I'm always curious about the frequently used "King" and "Queen" title. In my early 20s, I oftentimes described a desire to be 'TREATED like a Queen'. My focus, general meaning and ultimate goal was to interact in my relationships with pleasant civility, mutual respect and due deference - describing "queen-treatment" was the easiest way to quickly convey that desired behavior.
Sidebar: I frequently fell short of that goal but was always searching for it. <laughs> A girl has gotta try, right?! LOLZ!!! Anywho...
Recently, I have seen folks taking this "King"/"Queen" title to an extreme, using the title as though they considered themselves actually crowned. The focus seems less about receiving a desired behavior and more about a false sense of grandeur - a seemingly underlying desire to feel important in a way the denotes being above or better than others. Why?
This isn't about taking folks down a peg or tellin' folks what to call themselves. I'm genuinely curious. It's an actual fact, the majority of us are not monarchy. We are simply men and women - flawed and imperfect. And that should be okay. It should be enough. Right?! Apparently, not. It's obviously not enough to just be a man or woman. Why?
Are any of those that refer to themselves as "Kings" and "Queens" actually ruling a kingdom? And if so, how fairs your "kingdom"? Actual Kings and Queens during medieval times enjoyed many perks because they had the RESPONSIBILITY of ruling. Everyone seems to want the title of King or Queen but few accept the weigh of that crown. And fewer still are actually capable of wearing it.
All this "ROYALTY" running around our communities and yet the divorce rates continue to climb, broken families litter the 'castles' in many of these "kingdoms" and more often than not, men/women are at odds with one another to the point of being combative - some monarchs we are, huh? <laughs>
...some of these "Kings" are populating many households in the 'kingdom' with children yet aren't actually ruling or leading anything. They want to SIT on the throne (because their penis, apparently, gives them the right) and enjoy all the benefits but won't EARN their place to STAY there by GIVING unconditionally to the folks that have trusted in them to lead. There's a lot of "respect me and my crown/I'm the head of the household" and not enough, "how can I respectfully lead those that have entrusted me with their welfare and well-being".
...some of these "Queens" are better at berating the "King", aggressively pointing out his errors while minimizing her own and dominating those in the castle rather than gently leading-by-example the appropriate way to govern. They want folks to acknowledge their accomplishments but won't SUBMIT, RESPECT or BE LEAD BY a true servant-leader-style" King". There's a lot of "respect me/I wear the pants 'cause men ain't shit and I don't trust them" and not enough, "how can I best lead-by-example. How can I serve those in my care".
I'm all for empowerment, for identifying oneself in a way the encourages self-esteem, self-respect and love-for-self but this whole, "Kings" and "Queens" titling doesn't seem to be aiding or uplifting our communities. We seem to be setting ourselves up for failure by not navigating in the world in which we actually live.
Frankly, if one is claiming the "King"/"Queen" title, doesn't the full weight of RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY and LEADERSHIP come with that fictitious crown? Better yet - how come being an equal partner in a fair, healthy, committed, long-lasting relationship is NOT enough?
[This "Food for Thought and Consideration" Blog has been expanded from its original format, with new content to fully-flesh the ideas described within.]
Nankurunaisa!
No comments:
Post a Comment