Polygyny (only if necessary...?)

"Question:Do you want for your sista what you want for yourself or do you feel that a man should only be committed to one woman and not allow polygyny? It's either one or the other, for the lack of available good men will not allow both to exist. It's a choice between what WE Need to do and what YOU WANT to do. Which one do you choose?"

Let's establish a few principles before we get into the meat of the matter. I feel it's necessary to do this to deter any irrational emotional feelings trying to surface preventing us from gaining an understanding. Remember, everything we do(our ways and actions) should be based on principles. Principles are what you know and understand. What you know about the situation and what you understand in obtaining the best part of it. If you don't know and understand, why would you do it? For it to come out wrong? There's two ways to do things, the right way and the better way. Why do it if your going to do it wrong? Winners practice so they get it right, champions practice so they don't get it wrong. The physical universe was built upon principles, and so should yours. Principles never change, although what principle you use can. For example, when I was single my principle was to do me as long as it didn't harm anyone else. Now that I have seeds, the principle is to do what's best for us. When I gained knowledge of self the principle became to do what's best for my people. The last principle mentioned still encompasses to do what's best for my family. The difference is whereas in the second principle prior to gaining KOS I may have kept a closed door, the last principle places us more in tune with the people, children, and families of the community. The principles that we should keep in mind as we read are these, but remember don't accept them unless you fully agree with them and if you do agree with them don't forget them when a irrational emotion pops up in your head. For this exhibits the law of non-contradiction, you can't say your fully about something then exhibit behavior that says otherwise. Right? The first principle is that our communities, our families, our children, are in a disarray right now and we need to do whatever we can do in our NATURAL abilities to rectify the problem. Is that agreed on? If not you need to stop reading right now and don't front to anybody like you care. We need to be willing to give our life for this, more so mentally and if need be physically. The mental life I'm referring to giving up is our ignorant ways. Physically I mean you would die for your own children, but would you die for your brother or sisters children. You would jump in front of a bullet to save your own child, would you do it for another child, just on the strength that it's the right thing to do? I would. My only request is that you treat my surviving children as your own. I'd do it even if I didn't think that you would. Not for you but for the child and the example I set. The second principle is what you want for yourself, you want for your sister. This doesn't mean material things, but the basic natural things in life that every woman deserves according to nature, food, water, clothing, shelter, a mate, children, a family, responsibility, self worth, and respect. Do you want that for your sister or not? And finally the third and last principle is just that, stick to the principles we acknowledged as oppossed to your emotions. We know that making decisions based purely on emotions can be consequential. Take anyone who has made bad decisions, including murders and rapist, it's usually due to emotions. Emotions not based on logic is dangerous, for oneself and our communties on a whole. Be emotional on a logical decision that you made. Not to say you wont have any negative emotions about it, but the logic of the first two principles, and the principle that all is one, should override and take presedent over any personal feelings you may have, and may even turn your negative emotion into a positive one. Like say if I give up my seat to an elderly caucasian woman and she calls me something derogatory. I won't feel bad because I did it, and would do it again, off the principle that it's right. With these forementioned principles, we can preceed with the preceedings this evening with equality.

For the record I would like to state that I am neither pro-polygyny nor am I anti-monogamy. My position is one woman to one man unless the ratio of women to men is 2:1 or greater to give every women(our sisters)the opportunity to be in a family. I state that because some of us when we hear the word polygyny we reduce it to a sexual way of life to satisfy a man's sexual desires. Coming from a man some may assume that I'm an advocate for polygyny. Let's explain what polygyny, polygamy, and polyandry is. Polygyny is a man having multiple female spouses. Polyandry is a woman having multiple male spouses. Polygamy is in general a person of one sex having multiple spouses of the opposite sex. Polyandry is the least recognized. Woman oppossed to polygyny like to cite polyandry as a valid rebuttal. The difference is polygyny is a natural way of life while polyandry isn't. Unless I get a overwhelming argument stating otherwise, woman do not neccessarily take to being penetrated by multiple partners. Besides, a man is the leader of his family and two men will NATURALLY go to war. A man will not WILLINGLY submit to another mans will, this would make him a psuedo-homosexual. I do feel that polygyny is a way of life that occurs naturally to reduce some of the ills of society due to a lack of qualified men such as prostitution, single parenting, and adultery, which in turn can lead to other things. My view of it as a way of life that occurs naturally as oppossed to a natural way of life is because I don't feel it should be practiced if not warranted. If the ratio of qualifed women to qualified men was 1 to 1, I would be against it, but it's not. The ratio of women to men is at least, at least 4 to 1. I know this and so does every half decent man due to the amount of attention thrown our direction due to the lack of good men. I understand the skepticism towards polygyny due to the lack of morals, discipline, and ethics in some of our men. Most of the men that women meet is based primarly on sexual attraction due to the clothes some women wear. I've intentional unintentional had bouts of celibacy passing up on woman I've only found physically attractive. For one reason or another I didn't see pursueing a serious relationship with them. Nor did I allow just a physical one as some of them had suggested. Ironically I began more attractive to them, maybe because they saw I had honorable intentions and respected them as black woman and not just sexual. If I knew them well enough I'd bring up my views on polygyny. With the standards I displayed towards them, they understood it wasn't based on sex. Understand this, I feel a man could and should be faithfull to one woman. Some advocates of polygyny feel that it's in a man's biological nature to want to be with more than one woman which I agree with. However this doesn't mean our wants should be acted upon especially in a committed relationship. Woman may find the want and the capability to be with more than one woman puzzling because they tie sex to their emotions of love while men may love a woman view sex as a recreation sport, the proverbial icing on the cake. History confirms this, it's in our nature to be explorers, voyagers, conquerors. The alpha gorilla, or the alpha lion, usually has a pack of females around him. One man can repopulate the world. To go against our nature would seem crazy, but that's just one aspect of our nature. We as black men are God by nature, and we have the freedom to be who we are as Gods, to put the mental over the instinctive physical. This is one of the ways that seperate us from the animal. We don't have to adhere to the physical, unlike a rapist or a homosexual. Which means that some things don't need to be explored. Some things don't need to be conquered. Especially an unknown. I know enough of some unknowns to leave it alone. I don't need to know what a hit of crack is like. What I'm saying is if you committed yourself to a woman without any discussions of polygyny or the possibility of it, be committed. Especially if she's handling her business at LEAST 2-3times a week, 4times and over I take my hat off to you. Personally I can be satisfied with one woman if we've discussed the abc's that I mentioned in U-N-I verse. Just because I find another woman attractive doesn't mean I'm not satisfied at home and I should pursue her. Realisticly, your woman may feel the same way about another man whether you want to admit it or not. Just because I'm at a restaurant and I'm looking at the meal on another plate doesn't mean I wasn't satisfied with the meal I just ate. They had a chicken meal which I can remember so vividly, but I'm great with my vegan meal. However, if it was a vegan meal, and nobody claimed it, that's a different case. My point is that I look at polygyny as a responsibility, as the right thing to do. Right meaning that it benefits the all. The gift I have to a woman of being a man, a father to her children, a lover, a friend, is not mine to deny when in my natural capability to be with more than one woman and it's in a woman's responsibility to be a sista to her sista.

