From: slzm9@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Why we go for non-black women:
Date: 1 Jan 93 17:58:10 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1993Jan1.155419.25716@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> 
> I just had the joy of having a black woman lecture me, sister to
> brother, so to speak, about my girlfriend, who is caucasian, just
> before Christmas. She takes it upon herself, as if she were in Jungle
> Fever the movie!, to lecture me about black pride. She went on about
> how wrong it is to do this to black women and that there are plenty of
> black women who are looking for brothers now.
> 
> I refused to back down about my girlfriend (new girlfriend at that),
> and we ended up in an argument about whether or not I am an Oreo.
> 
> I told her what I am about to tell you. You people who think you're
> going to take out those of us who date interracially, need a lobotomy
> and you need to read up on Fascism. And you need to stay the hell away
> from me and the rest of us.
>

   I'm really asking for it here but here goes anyway. I'm a white man
and it seems very strange to me that black women have never exhibited
this kind of behavior towards me as they seem to have to Stephen Chaney.
But, SOME white women have. Few black women have exhibited any behavior
towards me here in Utah (cause there are no black women in Utah) but
in Oklahoma where I was born and raised black women and I got along
well. I had a black male roomate in college and his friends were always
coming over, many of them women. Black women did not disrespect me ever
even when I showed interest in their sisters.
   However, some white women let me know what they thought. Basically
they thought I was just interested in these black women because they
were supposed to be so "wild in bed" (their words not mine).
But similarly to Stephen Chaney I decide whom to date based on 
their attitude toward me, their sense of humor and what kind of 
person they are. Race has little to do with it.
   Now I'm willing to bet this isn't just a woman thing. I know there
are white women that have heard from white men "if you hang out
with that nigger" you will be mighty sorry. The threat is often
vague. 
   I think the thing here is jealousy occurs in both races and sexes.
When an unconcious racist sees one of their brothers or sisters
dating a member of another race they think "there is one more man or
woman unavailable to me or increasing my competition by not being
available to members of my own race".
   There is only one name for that, racism. And you should point it
out to them whenever they bring it up.

 
> 
> I do not prefer black women because:
> 1) They have the disposition of a hornet. I have never seen anything
> more stressful as an angry black woman (but hey, they get it from some
> of the men, too - but not me). 

  I am here to tell you that many white women have this same disposition
but just aren't well known for it. But I've dated 'em.

> 2) They disrespect black men and I see it every day. They are
> unforgiving - one stutter or one blunder and they're all over you,
> making fun of you.
> 3) They come up with this lame-ass excuse about "Well, can't you be
> tough and take it?" rather than laying off of you.
> 4) They have no, absolutely NO tolerance for individual thought. 

  Ditto for some white women.

> As a
> person who KNEW Anita Hill was a liar, I saw just how tolerant and
> open-minded they were when I tried to be NICE and non-argumentative,
> and just present the facts on the issue. 

   Now you might have presented the facts you were aware of. But
there was no witness available behind those closed doors if and
when Clarence Thomas made the alleged remarks. So, by definition
no witness but Hill or Thomas could testify about whether the remarks
had been made or not. They both testified and it depended on who
you wanted to believe. But Stephen just because you "KNEW" she
was a liar doesn't make her one. Don't assume you have a monopoly
on the truth as so many other conservatives do.

		[stuff deleted]

>     Anita Hill had NO EVIDENCE. She had TEN WITNESSES AGAINST HER.
>     She CHANGED HER STORY! She said she wasn't in it for the money and
>     now she's on a feminist evangelical tour for $10k an appearance.
>     What more evidence do you need to prove she was a PAID TORPEDO 
>     sent to get Clarence Thomas at the 11th hour?

   Anita Hill had evidence - her testimony. She is a Law Professor
for goodness sake. That gives her credibility. None of those 10
witnesses could say for sure that these comments had not occurred
they could only say that they hadn't heard any. Why would a Law
Professor risk her reputation on untrue allegations? Anybody
with any sense knows no amount of money can buy you a reputation.
   Finally if she was a "paid torpedo" then who paid her? How about
providing a little evidence for us, you accuse Anita Hill of having
no evidence and so you don't believe her - why should we treat you
any differently.

>     --Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
>     USENET Warlord / IRC Channel Owner / Accounts WorldWide / Home Login!
> 		       (Meaning: More time for this ?)
>                     The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 


Peace, but not without justice,

Zip