Rocky,Brilliant and truthful analysis. You really should start your own blog bro. You'll have my support.
the IRR sisters do not perceive white men as being intrinsically superior to Black men...far from it in fact!
Instead they see (and write about) Black men "rejecting" them for white, light, and Latino women and this wounds them deeply as it is not only romantic and sexual rejection in their eyes but especially racial rejection!
The scorned 'sistas', who already have issues with colour and hair texture, then seek out white men with whom to form what we see as romantic unions but are instead RACIAL ALLIANCES in which the white male is a silent partner!
It's an unspoken contract in which the Black female promotes white male superiority over the Black male in exchange for a symbolic honorary white status.
The stress this 'contract' causes Black women is immeasurable and so they seek to displace it onto the men who continue to occupy their hearts...Black men!
Thus, we must interpret all of their IRR work as sub-conscious distress signals or SOSs'. Thing is, only a Black man could possibly read the signal correctly. White boys would never have a clue!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
from Amazing Race: Family Edition
I was reading a particular post by Halima Anderson that really hit home the trend of the Something New (Something Screwed), Sell-Out Crew that I have pointed out before. That simply is the trend of fabrication. Quite simply, they basically make things up for the purpose of attempting to justify their positions. In this case, they attempt to justify their double standards on interracial dating. Esha "Evia" Moore has done this herself. They try to justify their negative attitudes toward black men in IR while having positive attitudes toward black women in IR by trying to establish different motivations between black men and black women who date out.
I posted a response on her blog asking for evidence of these different motivations. Needless to say, my post was censored out. I expected this, yet I wanted to submit the post to show how they actually have no evidence for the things they post and as a result of such a lacking of evidence, they simply run from the request. Thus they censor.
For those that are not familiar with Halima, she is a black female British citizen who, for some reason, has a deep disdain for black men in general and seems to imply expertise with regard to issues of African Americans. She proclaims herself a writer and has what seems to be a rather unknown e-book supposedly instructing black women on how to catch white men. I suspect that the book is a joke, but it does exemplify her very overt desire for WHITE MEN over other non-black men. She even tries to justify this, yet I will show precisely how even that falls flat. Lets analyze some of her 'points'.
"We do not lump all interracial dating together. We regard black male interracial dating as distinctly different in character from black female interracial dating and recognise that black male interracial dating has historically born the hallmarks of being founded upon a rejection of and discrimination against black women."
Now while Halima doesn't give evidence for this notion, there are those experts who have done some research. One of those is Kellina Craig-Henderson, professor of psychology at Howard University. She is the author of the book, "Black Men In Interracial Relationships" answers questions about her research at the Washington Post. One question and answer stood out:
Springfield, Va.: Interesting. I look forward to reading the book. Do you find that black men who date non-black women are willing to date black women, but happen to become involved with a non-black woman? Or, is the case that black men have selected their partners based partially on the fact that they are non-black women?
Kellina Craig-Henderson: In my research, I found both. In fact, that is why I concluded that for every Black man who consciously sought out a non-Black woman to date and marry, there was another Black man who could honestly claim happenstance in his interracial realtionship. I hope you enjoy the book.
So based on the research of an expert, she found that at least half the black men in her study could "honestly claim happenstance in his interracial relationship". This greatly shoves a monkey wrench in Halima's premise. Even those men who actively sought out non-black women may not have done so to reject black women, but to embrace diversity in their dating. I'm sure that a large portion of the 92% of married black men who are married to black women have dated non-black women and many of them may have actually sought out such women. In the end, they married black women.
"We recognise the different motivations of black male interracial dating and that of black female interracial dating. We recognise that black female interracial dating is often driven by the unavailability of black male partners(traditional dating pool) , a situation which interracial dating among black men contributes to. This means that black women’s interracial choices are not a direct rejection of black males as can be argued in the case of black men, whose motivations cannot be linked to unavailability of black female partners, yet whose interracial dating rates are higher than black females."
