Dating, Relationships, & Sex, Pop Culture, Theory & Essay

The Surprisingly Solid Sex Advice From Kanye West’s “I’m In It”

6a00e54f05e1bb88340192aaaa48c7970d-700wi

It’s been two weeks since Kanye West’s Yeezus first dropped. Since its release, serious critics from pretty much every corner of the music world have been in a virtual race to see who could give it the laudingest review.

Yet, while the sonic aspects of the album have received the lion’s share of the praise, the actual lyrical content has received quite a bit of (justified) criticism. Particularly, how it deals with women. 

One song in particular has seemed to draw the most ire; an especially, almost hilariously dark three minute and forty-five second long genre (and gender) bending track that kinda sounds, to quote a friend, like “…something the antichrist would say while on a date at the Olive Garden.”

Needless to say, it also happens to be my favorite song on the album.

Anyway, after listening to it for perhaps the 32nd time a couple days ago, something dawned on me: What he’s saying here isn’t actually that bad. It’s actually kinda…thoughtful. And…practical. And…romantic.

Don’t believe me? Well, let’s go line for line and see.

“Damn your lips very soft”

When dating a Black woman, you can never go wrong with an unsolicited softness, hair, skin, or struggle-related compliment.

“As I turn my Blackberry off”

Some of us are so attached to our phones that we schedule mid-coitus breaks to check Instagram updates, and he’s actually turning it all the way off! How considerate is that?

“And I turn your bath water on”

Who said chivalry was dead? Not Kanye.

“And you turn off your iPhone”

See, men. If you take the lead, she’ll follow. As the homie Paul Brunson says, it’s not complicated.

“Jealous whispers, eye f*cking, biting ass”

As the guy who used to hawk boosted water guns and Progresso soup cans outside of my barbershop used to tell me, “foreplay is the best play.”

“Neck, ears, hands, legs, eating’ ass”

He’s making sure no part gets neglected. I hope you guys out there are taking notes. It’s not always just about nips and lips. Toes, elbows, and the perpetually ashy space between her fingers need love too.

“Your p*ssy’s too good, I need to crash”

Another unsolicited softness and lips-related compliment. Plus, the intentional hyperbole of “too good” instead of just plain “good” will definitely make her smile on the inside.

“Your t*tties, let ‘em out, free at last.”

He obviously listens to his woman—and other women—and knows that wearing a bra all day can be painful and restrictive.

“Thank God almighty, they free at last”

You can never go with with invoking Dr. King in the bedroom. Never. (How am I so sure? Don’t ask.)

“We was up at the party but we was leavin’ fast”

There are some of y’all who’ve been dating the same person for three years and won’t even go to the Wendy’s drive-thru together yet, but he obviously thinks enough of her to be seen with her in public and be seen leaving in a hurry with her.

“Had to stop at 7-Eleven like I needed gas. I’m lyin’, I needed condoms, don’t look through the glass.”

There are so many nuggets of gold here that it’s hard to keep count.

First, realizing she may have had too much to drink, he’s driving. Second, he’s practicing safe sex…something we all know we could be much better at. Third, to add strawberries to bacon, he knows that, despite their need and utility, condoms aren’t necessarily the most romantic object, so he conceals the purchase.

“Chasin’ love, lot of bittersweet hours lost”

A subtle reminder that, even in the throes of passion, it’s wise to step back and assess whether your level of commitment is harming other aspects of your life.

“Eatin’ Asian p*ssy, all I need was sweet and sour sauce”

While awkward, this level of pre-coital cultural sensitivity is rare. I mean, you can be as politically correct as you want, but it helps to know some culturally specific things before jumping into the sack, especially if you’re a Black male.

For instance, you probably shouldn’t pull a Black woman’s hair, you probably shouldn’t sleep with a White woman if her dad is still alive, and, apparently, condiments are key if performing cunnilingus on a Chinese woman. Learn something new every day.

“Tell your boss you need an extra hour off.”

Sensitive enough to make sure she doesn’t get in trouble at work. Plus, this line single-handedly refutes all the data, surveys, stories, and specials about how difficult it is for professional Black women to find men.

“Get you super wet after we turn the shower off.”

Although it looks great in movies, anyone who’s ever had shower sex…or bathtub sex…or jacuzzi sex…or typhoon sex…or Allegheny River after dark when the police boats start floating towards the Ohio sex…knows that water can act as an anti-lubricant. It is, without question, the world’s great paradox.

Yet, Kanye has obviously been paying attention, and knows that it is best to wait until after the shower to start the sexual activity.

I’d break down the second verse as well, but I think we need the weekend break to process everything we learned here so far.

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

Filed Under: , ,
Damon Young

Damon Young is the editor-in-chief of VSB. He is also a contributing editor for EBONY.com. He resides in Pittsburgh, and he really likes pancakes.

  • Sahel

    Add chex on the beach to that. Sand gets in places is not supposed to.

    • http://wildcougarconfessions.com Wild Cougar

      If you gotta pull her hair for her to look satisfied, you’re doing it wrong

      • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

        word ~ that and disheveled hair just happens anyway. sweat = frizz, plus umm umm (lost my train of thought here) (giggle)

  • http://www.TheNewEve.com/ Bunni

    I feel less gross and creepy that this is also my favorite track…im not the only one *phew*

    But…..I also love lil Wayne’s “Wowzers” song….so maybe im not a good judge on this kinda thing lol

    • kidvideo

      Hey (honey)bunni…the rain ruin your 4th?…heard nyc got flooded.

      • Todd

        It didn’t rain in NYC. It rained crazy the days leading up, but not the 4th itself.

      • http://www.TheNewEve.com/ Bunni

        I live in Atlanta now, and we def got rained on…good thing we bbq’d last wknd lol

    • Tristan

      wowsers tho…drops bunni down a notch on vss power rankings

      • http://www.TheNewEve.com/ Bunni

        Shrugs…..it’s so catchy, and I enjoy Trina…it’s a guilty pleasure lol

  • kidvideo

    Still haven’t heard the whole album yet…might grab it 2day…

    • Sahel

      Trust me,forget yeezus. Magna Carter is the way to go

      • kidvideo

        Yeah…I heard a couple of those early leaks (tom ford, magna carta), but im not blow away.

        • Sahel

          Nickel and Dimes and Holy Grail are my stand outs

          • kidvideo

            haven’t heard it on repeat…been ridin round all day, and my cd player in the car busted…ill grab a copy this weekend and decide if I want the real thing tues…

  • NomadaNare

    Maybe I’m just not as Internet-connected as Champ, but I’ve heard Yeezus described as “that time he tried to do punk because high-fashion rejected him”. Who’s giving him good reviews?

    • Tristan

      lmao at that description, but ive read mostly good reviews, its like he tried so hard to make this album uncomfortable and white america was like awwww

      • Madlark

        That’s the perfect description.

      • Todd

        More accurately, Yeezus sounds like that ironic hip-hop album hipsters would love to make but lack the knowledge of hip-hop to pull off. The album is so ironic and self-absorbed that it doesn’t have the time and space to be actually good. Like most of the hipster community. Anyway…

        • http://uphereoncloud9.com/ Wu Young

          I have no desire to listen to Ye’s joint. I have the feeling that it would just tire me out which is something I feel music shouldn’t do.

          • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

            he’s reaching a point of draining energy. that happens a lot when people are deeply conflicted. art is a release for the artist, but it can also be a vortex for the audience .. i’m attracted to dark and painful things but i gotta be sparing with it otherwise ima end up inside out again ..

          • h.h.h.

            “I have no desire to listen to Ye’s joint.”

            i feel like i’ve only listened (well actually..skimmed… “do you listen to music or do you just skim through it”) to it once…and i need to actually sit down and listen to it…

            my initial thought is that this is what you get then a producer who can rap, attempts to make art out of music.

    • NomadaNare

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0BbHi-2Wl3o I don’t know who Charlemagne is, but this is more the criticism I’ve heard and expressed.

  • Todd

    Yawn…I’m so over Yeezus. Magna Carta Holy Grail FTW! Oh, and my neighbors must own a Samsung phone because they were playing MCHG songs in the mix through their cookout. Ill stuff man!

    • Tristan

      MCHG >>>>

    • rachellem

      Lurker here…

      Maybe it’s the youngin’ in me but I actually find both Yeezus and MCHG to be quite underwhelming. Both albums were better at something than the other. For example, Kanye had much better “presence” on Yeezus but MCHG had structure and cohesiveness especially with the beat selection (and the features were dope). Overall, both had me like “what the heck was the point of this?”

      Especially with MCHG…the beats speak for themselves leaving Jay-Z’s rapping absolutely pointless. I found myself blocking him out most of the time and this is coming from someone who grew up listening to his HOT97 freestyles almost religiously. He’s become that one uncle that keeps bragging about the good ol’ days and how he can still get in with the rest of “these young kids”. If this is what “Lite adult contemporary” hip-hop sounds like then…I dunno lol

      • NomadaNare

        You know, I just heard Holy Grail for the first time today and agree with that Jay-Z’s rapping is extraneous. I think your description is spot on, I found myself wondering about his supposed retirement with the black album and curious as to why he didn’t do it.

        • rachellem

          “I found myself wondering about his supposed retirement with the black album and curious as to why he didn’t do it.”

          Yeah…pretty much lol. It’s evident to me, though, that MCHG is like the last evolutionary step in “The Blueprint” series. The last chess move. Luxurious beats, shiny marketing. The infamous Samsung deal. This is supposed to be the “Holy Grail” for rappers. Which kinda says a lot about the genre but at the same time it doesn’t say much at all.

          • Maharaja Misty

            While I won’t argue about what you should and shouldn’t find musically compelling about either Yeezus or MCHG. I completely disagree with the notion that either one of em were pointless or frivolous. Both Yeezus and MCHG were experiments on opposite sides of the spectrum that speak to the huge difference btw Jay and Yeezy as ‘artists’ and individuals. Yeezus is a very conceptual piece of work, not unlike most of his stuff, but experimented with minimalism and industrial presence that mainstream rap had not yet ventured into before. It was purposefully polarizing in both is conception, output, and marketing or lack thereof. While I realize that Kanye’s vocal insistence about his art being ‘artistic’ can be tiring for most folks, it doesn’t negate that he continues to attempt to push rap as far from it’s boundaries as possible. That’s important. You don’t have to like it, but that is significant.
            Far as Jay is concerned MCHG is so much more than ‘shiny marketing’ , far as its inception I (like a lot of geeked stans) saw the Tim interview where he states it started organically after he was working on some beats for Bey’s album, played some stuff for Jay and then the collection blossomed from there. But what he attempted to do (and in some respects accomplished) w/Samsung is huge. While the idea of maintaining any exclusivity with music is now debunked w/Samsungs huge app fumble, Jay circumventing the usual distribution process w/labels, and reaching out to a 3rd party to both fund and distribute a bulk of his music, and netting an unprecedented per album profit (5 dollars per copy) is huge. It at the very least lays a blueprint for other artists to find similar end around strategies that does not confine the funding and distribution to the whims of label heads, which usually is at the detriment of both their art and their pockets. I’m interested to see who will follow suite next, and the impact it has on the label industry.
            Respect the moves youngin.

            • rachellem

              “Respect the moves youngin.”

              Haha. Oh I know and I respect. The business innovation on Jay’s part is really apparent. I wrote in a facebook post recently: Jay-Z recently tweeted: “If 1 Million records gets SOLD and Billboard doesn’t report it, did it happen?” Alluding to his deal with Samsung, it’s seems that Mr. Carter is one of the few guys in the industry that gets that you can’t keep running away from technology’s role in music. Instead you have to play the game wisely and be innovative. It will be interesting to see if deals like these will change they way we receive music or even movies.”

              In fact, the business aspect of this album is so apparent that it literally drowns any of the content/messages that he tried to speak to. This is looking at it from a strictly hip-hop point-of-view. I paid more attention to Beyonce than this guy in all seriousness. The beats were everything. The features were everything. But the content is redundant, I think he did way better on WTT (which is a masterpiece).

              As far as Yeezus is concerned. I’m sorry but as an ALBUM it just felt overworked and underwhelming. I love when Kanye experiments (MTDF was just as groundbreaking as Graduation) but there are times when it gets too heavy-handed. Yeezus is just that heavy-handed. It’s almost like he fell short in his own quest for minimalism. It was self induglent for no reason…the album as a whole lacked cohesion. Ironically
              though, what Kanye attempted to do on Yeezus (the desire to “kill
              self”) is what Jay-Z does on MCHG because I literally found myself forgetting that I was listening to a Jay-Z record at many times lol. I really like some individual cuts from both albums but as complete bodies of work there wasn’t much there.

              And also as far as the Samsung deal, I might add that these past few years have been really great for hiphop with all of these new rappers doing big numbers and taking number one spots. And with Jay-Z’s deal, this definitely opens up a new lane for a genre like hip-hop whose core fanbase hates to buy music (myself included ;-P ). So this leaves us with rappers getting richer (much quicker) but is the CULTURE itself getting richer? I think that’s the question I would like pose here. Because if MCHG is all we have to show for getting to this point…then that’s a little disheartening lol

              • Maharaja Misty

                Wow. You think WTT is a masterpiece? “Ham”?! ..Really?! Far as Yeezus failing on minimalism, I can agree to a certain extent, but in Kanye context this is about as minimalist as he can get. Every Kanye album is indulgent to me, it’s only a matter of which of his indulgences one enjoys the most. Example: I will probably never listen to 808 again, but I appreciate it.
                Far as Hip-Hop getting richer as a culture as a result of a groundbreaking deal , that remains to be seen. What I do find is optimism in an end around strategy that allows artists more control of their distribution, which in turn may offer them more control of their creative content. If you’re platinum before the album drops, are you really going to be concerned with chart placement? Will you be more strategic about radio friendly singles, when you are not worried about recoupement for studio time, marketing erc.,, and used someone else’s capital to fund your project? For a music fan, those are exciting opportunities, which has the possibility to allow artists to make the music they want to make, as opposed to the music they’re forced or ‘advised’ to make to maximize profit. And ultimately I don’t think MCHG is supposed to be a symbol for the apex of the collective genre of hip-hop’s creativity or artistic innovation, moreso an example of the height of an individual artist can achieve in gaining creative and fiscal control of his content and career, a possibility that can be afforded to any artist, the musical output of that possibility varies but I actually do find that to be heartening. So I do not think MCHG is supposed to be the end all be all of artistry, but a possible foundation for artistic independence.

