Saturday, December 4, 2010

Response to Von's Rant


Well, I guess will have to respond to idiocy. The profane and unladylike blogger known as Von has responded to my previous post with the usual insults, straw man arguments, false accusations, etc. In her attempt to try and seem intelligent, she doesn't realize how dumb she seems. Here is what she says:






Rocky likes to cite old studies with small sample sizes and random blogs with
little validity/credibility in his comments and blogs. This is when he's not
using SURVEY results as if they hold some magic key to more creditable data that
one would find in a scholarly database such as JSTOR. He gives no thought at all
to the source of the study/blogs, sample size, age of the study, demographics of
the study, or any of the other stuff they teach you in Data & Research
analysis in college. He does this in an effort to IGNORE real numbers and
statistics that can't be refuted. He also does this in an effort to IGNORE
decades of continuous research from African American social scientist that go
against his ideas about black men.




This is comical. I presented the research of this man in the blog post that she is ranting about. I'll take the research of a trained and experienced PH.D over the rantings of an imbecilic blogger who provides NOTHING in the realm of data to counter any of the data I produce. Her data is her own proclaimed observations. So basically she says that peer reviewed research takes a back seat to what she allegedly sees with her "own eyes" (which are probably fabricated observations). She claims all of this research by African American social scientists that contradict me, yet she provides none of them. If she new anything about JSTOR, she would know that Rebekah Levine Coley's work IS on JSTOR and her research has been described as "comprehensive". I have presented Coley's work and her work was presented on dingbat's blog. I'm quite sure that she is feeling quite the fool she is now.















On his blog he didn't bother to address the actual post, For My Critics: If You
Have A Better Solution Bring It ( here). Instead he did what I would expect from a
deflector: He nitpicked his argument while attacking me. He can't argue my
points so he decides to assassinate what he assumes is my character with
no evidence to support his bullshit. Let's get to it....


Hey, I can come to you blog and go word for word against you. Oooops. I forget. We would have two exchanges and your cowardly behind would block me from posting because you couldn't take the heat.



Ummm.... I guess "Rocky" (who suffers from selective reading...like most
hypersensitive black men that respond in the way he did) missed this statement
from that post....
I got nothing but love for the REAL "good" black men who
are handling their business (that includes actually being faithful, loving ONE
woman, and making her your wife)... The key word in that statement is
REAL. We got fakes and frauds in the black male population, but people like
Rocky like to ignore this reality and simply focus on a black man being
"productive" as proof of his "goodness".




Sorry. That little bone you attempt to throw does not change the fact that you are attempting to establish "REAL good black men" as minuscule in numbers as shown by how you specifically declare "MOST" so-call good black men to be snakes in the grass. Even David Duke has said that there are some blacks that he has a lot of respect for. Does that statement make him a non-racist. No. Just as your statement doesn't make you anything other than what you actually are.


There are fakes and frauds in every population including the black female population and I never said that being productive is proof of goodness. I disputed your notion of MOST productive black men being fakes and frauds.




I would like to know what makes "Rocky" think a man is above evil simply because
he is productive?
??

Your Straw Man has been addressed above.





The part of my blog you decided to nitpick didn't have much of anything to
do with black men not "seeking a wife" as you put it, Rocky.




Seems like backtracking to me:







"Where the hell are these so-calledgood black men when their female
counterparts are seeking marriage?"



Instead it had to do with self-proclaimed "good black men" being anything but good. It had to do with black men claiming to be one thing but turning out to be no better than the Pookie and Ray-Rays they hold themselves so high above. It had to do with self-proclaimed "good" black men USING women instead of being true stand up good men. Your deflection here is amusing because it shows how far out the box people like you will take things to supposedly prove something incorrect. You have no defense for this behavior and I'm certain you have witnessed it at some point in your life.



No, it had to do with you proclaiming MOST productive black men as being this way. It's a lie and a distortion that I am tossing right back into your face and you respond with insults and nothing of substance. Typical.




I would like one of my readers that has followed this blog for some time to
point out to me where I have EVER placed an emphasis on education and income for
a woman to pull a man. Show me where I have EVER stated that a woman is entitled
to a man simply because she is educated/professional/ and making bank...I'll
wait....




No one proclaimed that you place such emphasis in your blog. I said that nuts like you often think that being professional and educated automatically makes a woman a catch because that commonly makes a man a catch. In other words, you fall into a group of women who feel that female professional success should be a male draw as male professional success is a female draw. It has nothing to do with what has been stated in your blog.





This fool is acting like he knows me when clearly he has no idea.



I know your type.





The black race is the only race I know of that expects the WOMEN to CONTROL the
way MEN behave instead of the men just having some sense of MORALITY.




This is a common falsehood pulled out of the rear ends of women such as yourself who promote black female victimism. If you have read any reasonable amount of comments from black men, you will know that one of the most common complaints is directed at black women who hook up with thugs and hoodlums under the guise of "changing them". This is quite different from the clear cultural impact of the continued sexual rewarding of bad behavior. If you had any degree of intelligence, you would see that no one is talking about any one or more women being responsible for changing the behavior of individual grown men. We are talking about a cultural impact that contributes strongly to promoting the development of men who practice such bad behavior. It has been shown in research and the common sense that you lack prevents you from understanding this.





The sad reality...a lot of black men's greatest asset is their dicks. They
don't have anything else to show for their manhood except it. The bedroom is the
one place they feel superior compared to other races of men (need proof? Click here). No matter what black women do these
individuals will find a way to have sex. So the idea that black men will change
if the black women they get down with stop "rewarding" them with sex is
bullshit. Some black men on my blog have even admitted as such....




So are black women's vaginas their greatest assets? As you can see, black women are the most promiscuous women and the difference between them and white women in promiscuity is almost identical to the difference between black men and white men.





Bottom line: It's not on the woman to change a man's behavior (because she
can't change him)...the onus is on him. He has to WANT to do better. The notion
that black men sell drugs, become thugs, and deviant to get with black women
goes against everything we know about the lifestyle from sociologist and from
these individuals themselves. Every drug dealer I've ever encountered has cited
four things as his motivation to become a thug/drug dealer:
Easy/quick money
and plenty of it (or greed).
Poverty
Inability to secure adequate
employment.
Car, clothes, and the finer things in life.
Sociologist have
backed up this mindset in their analysis. In every "hood flick" I have watched,
produced by a BLACK MALE, the motivation for the drug dealer was money and
material things. NEVER once have I heard a single drug dealer say he started
selling drugs to get women or get laid. NEVER. In fact, these individuals
subscribe to a "Money over hoes" mentality or "Get money...fuck hoes." Women
just seem to enter the picture at some point. They are an afterthought. They
have nothing to do with black men's actual motivation to sell drugs or become
thugs. Any type of "sexual reward" from women is an afterthought for most of
these individuals who are driven more so by the factors listed above.


So sex is not a major motivation for getting money? Right?

Again with her alleged "personal experiences" and now we have "hood flicks" taking priority over research. Such comedy. As for backing up this mindset:



"For instance, a recent study by Colorado anthropologists Craig Palmer and Christopher Tilley suggests that the formation of young male gangs, with all the associated viciousness and violence, may be driven, partly, by reproductive competition: sexual access to females. By tracking a sexually transmitted disease outbreak in Colorado Springs during the early 1990s, they found that gang members not only achieved a kind of power/money status within their community, they had an unusually high number of female partners, compared to the nongang members involved in the outbreak."


This is so easy.

98 comments:

Menelik Charles said...

Bro Rocky,

great that you got to respond to this mad matriarchal missionary. Maybe it would be better if you transferred my most recent comments (which relate directly to her diatribe and other wild outbursts) to the present comments page.

just a thought, Bro.

Menelik Charles
London UK

Anonymous said...

Rocky

Von stated that it is only among the black race ( I assume she means the cultural historical group of African Americans) that women have to control the behavior of men. I've often heard people say that the reason Muslim women cover themselves is so they dont entice men with their bodies. This is a billion strong community by the way. So accordingly half a billion men, of many different races are being controlled by their women.

Secondly, why the hell do drug dealers need money and material things? The money, the cars, the clothes, the jewelry IS plumage. And what does a male peacock need with plumage?

Its to snag a mate. Its to distinguish himself from other peacocks. Its to let the female peacock know that he is healthy and that her offspring will likewise have those some qualities.

Now Rocky, I think you missed a great opportunity to expose the angst that these women have about upwardly mobile men not settling down. If I can quote Mr. Legend of BlackMenVent fame, "Its about that check." These women will NOT see a penny of these men's income if they arent able to marry him.

Expose these womens' criticisms as the resource grab that it is.

Kigali

Menelik Charles said...

Von said:

The collective of African American men can kiss my ass. I appreciate the "needles in the haystack" like you, but the rest of them can fuck off.

http://blackconsciousthought.blogspot.com/2010/11/for-my-critics-if-you-have-better.html

Menelik says:

so there you have it, folks: Von asserts that the vast majority of Black men are of no value, no good, niggers aint shit etc.

I'm not too concerned with disputing her assertion: I'm more interested in working out how she's managed to fool people into believing she has a man lol

Incredible!

Menelik Charles
London UK

Anonymous said...

Von is awesome and funny too. LOL! I like her especially after reading her most recent blog. Her arrogance and attitude is kind of sexy. I find her interesting.

Menelik Charles said...

Bro,

Von reminds me so much of this extraordinary 'shuck 'n' jive', 'Black-centric', Negro, Pastor Manning, in the YouTube video below: except, of course, the last status he desires to lay claim to is that of victim:

"he Removal of The Black Curse"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6YRPl3HxgA

Menelik Charles
London UK

Rocky said...

One interesting point is how she blatently lies. She expressses in her last comment of that post that I posted on her blog under the name "Stokey". The name was "Stoney" (maybe she needs to learn to read more carefully). It doesn't take a genious to link the name "Stoney" and "Rocky" and I purposely used a synonymous term.

But the point is that she claims that I went off because she posted a video of a racist white woman going off on a black mail carrier. The fact is that I never even viewed the video. I figured that she was posting videos of unfavorable interactions between black men and white women and she posted these because I noted how it was white female sociologists who were performing studies disputing some of the negative stereotypes about black men that she and many other black women embrace.

That was an added point that had little to do with the subject being debated and I continued the debate based on the original subject with NO mention of the videos. What I did mention was her tendency to curse like a sailor and how that tendency among black women could contribute to their problems getting married.

She apparently didn't like that and she not only censored my comment, but she blocked my IP (which I expected would happen eventually based on her record). There was no "going off", just a continuation of the same tone of the debate. She got mad when I casually mentioned her foul mouth.

So she lied about me "going off". She lied about rarely censoring her blog and she lied about loving debate. When she is getting her tail kicked in debate, she does like the rest of her cohorts do, she starts to censor.

I only moderate out crude posts put there for the sole purpose of insult. Some of these women like to throw around words like "niggers" and "faggots" when they don't like what I say and that gets tossed out. Otherwise, I let in everything in.

It would be simple to post again on her blog, but it is not that important. My point was made and she was exposed for the chump that she is.

Rocky said...

One interesting point is how she blatently lies. She expressses in her last comment of that post that I posted on her blog under the name "Stokey". The name was "Stoney" (maybe she needs to learn to read more carefully). It doesn't take a genious to link the name "Stoney" and "Rocky" and I purposely used a synonymous term.

But the point is that she claims that I went off because she posted a video of a racist white woman going off on a black mail carrier. The fact is that I never even viewed the video. I figured that she was posting videos of unfavorable interactions between black men and white women and she posted these because I noted how it was white female sociologists who were performing studies disputing some of the negative stereotypes about black men that she and many other black women embrace.

That was an added point that had little to do with the subject being debated and I continued the debate based on the original subject with NO mention of the videos. What I did mention was her tendency to curse like a sailor and how that tendency among black women could contribute to their problems getting married.

She apparently didn't like that and she not only censored my comment, but she blocked my IP (which I expected would happen eventually based on her record). There was no "going off", just a continuation of the same tone of the debate. She got mad when I casually mentioned her foul mouth.

So she lied about me "going off". She lied about rarely censoring her blog and she lied about loving debate. When she is getting her tail kicked in debate, she does like the rest of her cohorts do, she starts to censor.

I only moderate out crude posts put there for the sole purpose of insult. Some of these women like to throw around words like "niggers" and "faggots" when they don't like what I say and that gets tossed out. Otherwise, I let in everything in.

