Summary: Seven Minds is a Wiki-Pen series consisting of four topics that are addressed by seven individuals which were specifically chosen based upon literary competency, research, and logical replies to many previous posts and broad subject matters.

With a second term African American President do we now understand power, and are willing to do what is necessary to sustain and grow it?

Michelle Abram: https://www.facebook.com/michelle.abram.5?fref=ts

I would say that we do not understand power any better than we did, before. If anything, we understand it LESS. For whatever reasons, this presidency has been one of the most contentious, ever. It has consisted of finger-pointing, in-fighting, arguing, uncompromising idealism, and failure to cooperate.

What has allowed other groups to gain power has, to a great extent, been their unity. This presidency clearly shows that being an island in the midst of unwilling supporters renders one powerless, even in high position. I believe that we have completely missed that message.

Honestly, we will not have the power to move forward or grow as a people unless and until we understand that it is not individuals that move mountains, but powerful forces consisting of the voices and resources of many. Our power will come into being IF and ONLY IF we understand that we need, FIRST, to support one another, and SECOND, to expand that support out to others by creating a link to our similarities forming a wall based on our differences. This is not an argument for assimilation. It is an argument for learning to invoke tolerance through comradeship that does not attack those with whom we must gain that companionship. Even MLK couldn’t have effected change if it weren’t for the fact that his rhetoric WON him the support of many, across the board, not by attacking other peoples, but by including them. We have forgotten his message and the true nature of his power.

Carol Mickens: https://www.facebook.com/carol.mickens?fref=ts

The Black community is in crisis. Not just because of the levels of violence (Chicago and Philly murder rates) or poverty levels (black unemployment remains high despite national decline), but also due to our lack of cohesion. The lack of cohesion is directly correlated to a lack of Black identity. Depending on who you talk to, Blackness is one thing but not the other. Until we can gather up our dissenting fractions and agree on that, we will not understand the auspices of power fully. We are still too reactionary; we seem only motivated when the threat seems imminent. However, to completely grasp power and what it entails, one must be proactive and predictive. Like chess, one must plot one’s moves in anticipation of the other’s moves. We have to know how to play, “What if” in order to chart out the best avenues for progress. That is quite difficult to do when dodging bullets and worrying about feeding babies or wondering how to afford medical care for elderly parents. And too, there are no clear cut, apparent “powers that be”. Gone are the visible Fannie Lou Hamers, the Medgar Evers, and the John Lewises of days of old. The baton, rather than being passed, seems broken.

Robert Rencher: https://www.facebook.com/renchwriter?fref=ts

If we have been paying close attention, yes.
When discussing our POTUS, the power and knowledge used by his campaign was extremely effective and border line genius. Throughout the first 4 years the Obama Campaign consistently used the power of the internet and email. This served them very well!

We have also seen a demonstration of how power has been used against the President. Many bills that could have created more jobs have been blocked by Republican Senators. For instance, when a jobs bill comes up, it is filled with positive things for the economy, Republicans filibuster debate, this shields them from having to make floor speeches on why they don’t want tax breaks for small businesses.
Even now, President Obama is fighting a Republican Congress on this “Fiscal Cliff” issue. Not because they believe they are right, but to make the President look bad. The GOP (Grand Old Party) has stood true to their name since President Barack Obama was elected. What I mean is they have gone back and refocused their efforts on getting this Black Man out of office and/or making sure that he is remembered as the absolute worst President this country has ever had. He has even been blamed for not being able to “reach across the aisle” and create a bi-partisan partnership. Well, how can that be when some people on one side of the aisle refuse to take their hands out of their own pockets!

Eric Jennings: https://www.facebook.com/eric.jennings.391?fref=ts

I think the term WE is still very “relative” when it comes to African Americans. Our mindsets, educational backgrounds, and work ethics are so diverse that its hard for me to call us a collective. For the most part, our more recent AA leaders haven’t been a source of economic unification. I would go as far as to say that President Obama’s election success has lulled some of us into complacency. For me, his success is not so much a win for African Americans as a group because his position requires him first and foremost be a president who protects the interest of All America (not JUST the Oppressed and those who look like him). He is not comparable to a Dr M.L.King who could focus on championing a targeted segment of the population or a particular injustice.

Understanding power and utilizing it comes from a more direct type of informative source. We don’t learn about economics or how to organize and sustain a business from watching an Inspirational State of The Union Speech, or an Election Debate. We learn these things from Higher Education, Personal/ Community leaders, Family Upbringing, and Work Experience. Our Presidents’ election and re-election may have been Inspiring to some, but for many of us who already felt capable and competent, his success is more of a historical landmark than a surge of growth for the AA community.

Christopher K. Bryant https://https://www.facebook.com/chrisbryantatl

Do we understand power? I can only place that meter at the halfway point. There is a segment of politically astute, business and community savvy African Americans that understand power, yet our capacity and mediums of expressions are both limited and subjected to the very institutions that are purveyors, and controlling arms of power. Our dependence upon systems not of our own causes the expression and dispensation of power to become thwarted and muted. The middle class and lower socio-economic segment occasionally, if not all too often, simply are not recipients of the memo. Perhaps power can be acquired with few but it can only be sustained by the support of me, and until we as a people are more informed, collective, and proactive, I would deem it presumptuous to declare that our understanding of power has significantly advanced, even with the presence of the first African American president. Once acquired, the sustaining and growing of power will be a much simpler accomplishment than understanding power. The ultimate acquisition of power is intoxicating, insomuch that the human, egotistical, and greed based resolve will inspire any race to sustain and grow it, once acquired.

Summary: Seven Minds is a Wiki-Pen series consisting of four topics that are addressed by seven individuals which were specifically chosen based upon literary competency, research, and logical replies to many previous posts and broad subject matters.

Are men more attracted to needy or independent women, and why?

Michelle Abram: https://www.facebook.com/michelle.abram.5?fref=ts

A short answer to this question would be: men need to feel that they have value and a solid, lasting (and exclusive) place in a woman’s life. This does not translate into wanting a needy woman. In fact, statistically, marriages among the mutually highly-paid are more stable than those among the less affluent. It is clear that women with careers and degrees can take care of themselves, and, to that extent, they are independent.

There is a difference between being independent and being unwilling to be dependent on men. What puts men off is an attitude that conveys that they have little or lasting place in a woman’s life. If a woman takes an attitude conveying the message: “continuously prove to me that you are worth my while, or you are history,” SHE is going to be history, soon, thereafter.

A woman who is clinging and needy may appeal to SOME (mostly insecure) men. However, those men who are secure with themselves as men are more likely to value an independent woman who chooses him, not out neediness, but, instead, out of a genuine appreciation for that man as an individual. So long as she makes a place in her life where he can see, for himself, that he truly raises her up and betters her life, he will be happier with a partner that is strong enough to take part of the weight and who will do her best to support him and raise him up just as much.

