How does a woman working amongst hundreds of men remain a woman in her true essence?  In a turn of thought, I began this writing headed in one direction and somehow headed a different way.  I REALLY intended to criticize women in professions inherently male in their culture.  But in doing so, I felt it would be unfair to the standout women I have worked with over the years who I will highlight, such as my worksite’s vice-chair, GiGi. 

She is labor representation for about seven hundred union members at my place of employment.

But more important than that, a wife, and a mother to two US Marines.  I’ve never heard her curse, or yell, or behave in an unladylike manner.  And she gets things done. 


In the future I will come back to the discussion about masculine women, but for now, somehow, my hands moved in a Ouija Board manner across my laptop.  The flow bought me to a spotlight of women I have worked with through my life and strangely, the cosmos arranged that this should occur during ‘Women’s History Month’. 

At one time in the union office at my place of employment hung a poster that read, “If you complimented me when I did right, I would not then rebuke you when you point out my wrong”.  With that concept in mind, I extend a compliment.

Ladies, stay ladylike.  I have worked a number of blue-collar professions and observed that when in masculine environs, some women absorb male characteristics and behaviors, losing their feminine nature. For the woman in a blue-collar profession, holding her feminine demeanor is a challenging balance to maintain.  I speak of the ‘lady’ in the truest sense of that description, the member of the female sorority born a female and groomed to be a lady of grace and manners and class.  But in her career, she has within her a calling to be part of a male innovation that mechanically or scientifically builds, supports, or sustains life, through provision of products, services, or security.  And they navigate this while simultaneously respecting but staying out of the realm of masculinity.

I know a number of these women, who in their effectiveness never lost their natural feminine identity or inclination to be ladylike.  They were women were an asset to the team, without being consumed by the male culture of the team.  Never adopting the abrasiveness of blue-collar manner, never picking up the haughtiness of manliness, never changing their outlook to the cynicism of male blue-collar existence.  And even soothing male colleagues by highlighting their value from a woman’s perspective.

I attended a trade high school whose student body was about ninety-eight percent male.  Aviation High School in Queens in 1980 had about forty female students-in a class of about two thousand.  I almost remember every one of those girls, but I’ll highlight one in particular: Sonora, a bright Hispanic girl the color of light coffee, a big smile, a mix of South American and African features, and very down to earth–despite being a ‘bun’ in a roomful of ‘hot dogs’.  I remember her in welding class wearing the thick white coveralls that were supposed to stop hot metal from landing on you—and a few hours later at dismissal she would climb out of those overalls wearing a modest white chiffon blouse, tight jeans, and earrings.

Later in life, I became an Army Reservist, in a combat support military police unit.  Again, there were a small number of female Soldiers.  Three of them stood out because they were in top physical condition and were what we called “Hard Chargers”.  All three would engage in the grittiest of training with high levels of motivation, and all three could have been models for Lara Croft, the Tomb Raider.  And after two weeks of summer training each would transform into a dignified and attractive woman capable of collecting free drinks at the highest-class bars or lounges.  Among them was my lifelong friend and colleague who at the time was Staff Sergeant Francia D., now Dr. Francia H.

She camped in the woods with us, got bitten by ticks with us.  When we were deployed to Iraq she lived in a tent with us, and day after day rode into hostile territory with us.  

Later I was mentored by the late Command Sergeant Major Deborah J. Wilcox.  A consummate professional, CSM Wilcox guided the development of the enlisted members of the battalion without need to show she was tougher than every male in sight.  She could bark when needed, but in our one-on-one leadership sessions, she coached me with her gentle southern accent. 

Debra lost a fight with illness years ago and has a scholarship fund in her name: Sgt. Major Debra J. Wilcox Scholarship Fund – AnnieRuth Foundation.

My duty took me to an instructor unit, and at the top of my battalion Non-Commissioned Officer support channel was Command Sergeant Major Carol C.

Another solid leader, she was positive, feminine, but could be quite firm when needed (I watched her lock some heels).  CSM Carol was committed to the Army ethic, was unmistakably feminine, she never needed to become a man to get her job done. 

Still dedicated to her husband in retirement, she lives a quiet God-fearing life in Maryland, I remember how womanly she looked in mess blue uniform with ruffled blouse.  Even in the rigidity of the Army, she found a way (within regulations) to stay ladylike.  [on r. is COL (Ret.) Phyllis (Ragland) Alford, 9-80 Health Services Battalion].

Most proud am I of my oldest daughter.  PFC Queen cold weather training Ft Dix 2020When she told me of her decision to join the Army, I recommended that she try the United States Navy or Air Force.  Those branches can be rough-n-tough, but this man’s Army is exclusively dirt and mud and living in a tent.  But, before I knew it she threw herself in, and though I thought it would be too grimy for her, this soft voiced kitten did it.  She made it through basic training, and Signals school, and wound up in the Tenth Mountain Division, Fort Drum NY.  Above right is her in bivouac performing cold weather warfare training.  And she is ALL girl.  And now a veteran like me.

In my current employment at New York City Transit, I share the workplace with a fair amount of female co-workers, and though vastly outnumbered by men, they somehow remain women.  Some of my female co-workers change hairstyles more frequently than their well-heeled professional peers.  Traci and Nikki (L and R), seem like they change ‘do’s every four days.  Traci on the left is quite even tempered, and I’ve never heard her speak with a salty tongue.  Nikki on the right always smiles and again, no salty speech leaves her mouth (I’ve never heard it).  These two along with most of the ladies have no desire to emulate the traits of men (Nods to Danielle, Miriam, Charita, Katrina, Aida and a few more).  Some keep themselves in good physical condition, and a surprising amount broadened their world perceptions by purchasing one or both of my books. 

Unfortunately, there are some, who curse rather liberally, and a few are emotionally explosive.  Sadly, a few more seem to have given up on femininity.  But I will attribute those to the challenges of a world gone mad.  And really, I began this piece of writing intending to question those women.  But I became consumed with a calling to be positive, and instead I want to point the spotlight at those I feel get it right.

For a few years I worked at New York City Department of Correction, and there were a number of standout female officers; but, in the harshness of a jail, most had become men in women’s skin. The necessity for boldness and the minute-by-minute potential for violence had wiped away their feminine side, such that even when not on facility property they were still overly aggressive and at times downright nasty.  Their demeanor was unattractive, and I describe most of them as unladylike. They had done what they had to psychologically to survive in their profession, but they had been transformed completely, in a way that no woman should.

Even when at social events or holiday parties, hair ‘done up’ and wearing gowns, they could be heard loudly telling jail stories and cursing.  Their mannerisms and interactions were like men in a bar watching football, and some were even physically belligerent in public.  Ultimately, they are what they are, but the question remains, is that what they set out to be?

Yes, I still see gender in through a binary lens. 

And I will continue to articulate what I see as an unwise movement that seeks respect in disrupting the natural order, and converting beautiful women into gruff men.  That movement is opposed to excelling in its role as part of the natural order, that being women, wives, mothers.

Yet, I am still amazed at the care with which most of my female co-workers present themselves to the world each morning.  And most of these female counterparts are polite, and smile (Nahima, Sapphire, Tiffany), and unless pushed unfairly are gentle and caring creatures (Charita, Aida).  And they throw good parties.

There are more, and I have undoubtedly made enemies by unintentionally leaving some out, I hope they don’t become . . . unladylike over it . . .