It would be simple to post again on her blog, but it is not that important. My point was made and she was exposed for the chump that she is.

Menelik Charles said...

Von said:

This blog isn't about WOMEN sleeping around. No, instead it's about MEN being HOES.You're right there should be a paternity test. That way there will be no doubt about the child support he is forced to pay.

Link here:

http://blackconsciousthought.blogspot.com/2010/10/bullet-i-dodgedthank-you-gawd.html

Menelik says:

and using Von's logic, if the women weren't "hoes", they'd have no need to take a paternity test would they? I mean the reason she gives for women taking them is to establish paternity so that the father pays up. How about the women closing their legs?

Just a thought.

Menelik Charles
London UK

Shady_Grady said...

The censorship issue is the most problematic but every blog has different rules. It just seems more than a little bit hypocritical and illogical to claim to be seeking robust debate and real argument and then turn around and profanely insult and then banish those who disagree with you, usually before they have a chance to respond.

A lot of the so-called BWE blogs seem to operate that way. Ultimately it's more amusing than anything else.

Julia M. said...

Dear Rocky,
Clearly there is a war of the blogs between you and Von. I won't get in the middle of it but I do have a few concerns about your links.

This link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19374216/ns/health-sexual_health/

It doesn't prove your point of the black women-white women gap being equal to the white men-black men gap. Maybe I missed something but all I got from it is that blacks were more likely to have more than 15 sexual partners with black men and women at 46 and 13 percent , respectively.

The link regarding making money and sex is inconsequential because it only isolates those in Colorado ,a state that has a black population of 4%. Also the source is outdated because it was conducted during the early 1990's and that was over 15 years ago. It doesn't prove the point of men being driven by sex to join gangs and do illegal things. All I got is that men who had more money were more likely to be promiscuous. There is the word maybe which states that it is a possibility but money and power are the two top reasons that men do illegal things.

Do you have an updated sources that can prove this? Preferably one that is no more than 5 years old.

In the last post, you said that women should stop giving them sex but if that was to happen, what do you think they will do? Straighten up and become productive citizens? I highly doubt it.

One last thing, I think your argument of "black women choosing thugs and hoodlums" is out molded since many black females remain single and unmarried because they don't settle for those guys. If they did, the number of those who are married would be up and more black females would be having kids since they would be a stable relationship. Two things that are clearly not happening right now.

-Julia McDaniels

P.S.- I don't see the name "Stokey" located anywhere on the page. The name Stoney is there but not the same Stokey.

Menelik Charles said...

Bro Rocky,

the sister in this video adds support to your argument:

"Women - Thugs - Music Music & Nerds!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm-sRzQ8Jr0&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Rocky said...

Julia

If you do the math, black women are around 50% more likely than white women to reporty having had 15 or more sex partners. Black men are 60% more likely than white men to have had 15 or more sex partners. 50% and 60% differences are pretty much the same.

Crips and Bloods make up at least half of the gangs in Colorado Springs and their members are, of course, black. Either way, the study was not a study of racial groups, but a study of general human behavior, so the race of the subjects was irrelevant. And the study is on JSTOR:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3812791

And you act as if the desire for money and power is not motivated by the possibility of increased sex. The authors of the study did.

And this attempt at discrediting research because it is more than 5 years old is lame. Research becomes outdated when later research makes the old research irrelevant. Modern papers still reference those studies from the 90s. So they still apparently apply today. The 90s were not that long ago.

And women should stop sexually rewarding bad behavior because in the long run, it will curb the development of such bad behavior. This has nothing to do with changing a single individual. It has everything to do with changing the culture. I explained this earlier.

And many black women remain single because men are not proposing to them and thugs and hoodlums tend to be the main ones who don't propose. So you point is moot.

Rocky said...

Also, Julia

Von did write "Stokey" in her comment. She apparently edited it.

Menelik Charles said...

Bro Rocky,

this YouTube video, I believe, demonstrates the consequences of women NOT closing their legs and/or taking precuations:

"15 Kid-Welfare Mom: "Somebody Owes Me!".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3e41prVDv4

Von said:

This blog isn't about WOMEN sleeping around. No, instead it's about MEN being HOES.You're right there should be a paternity test. That way there will be no doubt about the child support he is forced to pay.

Menelik says:

after watching this YouTube video we may appreciate that it is, in fact, very much about women "sleeping around"; getting free housing: food, and, of course, a free pass to blame some "no good nigger" for their own misfortune!

Menelik Charles
London UK

Menelik Charles said...

Mrs Julia M said:

I think your argument of "black women choosing thugs and hoodlums" is out-dated since many black females remain single and unmarried because they don't settle for those guys.

Menelik says:

but the point was that they do have sex with these guys, and children are quite often the result.

Mrs Julia M said:

If they did settle for thugs, the number of those who are married would be up and more black females would be having kids since they would be a stable relationship.

Menelik says:

see my comment above. An additional point is that the psychological blueprint of many (academically) educated Black women dictates they avoid so-called "good" Black men because to engage them on an intimate level would result in the break-up of the single-parent, matriarchal family.

Instead, these Black women "settle" for "thugs and hoodlums" (themselves products of single-parent households) who invariably are more likely to leave the business of raising a child to the women.

Thus, many Black women are complaining about a phenomenon they themselves are sub-consciously perpetuating.

Meanwhile, another generation of "good" Black men continue to complain of being over-looked by a good many Black women.

Menelik Charles
London UK

Anonymous said...

@Julia M,

"If they did, the number of those who are married would be up and more black females would be having kids since they would be a stable relationship."

As Rocky has demonstrated married black women have fewer children than the unmarried. So, if more black women were married, there would be less children. Men who dont work or have marginal employment, have felonies, sell dope, etc, dont get married. They are precisely the least likely to be married of any black man. Black women are into men who are the least likely to want to or in a position to be married.

Kigali

Julia M. said...

Dear Rocky,
" If you do the math, black women are around 50% more likely than white women to reporty having had 15 or more sex partners. Black men are 60% more likely than white men to have had 15 or more sex partners."
Where do you see that at? I see Black Women at 13 percent. The average for females is 9 percent. I do not see an average for white women. There is a median number of sex partners but that really says nothing since it is for all races of women, not for white.

" Either way, the study was not a study of racial groups, but a study of general human behavior, so the race of the subjects was irrelevant. And the study is on JSTOR:"
Again, Do you have a more recent source? This source is outdated and again it limited to those in Colorado. The percentage of blacks is 4 percent, how many of those blacks are in gangs? The link says that they interviewed 53 black males.This was back in the late 1980's and early 1990's. A time where the cocaine epidemic was sweeping the black community and violence and gangs became popular.

However, times have changed significantly since education had been put on the forefront and blacks having been entering college at higher numbers. Black women, as you might know, have set standards that some males can't reach.

" And you act as if the desire for money and power is not motivated by the possibility of increased sex. The authors of the study did."
You can be a man who works 9 to 5 and have a nice car and attract shallow women. Ever hear of an eligible bachelor? They attract women and I'm sure are offered sex from them. None of them are in gangs or selling illegal drugs.
A lot of these young boys do it for the money because almost all of them come from lower class structures. I don't know what you are trying to prove but money and power are the root, women are secondary.

" And women should stop sexually rewarding bad behavior because in the long run, it will curb the development of such bad behavior. It has everything to do with changing the culture."
As long as the money is still there and the power from having that money still exist, men have no reason to stop. If anything, you might get a negative and see a growing number of male-male sexual encounters. It's not granted to change because you eliminate women. Whether that be emotionally, sexually or physically.

" And many black women remain single because men are not proposing to them and thugs and hoodlums tend to be the main ones who don't propose. So you point is moot."
So you are saying that majority of black women remain single because they are "dating" thugs/hoodlums? Not because many complain about the lack of quality men and the fact that they can't find suitable mates who don't meet their standards?

Correct me if I'm wrong and you can blame my lack of exposure for this ,but I was always under the impression that black males who are thugs were in the minority.
Maybe I'm wrong but from what you are saying, there is clearly there is enough of them to go around.

Unless you're trying to state that millions of black women are involved with a couple thousand of males; that of course would be illogical and quite comical.

I don't find you to be an irrational man or a man who would suggest something so absurd to abstain from admitting the deficiency of some people but freely admitting and almost emphasizing on those of another while clearly showing signs of a Martyr Syndrome.

But I'm going to assume that my interpretation of your words is incorrect and maybe you mean something else? Right?

-Julia McDaniels

Julia M. said...

Dear Menelik Charles,

I thought you opt to avoid me?
You are making assumptions about peoples personal lives and you nor I can confirm or deny who people sleep with and whether or not they are thugs/hoodlums. One would assume that women and men who come from the same social class structure are involved with each other sexually.

Black women are giving birth at very low rates. Despite the fact that 72 percent of those who are born are born out of wedlock majority of black females remain without kids. As for you rant on good black men and matriarchal family, you need to have kids first. I don't agree with a matriarchal family but at the same time, I can't deny that this isn't happening a lot since black women are without kids.

Just a quick update on your link about the 16 and Pregnant girl Christina. I don't think that his mother was attempting to stop him from being a father. She just seemed disappointed and upset at the fact that he threw away a football scholarship and decided to marry this girl solely for a baby. Two things that didn't end too well since he clearly regrets giving up his scholarship and the girl end up filing for divorce a few months later.

Here is the link:

http://www2.gurl.com/gurl-exclusive-16-pregnant-christinna-dishes-on-divorcing-her-baby-daddy/

-Julia McDaniels

Anonymous said...

@Kigali

Actually lower income earning black men are MORE likely to be married than upper income earning black men. Financially stable black men are the least likely to marry, which backs Julia's observation about financially stable men being promiscuous.

Google black marriage patterns.

I have also questioned Rocky's use of outdated data. It's not logical to use data from two decades ago and apply it to today's world. Even if you found it on Jstor it is still outdated which Von was correct in pointing out.

In graduate school I was always told by my professors never to use data that is more than few years old. There were times when I used Jstor and ran across outdated studies. Those studies wouldn't have been acceptable as sources for any paper I wrote. Both Julia and Von have a valid point. Also it's very true that sample size, margin of error, and demographics are just as important as having up to date data.

Julia M. said...

Dear Kigali,
As Rocky has demonstrated married black women have fewer children than the unmarried. So, if more black women were married, there would be less children. Men who dont work or have marginal employment, have felonies, sell dope, etc, dont get married. They are precisely the least likely to be married of any black man. Black women are into men who are the least likely to want to or in a position to be married.
Well Black women as a whole don't have many kids but I see your point. I can't speak much on the married couples because I don't know why they are opting not to have kids. Maybe they don't want to have kids altogether and opt not to have some with or without marriage.

As for men who don't work, etc. That's not exactly true since black males remain single also and I would assume that majority of them aren't like that.

There is no demographic for men who prefer to marry and those who don't. You have plenty of good guys on paper who don't marry because they want to be bachelors forever.

It's hard to believe that an overwhelming majority of black women are really into those kinds of men. I won't deny that some do. However, I've been on a lot of blogs, message boards and basically see the articles that suggest black women want otherwise and don't want to settle for those kind of men.

I understand what you are trying to say but kind of get whiplash with this back and forth; not by you or anyone on here but just in general. It's like one minute I hear that black women have too high of a standard and the next, it's their standards are low and they are settling for thugs?

-Julia McDaniels

Truth B. Told said...

I have been barely active posting this year (only 2 main posts on my own blog and not that much posting on other blogs) yet I still get hit with some shrapnel.

Talk about a hit dog hollering the loudest. I have barely done anything the past 4-5 months. What I have said when I was more active must have really hit a nerve.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous

"Actually lower income earning black men are MORE likely to be married than upper income earning black men. Financially stable black men are the least likely to marry, which backs Julia's observation about financially stable men being promiscuous."

Thanks for the information. I think we should be precise on the types of black people we are talking about. When I say unemployed or marginally employed I mean exactly that. I dont know what you mean by lower income. The average income for a black man is roughly between $35,000-$40,000. That isnt low income but it isnt middle class either. Now there are few black men that make high incomes. To talk about their marriage patterns would be inappropriate. They are insignificant outliers to all this.

Now, how does not being married mean you are promiscuous? What if you are in a long term relationship? Again, this is a resource grab that Von is talking about. You cant gouge a man if you arent married to him.

Financially stable also doesnt imply high income. If you have a steady job, with benefits, and the like but you are paid $40,000, thats stable but it isnt high income.