A skeptical woman might say it wouldn't be best for me so how could it be best for all. Maybe it isn't the act of polygyny that's not best for you, maybe it's your mindset. If you were to change your mindset then maybe you would change your attitude. This is where the principles we established come into play, in particularly the second and third. You say what you want for your self you want for your sister right. Let's say we figure that a man should be faithful to one woman. We have ten women and five men. Each man settles down with one woman. How many lonely women do we have left? Five. Where does that leave them, with no children, forced into homosexuality or left to handle themselves unnaturally, or do you even care? Do you wish that on them? Do you wish that on yourself? What if you were one of the five lonely? Let's be serious here, we're attempting to come to an understanding to a solution to a real problem. What would eventually happen? The lonely women will do whatever it takes to seduce your man. You would too, be serious, if you wanted children. To think of artificial insemination, to intentional prefer to raise a child without a father is crazy. Crazy meaning not conducive to the physical or mental aspect of life. It's selfish without no regards to the mental betterment of the child. Especially when polygyny is a natural and valid option. And the example I gave is a 2 to 1 ratio, not the 4 to 1 that it most likely is. If food is scarce, for the betterment of your people what would you have to do?-share. If clothing is scarce, what would you have to do for the betterment of your people?-share. If there is a lack of men, what must you do for the betterment of your people?-share. Maybe you now can say okay I no longer disagree with polygyny, just not for me and my man. Should the other four men be left to bear the weight. So everyone else should do what's right, but not you though. Maybe you don't value the importance of men in our society and our homes because you see a lack of true men. I'm not talking about the men who still want to be like teenagers. I'm referring to the men who are so disciplined that instead of playing games they let you know what's what up front even if it means not having sex with you. You may pass these men by for someone who will play the game with you. You rather be lied to and have someone sneak behind your back then for a man to say what I have with you is what I have with you, what I have over here is what I have over here. These men do it because that's what it means to be a man, to put you in the know, and let you come to grips of what it is. They know the lack of available men. You want the realy real, so you know what it is? Or do you want the games and get whatever you get behind door number two? Every household should have a feminine and a masculine parental presence for the betterment of the children. If you find a good man that can lead your family in a good direction then let him lead. Instead of saying we can't do it, say to yourself, in what ways can we make this happen.

Polygyny is not for every man, especially a lot of the so called men we have out here today. A man who chases woman, chased you, and ain't about his business, possibly isn't a good candidate for polygyny. A man's ethics, discipline, and moral character is a good indicator to his qualifications. My advice is not to enter a polygynus relationship with a man who goes out in seek of another wife. If your holding it down, and he's not satisfied with just you, then maybe he shouldn't be with you. Maybe he's greedy and lacks discipline. If I didn't connect with my Queen on a mental(first) and physical level(second) which leads to the spiritual level I wouldn't be with her. I'd feel like I was missing something and may be swayed later. The bond between him and her should be established first. Under those criterias, one way I would enter a polygynus relationship is if I met a woman, who expressed to me that she wished that there was someone with my standards that she could start a family with. I would evaluate whether she held the same values as I and my Queen, and if so I would ask her if she would like to meet her. This is under the understanding that I've discussed polygyny prior with my Queen and she understands that it's a duty to her sista, our communities, our people. When my Queen meets her and she agrees that this woman can be a positive addition to our family, then together we can set up some ground rules. Another way would be if my Queen introduces me to a sista who she was comfortable with who shares the same way of life as us but has trouble finding a decent man to build a family with. This would be the epitomy of what I want for my self I want for my sister. Granted I find this sista mentally and physically attractive, I would give at least a three week period where there would be no physical contact between I and the new woman, included within a three month trial period with a slow progression of moving her from her house to our home. I strongly suggest that all parties live under one roof. Not to underestimate our self responsibility, however, we may not yet be ready for that type of understanding. Every participating adult would have to be phenomenal. Therefore, the homes of the each woman and children should be relatively close to one another. With at least two people shouldering the financial responsibilities for all the homes and at least one maintaining the child care duties. If everyone can agree to living under one roof, unless you own a farm, I feel that at least a $52,000 a year income should be coming into the home. Ideally from the man, but with understanding it can be split however. This is just my opinion. With $52,000 a year we may can't live lavishly, but we can live comfortably if we all understand our priorities, family over materialism. Where there's a will, there's definitely a way. Two women is sufficient with a limit of three, four in extreme cases. With an additional $19,200 a year required for each additional woman over two. Having only two to three women gives each three or two days of personal time with their man with one day reserved for himself. Unless the two women have an understanding amongst themselves, a man should be able to take care of both of them if they both don't work to be fair. If not then if one works than so should the other be required. If it's three or four woman, one should be willing to be designated as the home-maker, with her having the power to delegate household responsibilities to everyone else. Plus it's a benefit to have someone always at home to tend to the needs of the children. I feel it's more efficient to be in one household with each adult having their own personal bedroom including the man, with his being the master bedroom. There would be a boys children's room and a girls children's room. All women would be referred to as mom, or umi, from all the children. And all children whether it be from a previous relationship would be considered brothers and sisters to each other and a child to all.