Stay ladylike.

As simple a statement as that is, processing that concept is a shortcoming in every corner of life.  You can explain until you are blue in the face the pain you are feeling about something, and people who think they are empathetic will ignore or deny your suffering.  But when it is their pain, their suffering, their blood–their cries for righteousness from the universe will be immutable!  The very same complaints that you voiced and were refused will now have weight when emerging from their lips and demand redress.

Today’s Conservatives, and the larger Republican party, are unable to get any fair treatment in media.  If it were not for Fox News, there would be no avenue for those on the political right to communicate.  Every film from Hollywood, every television program, every newscast, is oriented from a liberal perspective.  It is a forgone conclusion that everyone agrees with the Democrat party and the direction of progressives.  Conservatives, me included, are frustrated that the minority of entities controlling American media ignore our complaints.  But hasn’t this happened before, hasn’t this been done to someone else . . .

It doesn’t hurt until it affects you.

For decades, the Black entertainment experience in American media was a tortured existence of minstrel shows, tapdancing, and blackface. 

That evolved to portrayals in film as buffoons who spoke poor English and fat mammies in domestic service to others.  Sometimes sweaty bug-eyed black men frothing at the sight of a white woman or piece of chicken. 



In real-time media such as nightly news, “Negroes” were the criminal, the

illiterate, the unproductive dependent dragging the progress of society.  Next came the era of black men as the mugger, the pimp, the slick jive-talking hustler not to be trusted, and black women as sassy attitude loud-mouthed and no/low class.

While many of these conditions were not fiction, and were even frequent, they were not the majority, or half, or even a quarter of the Black existence.  But when you are not in control of, or even a part of, the creative or decision-making hierarchy, your portrayal to an unfamiliar or hostile public is subject to the whims of unsympathetic writers, editors, and even accountants.  The portrayals of Blacks in media whether in film, TV, or news reports and newspapers, was either insulting, frustrating or infuriating. 

Powerless to stop it due to not being producers of it, it fit some people’s entertainment tastes, or other people’s socio-political narratives.  The portrayals of Blacks in the media enabled interpersonal laziness; rather than form a relationship with an African American, one could convince themselves they knew the Black struggle based on media.  Bigots used it as empirical data to support their superior views, progressives used it (and Blacks) as a maul for their political goals under the guise of ‘helping’.

In my opinion, no one cared, because it did not affect them.

Fast forward to the Reagan era, and Conservatives are hopping mad because they cannot get a fair shake in the media.  They describe it as the ‘liberal media’, CNN was labeled the ‘Clinton News Network’, and they were right. It seemed that in the space of thirty years Socialists and Liberals had wormed their way into control positions in every facet of media.  All interviews on political shows were seeded with slanted questions.  News reports in print or television became more and more slanted for a left-leaning agenda.  It bled over to entertainment, and the pace picked up exponentially.

Today’s Conservatives have the very same complaints about media and public perception that the Black community voiced over the last hundred years. 

But it doesn’t hurt until it affects YOU.

When the first accusations arose that an FBI investigation into Donald Trump was the result of a hoax, Republicans and President Trump railed about FBI overreach and abuse—to which Minister Louis Farrakhan replied in a speech: “WELCOME TO THE CLUB!  WE’VE [Nation of Islam] BEEN SAYING THIS ABOUT THE FBI FOR DECADES!  IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THEIR POWER, HAVE AT IT!”. 

President Trump (for whom I voted) declared his innocence and decried the evil ‘swamp’, but when the Central Park five were found exonerated as the result of DNA(!) evidence, did he issue a front-page apology?   Remember, he paid for a full-page ad in the Daily News demanding their prosecution and reinstatement of NY State’s death penalty?  Good manners and adherence to the man code dictates that the apology should match the veracity of the violation.

As comedian Bill Burr joked on stage, every movie portrays the white male character as one of the ‘ists’—racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.  It’s terrible, but if any of you had come to Black people’s aid when the media used the Black image for entertainment caricatures, you might have an ally now.  No one would hear our complaints, nor solicited our opinion–just like when your ancestors built those damn statues . . .

I find it quite baffling that whites, American white men, men whose forefathers fought for freedom, cannot seem to fathom the abhorrent social crime those same men committed when they built statues honoring the confederates who fought to enslave my forefathers.  Naming streets after confederates and klansmen to glorify their cause.  If anyone were to honor a white man’s enemies, American white men would shut it down immediately.  Remember the attempts by Muslims to build a mosque at ground zero post 9/11?  Everyone (except Muslims) understood how tone deaf that was.

If we value American men fighting for freedom, why is there no monument to Nat Turner?  John Brown? Robert Smalls?  The only memorial I know of representing black men gallantly fighting for their freedom is the 54th Infantry Regiment monument in Boston, MA.

It doesn’t hurt until it affects you.

As a black conservative, I am occasionally asked about how to gain the “black vote”.  How about recognizing our pain?  Do some digging and right a previous wrong, especially if liberals did it.  You get the moral high ground.  I’ll jump start it: I read a book last year titled “Forgotten: The untold story of America’s Black Heroes on D-Day and back at home.”  It is an incredible account of Black men who went ashore at Omaha Beach.  FIRST WAVE.  I SAID FIRST WAVE!

Yet as a military historian and war movie buff, I have seen three major Hollywood films about D-Day, not a single Black Soldier was even in the background.  “Saving Private Ryan” executive produced by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Hanks (both big time Hollywood Liberals) made no reference to them nor did the mini-series “Band of Brothers”.  Neither were these men seen in “The Longest Day”, which illustrated the battle from several different perspectives—but not the Black men.

I have been angry at media and entertainment and now professional sports for their one-sided narrative that shamelessly and slickly (and sometimes overtly) champions that we on the right are evil.  But I cannot say this has not happened before, and when it did, no one in political office with an ‘R’ next to their name heard the protests of Black Men.

It doesn’t hurt until it affects you–now, no one is hearing the protests of Conservatives.

A young man in a Marine Corps uniform, a young lady in a white dress, a mariachi band in suits and sombreros, horns, family and friends dressed to celebrate an occasion, a milestone.  They have aspired to and maintained the moments in culture that are special and prepare for them enthusiastically and treat those moments with reverence.  This day is special, it holds reverence in their eyes, and they treat it accordingly.  Guests arrived from near and far, and initially I was put off by the cars parked up and down my street and in front of my house, but when I saw how pristine and dignified they looked; I was touched and humbled.  Though this moment was happening in their humble backyard, peeking over the fence from another neighbor’s house we could see the property was decorated as though in Southern France.  Everyone was in a suit or a dress, haircuts and hairdos, hushed voices in the eighty-four degree sun.

In opposite fashion, we born and bred Americans have become complacent and lazy in our approach to almost all aspects of American culture.  I have been witness to church baptisms with family members in washed out blue jeans and a polo shirt, kids in baseball jerseys and ball caps.  The sanctity of an infant child being welcomed to the family of God had no significance.

Sophisticated Americans? 

More like sloppy Americans.  I remember a time when no self-respecting woman would appear in public like these pictures of Ms Spears.  Comedian Sebastian Maniscalco joked about this in one of his comedy routines, noting that at the airport, people looked like they had, “. . . just rolled out of bed and to the airport gate.”  All around us, I see a world where almost nothing is formal or treated with reverence.  The only events we seem to treat with reverence are celebrity award shows, which is a marker of what we value in American culture.