                • rachellem

                  You’re judging WTT based on HAM though? :-/

                  N*GGAS IN PARIS (which arguably has the most “hidden gems” in terms of social commentary in a MAINSTREAM hip-hop song that we’ve had in a while) …No Church in the Wild…Murder to Excellence…Who Gon Stop Me…Made In America…OTIS. Am I missing something? lol

                  • Maharaja Misty

                    Fine, you may have a point there, if you wanna bring up the best songs n shyt. I could offer Nickels & Dimes, Picasso Baby, and Made In America as possible comps but I’ll refrain. Great album? Yes, but masterpiece IMO might be too generous. Plus ‘HAM” really sucked, I don’t know of 1 proverbial ‘HAM’ on Yeezus or MCHG, but I digress, because our tastes differ.

                    • rachellem

                      “I don’t know of 1 proverbial ‘HAM’ on Yeezus or MCHG”

                      C’MON! Forreal lol! Now you’re just stanning ;-) You liked La Familia?

                      Maybe saying WTT was a “masterpiece” was a bit hyperbolic (and I don’t think that HAM was THAT bad…it was more like a throw-away record) but it will be highly regarded in years to come I believe. It was really that good imo…

                    • Maharaja Misty

                      I’m sure La Familia has some redeeming qualities…I just have to listen to it more..Ok maybe it is the weakest track on there, but that’s besides the point! If HAM can be a throw away record that doesn’t negate the overall strength of WTT than the same can be said of La Familia! And I am being as objectively stannish as I can possibly be.

      • Todd

        I actually agree with everything you said. Jay-Z has aged well. Now if Kendrick Lamar would loosen up on the next album, he could be the Next Big Thing. Oh, and J. Cole is something serious.

    • John Shannon

      Like I said yesterday, Mp3skull.com is YOUR FRIEND!!!!!!!!!!!!! I got most of the album already

  • Michelle

    I am more curious about Jay-Z’s album than I am intrigued by Kanye’s current one. The reason?
    The “block ninjas” around my way are talking about it. When it comes to getting recommendations for buying rap albums, I usually ask the fellas that stand in front of the bodega 24/7, because they are usually on point.

  • Obsidian Files

    Well friends,

    Can’t say I’m much of a Kanye West fan, and haven’t heard Jay-Z’s MCHG in its entirety, so don’t have much to add there either (though I wonder if Jigga’s meta-message has flown right over his fans’ heads…hmm…).

    However, I have been made aware of Questlove’s autobiography that’s soon to be coming out, and promises to be a very, very interesting read, if his recent interview with NPR’s Terry Gross is any indication. Heck of an interview, definitely check it out.

    Questo makes a number of very important points – among them, that The Roots have the distinction of having put out some *15 albums* – something that is all but unheard of for the vast majority of Hip Hop acts (and any other genre, to be frank), . I think that while Yeezus and MCHG will be the “big box” events of the Summer, Questo’s autobiography will quite possibly be the sleeper hit. If you’re a stan of the Soulquarians like yours truly, it’s definitely something you don’t wanna miss.

    And the fact that The Roots will be literally rewriting the iconic Tonight Show theme is way cool.

    More in a sec…

    O.

    • http://uphereoncloud9.com/ Wu Young

      I finished Quest’ s book the other day. Dope read with a lot of behind the scenes insights on the group and his process.

      • Obsidian Files

        @Wu:
        Yea, I’m definitely looking forward to reading it in full very soon; thanks for the review!

        Oh, and during his “Fresh Air” interview, Questo told the story of how The Roots actually got started – because he wanted to impress a very pretty girl who also attended the High School or Perfoming Arts down there in South Philly: Amel Larrieux, if memory serves. EvoPsych holds, that both Men AND Women, *must* display their wares in order to attract potential mates (TEOD, Buss, pp. 99).

        Men do what they do because of Women. Make no mistake about it.

        EvoPsych – and GAME – FTW…

        …again…

        O.

    • Obsidian Files

      In other news…

      Recently several ladies in the forum took issue with my staunch support of the Men’s Rights Agenda, particularly as it relates to Reproductive Rights. One lady in particular, Ms. Misty, argued that few if any Men here or anywhere else, aligned themselves with my view.

      Well, as it turns out, she was wrong.

      Very, very wrong.

      The proof?

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2330458/Get-Britain-Fertile-Peter-Lloyd-says-men-blame-women-childless-Melissa-Kite-says-society-is.html

      I quote:

      “In Asia there’s a new tendency for men to go their own way – with thousands shunning marriage and kids for a life of independence and control, which no family court can destroy. The same thing is happening across America and Canada.”

      The author of this piece, which appeared in the Daily Mail of London, UK, Mr. Peter Lloyd, is responding to an article written by fellow reporter/columnist Ms. Melissa Kite, who attempted to argue that Men who considered their what was in their own interests – in this case, that of weighing the costs/benefits to being a daddy in our time, and deciding that it was just “Too High” to quote Stevie Wonder – were, and I quote, “being selfish”. Mr. Llyod does an admirable job refuting Ms. Kite’s claims, while at the same time making the case for Men’s Rights in our time, which is indeed, global in scope.

      Read it and weep, ladies.

      Read it and weep…

      ;)

      O.

      • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

        i am all for global population control, especially since the planet will not be able to support us on the scale and level that progress “seemingly” affords. there are dark days coming, inevitably.

        i think people who opt out of parenting are doing the world a great service in ways too numerous to count. that, and to know one’s self, to know that they are not here to perpetuate the species but to simply live their lives on their own terms, free from the fetters of nature and society, that is a kind of freedom that men and women alike are finally—and truly—free to embrace ~*~

        • Obsidian Files

          @Ms. Esa:

          You strike me as a “Star Trek” type of person – one who has a view of the future, and Humanity more particularly, along more “hopeful” lines.

          I, on the other hand, think the future is more likely to look like something out of Judge Dredd, Blade Runner, and Elysium.

          People do what they do, not out of some altruistic, utopian impulse, but because of inherently selfish interests. Human beings are cost/benefit calculators, who have evolved tactics of deception around this, because they know that if their calculations were so nakedly apparent it could cause them trouble for/to others they need in order to realize said goals.

          Men aren’t “going on strike” for the lofty goals you’re mentioning, but rather more out of naked self-interest:

          “American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?

          As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.”

          http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1594036756

          O.

          • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

            (smile)

            i’m neither hopeful nor hopeless about the future. i have a theory, that life is predetermined in retrospect. and to that end, the illusions of progress will inevitably be checked.

            as to people, i believe they are self-centered, rather than selfish. even a martyr is self-serving through self-sacrifice. i believe that the ego being a fragile, limiting, and destructible construct gives people the opportunity to create filters that lead them to believe what they think is a Truth, when it is perhaps just an interpretation, a translation of the ineffable and unknowable put into words.

            as to men opting out, for whatever reason they believe, this is cool because in this way they serve both their own self interests as well as that of the earth. trust, i’m not having children for a million reasons, none of which is population control but i recognize the silver lining when it sparkles and twinkles ~*~

            i agree that there is some serious backlash against men, and women, and men, and women, and around again. now if that backlash is so great that men dropping out of school, of work, out of the system itself—well, i, out of principle, think the systems of education and industry are highly suspicious capitalist (and oppressive) enterprises so i’m all about people questioning finding their own path.

            however, if their reasons for abandoning the system are not stemming from a place of self reliance and self determination, if in fact the backlash is so pathological that men are becoming self-immolating creatures, well, then .. that’s America acting out its own privilege. this is a country built on the very spirit of entitlement, and as such over the course of 2 centuries we have created a culture that is in a permanent state of stunted adolescence. and inevitably this cultural pathology affects its citizens.

            which is not to say i am not empathetic. i am. i completely relate to victims, victimization, pathologies, self destruction, alla it. it serves a purpose and the purpose (for me) has been this: total immolation so one can be reborn as the phoenix.

            course, thas terribly unpleasant, and very very messy. and many people, when driven by destructive mechanisms, miss the opportunities for salvation and redemption. but these possibilities always exist. and it is natural. the pendulum swings for both the individual and the society, and the nature of wo/man is such that self determination is always possible.

            • Todd

              I’m of the opinion that it is the product of feminism. I don’t want to say it is feminism’s fault, because from what I gather, the goals of feminism weren’t necessarily to screw over men, notable exceptions notwithstanding. However, when you open up all these new roles to women, there wasn’t a thought of “gee, what’s going to happen to all the dudes here?” I think the relative success of the Civil Rights Movement caused some issues similar to this, but the ones who got hit the hardest by the loss of racial privileges got sucked into the uptake of the broader Conservative movement. The men who got thrown by the wayside aren’t much of political monolith, and no one is quite sure what is going to happen with them.

              At some point, society is going to organize itself in a way where men can more easily enter roles that were mostly the province of women. I also know that this process isn’t going to happen easily, if only because it is in a lot of people’s interest to pretend that this process isn’t happening.This article in The Atlantic magazine should give a guide: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/the-masculine-mystique/309401/

              It’s going to be fun to watch the impact of this over the intervening years.

              • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

                i hear you. tho in this country, i am never quite sure that capitalism isnt the overarching guide to where the chips fall. yes, politically, feminism empowered women to a level of equality not granted by the Constitution. and with that power, women now have the freedom to pursue their own destinies. but let’s consider that since men are the ones who granted these rights to women, men also share the responsibility for the outcome of feminism.

                i’ve often reflected on how the feminism of the 60s and 70s affected not just my life (for better and for worse) but also how it left men hanging out there, and no one really addressed it directly, other than as reactionary backlash that still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

                i am the product of all that feminism has wrought, which has created all kindsa confusion in me, cause whether you believe it or not, it is still a man’s world, and i know this because i unconsciously aligned myself with men, and played that as far as it would take me. it’s weird, at best, to drop gender roles and replace them with masculine-identified women‚ but it is real. and in this way, i hold women of the previous generation responsible for abandoning the need to teach girls what the feminine is.

                not to say all women. let’s say, my mother, since this is my point of reference. i been itching to write an essay about how she literally cut off all my hair and dressed me like a boy my entire childhood, how she taught me nothing about being a girl, and so i am rather ill-equipped, and trying to figure things out now—and i fully own this is on me.

                i feel the same way about men. it’s incumbent upon the individual to assess and address the short end of the stick we all got. cause, truth be told, that kind of assessment has greater potential than say, keeping things status quo. in fact, i’ll go so far as to say this is what our generation has inherited. we don’t fight for the same rights; now that we have been given them we must learn how to live in a conscious, respectful, and uplifting way, as well as acknowledge that with all progress comes new challenges to be faced ..

              • Obsidian Files

                @Todd:

                “I’m of the opinion that it is the product of feminism. I don’t want to say it is feminism’s fault, because from what I gather, the goals of feminism weren’t necessarily to screw over men, notable exceptions notwithstanding.”

                O: Ahh, but the exceptions are so outsized, so colossal in their scope and impact, that we simply cannot write them as a statistical flukes. They matter – a lot. Especially when it comes to Black Men. It cries out for discussion, for investigation. I am doing my part, to make sure such issues reach the light of day.

                “However, when you open up all these new roles to women, there wasn’t a thought of “gee, what’s going to happen to all the dudes here?” I think the relative success of the Civil Rights Movement caused some issues similar to this, but the ones who got hit the hardest by the loss of racial privileges got sucked into the uptake of the broader Conservative movement. The men who got thrown by the wayside aren’t much of political monolith, and no one is quite sure what is going to happen with them.”

                O: I beg to differ – we DO know what is going to happen to them, and two diametrically opposed writers sociopolitically, have recently written about this:

                The End of Men: And the Rise of Women

                http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/B00D9TA4VY

                Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010

                http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/030745343X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373048326&sr=1-1&keywords=coming+apart

                We just don’t care.

                “At some point, society is going to organize itself in a way where men can more easily enter roles that were mostly the province of women. I also know that this process isn’t going to happen easily, if only because it is in a lot of people’s interest to pretend that this process isn’t happening.”

                O: With all due respect Todd, it’s a nonissue looking for a cause. There have been stay at home and single dads, for decades at this point. Men have been nurses, again, for decades at this point. Nice Guys are so ubiquitious that we have to stylize the way we express the term, and they are routinely excoriated by the very Women who bemoan the lack of “sensitive Men”.

                The real issue(s) is: can Men define, on their own terms, what it means to be a Man, in the 21st century – and have that redefinition accepted, WITHOUT JUDGMENT, by Women? See, that’s what the Pickup movement, really is all about. That’s what Roe For men, really is all about. Among other things.

                And the early evidence suggests, that the ladies are hardly as nonjudgmental as they’d like us to believe…

                “This article in The Atlantic magazine should give a guide”

                O: Yes, I’m hip to that piece, and think that it’s largely flawed, for reasons Dr. Helen Smith, among others, makes so brutally clear in her recently published work, Men On Strike. Until we bring those vital points that she and others raise, into the broader “conversation” – AND TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY – all we’ll be doing is urinating in the wind.

                “It’s going to be fun to watch the impact of this over the intervening years.”

                O: The future is now, my friend…

                O.

                • Todd

                  I think we’re talking past each other. I know of the books you mentioned, and the need for men to be able to define success on their own terms. Where I differ from you is that I am more optimistic that society will be able to adapt to these changes in a positive way. I think that 20 years hence, men will be more esteemed taking feminine social positions or even men just doing their own thing without plugging into the mainstream society (aka the MGTOW movement).

                  I also know that people have a history of proclaiming the end of society when XYZ happens..only for people to be happy with the changes. Think about it for a second. The fact that someone like Sarah Palin could be thought of as a Conservative would have been radical 50 years ago, and there are some idea that we see as radical now that will be old hat to my grandchildren. Society has a way of changing over time in ways predictable or not.

                • NomadaNare

                  I don’t about using political writers (yes, even if one is a doctor) is the best place to start with honestly looking at the ‘plight’ of men in America (white or black). I think your analysis here is totally inaccurate, and as I always say, it’s usually because you start with bad sources.

                  • Obsidian Files

                    Nomada:
                    No statue was ever erected to a critic. What sources do YOU think are better?

                    O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      O, it’s not up to me to provide sources for your arguments. it’s up to you to provide sources beyond reasonable criticism. you have failed to do so but continue to build arguments on flawed premises.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      Nomada:

                      Yea. but that’s it – as far as you’re concerned, NOTHING I present will mollify you – which is why I said what I did earlier. I’m not out to “convince” you, because you’ve already got your mind made up about me and what it is that I’m about and I knew that from Day One – which is perfectly fine with me.