As I stated previously, I am neither pro polygyny nor anti monogamy. It's a real solution to a real situation. Truly I myself had to come to grips with my responsibility towards polygyny. I know how some woman may selfishly and ignorantly feel about it, but it actually is my responsibility. I've asked myself if it mean't not being with my Queen who I love SO much would I still hold my positon? The answer is yes. I figure she loved me for doing the right thing no matter what so why change now. I felt if I didn't because of the way I feel, when I know that it's right, everything I said thus far, about logic over emotions, would be a lie. It's about doing the right thing. For a woman I know it's emotionally hard to come to grips with polygyny, but that's where the principles we established in the first paragraph comes in. Do you truly stand by those principles or are you just blowing hot air? Do you truly stand by those principles or are you just blowing hot air? I ask one more time, do you truly stand by those principles or are you just blowing hot air? Unless you have a legitimate reason, say as there are no good women out there that you can see as your sista, than all you have excuses. You shouldn't be calling your so called sista sista, for she's only your sista to a point. Excuses are mental blocks that can change when if change your mind. I don't expect any changes to be made without a logical reason, but if there isn't enough good men for your sista than that should be logical enough. Especially if the shoe was on the other foot and you didn't have and wanted children. Some women ignorantly(meaning not knowing), ignorantly cite polygyny as some type of orgy affair. I like to think of this as the boogie man syndrome. Meaning like when you were a kid and the boogie man was in your room as long as you can't see the room by putting the blanket over your head than it's okay. Would you rather know and be able to have a say so to who the other woman your man is sleeping with, or would you rather him just hide it from you? Whether you like it or not, a man is going to be a man. Some of you are saying I rather not know. What type of ignorant ish is that? You must don't really know the importance of divine order and knowledge being the foundation. You can't imbrace ignorance and knowledge at the same time. If you don't want to know, I assume you don't ask questions when he stays out all night or you can't reach him on his cell phone. Because if you go looking, eventually you'll find it. So that's b.s. Why would dealing with another woman that you regard as your sister be nasty. In a polygynus relationship, the woman you allow into the family you should already respect her ways, personal hygiene, eating habits, home keeping, child relationship, as you do yourself. If you don't then she is not the one to add on with. As a woman, I understand you personally feel that when your intimate with a man some "essence" of that man remains so being with another man would be nasty. But men are not women. We have an 'outty', you have a 'inny', so we can wash it off and k.i.m.(keep it moving). Besides why would you think negative of your sista, should she think negative of you? If I was dealing with you, and I said the other woman was say Queen Afua, would you think negatively of her. Not that I'm cosigning for Queen Afua because I don't know her personally, I'm just going on how she presents herself. My point is she could think negative of you, at the same time teach you a thing or two. Another deterent is this possessive love that we have. To want your man when you want your man is a selfish way of thinking. Can he have you when he wants you? Understandably not when the red sea is flowing, or when you have to tend to the babies. This is just another way of thinking that can be changed. A quote from Khalil Gibran's book the prophet is for man and woman to eat from each others bread but have your own loaf. Meaning that we should each have our own interest and we come together when we need be. I don't need to or want to possess somebody, nor do I want to be in someone elses possession. If we love each other we can move together in unison without any restrictive rules, for we operate through God's rule, not restrictive rules. The difference between God's rule and restrictive rules is knowledge, wisdom, and understanding to build equality. Through this blog I say MY Queen, but I usually refer to her by Queen and her name, MY denotes possession. Besides, push up on her and she'll let you know who she rolls with. As for being able to share my time, each women would get equal amount of days, with alternating weekends, with one day possible Sunday for myself. My advice to a sista in a polygynus relationship, focus on your happiness and not what he does for the other sista for this breeds jealousy and envy. If one of the Queens has a particularly bad day, whether I'm in a polygynus relationship or a monogamus one, I should be able to pick up on this. If it's not her day to share with me, I'd ask the Queen whose day it is to switch her day, or just her night if need be. If something special is going on that day that that Queen planned, then it may just be the night and I'd spend the day with the Queen's whose day it originally was. If a Queen wants to switch a day with her sista to do something with me, that would have to be an understanding between them. The deterent for abuse would be that one would not want the other to abuse their right to personal time so they would respect their sistas time and only ask when necessary.