In a time when men have lost all sense of style, I was chastised by an older woman at church that I could, “dress more comfortably”.  Instead of a jacket and button up shirt, should I be like the congregant who wears his favorite plaid flannel shirt and cargo shorts?  What is the problem with attending worship dressed like a gentleman?  I am uncomfortable when I am NOT in this attire.  To add to the frustration, our new pastor was chided for wearing a very regal robe because, “It’s summer out, aren’t you hot?”  My wife was questioned about her shoes, “You still wear heels?  I don’t see how you do it”.

Meanwhile, the acolyte (lighting the candles) is in crocs, cut off shorts and a baseball cap.  Where’s the robe?  I find it disrespectful, but I don’t say a word lest be labelled judgmental.  “Come to Jesus as you are.”

My son has an eye for style but lost his personal taste for gentleman’s clothing because he showed up at school dances being the ONLY one in shoes.  He wasn’t even in a suit, just shoes, jeans and a slim fitting blazer.  His peer group arrived in their favorite t-shirts, and he was disappointed to be one of only a few appropriately dressed.  And this angered me because I often hear adults and especially parents complain about this very issue.  Disappointed because girls don’t wear dresses and the boys look sloppy.

Who’s in charge?  It is amazing how many of my neighbors or other parents give their children everything they want but wield NO control or even influence in these or other matters.  They complain of lack of respect for adults while I remember the days when we all feared adults.  What the parents dictated was the law and violations of this were met with swift and exact discipline. 


A male congregant at church complimented my son’s style:

Him:  Your son is such a gentleman, he’s mature, and he dresses ‘up’ for church.  How do you manage this?

Me: I don’t.  He picks his stuff out.

Him: I can’t get _____ or _____ to dress like that at all.

Me: (I look him up and down, I’ve never seen him more than washed out blue jeans and his favorite polo shirt) Well, do you dress up?

Him: Nahh, I put on so much weight I can’t. (sighs)

Me:  There you go . . . Sons imitate their fathers.  If there is something you want out of him, you have to model it.  But, even then, if his peers aren’t doing it, your influence will be limited.

Him:  Can you try to say something to him (older son) for me?

Me: (to myself) Who’s in charge?

I often hear complaints that there’s no more respect for anyone or anything; The abuse of the elderly, the snatching of innocence from children, the striking down of our institutions.  I immediately want to ask, “what do YOU respect?  What behaviors are you teaching/modeling?”

Tell me if you can relate to this:  as a teen, even when out patrolling our neighborhood with friends, if we were passing a church/house of worship, our loud talk would pause because one of our group would announce, “Hey respect the church, respect God.”  And as filled with beer as we were, but should not have been, our voices would hush a bit until we were clear of whichever sanctuary we were passing before the foul mouths resumed.  Last Sunday, several times service was tainted by outside noise from roaring obnoxiously loud motorcycles, car stereos blasting loud and vulgar music, and cackling passers-by.  A lack of reverence or at least respect.

As a kid in the back seat of my father’s car, when ambulances or fire trucks or police cars fought to get through traffic with sirens on, everyone on the road would get out the way.  Today, I witnessed yet again motorists barely yield their positions in the lane to a rushing ambulance despite there being room to pull over.  No reverence for the mission of this emergency vehicle, desperately working to get a suffering or dying person to medical assistance.

These pieces when assembled point to the loss of reverence for country, for culture, for humanity.  Absolutely nothing is worthy of respect or effort on anyone’s part.  Burn the flag.  Ridicule holidays.  Cursing at the world in music.  Young ladies in the supermarket in see-through leggings or pajamas–the women of my day would not be caught dead in such dishevelment!  Young men with their pants sagging sloppily.  But these same people want the world to be a ‘better place’.  Burning down Police Stations–irreverence.  Raiding the Capitol!  Is nothing sacred?

Cellphone conversations in speaker mode or even shouting into cellphones regardless of the setting, sometimes with vulgarity.  These public displays are not humility, these are arrogance and irreverence, like the infamous millennial ‘f*** you flip flops’.  The standards you flaunt today will be the standards your cry for tomorrow.


In the bible, it is written, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”

It is my opinion that that young man in a Marine Corps uniform and the young lady in a blindingly white dress, along with the Mariachi band and the guests, are those meek souls Matthew 5:5 describe.  They were holding a moment in reverence, and I believe that their effort to show reverence for the moment will inherit them the earth.

“You cannot turn someone against their country—they have to want to believe whatever propaganda you tell them.” — Yuri Bezemenov, former Soviet KGB agent.

All of you demanding Britney Griner’s release were active in her imprisonment.  What’s funny is, and also shows your ignorance of what we’re dealing with, is the idea that she is retrievable.  We are funding and supplying Ukraine in their war for survival against Russia—Why would the Russian Communists let her go?  I find demands “. . . for her immediate release!” hysterical.  What are YOU going to do?  Protest?  Go on over to Russia and see how THEY treat protesters.  Back in the eighties Ronald Reagan told you that the Russians at the center of the Soviet Bloc were an evil empire—did you miss that speech?

For as long as I have been alive, the growth of domestic anti-US sentiment has simmered.  While I was being born in 1965, the country was arguing about a war in Vietnam, the civil rights movement was in full swing, women were becoming more politically vocal, and the scourge of hallucinogenic drugs was destroying minds.  A beloved president had been assassinated and a man who took slings and arrows for his oppressed people was also assassinated. Then there were a host of other political/economic/cultural items being argued over and considered.

Hating American institutions became en vogue and tearing down norms of culture became a badge of honor.  In the ultimate show of displeasure with their nation and using a bargaining tactic of overstating their bargaining position, many Americans began to seek or at least seem to seek alliance with America’s enemies.  Usually, it involved sympathy with a communist, socialist, or Marxist nation.  Among those were the adversarial Soviet Union and the then nascent China.  Sometimes it would be friendly but inconsequential countries such as Denmark or more recently, Venezuela.  These ideas were romanticized by those who were (and still are) angry with their home country.

As accusations of the American economy being manipulated for the “rich” went unrefuted, Capitalism and the United States became the scapegoat for people’s struggles.  Socially, gains in racial, ethnic, religious, gender or sexual orientation were argued as either too far too fast or not far enough and too slow, and so a seeking out of something out there, somewhere, that may be better than here [America] drove large segments of the American population to look at competitor nations and even adversaries as possibly being the solution.

Especially those of you who look at communism/socialism/marxism fondly.

This trend was reflected in popular music, and in 1981 Prince penned a song on his “Controversy” album titled “Ronnie [Reagan] talk to Russia” (see track 2 left).  This song begged that Ronald Reagan talk to and compromise with the Soviet Union.  Many left leaning Americans of the day were of the mind that Ronald Reagan, Conservatives, and the so-called ‘military industrial complex’ was the source of nuclear war tensions.  Every Republican president since has been painted as an evil warmonger, and whichever nation presented a leader who countered an American president, especially if Republican, had the sometimes-overt admiration of the segment of disgruntled Americans.  Remember the invitation of Iran’s Ahmadinejad to speak at Colombia University?  The black community harbors a secret love for Cuba and the now deceased Fidel Castro.  More recently, the American leftist movement, Citgo, and Joseph P. Kennedy embraced Hugo Chavez.  Do you remember the press almost laughing at our own President, George W. Bush, when a Muslim reporter threw a shoe at him?

