Black Men Confronting The Lies And Distortions

Shouldn't This Four Year Old Child Have Been Well Protected?

2011-12-19T19:31:00.000-08:00

According to the BWE/IR fanatics he should have been. After all, both his father and his mother's boyfriend are white.

Britni Bereasa Glover watched as her boyfriend beat her 4-year-old son. She
did nothing. She later heard the boy complain of stomach pain. She did
nothing. The next morning, she found her son, Dustyn Skyler Roff, dead in
his bed.

Houston police allege that happened beginning Thursday night, when Michael
Allen Seaton beat Dustyn because his mother did not come home for lunch
that day. Glover, 23, was charged with injury to a child by omission. Police
are still looking for her 21-year-old boyfriend, who has been charged with
capital murder.

Police who responded to a report of a dead child at a home in
the 7100 block of Hillcroft on Friday found the boy had multiple injuries
and bruises all over his body, authorities said. He was pronounced dead at
the scene.

HPD Homicide Sergeant Will Gonzales said Glover did not intervene as Seaton assaulted Dustyn Thursday night after the couple got into an argument. Seaton would often watch the boy while Glover went to work at a day care, Gonzales said, and he was upset that she did not return home during her lunch break that day.

Seaton then allegedly beat the child and left. Keeping silent, Dustyn
complained to his mother of stomach pains before sleeping, and the next
morning, she found him dead in his bed. "We have no reason to believe that (Glover) assaulted Dustyn," Gonzales said, "but she didn't stop the abuse of her child."Glover remained silent when asked by authorities why she did not
intervene, Gonzales said. The boy had different healing stages of bruises,
indicating he had likely been beaten for several weeks, the sergeant
said.

Charles Blake Roff, Dustyn's father, said he had been searching for
Glover and his son for the past four months after she left with
the boy during a visit. At a news conference on Monday, the 25-year-old said he
was the boy's sole caretaker until that time and was working on gaining full
legal custody of him. The couple is in the middle of a divorce and custody
rights had not yet been determined, he said.

Heck, according to the BWE/IR crew, they are not even supposed to be getting a divorce.

The Wall Street Journal Fix.

2011-08-17T10:58:00.000-07:00

Just recently, an article published in the Wall Street Journal by Dr. Ralph Richard Banks has created sort of a buzz among the various so called “Black Women Empowerment” fanatics as well as a bit of unease between some of them. One of the main ones embracing this article is Christelyn Karazin.

The premise of the article is the idea that if black women ‘date out’ more, it could/would motivate black men to improve in order to compete with the added competition. It’s an interesting premise because historically, this basic premise has been one that the BWE group has repeatedly shunned on the basis that it places responsibility on black women for shaping the behavior of black men.

But lo and behold, when the idea of black men’s behavior being influenced by black women involves black women dating and marrying non-black men, it is acceptable. It really goes to show how much BWE/IR bloggers are agenda driven.

Consider that for years, black men have pointed out and complained about the disproportionately strong trend of black women seeking relationships with bad boys. It has long been argued that this trend heavily influences the behavior of black men and has been supported through research under the theory of sexual selection. Even the dreaded Satoshi Kanazawa touched on this:

“In reality, however, women do often say no to men. (In my experience, they
always do.) This is why men throughout history have had to conquer foreign
lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets,
paint portraits and cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in
rock bands, and write new computer software, in order to impress women so that
they will agree to have sex with them. There would be no civilization, no art,
no literature, no music, no Beatles, no Microsoft, if sex and mating were a male
choice. Men have built (and destroyed) civilizations in order to impress women
so that they might say yes. Women are the reason men do everything.”

Polow Da Don stated:

“If every Black woman got together and said, "We're not gonna date guys unless
they have PhDs. We're not gonna date guys unless they have a Master’s [degree].”
Guess what? In due time, n****s will stop selling dope and they'll start going
to college.”

He was attacked relentlessly for this statement. Such a statement has been repeated over and over by black men criticizing black women for routinely sexually rewarding bad behavior, yet black women’s response has overwhelmingly been critical indicating that this notion places responsibility on black women. Yet, as we see with Karazin and others like her, if this basic idea is expressed in a way that promotes black women dating and marrying non-black men, it is quite acceptable. There are more than enough quality black men out there to put pressure on trifling black men to clean up their acts, yet this will never happen until these quality black men begin getting the attention that they deserve.

Plus, there are the flaws in this argument. One of the biggest ones is the fact that marriage rates are declining for all ethnic groups in the United States. At least 40 - 45% of white women are single at any given moment and 50% of all American women are single. There are a total of 4 million more white women than white men and 6 million more women than men in America overall. So it begs the question of exactly how much success do the IR bloggers expect black women to have competing against those 40% of white women and other non-black single women for the very men who have repeatedly placed black women last on their dating radar?

The next flaw is the discovery that the white men that black women marry are on average less educated than the black men that black women marry. Thus, the so-called competition would not be based on personal quality, but instead entirely on race and since no black man can change his race, such added competition would be meaningless. It’s much like the high level of marrying out done by Asian women. Asian American men have outdone white men socially and economically for decades, yet Asian women still marry out at a higher rate than any other group of women. Asian women simply want white men, period and the ONLY thing that Asian men could do to compete is to become white, which is impossible.

Lastly, history doesn’t support the notion. Since 1980, interracial marriage involving black women has tripled, yet within that same timeframe, the single rate for black women has increased by 20%. Thus, a major increase in interracial marriage for black women has coincided with a major decrease in marriage overall for black women. It is clear that marrying out is no solution. Interestingly enough, one of Karazin’s commenters pointed this out and was attacked and seemingly banned for doing so. Clearly such women are motivated by personal agenda and personal disdain as opposed to truth and reality.

Much of what I state above is addressed in this great article by Ivory A. Toldson, Ph.D., and Bryant Marks, Ph.D.

Ciara's "New Boyfriend" according to Sarah

2011-05-24T13:43:00.000-07:00

You know, I really have to point this out because I got a good laugh out of it. I was lurking around Sarah’s blog and noticed her most recent picture of a celebrity black woman with her new white boyfriend. What she showed was Ciara with her “new boyfriend Amar’e”. I stared at this picture of Ciara on the beach, in a bikini walking by an apparent white man a few feet away from her. I thought that I had gone crazy. Ciara is dating “Amar’e”, yet “Amar’e” is Amar’e Stoudemire, an NBA basketball player who is without a doubt BLACK. The problem is that there are several pictures of Ciara and Amar’e on the beach with a few of her walking without him. If you scroll down, you will see that on one, she is shown walking past a somewhat chunky white guy with a hairy back. This is the guy that Sarah has given Amar’e Stoudemire’s identity to. What Sarah did was take one look on this website and jump to conclusions without scrolling down. Did she even think to wonder if there could actually be a white man named "Amar'e" or whether the guy on the picture looked remotely like he could be playing for the Knicks?

So I began to question whether Sarah is just that absent minded, that overanxious for such pictures, or just that dishonest. Then I recalled that she posted a picture of Holly Robinson Peete with her “new love”; a white man whom she had taken a picture with.

Now most of us know that Holly has been married to Rodney Peete for years and they have a family. I looked for any news on a divorce or break-up and found nothing. Then I went to Holly’s Twitter page and read tweets from mere hours before whereas she discussed the current happy goings on between her and her husband Rodney.

I later read posts on Sarah’s comments section informing her that Holly and Rodney were still together, yet she REFUSES to take the picture down.

So what it comes down to is this. If you are a black female celebrity and you take a picture with a fan, friend, etc. who is a white man or if there is a white man close by you in a picture, that is YOUR MAN in Sarah's mind. The desperation of IR bloggers is incredible. Sarah would take joy in the break-up of a wholesome black marriage to satisfy her agenda, even if such a break-up is only in her imagination.

Are Black Women Gold-Diggers?

2011-05-05T12:51:00.000-07:00

Black women have commonly been accused of being gold-diggers. We hear and read it mentioned in practically every list of complaints leveled against black women in general by black men. Black women and others who disagree with this accusation seemingly have a very good defense against it. They quite simply point out the numerous instances of black women in relationships with black men who have little financially. So who is right?

Well I will say that the easy defense against this accusation exists for one important reason; that reason being that the accusation is NOT TRUE. Black women are no more likely to be gold-diggers than any other group of women and probably less likely. Is the accusation a mass fabrication by black men? Are black men en masse delusional on this point? My answer to both of these questions is NO. This statement is not a fabrication nor a delusion, but rather a misnomer.

Black men refer to black women as gold-diggers for lack of a better term to describe the dynamics between black women and black men as it relates to finances. Many simply know of no better term and many may avoid the true term due to it being even more incendiary than “gold-digger” (I will state this term later). “Gold-digger” has simply taken on a sort of layman’s definition with regard to black women and in attempting to discredit the label, black women use the most standard definition for the term’s non literal use.

So the question is one of exactly what are black men referring to when they call black women “gold-diggers”. Black women are notably great spenders and poor savers. Whether it relates to hair care, beauty products, consumer electronics, brand name clothing, gifts, tithing and general depreciable product spending, black women are leading the way. It is quite often that black women view money as being there for the sole purpose of spending it as soon as possible. This is why single black women have the lowest net worth of any group ($5.00). Of course, this is a generalization and individuals vary, but this trend is significantly more prevalent among sistas.

Now as any man knows, women tend to feel that their men are obligated to contribute to their spending habits. Thus, once a woman has depleted her personal resources, she then eyes her man’s resources and if allowed, will deplete his. Resistance by the man often prompts the well known shaming tactic of calling a man “CHEAP”. No man likes such a label and it is the avoidance of this label that causes many men to give in to contributing to their women’s unwise spending.

When a man simply doesn’t have the money to contribute to his woman’s spending habits, she then puts pressure on him to get it. She harasses him about demanding a raise, tries to convince him to look for a higher paying job or pushes him to take on a side hustle. Such women will sometimes turn a blind eye to their men’s illegal activities if such activities provide the means by which they can continue their materialistic pursuits.

If a man fails to contribute to his woman’s spending habits for whatever reason, the result is almost always friction. He will have little peace and harmony in his life and the chances of a break-up or him being cuckolded rise considerably. Financial issues are one of the top reasons for divorce and financial disputes tend to go beyond simply not providing family necessities and into the realm of not providing for the materialistic needs of a particular woman.

Men understand these dynamics and black men experience these dynamics to a greater extent than other men. Black women don’t set their dating and marriage standards around income any more than any other group of women and probably have lower income standards, yet once in a relationship, black women tend to try and draw blood. It is this drawing of blood that black men are referring to as “gold-digging”, but this, as stated earlier, is a misnomer. It’s an odd dynamic and I would actually find it more benefiting for black women to actually gold-dig than to do what can only be described as “blood-sucking” (a term that would probably bring about more anger than “gold-digging”). If black women did more gold-digging, it may serve as motivation for young black men to prepare themselves better for financial rewards.

But for some reason, black women are very open to men who don’t have much, yet try to force such men to find a way to provide for their materialistic desires and if such men rise to the occasion, their women up the ante so that no matter how much money a man makes, his woman will try to get more out of him than he has to provide.

White and Asian women, on the other hand, tend more to go for the professional guy who will have a fairly high income and they will reap the rewards of this high income WITHOUT trying to push the guy to spend above his means. This avoids much relationship friction while still garnering financial rewards and a more stable financial future for the both of them since they will actually save some money. Such women are actually gold-digging, yet they seem benign because they are not constantly at their men’s necks about spending money. This is why the true gold-diggers are less likely to be referred to as such. Hispanic women tend to, like black women, be open to the low income guys, yet they seem far more content with the simple, less materialistic lifestyle.

Losing the Civilizing Influence

2011-04-04T09:00:00.000-07:00

A great summary of what was discussed in my previous blog is written in the following article. I think that it is a great read:

When girls' civilizing influence turns brutal
By Betsy Hart
Remember the great Lesley Gore tune, "It's my Party"?
In the song, the birthday girl's boyfriend, Johnny, and a party guest, Judy, leave the party at the same time, and Judy comes back wearing Johnny's ring. And so, sings Gore, "I'll cry if I want to, cry if I want to. ...you would cry too if it happened to you."
Well, tears were not how one 13-year-old Baltimore girl handled such a "betrayal" at her recent birthday party.
According to the Associated Press, when the birthday girl's "boyfriend" kissed a 12-year-old guest on the cheek at the party, the birthday girl's mother was furious, and ordered her daughter to "handle your business." At which point the unfortunate guest, Nicole Ashley Townes, was savagely beaten by six women and girls, including the mother, and sent into a coma.
It's tough imagining a Lesley Gore tune coming out of that story.
But, it does seem to fit with the "girls gone wild" phenomenon spreading across American culture. According to AP, "Around the country school police and teachers are seeing a growing tendency for girls to settle disputes with their fists ..." It's still true that violence among boys is a much bigger problem than violence among girls, as measured by arrest statistics. But, AP reports, while it used to be the ratio was 10 to 1, now it's 4 to 1.
While the surge of violence among girls has been seen primarily at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, it's by no means exclusively there. Just flash back to the news about the violent "powder puff" girls football game in an affluent Chicago suburb where one group of girls brutalized another group of girls huddled helplessly on the ground, even to the point of breaking bones.
So, what's going on? There are about 100 different theories, everything from a more coarse and violent culture in general, to violent women portrayed in movies — think "Terminator 3" — to less religious influence, to more broken homes and fewer moms at home most of the day.
Who knows for sure? No one.
What we can know is this: When the virtue of women as a group degenerates in a culture, it weakens the culture as a whole and it's a dangerous thing.
In every successful society, women are the ultimate keepers of virtue. They are the civilizing influence on the men and the culture around them. They tame the worst appetites of men, whether it be toward violence, sexual aggressiveness and promiscuity, or even just things like laziness or coarseness.
The extent to which women degenerate, whatever the reason, is the extent to which a powerful and wholesome check on the culture at large is lost.
We've seen this with the sexual revolution, where women have been encouraged to behave as sexually aggressive as men do, even if they lack the same sexual appetite. But, it's the woman who is then left hurting and wondering why she is not married, or at least why some man could have sex with her without loving her or being committed to her (duh).
Throughout our culture, as sex has been belittled and cheapened instead of rightly honored, it's coarsened our culture as a whole, and hurt countless hearts of both sexes.
Is this all the fault of women? Of course not. And many women do maintain their virtue. But there are enough women no longer meeting their role of being a civilizing influence on the culture that the culture is suffering for it.
We may be seeing a similar trend when it comes to violence and young women. If they are truly becoming more "like men" in this area, the culture is being weakened along with becoming even more dangerous.
Of course, arguing that women are traditionally the keepers of virtue makes feminists wince. But, they actually argue something vaguely similar, yet wholly wrong. They maintain that if men were more like women, our culture would be a better place.
If more men shared their feelings and changed diapers, that would be the answer to our problems, they say.
Look, I'm into my husband sharing feelings and changing diapers. But, ironically, it seems instead of men becoming more like women in a sort of feminist panacea, we've seen women becoming more like men to the detriment of all.
At any rate, we as women don't need to feminize men. We do need to civilize men.
To walk away from that mission is, in fact, to deny our nature. And our culture, including little girls like Nicole Ashley Townes, will suffer for it.

Now one thing of note, that is not stressed in the article, is the fact that Nicole Ashley Townes and her assailants are all black girls and women. The article makes a strong point in saying that "the extent to which women degenerate, whatever the reason, is the extent to which a powerful and wholesome check on the culture at large is lost", and as we see all in our daily lives as well as in several highly publicized events, there seems to be marked reduction of such a wholesome check on African American culture.

In stating this, I and others will inevitably be accused of putting societies burden on women, yet what some wont acknowledge is that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and while one link does not bear the entire burden placed on the chain, the chain depends totally on that one link to play its part.

Placing an important responsibility on women for holding society up does not take away their femininity, but rather enhances it. Women have always controlled the direction of relationships and sexuality. Women have, throughout history, been the choosers while men have been the pursuers an it is women's choices that have shaped men's pursuits. Taking this responsibility from women actually makes them more male-like and is why we are seeing so much more male-like behavior from our women, notably black women. It is why we see women fist fighting more, having more sex partners, tattooing their bodies with masculine tattoos, cursing more, going to prison more, etc.

It is such common behavior that reduces the pool of women who men view as marriage material and is why so many men today hold such a negative outlook on marriage. The sweet, nurturing and emotionally supportive woman of the past is becoming a rarity and such women are becoming the purple unicorn in the black community. What we are seeing more of is this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42278079/ns/us_news-weird_news/

Vicious Attack On Wendy's Worker: MyFoxNY.com

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/17/earlyshow/main7159518.shtml

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/train-beat-down-video

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/112309-Laundromat-brawl-caught-on-video

Laundromat brawl caught on video: MyFoxORLANDO.com

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/10/29/one-arrested-after-des-moines-laundry-room-brawl/

Why Sex Comes Cheap Nowadays

2011-03-04T15:38:00.000-08:00

I had to post this article since it relates so much to what our side has been saying for so long. The interesting part is that this article is not directed as black people, but at the overall population. The BWE/IR bloggers would have you to think that such trends below don't exist among whites and other non-blacks, but as we can see this isn't true. One can say that such trends are simply more intense among blacks. But lets take a look at the article below:

Sex Is Cheap
Why young men have the upper hand in bed, even when they're
failing in life.

We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary
life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old
men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail
women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year,
women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there
is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual
relationships.

When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even
those who are floundering, just isn't so bad. This isn't to say that all men
direct the course of their relationships. Plenty don't. But what many young men
wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the
day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired,
we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer
relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more
marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these
things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships
favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that
what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it's all
thanks to supply and demand.

To better understand what's going on, it's worth a crash course in
"sexual economics," an approach best articulated by social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs. As Baumeister, Vohs, and others have
repeatedly shown, on average, men want sex more than women do. Call it sexist,
call it whatever you want—the evidence shows it's true. In one
frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached
opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University's campus and proposed casual
sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know:
Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men
have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it. As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in
consensual relationships therefore commences only when women decide it does.

And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse
strings, they aren't asking for much in return these days—the market "price" of
sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the
spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual
options—more supply for his elevated demand—it takes some measure of price
control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also,
quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once
were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of
men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of
sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than
they used to be.

But just as critical is the fact that a significant number of young men are
faring rather badly in life, and are thus skewing the dating pool. It's not that
the overall gender ratio in this country is out of whack; it's that there's a
growing imbalance between the number of successful young women and successful
young men. As a result, in many of the places where young people typically
meet—on college campuses, in religious congregations, in cities that draw large
numbers of twentysomethings—women outnumber men by
significant margins. (In one Manhattan ZIP code, for example, women account for
63 percent of 22-year-olds.)

The idea that sex ratios alter sexual behavior is well-established.
Analysis of demographic data from 117 countries has shown that when men
outnumber women, women have the upper hand: Marriage rates rise and fewer
children are born outside marriage. An oversupply of women, however, tends to
lead to a more sexually permissive culture. The same holds true on college
campuses. In the course of researching our book Premarital Sex in America, my co-author and I
assessed the effects of campus sex ratios on women's sexual attitudes and
behavior. We found that virginity is more common on those campuses where women
comprise a smaller share of the student body, suggesting that they have the
upper hand. By contrast, on campuses where women outnumber men, they are more
negative about campus men, hold more negative views of their relationships, go
on fewer dates, are less likely to have a boyfriend, and receive less commitment
in exchange for sex.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data offer other
glimpses into just how low the cost of sex is for young men ages 18 through 23.
Take the speed with which these men say their romantic relationships become
sexual: 36 percent of young men's relationships add sex by the end of the second
week of exclusivity; an additional 13 percent do so by the end of the first
month. A second indicator of cheap sex is the share of young men's sexual
relationships—30 percent—that don't involve romance at all: no wooing, no dates,
no nothing. Finally, as my colleagues and I discovered in our interviews,
striking numbers of young women are participating in unwanted sex—either
particular acts they dislike or more frequent intercourse than they'd prefer or
mimicking porn (being in a dating relationship is correlated to greater
acceptance of and use of porn among women).

Yes, sex is clearly cheap for men. Women's "erotic capital," as Catherine
Hakim of the London School of Economics has dubbed it, can still be traded for
attention, a job, perhaps a boyfriend, and certainly all the sex she wants, but
it can't assure her love and lifelong commitment. Not in this market. It's no
surprise that the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who are married has shrunk by an average
of 1 percent each year this past decade.

Jill, a 20-year-old college student from Texas, is one of the many
young women my colleagues and I interviewed who finds herself confronting the
sexual market's realities. Startlingly attractive and an all-star in all ways,
she patiently endures her boyfriend's hemming and hawing about their future. If
she were operating within a collegiate sexual economy that wasn't oversupplied
with women, men would compete for her and she would easily secure the long-term
commitment she says she wants. Meanwhile, Julia, a 21-year-old from Arizona
who's been in a sexual relationship for two years, is frustrated by her
boyfriend's wish to "enjoy the moment and not worry about the future." Michelle,
a 20-year-old from Colorado, said she is in the same boat: "I had an
ex-boyfriend of mine who said that, um, he didn't know if he was ever going to
get married because, he said, there's always going to be someone better." If
this is "the end of men," someone really ought to let
them know.

And yet while young men's failures in life are not penalizing them in
the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to
achieve in life. Don't forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked,
redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today's
young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year's book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern
Sexuality put it, "Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and
authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty
sexy." They're right. But then try getting men to do anything.

The last paragraph is the kicker and pretty much sums up what so many black men have declared before and so many black women insist on denying. Women's sexual behavior significantly influences the behavior of men. This is reality. Women have always been the ones who bring restraint to heterosexual sexual activity which is why gay men have on average three times the number of sex partners as straight men, even in this day of female sexual liberation. It's such restraint that motivates men to achieve and commit in order to have such female affection at hand. Nowadays, commitment and true success are no longer necessary for sex and this is made worse by the low standards and unrestrained bad boy love prevalent among today's women with black women leading the way.

It is clearly not solely a black phenomenon but this problem is quite notably more intense in the black community. Black women have on average more sex partners than women of other groups in America and based on the words of the experts cited, this directly influences the higher level of average sex partners for black men. Women are the ones most in control of whether sex occurs or not.

The last paragraph is worth repeating:

And yet while young men's failures in life are not penalizing them in the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to achieve in life. Don't forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today's young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year's book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality put it, "Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy." They're right. But then try getting men to do anything.

Lies Exposed

2011-02-09T06:02:00.000-08:00

Well, this just goes to show the levels of lying a scorned sista will go to. I have always said this. When you go to these various IR/BF Empowerment blogs, you get so many claims that, if you really look deep into them, are quite far fetched and questionable. Their generalizations are easily discredited with figures and research (as well as common sense) and I find their claims regarding what happens in their personal lives very unbelievable.

Gina Mccauley recently used the words of Steve Harvey's ex-wife, Mary Shackelford, as another justification for her multiple attempts to discredit Steve Harvey and his two "relationship" books. Of course judging his advice to women on how men think (which, in my opinion is fairly sound advice) based solely on the advice itself is unthinkable to her. She MUST judge the man as opposed to the advice because all to often, women will not accept men knowing more about men than women do. Seriously, many women feel that they can tell us how we think and will dispute us when we tell them how we think.

Steve does not give relationship advice per say. He gives advice to women on how to deal with men. I could accept the criticism more if he was giving advice to men on how to deal with women since that implies that he has had success in doing so, but a man, especially a man who has experienced so much including the ups and downs, is probably the best source of information for women who are trying to figure us out. Unfortunately, MANY women only accept all of their advice on how men think from other women.

But back to Mary Shackelford. Here is the article on the recent revelations:

Well, it appears Steve
Harvey was telling the truth after all. The news arrived in resounding
fashion, as a Dallas court issued a temporary injunction forcing Harvey’s ex
wife, Mary Shackelford, to refrain from releasing more YouTube
videos or conducting future interviews that disparage her marriage to
Harvey.

Shackelford released three YouTube videos in which she blasted Harvey,
claiming that he left her homeless and turned her son against her. Immediately
following the release of the videos, Harvey refuted the claims, vowing to have
his day in court. That day would come in a big way, as the courts found the
following:

The Court finds Movant BRODERICK S. HARVEY’S relief is granted.
Further, the Court finds that:

1. Respondent MARY LEE HARVEY was not homeless or evicted from her home
and was awarded three (3) homes in the property settlement;

2. Movant, BRODERICK S. HARVEY did not take, withhold or turn the child
against Responded, MARY LEE HARVEY.

3. Respondent, MARY LEE HARVEY willingly placed the child on an
airplane and sent him to MR. HARVEY without his knowledge.

The court also found that Harvey had awarded his wife $40,000 a month
since 2005, until March 2009 when she received a payment of $1.5
million.

