Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Ways Single Mothers Destroy their sons.........does she have a point?

Duwop said:
All social institutions set up by men to keep women "in their place"

Women supposed to be home in the kitchen taking care if the kids. They supposed to be the spiritual ones praying for their husband souls while their men curse God. And to this day women are still the predominate gender of teachers. We didn't want them to vote till the 60's....so it might be a while until its more female politicians...

But basically men pushed women into those institutions you named in oppressive manners..... You can't be surprised that they became institutions they are strong in.


A lot of this is self inflicted then lack of accountability for unfavorable conditions ?
Click to expand...
There's alot to unpack in your post, but let's now clarify for the sake of being historically accurate.

Are we talking about black or white, rich or poor?

Because when you talk about who established what institution, I immediately ask what institution has been established by black men in this country?
 
Soul_Rattler said:
There's alot to unpack in your post, but let's now clarify for the sake of being historically accurate.

Are we talking about black or white, rich or poor?

Because when you talk about who established what institution, I immediately ask what institution has been established by black men in this country?
Click to expand...
I'm using the institutions you provided as woman dominant and pointing out that were set up that way by men to keep women in their perceived place.

The social settings... Even in the poorest black communities have always been set up by the men. The black church, the black school, the black home..... Even in poor black communities we've designated where we want our women generations ago
 
DOS_patos said:
What am I ignoring?

im not going to place something on undeserving people.
Click to expand...
I said even if you say "not all" you know with absolute certainly all catch the shot...

That's why I call out the threads. My whole mantra is niggaz like being lied to. So when I point out the lie.... Don't tell me it's not there. I'm already locked in on it. Just admit you like the lie
 
CeLLar-DooR said:
In my, and probably everyone else's, experience most children are raised by their mothers even in 2 parent households and would pick to live with their mother over their father if made to choose.

Men like this idea that the courts are keepin' great fathers from their children but if we bein' real that's a rarity
Click to expand...
I've looked into the statistics and stories about everyday fathers as well as well off wealthy and celebrity fathers. It is more common than you think and the fact that it's dismissed as a rarity only makes the problem with parent courts worse because people assume it's not worth fixing.
Duwop said:
I'm using the institutions you provided as woman dominant and pointing out that were set up that way by men to keep women in their perceived place.

The social settings... Even in the poorest black communities have always been set up by the men. The black church, the black school, the black home..... Even in poor black communities we've designated where we want our women generations ago
Click to expand...
Black men didn't set up the black church. White men set up the black church because they didn't want to pray next to "niggers". And the same went for schools. They didn't want to learn next to "niggers". Don't confuse 'separate but equal' as socia equality because it was the opposite of equality. This is a matter of historical fact: the things we typically call Black, like "black communities" are not black. You can't call a community where black people live black when black people don't own or control shit there.

The Black home is the one thing that had always been established by communal hierarchy. Dating back to Africa, black people don't put women in the position of servant, slave, or property of their men. That's white mess and you know it. But in the Western world under white influence, the black (and increasingly white and Hispanic) home is redesigned so that the women are the most educated and highest earners and the men are either absent or completely emasculated.

Now what part of any of that is the intentional design of black men?
 
CeLLar-DooR said:
In my, and probably everyone else's, experience most children are raised by their mothers even in 2 parent households and would pick to live with their mother over their father if made to choose.

Men like this idea that the courts are keepin' great fathers from their children but if we bein' real that's a rarity
Click to expand...
 
Morals of the story: unless you're mothering the God Horus or Emperor Shaka Zulu, do not emasculate your sons.

Hold on... didn't both Horus and Shaka had thorough issues with the status quos from within which they both grew up?

 
Soul_Rattler said:
I've looked into the statistics and stories about everyday fathers as well as well off wealthy and celebrity fathers. It is more common than you think and the fact that it's dismissed as a rarity only makes the problem with parent courts worse because people assume it's not worth fixing.

