've been apart since 2009; we dated for a few months. We haven't seen each other in four years and talk every day, even though I'm taken (and unhappy) and he's single. We never had sex during the time we dated. There are still feelings there. Our jobs are placing us both in Hawaii and I think it's a sign. Should I explore it?"--P.A.  

I'm so unclear on how you are in a relationship and your partner is fine with you talking to your ex every day. One of my best friends -- other than my partner -- is a man, and even when he was single and I was single, we didn't talk every day. We've been friends for almost 15 years and have a great camaraderie, and yet I just can't think of a reason that we would need to speak daily (and he feels the same). Even with my super-close lady friends, we don't talk every day.

Now that I think about it, the only man I've ever consistently spoken to daily for years at a time is my father -- and that's because he calls me every single day. I moved away from home 12 years ago, and bless his heart, he misses me as if it's the first day I'm gone. And even with him, as close as we are, and all that is going on in our worlds, there is just nothing to talk about sometimes.

What do you and your ex -- your alleged "friend" -- have to talk about that's so pressing that it must be done daily? And, a better question, does your man know? Or is this a secret?

Sorry, I've become distracted. The answer to your query is so obvious that I must have pretended it was rhetorical or sarcastic.

Ma'am, you are in a relationship -- one that doesn't quite make sense to me. You seem to spend a hefty chunk of your downtime on the phone with another guy -- notably a guy whom you clearly don't think of as just a friend, since you think that being in the same state he's in is a "sign" that you should explore your feelings for him. It's not apparent how long you've been with your current boyfriend, but however long it is, you've been emotionally cheating on him by carrying on a phone relationship with another man.

Maybe your partner knows, or maybe he just pretends that he's OK with it, or maybe he's just doing his own thing and is too busy to care. But the fact is, you refer to yourself as "taken," which means that you're acknowledging being committed, even if you're contemplating acting as if you're not. Either way, it still means that you should honor the commitment you've made or else you should leave the relationship.

Read more: here

Clutch: Women— Our Own Worst Enemies?

Stay with me. I ki-ki a lot, and lean toward fluffier subjects matter. But I’m in thinking mode, and I’d like you to consider something that’s been on my mind.

Yesterday was D-Day. Yes, I’m referring to the divorce filing heart ’round the Internet, that of reality TV husband Kordell Stewart against his wife Porsha. I joked on Twitter that I wondered what creative excuse would be concocted to blame Porsha for her husband’s abrupt departure because despite the viewing audience of Real Housewives of Atlanta largely agreeing that Kordell was overbearing, he was the one who filed for divorce. And though the couple haven’t said much– yet– about what went  left in the marriage, some people, including women, always blame the woman when there’s a break up, but really, when anything goes down between a man and a woman, women get blamed.

I sent a shout out to all the misogynist bloggers who would have to get creative with their excuses since Porsha came across as all the things that women are “supposed” to be in order to maintain a relationship— totally devoted, loyal, easygoing, in-shape, cute, married before 30 and with no “outside” kids, a wife who was proud to submit to her husband and put his wants/needs/happiness before her own.  And I noted that by misogynists, I didn’t mean all men, and I did mean some women.

You see, sometimes, we women can be our own worst enemies. (Note the “we.” I include myself.) Whether it’s wondering what a female celeb did to deserve her boyfriend beating her like that, or how a 16 year old girl should take responsibility for her rape because she was drunk or what a woman could have done for a man to allegedly kick her– and her son– out of his house. We don’t always flat out accuse, but sometimes in our musings as we dissect the news, we tend to give men the benefit of the doubt, a privilege that is not typically extend to women. In that, we reveal that we either enjoy our high horses or we just don’t think so highly of womankind, and in turn, ourselves.

Read more: here

The Root: Black Women Won't Be Erased Here

When I was in my first semester of journalism school, a well-meaning professor pulled me aside to offer some constructive criticism. He was one of my favorites, a great teacher and an accomplished editor at an award-winning newspaper.

He'd noticed a theme in the stories I'd pitched or written for his class -- all about black people, especially women. "You're a good writer," he said, stroking my ego before delivering a crushing blow. "You shouldn't pigeonhole yourself by writing about black topics."

I've heard variations of that comment many times in my 12-year career as a writer and editor who covers mostly black subjects, often about black women, and is published by predominantly black magazines and sites. In some ways, those words have haunted me.

The fact is, many people don't think that writing about black folks' needs, desires, challenges or contributions, or anything else from a black perspective, is as worthy as covering more mainstream -- i.e., "white" -- subjects. There is an undeniable stigma in some realms that black issues aren't as worthy or don't even require the same amount of skill to cover. I'd be lying if I said I have not questioned my subject matters of choice. Luckily, I haven't listened to the naysayers.

I wanted to become a writer all those years ago specifically because I wanted to talk about black people and tell our stories. I sat in an eighth-grade world-history class, during which my teacher skipped the chapter on Africa to extend the conversation on Ancient Greece. In American-history class, blacks were relegated to slavery and the civil rights movement. I remembered my (white, proud Republican) 10th-grade political science teacher arguing for racial profiling and extolling its benefits.

In college, I went through all the requirements (and then some, because I was really into it) of an English major, reading about the great literary contributions of white men and women. I was always bothered that focused examinations of black works were relegated to an African-American-studies class, and even then, the conversations were often about black men.

It was in a class on African-American film during my junior year in college that I had my aha moment. We were dissecting Spike Lee's Malcolm X, specifically the scene where the legion of black men show up at the police station after a Muslim brother has been arrested and beaten. The camera pans to a view of hundreds of stoic black men, present and ready to be called to action if the police don't give in to Minister Malcolm's demand for medical treatment for their mistreated and abused brother. My professor showed a picture on the projection screen of a similar rally, in which a line of Muslim sisters "manned" the very front line of defense.

Read more: here