General George S. Patton warned in 1944 Russia was going to be a problem. Russia and China supported North Korea’s invasion of South Korea, and then North Vietnam’s invasion of South Vietnam. But you hated your own country so much that you rationalized our growing enemy. Remember that bum Jane Fonda?

President Kennedy admitted after his summit with the Russian President that had been outplayed by Premier Nikita Kruschev after extending an olive branch of diplomacy. 

“I never met a man like this,” Kennedy remarked to another reporter, Hugh Sidey of Time magazine. “[I] talked about how a nuclear exchange would kill 70 million people in 10 minutes, and he just looked at me as if to say, ‘So what?’”

Not more than six years ago Barack Obama sat with Vladimir Putin and said when he looked him in the eye “I saw a good man”.  

Because all of their “America is oppressive” arguments don’t reconcile with the worldwide immigration to the United States they reached even further out to discover someplace better than America, hoping to point to some socialist nation and say, “See!  They have it right!  They’re just as good . . . America isn’t so great!


So, of course Brittney Griner travelled to communist Russia!  You have told everyone you can that the real enemy is America/Republicans/Conservatives/the Police/the Military/Capitalism/The CIA/FBI/Banks/Corporations/Donald Trump!  Never mind that the CIA has described the former Russian bear as now descended to a ‘crime-state’ under the leadership of former KGB officer Vladimir Putin.

Ignore everything that General Patton said about Russia, Reagan said about the Soviet Union, it was false, “Britney go on over, the Russians are not the enemy.  All the weapons we made and billions we spent during the cold war to counter those Soviet maniacs was our fault, Britney go on over.  Ignore the Cuban missile crisis Britney, that was America’s fault”. 

“Ignore that two Russian GRU officers travelled to England to poison communist dissident Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive polonium, having no regard for the obvious hazards to British citizens.  The CIA, FBI, and our government is worse—so go play Britney!  All of the proxy wars the Soviet Union supported against the US were okay and justified—GO ON OVER TO OUR ENEMY BRITNEY AND PLAY BASKETBALL!”

And not only did she go, but she arrogantly flaunted her ‘homosexuality’ in the faces of a nation and men who are clear that they are not tolerant of that lifestyle.  The Russians aren’t going to be kind and gentle like the American justice system.  Especially if you go there ‘ugly American’ fashion, “I’m a basketball player from America, I do what I want.  These people love me, and they pay me”. 

She and others of her political stripe arrogantly refused the national anthem of America; but now demand America must come save her…

Like many of you, she was either ignorant that Russia is our enemy, or hopeful she could leverage that against her own country. 


You progressives helped put Britney Griner in jail.  And now she probably sits in the Lubyanka, the prison where the communists lock up spies and execute enemies of the State.  She’s there because of you, and your hidden love for socialism and no-so-hidden hatred for 50% of your country that politically disagrees with you.


© 2022 Queen Publishing

So I’m driving along listening to Sirius radio and my ear is drawn in to a lusty old style blues groove. Despite not being a fan of today’s music and themes, this one grabs me, especially from a production standpoint. This sounds like it should be on my playIist; the chord structure is dramatic, and the bottom sounds like a stand-up bass. The woman’s voice is hungry and breathy as the piece explodes into a powerful refrain incorporating electric keyboards and the synthesized horns as she sings:


I could be a better boyfriend than him

I could do the shit that he never did

Up all night, I won’t quit

Thinking I’m gonna steal you from him

I could be such a gentleman

Plus all my clothes would fit

Dove Cameron

So, a few years back I USED to have on my playlist a song titled “Girl” by a group called “The Internet”. Another nice groove, a thin female voice telling her female friend . . . then I realized what was being said:


Girl (you’re mine)

If they don’t know your worth

Tell ’em you’re my girl

And anything you want is yours



I must like their grooves because the same group, with female lead singer ‘Syd’ had an uptempo neo-soul groove, “timeless”:


Stay here with me, sleep here in my palace

Wanna be free? Frolic in my fabrics

Wrapped up in sheets (wrapped up in sheets)

Close your eyes, imagine another day

Waking up next to me, baby


Interesting.  And this was backed by male musicians.  They get credit for the assist.

There’s dozens of these songs out there, the more research I did, the more I was stunned.


I saved this interesting facebook post from someone over at BLM.  I found the theme to be…curiosity provoking.  It may have been removed, and this screenshot is poor quality, so I’ll retype it: 

“Since my post yesterday went left I decided to borrow some words from another BLM organization.  Let’s just–say the quiet part out loud.  She’s a masculine queer black woman from Houston.  She a professional Athlete, a career most men literally dream of. She boasts the height and athletic ability most men–dream of.  She can beat most men in a sport that’s male dominated.  She has a stunner beautiful wife–which also…Who’s ego is she threatening?  Why aren’t we saving her?  Bc she doesn’t fit the damsel in distress narrative that strokes our ego?”


I don’t want to go off on tangents here, but WHO is supposed to be saving Brittney Griner from the Russians?  American men?  Men who the author of that post is implying that Brittany is ‘better’ than?  The men who have wives who are NOT stunners?  The men who do not have her height or ability?  Men who salute the flag she does not respect and sing the national anthem she hates?


Those are their words.  Read that post again.  She can be a better man than you.


Some of this is men’s fault.  We let this cat (no pun) out with our lust for the ultimate male fantasy—the ‘menage-a-trois’.  The male desire to have two women in bed at once, a perversion of the French phrase “party of three”.  A large number of men (Meyers, 2011) desire this act, to engage sexually with two women at the same time.  It is my opinion that this played right into the hands of the male impersonators who seek to replace us.  Never considering that “if they enjoy each other sexually that much then maybe they don’t really need you and your icky penis there?”.  No thought that at least one of these women really has no need for you but went along for the purpose of tasting the other woman? 

I’m not suggesting that lesbianism didn’t originate of its own accord, but I am suggesting that male lust provided a stage for it.  The explosion of male centered pornography from seedy theaters almost into the mainstream of culture provided an even more open stage for the normalization of lesbianism.  Then the voracious appetite for shock value in today’s entertainment, and we have devolved to dance music celebrating this: “I Kissed a girl, and I liked it”, “Born this way”.  These songs, though not the first of their kind, kicked in the door of the heterosexual party, shouting legitimacy. 

And they steered around challenging men.  And that is the axis of this issue.  America, and the world, is becoming more and more accepting of homosexuality, but that was with the unspoken understanding that it would not challenge heterosexuality.  But we now have these interesting tweets from the ladies at BLM (Bisexual/Lesbian Manipulators) suggesting that their imprisoned heroine is better than men, and that we are letting her languish because of that.  We have ‘Emma’ in an Army recruitment video, who thinks her marches in San Francisco for her two ‘Moms’ shows she’s a fighter and should be a Soldier.


I should be clear, my animus is not at homosexuality per se, but at what I now see is the attempt to usurp male position.  Secondarily, a pernicious campaign to pass off this behavior as ‘normal’.  I do not suggest that the alternate lifestyle community does not have the right to pursue their happiness; see my essay ‘A National Divorce’.  The problem comes when the basic building block of human existence is pushed aside by culture, and then corrupted science, to promote the abnormal.

