Read The Article - NOTICE HOW THEY GO INTO THE METAPHYSICS Of Male And Female Energy. It is not about that - despite that fact that i agree with the definitions. The article starts out with the woman pointing out how successful she is. Her success is financial (money). When she describes female energy she defines it as based on a womans emotion. Ok, fine, no disagreement here, but when she gets over to male energy she talks about decisiveness, paving the way, and making the decisions. Decisions are based in the ability to make a move. Since money is what allows individuals to make moves in this society, it is the money that allows for there to be masculine energy, if they want to define it as such. Manhood is based on what you do - not how you feel, unlike the feminine energy that she described. How are you supposed to lead with no resources or less resources than your partner with the feminine energy? - it does not work. Where are you going, what vehicle are you using to get there? The problem is that since feminine energy is not based on anything tangible, people have gotten things confused and believe that masculine energy is based on nothing that is tangible as well. This is incorrect. If you have masculine energy but you dont have the necessary tools or resources to make the decisions that give you that energy, then you have some pretty ineffective male energy aka male leadership! this is what a lot of men dont want to hear, especially those who are content with playing the subordinate position, which does not end at their front door. They take that mentality right out there into the community, so it inevitably ends up affecting the whole community, and once this become the standard - you end up with a welfare state! This inappropriate belief of manhood not being attached to money is what creates the problem, and situations where men try to lead without resources, believing that manhood is an innate male quality endowed through the birth right of having a penis, and then the women eventually balk at the idea, and i dont blame them, because leadership is not based on a feeling. Its based on positioning, with the proper resources to back up that position and whatever decisions that will be made. Unless of course he thinks hes going to run things on her dime, and shes going to allow him to do that. Some women sadly do this just to keep a man. My only question - and what will your sons be seeing and in what ways will what they see influence the type of man that theyre going to be? Nor do they consider what their daughters may think is deserving of submission. i.e. men with no resources but rather charismatic personalities. For further evidence, i direct to your nearest ghetto.
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 01:51:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015