The Cookout

[Jay]

Our own @Goldilocks made a video stating “Men Don’t Want a Boss” and I want to see what your thoughts are on this 6Z. Her core thoughts are here:

@1:12

A chick who’s paying her own bills doing decent for herself could have a median income, could have a high income IDK, either way guys don’t like it, they don’t wanna date women like that

@1:53

As a woman who has employees who has a business, who is definitely on a path to build more wealth, I agree with this statement I don’t think men generally speaking don’t want a boss chick.

My $0.02 is that men don’t want a boss lady but not because we are intimidated by them but because we are born to be providers and so you won’t win us over talking about how good of a provider you are.

When a woman leads on income and success she will be rejected by successful men because there is no masculine/feminine polarity in the relationship. This Is not to say that women cannot be successful but what you don’t want to do is place your value in it because you’re trying to entice men with something they don’t need.

The analogy I use is bees. You can’t hold up honey to attract bees and get mad at the bees for not flocking. Bees make honey, you need to hold up what the bees can’t make but need, Nectar and Pollen!

I think if she is coming across men who are intimidated by her then she is probably dating beneath her or dating insecure men. My $0.02 I don’t date men so I don’t know how they act behind closed doors but for myself, a woman making more than me or doing better than me means nothing.

What are your thoughts everyone?

 

[Blackgravity]

Some men do some men don't, me personally, no.
Only one set of B4llz under my roof.

 

[Ogun]

Depending on what she or he considers a "boss"
Most males naturally take the lead position, for a female in a relationship to take the lead would tell me the man she's with is a little weak.

 

[Rollie Forbes]

It's my job to lead my household. If my woman takes the reigns, then we no longer have the right instruction to increase production.
That being said, my lady is my second in command. If I get sick, incarcerated, or if I die, I need my woman to be "bossed up" and "gamed up" enough to keep our ship going in the right direction for the sake of our family.

 

[Jay]

It's my job to lead my household. If my woman takes the reigns, then we no longer have the right instruction to increase production.
That being said, my lady is my second in command. If I get sick, incarcerated, or if I die, I need my woman to be "bossed up" and "gamed up" enough to keep our ship going in the right direction for the sake of our family.

I agree with this. @Goldilocks do you feel like I mischaracterized your argument at all?

 

[Goldilocks]

I agree with this. @Goldilocks do you feel like I mischaracterized your argument at all?

My point was that a woman just having more is often considered “competing.” BW specifically are always classified as these horrible women who just talk about money all day and put down men with their accomplishments.

I have found from personal experience that the “competition” is often initiated and created by men as well. But the story is often one sided.

I think your broad classification of the men being “weak” is off. In this very thread men are saying they must be the ruler of their household and both men and women often use money as a gauge of breadwinner, leader, head of house etc. The train of thought is quite common.

So if a man is following the status quo of how households are “supposed to be” then I don’t think it makes him weak. I think it makes him narrow minded.

Wanting your counterpart to be less than you so you can feel accomplished is unproductive. Just another “rule” that keeps BP from creating happy healthy relationships. But that’s another conversation.

 

[Jay]

My point was that a woman just having more is often considered “competing.” BW specifically are always classified as these horrible women who just talk about money all day and put down men with their accomplishments.

But my question to you would be why would you put yourself in that category if it's not you? Do we not have a "I don't need no man" type of mind state in our culture? If you agree that we do, wouldn't you think it's fair to say that women who have this mind state and a level of success have an heighten sense of "I don't need no man"?

I have found from personal experience that the “competition” is often initiated and created by men as well. But the story is often one sided.

I can see how this can be true.

I think your broad classification of the men being “weak” is off. In this very thread men are saying they must be the ruler of their household and both men and women often use money as a gauge of breadwinner, leader, head of house etc. The train of thought is quite common.

The thing is the man being the leader is the natural order because we are the partner in the couple that is expected to pay the ultimate price FIRST. If there is someone attacking the family, we're expected to defend the family. If there is no food on the table we're expected to find food. If there is no shelter, we have to build it.

Now first world society has brought upon some innovations that gives the illusion of us having the same capabilities. Since we can use currency to pay someone to do the hard labor building, hunting, security, etc its easy for people who WOULDN'T and COULDN'T do those things to minimize their importance.

But when natural disaster or economic downturns make those innovations null and void we see how quickly things return back to the natural order. There is a lot less boss ladies when a tornado is ripping off your roof, a flood is filling up the basement, a burglar is entering in the house, that's when you expect your man to step up and good ones do and that's why we are the leaders.

But I understand there's a lot of hoe ass dudes out there that make falling into this role impossible.

So if a man is following the status quo of how households are “supposed to be” then I don’t think it makes him weak. I think it makes him narrow minded.

I never said a man following the status quo makes him weak. I said a man that feels like he has to stunt your growth to protect his ego is weak. You can still be successful, independent, and goal-oriented but still be feminine.

Wanting your counterpart to be less than you so you can feel accomplished is unproductive. Just another “rule” that keeps BP from creating happy healthy relationships. But that’s another conversation.

I agree but I never said women have to be less than men. The issue with the "Boss" mentality is when a woman uses her accomplishments as justification for masculine behavior. A woman may need to lean into her masculinity when she is single but when she is with a man, that masculine energy is going to cause clashes and she will lose. She will lose by either being masculine with a weak ass dude who allows it and she feels unfulfilled because she shouldn't have to run the house OR she runs into a strong man and tries to challenge him by being masculine and he leaves her.

 

[Tati 304]

Either I'm in the twilight zone or someone is cappin because you dudes get super jealous and petty when a lady is getting it on her own. No I don't want to be your slave or have to depend on you and follow your words or else you cut my money off. Dont expect me to be ur grandma.