Another flawed premise. For one, the notion of the "unavailability" of black male partners is mostly a myth. For one, while 70% of black women are single, 68% of black men are single. Such a large single rate for black men equates to a large group of available black men. What folks fail to realize is that while black people are not getting married nearly as often as in the past, black men and women are dating and being intimate as much as ever and probably more. Even with the general public, marriage is at its lowest rate, yet intimacy and dating are still quite high. The greater trend of being single for blacks is just another example of how negative trends tend to hit blacks the hardest. Heck, one cannot simply blame black men for the low marriage rates since research has shown that men tend to value marriage more than women and black women value marriage less than other groups of women:
Of course, they will respond by saying that there is a lack of quality black men, yet this assumes that there is not a similar lack of quality black women. You see, Halima, Evia, and their followers tend to define things such as "quality" in a way that makes black women appear to be so much better than black men. But lets look at a few things that black men (or men in general) view as a "quality" or lack of when it comes to women.
1. A single women without kids are something that black men see as quality. It is becoming more and more difficult for single black men to find childless women. Black women are still having children out of wedlock at a high rate and at young ages, thus making single, childless black women less and less common.
2. Black men see women who are NOT overweight as quality. Up to 80% of black women are overweight. Being overweight is often a sign of a sedentary lifestyle and a lack of energy. Being overweight is often a sign of laziness (not in all cases). Studies have shown that overweight women have lower sex drives. Being overweight often takes away the petite qualities that research has shown to be more attractive to men.
3. Tattoos. In modern time, it has become popular for females to sport tattoos as opposed to the past whereas tattoos were something that was seen almost entirely on men and even then, a minority of men. Today, the number of women with tattoos actually slightly exceeds the number of men with them. With non-black women, tattoos are primarily those viewed as "lady tattoos" and generally appear on the small of the back and on the side of the calf, yet with black women there seems to be far less restraint with regard to where tattoos are located and what the tattoos are. Thus, it is not uncommon to see black women with tattoos and their shoulders and arms, across their upper chests, on their thighs and on their necks. These often include the names of their previous lovers and profanity (I once saw a black woman with "bad bitch" tattooed on her arm). It is quite reasonable to say that images like this tend to make a woman appear considerably less "wifey material". Such a woman is quick to be labeled as less quality for it often takes an unsound woman to place such unbecoming marks on her body.
4. Attitudes. This has been a source of argument for a while in this unfortunate so-called "gender war". The stereotype of the attitudes of many black women is a stereotype that members of the Something New/Something Screwed Crew seem to want to declare as totally fabricated or try to relabel as "strength". They accuse black men of promoting this, yet white people probably hold more to this stereotype than anyone else. In this study, it is shown that a sample of white college students, half of whom are male, perceive black women as "loud, aggressive, argumentative, stubborn, and bitchy". Most stereotypes are exaggerated, yet have at least some bases in reality. This stereotype definitely doesn't apply to all black women, yet it is reasonable to conclude that such characteristics are disproportionately prevalent among black women and men of any race will generally view such attitudes and behaviors as poor quality.
5. Education. Contrary to what they want you to believe, there is no massive amount of black women gaining higher degrees as opposed to a minuscule amount of black men doing the same. Only 18% of African American women achieve college degrees compared to roughly 12% of black men who do the same. Thus 82% of African American women have something that 88% of African American men have, and this in NO HIGHER DEGREE. Even the high school drop-out rates for black men and black women are practically even (9.5% for black women and 10.5% for black men). Thus, there is no significant number of educated black women who can't find similarly educated black men. And with the significant number of enabling black women who are so desiring of men behind bars, even incarceration is not a good excuse for the notion of a lack of black men.
"We believe in propagating the message of black women availing themselves of all their dating options, and in particular the interracial dating options, and in particular their opportunities with white men who constitute the largest group of available men in the West."