How can an original woman submit to an unoriginal way of thinking. Our original reason for a divine union between man and woman was for the benefit of the community. It wasn't just the union between him and her, it was a union between his family and her family for the benefit of raising the children. The extra perks came secondary to the responsibilities. We keep chalking up our short comings as just a matter of circumstances which is b.s., yet we expect other people to change their b.s. We expect our children to be strong against ignorance but we aren't strong against our own. I have my own battles, but I don't down play them as just a circumstance. I recognize my weakness and I attempt to make the necessary mental changes to fight them. I don't say I know what I'm doing isn't beneficial and continue to easily keep on doing it. An unoriginal way of thinking will not help our people for it festers selfishness. You know this. A monogamus relationship works for the caucasian man because they don't have as much if any the disparity of women to men ratio. Polygyny is recognized, respected, and accepted by the majority of non-european nations, and unoffically here in the U.S.. What do you call what Hugh Hefner and some celebrities do? How many men have children by more than woman? How many men are sleeping with more than one woman whether their woman knows it or not? We practice polygyny but we don't want to accept it or call it that. Let's get real people. If it ain't real then it doesn't exist. Monogamy doesn't really really exist, only the illusion of it. Is it that you want that illusion? Is it that you want what they show you on t.v. and what you hear about in story books. Fifty percent of marriges end in divorce, and that's including the remarries. Without the remarries it could be more. If you were raised in a productive polygynus family then you wouldn't be so oppossed to it. We seem more opposed to polygyny than we are to homosexuality. I don't see us giving much of the screw face or the talks behind the back of a gay person than one who is in a polygynus relationship. That's crazy!! A positive polygynus relationship is not what they claim the mormons did, sleeping with underage girls or marrying 10, 20 women. Nor is it what some natives from the continent of africa claim, for some of them have been influenced by european materialism and acquired some unoriginal ways of chauvnism and wind up disrespecting their women. For all you so called christians out there, polygyny was acceptable before the EUROPEAN catholic church banned it because of their lack of women. Check your bibles, see how many polygynus relationship are in there. It was never condemned by your religion, it was banned by caucasian. So your opposition would be due to a european influence and not your original culture. Aside from it not being banned in the bible, if everything is according to God's will, why is there far more available women than available men? Are you implying your infallible God made a mistake? Or is God allowing only some women to have a mate and the rest have to be gay? As far as marriage goes, I would use what I stated in U-N-I verse. With my first Queen, in our affidavit I would leave some room or a clause for revision, or have a clause acknowledging the possibility of a plural marriage, with a percentage going to the new woman in case something happens to me. Then an affidavit between I and the new woman with the abc's and xyz's would be made up. This post is not to say we need to be in polygymus relationship, for all is not qualified for it. This is to open up an intelligent dialogue of it. This is for those who say they are original(black) yet still think like unoriginals and don't make any serious attempts to change that. This is for those who had no idea or pondered with the idea but didn't know how to approach the subject. If you have a noble, honorable, mature brother, or know of one, you may consider it. We just have to many single woman, and not enough good brothers. Maybe this will entice some brothers to get there act together. No fertile woman should not have the right to bear a child with a good man. Every good woman deserves to be with a good man if they're out there, even if it means sharing. What you want for your self you want for your sista. Instead of saying I can't, say we can.
Peace

Recommended reading:We Want for Our Sisters What We Want for Ourselves by Patricia Dixon,Ph,D,
Check out the links and give me some intelligent feed back on them and the post as well:
In Africa
Maasai tribe

Lack of Black Men
Poligami

Parents to black sons Pt2

Should be an option
Be an option PT 2
Bible Verses

Who benefits?

Who benefits 2?

Brainwashing vs unselfishness

Polygyny response

Dawah Yisrael(polygamy)

Original Natural Family

Nation Building

Does your man...
Monogamy Vs Polygyny

Monogamy Vs Polygyny 2

Monogamy Vs Polygyny 3

Polygyny Seeker
Already a Practice

Popularity defies forecast
Mama Khandi
African Family Structure
Black Philly Muslims
Co-Wife

Choice for Black family
Lifting the veil
Option for muslims
The Myth & Reality
Judeo Christianity & Islam
Polygyny

Polygyny-Wikipedia

4 Polygyny
Is monogamy natural?

Polygamy defined
Monogamy Sucks
Polygamy Vs Monogamy
Polygamy411

U-N-I Verse

If I were to ask you to place a value on the relationship between man and woman, of what importance would you give it? For example, the relationship with your children would be of top priority right? Then it'd probably be followed by your parents, grandparents, siblings, extended family and friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., etc. Where would you place the relationship between man and woman on that chart? If you truly understand God and his divine order then it should be rated at the top with children, slightly more or less. That's if you totally love your children. If you knew the steps to a stable family you would put the relationship with your partner first and foremost. The bond you share with your partner should preceed everything, and I do mean everything. For some they're stuck on the illusion of gaining more material things. Having a family is just an after thought, a consolation prize for getting pregnant. Typically this is because they're discouraged by the broken relationships around them and seek to fullfill the void with nice things. Real love is a myth that only happens in fairy tales. Others seek a family because they're lonely, which isn't totally wrong, b.u.t. neither scenarios realize the dedication it takes to make it work. It's like saying you want to win a marathon but never taking steps to actually prepare for it. Look around us, especially in the hood, how many broken homes do you see. On my block alone there are about 15 single mothers to about 2 couples. For the 2.25million couples that will wed this year, about a million will lead to divorce. If it's about love, I thought love is supposed to last forever. Our children suffer for this. Not to say that a single parent can't raise a child alone, but it's not in the best interest of the child. You could drive a car with your feet, does that mean that you should do it? Statistics show that children of two parent homes do better. The value(or lack of) that we put on our relationships is due to the lack of value we put getting into them.

I can't emphasize the importance of having knowledge of self and God as the foundation of everything you do. This gives you a sense of self through the understanding of God and not the illusion of society standards. This way you wont settle for less than you deserve and you can also assess to what standards the person that you may deal with adheres to. When we first meet someone, after the initial exchange of numbers, our first phone conversation should be based on where we stand, our morals and ethics. This we can assess by talking about current affairs and social issues. If we can't agree, agree to disagree, or the person has no opinions at all, then that's a personal judgement call. I'd end it right there. If we have something we can talk about, instead of spending an hour on the phone, I'd invite the woman to dinner at a restaurant. From there I'd get on the subject of God. If that night goes well, and we may talk a few more times, maybe do lunch, ultimately I'd wait to see how she reciprocates. If she doesn't reciprocate with dinner, for me preferrably home cooked, or from a restaurant, then I'd let it go. If she offers to prepare dinner at her rest(home), I'd let her make any moves towards intimacy. If she offers to prepare dinner at my rest, I'll take it that she's comfortable with me and I can initiate intimacy. If I get the feeling that this could be something beautiful, I may even suggest that we hold off until we get more things established. This is good because it shows how much you care for her by not putting her in the category of your other conquest and it shows self discipline that you can rise above physical pleasures. I may be alone in this, but if it's that serious, and we knowledged each other and came to an understanding, I don't need years to make the next move. We can make those in a couple of months. Which brings me to the last thing which should have been the first. Brothers, if we don't have our own rest, or are living with someone for convenience but yet have the ability to attain a rest if need be, then I'd advise us to get our finances in order for self before attempting to find a woman. If we're building with our sistas just for fun, then we are really not giving them the respect that they deserve, no matter what they think about themselves.

