Try The Mirror Instead Of The Finger
Yesterday, I debated a guy I started talking to in Starbucks about the big problem in the black community. He said it was poverty and unequal schools. I said it was daddylessness. I also think there's a huge problem with victimhood.
I brought up the case of an ex-assistant of mine who was Korean and a first-generation American, who grew up poor and went to Santa Monica college to save money and earned a scholarship to Northwestern. She didn't grow up privileged: She grew up Asian, with all the ensuing familial and cultural push to excel, and she also grew up in an intact home (complete with her Korean granny who spoke no English and who'd hang up on anybody who didn't speak Korean on the phone).
John Stossel writes about Shelby Steele's appearance on 20/20, on which he says similar things and is, of course, knocked for saying them (can't criticize the black community if you're merely "biracial"!):
A white campus lecturer, Tim Wise, gets tremendous applause from students by saying things like, "[W]hite supremacy and privilege continue to skew opportunities hundreds of years after they were set in place" and in America, "meritocracy is as close to a lie as you can come."His message is in demand -- he is invited to more than 80 speaking engagements a year.
But a black writer, Shelby Steele, argues that whites do blacks no favors wringing their hands about white privilege.
"I grew up in segregation," Mr. Steele told me. "So I really know what racism is. I went to [a] segregated school. I bow to no one in my knowledge of racism, which is one of the reasons why I say white privilege is not a problem."
Mr. Steele claims, "the real problem is black irresponsibility. ... Racism is about 18th on a list of problems that black America faces."
Whites' preoccupation with guilt and compensation such as affirmative action is actually a subtle form of racism, writes Mr. Steele in his book, "White Guilt." "One of the things that is clear about white privilege, and so many of the arguments for diversity that pretend to be compensatory, is that they advantage whites. They make the argument that whites can solve [black people's] problems. ... The problem with that is ... you reinforce white supremacy. ... And black dependency.
"White privilege is a disingenuous idea," he adds. In fact, now there is "minority privilege."
"If I'm a black high school student today, there are white American institutions, universities, hovering over me to offer me opportunities. Almost every institution has a diversity committee. Every country club now has a diversity committee. I've been asked to join so many clubs, I can't tell you ... I don't have to even look for opportunities in many cases, they come right to me."
Mr. Steele's comments weren't well received by some "20/20" viewers:
"The majority of black people in America live in poverty and hopelessness ... ." "[T]he only difference is the hatred blacks experience by a significant percentage of Americans including other African Americans, such as Shelby Steele ... ." "Steele is racist. He is not black but biracial passing himself off as black. ... " "If John Stossel is going to invite a racist point of view, he should be clearer by using David Duke."
What I don't understand is why people who criticize people like Steele (and me) for not being black enough to criticize black people don't see how race-separatist and victim-centric that is. I mean, would anybody think to criticize black people, or any color of people, for criticizing white people or some problem they see among whites while not being white?
Also, I think people should think a little before tossing around the word "racist," which is defined like so:
rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ -noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Before making that accusation, consider whether it's reasonable to think a person making a criticism can really be thought to hate a group of people due to skin color or some other characteristic. Or...does the person making the criticism merely have antipathy toward a problem that seems somewhat common to a number of people who look a certain way or have something in common? I know, it's easiest to just dub everybody who disagrees with you a hater and be on your way.
And finally, why should we be "tolerant" of women who intentionally, or lackadaisically, raise children without daddies? Here's an example, via Glenn Sacks, of how well it works out for the kiddies:
I grew up without my dad and it was entirely due to my mom's anger and vindictiveness. ... It was so devastating and really inhibited my growth. There were so many lessons I never got taught that I had to learn the hard way ... I love my mother dearly, but on this one subject, I will never forget she did this. Steven (Alaska)
And here's an example I've blogged about before of a single mother who learned her lesson:
When I made the decision to divorce my children's father and move to Portland when our twins were age 2, I thought I was the only parent my sons, Alex and Zavier, would ever need. I was mistaken.No matter how much love I poured into my children's hearts, my sons were starving with "father hunger" for the man named Lee, who named them and held them when they were just a few seconds old.
So, about a year ago, I had an epiphany. I decided to let go of what went wrong in the marriage and I shipped my boys off to Detroit, where they were born, to experience puberty through their father's eyes.
I owed them the chance to discover all of their father's charms as well as his failings and be shaped by Lee's modern day initiation rites, where a father teaches his sons secrets that only men know.
When they returned to me for the summer, my now-taller and hairier sons took awhile to get readjusted. They too-often repeated the warnings their father drilled into their heads: Don't be a burden. Offer to clean up. Be respectful.
And finally, don't forget this kid, looking everywhere for his daddy (and his mother is to be commended, as it seems he was the neglected child of drug addicts, and she didn't just adopted him; she rescued him):
Dear Amy:
About two years ago I adopted a little boy as a single woman. He is now 3 years old and at the age where he notices other kids (usually boys) with their fathers. Recently, he has started asking me about his "daddy". I am not sure how to answer this question. I was told that it is unhealthy to tell him that he does not have a father. I tried to explain to him that he is very special because I chose him so he knows that he is wanted but this has not stopped the question about his "daddy". Sometimes when we pass a house he likes he asks if his daddy lives there. If he sees a child on television with his father, he asks about the whereabouts of his daddy. If he sees a father and son at the park he wants to know if his daddy is coming to the park. I am at a loss as to what to say to him that will satisfy his need for a father. I already have male family members who spend time with him. He started calling one of them daddy and we corrected him. After several times, he started say, "he is not my daddy" and started asking for his daddy again. I think it hurts him not to have a daddy of his own.What can I do to help my little boy who is missing not having a "daddy"?
- LOVING BUT WORRIED SINGLE MOM
Finally, there's an art teacher, himself a father, I talked to, who takes classes of inner city kids out to the woods to Pasadena for some kind of art and nature lessons. I think it was he who used the word or maybe he told me it was one of the teachers who comes along: Children, especially boys, are simply "ruined" by third grade for lack of daddies. It's very apparent, he said, and terribly sad.
No trolls yet? I'm suprised.
Steele makes an interesting point: "Whites' preoccupation with guilt and compensation such as affirmative action is actually a subtle form of racism."
I've always seen afirmative action as insulting, especially as a woman. I don't need to check a box to qualify for whatever I'm applying for.
ahw at September 22, 2008 8:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/22/try_the_mirror.html#comment-1592265">comment from ahwI agree. I find it equally insulting when I'm considered "a woman writer." I'm a writer and I want to be compared to writers as a whole.
Amy Alkon at September 22, 2008 8:07 AM
The big problem is the fact that the current "Mainstream" Black Community systematically refuse to critic of their own people. The perfect example is the reception of the "Pound Cake"speech bill Cosby did in 2004. He was called by so many names just because he DARED speak out loud about the current mess in Black families.
How can you fix a problem when you refuse to acknowledge it?
Toubrouk at September 22, 2008 8:13 AM
Be careful not to paint all males who grew up without a Dad as victims.
Lots of us "got over it" and got on with our lives.
I did and so did my brothers. And in case you're thinking Mom must have been rich. She wasn't. Welfare, food stamps and surplus govt cheese are memories from my childhood.
Sean at September 22, 2008 10:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/22/try_the_mirror.html#comment-1592294">comment from SeanI know children of single parents who have done well, but the fact remains, fathers are important and children do better with them, and intact families.
Amy Alkon at September 22, 2008 10:26 AM
What I don't understand is why people who criticize people like Steele (and me) for not being black enough to criticize black people don't see how race-separatist and victim-centric that is. I mean, would anybody think to criticize black people, or any color of people, for criticizing white people or some problem they see among whites while not being white?
People like that are engaging in ad hominem attack.
The most important thing to remember about an ad hominem, besides its fallacy, is that those who engage in it do so because they have nothing else: their point of view is bankrupt.
Hey Skipper at September 22, 2008 10:26 AM
Be careful not to paint all males who grew up without a Dad as victims.
Lots of us "got over it" and got on with our lives.
I did and so did my brothers. And in case you're thinking Mom must have been rich. She wasn't. Welfare, food stamps and surplus govt cheese are memories from my childhood.
Sean, I'm willing to bet most of the boys around you had dads at home or at least in their lives. That meant your social group was (and, by default, you and your brothers were) infused with an adult male influence - instead of left to fend for yourselves and invent "manhood" in some urban "Lord of the Flies" nightmare; the results of which we see played out everyday in the crime-ridden ghettos and crumbling social infrastructure of our cities.
Conan the Grammarian at September 22, 2008 10:38 AM
Picking up on something Toubrouk said, look at the similarities between the Mainstream Black (MSB) views and the Mainstream Feminist (MSF) views.
Both are steeped in a never-ending mentality of victimhood. Look what Phyllis Schlafly said about the MSF movement here:
Feminists never boast about [so-called conservative feminists like Sarah Palin] because feminism's basic doctrine is victimology. Feminism preaches that women can never succeed because they are the sorry victims of an oppressive patriarchy. No matter how smart or accomplished a woman may be, she's told that success and happiness are beyond her grasp because institutional sexism and discrimination hold her down.
Doesn't that sound strikingly familiar to what we continuously hear from the leaders of the MSB movement?
Whenever the topic of racism in America comes up, I often tell my American friends to come up to Canada to see how the same "Permanent Victim Syndrome" canards are preached to the electorate by at least 2 of the political parties here and echoed by hundreds of like-minded organizations, almost all of whom are funded by taxpayer dollars. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how they ensure that gov't $$$ keep on flowing in.
But up here, there is no particular racial component so it washes away the illusions perpetrated by the MSB talking heads.
Teach a man or a woman how to fish and they will never be hungry. Give them a fish and they will be back tomorrow. Keep on giving them fish and they will depend upon you for a lifetime. Get the government to fund your fishing program and you will be employed for a lifetime. Follow the money, folks, follow the money.
Robert W. at September 22, 2008 10:56 AM
Conan, You make an interesting point. Exaggerated as it is. I hardly think todays inner city kids with cable tv, Ipods and $100 sneakers can be compared to "lord of the flies".
In my case, it was true that our middle class town had mostly intact families. Other than mine. Although in some ways I think that made things tougher for us. We really stood out. I don't recall any significant interraction with my friends fathers. We never had what they had. We just dealt with it. For me it was enlisting in the military that got me on track. 1 brother started a business and another worked his way through state school. All options available to inner city kids too.
Sean at September 22, 2008 10:58 AM
In my case, it was true that our middle class town had mostly intact families. Other than mine. Although in some ways I think that made things tougher for us. We really stood out. I don't recall any significant interraction with my friends fathers.
Your friends have an enormous influence on you at that age. Some of the lessons their fathers taught them seeped into you through interaction with them.
You weren't sitting around with your homies discussing how you were going to bust a cap 'cause some guy on the next block disrespected your manhood.
Your buddies wouldn't have gone along with such nonsense. Their dads would have had something to say about it. By default, you didn't go along. You learned how men behave in a civilized world because someone taught your friends that lesson and you picked up enough of it from them to join the military; and your brothers to start a business or to work through college.
When you've got no father figure for your group except each other (or the loudest, most violent of you), you make it up as you go along - and usually with less-than-desirable results.
Today's inner-city kids are "lord of the flies" in that they're making up the rules of manhood as they go along. Those iPods, sneakers, and cable tv are just how they keep score.
Conan the Grammarian at September 22, 2008 11:17 AM
In Canada, some of the French speakers in Quebec play the victim game, and separating from the rest of Canada was how everything was going to be made right again. Quebec gets a LOT of government money, by the way.
Chrissy at September 22, 2008 11:25 AM
> your social group was (and, by
> default, you and your brothers
> were) infused with an adult male
> influence -
Good point.