Wow … that doesn’t sound like the life or bank account of a destitute
woman. Harvey’s “love guru” status may have taken a hit, but one has to believe
that he’s glad to have the truth on his side. The couple will meet in court on
March 10, 2011, to address a little matter of contempt of court. –djr

So she lied and lied very aggressively. I was listening to her on the Tom Joyner show expressing these falsehoods passionately. It just goes to show that you can't take the sensationalized, passionate arguments of scorned women at face value. You can't believe the far fetched implications of a Sandra Rose that black women are walking down the streets in fear. You can't trust it when they try to convince the world that black women are living in so much terror and pain. They are most likely doing exactly what Shackelford was doing. They are scorned women who rant and having accuracy in their rants is not a priority. Truth becomes the victim of a delete button.

Squares, Geeks and Nerds, Oh My!

2011-01-11T09:10:00.000-08:00

Over on Von's blog there is an ongoing theme that is an attempt at attacking the commonly expressed criticism of black women’s choices in dating. The criticism is directed at what many view as the strong tendency for black women to be attracted to a certain type of male who is commonly referred to as “the bad boy” or “the alpha male”. This type of male is often broken down into, among others, the categories of “thugs” and “players”.

The criticism usually expresses the common repercussions of such a trend. “Bad boys” tend to be less committed to children and relationships, live more risky lifestyles, are less focused and stable, etc. But women often find such guys to be exciting and will defend such choices based on the acceptable idea that “man (or woman) does not live on bread alone” and on the natural evolutionary bases of this attraction.

I believe that most men understand that on top of good character, a man must have some appeal beyond just being a good guy. We understand that the inclination of women to be attracted to dominant, aggressive and even violent males is rooted in nature, but if this is to be understood, then should we not similarly be understanding of the fact that the male tendency toward multiple sex partners is similarly rooted in natural evolution? Yet, male polygamous based infidelity is treated with far more scorn than female hypergamy and the subsequent hypergamous based infidelity that commonly results. Should we not similarly reference the need to move away from base desires for the benefit of developing stable civilized societies?

Beyond this, Von and others attempt to defend alpha male/bad boy love by tossing ad hominem attacks at its critics. Her most noted one is implying that such critical men are those who are social misfits and/or are visually unappealing. The idea is that they are resentful of being routinely passed over by the more desirable women and that their criticisms are based on such resentment. With this notion being put forth, I decided to investigate, beginning with an example of an individual who expressed the viewpoint that much of the behavior of men is shaped by the mating choices of women and women should refrain from dating the more thuggish types. This particular young man grew up middle class in a loving two parent home and attended Morehouse College. Here is his quote:

"American women have issues. Black women are the backbone of our families. If every Black woman got together and said, "We're not gonna date guys unless they have PhDs. We're not gonna date guys unless they have a Master’s [degree].”
Guess what? In due time, n****s will stop selling dope and they'll start going to college. It's that simple."

"Just like if I want to have all the hoes on the block and be a pimp, I got to get all the women's backing first. Then I can get all the dudes to come to any party I want them to come to. Look at strip clubs. You take all the women out of strip clubs and see how popular the strip club becomes. You tell women to stop dating dope dealers and you’ll see how cool dealing dope becomes."

These quotes are some of the controversial statements made by Polow Da Dom in interviews. Now let's take a look at this "nerd":

Now I'm no real expert on what women find appealing about men, but I will take an educated guess and say that Polow would generally be considered a good looking guy. He quite apparently spends some time in the gym and he seems to me to be what many would call a "pretty boy". I wonder what kind of social life he leads.

Well, it appears that this "geek" does interact with rather pretty women. Maybe this is a fluke shot. Let's look again:

Hmmm. This "square" managed another photo with a very pretty celebrity at some high class event. Has he taken more?:

Well, this is odd. I thought that the opinion that Polow expressed was strong evidence that he is ugly, a loser, a geek, a social misfit and a nerd. But the truth is that he is a well know rapper, singer, songwriter and millionaire super producer. As a matter of fact, Billboard labeled him as the number one Hip Hop producer of 2010. This is the same man who purchased a Porche Panamera worth over $100,000.00 as a gift to his cousin Monica to congratulate her on her new album.

Even looking at the Black Men Vent episodes on Youtube, I don't see nerds and geeks. None of them are ugly. I don't see social awkwardness. They seem to interact rather comfortably with the ladies they are debating. Some of them have children from previous relationships. What I see are regular guys who put a lot of thought into a particular issue and are very vocal with their opinions.

Now lets take a look at a nother view of "nerds". Here is an article from the The Spearhead discussing the reaction to his criticism of a video game service which charges men to play video games with women:

"The transition of video games from a niche hobby to a mainstream pastime that occurred in the past decade has wallpapered over many of the more sordid realities of the gaming community. It’s not a stretch to say that most
hardcore gamers are nerds, and while not all manginas are nerds, almost all nerds are manginas. Remember the brouhaha over Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech’s science fiction article back in October? The hordes of sniveling dweeboids who screamed bloody murder over his piece on blogs, forums, and The Spearhead’s own comment section were doing what
they do best – kissing the tails of the less-fair sex in vain hope of a little tail being tossed their way. Your average gamer is a servile sack of snot who will roll over and beg for a woman who so much as brushes him in the
hallway."

Here is another article deeply critical of nerds:

"Nerds are manginas. Keeping in theme with the previous paragraph, a man whose ideal woman is basically a dude with breasts and a vagina is a man who will likely allow women in general to walk all over him. Afraid of confrontation and used to bowing and scraping, nerds place themselves at the mercy of women in the vain hope of getting laid. Also, male feminists are overwhelmingly nerds – see pansies like Hugo Schwyzer and Barry “Ampersand” Deutsch."

Here is a comment from someone reading an article related to this topic:

"I can’t remember if there was any sort of formal statistical study done, but I do remember reading a story awhile back discussing how nerdy men often end up marrying attractive women (my husband — a rather nerdy but lovable engineer —
got quite a kick out the article). Part of the reasoning behind such paring is that these ‘nerds’ tend to be nicer and more respectful to these women than their more hunky counterparts. Of course there was mention of greater success, stability, personality and the like as well."

"It would be interesting to see how the woman’s education level matches up with the man’s in these cases. Do these women tend to be higher educated as well, so they have greater preference for men who are on par intellectually, regardless of looks? Or do you get more of the dense trophy wife effect?"— Casey

Now while I don't agree with "nerd hate" (there is nothing wrong with being a nerd), it does make sense that nerds would tend to be more pro-feminist and be more defending of women. Nerds tend to be your classic "nice guys" in the sense that to compensate for their lack of things like swagger, charm, assertiveness, style, etc., they tend to be extra nice to women. They are quick to jump to a woman's beck and call and will defend feminist ideals. They may envy the popular guys who get the pretty girls, but it is typically outside of their nature to be resentful and misogynistic. So in all likelihood, guys who are critical and hard on women are the furthest from being nerds. How often do we see nerdy wife batterers?

It would be difficult for people like Von and her cohorts to acknowledge that it is quite possible than those men who are vocally critical of black women's choices do so due to honest observation and being socially aware of how black women's dating choices and other behaviors contribute among other things to the destruction of the black family. Such an acknowledgement would require an open mind.

The Socialization of Black Boys

2010-12-19T19:06:00.000-08:00

I was reading a very interesting book entitled "The Origins of War in Child Abuse" by Lloyd deMause. The book is provided free online at the link. It basically proclaims that the violent behavior exhibited so often by men is not be the result of higher testosterone levels as has been the common belief, but rather due to the childhood conditioning that they commonly receive from their mothers:

"The only neurobiological condition inherited by boys that affects later violence
is they have a smaller corpus callosum, the part of the brain that connects the
right and the left hemisphere.16 The larger corpus callosum of infant girls
allows them to work through trauma and neglect more easily than boys.
Furthermore, boys who are abused had a 25 percent reduction in sections of the
corpus callosum, while girls did not.17 This means boys actually need more love
and caretaking than girls as they grow up. If they do not receive enough
interpersonal attention from their caretakers they suffer from damaged
prefrontal cortices (self control, empathy) and from hyperactive amygdalae (fear
centers), their corpus callosum is reduced further, and they have reduced
serotonin levels (calming ability) and increased corticosterone production
(stress hormone). All these factors make them have weak selves, reduced empathy,
less control over impulsive violence and far more fears than girls.18"

So as we see, for neurobiological reasons, boys are in greater need of love and caregiving than girls. This brings up the question of whether they actually receive such greater love and caregiving:

"The central psychobiological question, then, is this: Are boys given more love
and attention than girls by their caretakers in order to help them offset their
greater needs? The answer, of course, is just the opposite: boys are given less
care and support, from everyone in the family and in society, and they are
abused far more than girls, so by the time they are three years of age they
become twice as violent as girls.19 Boys’ greater violence by this time,
including their propensity to form dominance gangs and to endlessly “play war,”
are the results of their greater abuse and distancing by adults and being
subject to demands to “grow up” and “be manly” and “not be a crybaby” and not
need attachments—attitudes taught by their parents, teachers and coaches. By age
four boys’ play is full of provocations that test their self-worth: “At 4 years
of age, girls’ insults to one another are infrequent and minor…Boy/boy insults,
however, are numerous and tough.”20 The so-called “aggressiveness” usually
ascribed to boys is in fact wholly defensive, as they try to ward off their
greater feelings of insecurity and hopelessness.21 It isn’t “aggression” males
display; it’s bravado—defensive testing and disproof of their fears."

So as one might clearly suspect, boys are typically shown less affection and given less support than girls. Such lesser affection probably comes from both mothers and fathers, yet that which comes from mothers is most important:

"The mother, of course, is the focal point of this widespread distancing and
insecure attachment pattern. High levels of violence and of testosterone have
been shown to be associated with poorer relationships with mothers, not fathers,
since mothers are the primary caretakers in most families (even in America
today, fathers spend only an average of eleven minutes a day with their
children).22 It is not just genetics but more importantly maternal environment
that Tronick and Weinberg blame when they see from their studies that “Infant
boys are more emotionally reactive than girls. They display more positive as
well as negative affect, focus more on the mother, and display more signals
expressing escape and distress and demands for contact than do girls.”23 This is
because from infancy boys are expected to “just grow up” and not need as much
emotional care as girls—indeed, boys are regularly encouraged not to express any
of their feelings, since this is seen as “weak” or “babyish” in boys.24 While
mothers may sometimes dominate their little girls and expect them to share their
emotional problems, they distance their boys by not making contact with them and
expect them to “be a man.” This begins from birth: “Over the first three months
of life, a baby girl’s skills in eye contact and mutual facial gazing will
increase by over 400 percent, whereas facial gazing skills in a boy during this
time will not increase at all.”25 Boys grow up with less attachment strengths
because careful studies show that mothers look at their boys less, because both
parents hit their boys two or three times as much as they do their girls,
because boys are at much higher risk than girls for serious violence against
them, and because boys are continuously told to be “tough,” not to be a “wimp”
or a “weakling,” not to be “soft” or a “sissy.”26"

Here is more good information on the subject:

"Perhaps because boys’ needs are greater than girls’, harried and often depressed
mothers give them less love and attention from birth. Careful studies reveal
that mothers look at and talk more with their daughters than with their sons,
spend more time interacting with them, smile more at their daughters than at
their sons, direct more orders and prohibitions toward their sons, and use more
severe disciplinary styles and more shaming techniques toward them.50

If they are ashamed of what their mothers have taught them they are and by their continuing need for her understanding, they “learn to suffer quietly, in retreat behind the mask of masculinity [and] cover up the more gentle, caring, vulnerable sides of themselves.”63 If, of course, they are brought up with love and care, like my sons—and probably like yours—they grow up neither violent nor war lovers. But abandoned and abused boys regularly hide their shame and fears behind a defensive fantasy of grandiosity, dominance and violent bravado.64 The violence they exhibit both kills other Bad Selves (called “enemies”), who like themselves are seen as both angry and weak, plus it provokes the violence of others, inviting self-destructive, suicidal responses. Confrontation, “carrying a chip on their shoulders,” is their defense against admitting that they feel weak, rejected and worthless.65"

So how does all of this relate to the excessive violence that is so prevalent among black men? Is the lack of affection and support received by black men greater than that of other men. One study entitled Parent-child Play: Descriptions and Implications, does address this basic idea:

Blacks:
1) Infants are doted on; much attention to food and clothes.
2) But 'most black women believe the children are easily spoiled by too much attention including being held, carried, and praised.'
3) Infants are often left unattended for long periods of time. Black infants forced to be autonomous earlier than other groups.
4) Teenage pregnancy is tolerated but mother soon becomes disinterested in baby and grandmother takes over most of the care.
5) High levels of physical discipline, including 'shaking and spanking, often with belts and switches.'
Cuban-Americans
1) Teenage pregnancy not sanctioned. High rate of abortions.
2) Infants are the center of attention of entire extended household.
3) Infants are carried everywhere and rocked a great deal, are scolded infrequently, and are seldom physically punished.

More details of the study can be found here. The trends shown by the study applies to both teenage and adult mothers.

So this leaves the final question of whether there is a difference between the affection level given black girls and black boys. For a couple of decades, the idea that black mothers love their boys and raise their daughters has made it into black folklore, despite there being no empirical evidence to support this notion. One study finally takes a look at it with the following results:

'While no differences were found in the way that the mother uses control with her children, the mother did appear to have a more warm and guiding-producing relationship with her daughter. This finding runs contrary to the stereotype that the “African American mother ‘loves’ her son, but ‘raises’ her daughter.”'

So the evidence seems to say that boys are shown less affection and support than girls, black mothers show less affection and support to their young children than other groups and black boys receive less affection and support than black girls. While numerous other factors certainly are among the reasons why black males today show so much excessive violence, evidence does support that lesser attention and affection from their mothers at an early age could play a major role in this.

Response to Von's Rant

2010-12-04T07:16:00.000-08:00

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.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1132081

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3599997

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3599896

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.

"Black Unconscious Thought"

2010-12-01T08:20:00.001-08:00

Here is an excerpt from the the black female blogger known as "Von", who basically is a profanity spewer whose blog quite commonly includes black female victimism and black male bashing.

What about them? Where the hell are they when the “bad” black men are fucking up
the community? Where the hell are they when shit is popping off and black women
and children are dodging bullets in the neighborhood or trying to protect
themselves from rape or some other bullshit? Where the hell are these so-called
good black men when their female counterparts are seeking marriage? I’ll tell
you where MOST of the so-called good black men are: They are off somewhere
taking advantage of their position sexing up every damn woman (and possibly man)
they come in contact with ( here
and here).

Most of the so-called good black men are wolves in sheep’s clothing. On paper
they look real nice/appealing, but once you dig a little deeper you realize just
how whorish and trifling they are. They are no better than the Pookies and
Ray-Rays they try to pull rank over. More often than not these so-called good
black men have a little money, a decent job, and some education. This is the
MAIN reason they walk around feeling special. However, instead of being stand up
men (or REAL good men) and seeking a wife, they take advantage of their low
numbers and the high number of single black women. So, I say FUCK THEM. I can’t
see myself being allies with these so-called good black men because I don’t
respect or trust them.

Finding a true stand up black man is like finding a needle in a haystack. Great
if you find one (I count my blessing daily) not the end of the world if you
don’t find one (my life will keep moving with or without a man...I love my soon
to be husband dearly but I'm not going to lay down and die if things go south).
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), but let’s not act like those individuals are the majority or
even half of the African American male population. There aren’t enough of these
men to go around. These individuals cannot take up the slack for all the other
fucked up black men. Black folks need to concede to this reality (which helps my
case).

Now what this is a prime case of is the enormous difficulty women like her have in giving black men any credit. She can’t comfortably claim that all or most black men are uneducated street thugs, so she must find a way to degrade those who are productive. Thus, she eliminates any sense of them being of quality by declaring them to be worthless simply because they are not “seeking a wife”. Of course, not “seeking a wife” as she puts it is actually a case of these men not marrying the first black woman each of them encounters.

The reality is that the vast majority of black men do plan to marry at some point and are always open to it when and if they meet the right women. What fails to do and what those of her type fail to do is to acknowledge that most black women today are not very appealing from the standpoint of marriage. Yes, there are plenty of very sexy black women with desirable bodies and faces; more than other groups in my opinion. There are many who are very fun to be around. The problem is that it takes far more than that to be considered marriage material. Many of our women lack the sweetness men like and instead exude course personalities that border on masculine while readily obtaining masculine tattoos and discarding any sense of ladylike behavior. Many take pride in being loud and using profanity. Many black women are very pugnacious and give off the impression that a life with them would be life lacking in harmony. Men don’t mind a challenge when chasing tail, yet we don’t want to have to be challenged daily by our wives. We don’t want to constantly be pressured to please a woman who cannot be pleased. We don’t want a woman who can see no other use for a dollar other than to spend it (which is why the average single black woman has a medium net worth of $5.00). When a man marries a woman, what belongs to him tends to belong to her while what belongs to her remains hers. Thus, a man is expected to contribute to the spending habits of his wife and women who are irresponsible with money will be irresponsible with their husbands’ money.

And let’s face it. Studies have shown that a woman’s marriage possibilities decline as her weight goes up and one can easily see a direct relationship between black women’s general weight problems and their inability to get husbands.

Yet, women such as Von treat being educated and having a profession as all a black woman should need to get a husband (and most are actually not highly educated nor professionals). This is a prime example of black women trying to place their points of view into the heads of men. Women desire professional men because women place priority on men who have money. Men don’t place nearly that amount of priority on women’s earning potential. Thus, being educated and professional is low on the list on what men seek in a wife. We want good looks, a sweet personality, common sense and a positive attitude. We don’t want the cynicism and truculence so many black women are socialized to have.

THIS IS WHY SO MANY OF US AVOID MARRIAGE.

As far as what the “good” black men are doing about the “bad” black men, I would challenge her to tell us exactly what good men are supposed to do. A man’s ultimate responsibility is to his family. His responsibility is to protect and provide for his wife and children and to use his influence to guide them. How exactly does putting them and himself in jeopardy by confronting thugs and drug dealers fit in with protecting his family? Would it not be stupid to start a war against drug dealers and gang members so that they can vengefully break into your house and rape your wife because you were “snitching” to the police or trying to mess up their business? A good man tries to build up his finances so that he can move his family out of that situation. Otherwise, he does what he can to protect them and this involves not drawing the attention of thugs to himself so as to endanger his life and the well being of his family. She even contradicts herself when she says:

“These individuals cannot take up the slack for all the other fucked up black men.”

She can’t even remain consistent. According to her earlier statement, not being able to “take up the slack for all the other fucked up black men” would eliminate them from the category of “good black men”. How can they not be confronting the bad black men while at the same time trying to “pull rank” on the “Pookies” and “Ray-Rays” ? One should at least try to remain consistent within their one post.

In reality, community activists fill practically every black community. It is not hard to find black men volunteering time to try and help steer youth in the right direction. There are many black men voluntarily coaching youth sports leagues. There are plenty of black men working in community centers. But since they are not confronting drug dealers in suicidal fashion, they are not good men. Amazing.

The greatest way to get rid of bad black men is to stop rewarding them sexually. The worst street thugs and players routinely attract the attention of some of the most desirable women in the community. Much of what men do is for the purpose of attracting women so if a community is filled with drug dealers, hoodlums, gang members, etc., one can attribute this greatly to the number of women who find them appealing. What should be doing is telling the Latifahs and Kameishas of the world to stop their thug-love.

Check this out:

To get to the root of male-on-male violence, we need to take a closer look at
human sexuality and human sexual selection. We all know that women are the
ultimate selectors in the sexual game (and if you don’t know that, then go ask
ten different married women who made the ultimate selection). The facts are
pretty straightforward: Women ovulate once a month, and a pregnancy takes nine
months during which you become increasingly immobilized. Men, on the other hand,
produce millions of sperms each hour, and are not physically affected at all
while they are waiting to become fathers. Who has more reason to choose their
sexual partner carefully, men or women? Who is the buyer and who is the seller
in the sexual market?
What this means is that men have always had to work
hard in order to prove their worth to women. In fact, the competition between
men has been so fierce that only half as many men as women have passed on their
genes throughout history, according to a research report from
2004. This kind of competition to get access to sex and to have the ability
to pass on your genes has never been a situation that women have needed to face,
and for the most part women simply fail to understand this aspect of being a
man.
Men will compete in whatever ways are available to reach the top of the
food chain, and be able to provide for women. In a civilized society that will
usually mean constructive behaviors such as working hard and becoming a well
respected person. In an uncivilized society, which has been the case through
most of history, men will instead resort to violence towards other men, to fend
off the competition. Why are so many women attracted to bad boys and even
prisoners? Well, during most of human history that kind of behavior from men was
an effective way to be respected by other men and therefore rise to the top of
the food chain.
Male violence is therefore the end result of a dance in
which both women and men participate. Women select the most suitable men, men
compete to be chosen (using violence if needed), women again select the most
suitable men (regardless of whether they used violence or not to become
suitable), men compete to be chosen… On and on it goes.

Here is more:

“The more men have to offer, the more valuable they become to women as a
reproductive resource,” Geary says. “For this reason, men in all cultures are
highly motivated to attain social status and control of culturally significant
resources. Male-male competition is about making themselves attractive to women
but the competition also can lead men to compete in lethal ways to gain control
of social resources.”

Even The President Has To Take The Fault

2010-11-12T14:22:00.001-08:00

I have a lot of respect for First Lady Michelle Obama. She seems to be a woman of class and elegance, yet this statement shows that she is not unique in all of her perspectives and does subscribe to at least some of the idiosyncrasies common with women. In response to a question of who apologizes first when she and The President have an argument she says:

'I always wait for the president to say sorry because I am a woman,'

This statement goes a long way in showing the modern dynamic not only common with black relationships, but common with relationships in general. Women expect certain treatment for no legitimate reason so they resort to the “chivalry” card, even if “chivalry” does not even apply.

I am not familiar with a man apologizing first falling under the umbrella of chivalry. What this shows is the tendency to try and create an atmosphere of automatically giving in to the whims of women and in this case, using it as a way to facilitate the strong trend for black women to not take fault for anything.

Logically, one would conclude that the person who generally apologizes first is the person who is in the wrong. By saying that your husband always has to apologize says that you always have to be right. This mentality prevents black women from any sense of self-reflection. They often don’t see fault within themselves and when they do, they attribute those faults to outside forces. They blame their excess weight on their children, job schedule, etc. They blame their bad relationships on the men they choose to have relationships with. They blame their single status on the men around them. They blame their status as single mothers on the fathers of their children. They exclude any blame on that which they have the most control over and that is them themselves. Thus, nothing ever changes. They can’t change the behavior of the people around them to compliment their character, they can’t change normal functioning of society around them and they refuse to change or alter themselves.

When this happens, they resort to bitching. They verbally lash out at the world around them including the men they interact with, black men. They make anti-black male blogs, proclaim that there are no good black men, try to use white men and the notion of interracial dating as some type of means of payback, criticize white women, etc. This is why the IR bloggers are strict about moderation. They don’t want their faults thrown at them because doing so tosses a monkey wrench in their need to point the finger at everyone but themselves.

Then they resort to straw man arguments. When they are advised to take responsibility for themselves, they treat it as if folks are asking them to take all responsibility for the black community. Simply asking them to stop sexually rewarding thuggish behavior in men, not allow themselves to be impregnated outside of wedlock, not be so pugnacious, put some priority on keeping your man happy, etc. is treated as placing the burdens of society upon them. Studies have shown that black men participate in housework and childcare more than any other group of men whether the wife works or not, yet you have the IR bloggers declaring black women to be the mules of the black community. If they take the true informal definition of “mule” (somebody regarded as stubborn or intractable), they may have a point, but the definition that they apply to the word actually does not apply.

The Yvonne Hiller Rampage

2010-09-13T06:19:00.000-07:00

What goes around comes around.

It’s funny how much the black female IR bloggers ridiculed Omar Thorton, a black man, for his workplace shooting rampage, yet a very short time later, we have Yvonne Hiller, a black woman, do the same thing. Here is the story:

HORROR IN THE WORKPLACE
By DAVID GAMBACORTAPhiladelphia Daily News
gambacd@phillynews.com
215-854-5994

A FEMALE EMPLOYEE who was escorted out of the Kraft Foods building in
the Northeast after being suspended last night returned within minutes with a
.357 Magnum and began firing at fellow workers, police said.

She killed two female employees on the third floor and shot and
critically wounded a male employee in a stairwell, police said. Sources
identified her as Yvonne Hiller, whose address not immediately
available.
Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey told reporters that Hiller
then went to the second floor and hid in an office.

She was unaware that in an adjoining office, seven employees were
hiding. They called police and told them where she was.
As police approached
her hiding place, Hiller fired a shot through the wall at them and at one point
reloaded her weapon, Ramsey said. Hiller surrendered when SWAT team members
entered the room about 9:30 p.m., he said.

The drama at the plant, on Byberry Road near Roosevelt Boulevard, began
about 8:35 p.m., when Hiller was escorted from the building after being
suspended from her job, Ramsey said. It wasn't clear why Hiller, a 15-year Kraft
employee, had been suspended.

She got into her car and several minutes later drove through a barrier,
jumped out with the high-powered handgun, ran into the building and began
shooting.

Police, firefighters and emergency equipment swarmed around the
building.

