Who Would You Be With?

The following question was posted in one of my FB groups: If you had a choice, would you? 

(A) Be with someone who loves you unconditionally, but you have very little in common with them.

(B) Someone who claims they love you and they're argumentative, but you two have a lot in common.

I'm choosing A because unconditional love can make up for the lack of things my lady & I have in common. As we're getting to know each other, we will find something in common. There's something that drew us together, so the challenge is finding out what it is and building on that. Folks should want peace in their relationship with their mate(s), and the last thing someone wants is Round 2 with their (wo)man. From the time one steps outside their door, they're faced with the day's challenges. If they've had a bad fight with their spouse prior to work, that may carry over into their job: They're irritable & they stay to themselves by focusing on their job. This keeps them from going off on colleagues. I don't care how much a woman may say she loves me; if we're having more arguments than good times, something's wrong. Forget about that nonsense that says: Arguing is healthy. There is nothing healthy about fussing. If she can't act right, she will get left.

I'm trying to figure out what's so healthy about arguing. Think about it, you and your spouse are always arguing and making up, fuss than act lovey dovey. Bump that because the way I'm set up, if we can't have a rational discussion without either of us getting in our feelings, maybe we don't need to be together. The only ground you will gain is if the arguing stops IMMEDIATELY. Relationships are for building, and I have little tolerance for arguing and snidy behavior. If I'm giving my all to make her happy, then she has no right to have attitude with me. Get yourself in order prior to coming home. Your (wo)man doesn't need to feel your wrath. Unfortunately, some people are so used to discord that they frown upon having a peaceful relationship. It's as if they feel like a relationship isn't healthy if there's some discord. They can have the discord, and I'll choose the unconditional love from a woman I may not have anything in common with. Knowing me, I'll find something we have in common.

Is She Wrong?

Question: An engaged man goes out a lot without his fiancee. She doesn't mind him going out as she has her own life & trusts him to behave. Her concern comes from him taking selfies with numerous women in compromising positions. He says he's not doing anything with these women, but the perception these pics present are over the top and this bothers her. Is she wrong for being upset?

Answer: No she's not. Respect your s/o feelings and not put her in a position where she has to defend your behavior to others. If everybody else isn't doing it, then he's probably doing too much. I'll never understand why some men feel the need to relieve their pimp days. When a man's engaged, he chose one woman to spend his life with. He saw something in her that attracted him to her, and he decided to get to know her. Now, he pulls this stunt and his woman is in a bind. People don't understand the seriousness of respecting your S/O's feelings. If he's doing this now and you're engaged, it won't stop after you are married. When people show you their true colors, believe them. She can be foolish if she wants to and ignore the signs. If he disregards her feelings now, it's going to get worse if they make it to marriage. It would be one thing if the pics were including men and women; that would make me think he was socializing, but to have just women when you have a fiance, and you aren't famous or a celebrity is just poor taste. 

Honestly Alert: In situations like this, women need to cut the ish and just say they don't like it. She may not tell him outright, but believe when they have an argument, this is going to be the first thing she brings up. Women know what they're doing. She has a right to be upset because there's no telling what he's doing with these women.

Thicker Than Water: Fix Your Hair, Jewel

#ThickerThanWater. The Tankards have all this money, and Jewel's hair always looks a mess on the show. pic.twitter.com/Xct9zsuxq0

— Florida Made (@RichardMIATL) January 5, 2015

I've been watching Thicker Than Water since it's Season 1 debut, and I enjoy watching the Tankards. I knew about Ben Tankard long before he got famous because he's a legend in the gospel music industry. He produced a lot of Yolanda Adams' earlier music, and grew up in the Tallahassee region. Thicker Than Water was the highest rated new show on Bravo, garnering millions of views so obviously people enjoy the show. Critics of the show state the Tankards are materialistic because their subject matter always seems to be about money, but I don't see it that way. I see them as a regular family that happened to be blessed with a good life. They've been very open about their struggles, so I don't see how folks could say they're all that. Everyone has no problem with unsaved folks being blessed, but as soon as a Christian is blessed, all hell breaks loose. Last time I checked, Christians have as much right to be blessed as unsaved folks.
I have a question: Why does Jewel's hair always look a mess on the show? You'd think with all the money the Tankards have, Jewel could afford a good hairstylist, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't know if she does her own hair before the show or maybe she wants to be seen as real, like she doesn't want to give off an "I'm better than you" vibe, who knows. All I know is when you're on national TV, image is everything. You have to be on point from head to toe. If you're hair is messed up for whatever reason, people are going to run with it. "Her hair looks crazy" "Who does her hair" yadda yadda. Brooklyn, Cyrene, Shanira and the other young Tankard women look slayed each episode, so what's Jewel's excuse? I've seen enough reality shows to know that hair is one of the first things people look at on a female reality star. Her clothing can be on point, but if her hair looks crazy, forget it.

