Some women call themselves strong
because they don’t need a man.
I’ll know that I’m truly in command
when I don’t even want one.
I already said I don’t want to fall in love,
but I guess the truth of it is –
lust is just as dangerous.
I want to lay awake at night
with thoughts of me make me too wired to sleep.
I want to dream of red carpets,
of front page spreads,
not the spread of my legs.
I want to drink in the fragrance of my own soul and become high.
I want to envelope myself
in the blanket of my heart and sigh.
Tomorrow I’m going to look myself in the mirror and say,
“We got us, baby, and that’s the only way
to protect this gift that’s been placed on me,
to sleep sound enough to be able to see the dream.”
Don’t misunderstand.
I’m not rejecting love.
This heart is big enough
to house a whole nation
full of ass-backward Americans
who are so quick to forget that the power will be taken
away from a servant the Master doesn’t trust.
I love men with a strength I can’t name,
with the fire that rushed forth from his gut when he came.
I love their bull-headed, arrogant,
how-am-I-ever-going-to-live-with-this ways.
And I love children
because they hold tomorrow in their fragile hands.
They must eat and thrive off of what we leave of this land.
And they don’t even understand
the vastness of the Void trying to reach in and apprehend.
I love other women in a way that makes me cry
when our resilience is being broken by lies,
when we make up excuses in our mind
while he creeps his way in between our thighs,
when we give up before we’ve even tried.
And this love of which I speak
is why I must reach
only inside of me
to find the strength to bring the women peace,
to bring forth the knowledge to teach to the children,
and to see the pain,
not the desire that hides it,
when a man is looking at me.
I have to need and want only me
if I’m going to succeed in setting us all free.
-------
I really feel like this is the truest thing I've ever written about myself. Perhaps if I dive deeper into this, I'll figure everything else out.
Showing posts with label independence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label independence. Show all posts
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Relationships and Art
I love being an English major. We discuss some of the most interesting things in class.
Today in American Literature we read The Awakening by Kate Chopin. If you are into literature at all, you should read it, because it's very good. My classmate, Joe, made a statement that I'm probably going to write my final paper around. The purpose of this novel was for Chopin to punch a hole in the Romantic ideals (Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau). I won't tell you the story; you should read it yourself. But I agree with him, I think.
So this was almost off the topic of the novel, but we got to talking about relationships and artists and how they may or may not go together. Can someone who is completely sold out to their art also be a good wife/husband? Is it different for a wife versus a husband? Perhaps you can be married, but if you have children then it's too much?
I used the example of Oprah and Stedman. My mom and I have discussed "playing house" and whether or not it is moral or even relationally beneficial for two people to be in a long-term, committed relationship and live together, but never get married. I think people like Oprah avoid marriage, not in order to avoid monogamy, but to retain their independence and ability to do whatever they want. If Oprah gets an offer to move to Seattle and do a show, she should be able to decide if she wants to move to Seattle. She should care what Stedman thinks, but his opinions and desires should be independent of her final decision. I want to be able to make moves that are good for me and not have to consult anyone else. I can dig that.
Another example: Chris Brown and Rihanna. They have been dating for years, but they haven't been publicly dating for near as long. If I were CB's manager, I would have advised that he keep it under wraps as long as possible, because so much of his fan base is young women who like to envision him as single. That's a simple marketing tactic, a way to stay afloat in the business.
So they went public with their relationship. That wasn't a big deal, but now all of this domestic violence stuff is going to make it harder on them as artists. I have to think twice before I listen to CB's cd. "Your soldier, your friend, and your lover, girl, I wanna be." But he beats his girlfriend. I have to think harder about how I view Rihanna. "I gotta check into rehab, baby, you're my disease." And she stays in an abusive relationship.
If they were more low-key about their love life, perhaps all of this would only affect their families and their persons rather than their careers and the way people view musicians, especially Black musicians.
I guess you can see which way I kind of lean.
What do you think?
Today in American Literature we read The Awakening by Kate Chopin. If you are into literature at all, you should read it, because it's very good. My classmate, Joe, made a statement that I'm probably going to write my final paper around. The purpose of this novel was for Chopin to punch a hole in the Romantic ideals (Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau). I won't tell you the story; you should read it yourself. But I agree with him, I think.
So this was almost off the topic of the novel, but we got to talking about relationships and artists and how they may or may not go together. Can someone who is completely sold out to their art also be a good wife/husband? Is it different for a wife versus a husband? Perhaps you can be married, but if you have children then it's too much?
I used the example of Oprah and Stedman. My mom and I have discussed "playing house" and whether or not it is moral or even relationally beneficial for two people to be in a long-term, committed relationship and live together, but never get married. I think people like Oprah avoid marriage, not in order to avoid monogamy, but to retain their independence and ability to do whatever they want. If Oprah gets an offer to move to Seattle and do a show, she should be able to decide if she wants to move to Seattle. She should care what Stedman thinks, but his opinions and desires should be independent of her final decision. I want to be able to make moves that are good for me and not have to consult anyone else. I can dig that.
Another example: Chris Brown and Rihanna. They have been dating for years, but they haven't been publicly dating for near as long. If I were CB's manager, I would have advised that he keep it under wraps as long as possible, because so much of his fan base is young women who like to envision him as single. That's a simple marketing tactic, a way to stay afloat in the business.
So they went public with their relationship. That wasn't a big deal, but now all of this domestic violence stuff is going to make it harder on them as artists. I have to think twice before I listen to CB's cd. "Your soldier, your friend, and your lover, girl, I wanna be." But he beats his girlfriend. I have to think harder about how I view Rihanna. "I gotta check into rehab, baby, you're my disease." And she stays in an abusive relationship.
If they were more low-key about their love life, perhaps all of this would only affect their families and their persons rather than their careers and the way people view musicians, especially Black musicians.
I guess you can see which way I kind of lean.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)