Britni Bereasa Glover watched as her boyfriend beat her 4-year-old son. She
did nothing. She later heard the boy complain of stomach pain. She did
nothing. The next morning, she found her son, Dustyn Skyler Roff, dead in
Houston police allege that happened beginning Thursday night, when Michael
Allen Seaton beat Dustyn because his mother did not come home for lunch
that day. Glover, 23, was charged with injury to a child by omission. Police
are still looking for her 21-year-old boyfriend, who has been charged with
Police who responded to a report of a dead child at a home in
the 7100 block of Hillcroft on Friday found the boy had multiple injuries
and bruises all over his body, authorities said. He was pronounced dead at
HPD Homicide Sergeant Will Gonzales said Glover did not intervene as Seaton assaulted Dustyn Thursday night after the couple got into an argument. Seaton would often watch the boy while Glover went to work at a day care, Gonzales said, and he was upset that she did not return home during her lunch break that day.
Seaton then allegedly beat the child and left. Keeping silent, Dustyn
complained to his mother of stomach pains before sleeping, and the next
morning, she found him dead in his bed. "We have no reason to believe that (Glover) assaulted Dustyn," Gonzales said, "but she didn't stop the abuse of her child."Glover remained silent when asked by authorities why she did not
intervene, Gonzales said. The boy had different healing stages of bruises,
indicating he had likely been beaten for several weeks, the sergeant
Charles Blake Roff, Dustyn's father, said he had been searching for
Glover and his son for the past four months after she left with
the boy during a visit. At a news conference on Monday, the 25-year-old said he
was the boy's sole caretaker until that time and was working on gaining full
legal custody of him. The couple is in the middle of a divorce and custody
rights had not yet been determined, he said.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The premise of the article is the idea that if black women ‘date out’ more, it could/would motivate black men to improve in order to compete with the added competition. It’s an interesting premise because historically, this basic premise has been one that the BWE group has repeatedly shunned on the basis that it places responsibility on black women for shaping the behavior of black men.
But lo and behold, when the idea of black men’s behavior being influenced by black women involves black women dating and marrying non-black men, it is acceptable. It really goes to show how much BWE/IR bloggers are agenda driven.
Consider that for years, black men have pointed out and complained about the disproportionately strong trend of black women seeking relationships with bad boys. It has long been argued that this trend heavily influences the behavior of black men and has been supported through research under the theory of sexual selection. Even the dreaded Satoshi Kanazawa touched on this:
“In reality, however, women do often say no to men. (In my experience, they
always do.) This is why men throughout history have had to conquer foreign
lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets,
paint portraits and cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in
rock bands, and write new computer software, in order to impress women so that
they will agree to have sex with them. There would be no civilization, no art,
no literature, no music, no Beatles, no Microsoft, if sex and mating were a male
choice. Men have built (and destroyed) civilizations in order to impress women
so that they might say yes. Women are the reason men do everything.”
Polow Da Don stated:
“If every Black woman got together and said, "We're not gonna date guys unless
they have PhDs. We're not gonna date guys unless they have a Master’s [degree].”
Guess what? In due time, n****s will stop selling dope and they'll start going
He was attacked relentlessly for this statement. Such a statement has been repeated over and over by black men criticizing black women for routinely sexually rewarding bad behavior, yet black women’s response has overwhelmingly been critical indicating that this notion places responsibility on black women. Yet, as we see with Karazin and others like her, if this basic idea is expressed in a way that promotes black women dating and marrying non-black men, it is quite acceptable. There are more than enough quality black men out there to put pressure on trifling black men to clean up their acts, yet this will never happen until these quality black men begin getting the attention that they deserve.
Plus, there are the flaws in this argument. One of the biggest ones is the fact that marriage rates are declining for all ethnic groups in the United States. At least 40 - 45% of white women are single at any given moment and 50% of all American women are single. There are a total of 4 million more white women than white men and 6 million more women than men in America overall. So it begs the question of exactly how much success do the IR bloggers expect black women to have competing against those 40% of white women and other non-black single women for the very men who have repeatedly placed black women last on their dating radar?
The next flaw is the discovery that the white men that black women marry are on average less educated than the black men that black women marry. Thus, the so-called competition would not be based on personal quality, but instead entirely on race and since no black man can change his race, such added competition would be meaningless. It’s much like the high level of marrying out done by Asian women. Asian American men have outdone white men socially and economically for decades, yet Asian women still marry out at a higher rate than any other group of women. Asian women simply want white men, period and the ONLY thing that Asian men could do to compete is to become white, which is impossible.
