Last week or the week before or whatever I did a post on this story in the Washington Post called Singled Out, about yet another one of these aging black women who can't find a spouse.
jimbrah izrael, who's busy these days frying fish(?), caught it and ended up doing a nice long post on the myth of the ineligible black man, including an amusing "eligibility test" for black women. Robyn Thorpe, the
great olympian chick from the Singled Out story came across it and ended up reaching out to jimbrah.
Was there a love connection made? Probably not.
There was an interview though, and it's got some pearls in it like the following, courtesy of the fish fryer himself:
There are a lot of broke sisters out there, and all of them are looking for someone to "take care of them", financially. Since women want to be treated like equals, why does the idea of supporting a man financially turn them off? Why can't a man sit at home and eat bon-bons, or just take care of the kids and watch judge shows? If women truly want to be equal, why does it matter if a man has a job or not?
To which the great olympian responded:
I know of women supporting their husbands and it works for them. It would not work for me, I grew up in a home where my father was primary and then sole provider so while I could have a relationship with someone making less than me, the idea of supporting a man is unattractive. I like a man with amibition about something.
Interestingly enough, I hear this same debate among lower class white women in the kind of shitty stores and restaurants where I've worked for the past couple of years, and I can say for a fact that no woman, regardless of race, is that keen on supporting a man financially. It's just one of those things.
That said, I don't find that any other race of women lives to denigrate men the way black women do. What's with that, anyway?