No Country For Young Men

No Country For Young Men

Have you ever seen the movie, "No Country for Old Men,” starring actor Javier Bardem, running around with that cattle prod?   Well, this article is actually based upon the concept of that movie: This article is about the ever changing backdrop that we exist under versus the previous backdrop that most of the current society  no longer respects—i.e, the spirit, fad, devolution of American society, and what that means for the common Black man in America today.

Now when you look at Western society in America today, you see a complex system of roadworks, a complex banking system, an intricate traffic light and Interstate Highway system, city, state, and federal  branches of courts, etc.

The development of American system of democracy has come a long way since the times of the ancient Greeks and Roman school of thought.  The generations which came after the initial founders improved upon the initial concept, because they principally believed in it and wanted to make even better; and all things considered, they've done a fabulous job; barring the ambiguity they call freedom versus the freedom of others. 

Now you know and I know that I often talk about the ills of Western Society, but let's be fair: Let's  talk about the America's accomplishments.  I figure, if my persons can talk about the ills in American society, I can compliment its’ developments as well.  That being said, America is a very advanced, organized, structure of poly-government and religious values.  It entertains many various different cultural and psychological perspectives  while maintaining  a dominant cultural theme (the “One Ring to Rule Them All” concept in the  “Lord Of The Rings” movie); and when you take that under consideration, one of the main things that I want you to see is America handles a large number of people and involves a very complex system of checks and balances to do so.

I complain about Western society because it does have some shortcomings, and my people usually find them, because we are usually at the heart of each one of them.  My people's cultural development  is considered a minority interest to American politics—which in and of itself poses very stark issues--but those issues are of paramount importance to me, because it centers around the world I'm living in, and such an attitude and relationship on the part of America makes my people subject to micro-inequities which are beyond our control: Until we can manipulate this paradigm in someway, we will be influenced by the mainstream’s whims and fanciful notions; and therein lies the real issue with this society, as well as my rationale, momentum and my thrust to set right.

Another thing that I want to bring to your attention in this writing, is how an organism can maintain its integrity, supply  structure, and continue to grow and improve throughout the course of its’ life; which should indicate that with any organization, organism, or anything as complex as the human structure, each cannot perform without teamwork.  And by teamwork, I mean the cooperation and advanced marshaling of various forces which exist within an organism or organization for a desired end which benefits all.  Let me illustrate: If your heart decided it wasn't going to pump blood any longer, imagine what that would mean for the rest of your body. . .  If your lungs decided to collapse and cease functioning, what would that mean for the remaining 5 minutes of your existence?  If your bones suddenly  became brittle, imagine what that would mean for the possibility of you even being able to walk; much less get around to do things for yourself.  Imagine how that would be: Depending on others to things like going to the store, getting a drink of water. . .  However,  if the bones cooperated, we could move the body; and if the body could move the body—we could acquire food.  Once receiving the meal, we would have to depend on the teeth and salivary glands to prepare the food for digestion.  Once the food is digested, the heart and the rest of the body can begin to rejuvenate itself.  Oxygen is very essential in consciousness as well as digestion.  Blood is manufactured in the bone marrow.  So you see, all parts are aware of the mission, each are connected and know how each will benefit (they don't need to be convinced) and each plays its part to help the other survive as a team.

In the past, when a car was being assembled, or at a clothier—where suits were being manufactured, persons would stand at various stations on an assembly line; each equipped with a particular skill for the station in which they stood.  At quadrants on this assembly line, there would be talented overseers, equipped with the awareness of how the assembled piece should look, as well as how it should assemble with the part belonging to the neighboring quadrant:  This type of operation is called, “Piece-work.”  On an assembly line, no one would be interested in idle conversation outside of breaks.  That sort of thing could be disastrous!  Such behavior is an invite for mistakes and not paying attention on assembly lines could culminate in injury or loss of limb; In fact, around power equipment, some frivolous conversation could lead to death.  That's why in most factories, most conversations occur only in intervals between breaks and lunch.  

