Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man. by Steve Harvey

I'm not going to give this book my attention except to explain why the first page has turned me off to the whole book.

The first page reads as such: "There is no truer statement: men are simple. Get this into your head first, and everything you learn about us in this book will begin to fall into place. Once you get that down, you'll have to understand a few essential truths: men are driven by who they are, what they do, and how much they make. No matter if a man is a CEO, a CON, or both, and everything he doe is filtered through his title (who he is), how he gets that title (what he does), and the reward he gets for the effort (how much he makes). These three things make up the basic DNA of manhood--the three accomplishments every man must achieve before he feels he's truly fulfilled his destiny as a man. And until he's acheived his goal in those three areas, the man you're dating, committed to, or married to will be too busy to focus on you."

Oh my God...where do I start?

I don't like the condescending tone of the passage. I'm smart and I can probably understand a guy as well as he could. I would have to if I'm a heterosexual woman b/c....I'd have to be able to have a successful relationship with a man if that's what I desire! Harvey speaks to me as though I didn't know that people are often driven by those three things. So if men are driven by those three things, what does Harvey think women are driven by? The fact that he's speaking to women as though this were a new concept to them tells me that he undoubtedly believes women need different things in order to "focus" on their spouses. By the way, what kind of lame-ass turd would marry and woman and then not "focus" on the relationship? If that's how all men are, then why would any woman be interested in them at all? Answer that Mr. Harvey.

Here's some advice from Cat Pirrello. If he's "too busy" to focus on the relationship, get the hell out of it.

I also think it's ridiculous to say that men are genetically designed to want those things. Those things are cultural things. They're programmed to want those things after birth.

I think what bothers me the most about Harvey's book is that it assumes that men are fundamentally different. I bet you Harvey has never had a woman's perspective on that subject since he's not a woman. How the hell would he know how I think of men to begin with? He's "answering" questions which I never asked. That tells me he's not in the minds of women either.

If "men are simple", does that mean I'm complicated? And what does "complicated" mean to Harvey?

On page 79, he writes about "Sports fish vs. keepers". What is the implication here? Why am I being compared to a fish? Not very tactful Mr. Harvey. I'm a human remember?

"1. A woman who commands respect is a keeper; a woman who lets men get away with disrespecting her is a throwback". It's not fair to men for him to make the generalization that men are this shallow. I do not believe all men are hateful. I know of at least a few anomalies for his blanket statement. It is a crude statement because it implies that men will take advantage of women who don't "command respect" every chance they get. It forgets that there are decent men in the world also who will know to be respectful regardless of how much the woman respects herself.

"7. A woman who knows she wants to be married and raise a family and lets a man know this up front is a keeper; a woman who doesn't have a plan for her relationship life beyond next weekend is a throwback". I guess his definition of a "keeper" is a woman who deserves a man's love. A "throwback" must be a woman who men feels is not deserving of their love and attention. According to this definition though, I'm a "throwback". So, in other words, if a woman is not sure if she wants to be forever tied to a man and children, she is not deserving of any man's love and attention. This assertion of his would probably not sit right with couples who have no kids.

And, referring to a women who don't necessarily want to be tied to a men and children as a "throwbacks" is disrespectful to all women. Women are women regardless of whether they want nuclear families.

I cannot keep reading this. I'm going to vomit.

He didn't do his homework and people are going to read this stuff trusting that he knows what he's talking about. I'm going to contact "Bitch" magazine. Someone needs to publish something to refute him. Mybe it should be me. I just don't know if I can stomach the rest of the book! Otherwise, people are going to interpret this as the only truth.

4-13-09

The kid question as of 4-13-09:
Should I have them or not have them?

Pro:
They're someone to love and who will love me back.

Argument against it:
So are all the other children in the world who already exist. And, there are many people in the world who are not children who need love and/or care of some sort.

Brings the question...Why do people want to love children specifically? What is it about children that would be more fulfilling than spending one's life and efforts on adults?

Pro:
They're my genetic material.

Argument against it:
So are all the other children in the world who already exist. Unless I'm blind and they're actually all zebras. I thought that human meant that they're already very closely gentically related to me.

So far, it seems that the best argument for having one's own children is that they give a lot of joy to their parents. That's all fine and good. What gives joy to one person may not give joy to another. Then again, I'm pretty damn sure that if I had a child, I would find joy in him/her no matter what. I have a tendency to do what needs to be done. If I had a child who needed to be loved then, GDI, that's what I would do. And I wouldn't look back. But there's the rub. I don't have a child. I can choose whether or not I want to love them. They, of course, don't get to choose that.