Carol Mickens: https://www.facebook.com/carol.mickens?fref=ts

The ability to think or reason is the “given” determinant that separates humans from other mammals within the animal kingdom. We, however, cannot escape or dissociate ourselves completely from our animal nature. For example, human beings still operate by instinct to fight in or flee from threatening situations. So, instincts still play an intricate part of our make-up. That being said, generally speaking, there is an almost compulsory drive for men to desire to be needed. Conversely, modern men say, if we are to believe Ne-Yo and singers of this generation, they want an independent women. However, that may go against their very nature. Consider this: when a man introduces himself to someone he’s not met before, he will likely identify himself by his occupation/vocation, what he does. This implicates that his view of himself is tied to “doing” or being able to do. Therefore, being able to provide for his woman is highly seductive; after all, being hunter/protector dates back to our cave men ancestors. Additionally, some men like the idea of being a superhero to his beloved. On the other hand, a woman who is too needy may become a clinging yoke and resented burden (even Peter Parker got tired of being Spiderman sometimes). In sum, men are attracted to women who need them enough…but not too much.

Robert Rencher: https://www.facebook.com/renchwriter?fref=ts

Well, my final comment on the previous topic is somewhat of a prelude to this topic. I truly believe that in different areas of our lives, we are all somewhat insecure. When it comes to dating, many men that are either average or insecure in that arena will go for the “needy” women. Of course this represents the greater majority of men.

You see a needy woman will do everything to make herself extremely appealing to men. This includes what she wears, how she walks & talks and what she will or will not do. Some women mask their “neediness” with what I call “pseudo strength”. In other words, they come off as being a strong woman just to mask the fact that they are very needy. They will also surround themselves with other needy women because of the belief that there is strength in numbers. But when the rubber meets the road, they show their neediness in a big way and allow themselves to be exploited by very insecure men.

It becomes a cycle that is hard to break because the more times they are hurt, the more they want to mask their pain and neediness instead of seeking psychological assistance in dealing with their issue of neediness.

A man that is secure in himself will not exploit a needy woman and in most cases is more interested in an independent woman. She will present herself as someone that can compliment him rather than someone that is totally dependent on his existence.

Christopher K. Bryant https://https://www.facebook.com/chrisbryantatl

The deciding factor is predicated more significantly by the male than the targeted woman. There is a certain male type that is attracted to women that are deemed needy, as well as women that are more independent. I am not sure if either type of woman is more universally appealing because both have their share of select suitors. I believe there is a certain commonality that exists among men that are attracted to needy women, as well as a commonality among those that prefer the independent type.

Men that prefer needy women frequently use such expressed and personality based needs as leverage to increase the security of the relationship. If she is needy, and he has the resources to address or pacify those needs, he can effectively purchase her security and devotion, even if he does not carry out or return the same level of devotion to her. Needy women have a tendency to grow in emotional and or financial need rather than level off toward independence; which means that separation, complete departure, or divorce from needy women is much more emotion filled, convoluted and dramatic. When a needy woman is rejected, she then has an inclination to display more intense emotions because in one fell swoop she is losing the man and the resource.

I believe there is a broad distinction with independent women. Their emotions may flow, but they reserve a certain zone of protection in order to insure that their world is not rocked in the event of a sudden departure or heart wrenching breakup. Personally, I prefer the independent woman, particularly one that will be as strong and secure in the misfortune of a breakup, as she was during the pleasure of our introduction.

Eric Jennings: https://www.facebook.com/eric.jennings.391?fref=ts

A very basic primal ideology which has evolved into a societal norm is the expectation that the man in the relationship protect and provide for his female mate. The functions of providing and protecting in modern day relationships however are more philosophical than practical. The dynamic of male vs female roles has and is dramatically evolving with new societal changes such as the ideology of “women’s independence” and the movement toward “sexual equality in the work force”.

Questions such as the topic of discussion, indicate to me that the women asking this question have not resolved within themselves what their new role is as a result of professing independence and equality. It is relevant that with the redistribution of wealth comes the redistribution of power. Both of which MAY give the role of provider to women and leave the traditional role of the man without that desired functional purpose.

In short, men generally have an innate desire to provide for their women and be needed. Many men when seeking happiness and a relationship, would prefer being a part of a union wherein he is made to feel that he is both desired and needed, as opposed to being informed that he is disposable and can be done without. Primarily for that reason, I would think that the woman who “desires” and “displays a need for” a man, may be more attractive to many men than the woman who may be more concerned with displaying her independence.

Summary: Seven Minds is a Wiki-Pen series consisting of four topics that are addressed by seven individuals which were specifically chosen based upon literary competency, research, and logical replies to many previous posts and broad subject matters.

Male bosses versus Female bosses; Is one better than the other under highly demanding positions?

The capacity to be an awesome supervisor is not subjected to one’s gender, under any circumstances. It is, however, geared towards one’s personality, ability, and professional confidence. In my past twenty-seven (27) years of employment, I have dealt with some terrible to mediocre to freaking awesome bosses. Those who were secure in themselves and their knowledge base tended to be better managers. The two outstanding bosses with whom I was blessed were: Mr. K and Ms. G. I worked as a Counselor under Mr. K’s supervision (he was Assistant Warden) within the GA Department of Corrections, and I processed Air Force EEO discrimination complaints for Ms. G, two demanding fields. They each embodied what I would emulate if I were to supervise others. Since they were secure in themselves, their egos were kept intact. Hence, they had nothing to prove to anyone and did not need to remind subordinates they were “the boss”. They were decisive, inclusive, supportive, and approachable, all of which, commanded respect. Further, if they did not know something, they admitted it, but researched that topic to be well-versed to present it later, if needed. Additionally, they would not assign any task to workers they themselves would not do and gave recognition and credit to us for doing our jobs well.

Michelle Abram: https://www.facebook.com/michelle.abram.5?fref=ts

Men are more likely to be socially conditioned and taught to be goal and results driven. They tend to be effective at setting up highly-competitive, intolerant work situations that drive people to their utmost, but this can result in workers working at odds with each other in order to prove their individual worth rather than as a team. Relentless environments like this also burn people out, causing high turnover, which impacts productivity. Additionally, when your work is critical to his performance, many male bosses will trend towards the “micro-management” style, which negatively impacts productivity while raising the stress level. However, male bosses tend to set up environments in which individual accomplishment is the truest measure by which one advances.

Women are socially conditioned to be more emotional and often feel that they have something to prove against their “hostile male cohorts.” Some of them will stop at nothing to move themselves ahead, and many of them feel that their accomplishments are insufficient to accomplish this. Because “problem-solving” is less ingrained into them, they can have a tendency towards intolerant blaming, and often, it’s female bosses who fire with no warning or suggestions on how to fix problems. Female bosses can hold grudges, with long-term career implications. However, some female bosses set up environments that accommodate individual circumstance among the workers, and some of them have an “approachability” factor that makes them easier to work with.