Lastly, history doesn’t support the notion. Since 1980, interracial marriage involving black women has tripled, yet within that same timeframe, the single rate for black women has increased by 20%. Thus, a major increase in interracial marriage for black women has coincided with a major decrease in marriage overall for black women. It is clear that marrying out is no solution. Interestingly enough, one of Karazin’s commenters pointed this out and was attacked and seemingly banned for doing so. Clearly such women are motivated by personal agenda and personal disdain as opposed to truth and reality.
Much of what I state above is addressed in this great article by Ivory A. Toldson, Ph.D., and Bryant Marks, Ph.D.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
You know, I really have to point this out because I got a good laugh out of it. I was lurking around Sarah’s blog and noticed her most recent picture of a celebrity black woman with her new white boyfriend. What she showed was Ciara with her “new boyfriend Amar’e”. I stared at this picture of Ciara on the beach, in a bikini walking by an apparent white man a few feet away from her. I thought that I had gone crazy. Ciara is dating “Amar’e”, yet “Amar’e” is Amar’e Stoudemire, an NBA basketball player who is without a doubt BLACK. The problem is that there are several pictures of Ciara and Amar’e on the beach with a few of her walking without him. If you scroll down, you will see that on one, she is shown walking past a somewhat chunky white guy with a hairy back. This is the guy that Sarah has given Amar’e Stoudemire’s identity to. What Sarah did was take one look on this website and jump to conclusions without scrolling down. Did she even think to wonder if there could actually be a white man named "Amar'e" or whether the guy on the picture looked remotely like he could be playing for the Knicks?
So I began to question whether Sarah is just that absent minded, that overanxious for such pictures, or just that dishonest. Then I recalled that she posted a picture of Holly Robinson Peete with her “new love”; a white man whom she had taken a picture with.
Now most of us know that Holly has been married to Rodney Peete for years and they have a family. I looked for any news on a divorce or break-up and found nothing. Then I went to Holly’s Twitter page and read tweets from mere hours before whereas she discussed the current happy goings on between her and her husband Rodney.
I later read posts on Sarah’s comments section informing her that Holly and Rodney were still together, yet she REFUSES to take the picture down.
So what it comes down to is this. If you are a black female celebrity and you take a picture with a fan, friend, etc. who is a white man or if there is a white man close by you in a picture, that is YOUR MAN in Sarah's mind. The desperation of IR bloggers is incredible. Sarah would take joy in the break-up of a wholesome black marriage to satisfy her agenda, even if such a break-up is only in her imagination.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Well I will say that the easy defense against this accusation exists for one important reason; that reason being that the accusation is NOT TRUE. Black women are no more likely to be gold-diggers than any other group of women and probably less likely. Is the accusation a mass fabrication by black men? Are black men en masse delusional on this point? My answer to both of these questions is NO. This statement is not a fabrication nor a delusion, but rather a misnomer.
Black men refer to black women as gold-diggers for lack of a better term to describe the dynamics between black women and black men as it relates to finances. Many simply know of no better term and many may avoid the true term due to it being even more incendiary than “gold-digger” (I will state this term later). “Gold-digger” has simply taken on a sort of layman’s definition with regard to black women and in attempting to discredit the label, black women use the most standard definition for the term’s non literal use.
So the question is one of exactly what are black men referring to when they call black women “gold-diggers”. Black women are notably great spenders and poor savers. Whether it relates to hair care, beauty products, consumer electronics, brand name clothing, gifts, tithing and general depreciable product spending, black women are leading the way. It is quite often that black women view money as being there for the sole purpose of spending it as soon as possible. This is why single black women have the lowest net worth of any group ($5.00). Of course, this is a generalization and individuals vary, but this trend is significantly more prevalent among sistas.
Now as any man knows, women tend to feel that their men are obligated to contribute to their spending habits. Thus, once a woman has depleted her personal resources, she then eyes her man’s resources and if allowed, will deplete his. Resistance by the man often prompts the well known shaming tactic of calling a man “CHEAP”. No man likes such a label and it is the avoidance of this label that causes many men to give in to contributing to their women’s unwise spending.
