First off, we have lost quite a few celebrities in the past couple of weeks since I last blogged my musings -- several of them relatively young, at that. I just wanted to lead off this entry with shouts to them and all that they contributed to this world to make it better, as well as an extension of condolences to their respective families.
Gene Upshaw. (1945-2008)
Isaac Hayes. (1942-2008)
Skip Caray. (1939-2008)
Bernie Mac. (1957-2008)
Kevin Duckworth. (1964-2008)
There are several others, but in the interest of space (I TRY to limit myself to 1200words per entry) I will keep it brief. However, the last one of those listed probably was the one that jolted me most. Gene was 63, and his death was shocking because he had just been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer mere DAYS before he succumbed. Isaac Hayes was 65 years old, but had health problems in the past few years. Sad, but not a total shock. Bernie Mac's condition, which he had suffered with periodically for 25 years predisposed him to frequent bouts with pneumonia, and hence, while shocking, his death was not surprising. Skip Carey had been sick for years. After all that, Kevin Duckworth's (or "Duck", as NBA fans referred to him when he was in his best years with the Portland TrailBlazers in the early-to-mid 1990s when they were making NBA Finals runs with their Drexler, Kersey, Porter, Ainge, Buck Williams-led squads) passing last night was totally out of the blue. Those who really knew him saw his weight balloon even more than it did while he was playing, but he was seven feet tall -- and guys that height tend to have heart problems; especially if they are overweight. Nevertheless, no one outside of the Portland area had heard a peep out of Duckworth, 44, in the ten years since he retired. Then, BAM! first thing I see on ESPN.com this morning was that Duckworth had died. Forty-four years of age! Rest in peace, all.
In regards to the news --
I watched the Democratic National Convention's "opening ceremony" of sorts last night. Michelle Obama's speech was rousing, genuine and heartfelt. That's all you ask when someone makes a speech. You don't want to hear politispeak, a bunch of impossible-to-fulfill promises and feather-ruffling. She spoke glowingly about Barack, her children and her track record about helping people with a sincere heart. Where have people like this been all these years when it comes to running for President??? Barack will have a tough time topping a speech like that -- and he's a great orator, as most know. We shall see how things evolve the rest of this week.
I see that Major League Baseball is instituting instant replay for disputed Fair or Foul/Home Run or Not calls. This can be good, but I can't help but think that eventually this will prove to be a Pandora's Box of sorts and will only push those (idiots) who say baseball is boring FURTHER away from the game. Eventually, players, managers and general managers are going to push for botched plays at first base, or plays at the plate to be challenged. The delays will only make a three and a half hour even longer, potentially. Let's hope not.
Olympic gold? Well, I am happy they did it. But let's stop all the foolishness about them being better than the Dream Team. NO. FRIGGIN. WAY. This "Redeem Team", while star-laden, is about two or three MEGASTARS short of being able to handle the Dream Team. Let's explore:
1. While Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade played stellar defense in the 2008 Olympic Games, neither one of them would have been able to stop Michael Jordan. I refuse to discuss the topic. I feel very strongly about this.
2. Carmelo Anthony is a stupendous talent offensively. THe knock on him has been, and probably always will be 1) he does not play defense, 2) he drifts around the perimeter too often every game instead of driving to the basket consistently, 3) at 6'8" 235 lbs, he does not hit the boards like he should (because of the aforementioned drifting onto the perimeter every game far too often). He is not Reggie Miller.
3. Dwyane Wade, with his inconsistent shooting, would not pose a threat when you have guys like Chris Mullin who NEVER missed shots (see the 1992-93 NBA Playoffs - Golden State vs. Phoenix when Mullin truly did not miss a shot for almost half of the game, and not layups, either). He is acrobatic (Wade) and a beast defensively, but I just don't see how these guys pose a threat to the Dream Team.
4. Annnnnnnnnnnnnd at Centerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... at Seven Feet from Georgetowwwwwwn... number 33... cooooooooo-captain... PAAAAA-TRICK Ewing! I don't have to say more, but I shall, nonetheless. Pat was in his prime (PLUS they had David Robinson coming in when he went out) in 1992. His patented baseline J with the high release and follow-through, along with his patented trounce (he always walked, but so did Mike) across the lane was unstoppable and MONEY from 1988-1997. What could Bosh, Howard (MAYBE) or any of those other big men on the "Redeem Team" do with Ewing? That's right.
5. Scottie Pippen. Best one on one defender (in my opinion, but it is arguable) ever. Kobe would be whining more than he ever did during the Boston series in the 2008 NBA Finals. Wade would resort to flopping like he did in the 2006 NBA Finals (where are the so-called Heat fans from that year, by the way???) and Anthony would just quit (see his annual first-round exit in the playoffs -- and especially this year when his teammates resorted to taking cheap shots at Kobe and "The Machine" Sasha Vujacic, when they were about to be swept. Anthony, being a captain of the team, definitely did not show great leadership sulking around the entire series. Imagine Scottie getting in his @$% (no homo). Anthony probably did not have two hands laid on him the entire Olympics because of the rules. Scottie (along with Alvin Robertson, Joe Dumars, Michael Jordan -- all of whom make Bruce Bowen look like the CHUMP that he is) was one of the best defenders at taking advantage of the hand-checking that the NBA allowed players to employ until the past few years. He would steer offensive players the way HE wanted them to go and guys like Anthony and Wade, who are mediocre shooters at best, would just fold under pressure -- much like Thunder Dan Majerle and Danny Ainge did in NBA Finals matchups versus the Chicago Bulls in the early 1990s).
6. I could go down the list man for man, but basically, the "Second Five" of the Dream Team would demolish the best players on the Redeem Team. The players were more fundamentally sound back then. Let's face it. I love Dwight Howard (no homo) and those of you who know me know Kobe is my favorite player in the NBA. But these guys would not stand a chance. Case closed. Enough with the nonsense.
Now, to the NFL --
My New York Football Giants reached out to Michael Strahan to see if he would be amenable to coming back now that we lost the best defensive end in the NFC, Osi Umenyiora, to a season-ending knee injury. People who do not watch the Giants and only saw the Super Bowl think we only won because of our defense. Given this, I have been hearing a lot of "mail it in, it's over. No playoffs for your boys". And I want to see empirical evidence that even leads one to believe this.
First of all, while Gibril Wilson (the heart and soul of the secondary the past four years) defected to the Raiders (say goodbye to your NFL career, fam...) and Kawika Mitchell left to go to Buffalo, Strahan's retirement was not a shock and it did not kill the Giants' hopes of making the playoffs and repeating as NFL Champs. The Giants QUIETLY (and I do mean QUIETLY) acquired Danny Clark. And while he is not a big name in the NFL, he is a prototypical strongside linebacker. Umenyiora's injury forces the Giants to move Clark to the strongside (he had been playing weakside throughout the preseason). Gerris Wilkinson, provided he can avoid the silly injuries that have stunted his growth since he entered the NFL, is what you would like in a weakside 'backer when it comes to his 6'3" 230 lb frame. Antonio Pierce is a stalwart at Mike linebacker. Some Giants fans take him for granted. Let's HOPE the Giants' front office (we're watching you, Jerry Reese!) does not drop the ball by not re-signing him. This Strahan situation could have been a colossal mess if the Giants had paid Strahan his asking price of $12 million PLUS to come back, when guys like Umenyiora, Pierce and Plaxico Burress were asking for new contracts all offseason. I, for one, am glad Stray chose to stay retired. He went out healthy, on his own terms (although he might want to go ahead and mail his gonads -- pause -- to his wife, after that divorce settlement!) and with a championship. Imagine if Michael Jordan had done that in 1998??? Nevertheless, I digress. The Giants' secondary is BETTER than last year. Corey Webster, who ended Brett Favre's Green Bay career, has his confidence back. Aaron Ross is going to be a shutdown cornerback within the next year or so. Our nickelbacks are veterans who made plays all season/postseason in R.W. McQuarters (Romo) and Sam Madison (helping to shut down Randy Moss in the Super Bowl).
However, when it comes to Strahan, Mathias Kiwanuka was a BEAST in the Big East Conference. I know. Because I watched him KILL Chris Rix and Drew Weatherford while he was playing defensive end at Boston College. Most non-football minds and those who don't even watch the Giants (but are always commenting) call him a 'tweener, meaning no one knows whether to call him a DE or a LB, but he always played DE and played very well in Steve Spagnuolo's (or as Troy Aikman calls him, "Steve Spagnola" -- next time Joe Seacrest Buck and Aikman do a Giants' game, or Aikman refers to Spagnuolo, see if I'm making this up) system. He will be fine at LE, and can move over to RE, allowing Wynn to play LE when Justin Tuck comes in to line up at DT (how good is this guy? When I get a chance, I'm coppin' a #91 jersey). Justin Tuck is about to open a lot of eyes in the NFL while Osi is out.
Offensively, I would have NEVER used the two words in the same DISSERTATION, much less the same sentence, but Eli Manning has found his swag! When a QB has swag, he makes plays that no one ever saw him make before. Given that our running back corps are one of (if not THE) deepest in the NFL with Brandon Jacobs (boom-boom-boom - ala Chris Berman), Derrick Ward and Ahmad Bradshaw (shouts to another guy playing RB in the NFL at 5'10" and under and 200 lbs and under -- hold it down for guys like me who are 5'10" and 190 LOL) we will be right at the top in terms of running the ball AGAIN this year. Factor in that Eli won't be making the same mistakes this year and you have the makings of a great offense. The offensive line is in the Top Three in the NFC and Top Five in the NFL as a whole. Disagree? Give me proof. Minnesota has a great line. So does San Diego. Who knows about Indianapolis' for sure? But they have perennially been great. Carolina's offensive line is going to be very good this year. Outside of that, whose line is better than that? Washington's? No, although they are right there, no hating. New England's? No. They get away with holding and clipping (like the San Francisco teams of the late 80s/early 90s) more than anyone. Even in the Super Bowl, Brady would've been sacked three or four more times had the refs called the BLATANT holding calls that were overlooked. Baltimore's offensive line is done for with Ogden retired. So count all that up, a stellar offensive line. The best set of RBs top to bottom in the NFL. Very good receivers in Burress, "Well-Dressed" Amani Toomer, Steve (not "Steven", Sam Rosen!) Smith, Domenik Hixon and then Sinorice Moss and rookie Mario Manningham in the fold. NOT TO MENTION THE SUPER BOWL HERO, David Tyree. We're going to be alright.
Now, when it comes to the Race Card, I don't pull it often. But much like when Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (then Lew Alcindor) was dominating everyone from Inwood and Harlem to Westwood in Los Angeles, the rules-makers changed things to prevent a man of color from dominating. Lew was not allowed to dunk (nor was anyone else, but the rule "coincidentally" came along when Alcindor left Power Memorial High School in New York to attend UCLA). John Wooden claims it wasn't done for that reason. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Same with Bob Gibson in baseball (segue) in the 1960s. Gibby was so dominant that they had to lower the pitching mound. The guy had FILTHY stuff (baseball people know what "filthy" means). So I read that this kid in New Haven, a nine-year old with a 40 mph fastball (equivalent to a grown man throwing 102 on the gun) and a nasty curveball has been effectively banned from the kiddie league in Connecticut because none of the other kids could hit him. One team actually QUIT before a game started when they found out he was pitching. MOREOVER, the league coordinators want to break up the kid's team and don't want him to pitch for "safety reasons" -- even though the kid has Brandon Webb-like control. That's terrible for two reasons 1) you teach kids to be QUITTERS early on in life. Sports for kids is character-building. It should not become about wins and losses until you are at least 12. When you are telling 8-10 year olds to quit, they're going to quit every time the going gets tough in life. That can be more detrimental than POSSIBLY being beaned in the forearm with a cut fastball (part of the game) or having a guy strike you out 15 straight times. There are guys who were scared to face Unit (Randy Johnson) in his prime. This guy is 6'10" and his arm is seemingly in your face by the time he releases the ball. Plus he's left-handed. Plus he throws (even to this day, at age 45) 100 mph. Do guys quit? NO. You get in there and get after it! I bring up race, because there were dominant pitchers before Bob Gibson (Christy Mathewson, Cy Young, Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown, Bob Feller, etc. etc. etc.) and no one ever even considered the type of wholesale changes to prevent pitchers from being dominant before Bob Gibson (who is Black) came along. Same thing with this kid in Connecticut. He is NOT the first dominant young man who can pitch. But I can't help but think that if he were (he looks as if he is either Black or Puerto Rican or a mixture of both) White, this would not be an issue.
On a lighter note, I like to listen to the announcers for the games of various sports. For years (25 to be exact) I have listened to the likes of:
Harry Caray (Chicago Cubs).
Marv Albert (The G.O.A.T. of ALL announcers/MSG Network/New York Knicks/Boxing/New York Rangers/Westwood One for the Super Bowl, NCAA Final Four, NBA Finals/NBC Sports/TNT Sports).
Dick Stockton (CBS/TNT Sports).
Bill Walton (NBC/ESPN/ABC Sports).
John Madden (CBS/FOX/ESPN/NBC Sports -- for the under 21 crowd who don't even know who John Madden is and what he did before the GAME came out, the dude was a great coach and the best NFL announcer for 25 years).
Troy Aikman.
Doug Collins.
Dick Vitale ("Dickie V.")
Bill Raftery.
Gus Johnson.
Phil Simms.
Sam Rosen.
Skip Caray.
Rick Sutcliffe.
Ken "Hawk" Harrelson.
Tommy Heinsohn.
Michael Kay.
Steve "Snapper" Jones.
Tom Hammond.
Magic Johnson/Isiah Thomas DEBACLES-ON-THE-AIR in the early 1990s.
And the list goes on... let's tackle these guys one by one. I do impressions of most of them.
Harry Caray, who passed away in 1998 was a legend. Back when the Cubs were televised 145 times a year, even non-Cubs fans saw Caray and his announcing career. He became famous for his seventh-inning stretch at Cubs' home games. He was also known for his HUGE bifocals. However, actor Will Ferrell has brought Caray's legacy back to mind (albeit in a spoofy manner) with his impressions over the years. Ferrell is SPOT ON with it, too. My dad and sister used to watch Cubs' games (I was not a fan, but I loved watching them play. BTW, for the record, I was a Mets fan from 1984-1989 -- due to my aunt who lived on Long Island having Mets' games being shown (somehow?) on Channel 11 when we spent summers with my grandmother while she kept her sister's house.
Side note: I became a Yankee fan in 1989 for the same reason I became a Florida State Seminoles fan in 1987 -- DEION SANDERS. So while I am not your typical "lifetime" Yankee fan, I was a fan at the tail end of the awful Bronx Zoo years, LONG before and LONG AFTER World Series titles, so don't test me.
I digress.
Harry Caray is missed. Announcers don't have that quality to them anymore. HOOOOOOOLY COWWWW!!!
Marv Albert, who in my mind -- and few can dispute this, is the best announcer ever to do it. He has done EVERY sport and done it better than any. And no, I am not biased as a Knicks fan. His work speaks for itself... "Oh!!! A spec-TAC-ular move... by Michael Jordan!!!"... "Here's Jordan for three... YES!!!!!!! Did you see that look?!?! Michael... INDICATING... he can't believe it!!!"... "Here's Miller off the catch-and-shoot... (subdued) yes..." -- and one of my favorites, "Starks drives, pulls up... YES!!!! IT COUNTS!!!......... AND....... THE....... FOULLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Albert's voice and tone are perfect for sports. He knows how to capture the moment (anyone who saw any of the aforementioned plays, being that they were all over 15 years ago, can remember where they were and exactly what year it was -- THAT is what a great announcer does). He lets his color analyst(s) breathe. He does not get in the way of the game. The only travesty is that he dressed up in women's clothes and bit that chick in 1997. Otherwise, he would be doing the NBA Finals INSTEAD of that awful team ABC has been putting up since the glorious NBA on NBC days ended in 2002.
THE. BEST. EVER. PERIOD. He is probably my best impression. Ask my best friends, they know I do a spot-on Marv Albert. Also remember, Marv has the driest sense of humor and the best deadpan this side of Kenny Mayne.
Dick Stockton mostly appeals to people who came along before CBS Sports lost the NBA to NBC in 1991. He still does games on TNT and did games on other networks here and there. To me, he is one of the best ever, but these days he is associated with CONSTANTLY butchering players' names and always starting sentences with "and" (listen to him this season upcoming NBA season on TNT... I do not tell lies).
Bill Walton. Now, I will admit, Walton is as polarizing of a figure as Kobe Bryant, Cam'ron or Tom Brady. But if you like Walton, you can't help but to tune in whenever he is on the air. Whether it is his outlandish declarations "Greg Ostertag is the greatest center in the HISTORY of the Western Conference" or "Kobe Bryant is making Ray Allen look like a SIXTH GRADERRRRR-UH" or his hyperbole such as "And the Pistons take a COMMANDING LEADDDD-UH!!! (while the score was 6-2 in a game)". You either love or hate him, but he is hilarious. See his YouTube videos and just LISTEN to what he says... unless you're a humorless ogre, you will die laughing (especially if you know basketball and the historical figures he sometimes mentions). Walton is one of my best impressions, because he had a stutter for years and now overpronounces words to prevent the stutter (i.e. the "-UH" at the end of statements from time to time), which makes him hilarious to imitate. Comedian Frank Caliendo does a pretty good Walton, too. See YouTube.