 

[Goldilocks]

But my question to you would be why would you put yourself in that category if it's not you? Do we not have a "I don't need no man" type of mind state in our culture? If you agree that we do, wouldn't you think it's fair to say that women who have this mind state and a level of success have an heighten sense of "I don't need no man"?


I can see how this can be true.


The thing is the man being the leader is the natural order because we are the partner in the couple that is expected to pay the ultimate price FIRST. If there is someone attacking the family, we're expected to defend the family. If there is no food on the table we're expected to find food. If there is no shelter, we have to build it.

Now first world society has brought upon some innovations that gives the illusion of us having the same capabilities. Since we can use currency to pay someone to do the hard labor building, hunting, security, etc its easy for people who WOULDN'T and COULDN'T do those things to minimize their importance.

But when natural disaster or economic downturns make those innovations null and void we see how quickly things return back to the natural order. There is a lot less boss ladies when a tornado is ripping off your roof, a flood is filling up the basement, a burglar is entering in the house, that's when you expect your man to step up and good ones do and that's why we are the leaders.

But I understand there's a lot of hoe ass dudes out there that make falling into this role impossible.


I never said a man following the status quo makes him weak. I said a man that feels like he has to stunt your growth to protect his ego is weak. You can still be successful, independent, and goal-oriented but still be feminine.



I agree but I never said women have to be less than men. The issue with the "Boss" mentality is when a woman uses her accomplishments as justification for masculine behavior. A woman may need to lean into her masculinity when she is single but when she is with a man, that masculine energy is going to cause clashes and she will lose. She will lose by either being masculine with a weak ass dude who allows it and she feels unfulfilled because she shouldn't have to run the house OR she runs into a strong man and tries to challenge him by being masculine and he leaves her.

I don't put myself in that category. Instead of just communicating and observing, they (in this situation men) do. They make assumptions based on the own personal negative expectations aka baggage. I'm not responsible for another's baggage.

The point about the "natural order" is nice. But I grew up in a household where my parents were and still are partners. My dad didn't rule over us because had a dick. He still protected and provided. He didn't need to "rule" us to do those things. But my mother provided also. When she lost her job she held him down and visa versa. It's the happiness most successful marriage I know of.

This rigid idea that relationships can only be one way simply not true. There are multiple ways to have a relationship. Rigid man rules everything that touches the light is only ONE way to have a relationship. Especially in a world we have to today.

Again, I wanted to discuss the competition that comes from men and what is considered competition in the eyes of a man. It really goes deeper than "just be more feminine."

Is it bringing up success?
Is it showing up in a car nicer than his?
Is it wanting nicer things than he can afford buy but going to get it anyway?
Is it dressing nicer than him?
Is it eating better food than him?
Is it living in a better part of town than him?

In my experience, men view all the above mentioned things as competition regardless if a woman has a "I don't need a man" attitude or not.

 

[Jay]

I don't put myself in that category. Instead of just communicating and observing, they (in this situation men) do. They make assumptions based on the own personal negative expectations aka baggage. I'm not responsible for another's baggage.

The point about the "natural order" is nice. But I grew up in a household where my parents were and still are partners. My dad didn't rule over us because had a dick. He still protected and provided. He didn't need to "rule" us to do those things. But my mother provided also. When she lost her job she held him down and visa versa. It's the happiness most successful marriage I know of.

This rigid idea that relationships can only be one way simply not true. There are multiple ways to have a relationship. Rigid man rules everything that touches the light is only ONE way to have a relationship. Especially in a world we have to today.

Again, I wanted to discuss the competition that comes from men and what is considered competition in the eyes of a man. It really goes deeper than "just be more feminine."

Is it bringing up success?
Is it showing up in a car nicer than his?
Is it wanting nicer things than he can afford buy but going to get it anyway?
Is it dressing nicer than him?
Is it eating better food than him?
Is it living in a better part of town than him?

In my experience, men view all the above mentioned things as competition regardless if a woman has a "I don't need a man" attitude or not.

Ok I'll summarize It by saying this:

• Are there some men that are intimidated by the material things that you list? Yes. but the fact that you brought up only material things makes me believe that you put value in those things and make it a point to put it in the man's face which would turn some men off or make them think you're shallow. You didn't say they are turned off by your intelligence or goal-oriented nature it was pure material items.
• Men and Women SHOULD be partners and should work together but the Woman needs to be a partner in her femininity. I totally believe in fluidity and that both men and women need to be submissive to one another for a relationship to work...but you can have all that and still have the man be head of household.
• As a man, I'm telling you that we view you as trying to compete with us when you try to talk and behave like a man around us. That's what the average Black man thinks, it's not the car or the outfit in most cases...you talking to dusty boys...dudes out here getting the bag are not intimidated by your car or clothes cuz we driving something nice too and dressed well.
• Lastly, we have to be willing to listen to one another. You're trying to tell me what we are and are not intimidated by. If you don't listen to men when they tell you what does and does not motivate them how will you ever be successful in finding one?

 

[Bruh Man]

I don't put myself in that category. Instead of just communicating and observing, they (in this situation men) do. They make assumptions based on the own personal negative expectations aka baggage. I'm not responsible for another's baggage.

The point about the "natural order" is nice. But I grew up in a household where my parents were and still are partners. My dad didn't rule over us because had a dick. He still protected and provided. He didn't need to "rule" us to do those things. But my mother provided also. When she lost her job she held him down and visa versa. It's the happiness most successful marriage I know of.

This rigid idea that relationships can only be one way simply not true. There are multiple ways to have a relationship. Rigid man rules everything that touches the light is only ONE way to have a relationship. Especially in a world we have to today.