About 100 employees, who make Oreo cookies, Philadelphia Cream Cheese
and Oscar Mayer bacon, were evacuated, and busy Roosevelt Boulevard was
temporarily shut down.
The wounded man was admitted to Aria Health's
Torresdale hospital in critical condition.

Chief Inspector Joseph Sullivan hailed the actions of a mechanic who
encountered the woman on the third floor and followed her to the second, talking
with police all the while on his cell phone and encouraging other employees to
evacuate.

At one point, Hiller realized she was being followed, turned around and
fired at the man. He sprained an ankle ducking the bullet and required hospital
treatment, Sullivan said.

"His actions made a big difference to police," Sullivan said. "Inside
that building is a labyrinth. Without his information, police would have had
trouble making their way through the building."

Tanya Bussey, whose sister Valerie Johnson works in the building, got a
scare when her sister called her after the shooting erupted.
"My sister
called and said there was someone in the building who was shooting and that she
was going to hide, and then her phone went dead," Bussey said.

She said that panic gripped her and that she and another relative raced
to the building. Her sister finally called back and said she was safe and
sound.

Andrew Wells said his father-in-law, who works for Kraft, phoned his
own wife and said, "Someone came down the hallway. There's shooting in the
bakery."

Earl Cooper, an electrician at Kraft, said he and a few other employees
were working in a small lab when a supervisor entered and shouted, "Keep
everybody back!"

"Then I heard a couple of gunshots," he said. "Kraft is like a big
family. People were worried if their friends were all right.

Here is a good example of the hypocrisy of the so-called black female empowerment bloggers. They are all too willing to point the finger at black men for pathological behavior, yet so unwilling to look at the pathological behavior within themselves. What is notable is that her case will inevitably bring out white voices critical of the violent behavior that they associate with blacks. So while these IR bloggers are pointing fingers at black men while praising white men, many of those same white men are using the example of this one black woman to point the finger at black people in general.

It is also important to note that the two people she murdered were targeted and both are black women.

Interracial Divorce. A New Study.

2010-08-24T16:50:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to Andrew over on his blog "Mr. Laurelton Queens" for pointing out a new study entitled "Broken Boundaries or Broken Marriages?". Andrew references Evia's discussion of this study and her rather comical attempt at discrediting it. It is that attempt that I am going to discuss and how it relates to a certain habit exhibited by her and her fellow IR bloggers along with discussing some key points of the study.

Basically, the recent study by Vincent Kang Fu and Nicholas H. Wolfinger, both of the University of Utah, contradicts a previous study posted in a journal from the National Council on Family Relations by concluding that interracial marriages between black women and white men are more prone divorce than all other marriages involving white men. Evia's reaction to this is as followed:

Anyway back to the study sent to my private emailbox. Another red light
about the linked-to study above was that the women in the study married in
the 1980s and 1990s, were in their upper teens (TEENAGERS!) and early 20s and
typically only had high school diplomas and "some" college.

Really?

The National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) research that I
posted first in October 2009 studied couples who were more educated
and more mature in age. Those black women were women like us. The study
referred to the similar education level with their white husbands and the
vetting that went into selecting each other. This is a far cry from the way the
very young select their mates.

The typical bw-ir candidate these days is NOT a teenager and not
even in her early 20s.
The type of bw who I aim my blog at or who
reads my blog is not the type of bw in the study who is a married teenager
or early 20-something with a low education level. LOL! The typical bw who
reads my blog is a college grad and many have 2nd degrees and/or are the
graduates of professional schools, i.e. law, medicine, or have professional
licenses, i.e. cpa, pharmacy.

I would EXPECT for American women who marry when they're teens or early
twenties with high school diplomas or "some" college to not be able to meet the
challenges of marriage. So I'm not surprised if those relationships had a high
failure rate. Successful marriages are helped tremendously
by maturity. So those research findings did NOT contradict what
I've said here. I would venture to guess that those women also had lower
incomes, fewer options of all types, lower social exposure,
lower social standing, etc. than many bw who read my blog or are interested in
dating and marrying out these days.

Now here is the problem. The "NCFR research" is actually research by Bratter and King that was posted in an NCFR journal. Fu and Wolfinger reference the Bratter and King study and compares it to their own study. Fu and Wolfinger note that they themselves "use data from the 1995 and 2002 waves of the National Survey of Family Growth to investigate divorce differentials between endogamous and intermarried couples". Likewise, they note where Bratter and King acquired their date for their research. Can any guess where they acquired their date from? FROM THE 2002 NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILY GROWTH.

In other words, all of those surveyed in the "NCFR research" were surveyed in Fu and Wolfinger's research. The difference is that Fu and Wolfinger's research likewise included the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. This is noted on page 22 of the paper:

"Bratter and King (2008) use the 2002 NSFG, half of the data that we use".

So the question is where did Evia get the idea that the study that she likes had more mature, better educated and more financially able women being surveyed? All of the women from the study she likes participated in the study she doesn't like and the study she doesn't like additionally includes women from a version of the very same survey done seven year earlier. So where did Evia get this notion from? Quite simply, SHE MADE IT UP. She does something that she and the rest of her IR/black female empowerment cohorts routinely do. They simply imagine up things and present them as facts and damn anyone who asks them to provide evidence.

Now the interesting part of study is that it aims to show whether the generally higher rate of divorce for interracial marriages is due to intermarriage in and of itself or more so due to the acquisition of spouses with high divorce propensities. The research explains that black marriages have high divorce rates and the research leans toward the reasoning being that both black men and women have high divorce propensities. Basically, black people in general bring personal characteristics to marriage that increase the likelihood of divorce. The hypothesis is that if divorce rates for intermarried couples reflect a predicted mix of the divorce rates for the two constituient origin groups, then the divorce rate is not due to marriages being interracial. This is the finding of the research with regard to black/white marriages. Marriages between whites and blacks dissolve at higher rates than endogamous white marriages because the intermarriage contains a black spouse and not because they are intermarriages.

With regard to women, the research shows that Hispanic women have the lowest divorce propensity, followed by white women and then black women, who have the highest divorce propensity. Whether married to white or black men, black women have a high likelihood for divorce. Black men also have a high divorce propensity as well as Hispanic men, yet Hispanic marriages have the lowest rate of divorce of all marriages. Seems that Hispanic women's low divorce propensity is able to overshadow the high divorce propensity of Hispanic men.

Fu and Wolfinger also show the inadequacy of Bratter and King's research along with others. They state that:

These studies and others share a conventional approach for assessing the
effect of intermarriage on divorce: they directly compare the divorce rates of
interracial and same-race couples, ascertaining, for example, whether divorce
rates of Black wife/White husband couples differ from those of Black/Black and
White/White couples.

THIS APPROACH IS INADEQUATE because it does not uniquely identify the
effect of racial intermarriage on divorce. In the above example, Black
wife/White husband couples differ from endogamous White couples in two respects:
(I) the presence of a Black wife and (ii) the crossing of a racial
boundary. Either could be responsible for the higher divorce rate.
In order to uniquely identify the effect of intermarriage, a statistical model
must control for first-order racial differences in divorce propensities.
Only then can the effect of crossing a racial boundary be identified.

Continued Silence...

2010-07-12T18:47:00.000-07:00

Of course, this is to be expected. If the so called “black woman empowerment/IR bloggers” (also known as the “Something Screwed Crew” (SSC) are geared toward promoting black woman victimism, one would not expect them to mention when black women are the victimizers. Yes, we can criticize them for not mentioning when black women are the victims of non-black men, but it is reasonable to not expect them to mention the reverse. Yet, we can criticize the hypocrisy.

These women constantly preach the notion of the angelic black woman as well as the noble white man. They hide the truth of just how much the pathologies prevalent in black America are prevalent among black women. They also are deceptive when it comes to the actual direction of media bias. Take a look at the following incident from about 8 months ago.

Three women charged in connection with SF man's murder
Bay City
NewsNovember 25, 2009

Ben Merrill (Courtesy photo)
SAN FRANCISCO —
Three women were charged with murder and robbery today in connection with the
shooting death of a San Francisco man in a park near the Pittsburg Marina
earlier this month, Pittsburg police Lt. Brian Addington said. The victim,
22-year-old San Francisco resident Benjamin Merrill, had a date with a woman in
San Francisco on the evening of Nov. 2, but she didn't show up, Addington said.

As Merrill was walking home through the city's Mission District at about
1:30 a.m. on Nov. 3, two women pulled up to him in a car. They asked for
directions and engaged him in conversation, Addington said.

Investigators believe those women were Pittsburg resident Kiarra Price and
Richmond resident Teareney Brown, both 20 years old.

After talking with the two women, Merrill allegedly willingly got into
their car, possibly to go have a drink with them, Addington said.

The group ended up in Pittsburg, where they stopped at the house of the
third suspect, 21-year-old Pittsburg resident Kendra Fells.

Fells lives about half a mile from Marina Park where Merrill was shot,
Addington said.
The group drove to the park and got out of the car, at which
point the women allegedly robbed Merrill and Price allegedly shot him.

Price, who also had an outstanding drug warrant, was arrested Friday after
investigators saw her leave her house in the 200 block of Kingsberry Place in
Pittsburg, Addington said.
Brown, who also had a warrant out of Alameda
County for vehicle theft, was arrested Monday at a relative's house in Oakland,
authorities said.

Fells has not yet been arrested, but police have a warrant for her
arrest, Addington said.
All three women have been charged with murder and
robbery, Addington said. Police have recovered the vehicle they believe was used
in the shooting along with Merrill's iPhone, Addington said. When police first
found Merrill, they were unable to identify him for two days. He did not have a
driver's license on him and had no criminal record, so his fingerprints were not
in any law enforcement database. Shortly after the shooting, however,
investigators issued a flyer to law enforcement agencies with a photograph of
the victim. Coincidentally, Merrill's cousin, who was watching a trial in San
Mateo County Superior Court, happened to look over and see a police officer
holding a copy of the flyer, Addington said.

When Merrill's family contacted Pittsburg police and gave them
Merrill's name, police were able to look up his fingerprints in the Department
of Motor Vehicles database and confirm his identity, Addington said.

Investigators have since talked to the woman who stood Merrill up the
night before the shooting and do not believe she was in any way involved in his
murder, Addington said.
"She ended up having a rock-solid alibi," Addington
said.

Now, of course, this isn’t posted to imply that white men or any men are in danger when fraternizing with black women (most of woman of any group are decent human beings), but similar incidents involving non-black women are practically unheard of. The tendency toward street crime among black women relative to other women is similar to that of black men relative to other men. Black women make up half of the female prison population.

Also, if the young man had been robbed and killed by three black men, their faces would have been pasted all over the media. It took some reading and research to find out that these were black women. Any images that had been posted of these women have been removed. The white man/black woman relationship is routinely protected while the media is more than happy to warn white women of the ‘dreaded’ black man.

Let’s face it. This young man had Jungle Fever and saw an opportunity to take part in a ménage à trois swirl with the possibility of a 4th addition to the fun. A dream come true. They took advantage of his naivety and the understandable attraction to black women. This is a young man with no criminal record who had his entire life ahead of him. It is sad on so many levels. May he rest in peace.

Teareney Brown

Notice The Silence

2010-07-03T19:30:00.000-07:00

I think that it is quite evident that if the man pictured had brown skin, kinky hair and/or other characteristics identifying him as black/African American, the so called "black woman empowerment/interracial" bloggers would have found this case from one month ago and plastered it up all over the Internet. Yet what we observe is deafening silence.

Sheriff says man killed woman with hammer, dragged her about a quarter mile

Orange County Sheriff's office says a 35-year-old Kountze man has confessed to killing a 26-year-old Beaumont woman over the weekend and later dragging her body behind his pickup truck.

Authorities say William Baker Bibb is charged with murder and is being held in the Orange County Jail on a $1 million bond. Authorities say preliminary autopsy results show the woman died of blunt force trauma to the head.

The Orange County Sheriff's Office says they received a call at 11 a.m. Saturday morning of a dead body near the Rose City Sand Pit in Rose City. According to the Sheriff's office, the man called 911 claiming he and the deceased woman were victims of a crime.

But authorities now say Bibb confessed to killing Theresa Adell Ardoin sometime Saturday morning after a "fight." Orange County Sheriff's Department say Bibb picked up Ardoin from Magnolia Avenue in Beaumont and drove her to a sandpit north of Rose City.

The sheriff says Bibb and Ardoin were acquaintances and allegedly got together to "possibly do some drugs, have sex" at a sand pit, but they argued. Bibb allegedly struck her with a hammer.

Authorities say after killing her, Bibb attached her body to his pickup truck and dragged about a quarter-mile to the canal.

Authorities say there is no evidence that the crime was that of a hate crime. Bibb is Caucasian, while Ardoin was African American.

The Orange County Sheriff's Office Criminal Investigations Division is investigating the case as murder.

The Orange County Sheriff's Office is being assisted by detectives from the Orange Police Department, Pinehurst Police Department, Vidor Police Department, and the Orange County District Attorney's Office.

The Orange County Sheriff's Office is calling this one of the worst murder investigations they've ever had. Workers and business owners at the sand pit property said it's hard to believe the gruesome story of what happened over the weekend.

Jason Miles has driven through the gates at the Rose City Sand Pit as a freelance truck driver for several years.

He said he can't believe he now shares his workplace with crime-scene investigators.

"Such a horrendous crime - and just knowing that it happened nearby where you work is even more of a shock" said Miles.

Investigators said William Bibb confessed to killing an acquaintance Theresa Ardoin Friday night near a clearing in the sand pit. Investigators said Bibb beat Ardoin to death with a hammer, then tied her body with a rope to his truck, and dragged her a quarter mile dumping the vehicle and Ardoin's body in a ditch.

In a press conference Monday, the Sheriff's office said though Ardoin is black, they won't investigate the murder as a hate crime, citing the evidence doesn't point to her death being about race or religion.

"At first he had given us a set of facts and then whenever he was really questioned by the investigators about his facts that didn't make any sense- then he realized he needed to tell the truth" said Chief Deputy Rodney Harrison with the Orange County Sheriff's Office.

But the truth is, some businesses in the area are upset.

Nearby business owners said some of the gates leading to the clearing are never locked - leaving the property exposed to anyone coming in and out whenever they please.

For Miles, he said that knowing someone took advantage of the isolated dirt roads he works on every day, is upsetting.

"It's very sad to hear that anyone loses their life to a violent crime and just knowing that it happened here makes it that much more close to home" said Miles.

Leaving Miles with a new perspective as he works within the yellow tape, a haunting reminder of the weekend's events.

God rest this young lady's soul. She paid the ultimate price for "opening up her options" and the IR and Black Woman Empowerment bloggers don't care.

"Going Off"

2010-06-17T20:17:00.000-07:00

A punch to the face hurts. A punch to the face of a young woman by a man hurts more because it not only hurts the recipient of the punch, but likewise hurts the hearts of any men who to some reasonable extent value women as flowers to be protected. But the punch to the face, beyond how it hurts the recipient and hurts our hearts, is a prime example of the penalty often paid for the widespread phenomenon of “going off”.

The phrase “go off” in this context is derived from the common usage referring to a bomb exploding. We hear folks refer to a bomb “going off”. In much the same way, a person is referred to as “going off” when that person, as a result of anger, offense, discontent, fear, etc., loses control of their emotions and behavior often resulting in irrational and overaggressive behavior. They often become loud, confrontational and volatile. Such behavior has often resulted in detriment not only to the person “going off”, but likewise the people close to them.

A controversial incident occurred more than a year ago in Bellaire, Texas (a suburb of Houston). Robbie Tolan was shot in front of his house after being ordered to the ground under the suspension of auto theft. We know now that he was unarmed and driving his own car, but he ended up with a non-fatal, yet quite detrimental gunshot wound. Why did this happen? It is because his mother came outside and WENT OFF. Her actions resulted in her being pushed against the garage door, which in turn caused Robbie, who was lying on the ground, to react as any young man would when seeing his mother manhandled. He got up to protect his mother. This resulted in a gunshot wound, hospitalization and surgery. Consider that both of his parents came out of the house. Only one WENT OFF and that one was his mother. Her reaction and Robbie’s subsequent reaction served as the officer’s defense in the criminal trial. The officer was acquitted of all charges.

I posted the above video a while ago but it is a strong enough example to show again. This is a very prime example of GOING OFF. This woman went completely off due to taking offense to overhearing someone criticizing her attempts to cut the line. This resulted in the guy who was criticizing her being beaten to a pulp by her 300 pound ex-convict boyfriend and that same boyfriend going back to prison for a rather long time as a result. Nothing productive came out of her GOING OFF. Plenty of negativity came out of it.

Now back to the recent event. A young lady was accosted by a Seattle police officer for jaywalking. As a result, the young lady WENT OFF. Now a reasonable person who is thinking rationally would know that resisting the police almost NEVER accomplishes anything. It doesn’t prevent you from being arrested. It doesn’t prevent you from getting a ticket. It doesn’t prevent you from being shot. If anything, it makes arrest, shooting and ticketing more likely. What this young lady accomplished was making a situation far worse than it should have been and causing a naive friend to take a masculine punch to the face. Now I know that there are those out there who are itching to ask why the young men watching didn’t physically defend the women. Well, this takes me back to the pizza shop video and the incident in Bellaire, Texas. Often when women go off, men suffer the most. Let’s say that one of the young men did go up and begin fighting the police officer. What could have happened? Well, for one, he would have been committing a felony. Second, the risk of being shot instead of punched in the face would have been far greater for him (as was shown in the case of Robbie Tolan). The one guy who did get physically involved did so intelligently by attempting to restrain the young lady who got punched. But this goes to show just how much potential there is for men to suffer due to women GOING OFF.

Now here is the next point. Without a doubt, “going off” is a staple of black women and many actually take pride in this. It’s the notion that sistas don’t take any sh*t. This is a part of what so many black women view as their “strength”. Over aggressiveness, knee-jerk reactions, being confrontational, being argumentative, showing stubbornness, tactlessness and feistiness, etc. are things that many black women pride themselves on. This is what defines the “strong black woman” today. What we are seeing more and more of are black women suffering the consequences of such behavior. The unfortunate McDonald’s incident comes to mind when the teenage girls took repeated punches from a grown man (who I think has yet to be identified). We are seeing more and more black women getting tazered and manhandled by police. I have personally seen groups of police having to team up to arrest an irate black woman.

Such behavior has often put black men at risk due to the traditional desire of men to protect women. Black men have been shot or incarcerated because of defending black girlfriends who have unnecessarily gotten involved in confusion. What we are beginning to see now are black men being less and less likely to defend black women and furthermore, we are seeing the same thing from non-black men. Chivalry is dying everywhere and is practically dead in the black community because many men are tired of defending those who are more than willing to start trouble.

Men are also tired of being on the receiving end of those who “go off”. That is why so many black men are quick to curse women out today. Men often feel the need to save face because it is so common for women to go off on them in public with no consideration of how humiliating that is to men. Many black men are resisting commitment to those who would routinely go off on them during the relationship. Even the best of black men have to walk on eggshells when around their women and these women seem to not understand why men are so resentful of being talked crazy, yet lose respect for these same men when they take being talked crazy to in stride.

The "Tom Willis Syndrome"

2010-05-30T11:20:00.000-07:00

With the recent break-up between Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubrey, I have given a bit more thought to something I have long noticed about the dynamics commonly involved in relationships between black women and white men. It is something that I have pinned, the “Tom Willis Syndrome”. As anyone who tuned into The Jeffersons back in the day would clearly have noticed, Tom Willis was quite submissive to his wife Helen. His response to her raising her voice to him was a quick “yes dear”. It is interesting that even 30 plus years ago, this dynamic between white men and black women who are married was prevalent enough for it to be represented on television.

Much of the rumor mill indicates that there was a similar dynamic between Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubrey. The most prevalent example is her passionately and blatantly kissing other men on stage without regard to his feelings and rumors suggest that she likewise disrespected him in other public settings whereas he simply took it in stride. Such rumors didn’t exist with respect to how she treated the black men she was with before. Quite simply, it is doubtful that David Justice, Westley Snipes, etc. would take such disrespect in stride.

It’s not so long ago that we witnessed a rather demanding and lazy black wife on one of the “Wife Swap” shows whose white husband waited on her hand and foot and did all of the work around the house while she remained in an inclined position. It didn’t seem to bother him at all. Another episode of such a show showed a staunch conservative interracial couple whereas the black wife was EXTREMELY vocal in her views while the white husband simply remained quiet. Likewise, not too long ago, we witnessed a black wife state on national television in front of her white husband how much respect she had lost for him simply because he was recently out of work due to this current bad economy. The husband didn’t even try to defend himself. We saw how Tiffany “New York” Pollard dominated and disrespected the winner of her second reality show, George “Tailor Made” Weisgerber (who had already married one black woman before).

Now this is not to say that white men are passive in relationships. What this is referring to are those white men who tend to seek relationships with black women, especially the less than 1% of white men who marry them. These men seem comfortable with taking the passive role in relationships with domineering women, and see black women as a prime source for such dominance. While black women tend to not respect passive men, they tend to remain in relationships with passive men for long periods of time. They may treat the men poorly and even mess around on them (such as tongue kissing other men on stage), yet they are less inclined to leave such men and such men are content to be dominated by such women. This is in all likelihood why such relationships last longer than average. On the other hand, when such women are with dominant men, they respect those men a lot more and show such respect, yet the inevitable routine friction causes such relationships to not last as long. The fact that the effort of gaining respect from your woman may break you and your woman up is a dynamic quite prevalent in relationships with black women. Such is the irony.

A good example of the tendency of certain white men to desire domination at the hands of black women is the number of videos on Youtube showing “mixed wrestling”. These are basically videos portraying the sexual fetish of men purposely being physically manhandled by women in thong bikinis. Notice that such videos seem to always include white men and a disproportionate number of them involve black women.

Spending Habits And Divorce

2010-03-27T15:45:00.000-07:00

A lot has been mentioned of the high divorce rate for black marriages and it has been shown that money is the leading cause of today's divorces. With black men and women typically making less money than their white counterparts, one might deduce that this very factor makes finance influenced divorce more prevalent among blacks. But there is another factor, that being financial habits. A recent study gives a startling revelation about the financial circumstances of single black women:

"Women of all races bring home less income and own fewer assets, on average, than men of the same race, but for single black women the disparities are so overwhelmingly great that even in their prime working years their median wealth amounts to only $5."

"Among the most startling revelations in the wealth data is that while single white women in the prime of their working years (ages 36 to 49) have a median wealth of $42,600 (still only 61 percent of their single white male counterparts), the median wealth for single black women is only $5."

Now the disparities in income level between black women and white women are not even remotely as great as the disparity in median wealth between the two groups. Single white women don't come close to making twice the money single black women make, yet single white women seem to possess 8,520 times the median wealth of single black women. From the same study:

"Married or cohabitating white women have a median wealth of $167,500. Married or cohabitating black women have a median net worth of $31,500."

So when black women get married or live with men (predominantly black men), their median wealth becomes 5.3 times less than the median wealth of married or cohabitating white women. Quite a difference from 8,520. Seems that the greater frugality of their husbands make a world of difference. So how do black men do with regard to median wealth? Let's see:

"Excluding vehicles, [working age] single black women have a median wealth of $100 and Hispanic women $120 respectively, while their same-race male counterparts have $7,900 and $9,730. The median wealth of single white women is $41,500. To put it another way, single black and Hispanic women have one penny of wealth for every dollar of wealth owned by their male counterparts and a tiny fraction of a penny for every dollar of
wealth owned by white women."

"With so little in reserve, half of all single black and Hispanic women could not afford to take an unpaid sick day or to even have a major appliance repaired without going into debt."

So while black men seemingly are not doing great with regard to holding on to personal wealth, they are doing far better than black women. Even looking at the chart on the page, black men with children of any age have a median net worth of $26,000 compared to $100 for similar black women. Black men with children under the age of 18 have a median net worth of $10,960 compared to a median net worth of $0 for similar black women.

Of course, the claim will be that black women are overburdened with single motherhood, yet the fact is that there are 13 million single black women overall and 3.1 million single black mothers. Single black mothers, at less than 25% of all single black women, should not have such an extreme effect on the overall median net wealth of all single black women. So what is the reason? Here is a hint:

Almost seven in 10 (68 percent) Black women say that they buy what they really want ˜ in good times or bad. And many Black women face the temptation of unplanned spending when they are feeling stressed - nearly 40 percent report that they shop to cheer themselves up.

Two in five Black women feel guilty about how much they spend on expensive brands.

"For some Black women, excessive spending makes the road to long-term financial security even longer," Mims said. "To an extraordinary degree, Black women consider themselves trendsetters and centers of influence. Opinion-leading has its price."

As anyone knows, when a woman marries, she expects her husband to contribute to her spending habits. A woman who tends to spend money that she doesn't have will similarly expect her husband to spend money that he doesn't have. This is, in all likelihood where the "gold digger" stereotype came from. It's a misnomer. Black women are not any more likely to be gold diggers than any other group of women are are possibly less likely to be. What is prevalent is the tendency to demand excess expenditure from their men; excess being that which can't be afforded. Whether black women's men make 20 grand a year or 200 grand a year, quite often those men are expected to invest nearly all of it toward their women's desires. This inevitably causes conflict and contributes to the high divorce rate.