Furthermore, (parent-less) individuals are probably not the best ones to judge whether they've "gotten over it an got on with their lives". We'll tell you when you've gotten over it, buster.
People who've met the Beatles and talked to them casually about the group say the guys are often naive about large of the phenomenon, that are profoundly naive. Someone once put it like this: "The inside of a space capsule is not the best place to view trajectory."
PS-
> the big problem in the
> black community.
I'm starting to think "community" is one of the five most abused words in public life.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 22, 2008 11:35 AM
whups, large parts of the phenomenon...
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 22, 2008 11:47 AM
Crid's interest in Major Tom to the side, Sean. IMHO the most important question is this. What kind of father are YOU? Will you be the father you never had, or will you think that isn't your problem.
Ultimately you are defined by the choice. If you will be a child's father, then be one in all ways for their whole lives. If not? You are worthless.
SwissArmyD at September 22, 2008 12:13 PM
Conan the Grammarian,
Excellent insight. Really. The presence of some males among the community's families can certainly have a diffuse effect. I saw it myself growing up in a small town. The adult males provide that important influence just by being around and offering examples to young males in a way women never can.
IIRC, a large part of a male's attention between 13-18 is spent trying to establish that male identity he will need for puberty and beyond. Not fun in any case, I bet it is even less fun if there are no good examples around to follow.
Spartee at September 22, 2008 12:18 PM
I have always had an issue, when people start talking about "problems with the black community." There are plenty of successful black men and women in the US. Why do they get lumped in with the poor blacks who live in the ghetto?
You never hear people talk about the problems with the white community, while there are massive amounts of poor white people. And plenty of white mothers on welfare with no dads. I realize the percentages are different, but the number of poor whites is still very high.
I am being completely sincere when I ask, Why do people often talk about "the black community" as if it were a homogeneous monolith? But never the "white community?"
flighty at September 22, 2008 12:47 PM
I talk about the white community. I've repeatedly noted in these discussions that the lower class whites are developing the exact same problems in increasing numbers. I think the difference is that whites don't (yet) have quite the same victimhood mentality about it.
And Crid, I think it was mean for you to say: "(parent-less) individuals are probably not the best ones to judge whether they've "gotten over it an got on with their lives". We'll tell you when you've gotten over it, buster".
He knows whether he's gotten over it or not.
I don't disagree that kids are better off with fathers (if they're worth a shit), but we act like every son who never had one suffered irreversable damage. For generations children have been growing up without one or both parents. Wars and dangerous work killed off fathers and childbirth killed off mothers. Yet, we rarely talk about daughters without mothers...why isn't that an issue? Are we to assume that daughters are just emotionally more resiliant than sons?
My son had an intact family until he was 14. But his father, my ex, worked all the time, and when he wasn't working he was chasing skirts, getting his hair coifed or his nails done (he's not gay - just "metrosexual"). So, not every dad who is in the home is capable of teaching a boy how to be a man. A few years ago, my ex took our 16 yr old son on vacation to the Caribbean and said, "We've got to get you laid!"
I don't think that's helpful co-parenting or being a good father, really. It depends on the man whether he's worth having in your child's life.
lovelysoul at September 22, 2008 1:41 PM
flighty - you might want to ask Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton about that.
They're the ones who seem to push the idea of a monolithic "black community".
"White" community is divided along tribal lines by interest groups, but none have the political might of the NAACP or any such organization behind them. So you'll hear about Italians, and Irish, for instance - rather than "white".
But it's all politics either way.
brian at September 22, 2008 1:42 PM
Silly rabbit, if white people are banding together to the (intentional or not) exclusion of all others, they're obviously screwing someone over in the process. My high school back in Ann Arbor had a Black Student Union. White students were not allowed to participate for obvious reasons, but nor were they even allowed to sit in and observe. Some biracial students were not allowed either, having been judged as not being "black enough". So they wanted to form their own "Too White Student Union."
This did not go over well.
juliana at September 22, 2008 1:56 PM
"Yet, we rarely talk about daughters without mothers...why isn't that an issue?"
Because they don't start looting and pillaging their neighborhoods starting at age 17 in response, as boys seem wont to do the world over and throughout time unless mentored by older males.
Put another way, almost no one gets creeped out walking by four 18 year old girls on a dark street. There is a reason for that.
Spartee at September 22, 2008 2:00 PM
Children need involved fathers. I recently married a single mother with a 4 year old daughter. The past six months have been a huge adjustment for everybody. Her biological father hasn't seen her in two years, doesn't pay child support and apparently, has no interest in her at all.
I have noticed how she lights up when I tell her she's smart or that she did a really good job on a drawing, etc. I can see her becoming more self assured and confident as we become closer. However, I am not her biological father and she knows it. Every once in a while she asks about her "daddy" and when he is coming to visit her. How do you tell a child that her biological father isn't interested? What kind of damage does that cause and will it be permanent?
I've stepped in to fill the void in this special little girl's life. How successful I am in that regard remains to be seen. Its just a terrible thing to see a child process and understand the fact that their father doesn't give a sh*t about them. At least she has a role model in me, but I'm just afraid its not the same thing.....
Tom at September 22, 2008 2:05 PM
> it was mean for you to say:
No need for flattery, darlin'.
Especially in matters of family nurturing, people tend to think of their own experience as normative. No matter how distantly or firmly their experience has been moved from a loving or typical standard, human nature inclines them to say "I'm doing just fine, thanks." It's all about bravado. A lot of time it would be funny if it weren't so transparent.
> Wars and dangerous work killed
> off fathers and childbirth
> killed off mothers.
Yes; and these were horrible things! Don't be glib, OK? Give the devil his due. Terrible events cripple people.
> It depends on the man whether
> he's worth having in your
> child's life.
Or worth making a baby with. Get the picture? The timing of these judgments has consequences.
> no one gets creeped out walking
> by four 18 year old girls on a
> dark street
Exactly, exactly, exactly.
> Children need involved fathers
Wordy. Children need fathers.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 22, 2008 2:21 PM
Conan, You make an interesting point. Exaggerated as it is. I hardly think todays inner city kids with cable tv, Ipods and $100 sneakers can be compared to "lord of the flies".
Actually, while the particulars are different in the ghetto (where I currently reside with my family), many of the kids aren't much different. And having a bunch of cool shit, doesn't change the fact that a great many of these kids are dangerous, violent and angry. They are the ones who get into shooting matches in the middle of our streets, over petty, stupid bullshit. They are the ones who couldn't give a shit about anyone who gets caught in the crossfire, nor do they care if they are maimed/imprisoned/killed - those are all reasonable risks in their fucked up little games.
Nope, Conan was not exaggerating in the least.
DuWayne - water birthing fan at September 22, 2008 2:28 PM
Tom, that's a wonderful thing you're doing, and I believe it can be the same - actually probably much better than it sounds like the influence of her "real" father would be. Just don't call attention to the fact that you are not her real father - forget it's a fact - and, if possible, adopt her. She's still very young.
I mean, I'm adopted. My parents are not my "real" parents in that sense either, but they never acted as if they weren't, so to me there is no difference. I cannot imagine loving any other parents more or being loved more. That is the important thing.
When I grew up, I met my biological mother. She's a nice lady, who's had a very hard life, and substance abuse issues. I felt no particular bond with her just because of genes. I feel very lucky to have been adopted.
So, you can fill the void, and studies actually show that a father figure is at least as critical for girls as boys. Maybe more so. There is that opposite sex influence that is so critical in helping children choose partners when they're older. For you to show her that she's smart and valuable is extremely important.
lovelysoul at September 22, 2008 2:28 PM
Lovelysoul - You hit my biggest fear - that she will ultimately think she is worthless because her biological father rejected her - and have "bad man syndrome" as a result.
I guess the only thing I can do is love her and hope for the best.
Tom at September 22, 2008 2:33 PM
Back when men died from war, or women from childbirth, one or the other would remarry. A single father did not generally stay single longer than he had to, you couldn't afford to unless your children were already well enough aged that they could fill in work that the mother used to do, or father, as the case may be.
Too, said children from an early early age had responsibilities and chores unheard of the way we have them today. "Childhood" is a relatively modern concept.
Robert H. Butler at September 22, 2008 2:36 PM
"Especially in matters of family nurturing, people tend to think of their own experience as normative. No matter how distantly or firmly their experience has been moved from a loving or typical standard, human nature inclines them to say "I'm doing just fine, thanks." It's all about bravado. A lot of time it would be funny if it weren't so transparent"
Oh, c'mon, Crid. How many of us have perfect childhoods? Even if we had mommy and daddy there, we were scarred by something. The bullies at school picked on us...we didn't think we were pretty or smart enough, etc
My son wasn't conceived with my ex. I found myself knocked up, by my own stupidity, and believing that children MUST have an "intact family", I married my ex believing I was doing the right thing to give my son SOME sort of father. But, in retrospect, I think that probably was a worse choice.
So that's why I'm opposed to declaring it an absolute necessity. Yes, by all means, if you can find a decent and kindhearted man - one who's not emotionally crippled by his own poor fathering - and can be a GOOD role model, then it's positive. But ask any woman in the single world - that's a big "IF"!!! And a father that's just around can be a negative, whether the family is "intact" or not.
The only positive for my son is that he sees his father's weaknesses and is determined NOT to be like him. When my ex encourages him to party or drink, he is appalled at his dad's immaturity. His father has kind of become the "anti-role-model".
My son hunts and fishes and camps in the Everglades...he's basically taught himself to be a man. Of course, it would've been better if he'd had a more involved dad. Our neighbor, Mark, has helped a lot. I wish I'd left sooner and maybe met someone like my boyfriend when my son was smaller, so he could've had a man in his life who wanted to do those things with him.
And it's not a biological thing. I thought that until we had our daughter, and my ex isn't involved with her either. He's not a TERRIBLE dad...but he's just not GREAT. To me, if you're going to be a mediocre, off and on parent, it's not much of benefit...but it doesn't cause irreversable harm either. It's a life-challenge....like many we face.
This idea that kids have to have a utopic upbringing to be ok is silly. Why would we want that? It's actually a part of the whole coddling mentality we have now towards children and childhood in general. "Oh, dear, they have some adversity in life...they're going to be ruined!!!"
My kids had a mediocre dad. Other kids grew up extremely poor. I'm adopted. My brother was mentally retarded. Everybody struggles to overcome some life challenges. If they haven't, they're not as emotionally developed as they could be.
lovelysoul at September 22, 2008 2:56 PM
Tom, she won't feel rejected if you don't frame it that way. I mean, I was technically rejected, but my parents always said, "Your mom knew she couldn't be the kind of mom you needed, so she loved you enough to give you away." That's not exactly what you can say - but some variant will work. The bottom line: It's not HER fault. She wasn't "rejected". He's just not capable of being the kind of dad she needs, so luckily, you are there to love her instead.
lovelysoul at September 22, 2008 3:03 PM
> This idea that kids have
> to have a utopic upbringing
> to be ok is silly
And if anyone here had said such a thing, you might have a point. My own argument is that children deserve a loving mother with a loving father.
For the first five decades, I've never been patient with divorced dads who whine that their baby-mamas aren't working hard enough, or are screwing around with visitation arrangements, or aren't stretching the support dollars well, or are dating the wrong kind of guys.
And approaching age fifty, I'll no longer be tolerant with women who make babies with irresponsible men, and only then claim to have seen them for what they really are.
The problem isn't that women are sluts for fucking these assholes. But is seems apparent that merely having a baby meant more to them than building a loving home seems to have meant... They only dreamt of babies, they didn't daydream of a lifelong, give-and-take partnership with a grown man who'd help them raise the kids. If they were conned by these (formerly seductive) men whom they're now so eager to disparage, it's because they wanted to be.