John Madden. Let's see. I can go on and on about Madden. Most people know him. He is one of Frank Caliendo's favorite impressions. I do a spot-on Madden, as well. With the NFL season upon us, I won't delve to far into him. Just watch Sunday Night Football on NBC and/or play Madden NFL '09. You will see why he is one of my favorites. One thing I am NOT looking forward to is Madden's UNNATURAL affinity for Brett Favre. He talks about Favre at every turn (although not so bad lately, can't help but think that NBC told him to tone it down because so many people complained that Madden talked about Favre even when Green Bay wasn't playing!). And he never said just "Brett" or "Favre". He always said "Brett Favre". Brett Favre did this. Brett Favre can find bin Laden. Brett Favre can win a game by himself. And he always responded to Pat Summerall and now Al Michaels with "and..." For instance, Pat Summerall, in his classic Texas drawl, would prompt Madden with a statement similar to this:
Pat: John, Darrell Green is 38 and still going strong in the NFL...
John: Yeah... and... and... and... that's true. And... and... and.. he is! Because great players, play great football... and when you play great football, then you're a great player and great football wins games.
Pat (ALWAYS after a statement like this): Thanks, Johnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
BTW, yes, I do a great Summerall, too. But that isn't difficult. Just talk slowly, with a country drawl and get the vocal down. The "Thanks, Johnnnnnnnnnnn..." is classic.
Summerall was a kicker for the New York Football Giants in the late 1950s. Just a little FYI.
Al Michaels. Along with the music for Monday Night Football, you associate his voice with football. You hear Michaels and that tune comes to mind(I would link it, but I am trying to avoid using copyrighted information in my blog -- most people know the MNF music by now). Can't wait until next week!
The NBA on NBC/Monday Night Football on ABC -- just a side note about the musical jingles for both. Hearing the NBA on NBC theme song being played during the USA Basketball games last week nearly gave me goosebumps. That music was like a fire alarm -- you RAN to the nearest TV set, because a great double or tripleheader was about to come on the air.
The same with Monday Night Football. ESPN (as with everything else it has acquired from the originator) has RUINED the music, by arrogantly putting their own spin on it, instead of leaving it as was. MNF music got you riled up for a game on Monday Nights. Now they are mostly snoozefests. Boo to ESPN/ABC!
John Facenda is a little before most of my readers' time. Unless you are about 28, 29, 30 and older, you do not remember NFL Films televising highlights from games in the 1970s and early 1980s. These were mostly rerun until 2006 on regular cable. You can still find them on NFL Network from time to time. Some people dubbed him The Voice of God (I won't go that far personally, for obvious reasons) but many people imitated his voice. Chris Berman does it when he says "The FROOOOOOOZEN Tundra of LAMMMMMM-BEAUUUUU FIEEEELD". It was Facenda who coined that phrase while doing highlights of the Ice Bowl, the NFL Championship game between the Green Bay Packers (or PACKUZZZZ, as Facenda would say) and the Dallas Cowboys. Alternatively, Berman imitates Facenda when talking about the rivalry between the Green Bay PACKUZZZ and the Chicaaaaago Buzzzz (Bears). Facenda was Italian, but he sounded Shakespearean when narrating the highlights for NFL Films. GREAT TIMES. Wish he had lived longer. The rest of the 1980s were great afetr he passed in 1984.
Whoaaaa-Nelly, it's Keith Jackson. Nuff said. College football starts Thursday. Shouts to Keith as he does Pac 10 games watching USC and UCLA "ma-TRIC-u-LATE the ball down the field!"
Brent Musberger. I loved listening to him do games in the 1980s for CBS Sports. Then he became full of himself and annoyed viewers with his "Watch this friends..." gaffle whenever the slightest thing happened on the field. He's still a legend, and you know it is a big college football game when you hear his voice. I appreciate him more now than I did in the 1990s when he seemed to always favor UF (Florida Gators) whenever my boys at Florida State played them... same with FSU vs. The U. (Miami Hurricanes). He's great.
Troy Aikman. Aikman is one of Madden's good friends, and he sounds like it -- only with an Oklahoma twang. I do believe Aikman is probably the best and most thorough (slightly over Phil Simms) color analyst in the NFL, but one of my good friends who I used to work with at Aetna back in the day pointed out to me back in 2004... Aikman always (like other announcers) said he talked to X player or Y player on "Thursdee" or "Fridee". And he inquired, "Mike... what is a THURSDEE???" I nearly died laughing, because although I never paid attention to Aikman say that in the past, I had heard him say it and someone else NOTICING IT made me laugh myself into one of those coughs like chain smokers do when they exert the slightest bit of energy doing anything that requires them to breathe. Now I have several people listening to Aikman and while that is hilarious, he IS the best doing it. Shouts to Aikman, even THOUGH he is a Cowboy.
WFAN Radio 66 in New York. Bob Papa, admittedly a Giants homer, is my local favorite. Giants' fans love Papa. Dick Lynch always seems out of it half of the time during the game and Papa and Carl Banks disagree and argue through several subsequent plays while on air. THE FAN is great radio when the Giants are playing though. And yes, I am a homer.
Brad Nessler. There's something about country accents and football that go together. This guy is one of the best ones to do it right now. He absolutely BOMBED doing the NBA on ABC, but he deserved a mulligan. We will forget it if he does.
JVG (Jeff Van Gundy). He coached the Knicks to the NBA Finals in 1999 and was on the staff under Paulie Walnuts (aka Pat Riley) when the Knicks made the NBA Finals in 1994, so he gets a lifetime pass from us Knick fans. However, on the air, he was annoying to the point where I would turn the channel or watch the game on mute - until this year. Let's hope he maintains a sense of humor.
Doug Collins. Simply the most insightful color analyst the NBA has to offer. He did the Olympics for a reason.
Dick Vitale. An imitation of him is superfluous and everyone has tried it at least once while he was on the air OPENLY campaigning for Mike Krzyzewski and Duke Basketball for the past 20 years. He is great for the game, though. We suffered with subpar announcers while "Dickie V." was out with vocal chord surgery in January. Thank God we have him back.
Bill Raftery. MY ABSOLUTE FAVORITE announcer in college basketball. For the life of me, I could never figure out why he didn't do the Final Four all these years, instead of that CURMUDGEON Billy Packer (and his replacement, Clark Kellogg... who never looks at the camera while at CBS Sports' studios???) While I will admit I am biased, because Raftery is a Seton Hall guy, a Jersey guy and a Big East announcer most of the time, most people like him. "SEND IT IN, JEROOOOOME!!!" (when Jerome Lane broke the backboard at Fitzgerald in Pittsburgh in 1988 -- my dad and I were watching the game live and I became a Raft fan that night). I could list Raftery phrases all night, but there are so many... you just have to Google or YouTube him and enjoy!
Gus Johnson can make watching paint dry seem amusing. He does Knicks games now. He has the most professional use of the term "pause" (a sure fire sign he spent a lot of time in Harlem World since moving to New York to do Knicks games LOL) when Spike Lee said "I like Dick" following the 2007 NBA Draft in an interview (YouTube it). Why isn't he doing the Final Four?!?! Jim Nantz should stick to golf and leave College Basketball AND the NFL alone!!!
Phil Simms. He gets a pass from us Giants fans for life, even if he has the worst diction this side of Tim Hardaway. I am still trying to figure out what "eem" means. My sister actually brought this to my attention a few years back during a Colts/Patriots game (she is a Colts fan). Simms said something to the effect of "Well, Peyton and Marvin usually make that play... as you see here, Peyton gets it TO 'eem (him, I guess?) and Marvin just drops it, Jim. That's rare." So of course, ever since that moment, I crack up whenever I hear Simms or any other hick from Kentucky or West Virginia (John Kruk) say it. LOL
Rick Sutcliffe is a guy who you could sit and talk baseball with casually at the bar. He sounds like he is just having a beer and watching the game while doing games for ESPN. He makes the game entertaining. Glad he is over the cancer.
Sam Rosen. Otherwise a very good announcer over the years, lately, I have noticed while watching Carolina Panthers games, that he likes to call Steve Smith #89 "STEVEN" Smith. Yes, we know "Steve" is a derivative of Steven, but the man says to call him "Steve" so Rosen calls him "Steven" everytime he references Smith. It's annoying, but funny. Shouts to Philip Brady on this one, one of the biggest Panther fans I know and who dealt with my ranting about being annoyed by Rosen for an entire year LOL
Skip Caray. Well, we lost him this year. It is sad, because he had been doing fewer and fewer games the past few years. This year, I never saw him once on the air. But
he was a legend. He was a Braves homer and unapologetically. But he did criticize them when necessary, though, so you can let that ride. My enduring memory of him is his Kermit The Frog voice while saying "and here's Chipper Jones... base hit... one run will score, two runs will score... and the Braves lead 4 to 3!!!" (you have to hear it, words on the screen do no justice). I do a spot on Skip Caray (although Rich Eisen was better at it when he hosted SportsCenter on ESPN back in the day) He is already missed. R.I.P.
Tom Heinsohn. I like him because he is like that drunk uncle at a cookout. He will say anything, nevermind he is on WEEI with over 2 million people listening on any given night. I like irreverent announcers.
Michael Kay. This guy is a huge Yankee homer. But he is the voice of the Yankees. John Sterling, on the other hand, is annoying with his Home Run calls "it is high... it is far... it is outta here" (particularly funny when the ball DOES NOT leave the yard and he has to change it LOL).
Steve "Snapper" Jones can best be remembered by his on-air bouts with Bill Walton. Too bad we don't have NBA on NBC anymore. ESPN messed that up, too.
Tom Hammond, Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas. The first should stick to Track & Field. Magic needs to learn how to talk. Isiah does, too (and stay away from my Knicks FOREVER!!!)
Finally, one of my favorite MLB announcers calls games for the Chicago White Sox. Ken "Hawk" (for his hooknose) Harrelson. From the time the game begins "and before we show you our picks to click, you choose yours at home" (with a strong South Carolina accent), to a pitcher losing a perfect game bid, "well, cancel the postgame show!" to a White Sox pitcher striking an opposing batter out (Harrelson is the biggest homer of them all) with a resounding "HE GONE!!!" Perfect english, right? Amazingly, Hawk is mostly known for that "He Gone" line. I worked it into my vernacular in the 90s. The dudes on Baseball Tonight are just now saying it LOL. He goes completely silent when the White Sox are struggling and probably his most well-known phrase, which he utters when a White Sox batter hits a potential Home Run "that ball hit hard... get up ball... STREEEETCH... STRETCH!!!... He looks up... You can.... PUT IT ON THE BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOARD... YYYYYYYYESSSSSSSSS!!!" Back in the early 1990s, Harrelson partnered with Tom Paciorek "Wimpy"/"Wimparoo" and now with Darrin Jackson "Feisty". They both would join in with the "YYYYYYYYYESSSS" when White Sox batters hit jonrons. Great stuff! Tune in sometime, Hawk is a legend. He was the first player (when he played for the Red Sox) to wear batting gloves. He gave Frank Thomas the nickname that everyone who knows baseball knows Thomas by, "The Big Hurt". He gave Lance Johnson his nickname, "One Dog" (Johnson wore #1). And he talks as if the players can actually hear him when the White Sox need runs. "C'mon Ross... get us started... we need you to do a JOB". Just listen to a White Sox game on their WGN telecasts. You will be pleased.
That is all for this time... more tomorrow.
As politically incorrect as I wanna be.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
How To Get Distribution For Musicians
* Just a little insight for those who are struggling as artists -- publishing is my other main point and that will come in another note -- but DISTRIBUTION is how you can gain sales and increase your bottom line.
Regards,
-- mdw
-----------------------------
Most inexperienced artists believe that a distributor is the pipeline to the people. In theory it is, but in practice it is not. A distribution company is only as good as the record company's promotional power. Yes it is important to get your CD in the store, but it is much more important to get your CD OUT of that store. It's as much the record companies job to do that as it is retail's. A distributor can only try its hardest to convince a retail store to take your CD. To secure shelf space a record company needs to present all its marketing commitments (and honor them) so retail stays confident that it can shift units.
Let's face it, record stores are saturated with product. Why on earth would a store take a CD if it isn't sure it will get sold. The kind of things that retail needs to see if it is to readily accept your product is:
Radio Play
If a single is being worked at radio (through an independent radio promoter) and getting spins, this might be enough to convince a store in that neighborhood to take your record. The amount of demand for the record will determine the amount of units the store takes.
Retail Price And Positioning
Visibility in a record store is everything! If you were to buy an "end cap" (those displays at the end of an aisle), or a month on a listening station, or rack display, this is enough to attract the attention of a store. However, it has become increasingly competetive even when you pay for this!
Touring
Playing live shows can help create a demand for a CD and this of course is key.
All labels have what they call a "one sheet" - a hand out sheet with bullet points outlining their marketing strategies and promotional commitments. This is the first step, but then those commitments have to be met. These commitments are extremely expensive.
If a label refuses to spend promotional money on their act a number of things can result;
1) The CDs remain in the store buried amongst the thousands of others waiting to be found.
2) The CDs after a matter of weeks, get returned to the record label.
3) The record store takes less units from the same artist's next CD, often refusing to stock it altogether.
The last point is interesting. A brand new artist can generate much more excitement in the retail marketplace than an artist with a failed record. The label with the new artist, providing they stump up their promotional dollars and have a good several weeks at radio before they go to retail, can distribute a good amount of units in the marketplace. The artist with a previous record that "bombed" however, will need to do a good deal more convincing in order to get the stores to take more product.
So my big question is; "Can you afford distribution?". To get a record in every store via a reputable distributor immediately puts you in competition with major labels who have gobs of promotional money they can drop if they need to.
My advice for independent artists is to localise. By all means try to get your CD in retail stores, but do it yourself. Strike up a relationship with the store buyer and offer your CDs on consignment. Don't give them any risk. When you do gigs in that neighborhood make a point of telling your audience that they can buy your CD in such and such store (even if you sell CDs at your gigs!)
Do what you can to get some radio play in that area too. This, along with your live shows, might create a certain amount of demand to shift enough units for each retail store to take you seriously and want to continue to support you. From time to time record stores will do "in store appearances" with independent artists and this will allow you to build a stronger relationship with a store, and sell a few units. In a perfect world that store may even add your disc to a listening station for a month to help generate some business. I have seen this happen many, many times. They understand that it costs labels thousands of dollars to do this and that indies are operating on a shoestring. They very often want to help if they believe in a band.
Having said this, retail pretty much wants to deal only with distributors and labels. However, they will support a new artist if they like them. Walk into your local store and ask to speak to the buyer. Give him your CD, be nice and see what happens.
Remember, don't just think about getting your CD IN the store, think about how you might get it OUT!
Sincerely,
James Eichelberger
Chief Operating Officer - Keeplock Entertainment Inc.
http://www. myspace. com/JamesEichelberger
Regards,
-- mdw
-----------------------------
Most inexperienced artists believe that a distributor is the pipeline to the people. In theory it is, but in practice it is not. A distribution company is only as good as the record company's promotional power. Yes it is important to get your CD in the store, but it is much more important to get your CD OUT of that store. It's as much the record companies job to do that as it is retail's. A distributor can only try its hardest to convince a retail store to take your CD. To secure shelf space a record company needs to present all its marketing commitments (and honor them) so retail stays confident that it can shift units.
Let's face it, record stores are saturated with product. Why on earth would a store take a CD if it isn't sure it will get sold. The kind of things that retail needs to see if it is to readily accept your product is:
Radio Play
If a single is being worked at radio (through an independent radio promoter) and getting spins, this might be enough to convince a store in that neighborhood to take your record. The amount of demand for the record will determine the amount of units the store takes.
Retail Price And Positioning
Visibility in a record store is everything! If you were to buy an "end cap" (those displays at the end of an aisle), or a month on a listening station, or rack display, this is enough to attract the attention of a store. However, it has become increasingly competetive even when you pay for this!
Touring
Playing live shows can help create a demand for a CD and this of course is key.
All labels have what they call a "one sheet" - a hand out sheet with bullet points outlining their marketing strategies and promotional commitments. This is the first step, but then those commitments have to be met. These commitments are extremely expensive.
If a label refuses to spend promotional money on their act a number of things can result;
1) The CDs remain in the store buried amongst the thousands of others waiting to be found.
2) The CDs after a matter of weeks, get returned to the record label.
3) The record store takes less units from the same artist's next CD, often refusing to stock it altogether.
The last point is interesting. A brand new artist can generate much more excitement in the retail marketplace than an artist with a failed record. The label with the new artist, providing they stump up their promotional dollars and have a good several weeks at radio before they go to retail, can distribute a good amount of units in the marketplace. The artist with a previous record that "bombed" however, will need to do a good deal more convincing in order to get the stores to take more product.
So my big question is; "Can you afford distribution?". To get a record in every store via a reputable distributor immediately puts you in competition with major labels who have gobs of promotional money they can drop if they need to.
My advice for independent artists is to localise. By all means try to get your CD in retail stores, but do it yourself. Strike up a relationship with the store buyer and offer your CDs on consignment. Don't give them any risk. When you do gigs in that neighborhood make a point of telling your audience that they can buy your CD in such and such store (even if you sell CDs at your gigs!)