Kigali

Anonymous said...

@Julia

I know you are getting tired of the cliches. We do need to be precise on what kinds of black folks we are talking about. We can measure the marriage patterns for men based on income but we cant measure their degree of promiscuity. Its possible that these men are in long term relationships but arent married. Likewise in long term relationships with other high income women.

Obviously not all black women are into the non-marrying kind but few black women are into marriage at a pivotal time in their life.

Remember during the ABC Special when those attractive and successful (by their standards) black women were lamenting the marriages of their white counterparts? I have to wonder if they were dating to marry at the same time their white female counterparts were. I wonder what they were doing during undergrad and grad school. They had the same course load as their white counterparts but their white friends got married but they did.

1. They thought it was too soon to marry
2. They were looking but their prospective mates thought it too soon or were not interested.

Bare in mind that for all women, NONE want to marry down. As black women climb up that latter she limits her potential suitors. However, they are also a chimera not worth discussing.

Now why arent the $35,000-$45,000 black folks with stable employment getting married?

Kigali

Rocky said...

Ok, let me clarify some things. Julia. Scratch the term "white women". I should be "women in general". Black women are 50% more likely to report having sex with 15 or more men than "women in general". The number "13" is about 50% higher than the number "9".

Also, consider this. The offspring of 1990s gang membes are teenagers today. Thus, the numerous fatherless teenagers who are beginning their criminal careers can attribute their fatherlessness to the behavior of those who produced them in the 90s. From that perspective, the study is quite relevant.

On another note, someone indicated that lower income black men are more likely to marry. That is a false statement. MIDDLE INCOME black men are more likely to marry than upper class black men. Lower income black men are less likely to marry than all other black men. Thus, a black man making 70 thousand a year is more likely to marry than a black man making 150 thousand a year.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2009_spr/marriage.htm

Black men making below 70 thousand are less likely to marry than men making above 70 thousdand. Poor black men are less likely to marry than middle class and upper class black men.

Menelik Charles said...

Bro Truth,

I noticed she really seems to have an issue with you. Maybe its something to do with your liberal use of logic: you know certain fire-throwers can't stand logic lol

Menelik Charles said...

Bro Rocky,

is the African-American birthrate low? If so, lower than which other American racial/ethnic group?

Rocky said...

Hey, Bro Menelik.

The total black American birthrate is moderately higher than the total white American birthrate, yet significantly lower than the total Hispanic-American birthrate. Single Hispanic women as well as married Hispanic women each have more children than their counterparts in the other two major American racial/ethnic groups.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0083.pdf

The black out-of-wedlock rate is more than twice the rate of the white out-of-wedlock rate while the Hispanic OOW rate is more than 3 times the OOW rate of whites.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0085.pdf

The black married birthrate is lower than both the white married birthrate and the Hispanic married birthrate. The married Hispanic birth rate is the highest of the married birthrates of the three major racial/ethnic groups in America.

http://www.blacknews.com/news/thora_institute101.shtml

“In 2002, the black marital birth rate was 64.9 births for every 1,000 married black women. The white marital birth rate was 88.2 for every 1,000 married white women. The black marital birth rate was 23.3 births less than the white rate. In the past, the black marital birth rate was higher than the white rate. Because there is such a low number of births among married black women, the percent of births to unmarried black women is especially high.”

Asian American women have the lowest out-of-wedlock, birthrate yet are roughly tied with Hispanic women for the highest married birthrate.

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=73&articleid=533&sectionid=3668

Julia M. said...

Dear Rocky,
" I should be "women in general". Black women are 50% more likely to report having sex with 15 or more men than "women in general". The number "13" is about 50% higher than the number "9"."

If I'm correct, the number is 44.44% (rounded down to 44 %)more than the average for women in general.

The number for black males is 58.62% (rounded up to 59%). The difference between the two is not ten percent like you suggested with the numbers of 50 % and 60% but instead 15 percent.

" Also, consider this. The offspring of 1990s gang membes are teenagers today. Thus, the numerous fatherless teenagers who are beginning their criminal careers can attribute their fatherlessness to the behavior of those who produced them in the 90s. From that perspective, the study is quite relevant."
Actually it is not. A study talking about genetics, a fathers/mothers criminal behavior and its tendency to be repeated in their offspring is relevant to what you just stated. A small study on men supposedly joining gangs for women is not relevant to their kids because I don't think the choices your father made on why he possibly-and I use the term loosely-joined a gang can be passed down. A criminal tendency I think can but a personal choice like that? Not exactly.

Plus if the child was to join, he wouldn't do it because he wants women but because his father is a member and it is a way to follow in his footsteps. Which would make your link inconsequential in both cases since it is outdated in the first one and irrelevant in the next because their teenage sons wouldn't be inclined to join due to women (which still hasn't been prove efficiently) but instead following the footsteps or criminal patterns of their father, would be a genetic thing rather than a sexual.

Just to add onto what you said about birth rates,

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/79_PDF.pdf

"Within the past two decades, fertility rates have declined substantially among non-
Hispanic blacks (from 91 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 1980 to 67 per 1,000
in 2005)".

That is a 26 percent decrease over the past couple of decades.
Hispanic Women had the highest birth rate, while Blacks and Asian were tied (rounded, they are both at 67) and white women had the lowest with 58 per 1,000. The difference between black women and white women is only a 16% increase. Compared to the 56% increases between White Women and Hispanic Women. Asian women, as mentioned, are tied with black women when it comes to birth rates.

They however have the lowest out of wedlock rate at 17%.

-Julia McDaniels

Rocky said...

Ok. 15%. Black women are still 44% more likely to have had 15 or more sex partners than white women, thus making it hypocritical for a black woman to proclaim black men as promiscuous, right?

And I'm speaking of the fact that the offspring of gang members tend to grow up in single mother homes and boys in single mother homes are significantly more likely to turn to a life of crime, whether they actually join a gang or not. Has nothing to do with genetics.

And your insistance of the study not being relevant today is a straw man. You have presented NO evidence as to why it would not be relevant today. The culture has NOT changed since the 90s. Human nature has not changed since the 90s. You just like the conclusions.

Menelik Charles said...

Bro Rocky,

like the others on this blog, I'm university educated so I'm somewhat surprised to be 'informed' that research carried out as recently as the 1990s is being dismissed as inherently out-dated. This would mean, for example, that a piece of research carried out, say, on single mothers, ten years later than a similar study (and with markedly similar results) is rendered null and void by virtue of time.

Strange.

No such thing was ever once suggested to me in psychology - be it general or forensic. Maybe I'm missing something here. Any idea what it is Bro Rocky?

Menelik Charles
London UK

Rocky said...

No such thing was ever once suggested to me in psychology - be it general or forensic. Maybe I'm missing something here. Any idea what it is Bro Rocky?

I would say that this helps explain why no such thing was ever suggested to you nor me:

http://www.julianjaynes.org/pdf/jaynes_history.pdf

"Current work on the nature-nurture problem, on emotion and intellect, on thought and language, on the problem of consciousness — all are simply the most recent voices in discussions which have been reverberating through history for more than two thousand years. Why study the history of psychology? It is relevant to present research, a fact that is not true of other sciences."

Julia M. said...

Dear Rocky,
" Ok. 15%. Black women are still 44% more likely to have had 15 or more sex partners than white women, thus making it hypocritical for a black woman to proclaim black men as promiscuous, right?"
You mean women in general, right? The repetition of comparing black women to white women regarding this link is enlightening and one might assume it's almost intentional.

Yes, it is. I think that both black women and men need to get their promiscuous behavior under control because it helps no one down the line. I never agreed with Von on that matter. I just question the authenticity of your words.

" And I'm speaking of the fact that the offspring of gang members tend to grow up in single mother homes and boys in single mother homes are significantly more likely to turn to a life of crime, whether they actually join a gang or not. Has nothing to do with genetics."
So why did you post that link?
Gang Members possibly joining for women has no relevance to what you are saying. Again, I consider the criminal history of both parents since you have middle class single mothers who have children with middle class men and they together raise decent children. I think the social class and environment as a whole serves as a key component.

" And your insistance of the study not being relevant today is a straw man. You have presented NO evidence as to why it would not be relevant today. The culture has NOT changed since the 90s. Human nature has not changed since the 90s. You just like the conclusions."

Straw Man? Elaborate please.

Would it be valid if I brought a link from 30, 40 or maybe 50 years ago to prove a point? Obviously 20 years is an okay gap for relevant information, so my question is what is the limit on the years? What do you consider to be an outdated source? I consider any source that it is over 5 and for your arguments sake, over 10 years old to be outdated.

As I said before, I prefer to not use outdated studies and this is one of them. The information was collected during 1989 through 1991. That was 19 years ago and during a time where violence and gangs were idolized in the Black Community. The culture has changed since blacks are entering college at higher numbers and many prefer to isolate the Urban Population.
What human nature? We all have sexual needs but you've yet to prove that women are the reason why black males resort to gangs and illegal drug dealing. Money and power are the top two reasons, everything else is secondary.

I think that my conclusion is logical and I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt by asking for a link that was more recent, something you obviously can't find since you are still doting on your outdated one and attempting to use to it to prove another point.

Just a side note, I've been Googling this and I can't find any sources outside the one you mentioned. I did though find many links citing money, power, idolization of Scarface and just wanting to belong to a "family" as motivation but I can't find any links on women.

As Spock would say, Fascinating!

-Julia McDaniels

Menelik Charles said...

Thanks Bro Rocky,

I was finding it all a little confusing people banding about the idea that research studies you quoted were somehow made redundant by time so recently past.

It made absolutely no sense at all since at no time had my professors indicated such an outcome to me.

Menelik Charles
London UK

Anonymous said...

@Menelik

To regard a piece of research as outdated is to suggest that it has been debunked. Did any of the detractors say that the research has been debunked and offered more updated research contradicting the original thesis? No. The only thing that isnt a constant are our values. Our acceptance or rejection of previously held beliefs will force us to change our opinions but it doesnt change a particular phenomena. I'd imagine that research done on single parenthood today or the sexual mores of women takes a less judgemental position on the exact same social phenomena that was in fact present in the 1990s.

People are still referring to Patrick Moynihan's research on the Negro Family.

Kigali

Julia M. said...

http://www.suite101.com/content/how-to-write-a-college-term-paper-a11196

" Tip #7: Use good sources. Students sometimes see sources as a hoop to jump through in order to get a decent grade. But good sources lead to good papers, so take the time to find them. Choose credible sources (i.e. written by people who know what they're talking about and who don't have a strong bias). Avoid outdated sources. Use sources rich with facts and ideas that you can use in your paper. Don't rely too heavily on one source. And never list sources in your bibliography that you didn't really use to write the paper, because that's academic dishonesty that can get you in a heap of trouble. A little tip: if your professor asks for a minimum of six sources, she doesn't want you to use six. She wants about ten."

As I stated before and probably about 3 times already, I will give Rocky the benefit of the doubt if he can provide another link stating the same thing.

I won't judge based on an isolated source that was taken from a sample size 20 years ago. Especially not when so many other sources cite money, power, popularity and belonging as the key point for people joining gangs. None of those sources list women as a motivation.

Yet, Rocky suggest some off the wall idea and presents a messily little link and I'm supposed to agree with it?

Clearly, No one has any other link to prove their point because instead of presenting other links, they'd rather dote on this one and then become irrational in any ones attempts to tell them that they lack the information needed to support their claims.

Anyways, I've kind of lost my patience with this.

Forgive me for not taking the word of Rocky and automatically opening his arguments and the links he presents with open arms. I think that I had valid reason to question Rocky's link and lack of evidence supporting his claim. His link is a little too old for me to take into consideration and if he had a more recent study to back up him claim, I wouldn't have questioned it. Instead, we have more than enough studies stating reasons why people join gangs and yet Rocky is holding on by a thread to the motivation of women?
A motivation that hasn't been confirmed by any other link than the one small one he posted?

If you all say so..

-Julia McDaniels

P.S.- Just for the record, I will gladly admit that I'm coming off as a logic freak or as my husband says, know it all. I'm just really doubting this notion because it's the first time I've heard it and there aren't any other sources outside of the one given that states this. On the flip side, there are dozens of sources that give reasons and none of them mention women.

Anonymous said...

@Andrew

Wow, I just clicked on Von's response to you. I didnt know she mentioned me on her blog. I am totally flattered. Even though I got mention on her blog she completely misrepresented me and my views on inter racial dating. Dear Lord.