Yes, abnormal.  I respect your right to do it, dependent on you respecting my right to see it as abnormal.  And yes, I also accuse some scientists and doctors of being corrupt.

But, let me introduce you to another avenue of approach for this bullshit, laid out by men.  I was raised in a time when the opposite gender simultaneously presented itself as sexless and desirous.  The overall theme was that women were only interested in sex when it was introduced by men, innocent, and very basic.  We were taught by culture that no decent woman was interested in anything but ‘normal’ sexual activity.  And ‘normal’ was a very narrow path.

Thus, any female interested in sex was to be looked at askance, ignoring that these desires were hetero driven.  Meanwhile the young girls who were described as ‘tomboys’ went unquestioned.  In some cases, fathers who were concerned about teenaged pregnancy welcomed gender crossing behaviors and style of dress.  “It’ll keep them boys off her” (I know two of these such men TODAY).  While male homosexuals were falling on the sword for their cause, lesbians went mostly unfettered.  Men didn’t really see them as a threat or challengers, and the aforementioned sexual fantasies of threesomes led to promotion of it.

I overheard a group of teenaged girls talking to another about an older young lady who was attempting to befriend one of them.  The teenaged girl was complaining that this ‘hard’ looking woman always approached her at the bus stop, “offering this, offering that”.  She was intimidated, was afraid of the woman, and did not know how to turn her away.  If this were a man approaching our daughters (or sons) we would beat the pee out of him. Men, we failed to protect straight women from these female wolves.

You’ve been duped, but in some cases, you duped yourself with your lust.  But I ain’t been duped.  I saw this coming forty-five years ago when I encountered my first ‘dyke’.  In a ghetto of hyper-masculinity, she always wanted to challenge me, the little skinny light-skinned black kid who wasn’t as big and menacing as the bigger and darker black boys.  Then it was high school, a dyke who found it important to point out she could outplay me in basketball, which wasn’t saying much because I wasn’t a ball player. 

This is a new strain of penis envy.  There is this growing need by male impersonators to prove they are better than the men she impersonates, and then enter male culture to pluck the benefits of male sacrifice without actually engaging in male sacrifice.  They point out male flaws, not for the purposes of construction, but to then highlight HER superiority (while we’re not present to know what she’s up to.  Until now).  Men are being challenged by Strap-on Sally, and all aspects of culture are helping them, most notably our government and Hollywood.  Now that we (men) have built everything, society is on cruise control and we’re no longer necessary.

She can be a better boyfriend than him, She can be a better boyfriend than me, She can be a better boyfriend than you

“You can’t tell me you don’t see it,” Lena insisted. “If men disappear tomorrow, so would war. And rape. And just about every other ill of mankind.” – That line is from “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” season 24, episode 6, by a female suspect who sponsors bondage parties and is confronted by Detective Benson.  If the previous twenty-three seasons didn’t tell you what this show is about, that line should.  The whole show is built around the tar and feathering of men.

That wasn’t a bunch of lesbians on those I-beams building New York’s skyscrapers, nor was it lesbians building dams, or mining coal, or on some pitching fishing boat off the coast of Alaska catching fish and crab–it was men. AND ONE SEASON IT WAS ONE WOMAN.  Conversely, it’s not men on delivery tables in hospitals giving babies to the world, that’s women.  Men have no desire to usurp women’s prestige as the womb of life.  Men were, and still are, busy bringing every bit of infrastructure you, and we enjoy today.  Women birthed every life you, and we enjoy today.  Men are born with not just inherent abilities, but also inherent responsibilities, just as the same must be said of women.

But in her desire to be a ‘boyfriend’ the lesbian demands that we take her false identity as actual, and that her motives are altruistic.  And just as the idea of a male impersonating a woman in the powder room is unacceptable, a woman in the men’s locker room is a conflict of interest.

Per the Family Research Institute, apart from Biblical injunctions, homosexuals have been considered non-productive and hence inimical to the well-being and even the survival of the world. In addition, they have been regarded as dangerous, because they preyed on the young and perverted them from normal, healthy, productive lives. In their selfish preoccupation with genital pleasure, they sought to rebel against the natural order of human life itself — the mutual responsibility of one for all that forms the basis of the social contract (FamilyResearchInstitute).


She can be a better boyfriend than him…can she be a better boyfriend than you?


Choe, David (2021) Army leaders praise ‘superstar’ soldier after Sen. Ted Cruz criticizes her recruitment video.  Stars and Stripes


Family Research Institute » Blog Archive » The Psychology of Homosexuality.



Meyers, Seth Psy.D. (2011) Men’s Fantasy of a Threesome: Why Men Want a Ménage a Trois. Psychology Today.  Retrieived November 25, 2022 from


White, Jessica (2022) A New Villain Has Arrived to SVU Who Is Benson’s Total Opposite. NBC Insider.

What is a “National Divorce?” Maybe this is the moment I coin a term.

A National Divorce is an amicable and consensual separation of the nation. Before I write another word, I think we’re better together (see my blog post ‘a case for man and woman’), but we’re on the verge of being history’s most insane domestic violence call. Unless we want this family named America ruined forever, we need to separate mommy and daddy before something really bad happens.


We haven’t forgotten the Civil War; that was horrific and none of the weapons we have now existed then. Imagine repeating that with today’s weapons.

But to explain the concept, I need to go back.

When America was formed, it was a group of loosely tied republics and commonwealths. The original intent was to have these former colonies combining their efforts to stop any foreign invasion (the British), but aside from matters of national defense, each would be free to do its own thing. That freedom and autonomy was sometimes a benefit, such as the formation of local governments and policy specific to the challenges and needs of that state. And it was sometimes a curse, such as slavery. As an ongoing result, there was, and is, a continuing awkward growth stage that is showing signs of pending implosion.

This nation is still a child compared to the other countries of the world. China has existed for thousands of years, the same for the European nations, and some countries existed and dissolved before America came along. But once word of the ‘New World’ spread across Europe, people of every nationality emigrated from their homelands to set foot in North America, and after some skirmishes and two wars, the United States came to be.

The unique feature of America is that anyone can come from anywhere, though it was really Western culture populations (read: white) who made the initial jump. And though there were different nationalities, they were all varying types of Caucasian and European and their cultures were not radically different from one another. Blending would be tricky, but not impossible. That is not to say that the Irish were not frowned upon, and certainly Italians were denigrated, not even being counted as Caucasian until 1934–before that the census counted that group as “latins”. But they were still all from Europe.

But then came other races and radically different cultures–and the growing number of former slaves demanding a seat at the American table they helped build. Add to this the Chinese who were imported to help build railroads. But they were entirely different racially and culturally; and maybe even mentally. Eastern Europeans (i.e. Russia, Poland, Czechslovakia, etc.) began to show up and brought along with them socialist and fascist ideas. And along came a sprinkling of Jews. How was all this going to mix?

Well, though it was not without some ugly turns, the marriage of these peoples happened. This was mostly because there was an initial dominant culture (Western) that the other groups assimilated toward but not necessarily into. This formed a nascent American culture. This society that lived this culture was always dynamic, mostly efficient and extremely effective. It was also often unfair, sometimes downright nasty, and from time to time brutal and terrifying.

But we made it work, though it didn’t always work for everyone; but that is a tangential discussion.