Do what you can to get some radio play in that area too. This, along with your live shows, might create a certain amount of demand to shift enough units for each retail store to take you seriously and want to continue to support you. From time to time record stores will do "in store appearances" with independent artists and this will allow you to build a stronger relationship with a store, and sell a few units. In a perfect world that store may even add your disc to a listening station for a month to help generate some business. I have seen this happen many, many times. They understand that it costs labels thousands of dollars to do this and that indies are operating on a shoestring. They very often want to help if they believe in a band.
Having said this, retail pretty much wants to deal only with distributors and labels. However, they will support a new artist if they like them. Walk into your local store and ask to speak to the buyer. Give him your CD, be nice and see what happens.
Remember, don't just think about getting your CD IN the store, think about how you might get it OUT!
Sincerely,
James Eichelberger
Chief Operating Officer - Keeplock Entertainment Inc.
http://www. myspace. com/JamesEichelberger
Thursday, August 21, 2008
A Little About Gene
As an avid follower of all things sports since 1984 (and increasingly, the business/litigation aspect since 1997), Gene Upshaw was one of the most powerful men in the United States. Think about it. You're the boss of a union (later, the Players' Association, after the de-certification of the union in 1989) that paved the way for players to make over $4 billion in salaries in 2008, you made it possible for the players to earn a 60% stake in the revenues generated by the NFL and most importantly, you made it such that players can willingly change teams via free agency -- whereas they could not prior to 1993.
Free agency is commonplace now in all sports, but the NFL was one of the last major leagues to "catch on", as it were. Before the 1993 season, you were expected to report to the team that drafted you, and if you made the team, you stayed with that team until your career was over -- unless the team traded you.
Players' salaries were roughly what administrative assistants' salaries were in the 1970s. Naturally, they were not living the lifestyles that players live now with huge signing bonuses, so they can flash their "mooga" in the public eye and "make it rain" at the club before going back to their 30,000 sq. ft. mansions in their Lamborghini Gallardoes and Bentley coupes. No, those players from the 50s, 60s and 70s had to work side jobs in the offseason -- an offseason that was much longer than the current (as the AFL and NFL played 14 games until the late 1970s, when the schedule increased to 16 games and later added two more preseason games to have a total of 4 and sometimes 5). Many of those players are now in their 50s, 60s and entering their 70s. Some of them have debilitating injuries and illnesses (John Mackey, Jack Tatum, Conrad Dobler, Earl Campbell -- and the list is much longer). Given the fact that salaries were dramatically less during the time that these guys played, they are currently unable to pay their steeping medical fees. This was a major point of contention between the retired players and the Upshaw-led National Football League Players' Association until Upshaw's sudden passing.
Regardless of this fact, and whatever rift the veteran players who are in their 30s (and are at risk for losing their jobs to incoming rookies making $35-50 million in guaranteed money before playing a down in the NFL) Upshaw ushered the NFLPA into the 21st century with maverick negotiations with the NFL's owners and the NFL commissioner (first Pete Rozelle until shortly before his resignation in 1989, then Paul Tagliabue from 1990-2006 and currently Roger Goodell 2006-present). These negotiations enabled the NFL to become the biggest spectator sport and the most popular of the major league sports in North America. Additionally, the players' salaries skyrocketed to unforeseen levels in the 15 years since free agency began. Along with the aforementioned revenue sharing that the players command and it is easy to see why Gene Upshaw was literally and figuratively a "Big Man" in the NFL and the US as a whole.
RIP Gene -- (1945-2008)
P.S. Upshaw had been in talks to avoid bringing the salary cap back after the current NFL/NFLPA deal expired in 2010. Without the cap, players' salaries would be limitless and almost certainly, the teams that play in major markets and have the most revenue (Dallas, New York Giants, New England, Washington) will be able to invariably snatch up the biggest name players on the market and set the league back two decades -- as the smaller market teams will not be able to compete. This occurred in Major League Baseball and still does occur to this day. However, smaller market teams such as the Tampa Bay Rays, Milwaukee Brewers and Minnesota Twins are either leading their respective divisions, near the top or leading their Wild Card standings in the leagues they represent. Let's hope that small market teams (i.e. Green Bay, which is one of the legendary teams in NFL history, playing in a city of 102,000 people) never get the short end of the stick in the NFL again. Let's HOPE the next NFLPA Executive Director continues Gene's work.
Free agency is commonplace now in all sports, but the NFL was one of the last major leagues to "catch on", as it were. Before the 1993 season, you were expected to report to the team that drafted you, and if you made the team, you stayed with that team until your career was over -- unless the team traded you.
Players' salaries were roughly what administrative assistants' salaries were in the 1970s. Naturally, they were not living the lifestyles that players live now with huge signing bonuses, so they can flash their "mooga" in the public eye and "make it rain" at the club before going back to their 30,000 sq. ft. mansions in their Lamborghini Gallardoes and Bentley coupes. No, those players from the 50s, 60s and 70s had to work side jobs in the offseason -- an offseason that was much longer than the current (as the AFL and NFL played 14 games until the late 1970s, when the schedule increased to 16 games and later added two more preseason games to have a total of 4 and sometimes 5). Many of those players are now in their 50s, 60s and entering their 70s. Some of them have debilitating injuries and illnesses (John Mackey, Jack Tatum, Conrad Dobler, Earl Campbell -- and the list is much longer). Given the fact that salaries were dramatically less during the time that these guys played, they are currently unable to pay their steeping medical fees. This was a major point of contention between the retired players and the Upshaw-led National Football League Players' Association until Upshaw's sudden passing.
Regardless of this fact, and whatever rift the veteran players who are in their 30s (and are at risk for losing their jobs to incoming rookies making $35-50 million in guaranteed money before playing a down in the NFL) Upshaw ushered the NFLPA into the 21st century with maverick negotiations with the NFL's owners and the NFL commissioner (first Pete Rozelle until shortly before his resignation in 1989, then Paul Tagliabue from 1990-2006 and currently Roger Goodell 2006-present). These negotiations enabled the NFL to become the biggest spectator sport and the most popular of the major league sports in North America. Additionally, the players' salaries skyrocketed to unforeseen levels in the 15 years since free agency began. Along with the aforementioned revenue sharing that the players command and it is easy to see why Gene Upshaw was literally and figuratively a "Big Man" in the NFL and the US as a whole.
RIP Gene -- (1945-2008)
P.S. Upshaw had been in talks to avoid bringing the salary cap back after the current NFL/NFLPA deal expired in 2010. Without the cap, players' salaries would be limitless and almost certainly, the teams that play in major markets and have the most revenue (Dallas, New York Giants, New England, Washington) will be able to invariably snatch up the biggest name players on the market and set the league back two decades -- as the smaller market teams will not be able to compete. This occurred in Major League Baseball and still does occur to this day. However, smaller market teams such as the Tampa Bay Rays, Milwaukee Brewers and Minnesota Twins are either leading their respective divisions, near the top or leading their Wild Card standings in the leagues they represent. Let's hope that small market teams (i.e. Green Bay, which is one of the legendary teams in NFL history, playing in a city of 102,000 people) never get the short end of the stick in the NFL again. Let's HOPE the next NFLPA Executive Director continues Gene's work.
The Drop Right Now...
My options are plentiful, but my living arrangements AREN'T what's good. My swag took a serious hit in the past couple of weeks. Here's why:
I got the internship with CBS Sports (and have a couple of backup gigs on deck with Warners and CCI in New York if for some reason, CBS doesn't work out). However, I feel somewhat uneasy. First of all, it is one of those unpaid internships. If my cake was where it was before I came back to school, of course I'd have no problem doing this. Therein lies the problem. Being a full-time student, TRYING to remain legitimate and legal with your hustles on the side... it makes it tough to take such an offer when it doesn't pay. Add on the fact that living in New York gets more expensive by the minute and you can kind of see where my concern lies.
That's not all, though. It's not all bad news. Everything else would be copastetic if I didn't have to find an apartment like YESTERDAY. Given that I am trying to graduate on time (which for me was ACTUALLY last fall, before I changed my major -- and is now May 2009), I really need to knock out these last 10 or 11 classes so I can stack that mooga before the fall 2009 semester. I would rather begin law school in the fall of that year rather than having to wait until the fall of 2010.
Part of me -- as MUCH AS I ABHOR Greensboro -- would rather take the "easy" route and live in a comfy situation and finish up my degree studies there. I use "easy" loosely, because the same companies that repeatedly tried to lure me away from Aetna throughout the entire 2002-2004 period won't even give me shouts back on an application. Now what makes me LESS appealing (with MORE education now) than I was before -- when I would've commanded much more in salary to leave a cushy job (time and a half overtime every week, stock options which we cashed out 5-6 times a year and bonuses every quarter -- I was making 40K with no bills other than my 350Z and the costs of working on it for fun) that I could do in my sleep. I always wondered why they would not let me work from home, then merely three months after I left, they began sending everyone home to work. Personal vendetta anyone? LOL
Anyway, my point has always been this: while my parents live here and I've had an easy life during the time I HAVE lived in Greensboro, my heart and life have always been in New York. I hated to leave in '98 and more and more I realize I have unfinished business to take care of like I was EPMD. I'm already behind schedule, given that my original class was '01! So you can get with me when you see that my sense of urgency is definitely on another level than that of someone who is a traditional college student. I don't have time to waste, because I want to have my own private practice up and going by the fourth quarter of 2013 (to my lawyer friends who want to form a conglomerate, get at me and let's talk business!)
However, in the short term, let's talk about the CUNY (City University of New York) system. I heard all the horror stories when I was in school in Brooklyn before. At the time, I figured I had made the right decision to stay out there and go to LIU (until I found out they were Don King and I was Mike Tyson and the thousands of dollars I THOUGHT I had, they had swindled me out of). I still contend that was a great school if you are about the social aspect. However, I will also admit that when I wasn't hanging with some of the cats from class, I was always in Harlem. Looking back, although LIU was a decent school, I have come full circle and finally enrolled at the school I SHOULD have applied to back in 1997 -- CCNY (or City, as we refer to it). I would have been able to develop a better relationship with some long lost family who were peppered all over Harlem World back then, whereas now, I find myself making up for lost time in that arena. This has not come without its snags. For now one of the reasons my plans are in limbo is the fact that I had fallen out of touch with or never really had a relationship with some of my family who lives Uptown. This would definitely help me smooth the transition of moving back to New York. City is really buggin' when it comes to getting paperwork to me (and countless other friends who I know have matriculated through the CUNY system over the years). I didn't get my acceptance letter until last week, and I find that I still need to submit more paperwork on a rush basis in order to even attempt to get in this semester. I tried to be as proactive as possible and get everything in to them in a timely manner... still didn't prevent the typical CUNY BS. That said, the schools themselves are GREAT, but dealing with the administration is like trying to watch SportsCenter or an NFL game without hearing about Brett Favre -- ANNOYING.
BUT GOD.
I still believe things are going to work out for the best. I did get accepted to Hunter College as a non-degree student, which basically allows for me to take classes during the fall, take the internship and if I WANTED TO, I could come back to UNCG and just finish up in the spring and walk in May 2009.
Another option is to continue forward with the original plan of going full-time at City, doing the internship and then to maintain, a whole assortment of stuff I ain't really got to talk about. At the end of the day, my wilderness is over and I'm glad. Shouts to those who prayed and encouraged me through that period. Shouts to those who hated, lied, whispered and slandered me, rejoicing in my downfall for that time... your day is coming and I hope you can remember to cling to God going through, because it's definitely what got me through and I'm much better for having gone through it. Satan thought he had me completely defeated, and much like Job, God only allowed for him to do everything SHORT of taking my life (yeah, there have been some serious moments where some wild spit could've popped off and I could've checked out of here EARLY). But I'm good.
In regard to my plans for the fall 2008 semester... stay tuned -- because I don't even know, B...
I got the internship with CBS Sports (and have a couple of backup gigs on deck with Warners and CCI in New York if for some reason, CBS doesn't work out). However, I feel somewhat uneasy. First of all, it is one of those unpaid internships. If my cake was where it was before I came back to school, of course I'd have no problem doing this. Therein lies the problem. Being a full-time student, TRYING to remain legitimate and legal with your hustles on the side... it makes it tough to take such an offer when it doesn't pay. Add on the fact that living in New York gets more expensive by the minute and you can kind of see where my concern lies.
That's not all, though. It's not all bad news. Everything else would be copastetic if I didn't have to find an apartment like YESTERDAY. Given that I am trying to graduate on time (which for me was ACTUALLY last fall, before I changed my major -- and is now May 2009), I really need to knock out these last 10 or 11 classes so I can stack that mooga before the fall 2009 semester. I would rather begin law school in the fall of that year rather than having to wait until the fall of 2010.
Part of me -- as MUCH AS I ABHOR Greensboro -- would rather take the "easy" route and live in a comfy situation and finish up my degree studies there. I use "easy" loosely, because the same companies that repeatedly tried to lure me away from Aetna throughout the entire 2002-2004 period won't even give me shouts back on an application. Now what makes me LESS appealing (with MORE education now) than I was before -- when I would've commanded much more in salary to leave a cushy job (time and a half overtime every week, stock options which we cashed out 5-6 times a year and bonuses every quarter -- I was making 40K with no bills other than my 350Z and the costs of working on it for fun) that I could do in my sleep. I always wondered why they would not let me work from home, then merely three months after I left, they began sending everyone home to work. Personal vendetta anyone? LOL
Anyway, my point has always been this: while my parents live here and I've had an easy life during the time I HAVE lived in Greensboro, my heart and life have always been in New York. I hated to leave in '98 and more and more I realize I have unfinished business to take care of like I was EPMD. I'm already behind schedule, given that my original class was '01! So you can get with me when you see that my sense of urgency is definitely on another level than that of someone who is a traditional college student. I don't have time to waste, because I want to have my own private practice up and going by the fourth quarter of 2013 (to my lawyer friends who want to form a conglomerate, get at me and let's talk business!)
However, in the short term, let's talk about the CUNY (City University of New York) system. I heard all the horror stories when I was in school in Brooklyn before. At the time, I figured I had made the right decision to stay out there and go to LIU (until I found out they were Don King and I was Mike Tyson and the thousands of dollars I THOUGHT I had, they had swindled me out of). I still contend that was a great school if you are about the social aspect. However, I will also admit that when I wasn't hanging with some of the cats from class, I was always in Harlem. Looking back, although LIU was a decent school, I have come full circle and finally enrolled at the school I SHOULD have applied to back in 1997 -- CCNY (or City, as we refer to it). I would have been able to develop a better relationship with some long lost family who were peppered all over Harlem World back then, whereas now, I find myself making up for lost time in that arena. This has not come without its snags. For now one of the reasons my plans are in limbo is the fact that I had fallen out of touch with or never really had a relationship with some of my family who lives Uptown. This would definitely help me smooth the transition of moving back to New York. City is really buggin' when it comes to getting paperwork to me (and countless other friends who I know have matriculated through the CUNY system over the years). I didn't get my acceptance letter until last week, and I find that I still need to submit more paperwork on a rush basis in order to even attempt to get in this semester. I tried to be as proactive as possible and get everything in to them in a timely manner... still didn't prevent the typical CUNY BS. That said, the schools themselves are GREAT, but dealing with the administration is like trying to watch SportsCenter or an NFL game without hearing about Brett Favre -- ANNOYING.
BUT GOD.
I still believe things are going to work out for the best. I did get accepted to Hunter College as a non-degree student, which basically allows for me to take classes during the fall, take the internship and if I WANTED TO, I could come back to UNCG and just finish up in the spring and walk in May 2009.
Another option is to continue forward with the original plan of going full-time at City, doing the internship and then to maintain, a whole assortment of stuff I ain't really got to talk about. At the end of the day, my wilderness is over and I'm glad. Shouts to those who prayed and encouraged me through that period. Shouts to those who hated, lied, whispered and slandered me, rejoicing in my downfall for that time... your day is coming and I hope you can remember to cling to God going through, because it's definitely what got me through and I'm much better for having gone through it. Satan thought he had me completely defeated, and much like Job, God only allowed for him to do everything SHORT of taking my life (yeah, there have been some serious moments where some wild spit could've popped off and I could've checked out of here EARLY). But I'm good.
In regard to my plans for the fall 2008 semester... stay tuned -- because I don't even know, B...
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Be Still
Be Still
Today's Scripture
"Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10 NIV).
Today's Word from Joel and Victoria
In this day and age, our culture has become so accustomed to having constant activity going on; computers, cell phones, television, email, video games. And there’s nothing wrong with that stuff but sometimes, we have to stop and be still so we can focus on knowing God. This is especially true during the difficult times in life. When you are facing a challenge, it’s easy to want to run to a friend or talk about it with a neighbor, but at some point, you have to stop and say, “God, I rest in You. I know You have me in the palm of Your hand.”
Remember, our battles are spiritual battles. The people in your life aren’t your enemy, the forces of darkness are. When you choose to be still and know that the Greater One lives on the inside of you, you are saying to the whole world, “I trust God. He is my Defender.” When you choose to believe in Him you will enter into His rest. Remember, the battle belongs to the Lord. As you are still before Him, You will see His hand of victory and blessing in every area of your life!
A Prayer for Today
Father in Heaven, I humbly come before You. I choose to be still before You. Speak to my heart so I can know You more. Fill me with Your peace as I put my trust in You. In Jesus’ Name. Amen.
Today's Scripture
"Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10 NIV).
