The Rawness

Reminder: Don’t forget about the commenter contest.

I have to warn you, this is either going to be one of my weirdest posts, one of my most profound or both. Even if it sounds really pseudoscientific and downright preposterous at times, I encourage you to read through it and keep an open mind.

One thing I constantly hear educated black guys complain about is their experiences with black women, particularly how they constantly test them or pass them up for guys of a thuggier nature. The big complaint I hear is that black women, even those of middle class status and higher, seem to want “Tupac with a degree.” Black guys often use this as their reason for primarily dating women of other races.

Now of course most women of all races go through a “bad boy” stage, especially when they’re younger and attraction and excitement are more important to them than long-term security. One of the problems with black women though is that they tend to go overboard in this department. A bad boy to an Asian girl may be a guy who’s a liberal arts major. When black women go for a bad boys, however, a prison record and a gun are often be involved. I even found this to be the case when I was in college and hollering at educated black women. With white girls, though, the simple fact that a guy is black is often enough to confer “bad boy” status and make a guy edgy. So when a guy is faced with a choice of going for white girl and being edgy and a “bad boy” simply by being black and having a little bit of street smarts, or going for a black chick and having to be a “soldier” and risk a criminal record to impress a black chick with his edginess, it makes sense that a lot of black guys find it less stressful to date outside the race.

But I’m not writing this to excuse black men’s dating choices or condem black women, but rather to understand why this “thug lust” phenomenon is so prevalent in the black community. After doing a lot of reading on evolutionary psychology, I think I may have an answer.

One of the tenets of evolutionary psychology is that women are programmed to test men for strength and leadership. Constantly. The theory is that in prehistoric times, the world was a much more dangerous place, especially for women, who could easily be raped or killed at will. Weapons were primitive, there weren’t laws to protect rights and society was not very civilized. Women needed men that were strong and dominant to offer them protection from other men who may try to invade. For this reason, it was in a woman’s best interest to test a potential mate. If he was too weak to stand up to her and let her walk all over him, then how could he protect her and their children from other men? If he was wishy-washy in day to day activities, how could he make important decisions in a time of crisis?

Chances are, at some point in history there were not only plenty of women who were genetically predisposed to test men, but also plenty of women who were not genetically predisposed to test men. Thanks to the principles of survival of the fittest, however, the women who didn’t have the innate tendency to test their men probably chose weaker men and wound up getting their genes weeded out of existence once trouble came around and these weak men couldn’t protect them. On the flipside, the women with an innate tendency to test their men and not mate with punks were better suited for survival and ended up passing their genes to future generations of women. Thus as the human race evolved over time, women with “man-testing” genes thrived in the human population because they were beneficial to survival, while women without “man-testing” genes gradually ceased to exist because they were wiped out over time. For this reason, any woman alive today is descended from women with “man testing” genes and has these “man testing” genes too. This is why modern women constantly probe men in a million subtle ways for weakness and lack of leadership during the courtship process.

The irony is that civilization has evolved to a point where a man’s physical protection is not as necessary as it once was. Society is much more civilized, women have access to better weapons to level the playing field, policemen exist to add more protection, there are laws to protect female citizens and conquest of women and other men through brute force is not only frowned upon but actually illegal. So logically, man testing is not as necessary as it once was. However logic can’t change a woman’s genes or hundreds of thousands of years of cultural conditioning, both of which have bred her to test potential mates for leadership and strength. It is for this reason so many women are attracted to assholes. They may not be nice, but they will not stand for disrespect and will fight for their rights against other men. I also think this primal urge for men who don’t take shit plays a big role in why so many death row inmates have those women who write them love letters and are attracted to them: these men take no crap, are leaders in a bizarre way due to the fact that they refuse to conform to society’s rules and can offer a woman protection from outsiders in a way that the average, law-abiding man can’t. Even though logically a woman may know these assholes or thugs are a bad choice, biologically and culturally they’ve been bred through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to respond positively to dominant, alpha male traits on a primal, unthinking level.

Now over the past few centuries as the West has become more civilized and women have made great strides in gaining equality, Western culture has begun training women to tone down their man-testing ways. Even though the man-testing genes are still there, they seem to play less of a role in mate choice with each generation. This is why that ugly kid from Superbad and Juno can actually be a sex symbol to tweens today. Alpha traits still matter to women on a primal level, but given how safe modern Western society has become for women over the past two centuries, and how much safer society continues to become for them, it’s safe to say that testing a man for alpha status will continue to decline and become more subtle and it will be increasingly easier for beta males to thrive in the mating game.