It's very, very difficult to sympathize.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 22, 2008 3:20 PM
Furthermore, per Tom and LS, I think "role model" is a despicable turn of phrase.
And BTW... Having visited this blog every day for almost five years, I think Amy's burgeoning obsession with these matters betokens genuine growth on her part. Family-craft is obviously not something she's made a part of her daily adult life, but she knows how important it is anyway. That's not just ironic, it's courageous.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 22, 2008 3:37 PM
Well, Crid, unless you've always made perfect choices in all your relationships over 50 years - and never once messed up on birth control - I would think you could muster some sympathy. It's not that easy for any woman (or man) to necessarily predict what sort of spouse or parent their partner will be until it happens.
I know men who were absolutely opposed to having children, who once they have one, become completely ga ga over the little tyke until all they want to talk about his poopy diapers and potty training. It's suprising but nice. However, the reverse occurs too. Mr "I can't wait to be a daddy" bails once hit with the responsibility.
We can certainly do better helping young people pick partners. I think there should be mandatory courses in high school teaching kids what to look for and what to avoid - what's abusive, what's healthy. If we spent more time doing that, many of these young girls would at least pick better "baby daddies"...and hopefully, they would even wait until marriage.
But what we have is an overly sexualized culture and very little guidance at the top. It reaches all socioeconomic and educational levels - it reached me too. I'm just honest enough to admit it. But if the social mores reach me, they are ten times as devastating to someone less skilled and advantaged.
Just to go around throwing out "slut" doesn't help. Almost no one in their 20s - male or female - is chaste these days. What we need to do is deal with the realities and give better guidance to the young, inexperienced people making these choices.
lovelysoul at September 22, 2008 3:47 PM
>>Family-craft is...
...a totally irritating term, Crid. (Worse than "role model").
Jody Tresidder at September 22, 2008 4:21 PM
lovelysoul, I agree with many points you've just raised with the exception of mandatory high school courses in picking a mate. That should be done in the home. We should be taught to value another's mistake as if we made it ourselves so we don't go down that path.
One would hope that even if a parent has made dumb parental partner choices, they would teach their children to do the opposite.
Hell, I was raised in the perfect family scenario, parents still married, my father worked hard, mom stayed at home and raised us. I was even homeschooled for a time(I am not an advocate). I had a good father and a good mother and I appreciate them far more the older I get.
Sex was kind of an off limits subject though. Therefore, two of my sisters made stupid decisions and had children by multiple fathers and both have been divorced multiple times. But I was taught to learn from other's mistakes. I learned from those mistakes my sisters made and have vowed to stay on birth control until I am ready to even think about birthing my own. I am in a good, stable relationship with a man who is more than I thought I deserved. Most important, I waited. I waited for so long.
I went to school and went to all the mandatory sex education classes and learned nothing that I didn't already know except maybe a couple obscure STDs I knew I never wanted to fucking get, ever. School is not the be all end all solution. Other than math I didn't learn a whole lot nor cared and I don't think I'm atypical either.
maureen at September 22, 2008 4:33 PM
> a totally irritating term
I trust your judgment, in a backward-kind of way.
Crid at September 22, 2008 4:56 PM
> We can certainly do better helping
> young people pick partners.
Yes. Part of that encouragement to do well consists of describing failures bluntly. No pusstfooting.
> what we have is an overly
> sexualized culture
I don't think it's overly sexualized, it's just badly sexualized. A generation or two earlier (at least in white America) things were tighter, but those results weren't always pretty. Sex means a lot to people and we shouldn't pretend it doesn't. But we should be clear about what it means. Each sex, in its own way, is more inclined to simply make a baby than to raise it responsibly.
By the way, just to be clear, I disagree with Jody strongly. 'K? K.
Crid at September 22, 2008 5:03 PM
Pussyfooting. Just got to work, haven't put on the glasses yet.
Crid at September 22, 2008 5:04 PM
Family-craft is obviously not something she's made a part of her daily adult life, but she knows how important it is anyway. That's not just ironic, it's courageous.
Aww, thanks. I read, I observe, I think, I learn. And now, after a long day writing, with much more of the same ahead, I nap.
Amy Alkon at September 22, 2008 5:34 PM
Lovelysoul - You hit my biggest fear - that she will ultimately think she is worthless because her biological father rejected her - and have "bad man syndrome" as a result.
My first wife's parents divorce when she was five, and her father subsequently put her on disregard.
Which really messed her up; ultimately, I (being a guy, after all, and simply not in the same league when it comes to negotiating emotional mazes) got hit with a love test I failed to pass.
Thankfully, there were no kids involved.
By far all the most well adjusted women I have known had solid relationships with their fathers.
Oh, BTW, what Crid has said.
Hey Skipper at September 22, 2008 6:52 PM
"But we should be clear about what it means. Each sex, in its own way, is more inclined to simply make a baby than to raise it responsibly."
Well there's the heart of the matter, right there. And now, it's time for everyone to listen to my Birth Control in the Water proposal ...
Pirate Jo at September 22, 2008 7:12 PM
Oh Christ's sake, PJ... That's just REPRESHENSIBLE!
First of all, it's surreptitious. You're not even going to tell people that you're doing it!
Second of all, it's coercive! People will have no choice... They have to drink water!
Third, it suggests that you think you know better than everybody else what's best for them!
Anyway... I'm in. When do we get started?
Crid at September 22, 2008 7:36 PM
I think Pirate Jo is on to something; either that or I'm so desperately bored with my homework that I'll go for anything.
Besides, birth control is already in the water. I'm just waiting for all the boys and men in the neighborhood to start ovulating.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/03/healthscience/snwater.php
Or this winner that has me giggling uncontrollably:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article549956.ece
juliana at September 22, 2008 7:53 PM
"Sex was kind of an off limits subject though. Therefore, two of my sisters made stupid decisions and had children by multiple fathers and both have been divorced multiple times. But I was taught to learn from other's mistakes."
Maureen, I don't think your sisters should've had to make those mistakes in order to teach you. And I'm not talking sex education - though that has a place too. It's just that I have friends - male and female - who, even now, at 40-something, have no idea what a healthy, loving relationship looks like. It took me a long while to navigate the modern romantic waters too. Finally having a good relationship makes a big difference, but it seems to me that we should be able to teach things like: "he's (she's) just not that into you."
So many people read the signs wrong. I am constantly having to be blunt with my friends..."this person clearly has mental issues, they run hot and cold...manic and depressive....this person is controlling, it's not romantic that he/she wants to know where you are every minute"etc. These are things that I have learned the hard way, but the knowledge is all right there. Most of us reach some point of clarity in our later years and realize that having someone who is solid and doesn't create drama every 5 seconds is who we want as a partner...much less as a co-parent. Yet, unfortunately, many of us make mistakes long before that point of understanding.
Women read obsessive/controlling behavior as "romantic", and men are so blinded by looks that they procreate with cold, narcissistic women...and pay for it, both monetarily and emotionally, a long time.
It seems to me that we could save a sizable percentage of young people from making these same mistakes if we educated them a little more. We mandatorily teach them calculus, which few will ever need, but almost everyone will choose a partner in life. So, what is more important?
I don't think home and parents - no matter how ideal they seem - can necessarily address the concerns of today's young couples. My parents married at a time where so few of these modern issues were a factor. My mom admitted to me she didn't even have an orgasm until she was 35 (she was married at 20)! Today's women EXPECT to be satisfied sexually - and should be. I don't think that's a bad thing, but we have to realize that our standards have been raised a lot from where theirs were 50 years ago, so it's a new ballgame in many ways. It takes different tools. And we should TEACH those tools.
lovelysoul at September 22, 2008 7:57 PM
> we could save a sizable percentage of
> young people from making these same
> mistakes if we educated them a
> little more.
The most powerful tool at our disposal in the creation of human character is example. If you want your daughter to be married to a good guy and build a life with him....
> We mandatorily teach them calculus [...]
> almost everyone will choose a
> partner in life. So, what is more
> important?
Well, you can't have a policy to teach people intimate stuff. You can only insist on it in your personal life.
Crid at September 22, 2008 8:27 PM
"Anyway... I'm in. When do we get started?"
Hee hee ... I know ... I'm going to have to abandon all of my libertarian principles, and give in to the devil! It'll work just like fluoride! You'll have to take a pill (or drink bottled water, which now costs more than gasoline) to GET pregnant, and in the meantime we can watch crime and poverty rates drop.
Pirate Jo at September 22, 2008 8:58 PM
Your buddies wouldn't have gone along with such nonsense. Their dads would have had something to say about it. By default, you didn't go along. You learned how men behave in a civilized world because someone taught your friends that lesson and you picked up enough of it from them to join the military; and your brothers to start a business or to work through college.
******
Conan, despite what you may think, "my buddies" got in plenty of trouble. The "burbs" have their own problems. Liquor cabinets and prescription drugs provide fuel for lots of problems. I had one friend who after a night of trying to break into the safe of a gas station finally gave up and out of spite, set the building on fire on his way out the door. It's now a bank. He graduated to setting summer homes on fire during the winter when he got bored. I've seen the inside of jail cells on 2 continents.
Wally + Beaver never got in trouble on TV but in the real world, shit happens. Some of us grow up and get over it. Some spend the rest of their lives claiming to be a victim and blaming a non-existent "daddy" for their own actions; supported by enablers of the "victim culture" who are driven by their own white guilt.
Sean at September 23, 2008 4:45 AM
Furthermore, (parent-less) individuals are probably not the best ones to judge whether they've "gotten over it an got on with their lives". We'll tell you when you've gotten over it, buster.
*****
Crid, Please contact me immediately!!!! I must seek your approval or my life will have been wasted!!!!!
Christ. Some of you people need to stop gazing at your navels and do something productive. Like grow a pair of balls.
Sean at September 23, 2008 4:59 AM
I'm all about birth control in the water. Of course, when I mentioned mandatory BC, I was a wacko with no ability to realize it's never worked and never would. But, something doens't have to be "my idea" for me to support it. And hey, I did my part. I peed BC hormones into the water supply for 11 years.
Ahhh, if only.
My DH recognizes that about the most important thing he can do is teach our daughters what a decent man is and does, and how they should be treated. He's not always a perfect example of his own actions toward me-everyone's an ass sometimes-but even at 4 he's telling them ways it's not ok for a man to be.
I actually has someone who was arguing parenting with me hold up europe as an example. Europe. Home of possibly the most fucked up and misguided policies ever. And they think we should emulate them. I need to go pee BC into their water line.
momof3 at September 23, 2008 6:20 AM
>>By the way, just to be clear, I disagree with Jody strongly. 'K? K.
Carry on then, Crid. Keep using your horrible hyphenation "family-craft".
I just think it sounds like a merit badge for a German boy scout.
Jody Tresidder at September 23, 2008 6:22 AM
>>I actually has someone who was arguing parenting with me hold up europe as an example. Europe. Home of possibly the most fucked up and misguided policies ever. And they think we should emulate them. I need to go pee BC into their water line.
Momof3,
Which European country do you have in mind?
Parenting policies differ dramatically from EC country to country, of course; not so long ago there was almost a diplomatic breach when some traveling Dutch parents got detained by the British authorities for a childcare "crime" that was the norm in Holland.
Which particular country in Europe is the most "fucked up and misguided" in your forthright Texan opinion?
Jody Tresidder at September 23, 2008 6:55 AM
Wow wmb, what a great insight - I am so glad you decided to join the conversation with such a substantive statement. -- Oh wait, there isn't any substance, just a whiny little bitch who can't even seem to spell fucked. I know, how about a game of hide and go fuck yourself? You go hide now, 'k?
DuWayne at September 23, 2008 10:00 AM
There's no denying my daughter's father was a royal fucking nightmare that she (and the world, ding dong the witch is dead, at least some little kids are safer) was better off without.