Again, I wanted to discuss the competition that comes from men and what is considered competition in the eyes of a man. It really goes deeper than "just be more feminine."

Is it bringing up success?
Is it showing up in a car nicer than his?
Is it wanting nicer things than he can afford buy but going to get it anyway?
Is it dressing nicer than him?
Is it eating better food than him?
Is it living in a better part of town than him?

In my experience, men view all the above mentioned things as competition regardless if a woman has a "I don't need a man" attitude or not.

I feeI u but niggas that’s gettin it really ain’t trippin on that shit like that. niggas that’s getting it prolly got more duckets and a better ride then u if we being real

now there’s gon be a cat here or there that wanna control u and he gon be offended at any type of independence u show but that ain’t er’body

wat I used to do and what many of us do is make the bad peeps we run into the face of er’body it’s like some shit to cope

but there’s a dude out there that’s gon treat you right and uplift u and make u feel like million bucks when u wake up and make u feel like u can rent all the cars in the world

fact is that that nigga gon be hard to find but that’s gon make it even sweeter when u find him and don’t throw yo c-class in that Nigga face either.

 

[Goldilocks]

Ok I'll summarize It by saying this:

• Are there some men that are intimidated by the material things that you list? Yes. but the fact that you brought up only material things makes me believe that you put value in those things and make it a point to put it in the man's face which would turn some men off or make them think you're shallow. You didn't say they are turned off by your intelligence or goal-oriented nature it was pure material items.
• Men and Women SHOULD be partners and should work together but the Woman needs to be a partner in her femininity. I totally believe in fluidity and that both men and women need to be submissive to one another for a relationship to work...but you can have all that and still have the man be head of household.
• As a man, I'm telling you that we view you as trying to compete with us when you try to talk and behave like a man around us. That's what the average Black man thinks, it's not the car or the outfit in most cases...you talking to dusty boys...dudes out here getting the bag are not intimidated by your car or clothes cuz we driving something nice too and dressed well.
• Lastly, we have to be willing to listen to one another. You're trying to tell me what we are and are not intimidated by. If you don't listen to men when they tell you what does and does not motivate them how will you ever be successful in finding one?

Imma be honest with you. I feel like you posted this video so you could continue a conversation that I had exited from because you wanted to continue to force your view. You continually ignored the context of the conversation.

This conversation is literally about money and material things but your first paragraph acts shocked when I bring up specific material things which shows that, like I told you before, you are not coming into the discussion in good faith.

I get your view. But what you are doing is being dismissive of my experience by painting men as "dusty" so that you can gloss over that point to just try to tell me you think I act like a man.

Cool, I get it.

But if they are "dusty" then me being feminine doesn't change their "dustiness."

According to you, since the only men to ever exist that would care about what a woman makes or has can only be "dusty" then this conversation is about "dusty" men.

Not the ultra men who aren't bothered by anything because they are "getting it."

Majority of men aren’t "getting it". So I would like to talk about the majority of men...the men you label "dusty."

If you can't relate to the "dusties" cool. Just say that. But to act like I am not listening to you because I am not willing to completely change the context of the conversation is disingenuous.

The point you are making has literally been beat to death. KS makes the same point every single night...I get it. I have heard it many, many, many times.

I would like to talk about the men that always get glossed over.

You're need to be right and tell me about myself is literally hindering the conversation that I would like to have so let's do this...You are right. I am wrong. I am masculine and that is why a man truly "getting it" would never want me. I completely understand where you are coming from and appreciate your feedback.

So can we now talk about "dusty" men and why a woman just having more than them would bother them?

 

[Goldilocks]

now there’s gon be a cat here or there that wanna control u and he gon be offended at any type of independence u show but that ain’t er’body

wat I used to do and what many of us do is make the bad peeps we run into the face of er’body it’s like some ish to cope

but there’s a dude out there that’s gon treat you right and uplift u and make u feel like million bucks when u wake up and make u feel like u can rent all the cars in the world

fact is that that negro gon be hard to find but that’s gon make it even sweeter when u find him and don’t throw yo c-class in that negro face either.

This is an interesting post. You make is sound like the majority of men aren’t worth the time of day. But those are the men the majority of women have to date.

This is a bit off topic but I just find it odd how men (not you) will easily dismiss those type of men as if they aren’t worth discussing but then tell women how they should act to get a man…if they majority of men are just being ignored to go off and be unworthy then who are these women supposed to be getting better for?

If the majority of men aren’t being held accountable and told to improve then what’s the point of women getting better in mass when their is literally no partners for them whether they are “feminine” or not?

 

[Jay]

Imma be honest with you. I feel like you posted this video so you could continue a conversation that I had exited from because you wanted to continue to force your view. You continually ignored the context of the conversation.

This conversation is literally about money and material things but your first paragraph acts shocked when I bring up specific material things which shows that, like I told you before, you are not coming into the discussion in good faith.

I get your view. But what you are doing is being dismissive of my experience by painting men as "dusty" so that you can gloss over that point to just try to tell me you think I act like a man.

Cool, I get it.

But if they are "dusty" then me being feminine doesn't change their "dustiness."

According to you, since the only men to ever exist that would care about what a woman makes or has can only be "dusty" then this conversation is about "dusty" men.

Not the ultra men who aren't bothered by anything because they are "getting it."

Majority of men aren’t "getting it". So I would like to talk about the majority of men...the men you label "dusty."

If you can't relate to the "dusties" cool. Just say that. But to act like I am not listening to you because I am not willing to completely change the context of the conversation is disingenuous.

The point you are making has literally been beat to death. KS makes the same point every single night...I get it. I have heard it many, many, many times.

I would like to talk about the men that always get glossed over.

