^"Your wife stabbed you and then divorced you."Michael Fisher said...
You almost got that right. My wife stabbed me and then I divorced her.Because there is nothing more punk than tolerating violence in any domestic relationship. When violence enters, "checking" someone is incorrect. Walking away is correct.
Besides, what manhood would I be proving by threatening or beating up on a woman half my size?
Exodus Mentality said...
Amen Fish.I took the knife out her hand and then left her, so I know where you coming from.
It takes a special kind of man to refrain from violence against weaker people.
A punk feels the need for senseless retribution in that instance, to protect his own fragile self image.
Denmark Vesey said ...
How many times I gotta tell you Michael?
I call a square a square and a circle a circle
a dummy a dummy and a numskull a numskull
this argument of yours
is punk as a gerbil nestled in the anal.
Behold the evil. Just peep that visual.
You won't call a woman a bitch,
but you'll let her stab you?
Whey dem bumbaclot get dem rule?
That's what you call moral?
Not calling a bitch a bitchis reality denial.
Mike, I don't call my wife a bitch. Never. Ever. Because she isn't a bitch. She doesn't behave like one. And I love her for it.
I don't call her Mexican. Because she's not a Mexican. I don't call her a plumber. Because she's not a plumber. I don't call her schizophrenic. Because she is not schizophrenic.
Now if she started eating Tacos, fixing toilets and talking to herself in the second-person, I'd have to reconsider.
Now, I imagine that if my wife did act like a bitch, and I didn't call her on it because of some manufactured second-wave feminist bourgeois Thought Police Word Taboo, she would consider me insincere. Consequently, she couldn' trust anything I said to her. Not even when I told her I loved her.
And before you know it, she'd be trying to stab me. And I'd be filing for divorce with 132 stitches in my chest.
Tell the truth.
81 comments:
The first thing you tell her is that it's an insult to her ancestors to keep pretending as though she suffers the same oppression and discrimination as said ancestors.
With that enlightened and truthful understanding, some progress may be possible.
Maybe not call her a "female dog"?
cart. in front. of. horse.
Mike, must we play that little bitchy word game where you pretend the word "bitch" only refers to canines?
Bitchy behavior is readily observable in human beings.
Thus the concept: "Bitch".
As we can see, it is exclusive to neither females nor dogs.
You lift the "handle" of the car door and GET HER THE HELL OUT OF YOUR CAR.
Be a man and make sure that she has cab fare to get home though.
Wsup
First off I'd have to say I agree with Michael, as much as profane words are a part of our everyday language I'm not one to use them. And if I man or woman used that word to refer to me, then I'd be just as mad as the sista in the pic! Now I'm looking at the two pictures and there's a striking difference in the two apart from the 'terms of endearment' used to refer to the two women. I'm wondering what difference it might have made if you'd used two equally attractive women? Would remarks have been "get her out of your car" or that historical oppression jazz Thordaddy is spinning? If it was two uber pretty women, like Sista would brothers have said 'mmm yea she looks mad but she's got that sexy thang going on'? Or if they both looked similar my almond-eyed dreadlocked sister over here would it have been same ol' same ol' Black woman rage & Black woman smiling? I'm not presuming to know hence the questions. What I am getting at though is that too many times Black women are constructed as binaries fine Black sista/mad Black woman. Its dependent alot on physicality and intellect. Its too simplistic and destructive to Black women's egos to characterize a Black woman on these plantation terms. We are much more complex, diverse and fluid identities than this...one
^I see. DV. When you're wife acts... bitchy... do you call her a bitch? Or maybe your daughter? Or, maybe your son?
Mike, I call a square a square and a circle a circle.
If my wife acts bitchy, it's "Baby. Why you bitching?"
If one of my sons even sounds like he's whining or complaining too much it's "You better put some bass in your muhfuggin' voice when you talkin' to me boy. And quit that bitchin'"
You'd be surprised how a bit of honesty can serve as a deterrent.
Your little politically correct word games and Fake Taboos are not productive.
I use the words bitch, nigger, faggot, cracker, punk ass, bastard, chump, pussy bwoy and 'mo whenever appropriate.
^"If my wife acts bitchy, it's "Baby. Why you bitching?"
LOL. You'se a damn punk, DV.
"baby, why you bitching?"
roflmbao
It's all good, DV. I understand. 'Cause if you said "Shut the fuck up BITCH" your wife would ram that pic here up your anus.
Mike. I wouldn't be married to anyone I'd have to say "Shut the fuck up BITCH".
Perhaps that was your experience and thus the divorce.
Maybe if you had checked her when she started looking at you like the woman in the attached photo, you could have straightened her out before she stabbed you.