I have no excuse for not picking better but I can look back (now that I'm older and wiser and sure as hell not naive, haven't been since picking him) and see reasons that I picked so damned poorly.
The first and biggest is that I was just so damned naive. My mother was a holy roller who did not let us out of the house. My bedtime (bedtime, not curfew!) at 18 was 10:00. No wonder I hightailed it out of there as soon as I got my high school diploma. I turned 18 during my senior year and there were times between February and June when I did not think I was going to make it to the end of the school year in the prison. I cannot stress enough how important it is to allow teenagers to date. You need that experience to learn how to tell a good guy from a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Secondly, my parents did not seperate until I was 14 but this my no means means that my father was an example of what to look for in a man. I kinda of knew that I think on some level but that doesn't mean I had any idea of what was to be looked for other than most generally speaking. My father was rough and crude and pretty up front brutal. So I looked for the opposite and was easily fooled by someone who knew how to walk the walk and talk the talk with a silver tongue and promises to love and cherish. I had no basis of knowledge to go from to avoid that pitfall. So not only is it important that a father be present, I think it's important that he's an involved Dad. Not someone who believes (and my "Dad" said this to us) children are to be seen and not heard and "women's work".
Admittedly, I picked badly as I consequence. It's not an excuse. Just why I can see that I did in hindsight. And I fall into the once bitten twice shy category so my daughter has never gotten a replacement Daddy. There have been good male friends in our life that have set an example to her of what a man is but still, I think she lost something in not having a Dad. Wish I had picked better and she had a decent father.
I don't think she and T's Daddy work well together and their biggest fault was neither one of them had yet really grown up all the way when he was born though she was 20 and he 25. But I am very glad that even though they don't work as a couple, they are both in his life and -- finally -- starting to work as coparents. I've watched both grow up a lot lately.
Daddy's gone from fighting for his right to party mentality to being adult about life and balancing fun with responsibility. I am very glad that he has gone from minimal input in his son's life when they were still living together to being very greatly involved with his son. I am glad that my daughter has moved from bitterness to starting to realize how important her son's daddy is to him.
They have both reached the point where they are putting their bitterness at their failed relationship aside and actually starting to discuss parenting issues together. For the longest time, there was no communication. Now they decide together on many issues concerning T and Mom has actually come to realize that yes she can ask Dad for help and he will be there for his son.
So, while he may not live with Dad (at least not full time, they are having discussions concerning his maybe spending summer vacations, which I'm encouraging) I'm glad his Dad is so involved with his life and think that will be good for him.
I think it's actually working out better in the long run. They are two vastly different people - Dad's hyperactive and can't sit still for two minutes except at a computer and Mom's a homebody who hates being dragged around all over kingdom come -- who tried living together too young when they made a baby too young. However, they're moving on with that and I think T will actually be better off than he would have if they had stayed together hating and resenting each other. He sees both lifestyles and seems to enjoy both. He has extended family on both sides he loves and feels loved by. He even has a "brother" of sorts in Dad's girlfriend's grandson 2 years his senior.
I think it's important for daddy (and mommy) to stick around. And it's, of course, most ideal if they can make it work diaper to dorm to grave. But if the relationship is bad, kids may actually be better off if parents live apart as long as both are still actively involved with the child.
That said, you really can't just say one size fits all and that's that. Some parents are so bad they shouldn't be parents. Some parents are better parents together and some parents are better parents apart. Kids too are individuals and different kids will react differently to different things. Some will be greatly affected where another kid will shrug it off. There's just no right way every time. And shit happens. No matter what. Every kid has to deal with something, big or small.
T's Grammy at September 23, 2008 10:37 AM
"..."family-craft". I just think it sounds like a merit badge for a German boy scout."
No, no, you're all confused. I sailed a FamilyCraft 27 in the Spring and Autumn Regattas on the Bay for years. Exciting boat at times -- but usually pretty predictable. The problem was with the crew --- no telling what they'd get involved in when I was otherwise occupied and now and then one would go overboard. Sometimes I even had to replace the 1st Mate.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 23, 2008 10:37 AM
> I just think it sounds like
Y'know, 's funny, but every time I express myself clearly, your heart breaks a little bit. And every time you express yourself poorly, my heart glimmers.
> I must seek your approval
> or my life will have been
> wasted!!!!!
Far, far too late. And we're left to wonder why you --presuming yourself suitably equipped with "a pair of balls"-- could only offer teenage sarcasm instead of making a effective critique. You typed 39 words... With that many words, even a child could have made himself clear.
But don't feel lonely! There's also this guy:
> Second of all, when
This commenter is a coward. There's a reason that people who are so eager to accuse Amy of racism can't do it from clear footing.
(BTW, what happened to that other coward, the NOAA guy who was supposed to lose his job? Anything ever come of that? Golly, I'd hate to think 'we' spent all that time worrying about him for nothing.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 23, 2008 11:20 AM
It's HIM!!!! The vandal's back! The morbidly obese teenage shut-in living in Mom's basement who's never kissed a girl!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 23, 2008 11:22 AM
Neon...are you suggesting that black people live, think and feel differently from everyone else by virtue of the color of their skin?
Balulah...you must have a secret decoder ring if you read words on this page touting birth control in the water as anything less than an equal opportunity solution. No one of ANY color gets a baby unless they pass PJ & Crid's testing criteria. Sadly, it is bound to be reasoned, empirical and based on individual merit. It's just not fair!
moreta at September 23, 2008 11:38 AM
"you seem justified in getting on your mantle"
I never get on my mantle. It's barely large enough for my photos and a small vase as it is.
As to being unable to discuss anything I'm not already part of, I guess this makes you unable to talk to white people since you're not white?
The stupidity is rising. Stop talking before it gets over your head.
Before you apologize and leave, I'd like a fifteen cent refund from you for using up a twenty-five cent word to communicate an idea that's worth less than a dime.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 23, 2008 12:01 PM
An interesting issue that I see behind the scenes here, is sort of the inverse in what is being said.
lovelysoul said something, and perhaps others have too, but I have seen it many places in the broader discussion of single mothers.
"So that's why I'm opposed to declaring it an absolute necessity. Yes, by all means, if you can find a decent and kindhearted man - one who's not emotionally crippled by his own poor fathering - and can be a GOOD role model, then it's positive. But ask any woman in the single world - that's a big "IF"!!! And a father that's just around can be a negative, whether the family is "intact" or not."
Implicit in this argument is that the Mother knows best, and that her decision is always the correct one. Even if she screws up, it isn't about finding a better mother than her for the kid, it's about finding the better father.
I think we take that for granted and ignore it because of the biological facts of who births the kid. But, BECAUSE we do that, we really only ever have half a conversation.
Perhaps nothing can be done about that, but it should at least be acknowledged. My ex is the psychotic bimbo from hades, who thinks nothing of using my children as pawns to get what she wants from everyone around her, but what're the odds I can get them away from her? My lawyer said, that as long as I can't prove she is a physical danger to them, and maybe even if I could, I would spend tens of thousands of dollars I don't have and likely still not end up with sole custody.
Few people question who is the better parent because there isn't much in the way of criteria that can decide. Is dad bad because he lets them eat cake for breakfast? "Dad is great! Give us the chocolate cake!" [Bill Cosby: and someone in my brain looked under chocolate cake and saw the ingredients: eggs! Eggs are in chocolate cake! And milk! Oh GOODY! And WHEAT! THAT'S nutrition!] Are most Dads likely to do this? Dunno. I don't. When my kids are at my house for their weekends, naturally I cook 'em every meal. Oddly enough my 'finicky' daughter has no problem eating what I put in front of her. Perhaps it's because she knows that to not eat it, is to go hungry. There isn't a question, and I never raise my voice. It is simply The Rule. My ex has a similar rule, but it requires much shouting, threats and the occasional loss of watching TV to make it work.
Now. Given the amount of this thumbnail sketch, the gentle audience cannot tell who the better parent is. If my ex where to write here what her side of the argument is, it would likely sound very different. But all she really has to say is that I'm no good and mean... and the argument is over.
The fact that in many communities, not just the black one, the fathers don't WANT to participate, may be just as well. How would women in general respond in court if their ability as a parent was brought into question? How would it be if every case had to be ajudicated to decide who to give the kid to? Even in joint custody cases the kid has a custodial parent they live with m ost of the time, unless you go halfsies.
Yet it is easy for a woman to say, "well I can't find a decent man" as if she isn't part of the problem.
The catch22 in all this, is that the difficulty in getting custody of your kids if you are a man GIVES YOU the perfect excuse to not try for it, not worry about it. For those of us who are interested, it's a brick wall. For those who aren't? Well they are never forced to step up to the plate. The force itself is quite relative. Some guys jackrabbit and are never seen again. Some women take up with guy after guy after guy, and sometimes the kids end up abused. Sometimes the state takes the kids, and they are thrown into a foster system that is sometimes a shining example of compassion, other times a cesspool of despair. Occasionally a guy is put on the hook to pay for a child who isn't even his, that he can never see, that he is a walking checkbook for.
It's an imperfect world, but everything should be hashed out in the open. It does no one any good to be the victim of untrue assumptions and expectations. Least of all the innocent child.
SwissArmyD at September 23, 2008 12:31 PM
"If Neon Ovenlight's comment was worth LESS than 10 cents, shouldn't you be demanding MORE than a 15-cent refund?"
Simply sparing Neon the agony of subdividing to the tenth of a cent.
If "get on your mantle" is a black thing, then blacks are responsible for butchering the English language in your view?
man·tle (mntl)
n.
1. A loose sleeveless coat worn over outer garments; a cloak.
2. Something that covers, envelops, or conceals: "On a summer night . . . a mantle of dust hangs over the gravel roads" John Dollard.
3. Variant of mantel.
4. The outer covering of a wall.
5. A zone of hot gases around a flame.
6. A device in gas lamps consisting of a sheath of threads that gives off brilliant illumination when heated by the flame.
7. Anatomy The cerebral cortex.
8. Geology The layer of the earth between the crust and the core.
9. The outer wall and casing of a blast furnace above the hearth.
10. The wings, shoulder feathers, and back of a bird when differently colored from the rest of the body.
11. Zoology
a. A fold or pair of folds of the body wall that lines the shell and secretes the substance that forms the shell in mollusks and brachiopods.
b. The soft outer wall lining the shell of a tunicate or barnacle.
There ya go. More free edumacation.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 23, 2008 12:33 PM
Thanks Gog... I thought that was a weird word choice too. With 204 words in one turdlike paragraph, we get the sense that clear expression is not why the guy's here.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 23, 2008 12:36 PM
I love anecdotal evidence because it makes such a strong and persuasive argument. We have (1) Asian-American who succeeded, (1) African-American writer who says racism isn't a big problem, and (3) people who say single parenting doesn't work. You've convinced me that you have a full understanding of exactly how the world works. Well done! Perhaps you could report next about a debate you had at the nail salon or a dry cleaner about the current fiscal crisis facing this country.
Dot Lane at September 23, 2008 12:36 PM
Swissy- Without commenting on the personal specifics of your example, I think you make an important point.
The rhetoric of the popular feminine mind on this point suggests that they're going to have kids no matter what. If you suggest that they need to temper that enthusiasm with good judgment, they make it clear that they're going to squeeze the trigger anyway.
Many, many women who consider themselves to be the fleshy incarnation of all that is spiritual and ephemeral and connected in this life are, in fact, reproduction robots. The execute their biological programming, nothing more, but demand kudos for their innovation.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 23, 2008 12:42 PM
Dear vandal: If you really have such strong opinions and clear ideas, why can't you present and defend them like an adult?
Do you have friends and associates? Do you communicate and interact with others in contexts of civic involvement, like the street or the market or the workplace? Are you able to form bonds with a variety of figures at differing depths of intimacy, while taking personal emotional risks and investing in the feelings others? Do you spend time outdoors?