Demanding Love and Commitment

2010-03-06T13:10:00.000-08:00

In 1981, Jennifer Holiday demanded that "you're gonna love me" and "I'm not going" in the the Broadway musical, Dreamgirls. Later on, Beyoncé asserted that "if you want it then you should have put a ring on it". Does it not seem that in modern times, a man's love, dedication, commitment, etc. are all things that women demand or are things women challenge men to do? Has the art of winning a man's heart been totally lost?

More commonly today and to an an even more exaggerated extend within the black community, there seems to be great priority in snagging men through pressure. Men are expected to yield to the pressure to marry women they impregnate even if those women have won no more feelings from these men than sexual arousal. Men are supposed to marry women because women "deserve" to be married or because men are obligated to marry them. Men are supposed to marry women even if doing so sacrifices their happiness and emotional well being. Many women feel that they must force men to respect them as opposed to winning men's respect. They feel that they must force men to accept responsibility as opposed to helping create an environment that inspires men to accept responsibility.

Today, men are no longer the kings of their castles. They generally don't even share the rule. Women rule the nest nowadays even when a man is in the house and they don't rule it based on being deserving, but rather by fighting a battle that their men overwhelmingly cannot win. Men hate to argue with their women, especially with the irrational way that women fight and argue. Such arguing and discourse is stressful for men while women seem to strive on it. So men give in and become resentful. Such resentment manifests in the passive aggressive ways so many women complain about and prompts men to keep their eyes open for ways out as soon as something they feel is better comes along.

Back in the day, women were socialized early on to be good wives. When a guy impregnated a woman, he could be reasonably confident she would make a decent wife. Nowadays, a man has no idea what he will get. Pleasing a man is currently low priority for women and often seen as demeaning. Men are viewed by women as unemotional creatures who are available to be verbally and physical beat up at a whim, yet when men allow such abuse, the women lose respect for them. So a man has a choice of being looked down on by his woman or fighting her to a degree that endangers the relationship. It's a lose-lose situation. Men are more and more avoiding such nonsense and women, in common irrational form, can't see this for the world and routinely accuse men of being immature and non-committing.

Black women, specifically, seem to have larger egos than other women; egos that are almost male-like. Such egos make any type of submission to their men or any type of catering to their men's egos out of the question while these same black female egos are satisfied when they demean their men. It is not uncommon for black men to be cursed out by their women even when not deserving of it. If a black man complains, he is asked to "man-up" and take it, yet if he takes in in stride, he is viewed as a punk. Making a suggestion to a black woman is commonly interpreted as telling her what to do and often results in a firm "nigga, shut up". Hell raising is a common response by black women to anything they disagree with. Black men are not supposed to have any feelings, any needs, any desires, opinions, wants, etc. in a relationship unless they are thugs or players. Thugs and players are treated like kings, yet rarely make good husbands and fathers.

Winning a man's heart should be first priority. Not trapping him with pregnancy. Not throwing the coochie at him from the jump. Not starting the relationship by throwing your kids off on him under the guise of a packaged deal. You should inspire him to love you through sweetness and supporting his efforts to be a man. Show him that when he comes home to you, he will come home to comfort. In a world of 5 billion, the only importance a man has is the importance he has within his own home. Support him building his own personal castle and he will love, protect and provide for you till the end. Leave the male-like egos behind. They are quite unappealing.

Black Women and HIV. Stop Blaming The Brothas.

2010-02-23T20:46:00.000-08:00

In a world where men are generally held responsible for the actions of women and where this is taken to another level by the so called “black female empowerment bloggers” as it relates to black men, it has been very much noted that black men are blamed for the high rate of HIV infections in black women. Fuel is added by research indicating that most HIV infected black women were infected by heterosexual contact. By looking at it simplistically, it would seem that black men are the culprits, yet looking at it a little deeper shows a slightly different story.

First of all, it has been established through research that only 3% of HIV positive black women can attribute their infection to sexual contact a man who had sex with another man. This makes sense since studies indicate that only around 3% of black men are homosexual or bisexual, homosexual men of all races tend to be exclusively intimate with men once they come out of the closet and so-called “down-low” men usually don’t have multiple female partners (they tend to have one lady and multiple men). Thus, the vast majority of black women never have sex with men who have had sex with other men.

So eliminating gay or bisexual black men, we can see according to this chart that there were 7,340 new cases of HIV infections among black women in 2009 compared to 3,290 new cases for heterosexual black men during the same year. And since lesbian contact accounts for such a minuscule number of infections as to not even register, practically all of these women infected by sexual contact are heterosexual or bisexual. Hence, we can see that there are at least twice as many heterosexual black women being infected by HIV as there are heterosexual black men even when the three percent of black women infected by men who have sex with other men are eliminated from the group.

So what this shows is that a heterosexual black man through random chance is at least twice as likely as a heterosexual black women to have sexual contact with a member of the opposite sex who is HIV positive. Even if we consider those who are infected by intravenous drug use, the number of black men being infected in such a way is fairly similar to the number of black women being infected that way. At face value, this would seem that black women are more of a danger to black men than the reverse as it relates to spreading HIV, but we will be honest and not go there because the disease is spread much more easily from man to woman than from woman to man. This would account for the greater number of heterosexual black women infected than heterosexual black men.

But studies indicate that black women are infected with HIV at 21 times the rate of white women while black men are infected at 7 times the rate of white men. So why are black women not infected at 7 times the rate of white women as black men are compared to white men? Why are black men not infected at 21 times the rate of white men as black women are compared to white women? Why the discrepancy? Here is my theory.

Black women have a greater tendency than other women to seek intimacy with the very type of men who partake in more risky behavior. Those would be your thugs, hoodlums, pimps, players, etc. These are the very men most prone to having high numbers of sexual partners, least likely to use protection and most likely to partake in drug use. It is this tendency, in my opinion, for the bulk of black women to seek out the smaller number of 'bad boy' alpha males and their willingness to share these males as opposed to seeking one on one relationships with more stable, conservative males that contributes to the excessive infection rate prevalent among black women today.

Signs of Regression

2010-01-16T18:27:00.000-08:00

Pretty much most, if not all, of the pathologies prevalent in black America are present in other cultures, though often to a noticeably lower level. So basically, explanations as to why we are seeing certain negative trends in overall society, not only can be applied to black America, but black America is often a more extreme example of such negative social trends. This brings me to an interesting blog post I was linked to. It gives an interesting look at the nature of modern trends in marriage and relationships. Here is an excerp:

The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.

Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males

As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This double standard has invisible but major costs to society.

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, and thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.
All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

The writer then goes on to show modern trends that lift such traditional controls. With the history of black men being deprived of their authority and financial abilities by past racism, it is clear why such traditional controls have been lifted from black men and women to a greater level.

It appears that the chasing of alpha males is more prevalent among black women and this contributes greatly to the modern state of the black family. It helps create a high percentage of out-of-wedlock births, a high divorce rate and a high single rate. Our young boys are overwhelmingly being raised without fatherly influence and we are seeing the results today. A minority of black men seem to father a disproportionate number of our children and these very men are least likely to commit and/or be active fathers.

I would recommend reading the rest of the article and clicking on its links. Very interesting stuff.

"Men Are Supposed To Be The Leaders"

2009-12-14T18:06:00.000-08:00

This is a statement commonly made by the so-called "black woman empowerment bloggers" and "black woman interracial bloggers". It's not really stated because they actually believe this or consciously desire this to be the case. They make this statement for the purpose of chastising black men and to take away black female responsibility for contributing to the problems of black America. To understand the inherent problem with their repeated use of this statement, one must understand that which is necessary for leadership along with the various types of leadership.

For anyone to lead, there must be those who submit to be led. With regard to submitting to male leadership and authority, there is typically more resistance from African American woman than probably any other group of women. This is added to the overall modern trend of women less and less accepting male leadership and authority and the common obstinate behavior of black American women. Now one must understand that there are three basic types of authority:

1. Legal Authority: This type of authority with regard to gender is practically non-existent in American society due to modern laws not granting authority to men. Thus, black men have no legal authority over black women.

2. Traditional Authority: The history of black men in this nation being deprived of so much authority has made male leadership in black America less the tradition than in other groups. Combined with the modern trend of women being less accepting of male authority and the added mulishness common to black women, you basically end up with black men having no traditional authority over black women.

3. Charismatic Authority: This is the only real authority left to black men, yet it is limited to the exceptional. It is not an authority bestowed upon those men of good character, sound judgement and solid work ethic, but rather bestowed upon the small minority of men who possess god gifted talent. Thus, you have a handful of black men whose leadership black women will routinely submit to while the overwhelming majority of black men have no leg to stand on with regard to asserting themselves as leaders. As stated before, a leader requires those willing to be led by him/her.

The problem with charismatic authority is that it is value-neutral and doesn't distinguish between moral and immoral charismatic authority. This is why so many black women are willing to submit to being led by skilled and talented pimps, players, drug dealers and criminals. Unlike traditional authority, charismatic authority tends less to relegate authority to men of sound character.

So basically, when women who often resist submitting to male leadership declare than men are supposed to lead, they are actually in essence reaching for a way to not be responsible for their own behavior. They lower themselves temporarily to the level of a child making men/black men responsible for every misstep made by women/black women. Most men would not mind this IF if was consistent and not a case of picking and choosing according to convenience when to be the damsel in distress and when to be the "independent woman". Either let us lead or handle your own business.

Below is a beautiful sista who understands this perfectly:

It is important to note that this dark skinned sista with African features and natural hair is HAPPILY MARRIED to a black man. It's not that brothas are so color-struck. It's that brothas want a positive attitude.

And here is another intelligent and beautiful sista:

Black Women Have The Highest Self-Esteem

2009-11-09T20:16:00.000-08:00

It is amazing how wrong the warped perceptions of the IR and Black Woman Empowerment Bloggers are. This is the price they pay for citing their alleged perceptions as facts. One of their errors is the routine claim that due to the (imagined) beating that they take from the black community, black women have low self-esteem and are discontent with their lives. The problem is that research from experts shows the exact opposite. Here are some excerpts:

There Are Differences In Self-esteem Between African-American Caucasian Women Living in the United States.

Self-esteem is an internal belief system about one's self (Wilson 1). Our basic self-esteem develops during childhood to the age of about 12 (Wilson 1). Some variables that can influence one's self-esteem include individual skills, interests, and talents, economic status, community and culture (Wilson 2). African-American women will say positive things about themselves that Caucasian women are not comfortable with saying about themselves (Dent 1).

Rushton found that African-American women have equal or higher self-esteem levels then Caucasians or Latinos (Rushton 9). Gray-Little found that not only African-American adult women have higher self-esteem than Caucasian women but the same is true in children and adolescents (Gray-Little 17). Abba supports the idea that African-American's hold higher self-esteem standings throughout life (Abbas 2). Differences in self-esteem between African-American women and Caucasian's are less during childhood years and grow to adulthood (Twenge 1). Support for this may be that a woman's sense of identity forms throughout her lifespan (Lafromboise 2). Contradicting information states that Caucasians develop self-concepts as a race earlier because the Caucasians having great sociopolitical power which causes less issues to work though during racial identity development (Hill 5).

Caucasian and African-American women hold significantly different views of beauty and perceptions of themselves (Molloy 1). Molloy finds that African-American women have higher self-esteem levels based on body image than Caucasians (Molloy 1). African-American females are less worried about weight, dieting, or being thin (Molloy 1). Sixty-four percent of African-American women said that they'd rather be "a little overweight" than "a little underweight" (Molloy 1). The differences in views may help one understand why eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia is predominantly seen in white women ( Molloy 1). Ossolotch supports this by stating that people with low self-esteem have a greater-risk of developing an eating disorder (Ossolotch 1). Eating disorders are a growing problem with African-American women (Edwards 1). Edwards says this is because of insensitive remarks being made by family members and friends as well as employers making them feel as though they need to lose weight to compete with the Caucasian woman (Edwards 1).

Depression is also found to be more dominant in Caucasian women than African-American women (Abbas 2). Dent supports this by saying that low self-esteem causes greater risks for eating disorders, suicide, and depression (Dent 1). In 2000 the suicide rate for a population of 100,000 was 1.8 for African-American females and 4.3 for Caucasian women (Eshleman 191).

Both Caucasians and African-American women base part of their self-esteem about their bodies on what they think the men of their race prefer (Molloy 1). African-American women tend to believe that African-American men prefer larger women, so they feel less pressure to lose weight then Caucasian women who believe Caucasian men prefer thin women (Molloy 1). Research done on males preferences tended to support these views (Molloy 1). Molloy says that African-American women who predominantly surround themselves with others of their race as apposed to members of the opposite race have higher self-esteem because they are "protected" from Caucasians distorted body image (Molloy 2).

Molloy suggests that gender role also plays a role in women's self-esteem based on their bodies (Molloy 1). African-American women are more likely to see themselves are masculine or androgynous whereas white women see themselves are more feminine (Molloy 1). Women who feel more feminine are more likely to give in to stereotypical views on appearances (Molloy 2).

Socioeconomic status have a more positive affect on Caucasian women as opposed to African-American women (Gray-Little 5). Wilson suggested that African-American women of lower socioeconomic status' were more comfortable with having a heavier body type than higher socioeconomic African-American women (Wilson 2). Contradicting research says that African-American tend to have higher self-esteem levels throughout socioeconomic status ( Abbas 2). Since African-American women are subjected to longstanding socioeconomic inequalities yet still show higher levels of self-esteem suggests that socioeconomic factors do not affect their self-esteem (Abbas 3).

Boisnier did a study on feminism and womanism among Caucasian and African-American women and found that African-American women identify with womanism because it calls for high levels self-esteem (Boisnier 2). Foster and Petty suggest that black organizations and social interaction help raise self-pride and help them identify with their race (Eshleman 190).

So basically, black women not only have higher self-esteem, but have it across all economic levels and black women who live in the black community have higher self-esteem than those who live outside of the black community. Maybe this is why very few are fleeing the "dreaded" black community the way that the IR bloggers want them to. Maybe this is why few are running to the arms of the "white savior". Maybe it is because black women in general, being some of the main architects of the black community, actually are content within the very black community that they helped build.

Wes Moore. The Next Barack Obama?

2009-11-03T13:21:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Wes Moore

AGE: 30
JOB: Investment banker/former army captain
WHY YOU CARE: Because
the only thing better than one black president is two

Now, it’s
funny. Almost everyone we know seems to know someone they thought was going to
be the first black president. The green-eyed congressman from Memphis, TN. The
well-connected mayor of Newark, NJ. The super-smart, liked-by-all black guy you
went to college with. The founder/publisher of this site. So it’s with healthy
appreciation for his stiff competition that we give you. . .Captain Westley
Moore.

If “Wes,” as he’s known to friends, does not become the second
black president, it’ll only be because he chose not to. His story is no less
inspiring than his credentials are impeccable. In brief: gets kicked out of
school and shipped off to military academy at 12, turns the beat around in under
a decade, graduates Phi Beta Kappa from Hopkins, snags a Rhodes Scholarship to
Oxford, does a tour of duty in Afghanistan, investment banks before winning a
White House Fellowship.

Yeah. We said tour of duty.

Last month,
Moore joined a a panel of veterans in testifying before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on the topic “Soldiers’ Stories From The Afghan War” (see
video below). We suspect accounts like his may have informed Gates’ decision to
remove General McKiernan yesterday — but that’s beside the point. As his Crains
40 Under 40 profile effuses: Moore served “10 months with the Army’s 82nd
Airborne Division in Afghanistan. There, he helped revise a program to win over
Taliban fighters, boosting its enrollment from 6 when he arrived to 500 by the
time he left, and earning a promotion to captain.”

Make that El Capitan.
An up-by-the-bootstraps background, a championship college football career, a
Rhodes Scholarship, a tour of duty, a People’s Hottest Bachelor nod, an Asia
Society fellowship, a White House fellowship — and, oh, did we mention the
Random House book deal? What else does a future president need? Oh, right. A
brilliant wife. Check. In summer 2007, Moore married the stunning Dawn Flythe, a
one-time senior adviser to Maryland’s lieutenant governor. From a distance, you
might mistake Mrs. Moore for a certain Mrs. Carter. From her resume, you might
mistake her for a certain Lady O.

The kicker?

The Moores
couldn’t be kinder. The day Wes won his Rhodes Scholarship, he discovered that
there was another Wes Moore living in Baltimore. This second Wes Moore, also a
black man in his 20s, was headed to prison on a life sentence as Wes Moore #1
headed to Oxford. (Second-black-president) Moore arranged to see his
doppelganger in prison, and has kept in touch with him ever since. Next spring,
Random House will publish Moore’s Elevate: American Journeys into Manhood, a
parallel account of the “two Wes Moores.”

If the first black president
heeds the counsel of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, and creates a Council for
men and boys, he’ll undoubtedly turn to Moore, no stranger to the White House
(and an Alpha himself). In the meantime, the Moores are laying plans to use
Elevate to catalyze a movement — answering BHO’s call to community service with
a nationwide campaign. Their idea is to do for youth and service what, say,
Diddy did with youth and voting in 2004.

Of course, those who doubt
Moore’s pure intentions (read: those who envy his stunning accomplishments) say
all this good-doing is merely stage-setting for a political campaign. But you
know how that goes. The Stimulist is not in the business of tearing down young
people trying to build their communities up. And Moore just effuses too much
positivity to inspire anything but good will.

So, to review. Army chops,
political chops, financial chops, a memoir, a wife as brilliant as she is
beautiful. We give you. . .Moore for 2024.

More information on this young man's life.

Divorce and Black Men's Mothers.

2009-10-26T09:07:00.000-07:00

With all of the discussion on divorce, I found the following article quite interesting:

Why Marriages Between Black Men and White Women Fail
March 09, 2007 by
Christy Harrell

You, Me and Big Mama?

If you are a white woman seeking a black man, make sure his mama is out of the picture first! Our culture does not prepare us for what lies ahead. I have fourteen years of experience to back up what I am about to share with you.

A white woman has no chance of ever playing an equal role to that of a black man's mama. This is a fact! Mama has an insurance policy built into her boy. He is 100% insured by Mama's Boy Indemnity Co.

You see, the black woman, she is real smart! She wants her boy around for life. She has invested eighteen years or more pampering this boy, building up his ego, and brain washing him to be at her beck and call. She will not have another woman getting in the way of this relationship. After all, at some point in her life, she will be all alone. When this time comes she has insured that her son will come to her rescue.

But beware ladies! That black man is real smart too, to a degree. He'll make you feel like you're the only woman in his life. He'll buy you flowers, treat you with diamonds. He can be so romantic, and the world knows his business in bed is, well you know. He'll keep you tantalized just long enough to have you wedded to him; all while keeping mama at bay. You see at this point he thinks he can have the crab cake and eat it too!

But ladies, let me assure you, the only good black man is the black man whose mama is non-existent, and you better have a private investigator verify this fact. There is no turning back once you have married this man. If his mama is in his life, she will move in on yours!

Her first visit will be a short visit. You won't notice anything at this point. Something stated negatively you'll just brush off as a cultural difference. Duh! The following year she visits for two weeks, the year after that, three, and before you know it, she will be living with you two months out of the year, every year.

When you finally get fed up with her coming into your home and running it, you will ask your hubby to say something. And when he refuses, you'll resort to back-up. After a few hours of marriage counseling and the counselor in your corner, your hubby will finally agree to have this discussion with his mama.

It isn't until several years later, after wading through excuse after excuse, you face the fact that your hubby never intended to confront his mother at all. You have finally come to the realization that your husband is, afterall, Mama's boy! He ain't gonna ask his Mama to do anything in your favor. You are out of your mind if you think he'll put anyone before his Mama!

Eventually you will become fed up of playing second fiddle to your mother-in-law and in the end Mama will win. She will always be first in her son's life. Unfortunately, your hubby will lose. You will walk away, and hubby will scratch his head.

The saddest point to this comical story is that your poor hubby, excuse me, ex-hubby, won't ever understand what happened. He was brainwashed to put his mama on a pedestal early in life, so spoiled by his mama into believing that he is perfect, that naturally he will assume there is something wrong with you for leaving him.

On the bright side, you will be the wiser and much happier for it. After all, you won't be catering to mama anymore!

After reading this, I thought of Jonnetta Patton, Gloria James and Donda West. Historically, black men have very close relationships with their mothers and very often, such mothers can be hell on their son's girlfriends and wives. Jennetta Patton (Usher's mother) is a good example.

Often times, black women are compared to Italian women in that both are very vocal and aggressive and in Italy, the divorce rate is soaring. What is considered the main reason? Mothers-in-law.

Mothers-in-Law Cause of Italy’s Soaring Divorce Rate

February 3, 2007

Italy has been experiencing an unprecedented rise in marriage break-ups. The main cause bearing a high proportion of the blame? Mamma’s boys and interfering mothers-in-law.

A new poll by research institute Eures reveals that divorce happens every four minutes(!) in the country once regarded as a bastion of marriage. In 2002, Italy recorded 50,828 divorces - a 45 percent increase from 2000. While some reasons for divorce seem to be marrying too young, squabbling over money and meeting new partners, a shocking three out of 10 marriages fail because of the unusually close attachment of Italian men to their mothers.

A real life “Everybody Loves Raymond”, mothers-in-law who live in the same house or nearby, are putting strains on couple’s relationship by meddling in their affairs, finding fault with her daughter-in-law and of course, treating her grown-up son as a child.

Psychologist Dr. Annamaria Cassanese says she sees many disillusioned daughters-in-law at her practice in Milan. “In Italy there still exists a sort of mother love that is excessive,” said Cassanes. “It is a very Latin thing, deeply embedded in our social structure. For example, you will see mothers crying at the weddings of their sons, but they are not crying for joy, they are crying because they feel devastated. Their son has chosen another woman and it arouses very complex feelings, including jealousy.”

Cassanese points out two different types of extreme Italian mothers-in-law. One refuses to give in to ageing and sees her daughter-in-law as a rival; the other has dedicated her life to her family and expects payback, well, for life. The latter type of mother-in-law starts creeping in by offering to do chores such as cooking, ironing and babysitting. “This can often be the beginning of an invasion, in which the mother-in-law slowly takes over and undermines the woman in her own home,” she says. “What starts out being portrayed as something that is helpful degenerates into outright intrusion such as going into drawers and pulling out shirts that are not ironed ‘her way’ or monopolizing the kitchen. Wives feel like strangers in their own homes because the mother-in-law is always there.”

The fact that many Italian parents help out their children financially by buying them apartments or cars doesn’t help either, adds Dr. Cassanese. The so-called generosity causes the mother-in-law to expect something in return. Cassanese claims that many couples still obey invitations to eat with their parents three or four times a week.

According to Dr. Cassanese, the concept of mammoni - sons who cling to apron strings - is well known in Italy and it is not uncommon for men in their 30’s and 40’s to live with their parents. The reasons are partly economic but also come about because boys are indulged well into adulthood causing Italian men who remain close to their mothers to become emotionally immature. “The husband is used to being adored and when he doesn’t get that unconditional love from his wife, he goes running back to his mother.”

This phenomenon is being seen in other parts of the world.

KUALA LUMPUR: Every married person knows it, but a local study has confirmed it – mothers-in-law are the chief cause of divorces, especially in the Indian community.
Data in the Malaysia Community and Family Study 2004 by the National Population and Family Development Board (LPPKN) revealed that “meddlesome in-laws” is the number one reason why Indian couples get divorced.

It is also among the top three factors for divorce among the Malays and Chinese. The other two factors are incompatibility (42.3%) and infidelity (12%).
“Interference by in-laws is the main reason for Indians to divorce. It is the top-ranked reason at 30%,” said LPPKN director-general Datuk Aminah Abdul Rahman when presenting a paper on Malaysia’s family profile and its effects at Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia yesterday.

Infidelity is the marriage breaker among the Malays and Indians but it is tolerated among the Chinese.

“Among Malays, the second most common reason is infidelity and refusal to put up with polygamy,” she said.

“Among the Indians, infidelity is the second highest ranked reason for divorce at 25%,” she said.

However, the Chinese considered infidelity as the least crucial reason for a divorce.
Cheating was at the bottom along with health and gambling addiction at 4.2%.
Surprisingly, abuse is not a reason for divorce among the Malays and Chinese, but is a reason among Indians at 5%.

“Another overall reason which ranked high among the three races at 11.5% is ‘not being responsible’,” she said.

Although it is common perception that the family institution is quite fragile and divorces are rampant, data shows otherwise - only 0.7% of the population was divorced in 2000.

The data shows that divorce is more likely to happen to those under 25 and above 40.
Meanwhile, Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil said that more Malaysian women were choosing to marry later in life and it could cause a reduction in fertility rate and an ageing society.
“The National Family Policy and its action plan will address this issue of late marriages,” she said.

The policy would be presented to the Cabinet soon.

Even back in the 40s, mothers-in-law seemed to be a possibly important factor in divorces.