So what does this have to do with black women and thugs? The black woman for a long time was denied the societal progress available to other Western women over the past two centuries. Unlike other women in the West, for a long time black women did not experience the same increase in status and societal protection that would allow them to feel less dependent on the protections of a mate. Europeans invaded West Africa and took black people as slaves. Once in America, the black slave woman could be violated at will by her master and his visiting friends. This was acceptable under law. Her black husband could do nothing about this, which had to be very emasculating for him. In addition, she probably gradually began to resent him for his inability to protect her, even if logically she knew there was nothing he could actually do. This dynamic likely was passed to her daughters too, who had to grow up seeing both their fathers and their mates routinely emasculated and rendered incapable of protecting them. After slavery ended, things didn’t get that much better. The Ku Klux Klan was around in the south, lynchings and other forms of racial violence were rampant, black families could be physically intimidated and wiped out at will and the black man’s emasculation continued.

Given all the hardships a black woman faced up until very recent history, it would make sense that her need to test a man would remain strong, even as this need subsided some in Western women of other races. If anything, man-testing genes may have increased over the last several hundred years in the black community due to the hardships they faced. Getting an strong alpha male probably became much more important to a black woman than to a white woman, since unlike the white woman she did not have the same alternative protections of law, status and police available to her. I imagine that black women needed man-testing genes more than any other race of women because they were more reliant on the protection of a strong man than any other race of women because they couldn’t rely on societal protections. And out of all the strong types of black men available, I figure a thug was probably the type of alpha male that made her feel the safest. A thug was probably the type of black man most likely to stand up to the white man or other dangerous blacks even at the cost of his own life. I imagine that over the course of history, evolution and cultural conditioning rewarded man-testing genes in black women much more than it did in other races of women because strong, tough men were much more vital to a black woman’s survival. I also think that history and evolution were probably more unkind to black women who didn’t test their men for strength than it was to white women who didn’t test their men.

The second most popular type of man in the West is the beta provider. He’s not as dominant, as strong a leader or as tough as the alpha male, because he’s a beta male. But thanks to his intellectual prowess and his ability to provide financial support, he becomes the next best thing to the alpha dog. He offers a different type of security. It may not be as primally attractive to a woman as a tough, dominant alpha male, but it is a very safe and secure (if somewhat boring) secondary choice. Examples of beta male providers can be your wimpy scientists, male lawyers, educated, civilized guys, sucessful metrosexuals, nerds with poor social skills but good incomes, etc. They may not have as much to offer in primal attraction and physical protection, but they make up for it in their ability to provide security in the form of financial assistance. The catch is, a beta provider can only compete with alpha males in extremely civilized cultures were society offers women a sense of physical protection through the existence of cultural norms and legal protections. This allows things like financial security and education to become as important as alpha dog status. That is why being a beta provider can be so attractive to Western women, since society allows them the luxury of choosing a man for reasons other than brutish alpha dog status. If society ever reverted back to the dangerously harsh, brutish free-for-all it used to be in the old days, the stock of beta providers would drop drastically.

Since black women didn’t have the same societal protections as white Western women, beta providers were probably a bad choice in the black community for a long time, even as the stock of beta providers was on the rise in the white community. How much good could a square, law-abiding doctor or lawyer be to a black woman in the heart of the rural, racist south? His money doesn’t have that much benefit since many white businesses wouldn’t take it and he couldn’t move to any neighborhood he wanted, even if he could afford to. If anything, his education and intellect and legitimate financial success could be interpreted as being “uppity” and not “knowing his role,” thereby making him a target and putting the family in more danger from racist whites. For all these reasons, I think that black American women have evolved to have even more man-testing genes than other women, especially in favor of men who disregard the white man and his laws. In the black community, the tables have traditionally been stacked against the beta provider black male. Money in the hands of a black man just didn’t offer that much protection and wasn’t as valuable as being tough and macho and strong.