Robert Rencher: https://www.facebook.com/renchwriter?fref=ts

When I truly consider the effectiveness of the individual (male -vs- female) with a highly demanding position, I think about a position similar to that of Hilary Clinton. You see, this particular position is a very important one and the individual must be wise, intelligent, driven, direct and diplomatic. That being the case, I believe on average the woman would be more effective.

These type positions have typically been held by men and for a woman that is qualified (education & experience), she has reached a level that deserves much respect and recognition. You see, in some positions women have to work twice as hard in order to get half as far as a man. Once she has been put into this position, she will know that all eyes are on her and therefore, she must work twice as hard in order to be recognized as being average in that position. That knowledge drives her to work harder and harder, further qualifying her and pushing her beyond the point of where her male counterparts are or have been.

Now I know this is not part of this topic, however, this is also why some men are intimidated by women that have obtained certain levels of success. Their drive and determination can intimidate the average man and scare the hell out of an insecure man. Men like me, we love these type women!

Tracei Hutcherson: https://www.facebook.com/tracei.hutcherson?fref=ts

Is one better than the other in highly demanding positions? Allow me to remove personal and say it clearly depends on the position and the boss’s ability to represent without a person recognizing the “gender” first. How many times when a particular mandate or consequence is rendered will one state, “oh your supervisor must be a ?” Often times, it is not based on “whom” is better but how the public views the position and whom they feel represents the ”authority” effectively, given their gender, experience and respect. Women have been placed at a disadvantage by having to fight from underneath the soil and dirt placed on top of us. Women have had to sprout up and prove that “we belong” on this playing field. Society conditions us to believe particular “heads” of authority belong to men and we are all guilty of it to a certain degree. Yes indeed, depending on the generation of origin, raising, exposure, environment, opportunities and education, it is very challenging to try to expand our views of entertaining the best for the job and not just the” best man” for the job!

Now, if the board consists of men that are biased toward females in authority and/or have misogynistic individuals In the midst, the female boss must always suit up with full armor and gear and stand on the defense. A female fighting for positioning in a field dominated by her male counterparts must know she belongs before she is hired, nominated or selected. If not, she will be chewed up, and spit out by her peers, coworkers, the public she serves and ultimately herself! Emotion can never present the objective, and being a lady can never look like the alternative. Her heels will come at a price; but if she walks softly and carries a big stick, the only question that will resonate is, “And who is your boss?” “What’s his name!”

Hilary Clinton can hold the high office of President of the United States. In Hilary, you see experience, wisdom, education, no preponderance of her gender, as she stands before authority; Hilary also reflects the ability to lead, and the most poignant attribute is her level of respect.

Christopher K. Bryant https://https://www.facebook.com/chrisbryantatl

I do not believe that gender alone determines superiority in highly demanding positions; I do however believe that certain industries are more suitable for a specific gender. A female boss in the construction field will exert characteristics that are rather unique compared to a female boss of a five star hotel. Both positions are demanding yet they require a unique skill set in order to achieve effectiveness. When men dominate a given industry, particularly of the blue collar sort, they assume that women are less capable which means the mettle of the female boss will be frequently tested, until proven. A male Victoria Secrets store manager will be required to reflect a skill set that is not required as a maintenance supervisor. With the aforementioned as a premise, I surmise that a female boss, under highly demanding positions, may be equal or superior to male bosses, subject to the gender profile or male to female ratio of the industry. If a female boss is in an industry that embraces her as an equal, and a male boss is in an industry that does the same, I believe their effectiveness under highly demanding positions is person based, rather than gender based.

Sonya Menssen https://www.facebook.com/sonya.menssen

Based on personal experience I would have to say no. In my opinion, it comes down to individual personalities and skillset. I have held a variety of positions in my 43 years but mainly I have been an Executive/Personal Assistant supporting up to 5 people at the “C” Suite level and up to 10 at the Director, SVP, VP, Manager level. I’ve had good and “bad” male and female bosses. From my experience in dealing with these “high powered, high level” people, handling highly demanding/stressful situations has nothing to do with their sex but their character and mind set. I had one White male boss who I called “Chicken Little”. He was always afraid “something” was about to go wrong or that the next big “hot” issue was just a phone call away. Even though he was excellent at delegating and operations, he lacked the self-confidence to KNOW all was well. Another was a White female who was, to put it as kindly as possible, the biggest b—h you could ever hope to meet. She was always professional and polite to those above and on her level but if you were “beneath” her, watch out! She even attacked a Senior Admin once for “smiling” while she answered a Director’s question. She actually struck the woman in her face. But when it came to a crisis, she was excellent at handling them – even though they were ALL of her own making. Another Black female boss was very intelligent, professional and could never be flustered. She was an excellent representation of a professional Black woman in a high level position who could hold her own and “play with big boys”. She became a mentor and a friend. Her replacement? Another Black woman who was insecure and had a huge chip on her shoulder. She felt threatened by any other Black woman on her level and had a paranoia that “they” were “out to get her”. She would completely freak out if there was a crisis. Her answer to these situations? Play the “blame game”. It was all “so and so’s” fault. She didn’t last too long. Another White male boss became a very good friend, mentor and is the father of my Godchild. He, like the Black female, was cool under pressure and would attack any issues with a plan. Proper implementation of said plan guaranteed success. I give them as an example of my point: All were of various race and sex but they handled their positions and demanding situations based on their individual personalities. There’s no way to gauge if a male or female would handle a work situation based solely on their gender. It’s their individual strength, character, intelligence, skills and personality that will determine if they are successful or not. Based on my experience, I would never choose to work or not work for a person based on their sex. It’s what you bring to the table that counts, not who can lift it.

Behind Me

Breasts. Hips. Thighs. Buttocks. The sway of a dress, the cling of a swim suit, and the lock grip of denim are fashionable co-conspirators that reveal the curvaceous body of African American women, much to the delight of male counterparts within and without the cultural segment. African American men, in particular, have a fascination with the natural endowments that are defined as physical assets of a woman. The influence certainly goes beyond African Americans and reaches into the enclaves of the Latino community and other minority groups. Undeniable is the fact that part of the catapulted popularity of J-Lo and Kim Kardashian is attributed to their highly sculptured gluteus maximus muscles.

In this article we highlight one such African American woman that epitomizes, by the perfection of nature, what silicone injections and implants were created to duplicate, but with questionable results and occasionally disastrous consequences.

