Addressing The "Black Men Abandon Their Children" myth.

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"

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"

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"

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.

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

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

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.