When the Battle Picks You

A few weeks ago, when Trump posted that video of Barack and Michelle Obama to social media, the reaction was palpable. One Facebook friend noted that "This was a new low," (I thought, Is it?) Plenty of non-black people denounced it. Discussions took place about not wanting to give the image any more attention, even when speaking up to say posting it was wrong. I noticed not much reaction from black friends, because really? Cartoon apes? In the larger scheme of terrible things about Trump, using a tired old, elementary school level insult dressed up with A.I. is not shocking, or even damaging in comparison to racist laws, being killed by police, or any number of other atrocities from the entire history of this country. Getting angry felt like a waste of energy and it felt like a way to distract us from other horrors unfolding in real time. What are we going to say, exactly? The racist is being racist?

A friend of mine, a white woman I know who leans liberal and tends to be vocal about her political opinions, posted this:

I don't want to include her name because it doesn't matter. She believed the senators on the list should have spoken up to condemn a racist meme. This person was a former coworker, and someone I considered a personal friend. In the two years we got to know each other, we bonded over our shared experiences of getting divorced and raising our kids. She is 15 years older than I am, and she encouraged me, and shared some stories of her own. All that said, I felt compelled to challenge her. That list above, which is cropped, included every black senator who had ever served, to include Barack Obama. The list is pretty short when considering the total number of U.S. senators who are currently serving or who have served in the past. There have been 14 black senators out of a total 2,018 senators to serve this country -- percentage wise that is just shy of 0.7 percent. Against my better judgment, and my usual rule not to get into an argument on Facebook, I said, "Why just these particular senators?"

I got the answer I suspected.

Because they are black.

I appreciate the outrage, but it is futile when we have been trying for decades to tell everyone the racist is racist. New Yorkers tried with the Central Park 5, and housing discrimination. Black people tried to point out the myriad of ways criticism of Barack Obama was unfair, and racist. What happened? We gave attention to a failed businessman turned reality TV star who demanded to see his birth certificate. He won an election after a debate where he proclaimed Haitian immigrants were eating cats and dogs. Without even acknowledging the countless other horrors we have had to witness with this guy, how is anyone surprised he'd post that video? Why should anyone waste their time addressing this?

I noticed in her response she caught herself by acknowledging the white senators needed to speak up. But the main point: the black senators, who comprised not even one percent of the total number of people who had served in the U.S. Senate, had to take the lead. To his credit, Senator Van Hollen understood the assignment:

"In the same way that men need to speak up when women are being victimized," goes completely counter to her original point -- white people weren't being called to speak up, only the victimized black people. I suspected when something happened to women, she wasn't posting that women had to be the first ones to speak up and condemn the mysogyny, so I said this:

She got it. My friend also happens to be the mother to a daughter who is transgender and another child who is queer and nonbinary. She understands the concept of allyship. Why was it hard to extend that thinking to black people? Why was the expectation that they had to lead the charge on speaking up? Why this? In the grand scheme of all of this dude's actions, this A.I. video, to include the gaslighting that a staffer sent it, and that it was a spoof on the Lion King, is pretty minor.

To her credit, my friend owned her mistake and updated her post:

I'd be lying if the side of me that appreciates dark humor didn't laugh over this:

My friend texted me as well, again asking me to please educate her if she was wrong. I don't mind anyone wanting to learn, and I appreciate that more than someone who is content to remain willfully ignorant, but I felt annoyed. Did she not see how it looked to be a white woman demanding that very small group of black people (at least one of whom was dead) speak up over this?

Confrontation feels uncomfortable and can result in exhaustion with no guarantee of understanding. It's a gamble when one's energy is limited and needs to be used wisely. As I get older, I gain a deeper understanding of the saying "Pick your battles." In our texting conversation, I expanded on my point.

Obama was president, so why single out black senators as who *should* speak out?

Why should black people be burdened to point out Trump is racist? We’ve been pointing it out since he was in NYC in the ‘80’s with housing discrimination and the Central Park 5, and again when he made a stink about Obama’s birth certificate. Has anyone listened or cared?

Having white people police their own ranks and be the first and loudest to call it out seems more effective and likely to be heard me than demanding the black senators do it. If someone already thinks we are subhuman, black people declaring racism and begging others to see our humanity is a waste of time and energy that could be used to accomplish other things. And it puts us into the trap of being seen as “the angry black.” Not worth it.

Senator Van Hollen used his privilege to speak up and call it out. Telling black people to call out racism? Have we not been doing that repeatedly and consistently? This is where allyship matters.

