Daughter, the Forsaken Hood

What does it mean to be forsaken? On the surface, it carries a negative connotation. Spelling out abandonment or neglect. The interpretation of self by self is profound. To forsake means to renounce or turn away from entirely. How does one forsake one's self? I will let you answer that for yourself. Daughter puts on other identities that war or can be a conflict to being holistic. If I am a daughter and there is a sister, then I have an added role, but I am the sister that I can be, and they are the sister that they can be. We are not sisters as two but as one performing different versions of sisterhood.

The "hoods" are relatively oriented. All roles are scripted for established purposes, giving them a suffix. What do I mean? I am glad you asked. There are mother and father hoods. Two exclusive roles that are distinctive in their purposes. which brought forth sisterhoods and brotherhoods, subject to the authority of the first. All of these hoods were and are sons or daughters, forgotten or forsaken for other purposes the roles demand, and that now always will require. All are subject to changes in how the role can be carried out effectively and harmoniously.

A daughter can be or operate in the mother capacity, but can forget or put off the intricate reality that their initial identity is daughter. Who I am biologically at conception and, after birth, is exclusive from the role of mother. Distinction must, however, be determined in the early stages of growth and development, or the manifested daughter can be carried away captive to other roles of lesser value. Family produced the sister role either first, middle, or last. Son and daughter are generated by the mother and father only.

Moreover, a daughter is exclusive to her mother role and other roles until they are used by the other daughters who are registered in the family as such. Being a mother or wife, it can get lost in translation, the differences in roles and their usage, in that one can abandon the aspect of the version only assigned to a daughter; that the father and mother produce, not a husband.

A husband is the director of the roles or titles of wife and mother, but not the role of the daughter. In context within the extended family element through the care and business required for caring of sons and daughters, which promotes self-abandonment of the daughter one is as a thriving, steadfast reality. Daughter and mother roles are most successful when distinction is an inevitability. (certain to happen; unavoidable): Mother is a transformed role, formed in one family as a daughter, in another family a mother or wife, and established law is placed for distinctions to be honored.

Mother can abandon the only biological identity she has been given under the law of the parenting umbrella. Parents didn't produce the wife or mother; used elsewhere, although the framework is already in place, they produced a daughter who experiences marriage, motherhood, and its roles in another family, not its own. Those other roles are acquired elsewhere, within other families through a son. The challenge is not losing who you came into the world as, be it daughter or son. Endeavoring not to lose yourself in the bargain, align with the created law governing all forms and roles.

My conflict is with myself, the second aspect of my triune self. Me, myself, and I. If I do not succumb to personal incentives, which are only lawfully ascribed to a son; are under a son’s jurisdiction only, and I can only be a daughter. The announcements of per daughter are subliminal. I am guilty of forsaking myself; it is self-abandonment. What a son has is not mine, it becomes an inheritable thing through the process. only pointing to legality through a father, not of someone else's sonship.

I can not legally use the properties of a son or what he ascertains concerning my welfare, unless. I am approved. Faith for me as a daughter is not under any sonship; it is a helper to sonship. It may be everything here is under sonship that only he can personally access and use under that role, but my faith-to-faith experience is daughter to daughter to the higher power under the created law. that governs the daughter.

Deuteronomy 22:5 has explained to the daughter that I am with the clarity and precision I need to make the decision, not to forsake the daughter in any way, form, or fashion to appear or behave as a son does, or to follow any iniquitous oath he may be capable of, or to follow the son he is over the daughter I am.

The transforming daughter is still the formed daughter, just aging accordingly. She still is very much alive. Each role must be transformed and activated accordingly. It should have been ready for use upon arrival. It must exceed the former features of the version, but it is now the same version used, just with add-ons. Wives and mothers were not first in the lineup; daughterhood came before wife, mother, sister, etc., in the putting on of things of her or herself. The principles and guidance of the mother should be followed by the daughter wherever she goes. mother was a daughter before a wife or mother, surely she should have sound daughter counsel.

You can't get to wife or mother and ignore daughter, especially yourself as daughter, not the daughter you may carry who is not and never will be you. You are unique and becoming scarce. It is like the adage, all chiefs and no indians, all mothers, wives, nieces, sisters, aunts, while becoming those roles, daughters fade into oblivion. When it is articulated, I rise, which role is rising toward temporary discovery. Daughter should always rise and be heard! Probably the only aspect that father, mother, and son will listen to in the family structure or want to hear with intention, is the daughter.

The clothes laid out for me are daughterly, interpreted as femininity, biologically exclusive. Did I come into this world as a daughter given to two parents? Daughter is the main role biologically of the self. The closest to daughterhood is one who is a daughter and was functional in the role before I arrived.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5

The real abomination is not to follow the principles of the law. The identity for a male factor coming into the world is not that "it's a boy"; that is a weak way to identify what is of a father who is a son of a son, of a son forming generations. The identity should always be that he is a son.