Prieska Outland was an 11.8 pound breech baby, with a significant proportion of the weight being naturally attributed to a generous and shapely buttock. Currently, she is 5’6, weighs 145 pounds, with measurements of 34B/27/43. An invisible yet pervasive blanket of discomfort would quickly envelop a loving couple that has the fortune, or pleasant day train-wrecking misfortune, of walking behind Prieska: The man cannot help but notice the generosity of nature, and the woman cannot escape the realization that he will stare. To pretend the marvel does not exist would make the matter far more awkward – go ahead and look, dear brother, you can explain it later – I certainly had to. Of all the colloquial names associated with a well defined gluteus, whether, Donkey, “Baby’s Got Back”, or just a big asset, Prieska represents a full scale assault against nearly any competitor, natural or silicone injected.

Prieska muses that as a child she wore big clothing in order to conceal her buttock, yet the effort was vain as she observed that her asset was protruding further into the realm of undeniable. Prieska ‘s entire existence was associated with her buttock – people would say, “Yes, I know Prieska, the girl with the big butt.” She felt as though her buttock was the growing equivalent of Pinocchio’s nose, except the growth occurred whether she spoke the truth or a lie. As a youth, she was teased and mocked, but as an adult she is envied and desired by many of the same pointers of a once ridiculing finger. Prieska has learned to not only accept her distinction, but to also be proud. She does however admit that the prodigious part has pros and cons, and many have wondered if it’s a gift or a curse. The following Q&A reveals her responses.

CKB: When did you initially become aware that your lower body was more defined and curvaceous than most women, and how did that affect you?

Prieska:I became aware of this as a child. I used to get teased about my butt being so big, to the point that I would wear XL clothes to hide it. But still people would say I couldn’t hide it no matter what I wore.

CKB: Have you always been rather proud of your assets, or did you initially feel discomfort? Elaborate.

Prieska:Growing up, I wasn’t always proud of my assets because I got tired of people making it a big deal no matter where I went. Men, women, kids, it didn’t matter. Somebody ALWAYS had something to say, so I was uncomfortable, because it appeared that it made others uncomfortable around me because of the attention I would get. However, now, I embrace it, but still avoid going overboard in my clothing.

CKB: How does the typical woman respond upon initially observing your shape?

Prieska:Initially, most women would say I have a really cute shape. However, I’ve experienced the insecurity of other women who are around me, once they notice the attention that I get. However, I’m in the “itty bitty titty committee” so I could be insecure about their breasts being bigger than mine. I really don’t care, I’ve learned to embrace what God has blessed me with.

CKB: Do women normally feel that you have cosmetic implants or wear underclothing to accentuate your buttock?

Prieska:I’ve had plenty of women and men who inquire about my butt. Some have asked if it’s real, some assumed it was fake, others admire and say they want one like it and some women asked if they can touch it to see how soft it is, considering they said it looked stiff and perfectly. There was this older woman who inquired about my butt while patronizing my store. She asked me if I had on padded panties because she didn’t remember my butt being so big. When she previously saw me, I had on a dress which hid my assets, but this particular day I had on jeans. When I told her I wasn’t wearing padded panties she tried to argue with me that I was. What the hell? The crazy thing was that she was doing this in front of a customer. So at the time, the customer starting looking at my butt and wondering if it was real, too. It was very embarrassing. I wanted to say something to that old woman, but I respect my elders. She didn’t have to wrongly call me out like that.

CKB: Given that churches are a huge part of the African American community, have you had unique encounters in church that you feel were specific to your shape? Elaborate.

Prieska:The only unique encounters at church that I’ve had is men following me out of church to my car, for the purpose of asking me to go on a date. I’m sure whomever I sit in front of gets their dosage of looks, but nothing is said out of the way, which is good. Whew!

CKB: If you could time it, how long does it normally take for a man that has approached you to mention your shape?

Prieska: Whether a man approaches me from the front or back determines how long before he mentions my shape. I’ve seen guys give me looks and tell me how beautiful I am when approaching from the front, then within five seconds of passing, I may hear something crazy that indicates they’ve gotten a glimpse from the rear. There’s this one guy who sees me all the time and I swear EVERY TIME he sees me he tells everyone in the area how I’m the finest girl in the mall. It’s very embarrassing because I know some women may start hating on me just because of his foolishness, but again, I can’t do anything about that. It is what it is. It’s not like I ask for the attention.

CKB: If he is a great communicator, and during the initial encounter he does not mention your shape does that intrigue you, or is it irrelevant?

Prieska:If a man fails to mention my shape during the initial conversation, it is intriguing. It makes me feel like I know he may see it, but he respects me enough to not make it so obvious that’s the only reason he’s talking to me. I don’t have a problem with a man mentioning how beautiful I am and that I have a nice physique, if he’s respectful about it.

CKB: Are there occasions where men or women that are strangers touch your buttocks, without permission, simply because they are awestruck?

Prieska:Yes, there was an occasion when these two Korean women passed by me in the mall who were amazed by how perfectly round (in their eyes) my butt was. They told me how beautiful it was and then they proceeded to touch it and make the round big gesture with their hands. They laughed about how flat their butts were. I couldn’t help but laugh at them too. They were bold to just walk up to me and start feeling. I wasn’t quite sure if I should feel violated or what. All I know is their English wasn’t that good, but they were able to clearly say “BIG BUTT..BEAUTIFUL..ME FLAT BUTT.”

CKB: If you could surgically and without side effects reduce or enlarge the size of your assets, would you?

Prieska:Heck Nawwh! I wouldn’t reduce the size of my butt even if I could! I’ve learned to embrace this beautiful asset that many risk their lives to get. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, and it ain’t broke in my eyes.

CKB: If offered $300,000 next week to pose nude in a prominent men’s publication, with a behind picture only, would you?

Prieska:What the hell? Why you want to go and ask me that (laughter) I would have to say..hmm. I have to come back to that question. Let the opportunity present itself, then I’ll answer it (laughter).

CKB: What are your career aspirations?

Prieska:I aspire to be an actress and that’s what I’m doing. I’m working towards taking it to the next level. My goal is to book larger roles in big projects. In between projects, I have the pleasure of writing and producing my own projects or helping colleagues produce or direct theirs. My latest project is entitled “The Perfect Man” and can be viewed on http://www.youtube.com/slazhproductions. In addition, I aspire to expand my accessories business which is, Feisty Jewels (http://www.feistyjewels.com/)

CKB: How can your average supporter assist you in achieving your goals?

Prieska:The average supporter can assist me in achieving my goals by first going to my Youtube Channel: Slazh Productions , which is linked above, and watch my projects and share with friends and family. My particular interest is in gaining support for The Perfect Man which is my latest release that will be submitted to film festivals. In addition, my next project is entitled “Behind Me” in which I’m raising funds for it now. You can either go to my website, http://www.feistyjewels.com and click on Feisty News Blog and read The Perfect Man article that has donation information, or you can simply come support my accessories business in North Dekalb Mall Food Court. Purchasing online is also an option. Your support is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

About Prieska Outland

Prieska Outland is an Actress/Model/Jeweler/Writer/Producer/ and Accountant. She is known as “SLASH”. She was given this nick name by an ex-coworker because she held many talents, as well as business acumen, faith, and ambition to maximize each of her gifts. To contact Prieska for business related endeavors, please visit the Fiesty Jewels website and navigate to the Contact Us page.