Kigali

The nerve of her mentioning me on her blog, called me a bitch and doesnt even allow me to defend myself. How dreadful.

Menelik Charles said...

From Mrs Julia M's response to Bro Rocky's use of certain sources:

"Tip #7 on-how-to-write-a-college-term-paper:

avoid out-dated sources. Use sources rich with facts and ideas that you can use in your paper. Don't rely too heavily on one source".

Menelik says:

to begin with, three questions need to be asked when considering the value of the above piece of advice or "tip":

1) when or how does a source become out-dated or contemporarily irrelevant?

2) what factors might render a source out-dated: time itself or lack of similarity to more recent research?

3) can a response in a mere blog - and in which maybe only one source is referred to, be held to the same standards as a college-term paper?

Kigali said:

people are still referring to Patrick Moynihan's Report on the Negro Family.

Menelik says:

maybe this is because this "out-dated" piece of research served as a warning as to what might happen if certain government-level social policies were not undertaken to rectify then then emerging "pathologies in the Negro family".

Moreover, this nearly half-a-century old report is still "rich with facts and ideas" (i.e. recommendations which is why people keep harking back to it!) that can be of use today if the socio-political will was present.

I guess my general point is that the "tip" at the top of the page is a bit more nuanced than Mrs M would have hoped since she appeared to be using it so as to attack Bro Rocky's use of a particular source, and then, either wilfully or ignorantly, go on to treat the present blog entry as though it were a college term paper!

I might also add that she has somewhat trespassed on to the territory of forensic psychology in her reference to gangs, criminal careers etc (my terrain, as it happens!) when Bro Rocky's source(s) is, in fact, rooted in cultural anthropology!

It is, thus, from this perspective that he can very comfortably maintain his present argument citing other sources as evidence. Consider, for example the statement below:

"territorial disputes, gang behavior, sexual competition during mating season, stress and competition for food all cause violence and I would EXPECT these also to appear in human behavior".

http://openanthcoop.ning.com/forum/topics/the-roots-of-violence?commentId=3404290:Comment:84195&xg_source=activity

The above quote is from the discipline of cultural anthropology NOT forensic psychology.

Do you see where you two might have a problem?

Menelik Charles
London UK

Menelik Charles said...

From Mrs Julia M's response to Bro Rocky's use of certain sources:

"Tip #7 on-how-to-write-a-college-term-paper:

avoid out-dated sources. Use sources rich with facts and ideas that you can use in your paper. Don't rely too heavily on one source".

Menelik says:

to begin with, three questions need to be asked when considering the value of the above piece of advice or "tip":

1) when or how does a source become out-dated or contemporarily irrelevant?

2) what factors might render a source out-dated: time itself or lack of similarity to more recent research?

3) can a response in a mere blog - and in which maybe only one source is referred to, be held to the same standards as a college-term paper?

Kigali said:

people are still referring to Patrick Moynihan's Report on the Negro Family.

Menelik says:

maybe this is because this "out-dated" piece of research served as a warning as to what might happen if certain government-level social policies were not undertaken to rectify then then emerging "pathologies in the Negro family".

Moreover, this nearly half-a-century old report is still "rich with facts and ideas" (i.e. recommendations which is why people keep harking back to it!) that can be of use today if the socio-political will was present.

To be continued...

Menelik Charles said...

Menelik says:

I guess my general point is that the "tip" at the top of the page is a bit more nuanced than Mrs M would have hoped since she appeared to be using it so as to attack Bro Rocky's use of a particular source, and then, either wilfully or ignorantly, go on to treat the present blog entry as though it were a college term paper!

I might also add that she has somewhat trespassed on to the territory of forensic psychology in her reference to gangs, criminal careers etc (my terrain, as it happens!) when Bro Rocky's source(s) is, in fact, rooted in cultural anthropology!

It is, thus, from this perspective that he can very comfortably maintain his present argument citing other sources as evidence. Consider, for example the statement below:

"territorial disputes, gang behavior, sexual competition during mating season, stress and competition for food all cause violence and I would EXPECT these also to appear in human behavior".

http://openanthcoop.ning.com/forum/topics/the-roots-of-violence?commentId=3404290:Comment:84195&xg_source=activity

The above quote is from the discipline of cultural anthropology NOT forensic psychology.

Do you see where you two might have a problem?

Menelik Charles
London UK

Menelik Charles said...

Mrs Julia M asked:

Would it be valid if I brought a link from 30, 40 or maybe 50 years ago to prove a point? Obviously 20 years is an okay gap for relevant information, so my question is what is the limit on the years? What do you consider to be an outdated source?

Menelik says:

you have this weird habit of taking the question right out of your proposed 'victim's' mouth and then using it to position yourself in the very position in which your intended 'victim' is situated!!!!

"Fascinating"!

Menelik Charles said...

Kigali said:

The nerve of Von mentioning me on her blog, called me a bitch and doesnt even allow me to defend myself. How dreadful.

Menelik says:

Von is a bully, and like all bullies, she's a coward! She claims to be for "free speech" but only insofar she can freely attack her opponents without them having the right to defend themselves or their positions.

Menelik Charles
London UK

Rocky said...

Kigali

Here is the Link

Julia M. said...

Dear Menelik Charles,
" when or how does a source become out-dated or contemporarily irrelevant?"
Your second question was an answer to the first, was it not? OR were they the same thing asked differently, then answered?

" can a response in a mere blog - and in which maybe only one source is referred to, be held to the same standards as a college-term paper?"
In many ways, yes. If you are looking to prove a point and get that point across to people, your sources and overall presentation should be that of a college term paper. Unless of course you are just blabbering away at the mouth or responding casually to another.

Rocky did attempt to use a link to prove his point, so I would assume that he did intend to "prove" something and could have used a term paper approach to it, minus the lengthy paragraphs of course.

" ... to attack Bro Rocky's use of a particular source, and then, either wilfully or ignorantly, go on to treat the present blog entry as though it were a college term paper! "
I'm not stating it's a college term paper but Menelik, we must think outside of the box. We shouldn't limit this way of writing or approach to college term papers.

" I might also add that she has somewhat trespassed on to the territory of forensic psychology in her reference to gangs, criminal careers etc (my terrain, as it happens!) when Bro Rocky's source(s) is, in fact, rooted in cultural anthropology!"

Actually, my comment using forensic psychology was only a response to Rocky who suggested something along the same lines.

And I quote,

" Also, consider this. The offspring of 1990s gang membes are teenagers today. Thus, the numerous fatherless teenagers who are beginning their criminal careers can attribute their fatherlessness to the behavior of those who produced them in the 90s. From that perspective, the study is quite relevant."

This presents the idea of their behavior being a reflection of their fatherlessness and also of those who produced them. Which would mean genetics, correct?

" It is, thus, from this perspective that he can very comfortably maintain his present argument citing other sources as evidence. Consider, for example the statement below:"
Since when is an opinion a public message board a reliable source?
As for the example mentioned, I would have to disagree slightly hence the Evolution of Man.
I do believe that it might naturally be in men but to the extent of animals? Nowhere near.
Also, the behavior that was described was rather animalistic. I do highly doubt Rocky would want to use that source to complement his argument regarding black men and gangs. It would make things look kind of...stereotypical.

Victim? Comical. Rocky posted the link and attempted to prove a point that obviously wasn't making much sense and lacked in support. I questioned it by stating why his argument was weak and he's a victim? Sounds like a victim of his own words.

He tells me that my argument is that of a straw man and his source is somehow relevant. I than asked what he feels is a relevant source and appropriate time frame.

One last thing, I never attacked Rocky. You seem to have a niche for wanting to throw the word out "attack" when someone disagrees with another. It's called a debate and because Rocky has failed to prove his case and has been wrong on just about everything said, doesn't mean that I'm attacking and he's a victim. It just means Rocky needs to build better cases and stop relying to "guesstimates", messily sources and personal bias.

-Julia McDaniels

Anonymous said...

@Menelik

I am just mad that she lied on me. If she told the truth, I am fine with that but she lied and now the lies are in the atmosphere.

Kigali

Menelik Charles said...

Menelik asked:

when or how does a source become out-dated or contemporarily irrelevant?

Mrs Julia M asked:

Your second question was an answer to the first, was it not? OR were they the same thing asked differently, then answered?

Menelik replies:

just like your questions were JUST questions, so to were mine: they were NOT a question in answer to a question. This would make no sense!

Menelik asked:

can a response in a mere blog - and in which maybe only one source is referred to, be held to the same standards as a college-term paper?

Mrs Julia M answered:

In many ways, yes. If you are looking to prove a point and get that point across to people, your sources and overall presentation should be that of a college term paper.

Menelik asked:

are you sure about this?

Mrs Julia M said:

Rocky...could have used a term paper approach to it, minus the lengthy paragraphs of course.

Menelik says:

a term paper "minus the lengthy paragraphs"? You say "of course". I say, a term paper without academic length paragraphs would read like a tabloid newspaper article lol

let's have some more of your "fascinating", if a little contradictory, logic.

Mrs Julia M said:

I'm not stating it's a college term paper but Menelik, we must think outside of the box. We shouldn't limit this way of writing or approach to college term papers.

Menelik says:

Mrs M, let's face it: you are simply bored, and looking to your usual passive-aggressive route to conflict.

Go back over many blog entries by Bro Rocky and you cannot fail to have noticed (in complete contrast to Bro Andrew whom you you've never taken to task on this matter) how reliant are his arguments on various sources per entry.

Why don't you acknowledge this general fact instead, and then simply argue the general case he made?

To be continued...

Julia M. said...

Dear Menelik Charles,
" just like your questions were JUST questions, so to were mine: they were NOT a question in answer to a question. This would make no sense!"
What? Let me reword my comment for you. Your first question was similar to the second, a question(the second one) in which you already answered.

" a term paper "minus the lengthy paragraphs"? You say "of course". I say, a term paper without academic length paragraphs would read like a tabloid newspaper article lol let's have some more of your "fascinating", if a little contradictory, logic."
You misquoted me. I said a term paper approach and as stated, that would be minus the lengthy paragraphs because you can get your point across in a few sentences and reliable sources. Though the overall presentation and source relevance should be that of a term paper. Again, You must think outside of the box.

" Mrs M, let's face it: you are simply bored, and looking to your usual passive-aggressive route to conflict.Go back over many blog entries by Bro Rocky and you cannot fail to have noticed (in complete contrast to Bro Andrew whom you you've never taken to task on this matter) how reliant are his arguments on various sources per entry.Why don't you acknowledge this general fact instead, and then simply argue the general case he made?"
Bored with this conversation? Of course. Passive Aggressive? Please, elaborate.

If you really want to address passive aggressiveness, let's use your good friend Rocky.( Please, Rocky forgive me for this one. I don't mean to pull you into this but clearly Menelik Charles is misinformed about a few things.)

Now, Rocky demonstrated passive aggressive behaviors in this blog post specifically. He had the tendency of speaking cryptically when it came to black women being promiscuous. As I pointed out, his constant repetition of "white" women vs black women looks to be almost intentional and have a hidden message. Of course there was no confession to it but that will go against the victimized nature.

Another thing in which Rocky constantly demonstrates when he talks about good black men and the big bad black woman they constantly encounter. That also digresses into making excuses for black males and blaming black women for them being incompetent. Which can be found in this exact post with gang members joining for women and how it's women's fault because they don't stop giving them sex. Instead of admitting that his link failed to prove his point and acknowledge the fact that the messily study stands alone on a shaky foundation. Procrastination is also with that since Rocky went back and forth with that link and dodging the request for another one.

Sulking can also be tied into that because he kind of checked out of the argument instead of admitting to fault.

Lastly, his dependency on other people such as you to defend and "take over" conversations is apparent and his overall dismissal of competition or debates in which he can't win is a clear sign of a passive aggressive behavior.

As for past links, I honestly don't take your word for it because you are rather sycophantic towards Rocky. I might read a few past entries but my tendency to ask unfavorable questions would lead to a debate that would honestly be a waste of time since the conversation would end no where...just like this one.

As for Andrew, We have disputes over topics but very rarely are there instigators to add fuel to the fire. The same can't be said here.

-Julia McDaniels

Menelik Charles said...

Mrs Julia M,

you are a Freudian's dream: you are simply crawling with clues!

Lol

RainaHavock said...