^DV, one doesn't "check" grown folks. One either walks away or stays. And no, I did not call my ex names.
Now as to you:
(1) "Bitchy behavior is readily observable in human beings.
Thus the concept: 'Bitch'."
(2)"If my wife acts bitchy,
(2a) it's 'Baby. Why you bitching?'"
(3)"Mike. I wouldn't be married to anyone I'd have to say 'Shut the fuck up BITCH'."
You still a punk, DV. As can be seen from the three above-quoted statements.
In (1) you state that "bitchy behavior" justifies the application of the word "bitch" to the person behaving thus.
In (2) you readily admit that "my wife acts bitchy".
In (2a) and (3) you admit that you would, under no circumstance ('cause you wouldn't marry anyone who'd act bitchy?) call your wife a "bitch".
Like I said, DV. I understand. Most house husbands punk out like that. Like they should, by the way.
;)
Ahhh ...
I don't know about all that psychobabble Mike.
Your wife stabbed you and then divorced you.
What's more "punk" than that?
I get what you were trying to accomplish, but why must I assume this sister is angry at her man? Why must I assume that here anger, if it is being directed at her man, is not totally justified?
More to the point, why must we generalize to the extreme, when it's usually wiser to respond to the specifics of the occasion?
"Who you callin' a BITCH?!" - "U.N.I.T.Y." Queen La
Words are the outward expression of your thoughts. Do either of you reasonably intelligent brothers actually believe that it's the "word" that is most important, or the thought that manifested the word? If DV has no respect for a woman, he would refer to her a a bitch. It is but the outward expression of his inner impression. If he doesn't respect the woman, (not all women, just that one) he probably doesn't care that he used "profane language towards her. Substitute the word nigger in that analysis and it should still work.
Fisher wins.
DV aint' calling his wife a "bitch" cause she's his wife. You don't call your wife a bitch.
Just like she doesn't call you a punk.
You might point out your spouses behavior, but when you start attaching labels to folks, then you are in trouble.
DV, admit that calling somebody a bitch, pussy, faggot or whatever is disrespectful, and you don't disrespect the folks you care about.
Strangers are something else though.
^"Your wife stabbed you and then divorced you."
You almost got that right. My wife stabbed me and then I divorced her.
Because there is nothing more punk than tolerating violence in any domestic relationship. When violence enters, "checking" someone is incorrect. Walking away is correct.
Besides, what manhood would I be proving by threatening or beating up on a woman half my size?
Amen Fish. I took the knife out her hand and then left her, so I know where you coming from. It takes a special kind of man to refrain from violence against weaker people. A punk feels the need for senseless retribution in that instance, to protect his own fragile self image.
DV people change, growth or decay, nothing stays the same. The sweet appearance of the lovely sister with the fro, could easily evolve into the vitriol of the equally attractive sister with the twists. Don't get it twisted.
The woman you respected when you married her might evolve into someone who don't have the same feeling for. You too might experience change that pushes you away from her. Too many supposedly mature people do not understand or allow that room for personal growth. Even more people don't recognize and react when they have outgrown a childhood attraction.
Too many supposedly mature people do not understand or allow that room for personal growth.
This is a post hoc rationalization for "the thrill is gone" Dwight.
Mature people understand the finite nature of the "thrill" and enter the long-term friendship and truce for the benefit of the children that the "thrill" initially helped to engender.
Gotta agree with CNu to a point.
Just cause y'all changed doesn't mean it's time to end the relationship.
You could work on finding a new relationship with your spouse. Both of you could sacrifice more to make the union work.
Only the foolish ever thought the "thrill" was a good enough reason to get married and procreate. And your "truce" is simply prolonging inevitable problems, as ignoring problems is the number one rated method of insuring that said problems remain unresolved. I'm not saying that any little whim should mean the end of a strong and fundamentally sound relationship. But there are too many people who think staying together for the kids helps the kids, when it actually is just a graphic and ongoing demonstration to the kids of what a dysfunctional family looks like.
What grown folks do as long as it's "just them" is of little consequence.
If they devalue the marital contract to the point of equating it with the presence/absence of "the thrill" so be it. (that's just more ignorant, bestial Constantianity in full muhphuggin effizi - "let them lose their non-existent souls".)
However, if the marriage has brought forth children - then the very notion of "personal growth" seems utterly infantile and selfish in the context of the OBJECTIVE GROWTH embodied in that marital issue.
Spouses/parents have obligations transcending their personal gratification and their inability to come to terms with that objective fact is the ultimate exemplification of immaturity and psychological (spiritual) nullity.
more post hoc rationalization of fundamentally unsound and immature choices Dwight.