As more and different peoples came to America with cultural and political ideals that were strikingly different if not outright opposite to the developing American culture and politics, the tricky blend has become increasingly complicated, then frustrating, and now either hopeless or maddening. Maddening to the extent that everyday citizens are angry and willing (at least in speech) to harm one another.

With all that said, now we’re ready to discuss a “National Divorce”.

We don’t see eye to eye, and the differences are getting wider and more varied as the spectrum of cultures widens faster than the ability to PROPERLY assimilate them. With no instruction of the American culture in practice, if that even exists anymore, new Americans fall back on what they know; how we did it back home. Or how we should do what this nation or that nation does, despite the river of people leaving those nations to come here. And that is where I observe that we may not be able to come back from the brink. The arguments are now dogmatic, people just want to take the wheel and drive no matter what harm they may do, on top of the harm already done. The marriage of the United States has reached the point of irreconcilable differences, and if we don’t separate the belligerents the house of America will turn into the world’s largest murder-suicide domestic violence call.

But how do we do that?

In a divorce, the marital assets are split; so should go America. My vision of a national divorce is a return to the states being loosely attached republics that stand together for security. Thereby strategically and for security we remain ‘America’, but each state tailored politically to a specific constituency. BY LAW. To avert violent conflict, ALL members of a political, social, or faith based constituency must reside in a defined state of like-minded residents.

Georgia would go to Black people, or African Americans, or people of color, or the African diaspora, or whatever term is being used at that time. Residency would require 51% confirned African DNA and no interracial couples.  Gun ownership mandatory–as Stokely Carmicahael the Black Panther said in his speech at Berkeley: “Ya’ll try to play that shit again, this time we playin’ back”.  Representatives and Senators of this state must be 70% African American.

There will be a one hundred and fifty thousand dollar (USD), one time reparation payment–to each adult. 

That’s it.  You can’t get your life right after that–the problem isn’t America.  IT’S YOU.

Georgia residents are forbidden to visit the ‘Whites only’ states of Idaho and North Dakota  Mississippi, Kansas, and Tennessee.

For my Boricua hermanos y hermanas, let’s stop playing–Puerto Rico needs to be a state.  You know how much your tourism economy would explode?  If you can demonstrate a solid Republic presence and reliable vote–it would happen within months. 

But come on, you can KEEP Spanish at home and for cultural history, but the everyday language will have to be English.



San Francisco could become it’s own state and dedicated to the Alternate lifestyle community. That new state’s residents must be populated by those sympathetic to the alternate lifestyle community, and send ONLY declared and confirmed alternate lifestyle representatives to congress.

Gay marriage would be legal, public and recognized in this state.  ONLY THIS STATE.


The rest of California could be a progressive republic (it is almost its own country anyhow, like NY), and that state’s representatives must be registered progressives. Progressives are anti-war, so all military installations would need to be relocated to the new state of San Diego, or to Alaska, giving the US military continued access to the Pacific ocean.

Let Anarchists have Washington State and Oregon; there must be absolutely no organized government or businesses in those states except for what THEY choose to organize, though the whole point of Anarchism is that there is absolutely no organized government or businesses. Or property rights.  Be advised: if you are against ALL forms of governance, don’t look for any public assistance or help.

Utah and Nebraska could have a baptized Christian requirement for adults, their requirement for residency. Abortions would be a state crime, unlike the northeast states where abortion would be legal with no restrictions and remain liberal.  No liquor, no porn, no nightclubs, restaurants close at 8pm; nothing distracting you from the everlasting Word…and you can have your stained glass windows depict Jesus as ‘white’ with no argument.  You are free to marry underage girls and have secret sex cults.  You are not allowed to visit the states of San Fransisco and California.

Conservatives would get Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee and Indiana as full open carry second amendment states. Graduation from high school will require firearms training.  BUUUUT,  those states would have NO social welfare programs.  If you go broke, “pull yourself up by the bootstraps”, like you always tell black people.  Public beatings of liberal protestors is legal and preferred.

Protesters confront riot police as they gathered at the Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021 in Salem, Ore. Thousands of President Donald Trump’s supporters caused violence and chaos in Washington while Congress attempted to vote to certify that President-elect Joe Biden won the election. (AP Photo/Paula Bronstein)


Idaho and North Dakota will be ‘White’s only’ and also maybe Mississippi, Kansas, and Tennessee.

Residency requirement, 100% Caucasian, Arian, Christian, or whatever you’re calling yourselves…


See, I didn’t forget you!  All the dip and chew and snuff ever made!  Confederate flags, swatikas, whatever.  Drop the N-bomb, go rootin’ tootin’ shootin’ all you want, do whatever you want, say whatever you want.  Residents of these states are not allowed to visit Georgia or the northeast.




Maryland and Virginia would be neutral zones, whose residents must demonstrate measurably that they are moderates (sorry, that is my bias slipping in: “Moderates are people who don’t want to say out loud what they really are”- Rush Limbaugh).  NO PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY OR EXPRESSION ALLOWED IN THOSE TWO STATES!

Florida would be a conservative vacation state with neutral beach zones dedicated to this group or that so Northeast people could go there to vacation without conflict.

Generally, in this plan, every group would get a state where they could do their own thing unfettered.

Fellow Americans, I don’t like the idea of breaking things up, I would rather work it out, but I think many people don’t want to work it out–they want to have the coming fight. For the sake of peace, we must give our neighbors space. Or, we can stop being disingenuous and not violently repulsed by people with different views.  We can commit to the concept that there needs to be a compromise to a solid American ideal.

That’s my solution, a national divorce is the best way to avoid us killing each other.

My wife and daughter have been enthralled with the Olympics for the past week and a half, especially the pair’s figure skating.  Me, being an analytical sort, I am always looking deeper into people and ideas and interests for motivations.  I’m not a fan of the sport, but I do respect the skill and athleticism that is necessary to participate in it, let alone excel.  I’m not fond of the male portrayals, but to each his own.

I came to my own revelation of sorts as I got pulled into my wife and daughter’s excitement, watching as the event came down to Russian and Chinese skaters. They gasped as a Russian man held his female partner aloft with one hand as they glided across the Beijing ice.  I’ll call them Vladimir and Evgenia.  More gasps were emitted as Vladimir released her and recaptured Evgenia at his hip as she gracefully posed in a horizontal position, red lipstick smile prominent against the backdrop of her complexion and the ice.

How long had they practiced that move?  It must have been sixteen-hour days in an empty rink for weeks or months.  Being we’re discussing Russians; it was probably months.  How many times did he drop this poor woman on the ice, to be punished by tyrannical communist coaches?   It was amazing, I must admit.  Still not my sport, but I will never question the athletic ability of skaters.  Especially the men.

And that is where my revelation begins.  This required a man and a woman, working together intimately, like we’re supposed to in our lives.

I’m stating the obvious?

This would not work with two women.  Nor with two men.  Twenty years ago that would not need to be stated; today that’s not entirely obvious.  Vladimir was larger than Evgenia, his thighs almost as powerful as Barry Sanders.  Evgenia was petite and slim.  Each was built for their role, reversal is not possible: Evgenia is not going to hold Vladimir above her head, and he is not going to look good in a skirt and lipstick.  I present to you the obvious–A Man, and a Woman.


