Black People : Rationalizing Aberrant Behaviour Against Black Women

Discussion in 'Black People Open Forum' started by Perfection, Dec 5, 2012.

  1. Perfection

    Perfection Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Your 1st response to me:
    Hey Perfection!


    A. It's no mystery to me that there's hate amongst our people, or that our people are well-hated. It's not so much an approval I'm expressing, but an understanding.

    B. If you really want to see a hatred for women, study Europeans. As it were, we are largely imitative of Europeans. Ergo, our hatred is verily explained. I'm not 'approving' of it. I'm only putting the comments into context. I hope that clears up that concern.

    C. This may well be a language difference, but I suppose that a "prostitute" is a "whore." Not that I'd use that word.

    D. I was addressing MsInterpret's comment toward the two's singledom. I'm not saying what we should do. I'm simply saying that people can have any number of language traits and still find suitors. I mean, you do realize that there are many women amongst the Hebrew Israelites?

    E. I'm trying to say what's unspoken as to their narratives. It's not that I'm in accordance. Though, actually, I borrowed the term "Sexual Immorality" from Du Bois's work in the 1913's. It's not really about what I believe, but just clearing the ear concerning the comments we're reading.

    F. Though, I absolutely disagree with calling the women on this forum "whores." I thought I made it clear.

    G. That can be some of it. It's debateable but my point wasn't to make judgments on the disputants

    H. Again, it's debateable but my point wasn't to make judgments on the disputants.


    I. Brother, a person who researches the Hebrew Israelites will find that they are Polygamist due a following of the Old Testament. That should inform a reader as to the sexual bias in the claim of "whoredom." But this isn't a discussion on the disputants. What's more, a Polygamist people have many women followers . . ..

    J. I was only addressing MsInterpret's claim toward the singledom of the conversants. Expressing that technically some women like their conversation.

    K. Like I said, I'm not really discussing the disputants. They wrote what they had for a reason. I'm only showing that they are reasonable, not that they are agreeable. For instance, some Hebrew Israelites wouldn't object to a man with multiple women. But their reasoning is based on their doctrines.

    L. Well, everyone knows that the women on this forum are beautiful. But I'm not psychoanalyzing posts.

    My response to you

    Brotha AB for ease of communication I hope you don't mind me sectioning your response.

    From the outset let me say that recall that I wrote first to you that there may be a possibility--however remote-- you were not aware of what you were writing. Only you can answer that. But it still seems you may not be getting it though. Look at K:

    Like I said, I'm not really discussing the disputants. They wrote what they had for a reason. I'm only showing that they are reasonable, not that they are agreeable.

    When are the disputants not a factor in a court case AB? Whenever you decide to determine if someone is being truthful or not do we all eventually factor in the person's actions, habits, proclivities and, in general, their overall character? You mean to tell us --with a strait face-- it is illogical to factor the history of the wolf raiding the hen house in order to determine the nature of the wolf's actions?

    You're not trying to insult our intelligence are you AB?

    Are you more prone to believe one loves Black Women who has a history of calling them whores, slutz and the bword? That also suggests that women are being physically abused by these particular males. Is that cool with you? Is abuse justifiable. Are you telling us that type of thinking is "reasonable"? Again, you seem to be justifying their actions as they essentially say:

    "I'mma rape and beat you whore so that you can learn how to be a good Black Woman."

    Is that reasonable to you? Does that make sense to you my friend?

    So you're basically saying you disagree with them but yet you sympathize with them and understand their abuse methodologies?

    Now we can turn to I:

    Brother, a person who researches the Hebrew Israelites will find that they are Polygamist due a following of the Old Testament. That should inform a reader as to the sexual bias in the claim of "whoredom." But this isn't a discussion on the disputants. What's more, a Polygamist people have many women followers

    There are some very honorable black Hebrew Israelites. At least the ones who are my friends do not address Black Women like this. But you see let's not make this about any one group. This is sort of a habit in a number of groups including some parts of the black hebrews. Your mentioning of polygamist is irrelevant here as we are first talking about basic respect of our Black Women regardless to what she chooses to do. Am I saying we have to like everything our women will do in all circumstances? Of course not, that's not what I'm saying. But you and I as Brothas have an obligation to guard the divinity of our Black Women.