Friend or Follow Prieska: https://www.facebook.com/prieska?fref=ts

Summary: Seven Minds is a Wiki-Pen series consisting of four topics that are addressed by seven individuals which were specifically chosen based upon literary competency, research, and logical replies to many previous posts and broad subject matters.

Managing marriages when the woman makes more than her husband: Who makes the financial decisions?

There are two conversations that MUST occur between a man and a woman prior to them getting married: how to rear children and how to handle money. Regardless of who makes the most money, financial decisions need to be made jointly by setting aside a time where both of them can focus on the business of running of their home. However, the person who handles money best should be the holder of the checkbook.

Eric Jennings: https://www.facebook.com/eric.jennings.391?fref=ts

Who makes the financial decisions in a relationship really depends on the personalities of the individuals involved. A personality, whether the person be male or female, can be dominant or submissive in whatever role they perform in the marital union. Although, traditionally men have been privy to higher paying salaries, I have been exposed to relationships where the woman who was bringing in the lesser income was the money manager. The men in these relationships had no desire to control what was financially a priority to the household. The decision process was less about gender and more about who is the better money manager.

It seems to me that the question “who makes the financial decisions”, has more recently become an issue, because the position and title of provider is now ambiguous. The position of provider has been traditionally accepted as a male role and exhibited by one’s ability to give. It is generally associated in our society with masculinity, dominance, and being in control, with it’s feminine counterpart equivalent to submission and receiving. If we factor in traditional morals and role expectations, the social and economic dynamics of race, and expect similar patterns of sexually motivated employment practices, we exponentially multiply the ambiguity of who is in control.

Managing a relationship however, has less to do with who is in power, and more to do with how one perceives ones worth and functionality. In a union, if one party’s functionality alone is diminished, feelings of resentment can surface, internally. Basically, we all desire love and want to feel involved, if not needed. Moving into the future, male/female relationships will have to adjust with men finding worth and displaying functionality through alternative means.

Michelle Abram: https://www.facebook.com/michelle.abram.5?fref=ts

I very specifically object to managing ANY marriage based on a point system of any kind, whether “who makes more, right now,” who has what genitalia, or any other criterion of this nature. A marriage based on a point-system that grants greater power in the relationship to one than the other is very likely to fail. If a woman says, “I make more, therefore, I make the decisions,” she puts her husband on uneven footing that is NOT the foundation of a stable marriage. A man and a woman in a marriage are a unit. Both are bringing resources into the marriage to better the lives of family, and, because whatever is done with those resources affects the whole family, both have a RIGHT to have a say.

In an equal adult partnership, the person or persons who make the financial decisions must be based on an agreement made between the parties. The higher salary, which very well may be a temporary condition, should NEVER dictate that. What happens when somebody’s company fails or someone gets laid off or someone gets badly injured? Do you suddenly upset the whole balance and dynamic of the marriage because you based it on a one-upsmanship kind of scenario? Basing decision-making power on income turns a relationship into a power-battle rather than a mutually-supportive partnership, and, instead of bringing people into working as a unit, it sets them against each other in a battle for a voice, and that is not a lasting proposition.

Robert Rencher: https://www.facebook.com/renchwriter?fref=ts

There is a common misconception regarding finances in the household and this particular topic clearly perpetuates the misconception. Men & women are very different creatures. From a Godly perspective, men were chosen to be the head of the household. One of the reasons I believe this to be true is because men are more logical thinkers on a regular basis. This is not to say that women cannot think logically. What it means is that women are more emotional than men and on occasion, those emotions spill over into their decision making ability.

Here comes the misconception. Some people believe that just because the woman makes more money, she can make the decisions. Not true! Another misconception is that because she may have more knowledge in the area of finance, she can make the decisions. Again, not true. A good manager doesn’t have to know every detail of every process that he manages. He only needs to be able to effectively manage the individual that he has given the responsibility of managing that particular process.

The household should operate basically the same as a corporation. There is a President & a Vice President. The President is responsible for the success of the company, just as the man is responsible for the success of the household. Together with the woman, decisions are made. If there is a difference of opinion between the two, the man makes the decision.

Tracei Hutcherson: https://www.facebook.com/tracei.hutcherson?fref=ts

In such financial cases, it is pertinent and absolutely necessary for the husband to have significant self confidence, in fact, his self confidence must exceed the norm. Men usually identify and associate their ability, success, and failures by their pocket. If the husband is handling himself, and family, he feels in control and walks with certainty. A husband that is not the bread winner usually feels out of control, which may therefore present problems in all aspects of the relationship. Since control of money normally indicates control of decisions, the wife typically wants her husband to be the bread winner. Unfortunately, and often times, a man’s self esteem, self worth, and confidence rests solely upon his pocket or financial standing. Men tend to feel that if they are incapable of controlling the household, and outlining the flow of financial obligations, they will thereby not be able to control or influence their spouse. When arguments ensue, the wife may invoke feelings of “you are not going to tell me how to spend my money”, the marriage becomes stressed and difficult. With these consideration, I submit that financial decisions should be controlled by the stronger of the two that is proven in the area of finances, rather than decided based upon gender.

Christopher K. Bryant https://https://www.facebook.com/chrisbryantatl

The subjects of a woman making more than her husband, and the person that makes the financial decisions are mutually exclusive matters. As a single man, and having never been married, I will offer perspectives based upon the observation of married couples that have such scenarios.

There are many factors which may contribute to the wife earning a higher income, whether education, assertiveness, natural skill set, corporate culture and social preferences, or sheer circumstance. Money has weight, force, and power; when the wife earns more, those forces are seldom abated, regardless of how traditional and well intended the wife may be, or how skillful, manly, and baritone the husband may be.

The financial decision on financial matters should be collective, with the tie-breaker or greater weight leaning in favor of the person that has the track record of successful financial decision making. If both parties are nearly equivalent in such regard, I believe the decision should then lean towards the greater income earner.

A higher income earning wife, biblically speaking, still has a responsibility to yield to her husband, even in financial matters. The lower earning husband, should have regard for the fact that his wife’s salary primarily defines their lifestyle and he should thereby hold that reality in the highest regard when making financial decisions. If he desires to exert more influence, then he should seek to earn more money, or show discretion and appreciation for her higher income status, while retaining his rightful stance as head of household.