Ever kiss a girl?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 23, 2008 12:47 PM
Swiss, I was not saying that men don't have it just as difficult finding a good woman to coparent with. But that isn't the topic we were discussing.
A lot of men here keep declaring, "kids need fathers...kids need fathers!"... So, those of us who have seen the negative impact of fathers feel compelled to respond that this is not such a utopic "Father Knows Best" scenario in many cases.
Conversely, I, as a woman and mom, could respond to your post about your ex-wife with something similar to what I get...
"Kids need mothers...kids need mothers!"
"And didn't you KNOW she was a bitch when you got involved with her? You sure should have!"
I mean, Crid would have. He would have seen right through her before he procreated with her because he is all-knowing and all-seeing and has never made a bad romantic choice in all his 50 years.
That is how the males here respond, but the females are more pragmatic. We're not trying to make this about gender. There are good and bad parents, and mistakes made, on either side.
I, being a pragmatist, assume you DIDN'T know any better than I did how it would all play out. Shit happens. Without the crystal ball some of the more smug posters here seem to have, the rest of us just have to deal with less than ideal domestic circumstances.
I commend you for staying involved in your children's lives. There are many great dads who want to be involved and do a wonderful job. As a GAL, I will conceed that the general assumption is towards the mother. But I have had cases where full custody was given to the father. Usually, though, there must be some pretty adverse factors on the mother's side - such as substance abuse or neglect.
Why? Is it fair? I don't know. I think there is some basis to support the deeply ingrained belief that children are more deeply attached to their mothers, and mothers are *usually* the nurturers. Where no real compelling evidence of bad parenting exists on either side, the courts generally sway in that direction.
Yet, more and more often, you do see split custody - one week in one home and one week in the other. I'm not sure I like it - the verdict is still out, in my opinion. Some kids adjust pretty well, but I feel that a child really needs ONE consistent home and steady routine. This shlepping back and forth seems disruptive to homework, sleep patterns, and other daily habits. It's more "fair" for the parents, but I'm not yet convinced it is for the children.
lovelysoul at September 23, 2008 1:56 PM
Did you ever vote? Did you ever write another man's paycheck? Have you traveled abroad? Have you dined in the home of family not of your race? Ever been a Big Brother? Ever pick up a woman in a bar? Did you take her out again the next week? Did you ever take out a loan in a bank? Ever care for a sickly relative? Ever been in a synagogue? Ever attend a protest in your hometown? Ever go to a museum in your state capital? Ever clean some fish or fowl?
We're interested in you, Vandal! You're like our young friend Chang who drops in once a month or so... The answers to these questions would be much more interesting and informative for us than your beliefs about the topics you discuss.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 23, 2008 1:58 PM
> has never made a bad romantic
> choice in all his 50 years
49 years, you lying wench! Just what you trying to pull here?
And never a choice bad enough to warp an innocent child's soul, anyway.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 23, 2008 2:01 PM
Well, lucky you...or maybe you just aren't really living, Crid. I don't know a perfect person, much less a perfect parent. But my kids are great people...perhaps, in part, because their lives haven't been some utopic ideal. They have learned sympathy for others...they forgive mistakes because they know everyone makes them...they work toward solutions not blame. If I've "warped" them, then more parents should be warping their kids like that.
Your perfect "intact" childhood (I'm assuming you had) appears to have created the opposite type individual.
lovelysoul at September 23, 2008 2:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/22/try_the_mirror.html#comment-1592590">comment from Dot LaneSo, you are under the impression that I have never read a study on parenting, simply because I don't list them here (an entire corner of my office is devoted to the topic, including lots of stuff on how children do better with daddies and how much of a difference an intact home makes)...and it seems you are also under the impression that I know nothing about how Asians push their children to succeed, and how you don't see a lot of single Asian women having children on their own. I simply gave this example because the girl happened to be from a poor family, and didn't have a lot of advantages -- except cultural ones pushing her to excel. There was an article about Asian students in the LA Times recently, telling a similar story. Do you think this is off-base, or are you trying to lash out with whatever you can muster? Search the word "Asian" on my blog and you might find it.
People hated Jews where I grew up, but I didn't focus on it except to say "I'll show them." I didn't have friends, but I didn't sit around wallowing in that. I read books and got away from all the assholes and out of the state, in fact, as soon as possible.
I met a guy this weekend, a guy with M.S., I think, named Tom, who barely had any use of his hands and arms, let alone the rest of him. He was on a motorized chair, and accompanied by his blond lab, "California." I would have been afraid, if I were in his muscular condition, to even motor across my living room. Here was this guy who went to Starbucks, ordered coffee, went to Subway, came back with a sandwich -- one he could barely unwrap, by the way -- for him, it was like changing a tire would be for the average person. And this guy, most amazingly, had the most sunny demeanor and seemed just thrilled to be out, about, and alive.
Your circumstances do not define you, or not as much as they might. How you think about your circumstances defines you.
P.S. One of the staff at Starbucks later told me he comes in every day.
I don't go to nail salons, and I'm writing a book now, so I'm not going out much of anywhere, but why do you assume that you can't have a conversation of value when out and about? There's a professor who comes into that Starbucks to work on his book about some complex issue in mortgage financing. I learned quite a bit from him. In fact, being kind of a chatty broad, I meet some pretty amazing people, even ordinary people who have some wisdom; for example, Pierre, a retired master woodworker in Paris who never went to college, and speaks only French. Wanting to hear what he has to say motivates me to go to my French class when I'm flat-on-my-ass exhausted.
You, Dot, on the other hand, are kind of a snot. You might rethink your attitude.
Amy Alkon at September 23, 2008 2:49 PM
You know, this is somewhat related. My daughter just did this thing called "Challenge Day". They have it at many schools across the country. The idea is to show kids that EVERYONE has challenges.
They ask kids questions like, "Does anyone close to you abuse drugs or alcohol?" "Is anyone in your life too busy to spend time with you?" "Have your parents gone through a divorce?" "Have you ever been homeless?" Has anyone you love ever hit you?"...and on and on. As a question applies to them they are supposed to step across the line.
In the end, almost everyone is across the line, and they're crying and hugging each other. The point is that all of them have faced life-changing struggles and challenges, and, as my daughter said, a lot of kids she assumed had "perfect lives and perfect families" didn't at all.
That is my point, really. You cannot assume that a child, even one who lives in an intact family with a mother and father is not facing challenges and emotional scars.
Frankly, if there were any kids left standing on the other side of the line - kids who hadn't experienced adversity by 9th grade - then I would wonder if they had the ability to truly feel compassion for others.
lovelysoul at September 23, 2008 2:56 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/22/try_the_mirror.html#comment-1592596">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]It's HIM!!!! The vandal's back! The morbidly obese teenage shut-in living in Mom's basement who's never kissed a girl!
Sorry! Didn't notice.
Just went through and banned and unpublished the loser.
Those great "progressives" are at it again. Not like there's an election on or anything, or the country is on the verge of financial collapse. No, I, Amy Alkon, am truly what matters.
Amy Alkon at September 23, 2008 3:04 PM
Well, you could leave him up if you wanted to. Enough rope to hang himself, etc. It's like that like Robert W had last week, where an environmental crazy man was haranguing Prager, who just let him keep on talking...
crid Cridcrid at gmail at September 23, 2008 3:51 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/22/try_the_mirror.html#comment-1592605">comment from crid Cridcrid at gmailI'll put 'em back if you'd rather. You guys let me know.
Amy Alkon at September 23, 2008 3:54 PM
Nah, don't trouble yourself, Amy. I got the gist of it all by reading everyone's responses to the vandal.
Lovelysoul said: You cannot assume that a child, even one who lives in an intact family with a mother and father is not facing challenges and emotional scars.
This is absolutely true, for everyone one of us (even Crid, I'll bet!). I'm going through this with #2 right now, who thinks the "popular" girls in school hate her. Of course they don't; they don't know her and they don't make an effort to know her because they're busy with their friends. BUT, when I asked her if she wanted me to get her the same kinds of clothes they have, she was all "NO! I like my clothes!" So we had the "not everyone is the same, and you don't know what their lives at home are like" discussion, and she seemed to have a little more understanding about it all. Of course, we don't have the jing to live like some of her classmates do, but we have a nice life. It'd be nicer if her father had been more responsible than not, but we're with someone right now who more than makes up for it. We are pretty damn lucky at this point in life. I know there are plenty of others who aren't. o_O
Flynne at September 23, 2008 5:31 PM
What the fuck is wrong with you assholes? Do you go running around the neighborhood during the day pissing in people's pools too?
I mean, seriously. What's the fucking point? You're like spammers - completely, utterly useless wastes of human life.
brian at September 23, 2008 7:06 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/22/try_the_mirror.html#comment-1592645">comment from brianMy new name for them is the Sadly Deleteds.
All that remain of today's are the IP's (provided as a helpful service to anyone else whose site they attack because they disagree with the person):
96.233.23.141 Sep 23, 2008
67.187.97.114 Sep 23, 2008
216.31.243.99 Sep 23, 2008
72.204.131.82 Sep 23, 2008
76.27.242.174 Sep 23, 2008
67.159.54.22 Sep 23, 2008
206.53.144.50 Sep 23, 2008
72.137.181.63 Sep 23, 2008
Somebody, before I realized the person was a vandal, said something about not being able to tell something from one Asian example. Okay, let's ask this: How many Korean-American women do you know, have you ever seen or heard of, who are single unwed teen mothers? I can't imagine it's a sizeable group. Can you? How many Jewish girls do you think are unwed teen mothers? The mere idea of it wouldn't have been possible for me, and not because I grew up in the lap of luxury, but because I had an intact family and cultural values that drove me to do something different. It's not about skin color. I could have had black skin and been adopted and lived in the same family and I would, save for any small genetic variations (say, being depressive or having an aptitude for ballet) have turned out with similar values.
It is not racist to say something is wrong, and that the problem isn't just prejudice and not pouring enough money into inner city schools. In fact, to speak out that way is the antithesis of racism. It comes from caring deeply that there are kids out there who are left daddyless, and who grow up without the sort of familial push to become what they can become. It's why I have the program I do, where I speak once a month in an inner-city school. (September doesn't work for them, but I'll start again in October, and I'm hoping to meet with the principal as soon as I finish my book to bring in other speakers).
Sadly, because of the mess with BofA and my investigation of them, plus the attacks by the Sadly Pathetics, I missed applying for one of American Express' grants. I want to get this program funded and in schools where there are at-risk kids across the nation. Speakers like me will not be paid: it's a volunteer speaker program. The funding would be for an administrator to run the program and for videotaping and site fees (when somebody fantastic speaks at a school, the intention is for the person's talk to be put online and for there to be a window for kids from other schools and areas to ask the person questions in an online forum).
What's really disturbing to me, mainly because of what it's exposed to me about far too many "progressives," is how I have been chosen as a playtoy through accusing me of racism. These are people who do nothing and contribute nothing, I am almost sure. Otherwise, as I'm spending my Tuesday writing my book and getting my column out, and now, about to work on my book again, why are they posting little turds on my site? They need somebody to attack -- it's Lord of the Flies, lefty version. It's so disgusting to me, I'm working hard to remember that they are only some leftists, not all leftists. But again, when the right blogs about my views, it's about serious criticism of them, and not about sending over the 7,000 dwarves to disrupt my site in hopes of punishing me for unapproved speech, and intimidating me from speaking again in ways unapproved by "progressives."
I have to say, I worried about it yesterday morning, as I posted this entry, and I really hate that. I wondered if I could afford the attack, in terms of time and psychic energy, but, while I can't, I cannot let myself be intimidated by a bunch of thugs who are actually quite uninterested in what my real views are, but just need somebody to make "She looks like a tranny" cracks at -- in lieu of themselves having something of value to say.