Black men didn't set up the black church. White men set up the black church because they didn't want to pray next to "niggers". And the same went for schools. They didn't want to learn next to "niggers". Don't confuse 'separate but equal' as socia equality because it was the opposite of equality. This is a matter of historical fact: the things we typically call Black, like "black communities" are not black. You can't call a community where black people live black when black people don't own or control shit there.

The Black home is the one thing that had always been established by communal hierarchy. Dating back to Africa, black people don't put women in the position of servant, slave, or property of their men. That's white mess and you know it. But in the Western world under white influence, the black (and increasingly white and Hispanic) home is redesigned so that the women are the most educated and highest earners and the men are either absent or completely emasculated.

Now what part of any of that is the intentional design of black men?
Click to expand...
The black church is not like the white church.
The black church took a strong position in the black community during the civil rights era and moving forward. It became a place where blacks could have community meetings. It became a place where children came to get meals.
It was the heart beat of the black community in the 50's 60's 70's. And in that period more times than not we placed the women in positions of organization and power in the church.

In america as the black man assimilate into the workplace it was not yet a place for the black woman.... That didn't come until many decades later.. So our family structure again was placed into the responsibility of the black woman. White men don't run their families like that.... It's always a man at the head of the table.... But because all our woman could be was the nurturer over time that lead to them being the head of the families.... It's a norm we pushed ourselves towards
 
Duwop said:
The black church is not like the white church.
The black church took a strong position in the black community during the civil rights era and moving forward. It became a place where blacks could have community meetings. It became a place where children came to get meals.
It was the heart beat of the black community in the 50's 60's 70's. And in that period more times than not we placed the women in positions of organization and power in the church.

In america as the black man assimilate into the workplace it was not yet a place for the black woman.... That didn't come until many decades later.. So our family structure again was placed into the responsibility of the black woman. White men don't run their families like that.... It's always a man at the head of the table.... But because all our woman could be was the nurturer over time that lead to them being the head of the families.... It's a norm we pushed ourselves towards
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing the productive role the black church used to play for black people. My assertion is that it was not established for and by black men specifically.



Also, I think we have a difference of opinion regarding a female dominated household vs a woman being the head of household. Those two ideas can potentially look the same but in the former, the woman does not have to be the breadwinner or sole provider to pull the strings and set the agenda of the household.
 
Soul_Rattler said:
I've looked into the statistics and stories about everyday fathers as well as well off wealthy and celebrity fathers. It is more common than you think and the fact that it's dismissed as a rarity only makes the problem with parent courts worse because people assume it's not worth fixing.

Black men didn't set up the black church. White men set up the black church because they didn't want to pray next to "niggers". And the same went for schools. They didn't want to learn next to "niggers". Don't confuse 'separate but equal' as socia equality because it was the opposite of equality. This is a matter of historical fact: the things we typically call Black, like "black communities" are not black. You can't call a community where black people live black when black people don't own or control shit there.

The Black home is the one thing that had always been established by communal hierarchy. Dating back to Africa, black people don't put women in the position of servant, slave, or property of their men. That's white mess and you know it. But in the Western world under white influence, the black (and increasingly white and Hispanic) home is redesigned so that the women are the most educated and highest earners and the men are either absent or completely emasculated.

Now what part of any of that is the intentional design of black men?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by emasculated? I've seen this point argued before but I don't understand it fully. Emasculated how? If the standard of masculinity (or strength in male dominance) you're striving to reach is one that reverts women back to a more subordinate role, ask yourself why you'd want to do that. What you'd call emasculation another person might call a more level playing field.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the breakdown of the nuclear family inevitable? I mean, as inevitable as the fight for gender based rights and freedoms would have justly made it inevitable.

I'm not arguing against the idea that the best case scenario for a family would be a mother and father in one household, providing for themselves and their kids with both being able to shoulder the stress and burden of raising a family...

But expecting the nuclear families predominance falls under the assumption marriages/partnerships last. They don't.