    But F is the clincher for me:

    I absolutely disagree with calling the women on this forum "whores."

    From the gate, you qualify your statement. You say "this forum." You know what I mean. But we can discuss that later. In the meantime, you try to convey you're not one to use the word loosely, right? Those are your words. If you adhere to them...why this conversation at all? Unless, of course, if I revise what you are saying (what it seems like you are really saying) your words will then express the following: That you

    "absolutely disagree with calling the women on this forum "whores" ---except in certain circumstances."

    I am justified in that revision based on C:

    This may well be a language difference, but I suppose that a "prostitute" is a "whore." Not that I'd use that word.

    Your argument is tautological. Your own words betray you. You are saying that depending on what a Black Woman does she may morally be called a "whore." Therefore, the "disputants" in your eyes are reasonable in their hatred against our Mothas, sistahs and daughters. Which I return back to my original conclusion about you: Rather you are aware of it or not, you support hatred against Black Women. You're just more subtle with your words and methods.
    My Quote preceding your response:
    1. Perfection said:
    Brotha AB for ease of communication I hope you don't mind me sectioning your response.

    From the outset let me say that recall that I wrote first to you that there may be a possibility--however remote-- you were not aware of what you were writing. Only you can answer that. But it still seems you may not be getting it though. Look at K:

    Like I said, I'm not really discussing the disputants. They wrote what they had for a reason. I'm only showing that they are reasonable, not that they are agreeable.

    When are the disputants not a factor in a court case AB? Whenever you decide to determine if someone is being truthful or not do we all eventually factor in the person's actions, habits, proclivities and, in general, their overall character? You mean to tell us --with a strait face-- it is illogical to factor the history of the wolf raiding the hen house in order to determine the nature of the wolf's actions?

    You're not trying to insult our intelligence are you AB?

    AB:Quite contrary, I'm calling all parties involved 'intelligent.' When one knows the "nature of the wolf" one doesn't need to look at its actions. The same with any people. Black-King and Chinelo are Africans. As such I extend to them an intelligence; but when and if they, or any of us fall short of the ideal ideas, I contend that they are Mis-Educated, and forgive them for being Mis-Educated is an incredibly easy outcome for an oppressed people.
    Are you more prone to believe one loves Black Women who has a history of calling them whores, slutz and the bword? That also suggests that women are being physically abused by these particular males. Is that cool with you? Is abuse justifiable. Are you telling us that type of thinking is "reasonable"? Again, you seem to be justifying their actions as they essentially say:

    "I'mma rape and beat you whore so that you can learn how to be a good Black Woman."

    Is that reasonable to you? Does that make sense to you my friend?

    AB: A Mis-Education will yield powerful misunderstandings. Marcus Garvey had told us not to hold people responsible to things for which they were untrained. Hardly any of us were trained in a responsible way and hardly any of us finance that responsible Education. So if many slip through the cracks, it's what we reaped.
    So you're basically saying you disagree with them but yet you sympathize with them and understand their abuse methodologies?
    AB: Mis-Education is an external system that has to do with our collective failure, not an individual's. I sympathize with the oppressed and understand their confusion.
    Now we can turn to I:

    Brother, a person who researches the Hebrew Israelites will find that they are Polygamist due a following of the Old Testament. That should inform a reader as to the sexual bias in the claim of "whoredom." But this isn't a discussion on the disputants. What's more, a Polygamist people have many women followers

    There are some very honorable black Hebrew Israelites. At least the ones who are my friends do not address Black Women like this. But you see let's not make this about any one group. This is sort of a habit in a number of groups including some parts of the black hebrews. Your mentioning of polygamist is irrelevant here as we are first talking about basic respect of our Black Women regardless to what she chooses to do. Am I saying we have to like everything our women will do in all circumstances? Of course not, that's not what I'm saying. But you and I as Brothas have an obligation to guard the divinity of our Black Women.