                      I am asking YOU, what do YOU think would be a better way to go about these issues? About a month or so ago, I asked you point blank what would be a better system instead of Game and Pickup for the guys on the sidelines of the mating game, and all you could give me was warmed over platitudes and “just be yourself” boilerplate, WHICH DOESN’T WORK for so many guys.

                      This is why I said what I did about you before, and I maintain it now – it’s very, very easy to shot other people’s ideas and arguments down – much, much harder to present arguments and ideas of your own. To date you’ve yet to do this, other than the aforementioned “just be yourself” boilerplate. No wonder you only stick your head in the room when it comes time to take potshots at somebody.

                      Like I said, no statue was ever erected to a critic…

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      O, this is seriously one of the weaker arguments you’ve posted. You are making a large assumption about what I actually think of you and about your arguments. I’ve told you how I felt, but I’ve always left the door open for you to prove your point. The problem is you can’t. Earlier, when I made what seemed to be an outrageous point about post-modernism, I instantly backed it up with wikipedia articles on the subject referencing the papers that back up the claim. If you wanted to pursue the argument further, I would aid in your understanding of the material. Why can’t you do that? Could it be because you don’t have the evidence to back up what you say? Maybe, instead of worrying about mollifying me, you should investigate the efficacy of the claims you make. If your ideas and arguments are so iron clad as you make them out to be then you’d have no problem going through the academic articles that your source references with me. Oh yeah, BTW: http://www.therestisnoise.com/2006/03/statues_of_crit.html. ;-)

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Nomada:

                      “O, this is seriously one of the weaker arguments you’ve posted.”

                      O: hardly surprising coming from you, since you think that just about any argument of mine is “weak”…

                      “You are making a large assumption about what I actually think of you and about your arguments.”

                      O: They aren’t assumptions, they are based on statements you’ve made about both…

                      “I’ve told you how I felt, but I’ve always left the door open for you to prove your point. The problem is you can’t. Earlier, when I made what seemed to be an outrageous point about post-modernism, I instantly backed it up with wikipedia articles on the subject referencing the papers that back up the claim.”

                      O: Which I find odd- when I posst up Wikipedia articles you and just about errbody else here automatically discounts them as subpar and flimsy evidence in support of my position; when you, however, resort to the exact same source (Wikipedia), that should be taken as gospel. Hmm…

                      “If you wanted to pursue the argument further, I would aid in your understanding of the material. Why can’t you do that? Could it be because you don’t have the evidence to back up what you say? Maybe, instead of worrying about mollifying me, you should investigate the efficacy of the claims you make. If your ideas and arguments are so iron clad as you make them out to be then you’d have no problem going through the academic articles that your source references with me.”

                      O: Because as I’ve said before, I’ve provided you with my sources. That they don’t satisfy you, is not a problem I can or should solve.

                      “Oh yeah, BTW:”

                      O: You’re missing the point, both mine and apparently the article you linked to, Nomada – a common problem of Clever Sillies.

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      Oh okay, please go ahead and find me those statements that I’ve made about both. I’ll wait, but while I am waiting, I’ll continue to question your points. The wikipedia articles I’ve posted directly references the papers/books etc. that prove the results of which I speak. If you wish to investigate any of these articles, feel free to chose one and we can it investigate together, I can continue to explain the theorem to you, or I can email you the papers with the proven results and we can discuss them. Your choice my dude. The difference between you and I is that you don’t offer these choices, but instead cling to your sources and attempt to belittle and insult (in your case, i’m particularly interested in discussing the references of your references and I have asked you multiple times to provide me with relevant papers.) And as for my reference of statues being built to critics, I understood the point of the article perfectly, but you missed the dig. Not only are you not an exalted composer (so, the comparison of me critiquing you is troublesome to say the least), but at the same time that you’re critiquing me for critiquing your logic, you’re critiquing feminism using the erroneous critiques of others. And to add, it was yet another time in our discussions where you didn’t even ironically consider your own demonstrated hypocrisy or how the actual evidence matched your stated conclusions. In short, I was saying that if they did build a statue to either of us one day, I’m sure yours would be much taller than mine. ;-)

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Nomada:

                      “Oh okay, please go ahead and find me those statements that I’ve made about both. I’ll wait, but while I am waiting, I’ll continue to question your points.”

                      O: Unfortunately since VSB installed the new commenting system, many comments have been lost it seems. So I cannot post them up.

                      “The wikipedia articles I’ve posted directly references the papers/books etc. that prove the results of which I speak. If you wish to investigate any of these articles, feel free to chose one and we can it investigate together, I can continue to explain the theorem to you, or I can email you the papers with the proven results and we can discuss them. Your choice my dude.”

                      O: And I’ve referenced similar articles papers and books, numerous times, and again, Wikipedia is suddenly suspect. Whew…and on top of that, I’ve repeatedly explained variou aspect of EvoPsych theory, much longer than anything you’ve explained in this forum, that’s for sure, and much of your critique(?) of it is that its not a science. I still recall your posting links to that article featuring a disgraced academic who didn’t even have anything to do with the academic I was referencing, which was Buss. It looked like you were fishing, because you had an axe to grind against EvoPsych and by extension Game and even said as much not too long ago, mentioning the female members of your family and some buds of yours who were supposedly “ruined” by Game. That right there told me what was up, and again, I can dig it. But you have yet to offer something that’s better. Just the same ole platitudes so many dudes hear from the wider society, that more often than not, don’t work.

                      “The difference between you and I is that you don’t offer these choices, but instead cling to your sources and attempt to belittle and insult (in your case, i’m particularly interested in discussing the references of your references and I have asked you multiple times to provide me with relevant papers.)”

                      O: And I’ve repeatedly told you my sources. They’re in the books. You don’t like that. Fine. Not my problem.

                      “And as for my reference of statues being built to critics, I understood the point of the article perfectly,”

                      O: I’m not so sure. My point was simple – like it or not, I am offering solutions, here, in this forum. You, on the other hand, offer none, at least none that actually work for guys. More here: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/133661

                      So instead of making pithy and clever silly like digs, how about you present a better way to build a mousetrap? Let’s cut to the chase here, because there are Brothas who need help, Nomada.

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      Oh, okay. If wikipedia is suddenly suspect, here’s the original paper translated to English: http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hirzel/papers/canon00-goedel.pdf. If you care to go through the paper, I’m all for doing it with you, I’ll even prep a layman summary if you like, right here on VSB, but I guarantee you will find that everything it says is consistent with its wikipedia entry. My posting of links to Harvard EvoPsych Professor Marc Hauser was a demonstration that EvoPsych is mostly bad science and an example that even being validated by an institution such as Harvard doesn’t stop it from being bad science. You can say I’m fishing, but that was and has been the crux of my argument. Call it an axe to grind if you want, but that’s Ad Hominem, again. Your irrelevant and hackneyed response that I haven’t come up with anything but “platitudes” is a Tu Quoque fallacy. Your are completely spent, aren’t you? And still too stubborn to admit that you have no idea of what you’re actually talking about. Oh well. I’ve provided what I thought will work and has worked for me. I agree that it’s not scientifically verified, but it doesn’t need to be because I haven’t claimed it is. What I’ve in effect demonstrated is that even your supposed “scientifically backed” claims are dubious at best primarily because you don’t understand the science on which your arguments are based. Again, you have yet to show me anything different, but as you’ve stated, I’m supposedly not your audience, so feel free not to respond, although maybe much confusion would be cleared if you stated your intended audience at the beginning of the post? We would then know before hand those of us with which you do and don’t intend to agree with (despite your stated adherence to iron clad logic) your nonsense masquerading as informed opinion.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      Nomada:

                      Glad you wrote back, because I’ve been giving our exchanges some thought. I’d like to ask you a question; work with me for a moment:

                      Let’s agree, for the moment, that Buss’ work – all of it – is bunk. OK?

                      Now then…

                      Would you agree, or disagree, with the following proposition: humans aside, all other forms of animal life have mating strategies?

                      If you agree with this, why? And if you disagree with this, again, why?

                      Next question…

                      Do humans, Men and Women both, have mating strategies – and if so, what are they? And if not, why not?

                      What you have said, “works for you”, is from where I sit, a mating strategy. You may not agree with that, and that’s fine. And in this, from where I sit, it’s true, that it is no better or worse than Game; which brings me to the next question:

                      Is the problem with Game, for you – and as memory serves, you did indeed speak at some length about it in the context of female relatives and some buds who were “ruined” by it – that it is based on erroneous/bad/outdated science – or – that, even if Game were on solid footing scientifically, it would still be problematic for you? I’m trying to tease out precisely what beef you have with Game itself.

                      Now, let’s take up the rest of your response above.

                      You asked me if I tried “being myself” and the answer to the question is yes, I have – and it has worked. Thing is, Game helped refine it into a better “self” than before. And it has reaped me rewards. In that we both have agreed that both mating strategies – yours and mine – are no better or worse than the other, the point, for me anyway, is that again, the “just be yourself” approach, as you and so many others have put it, and as so many Men have heard it like a broken record from both Men and Women, simply doesn’t work for quite a few Men out there. Even if what you posit is 100% true regarding EvoPsych and/or Game, the huge lesson coming away from all of this in our post-sexual revolution world is that many, many Men have been left with no roadmap to work with. That you, as an individual, was able to navigate this Brave New World and make certain things work for you, is laudable; but hardly comprehensive, and again, if the current state of affairs along these lines socially means anything, nor is it exactly teachable or scalable. No, you never claimed any of it was, but then since we’re on the topic, I never claimed that Game was a one-size-fits-all solution either. In fact, and I’ve written about this numerous times, I’ve said that Game is NOT a silver bullet, largely due to what each individual Man brings to the table to begin with. Therefore, each Man is very likely to get differing results because of this, and there are some Men for whom they are not likely to reap much in the way of benefits at all.

                      I am pretty sure you can mention at least one close bud of yours who did what you suggested and it has worked out for him; and I can point to quite a few buds who’ve used Game to great effect, getting them the relationships (be it short or long-term) they desire as well. Again, neither is better than the other; that works for me. But the point is made: Game, DOES indeed work, for at least some Men, and regardless as to its underpinnings veracity. It did for me. Just as your method worked for you.

                      So…why aren’t there more Black Men discussing these things, in spaces like these, with Black Men? Are we to assume, that Black Men writ large, need no such assistance – that they have it all figured out? Because I think if there’s one thing we can 100% agree on, is that such a notion is naive, at best – yes? In the end, when the dust clears, that’s what it comes down to for me. I said I wasn’t aiming for you because you weren’t interested in my message, and that’s cool. But why the static in light of that?

                      So, again – let’s assume that Buss is bunk, that your way can and does work with a bit of fineprint, but Game has been noted to get results, too – I’m living proof of it – and start to focus on the work of helping our fellow Brothas out. After all, there is a need to be met there, right?

                      By the way, Marc Hauser is not an evolutionary psychologist; he’s an evolutionary biologist. Buss, on the other hand, is indeed a evolutionary psychologist. Moreover, I am not aware of any works where Buss cites Hauser, though I could be wrong on that count. Finally, even if we accept Hauser as an evolutionary psychologist, his work doesn’t have anything to do with Buss’, which has to do with human mating, sexual conflict, sexual jealousy and so forth. None of this is to say that part or all of EvoPsych, whatever its focus, can’t be flawed, or in the case of Hauser, completely made up; what it does do, however, is clarify things on along these lines.

                      In your recent message to me where you cite the studies Triple H referred to a little while back, you made the remark that it is possible that you could have misunderstood something in terms of the material I presented by Buss. I agree, and would like to see if we can hash that out, not to convince you, but just so we’re clear on exactly what we disagree on and why. Let me know if this works for you.

                      Something else you noted was what you referred to as my tendency to “belittle others” and so forth; I think it’s important to see my actions in a more fuller context. As Black Yoda has noted, and he is by no means alone on this count, that I have never “attacked” someone *unprovoked*. No, it doesn’t change what you say necessarily; it just again, adds the needed context, is all.

                      Let me address something else – I have never claimed to be a scientist. What I have claimed however, is that EvoPsych is indeed a science, to which you have disagreed, and to your mind, proven. I say the jury’s still out on that score, since to date, Buss, nor anyone that is associated with him (and again, I am not aware of any association Buss has or had, with Hauser), has been busted for academic misconduct. Until or unless that happens, I will maintain that EvoPsych is indeed a science, even if they happen to run with outmoded or erroneous data. Hasn’t been the first time something like that has happened in the annals of science, and it won’t be the last, either.

                      Lastly, about Wikipedia – the point I was making, was that whenever I cite it, it is immediately viewed as suspect, no matter what; but your citation of Wikipedia can be taken as legitimate. Like you, I too can explain, step by step, some of the core hypotheses of the areas of Buss’ specialty in EvoPsych, and like you, I can walk someone through his writings. I was just noting the huge difference in terms of our respective citations of Wikipedia as a reputable source, insofar as the readers of the forum was concerned…

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      Since you seem to have put away argumentative O and brought out discussion O, I’ll put away exacting Nomada and address you as if this is a normal discussion. First, let’s get this straight I don’t think all of Buss’s work is bad. I think most of it is. I also think that most of the things you try to back up with evopsych are unsupported extensions and misinterpretations of what Buss actually says. This on top of mostly bad science leads to bad conclusions. It really is that simple. That being said, I will answer your questions the best that I can.

                      1. if you really want me to have a discussion with you on these issues, I need you to rigorously define some vocabulary. What is a ‘mating strategy’?

                      2. If Game were on solid footing scientifically, I would have no argument to make. It would be something that was overwhelmingly supported to be the case and I’d have no choice but to accept it as a thinking person with attempted rational faculties. I spoke of my encounters with it only to show that I have anecdotal evidence of it not working. I have no personal axe to grind on this issue, but as I’ve also stated earlier when people misuse science, it loses its efficacy, not because it isn’t correct, but because people refuse to use it (ie precisely the situation with climate change). If you stopped trying to use what I consider to be bad science in elevating your claims as those that have more efficacy than others, we’d have nothing to argue about but opinions, which is fine because no one’s opinion is better than anyone else’s.

                      3. My personal opinion is that game isn’t the way to go when approaching successful relationships with women. I can not verify this, nor can you verify the opposite. We can only argue about its efficacy theoretically. If you wish to go into this with more detail later, fine.