Psychological growth is not possible without suffering and sacrifice.
what you term "growth" is nothing more than whim, entropic drift, and shiftless self-indulgence.
The Work term for such people is "tramp"..., of course tramps are unfit to be married and still less fit to procreate.
Exodus Mentality:
You are right. I have seen many people stay together for the sake of the children end up drinking or sleeping in separate rooms. It is wrong to stay together only for children. Personal growth is paramount for both people in a marriage if there is none, the relationship is stagnant and can bear very little fruit.
I recently chanced upon a couple that was married for thirty years and then divorced finally. The husband couldn't take the unhappiness anymore and the kids had mostly left so he did too. He still supports the wife financially and sees his grandkids, but I think he did the right thing.
Abuse is a bad thing. And DV saying to your wife that she is bitching or even acting bitchy is a helluva lot different than calling her a bitch. Most women I know wouldn't ever tolerate their man calling them a bitch at all.
It is wrong to stay together only for children. Personal growth is paramount for both people in a marriage if there is none, the relationship is stagnant and can bear very little fruit.
Yet you insist that taxpayers should underwrite the lunatical narcissism and profligacy of the octomom - who by means of mad science - dropped a litter of 8 with no husband, no visible means of support, and completely lacking the personal maturity and fortitude to raise the 6 she already had?
Post hoc rationalization of narcissistic self-indulgence apparently knows no bounds...,
My comment was addressed to EM, not you. It takes a loser of a person to act as you have acted. Trying to instigate shit when it doesn't even concern you. Go to hell and leave me the fuck alone. Asshole.
Cnulan and I disagree on certain stuff, but homie is making a lot sense in here.
Like is about choices and consequences.
Once you make the choice to have children, your personal happiness becomes second to what helps them become better human beings. It's a proven fact that children who grow up with married parents living in the same household do better than those who do not. That is not a debatable issue.
Now, is it better for children to grow up in a home where the parents are happy and the relationship is healthy? Sure, but that doesn't mean that when the relationship goes sour it's best for the children if y'all split.
Life is about growth and change, but I believe that with God, your growth and change will not lead you to divorce or leave your wife. It may take serious sacrifice, but I believe that's part of the bargain when you enter into the pact of marriage.
It was a choice, there are consequences, deal with them....
(I understand that abuse and infidelity annul the marriage pact. But, I got the sense that we were talking more about growing apart than those two issues.)
Whoa there Mr. Nulan. Who said they supported "the lunatical narcissism and profligacy of the octomom"? I for one think far too many people are having children who are not prepared to properly care for those children, thus perpetuating yet another generation of unfit parents. Octo-nutjob girl is the poster child for that sentiment. Nothing about that situation suggests to me that it is a good policy to pressure or compel these unfit and incompatible people to remain together for the supposed benefit of the children; especially when such benefit is patently non-existent.
What I term growth would necessarily include the ability to provide the proper upbringing for one's children, regardless of the state of one's relationship with the other parent of those children.
Your use of the phrase "post ad hoc rationalization" is throwing me a bit, because I don't believe I attempted to rationalize any particular behavior, much less narcissism. But I defy you to show me one unfulfilled person who is capable of fulfilling someone else's life. It's not narcissistic for me to want to improve myself, unless I determined to do that at the expense of others. Stop playing that zero-sum game because I never operate with that faulty logic.
You seem to be espousing a belief that parenthood endows or implants some mystical magikal geas, though I guess you stopped short of imparting competence to the endowment. Sure, the interests of a civilized society is that parents direct the growth of their offspring into functioning members of the society. But that presupposes that the parent is capable of doing so.
First Dwight,
It was the bipolar bibtard Mahndisa who supported the octo-abomination outside all conceivable bounds of reason and common sense.
I certainly didn't think you would advocate on behalf of such flagrant irresponsibility and nonsense. I have vastly greater respect for your judgement than that. Sorry for any confusion, though I must say that when she's off her meds and goes to cussing like turettes patient, it makes for some unselfconscious comedy gold.
Which brings me full around to my point about post hoc rationalization of bad choices and irresponsible behavior.
If one accepts that the primary source and demonstration of ethical development is to be found in service to others, NOT in service to one's self - then it follows that one's own growth is directly proportional to the extent of one's service to others.
Marriage is fundamentally a compact made between a man and woman to faithfully serve one another's best interests.
If children issue from that mutual and reciprocal service agreement (vow) then service to - and sacrifice on behalf of - the children becomes the summum bonum. Out of that service comes growth and possible psychological development.
Anything less is gratuitous, self-serving, and narcissistic personality justifying itself "after the fact".
It is precisely due to the epidemic prevalence of self-serving personality disorder in this society that so few marriages survive.
