A Woman With Substance

6863_20121027_175635_599163_297367027034075_736210373_n[1]

Though I’m currently 19, I wonder about things that are wise beyond my years.

Where are the young ladies with substance? It seems as if a majority of my generation and the women before us are often materialistic, hyper-sexualized beings that have nothing special about themselves except for the fact that they may be able to have sex really well, and can dress to catch other people’s attention.

When I say substance, I define that as something that goes beyond what you see physically, or on the surface. Substance is all about intellect. Substance is all about how you can draw people to you off conversation alone, without offering anything except mental stimulation. Substance is having a positive aura about you, and when you have substance; your life has meaning. 

But you know what’s sad? A lot of young ladies don’t have, and aren’t interested in possessing substance. They have been tricked into believing that they need nothing more than to be sexually objectified, for physical use only. Some are too caught up in being “sexy”, being pretty.

I mean don’t get me wrong, when you’re looking good, (and you know it) those compliments you may get put an extra switch in your walk, or pep in your step. And you deserve to feel as sexy and as confident as you want! That’s perfectly fine.

But…… what about your mind baby?

Yeah, you have a nice shape and a cute face. But so do millions of other girls. Truth be told, that’s nothing special.

If you think you have substance, ask yourself these things:

  • Can you hold a conversation about what’s going on in the world?
  • Do you read?
  • Do you have an opinion?
  • Are you aware of your dreams in life, AND are you taking steps to pursue them?

If you can’t answer yes to all these questions, then maybe you should get out the mirror and into a book!

And NO, not to attract the opposite or same sex!

(don’t you just hate when you read something and they suggest things like females need to cook, clean, fuck good, not dress like a hoe, etc just to please a man? It’s very headass, I know)

But anyways….

The most important person to have substance for is yourself. I’m no woman expert or anything, but I know if I didn’t have substance about myself then I wouldn’t have any goals or aspirations, I wouldn’t be running this blog, and I damn sure wouldn’t truly be happy!

I’m cute and all, but damn that gets old!

I won’t shame you girls without substance, because before this post was written, I’m sure you didn’t know.

But now that you do, go get you some substance, and be great!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “A Woman With Substance

  1. There are a myriad of ways to have “substance” and thus, I disagree with what was expressed in this post, Kia. I think your ideals about being a “woman of substance” offers women a limited, oversimplified formula on how to be a woman of substance — via intellect. (See your second sentence in paragraph 2)

    Very briefly, here are the issues I have with what the case you’re making:

    (1). You’re using your definition of what is substance to ultimately dictate how other women should be viewed as women of substance.

    (2). You open this blog post essentially asserting that women who “have nothing special about themselves except for the fact they may be able to have sex really well, and can catch other people’s attention” are women who inherently lack substance. In other words, it reads as if you’re arguing that being sexually talented and/or having style/flair/the ability to dress and catch other people’s attention is a bad thing, and has nothing to do with the substance of a woman. When in fact, a woman who is sexually talented could very well be perceived as a woman of substance — either SHE perceives herself this way, or another person could. Remember, substance is subjective.

    (3). Further along in the post, you write, “don’t you just hate when you read something and they suggest things like females need to cook, clean, fuck good, etc. just to please a man?” Yet, I find your post is just as maligning as the traditional doctrine that most women have subscribed to: you have be a certain way according to someone else’s definition of what that way is. By that I mean, as women we’re usually conditioned early to believe to be a good woman or worthy of marriage, we have to know how to cook, or do X, or know how to do Y, right? Yet in this post, you’re conveying to women the only way to be a woman of substance is to read, have intellect/be intellectual, have opinions, have and be in the pursuit of their dreams, etc. — but perhaps, YOUR idea about substance differs substantially from another woman’s. Again, substance is subjective.

    In sum, I point the aforementioned out to draw attention to the fact that substance is subjective. It is subjective to every woman (including me) who reads this post. While some, perhaps many, of your readers will relate and even concur with what was expressed in this post, I want to use this space to urge women (and any men who visit your blog) to stop advising women on HOW TO BE WOMEN. We all come from different social locations, identities, histories, lived realities, etc. and it proves pointless to tell another woman HOW to have substance or “be a real woman” when it’s based on pure subjectivity. It’s not fair.

    Hope all this made sense! 🙂
    –Drea

    Like

  2. There are a myriad of ways to have “substance” and thus, I disagree with what was expressed in this post, Kia. I think your ideals about being a “woman of substance” offers women a limited, oversimplified formula on how to be a woman of substance — via intellect. (See your second sentence in paragraph 2)

    Very briefly, here are the issues I have with what the case you’re making:

    (1). You’re using your definition of what is substance to ultimately dictate how other women should be viewed as women of substance.

    (2). You open this blog post essentially asserting that women who “have nothing special about themselves except for the fact they may be able to have sex really well, and can catch other people’s attention” are women who inherently lack substance. In other words, it reads as if you’re arguing that being sexually talented and/or having style/flair/the ability to dress and catch other people’s attention is a bad thing, and has nothing to do with the substance of a woman. When in fact, a woman who is sexually talented could very well be perceived as a woman of substance — either SHE perceives herself this way, or another person could. Remember, substance is subjective.

    (3). Further along in the post, you write, “don’t you just hate when you read something and they suggest things like females need to cook, clean, fuck good, etc. just to please a man?” Yet, I find your post is just as maligning as the traditional doctrine that most women have subscribed to: you have be a certain way according to someone else’s definition of what that way is. By that I mean, as women we’re usually conditioned early to believe to be a good woman or worthy of marriage, we have to know how to cook, or do X, or know how to do Y, right? Yet in this post, you’re conveying to women the only way to be a woman of substance is to read, have intellect/be intellectual, have opinions, have and be in the pursuit of their dreams, etc. — but perhaps, YOUR idea about substance differs substantially from another woman’s. Again, substance is subjective.

    In sum, I point the aforementioned out to draw attention to the fact that substance is subjective. It is subjective to every woman (including me) who reads this post. While some, perhaps many, of your readers will relate and even concur with what was expressed in this post, I want to use this space to urge women (and any men who visit your blog) to stop advising women on HOW TO BE WOMEN. We all come from different social locations, identities, histories, lived realities, etc. and it proves pointless to tell another woman HOW to have substance or “be a real woman” when it’s based on pure subjectivity. It’s not fair.

    Hope all this made sense! 🙂
    –Drea

    Like

  3. I AGREE WITH KIA N SOMEWHAT MISS DREA..thing is tho if this was old days where women were looked at as none but sexual objects n trophies then being overly sexualized n none but sexy be a good thing! But its 21st century n women came a long way of not just being simple housewives but capable of doin things a man could in this world from pastoring churches..running businesses/corporations..playing sports..etc etc! So it kinda sucks that alotta young girls find bein lacking of many qualities as a good deed then bad! I love a women who can almost or equally match me in many ways cus i see myself as a man with substance! Cus eventually just being sexy n good in bed wont do a man much. N one last thing! Its cool to be sexualized but when sex is number one or two or three priority all time i consider that as a problem! Nuff said tho

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s