Soap operas and primetime dramas have long glamorized the side chicks of powerful white men, making the side chick seem more exciting, loving and desirable than the wives at home, who were equally beautiful but played out. It seemed that as long as a man could "afford" two women (and upper-class men were generally white men), it was his prerogative, and not worthy of attention or appraisal. Working-class black men and the women they juggle (baby mamas, friends with bennies, main chicks), however, are seen as cultural taboos and degenerates with no self-esteem or shame. Further, upper-class black men (like Sean Combs, for example) are excused from harsh judgment because of their ability to financially support multiple women and children. On the flip side, independent black women who are financially secure have been (until the recent rise and reception of television shows to the contrary) largely left alone.
While the so-called side chick phenomenon is nothing new, the language/slang repackages infidelity as something black folk invented, therefore making it more tawdry and scandalous. White women who have affairs with married men are called mistresses. Women of color who have sex with men in relationships are called side chicks. Mistresses are taken care of, taken out, splurged on, and at times prioritized above the wife. Side chicks are secrets, limited to booty calls and late night texts, and are expected to play their position (never interfering with a man's "real" relationship). There is usually one mistress, but a side chick is generally one of several. These race-based distinctions contribute to ongoing slights towards black women. Mistresses are white and upper-class and therefore redeemable. Side chicks are poor and of color and are therefore viewed as thirsty, grimy, low down, gold-digging whores who actively pursue somebody else's man.
There's something wrong with that picture.
Further, why are side chicks vilified while dudes who have side chicks are celebrated? The fact that men are not held accountable for their culpability in the destruction of their own relationships, and the onus is almost always and exclusively put on "the other woman," implies that men can't help it, that they are biologically wired to be promiscuous (bullshyt). This makes it the responsibility of wives or main chicks to hold their man's attention, and the responsibility of potential side chicks to resist their advances. Men, in this dynamic, have no liability for their actions. If they get caught they blame the side chick for seducing them from home or the main chick for not providing a "happy" home (bullshyt).
The responsibility for fidelity should rest on the shoulders of men who are in committed relationships. They should a) be faithful, b) if they don't plan on being faithful, they should end their relationship, c) at the very least, if they don't plan on being faithful they should be up-front about their relationship status, at which point both the man and the person he is involved with on the side are equally informed and responsible, d) wear a sign, not unlike the scarlet letter, to let unsuspecting women know what he's about on sight. It's infuriating that while men are out here doing the damn thing all willy nilly, it is women who are at each other's throats.
The commentary is telling. We call women who are involved with men in multiple relationships stupid, a jump off, a side chick, a side piece, or a THOT. We call the main woman the ride or die (because she is willing to tolerate bullshyt), the main chick (because she was there first), wifey (because she is either married to him, has a child with him, or is holding out for either of the two), or bae. But what do we call a man who has a side chick? ....