    AB: All the Hebrew Israelites I've seen reflect Black-King's view. These are men who stand on corners yelling at Black woman passersby about their dress codes. It's possible Black-King assimilated that behavior with his online persona and 'got out of line.' My sympathy goes with how I too can sometimes take the streets to the internet.

    AB:As to guarding the divinity, it was a different subject. Far as I understand, no woman took the whore remarks to heart, so there was no divinity lost. It would be different if, say, the women actually flinched. But these women are strong and intelligent and handled their own without the need for male help. See their responses.

    But F is the clincher for me:

    I absolutely disagree with calling the women on this forum "whores."

    From the gate, you qualify your statement. You say "this forum." You know what I mean. But we can discuss that later. In the meantime, you try to convey you're not one to use the word loosely, right? Those are your words. If you adhere to them...why this conversation at all? Unless, of course, if I revise what you are saying (what it seems like you are really saying) your words will then express the following: That you

    "absolutely disagree with calling the women on this forum "whores" ---except in certain circumstances."

    I am justified in that revision based on C:

    This may well be a language difference, but I suppose that a "prostitute" is a "whore." Not that I'd use that word.

    Your argument is tautological. Your own words betray you. You are saying that depending on what a Black Woman does she may morally be called a "whore." Therefore, the "disputants" in your eyes are reasonable in their hatred against our Mothas, sistahs and daughters. Which I return back to my original conclusion about you: Rather you are aware of it or not, you support hatred against Black Women. You're just more subtle with your words and methods.

    AB:Actually, I doubt if I ever used the word 'whore' before this thread. But as I had read the whole thread, I noticed that Destee herself qualified the claim, so taking what she wrote, I allowed for a qualification as well.

    http://destee.com/index.php?threads/dating-more-than-one-person.74136/page-13#post-771271

    Destee said:
    Who are you to call anyone here a whore, unless you have purchased some sex from them?

     
  2. Perfection

    Perfection Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    495
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,015
    Brotha AB...I'm a bit confused. I just came from the other meeting room and you're mentioning other member names and appear to be going on a seemingly intellectual disruption of sorts. I thought you and I were doing good.

    I thought we were chopping it up like men and laying our respective cases to see if, in fact, there is evidence to support such a thing as a Black Woman being called a 'whore.'

    Or, put another way, do Black Women deserve to be called anything other than Queens.

    May we continue?
     
  3. Asomfwaa

    Asomfwaa Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    2,558
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,564
    This is an admirable thread. But Perfection, my only contention is your use of passing judgment on the participants. The worst of which is a claim to my supporting hatred against Black women. It's markedly rash and facilitates an unwarranted hostility.

    Very simply, I never gave support to any idea. So for you to accuse me of being supportive of the very worst seems too farfetched.

    Nevertheless, I did include this comment before this transcription:

    Perfection, I am not putting Destee before any metaphorical bullet, I am only respecting her viewpoint and showing you that in my respect for her view you are passing judgment on me that's unreasonable.

    Now, you must realize in info-moetry's approval of your characterizations how and why placing judgment on other's and their methods is not a communal activity. As evinced, it invites unwarranted conversations and pettiness from uninvolved parties.

    Is it too hard for you to accept that I wouldn't insult any African person, not even those who are insulting? Maybe it's not agreeable to find the insulting reasonable, but realize and recognize that African people insult each other all the time and it's nothing to many.

    Just earlier didn't info-moetry hint at calling another person the n-word (quoting the Richard Pryor who was ashamed to have used the word?) It's Mis-Educated and ignorant, surely, but I'm not going to accuse him of self-hatred or being hateful toward African people. He has his quirks and that's fine by me. Were I you, I'd simply accept that we're not all clones and like I don't consider info-moetry a worthwhile conversant, you should pick and choose with whom you can have fruitful dialogue and with whom you can't. For my part, I won't participate in attacking an ignorant African. I only mark down how we are ignorant and try to put knowledge where people are redeemable.​

    What's more there is a series of background information to better inform this conversation. All the same, the crux of the misunderstanding here is whether rationalizing is the same as supporting. I think my comments on info-moetry's ignorant use of the n-word more than suffices to show how rationalizing is not supporting.
     