Unqualified people fundamentally misunderstand what precisely they're entering into when they take those marital vows.
They have neither the traditional knowledge, personal skill, moral fortitude, or psychological competence to marry another person - and - they lack the forbearance and determination required to grow together toward those objectives as a result of mutual struggle together with and on behalf of one another.
Few things are sadder in life than middle-aged fools still running around in search of themselves outside of themselves in the auspices of an other. (well, there's always Marion Barry still doing it at the age of 72 or 73...,)
Fuck your stupid ass Craig. You are a liar and a loser.
if you say so clowndisa...,
Wsup
I have a qsn 4 DV; if you're going to call a plumber a plumber that's bec they do the work of a plumber. And if you're going to call this dreadlocked sister a derogatory name jst bec she looks upset - WITHOUT knowledge of why she's upset then aren't you the lesser mortal bec you're judging her on what you might think she is, but NOT what she really is.
Is every angry looking sister the embodiment of your profane li'l term of reference? I think the sexist nature of our society allows you to denigrate and still get away with it because as a man you must somehow have 'control' over this woman. And somehow this sister is what she is simply based on her facial expression.
Oh, moment of clarity my bad!
I thought people were determined by their character not their appearance - ever wondered what you might've called her if she was smiling? SMH! This is just a reminder of how far Black women still have to go even with the progressive brothers.
peace
"And if you're going to call this dreadlocked sister a derogatory name jst bec she looks upset" KonWomyn
Hey KW. Good question.
Allow me to clarify. I don't interpret the woman's expression as merely ... "upset".
I interpret that expression as bitter, angry, self-righteous and spiteful.
I consider bitchy, angry, self-righteous and spiteful people bitches.
Men or women.
Caesars or dreadlocks.
"I thought people were determined by their character not their appearance". KW
Why do you think that?
Do you not think about your appearance? Or do you expect people to discern your character only after careful observation and prolonged experience?
A woman's expression ... particularly towards a man ... is going to have a GREAT DEAL TO DO with how successfully she interacts with him.
The expression on the sister's face in the image is not in her best interest. Upset or not upset.
Bitches do exist.
Do they not?
Why must we talk around that fact?
The fact is A Man Is Going To Have To Deal With A Bitch Sooner or Later In His Life.
How successfully he does it, can greatly effect his life.
Just as a woman may very well have to deal with an asshole.
Can women not say the word "asshole"?
My brothers ^^ are parroting that politically correct nonsense ^^ that says men should just "walk away" from confrontations with women and under no circumstances (even stabbings) use the word "bitch".
Please.
Martin Luther King would call a woman a bitch if she stabbed him.
[quote]Cnulan and I disagree on certain stuff, but homie is making a lot sense in here.
[/quote]
Big Man - remember - you are talking to a guy who was not able to call a child a "human being" until after the age of 7.
Are you sure you want to "smoke the peace pipe" with him?
You had better watch what what he laced what you are smoking with.
[quote]
Fuck your stupid ass Craig. You are a liar and a loser.
[/quote]
Mahndisa:
STOP IT!!
Leave my friend KCNulan alone!!!
He is NOT a "Stupid Ass"!! He's just an "ASS, A liar and a loser".
How dare you call him "Stupid"!!
He has book knowledge that doesn't apply well in the real world and some serious character flaws that prevent him from "playing along" with out people.
How dare you?
prevent him from "playing along" with out people.
Say what?
What're you trying to fess to Ronald?
playing along?
with out people?
wtf?!?!?!
are you an "out" person?
Between you and the other low-functioning accidental comedienne dipping into grown folk's conversation, it's a wonder we ever get anything done.
But I'll give it to both of you,
you ARE unintentionally hilarious.
My first thought upon seeing the picture anchoring this thread, was that it was a picture of Mrs. Barr fixing to knuckle-up on you after your latest buck-tucking session at Magic City.
But then, maybe all that "buck-tucking" you like to boast about online is really just a cover story.
hmm...?
Maybe Mrs. Barr mad cause she caught you with something looking a whole lot closer to this than to them nekkid big booty skrippers you pretend to luv....,
Big Man it should be a proven fact to you by now that all of your "proven facts" that are provided to you via establishment channels should be considered highly suspect on their face. These are the same people who spent the majority of your formative educational years trying to convince you that Columbus discovered a land where there were already people living. Your "proven facts about how children in two parent homes do versus children in single parent homes is such a crock of psychobabble and damn inconsistent statistics with questionable methodology.