When a man simply doesn’t have the money to contribute to his woman’s spending habits, she then puts pressure on him to get it. She harasses him about demanding a raise, tries to convince him to look for a higher paying job or pushes him to take on a side hustle. Such women will sometimes turn a blind eye to their men’s illegal activities if such activities provide the means by which they can continue their materialistic pursuits.
If a man fails to contribute to his woman’s spending habits for whatever reason, the result is almost always friction. He will have little peace and harmony in his life and the chances of a break-up or him being cuckolded rise considerably. Financial issues are one of the top reasons for divorce and financial disputes tend to go beyond simply not providing family necessities and into the realm of not providing for the materialistic needs of a particular woman.
Men understand these dynamics and black men experience these dynamics to a greater extent than other men. Black women don’t set their dating and marriage standards around income any more than any other group of women and probably have lower income standards, yet once in a relationship, black women tend to try and draw blood. It is this drawing of blood that black men are referring to as “gold-digging”, but this, as stated earlier, is a misnomer. It’s an odd dynamic and I would actually find it more benefiting for black women to actually gold-dig than to do what can only be described as “blood-sucking” (a term that would probably bring about more anger than “gold-digging”). If black women did more gold-digging, it may serve as motivation for young black men to prepare themselves better for financial rewards.
But for some reason, black women are very open to men who don’t have much, yet try to force such men to find a way to provide for their materialistic desires and if such men rise to the occasion, their women up the ante so that no matter how much money a man makes, his woman will try to get more out of him than he has to provide.
White and Asian women, on the other hand, tend more to go for the professional guy who will have a fairly high income and they will reap the rewards of this high income WITHOUT trying to push the guy to spend above his means. This avoids much relationship friction while still garnering financial rewards and a more stable financial future for the both of them since they will actually save some money. Such women are actually gold-digging, yet they seem benign because they are not constantly at their men’s necks about spending money. This is why the true gold-diggers are less likely to be referred to as such. Hispanic women tend to, like black women, be open to the low income guys, yet they seem far more content with the simple, less materialistic lifestyle.
Monday, April 4, 2011
When girls' civilizing influence turns brutal
By Betsy Hart
Remember the great Lesley Gore tune, "It's my Party"?
In the song, the birthday girl's boyfriend, Johnny, and a party guest, Judy, leave the party at the same time, and Judy comes back wearing Johnny's ring. And so, sings Gore, "I'll cry if I want to, cry if I want to. ...you would cry too if it happened to you."
Well, tears were not how one 13-year-old Baltimore girl handled such a "betrayal" at her recent birthday party.
According to the Associated Press, when the birthday girl's "boyfriend" kissed a 12-year-old guest on the cheek at the party, the birthday girl's mother was furious, and ordered her daughter to "handle your business." At which point the unfortunate guest, Nicole Ashley Townes, was savagely beaten by six women and girls, including the mother, and sent into a coma.
It's tough imagining a Lesley Gore tune coming out of that story.
But, it does seem to fit with the "girls gone wild" phenomenon spreading across American culture. According to AP, "Around the country school police and teachers are seeing a growing tendency for girls to settle disputes with their fists ..." It's still true that violence among boys is a much bigger problem than violence among girls, as measured by arrest statistics. But, AP reports, while it used to be the ratio was 10 to 1, now it's 4 to 1.
While the surge of violence among girls has been seen primarily at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, it's by no means exclusively there. Just flash back to the news about the violent "powder puff" girls football game in an affluent Chicago suburb where one group of girls brutalized another group of girls huddled helplessly on the ground, even to the point of breaking bones.
So, what's going on? There are about 100 different theories, everything from a more coarse and violent culture in general, to violent women portrayed in movies — think "Terminator 3" — to less religious influence, to more broken homes and fewer moms at home most of the day.
Who knows for sure? No one.
What we can know is this: When the virtue of women as a group degenerates in a culture, it weakens the culture as a whole and it's a dangerous thing.
In every successful society, women are the ultimate keepers of virtue. They are the civilizing influence on the men and the culture around them. They tame the worst appetites of men, whether it be toward violence, sexual aggressiveness and promiscuity, or even just things like laziness or coarseness.
The extent to which women degenerate, whatever the reason, is the extent to which a powerful and wholesome check on the culture at large is lost.
We've seen this with the sexual revolution, where women have been encouraged to behave as sexually aggressive as men do, even if they lack the same sexual appetite. But, it's the woman who is then left hurting and wondering why she is not married, or at least why some man could have sex with her without loving her or being committed to her (duh).