  4. Asomfwaa

    Asomfwaa Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    2,558
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,564
    Unfortunately, when we gather, there are those whom must be called out, to let them know better than to do their typical routines. I would easily prefer not mentioning them, but it seems no matter what we do, they are there to incite something. For the record, info-moetry has a history of hauling unwarranted abuses toward me.

    I apologize to all. But you know, we men must chastise the boys who sneakily step out of line. In fact, a child tried to insult me just a few hours ago. I let him know that I heard him and how rude he was. Then I went on my way. Discipline is sometimes necessary.


    Well, it depends on what you mean. Do you mean whether we should call them 'whores' or do you mean whether some Black women themselves accept the nomination? Because to me it's like the n-word conversation. We shouldn't use the word, but it's certain that African people have been calling themselves it for years.

    Well, this here is a conversation. I'm fond of the nomination, yet I find it premature on a Single woman; mostly because it gives the false impression that a woman can be a Queen without a King. As I also quoted in that thread, Tarrus Riley repeats, "King and Queen crown same time." I prefer his designation "She's Royal" but I'm also more agreeable to the idea that not everyone is up to the Royal appellation, as even Royalty goes through training. What do you say to that?

    Here's the song:

     
  5. Chinelo

    Chinelo Third Eye Is Always Open MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,087
    Likes Received:
    1,631
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Removing LIES And Spreading The Truth
    Location:
    UNIVERSE
    Ratings:
    +1,632
    The better question is when are our people going to face the REALITY of the situation.......you're preaching "peaches and cream" and our communities and the sexual behavior of black women is not according to your claims....I call a "Queen" a "Queen" when I see them.....and not just because they are a black woman.....If you want to be called a "queen" then act like one......
     
  6. MahoganyUnique

    MahoganyUnique Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    151
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +151
    So I'm just passing through and do not know the whole thing that is the concern in this thread yet I must ask are you stating that Single women can not be viewed as Queens if they do not have a King?
     
  7. Asomfwaa

    Asomfwaa Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    2,558
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,564
    It's something to think on. But off-the-top, I'd distinguish a Queen from a Princess based on her marriage to a King. It's just hard for me to see why one would contend a Queen had no King, unless of course she had already had that marriage; but as far as our traditions are concerned, gaining titles in separation is antithetical to the accolade in my view.
     
  8. MahoganyUnique

    MahoganyUnique Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    151
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +151
    Ok. I can understand what you mean in reference to the royal faily but I am under the impression a QUEEN has more to do with your demeanor and presence than your status. Princess? Lol that's funny though how you put it but we are living in today's world and I am Grown. I am in no way trying to take away from the union that a Queen and King should have but if I do not carry myself as a Queen how do I attract a King? How I define a Queen is not based off the premise of the royal family because I wasn't born into royalty more like poverty. I missed where you were from and your traditions? One's upbringing can play a major role in how they perceive things.

    Mahogany or better yet QUEEN 2 U (waiting on my king to appear) lol and this is all out of love. I respect everthing anyone says and hope that you do the same
     
  9. Asomfwaa

    Asomfwaa Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    2,558
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,564
    The terms, I believe, relate to our royal past. Though, as a student of history, I also know "Queen" was a title earned by only a handful of excellent women. "Princess" does have a youthful connotation, but when we remember that England's "Royalty" has several adult Princes, none of whom will become King anytime soon, we can see even further to whom the title belongs. "Kings" and "Queens" are heads of families. To attract a "King" you must attract the head of a family. Ergo, he must already have a "Queen." I suppose "Princess" isn't the best name to go by, but to call a person "King" without him having a Kingdom or a Royal Family seems almost meaningless. A Prince has royal bearings too. :)
     
  10. MahoganyUnique

    MahoganyUnique Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    151
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +151
    * sighs * Are we talking about the same thing? Confused once again because of all of this technical stuff. I am a Black Beautiful Woman with attributes a man desire and need in his life, why would you call me anything less than a Queen? I will leave this one alone..... too sleepy and don't feel like texting everything I want to say

    Mahogany * signing off*