As Crid wrote a while back about the tiny-dicked loser with the Fire Meghan McArdle site -- the thing to do would be to work until you were enough to replace her. But, of course, that couldn't possibly be an option for these Sadly Pathetics, so they spend their days tossing around juvenile taunts and in-jokes on their own sites, and trying to muck up an actually interesting and thoughtful discussion on mine...all the while, anonymous, in hiding, just like the neighborhood Jew-haters who used to toilet paper our trees and write "Dirty Jew" in shaving cream on our garage and run. I'm sure their parents are most proud.
Amy Alkon at September 23, 2008 8:11 PM
These are people who do nothing and contribute nothing, I am almost sure.
Perhaps they are mature enough to have long-term relationships and families.
J Smith at September 23, 2008 9:22 PM
A condensation of LS's thoughts on partner selection for parents:
> Everybody struggles to overcome
> some life challenges. If they
> haven't, they're not
> as emotionally developed as
> they could be.
> He knows whether he's gotten
> over it or not.
> How many of us have perfect
> childhoods?
> I'm opposed to declaring it an
> absolute necessity.
> It's actually a part of the
> whole coddling mentality we
> have now towards children and
> childhood in general.
I bet she'll offer a few more pearls like these in the times ahead....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 24, 2008 1:46 AM
That is not my view on "partner selection". You are taking comments I've made about children, empathy, and fatherhood and strung them together out of context. What a cheap shot, Crid. I thought you'd be above that. You must be desperately lacking a rebuttal if you have to resort to dirty tricks.
It's hard to appreciate your views on "partner selection" since you very carefully avoid sharing almost anything personal, other than your age. That makes it pretty easy to criticize others for their partner selections when you can sit there acting as if all your choices throughout life have been wise and responsible.
I don't know if you are a parent, married, divorced, etc. All I know is you are extremely judgmental of others who fail in your utopic idea of family life, while conveniently avoiding scrutiny of your OWN.
I have much greater respect for someone like Flynn, who puts her experiences out there and shows that, even while her relationship choices have not been perfect, she's still managed to raise two successful and independent children. That is a real achievement.
It's hardly an achievement to claim perfection, or near perfection, then criticize others for not being as insightful as you. Anyone can do that when they don't have to back it up with a life history.
You show no vulnerabilty here, yet you gleefully pounce on others weaknesses whenever you see them. That may be fun for you, but it doesn't add much to the conversation.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2008 5:20 AM
Tiny dicked? Wow, that's gonna leave a mark.
Projection much, manhands?
Another turd left behind from the Church of the Perpetually Offended (and tiny-dicked!).
Flynne at September 24, 2008 5:27 AM
Amy, this is controversial, but I believe the reason you don't see pregnant Jewish or Asian teenagers is mainly cultural and also due to IQ.
According to "The Great IQ Debate", Jews, as a group, have the highest IQ levels - almost 10 points higher, (I believe) than average. Asians are second highest. They also, as a group, tend to have less of a low range. It is a more homogenized group, both intellectually and culturally, even despite originating from different countries.
The diverse US population, on the other hand, may range in IQs from 60 (like my retarded brother) to 200 or higher.
It is highly controversial to look at the situation this way, but having a retarded brother, as well as a genius son, I've come to believe that IQ can't be discounted when viewing these social problems.
At a certain point, my brother was removed from mainstream school and taught at a level more appropriate for him. He simply did not have the mental capacity for high school level work. He was never going to be a "high-achiever".
And we know WHY he is retarded. His birth mother admitted to drinking alcohol heavily throughout her entire pregnancy. This obviously damaged his brain.
Unfortunately, what I see in the black community - and to an increasing degree in the white - is that there are many kids who are basically at the same intellectual level as my brother. Although they appear "normal", if tested, they would likely score in the lower IQ range too. Yet, there is a reluctance to acknowledge this as mental retardation. These kids are mainstreamed and expected to succeed as if there's nothing wrong.
Of course, these particular kids fail. They grow discouraged, drop out of school, end up on the streets, doing drugs and having babies - many of whom are likewise mentally challenged because their womb environment wasn't good either.
While in school, they also drain the educational resources that are available for those students with higher abilities. The ones who can and want to succeed are often dragged down by the weight of the low achievers.
I would've hated to be in class with my brother. As much as I love him, that would've been extremely frustrating for me, as well as him. You could spend weeks teaching him Shakespeare or biology, but he wouldn't retain almost any of it. He's mentally handicapped!
But he's white - and my brother - so I can say that. Unfortunately, this isn't easy to talk about, much less address, in the black community.
It doesn't matter how much money we spend on education. We are not going to have a successful outcome unless there's some honest self-evaluation within the black community. As you say, there needs to be greater accountability for behavior because this is leading to a problem that education alone simply cannot fix.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2008 6:19 AM
Swiss, all I can add to your post (other than my empathy) is that along with assuming mothers are good (stupid assumption, at best) all the putting on the mother to make wise choices kinda of lets the bad guys off the hook for being bad. I am so sick and tired of getting the blame for having chosen poorly when I didn't know any better. Like you, I have lived and learned. Unlike you, I don't have the courage to open up and trust as much to really share a life with a guy that may be good. I know damn well there's plenty of good guys out there; I just don't trust my ability to tell them and the wolves in sheep's clothing apart. But let me commend you for being a good Dad in the face of all you've been through.
Dot Lane, et. al., really think personal anedotes are worthless? Stats are all well and fine (though obviously can be manipulated) but real life is the arena we all play in that make the stats mean anything at all. Read any book on any topic and no matter how dry the facts, most will include case histories however anonymously because, hello, they pertain. Why are you afraid of getting so personal? Uh, yeah, that's right. It's the old war-time crusade. It's easy to hate an enemy, harder to hate people.
Amy, I wish you had been there to speak at my school way back when. Might have made a difference. All we ever got in back in the day was pep talks about how anyone can live the American dream but when it came down to brass tacks, no one taught us how to accomplish that, how to go about achieving that dream. I think that's where my public school education is most sorely lacking. I think it's wonderful that you're explaining to kids just what steps you took to get there and also what steps you take to the final product before you sell your writing.
I used to write a lot of fiction (and it's served me very well just in therapeutic value) and have had I don't know how many people say if I wrote like you, I'd be rich. I used to call that and say take it, sell it and take your cut. They didn't know how to go about it.
Looking back it was good but not good enough. In part, because I never really was taught or mastered the art. Like I said, it's a hobby that's served me well. But I wish I had someone like you come in and inspire my creative side. These days I've taken up poetry like nothing before and think it's much better done than the fiction ever was and plan to pursue that a bit. I'm encouraged when you share your personal stories and I'm content with poetry usually doesn't make a person wealthy. At this point, it'd do no more than supplement a pension anyhow and I'm not exactly someone who yearns to be in the limelight. I am going to see what I can do with it. If nothing comes of it, I've lost nothing, except a few dollars and time I'd have wasted on video games most likely.
Maybe if someone had come to my school and instead of just mouthing the usual go out there and take on the world platitudes had actually shown me what it took to make a dream come true, I wouldn't be so cynical when I hear expressions like pick themselves up by their bootstraps (I usually bitterly reply: first you have to have the bootstraps) or (my personal most hated) if life hands you lemons, make lemonade. Only possible, if you also have sugar and water.
You're doing your bit to provide kids with some of that sugar and water. Keep up the good work. I'm glad you're doing it and glad that I think I see enough of your personality displayed here to know you won't let fools like the Sadly Pathetic crowd to discourage you from it. Just wanted to say good job.
T's Grammy at September 24, 2008 7:49 AM
T's Grammy, I think you should write a book about your life. Yours is a very compelling story, in a "Prince of Tides" kind of way. Not many people can speak from the kind of experiences you've had and the strength you've gained from them. The account of saving your daughter from sexual abuse would be very empowering to other moms.
Perhaps you could join a writing class? My dad was an editor, and I think the fundamentals of your writing are very good. With just a little training, you'd be perfectly capable of writing something worthy of being published. You don't need to have a fancy education or background. Please don't let that stop you from pursuing your writing.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2008 10:24 AM
> What a cheap shot
Lady, when someone says things as repugnant as what you've said, context ain't the problem. I could have taken each one apart individually, but there was no point. You really said those things! You really meant them. It's enough to encourage people to go back and find the phrases on their own... They don't need any critical review.
You got one thing going for you: You are not alone. Your heartless, primitive, robotic beliefs are typical for these times.
So when you came to visit a feminine blog (pink & green title art!) hosted by a girly advice columnist, you just assumed you could say all the usual horseshit about how divorce is a tragedy, but it just can't be helped... And yes, it can be rough on children, but even though it shreds their immortal spirits, it's actually good for them in the long run. And you even came dressed for the part! You're "lovelysoul", an Oprah-worthy nickname if ever we've seen one. (Scented-candles! Slow piano melodies!)
To folks like you, America is a huge divorced singles mixer. And as you recite your tale of woe, we're all supposed to purse our lips and duck our chins a couple times and whisper that yes, 'It really is a shame about the kids....'
I don't care about your personal story, and I don't even care about your kids, as individuals. (Though for the record: No one on the planet, with the possible exception of the proprietess, has shared more of their personal life on this blog than I have. That you think others here are more deserving of your "respect" is not a burden.)
But please try to keep your backhanded screams of shame under control, OK? You've picked up some arrogant habits, and I just don't like you very much.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 24, 2008 12:07 PM
OK, there's no such thing as a backhanded scream.
But everyone sees what I was going for there, right? Any questions, shoot me an email and I'll explain it to you personally. I'll have calmed down by then.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 24, 2008 12:20 PM
Crid, I am not some Oprah-loving, divorce apologist. I was married OVER 20 YEARS - 22 ACTUALLY. If I was someone who believed in cutting and running at the first disagreement, I would've done so in the first 2 months. How long have you been married? If you've been married that long, then you may have some right to judge me, but unless you've really put in the time, don't tell me how I should "stick it out" in a bad marriage. Otherwise, you don't know what it really takes or how tough the decision to stay or go can be. I think I paid my dues long enough to have that choice respected. I honor and value marriage - especially when there's children involved - but some people do, indeed, agonize over that decision and end marriages for the sake of their children.
You may not believe that, but if not, it's only because you've been fortunate enough not to be faced with such a horrible choice. It doesn't give you the right to be demeaning to those of us who have, or to suggest our children are "soul scarred" for life. Everyone faces challenges, and I stand by that. You should develop some empathy for people whose life experiences differ from yours.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2008 12:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/22/try_the_mirror.html#comment-1592853">comment from lovelysoulHow long have you been married? If you've been married that long, then you may have some right to judge me
Just popping in from book-writing for a moment to say I really, really hate this argument -- and the parental argument that you are unfit to comment on their child's public manners (or spectacular lack of them, as is usually the case) unless you, too, have squeezed one out of your coochie.
One reason I do not marry or have children: because I do not have the fortitude for it. I am a good-time charlie, and I will be out of there when the going gets unsexy and boring (lucky for Gregg, I find him endlessly entertaining), as I have my own money and my only reason for being with a man is that we have more fun together and are better together than we are alone.
If you are like me, and if you cannot put your children before all else you should not have them (and this is not a comment on you, lovelysoul, because frankly, I haven't had time to read through everything here because I have a book due and I'm writing day and night). If you have already had them, you owe it to them to put them completely and entirely first. This doesn't mean coddling them -- I'm against that, too, as it is damaging to children -- but putting their needs, from everything to boundaries to and intact home and parents who work on loving each other and behaving lovingly toward each other for the children's benefit.
Too much to ask? Depo shots are that way.
