Chiefs & Indians

Every tribe has an established hierarchy. There is usually one chief and several indians under that chief. The chief is responsible for the welfare of his troops and anything that would threaten their welfare, the chief steps in and handles the situation accordingly. There has never been several chiefs and you know why? Having several chiefs in charge is bound to create friction because each chief has their agenda. Each chief wants to see his vision come to reality and that can't happen with having one chief in charge. The problem with relationships is there are too many chiefs & not enough Indians. Women forgot how to be women and instead usurp the man's role. A woman CANNOT be the man & woman in the relationship unless she's confused. A woman is a woman and a man is the man. Both genders need to play their proper position and everything will be alright. Not everyone is cut out for the chief role or wants to be one and that's ok. I heard a great line from Michael Ealy to Taraji in Think Like A Man: You don't need a man, you are the man. That means that a woman will not find a man if she tries to act like one. Same applies for men. If a man expects to find a woman, HE CANNOT exemplify woman traits. What happens when you have too many chiefs? Conflict. Conflict arises when each chief wants to advance their agenda without regards of a common goal. There's a difference between wanting equality and trying to take over a man/woman's proper roles. If I'm looking for a woman, I expect her to play her position. She has to let ME lead in a beneficial manner. Women get upset when a man expects her to let him be the man and sa sys "You can't handle a strong, independent woman". It's ok because I overlook those overly opinionated & strong women quickfast; they will not get a second look from me. Having two strong people in relationship is bound to create conflict because both parties are passionate & have expectations. Both people want to be heard.