My mother performed in such places, and got paid for each piece she assembled in a work day; no more no less.  Her paycheck varied by the speed of her performance.  She was a seamstress by trade and a specialist at specific parts of constructing the suit.  And even though my mother could sew a whole suit, she could never compete with the abilities of a whole assembly line.  There are some parts where she is faster than others; but ultimately the team rules supreme.  But unlike the organism, there can be the idle conversationalist; and despite the training and the precautions and the warnings, there's still that one employee who wants to have it his way--or that operator who comes in drunk--and endangers everybody.  It's hard among people to get singleness of purpose and organization amongst factory workers like you have in a mitochrondrion; too many diverging points of view; too much delusion.

In an organism, the organs which belong to that organism have no choice: Cell specialization in an organism has become so intricate and specific in the functionality that it provides for that organism, each organ would die without the concerted efforts of the other parts (the cells within an organism has given up multitasking for specific functions).  In organizations such as large corporations, HR [human resources] and its interviewing processes is of paramount importance for the survival of the company: Not only is ability and the skill-set of each worker a key issue, but each person's attitude towards the work they perform and the company they work for as well. 

So to the corporation, the right person for the job consists of ability and proper outlook.  That's why the ads soliciting for fortune 500 companies and big corporations are written the way that they are: They specifically tell you what the company does and what the company needs, the question is; “Are you the right person for the job/Are you the the right fit?  Do you belong in that position; are you able to deliver what that organization needs?

From the head down to the toes, the human body must be concerned about the functionality of the body as a whole; not just the individual parts--otherwise the organism sinks into disease and decay and dies.  Precisely every seven years, every cell within the human body gets replaced by an entirely new one with the same functionality.  The body ensures that the new cell looks like and has equal or greater functionalities to the previous cells or the aging human species.  What I find amazing is around the ages of seven, fourteen, twenty-one, twenty-eight, and thiirty-five, there’s an analogous psychic change as well. The parts may go or be replaced, but the organism continues.  When you work for a large corporation, as an executive or a CEO, your concern has to be the company or organization's functioning efficiency, your departments and the growth and development of the organization or company itself.

When you are interviewing for prospects for a job, your main concern has to be for the job as a whole; it can't be how you really want to pin her behind the desk one day. . . The concern has to be about your further existence of the business as a whole; not just getting Willie wet.  Life is more complex than that. 

Ever watch a dynasty basketball team like the San Antonio Spurs?  During the draft and free agency, the general manager and the coach picks their new members as specialized performers.  That is because Coach Popovich has so thoroughly gotten his basketball team members to buy into the Spurs’ philosophy of playing basketball, that he only needs to tweak it.  Tim Duncan is considering retirement and the replacement has already been fostered in Kweli Leonard. 

This is how an organization works: Each person performs his best for the structure which they belong to.  Each has to believe in it strongly, or else it falters.  If you remove an organ from an organism to replace an organ in another organism, unless the other organism is very, very similar, the body rejects or the organ dies--and even in acceptance the anti-bodies have to be repressed because the body knows the organ is not the same [even among twins].

That's what makes the interview process so crucial in the HR of an organization:  They need people who believe in the corporation.  That's why mission statements are born: To state the objective and promote singleness of purpose.  You’re either with it or you are not--it is a team philosophy.  The question is; “Are you on board?”

  Part of relying on things that came before is that it takes most of the guesswork out of things.  It has the comfort of knowing that generations of people before you hav put their heads to a situation, and have come up with solutions that only needs to be improved upon; not recreated it all over again.  The emphasis seems to be on doing things better and learning from your mistakes; eliminating errors, doing the right thing.  Starting over or recreating only becomes necessary when you can't trust the process, something, or someone.  In the 1950s, there was open segregation in American society.  There were "Whites only" and "Colored only" all over the place.  There was the White world and the world for the others.  America has two bordering countries but we only speak one language; English.  These sentences represent the attitude and posture of the country.  Before that, there was World War Two and America's President Harry Truman.  Historians called this period in American "Isolationism"--I think that it fits the period quite nicely.  When you watch the sitcom, "All in The Family" and you hear the character, "Archie Bunker" sing, "Those Were The Days," it doesn't take a genius to know what type of person "Archie" represents.  Society was definitely unequal, and Blacks erupted into a response called the 1960s Black Power Movement.  It is important for you to know this; so you can know how this present era came to be.