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2008 12:48 PM
>>You should develop some empathy for people whose life experiences differ from yours.
Lovelysoul,
I find your statement (above) a bit rich considering you've claimed a bit earlier in this thread that one of the problems facing black people is that too many of them are mentally sub-normal.
This bit too was pretty rich: It doesn't matter how much money we spend on education. We are not going to have a successful outcome unless there's some honest self-evaluation within the black community.
So we make black communities admit they're breeding lots of retarded children?!?
Seriously, where are you getting this stuff from?
Jody Tresidder at September 24, 2008 1:24 PM
Why are you pestering me with the specifics of your life?
I don't give a flying fuck.
Sure, OK, maybe in the dicey realm of a Vegas oddsmaker's alcoholic nightmare, what you're saying is true... That gosh darn it, despite your pristine good intentions and kind heart, the men you made babies with were wholly responsible for the problems, and you've been paying the price every since. OK, I don't care. But there are many, many, many women like you, and I doubt they're all such pure souls.
> If I was someone who believed
> in cutting and running at
> the first disagreement
No one said you were. You do that a lot, overshooting the targets of your argument... I never said anything about "perfect childhoods". I never claimed that people had to make "perfect choices." In your eyes, to suggest that parents should pair correctly is to be "all-knowing and all-seeing".
"Declaring it an absolute necessity" was an interesting case of that, too... You don't think families for children are an 'absolute necessity.'
Worst of all is this passage:
> This idea that kids have
> to have a utopic upbringing
> to be ok is silly. Why
> would we want that? It's
> actually a part of the whole
> coddling mentality we have
> now towards children and
> childhood in general. "Oh,
> dear, they have some adversity
> in life...they're going to
> be ruined!!!"
To say that in the context of Amy's theme of family composition is just monstrous. It's animal savagery. Are you that desperate to lower the standards that you couldn't achieve? I think that's fucked in the head.
Do what you wanna do, 'k? The law's on your side. But quit whining that you need more "empathy" from others. I'm giving mine to the generations of children maimed by the incompetent mate selection of their parents...
...At least until they grow up and start doing it themselves.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 24, 2008 1:36 PM
I agree with you, Amy. I have always put my children first, and I knew that I was that kind of person and would be that sort of mom. And I have been. I wouldn't have tried 20+ years to make a marriage work with their dad otherwise.
So, I just don't appreciate the assumption that I'm some selfish person just because I made the painstaking decision that it was best for my children not to be with their dad, at least romantically (we are still business partners and friendly co-parents).
There are several women on this board too, like T's Grammy, that have had to make that tough choice for the child's best interest. So, it's offensive for people, especially those who have no children or marriages, to judge that.
It's not that you "must" have that experience to have a say, but I would be a bit more humble when judging something I really have no direct experience with.
Before I had children, I was such an "expert" that now I cringe thinking of that. I was completely arrogant and had no idea what I was talking about. To me, this is similar. You can have your ideas about what you would do in any given situation, but honestly, until you've lived it, you cannot know what choices you would really make. Nobody starts out thinking, "I'm going to marry, have a child, and get divorced." Almost every person believes that they will have the ideallic happy ending and be the perfect parents. It's just that for some of us (most of us?) life doesn't unfold that way.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2008 1:39 PM
Gee, Crid....look, maybe it's just because my daughter went through "Challenge Day" recently, which I described above...but I truly don't think any kid's life is without some strikes against them.
My kids have to deal with a divorce, but they are well-off and educated. They have one strike, but two pluses on their side. Other kids have intact families, but they're poor or abused. One plus, but two strikes.
You haven't said whether you have kids or not, but my home is usually populated by teens these days and I hear their stories. There is the rare kid that has the "perfect nuclear family". And I think that's wonderful!
But I also see that the rare kid from the "perfect nuclear family" isn't always the kindest, most successful, or well-rounded. That doesn't necessarily correlate. That's all I'm saying. It's not like:
Kid from broken home = scarred failure
Kid from intact home = great, happy success
That's what I feel you are presuming. And maybe that's because you aren't around today's kids. I don't know, but I'm immersed in them, so I'm just trying to point out the hole in this theory. It would be great if picking the right partner always guaranteed a problem-free and happy child, but it doesn't.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2008 1:58 PM
Jody, it doesn't mean I'm not empathetic. It's heartbreaking to me. But I don't think we can "make" the black community do anything. As we've seen here, you can barely address any issue without being called "racist"...which it seems you are almost calling me. I am not a racist any more than Amy is. Being a realist isn't racist. It's a shame that these are such untouchable topics. There are a lot of bright, caring people who share that view, and they articulate it not out of racism but true concern and a desire to change things for the better. Sticking our heads in the sand and living in denial - just to avoid the charge of racism or elitism - has been devastating for the balck community.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2008 2:18 PM
>>Sticking our heads in the sand and living in denial - just to avoid the charge of racism or elitism - has been devastating for the balck community.
Lovelysoul,
But you're making an extraordinary scientific-sounding claim here: that congenital birth defects - possibly the result of fetal alcohol syndrome or similar - manifesting as sub-normal intelligence - are among The Significant Reasons - you say - for the general failure to thrive of the black communities in America.
Who are the "bright, caring" folk who share this view? On what basis?
As I asked before - where is this stuff coming from?
Jody Tresidder at September 24, 2008 2:48 PM
LS, I can do this for years. I'll keep hammering you over the head until you realize that you're arguing illogically and concede that you're putting words in my mouth. I get the feeling you don't talk to anyone about this out loud very much, because any real human being you'd discussed it with --not just a face on a TV screen or a pandering article in a women's magazine-- would have straightened you out long ago.
> I truly don't think any kid's life
> is without some strikes
> against them.
I never said anything of the kind.
> Other kids have intact families,
> but they're poor or abused.
Irrelevant. Some kids have intact families and are neither poor nor abused. It's not so rare that you need to pretend its witchcraft.
> There is the rare kid that has the
> "perfect nuclear family".
You shouldn't use quotation marks unless you're quoting someone directly. No one in this stack has pushed the stakes that high... Except you, by trying to ennoble yourself through comparison to somethign preposterous.
> the rare kid from the "perfect
> nuclear family" isn't always the
> kindest, most successful, or well-
> rounded. That doesn't necessarily
> correlate.
But it very, very often does. That's important.
> Kid from broken home = scarred failure
> Kid from intact home = great, happy success
This is bullshit argument, and you should be ashamed for making it.
> That's what I feel you are presuming.
Your feelings are interfering with your logic.
> guaranteed a problem-free
> and happy child
Nobody said anything about gaurantees or being problem-free or even being happy.
We want people to do what's best for kids. And when people fail to that, they ought not smirk and say c'est la vie, or pretend the nightmares they've brought to their children's waking lives are actually good for them.
Crid at September 24, 2008 3:51 PM
LS, I can do this for years. I'll keep hammering over the head until you realize that you are arguing illogically, and concede that you're putting words in my mouth.
> I truly don't think any kid's life
> is without some strikes
> against them.
I never said anything of the kind.
> Other kids have intact families,
> but they're poor or abused.
Irrelevant. Some kids have intact families and are neither poor nor abused. It's not so rare that you need to pretend its witchcraft.
> There is the rare kid that has the
> "perfect nuclear family".
You shouldn't use quotation marks unless you're quoting someone directly. No one in this stack has pushed the stakes that high... Except you, by trying to enoble yourself through preposterous comparison.
> the rare kid from the "perfect
> nuclear family" isn't always the
> kindest, most successful, or well-
> rounded. That doesn't necessarily
> correlate.
But it very, very often does. I think that's important.
> Kid from broken home = scarred failure
> Kid from intact home = great, happy success
This is bullshit argument, and you should be ashamed for making it.
> That's what I feel you are presuming.
Your feelings are interfering with your logic.
> guaranteed a problem-free
> and happy child
Nobody said anything about gaurantees or being problem-free or even being happy.
We want people to do what's best for kids. And when people fail to that, they ought not smirk and say c'est la vie, or pretend the nightmares they've brought to their children's waking lives are actually good for them.
Crid at September 24, 2008 3:52 PM
Jody, a few years ago I read a book called "The Great IQ Debate," which is where I got those statistics.
But, moreover, if you know a population has a high incidence of substance abuse, it is only common sense to assume that there are damaging effects such as fetal alcohol syndrome and mental retardation occuring. Lower test scores routinely support this, as does the kind of impulsive, promiscuous behavior that is the topic of this thread. There's obviously poor reasoning skills at play.
A few months ago, I read an interview with a Nobel prize-winning scientist, Dr. James Watson, who dared address this topic. However, he has been slammed as a racist and his career looks to be ruined (I was trying to find the original article, which I recall as being sensitive and well-reasoned, but all I could find were articles branding him a racist). I don't know if he is or not, or if he's just been the target of a smear campaign like Amy was.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2008 3:52 PM
"pretend the nightmares they've brought to their children's waking lives are actually good for them".
Crid, you keep saying you're NOT attacking single parents, but then you do. Is that not extreme? How do you know my kids have a "waking nighmare?" They do not.
I'm all for intact families, wherever possible. I don't support women (or men) who leave their marriages and break up their families to go "find themselves". I've lectured several friends against doing just that. You better have a damned good reason in my book for breaking up a family. On this, I think we would agree, no?
Yet, personally, I had a good reason, and many others do too....or else they had no choice because they were left. Having a truly successful long-term relationship is tough. Unless I know someone acted purely out of selfishness, I don't hold that failure against them, and I still know their children can thrive.
The best kid I know is from a broken home (not mine). She just got back from a mission trip to Haiti. She is the most poised, articulate, caring 17 yr old you'll ever meet. She's not "living a nightmare." I'm not saying divorce was GOOD for her - it's just one life disappointment she went through and has obviously risen above.
As a parent...and this may be the difference between those with children and those without...I've learned I can't prevent all those disappointments. Divorce, maybe, but there's about a hundred more potentially soul-scarring disappointments I CAN'T prevent....from bullies at school to her first love breaking her heart.
So, we parents learn to value resiliancy over perfection because although we start out thinking we can prevent every pain and bruise, we ultimately learn we can't create this perfect, sterile world where they won't be hurt. Divorce isn't good, but it's just ONE of those hurts, Crid. And, like all the others, it doesn't have to ruin their lives.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2008 4:30 PM
Again... This is about your reading comprehension.
I never said I wasn't attacking single parents! Again, you seem to think everyone in the world is supposed be gathered around you saying 'You go, girl!'
I think the normalization of single parenthood is a holocaust. I think it's the slavery of the 21st century. Amy is catching on to this, and good for her.
> How do you know my kids have
> a "waking nighmare?"
I don't, and never claimed they did. I said that many kids of divorce have waking nightmares. Far more than don't I'd wager, and this all their suffering is gratuitous. It's caused by incompetent parents.
> I'm all for intact families,
> wherever possible.
Good. Start talking that way. "Wherever possible" includes a lot of families.
> I can't prevent all those
> disappointments. Divorce, maybe,
Good. Stop talking. Let's move forward from there.
> we can't create this perfect,
> sterile world where they
> won't be hurt.
Again, NOBODY SAID THAT. Jesus fucking Christ on a stick, woman. WILL YOU WAKE UP?
Nobody said anything about perfection. Happy homes with two loving parents are far from perfection. Homes built --and broken-- by incompentent couples shouldn't worry about being held to that stardard. It's too far over the horizon, OK? DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. No sane person is going to worry that the home made by a typically divorced person in the United States is uncomfortably perfect.
> it doesn't have to ruin their lives.
It quite often does.... Needlessly, and through no fault of there own.
Crid at September 24, 2008 5:01 PM
LS -
There are several women on this board too, like T's Grammy, that have had to make that tough choice for the child's best interest. So, it's offensive for people, especially those who have no children or marriages, to judge that.