This a notion that clearly has basis in ignorance and simplistic thinking. While white men are the largest group of men in the West, that does not make them the largest group of AVAILABLE men in the West. You see, the top competitors for their affections are white women who are the largest group of women in the west. Thus, the sheer magnitude of competition for white men from white and Asian women negates their larger numbers, thus making then not so available to black women as Halima thinks.
"We believe that black women are both socialised against, socially restrained from and directed away from taking up their ‘full dating options’, in various ways and throughout their lives."
I'm happy that she stressed "believe" because what one believes is contrary to what is truth. I'll take what an actual sociology professor says over what Halima says any day:
"When it comes to Black/White interracial relationships my research indicates, that White women face the most family opposition of all of the race/gender groups. The tactics used to show opposition in White women’s families are often more extreme. They appear to be the group most likely to be disowned or disinvited when they enter interracial relationships."
I will also take research over what she says:
"Within the black community, however, women have been found to disagree more with interracial marriage than men. Researchers Paset and Taylor (1991) studied black and white college women and their attitudes toward interracial marriage. Their results proved their hypothesis that black women see interracial relationships of black men and white women as a threat to their personal and community well being.
Todd, McKinney, Harris, Chadderton, and Small (1992) did a similar study, and their findings were almost identical to the previous study. Black women were found to be the most negative group in the study since almost half of the female participants disagreed with interracial dating and marriage. These women held traditional values and felt that dating and marrying outside their race was perceived as a "let down." They also resented the competition of white women dating black men since they felt their minority group has a lack of available partners."
Clearly, black women react more negatively to black men in IR than black men react to black women in IR.
So in conclusion, if one really analyzes Anderson's words and compares them to the research, one can only logically conclude that she basically does not know what she is talking about.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
"But another relative's fate is a stark reminder of the city's troubles. Terrize's 27-year-old cousin, Tommy Clark, was shot to death in May in the French Quarter. Police said he died defending a woman's honor."
Due to the recent and common tendency of those in the 'Something New'/black male haters pseudo-movement to declare that black men don't defend women, I decided to look more into this. Now note the image of Terrize and Reagan:
Clearly, he is black, thus making it quite fair to say that his cousin Tommy was black. Now lets see what they say here:
"May 9: Jonesboro, Ga.-native Tommy Clark Gentry, 28, is shot in the 200 block of Bourbon Street in the French Quarter, shortly after he had stopped another man who was attacking
three women in a nearby bar."
"A man assaulted two women in a bar in the French Quarter last week, and then shot and killed a man who came to their aid, police say."
And from the same site:
"Just a couple of weeks ago, there was the shooting of Tommy Clark in the French Quarter while he was escorting two women who were assaulted by the perpetrator."
So what we apparently have here is a clear case of a black man defending more than one black women and loosing his life in the process. Yet the 'Something New Sell-Outs'/black male haters will continue to push the idea that this never happens with black men and they will only be disappointed to hear stories like this; not disappointed that a good man lost his life, but disappointed that he provided an example of something that they don't want the world to know exists. That example is one of honorable and courageous black men.
They also don't want you to see videos like this:
Monday, January 12, 2009
The image above is that of Merlin Santana, a former child actor known for his roles as Stanley on "The Cosby Show" and as Romeo Santana on "The Steve Harvey Show". Santana was murdered on Nov. 9, 2002. One those convicted in his murder was a 15 year old old African American girl named Monique King. This case is discussed here:
"Santana, co-star of television’s "Steve Harvey Show," was shot in the head and killed as he and a friend were in a car leaving another man’s home in the Crenshaw District of Los Angeles on Nov. 9, 2002.
Fidler noted that evidence at King’s trial showed the young woman went to co-defendants Damien Andre Gates, 21, and Brandon Douglas Bynes, 25, and lied to them, saying Santana attempted to rape her. Testimony indicated that the defendant’s story "threw Mr. Gates into a fury for whatever reason," the judge said. Gates armed himself with a handgun and rifle, and with Bynes and King, went to find Santana and the victim’s friend.