                      4. I agree that the needs of men that are unsuccessful in romance need to be addressed, but in a way that promotes honesty, healthy relationships, and de-emphasizes male privilege in the relationship. If my understanding of Game is correct (and it may not be, I am entirely open to that possibility), men are advised to do the opposite of what is presented above.

                      5. I believe Hauser’s example is important. While you may not believe Hauser was an evopsych guy, Hauser’s work dealt with evo-bio and cognitive neuroscience (wikipedia) which often strays directly into psychology. Since evopsych is somewhat of a nebulous term that was put on applied versions of a smattering of other sciences (evo-bio and psych being two of many), I don’t think it’s incorrect to put Hauser in evopsych territory, however I do concede that I know no work where Hauser and Buss have worked together. The important point is that the same journals verifying Buss have likely verified Hauser as well. This casts doubt on the journals, thereby casting doubt on the entire science.

                      6. I’m cool with discussing Buss’s work, but you must be just as willing to work with the stuff I present as you expect me to be. I.e. if you expect me to read your books, you must read Buss’s relevant papers and also any other academic material I present so that we can have an honest discussion of the book AND the science. I’ve had the pleasure of reading many armchair novels vs. the actual science in STEM fields and it has been interesting to note how much valuable information is lost and distorted in the name of selling some books. Anyways, I’ve been down for that since day one and presented this idea to you not too long ago. You thought I was trying to ‘three card monty” you. I was serious.

                      7. Context, insults, Wikipedia, etc.: understood.

              • Negro Libre

                Well, I blame post-modernism (or the way it changed the way intellectuals approach conflict in modern times), much more than mere feminism. Post-modernism is about a bunch of different ideas, but one that is prominent in all approaches to it, is that “truth” is subjective. This approach to thinking was very attractive to feminists, socialists and civil right intellectuals who felt ostracized in scholarship pursuits in colleges/universities that were predominantly filled with white men who thought that what it meant to be educated was to have studied the classical cannon. The complaints were righteous, the alternative approaches were not, maybe in theory but not in practice.

                I remember awhile back that @Kema said that “Truth is what the powerful say it is” (aka pragmatism philosophy), and in a sense, that is the logical conclusion of subjective truth. When people believe that objective truth exists, and that it can be attained, then they believe that people can attain truth through education, argument and reason; but when people don’t believe in objective truth, and they believe in “democracy” then truth is whatever the majority or the masses believe it to be; to put it simply, truth is on the side of whoever has the best propaganda. In a sense, this is good because it prevents conflict, if everyone simply accept that the one with power gets to make the rules, until they lose it…unfortunately, what gets lost is the desire to pursue truth which gets replaced by the desire to pursue privileges.

                Thus why you have feminists vs. MRA; black men vs. black women; gays vs church folks and the list goes on. Politicians merely act as attention givers and referees. Since people don’t believe that the truth can be attained by argument and is only escaping us due to our short sightedness and ignorance, you have all these special interest groups fighting for control and influence through the media, because whoever controls the media, controls truth.

                • h.h.h.

                  “but one that is prominent in all approaches to it, is that “truth” is subjective. ”
                  what do you think? is truth subjective? (i mean, outside of math and the hard sciences)

                  while i do feel that in most cases “truth is subjective”, there are a lot of times when people mischaracterize a “belief” as a “truth”, which i i undertand to not be the same. it’s something that i’ve done in the past, and i do my best to keep my beliefs, ‘to myself’ per se.

                  • Negro Libre

                    I find that truth is objective; and it exists whether we like it or not. Gravity exists whether we like it or not; 1 + 1 = 2, whether we believe it or not. A belief is something we verify within our own mind instead of within the laws of nature which is where truth is found in things like hard sciences and mathematics. We usually all start off with beliefs, based on the experiences that we have; however, it is through rigorous testing or debate and accepting the laws of nature, that we elevate to the next level known as truth.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      Negro Libre:

                      And have you ever noticed – or is it just me – that Feminists don’t seem to be terribly interested in debate, the Socratic Method, and so forth?

                      Ever noticed that?

                      Instead, they frame things in a way that says, if you don’t accept my beliefs/feelings as legitimate, you’re a big, bad Meanie.

                      Oooooh…

                      O.

                    • Negro Libre

                      Well, this goes back to Hegel.

                      Aristotle and Plato are the fathers of what you and I would refer to as the the “Dialectic.” The purpose of the original dialectic was to remove contradictions in a person’s thinking, since contradictions don’t exist in nature, truth in reasoning aught to manifest that. Hegel, redefined dialectic, not as a “method” of removing contradictions (he believed contradictions exist in nature), but a way of us as human beings accepting contradictions and recognizing them. Hegel believed that contradictions would work themselves out, by a spirit (or God) not by human reason. Marx basically got his idea from Hegel and replaced Hegel’s spirit, with “evolution” in his dialectical materialism.

                      This is why feminists don’t do the Socratic Method, it goes against the foundation of the way they view reality. This is why when you ask a feminist, what is the definition of feminism, they define it as “equal rights for every one”, when the word “feminist” by itself, implies that is biased or primarily concerned with women; and in fact this is manifested in action as well. As with evolution, it is whoever, is the most powerful or fittest that survives, and since truth has been kicked out of the window, it is only power that matters. Feminism, is not concerned with truth, but attaining enough power to make the belief system that it is, into a reality.

                    • NomadaNare

                      The Socratic method goes against reality. There is a limit to the applicability of any sufficiently complex structured system. Since logic is one of those, logic is limited. Godel’s theorem is the basis of this reasoning, and the end result is basically that reality is ‘bigger’ than logic/math/science.

                    • Negro Libre

                      How is the Socratic Method against reality?

                    • NomadaNare
                    • Obsidian Files

                      Nomada:
                      Then, the question is – are Feminists themselves, adhering to Godel’s theorem – and if so, on what basis can we measure/assess/determine that?

                      Hmm?

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      Read about Godel’s theorem and then ask that question. Anything we do in this universe ‘adhere’s’ to Godel’s theorem whether we want it to or not, but Godel’s theorem effectively says there are no absolutes. A conundrum indeed. We literally just broke math/logic.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      Nomada:

                      Hold it – so, you don’t have to read anything *I* recommend, but I should read anything *YOU* recommend?

                      Whew…

                      Nomada, my Man…we’re NOT talking about mathematics and the like here. Not that I have anything againt that, but really, come on son, that’s not what’s at issue here.

                      Please try and stay on the topic at hand?

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      I didn’t bring the conversation to philosophy, you and Negro Libre did. I simply undercut the bad arguments you guys were using to gird your opinions/positions. There’s actually nothing wrong with not believing in post-modernism, but don’t use it or math/science/logic to base your positions upon because it doesn’t apply.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      OK then – so what’s the problem? Look Nomada, I think Feminism can indeed be critiqued, and I think that I don’t have to consider a bunch of Old/Dead White Men to do it. Feminism is NOT free of bias, nor is it some sacred cow. That you wish to be a White Knight for the entreprise, is not a problem I can or should solve.

                      Again, please stay on topic?

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      Ad Hominem again? Go ahead and critique feminism, but critique feminism in a way that makes sense. I don’t know if you can make a reasonable argument blaming feminism for the recent decline of white men or anything that happens to men. What you can blame feminism for is some of the stunted behavior of women. You really are grasping at straws here aren’t you? And did you forget that there’s a post up above concerning some academic articles?

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Nomada:

                      “Ad Hominem again?”

                      O: Not at all’ from your previous statements made in this forum, it is pretty clear that you think that Women/Feminism is completely free from fault or bias. White Knightery.

                      “Go ahead and critique feminism, but critique feminism in a way that makes sense.”

                      O: Translation: “in a way that I can buy into”. Didn’t we establish that I’m not trying nor am interested in “converting” you, Nomada?

                      “I don’t know if you can make a reasonable argument blaming feminism for the recent decline of white men or anything that happens to men. What you can blame feminism for is some of the stunted behavior of women. You really are grasping at straws here aren’t you? And did you forget that there’s a post up above concerning some academic articles?”

                      O: Yes, I saw it, and my response will be posted shortly. As for Feminism, didn’t you see the article I posted on the Gosnell case? To date I haven’t found any direct response from you on it…

                      O.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      Nomada:
                      Wait a minute – YOU, brought in math into the discussion, neither NL nor I did. We both were simply making the observation that the Feminist line of thinking is deeply flawed, in large part due to their refusal to adhere to any kind of empirical investigation or dialectic; in other words, they aren’t interested in investigating truth, but rather are interested in pursuing an ideological agenda.

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      So now we’re following up an ad hominem with a straw man and another Ad hominem? You and I both know that whether I am or am not a ‘white knight’ has nothing to do with the stated arguments. In addition, not only have I made no stated positions on feminism besides where I think it can be critiqued, I have also never said that feminism is free from bias, just that your critiques defeat themselves and do nothing but demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the subject. Attempting to place me in a camp defending feminism so that you can appear to be arguing against me is very sneaky on your part, especially when what I’ve commented on at length is your ignorance of the science, math, and ‘empirical investigation’ used to back up your claims. This is supported by the previous conversation. Go back and read NL’s posts. His referenced dialectic is based on ‘objective’ laws which are based on science and math. He, in fact, references physics and elementary arithmetic in making his claims. I simply educated him on where he was mistaken. You can continue to fault feminism for not adhering to your philosophical constraints, but as I explained earlier if you base your philosophies on science/math, your philosophies break themselves. Either way, ignoring whether feminists actually base their opinions on empirical investigation or dialectic reasoning, or not (this remains to be proven by you or NL), basing one’s opinions on empirical reasoning or a dialectic doesn’t make it inherently ‘better” (with regards to congruency with reality) then any other philosophy/worldview/opinion. Sorry to burst your bubble.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Nomada:

                      “So now we’re following up an ad hominem with a straw man and another Ad hominem?”

                      O: Oh come on now, Nomada – what’s a bit of ribbing between friends?

                      “You and I both know that whether I am or am not a ‘white knight’ has nothing to do with the stated arguments.”

                      O: I beg to differ; your statements over the course of this discussion and similar statements on your part over the course of time I’ve seen you post, especially in relation to myself, says otherwise.

                      “In addition, not only have I made no stated positions on feminism besides where I think it can be critiqued,”

                      O: Which you stated that it couldn’t be critiqued for the reasons you think NL and I are critiquing it for; that White and other male problems are attributable, in whole or in large part, to Old or otherwise Dead White Men. I disagree with that premise, and have laid out how and why in part, in my articles on the Gosnell case and the canard of socalled Black Male Privilege.

                      “I have also never said that feminism is free from bias,”

                      O True…

                      “just that your critiques defeat themselves and do nothing but demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the subject.”

                      O: Actually, I’ve studied quite a bit about Feminism, more than many would suspect, in fact…

                      “Attempting to place me in a camp defending feminism so that you can appear to be arguing against me is very sneaky on your part, especially when what I’ve commented on at length is your ignorance of the science, math, and ‘empirical investigation’ used to back up your claims.”

                      O: There is no need for subterfuge on my or anyone else’s part; as I’ve said, the body of your comments here in this forum over at least the past year, will suffice. Moreover, I never claimed to be a mathematician, and never brought that into my dissertations.

                      “This is supported by the previous conversation. Go back and read NL’s posts. His referenced dialectic is based on ‘objective’ laws which are based on science and math. He, in fact, references physics and elementary arithmetic in making his claims. I simply educated him on where he was mistaken.”

                      O: Fair enough; that was a convo between you two.

                      “You can continue to fault feminism for not adhering to your philosophical constraints, but as I explained earlier if you base your philosophies on science/math, your philosophies break themselves. Either way, ignoring whether feminists actually base their opinions on empirical investigation or dialectic reasoning, or not (this remains to be proven by you or NL)”

                      O: Something that is rather difficult to pull off, you’d have to admit, due to the very nature of dialectic, right, and the aversion of Feminists to actual debate – right?

                      “basing one’s opinions on empirical reasoning or a dialectic doesn’t make it inherently ‘better” (with regards to congruency with reality) then any other philosophy/worldview/opinion. Sorry to burst your bubble.”

                      O: You’re going to need a much bigger – and sharper – needle to do that, I’m afraid…

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      This is not always the case. We actually have a reasonable expectation of how the laws of nature should act, but we don’t know in any particular case how they should actually behave. Basing your understanding of truth on the laws of physics/math is like building a house on shifting sand. Also, you can’t ‘verify’ something in the sense that you mean with your own mind, at least not in a way that any reasonably thinking person should respect.

                    • Negro Libre

                      “This is not always the case.”

                      When is this not the case? And please expand on this thought, with some concrete example: “Also, you can’t ‘verify’ something in the sense that you mean with your
                      own mind, at least not in a way that any reasonably thinking person
                      should respect.”

                    • NomadaNare

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox, the universe doesn’t know what it’s going to do before it happens, at least according to QM. 1+1=2 only dependent upon the system you chose to represent it. No system is more preferable to another.

                    • Negro Libre

                      How do you know that the universe has it’s own consciousness?

                    • NomadaNare

                      I don’t, figure of speech my dude, i’m trying to put it in such a way that you would understand it.

                    • Negro Libre

                      Well, if it can’t be explained in common sense terms, what use is it to the human race? Basically, from what I get from Godel is that he uses logic and math to disprove that logic and math actually exist aka the truth is that there is no truth; or it is absolutely true that absolute truth doesn’t exist? Is that correct, because to me he’s incomprehensible; but if you can explain it to me, I’d appreciate it.

                    • NomadaNare

                      The explanation is right there in the wikipedia article. And that’s the point of the argument. Math and logic break after a certain point so you must rigorously constrain your domain. i.e. making these grandiose philosophical statements (post-modernism, etc.) is useless. The reason you can’t understand linguistically is because language is built on logic so it’s beyond language. There is nothing this idea is not beyond besides the most trivial of systems, therefore in effect, the idea that there are absolute truths remains to be proven in consistency with Godel’s theorem.

                    • Negro Libre

                      According to you, Godel’s theorem has been proven. What does it mean to prove: to establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence (dictionary.com). This implies that logic, is needed to prove an argument is true. However, Godel apparently say that logic is limited or better yet that logic breaks down after a certain point and is not “completely” valid. If the tool needed to prove his theorem is faulty, then how exactly is it proven?