And I don't think it has to go so far as abuse or infidelity. I know men and women who are being denied the chance to grow and develop because their partners are afraid to grow. So one spouse can't step out and become a business owner because the other spouse believes it is too risky. You might think that with God all these things can be worked out, but you are deluding yourself. What ends up happening is that someone gives in and ultimately is being denied their self actualization. Sometimes these things can't simply be worked out because of fundamental differences in how people think.
CNu "If one accepts that the primary source and demonstration of ethical development is to be found in service to others, NOT in service to one's self - then it follows that one's own growth is directly proportional to the extent of one's service to others."
If one wants to accept that then bravo for one. Take it to it's logical conclusion; you still have yet to explain to me how someone who focuses so completely on service to others can put him or herself in any type of position to actually be of said service. So the idea that one must place that as the highest of moral or ethical consideration is a self defeating philosophy. You give the child the last of the food, so that the child survives and you die. What have you done other than condemn the child to the miserable condition of now being alone and still starving to death?
CNu"Marriage is fundamentally a compact made between a man and woman to faithfully serve one another's best interests. "
What on earth would cause you to believe that someone who has not demonstrated the ability to faithfully serve their own best interests would be in any shape form or fashion qualified or capable of faithfully serving anyone else's best interest? Funny thing is, all these ideas seem to be the type that are most often propagated by religious institutions of all stripes. The same religious institutions that are primarily responsible for overseeing the administration of those vows you mentioned. And yet the divorce rate is still more than 50%. Coincidence?
Children benefit more from parents who are fully self-actualized, and therefore capable of raising a child that will do the same. Looking out for self is not the same as narcissistic, which is, IMO, an inferiority complex that comes from lack of self actualization.
Craig is Truth. Y'all should re-read what he wrote because it's the God's truth about marriage.
Children benefit more from parents who are fully self-actualized, and therefore capable of raising a child that will do the same.
Pure 100% Pink Himalayan Psychobabble. Good shit and it probably only cost $13.60 per pound. :-)
Ex, can you please define self-actualized for me? How would one know if she is self-actualized? Because she always had a dream of being a lawyer since she was three and decides to tell her husband and kids to F themselves so she can self-actualize in law school? Pfff...
DV. A person who tries to stab someone is rightly called a criminal, not a bitch.
Now, the point was making is this: You advocate calling women (or, as you claim anyone else) a Bitch if they display "bitchy behavior". That's YOUR criterion, not mine. You admitted that your wife at times is prone to "bitchy behavior". Ergo, in accordance with your own argument, in such cases you should be calling her a "Bitch".
But I knew, you wouldn't. Why wouldn't you? Because you know better. Now that is not what makes you a punk. That's, in fact, anti-punk behavior. What makes you a punk is that you are willing and able to tell OTHER people to call women bitches and that you readily call OTHER women bitches when they display "bitchy behavior" (as you put it). That's hypocritical. And thus punkish. Or, as you would put it "Plantation Negro" behavior.
Ahh come on Mike.
"You admitted that your wife at times is ***prone**** to "bitchy behavior"
You just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
Fuck it. You right.
There's no such thing as a bitch and never any reason for a man to ever use that word.
DV...
"You right.".
Oh shit. I just woke up in an alternate universe.
Another reason why black women are "bitches" is that they are incredibly race conscience in there unique loyalty to the "black man" while said "black man" is so willing to be "liberal" in his choice of the "ladies," i.e., he loves to date outside his race.
That has to piss off a lot of black women...?
What say you, Fisher?
Looks like I'm in the same ole Hillbillie Universe after all....
"race conscience in there"
Learn some English, Farst. That would be "race conscious in their..."
Now to answer your question... Don't blame your apparent inability to snag yourself a black woman on black women's supposed "race consciousness".
Fisher,
It's almost as if I put those spelling errors in their just so you can avoid the real issue at hand.
While you all are talking momentary lapses in "bitchiness" amongst black women, I am referencing a more fundamental disposition of the general angry black woman.
Two things make black women dispositionally "bitchy" and those are the eternal oppression of the "white man" and the eternal disloyalty of the "black man."
You add to this the innocence of the black woman in relation to white oppression and the loyalty to black men that isn't reciprocated and you get the picture that DV posted.
These are just my general observations.
Insurgent, you trying to play the same zero sum game as CNu. Sorry, doesn't compute here. Why must that mother who wants her law degree abandon her children to do so? I know for a fact it's not necessary because I DID IT. Now she may need to leave a spouse who is unable or unwilling to support her in her growth process. But that is so against the word of God, isn't it? That's a whole other discussion and I'm not that interested right now.
And self actualization is a journey, not a place. You know you're on the path when you feel yourself straining to reach your potential. You know you aren't when you constantly bemoan your situation and circumstances, yet continue to do the same things hoping for different results.
