In keeping with the mention of Girl Melanie from "The Game" yesterday, a conversation has been brewing within me. For those of you who've never seen the show and those who need a reminder, Melanie decided to forgo medical school at John Hopkins Medical School (her DREAM school and apparently, one of the best) to follow her boyfriend Derwin across the country once he was drafted into the NFL and go to med school in California. Now, some would say, "And? So what she didn't go to John Hopkins - she still went to school." Others would say, "Well, she wanted to live that lavish life and to 'keep the man,' you likely have to follow him." Another alleged example of this scenario, is Ludacris' girlfriend, Eudoxie, who is said to have dropped out of her pre-med program to travel and be with him (some reports say that she failed her MCATs and other reports say he told her to drop out - I don't know the truth but I'm giving alleged "tea"). Again, another example of a woman putting her life "wants" to the side to be with her man.
Now, let me be clear: If your main goal as a woman (because that's who we're talking about here) is to find a man - especially a wealthy or soon to be wealthy one - and "lock him down," then so be it and I suppose you have to do what you have to do. That's not something that I understand because (1) I wasn't raised to "find" a man and (2) once I was old enough to decide what I wanted out of life, carving my own way was always number one on my list. I've always believed that by society's definition (and we believe it too), women already stand in the shadows of men so why not go grab more for yourself first or in conjunction with "having your man?" There is something to be said for a woman whose name and work (no matter WHAT it is or how much money it makes, as long as its her own) can stand by itself. What do you have left of yourself if you drop what you're doing to follow your man's dreams and his life? Again, when you don't fully have anything for your own yet?
Conversely, the argument can be made that why should it matter if they can have all the things (likely material) they want in life and more without having to work that hard for it? You have money, you have a lavish lifestyle (if you have a man who is wealthy or about to be), and hell, you have the man? People primarily work hard so they can do better for themselves so if you don't have to work hard and still reap the same rewards, isn't there a balance? Granted, Girl Melanie had her trials with Derwin (cheating, a baby, his attitude, his celebrity, etc) and if Eudoxie's choices are true, I'm sure she's had her tribulations with Luda (ladies love the guy and he's made no secret that he loves them back), but compared to me...they're CHILLIN. I can barely get all my ducks in a row sometimes to go to the South of the U.S., but these women are lounging in the South of France! I might have to think about if I have the game twisted!
My position is...well, I think that is pretty clear. But what say you? Is it okay to put your life and dreams on temporary or indefinite hold to run the world with your man and follow his life and dreams?
Let's discuss.
2 comments:
Hi, former lurker here :-)
But ideally, I think a mix of both. I'm in law school and my fiance is studying to be an engineer. We talked about and when he graduates, I'll move wherever he finds a job because I can take the bar and be a lawyer anywhere, but not all parts of the country have good opportunities for computer engineers. I really like the Obama model--they focused on Michelle's career when it made sense, but now it's about Barack. I think it's a give and take.
I agree with ADJ. I'm all about what makes the most sense in the relationship. I don't think my career should have to play the back burner to his. I also think Girl Melanies biggest issue was she got caught up in the life and gave up her dream to be a wife. Why couldn't she be both? They don't have kids so her choice seemed foolish.
Post a Comment