Today's Word from Joel and Victoria
In this day and age, our culture has become so accustomed to having constant activity going on; computers, cell phones, television, email, video games. And there’s nothing wrong with that stuff but sometimes, we have to stop and be still so we can focus on knowing God. This is especially true during the difficult times in life. When you are facing a challenge, it’s easy to want to run to a friend or talk about it with a neighbor, but at some point, you have to stop and say, “God, I rest in You. I know You have me in the palm of Your hand.”
Remember, our battles are spiritual battles. The people in your life aren’t your enemy, the forces of darkness are. When you choose to be still and know that the Greater One lives on the inside of you, you are saying to the whole world, “I trust God. He is my Defender.” When you choose to believe in Him you will enter into His rest. Remember, the battle belongs to the Lord. As you are still before Him, You will see His hand of victory and blessing in every area of your life!
A Prayer for Today
Father in Heaven, I humbly come before You. I choose to be still before You. Speak to my heart so I can know You more. Fill me with Your peace as I put my trust in You. In Jesus’ Name. Amen.
OK, What's REALLY Good, Mike?
My options are plentiful, but my living arrangements AREN'T what's good. My swag took a serious hit in the past couple of weeks. Here's why:
I got the internship with CBS Sports (and have a couple of backup gigs on deck with Warners and CCI in New York if for some reason, CBS doesn't work out). However, I feel somewhat uneasy. First of all, it is one of those unpaid internships. If my cake was where it was before I came back to school, of course I'd have no problem doing this. Therein lies the problem. Being a full-time student, TRYING to remain legitimate and legal with your hustles on the side... it makes it tough to take such an offer when it doesn't pay. Add on the fact that living in New York gets more expensive by the minute and you can kind of see where my concern lies.
That's not all, though. It's not all bad news. Everything else would be copastetic if I didn't have to find an apartment like YESTERDAY. Given that I am trying to graduate on time (which for me was ACTUALLY last fall, before I changed my major -- and is now May 2009), I really need to knock out these last 10 or 11 classes so I can stack that mooga before the fall 2009 semester. I would rather begin law school in the fall of that year rather than having to wait until the fall of 2010.
Part of me -- as MUCH AS I ABHOR Greensboro -- would rather take the "easy" route and live in a comfy situation and finish up my degree studies there. I use "easy" loosely, because the same companies that repeatedly tried to lure me away from Aetna throughout the entire 2002-2004 period won't even give me shouts back on an application. Now what makes me LESS appealing (with MORE education now) than I was before -- when I would've commanded much more in salary to leave a cushy job (time and a half overtime every week, stock options which we cashed out 5-6 times a year and bonuses every quarter -- I was making 40K with no bills other than my 350Z and the costs of working on it for fun) that I could do in my sleep. I always wondered why they would not let me work from home, then merely three months after I left, they began sending everyone home to work. Personal vendetta anyone? LOL
Anyway, my point has always been this: while my parents live here and I've had an easy life during the time I HAVE lived in Greensboro, my heart and life have always been in New York. I hated to leave in '98 and more and more I realize I have unfinished business to take care of like I was EPMD. I'm already behind schedule, given that my original class was '01! So you can get with me when you see that my sense of urgency is definitely on another level than that of someone who is a traditional college student. I don't have time to waste, because I want to have my own private practice up and going by the fourth quarter of 2013 (to my lawyer friends who want to form a conglomerate, get at me and let's talk business!)
However, in the short term, let's talk about the CUNY (City University of New York) system. I heard all the horror stories when I was in school in Brooklyn before. At the time, I figured I had made the right decision to stay out there and go to LIU (until I found out they were Don King and I was Mike Tyson and the thousands of dollars I THOUGHT I had, they had swindled me out of). I still contend that was a great school if you are about the social aspect. However, I will also admit that when I wasn't hanging with some of the cats from class, I was always in Harlem. Looking back, although LIU was a decent school, I have come full circle and finally enrolled at the school I SHOULD have applied to back in 1997 -- CCNY (or City, as we refer to it). I would have been able to develop a better relationship with some long lost family who were peppered all over Harlem World back then, whereas now, I find myself making up for lost time in that arena. This has not come without its snags. For now one of the reasons my plans are in limbo is the fact that I had fallen out of touch with or never really had a relationship with some of my family who lives Uptown. This would definitely help me smooth the transition of moving back to New York. City is really buggin' when it comes to getting paperwork to me (and countless other friends who I know have matriculated through the CUNY system over the years). I didn't get my acceptance letter until last week, and I find that I still need to submit more paperwork on a rush basis in order to even attempt to get in this semester. I tried to be as proactive as possible and get everything in to them in a timely manner... still didn't prevent the typical CUNY BS. That said, the schools themselves are GREAT, but dealing with the administration is like trying to watch SportsCenter or an NFL game without hearing about Brett Favre -- ANNOYING.
BUT GOD.
I still believe things are going to work out for the best. I did get accepted to Hunter College as a non-degree student, which basically allows for me to take classes during the fall, take the internship and if I WANTED TO, I could come back to UNCG and just finish up in the spring and walk in May 2009.
Another option is to continue forward with the original plan of going full-time at City, doing the internship and then to maintain, a whole assortment of stuff I ain't really got to talk about. At the end of the day, my wilderness is over and I'm glad. Shouts to those who prayed and encouraged me through that period. Shouts to those who hated, lied, whispered and slandered me, rejoicing in my downfall for that time... your day is coming and I hope you can remember to cling to God going through, because it's definitely what got me through and I'm much better for having gone through it. Satan thought he had me completely defeated, and much like Job, God only allowed for him to do everything SHORT of taking my life (yeah, there have been some serious moments where some wild spit could've popped off and I could've checked out of here EARLY). But I'm good.
In regard to my plans for the fall 2008 semester... stay tuned -- because I don't even know, B...
I got the internship with CBS Sports (and have a couple of backup gigs on deck with Warners and CCI in New York if for some reason, CBS doesn't work out). However, I feel somewhat uneasy. First of all, it is one of those unpaid internships. If my cake was where it was before I came back to school, of course I'd have no problem doing this. Therein lies the problem. Being a full-time student, TRYING to remain legitimate and legal with your hustles on the side... it makes it tough to take such an offer when it doesn't pay. Add on the fact that living in New York gets more expensive by the minute and you can kind of see where my concern lies.
That's not all, though. It's not all bad news. Everything else would be copastetic if I didn't have to find an apartment like YESTERDAY. Given that I am trying to graduate on time (which for me was ACTUALLY last fall, before I changed my major -- and is now May 2009), I really need to knock out these last 10 or 11 classes so I can stack that mooga before the fall 2009 semester. I would rather begin law school in the fall of that year rather than having to wait until the fall of 2010.
Part of me -- as MUCH AS I ABHOR Greensboro -- would rather take the "easy" route and live in a comfy situation and finish up my degree studies there. I use "easy" loosely, because the same companies that repeatedly tried to lure me away from Aetna throughout the entire 2002-2004 period won't even give me shouts back on an application. Now what makes me LESS appealing (with MORE education now) than I was before -- when I would've commanded much more in salary to leave a cushy job (time and a half overtime every week, stock options which we cashed out 5-6 times a year and bonuses every quarter -- I was making 40K with no bills other than my 350Z and the costs of working on it for fun) that I could do in my sleep. I always wondered why they would not let me work from home, then merely three months after I left, they began sending everyone home to work. Personal vendetta anyone? LOL
Anyway, my point has always been this: while my parents live here and I've had an easy life during the time I HAVE lived in Greensboro, my heart and life have always been in New York. I hated to leave in '98 and more and more I realize I have unfinished business to take care of like I was EPMD. I'm already behind schedule, given that my original class was '01! So you can get with me when you see that my sense of urgency is definitely on another level than that of someone who is a traditional college student. I don't have time to waste, because I want to have my own private practice up and going by the fourth quarter of 2013 (to my lawyer friends who want to form a conglomerate, get at me and let's talk business!)
However, in the short term, let's talk about the CUNY (City University of New York) system. I heard all the horror stories when I was in school in Brooklyn before. At the time, I figured I had made the right decision to stay out there and go to LIU (until I found out they were Don King and I was Mike Tyson and the thousands of dollars I THOUGHT I had, they had swindled me out of). I still contend that was a great school if you are about the social aspect. However, I will also admit that when I wasn't hanging with some of the cats from class, I was always in Harlem. Looking back, although LIU was a decent school, I have come full circle and finally enrolled at the school I SHOULD have applied to back in 1997 -- CCNY (or City, as we refer to it). I would have been able to develop a better relationship with some long lost family who were peppered all over Harlem World back then, whereas now, I find myself making up for lost time in that arena. This has not come without its snags. For now one of the reasons my plans are in limbo is the fact that I had fallen out of touch with or never really had a relationship with some of my family who lives Uptown. This would definitely help me smooth the transition of moving back to New York. City is really buggin' when it comes to getting paperwork to me (and countless other friends who I know have matriculated through the CUNY system over the years). I didn't get my acceptance letter until last week, and I find that I still need to submit more paperwork on a rush basis in order to even attempt to get in this semester. I tried to be as proactive as possible and get everything in to them in a timely manner... still didn't prevent the typical CUNY BS. That said, the schools themselves are GREAT, but dealing with the administration is like trying to watch SportsCenter or an NFL game without hearing about Brett Favre -- ANNOYING.
BUT GOD.
I still believe things are going to work out for the best. I did get accepted to Hunter College as a non-degree student, which basically allows for me to take classes during the fall, take the internship and if I WANTED TO, I could come back to UNCG and just finish up in the spring and walk in May 2009.
Another option is to continue forward with the original plan of going full-time at City, doing the internship and then to maintain, a whole assortment of stuff I ain't really got to talk about. At the end of the day, my wilderness is over and I'm glad. Shouts to those who prayed and encouraged me through that period. Shouts to those who hated, lied, whispered and slandered me, rejoicing in my downfall for that time... your day is coming and I hope you can remember to cling to God going through, because it's definitely what got me through and I'm much better for having gone through it. Satan thought he had me completely defeated, and much like Job, God only allowed for him to do everything SHORT of taking my life (yeah, there have been some serious moments where some wild spit could've popped off and I could've checked out of here EARLY). But I'm good.
In regard to my plans for the fall 2008 semester... stay tuned -- because I don't even know, B...
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Is He the Marrying Kind?
* I OFFICIALLY CO-SIGN WITH EVERY BIT OF THIS!!!
- mdw
Is He the Marrying Kind?
By A.J. Kiesling
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer
As Christian women, it’s hard to take God out of the marriage equation, and we wouldn’t even want to.
At the same time, the cultural realities we live with force us to do more than simply drift with the tide—that is, if we’re serious about finding a mate. The good news is that, even in these marriage-unfriendly times, the fields are “white unto harvest” if you know what to look for. Once you sense the time is right, start being intentional about putting yourself in places, and with people, that will nudge you in the direction of marriage. The right approach—a combination of faith in God and strategic thinking and action—will likely turn the helm of your singlehood into new waters that contain the very real possibility of marriage.
Separating the Wheat from the Chaff
It turns out there are things you can do to find a prospective mate—or to move a budding relationship forward—and it all starts with looking for the right kind of man: the marrying kind.
In his book Why Men Marry Some Women and Not Others, author and professional market researcher John T. Molloy notes that when he completed the initial research for the manuscript, one of his better researchers, a woman named Beth, wanted to read the results. Her problem was that “men who are averse to commitment were drawn to her like bees to honey.” After reading the report, Beth dropped it back on Molloy’s desk angrily and called him a male chauvinist. After he recovered his shock, he asked her what made her think that.
“You reinforce the myth that the reason men don’t commit is that the women in their lives do something wrong,” she steamed. “That’s nonsense. In most cases, it’s the man in a relationship who decides he isn’t ready or doesn’t want to get married, and he makes this decision without any help from the woman. No matter what some women do, there are certain men who are never going to commit. Unless you recognize that, you’ve missed the whole point. If you want to do women a real service, help us identify those losers before we get involved with them.”1
After apologizing to Beth, Molloy admitted she had a point. His interviews with single men had shown that there were men who would not commit. He also realized the valuable service he could provide women by identifying those men who were worthy of their attention—and which ones to weed out as potential mates.
1. Look for a Man Who’s Ready to Commit
Molloy found in his research that there is an age when a man is ready to marry, or what he calls the Age of Commitment. The age varies from man to man, but discernible patterns emerge:
Most male college graduates between ages twenty-eight and thirty-three “are in their high-commitment years and likely to propose.” This period of high commitment for well-educated men lasts just over five years.
Once a man hits thirty-eight, the chances he will ever marry drop dramatically. Chances that a man will marry for the first time diminish even more after forty-two or forty-three. “At this point, many men become confirmed bachelors,” writes Molloy.
Once a man reaches age forty-seven to fifty without marrying, the chances he will ever do so drop dramatically.
One of the most common mistakes women make, Molloy writes, is to assume that because they’re ready for marriage, the men they date are as well. But his research shows that is often not the case. Instead, if a woman is serious about finding a mate, she should date only men who have reached the age of commitment.
2. Look for a Man Who Is Tired of the Singles Scene
Molloy found that the men who were most likely to consider marriage seriously had not only reached the Age of Commitment, but they had tired of the singles scene—the endless round of singles events, group outings, casual dating, and parties filled with questing singles. Instead, he and his researchers found that about a third of newly married men said that for six months to two years before they met their brides-to-be, they were not dating or going to singles places as often as they had been just a few years earlier. In the men’s own words, they were ready for “something else” or the “next step.”
When the singles scene ceases to be as fun as it used to be, a man is ripe for the real commitment of marriage. As you meet men, listen for clues that they have reached this point in their life. Watch their actions, too—they are the best barometer of a person’s inner world. A man weary of the round of singles activities is much closer to desiring one woman for life than his still-party-hearty brethren.
3. Look for Men Whose Biological Clocks Are Ticking
This one may sound strange at first, but Molloy explains. In his research he discovered that men have a biological clock too, and they are keenly aware that it’s running down. His team of researchers spoke to 121 men in their forties who were marrying for the first time: “They’re not worried about physically being able to father a child, but about being a father to the child.”
A caveat to this point: One of the main complaints Christian single women lob against single men is that they put off marrying so long that when they do finally get ready, they shop in the much-younger “market” of available women. Why? It seems obvious to say not only “because they can” but because of this very point that Molloy makes: they want to become fathers, and a younger woman is the more likely candidate to provide them that.
4. Look for Diamonds in the Rough
As the years go by and no serious suitors appear to claim you, it’s easy as a single woman to despair and start to think, “What’s wrong with me?” I heard this heart-cry numerous times in the responses to my survey. What women sometimes forget is that many men feel exactly the same way.
Molloy and his team of researchers talked to dozens of men in their late thirties and early forties who had given up on the idea of marrying. Most lacked one of three things, he reports: looks, height, or social skills.
Greenwald, author of Find a Husband After 35, concurs—and she expounds on the idea in her chapter titled “Market Expansion: Cast a Wider Net.” Simply put, casting a wider net means looking for a husband who may not be the type you’ve always imagined. Looking for a diamond in the rough means you start looking at the single Christian men in your sphere with a new eye—an eye open to possibilities. Averse to bald heads? Consider that in this day and age the shaved head look is in, so naturally bald men have a step up on the ladder. Insist on a skillful conversationalist? Try carrying the thread of the conversation the first few times until he’s warmed up to your presence. Sometimes the quiet, shy types hide a wonderful dry wit that only those closest to them get to know.
It’s not uncommon to hear happily married couples tell funny stories about how they met—she didn’t even notice him at first; he annoyed her with his boisterous sense of humor; she blended in with the other girls at the singles function until someone casually mentioned a topic she loved, and she lit up, taking him with her. These little nuances are the stuff of true love, and we limit ourselves by adhering to a strict list of “must have” qualities.
What About Good Friends?
Another way of restating this point about mining diamonds in the rough is to reassess your options, as one writer puts it. Instead of just palling around with men forever, take a serious look at the guys in your “just friends” category and consider who might be a good husband, a caring partner, and a potential dad (if that’s important to you).
I have to tell you there’s really something to this. In my own college-aged singles group (many moons ago) quite a few male/female fellowship group leaders wound up getting married. Of course, they never intended for anything to happen. But in the course of working side by side to build a lively Bible study or busy social calendar, they bonded as friends first—and then fell in love.
There’s a lot to be said for relationships that are grounded on friendship first. If you do make the leap to marriage, once the dry spells set in (as they always do) you’ll have your genuine liking for the other person—your friendship—to fall back on.
1. Steer Clear of Confirmed Bachelors and Players
Easier said than done, right? That’s the first cynical thought that sprang into my mind as I typed the heading above. But there are good men out there—the results of my singles survey reveal just how many Christian single men long to find a wife and labor under similar (if flipside-of-coin) frustrations. The crucial thing is to identify the men who truly want a wife from those who are confirmed bachelors or outright players.
The first category, the confirmed bachelor, is easy to spot, says Molloy: “He’s so used to living alone that he will list the pleasures of the solo life—coming and going as he pleases, not answering to anyone—as reasons for not marrying.” Still, he dangles a bit of hope. “Thousands of former ‘confirmed’ bachelors get married each year, usually to women they’ve known for less than a year or whom they’ve been going with for many years.”