You were created with limitless potential; some call it "in the image of God". So your creator gave you all this potential and yet, it's perfectly alright for you to sit around and do nothing with your life because of your marital or parental situation. You'd rather look back at your life and fantasize about all the things you could have done, if only you hadn't given your life for your family. But your reward is in heaven I guess. Good luck with that.
"DV. A person who tries to stab someone is rightly called a criminal, not a bitch."
Agreed. So did you file domestic battery charges against her?
Or let her get away with it with the pussy pass?
Ex,
You reveal a lot of contempt for your family in your comments.
You were created with limitless potential; some call it "in the image of God". So your creator gave you all this potential and yet, it's perfectly alright for you to sit around and do nothing with your life because of your marital or parental situation.
Having been to law school myself and practiced for years, I find it beyond hilarious that anyone would suggest that law school is the path to fulfilling one's potential. Perhaps in the material sense, but not in any other way.
Which also explains the contempt for marriage and family that comes through in your comments.
Only someone who could care less about their parenting and spousal duties could suggest that being a parent could, in any way, equate with sitting around and doing nothing and not living to your potential.
Indeed God created us with limitless potential. To create life in our image. What greater potential is there? What greater way to "self-actualize" then to see yourself in a young child's eyes and to know that this child will become what you model for her?
You are stuck on material "potential". The rest of us are discussing spiritual potential, which exists nowhere near a law school. I know. I've been there done that.
I didn't start living to my full potential until I quit being a lawyer and became a MOTHER.
Dina is truth.
accept no substitutes. (pink or otherwise....;)
I've known Dwight and his family personally for several years now. I can not think of a better father to his children. Apparently, neither do his kids and, above all, his wife.
Exodus
I think you have an interesting point about self-actualization. I actually just wrote something along those lines on my spot before I read your description of it.
I just don't see how somebody else can prevent you from reaching your potential as a human being. They can make it more difficult, but I don't see how they can prevent it.
But, that's mostly due to my religious beliefs.
I don't get that pic DV. You're actually a woman with blond hair? I thought you are against gay marriage? Or is your wife actually your husband? I'm confused. You're hurting my poor brain.
DV,
Is this post about black women, white women or women in general?
I guess it's not as easy to call white women bitches and blame it on their need to complain about their ancestors' oppression.
lol ... Big Maaaaaan.
"Is this post about black women, white women or women in general?" TD
It's not "about women" at all.
lil' man,
Black women don't have a monopoly on decrying white man's oppression. In fact, most have probably adopted this meme from white women.
The real "root cause" of all this "bitchiness" amongst women and the men who can't call a spade a spade is the struggle between loyalty and radical autonomy.
"is the struggle between loyalty and radical autonomy." TD
Interesting.
Please elaborate.
Thor
With your question, you told on yourself.
Picture of a black woman.
The post is about black people.
Picture of white woman.
Not sure what the post is about.
Insurgent - you are hurting me badly.
[quote]
Ex, can you please define self-actualized for me? How would one know if she is self-actualized?[/quote]
SELF-ACTUALIZATION:
The KNOWLEDGE OF SELF!!
The self consciousness that makes you aware that YOUR ACTIONS HAVE A PURPOSE AND AN IMPRINT UPON OTHER'S LIVES.
With this state of knowledge you realize that your children and those around you are observing your behavior and your messages to them. With this in mind you realize that your hateful words to them INJURE THEM long before the world lines up to do their part in the same.
You realize that if you nurture them, giving them knowledge of self - when they do run into individuals that seek to hurt or manipulate them mentally that they will have a strong enough of a baseline reference to judge right from wrong and hopefully return to this level after possibly going astray.
Self-Actualization, Insurgent is the RESULTS of a PROCESS. It is a CONTINUING QUEST, not a destination.
How does one know that he has reached the point of Self-Actualization? When he or she reaches an old age, on his/her death bed knowing that the end is near because the physical body has given out. But the person is mentally content because his life's worth of decisions has brought him to the place that he now resides consciously.
"Self Actualization" like "Quality Education", like "Pornography" can only be described as: YOU KNOW IT WHEN YOU SEE IT .
SELF-ACTUALIZATION:
The KNOWLEDGE OF SELF!!
The self consciousness that makes you aware that YOUR ACTIONS HAVE A PURPOSE AND AN IMPRINT UPON OTHER'S LIVES.
what's your excuse Ronald?
total unselfconsciousness???
what about the girl in this story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8048635.stm
does she qualify as a bitch, or more, despite her age?
lil' man,
This post was about whether black dudes can or will call black chicks "bitches" when they practice "bitchiness."
