BlackMan Time

The Tiger Woods story has spawned a huge number of discussions about infidelity and the reason why people in relationships cheat. The topic has basically split the sexes with men saying women cheat just as men and women saying men are serial cheaters. It is a veritable battle! Maybe this is why they call relationships between man and woman “battle of the sexes”.

Some people do not need a reason to cheat: they will cheat any time the opportunity arise. The temptations are always going to come and the weak, most humans, will succumb if not be tempted by it.

Relationships that aren’t strong enough or where the foundations are already shaky, are most vulnerable to crumble. It is irrelevant whose fault it is, man or woman because when one unite in marriage or such like it’s no longer two people anymore: it is just a oneness. Thus if one person in this union has strayed then the entire relationship is failing.

It is commonly assumed that love can sustain a relationship and prevent people from straying or looking outside for extra-curricular pleasure.

But human beings come with built-in failings like lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride and vanity which makes them forever susceptible to temptation. Is it any wonder many people remain rather than risk a cheating partner in marriage?

Everybody’s got an opinion on the Tiger Woods story. Women are angry that yet another proof that men are no good has been uncovered and are pouring over evidence that the world’s greatest golfer has apparently been caught cheating on his wife. What you expect from a man called ‘Tiger Wood’, they say…

Men are surprised that Tiger, whose real name is actually Eldrick Tont Woods, has been caught out like that. He was nicknamed “Tiger” after Vuong Dang Phong, a Vietnamese soldier who was a good friend of his father. They’re sad for him (that he got caught) but shoot him an admiring “way to go Tiger!” from the other side of their face. But, is this really the way to go?

The controversy has split the sexes. Among the big debates I’ve heard within the media and happening in the corridors and restaurants of some work places my friends work at, are discussions about why men cheat on their wives or girlfriends. A couple friends have been more forthright and say all men cheat.

Women naturally siding with Tiger’s wife Elin who has remained silent but as an increasing number of women keep popping up to reveal details of their alleged affairs with the world’s most successful athlete, you wonder if their marriage will be strong enough to cope.

Why do you think men cheat on their wives and/or vice versa?

I’ve been asked the question: “what do you like in a woman?” so many times that I thought I’d just put these thoughts down and see what happens. Unfortunately, I do not have a menu or list of requirements.

Things like big house, posh car, bags of money, fame, etc., are just material things. I tend to know more what could be a problem for me but if I like someone enough I’m willing to make the necessary sacrifice to make it work.

I like women who have the humility to understand that you don’t need to win every battle that it’s OK to hold your tongue or action if that’s required to make peace reign in a relationship.

I also love women who understand that a man will sometimes make mistakes or fail to interpret their actions and when he does he deserves another chance and/or respect for his ignorance. He should not to be castigated or thrown away with the bath water just because he didn’t “get you” at the first attempt.

Children

Women who already have children but yet find themselves single sometimes worry if they’ll find someone who will love both them and their offsprings. If a person truly love you then they’ll learn to love even your dog (and cat!) under the cellar or that relationship stands no chance of starting let alone surviving.

A woman who is brave enough to tell me exactly what she wants from me scores the biggest because many seem to think they should keep this piece of information in some darkened place where no man can see it. I once asked a woman to show me how to love her and she replied: “That’s not my place to tell you that. You should just know.”

Even if this was the case a little help would not hurt at all! Having grown up listening to music where the singer croons things like: “show me where to hold and touch you cos when it comes to loving I’m alright” I thought it was universally understood that we can and should teach each other about ourselves. After all we know ourselves better than anyone else.

But maybe some people see love as a kind of puzzle that you have to unravel piece by piece, clue by clue, until you finally stumble onto the solution. Why should it be this way? I just think we should learn to trust someone enough to be open with them or just leave them alone because it maybe that you’re just not ready to start a relationship with anyone. Or, at the very least, not with that person.

Emotional Slaughter

Some people fear or hate being alone and feel they’ve got to have a relationship by any means necessary yet have not moved on emotionally or sufficiently from their last one (or few!) relationships. This is so unfair on any new prospective partners because you are almost certainly tainting any new relationship with the negative chi of the past one(s).