 For the record and the power dynamic, it is important for us to realize that while the sentiments of the Black activists represented the majority of Blacks, less than 30% of our population in America actually participated in the activities which resulted in social changes brought about in the 60s.  Most of our population were afraid of the repercussions they would face from White society.  This period is known by mainstream society as Integration, but my people understand it better as the illusion of Integration, because the society is not Integrated; it just appears to be.  In terms of "Black Power,"  opportunities were made available and better paying jobs were made available within American society for Blacks through Affirmative Action, but in terms of true empowerment or repatriation for us as a group, there were none: And we became all too aware of it in the 1970s, because the "political correctness flavor" began to "wear out of that gum."  Also, between the 80s and 90s, cocaine usage in economically depressed areas morphed from chemically altered Freebasing to a convenience form of Crack-cocaine.  The 1960s Teen-aged Baby Boomers produced lions among Blacks, whereas The 1970s Teen-aged Baby Boomers were more opportunists who quickly recognized Integration's shortcomings and did nothing about it but become disillusioned.  This disillusionment produced an increase in drug usage among the younger Baby Boomers, particularly crack-cocaine, producing a generation of crack-babies.  This edition of Baby Boomers were in-large the crack users, and it was the first Generation X who were in large the distributors!  

Some of this generation of Baby Boomers were the parents of the ones selling the drugs.  I guess (in the eyes of the distributors) these Baby Boomers must have been seen as weak; particularly in light of the sexual favors women addicts would do to obtain it.  It seemed from this point, the ones who came after this point in time, were very unwilling to follow after or their ways by modifying tradition; as the generations who proceeded them were seen as weak. And in the instance of society, this represents a total collapse of the structure we depended on, as we know it.

  

No Country for Young Men  
The Assessment

Let's take a look at the overall paradigm: In America, Black's knowledge of family dynamics comes as a result of studying White social dynamics; since slavery obliterated our original understanding, we had to extrapolate our understanding based upon what we saw. In the 1950s, we saw a segregated society that large numbers of Whites were fine with.  During the 1950s, many Whites exalted man as the head of the household, as he was the major or sole breadwinner.  As former slaves, most Blacks always had both parents working in the house and yet, for the sake of the family, most Black women were willing to exalt and respect the Blackman's leadership.  There has always been and always will be two societies in America: White and non-White: And in order to keep us competitive with other social groups within America, we have to have our men protect the family.  That's who has always fought the battles, that's who represented the strength of each stock of people.  When the 1960s ushered in, White women were discontent at being at home and being taken care of--because of the social imposition it placed them in; Black women did not support the Feminist Movement, simply because it did not represent their reality.  Unbeknownst at the time, the Feminist Movement also had clandestine reasons for wanting women out in the workplace for equal pay, and it was closeted reasons which kept us from knowing.  Black women were sharply criticized for their non-participation in the White Feminist Movement, and if you do some research, you will find its' leaders saying some unkind racist remarks as well.

I have always said this to all women from all walks of life; "Although Black men may have taken advantage of the chauvinists'  position within American society from time to time, he can hardly be made the blame for its' existence, since he is not the dominate factor within American legislation: It is (and always be) the founders of this country that should solely hold that distinction."
  