                    • NomadaNare

                      It was proven within the constraints set forth by set theory and this was not verified by me, but by mathematicians way more skilled than I am, but your question is also the point. How can anything be proven, let alone Godel’s theorem? Anything you ascribe to math/science/logic defines a very well defined domain which is where this theory is applicable. Once you leave that domain, try to make that domain say something about something outside its domain, or make that domain too big, your system loses all viability. Also, try not to use english definitions in discussions of mathematical terms, you artificially constrain your own argument.

                • Obsidian Files

                  Negro Libre:

                  I think you’re spot on with the “intersectionality” of Marxist thought. post-modernism and the various “alt” schools of thought, of which the various iterations of Femism is one. Indeed, if the MRA movement is to really get traction, it has to resist the urge to fall into the same trap(s) and instead focusing on empirical studies, researches and data, along with a good dose of good ole commonsense…

                  O.

              • NomadaNare

                You and I disagree here and I think it’s a difference of perspective. Let me remind you of what I consider to the be a more applicable perspective here. Men control the world, have controlled the world and will continue to control the world for the reasonably foreseeable future. Moving from this perspective, any things happening to men aren’t a product of feminism, they are the product of actions taken by other men. Not to say women can’t affect their world, or social surroundings, or whatever, but blaming feminism even partly for the recent troubles of (white) men is like blaming blacks for the war in Iraq ie they have nothing to do which each other.

                • Todd

                  The problem is that only a subset of men actually run things, and saying that things happening to men are the product of actions taken by other men obscures way more than it reveals. It also assumes that men with power would willing give resources over to men without any power, a very dangerous and foolish assertion. Unless you delineate which men are ruling which other men, you aren’t getting anywhere.

                  Also, there was a reason I made a point of not using the word blame vis-a-vis feminism. It was a recognition that the men reacted in response to feminism, not women doing something directly to men.

                  • Obsidian Files

                    Todd:
                    You summed up my thoughts and sentiments precisely.

                    Boom.

                    O.

                  • NomadaNare

                    I think your response here is valid, however this does not negate the idea that i don’t believe that the ills befalling men are the result, product, of feminism (intentional or not). I think if there is a link it’s largely indirect, and so far removed as to be negligible. It seems your saying all I must do is be specific about the men of which I speak. Fine. Rich white men control the world and are mostly responsible for the ills befalling most other men that are not rich.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      Nomada:

                      I think this line of thinking(?) is really bringing a broad axe to a fencing match, at best. Recently, I wrote an article which addresses precisely what you’re attempting to argue: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/06/26/the-kermit-gosnell-case-raises-some-ticklish-questions-for-black-feminists/

                      MY question is squarely aimed at those who consider themselves Black Feminists – how have the Brothas kept them down?

                      Perhaps you can answer?

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      Because black men while not a leading part of the white patriarchy still reap the benefits of being men. This relationship is admittedly more complicated than the dynamics of their white counter-parts. I think the major problem with your analysis is that you think race acts as a reasonable negation to most of the positive benefits of being a man. You and I disagree here and there is no way to ‘prove’ that either of our positions more closely align with reality.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Nomada:

                      “Because black men while not a leading part of the white patriarchy still reap the benefits of being men.”

                      O: Did you actually read the article I posted above, Nomada? You haven’t addressed a blessed thing I’ve said, so let’s try this again:

                      Based on the recent events of the Dr. Kermit Gosnell case, I am asking Black Feminists and their allies, to layout the evidence that the Black Man is trying to keep the Sistas down? By all accounts, Black Men – Black Men of influence, like Dr. Gosnell and President Obama himself – are staunch supporters of Black Women, on the key metrics that Feminism is most interested in, such as education, careers and reproductive rights. I am waiting for those who think Black Men are part and parcel of the White Patriarchy, to present evidence that Black Men have somehow impeded Black Womens’ progress?

                      You were saying…?

                      “This relationship is admittedly more complicated than the dynamics of their white counter-parts.”

                      O: Rubbish! There’s nothing “complicated” about it in the least. The issue is pretty straightforward, as my article above indicates. Feel free to address anytime you are ready…

                      “I think the major problem with your analysis is that you think race acts as a reasonable negation to most of the positive benefits of being a man. You and I disagree here and there is no way to ‘prove’ that either of our positions more closely align with reality.”

                      O: I beg to differ. Let’s count the ways, shall we?

                      1. The Feminist argument, which many Black Women – and if you’re any indication at least some Black Men – buy into, is that Patriarchy is a systemic entity that benefits Men at the expense of Women. From birth though, when it comes to Black folks, we know this is not true; Black Men have higher rates of mortality at every point of the life cycle, than do Black Women.

                      Where’s the bennies?

                      2. When it comes to matters of adoption, Black girls are scooped up faster than Black boys; indeed, the major group most likely to grow up in and age out of the foster home/care system, as a group, are Black boys.

                      Where’s the bennies?

                      3. President Barack Obama, a self-described/identified Black Man, has been in Office for some five years at this point, and on numerous documented occasions, the ONLY time he sees fit to specifically address Black Men, is to upbraid them, usually on the fallacious notion of them being deadbeat dads. I say fallacious, because of the work of noted scholars Edin and Nelson in their latest work, Doing The Best I Can. To date, Barack Obama has enacted policies that directly benefit Black Women; one is hardpressed to think of anything he’s done to specifically benefit Black Men.

                      Again I ask – where are the bennies?

                      4. Black Women now attend college at rates not just outstripping Black Men, but just about everyone else in contemporary American life. Where are the great bennies Black Men as a group have gotten, simply for being a Man here, Nomada?

                      I could go on, and indeed I have, here: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/130174

                      Isn’t it interesting we haven’t heard from Mr. Woods eversince?

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      You could go on, but no need, your argument is flawed from the get go. The overarching issue is that you haven’t shown how any of the results stated above aren’t due to the infinite other factors that could affect/cause the results your attributing to a “negation of feminism”. The reason you can’t is because it actually may be impossible to do correctly (which is why academics interested in the questions/topics in which you seem to be interested don’t spend their time “disproving” feminism with “science”). Besides that, the application of your ‘evidence’ is so poorly constructed (ie. hasn’t proven or even supported that black men don’t receive ‘bennies’ from being men) that it doesn’t even warrant discussion besides to say correlation does not equal causation. O, do better my dude.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      Nomada:

                      After you…

                      YOU, were the one who made the statement, and I quote, “Because black men while not a leading part of the white patriarchy still reap the benefits of being men.” I then directly challenged that statement by looking some basic life measures to see how the claim holds up, and it’s not even close. You maintain that such an assessment cannot be made, but I clearly demonstrated that it could indeed be made; it’s hard to see how Black Men as a group have benefitted from White Patriarchy – if anything, the history of the Black Man in the Western world is quite the opposite. That you didn’t even address it and instead pulls out some bunk about “infinite other factors”, yet that didn’t stop you making a wholly unsubstantiated claim about Black Men benefitting over Black Women by merely being, Black Men. I ask for evidence, and you balk, then turn around and claim that my argument is flawed and any evidence I offer is mere correlation and not causation.

                      Let’s try this again: on what basis do Black Feminists have an argument in relation to Black Men? How are they, Black Men, keeping Black Women down? Was the Gosnell case such an example? Is Obama himself, an example of oppression of Black Women? If so…how? You can’t just make a blanket boilerplate type statement without even trying to back it up. Moreover, I reject the premise that Feminism, of whatever flavor, cannot be critiqued because of some Old or Dead White Men hanging over the whole thing.

                      Wanna try again?

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      LOL, I’m not trying anything but attempting to tell you that you’re trying to force a square peg into a round hole. I agree that your recount is a reasonable interpretation of events. Here’s the rub: your arbitrary points whether factual or not do not an assessment make. Why? Because you must eliminate the non-negligible effects of the race on the relation between the sexes. Your points are willfully ignorant of this reality and as a result you continue to try to do something that for all intents and purposes cannot be done. If you still wish to try, you must first begin with quantifying all the effects of racism on blacks. Then controlling for these effects, attempt to compare and contrast all the claimed effects of feminism among blacks, whites, and others while also taking into account the varying effects of class and other forms of racism visited on non-black people. Presenting the four examples that you (erroneously) believe support your argument as an ‘assessment’ is representative of a poor form of investigation. You have once again demonstrated that you don’t even understand how to formulate a scientific investigation, let alone a reasonable opinion based on science. Smooth move. As for your questions we must address the idea of privilege. Black men keep ALL women down by not actively fighting against the inherent privilege of being men. Even if they aren’t actively doing anything, they enjoy the privileges received and are complicit in its perpetuation, much like whites are complicit in the perpetuation of white privilege even if they are poor unless they are actively fighting against it. White women can oppress black men with race, but black men can oppress white women with their patriarchy its confusing and complicated but so is the world. The rest of your questions are irrelevant for the reason stated above. Finally, I didn’t say feminism couldn’t be critiqued because of white men. This is another in a long line of straw men. O, where did you learn how to debate? If it’s from the same place you learned about “science” I can understand why this conversation is going this way.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Nomada:

                      “LOL, I’m not trying anything but attempting to tell you that you’re trying to force a square peg into a round hole. I agree that your recount is a reasonable interpretation of events. Here’s the rub: your arbitrary points whether factual or not do not an assessment make. Why? Because you must eliminate the non-negligible effects of the race on the relation between the sexes. Your points are willfully ignorant of this reality and as a result you continue to try to do something that for all intents and purposes cannot be done. If you still wish to try, you must first begin with quantifying all the effects of racism on blacks. Then controlling for these effects, attempt to compare and contrast all the claimed effects of feminism among blacks, whites, and others while also taking into account the varying effects of class and other forms of racism visited on non-black people. Presenting the four examples that you (erroneously) believe support your argument as an ‘assessment’ is representative of a poor form of investigation. You have once again demonstrated that you don’t even understand how to formulate a scientific investigation, let alone a reasonable opinion based on science. Smooth move.”

                      O: That’s because I never set out to conduct such an investigation; I simply did an eyeball assessment. Now, if you feel that such a thing is necessary, by all means hop to it! I on the other hand, and fairly satisfied by the work of others who have studied the effects and impacts of Race on Black Men and Black Women, like the one study I saw out of the University of Chicago, if I recall correctly, that noted the vastly different outcomes for Black Men and Black Women in terms of social services (Black Men got notably less, as I recall). How is this an example of Black Women holding ALL Women, Black or otherwise, down? Please explain?

                      “As for your questions we must address the idea of privilege. Black men keep ALL women down by not actively fighting against the inherent privilege of being men.”

                      O: Again – HOW? Appealing to assertion does not an argument make, Nomada, I know you know this. Smooth move, indeed! In order to “keep someone down” there must be some ability to do so, especially in a broad-based way. If we care about things like Racism, or in this instance, Sexism and the like, it is because of its widespread, systemic and institutional nature. As Andrew Hacker pointed out in his book Two Nations, if we care about the word “N*gger”, for example, it is because of the institutional power it represents. Does anyone really care about some homeless bum laying on a grate calling any of us “n*gger”? I certainly don’t, and I highly doubt most people reading this would either. However, let someone White with some degree of influence and power do it…

                      As for the notion of “privilege” – particularly of the Black Male variety – I’ve addressed it at length. You’re more than welcome to review it for yourself if you like. Say when?

                      “Even if they aren’t actively doing anything, they enjoy the privileges received and are complicit in its perpetuation, much like whites are complicit in the perpetuation of white privilege even if they are poor unless they are actively fighting against it.”

                      O: No, poor Whites are not a factor in “perpetuating” White Privilege because they have no such privilege to speak of. Trust me, the poor Whites here in Philly’s Kensington section couldn’t bust a grape in the proverbial fruit fight. Nor are they wanted by their White betters; Rich Benjamin discusses this in his book Whitopia.

                      “White women can oppress black men with race, but black men can oppress white women with their patriarchy its confusing and complicated but so is the world.”

                      O: The last part of your statement is nonsensical. If patriarchy is so very pervasive, and if Black Men indeed are part and parcel of it, we should be able to see at least *some* evidence of it operating in the world – yes? Please tell me how the late Trayvon Martin, was able to exert his White Patriarchy by Proxy onto the White and much wealthier Women of his native Miami? How could he have oppressed said Women? According to her recent testimony, Ms. Rachel Jeantel claims to have been close friends with Trayvon; was he oppressing her too, and if so, how can we tell? What evidence do we have that supports your “confusing and complicated” contention?

                      “The fact that you are ignorant of this concept or chose to ignore it shows that regardless of your alleged impressive reading list you don’t actually understand what you’ve read. The rest of your questions are irrelevant for the reason stated above.”

                      O: No, what it shows is that we don’t agree on some basic points that do not require a PhD in a STEM field to see – Black Men do not have any power, institutionally, to do much of anything to Women, White or otherwise; and that when it comes to Black Women, and Black Feminism especially, it is hard to see how Black Men, again writ large, have kept them down. There isn’t much in the way of the most basic evidence that supports the contention, hence my recent Gosnell piece.

                      “Finally, I didn’t say feminism couldn’t be critiqued because of white men.”

                      O: Yes, you’re right; you said that whatever problems Men face in our time cannot be attributed to Feminism, and instead must be attributed to (rich) White Men. Which brings something to mind…

                      A couple of months ago, there was a very good post by Champ, where he suggested that Black Men were kind of relegated to a very narrow set of modes of masculinity. The discussion turned to what role, if any, Black Women played in it. It was a very lively discussion, and I distinctly recall us having a bit of back and forth on the matter. More on this below.

                      Anyway, the consensus seemed to be, on the part of the ladies in the forum, that it was Black Men themselves that came up with such narrow norms, and if there was to be blame assessed, it had to be there, not Black Women. It reminded me if your recent remark about how it would be wrong to blame Feminism for any problems Men would have, because Men still rule the world (Apex Fallacy, by the way).

                      But, for the moment, let’s say that what the ladies said on that day – and what you said the other day – was right.

                      That still doesn’t change the fact that Women, in the case of the aforementioned Black masculinity discussion by Champ, Black Women, were complicitous in this, since it has was noted by considerable numbers of Brothas on that day that Black Men who exhibited such narrow norms didn’t go lacking for Black female attention, while those who did – who were “just being themselves”, if you will – lacked such Black female attention. In fact, I recall us discussing exactly this point when I noted John McWhorter, whom you made clear you did not like based on, by your own admission, some very limited observation (not sure I’d call it “interaction” though I could be wrong about that), and his personal experiences not just with Black Women but Black people in general when he was younger. I made the case that a Brotha like him was an example of what Champ was talking about, and that he didn’t appeal to many Sistas. You disagreed, but the responses of other Brothas in the forum that day seemed to say otherwise.