You're need to be right and tell me about myself is literally hindering the conversation that I would like to have so let's do this...You are right. I am wrong. I am masculine and that is why a man truly "getting it" would never want me. I completely understand where you are coming from and appreciate your feedback.

So can we now talk about "dusty" men and why a woman just having more than them would bother them?

I hear your frustration and let me walk my opinion back a bit because I'm not as antagonistic as it may seem. I'm indeed coming to the conversation in good faith and I have no intent to present myself as the only holder of fact. Only thing I take issue with is the declarative statement "men don't want a boss" because that statement includes me and I don't agree.

So what I attempted to do (and in this may have butchered your argument) was to expand on "boss", "intimidating", and "challenge" from a male perspective to provide further texture on why I feel the comment "men don't want a boss" was in some ways myopic.

I don't think you act masculine, I have no idea if you do or don't and it would be ignorant of me to make that characterization. I just don't like us being characterized as some people who hate to see a woman succeed because I personally love it.

I love strong, independent, goal-oriented women so reading that line is offensive to me in some way...maybe I got triggered and was in my feelings.

No mal intent here sis.

 

[Bruh Man]

This is an interesting post. You make is sound like the majority of men aren’t worth the time of day. But those are the men the majority of women have to date.

This is a bit off topic but I just find it odd how men (not you) will easily dismiss those type of men as if they aren’t worth discussing but then tell women how they should act to get a man…if they majority of men are just being ignored to go off and be unworthy then who are these women supposed to be getting better for?

If the majority of men aren’t being held accountable and told to improve then what’s the point of women getting better in mass when their is literally no partners for them whether they are “feminine” or not?

great points

the majority of people in life are average, they do average shit, with average people in average places and thats not u. u aint doin avg shit so y u think u gon be able to slide in around avg niggas and think they gon see u as one of them. yo convo gon hit diff off the strenf of yo day to day managing a business, cash flow, expenses all stuff that most peeps cant relate

u gotta find a dude on yo wavelength and since u not on some avg shit it makes it harder for you to date because u need someone who can match yo output. he out there tho u just gotta b patient and sift through the coal to get the gold.

to yo other point y should the ladies step they game up if the dudes aint doin the same. thing is that if you reward bum ass niggas with companionship and sex they never gon change.

women set the tone for this shit if saggin pants dudes wasnt getting no play but the suits were sagging pants stock would be at record lows tomorrow. i dnt feel like bum dudes that aint got they life together deserve a woman and if more woman felt like that it would force a change.

at the end of the day sumtimes u gotta change yo environment to find the right guy. theres good men out there and they waiting for u, they having the same issue u having.

 

[Goldilocks]

I hear your frustration and let me walk my opinion back a bit because I'm not as antagonistic as it may seem. I'm indeed coming to the conversation in good faith and I have no intent to present myself as the only holder of fact. Only thing I take issue with is the declarative statement "men don't want a boss" because that statement includes me and I don't agree.

So what I attempted to do (and in this may have butchered your argument) was to expand on "boss", "intimidating", and "challenge" from a male perspective to provide further texture on why I feel the comment "men don't want a boss" was in some ways myopic.

I don't think you act masculine, I have no idea if you do or don't and it would be ignorant of me to make that characterization. I just don't like us being characterized as some people who hate to see a woman succeed because I personally love it.

I love strong, independent, goal-oriented women so reading that line is offensive to me in some way...maybe I got triggered and was in my feelings.

No mal intent here sis.

It’s all good. I was just sharing my personal experience.

 

[Goldilocks]

great points

the majority of people in life are average, they do average ish, with average people in average places and thats not u. u aint doin avg ish so y u think u gon be able to slide in around avg niggas and think they gon see u as one of them. yo convo gon hit diff off the strenf of yo day to day managing a business, cash flow, expenses all stuff that most peeps cant relate

u gotta find a dude on yo wavelength and since u not on some avg ish it makes it harder for you to date because u need someone who can match yo output. he out there tho u just gotta b patient and sift through the coal to get the gold.

to yo other point y should the ladies step they game up if the dudes aint doin the same. thing is that if you reward bum ass niggas with companionship and sex they never gon change.

women set the tone for this ish if saggin pants dudes wasnt getting no play but the suits were sagging pants stock would be at record lows tomorrow. i dnt feel like bum dudes that aint got they life together deserve a woman and if more woman felt like that it would force a change.

at the end of the day sumtimes u gotta change yo environment to find the right guy. theres good men out there and they waiting for u, they having the same issue u having.

Thanks for the kind words. I’m not disheartened. I know plenty good men. Just making an observation.

But all women needing to change before the majority of men change isn’t really a realistic option.

 

[Bruh Man]

Thanks for the kind words. I’m not disheartened. I know plenty good men. Just making an observation.

But all women needing to change before the majority of men change isn’t really a realistic option.

you welcome

its not a 1:1 ratio on change, it’s jus healing from ish like mass incarceration, welfare state, etc that broke our fam structure and raisin a new gen who look at each otha as kings and queens not niggas and bishes.

 

[sourgrapes]

I always see this being promoted among women be it female groups, friend circles, in movies, shows, etc. as being the best thing for women but I often wonder how men feel about this. Do men actually like "independent" women or would they rather have dependent women?

 

[Goldilocks]

I always see this being promoted among women be it female groups, friend circles, in movies, shows, etc. as being the best thing for women but I often wonder how men feel about this. Do men actually like "independent" women or would they rather have dependent women?

From my dating experience men prefer dependent women. They like the feeling of women having a solid “need” for them beyond emotions. Which is funny because at they same time they don’t want to feel used. A lot of men want to be looked upon as the hero.