For my wife & daughter, their excitement was in Vladimir and Evgenia working together, and in the female skater’s beauty, poise, and trust in her partner.  An illustration that the woman must trust the man.  Even after he may have dropped her in training.  I guarantee Evgenia knows how much work is needed to hold her up, and she’s not gibbering about ‘strong women’.  And I also guarantee that if Vladimir were gay and you sent a man out there for him to toss in the air, he would say, “No, go get Evgenia.”

I believe that is the disconnect between men and women today.  Evgenia had to train, and train hard.  Training for her started when she laced up her skates a young girl.  But for Vladimir to do his part, his training began LONG before she laced up skates.  Even if she was only one hundred pounds, when she jumped, Vladimir had to catch her, continue the momentum upward, and hold her aloft with ONE hand and arm, maintaining his balance gliding across the ice.

Lifting one hundred pounds one handed over your head is a herculean task for a man in a gym on rubber mats in sneakers.  This guy did it on skates!  The amount of physical conditioning that the male skaters endure must be relentless and brutal.  And THEN he has to train to skate just like her. 

Not one mention of what an incredible feat it was.  I had to point out that he was tossing the equivalent of a giant sack of potatoes in the air, catching it, and running with it over his head.  As Vladimir and Evgenia finished and took their bows, he was visibly exhausted.  Not one word from wife or daughter of the immense task Vladimir had to perform.

Women see the work men do as a given; we’re supposed to do what we do.  It just happens, and they are entitled to it.  Women have little appreciation of men and what men do to enable their survival and set the table for their excellence.

And that is a paradox that threatens our future—Men and Women NEED one another.  I’ve never met a man who did not value the importance of women.  From what I see of late in media and daily interactions, I do not think that view is mutual.

We must protect the relationship of Man and Woman.  And in that order.  There is a visible campaign by feminists to grab any and all young women and recruit them for the ‘strong woman’ crusade.  This is where the ‘wrote our own vows’ movement began.   

Hopefully they won’t poison Simone Biles, who accepted a marriage proposal from Jonathan Owens of the NFL’s Houston Texans.

I looked at their photos, and they look happy.  I mean really happy.  Where do you see that in our times, these times of desperate housewives and athletes with groupies and baby mommas.  I do not know the young man’s history so I’m going on a limb in saying he seems like a decent guy.  He’s not in the news for trouble or hanging out with rappers.  He dated Simone, then put a ring on it.  Simone is always smiling, doesn’t pop up in the gossip columns, and looks ecstatic.  She appreciates that a man wants to hold her high!  They are the embodiment of the themes portrayed by those figure skaters.

                                                                      I see a Man, and a Woman.


The hood gets to young girls early.  The wolves of ghetto life will watch your daughters and bite them early, infecting their unprepared minds.  The ravenous thugs that rule the ‘hood’ target young beauties and get to them ahead of more decent young men. By the time proper young men are fully groomed, and seek brides, their peer group of female candidates have already been bitten by the wolf pack.  A large number are already single mothers and/or seduced by street culture.

How does this happen?  Gang culture and the proliferation of the illegal drug economy (it is no longer just a trade).  Large amounts of illegal profit advanced younger males ahead of adult males, so that they hold all the monetary power to control the economic environment.  The addition of intimidation by the associated armed gangs confirms to the young girls/ladies that the street thug’s status is solid.  THEY control the immediate world about them–not adults. 

She seeks male attention and is presented with choice between an awkward honest young man who might have money for a movie, and not very smooth, or a young thug who has been indoctrinated ahead of his time into the local gang structure.  He can use a gun to threaten anyone who dares interrupt their fun–even adults.  He can splurge his illegally gained money on her to buy foolishness and weed.  For a young girl this is tantalizing.  Her choice is obvious.

These young men are clearly detrimental to the community, right?

Not for the bitten.  Once the hood wolves bite the hind leg of the young girls, they are like victims of a vampire and forever tainted. At an early age, they are seduced by a counterfeit lifestyle, and they continue seek the ease of that irresponsible life as adults.  They still crave the wolves who infected them for life.  In his world she can be irresponsible—anywhere else she is accountable and behave like a lady.  With him she can ‘pop off’ at the mouth and get her maniac street thug on you if you dare say something back. 

Expensive cars without the accompanying labor, faddish clothing that would not survive in a normal world, and celebrations every night when responsible people are resting for work the next day.  Who would say no to this?

Much like gangsters will brag, she can just point, and her armed and violent male pursuers will, “take care of that problem”.  She goes unchallenged.  Now you have an explanation for the belligerence so common to ‘hood’ women.  The violent streets are her vengeful husband, not any man.  And she will entertain ONLY those kinds of men, her identity and power come from that.  If she experiments with a ‘working man’ or upwardly mobile man, her disappointment will emerge quickly.  His long-term lifestyle is inconsistent with her short-term vision of day-to-day fun and/or survival.  Forever tainted, bitten by wolves.

Let these women go.  Do not attempt to rescue them or rationalize with them.  Later in life, they will complain about the men they chose and will not make the connection to the poison in them from their teenaged interaction with the ‘bad boys’.  They were bitten by the vampire and are forever his. 

If you name the most prominent and beautiful women in urban culture, none are involved with their proper counterpart.  Not one is with a man described as a ‘gentleman’.  Beyonce’ is with Jay-Z, admitted street thug and drug dealer— “I did e’ry bit a crime I writ in mine, ran so much coke, I could shit a dime” (from Funkmaster Flex mixtape vol II). 

Ciara famously married rapper ‘Future’ and became his THIRD(!) baby momma. Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, Alicia Keys and Swizz Beats (the producer of DMX and Rough Riders).  Foxy Brown, Nikki Minaj, Vivica Fox, etc. None of them sought black ‘gentlemen’.  They were bitten by the wolves “in them streets”.


This condition holds true ONLY in the Black Community.  No other community allows its youth to dictate its direction.

So why aren’t Black women warning their daughters away from the doo-rag/saggy pants/tattoo on neck/street talkin’ thugs?


Have they been bitten by the wolves?


Have you been bitten?


(I want to thank a female co-worker who I consulted for this topic.  She confessed that reading this was personal, it was like I followed her in her youth.  She is relieved that her own daughter has not been ‘bitten by the wolves’.)

Reviewing the word and concept of intersectionality, it seems well-meaning.  ‘We’ perceive that ‘you’ are being oppressed, and that your oppression similarly originates with our oppressors, or affects you a similar way.  Because what ‘you’ want may involve some of what ‘I’ want, or that the attainment of our different goals pits us against the same challenge/oppressor, we should then link arms and attack this ‘oppressor’ together. Like many modern inventions of language, it suggests progress toward a goal. The intersection of these efforts focuses on where two groups, or movements, or creeds meet.  Theoretically, after attainment of stated goals, each of us goes our separate way happy, or hopefully together forever happy.

Is that so?

When we look at paths that cross at an intersection, the point at which they meet are just that: a point.




The lines will continue along their original paths, to different destinations somewhere infinite.




Having fired a rifle at a target, I and anyone else who uses firearms will tell you that a variance of just one millimeter looking down the sights of your weapon results in missing your target by substantially more the further the round (line) travels.  At three hundred meters, you could be as much as one meter off target.

I suggest that this is occurring with the varying social movements.

Among the list of problems facing the Black community, and American life in general, has been the absence of fathers in children’s lives.  The current number is seventy percent of black children are born out of wedlock.  Almost fifty percent overall.  It is now irrefutable, that the single most harmful practice in the Black family, and black community, is the lack of black male leadership in the home and in the community. 

