What marriage is REALLY about...... (long read)

[s3ven_LvLs]

You can't even get these "PRO BLACK, BACK TO AFRICA" coli brehs to understand this.


EDIT: I don like how u hammered on the point of "Men = Leaders" but spend zero text about our responsibility and what exactly we're leading women to.

We are supposed to leading women to be constructive order period. There is no exact thing that we will them to other than that and it can vary but as long as it is something constructive. Alot of people get married thinking they can just be slackers for the rest of life because he/she is the one. It doesn't work like that. Both need to be active, but the man needs to responsible for big things that why he is the leader.

So is this all just your opinion? Or you have some facts and stuff.

If I have to categorize it then I would have to say its an opinion because I do not have a research/website only experiences that I can draw from.

 

[Claudex]

Nope thats dumb nikka talk


I have 50,000 years of human history backing my assertion

And within those 50 000 years a lot of social norms were constructed and dismantled, so just expect the idea of marriage to shape itself to what the current times demand.

PS: No comments on the "dumb nikka talk" jab.

 

[s3ven_LvLs]

Back then we were savages..

We have evolved like pokemon, we can reason now..

Milk and honey, sweetness forever

Best wishes..

Everyone still a savage at the core but we put that aside to make order.

 

[Poitier]

And within those 50 000 years a lot of social norms were constructed and dismantled, so just expect the idea of marriage to shape itself to what the current times demand.

Show me a working society without marriage? I'll wait.

 

[Claudex]

Show me a working society without marriage? I'll wait.

*Swerve* the argument we're having is not about marriage not existing, but about the idea of man being the leader and a woman being the follower. The OP explicitly said that there CANNOT be equal partnership in marriage. That's what @honestly? and I are arguing against. No one here is talking about a society with "no marriage", we're arguing that the idea of what marriage is ought to evolve into.

 

[s3ven_LvLs]

You just agreed to me..

You lost friend..

Best wishes..

Marriage is an order that people have agreed to. So I am not sure exactly what I lost to.

 

[Poitier]

the idea of man being the leader and a woman being the follower. The OP explicitly said that there CANNOT be equal partnership in marriage. That's what @honestly? and I are arguing against. No one here is talking about a society with "no marriage", we're arguing that the idea of what marriage is ought to evolve into.

Not what I am arguing


I will say that marriage had a higher success rate in America with gender roles but I won't argue that a "man being the leader and a woman being the follower" is the only way.

 

[s3ven_LvLs]

@Claudex @honestly?

Basically, are you guys saying that men and women are equal ?

 

[Claudex]

Not what I am arguing


I will say that marriage had a higher success rate in America with gender roles** but I won't argue that a "man being the leader and a woman being the follower" is the only way.

** Oh no doubt! Slavery had it's success too in propelling the West forward structurally and technologically ahead of the rest of the world. But at a cost that sooner rather than later had to be accounted for. God bless the countless black men and women that fought (and continue to fight) so that cost could be accounted for.
I'm glad to see that you won't argue for the bold. Unlike the OP.

 

[Claudex]

@Claudex @honestly?

Basically, are you guys saying that men and women are equal ?

Not yet breh...
...but they ought to be.

 

[s3ven_LvLs]

Not yet breh...
...but they ought to be.

I used to think the same way. I got older and realize what is most functional it took me a min though.

 

[Claudex]

I used to think the same way. I got older and realize what is most functional it took me a min though.

Honestly I'm still young, and as I'm unable to predict the future I may come to the same conclusion as you years from now. But at this moment in time that's the view I'm sticking with.
I concede that I still have a lot to experience in life breh.

 

[Easy-E]

We are supposed to leading women to be constructive order period. There is no exact thing that we will them to other than that and it can vary but as long as it is something constructive. Alot of people get married thinking they can just be slackers for the rest of life because he/she is the one. It doesn't work like that. Both need to be active, but the man needs to responsible for big things that why he is the leader.

You're still not answering the question. Here, I'll quote something, in another thread, about the same thing;

I'm all for us being leaders, but;

• What makes you leadership material?
  
• Where are we leading women?

Like, thecoli spews this philosophy and it turns into a simp/bedwench v. black men battle.

What should be informing our "leadership" or we just subjagating (misspelled like a mug ) women to our will and whim?

You say men are "natural leaders" and that women abhore "leading," what exactly is such a big deal about being constructive that; men can only do it and women couldn't be expected to do, on her own?

I got more questions, but, I want you to answer that one.

I believe this fairytale of lazy women, who just want to spend, anymore than I do that most married guys are ballin' out of control, working all day and just want to come home to a warm dinner.

I could go deep (I don't want to waste time), but, we don't live in 1925, anymore.

And the faster both young men and women realize that, the better we can move to a more modern way of looking at marriage.

I totally agree that the basis of marriage should not be romance/emotional/lust/infatuation. Humans are too selfish to base a marriage on "am I happy?"

Again, I could go deeper, but; if the only thing a man is expected to do is, make sure women are doing something constructive, then "leadership" ain't that big of a deal. "Constructive" is a low hanging fruit, IMO.

 

[s3ven_LvLs]

You're still not answering the question. Here, I'll quote something, in another thread, about the same thing;



You say men are "natural leaders" and that women abhore "leading," what exactly is such a big deal about being constructive that; men can only do it and women couldn't be expected to do, on her own?

It is not that I am saying women can't do it. It is just the majority rather have a man do it. My post is focused on the majority of people. I know from experiences with women time and time again that the majority rather have a man lead in decision making. This factor can show itself individually or as a collective, examples are all around.

For example you have the NBA and the WNBA. The NBA is more popular because it showcases men performing acts of leadership. Now women can do the exact same thing but the majority would rather see men playing basketball.

 

[Easy-E]

It is not that I am saying women can't do it. It is just the majority rather have a man do it. My post is focused on the majority of people. I know from experiences with women time and time again that the majority rather have a man lead in decision making. This factor can show itself individually or as a collective, examples are all around.

For example you have the NBA and the WNBA. The NBA is more popular because it showcases men performing acts of leadership. Now women can do the exact same thing but the majority would rather see men playing basketball.

The NBA is more popular because it was established in 1945 vs. the WNBA was established in 1997.

No, my beef with thecoli's philosophy of "Men Should Lead" is; We rile each other up about women not following, then, never backed it up with requirements and responsibilities.

We just stop at the part where we get to demand women follow.