                      The same can be said for your argument the other day – that even if Men run everything, Women, and that includes many Feminists, are cosigning what said Men who run things do. Perpetuating the system, indeed…

                      This is hugely important – and goes back to something else you claimed about me, which was my supposed ignorance about things such as Feminism – because a big part of the argument for Feminism has been, that it sought to challenge what was perceived to be very narrow and rigid roles for Women in American life. In fact, things really get heated up when we go to sociosexual norms and ideals of beauty and attractiveness, because Feminists have made a really big deal about this. When it comes to Black Women, things go one step better, because a big part of the Black Feminist argument has been to challenge what they see as an even narrower set of beauty and attractiveness norms, this time rooted in White/Eurocentric norms/notions of beauty, most notably but not limited to long(er) straight hair, and light(er) skintones. To this day, Black Feminists make the case that Black Men specifically, are constraining Black Women in general to extremely narrow conceptions of beauty and attractiveness.

                      Yet, when the same argument was made during Champ’s post, the Sistas were vehement that this was not the case, and instead it was Black Men doing it to themselves. But again, as I’ve said above and repeat, even if this were true, Black Women were complicitous in this, because as have already been noted by many Brothas on that day, Black Women as a group didn’t seem to have too much of a problem with the narrow norms of masculinity Black Men supposedly made for themselves.

                      I think this is important for another reason that drives right at the heart of the Feminist argument:

                      Agency.

                      The whole argument surrounding reproductive rights as they are currently understood, i.e., with reference to Women, is that Women should be able to determine for themselves their own lives in the sexual and mating and reproductive realms, unfettered by oppression in the form of the Patriarchy. Something I agree with, in fact. Anyway, the point I’m driving at is either one of two things is going on here: either Black Women were making their own mating choices, free from any kind of pull by the supposed Patriarchy, or, they are still part and parcel of the Patriarchy in this regard, with no agency to choose with whom they wish to partner. If the former, again, it proves their complicity with what Black Men supposedly are doing in terms of constructing narrow masculinity norms by cosigning it; if the latter, well, it seems Feminism, at least in its Black form at least, may have to go back to the drawing board.

                      In any event, my point in all of this is to say that I reject the notion that “all” of a Man’s problems are attributable solely to the machinations of Rich White Men. I think (Black) Feminism presents its own challenges to (Black) Men in our time as well.

                      That Black masculinity post, and ensuing discussion, that day by Champ, is an example of that.

                      Holla back…

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      What I’ve gotten from this response is that you don’t agree with feminism because you don’t agree with or understand the idea of privilege/intersectionality. We can discuss it if you like.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      Nomada:
                      By all means, proceed…

                      O.

                • Obsidian Files

                  Nomada:
                  I find your commentary fascinating in light of your flatout refusal to read a few books. If you think my position is one of “Team Gal v. Team Guy” you are far, far more ignorant than I had originally took you to be.

                  I have never argued that Feminists are the blame for all that is wrong in the world. That said, I do have quite a few pointed critiques of Feminism – and even better still, some pointed questions to those who tout the ideology. And I think these concerns need to be aired out in Black spaces, because of all the many assumptions that obtain in them along these lines.

                  If you like, I can roll them out for you…

                  O.

                  • NomadaNare

                    If you read the response tag, this is obviously a response to Todd’s initial statement. Feel free to disagree with my interpretation, but I think your argument here is misdirected. Anyways, feel free to show your ‘evidence’, although if it’s more armchair psych/political books feel free not to.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      Nomada:
                      Anytime you’re ready to do better by showing and proving, by all means proceed; like I said, no statue was ever erected to a critic…

                      O.

            • Obsidian Files

              @Ms. Esa:

              “i’m neither hopeful nor hopeless about the future. i have a theory, that life is predetermined in retrospect. and to that end, the illusions of progress will inevitably be checked.:

              O: Hmm – what forms of progresss do you think or find to be “illusory”?

              “as to people, i believe they are self-centered, rather than selfish. even a martyr is self-serving through self-sacrifice. i believe that the ego being a fragile, limiting, and destructible construct gives people the opportunity to create filters that lead them to believe what they think is a Truth, when it is perhaps just an interpretation, a translation of the ineffable and unknowable put into words.”

              O: *shrugs* A distinction without much of a difference…

              “as to men opting out, for whatever reason they believe, this is cool because in this way they serve both their own self interests as well as that of the earth. trust, i’m not having children for a million reasons, none of which is population control but i recognize the silver lining when it sparkles and twinkles ~*~”

              O: No, the reasons WHY they’re doing it, DO indeed MATTER. Because, it forces us to confront heretofore accepted givens and assumptions and pretty lies about how and why our world is, the way it is. Like I said to Nomada downthread, there have never been any pointed questions aimed at Feminism, and this is especially true in Black spaces, that asks, at what cost, does this uptopian vision come about? You have spoken of the costs you’ve paid along these lines and by no means are you alone; quite a few Women are questioning all of this, but they have to do it in their proverbial closets, lest they be cast out of the tribe.

              “i agree that there is some serious backlash against men, and women, and men, and women, and around again. now if that backlash is so great that men dropping out of school, of work, out of the system itself—well, i, out of principle, think the systems of education and industry are highly suspicious capitalist (and oppressive) enterprises so i’m all about people questioning and finding their own path.”

              O: They may indeed be “oppressive and supicious capitalist enterprises” – but again, you’re sidestepping the point (and so is Nomada, no surprisingly) – the question is, simply this:

              Is Feminism, and unmitigated good? That it comes with no downsides? All the pleasure, none of the guilt?

              And if not – who pays?

              Hmm?

              “however, if their reasons for abandoning the system are not stemming from a place of self reliance and self determination, if in fact the backlash is so pathological that men are becoming self-immolating creatures, well, then .. that’s America acting out its own privilege. this is a country built on the very spirit of entitlement, and as such over the course of 2 centuries we have created a culture that is in a permanent state of stunted adolescence. and inevitably this cultural pathology affects its citizens.”

              O: The problem with your statement is that this is NOT an American thing – again, please go back to the Daily Mail piece. The author mentioned American, Canada, many parts of Asia…this is worldwide in scope (much like the seduction community is at this point, by the way…), and so, no, your notion of “American privilege” simply won’t wash here. Again, we must ask: Is Feminism, an unmitigated good? That there are NO downsides? And if there are – who pays?

              “which is not to say i am not empathetic. i am. i completely relate to victims, victimization, pathologies, self destruction, alla it. it serves a purpose and the purpose (for me) has been this: total immolation so one can be reborn as the phoenix.”

              O: The phoenix doesn’t exist. It’s a myth.

              “course, thas terribly unpleasant, and very very messy. and many people, when driven by destructive mechanisms, miss the opportunities for salvation and redemption. but these possibilities always exist. and it is natural. the pendulum swings for both the individual and the society, and the nature of wo/man is such that self determination is always possible.”

              O: Men have redefined themselves. The problem is that many Women – and a not insignificant number of Men – don’t like it.

              Hence the conflict…

              O.

        • namia

          Me thinking, population control should be the least of our worries because that is taken care of by the many natural and man made disasters that happen almost daily.

      • Maharaja Misty

        Oh no! Not the well respected journalistic authority that is the UK DAILY MAIL!
        (0_0)
        Newsflash* – I never said ‘few if any’ men shared your views, I said you didn’t represent the views of the majority of men, and frequently neglect to include the men who try to assert their parental rights in your linear rants about Men’s Rights, which always seems to be centered around opting out of fatherhood. I see this still is the case. Far as highlighting Asia as a shining example, there have also been several articles regarding women in Asia also opting out of motherhood and marriage. In fact here’s a little piece from the economist (surely not as informative as this hard hitting daily mail piece) further discussing how the attitude towards marriage and parenthood have changed for both men and women, and its possible negative social implications.
        http://www.economist.com/node/21526350 So it’s safe to say this is no revelation, as Asia collectively is experiencing a huge cultural shift, which is common with developing nations once women and men become more educated and their communities offer more income equality.

        I’ve never argued about men having the right to do what they feel is in their best interest, in fact I have maintained that I don’t believe in forcing parenthood on anyone, men nor woman. I just find your rants to be singular, non-inclusive, and transparently self-centered. I still do, and a little quip about ‘men in Asia going their own way’ has done nothing to refute that.

        • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

          unrelated but you just reminded me ~ the Daily Mail had the most atrocious piece of “journalism” in Rihanna last week ~ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2347680/Rihannas-toxic-role-model-army-young-fans-says-LIZ-JONES.html

          the best line (besides her on-stage costumes invite rape) was :: “Is it fair that we berate female stars for being bad, when we don’t admonish men in the same way? Yes, it is fair. Because young women are far more impressionable than young men.”

          aint nothing like keeping those “women are victims” and “dont no one care about young men” memes alive and well in the media today ..

          • Maharaja Misty

            I remember that, and it was disgusting, the things they publish on that site…they are two steps away from being the MTO/Bossip across the pond. That just reminded me about another European publication (I think Swedish) that called Rihanna a ‘Ni**erBytch’ and then their editors feigned confusion about the backlash. It’s always funny when European nations reveal they are no where near as liberal or progressive as a lot of US residents would like to believe them to be.
            *Looks @ France*

            • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

              ooooo yes, that was Jackie magazine. i’ve worked with them before, but not anything that made me think twice. but i will say, and i see it all the time, having one foot here and one foot there, straddling a couple of worlds at the same time, i have seen and heard some things that —

              white privilege. that’s the trump card. it’s gotten so bad people turned inside out. i know you saw it, those wacko comments on the Rachel Jeantel post equating the acknowledgment of race as an act of racism.

              like, you go so far to the left, you end up on the right? i saw this poem the other day on Tumblr, it answered that kinda arrogant ignorance perfectly ::

              never
              trust anyone
              who says
              they do not see color.
              this means
              to them,
              you are invisible.

              —my color is, nayyirah waheed

        • Obsidian Files

          @Ms. Misty:

          “Oh no! Not the well respected journalistic authority that is the UK DAILY MAIL!

          (0_0)”

          O: Your attempt at Ad Hominem has been noted…

          “Newsflash* – I never said ‘few if any’ men shared your views, I said you didn’t represent the views of the majority of men, and frequently neglect to include the men who try to assert their parental rights in your linear rants about Men’s Rights, which always seems to be centered around opting out of fatherhood.”

          O: And you would be wrong on numerous counts – for one, because if you kindly go back to Panama’s post on Father’ss Day, I specifically linked to an in-depth article which discussed the recently published book Doing The Best I Can, which focuses on inner city fathers who WANTED TO BE DADS. IF what you say about me is true, WHY would I even post such a link – on Father’s Day, no less?

          Second – I have never spoken against the desires or interests of Men who wish to be hubbies or dads. Indeed, those who actually know me, know this; it has long been my official policy to advocate for the Right of Men to decide their own destiny, however they may define it, and that includes the choice to be hubbies and/or dads. I have never been against this.

          What bothers YOU, is the fact that I am indeed quite vocal in support of Men who do NOT wish to adhere to the age old scripts they’ve been handed along these lines – and this bothers you, because it interferes with your own mating strategies. While understandable, you must learn to control your morality, and cultivate more of an attitude of live and let live.

          “I see this still is the case.”

          O: And again, all you would be proving is your rank ignorance of the facts – again, I cite Panama’s Father’s Day post as proof…

          “Far as highlighting Asia as a shining example, there have also been several articles regarding women in Asia also opting out of motherhood and marriage. In fact here’s a little piece from the economist (surely not as informative as this hard hitting daily mail piece) further discussing how the attitude towards marriage and parenthood have changed for both men and women, and its possible negative social implications.”

          O: Yes, I’m very familiar with the Economist piece, and quite a few others – which highlights my point:

          WHY, aren’t such respected journalistic outlets, NOT giving equal time to the Men who are going their own way? Where is the major writeups in pubs like the Economist, or the Financial Times, and the like, who are discussing this? Why are they ONLY focusing on the ladies in this regard?

          Things that make you go “hmmm…”

          “So it’s safe to say this is no revelation, as Asia collectively is experiencing a huge cultural shift, which is common with developing nations once women and men become more educated and their communities offer more income equality.”

          O: No – it IS a huge revelation – again, please read the recently published Men On Strike, by Dr. Helen Smith. This is huge, because Men are indeed “saying” something – and if you are any indication, especially as it relates to Black Women in our time, you/they are hopelessly tonedeaf. Men, in growing numbers are actively REJECTING the “script”. That’s pretty huge, and something the MSM either refuses to discuss honestly, or doesn’t have a bloody clue about…

          “I’ve never argued about men having the right to do what they feel is in their best interest, in fact I have maintained that I don’t believe in forcing parenthood on anyone, men nor woman.”

          O: I do not recall you making this lofty proclamation anywhere here at VSB before today, certainly not lately in our exchanges; I certainly would love to see such comments by you if you can link to them please? Thanks!

          “I just find your rants to be singular, non-inclusive, and transparently self-centered. I still do, and a little quip about ‘men in Asia going their own way’ has done nothing to refute that.”

          O: You’re free to think whatever you like – especially since convincing you was never part of my plan in any event.

          You can attempt to denigrate the Daily Mail, you can try to paint yourself as ” not having any problem” with thus and so, and of course, you can moan and whine about me to your heart’s content – NONE of that will change the facts I routinely bring forth here.

          They remain, still.

          ;)

          O.

          • Maharaja Misty

            K.

          • NomadaNare

            O, real talk, how are you going to (erroneously) accuse Misty of Ad Hominem against the UK Daily Mail, when implicitly highlighting the lack rigor the UKDM has applied in their study and then turn right around and level an Ad Hominem attack at Misty whilst attempting to straw-man her response? I’m not the argument police or anything, but your style along with appeals to equal-time, which are a time honored debate tactic for conservative lobby groups, seem to be disingenuous.

            • Obsidian Files

              Nomada:

              Nice try at attempting to paint me as a Conservative (actually, I’m deeply suspicious of both the Left and the Right).

              But since we’re talking about Real Talk, how are you gonna talk through your own hat, but never offer any sources of your own? It’s easy to take potshots; chief; I want to see what YOU have to offer, in the way or sources, with which to better inform the discussion?

              I’ll wait…

              O.