The judge determined that King aided and abetted the crimes, noting that she knew there was going to be a shooting and she got behind the wheel and drove the other defendants to safety after Santana was killed."
So basically what we have here is a case whereas two black men, in the most extreme fashion, defended the honor of not only a black female, but a black female minor. The result of this was the death of an innocent promising actor and the incarceration of two black men and the young woman herself. And all of this over a LIE. Next...
The image above shows Quintin Wiggins, former vice president of finance at Texas Southern University. His circumstances are discussed here:
Prosecutors said Wiggins helped hide a nearly $300,000 spending spree by the university's now-former president, Priscilla Slade.
So basically, we have a black man who supported and protected a black woman while she spent university money on herself. The result was him going to jail for 10 years. Her trial ended in a hung jury with the chances of her going to trial again being slim. Thus she walks free. Lets look at more:
What we see here is a black woman who got offended that a white guy in line remarked about her attempt to cut the line at the pizza place. She goes on a tangent and calls for her thug/ex-con boyfriend to come in. What happens is quite simple. He comes in to DEFEND her honor (despite her behavior not deserving any defense) and beats the poor guy unconscious. Observe how Evia's brave and honorable white men simply watch the beating and give the poor guy no help. The end result is that the boyfriend gets 4 years for aggravated assault and the woman merely gets probation.
So basically we have three instances of black men defending/protecting/supporting black woman. The results are a dead innocent young actor, four men and one female serving prison time and a badly beaten innocent white man. What this goes to show is there is a fine line between defending black women and being black women's attack dogs. Black men are quite willing to defend and protect black women. Black women must not use such protection as a weapon.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Now much was made of this video by the Something New Crew as well as other black female bloggers who strive on black female victimism. Needless to say, the man's actions were appalling and he deserves to be locked up. No matter what she said to him, he was totally unjustified in putting his hands on her in any way, much less in the fashion that he did. The problem is how certain people have attempted to use this video to black male bash. Let's take a look at this unfortunate video:
Now there are two common ways that the black male bashers have distorted what actually happened in the video. For one, they repeatedly state that the man knocked the girl out. Maipai101 stated in her response that the guy knocked her out, yet if you watch the video closely, the girl jumps up immediately after being knocked down. Now he could have easily knocked her out the way that he punched her, but shouldn't we report events accurately?
The next distortion is how they repeatedly say that a bunch of black men stood around and did nothing. If one looks at the video carefully, there seems to be ONE man that can be reasonably identified as black. Aside from him, we see some Hispanic men and several legs and torsos. The only others who could be reasonably identified as black males were children. From What About Our Daughters we have:
"The attack is disturbing, but look closely at the end of the video. Who goes to this girl’s aid? Not the OTHER fully grown Black men standing around. No they are suddenly rendered MOTIONLESS. Its another CHILD, a little Black girl who is the only person who goes to this girl’s aid."
Again, we have a statement that is not based on an actual close viewing of the film, but rather an assumption. We see ONE man who could reasonably identified as black.
Now on the various black female IR blogs and others like it, they repeatedly claim that if this had been a white girl punched and white men were present, that the white men would have intervened, unlike the one black guy who didn't in the video and the assumed black men in the background. But lets test this theory and take a look at this video:
Now what do we have here? We have a white woman being the victim of a PROLONGED beating at the hands of a white man. And furthermore, we have a group of white men who observe the beating and do absolutely nothing. I want to again stress that this beating was PROLONGED, unlike a quick two punches and an exit done by the black man at McDonald's. Not only did the white man repeatedly punch the woman, he tossed her around repeatedly, kicked her repeatedly, dragged her out of the room, etc. etc. Throughout this beating, a group of white men simply watched and did absolutely nothing.
This video was addressed on the various blogs whereas the black women were using the McDonald's incident as an example of how black men won't defend black women, unlike how white men defend white women. What happened when the second video was brought up in various posts? The posts were either censored out or simply ignored by most of them as they continued to bash black males for "not defending black women".
Part 2 of this topic later.