A boy can not be his identity, it will forsake who he is, a son. The strange part of the father-son dynamic is that in each case, a son can become a father, because a father has already been formed as a son, making it impossible to forsake himself, but to the increase of another son besides himself. The same is true for the daughter, only the journey for her stays the same according to her body type. For a son, it is a son that passes through a father, but through a mother’s body as well; the same idea, but the established purposes, methods, and paths are different.

Concerning this adult conflict that has counsel for a daughter or son, the application would imply that a daughter shall not wear that which pertains to a son, like the term personal. What exactly does that mean for the daughter? If a woman is accused in the possibility as an adult. What relevance does or would a daughter have coming into the world after, not before, womanhood, motherhood, or sisterhood is formed?

Realistically, women do not, but not all have a credit-worthy reputation in today's society, as sundry times, it has jeopardized the transformed way of dress style. Does the transforming daughter know what the remedy entails? Deuteronomy 22:5 instructs thus, but is it understood to the point of repentant (thought-out change)? This is a hard place. I had never heard this Scripture from my youth up to around 25 years old. I had to learn how to perform it. One day, I was aware of what it was instructing and decided to change my garments to an appropriate transformative style. I was and am a work in progress, a work daughtership as well as a workwomanship.

Mother did not wear pants or compromised attire growing up; in her daughterhood days. It was not an issue or matter for discussion in those days. The plague hit in the 1960s for me, and it was normalized. Today, I don't know if a son would even recognize a daughter without pants or inappropriate garments. I diagnose this state with my examination and review only for myself as an aspect of self-abandonment. I love dresses and skirts, and I deem it a privilege to honor myself with garments that I love, making it applicable today.

Daughter should not wear what pertains to a son; mothers and fathers are those who set the precedent for what a child should wear, and it should comply with established standardized law. What that indicates is that she was already here functioning as such. The world system calls her mother now, canceling her daughter role for what is temporal, even for what seems to be longevity. Daughter did come before mother showed up, it is retaining her daughter role, no matter how old she gets. Not wearing those other hoods too tightly. Giving thought to the generations to come. I have forsaken myself, in diverse ways, past, present, and I am hopeful not for future endeavors to pass along truths worthy of hearing, which are actual realities. There are identifiers now, some call them triggers, but the identifying issues are an aspect of maturation.

Mother should not be a threat to father; their roles are secure, yet not when you cannot remember being a son or a daughter. These roles don’t change either once you have legally arrived at that place, and you release the daughter and son that they are, not who you are. Teach them well and let them lead their way, or don't you trust they will make decisions for their selves? The child, who are they? a son or a daughter.

My arrival in the world could only give me the daughterhood to navigate accordingly. I am that I am, and that is who I am biologically, which is a line of demarcation for roles I can use. A mother who forgets her daughterhood could have been plagued by traumas playing out through dramas, not worth remembering, which made transformation difficult. The journey from daughter to sister or mother is not safe without the establishment of a foundation.

The masquerade ball was never explained or foretold to make the correct determinations. In all of the roles affixed for the feminine, I find the most authenticity in daughter. This is why I can ask myself, why have I forsaken myself, what should be for my sake is anti myself. Motherhood abandons daughterhood, Sisterhood abandons daughterhood, every other hood abandons daughterhood, without ever being told why? I have found it is a question that only I can answer with honesty. Or live in the uncertainty of identity that has been ascribed to me under the law governing oneness only. Daughterhood is a collectivity of daughters individually. Each one has to stand in their place to qualify for collective daughter power. There is no togetherness without distinction. Every daughter has to be ready to carry her own weight initially before help can legally be given. Without her own input, there is no basis for collective empowerment.

To forsake is more instructive in narrative form only, by which is meant the issue or idea, not the people experiencing it. Forsaking is as simple as for the sake of a pleasant idea, an unpleasant one must be abandoned, and forsaken as an idea should move forward successfully. Or the energies used will be to compensate for the usage of the unpleasantness continuously.

Sounds a lot like abandonment or neglect. It is the perception of the intent or motive. Yet, on an optimistic note, via a breakdown of the word, it implies to do something for the sake of, not against the sake of, the point alludes to doing it for their sake. Negative things can never be for anyone’s sake; they should stay with their source, who initiates them. Good words pave a one-way street, where there is no intersection for a bad street.

I am sure you have heard the term “for goodness' sake”. Which implies that something is for the sake of goodness, or goodness sake. "Fore", when added to words, speaks of something before, not necessarily in favor of; it performs a prefix for the word, distinguishing tense from favor. In favor, so to speak, yet, is before the premise. As forgiveness is for giving sake, denoting its need now or presently, you may say, I will be for a situation, not before it changes the tense and context. Both denote favor. Yet, forsaken has a different angle. The intent must be clear and pure to suggest “for the sake of” with no pessimistic or diabolical derivatives.

Grace and Peace.