Asking me to educate you — you’ve been on this earth longer than I have, you claim to be an empath, you can’t step into my shoes and understand how this looks to me?

To her credit, my friend listened. She owned it, she apologized. I asked her to watch "Becoming" on Netflix. I had recently watched it myself, and I cried watching the sheer number of people who showed up to Michelle Obama's book readings, seeing the high profile people who seemed excited to interview her, and feeling the pure joy of each person who spoke to her as she smiled and signed books. We don't acknowledge often enough that the existence of the Obamas is offensive to every openly (and closeted) racist person that believes they are out of their place. Their success, their joy, their appreciation of, and affection for each other, and the sheer number of people who were buoyed by their time in office summons certain people to react with vitriol. We do not have to accept every invitation to a fight, legitimize every demand to see a birth certificate, or prove we have rightfully earned our place to anyone who has the audacity to ask.

In the end, Barack Obama eventually did respond.

"There's this sort of clown show that's happening in social media and on television," Obama added, describing much of the noise around Trump's presidency as a "distraction."

So did Tim Scott, though I question his assessment that this is the "most racist thing" he's seen out of the White House.

I have had other friends voice their fatigue at being expected to educate others when it comes to race or intersectionality in this country. I have not been put in that position until now, and I'm figuring out how I feel about the entire interaction. My friend followed up by sending a video with a song, which I briefly opened and quickly closed. Along with the song, she texted, "You're more than the struggle."

I don't even know how to respond.

Unhinged

I have once again dipped my toe into the online dating experience; my aim is not to hurry up and go on dates, or land another husband, but to observe, as if I were conducting a social research experiment. This time around I am armed with the "Burned Haystack Dating Method," created by Dr. Jennie Young, which, as the name implies, teaches one to find the needle in a haystack by burning the haystack.

The idea of eliminating as many men as you can based on keeping a keen eye for possible red flags, things that seem icky, and personal preferences seems to go completely against the way women are socialized to keep the door open to any man paying attention to us. It disposes of the ol' "give him a chance" mentality, and encourages being picky. In college, I used to always get accused of being "too picky" as if it were a crime to have standards. Even in my "pickiness" I still chose someone who was widely known as a good guy who has shown himself to be something else. Being picky does not always protect us from choosing wrong.

I set up my profile on Hinge with the the required six photos and chose my prompts. Within a day I had 39 notifications alerting me that different men on the app had left comments on photos or prompts. As I attempted to sort through the profiles, I got a pop up saying my viewing would be limited because I was not using the app with a paid subscription. Gotta love capitalism!

That's the conflict with these things, it's the dating version of LinkedIn pushing you to the premium membership so you can see the 16 people who viewed your profile. Curiosity is supposed to entice you to pull out that credit card and sign up, and if setting up a subscription is the expectation, do they really want any of us to meet up and delete the app?

With a much more discerning eye, I am using this experience to fine tune what profiles are acceptable. Acceptable isn't the same as good, it means there are no red flags on display given this first glance at a very small amount of information provided.

In no particular order, here are some of my "Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200" criteria:

* Multiple car selfies

* Bathroom selfies

* Unflattering photos. One man posted a photo of himself in a bed wearing a hospital gown and sporting an oxygen tube. A+ for transparency, but what in the seeking a nurse with a purse is taking place, here? There was another who posted a shot of his torso -- no head, no lower legs and feet, which I'm guessing was an attempt at going beyond the basic selfie/headshot, but really, this was the best he could do?

* Every photo includes them wearing sunglasses, a hat, or other accessories of disguise

* Obviously fake names (I kid you not, one man listed himself as "beach bum," and a countless number of black men have gone with the name "King")

* Anyone mid-40's and up "looking to start a family"

* Political views consisting of "conservative," "moderate," "other," "not political" or not making their political views visible. It astounded me how many black men claimed to be "not political." Sir, have you seen the news? Being Switzerland is not a luxury you can afford in 2026. Anyone who doesn't care about (or is committed to) electing officials bent on eliminating the rights of selected segments of the population is a no for me, dawg.

* Any references to their love language being "physical touch" (and 99.9% of the time, those responding to the love language prompt will mention "physical touch"). Also grounds for dismissal: reference to "a woman's touch," "passionate hugs in the kitchen," "cuddling/snuggling," and any declarations that they like good kissing or sex. There is nothing wrong with liking these things; however, this is a dating site profile. Would it be appropriate to declare any of this to a dating prospect when introducing oneself for the first time?

(nice try, I'm not choosing this particular "Bear.")