Now, for a liberal like you, there is no difference in the "root cause" of black chick "bitchiness" and white chick "bitchiness."
But for a dude like me, there is all the difference in the world.
DV,
I would venture to say that most black women don't define their autonomy in terms of their freedom to screw, abort or divorce. On the other hand, I think most modern white "women" define their autonomy based on exactly these things. Meaning, if the modern white "woman" was restricted in any way in her freedom to screw, abort or divorce, this would be tantamount to slavery, i.e., no freedom.
The problem that arises is either the unwillingness or sheer ignorance of the modern white woman to accept the consequence of her highest principles.
It is very clear that a "woman" who defines her autonomy in terms of her freedom to screw, abort and divorce is an individual devoid of any meaningful loyalty.
This is the struggle in the modern white "woman" with a variation amongst modern black women.
Thor
No, that's what you THOUGHT the post was about because there was a picture of a black woman.
The title didn't change. DV didn't add or remove any words. He just changed a picture.
So the "bitch" went from being black to white. When the woman was black, you thought it was time to enthrall us with your theories on black victimhood and bemoan the state of black unions because of angry black women and unfaithful black men.
When the woman was white, suddenly you were confused about what the post was about at all.
Your response was down right Pavlovian.
Black face, go into the victimhood spiel.
White face, now what are we talking about here?
You can throw around your favorite terms of liberal, radical autonomy and the like, but you clearly revealed what you are right up top.
It's so funny when people do that.
LOL!
Big Man is truth.
farcedaddy's been looking at his own silly bitch-face in the mirror all along...,
lil' man,
Black women are uniquely race conscious when it comes to dating outside their race. Meaning, they are exceptionally LOYAL to the black man. This loyalty is met head on with the radical autonomy of the general black man. This radical autonomy manifests in the real world as a willingness of black men to very often date outside their race. Loyalty is met with disloyalty. Such is a source of the black woman's "bitchiness."
OTOH, the situation is reversed with white "women." White modern "women" are disloyal as their very notion of autonomy is based on the freedom to screw, abort and divorce. Yet, they can't seem to come to the understanding that such a stance breeds disloyalty in their man and thus becomes the "root cause" of their "bitchiness."
All that other jazz that has you searching for "racists" wherever you can find them is just a single-minded pursuit of yours and Nulance in order to avoid talking about anything particular. Such is the mind of the "liberal."
farcedaddy's got a bad case of pale man with small peepee syndrome...,
And I think he got his pants pulled down on here...
You ain't answered the question Thor.
Why were you so sure what the post was about when the picture was a black woman, and so confused when the picture was a white woman?
You can kill all that jazz about why black women are "bitchy."
The reason women act the way they act is the same reason men act the way they act.
Cause we're human. All human beings exhibit the same basic character traits. Period. Race, income, and gender don't change that.
Do some folks have more traits than others, yeah. But the same basic traits are present in all of us. It's on individuals to modify their behavior to achieve some measure of personal perfection.
What's funny is that Thor regularly denigrates complaints about the way racism and discrimination affect modern blacks, but he's ready to talk about how black men dating outside their race affects black women.
He sees evidence of both things, but discredits the evidence in one instance and embraces it on the other.
The truth, individual people have a whole bunch of reasons for why they are the way they are.
But that wasn't even Denmark's original question. The question was about how to handle a woman.
Care to expound on that?
lil' man,
Why do you keep bolstering everything I say about your fundamental liberal disposition?
--The reason women act the way they act is the same reason men act the way they act.
Cause we're human.-- lil' man
This is nothing less than liberalism 101. This is the more generic version of Nulance's "mechanical consciousness."
I only assumed that the post was in reference to black women and their "root causes" for "bitchiness" NOT just because of the photo of the angry black female BUT BECAUSE this is denmarkvesey.blogspot.com!
Thought ya knew...?
Your fool's task isn't really to out this "racist" (yawn) but to mask your anti-intellectualism. Yet, the cure is to embrace the Lord and dump your liberalism. Why follow the path of Nulance and just "mechanically evolve" by publishing eloquent anti-intellectualism?
So to answer your question...?
First, what woman are we talking about or can they all be handled the same?
Come on lil' man, never had a non-black woman put a crinkle in your relationship? Is loyalty running rampant amongst the "black men" for their black ladies?
Are women bitter on a whim or is their bitterness more fundamental?
A sucker like you just masks his lack of curiosity and anti-intellectualism by claiming that we're all the same. The same dude that claims to believe in Free Will ordained by God???
You're twisted like a radical autonomist that seeks freedom with no idea what to do with it.
Dayum, Farst. You can't snag yourself a white women either? You need lessons?