It should go without saying that a relationship should be balanced and stable. If your walking down the street and you loose your balance you do what? You fall. So a relationship without balance has a greater chance of falling. Balance means equal, not necessarily the same. You can have a scale with a 5lb rock on one side. The other side doesn't need to be a rock, it just needs to be 5lbs also. Whether it's 5lbs of feathers or 5lbs of water, it's balanced. Stability keeps that balance in check, from leaning to far to one side than the other. That's the importance of knowing God in relation to self. Through Gods logos(word/logic/knowledge), there is a reason(understanding) for everything in life. The reason there is a difference in sex is to compliment each other. If there are two jobs to get done, it's more efficient if I can tackle one while you tackle the other. There are duties to being in a relationship and maintaining a family. This is where the tradition of roles comes in. When we talk about traditional roles, some people get offended like it's a chauvinistic concept. If I and my woman just came from the market with two bags, one heavier than the other, which bag do you think I should take. Generally men are physically stronger than woman, so taking the heavier load is my role. If in the odd case she was stronger than me, then she'd probably take the heavier bag. True traditional roles are duties that are geared mentally and physically more towards one sex than the other. I still have female family members who call me to kill a big bug, shovel a walk way, move some heavy things, pump their gas. In turn I know where to get a meal from. It's not to say that we must be limited to our roles. Let's respect the parts that we do play. It's a give and take thing, equality. Was anything I put against the natural order of things. Men were physically stronger so we became the hunters. Woman were gathers because it was less physically demanding. To go against that would be going against the nature of God. Which is what we do when we get caught up in societies rhetoric. We get caught up with them saying it without examining if it makes sense in the order of things. This is greatly due to the feminist movement along with the discrimination that blacks were facing. Black woman who were feeling the pressures from their men being discriminated in regards to employment, thought it best to join the caucasian woman in order to maybe gain employment for themselves. This movement started because of the caucasian mans disrespect towards the contribution of his woman. What they made at work was theirs and their woman were treated more as slaves and maids. Being that men created the media, the role of men became so glamorized while the role of the woman became so demoralized that women didn't want to be women. So the first bitter woman who broke through the ranks that was publicized by the media to sell more papers inspired other oppressed and bitter woman that that was the way to be happy. If they appreciated their woman the way our original cultures did, say in kemet(Egypt), more women would see the value in traditional roles. This is not to say that a woman should only be a homemakers, but unless the occupation is doing something to truly make a difference, than the value we put on certain positions is because of money and what value society places on it. I may be crazy, but how does wanting to be a corporate exec more valuable than being a stay home mother guiding her children, rather than letting someone else guide your children with their visions. Is it because we don't know God but we know religion so Gods true truth of the importance of the bond between man and woman to build child is unaware to us and our only reality consist of gaining more things which requires being on the side that goes against the nature of God. And the only way to secure that your child is in the position to gain more things is to let them teach them, the ones that never treated your people right in the first place. Sure we need to be educated, but how about being educated in how to be a woman to your man and a man to your woman. I understand to some woman there's nothing special about these men and they should be happy with you just opening your legs. If that's not the case what else have you offered. Funny that's how some men feel about woman. That's why a lot of woman are alone, because they didn't realize sex alone couldn't keep a man. It's never worked for a prostitute. I know I get inspired when I come home to a clean home, beautiful woman, and a cooked meal. I want to tackle whatever I need to tackle to better our situation. Again this is not to say a man can't cook or clean. I allow her the option not to work, she allows me the option to work hard and not have to cook, even though I will sometimes. Her principle attracts me to her, to rather work hard for our family than working hard for someone else. This should attract any man with true knowledge of God. As I advise to men, I make it a point to seek out a place affordable with just my income no matter if she's working or not. This relieves any pressure if we moved to a place needing both our incomes and she becomes pregnant and isn't working.