It's also assumes that it's right to coercively relegate women to a narrowly conceived role of subordination to the household and child rearing.

There's a fundamental validity to believing the fight to escape that circumstance was right and just. So why should it be fought against?
 
Race Jones said:
ill say this tho,

we can talk about “toxic masculinity” all day— even gleefully say “all men are trash” but one day we will discuss how so many women raise their sons to be misogynistic, heterosexist, anti-gay, and abusive with terrible ideas on womanhood and femininity.
Click to expand...
Whoa...

You just posted something that I totally 100% agree with.

Not only that, you did it in a way that WASN’T cruel, mean-spirited, abusive or petty....










1613312410751.gif
 
Bobjones said:
What do you mean by emasculated? I've seen this point argued before but I don't understand it fully. Emasculated how? If the standard of masculinity (or strength in male dominance) you're striving to reach is one that reverts women back to a more subordinate role, ask yourself why you'd want to do that. What you'd call emasculation another person might call a more level playing field.
Click to expand...
Emasculating the husband:

- disrespecting him in front of the children
- defending the children when they disrespect or disobey him
- ignoring/rejecting his wants and/or needs regardless of how he requests
- ignoring his presence
- choosing to argue instead of peaceful productive dialogue no matter the subject matter
- Making crucial family/household decisions without consulting him
- prioritizing/respecting friends, family, coworkers and especially bosses over him
- telling him you don't need him
- invading his privacy

The list goes on. But anytime you challenge the authority or relevance of a man, you are trying to emasculate him.
 
Bobjones said:
Wasn't the breakdown of the nuclear family inevitable? I mean, as inevitable as the fight for gender based rights and freedoms would have justly made it inevitable.

I'm not arguing against the idea that the best case scenario for a family would be a mother and father in one household, providing for themselves and their kids with both being able to shoulder the stress and burden of raising a family...

But expecting the nuclear families predominance falls under the assumption marriages/partnerships last. They don't.

It's also assumes that it's right to coercively relegate women to a narrowly conceived role of subordination to the household and child rearing.

There's a fundamental validity to believing the fight to escape that circumstance was right and just. So why should it be fought against?
Click to expand...
The only time ANY relationship ends is when it is accepted that there is no fundamental need or benefit for the relationship to continue.

As soon as you establish that you're fine being a single parent, that you are ok paying your own bills, feeding yourself, masturbation, and that the other person does not serve any purpose of necessity... the timeclock on implosion has begun. And that is the threat to the nuclear family: the provisions and opportunities for people to do just fine without their mate. The idea that you can be happier and more successful without the father or mother of your child.

Sometimes it's true. But other times, it's not true. And as the old saying goes, grass is not always greener on the other side. People break up and get together all the time. Many couples get married, divorce, only to remarry. Why? Because they just knew that life was better without soandso. And then reality hit that, no it doesn't get much better than this and chances are high that it will get exponentially worse.
 
Chi-akin Citywalker said:
I have a serious question;

This shit aint an exhaustive circular argument to yall yet?
Click to expand...


there's an opportunity to have a healthy discussion towards solutions - but BOTH men and women need to know how to identify and take accountability instead of men minimising where women are coming from and women minimizing where men are coming from - THATS where the spin begins

where are the female posters holding women accountable?

its easy holding men accountable, we do it among ourselves - but when the discussion gets focused on women (even with disclaimers) it doesn't reach page 3 before it gets nowhere again
 
aka_og said:
there's an opportunity to have a healthy discussion towards solutions - but BOTH men and women need to know how to identify and take accountability instead of men minimising where women are coming from and women minimizing where men are coming from - THATS where the spin begins

where are the female posters holding women accountable?

its easy holding men accountable, we do it among ourselves - but when the discussion gets focused on women (even with disclaimers) it doesn't reach page 3 before it gets nowhere again
Click to expand...
I'm a take this a long no

I don't have the answer my guy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top