Throughout our culture, as sex has been belittled and cheapened instead of rightly honored, it's coarsened our culture as a whole, and hurt countless hearts of both sexes.
Is this all the fault of women? Of course not. And many women do maintain their virtue. But there are enough women no longer meeting their role of being a civilizing influence on the culture that the culture is suffering for it.
We may be seeing a similar trend when it comes to violence and young women. If they are truly becoming more "like men" in this area, the culture is being weakened along with becoming even more dangerous.
Of course, arguing that women are traditionally the keepers of virtue makes feminists wince. But, they actually argue something vaguely similar, yet wholly wrong. They maintain that if men were more like women, our culture would be a better place.
If more men shared their feelings and changed diapers, that would be the answer to our problems, they say.
Look, I'm into my husband sharing feelings and changing diapers. But, ironically, it seems instead of men becoming more like women in a sort of feminist panacea, we've seen women becoming more like men to the detriment of all.
At any rate, we as women don't need to feminize men. We do need to civilize men.
To walk away from that mission is, in fact, to deny our nature. And our culture, including little girls like Nicole Ashley Townes, will suffer for it.
Now one thing of note, that is not stressed in the article, is the fact that Nicole Ashley Townes and her assailants are all black girls and women. The article makes a strong point in saying that "the extent to which women degenerate, whatever the reason, is the extent to which a powerful and wholesome check on the culture at large is lost", and as we see all in our daily lives as well as in several highly publicized events, there seems to be marked reduction of such a wholesome check on African American culture.
In stating this, I and others will inevitably be accused of putting societies burden on women, yet what some wont acknowledge is that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and while one link does not bear the entire burden placed on the chain, the chain depends totally on that one link to play its part.
Placing an important responsibility on women for holding society up does not take away their femininity, but rather enhances it. Women have always controlled the direction of relationships and sexuality. Women have, throughout history, been the choosers while men have been the pursuers an it is women's choices that have shaped men's pursuits. Taking this responsibility from women actually makes them more male-like and is why we are seeing so much more male-like behavior from our women, notably black women. It is why we see women fist fighting more, having more sex partners, tattooing their bodies with masculine tattoos, cursing more, going to prison more, etc.
It is such common behavior that reduces the pool of women who men view as marriage material and is why so many men today hold such a negative outlook on marriage. The sweet, nurturing and emotionally supportive woman of the past is becoming a rarity and such women are becoming the purple unicorn in the black community. What we are seeing more of is this:
Friday, March 4, 2011
The last paragraph is the kicker and pretty much sums up what so many black men have declared before and so many black women insist on denying. Women's sexual behavior significantly influences the behavior of men. This is reality. Women have always been the ones who bring restraint to heterosexual sexual activity which is why gay men have on average three times the number of sex partners as straight men, even in this day of female sexual liberation. It's such restraint that motivates men to achieve and commit in order to have such female affection at hand. Nowadays, commitment and true success are no longer necessary for sex and this is made worse by the low standards and unrestrained bad boy love prevalent among today's women with black women leading the way.Sex Is Cheap
Why young men have the upper hand in bed, even when they're
failing in life.We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary
life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old
men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail
women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year,
women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there
is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual
When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even
those who are floundering, just isn't so bad. This isn't to say that all men
direct the course of their relationships. Plenty don't. But what many young men
wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the
day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired,
we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer
relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more
marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these
things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships
favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that
what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it's all
thanks to supply and demand.
To better understand what's going on, it's worth a crash course in
"sexual economics," an approach best articulated by social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs. As Baumeister, Vohs, and others have
repeatedly shown, on average, men want sex more than women do. Call it sexist,
call it whatever you want—the evidence shows it's true. In one
frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached
opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University's campus and proposed casual
sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know:
Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men
have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it. As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in
consensual relationships therefore commences only when women decide it does.
And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse
strings, they aren't asking for much in return these days—the market "price" of
sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the
spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual
options—more supply for his elevated demand—it takes some measure of price
control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also,
quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once
were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of
men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of
sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than
they used to be.But just as critical is the fact that a significant number of young men are
faring rather badly in life, and are thus skewing the dating pool. It's not that
the overall gender ratio in this country is out of whack; it's that there's a
growing imbalance between the number of successful young women and successful
young men. As a result, in many of the places where young people typically
meet—on college campuses, in religious congregations, in cities that draw large
numbers of twentysomethings—women outnumber men by
significant margins. (In one Manhattan ZIP code, for example, women account for
63 percent of 22-year-olds.)