And it only got worse once the welfare state came into effect in the 1960s. Once Lyndon Johnson introduced the Great Society, allowing single women with children to get money and housing from the federal government, this took away one of the black beta provider’s last bargaining chips: his money and house. Now a black woman could get that financial security from the government. Not just that, but if she did get together with a beta provider, she’d actually lose her free money, food, house and education because you had to be single to receive those benefits. The welfare system actually created an incentive against settling down with a beta provider. He can’t provide the primal attraction and physical protection an alpha male does, and now his presence is actually an economic liability. And since a man was no longer as needed for economic reasons, this helped raised the stock of thugs: the physical protection from racist whites and other blacks in the ghetto, the superior sexual prowess, the primal attraction that comes from his role as a “bad boy” alpha male and the tax-free, under the table financial benefits of his illegal money.

Even though society has changed greatly for black women in the past few decades and they no longer face the same level of racism or need for an alpha dog thug for survival, they still have generations of these thug-loving genes and cultural conditioning to fight against. And of course the glamorization of thug life through hip-hop probably doesn’t help things either. And this is why even as many black women move up socially and get more educated, they still have such a strong pull toward thugs.

Holla!

In Part 1, we focused on how human nature is driven by two primary drives, the drive of self-preservation and the drive to spread our genes through reproduction. In this part, we’ll focus on the role one particular aspect of our human nature, the tendency to stereotype, satisfies those two drives.

First things first, let’s be honest about one thing: we all stereotype. For example, say you were running late to attend an opera and you get lost. You see two groups of people walking by. Who would you rather stop to ask for directions to the opera hall?

This one?

Or this one?

Now what if you were asking for directions to a indie rock venue instead? Would your answer change then?

One benefit stereotyping has is to simplify our lives by helping us make split-second choices. It’s a mental shorthand for making decisions. This was especially important for our ancestors, given the dangerous conditions they lived in. Picture the time you’d waste if every time you were faced with the same specific scenario, you had to take the time to reevaluate that scenario from scratch, and how much more danger you would be in as a result.

For example, one of our ancestors faces a sabretooth tiger. The tiger attacks it, and our ancestor barely gets away with his life. Later on, he faces a different sabretooth tiger. A certain part of him is going to be wary of that tiger based on his experience with the previous tiger. He has stereotyped sabretooth tigers as bloodthirsty maneaters. This wariness will change all his future interactions with sabretooth tigers, thereby increasing his chances of surviving and living to reproduce and spread genes.

Now picture other members in the community who don’t have this tendency to stereotype. These dumbasses, no matter how many sabretooth tigers they encounter, are going to stop and wonder each time “I wonder if this fuzzy guy wants to eat me. Let me find out.” They never change their future behavior toward a tiger on account of their previous encounters with tigers. Instead of using the initial moments of encounter to run away or kill the tiger, they waste precious time making a brand new, independent assessment, giving the tiger more time to pounce on them.

It’s important at this time to discuss an evolutionary concept known as the least costly mistake. The least costly mistake says that when an organism is faced with a choice that requires risk assessment, the organism that risks the least costly mistake is more likely to be the one who survives to pass on his or her genes. Although the least costly mistake varies greatly from situation, the most costly mistake is remarkably consistent: it’s almost always death or loss of opportunity to pass on genes.

To illustrate the least costly mistake concept with stereotyping, let’s revisit the sabretooth tiger example. If the man does stereotype the tiger as a vicious killer when it turns out it’s a nice, friendly animal, what is the costliest consequence of this mistake? He’s missed out on a possible new pet maybe? He misses out on the chance to bond and play for a while with a fuzzy animal? Now if a man doesn’t stereotype a tiger as a vicious killer and it turns out it really is a horrific maneater, what is the costliest consequence of this mistake? Serious injury or death.

So which is the least costly mistake for our ancestors? Stereotyping or not stereotyping? And since natural and sexual selection tends to favor the organisms that consistently choose the least costly mistake, who has the better advantage, the organism that stereotypes or the organism that doesn’t? The ones who do stereotype obviously. And these people are going too pass along the same stereotyping tendencies to their children, while the people who don’t stereotype won’t be passing their aversion to snap judgments onto their children…because they won’t survive to reproduce. They’ll get weeded out of the gene pool.