The player, or what Molloy calls a “stringer,” is a more dangerous type of man. “If you’re dating a man who has had one or more long-term relationships with other women and didn’t marry them, there’s a real possibility he’s a stringer,” writes Molloy. “A stringer is a man who strings women along. He likes to have a woman. … He often tells women, up front, that he never intends to marry, so if and when he decides he wants to cut out, she has no reason to complain.”
If you think you may be dating a stringer, Molloy advises a strict protocol: “Establish a deadline. If he doesn’t commit to you within six months, get rid of him.” At the same time, any sane woman realizes there are some men a little pressure will work on and others with whom it has the opposite effect. Either way, you will have your answer.
1John T. Molloy, Why Men Marry Some Women and Not Others (New York: Warner Books, 2003)
Copyright © 2008 by A.J. Kiesling. Excerpted from Where Have All the Good Men Gone? Why So Many Christian Women Are Remaining Single. Harvest House, March 2008.
A.J. Kiesling is the author of Where Have All the Good Men Gone? (Harvest House) and the novel Skizzer (Revell). A former contributing religion writer for Publishers Weekly, she has written more than a dozen books.
You can reach her at www.ajkiesling.com or by e-mailing her at news://mailtgoodmengone@gmail.com.
- mdw
Is He the Marrying Kind?
By A.J. Kiesling
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer
As Christian women, it’s hard to take God out of the marriage equation, and we wouldn’t even want to.
At the same time, the cultural realities we live with force us to do more than simply drift with the tide—that is, if we’re serious about finding a mate. The good news is that, even in these marriage-unfriendly times, the fields are “white unto harvest” if you know what to look for. Once you sense the time is right, start being intentional about putting yourself in places, and with people, that will nudge you in the direction of marriage. The right approach—a combination of faith in God and strategic thinking and action—will likely turn the helm of your singlehood into new waters that contain the very real possibility of marriage.
Separating the Wheat from the Chaff
It turns out there are things you can do to find a prospective mate—or to move a budding relationship forward—and it all starts with looking for the right kind of man: the marrying kind.
In his book Why Men Marry Some Women and Not Others, author and professional market researcher John T. Molloy notes that when he completed the initial research for the manuscript, one of his better researchers, a woman named Beth, wanted to read the results. Her problem was that “men who are averse to commitment were drawn to her like bees to honey.” After reading the report, Beth dropped it back on Molloy’s desk angrily and called him a male chauvinist. After he recovered his shock, he asked her what made her think that.
“You reinforce the myth that the reason men don’t commit is that the women in their lives do something wrong,” she steamed. “That’s nonsense. In most cases, it’s the man in a relationship who decides he isn’t ready or doesn’t want to get married, and he makes this decision without any help from the woman. No matter what some women do, there are certain men who are never going to commit. Unless you recognize that, you’ve missed the whole point. If you want to do women a real service, help us identify those losers before we get involved with them.”1
After apologizing to Beth, Molloy admitted she had a point. His interviews with single men had shown that there were men who would not commit. He also realized the valuable service he could provide women by identifying those men who were worthy of their attention—and which ones to weed out as potential mates.
1. Look for a Man Who’s Ready to Commit
Molloy found in his research that there is an age when a man is ready to marry, or what he calls the Age of Commitment. The age varies from man to man, but discernible patterns emerge:
Most male college graduates between ages twenty-eight and thirty-three “are in their high-commitment years and likely to propose.” This period of high commitment for well-educated men lasts just over five years.
Once a man hits thirty-eight, the chances he will ever marry drop dramatically. Chances that a man will marry for the first time diminish even more after forty-two or forty-three. “At this point, many men become confirmed bachelors,” writes Molloy.
Once a man reaches age forty-seven to fifty without marrying, the chances he will ever do so drop dramatically.
One of the most common mistakes women make, Molloy writes, is to assume that because they’re ready for marriage, the men they date are as well. But his research shows that is often not the case. Instead, if a woman is serious about finding a mate, she should date only men who have reached the age of commitment.
2. Look for a Man Who Is Tired of the Singles Scene
Molloy found that the men who were most likely to consider marriage seriously had not only reached the Age of Commitment, but they had tired of the singles scene—the endless round of singles events, group outings, casual dating, and parties filled with questing singles. Instead, he and his researchers found that about a third of newly married men said that for six months to two years before they met their brides-to-be, they were not dating or going to singles places as often as they had been just a few years earlier. In the men’s own words, they were ready for “something else” or the “next step.”
When the singles scene ceases to be as fun as it used to be, a man is ripe for the real commitment of marriage. As you meet men, listen for clues that they have reached this point in their life. Watch their actions, too—they are the best barometer of a person’s inner world. A man weary of the round of singles activities is much closer to desiring one woman for life than his still-party-hearty brethren.
3. Look for Men Whose Biological Clocks Are Ticking
This one may sound strange at first, but Molloy explains. In his research he discovered that men have a biological clock too, and they are keenly aware that it’s running down. His team of researchers spoke to 121 men in their forties who were marrying for the first time: “They’re not worried about physically being able to father a child, but about being a father to the child.”
A caveat to this point: One of the main complaints Christian single women lob against single men is that they put off marrying so long that when they do finally get ready, they shop in the much-younger “market” of available women. Why? It seems obvious to say not only “because they can” but because of this very point that Molloy makes: they want to become fathers, and a younger woman is the more likely candidate to provide them that.
4. Look for Diamonds in the Rough
As the years go by and no serious suitors appear to claim you, it’s easy as a single woman to despair and start to think, “What’s wrong with me?” I heard this heart-cry numerous times in the responses to my survey. What women sometimes forget is that many men feel exactly the same way.
Molloy and his team of researchers talked to dozens of men in their late thirties and early forties who had given up on the idea of marrying. Most lacked one of three things, he reports: looks, height, or social skills.
Greenwald, author of Find a Husband After 35, concurs—and she expounds on the idea in her chapter titled “Market Expansion: Cast a Wider Net.” Simply put, casting a wider net means looking for a husband who may not be the type you’ve always imagined. Looking for a diamond in the rough means you start looking at the single Christian men in your sphere with a new eye—an eye open to possibilities. Averse to bald heads? Consider that in this day and age the shaved head look is in, so naturally bald men have a step up on the ladder. Insist on a skillful conversationalist? Try carrying the thread of the conversation the first few times until he’s warmed up to your presence. Sometimes the quiet, shy types hide a wonderful dry wit that only those closest to them get to know.
It’s not uncommon to hear happily married couples tell funny stories about how they met—she didn’t even notice him at first; he annoyed her with his boisterous sense of humor; she blended in with the other girls at the singles function until someone casually mentioned a topic she loved, and she lit up, taking him with her. These little nuances are the stuff of true love, and we limit ourselves by adhering to a strict list of “must have” qualities.
What About Good Friends?
Another way of restating this point about mining diamonds in the rough is to reassess your options, as one writer puts it. Instead of just palling around with men forever, take a serious look at the guys in your “just friends” category and consider who might be a good husband, a caring partner, and a potential dad (if that’s important to you).
I have to tell you there’s really something to this. In my own college-aged singles group (many moons ago) quite a few male/female fellowship group leaders wound up getting married. Of course, they never intended for anything to happen. But in the course of working side by side to build a lively Bible study or busy social calendar, they bonded as friends first—and then fell in love.
There’s a lot to be said for relationships that are grounded on friendship first. If you do make the leap to marriage, once the dry spells set in (as they always do) you’ll have your genuine liking for the other person—your friendship—to fall back on.
1. Steer Clear of Confirmed Bachelors and Players
Easier said than done, right? That’s the first cynical thought that sprang into my mind as I typed the heading above. But there are good men out there—the results of my singles survey reveal just how many Christian single men long to find a wife and labor under similar (if flipside-of-coin) frustrations. The crucial thing is to identify the men who truly want a wife from those who are confirmed bachelors or outright players.
The first category, the confirmed bachelor, is easy to spot, says Molloy: “He’s so used to living alone that he will list the pleasures of the solo life—coming and going as he pleases, not answering to anyone—as reasons for not marrying.” Still, he dangles a bit of hope. “Thousands of former ‘confirmed’ bachelors get married each year, usually to women they’ve known for less than a year or whom they’ve been going with for many years.”
The player, or what Molloy calls a “stringer,” is a more dangerous type of man. “If you’re dating a man who has had one or more long-term relationships with other women and didn’t marry them, there’s a real possibility he’s a stringer,” writes Molloy. “A stringer is a man who strings women along. He likes to have a woman. … He often tells women, up front, that he never intends to marry, so if and when he decides he wants to cut out, she has no reason to complain.”
If you think you may be dating a stringer, Molloy advises a strict protocol: “Establish a deadline. If he doesn’t commit to you within six months, get rid of him.” At the same time, any sane woman realizes there are some men a little pressure will work on and others with whom it has the opposite effect. Either way, you will have your answer.
1John T. Molloy, Why Men Marry Some Women and Not Others (New York: Warner Books, 2003)
Copyright © 2008 by A.J. Kiesling. Excerpted from Where Have All the Good Men Gone? Why So Many Christian Women Are Remaining Single. Harvest House, March 2008.
A.J. Kiesling is the author of Where Have All the Good Men Gone? (Harvest House) and the novel Skizzer (Revell). A former contributing religion writer for Publishers Weekly, she has written more than a dozen books.
You can reach her at www.ajkiesling.com or by e-mailing her at news://mailtgoodmengone@gmail.com.
Carve Out Time for the People Who Matter Most
Carve Out Time for the People Who Matter Most
By Valorie Burton
Author & Life Coach
"No man on his deathbed ever said, 'I wish I had spent more time at the office.'"
— The late Sen. Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts
When I married and moved to Maryland in 2003, my father serendipitously received a promotion to move from Colorado to nearby northern Virginia. We had not lived in the same city since I graduated from high school and I was excited that he'd be just 20 miles away. Despite the close proximity, we both noticed something: We didn't actually see one another as often as we'd thought we would.
Have you ever noticed that life sometimes gets so busy that it gets in the way of what you say is most important? It's in those moments, that you must reassess your priorities and make sure your schedule reflects them. If you aren't intentional about how you spend your time, it will slip through your fingers without bringing you some of the experiences that make your life rich and fulfilling.
To make sure we made time together a priority, Dad and I decided to set a standing appointment. On Fridays, we meet for lunch. Same place. Same time. And on the occasions when one of us cannot make it, we make it a point to see each other at some other time. Our lunch date ensures that we never become so busy that we go for weeks, living in the same metro area, without visiting with each other face to face. We visit at other times, too, of course, but we don't rely on happenstance and special occasions to see each other regularly.
This week, I invite you to take a moment to consider the people with whom you most want to spend time with on a regular basis. Then carve out some time and put strong boundaries around it. There is so much vying for your attention that you must be intentional about making time for your relationships. For example, my husband and I carve out weekends to spend time together doing things we love with each other and people we care about. We also eat dinner together nearly every day. I make it my rule not to go more than four months without seeing my mother and little brother who live an hour-long plane ride away. And I have a couple of friends with whom I get together once a month or so. If we don't set a date, one of us calls the other to say, "Hey, it's time for us to get together."
To some, it may seem ridiculous to set appointments with yourself and the people you care about. Instead, I see it as a way to honor your most important relationships. In a world in which there is always something calling for your attention, it is essential that you take control of how you spend your time and put boundaries around the time that's meant for your most important priority—your relationships. Here are a few ideas to get you started:
Invite friends or family over once a month for an old-fashioned Sunday dinner.
Eat breakfast or dinner together as a family.
Choose a weekly "date night" for you and your spouse or significant other.
Have a "game night" with your children or friends.
Choose a favorite pastime and schedule regular time to enjoy it with someone you want to spend time with consistently.
Set a standard for how often you want to see loved ones who do not live in your area. Honor your standard by taking out your calendar and marking the dates.
Carve out regular time just for you. Just as it is important to make time for the important people in your life, it's important to make time just for you, too!
Come up with your idea by brainstorming with the person you want to carve out time for!
Living an inspired life means aligning your true priorities with your day-to-day actions. When you make time for your relationships, you'll notice that other less meaningful activities may fall by the wayside. Take a deep breath and let them go. You can't be all things to all people. Carve out time for the people who matter most to you. Enjoy!
Journaling Assignment:
With whom do you need to be more intentional about spending quality time? When, how and how often would you like to spend time with them?
My Challenge to You This Week:
Carve out time in your schedule for the people who matter most to you. Make that time sacred by setting boundaries around it that cannot be infringed upon by work, other people or less significant priorities.
Taken from Rich Minds, Rich Rewards E-Newsletter. Written and distributed by Inspire, Inc. © 2008 Valorie Burton. All rights reserved. Used with permission. www.valorieburton.com.
Valorie Burton, a life coach and speaker, is the author of Listen to Your Life, Rich Minds, Rich Rewards, What's Really Holding You Back?, Why Not You? and her latest, How Did I Get So Busy?.
By Valorie Burton
Author & Life Coach
"No man on his deathbed ever said, 'I wish I had spent more time at the office.'"
— The late Sen. Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts
When I married and moved to Maryland in 2003, my father serendipitously received a promotion to move from Colorado to nearby northern Virginia. We had not lived in the same city since I graduated from high school and I was excited that he'd be just 20 miles away. Despite the close proximity, we both noticed something: We didn't actually see one another as often as we'd thought we would.
Have you ever noticed that life sometimes gets so busy that it gets in the way of what you say is most important? It's in those moments, that you must reassess your priorities and make sure your schedule reflects them. If you aren't intentional about how you spend your time, it will slip through your fingers without bringing you some of the experiences that make your life rich and fulfilling.
To make sure we made time together a priority, Dad and I decided to set a standing appointment. On Fridays, we meet for lunch. Same place. Same time. And on the occasions when one of us cannot make it, we make it a point to see each other at some other time. Our lunch date ensures that we never become so busy that we go for weeks, living in the same metro area, without visiting with each other face to face. We visit at other times, too, of course, but we don't rely on happenstance and special occasions to see each other regularly.
This week, I invite you to take a moment to consider the people with whom you most want to spend time with on a regular basis. Then carve out some time and put strong boundaries around it. There is so much vying for your attention that you must be intentional about making time for your relationships. For example, my husband and I carve out weekends to spend time together doing things we love with each other and people we care about. We also eat dinner together nearly every day. I make it my rule not to go more than four months without seeing my mother and little brother who live an hour-long plane ride away. And I have a couple of friends with whom I get together once a month or so. If we don't set a date, one of us calls the other to say, "Hey, it's time for us to get together."
To some, it may seem ridiculous to set appointments with yourself and the people you care about. Instead, I see it as a way to honor your most important relationships. In a world in which there is always something calling for your attention, it is essential that you take control of how you spend your time and put boundaries around the time that's meant for your most important priority—your relationships. Here are a few ideas to get you started:
Invite friends or family over once a month for an old-fashioned Sunday dinner.
Eat breakfast or dinner together as a family.
Choose a weekly "date night" for you and your spouse or significant other.
Have a "game night" with your children or friends.
Choose a favorite pastime and schedule regular time to enjoy it with someone you want to spend time with consistently.
Set a standard for how often you want to see loved ones who do not live in your area. Honor your standard by taking out your calendar and marking the dates.
Carve out regular time just for you. Just as it is important to make time for the important people in your life, it's important to make time just for you, too!
Come up with your idea by brainstorming with the person you want to carve out time for!
Living an inspired life means aligning your true priorities with your day-to-day actions. When you make time for your relationships, you'll notice that other less meaningful activities may fall by the wayside. Take a deep breath and let them go. You can't be all things to all people. Carve out time for the people who matter most to you. Enjoy!
Journaling Assignment:
With whom do you need to be more intentional about spending quality time? When, how and how often would you like to spend time with them?
My Challenge to You This Week:
Carve out time in your schedule for the people who matter most to you. Make that time sacred by setting boundaries around it that cannot be infringed upon by work, other people or less significant priorities.
Taken from Rich Minds, Rich Rewards E-Newsletter. Written and distributed by Inspire, Inc. © 2008 Valorie Burton. All rights reserved. Used with permission. www.valorieburton.com.
Valorie Burton, a life coach and speaker, is the author of Listen to Your Life, Rich Minds, Rich Rewards, What's Really Holding You Back?, Why Not You? and her latest, How Did I Get So Busy?.
Before You Say "I Do" To A Pre-Nup…
Before You Say "I Do" to a Pre-Nup…
By Stephen Bloom Esq.
Author, The Believer's Guide to Legal Issues
Are you a joyful bride-to-be? An eager (or nervous!) groom? Perhaps you have a son or daughter getting married this summer? Perhaps a beloved grandchild? Or maybe a lifelong friend? So many of us have a special acquaintance or family member ready to “tie the knot” in a beautiful marriage ceremony of thrilling romance and holy commitment this year. So what does any of this have to do with the law? Why am I raising the subject of weddings in my Christian legal column?
I’m writing to brides and grooms and those close to them because I want to encourage you to build the strongest possible marriage from the beginning, a marriage built on the solid foundation of God and His Word. And I’m writing because I want to encourage you not to weaken or undermine that sacred foundation by relying on destructive legal “worldly wisdom” that commonly advises you not to get married without first entering a pre-nuptial agreement.
A pre-nuptial agreement (informally called a “pre-nup”) is a legal contract between a husband and a wife. It spells out in excruciating detail who owns what property, who has what legal rights, and exactly what happens if the couple gets separated or divorced. But is a binding and enforceable legal contract between husband and wife really consistent with God’s plan for Christian marriage?