A person who constantly talks about a past relationship in glowing terms or even tells you that “my ex was the best relationship I’ve ever had” just doesn’t realise what psychological damage they’re doing to a prospective relationship by putting pressure on a new one. If that ex was so great why is s/he an ex? I’m sure there’s more to be said on this topic but I’ll save it for another time. Or just click here to ask me directly.

In the end I dont have all the answers and I’m just a man willing to learn from my mistakes and the example of others. I don’t venture into relationships very easily and I try to be honest when I do.

I try not to play games with people’s emotions and tend to lay my cards out on the table once a relationship has reached a certain point where this will be respected. All anyone can ask or expect is the same courtesy to be shown and given.

Is this too much to ask?

Don’t you just love it in the movies when a couple splits up in a scene where the woman tearfully walks away from the man after saying dialogue such as: “I love you but…you’ve upset me. And now I must go. Goodbye and don’t try to stop me…”

He initially tries feably to stop her but seeing how determined she is to leave, he just sighs resignedly in a gesture that says: “aw, well…” Then he turns and goes about his previous business, thinking about what just happened there…

Some time later he runs into the woman again. They strike up a conversation which is initially awkward but after a while they fall back into a groove.

At a key point he says what’s really on his mind: “Why did you run off like that?” She replies something likeo: “I just wanted to see if you would run after me.”

The question I’m asking is why do women manipulate situations like that? Why is it so important to test a man this way? What does the “run after me” part mean to a woman?

It just seem so unnecessary and pointless from a man’s perspective…

So the BBC gave the BNP a platform to perform? Why did they not invite a British black man on the panel? No disrespect to novelist Bonnie Greer but she’s American and although she’s black she cannot profess to have experienced Britain in the same way that most UK-born black people have. So why didn’t the BBC see it fit to redress this issue?

The programme, chaired by Sir David Dimbleby had the panellists Jack Straw, MP; Baroness Warsi, Conservative peer; Bonnie Greer, playwright and Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman.

Maybe it’s just me but I think a failure to even consider having a black male panellist is part of the overrall institutional racism that has befallen us over the years. The BBC by this omission is really saying they don’t feel there’s any black man in Britain capable of engaging an obnoxious racist fool like Griffin when the reality is quite different.

Even I would’ve been happy to appear. My focussed anger with the fact that I was opposed to him being given the opportunity in the first place, would’ve proven far more potent than Greer’s meandering, multi-syllable intellectual dead-ended responses, for instance.

In the end it was a freak show and the biggest freak had his day. Or is it just me, a black man freaking out…

Of late the state has been making noises about the need to get more involved in the welfare of children to the point where they’re making suggestions to do this even before any problem occur.

This chilling prospect reminds me of the film AI (Artificial Intelligence) which depicts a world where criminals are arrested long before a crime is committed.

For now the most hoopla is around whether parents have the right to beat or smack their kids and how much punishment is actually abuse, etc. The debate is raging.

There’s a place for discipline in any situation where order is expected but the manner in which the discipline is implemented (notice I didn’t say ‘enforced’) is telling.

Environment

Usually discipline is influenced by environmental culture in that the punishment should always fit the crime and punishment or the tools used to administer it should also be appropriate.

If a child deserves a beating I see no problem with that but one should exercise restraint. Dropping a used car on a child is obviously inappropriate; neither is caning a six month old child.

If discipline can be established and maintained by gentle prodding only then this would be best but gentle prodding may not be appropriate if the environment is harsh and the only form of punishment the child will respond to is rough justice.

Do you think it is illegal for a political party to exclude you from joining based on your colour, race, class, gender or sexual preference? You probably answer no, right? If you did then your view coincide with the opinions of other decent, law-abiding citizens.

It comes as a little two faced¹ surprise, therefore, that one so-called political party have been able to get one candidate elected to the European parliament and bagged itself an appearance on the BBC flagship Question Time political programme in the process. That guilty party is the British National Party, an ultra right wing, racist outfit that openly preaches race hate towards non-white members of the population.