DAMN!! All this ish been going on while I was on my little Hiatus?! 0_o Em kay... Anyways how you doing Rocky, Menelik and Julia?

Rocky said...

You misquoted me. I said a term paper approach and as stated, that would be minus the lengthy paragraphs because you can get your point across in a few sentences and reliable sources. Though the overall presentation and source relevance should be that of a term paper. Again, You must think outside of the box.

I’m not writing a term paper. I’m expressing thoughts on a blog. This blog is almost entirely in response to the growing number of so called black female empowerment blogs that tend to bash black men. They rarely, if ever, provide any concrete evidence and express their views almost entirely based on their personal perceptions. I, on the other hand, will provide some degree of evidence to back my claims.

Now, Rocky demonstrated passive aggressive behaviors in this blog post specifically. He had the tendency of speaking cryptically when it came to black women being promiscuous. As I pointed out, his constant repetition of "white" women vs black women looks to be almost intentional and have a hidden message. Of course there was no confession to it but that will go against the victimized nature.

I’m not sure where I ever spoke “cryptically”. I pointed out a clear hypocrisy with Von routinely expressing how promiscuous black men are. Men of all groups tend to have quite noticeably more sex partners than women. So a direct comparison of black men and black women is disingenuous. An honest comparison would be to compare black men to non-black men and black women to non-black women and when you do this, you find a similarly higher level of promiscuity for black women. Thus, it would be far less hypocritical to say that black people in general are more promiscuous (defining “promiscuous” as having many sex partners).

Another thing in which Rocky constantly demonstrates when he talks about good black men and the big bad black woman they constantly encounter. That also digresses into making excuses for black males and blaming black women for them being incompetent. Which can be found in this exact post with gang members joining for women and how it's women's fault because they don't stop giving them sex. Instead of admitting that his link failed to prove his point and acknowledge the fact that the messily study stands alone on a shaky foundation. Procrastination is also with that since Rocky went back and forth with that link and dodging the request for another one.

I’m sorry, but my link failed in nothing. For one, I was not using the link as “proof”. I was using it as evidence to back an assertion (something that the BWE bloggers almost always fail to do). You call the study “messy”, yet if you pull up the study on Google search, you will see that it is cited 30 times in various research papers posted in various science journals. Several of such papers are within the past 5 years. Plus, there are numerous links discussing the theory of Sexual Selection and how male created culture is basically the result of what could be deemed as mating rituals. Much of culture is the accumulation of behaviors men perform for the purpose of increasing sexual access to females.

Rocky said...

Sulking can also be tied into that because he kind of checked out of the argument instead of admitting to fault.

No, I have quite simply not taken the time to sit down and type out responses mostly due to family and job priorities. It’s the same reason I sometimes don’t blog for a couple of months. I have no fault to admit to. I posted an article from a psychologist expressing how studies in psychology tend to not become outdated. You conveniently ignored it and continued in an attempt to discredit a widely cited study that you simply don’t like.

Lastly, his dependency on other people such as you to defend and "take over" conversations is apparent and his overall dismissal of competition or debates in which he can't win is a clear sign of a passive aggressive behavior.

I think that passive aggressive behavior would incline me to censor your comments completely, as is done and was done to me by the very Von that you are defending. How am I dismissing you if I post everything that you write including the ad hominem laced post that I am responding to right now? I can accuse you of passive aggressive behavior due to you ignoring the link disputing your claim that the study has no relevance today. And if someone like Menelik, who seems to always present intelligent arguments, takes over, what’s the problem? It saves me time and effort and being that you are a familiar in our little blog circle, I try to respectfully not double team you when someone else is debating.

As for past links, I honestly don't take your word for it because you are rather sycophantic towards Rocky. I might read a few past entries but my tendency to ask unfavorable questions would lead to a debate that would honestly be a waste of time since the conversation would end no where...just like this one.

You have been in constant debate throughout this post. What’s the problem? It has “ended no where” simply because you have not gotten the results that you wanted.

As for Andrew, We have disputes over topics but very rarely are there instigators to add fuel to the fire. The same can't be said here.

Everyone who posts here posts there.

-Julia McDaniels

I don’t ever see you name popping up at the BWE blogs debating them, yet you call me bias.

Rocky said...

Hi Raina. Always great to hear from you. I was reading your comments on Von's blog regarding nerds. You held your own like a pro and I agree with everything you said.

Andrew said...

I am glad Raina is back.

Personally, all people are bias to a certain degree. I respect Rocky's opinion, Julia, Charles, Raina, La Reyna, Kigali and Mrs Kitty.

The original topic was Rocky's response to Von aka Serena Williams. She "plays tennis". At least, that is what one of her followers told me.

Rocky has been more consistent than anybody concerning statistics. I can arguably say that without bias. You can get mad at him personally but you can't argue numbers.

Von has made some "good points" too. I am not a hater like that. Out of all of the BWE bloggers she is perhaps is one the sharpest ones. The problem is when she starts losing. She tends to take her toys and runs away. Also, her temper gets the best of her too. That wasn't really a smart move blaming successful black men for "checking out". She is trying to frame the argument that black men should just "put up with anything a black woman does". Such as, kids with other men, unemployment, bad habits, bad attitudes and being controlling.

BWE Bloggers will have you believe every sellout black girl is "successful". That is really a myth. Especially in this "recession". I can understand the level of frustration from black women concerning "us". They seem to exploit that anger.

Charles is right. It is like a guilt trip they are trying to do. If black men "checked out",how the hell are we "using black women " for "sex and money". It just does not make any sense.

Thus, banning me , Rocky and various others that counter her points. She even admitted at one point that black women may have contributed to the problems. Rocky had her on her "heels" a couple of times. You got be frustrated to do a post about Rocky. LOL

That is why she tries to distance herself from the sellout black women bloggers. If she truly did not "care", she would "side with them". She even knows that is a dead end street. The so call worshiping of white men. Von don't even cosign it. LOL The girl is funny to me.

Obviously, that is one of the weaknesses in her character. Eventually, Von will slip up. She made a little "come up" in the blog world by engaging with us.

What she need to do is thank "Rocky' for making her hot. They wasn't even mentioning her name in the BWE community until she mentioned Rocky and my name.

Now, their like "oh Von is telling it like it is" blah blah.

Von is good for the game. You always want to engage "bright" sellout black women. Keeps your mind sharp. She still not quite there yet concerning playing with the "big boys" like us.

Menelik Charles said...

Menelik said:

Mrs M, let's face it: you are simply bored, and looking to your usual passive-aggressive route to conflict.

Mrs Julia M replied:

bored with this conversation? Of course. Passive Aggressive? Please, elaborate.

If you really want to address passive aggressiveness, let's use your good friend Rocky.( Please, Rocky forgive me for this one. I don't mean to pull you into this but clearly Menelik Charles is misinformed about a few things.)

Menelik says:

right away you've set off on that passive-aggressive route.

Mrs Julia M continues:

Now, Rocky demonstrated passive aggressive behaviors in this blog post specifically. He had the tendency of speaking cryptically when it came to black women being promiscuous. As I pointed out, his constant repetition of "white" women vs black women looks to be almost intentional and have a hidden message. Of course there was no confession to it but that will go against the victimized nature.

Menelik says:

bingo! First you ask that your intended victim "forgive" for apparently dragging them into a discussion which doesn't concern them (it does!); second you attack them for no reason that makes any sense, and then finally, you compound the attack them of the very behaviour I'm accusing you of: passive aggression!

What a dame!

Menelik Charles
London UK

Menelik Charles said...

Mrs Julia M continues with passive-aggressive attacks on Bro Rocky after first apologising for dragging him into 'our' debate:

Mrs Julia M said:

Another thing in which Rocky constantly demonstrates when he talks about good black men and the big bad black woman they constantly encounter. That also digresses into making excuses for black males and blaming black women for them being incompetent. Which can be found in this exact post with gang members joining for women and how it's women's fault because they don't stop giving them sex.

Menelik says:

now this was an indirect attack (i.e. passive-aggressive) on every Black in college or gainful employment who has complained about Black females (irrespective of social class) rejecting their overtures in favour of those of usually unemployed, occasionally drug-dealing, Black-male ghetto dwellers.

The sheer weight of anecdotal evidence one can gather regarding the experiences of so-called good Black men with Black women and the dating dance has not yet been met by academic research. This fact we can acknowledge.

Why can't you acknowledge the experiences of many Black men, and, most of all, the enabling behaviour of a good number of Black women who fraternise with, and sexually reward the activities of, "thugs and hoodlums"?

Mrs Julia M said:

Instead of admitting that his link failed to prove his point and acknowledge the fact that the Messily study stands alone on a shaky foundation.

Menelik says:

why don't you simply discount the link and accept day-to-day reality which confirms the case in question?

Simple.

But not for you the easy option since this would deprive you of the variety of soap opera sagas lacking in your daily life. Yeah, Mrs M: you're bored stiff!

Menelik Charles
London UK

RainaHavock said...

@Rocky:Thanks. I was fine with her to till that post because the way she spoke about nerds ticked me off since IM considered in the traditional "nerd" category. I mean these are just the guys you brush off these men are some of my best friends and have been my loves, etc. I didn't like how she tried to spend her own definition of it. Especially speaking of someone who even though I was nice to people etc I was considered a Werido. =/

@Andrew: Thanks. =]

Menelik Charles said...

Mrs Julia M continues accusing Bro Rocky of what she is very clearly guilty of below.

Mrs Julia M said:

1) procrastination is also with that since Rocky went back and forth with that link and dodging the request for another one.

2) Sulking can also be tied into that because he kind of checked out of the argument instead of admitting to fault.

Lastly, his dependency on...you to defend and "take over" conversations is apparent and his overall dismissal of competition or debates in which he can't win is a clear sign of a passive aggressive behavior.

Menelik says:

Rocky's "overall dismissal of competition...in which he can't win".

Gotcha!

This single sentence is proof of precisely what your underlying intentions were from the start Mrs M: and it is exactly why I find you so infuriating and unpleasant. You display all of the typical traits of a passive-aggressive.

Deny it if you must lol

Menelik Charles
London UK

Menelik Charles said...

Here's Mrs Julia M's first response on 5th December

Dear Rocky,

clearly there is a war of the blogs between you and Von. I won't get in the middle of it but I do have a few concerns about your links.

Menelik says:

so from the very outset she denies the very thing she intends on doing i.e. putting herself right in the MIDDLE of the present dispute, and whatsmore, fighting Von's corner by questioning Bro Rocky's methodology.

So yeah, this dame has what is known as a passive-aggressive personality. below are a few of the traits which pertain this woman:

* resists fulfilling routine social and occupational tasks;

* complains of being misunderstood and unappreciated by others;

* sullen and argumentative;

* unreasonably criticizes and scorns authority;

* expresses envy and resentment toward those apparently more fortunate;

* voices exaggerated and persistent complaints of personal misfortune;

* alternates between hostile defiance and contrition.

Please note:

"the DSM-IV states that a passive-aggressive personality is indicated by four or more of the above traits".

Menelik says:

Mrs Julia M clearly possess at least four of the above personality traits as has been demonstrated in her various responses:

* alternates between (1) hostile defiance and (2) contrition;

* (1) sullen and (2) argumentative.

Please also note that while Mrs Julia M has not taken issue with anything Von has said but takes issues with Bro Rocky defending himself against Von's attack on him...thus placing herself bang in the middle of the dispute while Von sits back smiling!

Not exactly an honest broker now, is she folks?

Menelik Charles
London UK

Julia M. said...

Dear Menelik Charles,
bingo! First you ask that your intended victim "forgive" for apparently dragging them into a discussion which doesn't concern them (it does!); second you attack them for no reason that makes any sense, and then finally, you compound the attack them of the very behaviour I'm accusing you of: passive aggression!
I did apologize to Rocky because this wasn't supposed to be aimed at him but I had to use him as an example. If you noticed, I intentionally stated that he showed them in this specific post. Not that he is a passive aggressive person in general.

" so from the very outset she denies the very thing she intends on doing i.e. putting herself right in the MIDDLE of the present dispute, and whatsmore, fighting Von's corner by questioning Bro Rocky's methodology."
I'm not fighting in Vons corner. As stated, I was questioning two of his links because the first one was not stating what he mentioned and the second one did not back up his statement. I'm not siding with Von or going against Rocky but I can't agree with something that doesn't prove its case.

