Ciara's "New Boyfriend" according to Sarah

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?

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

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

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

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!

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

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.