The Baby Boomer mother of the 1950s, as well as those who would be labeled Traditionalists, were never properly understood by the mass of Black women who have incarnation dates that come after 1960. . .  While the Baby Boomer and the Traditionalist did much to maintain the family structure of the past, younger women were unwilling to take on the imposition.  In other words, they watched what their mothers did for the sake of the household, and were unwilling to compromise their lives the way their mothers did.  It also didn't help that some of our fathers ran around on their women; because most of these younger women do not believe in the Blackman's ability to lead them anywhere.  And while those women made sacrifices for the sake of their children, these younger mothers seem like they own, micro-manage and stifle their children; often creating effeminate conditions within their boy children.

As I said earlier, it seems like our children didn't like way we handled the 1970s.  They considered our approach too laid back, cool, easy, and soft.  We ushered in disco, they hardened the HIp-Hop and damn-near brought gang warring back—ending with the death of Biggie and Tupac (although Kendrick Lamar and Killer Mike are a return back to the original intent of Hip-Hop)—glorifying images of pimps and prostitutes.   We went from "throwing our hands in the air" to Battle raps; equipped with tough talk and dissing.   Weed was the drug of choice in the 70s and mainly sold by friends to friends.  Weed in Blunts, Cognac, and hard liquors, are the main intoxicants of the 1980s.  In short, generations are moving away from tradition and unwilling to do what everyone was doing before them; But the most dangerous thing that was evolving was the exaltation of the individual. 

 I don't question the new generation's approach, because each generation thinks that they have a better idea concerning how things should be.   What we have to consider is, in this generation, it has decided to no longer deal with what is traditional or what came before, but they never considered why certain things evolved to begin with.  Take talking to women for example:

In the past, men initiated the conversation with women; it was considered too forward for a woman to show a man that she wanted him; that is what hookers and whores did to get money.  Most men took the solicitation as a frolic; nothing to be seriously entertained, thus it cheapened the relationship.  Man chose the woman then, and the woman would be able to sense the type of involvement he desired by the nature of the conversation.  If a woman attempted to "talk to a man" [show a man she was interested in him] during those times, he would think it was possible "he could get something he didn't want."  She had to be subtle in her suggestion and wait for a reply.  She had to have the type of behavior that solicited respect.  She had to have charm, grace,wit, and sophistication.  Her best friend was hint, suggestion and innuendo.  In ancient Khamit, Het Heru, the symbol of womanhood, is the archetype of grace, beauty, wit, charm, tact, poise, coquettishness, and sophistication    She might have wanted it that way all along, but it was to appear his way oft-times—now that's tact!  A woman never damaged a man's ego, leadership ability or manhood; unless she was extremely hurt by him (made a fool of) or a woman of ill-repute.

So what has changed between then and now?  Why would men suddenly allow such a change in tradition and what would be the consequence of doing so?

Because the younger generations don't know WHY THE CUSTOMS WERE ESTABLISHED in the first place.  . . There are many street veterans out here, who have paid their dues, and established some fundamental rules; Not all your parents are fools; some have astute observations.  And when we accumulate such acute observations and make them into rules and introduce those things into our group dynamics, it quickly becomes "tradition" and bears its own "social taboos."  But let's give the young folks the benefit of the doubt and say, "They didn't ignored it simply because it was "Old School" or they disliked how their parents were living--let's say they did it "because they didn't believe the reasons behind such stuff were true. . ." Well, I could only surmise that for someone unsuspecting, the act of having an attractive woman step to a man might boost one's ego straight through the roof:  

"Me?  I can't believe she chose me!  Now, you're talking. . . Let's get it on Baby."  Never before had he gotten so much attention.  Never before did he feel so important. . . But people who are often sought after, are usually pursued for a price. . .  And the consequence would be just a lot of sex (whereas her pursuit will be purely financial or to gain access to something to her advantage for doing so) an indulgence for an addiction; an attachment for something that never lasts forever; And the selection process that men uses to use to determine what type of women they'd become involved with, would have plummeted from morals and values that she may possess—to strict pursuits for the possibility of "getting Willie wet."  