But why love them instead of someone else? Why not love a child who is already here? Why do people tend to want children sprung from their own loins? I don't understand exactly why people care who's body it comes out of. It feels like everyone else is understanding something that I'm just missing.

If I had no child, that would be fine also...or maybe not. I don't know. I know that I'd certainly want to have a mom like me. LOL. But then again, I'm biased aren't I?

Would a child not born of me give me any less joy and/or love than a child born from another woman? That's a question I don't know the answer to. I don't even know how to obtain that answer. Better question: Would it be my own self that obstructs me from loving a child not born directly from me?

Would I regret not having a child born of me?
To say that I could not (or that the child) could not be loved as much by me (or me by them) because they were not born directly from my body is to admit something which I don't know if I like.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people's feelings. Some people have suggested to me that it's just "feelings". It's just the way people wants things. They just want their "own". What does that mean?!

Would I like for my child to look like me? Yes. Would I like to be able to carry a child? Ironically...yes. lol.

But...

Do I need the child to look lik me? I don't know. It seems rather silly that that would be the reason why I'd want to have a biological child. Do I need to be able to carry a biological child? LOL. Any woman who has given birth would probably give me an emphatic "Hell no!".

So then what is left over? Why would I need or want a biological child outside of those reasons? The only thing left over is what I'm guessing is in the language people use to refer to biological children. The say "my own". Somehow, biological children are claimed more by their parents. I don't understand this. Why would I be unable to claim an orphan? I know, of course, that I'd claim a biological child. There would be no trouble taking responsibility for him/her since...I brought him/her into existence. But, while they're in a realm of possibility, I could just as easily not claim them. Hence the reason my mind and heart are duking it out (viciously I might add).

So the fact that biologically born children are more closely related genetically to their biological parents is the reason why people want them? What is it about genetics then? Why are people hell-bent on that? What difference does it make if the child is closer or farther apart genetically?

As long as the child is human, wouldn't that be enough to claim them if they needed to be claimed?

Pro:
I would know all the health stuff relating to a child born of me. I would know him/her intimately before birth and would be able to be somewhat in control of the gestation period.

Argument against it:
Yep. So did the woman who carried a child I could adopt. I'm not in control of anything. Pretending that I am in control is ludicrous. My child could be born with deformities and with major health issues no matter how healthy and cautious I am. The fact that an orphan's parents are not in a position to care for them does not mean that the child cannot be cared for by other parents.

Con:
Orphans usually have lots of problems.

Argument against it:
That would be a reason to gravitate toward them. A need must be met. The fact that they have problems, does not mean that they should be the state's problem or that they should be without parents.

Ave Maris Stella 4-6-09

Ave, maris stella (From Wikipedia)

Despite the Male trinity mentioned at the end (insert a cringe), this is an awesome song.

Ave maris stella,
Déi mater alma,
atque semper virgo,
félix caeli porta.
Hail, star of the sea,
Nurturing Mother of God,
And ever Virgin
Happy gate of Heaven.

Sumens illud «Ave»
Gabriélis ore,
funda nos in pace,
mutans Evae nomen.
Receiving that "Ave"
From the mouth of Gabriel,
Establish us in peace,
Transforming the name of "Eva"
(The word "Hail" in Latin [Ave] is the reverse spelling of the Latin for "Eve" [Eva].)

Solve vincla reis,
profer lumen caecis,
mala nostra pelle,
bona cuncta posce.
Loosen the chains of the guilty,
Send forth light to the blind,
Our evil do thou dispel,
Entreat (for us) all good things.

Monstra te esse matrem,
sumat per te precem
qui pro nobis natustulit esse tuus.
Show thyself to be a Mother:
Through thee may he receive prayer
Who, being born for us,
Undertook to be thine own.

Virgo singuláris,
inter omnes mitis,
nos culpis solútosmites fac et castos.
O unique Virgin,
Meek above all others,
Make us, set free from sins,
Meek and chaste.

Vitam praesta puram,
iter para tutum,
ut vidéntes Iesumsemper collaetémur.
Bestow a pure life,
Prepare a safe way:
That seeing Jesus,
We may ever rejoice.

Sit laus Deo Patri,
summo Christo decus,
Sprítui Sanctohonor,
tribus unus. Amen.
Praise be to God the Father,
To the Most High Christ glory,
To the Holy Spirit
(Be) honor, to the Three equally. Amen.