I usually get 2 reactions out of men. They either want to immediately “help me” in my business ventures upon meeting me or they want to completely ignore it and don’t want it to be brought up at all. Honestly I would be happy with a guy who was neutral at this point.

The only real solution I have found is to date men who are ambitious and confident or who already have more than I do. But I need better circles at this point. As someone mentioned earlier, the average man and I can’t do it which is a shame because I have no problem with average guys.

 

[sourgrapes]

From my dating experience men prefer dependent women. They like the feeling of women having a solid “need” for them beyond emotions. Which is funny because at they same time they don’t want to feel used. A lot of men want to be looked upon as the hero.

I usually get 2 reactions out of men. They either want to immediately “help me” in my business ventures upon meeting me or they want to completely ignore it and don’t want it to be brought up at all. Honestly I would be happy with a guy who was neutral at this point.

The only real solution I have found is to date men who are ambitious and confident or who already have more than I do. But I need better circles at this point. As someone mentioned earlier, the average man and I can’t do it which is a shame because I have no problem with average guys.

This makes sense and I can see it within my own interactions. Men often will want to feel "needed" but they don't want to be with a woman who is "needy" or one they or their friends would view as a gold digger.

I feel like there is an importance here that a lot of people, both men and women overlook, and that is men have a desire to feel needed just as much as women do. I don't think it is weak for either gender to present this as it is in our human nature to want to be loved, respected, admired, and looked to for help and guidance. Maybe the problem here is that not enough people are honest about this in their relationships.

 

[Goldilocks]

This makes sense and I can see it within my own interactions. Men often will want to feel "needed" but they don't want to be with a woman who is "needy" or one they or their friends would view as a gold digger.

I feel like there is an importance here that a lot of people, both men and women overlook, and that is men have a desire to feel needed just as much as women do. I don't think it is weak for either gender to present this as it is in our human nature to want to be loved, respected, admired, and looked to for help and guidance. Maybe the problem here is that not enough people are honest about this in their relationships.

But do women need to be financially dependent on a man to need him?

 

[sourgrapes]

But do women need to be financially dependent on a man to need him?

That is a question that seems to be debated on depending on who you ask. A lot of men like being providers but not all of them do. I guess this comes down to who you date. I have met some who would rather be in a relationship that equated to that of a business partnership where both work, both provide, both do house duties, etc. so everything is split down the middle. That does work for some couples but you have to be on the same page for it to work or someone will end up doing more and it will cause tension.

 

[jasonrest]

No.
The masculine and feminine balance each other.
masculine and masculine. its not gonna go well.

 

[Czharcus]

Gay people are often left out of these conversations between straight men and straight women. This seems like for good reason, but metaphysically, a big piece of the puzzle is being omitted.

Environment is a big factor in the how substances react to each other. Although, I believe more inclusion of these things would be beneficial, I saw some environmental factors (mass incarceration, welfare state) mentioned but only in passing, it seemed. Environment molds people.

For example, a straight man cannot believe there is a gay agenda, yet not believe it affects how he responds to his woman. A belief that an outside force is attempting to emasculate him puts his masculinity on guard, a state of war. He will unconsciously avoid/defend against any femininity except for where he believes it belongs and where it belongs is going to need to be hyper-feminine to drown out everywhere it's not supposed to be, but naturally is.

We are slightly different at war than we are at peace and I don't hear many BW speak about an agenda attempting to de-feminize them.

 

[The Honorable]

Gay people are often left out of these conversations between straight men and straight women. This seems like for good reason, but metaphysically, a big piece of the puzzle is being omitted.

Environment is a big factor in the how substances react to each other. Although, I believe more inclusion of these things would be beneficial, I saw some environmental factors (mass incarceration, welfare state) mentioned but only in passing, it seemed. Environment molds people.

For example, a straight man cannot believe there is a gay agenda, yet not believe it affects how he responds to his woman. A belief that an outside force is attempting to emasculate him puts his masculinity on guard, a state of war. He will unconsciously avoid/defend against any femininity except for where he believes it belongs and where it belongs is going to need to be hyper-feminine to drown out everywhere it's not supposed to be, but naturally is.

We are slightly different at war than we are at peace and I don't hear many BW speak about an agenda attempting to de-feminize them.

The rejection of femininity is not based solely on fear of homosexuality, it’s about fear of raising a male who doesn’t have what it takes to survive in society. A male doesn’t have the ability regulate his emotions, stand tall facing down fear, and have the will and fortitude to lead his family to victory at the risk of death.

If a conversation is about relationships in general then I think excluding homosexual relationships is myopic. But if it’s about the heterosexual dynamic it makes no sense to bring up homosexual dynamics just like it doesnt make sense to bring up basketball players when talking about Tennis.

 

[Czharcus]

The rejection of femininity is not based solely on fear of homosexuality, it’s about fear of raising a male who doesn’t have what it takes to survive in society. A male doesn’t have the ability regulate his emotions, stand tall facing down fear, and have the will and fortitude to lead his family to victory at the risk of death.

I don't doubt it though I would argue the 2 are intertwined. In a heterosexual's mind, a homosexual is a male that does not have what it takes to survive society. Otherwise, why would the gay agenda even matter to anybody?

But if it’s about the heterosexual dynamic it makes no sense to bring up homosexual dynamics just like it doesnt make sense to bring up basketball players when talking about Tennis.

I'm not bringing up I was homosexual dynamics exactly. I'm putting heterosexual dynamics back into the context of the real world.

An issue scientists discovered with their methods back in the day (assuming they have controlled for this by now) is that they would take whatever they were studying out of its environment to study it. They would then put it back, it would do something unexpected and they wouldn't understand why.

