>I am not saying that women should work from the background
>in "The Movement". I'm talking about in RELATING to them, in
>relationships.

Ok that makes things clearer.

>Clearly, more women need to be @ the table
>when there is coalition-building, and strategizing going on.
>In relationships w/ them though, what purpose does it serve
>to go toe-to-toe w/ them, in a verbal contest?

Like I said before it is not based on competition.

>This post is a perfect example. This LionelZeus, say he is a Brothah(I'm
His point-of-view on this issue is
>REALLY skewed. Just like the Brothah in the workshop I
>attended, w/ his 3 or 4 girlfriends, whom he admittedly
>cheats on. Should I argue back-and-forth w/ these
>'Brothahs', until they agree w/ me? No. I can express my
>pov, and keep moving.

That has nothing to do with womanhood. It just makes sense to do that.

>Or, I can live by example, and let
>them sit back, and notice.

Once again that can apply to relations with anybody

>THAT is exertion of a quiet
>power. I learned how much this effects Brothahs from, yep,
>you guessedit: a BROTHAH.

>My sister's friend was like,
>"WHATEVER we do, we do to get Sistah's attention. Brothahs
>might not even KNOW why they do alot of the things they do,
>but it ultimately is to get the attention of the
>Sistahs-INCLUDING when we date/marry white. So to get you
>all's attention, we have to constantly watch you, to
>determine your reaction to what we do. "

Interesting. But not the view of all brothers.

>I learned from that
>exchange, that if that is indeed true, Sistahs are @ a
>vantage point where they can educate, revolutionize, or
>whatever you want to call it, by simply BEING, and letting
>the Brothahs learn by our example.

True. That is a way.


>Don't we do that already? Do you think my mother WANTED to
>work 3 jobs to support her family? OBVIOUSLY this was an
>adjustment she had to make in response to some areas where
>my father was not measuring up. In fact, pretty much all of
>my friends from two parent homes had mothers working
>multiple jobs.


>Don't you think that mothers on the plantation had to make
>some kind of ADJUSTMENTS in raising their children alone
>once their husbands were sold away?
>The answer to your question is yes. We already do it anyway.
>I am not sure that you realize that.

And do you suppose that will happen to you? What did your mother work so hard for? SO that you can work 3 jobs and take care of the kids too? SHOULD it happen to you? Would the story have been different if children were not around?

Oh but I do realize that. I have a mother too. A father as well. I notice the dynamic of their and other family members relationships. I feel that my mother would not WANT me to be in hr position of taking care of more than her load of the family business. If I were to get married it would be to a man in which I would not have to over compensate for. There is compromise and compensation in every relationship. But I think that we are getting off of the point here.

My main point: My role as a woman will be defined by me and not by anyone's sexist theories, ideas, notions, expectations, etc.

>Not OVERcompensate. Just compensate. This is for the sake of
>achieving balance. Just because some of them aren't doing
>what THEY need to do, does not mean we need to go on the
>warpath with them, and add to the problems.

Never ever said that. You are making a lot of assumptions about where i am coming from. If you look at past responses I agreed wiht you when it came it cooperation. But not when it came to defining a women's role.