I've Got Stuff On My Mind

Public Service Announcement: Whenever someone points out an observation about a group or person, there's always folks who are quick to say "Not all are like that", "It's just the circle you hang with", "I don't know anyone like what you're describing, etc. Newsflash: The world doesn't revolve around you, although you may like it to. I don't like generalizations anymore than the next person, but generalizations are valid when you have consistent evidence that validates the observation, so I don't want to hear any of the aforementioned statements, because they're annoying. If I said the Southside Of Chicago is a warzone (even though some areas of South Chicago rival the Northside in terms of upscale neighborhoods), that generalization would be valid because all I would have to do is research YouTube, and other media outlets to read about the dozens of mass shootings & murders that have taken place there. If you're a teacher averaging 25-30 kids in each of 7 classes you teach, and more than half of your class is failing, no one's going to say "(s)he's a great teacher." Folks are gonna say "If half of her/his class is failing, something's wrong with her teaching style because the kids aren't grasping the material, or the students aren't doing the work. You can have some students that are doing well in his/her classes, but folks are going to gauge that teacher's effectiveness by how many students are passing or failing. That's the rationale behind standardized testing and other forms of evaluation, schools use the test data to gauge which schools are (not) doing well. A & B schools get the most money, C schools get some money, D-F schools get nothing. One more example: If a student is acting up in class, the teacher is within their right to punish the entire class based on that one student's offense. If the entire class gets punished because one student acts up, get mad at the student for messing it up for everyone else, not the teacher.

Shout out to some women who get in their feelings when they're lumped in with the ratchets, but won't speak against ratchet behavior. I'm not responsible for what another woman does, I don't associate with ratchets, this that & the third. That's all good, but you lose the right to complain about being unfairly generalized when you don't voice displeasure with ratchets. Whether some people like it or not, a few people can mess it up for everyone. Just because a percentage of (wo)men are stand-up, if the ratchets outnumber the stand-ups (which it seems like they do), and there's consistent evidence to validate the generalizations, then it is what it is. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Don't get upset when someone calls out the entire gender based on the negative behavior of a few, because remember: One person can mess it up for everyone.

Content? Only When I Reach The Finish Line

Never be content until you get where you want to be.

— Florida Made (@RichardMIATL) January 1, 2015

I'm all for contentment just as much as the next person, but I'm not content when I know I have goals to accomplish. That's crazy to me that some people would set goals for themselves, abandon them halfway and rest on their laurels. Maybe they can't take the heat, or maybe they're satisfied with their level of success and feel there's nothing left for them to accomplish. If they're satisfied with where they are in life, then that's their right to be content. Personally, I've got too much greatness in me to be content with mediocrity. If you're content with mediocrity, then you have no right to be envious of someone who's not. They're not satisfied with the status quo, they want it all and their work ethic shows it. Look at some of society's influential people: Do you think they got where they are by being content? No, they wanted it all and made it happen by any means necessary. I bet the most successful people will endorse this blog. I believe most jealousy comes from unfulfillment, which in turn leads to some people labeling others as "greedy" just because they're not content with mediocrity. MY definition of contentment is satisfaction with having achieved all goals I've set, and deciding it's time to stop. I have nothing left to prove because in my mind, I've done it all. When you've achieved every goal you've set for yourself, that's when it's time to be content. Enjoy your success.

New Year, Same You

New Year, New Me? More like, New Year, Same You.

— Florida Made (@RichardMIATL) December 30, 2014

Today's message is timely because it's January 1, 2015. Around this time, you'll hear people on & offline saying New Year, New Me. The premise behind New Year, New Me is to get rid of the old and ring in a new year on a fresh note. Honestly, I've never felt the need to utter New Year, New Me because it's cliche. Some people utter that phrase because it sounds good, but some of them probably won't put any action behind it. Motivational tweets are fine & good, but if they don't have action behind them, then it's useless. I'm a work in progress all year, not just on January 1st (insert year). I live each day striving to do better, so that at the end of the year I'll have no regrets about what I should've, could've or would've done. Each new year is a chance to set new goals and implement the game plan. When I hear New Year, New Me it's like people making New Year's Resolutions. You have 3 types of NYR (New Year's Resolution) makers: 1. Those who make resolutions and see them through to the end. 2. People who make resolutions and abandon them within the first few weeks or months. 3. Those who make resolutions just to hear themselves. Most people will fall into one of these categories. I've noticed that some people don't have to say New Year, New Me because they have nothing to prove to anyone. They're too busy living that statement. In conclusion, if you're going to say New Year, New Me, please put some action behind that phrase. Otherwise, it's cliche. Be Blessed & Happy New Year.

Anti-Black (wo)men

Facebook sure brings out the anti black women/black men crowd.

— Florida Made (@RichardMIATL) December 30, 2014

Black men and women have always been at odds, but social media has brought the discord to the forefront. You can be on Twitter and see disparaging comments about black men from black women and vice versa. Truthfully, it doesn't make sense because when it comes down to it, black men and women are in the same boat. Black women have issues just like black men, so it's stupid for both sides to shade each other. Instead of warring with each other, black men and women need to be trying to come together to battle the ills in the black community. I used to be in a lot of Relationship Talk groups on, and they started off with real talk, then degenerated into anti-black (wo)men rhetoric. I had to get out of those groups because I felt myself getting caught up in that mess, and I can't be around foolishness of any kind. I was friends with a certain Facebooker (she's not worthy of mentioning) who although has some good discussions that I've took part in, recently the last few posts have been about how black men & women are no good; some black women are looking for a man who makes $150K a year with a nice car, 6-pack, etc. The men were no better because they were feeding into the nonsense by saying all black women are good for is booty and their cooking prowess (or lack thereof). My thing is both sides look like clowns when they disparage each other on social media.