The versions of these conversations I have witnessed tend to analyze the heterosexual relationship in isolation. I'd argue that Black heterosexual relationships do not exist in a vacuum. The homosexual is part of the heterosexual relationship's environment, just like the inverse is also true. We're not talking bringing up tennis in a conversation about basketball players, we're talking about 1 game of basketball being played on the same court as another being played slightly differently. It's an imperfect analogy, but the point is these 2 games can't not affect each other.

 

[The Honorable]

I don't doubt it though I would argue the 2 are intertwined. In a heterosexual's mind, a homosexual is a male that does not have what it takes to survive society. Otherwise, why would the gay agenda even matter to anybody?

They gay agenda matters to us because we want our children to be straight just like we are and to meet someone who they are able to reproduce with. Most of us don’t even think about homosexuality or even care about it, it’s when it’s being pushed on Sesame Street that it becomes an issue.

The homosexual is part of the heterosexual relationship's environment, just like the inverse is also true. We're not talking bringing up tennis in a conversation about basketball players, we're talking about 1 game of basketball being played on the same court as another being played slightly differently. It's an imperfect analogy, but the point is these 2 games can't not affect each other.

If Black men and women are speaking on their dynamics, it does not have to include homosexuals and if the roles were reversed, heterosexuals would owe homosexuals the same respect. There’s no benefit in injecting homosexual relationship dynamics into heterosexual spaces as the dynamics are different. That’s not to say that homosexuality is wrong or less than it’s just that it’s now what most straight people are thinking about and is irrelevant to our day to day.

 

[Czharcus]

They gay agenda matters to us because we want our children to be straight just like we are and to meet someone who they are able to reproduce with. Most of us don’t even think about homosexuality or even care about it, it’s when it’s being pushed on Sesame Street that it becomes an issue.

I understand this. You want your children to be like you. I think that is natural. I think you touched on the point I am trying to make, you don't have to think about homosexuality explicitly for it to be a factor. It's embedded in the thought "I want my children to be like me." This thought goes deep.

If Black men and women are speaking on their dynamics, it does not have to include homosexuals and if the roles were reversed, heterosexuals would owe homosexuals the same respect. There’s no benefit in injecting homosexual relationship dynamics into heterosexual spaces as the dynamics are different.

There is a misunderstanding. I am speaking on the metaphysical. I am not injecting homosexual relationship dynamics. I have not actually said, anything about homosexual relationships. Respect/disrespect isn't relevant to what I'm saying. I am merely pointing to an environmental factor heterosexual relationships cannot escape regardless of them not thinking about it. Men and women are not impervious to their environment/subsequent biases and so neither will their relationships be.

How we have traditionally seen the masculine/feminine archetypes is being challenged by the visibility of LGBT. No one is unaffected, maybe the least of all, heterosexuals.

 

[The Honorable]

I understand this. You want your children to be like you. I think that is natural. I think you touched on the point I am trying to make, you don't have to think about homosexuality explicitly for it to be a factor. It's embedded in the thought "I want my children to be like me." This thought goes deep.

This is disingenuous because where does it end? I don't want my kids to have multiple sclerosis because I want them to have the same faculties as me? Is that now a factor? I honestly DGAF about LGBT and wouldn't care if my son or daughter were gay.

How we have traditionally seen the masculine/feminine archetypes is being challenged by the visibility of LGBT. No one is unaffected, maybe the least of all, heterosexuals.

A thought process that is challenging convention doesn't make it right and doesn't mean it will be accepted. I don't agree with LGBT and never will but I respect everyone's right to be who they are.

I respect your right to love who you love and respect my right to not care about who you love.

 

[Sovereign]

I don't doubt it though I would argue the 2 are intertwined. In a heterosexual's mind, a homosexual is a male that does not have what it takes to survive society. Otherwise, why would the gay agenda even matter to anybody?

I'm not bringing up I was homosexual dynamics exactly. I'm putting heterosexual dynamics back into the context of the real world.

An issue scientists discovered with their methods back in the day (assuming they have controlled for this by now) is that they would take whatever they were studying out of its environment to study it. They would then put it back, it would do something unexpected and they wouldn't understand why.

The versions of these conversations I have witnessed tend to analyze the heterosexual relationship in isolation. I'd argue that Black heterosexual relationships do not exist in a vacuum. The homosexual is part of the heterosexual relationship's environment, just like the inverse is also true. We're not talking bringing up tennis in a conversation about basketball players, we're talking about 1 game of basketball being played on the same court as another being played slightly differently. It's an imperfect analogy, but the point is these 2 games can't not affect each other.

So joe you saying that we ALL are secretly thinkin bout homosexuality even when we don't think about it? I ain't got no beef but that's thinking a lil bit too highly about yo nighttime behaviors. I'm ji'h indifferent on it and I think a lot of others are too.

 

[Czharcus]

This is disingenuous because where does it end? I don't want my kids to have multiple sclerosis because I want them to have the same faculties as me? Is that now a factor? I honestly DGAF about LGBT and wouldn't care if my son or daughter were gay.

I don't think there is an ending because everything affects everything else so the question is really, "how much". I just personally think this is immediately relevant because something like the belief in the effectiveness of the gay agenda will/does affect how straight black men express their masculinity so it will affect the dynamics of their relationships. I did not mean to offend in any way.

A thought process that is challenging convention doesn't make it right and doesn't mean it will be accepted. I don't agree with LGBT and never will but I respect everyone's right to be who they are.

It's not a thing to agree or disagree with.

I respect your right to love who you love and respect my right to not care about who you love.

I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. Heterosexuals affect homosexuals and vice versa. That's just what it is.

I'm trying to illuminate something to facilitate understanding between genders. "New" things make us hold tighter to old things for the sake of stability.