              • NomadaNare

                Sources for what? Again, i’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, just pointing out where you’ve failed to convince me. Even still, triple h provided papers in support of your arguments concerning Buss’s book many moons ago. You have yet to respond to my criticism of these citations. i can cite them again if you like, but I think they may be irrelevant to the conversation at hand. As for your assumption that I tried to paint you as a conservative, okay, fine go ahead. it doesn’t mean your not using one of their most used solipsist debate tactics which is in itself, regardless of your political position, disingenuous.

                • Obsidian Files

                  Nomada:

                  By all means, go right ahead. Cite away! I also welcome TH’s (re)citation of certain papers if he’s of a mind.

                  Moreover, I never set out to convince you of anything, in part because I already knew from the get go where you would fall on things, and interestingly enough, in light of the sidebar discussion you’re having with NL, you fall a heck of a lot closer into the very post-modern camp he was talking about than you may be aware of or admit to.

                  Ms. Misty started out her comment by denigrating the source of my own argument; that, IS indeed, a form of Ad Hominem. It doesn’t matter if it was a peer-reviewed academic study funded by the gov’t, or if it was the National Enquirer reporting on it, the issue is whether the claims being made are valid. Ms. Misty never addressed it; instead, she attempted to shift the focus to what Women in Asia were doing, something I never brought up to begin with.

                  So, non-sequitur.

                  The point of the article, was that Men were indeed acting rationally by NOT “Manning Up”- remember, Lloyd’s article was a response to an earlier piece by Melissa Kite, who attempted to argue that Men who didn’t want to marry or have kids were being “selfish”. Now, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and some guy said something like that – must we imagine what the response would be?

                  Hmm?

                  So, for YOU, to attempt to suggest that I am somehow arguing In Mala Fide and then use the word “conservative” in your diatribe, is in as poor a form, as Ms. Misty itself.

                  Two peas in a pod.

                  For real…

                  O.

                  • NomadaNare

                    LOL. So, now you have further constrained your category of ‘convince-able’ audiences to black men that aren’t post-modernists (ignoring the fact that I have never claimed, nor argued to be one). This ridiculousness in the face of trying to ‘argue’ philosophy concerning which there is no right answer. Misty was not ‘denigrating’ your source. She was implicitly challenging the rigor of their analysis by noting that because you’re citing a news website and not an academic journal, the arrived conclusions may not be justified. I understood this I’m sorry if you didn’t. You responded to her criticism not by providing more credible sources, but by returning with criticism of an argument that’s not quite the one she made and attempting to bring attention to why she would make her argument in the first place. This is the definition of poisoning the well.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Nomada:

                      “LOL. So, now you have further constrained your category of ‘convince-able’ audiences to black men that aren’t post-modernists (ignoring the fact that I have never claimed, nor argued to be one).”

                      O: Alright – so let’s cut right to the chase. Nomada, do you think Truth is something that is objective, or not? Simple question, right? That would be a yes or no answer.

                      “This ridiculousness in the face of trying to ‘argue’ philosophy concerning which there is no right answer.”

                      O: This, coming from a guy who wants to put ALL the problems each and every one of us faces down to Old or otherwise Dead White Men???

                      Really?

                      “Misty was not ‘denigrating’ your source.”

                      O: She absolutely was denigrating my source.

                      “She was implicitly challenging the rigor of their analysis by noting that because you’re citing a news website and not an academic journal, the arrived conclusions may not adequately support the claims you make. I understood this I’m sorry if you didn’t.”

                      O: I understood exactly what she was saying, and also knew about the Economist article she cited probably before she did. None of that still didn’t deal with the argument Pete Lloyd made.

                      And to date, you haven’t either.

                      So, let’s try this again: are Men who refuse to get married and have kids, “being selfish” in your eyes, Nomada? Because THAT was the argument Lloyd was addressing. Again, simple yes or no answer.

                      “You responded to her criticism not by providing more credible sources, but by returning with criticism of an argument that’s not quite the one she made and attempting to bring attention to why she would make her argument in the first place. This is the definition of poisoning the well.”

                      O: And I did a fine job of it, I must say.

                      Moral of this story – address the argument or claim being made – DON’T attempt to poo-poo the source, DON’T attempt to cajole me into getting more “acceptable” sources for you, DON’T attempt to change the subject -

                      ADDRESS THE ARGUMENT.

                      And Lloyd’s argument, is spot on.

                      End of.

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      “Alright – so let’s cut right to the chase. Nomada, do you think Truth is something that is objective, or not? Simple question, right? That would be a yes or no answer.”

                      I think your question is ill-defined. I don’t think you can define it in a way that can be answered. Feel free to try, though.

                      As for men being selfish, no I don’t think it is, but this does not imply the other arguments you try to tack on to it nor is this the argument Misty made. Nice straw manning and switch of the goal posts there.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Nomada:

                      “I think your question is ill-defined. I don’t think you can define it in a way that can be answered. Feel free to try, though.”

                      O: No “tries” necessary – you either are in the Truth is Objective camp, or you’re in the Truth is NOT Objective camp. Simple as.

                      “As for men being selfish, no I don’t think it is,”

                      O: THANK YOU.

                      All else is superfluous – and that was my whole point in responding to Ms. You Know Who…

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      Or you can be in either camp depending on where/what you attempt to apply your ‘truth’. You can also be in the camp where you reject binary logic and are in a sort of QM-like ‘truth’/anti-’truth’ state. You can again be in another camp that finds discussions of ‘truth’, ill-defined and irrelevant.

                      Let me provide an example: Are the following two sentences taken together true or false?
                      The following sentence is false.
                      The preceding sentence is true.

                      If you can properly work out an answer to the question above, place me in whatever camp is better for your argument.

                      As for your question about Lloyd, your response is yet another strawman. Even in your response, you attempt to misrepresent Misty’s argument. Neither she, nor I made the argument that men not wanting to have kids is selfish. She was very clear about what she said below and I know better than to step on her toes. Good luck with that though.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Nomada:

                      “Or you can be in either camp depending on where/what you attempt to apply your ‘truth’. You can also be in the camp where you reject binary logic and are in a sort of QM-like ‘truth’/anti-’truth’ state. You can again be in another camp that finds discussions of ‘truth’, ill-defined and irrelevant.”

                      O: OK…

                      “Let me provide an example: Are the following two sentences taken together true or false?

                      The following sentence is false.

                      The preceding sentence is true.

                      If you can properly work out an answer to the question above, place me in whatever camp is better for your argument.”

                      O: I decline. A simple answer would have sufficed.

                      “As for your question about Lloyd, your response is yet another strawman. Even in your response, you attempt to misrepresent Misty’s argument. Neither she, nor I made the argument that men not wanting to have kids is selfish. She was very clear about what she said below and I thought you knew better than to step on her toes (I know I do). Good luck with that though.”

                      O: I don’t believe in luck. Ms. Misty made the mistake of tryin to weasel out of the core argument and when she finally admitted that Lloyd was right, there really was nothing else to discuss.

                      End of.

                      O.

                    • NomadaNare

                      When I provided you with a simple response, you decided that wasn’t sufficient, excuse me for being thorough. What was Misty’s core argument? It was not that men were being selfish by pursuing their own self-interests, but that’s what you continue to try to make it out to be. If this is not the case, please use the comment search in Disqus to find precisely the comment where Misty made this argument. I’m pretty sure you can’t because she never said that. Moreover, trying to adopt Lloyd’s argument as your own is again, attempting to move the goal posts while simultaneously straw-manning Misty’s argument. This is getting dull. Why even present the idea that you’re all about proper debate and the search for ‘truth’ if you’re going to continue to try to use logical fallacies to make your case and show that your ‘search’ only goes as far as the books you’re comfortable discussing?

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Nomada:

                      “A simple answer would not have sufficed because you were demonstrably ignorant of the depth of the question you asked.”

                      O: Which was the whole point, wasn’t it, Nomada? You’re right, this is getting old; I got over playing “Gotcha!” in gradeschool…

                      “When I provided you with as simple a response as I could reasonably provide, you decided that wasn’t sufficient, excuse me for being thorough.”

                      O: Duly noted…

                      “Anyways, what was Misty’s core argument? It was not that men were being selfish by pursuing their own self-interests, but that’s what you continue to try to make it out to be.”

                      O: Hence my reference of Dr. Helen Smith’s book, “Men on Strike” – a book you dismissed out of hand and sight unseen, I might add. Quite thorough indeed!

                      “If this is not the case, please use the comment search in Disqus to find precisely the comment where Misty made this argument. I’m pretty sure you can’t because she never said that. Moreover, trying to adopt Lloyd’s argument as your own is again, attempting to move the goal posts while simultaneously straw-manning Misty’s argument. This is getting dull.”

                      O: I agree, it really is. The whole point in my posting that article was to directly address Ms. Misty’s claims about me the previous day. That we all are in agreement on Lloyd’s point though, brings the whole thing to a conclusion, at least for me.

                      “Why even present the idea that you’re all about proper debate and the search for ‘truth’ if you’re going to continue to try to use logical fallacies to make your case and show that your ‘search’ only goes as far as the books you’re comfortable discussing?”

                      O: Because I am, and because I hold out hope that we -you and I – can actually have a discussion and indeed, a debate, about those books I bring up, without asides to things I didn’t even mention in the first place (like math)?

                      O.

                    • Obsidian Files

                      Nomada:

                      “LOL. So, now you have further constrained your category of ‘convince-able’ audiences to black men that aren’t post-modernists”

                      O: Nomada, if you want to know specifically WHY I’m here, all you have to do is ask…

                      O.

                  • Maharaja Misty

                    Um…’Ms. Misty’ what now?

                    Last I checked you launched into another huge misrepresentation of what ‘Ms Misty’ initially disagreed with you about which was your prior blatant assertion that men do not have a natural inclination nor interest in fatherhood, that is was forced by threat of jail or ostracization, you continue to put words in my mouth that I’ve never implied nor stated. You then link to a hackneyed article from the Daily Freaken Mail which focused on the argument of reproductive rights of men and women in Britain ( by an author who claims male condoms are ….’impractical’ as an example for the limited contraceptive resources for men for Christ’s sake) and centered on a vague 2 sentence long blurb about ‘Men In Asia going another way’ as indicative of this brewing storm of the rebelling male population I ‘allegedly’ refuse to acknowledge, with both you and the author assuming the reasoning in their doing so with no hard sources that even numerates this ‘shift’ nor any way of possibly validating their motives align with your reasoning, nothing supporting your assertions.

                    The reason I linked the Economists article, is to indicate a possibility that perhaps the men in Asia’s withdraw could be symptomatic of the shift of the general female population as well, or that shifts in attitude about marriage and parenthood in general historically change in developing nations when the traditional gender roles are transformed via education and financial independence, from a less inflammatory and credible source . And that is simply becauseYOU brought up Asia, You are the one who has an agenda in which to frame this shift in, I do not. I have no interest in oppressing men’s choice, and any movement encouraging such does not interfere with my ‘mating interest’ since I myself have no interest in marriage or creating anymore children. I offered this in contrast to a piece that asserts an unfounded and uncorroborated claim ‘Millions of men are being denied access to their children because of their bitter ex-girlfriends and wives’ and then purports more non-credible generalities, that are as vague, unfounded, and as inflammatory as the ones in the article written by the woman he vehemently disagrees with and who by all accounts if his summation of her writings are accurate I disagree with as well.

                    You are as paranoid, and inconsistent as you are ironically hypocritical.
                    So how bout this hun, hows bout you keep Ms.Misty’s pseudonym our your mouth, unless ‘Ms. Misty’ herself is engaging you? And I promise to do the same.
                    Kay?

                    • Obsidian Files

                      @Ms. Misty:

                      “Last I checked you launched into another huge misrepresentation of what ‘Ms Misty’ initially disagreed with you about which was your prior blatant assertion that men do not have a natural inclination nor interest in fatherhood, that is was forced by threat of jail or ostracization, you continue to put words in my mouth that I’ve never implied nor stated.”

                      O: Woman, what are you talking about??? I have already disproven your baseless claims on this score at least twice already this week, one of which is above upthread, to which you simply ressponed “K”. I have NEVER claimed what you assert above, and your notion that, unless I advocate for “all” Black Men, or “all” Black Men who want to be daddies and so forth, is ridiculous. I have my own agenda, and have no need to explain, justify or rationalize it for you or anyone else. I am interested in Roe For Men, for very simple reasons, if Women have the right to abort, Men should have the right to walk. Simple.

                      “You then link to a hackneyed article from the Daily Freaken Mail which focused on the argument of reproductive rights of men and women in Britain ( by an author who claims male condoms are ….’impractical’ as an example for the limited contraceptive resources for men for Christ’s sake) and centered on a vague 2 sentence long blurb about ‘Men In Asia going another way’ as indicative of this brewing storm of the rebelling male population I ‘allegedly’ refuse to acknowledge, with both you and the author assuming the reasoning in their doing so with no hard sources that even numerates this ‘shift’ nor any way of possibly validating their motives align with your reasoning, nothing supporting your assertions.”

                      O: The article was a response to a writer named Melissa Kite, who made the case that Men who have made the personal decision NOT to have wives or babies, are being, and I quote, “selfish”. That was what Pete Lloyd was responding to.

                      So, let’s begin the convo right there, shall we? Do YOU, Ms. Maharaja Misty, believe that a Man has the right to be, or NOT to be, a hubby/daddy – and to do so, without other people being all up in his personal life business, assailing him with slurs of being “selfish”?

                      Yes…or no…?

                      Second, given that it is highly unlikely that YOU, as a Woman, HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY USED A FREAKING CONDOM IN YOUR LIFE, you don’t know what it’s like nor what Lloyd is talking about.

                      Third, yes, let’s revisit the “2 sentence long blurb”, shall we?

                      Ready?

                      Here we go:

                      “In Asia there’s a new tendency for men to go their own way – with thousands shunning marriage and kids for a life of independence and control, which no family court can destroy. The same thing is happening across America and Canada.”

                      Clearly, Lloyd is not just speaking in terms of Asia, but America AND Canada, too (more on this in a moment, hold that pose…)…and he also states that the same thing is happening in the UK.

                      Now, I know that’s something you’d rather not contemplate, but the whole point of my referencing the piece to begin with, is because YOU, attempted to make the assertion the other day, that somehow I was just our here all by my lonesome. Lloyd’s article, to mention one of a multitude, says otherwise.

                      Got it?

                      “The reason I linked the Economists article, is to indicate a possibility that perhaps the men in Asia’s withdraw could be symptomatic of the shift of the general female population as well, or that shifts in attitude about marriage and parenthood in general historically change in developing nations when the traditional gender roles are transformed via education and financial independence, from a less inflammatory and credible source . And that is simply becauseYOU brought up Asia, You are the one who has an agenda in which to frame this shift in, I do not.”