The importance of the black man to the black woman has been devalued in todays world. Even some women who say they do unawaringly don't because they hold us to standards of the caucasian man. This is not to say that we can't perform just as well as or even better than our white counterparts, but when you hold the keys to the game and are discriminatory to the culture of other people, they tend to be a little selective. Sure they'll put a black person as the head of a company, but not to lead it. Those are decisions made by the shareholders. If you think Barack is the leader of this country your disillusioned at best. He may be the head of this country, the face, but he isn't the leader. Head doesn't mean leader. Some brothers you think lead with their head actually lead with their penis. The leaders of this country are the shareholders, the people who own things that make this country. Look who steps up in the black community to be so called leaders, entertainers and athletes. No other people would look to our celebrities to be leaders. Sure we can own record labels and clothing lines, but how about phone companies and hospitals. Sure our black man should be employed. Sure he should do his best. But sometimes when you had no direction when you were growing up, and you got two felonies, maybe working at a restaurant is the best he can do for now. That doesn't mean he can't be a good mate because you make more money than he. Especially if he's turned his life around and acknowledged God and lives a righteous path. Maybe he doesn't see any woman worth his time and he's content with his life. Maybe you could be that righteous woman that a righteous brother like himself get inspired to do more as long as you support him. If he's a righteous brother of course. He may not have what some other men have, but as long as he's the best father to his family and best man for you he shouldn't be looked at any less than. The power(influence) of the black man to his family was stolen from him during slavery and replaced with the need to submit to the oppressor for survival. What faith could she retain in her black man when he was being whipped for rebellion. This introduced a fear that's still embedded within our DNA. Not to get to far into biology, but your thoughts influences your gene sequence. A gene for fear was created and has been passed down since. Only way to de-graft the gene is to gain knowledge of the truth that you need not fear because you are God, which will be passed down to our children. When slavery supposedly ended our people still faced discrimination from employment. When the civil (un)rights movement was established, and through affirmative action employers were required to hire blacks, they opted to hire black women as opposed to black men. Black men were considered a threat to the white male social status. This is enormous pressure on a black man or any man for that matter to not be able to support his family. This led to a lot of brothers joining gangs and selling drugs or even the military just to get a sense of value. Sistas who acquired jobs while their men couldn't didn't see letting a man be in charge when he wasn't adding on. This led to a wider gap in the our relationships. It's only natural for a person feel indebted to the hand that feeds them. The discriminated against black man began to be looked on more of as a burden than as a partner, so there was no us. If we were in our right minds than we would have saw through the tricknowledge(religion,culture) that was played against us to separate us. Not to different than today. But the black man didn't know who he was so how could he tell her(fat-her) who she was to get and understanding who they were? Again, not to different from today. If we had knew who we were, our origins, our relationship to God and not just what they told you, we could have adapted to the situation yet still kept the natural universal order to maintain our families. But now you feel indebted to them for giving you a little sense of hope instead of what you deserve. So what you don't have your family. As long as you have their religion and their God, and you have nice things and have fun, that's all that matter. Why do anything to mess that up? Even if it ADDS UP in the long run to better our communities. If you don't think that's not your God, your religion, or your understanding of it, do the research on what you did practice and way of life before you were enslaved. Not to say it was perfect but it was better than what we have now. I'm not referring to the african cultures that you see today. For even they are being influenced by the greed and materialism of the western society. Our way of life, how we set up our families, our communities, was based on the order of the physical universe, and that order was established by God. So how could it not come out right?

The universe is everything. When we think of universe our first instinct is to look up at the sky and point to space. That's not an accurate definition. A universe is everything contained within the parameters of something else. My universe consist of my family, my job, the gym, the vegetarian restaurant, etc., etc., etc. My Queens universe may contain a lot of the same elements as mine, but hers differs by having elements I don't(like people, a monthly), and mine having elements not in hers. The animal universe consists of all animals such as cats, dogs, etc. While the feline universe would consist of a cat, but not a dog or any other animal that doesn't fit that category. A universe is based on the principles(there goes that word again) that govern it. For a vegetarian universe it's any food without meat. The universe that we live in was not always was, it was created. For it to be created, and as we shall see in all things, two principles must exist, the aggressive and the receptive, also known as the masculine and the feminine respectively. Without these two polarities, nothing would exist. For these two principles connect to from a third principle, as there would not be a 3 without 1 and 2. Thinking and thought would be an example. Thinking would be the aggressive principle, the first or initial principle because it was the first move made. Thought would be the receptive principle, the second or complimentary principle because it's the process of thinking. To have a thought you must first think about. They are part of the same structure of the mind with different location, one just precedes the other. The process of thought from thinking borns the third principle, an idea. This how everything borns everything else correctly. For the universal mind(that we termed God whose proper name is Allah) started to think, meaning he became aware of self. Self had a thought to be, A thought(traveled) 2B. Thinking a-b/out the thought creAted the idea known as the big bang. That's what our ideas are, big bangs in our minds. If it's not in line with these principles, principles established by Allah mind you, then it will not come out correctly. Knowledge then wisdom correctly establishes an understanding. Logic then emotion to born a legitimate reason. The receptive has to be just that, receptive to the aggressive. If I wanted to move the sofa to the other side of the room, if the sofas not receptive to my aggressive push meaning direction, what change would we make? None. The big bang, which was the result of the aggressive and the receptive, now became the physical manifestation of the aggressive principle because it was physically first. It's like the son now becomes the father, through mother. Which brings up the importance of the mother being on page with the father. Because the father isn't always present. So it's up to the mother(moon) to reflect the light of the sun(knowledge)from the father on to the star(child). A verse in the Qur'an states that a child not of the father is not his son. Meaning biologically it may be, but if it's not blessed with the fathers wisdom, through the mother or the father himself, any mistake that's made couldn't be by his son, for if it was his son, his fathers wisdom would have guided him through it. While the bang became the aggressive, space became the receptive, and the result was expansion. Expansion became the aggressive, energy became the receptive and cooled down to form atoms. The sequence went on until the aggressive and receptive principle was physically represented in man and woman. By nature(natural act) man embodies the masculine or aggressive principle and woman embodies the feminine or receptive principle. This nature of the universe between man and woman has been disrupted because woman don't see a reason to be receptive to a man if he doesn't make more than her or if it interferes with any of her selfish motives and men want to be leaders but lack the discipline and mastery of self to gain any credibility. This is the nature of creation, if you want to create a strong family you must be willing to be receptive to the leadership of your man. There can't be two leaders on the ship. There can be two captains but one has to have an extra stripe to be in charge of finalizing decisions. If one captains says go east and the other says west, there has to be something in place to help decide. Being the leader does not mean being the boss. A boss only has their own interest at hand. A leader is only as good as the team so it takes getting insight from them, yet the leader finalizes things. A leader is the one to walk first into danger risking self first. The boss orders someone else to go first. If you don't trust your man to lead your family, you shouldn't be with him. His nature is to lead and a stubborn woman will only result in dis-ease. This doesn't mean he shouldn't listen to what you have to say. My rule of thumb for men is to choose a woman that you value her insight and are comfortable with having her take charge in some things. For woman you should choose a man who you think is intelligent and makes good decisions. He doesn't have to be no suit and tie dude, but talk to him and see what decisions he's making and what he's actually doing. If you cant see being by his side, even if he makes mistakes, then don't be with him. Whatever mistakes he makes, as long as he respects and loves you and you have food clothing and shelter support him. Also don't say I told you so when he messes up and you were right.