Sonya Menssen https://www.facebook.com/sonya.menssen

Call me old fashioned, call me a “traitor” to the Women’s Rights Movement, call me what you will but personally, I believe that both spouses should work as a team but the final decision, should there be a conflict, falls to the husband with one caveat: IF you have complete trust and faith in the man you married! I was raised by my Grandparents who were married 50 plus years until my Grandmother’s passing. My Grandmother was an educator and my Grandfather owned his own landscaping business. Mama Fann made more money and was more educated than Daddy Velvet but I remember them both sitting at the dining room table once a month with the bills and their cash/checkbook on hand. They would discuss each one and most times were in agreement but those times when their opinions differed, Mama Fann would always say “Well Velvet, we’ll do what you decide”. I asked her once why she always let Daddy Velvet make the decision when she made more money than he did and what she told me has stuck with me and set the foundation for the marriage that I knew I wanted one day (and have now!). She said “The reason I let your Grandfather make the final decision is because that is the way God set it up. The man is the head of household and is charged with providing for, protecting and caring his family. The wife is his helpmeet or helpmate. If a man finds a good wife, he finds a good thing but if a woman has a good man, she needs to let him BE the man God intended him to be. If your Grandfather spent the money he makes on liquor, other women and things that are not for the good of the family, there’s no way I would let him make financial decisions much less be with him but he does not. He has always provided for this family and as long as he continues to do so, he will make all the decisions.”

What a wonderful outlook! It should not matter whose paycheck is bigger if you have trust and faith in each other as your foundation in your marriage. I know of women who make double their husband’s salary who never hesitate to remind them of that fact. Then they wonder why their husbands are out cheating, doing wrong and all sorts of nonsense. They have no identity in their marriage because the wife has taken it. If you have married a person who is trustworthy, faithful and provides then if you trust them to decide what’s for dinner why would you hesitate in trusting them to make good financial decisions for the family? It all begins and ends with trust. If there is an issue there, no matter who makes more, there will be a problem. Where does your trust and faith reside?

When Spike Lee publicized his adamant disdain for Django Unchained, many felt – and some still do, that he was over reacting and veering towards either crankiness or envy inspired negativity. Though I tend to find merit in many brow raising comments made by Spike, even I was somewhat suspect of his motives – until I saw the film. Watching Django Unchained is an evident testament to the concerns raised by Spike, which grants me an undeniable impression that either he saw the film or he missed his calling as a prophet; assuming the former, though his words were an accurate and justifiable portrayal, Spike erred vastly by not specifying precisely what was “disrespectful”. As with all things incomplete, to deliver a sound bite rebuke rather than penning an open and detailed article expressing his concerns (that would have undoubtedly hit the pages of thousands of print and digital news outlets) simply means that Spike executed poorly. Perhaps he was showing loyalty and regard for Samuel L. Jackson, whose career he helped launch, and Jamie Foxx whom Spike allegedly told that he would not speak out against the film. Whatever the reason for his flawed public relations strategy, the point remains that Spike Lee’s comments were accurate and with just cause: Django Unchained is hugely disrespectful to Black ancestry.

Of those who support Django Unchained and or simply despise the audacity of Spike, there will be two strains of cheap shot commentary: One regarding the quality of his previous films, or lack thereof; and the other regarding his near total absence from film production, of late. One such retort is as equally as irrelevant and dubious as the other. When Spike released collegiate themed films he too was a youth, and zealously exploring all means within his disposal to string together funding for laughable low budget films. At the time we marveled at the new road to Hollywood which Spike was paving and now graced with red carpet panache by Tyler Perry and T.D. Jakes. As Spike grew older he too became wiser and spawned not only careers but cult classics such as Mo Better Blues in 1990; Jungle Fever in 1991; and the indelible X in 1992. These films were evident progressions of Spike’s maturity and a galaxy away from his start up classics such as She’s Gotta Have It, and School Daze, released in 1986 and 1988, respectively. For those with short term memories we must recall that Spike matured as did his messages and story quality. These are facts that should not be lost in the search of criticizing his bold stand. The second claim regarding Spike’s absence from production is a fault that should not be laid solely to his charge. Spike presents messages to the consciousness and psyche of both Black and White America. It is no secret that Hollywood has never and perhaps will never show any true desire to fund and green light such soul stirring undertakings. Spike’s current inability to secure funding for films of his desire is rife with fault lines that go far beyond his financial reach. Even with his remarkable Malcolm X film, the studio reportedly decorated the cutting room floor with content that Spike desired, as well as stripping funding to such an extent that Spike was required to panhandle to the few Black elite that would grant him an audience. The point is clear; Spike’s absence from production is hardly just cause to carelessly toss away the merit of his observation regarding Django Unchained and its black face, slap stick mockery of slavery.

Is Reginald Hudlin Quentin Tarantino’s Uncle Tom?

Reginald Hudlin of the Hudlin Brothers (Directors of House Party and Boomerang), was instrumental to making Django Unchained. According to a recent interview printed in the Daily Beast, the following was quoted by Mr. Hudlin regarding his perspective of the Hollywood historical treatment of slavery: “I hated all those films about slavery over the years. Any time Hollywood did deem it OK to talk about slavery, they were not worth watching. My idea of a great slave movie was Spartacus. Until African-American slavery was treated in that same manner, I had no interest in hearing what Hollywood had to say about the issue.”

Interesting. Hudlin certainly heard the call of Tarantino. Since Hudlin has expressed such lofty aspirations for the depiction of slavery, one would expect him to sign on to projects that would handle the matter justly. How does Django Unchained compare to Spartacus, which is classified as epic and historical? Scoff without ceasing. There is no lasting quality in Django Unchained, if any qualities at all, that even remotely bears the merit of the Spartacus adaptation which spans five decades of classical references and the latest one by Hudlin himself. In this single self contradicting reference, measured against the very film that Hudlin helped produced, he has revealed the height of hypocrisy and perhaps he too is considered either chattel or an Uncle Tom for the glory and bank drafts of Quentin Tarantino.

Taking Cues from the Boss

Mr. Tarantino himself certainly has a storied legacy of film making and that is without question, still, historical achievements, art, chutzpah, and creative dogma are simply not just causes to treat slavery with derisiveness. To make matters far worse, in the same Daily Beast article Tarantino originated the swipe at previous slave films, which was of course obligingly followed up by Hudlin. The following is quote form Tarantino regarding Roots: “When you look at Roots, nothing about it rings true in the storytelling, and none of the performances ring true for me either,” says Tarantino. “I didn’t see it when it first came on, but when I did I couldn’t get over how oversimplified they made everything about that time. It didn’t move me because it claimed to be something it wasn’t.” Again, the same cheap strategy which is to downplay the effectiveness and messaging of Roots, and then create a travesty depiction of slavery as the modern day answer – was the solution created by Tarantino. His claims against the presentation of Roots should have caused a better presentation of Django Unchained; rather, it became the opposite. Django Unchained should never be classified in the same category as Roots, but the desperation for justification has no boundaries. It does not surprise me that Hudlin echoed the comments of Tarantino, it was the same follow the leader programming that Tyler Perry fell prey to when George Lucas made the ridiculous claim that all Black films were becoming extinct, which was a bratty outcry after Hollywood financiers rebuffed his inflated Red Tails film budget. Tyler Perry took up the clarion call of George Lucas, apparently not considering that he was verbally defying the very hand that feeds him, of course Hudlin would follow suit.