But, here comes the intersection.  The current wave of the feminist movement means well (?) in their support of Black equity/liberation movements and the like.

To state the feminist agenda simply (the list is LONG), it is the promotion of female autonomy.  A key part of this is destruction of gender roles and deemphasis of male leadership.

In contradiction, the black community needs male leadership, and Black families are in disarray because of the loss of gender roles and the observable chaos of African American female autonomy.  This is a conflict, the point at which both groups are fighting the same oppression is finite—while the vectors to their respective goals are infinitely divergent.

Black women who have ‘bought in’ to the recreated African community concept desire to have black men assume their place as ‘Kings’, thereby making them ‘Queens’.  In contrast, feminists who are supporting black movements would eliminate any semblance of a man as a king.  Both seem to be fighting the boogeyman of white supremacy, but for white women it is a fight against white MALE supremacy.

There is also a group of Black female historical revisionists who have introduced the idea that African tribes were matriarchal, and that recapturing their cultural roots includes repurposing men as servant army ants in their female-led ant colonies (ignoring that these female run tribes no longer exist–hmmm).

This is not a healthy alliance.  I suggest that black women who seek this link-up of movements fall into varying groups, of which I have identified two, neither of which may be trusted. There are more factions, but these are two that are most destructive to the black community’s future.

  • Group one seeks to form any intersectional relationship, anywhere, with anyone, and are totally ignorant of later conflicts of interest; Or, they are aware of the conflict but confident they/she can manipulate the situation to self-benefit at a later time.  For example, any black woman who has homosexual friends (either sex) is in this group.
  • Group two is feminist motivated and looking at the blueprint of white feminists and opportunities to intersection specifically with them.  They seek power and status and admire how white feminists stabbed their white men in the back and took their positions.  Their goal is to similarly advance Black men, through martydom (see George Floyd) to achieve voice and power, but when once achieved, seize the throne though destruction of imperfect men in power positions (see NY Attorney General Letitia James,).

An example of this is in current events.  The very same feminists who announced intersectionality with LGBT+++ movements are now complaining about transgender women who are coming up through female ranks.  Feminists tried to use ‘intersectionality’ to consolidate political voice and power, but the bomb they made blew up in their faces.  

Instead of a weapon against men, the transgenders used the feminists instead, and the former men are creating all sorts of headaches for the girl power movement.  They did not see this coming.  Men did.  That’s why we’re laughing.

Intersectionality equals using people.

The women who demanded that transgender persons be accepted unconditionally never considered that these males would enter their ‘female spaces’ and begin to push them out of their positions.

This is yet another threat faced by the Black Community.  African Americans need the men of the community to lead, but feminist promotion by definition is counter to that. White feminists are promoting their selfish needs and not what African Americans need.  And Black feminists, in their desire to have what white women have, are emulating their Caucasian sisters. 

If there is to be any erection of a strong black community, feminists must not be entertained.  ESPECIALLY BY MEN.

“You’re not responsible–but you are” – Paraphrasing Jordan Peterson

I picked up my sixteen-year-old son from the homecoming dance, and we talked during the drive home. He called me at 9:15pm saying it was ‘pretty much over’, but the event was not due to end until 10 pm. It’s been a long while since I’ve been sixteen, but some things don’t change, and one of those things is staying out as late as possible. Why did he pull the plug?

I navigate the high school parking lot, find him, and we get out of there just as the rain picks up.

“Boy, that ended early. Wasn’t expecting your call for another thirty minutes.”

“Yeah, by 9:15 it was pretty much over.”

“Why? Was it wack?”

“Yeah. The DJ didn’t have up to date music.” – Long pause – “How could he not have the latest music?”

So, having been a semi-professional DJ in my younger years, I recalled to him one of my frustrations of playing for young people:

“Teenager, here’s the problem. He probably had it; he just couldn’t play it. Music today is vulgar . . . I mean, not a little suggestive, or a curse here or there. Am I wrong?”


“The DJ is under instruction from the school not to play the vulgar stuff for you impressionable youth.  But . . . that’s almost every song. There’s little to nothing that he can play that is not offensive.”

“Yeah, ‘cause it was hot for like . . . two songs.  Then it was dead again.”    

“What songs would have kept the party live?”

“Like, some Pit Bull stuff . . . or Pop Smoke.”

“And I bet that music is really vulgar, full of cursing and/or violence.”


“There you go.”  I huffed. “Today’s artists feel like they have to do that to stay cool.  Or some just only think about themselves, there is no concern for the young who listen. They know what they’re doing and think it’s okay”.  I already knew the answer to the next question I was going to ask, but I did anyway: 

“Do you like all the cursing?”


The conversation moved to another topic, but this stuck with me all night.  When he was about ten years old, we were in our car and I had the radio on a R&B channel.  I can’t remember what song came on, but I didn’t feel it was appropriate for his young ears.  I switched stations.



“Why is it when we listen to the ‘black’ music, you always have to turn?”  I was stunned.  “I noticed that.”

“Is it every time?  Are you sure?”

“Yeah, like they’ll say bad words or something and then you have to turn.  The other radio station doesn’t do that, make you have to turn.  Why?”

“Well . . . I don’t think its right to say that on the radio, so I turn.  But I don’t know why the black-wait a minute, why do you call the radio station black?”

“Cuz they play music black people like.”

Listening to the now ever-present and famous Jordan Peterson on YouTube, I thought of one of his lectures wherein he presented this philosophical concept:  When something happens in the world, individually you’re not responsible—but as part of a group, you are.  We all contribute to our world and culture, and what we love flourishes, what we ignore dies.  If we push Dr. Peterson’s concept further out, we’re not all responsible–but we are.

Interpreting that, those of us who are responsible and caring parents do not make the music that is increasingly vulgar and violent.  But we help promote it.  Ask yourself, when your children were impressionable, what did you expose them to musically?  What music did you enjoy IN THEIR PRESENCE?  In my job serving the public, I witness cars cruising past elementary schools playing songs with lyrics that are heinous.  Fathers with their child(ren) wearing a screen-printed t-shirt with DMX or Biggie Smalls glorified on it.  Young mothers wearing t-shirts with Tupac’s image, sometimes holding two pistols.  

We are responsible for the environment that normalizes this.  I grew up watching Hip Hop music grow from birth, and I am guilty of promoting it.  It was always vulgar—get any of the early tapes of the pioneering groups from the late seventies and early eighties and the themes and drug references are thorough.  As is the glorification of violent street culture and sexual irresponsibility.

We are negligently assigning the label of creativity to music that is mentally debilitating.  Hip Hop music is a

celebration of dysfunction, but we allow it because it’s fun.  No one wants to stop their own fun, or the rapper’s money.  In an act of justification, we call it creative and tell ourselves that this is this generation’s art form equally as different as those before.  And so, just as we were seduced, now it has come to seduce and claim our children. Just like the Pied Piper.

If these artists are so creative, WHY are we accepting that they can’t make a single song without ‘b***h*ss’, ’n****r’, ‘f**k’, ‘p***y’, ‘s**t’, ‘m*****f****r’? 
I don’t accept it. 
They may be talented, but their talent is in pimp seduction, and they are wooing the youth like a pimp easing up on young runaways in a bus station.  And we allowed it. 

“We’re not responsible–but we are”