Being that this is on the relationship between man and woman, it's only right if we touch on the subject of marriage and/or the principle of it. Without getting into the etymology of the word marriage, unless we come to a clear understanding of it then I prefer to use the term divine union. From ground level when we look at a man and woman coming together supposedly till death do they part, whether it's in the western or eastern culture, it seems based on the same principle. When we view it from the perspective of the nature of the universe, we find quite a difference. First the universe is based on Gods understanding, todays marriages are not. Why do you think there's so many divorces? An understanding is an agreement between the man and woman that he's primarily(not solely) responsible for ABC and she's primarily(not solely) responsible for XYZ. I mean he's a masculine principle, she's a feminine principle, the duties for efficiency can be delegated to he or her. Anything other than that really doesn't matter as long as he's handling ABC and she's XYZ. That way if they never go away on vacation in their life that's no reason to argue or divorce. Not to say you shouldn't make an honest effort to instill some leisure activities in your relationship. Doing XYZ makes her happy and full fills what's most important to her, her duties to God and so does he doing ABC. This is the importance of knowing God and what role by natural law(own self) that your responsible for. I like to point out that although weight might not seem like as ABC-XYZ requirement, it really is. Attractiveness is very important to a relationship. That's what caught your eye in the first place. This doesn't mean you should require your mate to have a 6 pack or be a size 0, or even be the size you met them. You should still be at a weight that's attractive and healthy. There's no reason to blow up like Monique or Reuben Studdard just because you settled. Besides if you break up you'd want to loose weight to be attractive for someone else, that's disrespectful to the one your with. Why not be attractive for him or her. Also we as men should be more considerate to our woman's feelings. All woman may not like the same thing, but they all like to feel appreciated one way or another. Over time we tend to forget, but lets attempt to keep that in our conscious. Money may be tight but one day without the children(as well as one with) at the local pizzeria(they serve salad) is an effort. And I find if you opt to take in someone elses children for the weekend at random without playing tit for tat then they'll be more likely to return the courtesy if you trust one another. Plus a card or even a note like an I love you hidden where she'll find it is something. The little things add up to a big thing. As men we like to be appreciated to. A cooked meal, a back rub, a warm bath(which all of these can be appreciated both ways), clean draws, make a man feel good! Also check your idea of "romance", it might not be his. I love chocolate chip cookies. If I let you have the last one, or even a bite, consider that I love you and that's "romance." Back to my point, there's no understanding in todays marriages. There's no God in todays marriages. Just because you get married at a church or by a religious figure doesn't mean that there's Gods understanding blessing your union. Which is the epitome of a divine union. If God is blessing your unions, why isn't the love eternal? That's contradictory. Love is the highest elevation of understanding. We get married off of emotions, the wisdom, words, or the rotation of the moment without gaining the understanding of it. Yeah he says he knows God, and she does too. B.u.t did either of you master the situation of a union fully, as well as of self. He thought you was going to hold down the cooking, you thought he was. Now there's a misunderstanding. This is just an example. Every single aspect of the relationship doesn't have to be established, just the deal breakers. For me first it's as long as I can manage it, she doesn't have to get a job, but I do want my meals cook, the home clean, and the children taken care off. If she does get a job we can split the duties down the middle, I'll even do more. Second we wont let ourselves get unattractively fat. Third we understand the natural order of things as the man as the leader of his family. Fourth to put nothing before us. Fifth a day or a few hours to myself. Sixth to never cheat on each other. And sixth to maintain the principles that I met her of conservative dress, vegetarianism, and natural hair. Other than that I offer to maintain the same principles of knowledge wisdom and understanding, allow her at least a me alone day once a week, at least a me hour each day, to devout at least 1/2 hour of us time each day, to take her out at least once a month, and to do my best to consider her feelings as long as it doesn't compromise my nature as a man(meaning you wont see me in no speedos no matter what your fantasy is). This is just my ABC. Which at best should be established before we decide to be sexual. As long as we can do that, then we should be good. There's supposed to be a purpose for marriage, or a divine union. If it wasn't than it be no difference than just shacking up with a person. You can come and go as you please. Truly I don't see the point if your not planning on raising children, biological or adopted. You may say it's for your religion but your religion says to be fruitful and multiply. Do we pick and choose what rules of our religion we want to abide by? God knows most of you already fornicated, get real. This society sees it as more of a social status than anything. Which has it's positive points if it's founded in understanding(love). True love(understanding) that is, not this boyfriend girlfriend b.s. A marriage based on understanding of God, in respects to the true true nature of the parties involved(as opposed to those who think their ignorance is their true selves), would be a divine union. Being that most marriages aren't, they're not qualified to be called a divine union. I fail to see what I have with my woman can fall under the same umbrella as a homosexual union. The traditional ceremonies of the original people would be classified as a divine union because both parties understood what they had to do for God. It wasn't I don't want to do this or that. They knew their roles for the betterment of the union. For the benefit of their children. The woman didn't expect nothing from the man outside of his nature, neither did he expect anything outside of her nature. When I tell a woman I'm opposed to marriage, that doesn't mean I'm opposed to a divine union. More emphasis should be placed on the understanding of things. Most woman are blinded by the ring, the dress, the ceremony, the spotlight, which I don't totally object to, although that's a euro-centric concept of a union. I'm just saying, the chains are off, why you still naming your children Tom and Mary? You mean to say if we went to Nigeria and got married, we're not married because the United States gov't doesn't recognize our union. Is our union governed by God or the U.S. gov't. Are they our God? Marriage is not the all in all. What relationship would benefit the children more, two people who have come to an understanding and haven't gotten "married", or two people who got married yet they fight all the time, cheat on one another, and hate to be around each other? If your concerned about the legal aspect of it, you can do what Dr Ali Muhammad of the I.S.I.S organization suggests in his pamphlet Freedom 101. You can use general affidavit contracts where you and your partner can come to an understanding on the agreements and the "what ifs" of your union. I'd put in the ABCs and XYZs and who gets what if either of you(or both) decide to be other than self. Get the contract notarized and record them at the county/miscellaneous documents. Or get the notary authenticated on a county level and keep your own personal records. This will hold up in a court of law. I'd even give some to the respected members of our families. You can also get a marriage certificate(not a license asking for permission) if you need to show your employers for benefit purposes. You and your partner can come up with your own ceremony. Unless you want your union to be subject to the gov't, so they can put a foot on somebody neck if they mess up. Which really shouldn't happen if you knowledged each from Gods understanding.