Nah Fisher... I'm out of the snaggin' business and into the fine-tuning business. You on the other hand sound like you have no problem being snagged. Something tells me that the shank and twist followed your declaration of not really being a black man? Damn, that woman was deceived.
Thor
You telling me to embrace the Lord is hilarious. Really, it is.
Why don't you check your scripture on this.
Genesis
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
I could talk about the fact that God is no respector of persons, that all are equal in his sight regardless of gender or race. But, I won't.
I'll say this, I doubt you have any idea how to "handle" a black woman. Taking advice from you on the subject would be a waste of anybody's time.
You're own words betray you. No amount of scrambling to insert your catchphrases will change that, it's already been done.
Everybody here knows how you think. Denmark knows how you think, I don't know why you believe you're fooling anybody.
You're claims to be following the example of God are false. You're explanations for how you determine who is and who is not a Christian were filled with hypocrisy.
You are a fraud, and in your heart of hearts you know that.
Good day sire.
lil' man,
Your words betray you. If I'm a fraud and we're all equal then you must be a fraud too. Or, are you saying that one can handle a black woman the same way one can handle a white woman? I bet more than a few black women would take great offense to such a notion.
The fact is that outside of DV saying that a spade should be called a spade--an anti-liberal notion if there ever was one--neither you nor anyone else has really answered the question of how to handle a "bitch." Instead, you waste your time claiming that "bitches" can be handled by treating them equal... Huh?
The first thing one needs to ask is whether the "bitchiness" is a momentary lapse or a fundamental disposition? How you handle these different scenarios can't be found by YOUR liberal fence-sitting.
How you handle a "bitch" depends on the cause of her "bitchiness," no?
Thor
I'm disappointed in you. I expected better than this:
Your words betray you. If I'm a fraud and we're all equal then you must be a fraud too. Or, are you saying that one can handle a black woman the same way one can handle a white woman? I bet more than a few black women would take great offense to such a notion.
Childish comments that echo "I'm rubber and you're glue" are sad.
The fact is, we are all humans. You cannot dispute this. Our humanity bestows upon us a certain measure of equality no matter what.
But, re-read what I wrote again and gain some knowledge. I said that men and women act the way they do because they are human. I said that human beings have certain common impulses regardless of race or gender.
I acknowledged that some people have an abundance of certain traits and dearth of others, but human beings all share common urges and dispositions. They are part of what God gave us when he created us. See, you tried to sidetrack the conversation to avoid dealing with a simple fact.
You saw a picture of black woman you were comfortable with calling her a bitch and talking about how to handle a bitch.
You saw a picture of white woman, and you wanted some clarification.
DV asked about handling a "bitch."
You decided to talk about handling a black bitch.
You made that distinction because of the picture on blog. You then backtracked on your comment when you saw a pic of white woman.
Why?
Well, you would have us believe it's because there are different ways to deal with different bitches based on the root of their bitchiness.
Me, I think it's a different reason.
Oh well.
farcedaddy's so busted out now that his backside whistles when he walks....,
lil' man,
This isn't rubber and glue. I paraphased you in order to show you that words actually mean something and your liberalism betrays you.
If there was a picture of lil' man and the post asked how do we handle this "bitch," I would have given the same exact answer as I did in the opening comment. You haven't even taken the time to pontificate as to whether a black woman--who has come to believe that she lives in an inherently racist society in which she suffers as her ancestors did--is dispositionally "bitchy" towards white dudes?
Meaning, I answered the question as though it where asked of me in relation to the angry black "bitch." You know the type... Michelle Obama, Maxine Waters, Whoopi Goldberg, Donna Brazile, lil' man...
If homegirl hate whitey then the way to handle it is to smash her liberalism.
Then, after a great number of comments by our black contributors, I followed up with a further observation from a black female perspective. This is where you start trippin' because I called black women "bitches." But you fail to take the quotes into context and acknowledge that some black women are bitches although I'm not talking about any particular black woman. Again, this is just more diversion to escape commenting on the racial nature of the mainstream black woman versus the mainstream liberal nature of black men. These black women are "bitches" because your homies are very disloyal... er, I mean very liberal.
Again, the way to squash this "bitchiness" is to embrace your Christianity and dump your liberalism.
And then for good measure and after the picture changed to a white "bitch," I gave my analysis on how to handle that "bitch." And low-and-behold, it is once again to smash her liberalism.
Or, as DV would say, "Call a spade a spade."
farcedaddy need to go douche.....,
lololol
I ain't gettin' in this one, but CNu, your ass is lovin standing on the sideline throwing rocks, ain't you?
I'm laughing my ass off here; it's to the point i'm skimming the debate just to hear your commentary.
Post a Comment