"now this was an indirect attack (i.e. passive-aggressive) on every Black in college or gainful employment who has complained about Black females (irrespective of social class) rejecting their overtures in favour of those of usually unemployed, occasionally drug-dealing, Black-male ghetto dwellers."
It's not an attack on all black males fitting Rocky's demographics. Also the complaint is one that I think happens at times but I don't believe for one minute that it's the norm.

" This single sentence is proof of precisely what your underlying intentions were from the start Mrs M: and it is exactly why I find you so infuriating and unpleasant. You display all of the typical traits of a passive-aggressive."
Dismissal of competition? Andrew, Kigali, MsKitty and a few other individuals have been on the opposing side of debates with me and I've never dismissed them. Now, I will gladly admit to the dismissal of you because I prefer not to entertain people who clearly feel animosity towards me.

" Mrs Julia M clearly possess at least four of the above personality traits as has been demonstrated in her various responses:"
I'll give you sullen since I do retreat very often. I also will acknowledge the contrition part because I am rather remorseful for things I feel might offend people. The other two is subjective since most of my post are very rarely defiant and I don't consider the tone nor the approach to be defiant. I usually just question links that I don't understand.
As for argumentative, I'm usually one to avoid arguments with all my might. I don't consider any debate we have to be an argument because most parties stay leveled and logically state their case. With that said, I do give my opinion and for some reason certain individuals have a tendency to always question what I say. A questioning I think is personally motivated since no one else does this.

" Please also note that while Mrs Julia M has not taken issue with anything Von has said but takes issues with Bro Rocky defending himself against Von's attack on him...thus placing herself bang in the middle of the dispute while Von sits back smiling!"
Refer to the last post in which I agreed with Rocky and disagreed with Von. Though unknown to many, Von and I have had an exchange of words and I too am banned from her website. I overall avoid Vons website because I feel that she is judgmental and immature. Two things I previously stated to Rocky.

-Julia McDaniels

Julia M. said...

Dear Raina,

How are you?

I see that you have been gone for some time, I figured you were just busy with school and stuff. I haven't gotten around to posting on your blog but I see that you are graduating next year. I'm so excited for you! Graduating from college is a great accomplishment! What do you plan on doing afterwards?

-Julia McDaniels

Julia M. said...

Dear Rocky,
" I’m not writing a term paper. I’m expressing thoughts on a blog. This blog is almost entirely in response to the growing number of so called black female empowerment blogs that tend to bash black men. "
It's not mean to be taken serious or provide any solutions to things but just rather an emotional outlet? Got it!

" You call the study “messy”, yet if you pull up the study on Google search, you will see that it is cited 30 times in various research papers posted in various science journals."
Please, provide me with those links. I searched it and came up with nothing. I call the study messily and not very reliable. Plus from the looks of it, it stands alone since I can't find any other study that suggest anything remotely close.

" Plus, there are numerous links discussing the theory of Sexual Selection and how male created culture is basically the result of what could be deemed as mating rituals."
You are going to have to elaborate more. I know what you are talking about with Sexual Selection but I don't see the connection to gangs and selling drugs.

" No, I have quite simply not taken the time to sit down and type out responses mostly due to family and job priorities."
Completely understandable since I too have a job and family. I don't exactly sit here and wait for anyone to respond. I might have been wrong but I just figured you checked out; my apologizes.

" I posted an article from a psychologist expressing how studies in psychology tend to not become outdated."
I saw the link and I think you misused her quote. The history of psychology is a study about the mind and behavior the dates back to Socrates and the ancient Greeks. I took an AP Course in Psychology and that was the history of psychology and basically a timeline of how far it has comes via major studies and people who contributed to it.

" I think that passive aggressive behavior would incline me to censor your comments completely, as is done and was done to me by the very Von that you are defending."
Von is immature but she is not passive aggressive. She is an aggressive female who wants control and will censor anyone to get it. Someone who is passive aggressive won't exactly limit what you say because the passive sides kicks in and they will use your comments to make it seem like they are a victim.

" And if someone like Menelik, who seems to always present intelligent arguments, takes over, what’s the problem?"
That's more of a Menelik thing than it is you. He has a tendency to butt in on conversations.

" Everyone who posts here posts there. "
Very Rarely do I see you there and Menelik only seems to instigate conversations when they involve you or this blog.

" I don’t ever see you name popping up at the BWE blogs debating them, yet you call me bias."
My comments are not approved on their websites.

" You have been in constant debate throughout this post. What’s the problem? It has “ended no where” simply because you have not gotten the results that you wanted. "
I guess I'm just waiting for more evidence that proves your point or acknowledgement to your lack of evidence and a case that has not been efficiently proven true.
As for the constant debate, it's all encouragement from outside sources.

-Julia McDaniels

Rocky said...

It's not mean to be taken serious or provide any solutions to things but just rather an emotional outlet? Got it!

You don’t “got it”. You put words in my mouth (not the only time you have been accused of this as you will see). It’s not “emotional outlet”. It’s me expressing my views on particular subjects and at least attempting to back it up.

Please, provide me with those links. I searched it and came up with nothing. I call the study messily and not very reliable. Plus from the looks of it, it stands alone since I can't find any other study that suggest anything remotely close.

Do a Google Search and click on “cited 30 times”.

You will come to this list.

You are going to have to elaborate more. I know what you are talking about with Sexual Selection but I don't see the connection to gangs and selling drugs.

It’s all about crime and violence:

Link

Link

Link

I saw the link and I think you misused her quote. The history of psychology is a study about the mind and behavior the dates back to Socrates and the ancient Greeks. I took an AP Course in Psychology and that was the history of psychology and basically a timeline of how far it has comes via major studies and people who contributed to it.

I don’t see how I misused her quote. I can say that you misused the quote on term papers.

Von is immature but she is not passive aggressive. She is an aggressive female who wants control and will censor anyone to get it. Someone who is passive aggressive won't exactly limit what you say because the passive sides kicks in and they will use your comments to make it seem like they are a victim.

And she has just blogged on this very statement you make, calling you a “troll”.

I guess I'm just waiting for more evidence that proves your point or acknowledgement to your lack of evidence and a case that has not been efficiently proven true.
As for the constant debate, it's all encouragement from outside sources.


I’m not attempting to prove a point. I’m supporting my opinions as opposed to just giving them and following up with nothing.

Julia M. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Julia M. said...

Dear Rocky,
You have proven your point. I see what you mean but I don't think that eliminating women from the equation is the solution since there are two top reasons that motivate young men and boys. Two reasons that probably will never disappear and because of that, the activity itself won't ever stop.
Nonetheless, I finally see what you mean. There are a few holes still but I get it.

Thank you for posting the link regarding Von. I'm shocked to say the least because my opinion on her was rather short. I never knew calling someone immature would spark such as a childish reaction. Then again, if the shoe fits! Clearly her immaturity has been displayed greatly since Von is incapable of talking to someone face to face and resorts to school yard tactics to release her frustration. My email is obviously on hand and if she had a problem, Von could have said something to me or respond on your blog.

Evidently, Von is a coward who hides behind her blog. The same can be said to you since she didn't reply directly here but instead created another blog post.

I won't entertain her. I kindly emailed her twice asking for a removal but if she doesn't want to do it, so be it.

Von has zero ounces of class and I hope the person who relayed my original message tells her so. She is nothing more than a ghetto hood chick dressed in a business suit.

-Julia McDaniels

Rocky said...

Julia

Thank you for your open mindedness. I believe that we both made good points and only through debate can we get balance. I absolutely do NOT lay all or even most of the blame on black women for the state of black America. I think blame goes all around and my goal is to get black women to understand their share in the responsibility. Yes, I argue one particular side of the debate, but I fully welcome the arguments from the other side which is why I am happy to get your input (which I view as quite legitimate even when I don’t fully agree). You are clearly an intelligent woman and I have much respect for you. NOTHING in our discussion is personal and I hope that you and Menelik can find some common ground.

You most definitely did not deserve the crude attack levied against you by Von and when you referred to her as “immature”, you did no more than give a very accurate description. She is immature. On the other hand, you are NOT a “hoe” as she called you in her typical ghetto fashion. I think that you are quite the lady.

Anonymous said...

@JuliaM,

"Von has zero ounces of class and I hope the person who relayed my original message tells her so. She is nothing more than a ghetto hood chick dressed in a business suit."

Thank you. Now this should explain why good black men have checked out. Even when a black women has an education and some money she still a hood rat through and through.

Kigali

Julia M. said...

Dear Rocky,
I understand it now. And I want apologize to you because obviously I got you wrong. Contrary to popular belief, I don't hate black males and I sure as hell don't support those other bloggers.

I've gained more respect for your blog and I'm looking forward to reading your future post.

As for Menelik Charles, maybe in the future. I feel no animosity towards him but he evidently feels it towards me.

Von has disappointed me. I'm at a loss for words right now because she didn't have blow things out of proportion. Calling her immature is sunshine and rainbows compared to this. The fact that she entertains it is upsetting.

People are saying hateful things and defaming me with their lies. There is information being spread around that's not supposed to be posted on a public blog forum. Information I'm not even sure how people got a hold of but clearly felt no respect towards me, my husband and our personal lives to keep it confidential.

Thanks. I try not to feed into the name calling but it becomes annoying.

This is out of control and I don't know how to handle it.

-Julia McDaniels

P.S.- Kigali,
I was being harsh. Two wrongs don't make a right and I shouldn't have said that about Von. She doesn't seem to be sensible or understanding to anything right now but instead of becoming frustrated, I shouldn't let her or anyone else on that blog take me out of character.

What I said might have truth in it but I was angry and frustrated and it wasn't the most sensible thing to say.

Right now, I'm pretty much on the verge of tying my hands with the blog world. It is too much drama and things get blown way out of proportion. As explained to Von, I called her immature and I will openly tell her but I never subjected her to hateful comments and harassment.

All of this kind of feels surreal to me right now.

Menelik Charles said...

Mrs Julia M said on November 28th:

Dear Andrew,

I saw Thaddeus' blog post and I thought it was kind of disrespectful. If he has a problem with Menelik Charles, you should address him instead of writing a blog post. Then again, I guess the blog post was addressing him.

I probably wouldn't have handled the situation that way.

With that, I won't be shocked if what he said about Menelik Charles was true. I've gotten a small taste of his biased and judgmental attitude towards black women in a relationship with white men. He loves to write the relationships off as "alliances" and rarely gives them a chance. I'm not sure his reputation on other blogs but the shoe seems to fit for me.

P.S.- Menelik Charles, before you say it - and we both know you will - I'm not siding with this man but simply looking at the facts and my past encounters with you.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7984086939803982935&postID=3195450940856224951

Menelik says:

like all passive aggressives, you do the very think you claim you're not doing lol

Menelik Charles said...

Here's Mrs Julia M's said on 5th December

Dear Rocky,

clearly there is a war of the blogs between you and Von. I won't get in the middle of it but I do have a few concerns about your links.

Menelik says:

so from the very outset she denies the very thing she intends on doing i.e. putting herself right in the MIDDLE of the present dispute, and whatsmore, fighting Von's corner by questioning Bro Rocky's methodology.


Clearly, a very obvious pattern has emerged here! Don't bother explaining, "lady"!

Menelik Charles
London UK

Anonymous said...

@Menelik Charles

You need to get off Julia's back. She IS allowed to have her own opinion whether you agree with it or not.

You're nothing more than an instigator in most of these discussions. Von pretty much called you an instigator too.

Rarely have you ever brought anything to the table. You just bounce yourself off of other people's points and you tend to agree with anything someone you like says even when they're points aren't valid or don't make much sense--as long as it's against the "enemy." You come off as a pathetic "yes man" with too much time on his hands.

I too "sided" with Von on this blog. She made a perfectly valid point about Rocky's sources and so did Julia. Is Julia supposed to hold her tongue because you think she's "siding" with the "enemy?" Who the hell are you to tell her what her position or opinion should be? Just because you seem to have a hard time coming up with any original rational thought doesn't mean everyone shares your problem.

Grow up man.

I think things would be far better if you and the other non-African Americans on this blog would mind your own business.

Worry about your own community.

Andrew said...

You said this


"I too "sided" with Von on this blog. She made a perfectly valid point about Rocky's sources and so did Julia. Is Julia supposed to hold her tongue because you think she's "siding" with the "enemy?" Who the hell are you to tell her what her position or opinion should be? Just because you seem to have a hard time coming up with any original rational thought doesn't mean everyone shares your problem."