Now should a relationship evolve from this nefarious affair;  That is—should one become critical of the pluses and minuses gained in this affair—they will always hear "Big Willie" exclaim, "But the sex was good". . .  And that might be enough for its lustful owner to relinquish his concerns.  Reasoning went out the window for the lower aspects of oneself.  Did you pick her or did she pick you?  She picked you out and used sexuality for the lure—and in one fell swoop—all safeguards to protect men against scandalous women was lost.  Shields dropped, standards lowered, and your starship is defenseless.  You're a "Mark" and the sad part is, you don't even know it.  

You are no longer doing the choosing; but being chosen: For what?  How much do you know about her (as opposed to how much she knows about you)--other than she wants you and she finds you sexy-looking?  

An older guy might suspect her of aids or herpes. . .  But his observation techniques can't help you, because he's "Old School."  Younger guys might just do her and never viewing this like a hooker/John scenario; Never looking at it as she is calling all the shots or that he is her "whore" and she is using him; "Juicing him for all his bank."  

And should a baby pop up, she is bound to go down to "Support Court" to make sure that she is not left "holding the bag."  And in the meantime, he will quickly see through this court room scenario that she has no respect for his leadership ability—because he will almost never be consulted in matters that has to do with the child—often kept in the dark concerning the happenings.  Children are born from such conditions—never having father and mother living in the same place; never seeing family or group dynamics; often hearing mom's one-sided, "Sob-stories."  

Conclusions

What goes by undetected by many of us is that we are being raised by our fathers and that we are hearing just mom's story.  The only male figure in many Black households is our older brothers, playing the so-called, "Man of the House," (who only gets as big as the mother would allow.  Many of my buddies in the hood were either gang members or younger brothers of brothers who were in the gang.  The only reason this becomes significant is because it becomes a "frat" of sorts—where a sort of true example of some of the male ideology (both good and bad) are represented.  In single parent mother run households, when mom talks all negative about your father, in an indirect way she is driving all your father's influence (both good and bad) out of you.  As much as my mother tried to avoid doing that, all of my brothers have lived a life trying NOT to do a lot "labeled negative things" that my father did to my mother—only to find out as adults that we could have been mistaken or such activities could have "busterized us" or pushed us to the other extreme.  It is very important that males get to learn male behavior from other males in an elder male mentorship relationship—it doesn't have to be your father, but it must be a father figure, so our masculinity as Black males can continue to evolve.

It runs all through me to hear Shaquille O'neal and Allen Iverson talk about their fathers or the lack thereof—and speak so negative: They have no idea of how difficult it is to ascertain what really happened, but essentially the children suffer from both of the parent's ill-reconcilable egos: Not to mention the numerous crack babies born from eroding social conditions like these.  What we are seeing is generation after generation of children getting hurt—males lacking in proper male models and daughters not willing to trust males.  These scenarios were about personal desires and gratification, crushed expectations and a view that love is for suckers; There is no group dynamic expressed, we play it as we go and make it up as we go along:  Family dynamics and social responsibilities have been relaxed for individual objectives, and what sane woman would trust that backdrop for having a baby?  This is what "Rugged Individualism" is.  You can hardly go to a Parent/Teacher meeting and find both parents seeing about the progress of a child.  Needless to say, the children created from these eroding conditions are becoming angrier and angrier about the family they didn't have, as they stroke mom's ego for not leaving them as well—and although "keeping it one hundred" gets the "monkey" of the speaker's back, it does nothing to protect that speaker from the backlash that comes as a result from such a lack of tact.  Younger generations are often viewed by older generations as "rude."  Both girls and boys need proper male figures and relationship dynamics in their rearing process, if things are ever going to change.

But this article is not so much on that focus, as it is on man woman dynamics; What it's becoming and what that means for the male population—particularly the Black male population in a world where every person is doing his thing and Black women do not believe in our leadership.