Now most people would find no fault in stereotyping tigers. Everyone except the nuttiest PETA activist would admit that most tigers are out to get us. Stereotyping becomes more controversial in our modern society when applying stereotypes to groups that are not by and large out to get you. As shown by the fact that affirmative action continues to thrive and a black man is leading the charge for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, most whites are not as racist as some would like you to believe. And even though blacks and hispanics have higher crime rates per capita than other races in America, a vast majority of blacks and hispanics aren’t criminals. So unlike the tiger scenario, stereotyping most whites as racist or most blacks and latinos as criminals makes no sense, right? Well, it isn’t that easy.

The problem is that humans don’t weigh good events equally with bad events. As shown in The Power of Persuasion: How We’re Bought and Sold by Robert Levine:

[P]eople experience more pain from a loss than they do pleasure from an equal gain. We get more upset over losing $100 than we feel happy about gaining $100. This is true not only for money but for our lives in general. It’s been shown, for example, that bad emotions feel bad more than good emotions feel good: people try harder to escape bad moods than they do to prolong good mood and they remember their bad moods longer than their good ones…As one of my clinical psychology colleagues estimated it, the average person needs five good experiences to balance out a single bad one.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, a bias toward the negative makes perfect sense. Once again it comes down the survival of our species has always been more closely linked to avoiding disaster than to finding happiness. We’re primed to see threats. People pick an angry face out of a happy crowd much more quickly than they pick a happy face out of an angry crowd. Potential danger signals action needs to be taken. The only action positive events usually call for is celebration, and nobody’s ever died from forgetting to plan a party.

Focusing on the negative over the positive is another example of the least costly mistake principle. Misjudging a bad person as friendly is a more costly mistake than misjudging a good person as evil. The latter mistake will just lead to maybe hurt feelings and the loss of a potential friendship. You can possibly recover from that, and if not, fuck it, life goes on. The former mistake however can lead to serious injury and possibly death, from which there’s no recovery.

So if you’re black in the deep south in the 60s, and lynchings are a real possibility, avoiding death is a much bigger concern to you than taking the time to think of all the good white people you might be misjudging as racist. You would have had some negative experience with a white person in your life, or you would at least had had friends and family with bad experiences, and this would cause you to view all white people, fairly or unfairly, with suspicion. You waste time wondering if that white mob coming at you at night are out to lynch or out for a nighttime walk and you can end up lynched.

In his book, Larry Elder describes some disturbing trends in black crime in his book The Ten Things You Can’t Say In America. Although a majority of blacks and latinos are not criminals, they have proportionately higher rates of criminality against whites:

“Twenty-five percent of young black men are in jail, on parole, or on probation. A black man is ten times more likely to rape a white woman than a white man is to rape a black woman. Blacks account for 50 percent of the nation’s prisoners [despite only being 13% of the population]. Gang-bangers are almost inevitably black or Latino. Hurts the image, you know. Don’t think the young white woman in that elevator is oblivious. Don’t think that a white woman living in the city hasn’t seen, experienced, or had friends who experienced crime at the hands of black thugs…If Jesse Jackson himself says he’s relieved when the late-night footsteps on the street behind him belong to white rather than black feet, all bets are off.”

So it doesn’t matter that a majority of blacks and latinos aren’t criminals, or that a majority of whites aren’t violent racists. So long as the perception is out there that a higher than normal amount of criminality exists in minority communities or a higher than normal amount of racism exists among whites, humans are going to lapse into the hardwired behavior that allowed their ancestors to survive for generations: accentuating the bad, being overly cautious and applying negative sterotypes to protect themselves.

But the best thing that can come out of negative stereotyping is that it’s a symptom that alerts us to greater societal ills. Rather than just demanding that people stop stereotyping, we should instead try to understand the reasons why we’ve evolved with this tendency and try to figure out what the stereotypes are telling us. Stereotypes arise for one of two reasons: because they are true conclusions based on valid premises or they are bad or exaggerated conclusions based on bad exaggerated premises. If the stereotype is true and is negative to boot, we should focus on changing the reality of the situation for the better rather than chastising the stereotyper and forcing him to be politically correct. If the stereotype is false, than we should try to attack the faulty premises at the root of the stereotype rather than just demand the stereotyper “play nice” and be PC. But remember, if your only response to a stereotyper is to point out “Well most blacks/whites/latinos/gays aren’t like that” you’re wasting your time because our minds are programmed to give negative things five times the weight as positive things. You have to create the impression that the negative is outweighed by a vast and substantial positive majority if you want to really deter a stereotype.