I think that speaks to "the gender wars" but if you think it's invalid, okay, apologies for bringing it up.

 

[Czharcus]

So joe you saying that we ALL are secretly thinkin bout homosexuality even when we don't think about it? I ain't got no beef but that's thinking a lil bit too highly about yo nighttime behaviors. I'm ji'h indifferent on it and I think a lot of others are too.

No. I'm not saying that.

Using a physics analogy to express a metaphysical idea: I'm saying the appearance of objects in space affect objects that were already there.

Straight black men believe white men can make black people gay by putting homosexuals in cartoons. The reason for this is many straight black man believe homosexuals are actually just heterosexuals with different "nighttime behaviors". Hetero/Homosexuality is the same thing fundamentally but homosexuals are not divergent hetero's. Sexuality isn't just behavior.


I was not trying to turn this into a thread that it was not (only meant to point out an environmental factor), but I will accept my part in doing just that.

 

[jasonrest]

A thought process that is challenging convention doesn't make it right and doesn't mean it will be accepted. I don't agree with LGBT and never will but I respect everyone's right to be who they are.

I respect your right to love who you love and respect my right to not care about who you love.

 

[Goldilocks]

How did a conversation about heterosexual relationships turn into one about homosexuals?

 

[The Honorable]

I don't think there is an ending because everything affects everything else so the question is really, "how much". I just personally think this is immediately relevant because something like the belief in the effectiveness of the gay agenda will/does affect how straight black men express their masculinity so it will affect the dynamics of their relationships. I did not mean to offend in any way.

It's not a thing to agree or disagree with.

I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. Heterosexuals affect homosexuals and vice versa. That's just what it is.

I'm trying to illuminate something to facilitate understanding between genders. "New" things make us hold tighter to old things for the sake of stability.

I think that speaks to "the gender wars" but if you think it's invalid, okay, apologies for bringing it up.

Well we’re talking about if men want a boss woman, do you have anything to add to that without mentioning LGBT?

 

[Czharcus]

Well we’re talking about if men want a boss woman, do you have anything to add to that without mentioning LGBT?

Yes. The average black man will not be able to maintain with a boss woman because the air of him being emasculated is prevalent these days. He will be unconsciously be adverse to a boss woman. She will appear masculine.

Being the sole provider (and sex with women) is what black men have decided is the definition of their masculinity, women have agreed by extension (generally speaking). Although it appears real, this identity is a shared illusion (i.e this is what you say you are so I will agree with you, familiar structure).

This identity had its place in our history and does not need to be totally abandoned in our present. At the same time, your adversary knows how to attack you because you hold the same identity as the one he does, the aforementioned. He knows exactly where to hit you for maximum damage and holds the power to do it. Your strength has become your primary weakness.

The knee-jerk reaction to this attack is to hold even tighter to that identity, but you will be running to the center of his crosshairs.

The answer is loosen your grip on this identity which, due to attack, is causing you to be inauthentic, needing only to create inauthentic clones of yourself in your children.

Let go and everything will be fine.

 

[Czharcus]

How did a conversation about heterosexual relationships turn into one about homosexuals?

Easily. They cannot be truly separated. Homosexuals are products of heterosexual relationships.

 

[Sovereign]

No. I'm not saying that.

Using a physics analogy to express a metaphysical idea: I'm saying the appearance of objects in space affect objects that were already there.

Straight black men believe white men can make black people gay by putting homosexuals in cartoons. The reason for this is many straight black man believe homosexuals are actually just heterosexuals with different "nighttime behaviors". Hetero/Homosexuality is the same thing fundamentally but homosexuals are not divergent hetero's. Sexuality isn't just behavior.


I was not trying to turn this into a thread that it was not (only meant to point out an environmental factor), but I will accept my part in doing just that.

 

[Czharcus]

lol. Truth does not need me to defend it (although I tend to do that shit anyway lol) for there is only one Truth and you will not be able to escape its grip.

 

[Goldilocks]

Easily. They cannot be truly separated. Homosexuals are products of heterosexual relationships.

Sound like you’re trying to push an agenda

 

[Czharcus]

Sound like you’re trying to push an agenda

I am. I have an agenda to deepen, widen the consciousness of my brothers and sisters so that they may be able to recognize seemingly unrelated things that affect their relationships, thus making them stronger.

In retaliation to the very existence of homosexuals, heterosexuals employ the argument of "they cannot reproduce." Inadvertently, this argument reduces the entire importance/significance of being in a heterosexual relationship and/or being female to a single act you will only perform a few times in your life. Basically, you're reducing your whole existence to "baby factory." To think of yourselves in that way, even if it's not so explicit, will affect how you relate to each other. All because homosexuals exist.

I'm not even saying it's wrong, maybe that's what you want. Maybe "baby factory" is what gives your relationships purpose. I don't know. I only know you, individually and together, are infinitely more than making a baby. That's so small. You are confining yourselves and your relationships.

The agenda I'm pushing is to open your eyes to the fact that your thoughts are not benign. Our brains do things we are not aware of it doing. You shouldn't believe me, just observe, contemplate. Discover the Truth yourself.

 

[Red Velvet]

I am. I have an agenda to deepen, widen the consciousness of my brothers and sisters so that they may be able to recognize seemingly unrelated things that affect their relationships, thus making them stronger.

In retaliation to the very existence of homosexuals, heterosexuals employ the argument of "they cannot reproduce." Inadvertently, this argument reduces the entire importance/significance of being in a heterosexual relationship and/or being female to a single act you will only perform a few times in your life. Basically, you're reducing your whole existence to "baby factory." To think of yourselves in that way, even if it's not so explicit, will affect how you relate to each other. All because homosexuals exist.