More succinctly, societies are judged by the virility and leadership of their men.  Men are expected to lead and defend their women, families and household.  When one society ravages another, they k8ill the men, rape the women, and slaughter the children.  In these current times, our women have no respect for men; they have reversed the roles and choose their men like "flavors of the week."  Women today have become generally unmanageable by their parents, female family members (or any male figure) and are not fully cooperative in relationships—often fostering hidden agendas—and have no patience for things domestic.  They don't have relationships; they have "situationships."  Despite not offering much in way of household cooperation, many young women act as though the young men have no choice; and many of the guys choose the longer enduring flings based upon the woman's sexual specialty.  If you look at the children today, you can see they suffer from improper rearing.  Women today are less willing to make the sacrifices their mothers did for the survival of the family.  Many times, women fashion their lives according to the privileges THEY THINK men have; and model their sexual freedoms according to privileges THEY THINK men have.  And when they are not chosen, some of them will choose themselves. . .  But in the final analysis, it is THE YOUNG MEN WHO HAVE ALLOWED THE WOMEN TO CHOOSE THEM IN THESE SITUATIONSHIPS!  And by these young men bypassing this social TABOO, they have allowed less than credible women into their lives; SIMPLY BECAUSE THE MEN DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY IT WASN'T PREVIOUSLY DONE THAT WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE.  It is they who opened up this Pandora's Box. 

Generation X and Y has rather stark views on many things that came before.  The youth seems to have handled blatant racism among each other, but the mainstream still exerts its conservative views on how society is run, and is bent on controlling the young Black male.  The main focus of this writing is, I question is how far the newer generation's investigation has been before they decided to relinquish what things were set in place prior to their arrival.  All organizations and organisms rely on the development and improvement of themes, and this one is being forsaken.  Like I said, what any organization or any organism completely relies on, is its components coming together and working together as a team.  And in order to do that it relies on certain things being established as a foundation.  Ironically, the younger generation is actually relying on a lot of fundamental things to stay in place and keep its cohesiveness, while they are in the midst of instituting their change to mainstream society.  In other words, I want to be heard but I don't want to do what you want.  That's why there's so much butting heads.  in order to coexist, there has to be cooperation.  Society has aborted welfare because it doesn't want to support members of society that doesn't contribute to the structure.  How much the youth will contribute to the society at large and something to look at. 

There is a difference in how a White man and/or Blackman can speak to police officer.  There are two different consequences  "Protect and Serve" takes on much different meanings in Black and White communities.  And neither group is naive to this reality.  And although I don't totally agree with it; I can see why some of our Black ethos have chosen to take this opportunity to link the current police brutality epidemic with the fact that, "brothers kill each other". . . The point being that once we open the door for others to take a lesser view of us, its hard to close the door on it; but it starts with how we handle it.

For decades, Blacks have avoided the ways of the White man's social dynamics.  We knew we could ill-afford to not be socially conscious with such obstacles around us. Our survival in America depended on how well we knew the men we came in contact with.  There were too many things that could happen to us by not being aware of others.  In our past, there were raping, lynchings, police brutalities, bombings, etc., with little to no repercussions, because we had to go to another man's system to seek justice.  In large, American society is not run by us.  Our people live in a land which is not our own; A land in which our people were once slaves—a land where there used to be little consequence for one of their people killing one of ours.  A lot was left up to the judgment of Whites, but in cases where blacks or other ethnicities were involved, it was still the Western system and the White man's logic.  We do think differently, you know.  Our people who were RAISED in America are behind as far protecting ourselves, protecting our own interest and financially empowering ourselves—as the world is concerned: 

Our culture was stripped from us by the slavery process here in this country, and many of our conscious people are attempting to put these elements back together, but that doesn't make up for the cultural vacuum most of us live under.  The new Americans generally stereotype us as uncivil and inferior, and are quick to jump to the conclusion that we are reason for all hubbub and social-disorder. 