Recommended Reading:

• The Power of Persuasion by Levine is so useful and has such a breadth of information that I can’t overstate its value in understanding the human mind enough. Especially when it comes to fallacies in logic and thinking, and how those fallacies get exploited.
• Larry Elder is a black conservative that gets a lot of flack for his conservative viewpoints and politically incorrect views, but he is a very sharp cat that makes very compelling and thought-provoking arguments that are worth reading, even if you ultimately end up disagreeing with him. This book, 10 Things You Can’t Say In America, is one of my all-time favorite books.

Ghetto men have a reputation for being tough guys.  To the untrained eye it may seem that the problems many ghetto guys have with violence and the legal system are a result of them being textbook alpha males. But I think that’s not quite the case. I think these problems actually come about not totally because of manhood run wild but because a combination of testosterone running wild and the feminine side running wild.

The black community in general has a high illegitimacy rate.  And I bet if you isolated the illegitimacy rates to just the ghetto, the percentage of single mother homes would be even higher. As a result, the ghetto tends to be a very matriarchal community. There aren’t many men, and most of the men you do find tend to be young. As Tariq Nasheed says in his book The Mack Within, you hardly see older men in the hood. This is because when most guys get past a certain age in the hood, they have either worked their way out, gone to jail, entered the military or died from violence or drugs.  The few old men you do still see in the hood tend to be burnouts.  So not only do young ghetto guys lack fathers to instruct them in how to be men, but they also lack older male authority figures outside their family to look up to (most teachers are female too) in their neighborhood.

Like most young men, they have testosterone surges making them aggressive and competitive.  However they don’t have reliable older men to teach them how to channel this testosterone-fueled aggression positively, and this creates an insecurity in their male identity and causes them to create their own hyperexaggerated ideal of what a man should be. Supermacho, obnoxious, fearless to the point of knuckleheaded, overaggressive…basically the parody of manhood we see in gangster rap. It’s overcompensation to the worst degree.

But even though they are doing their best to be supernigga, they still end up doing things in a feminine way because feminine influences are most of what they know.  Most of their role models and involved family members are women, and the few men in their lives were likely raised by only women too. And it shows in how they handle conflict: grudges are held forever, they never know how to let anything slide, they think primarily with emotion and are prone to outbursts, drama and confrontation and most importantly, they don’t know how to choose their battles.

True male behavior isn’t being a drama queen, being highly prone to emotional outbursts and holding onto grudges; true male behavior is picking your battles, knowing when to fight and when to let things slide, analyzing things calmly and logically and having discipline over your moods and emotions and exercising emotional restraint. There are times when it’s acceptable to lose your shit and times when it’s not.  These are things that a true mature male influence teaches you, and such influences have almost disappeared completely from the hood.

A chick in the hood can get away with all the drama queen meltdowns and public displays of emotion and confrontation because most people, guys and girls, don’t feel as threatened by a woman and are more likely to let her just yap without serious repercussions. Or at worst just argue back and never let it escalate to a physical level (although it does happen on occasion). When guys are the ones melting down and getting overly emotional and confrontational, it’s a lot scarier and it invites a much more serious retaliation, because now you have the extra ingredients of male size. more muscle and a whole lot of testosterone, which means escalation into serious, possibly fatal, violence is a real possibility. That’s why a society of men learning to manage conflict and emotions from women is a disaster waiting to happen, because what’s acceptable for a woman in this case can get a young man arrested or killed.

Sure a lot of male tendencies are going to show on the surface. These guys are young and are bursting with testosterone after all. But look at a lot of the other behaviors that are there also. Sitting on the stoop getting their hair braided by other girls. Long t-shirts that go down to the kneecaps and look like skirts. Colorful clothes. Obsession with fashion, shopping, shoes and accessorizing. Love of jewelry. Grooming obsessions that would put metrosexuals to shame. The more you think about it, the more you’ll notice and come up with your own examples.

Recommended Reading:

• Don’t let the cover of Tariq Nasheed’s The Mack Within fool you, this book drops some serious knowledge:
• Also of interest is his brutally frank dating advice book for women Play or Be Played: What Every Female Should Know About Men, Dating, and Relationships, which I highly recommend: