Uh, how about female gold diggers. I'd go gay for Oprah. Oprah got a billion dollars!
So yeah Oprah can get it. Also Bill Gates can get it, Warren Buffett can get it...dang even veiny ole Madonna can get it.

Amber Rose canNOT get it...she is broke.

DanceWme said:

Maybe Oprah and Steadman will appear on the Phil McGraw's relationships show

DesireeNevermind said:

Look, I don't care about Oprah and whom she fancies.

But I do know that Rosie O'Donnell talking about how she had a huge crush on Tom Cruise proved that sometimes the lady doth truly protest too much...

OK?

OK.

I can't believe that anybody was ever fooled by Rosie. But then again I was fooled by George Michael, even in the tighty whitey shorts.

Sorry...but for my tastes, Oprah ain't got enough billions.....cuz you know once that make-up comes off....and them designer jeans too....DAYUM!!!!

"YOU SHO' IS UGLEE!!!"

BklynBabe said:

Not saying she fooled me. Saying she was LOUD in her supposed devotion to Tom Cruise, back when she had her talk show.

bboy87 said:

You're right.

What good fortune to really be gay, then, and not be plagued by suspicion and false rumor. I have to deal with the reverse, actually.

DanceWme said:

reneGade20 said:

bboy87 said:

LMAO!!

reneGade20 said:

right...and if anything is wrong in your relationship Dr. Phil will be all up your business. but so what if she's ugly, i'd just mastubate to our bank statement every month.

peacenlovealways said:

the hell it is! It has a happy ending, funniest movie moments ever, and some real ass drama that anybody who has ever been abused or felt alone can relate to. It's the most uplifting and real ass movie ever. When I saw it the first time I cried and then the next 100 times I saw it for what it was...TRUTH!

Abdul said:

And Gayle right there saying "DON'T BE JEALOUS BITCHES!" while counting her bank rolls.

reneGade20 said:

Hell, she's much better looking than Tiny. Besides, you know she can afford that make-up you can wear to bed.

DesireeNevermind said:

Sad, if you were a man. A movie devoid of positive male characters. To this day, some of my female friends don't realize how disinterested I am in it from a sociological point of view. Sure, it's full of great one-liners that have endured over decades, but it clearly isn't a balanced piece of storytelling.

ThreadBare said:

I hate the movie/book too, ThreadBare. It seemed one dimensional to me(Women = victims/Men = villains). Aside from the fact that its filled with cringe worthy stereotypes.

And as if that wasn't enough, we get hounded by the musical,,,,,thanx to Mammy Harpo

ThreadBare said:

Well I don't know what you mean by balanced storytelling. So there has to be a token positive male role model? The story centers on a young black woman experiencing pain and suffering throughout her life and how she overcomes it. It's about perseverance in spite of the ugliness in life. She's impoverished, living in the deep south amidst racism and sexism. She's mistreated by the very people who should be caring for her.

The best line in that movie is Celie telling Mister "I may be black, I may be a woman, I may even be ugly, but good God I'm here." I remember when that movie came out and there were all these black media dudes or whatever talking about how it dissed them. You can only feel dissed, guilty or insulted by those male characters if you've ever behaved the way they behave or if you've seen a brotha behave that way and did nothing to change his attitude.

DesireeNevermind said:

Flip the script, dehumanize those women and victimize the men. You'll hear a different tune. But its not a matter of whether you feel dissed or not, its the message you send across to the masses, and the majority of them believe what they see in the movies.

Whats wrong is wrong,,,,,the positive black man image is not exactly peachy, and that book/movie wasn't helping none. And YES, I'm all for women empowering themes, but not on the expense & the diminishing of the other gender. Basically, that book did more harm than good.

Harlepolis said:

Um so whose fault is that? Alice Walker's? I'm sorry but men (not any race in particular) have been empowering themselves at the expense of women since time began. That book told a woman's story and her story be it a fictional account of many facts from many women or an auto biography of Walker's grandmother deserves to be told.

I mean hell, we might as well not tell any woman's story of pain and how she overcame it if it paints a man in a bad light. We might as well not tell any fictional stories about holocaust survivors cuz it dehumanizes germans. A movie like Soldier's Story which tells of black men being inhumane to each other shouldn't be told either cuz we gotta think about imagery. If you're coming from the angle of how black men are viewed in society well, the only ones who can change that are black men themselves. There are positive media images out there. I watched Daddy's girls on DVD last night and its a Tyler Perry flick about a single father trying to do right by his 3 children on a fixed income when their mother leaves them all for a drug dealer. Hill Harper wrote two books "letters to a young brotha" and "letters to a young sista" which are about bringing the positive out of black men and women and so on and so forth.

DesireeNevermind said:

Guilty? Maybe. Otherwise, this line is like saying a woman (could/should/would) feel dissed or insulted by, say, rappers characterizing them as bitches, hoes and gold diggers only if they are one. That's nuts.

Heck, I'm a male and even I am insulted by that sort of crap.
[Edited 8/19/09 22:24pm]

DanceWme said:

Lammastide said:

No it's not. I'm sure there are plenty of Hos and gold diggers that if they saw themselves through the eyes of the dudes they are taking advantage of might very well feel dissed or even guilty. Some people can't see the error of their ways unless they can see themselves through someone else's eyes. This is how change sometimes comes about.

Lammastide said:

You're insulted by what crap? The gold digger/Ho or the dude calling her out?

DesireeNevermind said:

I'm insulted by both actually, but in the context of this conversation, I'm saying I'm insulted by the omnibus characterization of women as such, though I'm not a woman.

My point is: One needn't be guilty of the characterization to be offended by it.

Lammastide said:

One need not be offended by a semi-fictional book/movie character from the early 1900s deep south and somehow hold such character responsible for the image of black men today either.

DesireeNevermind said:

One needn't be, but one might be justified if one were. Even wholly fictional portrayals -- attested to enough -- have proven remarkably powerful in maligning social groups.

...And Alice Walker herself would probably tell you that with regard to, oh say, Lesbians and bisexuals.
[Edited 8/19/09 23:44pm]

Lammastide said:

Sure she would. But would that prevent her from presenting her art or telling a story about her relatives? I highly doubt it.

Like I eluded to before...if black men have a problem with how society views them then they need to change those images by changing the men who embody those images not silencing the women who've suffered at the hands of such men.

And I would like to add...nobody is mad at Stephen Speilberg for directing or Whoopie and Oprah for starring in it.

DesireeNevermind said:

Ah, but I'd wager it would, at the very least, inform a more nuanced presentation if the antagonists were Lesbian/bi.

It's so easy to paint in broad strokes when you're rendering someone else.


Silence? Quite the contrary. I think the interest is in having these women sing all the more. Some of us would simply like hearing the entire song.
[Edited 8/19/09 23:53pm]