We did not allow our children to roam freely through the supermarkets, run through the store, or play on the escalators in department stores, for we knew there would be different consequences than our White counterparts.  Yet, in these days and times, we find ourselves going to the same schools; receiving a lot of the same influences; and now many of us want to imitate them; expecting to get the same freedom and treatment as our White counterparts; then we become shocked when it doesn't happen.  In some instances that might not be that bad to demand it, because things should be equal; but this Rugged Individualism that our children have adopted is terrible, because it has us giving our children more and they appreciate what we do less; often disrespecting us in the same way we watched White kids do to their parents: Fostering no obligation to family structure like our Black predecessors did. . . And the youth are not equipped to come together to fight for what they want because rugged individualism fosters a lack of group organization.  Think about it.

Man is a social creature; like ants, lions, dogs and wolves.  Their efficiency lies in their social order and their adherence to it.  It provides the rituals and the examples.  CSNY [Crosby,Stills, Nash & Young] once said, “You, who are on the road, must have a code that you can go by.”  Without it, it quickly falls into chaos.  You have to have something that you can depend on--in order to “play the game.”  Not having something to depend on breeds, fear, doubt, and insecurity.  At the very least, knowledge or an awareness can allay uncertainties about things--because you know what to expect.   What we've been developing over the years has been tougher cynics; not people who are ready to do the work that has to be done.  Today is less responsible for itself and more about getting Willie wet; More hedonistic and egotistically absorbed: Full of themselves and less circumspect in their actions.  Slick Rick politics in Rap soliloquies has all but vanished: Just listen to the top radio hits. . .

White Women brought into all this assertive training that previous women-libbers  prescribed (and some Black females bought into it), only to find themselves without men they would normally go after; often settling for lesser, because their attitudes wouldn't attract better men.  Then many concluded that all men were dogs, no good, or "they can't deal with a strong Black woman like me."  Some got desperate in their waiting, and morphed into less than honorable approaches—all because of the "new liberated approach" —making their behavior less desirable to the older male species.  Some frustrated with the resultant new attitude produced in the male populace, began to turn to each other for momentary companionship!  Little did these women suspect that some key feminists private agenda was not to be with a man at all, and were therefore all right with the fostered ideologies to that effect: Thus putting other women who were not with that agenda on an island or impossible limb with the then male population.

Now our new Black "Native Sons" are facing new dilemmas: While their White male counter-parts may foster similar ideas concerning dating, women and family, ultimately their society is protected by the conservative mainstream; After all, America survived the Hippies and the Free Love Movement. . .  While among the Black populace, his world is surrounded with persons with an "every man for himself mentality"—where there's little trust lies between man and woman and most don't believe in his leadership ability.  Society says, he is expected to finance the "relationship," but the Blackman controls the destiny of very little of it.  If young Blackman leaves, he becomes a pariah to his children; if he stays—he suffers through the new era of diminishing returns.  If he is born of a single-parent household led by mother, he might be jaded by her to exceed past what is labeled as his father's shortcomings, AND SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHY IT WASN'T PREVIOUSLY DONE  IN THE FIRST PLACE, he may never see how impossible some of this really is.  Some dissatisfactions in women will never be cured. . .   So ironically, the work he will do will be a thankless job for him as well—and neither   nor his partner may have the stamina—because neither one of them knew what the father faced or had a father who lived in the same household, so they could observe him. . . So these conditions leave you with the scenario that this environment is no country for young Black men; but there is hope.

ALL THESE THINGS CAN CHANGE, BUT IT STARTS WITH YOU YOUNG BLACK MEN. . .  IT'S ALL ABOUT WHAT YOU CONTINUE TO ALLOW AND WHAT YOU DO AND DON'T DO.  BUT OUR PEOPLE WILL NOT SURVIVE IF YOU DON'T COLLECTIVELY SOLVE THIS. 

It's left up to us.  

. . .And stop standing for nonsense because you want some sex.

  

Thank you for all your considerations,

(I do appreciate all of you)

C. Be'er la Hai-roi Myers 

Peace