So that brings to question whether black men's mothers contribute significantly to the high divorce rate in marriages involving black men. Black women are often quite aggressive in their desire to run the show and can be immensely possessive. Few women can give a daughter-in-law hell like a black woman. Let that daughter-in-law be white and the animosity increases considerably. The first article's writer sees her ex-husbands mother as the main reason for their divorce and views his mother's interference as something far less common or intense with white mothers. Food for thought.

RIP Black America

2009-10-25T16:48:00.000-07:00

The Plight of Missing Black Men and Boys

2009-10-11T18:44:00.000-07:00

Missing:
Delshawn and Rakaem Green

I understand that it is normal for most people, male or female, to have less concern about the well being of men as compared to women as well as to have less concern over the well being of boys compared to girls. Men traditionally have been viewed as the stronger sex and traditionally viewed as being in less need of aid, comfort, support, etc. As flawed as this is, it is something that I and most men accept even with today’s growing one sidedness regarding gender double standards (expecting a man to fulfill the manly role is fine but expecting a woman to fulfill a “woman’s role” is chauvinistic).

The problem is that in order to justify their victimism, the so called “black women empowerment bloggers” love to declare that society, the media, black community, etc. show less concern over the well being of black women than they do all other groups including black men. They truly express that there are those who jump to the aid and rescue of black men and boys while turning a blind eye to black women and girls in distress. Where they got this from is a mystery, but when you really dig for the truth, you find something quite the opposite from their assertions. For example:

Missing black men get even less media than black women
By: Diasia
Ellerbee, NNPA Special Correspondent

Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009
12:37 pm

"Why don't you talk about me? Don't you care where I might be?
Am I the wrong color to have my story on TV?"

"Why don't I get air time?
Is it the fact that I don't have naturally
straight hair? Is it that America
isn't interested? Is it that America just doesn't care?"

"So ABC, NBC,
CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News Why don't you talk about me?! Don't you care where I
might be?! Am I the wrong color to have my story on TV?!"

Each one above
is from the poem "Black Woman Missing" by George L. Cook III. The poem
represents the lack of national media focus on missing Black women
- but, Black males get even less.

According to Connie
Marstiller of the National Crime Information Center, there were 614,925 people
missing in 2008 under the age of 18. About 16 percent, were Black men.

During that same year there were 163,239 people missing over the age of
18, according to Marstiller. Approximately 14 percent, represent missing Black
males over the age 18.

African-American men and boys such as William Van
Croft IV, 17, Wallace Richards, 23, Dennis Palmer, 44, and Adji Desir, 6, are
currently missing and have not yet received the national media attention as
other missing people such as Laci Peterson, Elizabeth Smart, or Haleigh
Cummings; white women usually get more attention than men of all races when they
are missing.

Blackandmissing.blogspot.com is an online blog site that is
dedicated to informing the public about missing Black children both male and
female that may or may not have been heard about in the media.

According
to blackandmiss-ing.blogspot.com, Adji Desir is an
African-American boy who
has been missing since January 10 from Immokalee, Fla. Desir is developmentally
disabled with the mental capacity of a two-year-old.

If you put both
these names in Yahoo's search engine, Adji Desir name will produce 478,000
results. Haleigh Cummings name will produce 4,440,000 results, which is 10
percent more.

Both children went missing around the same time and in the
same state. Although conditions of their disappearances are different, does race
or gender play a factor in the national media attention that they receive?

Clearly, yes, says Derrica Wilson, president and CEO of Black &
Missing Foundation, Inc., an online website that provides exposure and
educational training for the missing persons loved ones.

Wilson believes
that when it comes to African-American boys, people are more likely to associate
their disappearance as being a runaway. Wilson mentions that the Black
men on her website never receive national attention and are never seen on
television.

"Therefore there is no amber alert and without an
amber alert there is no media coverage locally or nationally," said Wilson. "Now when it comes to Black men, there are more missing Black men in the
United States than missing Black women, according to the FBI missing person's
report. The reason I believe that Black men do not receive media
exposure is because society, media, and law enforcement like to relate their
disappearance to drugs, crime, or violence."

Missing children's
activist and founder of the online blog "omega7.com," Alonzo Washing_ton agree
that African-American men and boys get the least amount of media attention among
missing people.

In terms of Black males, the only Black males
that would receive coverage would be someone of high stature, according to
Washington. "If you're grown, a man, and Black, then you can forget
about it," Washington said. "Young Black boys may get a little teaser, but never
an ongoing investigation like Caylee Anthony, Elizabeth Smart or Samantha
Runnion."

"The mindset of the media is that if it bleeds it
leads," said Detective Richard Adams of the Youth Investigation Division Missing
Person Unit in the District of Columbia. "Media wants something sensational,"
Adams said. "They have to have something fantastic and that's going to catch the
viewer's eye. It's all about numbers and ratings to them."

William Van
Croft IV has been missing from the District since January 31, 2009. He has
Asperger's Syndrome and went missing a year after the death of his father.

According to Jason Cherkis who writes an online blog for the Washington
City Paper, the police department waited until February 11, 2009 to issue a
press release.

In his blog, he cited a comment by Cherita Whiting that
speculated an indifference in Van Croft's case. Whiting is a activist for
education in the D.C. metropolitan area.

"Billy's mother filed a missing
person report with DC Youth Investigations on Jan 31", Whiting said. "It sat on
a desk somewhere and they just started investigating this case on 2/10. I have
sent multiple messages to the At-Large Council members and every Police officer
that I can find who is associated with
Ward 1 Precinct 107. It would make
sense that a missing person, especially a special needs teenager could get the
attention of the police and public officials to at least have the police issue a
press release that the child is missing. This has not been done. When the press
release occurs, the media responds and starts spreading the word that Billy is
missing."

Washington also believes that when it comes to
African-American children especially males, the police will say that they ran
away.

"When it comes to the area you live in, your color, and gender,
the more unlikely the police will be in finding you and the less the media will
cover you," Washington said. "Even when Jennifer's Hudson nephew was missing,
her story took the backseat to the Caylee Anthony story. They covered it for a
minute, and now it's like it didn't happen."

According to Detective
Adams, every police department has their own way of handling a missing person's
case.

Tim Ryan is an assistant news director for KUSA, a local NBC
station in Denver, CO.

Ryan said that in almost every case, it's about
if law enforcement decided how important the case is. He believes that the media
needs some sort of belief or standard for the stories that they report on.

"Local news people like myself are not the ones who determines what
makes local news," Ryan said. "There are certain reasons why stories get played
or not. I can't tell you if race does play a role. There are cases that we
covered of all races that hasn't received national media coverage. Things that
make
national news is whimsical. I think it is important to state that local
media does not make those choices."

Martin G. Reynolds is the editor of
the Oakland Tribune in California. Reynolds said that they don't necessarily
have a reporter dedicated to missing children and that it would have to come
across the radar for us to report about it.

When told about the numbers
of missing African-American males, Reynolds said:

"They get less
positive attention...There is plenty negative attention. We were not
aware that there was such a large number particularly in African-American
children. It was something I wasn't aware of, but something I will look into."

Reporter Kathy Chaney for the Chicago Defender believes that
Black males do get far less national media coverage which leads to
families looking for other media outlets such as the Jerry Springer, Maury
Povich, or Steve Wilkos show.

Chaney admits that when the Chicago
Defender was daily they had a problem reporting missing children because they
would be found the next day and the newspaper would have already printed the
story.

"I think they get far less coverage," said Chaney. "I think it's
because they are boys. It's just not reported of teenage boys running away. I
don't think that anyone expects them of running away or missing. You think of
foul play immediately."

Adji Desir and William Van Croft IV are still
missing and they need their stories heard.

"There is a defect in
journalism when a certain prototype is given more media coverage," Washing_ton
said. "There is clearly a standard in television. There are so many
ramifications we have to fight for. There are some disparities when it comes to
equality in the value of our lives."

"But Will It Last?". About interracial marriages and divorce.

2009-10-06T20:33:00.001-07:00

There have been comments made by several black woman IR bloggers proclaiming the notion that IR relationships between black women and white men do much better than those between black men and white women. The first piece of "evidence" that they cite for this comes from this study and this specific part:

"Compared to White/White couples, White female/Black male, and White female/Asian male marriages were more prone to divorce; meanwhile, those involving non-White females and White males and Hispanics and non-Hispanic persons had similar or lower risks of divorce."

Now somehow, the term "non-white females" in this statement ended up meaning "black females". The fact that Asian and Hispanic women are also considered to be "non-White" never entered these women's minds. The fact that there are three times as many white male/Asian female couples than white male/black female couples should indicate to any logical person than this part of study mostly give indication of the stability between white men and Asian women.

The next piece of evidence they give is a ranking of interracial marriages that mysteriously formed out of the ether. It proclaims black woman/white man marriages as the second most stable interracial marriages with black men/white women marriages not even making the list. One their numbers posted a video on Youtube promoting this. Of course, it is like pulling teeth to get them to reference this information or provide a link to it. Sarah made an attempt to reference it by claiming that this was how Cosmopolitan Magazine ranked them in a mysterious issue ten years ago. Of course, nothing more specific was given as far as the date of the issue, volume, issue number, etc. I can't find it it through a Google search. We must all just take Sarah's word that it exists and says specifically what she claims that it says. We all know that Sara is filled with loads of honesty. NOT!

But during my searches, I did find something. There is a book called Exploring Black Sexuality by Robert Staples. Some pages of this book can be found on Google Books and part of it caught my attention. This part says:

“Interracial couples have a much higher divorce rate, especially Black women/white men, than coupes of the same race.”

The book references the statement to the "

United States

Bureau of the Census, Interracial Couples: 1960 to the Present. Washington, D.C.:U.S.Government Printing Office, 1999".

Now I don't know what is specifically written in this U.S. Census Beureau report, but I find it hard to believe that Staples would give a false statement in one of his several books and then falsely reference the false statement. So this is a good lesson in not taking anything the Black Women Empowerment Bloggers say at face value. Do your own research.

ADDENDUM: Truth B. Told referred me to a study that, while showing black men/white women marriages to be the least stable interracial marriages, the study also shows black women/white men marriages to be the next least stable interracial marriages. Thus, one thing that seems to be clear is that black women/white men marriages are NOT the second most stable interracial marriages and are at best the second most UNSTABLE interracial marriages.

The Lesser Value of Black Boys

2009-09-25T13:46:00.000-07:00

As we know, there is a common theme among the so called “Black Women Empowerment Bloggers” and black female interracial bloggers; that theme being the alleged lack of care by the black community for black women and black girls. While this theme is repeated constantly by them, it is quite noticeable how this claim is practically never substantiated. It is something that they simply perceive or pretend to perceive.

What is also interesting is that they are the only ones with this perception. Not only do black men generally not perceive this alleged lack of care for black women, but most of the members of other races and ethnicities as well as black women not involved in their ‘movement’ don’t share this perception. The writer of the article below is an example of this. Note the part in bold:

______________________________________________

A Real Duke Rape Case

Written by Selwyn Duke

Tuesday, 30 June 2009 15:15

We all remember the infamous Duke University rape frame-up case, in which three white lacrosse players were falsely accused of raping a black female stripper. It was front-page news coast to coast, as it had all the elements of a mainstream-media cause célèbre: the perfect victim and the perfect villains, a “downtrodden” black woman of modest means and three “privileged” white college boys. Thus did the hard-left alliance of media, academia, and a Democrat prosecutor try its best to lynch the three, and if the stripper’s story hadn’t changed with the wind, the students could very well be sitting in prison currently.

But now we have a real Duke rape case, and one that largely conforms to the above narrative. Frank Lombard, Duke’s associate director of the Center for Health Policy, faces federal criminal charges for offering his adopted five-year-old son for sex. Where are the parallels? Lombard is white and well-to-do while his victim, the son, is black (Lombard also has a second adopted son, who is black as well).

Yet there are also differences. One is that, unlike the tenuous lacrosse-player case, authorities have Lombard dead to rights. Writes the blog Self Evident Truths:

The arrest warrant states that a person, later identified as Lombard, used video chat on the internet to perfom [sic] sex acts on a child under the age of ten.... The complaint says Lombard's chat room ID lists him as "perv dad for fun.

"The warrant states that an astute police detective contacted Lombard through Yahoo! Instant Messenger. Lombard admitted performing sexual acts on his adopted five year old son. He wrote that he would drug the boy with Benadryl before molesting him. He admitted that he waited to molest the boy until his partner was out of town.

The warrant continues describing the next day, when Lombard offered his five year old to the detective to perform sex acts on him. The detective said he lived out of state, making the solicitation a federal offense.

There are also other differences between the cases. One is that there is no reason to expect the media to do anything but bury this story posthaste. Why? Because, despite the aforementioned parallels, it doesn’t completely accord with today’s favored victimizer/victim narrative, as Lombard is a homosexual, making the victim a child who was adopted by a homosexual. Thus, while Lombard’s sexual inclination alone is enough to make the mainstream media treat this case with the “utmost discretion,” there is an additional factor: disseminate the facts of the crime enough, and people just may get the crazy notion that it’s lunacy to let homosexuals adopt children, especially little boys. So you’ve just got to watch the information you put in the yahoos’ heads.

Not surprisingly, this double standard is already apparent in the reportage. In the Duke lacrosse case, not only was the story front page, but an accuser of the easiest virtue was painted in the best light. For example, the stripper was often called an “exotic dancer,” which is much like calling a prostitute an exotic blind date. In contrast, now the mainstream media seem most reluctant to reveal Lombard’s homosexuality or the adopted victim’s race.

So, as far as how this story will most likely unfold, there are four things I cannot envision happening. First, I don’t foresee Duke’s administration and faculty coming out as a lynch mob and convicting Lombard in the court of public opinion.

Second, don’t expect Jesse Jackson et al. to venture to Durham County and play the race card like a Vegas high roller, even though this case lends itself perfectly to it. A white man who adopts a black boy to keep as a sex slave, anyone?

Next, at risk of being redundant, don’t hold your breath waiting for the mainstream stream media to get on board; like the National Organization for Women, with its deafening silence regarding the savaging of Sarah Palin and women’s plight in Moslem nations, they care not about little victims but leftist agendas.

Lastly, the News & Observer tells us that Lombard is “a licensed clinical social worker with a master's degree in social work, [and] is a health-disparities researcher who studies HIV/AIDS in the rural South” (read: professional victimologist). So, not that any more evidence of his ideological persuasion was necessary, but it’s obvious that the man is thoroughly liberal in his professional life — and libertine in his personal life. Yet don’t expect the purveyors of pablum to be point this out, either.

Speaking of the race card, the hierarchy of victim groups is much like a deck of cards: black is a good hand, but it’s trumped by female. And, it appears, homosexual trumps everything.

_____________________________________________

So as we can see, an adult black woman of highly questionable scruples can get enormous media attention by a simple allegation (later to be proven untrue) and while the proven sexual molestation of innocent black male children in the same area is practically ignored by the media and black activists. It seems that the notion that everyone comes to the defense of black men and boys as opposed to black women and girls is more perception than fact when you actually look at the evidence.

Men/Black Men as Mules????????????

2009-08-28T19:06:00.000-07:00

The simple love of a husband coming home, seeing you tired, and offering to go get Chinese food. Or looking over, and seeing your blond husband happily doing your baby's hair-and watching her smile up at her daddy. Or the car breaking down, and being able to pick up the damn phone and say: "Honey, come get us, the car broke down!' So many sistas have no idea how good life can be when you have a good man to share it with. Not a parasite, who's sponging off of you, and sucking the life out of you, and depending on you to do everything for him. But a real man to lighten the load. Someone who can give you the freedom to be a WOMAN- because he has taken the responsibility of being a MAN!!
This is a quote from Sarah in her latest blog. I find it quite interesting because of how telling her statement is. Observe that what constitutes a man's love is servitude. Nowhere does she discuss the pleasure of a man holding her hand, looking into her eyes, placing a rose in her hair, sharing intimate thoughts with her, expressing his feeling to her, etc. etc. It's all about "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY!"

Understand that back in the 1950s when marriage was commonplace with black men as well as all men, there was far less priority with men lightening a woman's load. What was prioritized was men taking on "manly responsibilities" while leaving "womanly responsibilities" to the women. Men back then did not hardly comb their daughter's hair, cook dinner, clean house, etc. Of course, practically all men today and in the past would go pick up their women if their cars break down. Sarah either takes some imaginary story or the example of the lowest of the lowest ghetto thug (the kind that so many black women adore), and applies it to all or most black men.

Those men who married quite often in the 50s were far less likely to kiss their women's butts than men today, yet married quite more often. They proudly took on the responsibility of heavy lifting, bringing home the bacon, caring for the lawn and physical structure of the house, yet adamantly left the job of childcare, dusting, cooking, cleaning, washing, etc. to the women. So why do today's black women define love by a man's servitude? The answer comes down to one word. LAZINESS.

There is basically an epidemic of laziness among today's African American women. This laziness often manifests as the epidemic of obesity that permeates among black women. Sure, they will argue the point of how black women are "shouldering the load of the black community" but what this really translates to is that a whole lot of black women actively and absent mindedly participate in creating situations where they are single parents. Beyond having to adjust raising children alone (something that all women of all races would equally adjust to), many black women are physically lazy. Of course their are plenty of black women who are filled with energy, but an overrepresenting number of black women live sedentary lifestyles.

Such women place great priority on viewing men as mules and workhorses, yet generally don't respect men who given in and allow themselves to be such mules and workhorses. This is where the clash comes in. Black men tend to have big egos and the average black man would prefer to resist a woman's demands than to give in and lose her respect. Black women are drawn to such men, yet a few are drawn to the men who would give in for they seem to find more comfort in a man who gives in and loses their respect than a man who stands his ground. These are the women who seek white men. This is Sarah and her crew. That is the black woman on Wife Swap whose white husband served her hand and foot.

Marriage is at such a low point today because a man's happiness in marriage is far lower priority now than ever before and this is exaggerated in the black community. Sistas today have become so self centered that black men see little positivity in marriage. It's as if marriage is a male obligation and that there is no need to win a black man's heart. With women, it is often a case of marriage filling a void and whether the marriage will be a quality one or not takes a back seat to this void being filled. Men on the other hand don't have a void that needs to be filled by marriage. They must be motivated to marry mostly by the prospect of marriage bringing greater happiness to their lives. It is false to say that these men are not marriage oriented. They simply are not oriented to marriage to women who want to marry, yet really don't value marriage. No man wants to marry women who play the game of tesing their men daily and not respecting their men when they relent to the daily demands involved with such daily testing.

Our grandfathers married women who were socialized to please their husbands and studies have shown that our grandmothers were happier than the women of today. Black women have drank the feminist cool-aid by the gallons and in the process, have contributed to the destruction of the black family. What a black man are looking for today is someone who can give you the freedom to be a MAN- because she has taken the responsibility of being a WOMAN!!

What her statement also makes me think of is how my father used to comb my sisters hair. It's shameful that his efforts throughout our childhood is not valued by her because my father's hair is black and nappy. These women are sick.

When Will The Violence End?

2009-08-09T16:36:00.000-07:00

And unfortunately more,

more and more.

.

"Are Black Women Teaching Their Daughters to Be Mean?"

2009-08-02T16:41:00.000-07:00

I found this interesting post on another blog from about 9 months back and I found it very interesting. Quite often, certain black women will often try to justify the common aggressive attitudes exhibited by many black woman (definitely not all) by saying that such attitudes result from all of the drama they have to go through with black men and the black community in general. The flaw in this is that such attitudes are prevalent at a significantly young age; such an age whereas there have not been enough time for any significant experiences. Thus evidence suggests that these girls don't just develop such attitudes through experiences, but are taught such attitudes. Here is the blog article:

My 4 year old son is attending school for the first time. His school is very diverse and apparently four year olds are very touchy feely little people. They just like to hug. Well, my baby is quite popular with the girls.

We recently went to the Pumpkin Patch and one particular little girl was all over my baby. They were holding hands and hugging. She followed him everywhere he went. On the hay ride there was another little girl that was really upset and very vocal about it. He had not played with her. My son is African American while his chosen playmate of the day was white and the little girl with the attitude was Asian.

Later in the day, I asked my son about the African American girls in his class. I asked him if he played with them. His response has started an ongoing discussion in my family, so I wanted someone else’s opinion. (And I know I will get plenty here!) My smart and intelligent four years old said, “The brown girls are mean. They don’t speak and only want to play with me when I am playing with the other girls.” My husband says that he is right.

What do you think?

What's further interesting are some of the comments:

Comment by Verona Wiltse on October 27, 2008 at 9:42am Yes Kym, I have a 15 year old grandson, he's very tall and handsome. The school that he attend all his life is predominantly white with mixers of Blacks, Asian, Spanish, arabs etc. I have always noticed that the girls that calls or I see him with are White and Spanish. When I asked him about the Black girls in his school, he said and I quote. "Grandma, they are mad scary". When I asked what do you mean by that. He said they are loud in the hallway and always fighting. I try not to look at them, they may want to fight me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment by KimSyne on November 5, 2008 at 4:19pm I have a 13 year old daughter who has been talked about and mistreated by black girls. The problem is that they don't like or appreciate "different". My daughter has worn dred locks for the last 5 years. These kids said that she was trying to act African. When she talked what they considered "proper", they called her an oreo. They couldn't make up their mind what she was they just knew that she was different
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment by Germaine on November 5, 2008 at 5:03pm Yes I know what you mean, I live in an apartment complex where the black girls here walk around in groups. My daughter being new to the city and area trying to make friends was called fake. She is the only one here I see would embrace a white girl and play with her and then as soon as they see this either they try to come play also or just be plain nasty to them throwing rocks and dirt. It has also gone to the point where if there is new black girls and if they see them playing with my daughter they would do anything to interfere with them playing together I get annoyed and when I talk to the parents of the children either they sound uninterested or just smile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment by alwysaldy on February 23, 2009 at 7:23pm Your 4 year old has a point.
So does the other posters. Children learn by example and by influences at home. I agree children will mirror what they see. I start up conversations in the store in the bank in our neighborhood with "anyone". My daughter sees it and she does the same. My daughter was raised in a very diverse community. Her school was majority white with asian, samoa, hispanic, mid eastern etc. she was the only AA in her classes from pre-school to 2nd grade. From Colorado, to Florida, to California.

My baby is dark complexion. In the whole time she was in school not one child teased her about me or her being different complexions. They asked her if I was her mom and after seeing us together saw she was my twin.

We moved back to CA and she's in a majority AA school, with some hispanics. She is teased, by the AA girls about being a different complexion than her mom. About her hair, when I braid it with conditioner and take it down in the morning for her to wear it crinkled to school. She always got compliments before about her hair. She has been teased about being "real black" with "nappy" hair. I have never asked her if the boys say it. She has always said it is the girls
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment by Joan Wright Lewis on July 20, 2009 at 11:00pm
My daughters attend schools that have mostly white students. They tell me the girls that gets into fights and are mean to them are black girls. My oldest said her school was peaceful with just a handful of blacks. Then the following years more blacks came into the school. Now the school hired security guards in the school. She said black girls pick fights with her, and other girls. She now see fights with girls pulling each other weaves out of their heads. They speak very loud and they meet after school to fight someone. For goodness sakes, they are in high school, she said. When are they going to grow up

So the big question is how does this impact the way that boys view them and how these boys will view them when they become men. Note that one of the final disputes Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover had to endure before his suicide was a dispute with a black girl who had threatened him.

Many black men would probably agree that as children, the most intimidating individuals were the black girls. Black girls can be extremely hard on and degrading to young boys. These boys are often quite intimidated by these girls who generally have physically matured earlier and are often bigger. The problem is that once the boys reach puberty and develop testosterone fueled aggressiveness, this intimidation turns into aggressiveness. Thus, you have the often aggressive demeanor many black men have for members of the opposite sex. It is the bi-product of the aggressiveness shown toward them by girls in their youth. Look at the two videos below:

Video 1

Video 2

Comparisons: Biracial Children and Intelligence.

2009-07-10T17:46:00.000-07:00

While many unfounded notions are commonly expressed by the various black female IR bloggers, one that has been on my mind recently is the notion that interracial relationships between black women and white men are superior to relationships between black men and white women. One way that they tried to promote this was by citing a study indicating that marriages between white men and NON-WHITE women tended to last longer than marriages between black men and non-black women. Somehow, the term "non-white" became synonymous with "black" in there minds, totally disregarding the fact that 3/4 of white men in interracial marriages are with Asian women. Thus, wouldn't this study be more of an indication of how well white men and Asian women do?