Historical, intellectual and cultural backdrops fade into oblivion under the microscope of a warp speed social and digital media that can drive a young, high achieving, instantly famous African American girl into a hair pulling frenzy. Surely Gabby never thought that her cloud scraping accomplishments would be toppled by a forced social media appointment as the poster child of Black hair debate. At the height of the dreadful African American self-inflicted hate topic, Gabby became the focal point of a decision that would reflect more than her personal choice, but one that would also reflect the weight of the social conditioning of Black women in general. Gabby had a myriad of choices, which includes remaining natural, settling for a perm, or economically springing for the follicles of a threadbare Asian, Indian, or any ethnicity that had zero African origins beyond their farcical denial of the cradle of civilization birthplace.

Gabby, as each of us, retains the freedom of choice. The underlying question is whether Gabby‘s choice to sport a weave was solidly personal, or generally influenced by the popularity of purchased hair in the Black community, and the evident desires of her social media antagonists. If the decision was based upon the latter, then our state of affairs as a people are woeful, troubling, and a modern day travesty.

Worse yet, is the seldom spoken reality that hair weaving in the US originated in the White community. The origins of purely aesthetic hair weaving are certainly shared by Hollywood and wealthy White women who fled any notion of evidenced aging, while fiercely competing for surgical ornaments of beauty. As with many trends in society, the wealthy and ruling class makes a product or practice popular, then follows the cheapening of the same and its proliferation in the Black community.

Gabby is an individual first, an athlete and celebrity second, she therefore holds the inalienable right of choice regarding her appearance; such right is not hereby questioned. The question that I do repeat is; Was the decision to wear a weave Gabby’s alone, or was the decision influenced by the pressures of a Black society that is crippled by hyper assimilation and a loss of culture?

Leading up to the 2008 Presidential election, Bill Clinton displayed without much reservation an icy-cold relationship with Barack Obama. We are reminded of his January 2008 reference to Obama’s record on Iraq as a “fairy tale”, or his comparison to Barack’s South Carolina campaign to that of Jesse Jackson’s campaign in the same state during his failed 1984 and 1988 Presidential bids. The strength of Bill Clinton’s stiff arm against Obama weakened after a consortium which including the voting public, Hollywood, and a fascinated media helped to walk the new black Camelot couple into the White House. President Obama, the ever gracious diplomat appointed Hilary Clinton to his cabinet, which deftly and simultaneously pacified “sour grapes” Bill Clinton into synergy. Surely Clinton was smart enough to realize that it would not be prudent to continue publicly yet sublimely criticizing the new superior of his wife, as well as the political heart-throb of an infatuated and energized voting public. Strategically and methodically, Bill chilled, and waited.

2012 became the awakening hour for Bill Clinton to return to the scene with considerably more media face time. His relationship with President Obama became progressively and noticeably better. In addition to public and private counseling sessions with Obama, Bill also hit the media circuit, sharing policy perspectives, supporting the decisions of the President and offering well honed, highly experienced advice. Such interviews helped to slow the bloodletting engineered by the GOP to cause the political death of a man they have ostensibly reviled since the day he uttered the word “hope”. Though the GOP continuously lambasted and ridiculed the President for every deed including the inhaling of oxygen, having Bill Clinton on the media circuit, in support of Obama’s policies was starting to take a positive effect and offset the racist overtones of a too-far leaning Right.

This developing or convenient affection between the two men culminated into absolute electrifying showmanship at the DNC. Bill Clinton, later dubbed Explainer in Chief, sliced through the policies of split tongue Paul Ryan like a Samurai sword master; he denounced and trounced the wobbly foreign and economic policies of Mitt Romney; he exposed the vapid nature of the GOP, which was to criticize Obama’s policies while refusing to offer real if any solutions; further, he correctly framed the GOP as an institution of hate mongers to the extent never before seen in the political history of this nation. Like a skilled attorney, Bill Clinton then altered course and uplifted President Obama as a man of dignity, diplomacy, and practicality that is lifting this nation from the hollows of a recession, towards economic stability and the return to prosperity. Bill Clinton’s rousing speech was concluded by an indelible bro-man hug with a deeply grateful Barack Obama. The spellbinding symbolism of two of the most powerful men in politics – one old school, one new school – energized and unified the Democratic base, while also grabbing a large swatch of Independents. Deal closed? Well, not quite.

Barack Obama coasted into victory for the second term as America’s first African American president. The debates were helpful, at least the last two, but it is undeniable that the debate anticipation was further propped up by the fever pitch of enthusiasm that Bill Clinton birthed at the DNC. Now that President Obama is safely ensconced into office, pending the inauguration, there is a pink elephant in the room, and it ain’t leaving.

Bill Clinton has served two terms. Hilary Clinton has yet to serve as President; though she vehemently denies even a shred of interest or consideration for a 2016 bid. Even still, we all know how convincing Bill Clinton can be, the DNC is the latest example. If Clinton successfully convinces Hilary to run for President of the United States, and he has four years to plead his case, Bill will certainly cash in on the colossal “favor” done for Barack Obama. That favor comes in the form of a political blank check that Bill will deposit at his choosing. The entire black community, led by an obligated Barack Obama, will galvanize to the ballot box with the sole intention of ensuring that Hilary Clinton becomes America’s first woman president, with Bill Clinton in tow. Nothing is free, and we are thereby obliged to repay the deed, with seismic political interest.

When the GOP establishment and right-wing media propagates hate and daredevil tactics to scare, intimidate, or boot shake minorities into confusion, apathy, or “better hide under your bed or else” discourse, the net result is frequently the very opposite of the numerical results gleaned from their computer model dictates. African Americans have been beaten far too long to fall prey to fear and intimidation; the whip of segregationist and racist polices will scar and sting no longer. Latino Americans, Green Card or not, have fire in their eyes, hope in their heart – both sufficient enough to render intimidation tactics as nothing short of a nagging flesh wound. Polls results are products of decorum. The suburban home that contains the essence of family surrounding a dinner table at 7:00 PM, discussing the necessity to preserve their way of life, under the guise of a President that has been maligned as Robin Hooding the US Treasury – they await the phone call from the call center of a pollster, and knowing with confidence, if not outright providing their neighbors phone number, so many others of their likeness will also be called. This is exactly where the distortion starts; the polls have holes, and the media, in its rush to be first first and right second, is in too much of a competitive frenzy to see through the fog. Interestingly, though poll numbers are taken from national levels and constantly, consistently, poured over and discussed on MSNBC, Fox, and CNN, it is really local media that has a better vantage point. Daily we watch local media personalities and journalist put boots on the ground whether in Buckhead enclaves or Bankhead corners of blight, wielding a microphone in the face of targets, whether with piano clear vernacular or dirty south Ebonics, the fact remains that such methods are truly indicative of voices and sentiments from the core of a non-suburban, less education, and highly anti-establishment people, with the power to vote. Let us not forget the Latino community that has populated Gwinnett County and several other metropolitan pockets that have become locales for more bodegas than gleaming American franchises. Reporters with cameras, mics and news trucks containing sky scraping antennas and satellite equipment flock to such areas during drug busts, prostitution and human trafficking stings, yet these are also hotbeds of political awareness. According to national statistics, pardon my dependence on national polls, as of 2011 there are approximately 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States; though they cannot vote – yet – surely they have friends and family members that can, and will.

