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.

What About Our Truth?

Ashford and Simpson.
35 years of Marriage.
















For some time, I have been baffled by how comfortably certain individuals casually toss out falsehoods and misrepresentations. This has been a constant with the Something New Crew and has extended to their allies. Over on the blog What About Our Daughters, Gina McCauley presents herself as an advocate for black women and dedicates herself to promoting black female victimism while commonly practicing black male bashing. Her blog is not and interracial blog, yet she seems to be quite in tune with Evia and her followers. When she had a blog roll, she included Evia's site on it and she was quite upset by the Quiana Jenkins-Pietrzak case. In her endeavors, she has targeted several black men for ridicule and attack. I will focus on two of these individuals.

The first is Genarlow Wilson. Genarlow Wilson was acquitted of the rape of a 17 year old classmate at a private party that turned in what would basically be a teenage drunken orgy. The actual sex act between the two was video taped and has been described as like this:

"In a portion of a tape obtained by "Primetime," Wilson, then 17 and an honor student and star athlete who was homecoming king, is seen having intercourse with a 17-year-old girl, who was seen earlier on the bathroom floor. During the sex act, she appears to be sleepy or intoxicated but never asks Wilson to stop. Later on in the tape, she is seen being pulled off the bed."

And like this:

"Later in the evening, a 17-year-old girl began to have sex with the young men, first in the bathroom, then on the bed. Genarlow is captured on tape appearing to have sex with the girl from behind. Her hand is clearly visible on the floor supporting herself. Witnesses said she was a willing participant."

And then we have the predominantly white jury's reaction to viewing the tape:

"I mean it wasn't even an hour," said jury forewoman Marie Manigault. "We immediately saw the tape for what it was. We went back and saw it again and saw what actually happened and everybody immediately said NOT GUILTY."

So can someone please explain, based on this information, how she could print this statement on her blog:

"She should not have consumed any booze so therefore she can’t claim victim status when GENARLOW WILSON and his five buddies brutalize her body while she is unconscious."

Where on Earth did anyone say that anyone, including Genarlow, brutalized her body while she is unconscious? This borders on a flat out lie. Also from the same link, she quotes and agrees with someone else's statement:

"No matter how much (two glasses of Cognac) the 17-year-old may have had to drink, no matter how much she may have flirted with those boys, she did not consent to having sex with all of them, one right after the other. Yet it never occurred to the “smart” and “spiritual” Genarlow to say, “Stop it. We should not be doing this.” No. Genarlow watched, waited and gladly took his turn. When they were through raping her, Genarlow helped his friends drag the comatose victim to the bathroom. They opened the door, pushed her in, watched as she fell to the floor and closed the door. I guess she wasn’t much fun anymore."

Does this individual have any clue what the definition of "comatose" is?

Genarlow Wilson did not rape his 17 year old classmate. Was he stupid? Sure. He indulged in drinking and marijuana during the party (which would have made him just as drunk/high as the girl). He allowed himself to be filmed in sex acts and didn't use any judgment in his encounter with the 15 year old girl. But we don't send promising young men to prison based solely on stupidity, yet Gina, in her apparent disdain for black men, is quite willing to ruin this young man's life based on the accusations of a girl who was clearly upset with herself and her own poor judgment. It's shameful.

The next man is DL Hughley. Hughley referred to the members of the Rutger's lady basketball team as "the ugliest women I have ever seen in my life". Did the the ladies of Rutgers deserve this? Of course not. Beauty is subjective and to some men, these woman could be viewed as quite beautiful. But the truth is that often when women grow to over 6 feet tall and are physically capable of taking it to the hoop with the best of them, they tend to not posses the standard looks men typically view as attractive. This is not limited to black women. But Gina makes this claim:

"In other words, Hughley was basically saying “It’s okay. I’m Black and I think Black women are ugly too— in fact, they are some of the “ugliest women I have ever seen in my life!”" More After the jump."

Hughley never made this claim about black women in general. As ugly as his words were, he made this claim about a particular group of women who happened to be black. Plus, two of the members of that group were white and I doubt that Hughley was excluding them from his statement. And there is this:

"Much like their reaction to Hughley taking his minstrelsy on to the Tonight Show with Jay Leno to say Black women are the ugliest women he has ever seen in his life..."

Again she makes the false claim that Hughley is referencing black women in general. Hell, the man just recently told Maryline Blackburn that she is a beautiful woman. THE MAN IS MARRIED TO A BLACK WOMAN.

Often times, common sense and honesty goes out the window when one practices demagoguery. This violation of the truth is almost a sickness and it is quite unhealthy for our community.

Do Black Women Often Marry Down to Marry White?

Thomas and Joan Gosier, married May 28, 2000, have been married nearly 8 years. CONGRATULATIONS!
The Gosier's are the founders of HBCU kidz, Inc. and have recently launched a black parenting site called BlackParentConnect.com. Their site seeks to uplift, celebrate and value children of color.








I found an interesting blog on Rachel's Tavern (Rachel is herself a sociology professor). In this blog, she cites studies from Qian 1997 and Kalmijn 1993 that indicate that white men in marriages with black women, on average, have less education than black men married to black women. Here is what she says (note the part in bold):

"Demographic studies have found that Black women/White men marriages tend to be exceptional when it comes to educational status. Black women are more likely than other groups of women to marry someone with less education when they marry intraracially or interracially (Kalmijn 1993, Qian 1997). What is even more interesting is that Black women in interracial relationships are even more likely to marry a less educated man than Black women in same race relationships. This trend is even more striking given White men’s higher average levels of education and income (Qian 1997, Kalmijn 1993). Rational choice theorists could argue that Black women more than any other group must trade higher levels of education since both their gender and race are perceived as lower than that of White men. This could also mean that only the highest status Black women could have interracial marital opportunities."

I find these studies quite ironic since the Something New Crew constantly claim the need to date and marry white men and other non-black men due to the notion that there are not enough black men at their education level. But how is this solved when you are marrying white men who are at an even lower education level than the black men available to you?