Now lets look at some comparisons of interracial couplings that are actually supported by the research. While surfing the web I stumbled across this particular study that did a comparison between black female/white male relationships and black male/white female relationships. The comparison was that of the IQs of the offspring of such unions. The findings are interesting:

Mixed-Race Children Born to Either a Black or a White Mother
If the Black–White IQ gap is largely hereditary, then children having one
Black and one White parent should have the same IQ on average, regardless of
which parent is Black. But if one assumes that mothers are particularly important
to the intellectual socialization of their children and if the socialization practices
of Whites are more favorable to IQ development than those of Black mothers,
then children of White mothers and Black fathers should have higher IQs than
children of Black mothers and White fathers. This could of course not have a
plausible genetic explanation. In fact, it emerges that children of White mothers
and Black fathers have IQs 9 points higher than children with Black mothers and
White fathers (Willerman, Naylor, & Myrianthopoulos, 1974). This result in itself
suggests that most of the Black–White IQ gap is environmental in origin. But
because mothers are not the only environmental influence on the child’s IQ, the
9-point difference might be regarded as a very conservative estimate of the
environmental contribution to the gap.
What do Rushton and Jensen (2005) have to say about this study? Because the
White mother–Black father pairs averaged 1 year more of education than the
Black mother–White father pairs, they conclude the study is uninterpretable! Of
course, there can be no basis for assuming that 1-year’s difference in education on
the part of the parents could possibly translate into an expected 9 IQ point
difference for the children.
306 NISBETT

Here is some further information on this subject:

Lee Willerman and his colleagues compared children with a black mother and a white father to children with a white mother and a black father. The cleanest comparison is for mixed-race children who lived only with their mother. Mixed-race children who lived with a white mother scored 11 points higher than mixed-race children who lived with a black mother. Since the black-white IQ gap averaged about 15 points at the time these two studies were done, they imply that about four-fifths of that gap was traceable to family-related factors (including schools and neighborhoods)

So basically what is being said here is that whites of both genders tend to have more favorable practices for the intellectual socialization of their children and since mothers of both races tend to play the most significant role in the intellectual socialization of their children, the children of black men and white women tend to have quite noticeably higher IQs than children of white men and black women. When men are totally eliminated from the equation, what we have is a further gap with half black children of single white women possessing an average 11 points higher score than half black children of single black women.

Of course the most notable possible example of this tendency is the fact that the first black President of the United States was raised by a white woman.

And to be fair, white men probably similarly have more favorable practices for the intellectual socialization of their children. Yet, since this intellectual socializer role is taken on to a far less extent by men, the favorable practices of white men are far less utilized for that purpose. Men place far more imphasis on serving as disciplinarians, coaches, authoritarians, playmates, role models, etc.

Also of note is that the "White mother–Black father pairs averaged 1 year more of education than the Black mother–White father pairs". This is supported by the study I cited in an earlier post showing that the black men who black women marry tend to have more education than the white men that black women marry. Since the more education a black man has, the more likely he is to marry white and other non-black women, black men who marry white women are probably on average more educated than black men who marry black women.

So before these ladies try to make their preferred interracial pairings out to be superior to those involving black men, they should really do their homework.

Addressing The "Black Men Abandon Their Children" myth.

2009-06-23T18:07:00.000-07:00

Needless to say, black men are commonly stereotyped as having a strong propensity to abandon their children. The term "abandon" seems to be a preferred term especially by the black female interracial bloggers as well as the so called "black female empowerment" bloggers. The problem is that evidence disputes this stereotype and shows that the source of the stereotype is more so a case of the failure of black men and black women to form stable relationships. In response to President Obama's criticism of black men's alleged absence from their chidlren's lives, this article cites one study disputing the stereotype:

"A month before Obama made this stereotypical and plainly false assertion, Boston University professor Rebekah Levine Coley, in a comprehensive study on the black family, found that black fathers who aren’t in the home are much more likely to sustain regular contact with their children than absentee white fathers, or for that matter, fathers of any other ethnic group. The study is not an obscure study buried in the thick pages of a musty academic journal. It was widely cited in a feature article on Black fathers in the May 19, 2008 issue of Newsweek. There was no excuse then to spout this myth. The facts are totally contrary to Obama’s knock."

Of course, those bloggers insistent on degrading black men will, and and have scoffed at this study citing only their own observations as well as the infamous 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate for African Americans. Basically, to them, every single black child born out-of-wedlock has been abandoned by his or her father. Of course, this would mean that no black couples marry after they have children. This would mean that no unmarried black couples with children cohabitate. This would mean that no black men unmarried to their children's mothers are active fathers.

These bloggers will insist that this statistic as well as their alleged observations of so many little black children who do not know their fathers is proof that black men run away from their responsibilities as fathers. But the reality is that it is not the children that black men run from, it is the mothers of these children that they run from and their absence from their children's lives is a bi-product of not being in the mother's lives and this bi-product is just as prevalent in the lives of non-black men under the same circumstances. Lets look at some research:

"Only a small percentage of nonresident fathers continue to see their child(ren) after a five-year period following divorce (Blankenhorn, 1995; Stewart). This decreased involvement in their child(ren)'s lives by divorced fathers may be the result of constraints experienced by fathers following divorce. Cohen (1998) found that nonresident fathers' involvement in their child(ren)'s lives is subject to an array of constraints, resulting in decreased participation. He reported that "the role of fathering must be squeezed into short meetings under strained and artificial circumstances" (p. 200). If a father chooses to avoid these situations by not seeing his child(ren), the father likely forfeits leisure time with the child(ren)"

As we see, this research keys on men in general and concludes that of all men in general, a small percentage continue to see their children five years after divorce. Clearly, this is not a black male phenomenon. Lets look at more:

"Their findings support differences in fathering activities when controlling for
income, age, education and socioeconomic conditions of wives or co-habitators.
They found that African American fathers are ‘far more likely to monitor and supervise their children’s activities’ (p. 92) and suggest that these men are more strict, cautionary, and authoritarian than European American parents."

And more excerpts from the same website:

"Housaain et al. (1997) found that African American fathers spent more time providing physical care, feeding, and soothing of their infants than European American fathers."

"Comparison of adjusted income means indicate that African-
American fathers reporting more frequently participating in caregiving activities than Latino and European American fathers. In addition, African American
fathers also reported participating in more cognitive activities with their child
than European American and Latino fathers reported. African American and
Latino fathers reported signifi cantly more social skills activities with the focus
child than did European American fathers."

"Race or ethnic differences in reported fathering activities were examined.
As stated earlier, a number of studies have focused on absent fathers in minority
communities and have supported the idea that minority, particularly African
American fathers are not as involved with their children as European American
fathers (Carter, 2001; Hamer, 1997; Lindholm, 1997; Mincy, 2002). The current
study found differences in reported caregiving activities across race and
ethnicity. Toth and Xu (1999) found that African Americans fathers were more likely to supervise and monitor their children’s activities. The findings of this study supports this in that African American fathers reported participating in significantly more hands-on caregiving activities than either Latino or European American fathers. This finding is important because prior studies failed to examine some of the caregiving activities that were included in the measure used in the current study. As a result, African American fathers may be involved in different ways than had been previously reported in that they may participate in more traditional maternal activities. This present study supports the findings of Toth and Xu (1999) that the ‘stereotype of irresponsible and nonsupportive African American fathers is inaccurate and should be rejected’ (p. 92)"

"Both African American and Latino fathers reported higher levels of
participating in social activities than European American fathers. Social activities
are an important concept in early infant development (Parke et al., 2002). This
supports the idea that African American and Latino fathers may participate more in socializing their children especially in such activities as taking their child to
visit extended family and friends. Toth and Xu (1999) found that Latino fathers
reported participating in more activities such as spending time in leisure activities
such as picnics, movies, sports, etc. They report that in contrast to European
American families, African American and Latino fathers ‘tend to reinforce the
norms of family closeness … and monitor and supervise their children more’
(p. 92)."

"It should be noted that there may be an issue with sampling bias within the
sample of African American fathers. Although mothers indicated a father’s
presence in the child’s life, there was some diffi culty in interviewing African
American fathers. One reason for this might be that a higher percentage of these
men were not married or residing with the mother of the child. Researchers
in the current study found it easier to contact and interview fathers who were
residential fathers. As a result, given the higher percentage of African American
fathers not residing with the child, our African American fathers might be slightly
different than the European American and Latino fathers."

"Despite these limitations it is clear that minority fathers are involved with their
children although not always in recognized ways."

So basically, when fathers of similar income who don't reside with their children are compared, African American fathers are more involved with their children. Surprising? I'm sure that this will surprise many based on the media and sell-out driven stereotyping of black men. Many black women will not give credence to these studies because they don't want to accept that their failures to win the hearts of men have a direct impact on their children. Black children reside in single parent households at just under three times the rate of white children and it is this fact, not some imaginary desire of black men to abandon their children, that drives the absent father phenomenon in the black community.

"What Single Women Can Learn From Michelle"

2009-06-17T18:11:00.000-07:00

From The Root:

By: Jenée Desmond-Harris

Would most Type A, professional women have dated Barack when he was a broke, big-eared organizer with a funny name?
America has fallen for the Obamas. The history, the high glamour, the PDAs on the White House lawn. It’s a universal picture of love. But for many successful black women, with college degrees, ambitious careers and five-year plans, that enchantment has become something of an obsession.

Those of us hoping to find suitable mates in a dating landscape that is, statistically speaking, pretty grave, are absolutely giddy about the very existence of the first family and especially about the possibility that we could find our own Barack.

We’d give up three hair appointments in a row, our designer puppies and that annual tropical vacation with our best grad-school friends to meet a man like him. Brilliant. Confident. Best smile ever. So into his wife. On the cover of April’s issue of Washingtonian magazine, he appears shirtless to illustrate the publication’s No. 2 reason to love D.C. (“Our new neighbor is hot!”) But if we’d first encountered him the way Michelle did, as a regular guy, under the glow of office lights instead of the spotlight, would he have made our lists at all?

In footage that plays when the networks mention how our cool, young, black president shot hoops with his staff and friends on Election Day, Obama is close to gawky in a simple gray T-shirt tucked in just a bit too tightly. Between plays, you notice tapered pants pulled up a little too high. A slightly skinny build. In those few frames, he’s not the hottest guy on the court, let alone in the country. When he appeared as a presidential candidate on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, my initial swoon as he stepped on stage was short-lived. He playfully hip-bumped the host in an overly bouncy dance routine that embarrassed me into looking away. Suddenly, I was watching my boss get down at the company Christmas party or a friend’s dad grooving to Earth, Wind and Fire at her wedding. Not bad. Endearing, even. But “swagga” did not spring to mind. Sure, Obama is a dad and a boss to many . . . but I get the impression he’s been dancing like that his whole life.

I’ve played matchmaker, unsuccessfully, for scores of black professional women. And I’m convinced that Michelle’s got something on many of us. Not her intelligence or her confidence or sense of style, her glowing skin or the carved silhouette of her arms. I could fill a room with friends who have all these qualities to spare. I’m talking about the choices I imagine she made in those crucial moments between meeting Barack and deciding who he would be to her. She must have focused on an abundance of goodness instead of his hint of goofiness and fixated on a warm smile instead of a pair of oversized ears. It’s easy to see now that he was a great catch, but how many of us would have been open to this guy who strayed so far from the black Prince Charming ideal, starting with his very name?
My single friends and I mingle at events dubbed Pandora and Equilibrium, or with long acronyms about political engagement or the black community, where open bars and soul food buffets are the draw but really not the purpose. I will often identify a black man who “someone should be dating” and talk him up to a female friend, colleague or neighbor, offering descriptors like: Funny. Laid-back. Attractive. And more honest ones like: Ambitious. Shy. Soft but not fat.

Just as I picked at the less-than-cool undercurrents of that presidential pickup game and talk-show dance party, my female friends home in on the negative as they snub my suggestions.

His toes were ashy.

He seems like he’d be a really cool friend, but I don’t know, those lips. . .

He was wearing a bubble coat, and seriously, it was not that cold.

We had a good conversation, but I like a man to be more aggressive.

That was our second and last date. He used the word “authentic” like 14 times.

How many times do I have to tell you I’m looking for someone TALL and HOT? Keywords being tall and hot.

He drank a hot chocolate instead of coffee. What is he? A 6’4’’12-year-old? (I’m putting myself out there—this was my own reaction to an otherwise pleasant date just a few years ago.)

In these comments are echoes of my conversations in mini-communities of black professionals—at brunches, bar-passing celebrations and housewarming parties. I think of my years at Harvard Law School, which has 150 black students at any given time. One would have thought that the Black Law Students Association was a group of first cousins; dating among members was so unusual and so scandalous when it did occur. In these “professional” contexts, women are shaking with one hand and tossing men right into the friend zone with another. Across the country and over the years, the take-away often has the same theme: There was not a single guy there I would date.

Yeah, he was tall, but his head seemed a little small for his body.

It was loud in there, so I’m not sure. Did I detect a stutter?

Boy, was he sweating!

He seems like someone who would like Star Trek.

I don’t care if he can’t see. He should have left those glasses at the office.
He was dancing (or worse, trying) way too hard.

To read the full article go here.

"The Decline of Men"

2009-06-07T18:33:00.000-07:00

I was reading some articles on Guy Garcia who is the author of the book, "The Decline of Men: How the American Male Is Tuning Out, Giving Up and Flipping Off His Future." I found it interesting in that with this whole shebang thrown out by IR bloggers and the so-called 'black female empowerment' movement regarding the "damaged black male", we have an author who analyzes such damage, yet does so from the standpoint of ALL males. What you hear from the author sounds quite similar to the various descriptions of black men tossed around by these particular ladies. Here are some excerpts from an interview with the author:

"We do know that men are losing traction in high schools. The same is true in colleges, where 59% of all students are female. Harvard professors tell me male students have lost their drive and ambition, women tell me they can't find a guy who's not a dummy, slacker, cheater or loser. Men of every stripe and part of the country are telling me they feel confused, besieged and worried that they have lost their place in society, that they have lost their bearings as men. They sense the male gender is adrift and increasingly dismissed, denigrated and demonized -- by the media, by women, even by other men. And that's just the tip of the iceberg."

And...

"Let's start with the says-it-all title of Maureen Dowd's post-feminist creed, "Are Men Necessary?" The answer, of course, is yes, we are. The reason is that in this great unraveling of gender roles and male identity, one of the casualties has been the nuclear family. Last year, for the first time ever, single people outnumbered married people. More than ever boys are growing up in single-parent homes without fathers who can guide them into adulthood. And we've known for a long time that boys who grow up without strong male role models are more likely to drop out of school, make less money, be more likely to use drugs or get in trouble with the law and, ultimately, end up divorced themselves. It's a downward spiral."

And more...

"It goes way beyond that. The industries projected to grow in the next few decades are mostly in the service sector, where communication, collaboration and multitasking rule. At the same time many of the industries that favor the physical and mental attributes of males are shrinking or disappearing. Women in their 20s in the 10 largest U.S. cities already out-earn men of the same age. The trend is pretty clear."

And finally...

"Your examples are all symptoms of male decline. Men have been conditioned to be selfish, greedy and aggressive. Infidelity and perfidy are manifestations of insecurity. Society has taught men that it is manly to be competitive, to make as much money as possible, to win at any cost. I would add the war in Iraq and the implosion of Wall Street to the list of troubles that have been brought about by the old-fashioned, swaggering macho approach to politics, economics and life in general. Yet in spite of this -- or partly as a result of it -- other guys have simply given up. They sense that they've lost the high ground (and the future) to women, and they aren't even trying anymore. They've opted out to become jackasses, stoners and slackers. Responsibility is shirked, and adolescence is extended indefinitely."

If we listen to the various IR bloggers and black female empowerment demagogues, one would believe that only such descriptions apply to black men. Of course, they will argue that this trend is at a greater level among black men, but in such a case, should they not argue that the "unraveling of gender roles" that is pushed by the modern woman is at a greater level among black women? Is this push toward dominance the very thing that so many black women call "strenth" and wouldn't their fantasized mass migration away from the black community (black men) and toward white men result in hurrying the process of white men giving up at the level that black men have? How will it affect masses of white men when they are cursed out for expressing an honest view on race to their black wives? We know that black America is always the canary in the mine and as Pat Moynihan showed, black America is often a glimpse of white America's future.

Amanda Platell states it quite well here:

"But perhaps what we should be asking is: who turned men into sissies?
The answer to that is we women. Women wilfully feminised men to make them less masculine, less challenging to our ambitions, less competition for us. We emasculated them.
As a result, we've destroyed the core of their being, their masculinity. We've led them astray and away from the very qualities we intrinsically find most attractive in a man.
We told them we loved their feminine side, then came to despise it. We convinced them we wanted to be equal breadwinners, then began to resent it.
We loved the idea of earning more than our men, more than any man, yet lost respect for them when it was us bringing home the bacon.
But men have been culpable in all this, too. Sure, we gave them a social duffing up, but they gave in to it. The feminisation process sneakily appealed to their intrinsic vanity, and sharing the career workload played to many men's innate laziness.
I disagree with Garcia when he says 'men aren't giving up - they're being run over because they're lazy and can't multi-task'. There is nothing more energised, more vital than a man who is loved and respected for being a successful man, a provider and a father.
But partly because of the way women have systematically traduced men and their manliness, partly because of the way we as a society have feted and institutionalised single motherhood, from the council estate to the boardroom, we haven't left much for men to do or be that is unique to them.
Even the education system is now skewed against them. Garcia is correct when he says that girls are outperforming boys at school, but it's not because they are brighter or more adept at surviving in a post-modern world, but because of the liberal engineering of state education that has made it more sympathetic to girls' learning skills and less so to those of boys.
And with the huge increase in university-educated girls, there is a social timebomb ticking.
In America, over the past 25 years the number of female undergraduates has grown more than twice as fast as their male counterparts.
According to Garcia, by 2006 women outnumbered men on American college campuses by more than two million.
Again, if the tables were turned and women were wildly outnumbered today in universities and if men were overtaking their achievements, there would be an outcry.
The feminists view the current state of play in the war of the sexes as a great victory - they feel it proves they were right and that women were smarter than men all along.

But it's like two armies locked in battle, one armed with bayonets, the other with Kalashnikovs. It's not been a fair fight.
One survey Garcia cites shows that, on average, females between the ages of 21 and 30 earned 117 per cent of males' wages in the same group.
And while women's wages have soared, wages for men have declined.
'Men are not just getting poorer, they're also getting dumber,' he says. And he's right. Beneath the lip gloss of metrosexual modern male, men are in trouble.
Men of all ages are becoming increasingly 'angry, suspicious, reactionary and isolated' because women have treated the men's natural roles without respect.
Who wouldn't become reactionary when all that you knew had been demeaned, taken from you or chipped away?
Who wouldn't feel isolated when society had institutionalised fatherlessness, thus eradicating the most vital and enhancing role any man can play in his life?
Garcia goes so far as to argue that the roles have flipped so much from the way they were, say, 50 years ago - and that men have become so emasculated and feminised - that 'men are the new women'.
If that's true, and sadly it is for some men, then women have a lot to answer for. And perhaps the greatest irony is that it's us who are the losers in the end.
You show me a woman who isn't attracted by strength, success, masculinity and I'll show you a lesbian.
Garcia argues that it is 'an undeniable reality that women are poised to become the dominant gender in America, and in many ways already are'.
With men already in decline, it's only going to get worse. Deep in a recession with so many jobs at risk, a man's native, competitive provider survival spirit has never been more necessary to millions of families' survival, and yet never have these qualities been so systematically diminished.
So when we most need men to be men, we've created a disproportionate number of men who are more pussycats than lions. Perhaps the real Decline Of Men has only just begun.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, they'll throw off their Prada, ditch the pedicures, stop crying and get in touch with their masculine side again. We can only hope."

Well Amanda. Take the negative influences on men you state above, multiply by three or four at the least, and you have the plight of black men in this post feminism world.

"I've Lost So Much Respect For Him"

2009-05-05T09:50:00.000-07:00

Rick and Eleanor Hemmert

Last night’s ABC World News Tonight featured an interesting story entitled “Male Nurses, Stay-at-Home Dads: New Norm?”. The story involved comments from various couples discussing situations whereas husbands were laid off during these troubling economic times. One wife encouraged her husband to look into nursing being that he had previous health experience under his belt. Others accepted the reversal of gender roles with their husbands now becoming ‘stay-at-home dads’. But one reaction had a certain harshness to it.

In response to her husband being laid off and her becoming the main breadwinner, Eleanor Hemmert (pictured above) said “I don’t want to see him in an apron.” “I wish I could say something different, but I’ve lost so much respect for him”.

As far as I’m concerned, she never had respect for him based on the fact that she would go on national television and make such a statement. It really goes to show something that has been stated in the past; that being that quite commonly (not always) in interracial relationships between black women and white men, the men are passive while the women are aggressive. Of course, this is not always the case, but I see a trend and the desire for a passive man as well as the almost masochistic desire for an aggressive woman who lacks tact is what often draws such couples together. We’ve seen such an example on the various Wife Swap episodes. Black men seem far less likely to yield to such female aggression.

This also gives some clarity into the basis behind the whole “gold digger” stereotype that has been assigned to black women in general. Various other articles about these two have indicated severe strain on the marriage. Yes, he continues to search for a job, yet his lack of a job due to the massive layoffs during this recession is the source of a significant degree of added lack of respect she now has for her husband. It’s unfortunate because quite often, men who are out of work due to being trifling are treated quite well by the black woman they are with, yet hard working responsible men who are down on their luck due to unforeseen circumstances are quite often treated like dogs.

This is no slight toward IR relationships. My point is that many black women who are in such relationships with white men should stop making it out to be because there are no good black men, but rather because there are more white men out there that they can get away with disrespecting.

And They Claim That Black Male/White Female IR Is More Acceptable.

2009-04-21T19:29:00.000-07:00

Over and over we keep hearing and reading the notion that interracial relationships between black men and white women are more acceptable. This assertion is most commonly made by the common black female IR bloggers who label their sites as black female empowerment blogs. This article tends to show this assertion to be quite false.

Black man kissing white woman causes stir

By Doug Moore

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

On the cover of today’s Go! magazine, a regular section of Friday’s Post-Dispatch, there is a photo of a couple kissing to go along with the story “The 7 Best Places To Smooch”. The story hasn’t generated a ton of buzz, but the photo has. Why? Because the man is black and the woman is white. The reader comments at the end of the online version clearly showed us that at least some folks out there are not comfortable with interracial relationships.

Digg Yahoo! Del.icio.us Facebook Reddit Drudge Google Fark Stumble It!

The April 10 GO! cover generated disapproving story comments from some Post-Dispatch readers.

Here are a couple of examples:

From 1buschstadiumplz: “Haven’t read the story but dont like to see blacks and whites kissing;”

From taxpayer came this remark: ”This doesn’t surprise me at all. Libs take every opportunity they can to shove miscegnation in our faces. Now that TV has to show blacks in every commercial, notice that they are always posed beside a blonde woman. Not a brunette, a blonde. Its done for shock value. Sickening that a once proud newspaper would resort ot this. Joe Pulitzer is turning over in his grave in shame.”

Reader greggh tried a middle-of-the-road approach: “I’m not judging the concept of biracial couples at all, but in a city as racially polarized as St. Louis, I’m shocked that the PD would go so out of its way to be so gratuitously provacative. This completely undercut the message of the article.”

Other readers were disturbed by the negative comments including dwilliams, who wrote:

“You people make me sick! What a disgustingly racist community we live in. My husband is black, I am white, we have beautiful children and we are both educated. We teach our children tolerance and acceptance of others, even the meth smoking, trailer park rednecks portrayed in these comments. Keep your nastiness to yourself!”

We have deleted some of the comments that included offensive language because that is not appropriate or tolerated on the P-D blogs and we decided to limit comments on the photo to this blog.

I did some asking around in the newsroom about the decision to use the photo. Turns out that the couple is a real couple. The creative director of Go! knows the couple and asked them if they would pose for the story.

Quick research tells me that 7 percent of married couples are interracial and those numbers are growing as the minority groups in this country continue to grow. Tiger Woods, Halle Barry, Derek Jeter and President Barack Obama are all products of interracial parents.

It’s been almost 42 years since the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down a law barring interracial marriage. But today, at least in St. Louis, it seems to remain a touchy subject.

"Don't Blame It On Rio": Catering To And Pleasing Black Men

2009-04-19T07:01:00.000-07:00

I happened upon a blog owned by an individual who goes by the name "Case" and found this interesting article concerning the book "Don't Blame It On Rio". The book, written by Professor Jewel Woods, along with Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist Karen Hunter, examines the growing trend of professional black men participating in the Brazilian sex tourism industry and provides provocative insight on how black professional men view their relationships with black women and the women in Brazil.

Case gives an interesting opinion on this growing trend and how it relates to black male/black female relationships in America:

"Black men seek something in women not of their race because of the images they see around them which doesn’t include beautiful African American women. Professional African American women don’t cater to black men as women of color of other countries are accustomed to doing. It is second nature for them to wait on men and please them in any way they want to be pleased. African American women shun at the thought of pleasing their men in any way they want to be pleased. They expect to be pleased, yet when it comes to pleasing their men, they shudder at the thought. I’m not just referring to pleasing black men in the bedroom. I’m referring to pleasing men outside of the bedroom. It’s the little things that count, such as rubbing your man’s back, running his bath water, cooking him a homecooked meal and feeding his ego by telling him how great he is and how much he is appreciated. It’s the little things that mean so much. If black women were to let down their guards and start treating their men the way they want and expect to be treated, their men wouldn’t be traveling to places like Rio seeking false love. They would enjoy real love with women they identify with and belong with."