                      O: Ahh, but your linking the Economist piece, along with the song and dance you quote above, belies your protestations to the contrary – you’re deeply wedded to the notion that a growing cohort of Men may be opting out, and for their own reasons that don’t have Jack to do with “globalization”. It couldn’t just be that maybe, guys are opting out because they don’t like what’s on offer in terms of the ladies? That maybe, as Lloyd points out in the article – and which you never get around to addressing – that more and more guys are seeing doing the house and white picket fence with 2.5 kids thing, as a BAD DEAL?

                      Oh, no. It has to be this convoluted globalization crap. You are truly a piece of work!

                      “I have no interest in oppressing men’s choice,”

                      O: That’s a LIE, just the other day you were squawking about like Chicken Little in response to my staunch advocacy of RFM, on the basis that it would somehow create more Men who would leave their families only to create other ones elsewhere and repeat the cycle…in fact, with all the vim and vigor you posted all that with, one gets the distinct impression that this hits quite close to home for you…

                      “and any movement encouraging such does not interfere with my ‘mating interest’ since I myself have no interest in marriage or creating anymore children.”

                      O: But you may have an interest in your family members, particularly the female ones…or your homegirls…and so forth. Mating interests extend well beyond oneself, my dear. And you continue to tell on yourself the more you run off at the mouth.

                      My advocacy for Men looking out for their interests FIRST, is deeply unsettling for you and many other Women in this forum, which is part of the reason why I do what I do – because I want to highlight the utter and rank hypocrisy so many you routinely engage in on these fronts. Again, that was the reason why I posted the Lloyd Daily Mail piece, because he says the exact same thing, and surprise, you didn’t even address a darn thing he said.

                      Hmm…

                      “I offered this in contrast to a piece that asserts an unfounded and uncorroborated claim ‘Millions of men are being denied access to their children because of their bitter ex-girlfriends and wives’ and then purports more non-credible generalities, that are as vague, unfounded, and as inflammatory as the ones in the article written by the woman he vehemently disagrees with and who by all accounts if his summation of her writings are accurate I disagree with as well.”

                      O: Great! – so in the end, we agree: Men who make the decision, per their own reasoning of what is or is not in their own best interests FIRST, NOT to be a hubby or daddy, is NOT being “selfish” at all, and for anyone to suggest otherwise, is being patently sexist.

                      See, that wasn’t so hard, now was it? :)

                      “You are as paranoid, and inconsistent as you are ironically hypocritical.”

                      O: Says the one who jumps back into a discussion on an erroneous basis, who argues from a flawed premise based on what she wants me to have said, and who’s anxieties in light of what I advocate are gossamar wing-thin…I love it!

                      “So how bout this hun, hows bout you keep Ms.Misty’s pseudonym our your mouth, unless ‘Ms. Misty’ herself is engaging you? And I promise to do the same.

                      Kay?”

                      O: I have a better idea: the next time – and there will be a next time – the O-Man steps on the set to once again make the case for the MRA agenda and why it is vitally important to and for Black Men, why don’t you keep your lovely mouth shut, and keep it movin? After all, if what you say is true, none of what I’m saying applies to you – right?

                      If it don’t apply, let it fly, and let me make my case to my Brothas, unimpeded by your squawking.

                      Fair enough, sugah?

                      ;)

                      O.

                      PS: And I didn’t mention your name again – Nomada did…

      • Asiyah

        The UK Daily Mail? You need more people.

        The other day you said that you were very private about your personal life, which I absolutely respect, however when we ask you for your opinion (and not your “facts”) you don’t have to get personal or back up your opinions with revealing anecdotes. Just saying.

        • Obsidian Files

          Ms. Asiyah:

          “The UK Daily Mail? You need more people.”

          O: Please see my response to Nomada downthread. Ad Hominem doesn’t suit you.

          “The other day you said that you were very private about your personal life, which I absolutely respect,”

          O: So, you saw what I said? I’m impressed!

          “however when we ask you for your opinion (and not your “facts”) you don’t have to get personal or back up your opinions with revealing anecdotes. Just saying.”

          O: Madam, get the book “Men On Strike”.

          O.

      • NomadaNare

        This is the final time i’m posting it, because I posted it 2 times already at your request. These are the articles Triple H recommended in response to my asking you for sources concerning an argument you made about the incentives of women in cuckolding their mates. All of the 4 articles are cited in Buss’s book. 2 of the 4 are bad science or based on bad/obsolete science, and the third is fine but does not support or disprove you or Buss’s claims and the fourth actually contradicts Buss’s statements about desirability (unless I’m misunderstanding Buss or the article). Do you care to add context to these citations or discuss why they’re bad science/obsolete and/or contradictory? The 2 with bad/obsolete science are MacIntyre and Sooman, (1991), Thornhill and Gangestad (1997). The one that neither supports nor disproves is Sasse, Muller, Chakraborty, and Ott (1994). The one that might provide evidence against Buss is Cerda-Flores, Barton, Marty-Gonzalez, Rivas, Chakraborty (1999). Waiting on your response.

        • h.h.h.

          and for the record, i have the book in digital form, i just went to the page Obsidian was preaching from, and looked at the citations….

          i literally have 8 books in front of me to read, along with reading literature about another field i could work in…i’m interested in MRA literature/scripture, just not right now

          • Obsidian Files

            @Triple H:
            Would you mind giving me the page number and chapter? Thanks!

            O.

            • h.h.h.

              didn’t you give us the page? 236 or something like that?

              • Obsidian Files

                @Triple H:
                Yep, which seems to be the page of the book that is currently under discussion. What’s on your mind regarding it?

                O.

    • Todd

      The one thing that I would be interested to find out is whether The Roots sold out or were bought out. What I mean is that did they either just say “screw it, we’re appealing to hipsters” or drifted that way because that was the crowd that showed up to their shows. I was an early fan, but the earnestness and passive-aggressive racism of their White audience (look, it’s Negroes playing “real music” instead of that darkie sample garbage LOL) was a major turnoff. I might check for that book though.

    • NomadaNare

      “Jigga’s meta-message” Qu’est-ce que c’est? As for Questlove’s autobiography, I haven’t read it but have heard about roller skating with Prince, which I thought was hilarious.

      • Obsidian Files

        “Jigga’s meta-message” Qu’est-ce que c’est?”

        O: I don’t recall stuttering when I “said” that…

        “As for Questlove’s autobiography, I haven’t read it but have heard about roller skating with Prince, which I thought was hilarious.”

        O: Somehow, coming from you, that doesn’t surprise me…

        Read the book, Nomada. You might actually like it.

        O.

        • NomadaNare

          Oh, no I don’t disagree, I may read it. I was just curious as to what you meant. What’s the meta-message? This is outside of Nomada argument mode, I genuinely was curious about what you found in Jay-z’s album.

          • Obsidian Files

            Nomada:

            I think that the infomercial that promotes it says quite a bit – here we have Jay-Z, in a room with many other Men to assist him in this major effort. Coalition building, from an EvoPsych perspective, is vital for Men. In the primate world, and more specifically chimps, which are our nearest “cousins”, it is rare for a single male chimp to take over the troupe on his own; those who attempt it are usually severely beaten and sometimes killed, by the other male chimps. Those chimps who succeed in taking over the troupe usually do so because they have forged alliances with other male chimps, with whom he then shares the booty (metaphorically and otherwise) with his allies.

            I honestly wonder if people – Black Men especially – are really paying attention to that aspect of the MCHG informercial, and what Jigga is “saying” in it.

            • h.h.h.

              “I honestly wonder if people – Black Men especially – are really paying
              attention to that aspect of the MCHG informercial, and what Jigga is
              “saying” in it.”

              no. please explain.

              as i know the record making process, you can either have rappers email their lyrics to producers, who fit the lyrics with the beat…

              or in other situations, the producers and the rapper(s) come together in a central location, primarily to get work done quicker.

              outside of Jay-Z finding a way for samsung to pretty much get him platinum status in a week, skirting the distribution brou-hah-hah, setting a new standard (aka Holy grail) for rappers to seek..
              please explain how a music creative meeting is relatable to chimps sharing sexual conquests?

  • http://wildcougarconfessions.com Wild Cougar

    Regarding condom use, I’m convinced many people subconsciously wanna sabotage their futures because they don’t trust themselves to reach their potential. Baby is always a good excuse for why you didn’t do x. I think a lot of people wanna have a “slip up” with plausible deniability to the world. More importantly they can fool themselves into thinking they couldn’t have done any better. The only thing scarier than striving to succeed against the odds is walking around with no excuses.

    • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

      i was just talking about this ~ i dont believe in accidents, and i aint even Freudian like that. i just think that the unconscious is always trying to unload everything that we repress, and sometimes that comes out in ways that force us to reflect on how we are allowing ourselves to be controlled by our deepest fears.

      • Obsidian Files

        Ladies,

        The answers both of you seek are in The Evolution of Desire, by Prof. David Buss. Oh, and be sure to checkout Promises I Can Keep, and Doing The Best I Can, the latter of which came out last month. More here: http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/Doing-the-best-i-can-talks-with-poor-urban-dads-unwed-fatherhood-211092101.html?page=1&comments=1&showAll=#comments

        As with all things psychological – in this case, EvoPsychological – these drives, impulses, evolved mechanisms and mating strategies, operate deep within the subconscious, hidden from the view of our conscious minds.

        O.

        • Obsidian Files

          On the book, Promises I Can Keep:

          “Millie Acevedo bore her first child before the age of 16 and dropped out of high school to care for her newborn. Now 27, she is the unmarried mother of three and is raising her kids in one of Philadelphia’s poorest neighborhoods. Would she and her children be better off if she had waited to have them and had married their father first? Why do so many poor American youth like Millie continue to have children before they can afford to take care of them?

          Over a span of five years, sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas talked in-depth with 162 low-income single moms like Millie to learn how they think about marriage and family. Promises I Can Keep offers an intimate look at what marriage and motherhood mean to these women and provides the most extensive on-the-ground study to date of why they put children before marriage despite the daunting challenges they know lie ahead.”

          http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Can-Keep-Motherhood-Marriage/dp/0520241134

          O.

          • Obsidian Files

            On the book, “Doing The Best I Can”:

            “Across the political spectrum, unwed fatherhood is denounced as one of the leading social problems of today. Doing the Best I Can is a strikingly rich, paradigm-shifting look at fatherhood among inner-city men often dismissed as “deadbeat dads.” Kathryn Edin and Timothy J. Nelson examine how couples in challenging straits come together and get pregnant so quickly–without planning. The authors chronicle the high hopes for forging lasting family bonds that pregnancy inspires, and pinpoint the fatal flaws that often lead to the relationship’s demise. They offer keen insight into a radical redefinition of family life where the father-child bond is central and parental ties are peripheral.

            Drawing on years of fieldwork, Doing the Best I Can shows how mammoth economic and cultural changes have transformed the meaning of fatherhood among the urban poor. Intimate interviews with more than 100 fathers make real the significant obstacles faced by low-income men at every step in the familial process: from the difficulties of romantic relationships, to decision-making dilemmas at conception, to the often celebratory moment of birth, and finally to the hardships that accompany the early years of the child’s life, and beyond.”

            http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Best-Can-Fatherhood-Inner/dp/0520274067/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373033948&sr=1-1&keywords=doing+the+best+i+can

            O.

        • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

          i am not sure that our unconscious drives are hidden from view. i think they are always revealing themselves, awake and asleep. they speak to us in a different kind of language, one that is non-rational and non-linear, much like the Universe itself, and like any foreign language it takes patience and dedication to master it.

          fact is, unconscious ish is scary as fukk, thas why it gets repressed. often times we consciously choose to ignore, avoid, misinterpret the very lessons we are here to learn. then, emm, something can happen, something like a crash, when finally a fall from grace forces us to reflect on our responsibilities to ourselves, and to the world at large.

          then, upon reflection, we begin to see that the unconscious is not invisible at all. it is simply uses another form of communication that is as natural and organic as any that the conscious mind creates. and then we see it all the time, we see our lies and our truths and the games we play to avoid or master our weaknesses ~*~

          • Obsidian Files

            @Ms. Esa:
            Hmm. OK then, question –

            WHY, does Deception, exist – persist? What purpose does it serve?

            I would argue it exists, and persists, for very profound reasons. Please see my responseto you upthread for more on all of this. From an EvoPsych standpoint, Deception serves many vitally important functions, both to ourselves, and to others.

            Some aspects of ourselves are just too stark to deal with straight up.

            O.

            • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

              mm ~ my answer is in moderation. to recap i said something to the effect that this is an excellent question and my instinctive response is deception is both a form of self protection and an act of aggression. i will be so bold as to ask for a link to something you think addresses this. being so self-deceiving for so long, i’d love to read theories on this pathological bs.

    • Todd

      I’m with you there. While “accidentally” having babies is far from the only method of self-sabotage, it’s definitely a popular one. What makes it more obvious is when people do have kids, then find a way of achieve their dreams anyway. When you point these people out to someone who hid behind a kid, they will pull out every excuse short of the Illuminati for their success.

      Then there are the people who are so ignorant that they think actually just having is a success, but that’s another story.

      • http://missrosen.wordpress.com/ esa

        with all due respect, i think people who have and raise well adjusted children are a most perfect definition of success. but if you mean folk who have them (without regard to the child themselves), and them claim credit for fulfilling a biological act and that is all, that’s not just ignorant, it is a kind of arrogance that goes beyond the limits of my tolerance ..

  • Never

    This is the one with Agent Sasco, correct? If so, I see what the raised eyebrows en masse in the dancehall community were all about…”but if yuh waan mi tell yuh bout yuh bumbo, juss gwan like seh a past yuh nabel yuh wudda waan mi tongue guh” eeh Assassin…

    OTOH, that’s some 2Chainz level of lyricism there:

    “D@mn your lips soft as I turn my blackberry off”

    “I call her big booty cause she got a big booty”

    Yep.

    • http://recklessactsofpunctuation.tumblr.com/ dtafakari

      lol. Ye isn’t even challenging himself lyrically anymore. To his credit, though, he’s always kept his sense of humor.

  • Yonnie

    “you probably shouldn’t pull a Black woman’s hair”

    Please stop spreading this vicious lie. It is detrimental to our community.

    • Madlark

      Playing in nice thick nappy ish >>>>