There are many reasons for entering a union. The main purpose is to come together in understanding to best prepare our children to face the two polarities that exist in the world, masculine and feminine. Whose better at preparing these children than their first examples of masculine and feminine, their mother and father. A single mother without a male figure can only try to expose her children to the masculine principle, whether it be telling her daughter what to expect from a man or showing her son how to be one. This gives new light to how important a father figure is. Not just to have one, but in the home. If the potato salad doesn't taste how it usually tastes and it's missing the relish, the relish is the difference. If our families are messed up in the hoods and all you have is mothers no fathers, then fathers are what we need. We often hear about what the black man needs to do but we hardly ever if any hear about what the black woman needs to do. If the woman should be treated and respected as equal, then she should take equal responsibility in our condition. I think this is because society focuses on the effect and not the causes. The focus is put more on him giving up that check if they split up than focusing on what we must do to keep the family together. Which makes the man feel less than a man being forced to do something when he can't be a guide, only an influence in his child's life. I don't see shades of gray, that's an illusion. It's either done right or it's done wrong. Being a parent half the time is not being a parent at all. A parent is responsible for guiding that child in the right direction. If she allows the child any junk food they want, and he allows the child healthy food, that's the same as not teaching a child to eat healthy at all. You are already getting the child addicted to the drugs. When the child has health problems, the doctor says what WE need to do as parents. That's the game we play. Especially when he or she feels they should be able to do what they please. That's wrong even if you are G-O-D. We must go into our unions with the mindset that we need to raise these children together so we must respect each other with respects to each others nature as well as our own. Treat him like the man he is, treat her like the woman she is. To many times brothers put things like our homies, sports(not including the Super Bowl,Finals,World Series,or Stanley cup) before the most purified particle of Allah while not taking consideration towards her opinions and feelings. To many times woman think they can say anything out their mouth or do anything they please with no respects to us as a man. A good family is the cornerstone to a good community. More good families in the community, the more it will change for the better. That starts with U-N-I. A nation can raise no higher than it women. If a woman isn't being receptive to a good man's lead, how can we live in Divine Harmony? What will allow her to be receptive amongst this devilishment if she doesn't have true knowledge of herself, of her black man who has true knowledge of himself, and of the divine order and principles of the universe. It goes without saying that we do what we know. We can't blame these children for going in the direction that they're going. The benefits of being in a positive family is not a reality to a lot of these children because they don't see it, even on television. The Cosby show wasn't depicting any reality that I saw, but it did give me a little direction, even if it wasn't real. I took the best parts from it, but I funnel it through a Gods perspective. I always admired how Cliff and Claire had fun together, as well as Martin and Gina. I tell the Queens how very very very important you are in changing our condition. Check the science. In my hood, how much influence can I as a single man have on our youth? I mean I can set up programs, build with them, but even at a young age it's about social status and the boy girl relationship. Every boy wants to be liked, every girl wants to be liked. So if we ain't bringing young men and women together in a positive setting, they'll find it in a not so positive setting. As a single man, these young guy see me go to work, they see me come home. They see me with an attractive woman now and then. Nothing committed, just every now and then. All I have is girlfriends. They don't feel they need a change in lifestyle to get that. A cute girl ain't nothing they feel they can't get doing what they're doing. Nor will a single woman have a life changing effect on a young woman. They still see you as single. Even if your a so called independent woman with a nice home, car, and a boyfriend, they'll either follow your direction to get the nice things and maybe a blue collar boyfriend, or they'll continue what they're doing to get the boys they know. Either way families aren't being established. Now flip the script. Say it was me and the Queen together. We build with the community, old to the young. Have a open door. The youth in the neighborhood see what type of bond we got going. I build with the young brothers casually. I explain what a real woman is and how she exemplifies such. How she blesses the God with a cooked meal and a clean home. How she doesn't care how much money I have as long as I'm holding it down. How if I didn't knowledge myself and did dumb stuff she wouldn't be with me. I'd also build with the young Queens so they see what a stand up guy I am. Talk to them with respect as young ladies. Explain why I dig my Queen. Then the Queen also does the same vice-versa, build with the young sistas on what type of man I am, what she does to attract me. She builds with the young soldiers on what they mean to the black woman, what she digs in me. How many, if even one, will be influenced not just by me, not just by her, but by us? How many will attempt to attain what we attain in each other. How many will realize there is other than what they've been seeing? How many young woman may say I deserve a man like him to be treated like her? How many young brothers might say to be with a woman like her maybe I should build with him? Especially when we start the two youth organizations, YKS and the YQS, Young Kings Society and the Young Queens Society respectively. It's not just about the Gods, it's also about the Earths. Our unions will make a difference yall. We can fight to change laws, or schools, our financial situations, but u-n-i, man and woman, he and her, is where it starts at. I leave you with this. I was watching an interview with Barack and Michele Obama by Barbara Walters. In the interview you can see the love they have for one another. They have a playfulness to their relationship. This is the first I ever seen between a soon to be first lady and a presidential elect. After the interview, a correspondent asked Barbara did Barack seem uptight about the situation with the economy. She goes on to say that no he's just ready to get to business. Also, he seems to relax when Michele came by his side. Damn it, see what influence you can have on a black man by being supportive. That's black love.

Peace