Now of course, there will be accusations of generalizations, but this really caught my eye because in my opinion, it makes a very important point. Priority with pleasing men has become lower today than ever before among all groups of women. As is the case with so many negatives in our society, this lower priority appears to be more prevalent in the black community. This is my perception true enough, but I will say with confidence that this is a perception shared by many black men.

I highlighted the part that says "they like to be pleased" because there is great emphasis today on pleasing women and men doing those "little things" for their women, but such emphasis is not reciprocated. This differs from past decades whereas girls were socialized early to become wives and taught what was necessary to keep their husbands happy. They were taught to be nurturers not only of their kids, but of their husbands as we see from the home economic textbooks of the past.

Men today don't expect such extreme service from their wives and girlfriends today, yet the extremes seem to have gone in the complete opposite direction. Even from a sexual standpoint, most literature is geared toward pleasing women. Foreplay is almost always that which a man performs upon a woman despite the fact that men have similar erogenous zones. Yet, black men are afraid to express what is lacking in their sex lives as is so well stated in this article:

"Let's face it: Black men have a huge reputation for cheating. At this point, cheating is expected of married Black men. The irony about it all is that Black women tend to be so sassy and defensive that married Black men or Black men in serious relationships are generally terrified to complain about the lack of overall satisfaction that they receive at home. We talk amongst over selves about it in the barbershops and poolrooms. We talk about it on the phone to our homeboys. We cheat. We go to strip clubs. We try everything except telling our wives the truth. This leaves our women in the dark."

"The saddest thing about the game is when I encourage brothers to discuss the issue with their wives. The result is always the same - the defensive sister, argues that the brother needs to be discipline himself. The woman tells the brother that he needs to stop being so selfish."

What so many women fail to understand is that one of the main things a man considers when determining whether he wants to marry a particular woman or not is whether he will be happy in a marriage with that woman. A man analyzes whether he would be happier married or single. On the other hand, women tend to feel that men are obligated to marry them. "I'm an educated professional black woman and I have the right to be married." There is little emphasis on WINNING A MAN'S HEART while there great emphasis on DEMANDING a ring. Just look at how so many sistas really get into Beyonce's "Single Ladies".

Women, and particularly black women, seem to view marriage as a means to fill a void and any available man that interests or impresses them is welcome to fill that void. These women judge men's decisions on marriage based on this perspective. "He's with me and clearly interested in me, yet he won't marry me". They then accuse him of being immature and afraid of commitment, yet the truth is that despite the men being sexually attracted to them and even finding their general company appealing, these men have not concluded that these women will make them happy in marriage because, quite frankly, these women have failed to put put emphasis on WINNING A MAN'S HEART.

The Intimate Homicide Fallacy

2009-04-01T19:45:00.000-07:00

With the recent multiple stabbing death of Chiquita Tate, the Something Screwed Crew and other self proclaimed "Black Woman Empowerment Bloggers" have a new tool in their efforts to pin an exaggerated and hypocritical image on black men. They use each incident as 'evidence' of the alleged thousands of black women "slaughtered" by black men each year. Of course, we know that they have no real concern over Ms. Tate. If you go over to the What About Our Daughters blog, you will notice that they spend a small amount of time giving any semblance of grief over this young woman's death and a large amount of time doing what they do so well; bashing black men.

If we actually take a view of the national statistics concerning intimate homicide, you will notice that in 2005, 337 black women were killed by intimate partners. While 337 violent deaths is nothing to shrug your shoulders at, it is a far cry from the alleged "thousands" claimed by these dishonest women. With around 14 million black Women in America over the age of 18, the chances of a black woman being killed by an intimate is around 1 in 41,543 annually. So when they talk about how dating is such a life risking activity, they clearly have no idea of the numbers.

Also, lets look at the enormous hypocrisy of their assertions. In 2005, while 337 black women were killed by intimates, 138 black men were killed by intimates. This means that 2.4 times as many black women are killed by intimates than black men killed by intimates.

In that same year, 789 white women were killed by intimates while 183 white men were killed by intimates. Based on stats, black women were killed by intimates at a rate 2.6 times greater than white women. But black men were killed by intimates at a rate 4.5 times greater than white men. Put another way, 4.3 times more white women were killed by intimates than white men, while 2.4 times more black women were killed by intimates than black men.

So what does this have to say about the RELATIVE rates of intimate homicide for black women compared to black men? More women of all races are killed by intimates than men. In the case of black Americans, black women are significantly more deadly toward intimates compared to white women than black men are compared to white men.

ADDENDUM: It is interesting to note that from 1976 to 1989, the number of black men killed by intimates exceeded the number of black women killed by intimates each year save for three. Seemingly, no other racial or ethnic group in America, besides blacks, has ever had a single year whereas more men were killed by intimate partners than women.

Are Ir Black Women Victims of Unrequited Love?

2009-03-12T20:19:00.000-07:00

Are Ir black women victims

of unrequited love ?

Continuing the analyses of black female inter-racial bloggers.

by Menelik Charles...London, England

Much of the pro-white male postings of IR Black women read like strangulated woes of unrequited love for Black men. Thus their ‘desire’ for white-male attention is not what it first appears. Please consider the following quotes from Traci, a New Yorker, who posted diary entries on her visit to Chicago over at CW’s blog “Black Women Deserve Better”. It read:

“I know that many Black women prefer Black men, but you MUST realise
that if a good non-Blackman wants to talk to you, talk to him, and date
him. Black men are not thinking about us Black women. They
are dating out and enjoying it. So why shouldn’t we?”

Can we assume here that Traci is also one of the “many Black women who prefer Black men”? Anyway, unlike other self-appointed relationship counsellors, she’s actually following her own advice:

“change the attitude and you will see the results” that’s what I said in my last post to you. It’s so cold here in Chicago so the potential for meeting people is low. I decided to join a gym. Much to my surprise, the gym is like 98% white. A ton of white men! I decided to get a personal trainer, a man. Yes, he’s white, very nice looking as well!”

Ok, so the men are white but what is the point or objective of potentially meeting “tons of white men”? Traci continues:

“there are Black men personal trainers…and I’ve noticed I’ll talk to my
trainer and catch them staring at me. Why? I have no idea. I picked a
man, I didn’t specifically say a white man…so why the looks?”

Why should Traci care a damn why Black men are “staring” at her? And besides, the only way one can confirm someone is staring at you is by staring back at them! But what might have started out as a glance may end up as a stare. So how can we be sure those Black men were actually staring at Tracy, and not at first merely glancing in her direction? Perhaps Tracy can answer this question:

“ChiTown is not as diverse as NYC but when I walk around
I do a lot of people watching. I look at what people
are looking, at and whose looking at whom”.

“Why the looks”, Tracy? Clearly, weight loss was not her primary objective at the gym. She set out to “catch” someone’s attention in much the same way the FBI set out to entrap America’s ‘most wanted’. But whose attention was this “people watching” sauce pot seeking to arouse? Again, Tracy can provide an answer:

“I’ve noticed white, Asian and Hispanic men check out Black women.
CW I don’t Know why some of us don’t think that we aren’t attractive”.

Perhaps Tracy doesn’t believe herself “attractive”. But here’s my point: She appears unwittingly to be instructing Black women (“who prefer Black men”) to seek out the social company of, for example, white men in order to attract the interest of “envious” Black men! If this was, indeed, the case then perhaps what she really meant by “change the attitude and see the results” was more like: change the tactics and see the results! Well, she certainly got a “result” at the gym, didn’t she?

Tracy’s white-male blues

Our Tracy’s alleged quest for a “White Knight” doesn’t stop at merely being a sidewalk ‘peeping Tom’. With fellow “Black female empowerment” seekers in tow she decides to hit the club. She writes:

I went to a Blues club with a few friends. Of course, we were the only Black women in the place. Ok, so you may wonder why we decided to go to a Blues club when we knew we would be in a minority. Well, it’s about trying to get ourselves exposed to new things, and going to where they are. And by doing that, I am slowly conquering a few fears of mine…I feared that white men would look at us like we had the plague. In fact, white men are looking at us in an “I’d like to get to know you” sort of way”.

I am grateful Tracy avoided elaborating further on how she’d acquired her “fear” of socialising with white men, and so mercifully sparing us the wicked lie that Black men have sought to control Black women’s sexual ‘freedom’ by warning them off fraternising with white men. It’s simply a case of “Black women preferring Black men”, and that’s the long ‘n’ the short of it! At no time in 100s of years of African-American history have Black men had the power to prevent white men doing exactly as they pleased with Black women and young girls. This is not a theory legitimately open to IR bloggers revisionism: it is simply an historical fact!

‘Race memory’ and culture

More specifically to Tracy, it is not so much her feelings of unattractiveness to white men (in relation to white women?) that is the issue here. What was activated in Tracy’s mind was ‘race memory’ containing learned responses to events pertaining to a significant and/or frequent occurrence. It works like this: if you ask an Italian-American his name, or to speak in Italian, you are immediately ‘transported’ to Italy. Ask him about his peoples folklores and fears, and you are taken back centuries. In short, everything about the Italian cultural-experience is recorded in the ‘collective unconscious’ and passed down to future generations in America. So, an Italian-American will act like an Italian, despite never having visited Italy!

Culture or syndrome?

Tracy, like all slavery-descended Africans, is not the product of cultural experiences. Psycho-social experiences, yes: but not cultural. My reasoning is centred around the definition of the term syndrome. This has been defined as:

“Any combination of signs and symptoms that are
indicative of a particular disease or disorder;
or a symptom, or set of symptoms, indicating
the existence of a condition or problem”

Can an enslaved people stripped of their heritage; used as sexual playthings, and breeding animals; bought and sold like animals; and who were then forced to ‘adopt’ the names, language, and religion of their enemies, truly be said to possess a culture? Do you know of a culture which is not only alien to those who ‘practice’ it but which was specifically created so as to engender an eternal sense of crisis within them? No such ‘culture’ could possibly exist if its sole objectives are to degrade, demoralize, and ultimately, to destroy those who ‘practice’ it! So, slavery was a psychological “condition”, a spiritual “disease”, a social “disorder”. It was a “problem”. It was not a culture! Oh, and ‘the Blues’ (a musical idiom born of Black misery not culture) is a colloquialism for the term ‘depression’ - which in turn is defined as a syndrome!

I ‘remember’ when you raped me

What is contained in the African-American female ‘collective unconscious’ are repressed ‘memories’ associated with centuries of sexual slavery. Tracy’s ‘race memory’, therefore, was activated by being around white men. But like many Black women, she fought against these troubling feelings by offering white men gestures of submission e.g. by excessive smiling, ‘laughing’ hysterically at their ‘jokes’, and/or permitting themselves to be sexually groped in public by white partners. Tracy, therefore, was certainly “open”…but to a past she has no literal memory of, and which continues to haunt her beyond the events in question. Indeed, a more thorough reading of her tour of the ‘Windy City’ would indicate she’d been a tad more “open” than she’s willing to let on lest it became common knowledge that she’s basically an “open” invitation to ‘Black pussy’ for contemporary white boys.

You go girl!

You can’t Rape a willingly “open” pussy

However, problems emerge when white men regularly “fuck” the likes of Tracy, and then pass up on the possibility of a committed relationship with them. Their ‘race memory’ is then triggered leaving them feeling strangely dirty and used: like a rape victim. But rather than hit out at the symbolic ‘rapist’, they lash out instead at white men’s traditional ‘whipping boy’: Black men. The very group IR bloggers claim have “left them” or “do not want” them! Clearly, not many men do. But if all this is not a sub-conscious cry for help in a sea of racial self-loathing, and sexual humiliation, then I don’t know what is!

Tracy diary entries about “opening” her “options” reads like the stuff of schoolgirl fantasy: she led the life, it would appear, of a minor socialite touring ChiTown; meeting care-free Caucasians (without a hint of colour prejudice or fetish) and generally sticking her nose in other people’s business! But before we move on from Tracy’s travels, let’s make one last visit to the club:

“Oh something I forgot to mention. At the Blues club we were sitting next to a white male/Black female couple. When the band began to play a really slow Blues song, a Brunette-white woman came out of nowhere and started dancing really seductively. Of course, all the men stopped, stared, and salivated. When her boyfriend came out to dance with her, a man looked at him and shouted “man, you know you’re gonna have good sex tonight!” The boyfriend agreed, and of course she giggled. But what I found interesting was that the white man we were sitting next to, turned around to our table and said loudly “see that’s why I don’t date white women… they’re sluts!” Turns out “boyfriend” had a wedding ring on and she didn’t, so you put two and two together”.

“Settling” for a white man

Though the validity of Tracy’s diary entries are questionable, the concerns are consistent with IR supporters e.g. her desire to arouse the attention of Black men, while ‘busy’ in the company of white men. This alludes to a little girl desperate for an absent father’s affections. As with all convoluted stories of love ‘n’ longing, there does appear a lurking issue of childhood abandonment in Tracy’s life. And as for her nasty little stab at white women, well, the words feminine envy springs to mind! Surely, in quieter moments, Tracy is aware that she has burnt her ‘bridges’ with Black men, and so will probably have to “settle” for a white man. But it really wasn’t supposed to end like this: indeed, “Black women deserve better”!

The romantic & racial sour grapes
of the “legend” that is Evia Moore

The malevolent, racist-fantasy posting of IR bloggers knows no bounds, and no more is this the case than with its pioneer, Evia Moore. Below is a ruthlessly accurate summary of her muddled, and obsessive attempts to manufacture misrepresentations around her constant assertion that Black men “put Black women last” behind white, light, bi-racial and Latino women. Below she blows:

• I will declare the existence of a Black conspiracy to keep Black women and white men apart (even though no such plot has ever existed) so as to transform myself into ‘forbidden fruit’ for white men - because you put me last.

• I will ignore the fact that white men institutionalised the rape of Black women and girls for centuries while simultaneously instructing white women to keep her “options” limited to white men - because you put me last.

• I will ignore documented evidence that Black mothers and grandmothers conspired to keep Black males away from white females lest white men take umbrage and torture, jail or lynch them – because you put me last.

• I will declare that your casual or committed relationships with white, light, bi-racial or Latino females are expressions of your self-hatred and hatred of all dark-skinned Black women - because you put me last.

• I will suggest that only Black women and white men can have legitimate intimate or casual relationships with each other - because you put me last.

• I will organise armies of angry, emotionally disturbed Black women against you, and seek a separate identity from yours - because you put me last.

• I will instruct single-Black women with children from multiple Black fathers to seek out quality white men as lovers, husbands and step-fathers – because you put me last.

• I will form sentimental and ideological alliances with white-power groups who hate Black men above all men - because you put me last.

• I will distort every aspect of your reality and feed these misrepresentations right back at ya - because you put me last.

• I will not permit you the right to insert truth into anything I say about you without dismissing you as a troll - because you put me last.

• I will claim the mantle of American’s “most oppressed” but not of white America but of Black men in America - because you put me last.

• I am a strong, beautiful and successful Black woman and you are a damaged-beyond repair, low or no value, Black man - because you put me last.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!” Like Aesop’s fable of the fox that could not reach the grapes and consoled himself that they were sour anyway, Evia must forever abuse Black men since she has a phobic dread of a romantic reunion with one lest he abandons her for a white woman!

Sara’s advice to Black women
on how to get a Black man

This is the 2nd time Sara has made an appearance in this post. The first was in her “Harry Potter” alias. This time she’s fronting “Sara’s blog, Interracial love…” bemoaning the fact that Black men’s “stock” in the dating arena is greater than that of Black women. Below is some advice she offers Black women desperate for Black male attention in her post “looking for the Real Men”:

“Please wake up! Don’t ever look for a man who is not looking for you. If you really
want to raise your status in Black men eyes, start dating white men like they are going
out of style. If you want Black men to think you are desirable, and gorgeous, date a white man. If you want a Black man to change his attitude towards you, date a white
man. Black men want everything a white man has”.

And this “everything” Black men want includes white women, right? Well, it appears Sara wants at least one thing she perceive white women as possessing: Black men! But maybe I’ve spoken too soon. Let’s continue:

“the truth is that no man wants what they think no other man
wants. Especially Black men because they are a very envious
class of men. Now I’m not advocating that you use white men”.

Sara gives the sort of advice a woman might give to a friend attempting to get back with an ex-boyfriend, and then makes the bizarre claim that it doesn’t involve using unsuspecting white men as bait? Oh, really! But again, maybe I’ve spoken too soon. Read what amounts to Sara’s disclaimer:

“I believe once Black women start dating out, be courted, wined and dined
like you deserve, you will not be able to go back to being treated like a
sexual toilet. The ratio of Black women/white men will explode…”

The ratio in comparison to what? Black men/white woman relationships? Must everything IR bloggers do revolve around what Black men are allegedly doing? Anyway, by dating white men, according to Sara, Black women will feel “protected and spoiled” and:

“not to mention for the first time ever, many of
you will have real fathers for your children!”

White men rescuing Black women and children from the clutches of “envious” Black men? What next, a remake of Birth of a Nation with the damsel in distress played by Angela Bassett? Yes, I’m well aware of Sara’s nasty little digs at Black men in the quotes above but I won’t be taking the bait! You see, “opening options” for Sara really means resigning herself to her fate. But she’ll not go quietly into the night! She’ll lie and deny; kick and scream! She’ll pretend to ‘ache’ for white men as she imagines Black men ‘ache’ for white women. She’ll fill her blog with pictures of near-naked white men, and yet pack her post with talk of Black men. She’ll ‘rob’ Black men of their masculine ‘assets’ and award them to white men as compensation for their ‘masculine deficits’. Yes, Sara will do absolutely anything to get herself a white boy…my God, she has certainly earned one!

But will this stop the hating ‘n’ baiting of Black men? Never! You see, the extraordinary piece of advice she offers Black women – in which white men are used as fishing bait, is worthless for one simple reason: it didn’t work for her!

The Politics of Sour Grapes:

In their own convoluted way, IR bloggers are actually Black separatists e.g. they believe (and they indicate as much!) that Black men should only date, associate with, or marry Black women. Why? Because they simply “prefer Black men”. Moreover, Black men dating or marrying out, no matter how small the number, is felt by these women as a betrayal for several reasons outlined below:

(1) it goes against hundreds of years of African-American matriarchal tradition i.e. the explicitly stated command to Black males from an early age, not to fraternise with white females of any age;

(2) it introduces unwelcome competition from white, light, bi-racial or Latino women who some Black women perceive as inherently more attractive than themselves, and who therefore pose a threat;

(3) it confirms these Black women’s worst fear that they are, indeed, less attractive than non-Black or part-Black women, and leaves them feeling a sense of racial, romantic and sexual rejection.

Why white men?

Taking into account the story thus far, it begins to make increasing sense why IR bloggers almost-exclusively promote relationships with white men over Latino or Asian men. Some of the reasons are as follows:

(1) only relationships with white men can provide a supporting, and wide-ranging, racist ideology with which to attack the Black men who “reject” them;

(2) only a white racist ideology can explain the present condition of Black America as ‘evidence’ of Black male genetic inferiority in comparison to white men;

(3) only relationships with white men have the potential to alert intuitive Black men to the existential desperation of ‘ugly‘Black women and ‘rescue’ them.

Ultimately, IR bloggers are sub-consciously attempting to re-enact an unresolved traumatic period in African-American women’s history. They cannot achieve this without alluding to the power relations existing at that time. This clandestine task cannot be achieved via intimate relationships with Asian or Latino males. Therefore, only by ‘sleeping with the enemy’, and effectively forming racist unions, can they bring this matter to light, and to a potential resolution.

Unfortunately, they are unwilling to find common ground with BU bloggers such as Rocky, Una Persona or to any Black man attached to Black women because those Black women have something they haven’t! Therefore, they will never concede ‘defeat’ because to do so would hand ‘victory’ to Black men. So, like many ‘angry’ Black women, they will have the ‘last word’ - no matter what the cost!

Conclusion

For IR bloggers then, the politics of sour grapes goes something like this: Black men must always be wrong because they are ‘Mr Right’; white men must never be wrong because they can never be (quite) ‘Mr Right’. You see, for a number of reasons, there’s as much a perceived masculine ‘deficit’ in most white men as there is a perceived feminine ‘deficit in a significant number of Black women. Perhaps for this reason alone, they probably deserve one another!

There’s Something About “Harry Potter” That You All Need To Know

2009-03-12T19:58:00.000-07:00

Continuing the analyses of black female inter-racial bloggers.

by Menelik Charles...London, England

Ir bloggers & hating white women

IR bloggers’ “unreciprocated” love for Black men - with an accompanying feminine envy of white women, is translated into a “Black female empowerment” agenda. The next step is to ‘empower’ white men (who they suggest are being rejected en mass by white women for Black men) and all manner of tricks are deployed to bring this fantasy about. The first trick was to ‘welcome’ into their fold an alleged “white male” supporter who expresses an open disdain for white women.

There’s something about “Harry Potter”
That you all need to know

Evia and Sara’s blogs portrays a consistent contempt for white women which they show indirectly by attacking Black men who they assume desire them. However, they stop just short of racist verbal attacks as this might suggest envy on their part (commentators to their blogs are not so careful). So what’s a Black gal to do? Simple: have a friendly “white guy” called “Harry” to do the job for them! Here’s how it works: if a white man “bashes” white women then it won’t really constitute racist attacks but something akin to staggering personal insights! Please read what our alleged “white” friend, “Harry Potter” has to say about white women:

“sure, I don’t like white women…I don’t like fair skin, I don’t like freckles,
I don’t like red hair, I don’t like blond hair. But it seems as it is these
very traits in women that are considered the standard of beauty. I
can’t see a movie without the lead actress being a white blond…”

This is nothing but Stormfront-style racism, plain and simple! But let’s continue as “Harry” outlines “his” virtual mission statement:

“why spend my time bashing white women? Every group seems to
have websites, blogs, and forums bashing that group. However,
I have not seen one bashing white women. Why not?”

Can we be so sure that “Harry” has “never seen” a group “bashing” white women? Keep in mind that “his” blog is called “White Women Suck!” Well, there exists a similarly named blog “American Women Suck” (http://www.americanwomensuck.com/) run by a white man in which he bemoans the perceived injustices of feminism and female privilege. Might we assume he is talking about white women? Clearly, somebody is lying here, and ripping off someone else’s idea into the bargain!

Now read the following, if you will:

“for a long time I was completely fed up with the behaviour of women in general,
from the games they play, to their seemingly huge egos, and selfish behaviour.
then I realised it wasn’t women in general but white women in general”.

“Harry” identifies game playing, “huge egos” and selfishness as general ‘feminine’ behaviour. Fair enough: “he’s” had a life-time of personal relationships, and observations in which to confirm “his” worst suspicions regarding the female sex. Suddenly, however, and seemingly out of clear blue sky, “Harry” decides that all of these toxic traits pertain only to one group of women – white women! Something just doesn’t add up here!

I have read all of “Harry’s” blogs, and I’ve paid close attention to the issues “he” focuses on; who “he” offers support to, and especially those “he” takes sly digs at. Thus far, the ‘issues’ “Harry” deals with leads invariably to the racial vilification of white women. Those “he” typically offers moral support to are invariably Black women (especially those in inter-racial relationships with white men). And can you guess which race of men our ‘wizard friend’ takes sly little digs at? There is something about this ‘white boy’ that feels so utterly familiar!

“Harry potter” the boy wizard makes
the white man disappear

Ever notice how “Harry” has this extraordinary ability to conceal white-male power behind (1) “the media”, (2) “the movie industry”, and (3) the wider “society” whom he collectively blames for promoting white women as the beauty ideal? “He” never once, however, acknowledges that it is, in fact, white men who control the mass media and the wider society; and it is they who first installed white women as society’s female beauty ideal (beginning with the KKK-inspired ‘Birth of a Nation’) and they who maintain white women in this role today in Hollywood, the modelling and advertising industries and in countless magazine articles “promoting blonds”! There is something not right here.

How is it that an ‘investigator’ into the dominance of white women in the mass media, is unable to locate white men’s crystal-clear role in advancing this form of white supremacy? Is “he” blind? Is this why “his” righteous indignation isn’t directed at the real source of this racism against women of colour? If “Harry” is indeed wilfully unwilling to identify white men as the primary ‘enemy’ in the marginalisation of women of colour in the mass media, then are not his racist attacks against white women somewhat unjust? His blog promises “to speak the truth about white women”. But evidently only at the expense of not telling the truth about the role elite white males’ play in maintaining this state of affairs!

Sara is “Harry Potter”

It is not surprising that many BU bloggers are fooled into believing that “Harry Potter” is a white male, especially given “his” support of positions held by IR bloggers. Also, “Harry” is conveniently distanced from Black women insofar as “his” “preferred choice of women” are allegedly Asian. This is interesting because Sara has strongly advised Black women to “pursue” white men with the same vigour with which Asian women allegedly pursue them (surely, Asian babes are the ones being pursued!). Needless to say, when giving alleged examples of white women pursuing Black men with similar gusto, she roundly condemns them as “sluts”!