Since London is a "yes man". You just admitted you sided "with Von". That makes you a "yes woman". I would even venture you are a "yes woman" for all the sellout black women bloggers.

London has reservations about Julia for valid reasons. Of course the Von situation may have confirmed that.

Me personally, I believe in forgiveness. Julia really never said things to Von that was top secret on our side of the coin.

I think you are way off base to attack London.

I would say I am disappointed that Julia didn't know better.

It is really not about who take "sides"

It is about if sellout black women bloggers telling the truth.

They seem to speak for white man and make delusional statements and "state them as fact".

The basis of their argument is "well black men are evil" and the white man "will save you".

It would "work for them" but white men have "checked out".

They say black men "checked out". LOL White men checked out and took the hotel key with them!

Good day

Menelik Charles said...

Anonymous,

the African-American community IS MY COMMUNITY!

Just letting you know

Ty said...

Menelik has been on Julias ass since day one.

No one really even knows why he hates her. She stated that she doesn’t hate him but Menelik has been pretty damn nasty and rather pushy with her.

I usually side with him but he really doesn’t like her and I don’t get it.

I saw the Von thing and that was some ghetto shit right there. I didn’t see anything wrong with what Julia and as a black man, I think she is one of the decent ones when it comes to ir dating sistahs. She never came off as hating bm and she fairly gets on those bwe bloggers.

The email thing basically said what we all knew. She didn’t really throw people under the bus since it said that bm need to work on things but departing from them was not the answer. She even mentioned good brothers and stuff.

Most of it was aimed at Von and she rightfully should have since Von is a bitch and I don’t care who knows it.

Kigali is something different. She hates american black women and calls people dark butts and other fucked up things.

That’s not cool and she comes off as just another light skinned chick with a chip on her shoulder.

Majority of my gf and current fiance are dark skinned and being a dark skinned man, I’ve always found my self attracted to them and Im not about to side with them being called names and shit. Kigali think she is doing bm a favor by bashing bw but its not funny and she has a problem.

Anonymous said...

@Ty

You said; "The email thing basically said what we all knew. She didn’t really throw people under the bus since it said that bm need to work on things but departing from them was not the answer. She even mentioned good brothers and stuff."

What emails were you reading??? Even though I just defended Julia from Menelik Charles' attacks she DID throw black men under the bus. She said there weren't ANY good black men whatsoever in any part of the world. She said ALL black men are in the same boat. It was VON in her email response to Julia who said there are "other" good black men in the world--not Julia.

Julia basically agreed that black men aren't up to par, but she thought Von was calling for a separation of ALL men--not just black men. She didn't have a problem with separating from BLACK MEN. She had a problem with the idea of women living without men period, which Von shot down because she never said black women should separate from all men.

I believe Julia has a right to her opinion but let's not act like she didn't do what Menelik Charles actively accuses her of doing--throwing black men under the bus. She did just that in her emails. I believe the reason she wanted to remain anonymous on Von's blog is to hide her true feelings about black men. If Menelik Charles has a problem with her due to her feelings about black men he is justified in having those feelings after reading Julia's emails. I just don't agree with him attacking her opinion just for the hell of it.

You said; "Most of it was aimed at Von and she rightfully should have since Von is a bitch and I don’t care who knows it."

Again I ask what emails were YOU reading? Julia's emails started off as agreement with Von's blog but turned into paranoia and fear of being "discovered." Julia attacked Von not the other way around. Julia posted an ad hominem attack against Von ON Von's blog. In my opinion Von was right to assume Julia is a troll. What kind of person carries on in about fear of being "discovered" but then attacks someone on their blog?

Julia got what she deserved. Even if I don't agree with Menelik Charles attacking her she brought Von's punishment on herself.

Anonymous said...

@Ty

Also did you read where Julia wrote that a black woman can have a black child without a black man? How is that not throwing black men under the bus? How is Julia's way of think any different from the BWE bloggers?

It was Von who disagreed with her point. Not only did Julia throw black men under the bus, but she kept hitting reverse and drive to push them further down into the ground.

Anonymous said...

A correction to my previous statement--

I said; "She said there weren't ANY good black men whatsoever in any part of the world. She said ALL black men are in the same boat."

Julia said there are some good black men, but she also said ALL black men regardless of their region of the world are screwed up like AA men. While she did acknowledge the existence of good black men she also threw ALL black men under the bus.

She said she was a "sellout" and had already separated from black men. She used this to further show that she didn't have a problem with the idea of black women separating from black men because she had already done it.

Her problem with Von's blog was she thought Von was advocating separating from ALL men regardless of race. She didn't like the idea of black women going it alone.

In my opinion her comment about black women having black kids without black men showed exactly where black men stand with her--they are replaceable.

Ty said...

@Anonymous

I know my mind aint playing tricks on me but you leaving out Vons initial comment and her response.

The comment about all bm was a response to Von talk about west Indian and African men. Julia said something like they are all included and African are the worse of the bunch. Hit at Von who has an African boyfriend.I remember Von reading that bw and should get away from bm. Not all men. Than came the, that’s not the answer part.

Idk why Julia wanted to hide herself. She had a reason and idk why she did. Overall, Julia is scary ass chick. I think she is cool but she seems scared of shit.

Von is a bitch and people should attack her.She deserves it. So idk why Julia attacked her or told Von to humble herself but she was right and Von went and became that bitch we all knew she was. Angry Black Woman Syndrome.

Von was the one who said that and she said you are right? I don’t have a link but I know that it went something like you are right ……

BWE blogs? Nahh She isn’t welcomed there and Sara originally banned her for sticking up for bm. I remember that post. Where did you see that at? Don’t we call Julia a sellout? It was put in “” so that says a lot She did ?

Where is Julia? She clearly need to clear this up because Von is always advocating for the separation of bm and always states that bw should expand options.

Btw, Are you one of Vons ass lickers?

Overall I don’t think Julia hates bm. She always talks about her dad and brother and how they are good bm and her friends etc, plus she seems too young and from the record, doesn’t have any real relationships with bm. All that don’t add up to hating bm.

Anonymous said...

@Ty

You said; "I know my mind aint playing tricks on me but you leaving out Vons initial comment and her response."

You mind must be playing tricks on you because the very first initial comment was JULIA'S email followed by Von's response to her.

You said; "The comment about all bm was a response to Von talk about west Indian and African men."

Julia--not Von--brought up West Indian and African Men. The only thing Von said was that African American men weren't the ONLY black men in the world. Julia brought up West Indian and African men to say that ALL black men are as screwed up as African American men so black women are screwed even if they look to date black men outside of African American men.

You said; "Julia said something like they are all included and African are the worse of the bunch. Hit at Von who has an African boyfriend."

True but I don't think this was a diss to Von so much as it was a reflection of her thoughts on ALL black men.

You said; "I remember Von reading that bw and should get away from bm. Not all men. Than came the, that’s not the answer part."

I challenge you to show where Von said this. Von made it clear that there are more black men in the world that African American men. She even highlighted AFRICAN AMERICAN men in red. She seemed to believe African American women can still get a black man by opening their options to NON-American black men. She didn't say anything about getting away from ALL black men.

You said; "Idk why Julia wanted to hide herself. She had a reason and idk why she did. Overall, Julia is scary ass chick. I think she is cool but she seems scared of shit."

To be honest Julia's reasons for hiding seem obvious. She has been saying one thing publicly on blogs by black men and something totally different in private with black women. On top of that quite a few black women hate her--from the comments I read on that blog.

You said; "Von is a bitch and people should attack her.She deserves it. So idk why Julia attacked her or told Von to humble herself but she was right and Von went and became that bitch we all knew she was. Angry Black Woman Syndrome."

Aren't you displaying the "angry black man syndrome" here. You are a MAN advocating the attack of a WOMAN. That comes across as a threat. I would be careful if I were you. Making terroristic threats is a crime. If Von or anyone else take your words as a threat to her safety you are in hot water.

Also I think you're a bitch--a male bitch is ten times worse than a female bitch. A man who is so easily moved to feminine characteristics and emotions is a bitch in my book. I would expect a "cat fight" from two women, but a man operating under the same behavior himself is bitch made.

You said; "Von was the one who said that and she said you are right? I don’t have a link but I know that it went something like you are right ……"

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Von admitted she is arrogant. I don't know her but maybe she has every reason to be arrogant. That doesn't make her a bitch. Maybe you just hate arrogant women--especially arrogant black women. I doubt you would call an arrogant man out of his name. We can that sexism and I'm surprised Rocky has allowed the use of the word on his forum. I thought the whole point of moderation was to moderate profanity and such.

You said, "BWE blogs? Nahh She isn’t welcomed there and Sara originally banned her for sticking up for bm. I remember that post. Where did you see that at? Don’t we call Julia a sellout? It was put in “” so that says a lot She did ?"

Julia shares their beliefs. She said black women don't need a black man to have BLACK children. I've read that same belief on BWE blogs. Von didn't agree with her.

Anonymous said...

@Ty

You said; "I know my mind aint playing tricks on me but you leaving out Vons initial comment and her response."

You mind must be playing tricks on you because the very first initial comment was JULIA'S email followed by Von's response to her.

You said; "The comment about all bm was a response to Von talk about west Indian and African men."

Julia--not Von--brought up West Indian and African Men. The only thing Von said was that African American men weren't the ONLY black men in the world. Julia brought up West Indian and African men to say that ALL black men are as screwed up as African American men so black women are screwed even if they look to date black men outside of African American men.

You said; "Julia said something like they are all included and African are the worse of the bunch. Hit at Von who has an African boyfriend."

True but I don't think this was a diss to Von so much as it was a reflection of her thoughts on ALL black men.

Anonymous said...

@Ty

Cont'd

You said; "I remember Von reading that bw and should get away from bm. Not all men. Than came the, that’s not the answer part."

I challenge you to show where Von said this. Von made it clear that there are more black men in the world that African American men. She even highlighted AFRICAN AMERICAN men in red. She seemed to believe African American women can still get a black man by opening their options to NON-American black men. She didn't say anything about getting away from ALL black men.

You said; "Idk why Julia wanted to hide herself. She had a reason and idk why she did. Overall, Julia is scary ass chick. I think she is cool but she seems scared of shit."

To be honest Julia's reasons for hiding seem obvious. She has been saying one thing publicly on blogs by black men and something totally different in private with black women. On top of that quite a few black women hate her--from the comments I read on that blog.

You said; "Von is a bitch and people should attack her.She deserves it. So idk why Julia attacked her or told Von to humble herself but she was right and Von went and became that bitch we all knew she was. Angry Black Woman Syndrome."

Aren't you displaying the "angry black man syndrome" here. You are a MAN advocating the attack of a WOMAN. That comes across as a threat. I would be careful if I were you. Making terroristic threats is a crime. If Von or anyone else take your words as a threat to her safety you are in hot water.

Also I think you're a bitch--a male bitch is ten times worse than a female bitch. A man who is so easily moved to feminine characteristics and emotions is a bitch in my book. I would expect a "cat fight" from two women, but a man operating under the same behavior himself is bitch made.

Anonymous said...

@Ty

Cont'd

You said; "Von was the one who said that and she said you are right? I don’t have a link but I know that it went something like you are right ……"

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Von admitted she is arrogant. I don't know her but maybe she has every reason to be arrogant. That doesn't make her a bitch. Maybe you just hate arrogant women--especially arrogant black women. I doubt you would call an arrogant man out of his name. We can that sexism and I'm surprised Rocky has allowed the use of the word on his forum. I thought the whole point of moderation was to moderate profanity and such.

You said, "BWE blogs? Nahh She isn’t welcomed there and Sara originally banned her for sticking up for bm. I remember that post. Where did you see that at? Don’t we call Julia a sellout? It was put in “” so that says a lot She did ?"

Julia shares their beliefs. She said black women don't need a black man to have BLACK children. I've read that same belief on BWE blogs. Von didn't agree with her.

You said; "Where is Julia? She clearly need to clear this up because Von is always advocating for the separation of bm and always states that bw should expand options."

I think Julia decided to call it quits. Why not just ask Von to repost the blog she took down? That would clear all this up. I know I wasn't reading things. I think you and some others here familiar with her are in denial.

Von has never advocated IR. She only tells black women to start putting themselves first and let African American men go. She has said there are more black men in the world than AA men. She believes black women should "organize" the condition that is already present in the black community.

You said; "Btw, Are you one of Vons ass lickers?"