In an era of frequent marital break-ups and complex family structures, our cynical culture and most secular lawyers portray anyone getting married without a pre-nup as either foolish or naive. Before the wedding day, we are warned, wise couples should agree in writing what will happen if and when the marriage dissolves. But is there something wrong with this pessimistic advice? Should Christians begin their sacred marriage relationship as if it were just another business deal? Is it healthy for a husband and wife to be forced into negotiating against one another as legal adversaries, each with their own attorneys, in the days or weeks before they are joined as "one flesh" in the eyes of God?
As a Christian lawyer, I believe pre-nuptial agreements tend to undermine the marriage relationship, putting the sacred covenant on shaky ground from the beginning. God calls husband and wife to be unified - to live as one, to share freely, to trust and honor and love each other in every way. But the very process of creating and executing a pre-nup glorifies a contrary perspective, one that is destructive and disruptive to the marriage. The whole psychology of pre-nuptial agreements encourages each spouse to think of herself or himself as separate from the other, to be suspicious of the other, and to hold on tightly to “what's yours" and keep it from the other! It’s the opposite of unity!
I know my thoughts on pre-nups run contrary to what most lawyers would consider “correct” legal thinking. Certainly my perspective does not fit the conventional model of standard secular legal counsel for engaged couples. But as a Christian lawyer I have no choice but to look at the legal questions we face from a biblical Christian viewpoint. I answer to a higher authority, and that authority says, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24 NRSV)
How committed to each other should a Christian husband and wife be? Should they be 50% committed? 70% committed? Is a 90% commitment enough? Isn’t the answer 100%? When God teaches us about marriage, when he uses those words “one flesh,” it sounds to me like God intends for husbands and wives to be 100% committed to each other. But the existence of a pre-nup sets the husband and wife at odds with each other. It’s like saying to your beloved future spouse, “Honey, let’s agree up front that we aren’t necessarily 100% committed to each other.” And that’s why I’m very reluctant to endorse the use of pre-nuptial agreements. To me, they just don’t seem consistent with God’s design for Christian marriage.
Lawyers could probably think up a thousand different situations where cold logic and a secular perspective might dictate that the spouses “need” a pre-nuptial agreement. But under God’s plan, what either spouse has “going in” doesn’t really matter because everything belongs fully to both spouses once they’re married. If either spouse feels they can’t freely give everything to the other, then, quite frankly, I would humbly suggest they need to seriously and prayerfully reconsider going through with the marriage vows.
With wedding season still in full swing, let me urge you, engaged couples, to focus on building lasting oneness between you, as you both seek to serve and honor Christ in your upcoming marriage. And for those with friends and loved ones about to be married, let me beg you to do your part to encourage that kind of Christian unity and help the couple resist secular pressure to buy into “pre-nup propaganda”!
I pray God’s blessings on my brothers and sisters about to enter the joy and richness of Christian marriage. I know marriage won’t always be easy, but you will never regret beginning this precious journey together on the unshakable foundation of Jesus Christ and His Word. So please, think twice before you say "I do" to a pre-nup!
*This column contains generalized information only and is not intended as a substitute for the specific legal advice of your own attorney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Bloom is a Christian lawyer serving clients throughout Pennsylvania. He wrote The Believer's Guide to Legal Issues (Living Ink Books) and frequently speaks on Christianity and law. For information, visit his website www.IsThereALawyerInTheChurch.com.
Article reprinted from Stephen Bloom's Good News Daily column titled "Good News on the Law." Visit Good News Daily's website at http://www.goodnewsdaily.net/
By Stephen Bloom Esq.
Author, The Believer's Guide to Legal Issues
Are you a joyful bride-to-be? An eager (or nervous!) groom? Perhaps you have a son or daughter getting married this summer? Perhaps a beloved grandchild? Or maybe a lifelong friend? So many of us have a special acquaintance or family member ready to “tie the knot” in a beautiful marriage ceremony of thrilling romance and holy commitment this year. So what does any of this have to do with the law? Why am I raising the subject of weddings in my Christian legal column?
I’m writing to brides and grooms and those close to them because I want to encourage you to build the strongest possible marriage from the beginning, a marriage built on the solid foundation of God and His Word. And I’m writing because I want to encourage you not to weaken or undermine that sacred foundation by relying on destructive legal “worldly wisdom” that commonly advises you not to get married without first entering a pre-nuptial agreement.
A pre-nuptial agreement (informally called a “pre-nup”) is a legal contract between a husband and a wife. It spells out in excruciating detail who owns what property, who has what legal rights, and exactly what happens if the couple gets separated or divorced. But is a binding and enforceable legal contract between husband and wife really consistent with God’s plan for Christian marriage?
In an era of frequent marital break-ups and complex family structures, our cynical culture and most secular lawyers portray anyone getting married without a pre-nup as either foolish or naive. Before the wedding day, we are warned, wise couples should agree in writing what will happen if and when the marriage dissolves. But is there something wrong with this pessimistic advice? Should Christians begin their sacred marriage relationship as if it were just another business deal? Is it healthy for a husband and wife to be forced into negotiating against one another as legal adversaries, each with their own attorneys, in the days or weeks before they are joined as "one flesh" in the eyes of God?
As a Christian lawyer, I believe pre-nuptial agreements tend to undermine the marriage relationship, putting the sacred covenant on shaky ground from the beginning. God calls husband and wife to be unified - to live as one, to share freely, to trust and honor and love each other in every way. But the very process of creating and executing a pre-nup glorifies a contrary perspective, one that is destructive and disruptive to the marriage. The whole psychology of pre-nuptial agreements encourages each spouse to think of herself or himself as separate from the other, to be suspicious of the other, and to hold on tightly to “what's yours" and keep it from the other! It’s the opposite of unity!
I know my thoughts on pre-nups run contrary to what most lawyers would consider “correct” legal thinking. Certainly my perspective does not fit the conventional model of standard secular legal counsel for engaged couples. But as a Christian lawyer I have no choice but to look at the legal questions we face from a biblical Christian viewpoint. I answer to a higher authority, and that authority says, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24 NRSV)
How committed to each other should a Christian husband and wife be? Should they be 50% committed? 70% committed? Is a 90% commitment enough? Isn’t the answer 100%? When God teaches us about marriage, when he uses those words “one flesh,” it sounds to me like God intends for husbands and wives to be 100% committed to each other. But the existence of a pre-nup sets the husband and wife at odds with each other. It’s like saying to your beloved future spouse, “Honey, let’s agree up front that we aren’t necessarily 100% committed to each other.” And that’s why I’m very reluctant to endorse the use of pre-nuptial agreements. To me, they just don’t seem consistent with God’s design for Christian marriage.
Lawyers could probably think up a thousand different situations where cold logic and a secular perspective might dictate that the spouses “need” a pre-nuptial agreement. But under God’s plan, what either spouse has “going in” doesn’t really matter because everything belongs fully to both spouses once they’re married. If either spouse feels they can’t freely give everything to the other, then, quite frankly, I would humbly suggest they need to seriously and prayerfully reconsider going through with the marriage vows.
With wedding season still in full swing, let me urge you, engaged couples, to focus on building lasting oneness between you, as you both seek to serve and honor Christ in your upcoming marriage. And for those with friends and loved ones about to be married, let me beg you to do your part to encourage that kind of Christian unity and help the couple resist secular pressure to buy into “pre-nup propaganda”!
I pray God’s blessings on my brothers and sisters about to enter the joy and richness of Christian marriage. I know marriage won’t always be easy, but you will never regret beginning this precious journey together on the unshakable foundation of Jesus Christ and His Word. So please, think twice before you say "I do" to a pre-nup!
*This column contains generalized information only and is not intended as a substitute for the specific legal advice of your own attorney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Bloom is a Christian lawyer serving clients throughout Pennsylvania. He wrote The Believer's Guide to Legal Issues (Living Ink Books) and frequently speaks on Christianity and law. For information, visit his website www.IsThereALawyerInTheChurch.com.
Article reprinted from Stephen Bloom's Good News Daily column titled "Good News on the Law." Visit Good News Daily's website at http://www.goodnewsdaily.net/
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Commitment-Phobes/Bridget Joneses
SINGLE ISSUE POLITICS: Thanks to Bridget Jones, Unmarried Women Are
By Vicky Allan
There's a telling scene in Bridget Jones's Diary. Invited round for dinner, the only single female among a group of "smug marrieds", Bridget (played by Renee Zellweger) is asked why young women like her are still single. She snaps back, "because we may seem normal to you but underneath our clothes we're covered in scales". It says a lot about how women have traditionally been perceived, as alien life- forms, their singledom a disfiguring disease. One British MP in 1922 even said: "A woman alone is an atrocity! An act against nature. Unmarried women pose grave danger to our civilisation."
According to Helen Fielding, when she first created the fictional character of Bridget Jones in a column in The Independent in 1995, "the only word to describe a single woman in her 30s was spinster".
Fast forward to 2004. The Bridget Jones phen-omenon has been wildly successful, spawning two best-selling novels and two films, the second of which, The Edge Of Reason, is out this Friday. Its cultural impact is such that a new epithet has entered the lexicon, "singleton". Yet this word describes a woman who is warm and friendly - not to mention awash with booze and fags. In a matter of years, Fielding's anti-heroine has become, despite her neuroses, an almost aspirational state. Now, as many "smug marrieds" quiver with envy as cluck with sympathetic dismay.
But how much impact has her fictional creation really had on the image of the single woman? For Jenny Colgan, author of a series of chick-lit novels, the mark is indelible. "Women now say, 'Oh, I'm such a Bridget.' But that makes it hip too. It implies you have a lot of fun, cocktails and hip friends. I don't think Bridget's a sad character at all really - whenever she gets depressed she just has a fag and some chocolate and thinks about something else."
Not everyone sees her impact as positive. Yvonne Roberts, the feminist writer who coined the phrase "feminism was not about joining the system but changing it", sees Bridget as a "joiner", one who has taken on bachelor characteristics - for example, smoking to be cool and liberated - to fit in with established norms. Meanwhile her view of relationships and what it means to be a woman is illiberal. "I wish she had changed how we view single women," Roberts says. "But it's the same story. Bridget still gets her man, still worries about being fat."
Of course, part of the Bridget Jones phenomenon was that she was not a feminist ideal, but rather a woman struggling to deal with the many pressures and contradictory aspirations of our times. As Fielding as confessed, Bridget was a zeitgeist thing, ripe for being explored fictionally. Ally McBeal, for instance, was her counterpart on the other side of the Atlantic.
Bridget is undoubtedly one of an expanding social group. "One in four households are single," read one of her Diary entries, "most of the royal family are single, the nation's young men have been proved to be unmarriageable, and as a result there's a generation of single girls, like me, with their own incomes and homes who have lots of fun and don't need to wash anyone else's socks." Since then, times have changed: now one in three households are single. Projections for 2021 suggest half the women between 30 and 44 will never have been married. This is not a sad state of affairs. Women will have taken this route out of choice not pressure (it has often been demonstrated in surveys that the happiest groups of people are married men and single women). It's not that these women are desperate to be married, rather that they have chosen the single life and are having trouble giving it up - regardless of what Bridget's uncle Geoffrey refers to as the "tick-tock-tick-tock" of the biological clock.
Traditionally, women were the driving force behind getting men to commit. Now, with so many opportunities, they are just as likely to be slamming on the brakes as putting their foot on the gas. There are almost as many female commitment-phobes as there as male. Indeed, Bridget, for all her desperation, often appears to be one herself. In spite of her life seeming to revolve around her search for a Prince Charming, she seems attached to her singleton existence in the bosom of her "urban family": Shazza, Jude and Tom. The pressures towards marriage are exterior, from her family; she herself has her doubts. "If you'd asked tonight," she says at one point in The Edge Of Reason, "the answer would have been, 'no'". There is as much of a skittish pull away from the aisle as there is propulsion towards it. As Mariella Frostrup, former It-Girl turned agony aunt, puts it in the book of her columns, Dear Mariella: "The only difference between women and men is terror of commitment is one emotional state men aren't afraid to admit to. Women, on the other hand, are suffering a sort of mass delusion. The modern Ms pretends all she wants is a stable relationship and then does everything in her power to avoid it."
Of course, many singletons are anxious about their state and, naturally, aspire to finding love. For Jenny Colgan, herself now married, this is more about a fear of living alone than of being left on the shelf. "It's the concept of being discovered dead at home eaten by Alsatians. I don't think this is just a woman's thing. Single men think that too. It chimes with the fact more and more people live on their own." In other words, men have anxieties too. The stereotypes of chick-lit and lad-lit are achingly similar: that women are insecure and desperate and men are just simply insecure. There are, as Tony Parsons put it in one of his columns, as many Brian Joneses out there as Bridget Joneses.
By Vicky Allan
There's a telling scene in Bridget Jones's Diary. Invited round for dinner, the only single female among a group of "smug marrieds", Bridget (played by Renee Zellweger) is asked why young women like her are still single. She snaps back, "because we may seem normal to you but underneath our clothes we're covered in scales". It says a lot about how women have traditionally been perceived, as alien life- forms, their singledom a disfiguring disease. One British MP in 1922 even said: "A woman alone is an atrocity! An act against nature. Unmarried women pose grave danger to our civilisation."
According to Helen Fielding, when she first created the fictional character of Bridget Jones in a column in The Independent in 1995, "the only word to describe a single woman in her 30s was spinster".
Fast forward to 2004. The Bridget Jones phen-omenon has been wildly successful, spawning two best-selling novels and two films, the second of which, The Edge Of Reason, is out this Friday. Its cultural impact is such that a new epithet has entered the lexicon, "singleton". Yet this word describes a woman who is warm and friendly - not to mention awash with booze and fags. In a matter of years, Fielding's anti-heroine has become, despite her neuroses, an almost aspirational state. Now, as many "smug marrieds" quiver with envy as cluck with sympathetic dismay.
But how much impact has her fictional creation really had on the image of the single woman? For Jenny Colgan, author of a series of chick-lit novels, the mark is indelible. "Women now say, 'Oh, I'm such a Bridget.' But that makes it hip too. It implies you have a lot of fun, cocktails and hip friends. I don't think Bridget's a sad character at all really - whenever she gets depressed she just has a fag and some chocolate and thinks about something else."
Not everyone sees her impact as positive. Yvonne Roberts, the feminist writer who coined the phrase "feminism was not about joining the system but changing it", sees Bridget as a "joiner", one who has taken on bachelor characteristics - for example, smoking to be cool and liberated - to fit in with established norms. Meanwhile her view of relationships and what it means to be a woman is illiberal. "I wish she had changed how we view single women," Roberts says. "But it's the same story. Bridget still gets her man, still worries about being fat."
Of course, part of the Bridget Jones phenomenon was that she was not a feminist ideal, but rather a woman struggling to deal with the many pressures and contradictory aspirations of our times. As Fielding as confessed, Bridget was a zeitgeist thing, ripe for being explored fictionally. Ally McBeal, for instance, was her counterpart on the other side of the Atlantic.
Bridget is undoubtedly one of an expanding social group. "One in four households are single," read one of her Diary entries, "most of the royal family are single, the nation's young men have been proved to be unmarriageable, and as a result there's a generation of single girls, like me, with their own incomes and homes who have lots of fun and don't need to wash anyone else's socks." Since then, times have changed: now one in three households are single. Projections for 2021 suggest half the women between 30 and 44 will never have been married. This is not a sad state of affairs. Women will have taken this route out of choice not pressure (it has often been demonstrated in surveys that the happiest groups of people are married men and single women). It's not that these women are desperate to be married, rather that they have chosen the single life and are having trouble giving it up - regardless of what Bridget's uncle Geoffrey refers to as the "tick-tock-tick-tock" of the biological clock.
Traditionally, women were the driving force behind getting men to commit. Now, with so many opportunities, they are just as likely to be slamming on the brakes as putting their foot on the gas. There are almost as many female commitment-phobes as there as male. Indeed, Bridget, for all her desperation, often appears to be one herself. In spite of her life seeming to revolve around her search for a Prince Charming, she seems attached to her singleton existence in the bosom of her "urban family": Shazza, Jude and Tom. The pressures towards marriage are exterior, from her family; she herself has her doubts. "If you'd asked tonight," she says at one point in The Edge Of Reason, "the answer would have been, 'no'". There is as much of a skittish pull away from the aisle as there is propulsion towards it. As Mariella Frostrup, former It-Girl turned agony aunt, puts it in the book of her columns, Dear Mariella: "The only difference between women and men is terror of commitment is one emotional state men aren't afraid to admit to. Women, on the other hand, are suffering a sort of mass delusion. The modern Ms pretends all she wants is a stable relationship and then does everything in her power to avoid it."
Of course, many singletons are anxious about their state and, naturally, aspire to finding love. For Jenny Colgan, herself now married, this is more about a fear of living alone than of being left on the shelf. "It's the concept of being discovered dead at home eaten by Alsatians. I don't think this is just a woman's thing. Single men think that too. It chimes with the fact more and more people live on their own." In other words, men have anxieties too. The stereotypes of chick-lit and lad-lit are achingly similar: that women are insecure and desperate and men are just simply insecure. There are, as Tony Parsons put it in one of his columns, as many Brian Joneses out there as Bridget Joneses.
To Single Women: Men. Don’t. Change.
To Single Women: Men. Don’t. Change.