You know, it really appears as though “Harry” and Sara share very similar concerns not least a hatred of white women and for Black men. They also have in common a remarkably similar phraseology and writing style. They are without doubt, the same person! What, however, throws BU bloggers off her trail is that “he” concentrates on racially harassing white women instead of Black men. Sara thus throws around enough red herrings to keep BU bloggers off her scent. But a leopard cannot change its spots, even if we do call it a pigeon! The reality she engineers bears very little resemblance to anything I know as truth! Perhaps she needs to stop confusing matters by pretending to be a racist “white man” when she already does a pretty good interpretation of one by merely being Sara!

To conclude, Sara is a liar and a charlatan whose once hope-filled, and probably, secret teen diaries have been ‘upgraded’ to hate-filled ‘adult’ blogs hidden behind assumed names and death-wish sentiments. Vengeance and hate are her calling cards! It is perhaps a little unfair, therefore, to wish her ill given how deeply unsuccessful she is already in life and love. Certainly, she was once deserving of a father’s love, and possibly even that of a gallant ‘Black Knight’. Unfortunately, however, she doubtless takes after her mother, a bitter, twisted harpy, and like her mother she will pay the price in romantic longing, and life-long loneliness.

A Guest Blogger's Detailed Analyses of Black Female Inter-Racial Bloggers

2009-03-03T19:14:00.000-08:00

Analysing the hidden racial distress signals

of Black women Inter- racial bloggers

by Menelik Charles...London, England

The idea that an ideology of white-male supremacy underpins the IR blogging of Sara and her ‘sisters’ is hardly news. However, Black Unity Bloggers (BU bloggers) often assume that IR bloggers actually believe in what they assert i.e. that white men are inherently superior to Black men. But as I’ve said elsewhere, they believe no such thing! Certainly, I can see how BU bloggers can miss this crucial fact; especially given how often they’re put on the defensive by the sheer unbridled racial viciousness of the attacks levelled against them.

The purpose of this post then is to help move BU bloggers away from mere defensive-counter-arguments, and towards subjecting the underlying motives of IR bloggers to a more penetrative analysis. This is necessary not least because it matters not one jot how righteous is the defence of the ‘Black-male image’ since the likes of Sara and Evia will continue to hate ‘n’ bait Black men until reality intervenes to direct these sad and desperate ‘sisters’ towards their predictably tragic ends.

Imagine if Jewish women sprouted anti-Semitic
attacks against Jewish men while promoting
Jewish female, German male unions

So where might we begin our analysis? Let’s begin by asking ourselves a few questions. To begin with, how possible is it for women of one race to hate ‘n’ bait men of their own race, and then be able to form genuine loving relationships with men of an opposing race? Would it not strike you as odd, for example, if a tiny group of Jewish women launched internet-based anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish men, lauding the virtues of German men, while simultaneously promoting an ideology of Aryan-male supremacy? What could possibly compel Jewish women to call on other Jewish women to seek out intimate relations with German males? An imagined mass rejection by Jewish men in favour of blond-haired German frauleins?

One might wonder why this peculiar group of imaginary (!) Jewish females do not actively promote intimate relationships more generally across the racial and cultural spectrum; say between Jewish women and Black, Latino, Asian or Anglo-Saxon men. And why on earth should such women apparently choose to spew anti-Jewish male rhetoric, and underpin it with Nazi ideology? Because they couldn’t get a date?

If such a group of self-hating Jewish women existed, they would, in fact, have no alternative but to promote intimate relationships with Hitler’s racial heirs over other types of men as this would represents their only hope of sub-consciously:

(1) showing how deeply internalised is their own oppression as Jews, and how
alienated they are from a positive, life-affirming Jewish-group identity;

(2) showing, by dating German men, the extent to which such unions causes them
deep sense of distress despite outward shows of romantic “happiness”;

(3) showing the consequences of the ‘woman scorned syndrome’ (e.g. by forming anti-Semitic alliances with a common foe) if their deep-down desire for a Jewish lover or husband remains unfulfilled.

An additional point here is that ONLY a Jewish woman/German male configuration can provide this intensely enraged and emotionally disturbed group of imagined Jewish females with the necessary anti-Semitic ideology with which to send out intricately-coded distress signals for potential Jewish male ‘saviours’ to decipher. This sub-conscious, clandestine operation is so high risk that the likely response to it is a massive Jewish-male backlash resulting in a further vicious male-baiting by a now increasingly desperate and deranged Jewish-Nazi sisterhood. They may call their campaign one of “empowerment” but, in truth it is a tale of woe since they’re forever complaining about and baiting a group of men they claim they want nothing more to with (easy when you perceive yourself as being rejected by them!).

Back to reality

It’s fair to say that the situation of Jews, though similar to Blacks at various points in history, does not compare to Blacks at this point. No rundown of the current differences is necessary sufficed to say that Jews are white, well-to-do and religiously, morally, financially and militarily supported by every powerful nation-state in the world, including the US. Our reality, by contrast, is so steeped in “dreams differed”, assassinated (Black male) leaders, CIA drug-plots to destabilise Black communities (i.e. Black families), the loss of manufacturing jobs, and all manner of white-male instigated oppressions that would take individual essays merely to introduce the relevant topics, let alone to discuss them at length!

So from problems alluded to but not discussed, there has emerged a conflict between Black men and women that is so perverse in its attempts to inflict pain and public humiliation that its akin to being forced to watch paedophilic porn at gunpoint! Indeed, it’s so wicked in its depth of malevolence that it almost transcends the notion of betrayal! Consider for example, how Sara and Evia represent the only racial group on the net (other than white supremacists) which draws so heavily and explicitly on both the ideology of white supremacy and its descriptive language of Black male “racial, intellectual and moral inferiority”! But how do they square this with the assertion of “Black female empowerment”?

Uniting white racist ideology with “black female empowerment”

First, to achieve unification between white-male racist ideology and so-called “Black female empowerment”, every social, political, economic and material factors impacting on the lives of Black people must be completely ignored by the IR bloggers; especially the social context of white-male instigated. Second, the consequences of these wilfully ignored factors are continually pored over and used as evidence of Black men being “damaged-beyond repair”. Black women, of course, are seen as “victims” - not of any of the factors referred to above but exclusively of Black men by Evia, Sara and their supporters.

Clearly, IR bloggers take a near orgasmic delight in the Black male predicament (which they never acknowledge) and make constant references to its consequences. They therefore deny the causes but embrace the effects! Black men, they declare, are “damaged beyond repair”. Ok. But “damaged” by what or by whom? We are NEVER told. By contrast, any “damage” evident in Black women - from low self-esteem to single parenthood, is as a direct result of some “low or no value” Black male. Interestingly, not once does Sara or Evia speak of ever loving an African-American male! It’s as if (as Sara writes in the comments section on her “Black love is dead!” post) Black men are merely:

“downright over-sexed and sort of uncivilised – not
suitable to be life mates or even casual partners”.

Naturally BU bloggers will react to comments like this with outrage. But stop! We only need to cite the words of slavery’s apologists, modern segregationists or some “maverick” white-male politician, to find exactly the same assertions made in reference to “innocent” Black females! I mean, is having children out of wedlock by one, two or more fathers evidence of sexual chastity, or suitability for life-long partnerships? Are not such Black women “uncivilised” and, from a man’s perspective, suitable only for “casual” sex?

IR bloggers are so consumed by self-hatred that only white racist ideology is sufficient to explain why they are patently unable to acquire a suitable Black “mate” or “even a casual partner” (e.g. because Black men are “uncivilised”). Indeed, they are so embittered that any sensitive Black male would be so unsettled by the aura of contempt which they typically convey (on the street, in the workplace, and at the club) that they’d run a country mile so as to avoid them! Thus, the fact that Black women may out-number Black men in the US, have more college degrees and jobs, is of little consequence here since these IR bloggers are, from the outset, “not suitable as life mates or even casual partners”!

Now here’s a stunning fact

This fact is the real source of their distress, and at some deep-unspoken level they are aware of this. Their blogs, therefore, are a confused manifestation of a primal desire for the very men they continually hate ‘n’ bait. Black men’s true crime in their eyes is that they are the only race of men on the planet deemed collectively more attractive, and sought after, than its females. Not even bi-racial actresses or singers have a comparable sex-symbols status as Black actors, male singers or sport stars! This is surely an unparalleled situation which has, to my knowledge, never once been referred to in any news medium, and so exists instead merely as an easily observable, though unsubstantiated, fact. This situation can only compounds some Black women’s sense of unworthiness and mangled femininity!

Black men must be destroyed

Black men must, therefore, be destroyed if this disturbed group of women cannot possess them. And since white “damsels” - whom Black men have traditionally been warned against associating with by protective Black mothers, and rope-wielding white men, are now free to pursue “tall, dark and handsome men”, they too must be symbolically destroyed (or should that be lynched?). To achieve this symbolic twin-destruction, IR bloggers advocate what amounts to racist alliances (certainly more racist than ‘romantic’) with white men since this is the only means by which to gain the attention of Black men, and more significantly, to sub-consciously seek out a “Black Knight” (yes, a “Black Knight”!) to decode their feminine distress signals and rescue them from their awful plight!

To be continued...

So Lets Compare.

2009-03-01T19:38:00.000-08:00

Is this attack against a teenage girl...

...any less despicable than this attack against a teenage girl?:

I would say that the first one is worse, yet according to most of the black female IR bloggers, aka Something Screwed Crew (SSC), such actions only come from black men. Evidence is not a friend of the SSC.

Thanks to Truth B. Told for the heads up.

And They Say Black Love Is Dead.

2009-03-01T09:11:00.000-08:00

Omar Epps and his pregnant wife Kiesha.

It's actually sad that the Something Screwed Crew would actually scoff at these videos. They seem to only cherish a black woman's happiness (or alleged happiness) when a white man is seemingly the source of that happiness. Of course normal people can see the beauty of these moments. Everyone should check these videos out. I think that most of you will be pleased. To the right of the image are links to five couples. Enjoy.

Sweet vs Sassy

2009-02-26T18:17:00.000-08:00

Tyra Banks with boyfriend, multi-millionaire investment banker John Utendahl.

Usually, I try to make posts that have some basis in research, but in this instance I will do something that the Something Screwed Crew does regularly. That would be to address a point that is based mostly on perception and observation (with the SSC, I would add "alleged perception" and "alleged observation"). The point of this article is to address something that I have discussed with other black men regarding their observations and experiences with black women; that something being the greater tendency to embrace sassiness and the tendency for such sassiness to shove sweetness to the side. Hence, "Sweetness vs Sassiness".

I use these two terms because they are often used together. The phrase, "sweet and sassy" is a familiar phrase that has been used to positively describe women, notably black women, in the past. And I stress "positive" because together, "sweet" and "sassy" can produce something that is actually rather appealing. The problem is that in today's time, sassiness has expanded at the expense of sweetness among our sistas. This is in no way shape nor form to say that there are not sweet black women, for that would be a total falsehood. I have met many of them and the young ladies who participate in this blog circle impress me as being quite sweet among other good things. But I would say that sweetness is disproportionately lacking among African American women.

Now I think that it is important to look at the definitions of "sweet" and "sassy". At The Free Dictionary, "sassy", as related to attitude, is defined as:

1. Rude and disrespectful; impudent.

2. Lively and spirited; jaunty.

Now, definition #1 has a negative connotation while definition #2 would probably overwhelmingly be viewed as positive. I believe that there is a fine line between the two definitions and that there is something that plays a large role as to whether the line is crossed to definition #1 or crossed to definition #2. That thing is the presence of sweetness.

I believe that sassiness without the balance of sweetness becomes something unpleasant. On the other hand, sweetness without sassiness remains something pleasant, albeit with possibly less of a thrill. Lets look at the definition of "sweet" as it relates to attitude:

4. Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.

5. Kind; gracious: It was sweet of him to help out.

As you can see, there is no negative connotation in the definition of "sweet". Thus, sassiness is not needed to keep sweetness positive. I think that this is one of the reasons why certain groups of women who lack the "sexy sassiness" that is common with black women tend more to have long lasting relationships and are more likely to marry than black women.

And yes, sassiness can be sexy. Unfortunately, many women seem to have trouble differentiating between the attention garnered from arrousing a man's loins as opposed to arrousing his heart. Wearing hoochie clothing is sexy. Booty claps are sexy. Wet t-shirts are sexy. But none of these are things that win a man's heart. Sassiness needs to be tempered by sweetness, otherwise you have a person who may be desirable, yet not very likeable.

This brings to mind something that I have noticed throughout the years. Being a boxing fan, I have tuned in to many fights both on television and in person. Quite often, the fights are attended by the spouses, fiances or girlfriends of the fighters. These women are black, white, Latino, Asian, etc. There are some trends that I have noticed with regard to how these women respond to their men being in a squared circle punching it out. With the black women, the overwhelming response is heavy cheering. Often the cheering is accompanied by a lot of bragging and sh*t talking. Yes, these women are fully supporting their men and are strongly rooting them on. Yet, if their men are the fan favorites, they are doing no more than what most of the people in the arena are doing.

On the other hand, a common response by the white wives, girlfriends, fiances, etc. is to have a look of worry. Some often have their eyes covered or look like they are close to tears. They have a look that says that they are more worried about their men's well being than they are about his performance in the fight. They have a look on their faces that is not shared by hardly anyone else in the arena.

This example exemplifies the differences between sweetness and sassiness; the difference between caring and being "lively and spirited; jaunty".

Blaming Black Men for Black women Straightening Their Hair.

2009-02-13T18:04:00.000-08:00

Get Well Tameka.

Being that the Something Screwed Crew continually use various social issues as tools in their personal unshared war against black men, it was inevitable that the trend of black women perming/straightening their hair would become one of their lame weapons. Our friend Grata is among those using this excuse to further her disdain for black men. The discussion over on her blog is comical, yet exemplifies the mentality of those who pathologically must find some external scapegoats as opposed to looking within.

The discussion started with this very simple and simplistic statement referencing Chris Rock:

"Exactly. Why does he encourage his wife to wear weaves? If black men told black women their natural hair was ok, the women would be fine with it."

Now lets understand that apparently (or allegedly) Chris Rock's wife wears a weave. According to Grata, her wearing a weave automatically means that she is wearing it because he encourages her to do so. Now what contradicts this is the fact that Rock is currently doing a documentary on the pathology of hair perming. So I guess that Rock is trying to show every black woman, except for his wife, that perming is unnecessary. See how comical these folks are? If I said that if black women told black men that being intellectual was ok, the men would be fine with it, Grata and her cohorts would go ape crazy.

Now as I try to do often, I will attempt to show some research on the subject as opposed to the spouting of the flawed perceptions of a few black women who practically hate black men. What one will gather from the research is that among the reasons why black women perm their hair, the notion of appeasing black men's desires is near the bottom and often not even included. Typically, the easier manageability and the desire to conform to white standards for a professional look are the main reasons. This is explained here:

"For Black women who work in professional settings where they are frequently the racial minority, deciding on a hairstyle -- a presumably simple and personal decision -- is both a constrained choice and a formidable dilemma.²¹ Black women frequently must choose between hairstyles that conform to the norms and expectations of their White colleagues or hairstyles that are central to their African-American, African, Caribbean, or other racial or ethnic identities. This choice is complicated because in our society, long straight hair has generally been considered the gold standard for attractiveness,²² and the expectation of a straight conservative hairstyle is clearly present in corporate organizations."²³

And here's more:

"Although there are probably many reasons why Black women choose to conform to dominant aesthetic standards in the workplace, we argue that Black women conform primarily because they seek to minimize the perception that they are different from their colleagues and because they want to avoid the pitfalls of stereotyping. Moreover, by conforming, they can preserve their professional images, avoid negative career consequences, and fit in with their colleagues. A Black woman's choice of hairstyle plays a part in obtaining such conformity."

And this goody:

"Although a direct causal relationship can not be explicitly established, it is likely that the popularity of chemically relaxed hair persists among Black women because of perceptions of the ease of hair maintenance, prevailing norms of beauty, and the popular belief that long straight hair is more attractive than tightly-curled hair."³¹

So as you can see, there is no reference to what black men desire. For anyone who has observed life, it is quite apparent that women are less influenced by men with regard their attire and look than the reverse. More women today have tattoos than men, yet I doubt that many men have expressed a sexual preference for tattooed women. Black women are more and more getting tattoos on their arms and necks, yet I doubt that these are done to attract men.

It has been said in the past that men dress to impress women while women dress to impress other women. Such ideas also apply to women and hair. Consider that at any hair show, the majority in the audience are women and gay men. And most of the guys realize that in manly discussions of physically desirable women, what you hear discussed are butts, breasts, thighs, lips and faces. Hair rarely comes up. Any guy who says that he would turn down a fine, pretty woman because he dislikes her natural hair would immediately be suspected of being gay. Now lets take a look at history:

Pam "Foxy Brown" Grier is one of history's most desirable black women. In her heyday, it was quite common for her to sport an Afro. Did this in any way turn black men off from her? Of course not. Black men TODAY look photos like this and still drool over her.

Was anyone turned off from 'Thelma" with this look. Hell naw! Most of us love her.

And guys. How many of you would be turned off from this young lady due to her hairstyle?

The answer is quite apparent. ZERO.

Now lets read some opinions from other, more sensible bloggers. From Stuff Black People Hate:

"Men are particularly prone to accidentally setting off the straight-haired woman because, unless you don’t have any hair, we’re perfectly happy no matter what the hair looks like - so we don’t really pay attention. We don’t give a shit if you wear it up or down, or feather your bangs (whatever the hell that means), or put it in a french twist (whatever the hell that means). All we care about is that a.) the hair is there, b.) it’s not a wig, and c.) it’s free of dirt, insects, food, and stank. Save your $150 and buy some friggin’ crotchless thong panties for us to rip off instead. Dammit."

Lets hear from Claudette Jameson:

"I can’t stand it when black women who are “napptural” and proud think that they need to put down, or assume that women with relaxed, weaved, or textured hair have something wrong with them. That they are denying their black roots. I believe that they are actually celebrating and uplifting them just as much as a black woman with natural hair. I don’t know if you realize it or not, but an African American (can’t think of the name right now) did invent the relaxer. Lacefront wigs are usually handmade by black stylist. Beverly Johnson does have her own line of hair. Do all of these people have complexes as well?"

"I’m getting tired of this. I LOVE MY RELAXED HAIR!!! I’m not doing it for no man, because I hate my natural hair texture, or because I was brainwashed by some white folks. I’m doing it for me, and to make me happy. Why don’t ya’ll get on people who dye their hair too? They not staying true to their natural hair color. This is ridiculous!!! Why can’t black women be free to love their hair, no matter what style it’s in, without the blacklash?"

Honoring A Real Sista

2009-02-02T20:48:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to honor a beautiful sista who seems to me to be on the right track to empowering black women. She comes with wisdom, logic and love and is a great counter to the hateful rhetoric of the SSC. She has a forthcoming book entitled HEALING BLACK WOMANHOOD. Here are some words from her blog that caught my attention, especially the words I have highlighted in bold:

Why We Love Black Men

OOH! a simple, yet complex question huh? I posed it recently to sistahs via email as I was completing the final Honoring Black Manhood draft...now I know why I adore brothers but I wanted to hear what other sistahs had to say, some married, some single, most mothers....I got 3 replies! But a part of me wasn't even surprised by the non participation , see that's why I am writing the book AND the chapter in the first place....

I know we have issues with brothers but DAMN! 3 replies, well actually I got 6 responses ~ two from a sistah friend that asked her homegirls to reply and then one married sistah friend that replied to give her a minute cause her and her mate were beefin'.....I replied and told her LOVING Black men was deeper than her mate, what do we love about our fathers, our sons? Yeah we got work to do! but few of us admit it, we spend WAY too much time with this mentality that brothers are the only ones with issues....SHIT! The sooner we stop lying to ourselves the better .Everyone in our space,we attracted...Self Responsibility is a NECESSITY to self growth! There is no way around it.

Please check out the Change the Focus article on MyBrotha.com ~ It's a real sweet piece of improving relations between Black women and men. We have to change the focus sistahs! I think that's the one thing most agree on, is that our relationships need some repair. I'm convinced we can do it, but it's gonna take everyone, brothers can't do it by themselves and we can't do it by ourselves.....we gotta do the work! plain and simple.

Okay but back to brothers....Is it that we don't know why we love them? We definitely know what we don't like about them? I really think a grown ass woman should be able to articulate why she loves brothers but that's just me. If you've never thought about why you love Black men, take the question and run with it....think all the men in your life (past, present) What did you dig, respect, and adore about them? How did they make you a better woman? What did you learn about yourself thru them?

The refreshing news is that if I had sent a email out to brothers asking them why they love us, I bet I woulda got hella emails (mmm...that feels good) so why are they clear but we ain't? well, we can't stay stuck forever, if we serious about the preservation & progress of Black people we are going to have to answer the question sooner or later.

This is from another blog post:

It happened again...I was on the phone with a homegirl and the AIN'T NO GOOD BROTHERS conversation came up... here we go again were my thoughts, I quickly gave her my rehearsed speech about how that's not Divinely possible. If we trust that the Universe is abundant, why would there be good sistahs but no good brothers. She agreed!

It's so bad, it's almost funny! How so many sistahs say brothers need to step up! Personally, I think BLACK WOMEN NEED TO STEP UP! We need to take more responsibility for our role in relationships, The time we spend pointing the finger at brothers, we could be workin' on our own shit!

And this jewel:

Honoring Black Manhood (Excerpt)

There are beautiful Black men walking this planet. Dedicated courageous brothers who respect and love Black women. This world is full of humble, brilliant, spirited brothers who love God, family and community. Black men are strong, hard working, and worthy. I know brothers who love, protect and rear children. Our brothers are attentive fathers, loving husbands, and strong leaders. Sistahs, we have plenty of affectionate, sincere brothers among us. I know brothers who pray, listen, and meditate. We have plenty of brothers who love & raise children who are not biologically theirs. Yes, damn good Black men are alive and well

Thankfully, there are plenty of sistas like her who are true examples of black womanhood. She has certainly gotten my attention.

Why Being A Professional Woman Doesn't Make You A Catch.

2009-02-01T13:05:00.000-08:00

The video and article showing E. Curtissa Cofield, a black female judge in Hartford, Connecticut, debasing a black male police officer who was booking her for DWI clearly shows that professional status does not always mean professional character. Cofield, on video, referred to Sgt. Dwight Washington as “Negro trooper” and repeatedly as “head nigger in charge” during questioning. He inquired as to whether she was ill, and she stated that her illness was “Negro-itis” and that she needed “anti-Negro” medication. The debasing continued.

This is important to note because the Something Screwed Crew repeatedly bases its notion of superior black female quality almost solely on a perception of professional attainment. Now lets disregard how they exaggerate the level of attainment while understating black male achievement. Does professional status by itself make a woman a catch for marriage? Of course not, yet the SSC can't seem to understand this, even after the Cynthia McKinny incident. They seem to try to proclaim what men should desire based on a female perspective. Women tend to desire men of high financial attainment. Men value a female's financial attainment MUCH less. What women desire from a man financially is what men desire from a woman physically. Men want women they view as good looking and sweet. These things tend to take president over financial attainment.

Cofield, despite being a judge, had no problem using the n-word to describe a black man who was only doing his job. It's ironic in modern times whereas black female activists rally against men referring to black women as "bitches" and "hoes", yet so many black women still feel quite comfortable calling black men "niggers/niggas". The double standards are clear. The thing about calling black men "niggas" is that it is racially and gender specific (nigga tends to have a masculine connotation when blacks use it). On the other hand, "bitch" and "ho" tend to be gender specific only. A black man who uses those words will use them when referring to women of any race. "Nigga" is directly pointing to a black man.

Wisdom from brotha Menelik.

2009-01-28T19:05:00.000-08:00

I just had to repost this comment from Menelik Charles, one of our brothas from London. As much as we can go on and on analyzing the mentality of these IR promoting women, it is really simple to peg them and Menelik pegs them perfectly with this post that I simply could not let remain only in the comments section of an old post. It needed to be placed upfront.

Rocky,

the IRR sisters do not perceive white men as being intrinsically superior to Black men...far from it in fact!

Instead they see (and write about) Black men "rejecting" them for white, light, and Latino women and this wounds them deeply as it is not only romantic and sexual rejection in their eyes but especially racial rejection!

The scorned 'sistas', who already have issues with colour and hair texture, then seek out white men with whom to form what we see as romantic unions but are instead RACIAL ALLIANCES in which the white male is a silent partner!

It's an unspoken contract in which the Black female promotes white male superiority over the Black male in exchange for a symbolic honorary white status.

The stress this 'contract' causes Black women is immeasurable and so they seek to displace it onto the men who continue to occupy their hearts...Black men!

Thus, we must interpret all of their IRR work as sub-conscious distress signals or SOSs'. Thing is, only a Black man could possibly read the signal correctly. White boys would never have a clue!

Menelik Charles
London England

Brilliant and truthful analysis. You really should start your own blog bro. You'll have my support.