No more than you seem to be one of her "balls" lickers. If you have such a problem with her why do you even bother to read her blog? That's the million dollar question. I like Von so I read her blog. You don't like her but you continue to read her blog. Who is the "dick rider" here?

You said; "plus she seems too young and from the record, doesn’t have any real relationships with bm. All that don’t add up to hating bm."

I don't think she hates black men either, but going by her emails she has some issues with them too. I doubt she is attracted to black men.

Anonymous said...

@Ty

Cont'd

You said; "Von was the one who said that and she said you are right? I don’t have a link but I know that it went something like you are right ……"

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Von admitted she is arrogant. I don't know her but maybe she has every reason to be arrogant. That doesn't make her a bitch. Maybe you just hate arrogant women--especially arrogant black women. I doubt you would call an arrogant man out of his name. We can that sexism and I'm surprised Rocky has allowed the use of the word on his forum. I thought the whole point of moderation was to moderate profanity and such.

You said, "BWE blogs? Nahh She isn’t welcomed there and Sara originally banned her for sticking up for bm. I remember that post. Where did you see that at? Don’t we call Julia a sellout? It was put in “” so that says a lot She did ?"

Julia shares their beliefs. She said black women don't need a black man to have BLACK children. I've read that same belief on BWE blogs. Von didn't agree with her.

Anonymous said...

@Ty

Cont'd

You said; "Where is Julia? She clearly need to clear this up because Von is always advocating for the separation of bm and always states that bw should expand options."

I think Julia decided to call it quits. Why not just ask Von to repost the blog she took down? That would clear all this up. I know I wasn't reading things. I think you and some others here familiar with her are in denial.

Von has never advocated IR. She only tells black women to start putting themselves first and let African American men go. She has said there are more black men in the world than AA men. Her method of expanding options is to expand to black men who are not African American. She believes black women should "organize" the condition that is already present in the black community.

You said; "Btw, Are you one of Vons ass lickers?"

No more than you seem to be one of her "balls" lickers. If you have such a problem with her why do you even bother to read her blog? That's the million dollar question. I like Von so I read her blog. You don't like her but you continue to read her blog. Who is the "dick rider" here?

You said; "plus she seems too young and from the record, doesn’t have any real relationships with bm. All that don’t add up to hating bm."

I don't think she hates black men either, but going by her emails she has some issues with them too. I doubt she is attracted to black men.

Ty said...

@Anonymous

I meant verbally and I don’t give two cents what you think right now. Von is a bitch , end of the story. Only some green card holding African in search of some support would marry her. Angry Black Man? No, I don’t like women who think they are the shit and look down on other people. Most of us has that biggest problem with von. She is an Angry Black Woman who had to marry some Immigrant to find a mate who would put up with her.

Im not going to ask Von for shit. The blogpost was getting out of pocket and those women were going in on Julia.Von made the right choice by removing it. Im not Julias biggest fan but she is a decent girl and no deserves threats towards their job and kid. I wish a nigga would threaten me!!!

Who knows. Most of the email was aimed at Von and the first email had the bold thing, which is something Julia is known for and its usually a comment made by someone and she responds.

Idk what Julia dates or likes. I have to admit that I’ve never heard her mention bm and who she finds attractive but most just blamed it on her young age when she meet her white boy. What she was like 20 or something?

Im not about to turn this in another Von blog. Julia seems like an Okay chick and Von didn’t need to put her on blast for calling her immature. It was fucking stupid and Von has too much time on her hands.

It seemed like there was something missing from in between the two post. Did Von ever reply to her first one? She must have but it wasn’t posted.

She probably did call it quits but no one is in denial. That one conversation with von doesn’t put a dent in the hundreds of comments she posted on mlqs and rockys. It doesn’t add up for me and von hates her so we don’t know what got twisted but I know what we see her write on a daily and its nothing harmful.

She deleted it so it really dosent matter anymore. Imma respect Brotha Rockys blog and not make this big thing of Julia and Von. Von took it down because she knew it was getting out of pocket and she started some shit she needed to end.


btw, bw who hate her seem to be from the bwe blogs and they thought that she favored bm over bw..now you saying she got problems with bm?

confusing as hell..

Mr Laurelton Queens said...

(Lighting my cigar)

What's up Rocky. They still talking about talking about that monkey Von and the African dude that is a career college student.

I personally could care less about the girl. I am tired of her being mentioned. Her monkey ass comes to my blog and Rocky's blog pretending to support "herself".

You tell me who would do a post about Julia?

Unless you READ MY BLOG. End of story. She is one of those groupie BWE bloggers. She don't know what side she on.

First she hates successful black men and say they checked out.

Then, turn around and marry one.

She claims to be a financial guru but ask readers to email her "financial advice".

She claims people care about her, or we "stalk her". She put Rocky, Kigali, (music post flopped), she puts up Julia. Mind you I said people ain't gonna read that shit. She puts up the Julia post.

I ain't even know who this girl was until London told me about her dumb ass.

She is a trick and tell her thanks for the "ratings".

She got all defensive about her fiancee when we questioned her. She knows she "financially supports" him. She don't want to look stupid.

See, mentally the girl is weak. Right now, she is so desperate to get married. She is lashing out on her blog because her fiancee is "not as" financially secure as she would like him to be. The girl is obsessed with money.

She never talks about the guy. I assure you if he "was financially secure" she would be running her mouth like crazy.

All you got to do is keep questioning her about her fiancee. It "bothers" her to the point that she gets upset.

She can talk about "other black women " spouses. But get on her ass about her own "spouse". She start whining and complaining.

It shows me two things about her personality. She is concerned about her "image" , so she will marry a guy in "professional school" that is "underemployed". Just to say "well I am married".

She is insecure also.

Clearly, the guy is engaged too is not up to "her high standards' that is she hardly mentions him. Instead she takes out her "anger" on other black men.

She won't do it to the African. He might knock her head off or cut her loose. That is why I know she is insecure.

Mr Laurelton Queens

Anonymous said...

@Ty

Listen you don't know me and you need to stop taking my comments out of context. My usage of "dark butt" is to combat the often insidiously used phrase "light bright and dam near white" as a way to guilt like skinned black women and to shame the black men who like them. It's an especially crass use of the term when white men and other non black men are never shamed for liking Halle berry or beyounce. Von didn't tell you that when she delibritly edited my comments to make it seem like I just gratuitously refer to black when as dark butt. Also my original use of the term dark butt was to highlight the hypocrisy of black women wanting to punish yung berg for his comments while upholding the no snitching policy to protect real live crimals in the black community. The black women were joyously celebrating the reports of the black men physically attacking yung berg for comments he made while the same black women would never suggest that killers dope dealers and abuser in the black community meet the same fate.

Kigala

Mr Laurelton Queens said...

Whoa poorly written.

Sorry Rocky, I will proof read my next post. I was really passionate about this subject. LOL

Anonymous said...

@Mr Laurelton Queens

You are slow. Did you notice I defended Julia on this blog? If I were Von why would I do that??? I said I didn't agree with Von posting the blog, which I still think was wrong. I'm glad she took it down too. I've never seen so much hate displayed for one person.

Why would anyone put their personal information out for the world to see? Look at what happened to Julia. Women from all over were dropping bombs about her life--people who had to know her personally. I don't blame Von or anyone else for NOT talking about her personal life. What business is it of yours anyway? You do seem obsessed with her. She called you ugly that must have hit close to home because you can't stop talking about her.

Also you don't think about the things you write. For example--

You said; "First she hates successful black men and say they checked out. Then, turn around and marry one."

Then you contradict yourself in the SAME comment--

You said "so she will marry a guy in "professional school" that is "underemployed". Just to say "well I am married"."

Just so I am clear how can someone be "underemployed" and be successful?

How can someone be in professional school and not be successful? You act like she's marrying a homeless man.

I said you were stupid.

If Von's finace' is in professional school that means he is working towards becoming a professional which means even if he is not yet successful in terms of money he will be successful in that way ONE DAY. It's not like she's marrying a man without potential. She's marrying a black man who is in professional school. I don't know too many black men in college yet alone professional school. Whoever he is he sounds like a keeper.

(Face palm--dumb--plain old stupid)

I'm not wasting my time responding to you again.

Good day.

Anonymous said...

@Kigala

You said; "Von didn't tell you that when she delibritly edited my comments to make it seem like I just gratuitously refer to black when as dark butt."

I googled your name and "dark butts" after Von posted her blog about you and she did NOT edit your comment. Von must have pulled your comment from this blog--

http://bossip.com/27658/still-no-dark-butts-for-yung-berg/

You do gratuitously refer to black when as dark butt. Anyone looking for your comments about "dark butts" can also google them.

Anonymous said...

@Kigala

And LOL at the new spelling of your name.

Anonymous said...

Correction to my other post--

Here is a link to your comments abot "dark butts" Kigali--

http://bossip.com/32898/yung-berg-gets-punkedagain/

Not only do you take pleasure in calling black women "dark butts" but you actually ask why no one can "fuck with" dark skinned people.

Anonymous said...

Kigali's "dark butt" comments--

"Maino probably doesnt like dark butts either. He just doesnt say it. Actions speak louder than words."

"Why cant anybody fuck with dark skinned people? Who or what made yall mutha fuckas so special?"

"@Real Talk,

How exactly did he have that shit coming? You got niggahs running through the hood slanging dope, killing anything that walks and they get worshipped but this niggahs say something TRUE about dark butts and any and everybody gets to stole on his ass? Say it aint so?

Black folks are such cowards and moral idiots."

"boss hogg,

I am not a dark butt and Yung Berg didnt offend me. What did offend me however was bitches, and some pussy wiped niggahs get all excited about fools going at him. That shit is offensive. Cant say anything about dark butts wihtout meeting violence. What a dam shame like yall bitches are so special niggahs gotta watch they back after yall asses. Something tells me Yung Berg struck a nerve at the psyche of alot of dark butts. Like Bob Marley said: The Truth is an Offense."

"@Real Talk,

I wish you would do a bit of your screen name. Now you know no one here cares about what he said or didnt say to Maino. This niggah is famous for his dark butt tirade and hurt bitches up in here want to see him punished in all kinds of manners because of that and nothing else. Please dont front"

"Fact is if Yung Berg said anything like that about light skinned females none of your bitches in here would be upset. Yall dark females act like we owe it to the race to put yall bitches on a pedastal. Dont think so"


http://bossip.com/32898/yung-berg-gets-punkedagain/

Anonymous said...

@Kigali

More of your "dark butt" comments--

http://bossip.com/166019/reggie-bush-has-a-new-bff/

You are racist against your own race. If I didn't dislike you and think you have problems I possibly would pity you--but I can't even give you that benefit. You are one sick woman.

Anonymous said...

@Rocky

I'm sorry for the double comments. Whenever I try to post a long comment I'm told it didn't post so I try breaking it down.

That's all I have to add to this debate. Moving on--

Anonymous said...

@anonymous

You just confirmed Everything that I said previously. All of those harpies at gossip actually thought that Maino and every other black man who took a shot at Yung Berg didnt do it because they were defending dark-skinned women. None of those dude probably cared about what he said. Black women would rather harness the rage of some black men to punish berg but they would NEVER do it for a cause that actually mattered. And none would have cared if berg had said something equally as offensive about red bones. So yes dark skinned women are the sacred cows of the black community.

Kigali

Andrew said...

Maino the Brooklyn rapper slapped Young Berg.

For the record, Maino said he ain't beat him up like a grown man would. He just told the kid he didn't like those comments and Berg stepped to him.

But sellout black women will never admit that.

They still sleep with the "Maino" types but get upset at professional black men who may not be former thugs like Maino.

They only respect you if you act in a thuggish way.

It is very hard for black women to be with a man they perceive as "soft". That is why so many black women really don't date white men.

Anonymous said...

Von is an idiot.She doesn't even try to mask it anymore.That sicko hates Black men....

Anonymous said...

Hello Bro Rocky,

I have been a lurker for sometime. Hahaha what comedy. This is nothing new, women can never make logical arguments, esp. black ones. Expect name-calling and the usual shaming tactic arsenal when the facts are against them. Yet their precious white boys a.k.a. former rapist slave masters get a pass. The real question is: why are you even surprised?

Attention is food to these black drama queens. In 2011 let's starve them out and see what happens.

Happy New Year!

Anonymous said...

Black women who exclusively date white men always have some pathetic reason for why they do so. Yet a black men who dates only non black women could never offer a reason for doing so that would be acceptable to black women.