How did they get elected? And why is the BBC giving about to give to give them airtime under the proviso of equality of opportunities to media interest on their channel?

Call me scenical but the BNP’s appearance on the BBC is happening because someone wants it to happen. Someone, maybe even a group, wants the BNP black race-hating filth and Enoch Powell-like scaremongering propaganda to reach a mass audience. Only the BBC alone knows why it would want that.

My only hope is that during the programme the BNP will fall down on its face and knock out all its stinking, rotten teeth. And gums.

That would make my day.

1. Image Credit: This painting, entitle “Two Faced” is by artist Joseph David Greenwood and shows Marcin Bondarowicz [↩]

Here’s a question for you: if your child(ren) or the child(ren) of someone you know very well broke the law or were planning to do so in a big way would you help to shield and protect them from prosecution? Or, would you report them to the police and let the law do the rest?

This must be the dilemma facing parents and family members in that situation.

As good citizens we are obliged to conduct ourselves in a manner that is fitting for the rest of our community. However this concept breaks down when it comes to siding with society (or outsiders) against your own child, however wayward that child has been.

Thick Blood

Blood, indeed, is thicker than water, and this takes precedence in some cases over the fact our inclination towards nepotism could cost us far more in the long run than in doing the morally correct or legally commendable thing.

Who wants to have it on their conscience that they sent their children to prison or condemn them to a death sentence? Is it really only those who doesn’t value family ties? Or those who consdier themselves really good citizens? Maybe even both…

In essence it would be impossible for most people to turn their child in to the law unless their crimes were too shockingly heinous to ignore. One hopes never to be tested this way, of course, but dealing with matters internally is best. In the end it is up to our us and our conscience.

For that’s when the real emotional and psychological dilemma begins…

Boxers Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson met again but this time it was on The Oprah Winfey Show, last week.

Clearly they’ve buried the hatchet, thankfully, not in each other’s skull! Holyfield said he wanted to appear with Tyson on television to demonstrate to young people caught up in violence that reconciliation is always possible. “We can come together. We know you can come together,” he said.

I just love the strong positive message this public reconciliation emits following their world title fight at the MGM Grand hotel in Las Vegas on June 28, 1997 when Tyson bit a chunk out of Holyfield’s ear in their third round of their championship fight.

Nuff respect is due!

Photo: (c) Splash News, 2009.

I’ve been asked this question more times than I care to admit but usually by white people uncomfortable with the idea of a custom specifically celebrating black culture.

From their perspective a Black Anything event seeminly excludes them for the simple reason they are not black. They contrast this with the fact that they do not have a White History Month, for example.

It is perhaps irrelevant to them that the reason we have Black History Month is to try and redress the imbalance that exist in a society where people of African descent are in the minority and where institutional racism and discrimination prevent them from getting equality of services and opportunities.

Colour Blind

One white former male work colleague tells me: “I see you and other guys of other races as my friends, not my ‘black’ friends, but kind of colourless.” He worries that events specifically tailored to black people ” is another divide against uniting all people of every race and coming to a point where we get away from seeing people still as a product of their colour.”

It is clear the colour focus is a worry to white people. Why should this be so? Some of the vilest racial epithets (those beginning with ‘n’ and rhyming with bigger, for instance) are not terms black people invented for themselves. Or maybe the colour focus forces them to reflect on why black people exist in such large numbers in the west: the result of illegal and inhumane white trafficking in African slaves some 400 years ago.

Others see hope for humanity in working towards a united world view, with just one people, human with no distiction of country, class, monetry value etc. In fact the kind of world John Lennon envision in his classic track “Imagine”.

Utopia?

Can such utopia be realised while we still have a reality where presidents unleash illegal wars to avenge the failures of their fathers? Or wars to steal the assets of another nation just because they can get support from other nations with similar interests?

Of one thing we are very certain: skin colour is important as a cultural characteristic yet, to quote a popular song, “until the colour of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes there will be war (division).” Learning to love and respect someone regardless of their customs, culture or colour should perhaps be the ultimate goal for us all.

Is that a world you would like to help develop?