* Nonmonogamy or "figuring out my relationship type" or checking off all of the relationship options in what should be a single answer

* Low effort, to include poor grammar and spelling, one word responses to prompts, incorrectly responding to prompts, text talk in the age of everyone having easy access to a full keyboard (only Prince could get away with substituting "U" for "you")

You go crazy for Burger's what? What does a burger possess that makes you crazy? Oh the suspense!

* Using prompts to tell me who I should be, challenging me to message you because no one texts on the app, any reference to "No drama." The ones doing this seem to forget the intention should be for them to inform me why I should be interested in them, not a checklist of what I need to be to win them over.

* Anything that has the slightest whiff of fetishism (looking at you, white dude named Jerome, for stating that you "prefer dating outside of (your) culture and race,)" and you, other dude who answered the prompt "I go crazy for..." with "FEET!" Again, is this appropriate to mention in a basic introduction?

Win me over by accepting my fetish which shall not be named

* Anyone lying about his age. Looking at you, Barry, who states he's 58 on his profile:

and then shares within a prompt that he's actually 64.

Can ya believe it folks? Barry saw nothing wrong with lying and attempting to lighten the mood with the ol' aw shucks, but I'm young at heart defense and sealing the deal with a "Woot!" as the youths say. If you'd seen Barry's profile photos, it was not that hard to believe the man was his actual age. The deeper message is that he thinks he's entitled to be a prospect for anyone who filtered out his real age. Barry believes he can convince women who purposely filtered out the 60-somethings to make an exception for him. That "Woot!" is sure to charm the ladies into reconsidering their age limit. Good luck with that, Barry.

A lot of men seemed to be more focused on describing what they want in a woman instead of telling women about themselves. Quite a bit of ordering from the menu style descriptions show up in these prompts, as if they are stacking a bacon double cheeseburger with their favorite toppings. You'll see the words "loyal," "drama free," and "feminine," repeated, along with menu orders for "playful," "fun" and "doesn't take herself too seriously." There are very few asking to meet curious, intelligent, and funny women. Many of them want women who will smile and laugh at their jokes, cuddle on the couch, and join them in their hobbies, to be the cheerleader to their life while not offering to provide the same type of support themselves. They may have better luck adopting a Golden Retriever instead of expecting a constant one directional flow of adoration from a mentally sound adult human being.

"Intellectual Alpha" isn't asking for too much, right? A big booty woman of any race will do.

Or, you know, be a smiling *or* laughing woman dancing freely barefoot -- because that's not in any way unrealistic or delusional:

If those were too much, try being a non-argumentative lady who wears dresses and skirts. At least one man will go crazy for you if you can match his not-too-demanding request.

Or, you know, be a grown up Powerpuff Girl:

Sometimes the descriptions, which, if I understand the concept of these prompts correctly, are intended to show why we should be interested in these men, do the opposite.

I'd have to ensure we have the same understanding of "fun." Is dating like waiting in line or is it the actual ride? Did he really think this was the ideal metaphor to describe dating him? What works for a three minute thrill ride may not be what I want to experience for the duration of a relationship.

And then there's this:

Would I want to date someone who feels like preparing for a test? Is the prompt itself the test? Life is hard enough and in the end, we're all gonna pass anyway (bah-dump-tshhh!)

Speaking of tests, I'd have to "win" this guy over by doing something I hate? Who enjoys subjecting someone they should like to activities they hate? If someone is joining me for something I enjoy, I'd feel terrible if they were enduring something they hated only because they like me. I wouldn't even be able enjoy myself knowing I was burdening someone like that. What is with these sadists men who think suffering and self abandonment are signs of love? This isn't something potentially painful but productive like, say, couples therapy, this is a scary movie, sir. Why wouldn't you just seek someone who, I don't know, actually likes scary movies?

Some descriptions of greatest strengths are not the flexes they think they are.

So you aren't a good listener. Sign me up, said no woman, ever.

So you will always play Devil's advocate when nobody asked for that. Noted.

Some describe themselves and in doing so lapse into telling us what kind of women they like, even if it has nothing to do with the actual prompt.

And he closed it out with that old "as beautiful on the inside as she is on the outside" cliche. Does anyone actually mean this when they say it, or are they trying to sound like they aren't superficial?

This morning I realized one of my favorite current comics, Candy Hearts by Tommy Siegel, uses this type of interpretation in the panels where he mocks dating apps. For years I've been laughing at art imitating life without understanding these very jokes would eventually become a part of my personal reality.

Based on my research so far, I have little expectation that I'll find a match anytime soon; until then I'll burn hay till the needle shines.