The idea that sex ratios alter sexual behavior is well-established.
Analysis of demographic data from 117 countries has shown that when men
outnumber women, women have the upper hand: Marriage rates rise and fewer
children are born outside marriage. An oversupply of women, however, tends to
lead to a more sexually permissive culture. The same holds true on college
campuses. In the course of researching our book Premarital Sex in America, my co-author and I
assessed the effects of campus sex ratios on women's sexual attitudes and
behavior. We found that virginity is more common on those campuses where women
comprise a smaller share of the student body, suggesting that they have the
upper hand. By contrast, on campuses where women outnumber men, they are more
negative about campus men, hold more negative views of their relationships, go
on fewer dates, are less likely to have a boyfriend, and receive less commitment
in exchange for sex.The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data offer other
glimpses into just how low the cost of sex is for young men ages 18 through 23.
Take the speed with which these men say their romantic relationships become
sexual: 36 percent of young men's relationships add sex by the end of the second
week of exclusivity; an additional 13 percent do so by the end of the first
month. A second indicator of cheap sex is the share of young men's sexual
relationships—30 percent—that don't involve romance at all: no wooing, no dates,
no nothing. Finally, as my colleagues and I discovered in our interviews,
striking numbers of young women are participating in unwanted sex—either
particular acts they dislike or more frequent intercourse than they'd prefer or
mimicking porn (being in a dating relationship is correlated to greater
acceptance of and use of porn among women).Yes, sex is clearly cheap for men. Women's "erotic capital," as Catherine
Hakim of the London School of Economics has dubbed it, can still be traded for
attention, a job, perhaps a boyfriend, and certainly all the sex she wants, but
it can't assure her love and lifelong commitment. Not in this market. It's no
surprise that the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who are married has shrunk by an average
of 1 percent each year this past decade.
Jill, a 20-year-old college student from Texas, is one of the many
young women my colleagues and I interviewed who finds herself confronting the
sexual market's realities. Startlingly attractive and an all-star in all ways,
she patiently endures her boyfriend's hemming and hawing about their future. If
she were operating within a collegiate sexual economy that wasn't oversupplied
with women, men would compete for her and she would easily secure the long-term
commitment she says she wants. Meanwhile, Julia, a 21-year-old from Arizona
who's been in a sexual relationship for two years, is frustrated by her
boyfriend's wish to "enjoy the moment and not worry about the future." Michelle,
a 20-year-old from Colorado, said she is in the same boat: "I had an
ex-boyfriend of mine who said that, um, he didn't know if he was ever going to
get married because, he said, there's always going to be someone better." If
this is "the end of men," someone really ought to let
And yet while young men's failures in life are not penalizing them in
the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to
achieve in life. Don't forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked,
redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today's
young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year's book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern
Sexuality put it, "Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and
authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty
sexy." They're right. But then try getting men to do anything.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Well, it appears Steve
Harvey was telling the truth after all. The news arrived in resounding
fashion, as a Dallas court issued a temporary injunction forcing Harvey’s ex
wife, Mary Shackelford, to refrain from releasing more YouTube
videos or conducting future interviews that disparage her marriage to
Shackelford released three YouTube videos in which she blasted Harvey,
claiming that he left her homeless and turned her son against her. Immediately
following the release of the videos, Harvey refuted the claims, vowing to have
his day in court. That day would come in a big way, as the courts found the
The Court finds Movant BRODERICK S. HARVEY’S relief is granted.
Further, the Court finds that:
1. Respondent MARY LEE HARVEY was not homeless or evicted from her home
and was awarded three (3) homes in the property settlement;
2. Movant, BRODERICK S. HARVEY did not take, withhold or turn the child
against Responded, MARY LEE HARVEY.
3. Respondent, MARY LEE HARVEY willingly placed the child on an
airplane and sent him to MR. HARVEY without his knowledge.
The court also found that Harvey had awarded his wife $40,000 a month
since 2005, until March 2009 when she received a payment of $1.5
Wow … that doesn’t sound like the life or bank account of a destitute
woman. Harvey’s “love guru” status may have taken a hit, but one has to believe
that he’s glad to have the truth on his side. The couple will meet in court on
March 10, 2011, to address a little matter of contempt of court. –djr