By John Shore
If you’re a single woman, can you think of anyone from whom you’d be better off taking relationship advice than a middle-aged man you don’t know from Adam?
You can’t? Me neither! Great!
So here’s what I’m thinking: Being a guy means I know guys. And there’s one critically true thing about guys that all women learn sooner or later–and that you should definitely learn sooner, which is where I come in. And that truth is that men don’t change. You cannot change a man.
Anything that you say or do in hopes of changing a man is positively destined to fail.
If you’re thinking about marrying a man, realize now that he is who he’s going to be. If there are things about your potential life-mate that you don’t like — little habits, personality quirks, major behavior tendancies — you need to ask yourself whether or not you can live with those things. If the answer’s no, then move on to Bachelor Number Three, because Bachelor Number One isn’t your guy.
You need to find a man you love exactly as he is.
Which can seem tricky, because who is perfect?
But here’s the thing about that. Relative to whatever it is about any given guy that you think is a problem, ask yourself this question: Is that thing a matter of values, or taste? If he’s behaving in a way that runs contrary to your values, then that’s a serious issue. But if it’s only a matter of taste–of preference, of just, when it comes right down to it, of him doing things differently than you do – then that’s a whole other deal. That’s something you need to think about in a different way than you do things he’s doing or saying that are incompatible with your core life values.
A value difference? That could be a deal breaker. A style difference? That probably shouldn’t be.
For instance, let’s say you love a guy, but don’t like the fact that he rides a motorcycle. Is his riding a motorcycle a value issue? If not (and it doesn’t seem to be: knowing a man rides a motorcycle tells you nothing about his character), then you need to decide whether or not you’re okay with him riding a motorcycle. Because you’re in love with a man who does ride a motorcycle. That’s who he is. There isn’t a different man inside of the man you love who doesn’t ride a motorcycle, a man that you can somehow get to replace the man you know.
Your man rides a motorcycle. And though it sounds harsh to say, insofar as his riding a motorcycle is a problem, it’s your problem, not his. There’s simply nothing you can do to change the fact that he rides a motorcycle. You need to either be okay with his riding a motorcycle, or you have to say it’s too much, and be ready to leave him over it.
The choice you can’t make, though — or can, of course, but really, really shouldn’t make – is try to change what is your problem into his problem by complaining about it, or trying to make him feel guilty about it, or (even) crying about it. Sure, at the time you do those things a guy may respond to the emotionality of the moment by saying (and perhaps even believing) that he will change — but he won’t. Because once the drama has cleared, something inside of him (which he may not even consciously register) is going to reassert itself, and begin telling him that you don’t actually have a right to tell him who and how he should be. And that’s going to put him right back on the path he was on when you first met him, the one he’s been on all his life.
What so often happens, of course, is that after you’ve made a Big Point of trying to change your man, he’ll come to think: “Hmm. [Your name here] doesn’t like me riding a motorcycle. But I’ve always ridden a motorcycle; I love riding a motorcycle. I have no choice but to keep the fact that I ride a motorcycle away from [you]. That way she’ll be happy, and I’ll get to keep being myself. I certainly don’t like deceiving her, but what choice has she left me? I love her, and want her to be happy. She’s made it clear that the only way she’s going to be happy is to believe that I don’t ride a motorcycle. So I can’t let her know I do. It’s not so much that I’ll be lying to her; I just won’t be telling her something she’s told me she’d rather not know anyway. Cool. That works. Are we out of ham?”
And there you’ll be, stuck in that nasty little loop so many couples do get stuck in, where the woman’s either constantly nagging at her man to stop doing something he keeps doing anyway, or is sometimes being deeply upset at discovering that her man’s been lying to her about something he’s been doing all along that he’s not “supposed” to be doing at all. You know how that resentment-acting out cycle goes. Everyone does; we’ve all seen or lived it. It’s awful.
Avoid it now by realizing that when it comes to a relationship partner, what you see is what you get. If you love your man, then love all of your man, or be clear on the fact that you’re signing up for more trouble than you can possibly want. Men aren’t homes women (or anyone else) can redecorate to suite their taste. They come as is.
If you try to change your man you will, in effect, become his mother. That’s a role you do not want to substitute for “wife.” And if you believe anything in this world, believe that if you turn into your man’s mother, he will turn into your son. Tell him he needs to eat more vegetables, and as sure as the day is long, he’ll start sneaking pizza.
Life’s too short. You want a man, not a boy. Successful relationships are built on respect, not the kind of co-dependant, mutually dyfunctional craziness that necessarily grows and develops whenever one person in a relationship is convinced that they always know what’s best for the other person in that relationship. Women shouldn’t act like that toward their men; men shouldn’t act like that toward their women.
If you think you’re in love with someone, you’re not. When you’re in love with someone, you know it. And one of the ways you know you’re in love with someone is that nothing that person does or says ever really bothers you at all.
(By the way: I’m not saying men can’t change; of course they can. I’m saying that you can’t make your man change — or predict when he’ll change, or how, or why. People only change from the inside out, never from the outside in.)
Remember: Love means never having to say they’re sorry.
By John Shore
If you’re a single woman, can you think of anyone from whom you’d be better off taking relationship advice than a middle-aged man you don’t know from Adam?
You can’t? Me neither! Great!
So here’s what I’m thinking: Being a guy means I know guys. And there’s one critically true thing about guys that all women learn sooner or later–and that you should definitely learn sooner, which is where I come in. And that truth is that men don’t change. You cannot change a man.
Anything that you say or do in hopes of changing a man is positively destined to fail.
If you’re thinking about marrying a man, realize now that he is who he’s going to be. If there are things about your potential life-mate that you don’t like — little habits, personality quirks, major behavior tendancies — you need to ask yourself whether or not you can live with those things. If the answer’s no, then move on to Bachelor Number Three, because Bachelor Number One isn’t your guy.
You need to find a man you love exactly as he is.
Which can seem tricky, because who is perfect?
But here’s the thing about that. Relative to whatever it is about any given guy that you think is a problem, ask yourself this question: Is that thing a matter of values, or taste? If he’s behaving in a way that runs contrary to your values, then that’s a serious issue. But if it’s only a matter of taste–of preference, of just, when it comes right down to it, of him doing things differently than you do – then that’s a whole other deal. That’s something you need to think about in a different way than you do things he’s doing or saying that are incompatible with your core life values.
A value difference? That could be a deal breaker. A style difference? That probably shouldn’t be.
For instance, let’s say you love a guy, but don’t like the fact that he rides a motorcycle. Is his riding a motorcycle a value issue? If not (and it doesn’t seem to be: knowing a man rides a motorcycle tells you nothing about his character), then you need to decide whether or not you’re okay with him riding a motorcycle. Because you’re in love with a man who does ride a motorcycle. That’s who he is. There isn’t a different man inside of the man you love who doesn’t ride a motorcycle, a man that you can somehow get to replace the man you know.
Your man rides a motorcycle. And though it sounds harsh to say, insofar as his riding a motorcycle is a problem, it’s your problem, not his. There’s simply nothing you can do to change the fact that he rides a motorcycle. You need to either be okay with his riding a motorcycle, or you have to say it’s too much, and be ready to leave him over it.
The choice you can’t make, though — or can, of course, but really, really shouldn’t make – is try to change what is your problem into his problem by complaining about it, or trying to make him feel guilty about it, or (even) crying about it. Sure, at the time you do those things a guy may respond to the emotionality of the moment by saying (and perhaps even believing) that he will change — but he won’t. Because once the drama has cleared, something inside of him (which he may not even consciously register) is going to reassert itself, and begin telling him that you don’t actually have a right to tell him who and how he should be. And that’s going to put him right back on the path he was on when you first met him, the one he’s been on all his life.
What so often happens, of course, is that after you’ve made a Big Point of trying to change your man, he’ll come to think: “Hmm. [Your name here] doesn’t like me riding a motorcycle. But I’ve always ridden a motorcycle; I love riding a motorcycle. I have no choice but to keep the fact that I ride a motorcycle away from [you]. That way she’ll be happy, and I’ll get to keep being myself. I certainly don’t like deceiving her, but what choice has she left me? I love her, and want her to be happy. She’s made it clear that the only way she’s going to be happy is to believe that I don’t ride a motorcycle. So I can’t let her know I do. It’s not so much that I’ll be lying to her; I just won’t be telling her something she’s told me she’d rather not know anyway. Cool. That works. Are we out of ham?”
And there you’ll be, stuck in that nasty little loop so many couples do get stuck in, where the woman’s either constantly nagging at her man to stop doing something he keeps doing anyway, or is sometimes being deeply upset at discovering that her man’s been lying to her about something he’s been doing all along that he’s not “supposed” to be doing at all. You know how that resentment-acting out cycle goes. Everyone does; we’ve all seen or lived it. It’s awful.
Avoid it now by realizing that when it comes to a relationship partner, what you see is what you get. If you love your man, then love all of your man, or be clear on the fact that you’re signing up for more trouble than you can possibly want. Men aren’t homes women (or anyone else) can redecorate to suite their taste. They come as is.
If you try to change your man you will, in effect, become his mother. That’s a role you do not want to substitute for “wife.” And if you believe anything in this world, believe that if you turn into your man’s mother, he will turn into your son. Tell him he needs to eat more vegetables, and as sure as the day is long, he’ll start sneaking pizza.
Life’s too short. You want a man, not a boy. Successful relationships are built on respect, not the kind of co-dependant, mutually dyfunctional craziness that necessarily grows and develops whenever one person in a relationship is convinced that they always know what’s best for the other person in that relationship. Women shouldn’t act like that toward their men; men shouldn’t act like that toward their women.
If you think you’re in love with someone, you’re not. When you’re in love with someone, you know it. And one of the ways you know you’re in love with someone is that nothing that person does or says ever really bothers you at all.
(By the way: I’m not saying men can’t change; of course they can. I’m saying that you can’t make your man change — or predict when he’ll change, or how, or why. People only change from the inside out, never from the outside in.)
Remember: Love means never having to say they’re sorry.
Give Me Beef!
Give Me Beef!
By Kenny Luck
Every Man Ministries
When you go to Outback Steakhouse, you can order the coconut shrimp, or a salad. But is that why a man goes to Outback Steakhouse? A seasoned, seared steak is why I go. That’s their signature. That’s what a steakhouse is known for, and that’s why I put my name in, wait for a table, and lay down an Andrew Jackson when I’m done. Nothing against veggies, but it’s definitely not for the salad.
If "God’s man" is your identity—your signature, to borrow from our Outback Steakhouse analogy—then the main characteristic your spiritual life hangs on is one thing: faith expressed through obedience. This was the test for Adam in the Garden. This was the issue when He told Noah to build the boat. This was the gauntlet for Abraham when God asked him to leave home and "go to the land where I show you" with no clue where that was. It was the issue with Moses bringing Pharaoh a message from his Maker. Obedience was the issue when Joshua and God’s people crossed the Jordan River. Not taking God at His Word was King Saul’s flaw but was King David’s strength (mostly). The legacies of the Kings in the Old Testament were based on whether they did evil or good "in the sight of the Lord" during their reign. You get the picture. You can look like a duck but if you don’t waddle and quack, you are a decoy.
Actually, I often need this reminder myself: I know way more than I obey. I'm far more educated in what I need to be thinking and doing than I actually pull off in my real time, day-to-day choices. So my goal, and the goal of every "God's man," is to close that gap as best as he can. King David got pretty far on this one when other men fell short (King Saul in this case). God described him this way, compare and contrast style:
"After Saul had ruled forty years God removed him from office and put King David in his place, with this commendation: ‘I have searched the land and found this David, son of Jesse. He’s a man whose heart beats to my heart, a man who will do what I tell him’” (Acts 13:22, MSG, emphasis mine).
What does God like to see most in us when He speaks into our lives? Inner agreement matched by prompt obedience. If we’re known for anything, it should be for our willingness to respond to God’s direction in the face of great personal risk. It’s easy to obey in our pleasures but it’s not so easy in our pains. The real measure of God’s man is: Will you do what God tells you to do, even when it means losing:
money,
a relationship,
a good feeling,
a secret,
a job opportunity,
your image at church,
friends,
possessions,
a dream,
control over the outcome,
or simply your way?
Loss for the sake of loss is stupidity. But suffering a loss, real or imagined, for obedience to Christ is faith at its very best. The reason God loves prompt obedience is that it exposes the authentic God’s man from the synthetic poser.
"We know that we have come to know the Lord if we obey his commands. The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him” (I John 2:3-5).
Heavy words. That's why it's called beef. Think about 'em.
Your brotha,
Kenny
Kenny Luck is the Men's Pastor at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. He is also the Founder and President of Every Man Ministries which helps churches worldwide develop and grow healthy men's communities. Please visit www.everymanministries.com for more information.
By Kenny Luck
Every Man Ministries
When you go to Outback Steakhouse, you can order the coconut shrimp, or a salad. But is that why a man goes to Outback Steakhouse? A seasoned, seared steak is why I go. That’s their signature. That’s what a steakhouse is known for, and that’s why I put my name in, wait for a table, and lay down an Andrew Jackson when I’m done. Nothing against veggies, but it’s definitely not for the salad.
If "God’s man" is your identity—your signature, to borrow from our Outback Steakhouse analogy—then the main characteristic your spiritual life hangs on is one thing: faith expressed through obedience. This was the test for Adam in the Garden. This was the issue when He told Noah to build the boat. This was the gauntlet for Abraham when God asked him to leave home and "go to the land where I show you" with no clue where that was. It was the issue with Moses bringing Pharaoh a message from his Maker. Obedience was the issue when Joshua and God’s people crossed the Jordan River. Not taking God at His Word was King Saul’s flaw but was King David’s strength (mostly). The legacies of the Kings in the Old Testament were based on whether they did evil or good "in the sight of the Lord" during their reign. You get the picture. You can look like a duck but if you don’t waddle and quack, you are a decoy.
Actually, I often need this reminder myself: I know way more than I obey. I'm far more educated in what I need to be thinking and doing than I actually pull off in my real time, day-to-day choices. So my goal, and the goal of every "God's man," is to close that gap as best as he can. King David got pretty far on this one when other men fell short (King Saul in this case). God described him this way, compare and contrast style:
"After Saul had ruled forty years God removed him from office and put King David in his place, with this commendation: ‘I have searched the land and found this David, son of Jesse. He’s a man whose heart beats to my heart, a man who will do what I tell him’” (Acts 13:22, MSG, emphasis mine).
What does God like to see most in us when He speaks into our lives? Inner agreement matched by prompt obedience. If we’re known for anything, it should be for our willingness to respond to God’s direction in the face of great personal risk. It’s easy to obey in our pleasures but it’s not so easy in our pains. The real measure of God’s man is: Will you do what God tells you to do, even when it means losing:
money,
a relationship,
a good feeling,
a secret,
a job opportunity,
your image at church,
friends,
possessions,
a dream,
control over the outcome,
or simply your way?
Loss for the sake of loss is stupidity. But suffering a loss, real or imagined, for obedience to Christ is faith at its very best. The reason God loves prompt obedience is that it exposes the authentic God’s man from the synthetic poser.
"We know that we have come to know the Lord if we obey his commands. The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him” (I John 2:3-5).
Heavy words. That's why it's called beef. Think about 'em.
Your brotha,
Kenny
Kenny Luck is the Men's Pastor at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. He is also the Founder and President of Every Man Ministries which helps churches worldwide develop and grow healthy men's communities. Please visit www.everymanministries.com for more information.
Settling for Less Than the Best
Settling for Less Than the Best
By Dr. David Hawkins
The Relationship Doctor
Don’t say you haven’t done it. I won’t believe you. All of us are guilty of settling for less at some time in our lives.
Yep, we’ve all done it, shaking our heads in confusion the whole time. With that gnawing feeling in the pit of our stomach, we rationalize our situation, knowing we’re treading water, or slowly sinking.
You know the routine. You’ve been dating a guy for a year and a half. He’s nice enough, your friends and family like him, but, like a stale piece of gum, the zip isn’t there.
Perhaps you’ve got a different problem. You’re dating a guy who not only has spark, you have to take a fire extinguisher along on dates to keep the flames under control. But, besides being incredibly irresistible, he’s hopelessly irresponsible.
Again, you settle. Your gut says it’s time to move on, but you question yourself. You really want to move on, but you rationalize the situation.
“He’s not that bad.”
“I kind of like being with him.”
“There are good times with the bad.”
“He tells me I won’t find anyone like him.”
In any case, you’re wasting your time. Precious time. Clock-ticking, second-counting, life-wasting time.
I have a friend who offered the following advice:
“David,” he said in his fatherly voice, “I keep track of how many hours of life I have left, assuming I live to be eighty-two. I want to remind myself that every hour, every minute of life is precious. I want to remind myself not to waste time doing anything that is not best for me.”
Wow! Is that ever a reality check!
I received a phone call the other day from a former client. At first I was concerned when I heard Gini’s voice, knowing her previous situation. Sounding animated and excited, I knew something had changed.
“You remember where I was a year ago,” Gini began. “I was stuck in a relationship that was going nowhere, with a man I cared about but who abused me with his control tactics. I couldn’t breathe unless I asked permission.”
“Yes, I remember your situation, Gini,” I said.
Before I could respond further, Gini continued sharing her insights.
“I was too insecure, Dr. David. I was afraid I wouldn’t find anyone better. My friends had warned me about setting my standards too high. I was afraid they were right, and so I settled.”