Since national pollsters, media based researchers, and data go-getters would rather call in sick than venture into such unfamiliar territories, they will continue to slice and dice hypothetical numbers and project ear tingling discourse that will constantly be routed at the ballot box. The holes in the polls will continue to broaden, while the subterranean voters make mockery of such numerical chicken scratch. Need proof? Ask Mitt Romney.

In some instances, dating has proven itself to be a chore! On that same line of thinking, marriage can be very difficult also. But, one of the things that can make marriage very difficult is being married to the wrong person. Boy! I can identify with that one!

So, how do we fix this problem of “being married to the wrong one”? Is it a problem that can be fixed? In this article, I will give you my opinion, backed by my research, my experiences and the experiences of others. I will also use some excerpts from my latest book to illustrate my point. Now, for most that will read this article, please understand that it is not directed to you, but to your children or grandchildren. I will ask that as you read it, you keep this fact in mind, but refer back to your own dating experiences in order to help me validate my point.

As I stated earlier, dating can be a chore! In our society, there are so many people that focus on the things that are not able to sustain a great relationship. For instance, many will look at the way a person dresses, or the type of vehicle they drive, or how much money they “think” they have. None of which are very important when you are looking for a life partner. Now, some of you may be thinking that “Money” for instance is important and at your age you are probably right! However, remember when I asked you to consider your children or grandchildren as you read this article? Ok. Now is the time to do so! Because when you are young and dating, you have your life in front of you, which gives you time to build. As we get older, we expect all the “building” to be done!

If you have been married and divorced or in and out of committed relationships, consider making a change for your children. What if your parents had gotten together with another group of parents while you were a baby or even before you were born and promised you to a specific person? Yes! I’m talking about an arranged marriage. An “Arranged Marriage” is one where a match is made by someone other than the two individuals getting married, generally the parents or a trusted third party. This is not to be confused with a “Forced Marriage”. The basic difference between the two is that in an “Arranged Marriage”, the two people getting married are in agreement with this process. I know most of you are thinking that this is an antiquated process and people don’t do this anymore! Using Eddie Murphy’s 1988 hit “Coming To America” as a reference. Well, you could not be further from the truth! Many cultures within as well as outside of the United States still use this practice and have found great success with it!

Upfront, I’ll give you the most alarming statistic as it relates to “Arranged Marriages”. I have reviewed statistics from several sources and I will give you two:

Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

• 50% of all first time marriages end in divorce.

Forest Institute of Professional Psychology
• The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
• The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
• The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

Now, the most recent statistics for the divorce rate for “Arranged Marriages” = 4%.

What a dramatic difference! Why is that? Well, from my perspective, when getting married many will tend to look at and examine things that may not truly matter. Bigger than that, we don’t look at the things that should truly matter and we involve sex too early in the relationship. Let’s examine both these individually. In my latest book: Marriage & Divorce: “I Do or Deal Breaker”, I identified eleven different things that you should definitely take a look at prior to getting married to someone. Failure to do so could make you a part of the statistics mentioned above! For this article, we will look at a two of those items (for the balance, you will have to buy the book!!):

1) Employment – this is not necessarily whether or not your perspective mate has a good job, but more so the type of job that they have. For instance, if you are a very jealous person, it would be difficult for you to accept the fact that your potential spouse has a job where they deal with the opposite sex all day every day. Most wouldn’t really consider this a factor, until after they have gotten married and they hear about the clients of their partner, all being the opposite sex. This could drive you insane! So, when you suggest that your “spouse” change jobs, the first response you will get is: “I had this job before we got married. I’ve established myself and now you want me to throw it all away just because you are jealous!” This could turn into a very bad situation overall! If it had been addressed prior to saying “I Do”, you may have been able to avert this disaster.

2) Religion – I was surprised at the number of people that don’t really care what religion their potential mate is. According to “Match.com”, most will say that they only want them to be “Spiritual”. Hmmm…..imagine marrying someone that is Baptist just like you. The only problem is they belong to 1st Baptist & you 2nd Baptist. Both of you are intimately involved at your church. Which one of you leaves their church to join the other? Neither? Hmm, ok. What happens when your individual dedication begins to demand more of you at your perspective churches? This example may not be as extreme, but imagine there being two completely different religions. Both of you dedicated to what you believe. Or if one doesn’t attend church and the other does? Again, these are things we must consider prior to saying “I Do”.

Once you involve sex in a relationship, it can get very messy. The younger you are, the messier it gets! In most cases (certainly not all), you will generally have one person that is falling madly in “love-lust” while the other is just casually in “like”. This causes confusion and depending upon how aggressive one is, it can push the relationship too far towards marriage. These feelings of “love-lust” can make you ignore some things that you normally wouldn’t. But, you are so madly in “love-lust” that it doesn’t matter!

With an “Arranged Marriage” the parents (or trusted third party) takes into consideration many of the things that are considered more important in trying to find a mate. For instance, in India, here is a list of a few of the things they consider important when finding a match for their child:

I know some of you are cringing, but remember this list is from another country. Consider what your list would be like if you were finding a mate for your child. This is a practice that is not widely used in the United States (although it is with some groups), but as I stated earlier, they have a very low divorce rate.

Actually, when you think about it, “Match.com” and all the other dating websites are merely doing the job that you parents and/or a “Trusted Third Party” would have done in an “Arranged Marriage” situation! The difference is, they are making money off of you and their methods of matching are simply a numbers game! The more people they throw at you, the more you have to choose from.

I often tell my employees to think outside the box. Just because this is the way that it’s been done for years, doesn’t mean it’s the best way. After all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different result!

How insane are you?

Note: Robert Rencher’s self published book, entitled Marriage & Divorce. “I Do” or “Deal Breaker”, is available in various print and digital versions. Please click the book image for purchase information. You can also click here to download free e-book reading software, from Kindle.

You may also Like the Marriage & Divorce, “I Do” or “Deal Breaker” Fan page at https://www.facebook.com/MarriageDivorceiDoOrDealBreaker