I'm not even saying it's wrong, maybe that's what you want. Maybe "baby factory" is what gives your relationships purpose. I don't know. I only know you, individually and together, are infinitely more than making a baby. That's so small. You are confininge yourselves and your relationships.

The agenda I'm pushing is to open your eyes to the fact that your thoughts are not benign. Our brains do things we are not aware of it doing. You shouldn't believe me, just observe, contemplate. Discover the Truth yourself.

When you take a conversation that has to do with black heterosexuals healing and trying to rebuild the Black family structure and muddle it with LGBT talk you are problematic. Digressing is one thing but when you get on your high horse and try to tell others that we’re not seeing the full picture because we are not talking about LGBT then you’re not Black first, youre LGBT first. Your in this thread presenting yourself as someone that yells Black Trans Lives Matter when people say Black Lives Matter.

You could have easily made another thread and we would have been receptive but you’re in here downtalking simply because we don’t care to discuss your sexual preference.

 

[Czharcus]

When you take a conversation that has to do with black heterosexuals healing and trying to rebuild the Black family structure and muddle it with LGBT talk you are problematic. Digressing is one thing but when you get on your high horse and try to tell others that we’re not seeing the full picture because we are not talking about LGBT then you’re not Black first, youre LGBT first. Your in this thread presenting yourself as someone that yells Black Trans Lives Matter when people say Black Lives Matter.

You could have easily made another thread and we would have been receptive but you’re in here downtalking simply because we don’t care to discuss your sexual preference.

My original statement was not about LGBT, it was about the effects LGBT has on black heterosexual relationships. It did not include any discussion about homosexual activities or homosexual relationships (focusing on black men specifically). It was simply an acknowledgment of the metaphysical environment which heterosexual relationships cannot exist outside of. Any subsequent comments about homosexuality beyond that were responses to responses.

I may come across as being on a high horse or talking down. I accept that and truth be told, had I taken my own advice (the exact advice I was giving) and more deeply considered the metaphysical environment, we likely would not be having this exchange. How ridiculous would I be on a high horse, talking down to individuals because they were overlooking the very same thing I was overlooking myself?

This was all really just a misunderstanding and so when I was asked if I had anything to contribute without mentioning LGBT, in good faith, I said my piece, doing just that.

 

[Sovereign]

My original statement was not about LGBT, it was about the effects LGBT has on black heterosexual relationships. It did not include any discussion about homosexual activities or homosexual relationships (focusing on black men specifically). It was simply an acknowledgment of the metaphysical environment which heterosexual relationships cannot exist outside of. Any subsequent comments about homosexuality beyond that were responses to responses.

I may come across as being on a high horse or talking down. I accept that and truth be told, had I taken my own advice (the exact advice I was giving) and more deeply considered the metaphysical environment, we likely would not be having this exchange. How ridiculous would I be on a high horse, talking down to individuals because they were overlooking the very same thing I was overlooking myself?

This was all really just a misunderstanding and so when I was asked if I had anything to contribute without mentioning LGBT, in good faith, I said my piece, doing just that.

Thank you.

Just because horses and sharks exist on the same planet doesn't mean that you need to bring horses up during Shark Week. It makes sense in a macro sense but in the micro sense it's irrelevant and a distraction. You seem well-intentioned so I won't harbor any ill will.

 

[Red Velvet]

My original statement was not about LGBT, it was about the effects LGBT has on black heterosexual relationships. It did not include any discussion about homosexual activities or homosexual relationships (focusing on black men specifically). It was simply an acknowledgment of the metaphysical environment which heterosexual relationships cannot exist outside of. Any subsequent comments about homosexuality beyond that were responses to responses.

I may come across as being on a high horse or talking down. I accept that and truth be told, had I taken my own advice (the exact advice I was giving) and more deeply considered the metaphysical environment, we likely would not be having this exchange. How ridiculous would I be on a high horse, talking down to individuals because they were overlooking the very same thing I was overlooking myself?

This was all really just a misunderstanding and so when I was asked if I had anything to contribute without mentioning LGBT, in good faith, I said my piece, doing just that.

 

[AfroAboriginalAmerican]

A boss woman is a vague term. It can go either way. My bosslady in my mind is a bitch. I prefer my lady to be a bitch meaning, being aggressive when someone is disrespecting me. If some dude tries to hit on her with me in the room, jump on that behavior and denounce it. I don't want a woman who is nice no matter the situation. Be a bitch when it calls her to be one. No male friends will exist! Likewise no female friends with me. If you see me with a woman hanging out, there's sex going on and I hold those beliefs when a woman wish to believe they have male friends. Nawww!

 

[Bruh Man]

A boss woman is a vague term. It can go either way. My bosslady in my mind is a bish. I prefer my lady to be a bish meaning, being aggressive when someone is disrespecting me. If some dude tries to hit on her with me in the room, jump on that behavior and denounce it. I don't want a woman who is nice no matter the situation. Be a bish when it calls her to be one. No male friends will exist! Likewise no female friends with me. If you see me with a woman hanging out, there's sex going on and I hold those beliefs when a woman wish to believe they have male friends. Nawww!

This is legit but what if shorty is bringing that aggression to you when you tryna be the man. You tryna lead the family but she bucking up and challenging you because she don’t need no man and she can do it on her own. What you think about that?

 

[Sovereign]

This is legit but what if shorty is bringing that aggression to you when you tryna be the man. You tryna lead the family but she bucking up and challenging you because she don’t need no man and she can do it on her own. What you think about that?

Hell nah toss her back to the bushes where she belongs. That’s a solo cruiser in the making.

 

[Mr. Chris]

I don't want a "Boss Woman", because I'm the boss that pays the cost. There can't be two of us.