This past week, two extreme saggers caught my eye. Both were walking. Nothing wrong with walking, but as you know, walking and sagging is hard work. You have to shuffle your feet in just the right rhythm while grabbing your pants, generally around the crotch area (another disgusting sight), and in the heat we had last week, I know if they had had a car they would have been driving it.
I had to stifle my laughter as one of the saggers attempted to cross the street with traffic headed his way. He couldn’t run. One missed shuffle and he would have been toast. I had to slap myself for looking for a banana peel.
What saggers don’t realize is that wearing their pants below the butt line isn’t a sign of defiance. It’s not a sign of rebellion, and most times it’s not a sign of a great fashion sense. It is, however, a sign of shuffling fast but going nowhere even faster.
I realize assuming is dangerous, but I assumed these two young men, rightly or wrongly, didn’t have a job, ergo, no money, ergo, no car, ergo, no education, ergo, dim future. And instead of hiding the fact that their prospects of living a viable, happy life were low, they stuck their butts out for all to see as if to shout to the world that their future was headed in the same direction as their pants.
While cool can be a state of mind, usually, a peer group has to think you’re cool, too. Extreme saggers should take this quiz and have other members of their wide circle of friends take it, too. It’s simple, but there is a warning -- they might not want to share the embarrassing results.
1. Are you, or any member of your extreme sagging group, a graduate of high school? (If the answer is “no” skip to question 3.)
2. Do you, or any member of your group, have plans for college?
3. Do you, or any member of your group, have a job?
4. Are you, or other members of your group, fathers? (If you answered “Yes” or “No” to question 3, and “Yes” to question 4, answer question 5.)
5. Are you a father or sperm donor? Must I explain? Fathers, financially and otherwise, support their children. If you don’t -- I’m just sayin’.
Bishop T.D. Jakes, in his presentation in Macon, would have called this group of extreme saggers “chickens.” Why? Chickens cluck around the coop eating anything and everything, including their own feces. When they try to fly, they are so bloated with bad stuff, they can barely get off the ground. Soaring like an eagle is beyond a chicken’s comprehension.
What makes chickens and saggers alike? Both are so weighed down with bad stuff -- inadequate education, poor manners and work habits -- that they can’t begin to think like an eagle or a successful person. They just don’t know how.
So what’s the moral of the story? Is all hope lost for extreme saggers/chickens? There are three lessons they need to learn. First, they need to understand the reality of what it means to be a chicken.
Second, they need to clean up their act, stop sagging and start looking the part of a baby eagle. While they may still cluck around a bit, each day will bring better opportunities.
And finally, and most importantly, they need to stop hanging around chickens. Maybe an eagle will spot them from miles away, take them under its wing, and teach them how to soar.
Charles E. Richardson is The (Macon) Telegraph’s editorial page editor. He can be reached at (478)744-4342 or via e-mail at crichardson@macon.com.
Ah, for clarification, I had seen multiple groups of women in high heels.
Before I am misunderstood, I am not trying to cast women in a negative light.
Using the original poster's logic, one can infer that a person's fashion choices are indicative of their characteristics and/or moral fiber. On top of that, everyone who makes a similar fashion choice displays the same characteristics. Following this logical pathway to its conclusion, am I to gather that all of these women were heading to church? Or were they all from a field of employment such as business people or lawyers? Or were they all prostitutes? Since they all must be the same the only possible conclusion is that they were businesspeople with a second job as a prostitute and all of them were in transit to or from church.
In case I didn't explain myself well enough, it is naught but foolhardy to make any assumptions based off of how a person looks. It is just as bad to attempt to rationalize one's negative judgement by saying, "that's just how people in the world interpret people, so it's better to just fit in." The only way to eliminate negative and demeaning stereotypes is by refusing to take part in them, and by refusing to justify other's when they express them.
Au revoir.
By the way, criticizing people's opinions on a public forum automatically negates your 'non-judgmental' status.
From what I read about "dating" in prisons there is no need to "advertise"