“Fear stops us from really listening to our hearts,” I added. “Deep inside I think we know the truth. And God keeps sending us messages, but it’s scary to follow the truth of our hearts.”
“Well, I finally left Jim. You probably knew it was going to happen, and after I quit counseling I finally did it. Leaving Jim was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. He didn’t make it easy to leave him, that’s for sure.”
“So, have things changed?” I asked curiously.
“Yep. I finally recognized some important truths,” she said warmly. “As long as I wasted time with Jim, I missed other opportunities to find the love of my life. As long as I was with Jim, my self-esteem was always going to take a beating. I was caught in a vicious cycle of doubt, fear, more control and then more doubt. I had to get to the point where it was too painful to stay.”
“You were certainly fed up a number of times when we worked together,” I reminded her. “But, there were some good things you didn’t want to lose in the relationship.”
“Well,” she added, “that’s true. There were good things, and I missed some of them for a while after I left him. But, I’ve got to tell you what’s happened in the past several months.”
“I’d love to hear what’s happened,” I said, encouraged and excited to hear her news.
“Since I had the courage to leave Jim, I met a man who’s a perfect mate for me. We’ve been dating about nine months and we’re getting engaged soon. He attends a new church I’ve been attending, and loves my kids. He’s not controlling and loves me for who I am. I never would have met him if I were still dating Jim. So, I just wanted you to share in my happiness.”
“I’m so pleased for you, Gini,” I said. “You deserve the best and I’m glad you found it.”
“I have a favorite verse that helped me during the rough times. ‘For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and of a sound mind.’ It’s really helped me.”
“God will help us be courageous, Gini.”
“There’s one more thing, Dr. David.”
“What?”
“Tell everyone you know not to settle for anything less than the best. Not only will they be unhappy, but they’re missing out on God’s absolute best for them. And time’s wasting.”
“I’ll tell them, Gini. Don’t settle for less than the best.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hawkins, Pd.D., has worked with couples and families to improve the quality of their lives by resolving personal issues for the last 30 years. He is the author of over 18 books, including Love Lost: Living Beyond a Broken Marriage, Saying It So He'll Listen, and When Pleasing Others Is Hurting You. His newest books are titled The Relationship Doctor's Prescription for Healing a Hurting Relationship and The Relationship Doctor's Prescription for Living Beyond Guilt. Dr. Hawkins also conducts Marriage Intensives for couples in crisis seeking immediate, intensive counseling.
Dr. Hawkins grew up in the beautiful Pacific Northwest and lives with his wife on the South Puget Sound where he enjoys sailing, biking, and skiing. He has active practices in two Washington cities.
By Dr. David Hawkins
The Relationship Doctor
Don’t say you haven’t done it. I won’t believe you. All of us are guilty of settling for less at some time in our lives.
Yep, we’ve all done it, shaking our heads in confusion the whole time. With that gnawing feeling in the pit of our stomach, we rationalize our situation, knowing we’re treading water, or slowly sinking.
You know the routine. You’ve been dating a guy for a year and a half. He’s nice enough, your friends and family like him, but, like a stale piece of gum, the zip isn’t there.
Perhaps you’ve got a different problem. You’re dating a guy who not only has spark, you have to take a fire extinguisher along on dates to keep the flames under control. But, besides being incredibly irresistible, he’s hopelessly irresponsible.
Again, you settle. Your gut says it’s time to move on, but you question yourself. You really want to move on, but you rationalize the situation.
“He’s not that bad.”
“I kind of like being with him.”
“There are good times with the bad.”
“He tells me I won’t find anyone like him.”
In any case, you’re wasting your time. Precious time. Clock-ticking, second-counting, life-wasting time.
I have a friend who offered the following advice:
“David,” he said in his fatherly voice, “I keep track of how many hours of life I have left, assuming I live to be eighty-two. I want to remind myself that every hour, every minute of life is precious. I want to remind myself not to waste time doing anything that is not best for me.”
Wow! Is that ever a reality check!
I received a phone call the other day from a former client. At first I was concerned when I heard Gini’s voice, knowing her previous situation. Sounding animated and excited, I knew something had changed.
“You remember where I was a year ago,” Gini began. “I was stuck in a relationship that was going nowhere, with a man I cared about but who abused me with his control tactics. I couldn’t breathe unless I asked permission.”
“Yes, I remember your situation, Gini,” I said.
Before I could respond further, Gini continued sharing her insights.
“I was too insecure, Dr. David. I was afraid I wouldn’t find anyone better. My friends had warned me about setting my standards too high. I was afraid they were right, and so I settled.”
“Fear stops us from really listening to our hearts,” I added. “Deep inside I think we know the truth. And God keeps sending us messages, but it’s scary to follow the truth of our hearts.”
“Well, I finally left Jim. You probably knew it was going to happen, and after I quit counseling I finally did it. Leaving Jim was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. He didn’t make it easy to leave him, that’s for sure.”
“So, have things changed?” I asked curiously.
“Yep. I finally recognized some important truths,” she said warmly. “As long as I wasted time with Jim, I missed other opportunities to find the love of my life. As long as I was with Jim, my self-esteem was always going to take a beating. I was caught in a vicious cycle of doubt, fear, more control and then more doubt. I had to get to the point where it was too painful to stay.”
“You were certainly fed up a number of times when we worked together,” I reminded her. “But, there were some good things you didn’t want to lose in the relationship.”
“Well,” she added, “that’s true. There were good things, and I missed some of them for a while after I left him. But, I’ve got to tell you what’s happened in the past several months.”
“I’d love to hear what’s happened,” I said, encouraged and excited to hear her news.
“Since I had the courage to leave Jim, I met a man who’s a perfect mate for me. We’ve been dating about nine months and we’re getting engaged soon. He attends a new church I’ve been attending, and loves my kids. He’s not controlling and loves me for who I am. I never would have met him if I were still dating Jim. So, I just wanted you to share in my happiness.”
“I’m so pleased for you, Gini,” I said. “You deserve the best and I’m glad you found it.”
“I have a favorite verse that helped me during the rough times. ‘For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and of a sound mind.’ It’s really helped me.”
“God will help us be courageous, Gini.”
“There’s one more thing, Dr. David.”
“What?”
“Tell everyone you know not to settle for anything less than the best. Not only will they be unhappy, but they’re missing out on God’s absolute best for them. And time’s wasting.”
“I’ll tell them, Gini. Don’t settle for less than the best.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hawkins, Pd.D., has worked with couples and families to improve the quality of their lives by resolving personal issues for the last 30 years. He is the author of over 18 books, including Love Lost: Living Beyond a Broken Marriage, Saying It So He'll Listen, and When Pleasing Others Is Hurting You. His newest books are titled The Relationship Doctor's Prescription for Healing a Hurting Relationship and The Relationship Doctor's Prescription for Living Beyond Guilt. Dr. Hawkins also conducts Marriage Intensives for couples in crisis seeking immediate, intensive counseling.
Dr. Hawkins grew up in the beautiful Pacific Northwest and lives with his wife on the South Puget Sound where he enjoys sailing, biking, and skiing. He has active practices in two Washington cities.
Content But Not Satisfied - Part I
Content But Not Satisfied - Part I
By Hudson Russell Davis
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer
“He sought to counsel and calm the despairing, to transform the grief that contemplates the grave by showing it the grief that looks up to the stars.”
— Victor Hugo of M. Myriel the Priest
On Sunday July 9, 2006, five children drowned in the Meramec River near Saint Louis and it still wounds me to think of it. An article in the following Tuesday’s newspaper described the desperate moment when one child “slipped beneath the water’s tranquil surface and others rushed to help.” Four of the children belonged to one mourning mother.
I couldn’t stop hurting for her (still cannot stop hurting for her) because, how do you deal with such sudden loss? I doubt very much that she could have answered the question before her faith was tested, before it was proven true. Her story and the calm peace she exemplified in the article humble me. Her calm and trust reminded me that it is indeed possible to endure great trials with faith and to be content in ANY and ALL circumstances.
Although this woman would have given her life to have her children back she did not give into despair. She moved forward in faith while mourning her loss. She was content within her circumstances but not satisfied with her circumstances. So should we be.
The casualties of prolonged singleness (at least where desire for marriage exists) are the dreams of youth and a hope for the future. It is not the real loss of children but the dreams and hopes of children, the dreams and hopes of growing old with another person. If I am honest I must confess that I am both ecstatic about the life I have been given, the blessings I have received, and that I still long for more. In light of God’s many blessings I am rich beyond measure and content but I would be a liar to say I have all that I want. I am both content and not satisfied.
While I do not always live as though it were true, I understand better what it is to be “content in any and every situation.” But my heart’s desire is still unmet. I have a hunger that is not filled and dreams that have been deferred. I am content within my circumstances but not satisfied with my circumstances.
Despite the cynical voices, contentment does not exclude all desires and wants. Contentment does not demand smiles no matter what. Contentment demands faith and trust in a God who is faithful and trustworthy. Contentment is peace in the midst of hunger. It is an expectant certainty that He will indeed provide our daily bread despite the hunger we now know. But satisfaction is another thing altogether. Satisfaction speaks of approval. It speaks of what is good, what is complete. If it is “not good for the man to be alone” then it is okay that we are dissatisfied.
In fact the Christian life is spent in perpetual dissatisfaction. We are BEING made holy but are not yet holy (Heb. 10:10, 14). We are being transformed by the renewing of our minds but we are not yet there (Rom 12:2). We are being pruned to bear more and more fruit but we have not yet brought in our full crop (Jn. 15:2). We are content with His blessings here and yet our hearts yearn for the day when “He will wipe every tear from [our] eyes.” We look forward to the day when “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There is an appropriate dissatisfaction even in the midst of our contentment because, for now, all is not right with the world.
When I speak of loneliness and the longing for love it is a particular longing and a specific need. I conceive a difference between being content and satisfied. I am content with the provisions of God. They are good, and I am rich through His mercies. But in the area of relationship (wife) I remain in need—content but not satisfied. I have eaten but am not filled.
It is the dissatisfaction with my circumstances that presses me to hope for more, to try for more. But it is contentment in my circumstances that keeps me from despair. It is okay to be dissatisfied, but we dare not set aside CONTENTMENT! We dare not leave off trust.
We dare not act as spoiled children who trample God’s gifts because all of what we have asked for has not been granted. We must never walk off and pout nor disdain what has been given because of unmet needs. We must take everything from His hand and rejoice that He has loved us enough to provide our daily bread—and more. “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble” (Job 2:10)? Before we can even deal with the content of our dissatisfaction we must root ourselves in trust and known contentment. That is a must. DO NOT FORGET CONTENTMENT!
He knows “it is not good” for us to be alone. He knows this. If He has not blessed us it is because He has judged this circumstance—at least for now—to be best for us. With this I am content because I KNOW He loves me. Whatever our need we are content because we KNOW He loves us.
We are content and so we rejoice always IN THE LORD (Phil. 4.4). We are content and so we “give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for [us] in Christ Jesus (1Th. 5:18). We are anxious for nothing and yet “by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, [we] present [our] requests to God” (Phil. 4:6). In trust we “cast all [our] anxiety on Him (1Pet. 5:7).” We “pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests” (Eph. 6:18). We do this because we are not satisfied, because we have unmet desires and because He cares.
It is our God that has placed us here in our circumstances and we love and trust our God because we know He loves us. We need only know that we are loved. Because He cares we can bring to Him all our wounds, longings, and hopes. It is contentment in our circumstances and the God who overseas all things that will keep us, the dissatisfied, from despair. What I hope is that the honesty of realized and confessed dissatisfaction will free you and I to walk on in faith and allow those who walk with us to better comfort us.
Hudson Russell Davis was born on a small Island in the West Indies called Dominica, and this is only one reason he does not like cold weather and loves guava. He is a graduate of James Madison University with a B.A. in Graphic Design and earned a Masters in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Currently he is a Ph.D. candidate at Saint Louis University studying historical theology. Hudson has worked as a graphic artist and worship leader but expresses himself through poetry, prose, photography, and music. His activities are just about anything outdoors, but tennis is his current passion.
Got feedback? Send your comments and questions to Hudson at hudsondavis@streamsinthewilderness.com. If you don't hear back within a few days' time, please try again. Hudson would like to respond to all reader feedback.
By Hudson Russell Davis
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer
“He sought to counsel and calm the despairing, to transform the grief that contemplates the grave by showing it the grief that looks up to the stars.”
— Victor Hugo of M. Myriel the Priest
On Sunday July 9, 2006, five children drowned in the Meramec River near Saint Louis and it still wounds me to think of it. An article in the following Tuesday’s newspaper described the desperate moment when one child “slipped beneath the water’s tranquil surface and others rushed to help.” Four of the children belonged to one mourning mother.
I couldn’t stop hurting for her (still cannot stop hurting for her) because, how do you deal with such sudden loss? I doubt very much that she could have answered the question before her faith was tested, before it was proven true. Her story and the calm peace she exemplified in the article humble me. Her calm and trust reminded me that it is indeed possible to endure great trials with faith and to be content in ANY and ALL circumstances.
Although this woman would have given her life to have her children back she did not give into despair. She moved forward in faith while mourning her loss. She was content within her circumstances but not satisfied with her circumstances. So should we be.
The casualties of prolonged singleness (at least where desire for marriage exists) are the dreams of youth and a hope for the future. It is not the real loss of children but the dreams and hopes of children, the dreams and hopes of growing old with another person. If I am honest I must confess that I am both ecstatic about the life I have been given, the blessings I have received, and that I still long for more. In light of God’s many blessings I am rich beyond measure and content but I would be a liar to say I have all that I want. I am both content and not satisfied.
While I do not always live as though it were true, I understand better what it is to be “content in any and every situation.” But my heart’s desire is still unmet. I have a hunger that is not filled and dreams that have been deferred. I am content within my circumstances but not satisfied with my circumstances.
Despite the cynical voices, contentment does not exclude all desires and wants. Contentment does not demand smiles no matter what. Contentment demands faith and trust in a God who is faithful and trustworthy. Contentment is peace in the midst of hunger. It is an expectant certainty that He will indeed provide our daily bread despite the hunger we now know. But satisfaction is another thing altogether. Satisfaction speaks of approval. It speaks of what is good, what is complete. If it is “not good for the man to be alone” then it is okay that we are dissatisfied.
In fact the Christian life is spent in perpetual dissatisfaction. We are BEING made holy but are not yet holy (Heb. 10:10, 14). We are being transformed by the renewing of our minds but we are not yet there (Rom 12:2). We are being pruned to bear more and more fruit but we have not yet brought in our full crop (Jn. 15:2). We are content with His blessings here and yet our hearts yearn for the day when “He will wipe every tear from [our] eyes.” We look forward to the day when “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There is an appropriate dissatisfaction even in the midst of our contentment because, for now, all is not right with the world.
When I speak of loneliness and the longing for love it is a particular longing and a specific need. I conceive a difference between being content and satisfied. I am content with the provisions of God. They are good, and I am rich through His mercies. But in the area of relationship (wife) I remain in need—content but not satisfied. I have eaten but am not filled.
It is the dissatisfaction with my circumstances that presses me to hope for more, to try for more. But it is contentment in my circumstances that keeps me from despair. It is okay to be dissatisfied, but we dare not set aside CONTENTMENT! We dare not leave off trust.
We dare not act as spoiled children who trample God’s gifts because all of what we have asked for has not been granted. We must never walk off and pout nor disdain what has been given because of unmet needs. We must take everything from His hand and rejoice that He has loved us enough to provide our daily bread—and more. “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble” (Job 2:10)? Before we can even deal with the content of our dissatisfaction we must root ourselves in trust and known contentment. That is a must. DO NOT FORGET CONTENTMENT!
He knows “it is not good” for us to be alone. He knows this. If He has not blessed us it is because He has judged this circumstance—at least for now—to be best for us. With this I am content because I KNOW He loves me. Whatever our need we are content because we KNOW He loves us.
We are content and so we rejoice always IN THE LORD (Phil. 4.4). We are content and so we “give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for [us] in Christ Jesus (1Th. 5:18). We are anxious for nothing and yet “by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, [we] present [our] requests to God” (Phil. 4:6). In trust we “cast all [our] anxiety on Him (1Pet. 5:7).” We “pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests” (Eph. 6:18). We do this because we are not satisfied, because we have unmet desires and because He cares.
It is our God that has placed us here in our circumstances and we love and trust our God because we know He loves us. We need only know that we are loved. Because He cares we can bring to Him all our wounds, longings, and hopes. It is contentment in our circumstances and the God who overseas all things that will keep us, the dissatisfied, from despair. What I hope is that the honesty of realized and confessed dissatisfaction will free you and I to walk on in faith and allow those who walk with us to better comfort us.
Hudson Russell Davis was born on a small Island in the West Indies called Dominica, and this is only one reason he does not like cold weather and loves guava. He is a graduate of James Madison University with a B.A. in Graphic Design and earned a Masters in Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Currently he is a Ph.D. candidate at Saint Louis University studying historical theology. Hudson has worked as a graphic artist and worship leader but expresses himself through poetry, prose, photography, and music. His activities are just about anything outdoors, but tennis is his current passion.
Got feedback? Send your comments and questions to Hudson at hudsondavis@streamsinthewilderness.com. If you don't hear back within a few days' time, please try again. Hudson would like to respond to all reader feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