Bullshit. Absolutely pure and unadulterated horse manure.
There have been times when I have made grievous errors as a parent - in spite of doing my best. The very best criticism I have gotten, in part because it was so objective, was from an very dear friend who is as queer as a three dollar bill, hasn't the slightest interest in being a parent and is HIV positive to boot. On two separate occasions he felt that I needed some perspective and decided to provide it. Not in the least bit offensive (though it did make me a bit cranky at teh time) it was actually greatly appreciated when I had the chance to think about it.
I really don't have a problem with Amy making the comments that she does, because she has actually done the research and talked to folks who know a great deal about parenting. Crid pays good attention to the same sort of stuff. Though I disagree with him strenuously on his conclusions, they are just as valid from him, as they are from the myriad parents I know, who believe the same as him.
For that matter, the best help my partner and I have gotten as parents, has come from our son's therapist, who just had her first baby in March. She was very helpful with devising strategies for dealing with our oldest son's behavioral problems (she hasn't returned from maternity leave, unfortunately).
So no, it really isn't offensive. What's offensive, is making the assumption that because someone has made the choice not to breed or get married, that they have no right to talk about those two issues. Amy is responsible, which is why she is also childless. I used to feel much the same way that Amy does, but I wasn't so responsible and now I have a family. I don't regret having a family, but it was entirely due to my being irresponsible that I have one. I have a lot of respect for folks who avoided that sort of irresponsibility.
DuWayne at September 24, 2008 5:09 PM
>>A few months ago, I read an interview with a Nobel prize-winning scientist, Dr. James Watson, who dared address this topic.
Apart from the fact that his Nobel prize had nothing to do with race and IQ, James Watson said nothing whatsoever in that spectacularly ill-judged off-the-cuff remark in that infamous interview with the UK Sunday Times magazine about black people breeding notable numbers of sub-normal children.
That's your theory, lovelysoul. Yours alone.
Jody Tresidder at September 24, 2008 6:07 PM
Well, Crid, if you're talking "incompetent couples", what does that include? Maybe I am misunderstanding your intent, but if you're talking about people who are so callous and self-absorbed, they divorce at the drop of a hat, then I agree with you wholeheartedly. Divorce has become a too-easy "out".
Yet, if you're talking about two people who try their best to get along, to stick it out, and go to therapy for years trying to save a marriage that simply isn't working, then I think they are often in a position of looking at whether the unhappiness and tense environment in their home has more of a negative impact on their children than a divorce would.
And if they can remain on good terms, that is often a better solution. But, even when they don't, it doesn't usually "ruin" the child's life.
That is my complaint about people who don't have kids judging this. Anyone can have an opinion about divorce or childrearing, but in my experience, people without kids tend to overestimate the extremes and underestimate kid's resiliancy.
As a GAL, I've seen kids that have suffered tremendous abuse...things MUCH worse than a divorce, trust me. They surely bear emotional scars, but the amazing thing is that most are not ruined for life. They usually go on and do well.
So, that is my objection - let's keep things in perspective. Parents who have been at this awhile realize there are often worse experiences for a child than divorce. There's bullying, for one, which in my view, often has a greater impact. You look at the school shooters from Columbine - I believe they were from intact families, yet it was bullying that had a more serious impact.
Divorce is never a good thing, but it truly is just one negative aspect in a whole childhood. Unlike non-parents, parents see that, over 18 years, their kids face a lot of negatives and obstacles that they must overcome.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2008 6:56 PM
> they divorce at the drop of a hat
That's no longer my standard. It ain't about drops of hats. I'm tired of arguing with motherfucking grownups about whether their marriages were worth saving. I'm tired of hearing shitwits say "Of course, this was certainly better for the kids than if we'd stay'd together."
This bullshit has been going on my whole life, and it's time to call the bluff. What's 'certainly better' for the kids is to marry well. Find a man you can love, and care for, and work with for twenty or thirty years... Whatever the complete duration of the child-rearing will be.
But if it falls apart in the middle, don't tell me you did your best and these things happen. I know too many parents to whom these things DON'T happen.
> I've seen kids that have suffered
> tremendous abuse...things MUCH
> worse than a divorce
Why do you keep saying things like this? How on earth can you imagine your point is buttressed?
Yes...
Some things are better than divorce. (For example, a serving of ice cream on a sugar cone!)
And some things are worse than divorce. (For example, a full trans-oceanic nuclear exchange!)
So what? Broken families happen to kids because their parents fuck things up.
> just one negative aspect
> in a whole childhood.
It's a thundering break at the heart of the child's experience of the world. It's a break in the bonds that give him or her a sense of identity, shelter and that most powerful division of perceptions, what Mom says versus what Dad says.
It ain't a skinned knee or a ruined picnic... Those are "negative aspects."
Crid at September 24, 2008 8:40 PM
No.
But Grosse Pointe Blank was a surprisingly good film.
"Cut the string, Chatty Cathy...."
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 24, 2008 10:51 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/22/try_the_mirror.html#comment-1592938">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]Sadly deleted. Our obese teenager. "Korean" IP.
121.131.141.92
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2008 10:56 PM
Oh. Never mind.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 25, 2008 12:02 AM
Crid, I think we basically agree. We'd both like to prevent as many unecessary divorces as possible.
It would certainly be best if people choose better partners to begin with. Yet, you seemed against the idea of teaching young people how to choose better. You said we teach "by example", but there are a lot of personality issues that can't be learned just from watching our parent's marriages (assuming they're even functional).
My ex is bi-polar. If I'd had a little training beforehand in early warning signs of mental disorders, then I probably wouldn't have chosen him. Yet, he was manic most of the time - the exciting, charismatic, adventuresome side of the disorder, which is precisely the type of man young women are drawn to. He rarely had depressive episodes, so I didn't see that until much later.
I think teaching young people how to spot early warning signs of mental illness or abusive relationships would pay big dividends. Encouraging them to marry later in life would also prevent many divorces. Do you have a problem with that?
I mean, what we want to is to spare children any trauma if possible. But living with a mentally ill person is such a volatile situation that it can be a trauma in itself.
To me, it's not enough to tell young people, "Well you should know better!" unless we really give them the tools to know better.
Last year, I met a couple who came to my Christmas party. Now, I can spot a bi-polar person across a room, usually. And I could tell the husband was having a full-blown manic episode. He was the life of the party - funny, charismatic, everybody loved him.
She, on the other hand, had the kind of hollowed-out look of exhaustion I probably had most of my marriage. Being with a bi-polar person is like riding a roller coaster. It's very exciting at first, but then you just want to get off.
She's 38, but she knew nothing of bi-polar disorder. She simply said he refused to get treatment to "calm down". That is not atypical for people with this condition. They don't want to change. They love being manic....everybody loves them! My ex could do the work of 10 men when he was manic, so he even attributes it to his financial success.
This couple has two beautiful pre-teen daughters. The dad obviously loves them - and the parents love each other - but the mom tells me that often, when he's manic, he'll go out and bring home complete strangers! He'll go to the 7-11, meet somebody, and bring them home. Often, when she gets off work, there's a party of strangers in her living room! With her beautiful young daughters there. The dad's behavior is erratic enough that she legitimately worries for their safety.
I use this as an example of the sort dilemma that some parents face in weighing what's best for their children. It's too late to say she should've chosen better; she didn't. Maybe with training and knowledge, she would have, but it's too late now.
So, I ask: Should she leave? I'd be interested in hearing everybody's opinion (yours, especially, Crid)
lovelysoul at September 25, 2008 4:36 AM
>>Now, I can spot a bi-polar person across a room, usually.
Apparently you can also spot oodles of mentally sub-normal black children across society too, lovelysoul.
I'm leery about the worth of your amateur diagnostic skills in all these matters, frankly.
Jody Tresidder at September 25, 2008 5:41 AM
Jody, it seems you just want to fight with me. We're usually on the same side.
Watson simply said all the testing did not show blacks as being intellectually equal. So, yes, I am proposing a theory as to why the average black IQ is lower, as well as why they, as a group, score lower than whites on SATs and almost every other standardized test.
I'm not saying there aren't lots of brilliant black people, but averages are the result of a range of IQs and test scores, so there is clearly a problem at the lower end.
Racism and bias have been used for decades to try to explain this disparity, but it is getting rather old as an excuse. Other ethnic groups test well.
According to that book, Jews have the highest IQ because for centuries they encouraged their BRIGHTEST kids to become rabbis, and in turn, rabbis were encouraged to have lots of children. This produced a high-achieving gene pool, and we know - from identical twin studies - that IQ is, in part, genetic.
So, call me silly, but when you have mothers like Tamika Wilson having 7 kids by 7 different DRUG dealers by the time she's 26, I think it's safe to assume that she, or at least other mothers like her, just might be using drugs while pregnant. And that is not an optimal plan to produce a lot of high achievers.
That is just MY theory, based on common sense. What is your theory?
lovelysoul at September 25, 2008 6:14 AM
I dunno, Jody. I lived with a guy who was a Boderline Personality Disorder; alcohol made it worse. I'm talking severe. Once you've spent a large amount of time with someone like that, I think it's not that difficult to see similar signs in other people with the same disorders. There are certain key phrases and behaviours that all of them use that throw red flags up for me.
That said, this: Often, when she gets off work, there's a party of strangers in her living room! With her beautiful young daughters there. The dad's behavior is erratic enough that she legitimately worries for their safety. is definitely a red flag, and I'd be out of there as soon as reasonably possible, kids in tow. My home is my and my daughters' sanctuary, not a party house for strangers. Whereas my ex might have done the same thing, BF would never think of bringing anyone I didn't know into our home. It is our refuge, our safe place from the madness, and to invite strangers into that sacred place would be a serious breach of trust, and a sign of danger that I just would NOT ignore. YMMV o_O
Flynne at September 25, 2008 6:16 AM
>>It is our refuge, our safe place from the madness, and to invite strangers into that sacred place would be a serious breach of trust, and a sign of danger that I just would NOT ignore. YMMV o_O
Flynne,
Yeah, I try not to invite nutters in either!
But nor do I consider myself any sort of clinical diagnostic whizz about complex mental disorders, because I do not have a smidgeon of professional training!
My hairdresser is a brilliant woman - and tells me tons of stuff about all the multiple personality sufferers of her acquaintance, so I always give her an enormous tip - for her haircutting skills.
And, lovelysoul, James Watson apologized furiously for his crap about race and IQs. He admitted it was NOT based on science at all but was his personal (wretched) opinion.
His public IQ comments were a huge gaffe, for which he has - deservedly in my opinion - paid an enormous price.
Jody Tresidder at September 25, 2008 6:52 AM
Jody, you've been lucky to not live with someone with a mental disorder, but after 22 years with one, you do pick up on the traits. I don't claim to be a psychiatrist, but I can tell someone who is bi-polar.
And what Watson was forced to say in his groveling was that it isn't based on SCIENCE. There is no biological reason. But it is based on testing.
You can quibble over little things, but you haven't disputed that blacks score lower. It is a subject of concern in schools everywhere. SAT standards for entrance to prestigious colleges in the US have long been lowered for blacks as opposed to whites.
Why? No one really knows, but is it really so taboo to ask? Amy says the black community needs to be more accountable for behavior - to discourage women from having so many children out of wedlock - and she's branded a racist.
I am only saying that this behavior cannot be good for the overall intelligence level of the black population either. Forget drugs - look at poor nutrition and poverty in general and how those factors alone discourage proper brain development. Add in drugs...alcohol...cigarettes....
Not to mention Crid's issue with horrible partner-picking - guys who don't stick around and who obviously aren't ivy-league bound rocket scientists or they wouldn't be selling drugs on the street....
And you have a pretty compelling picture of how to diminish intellectual capacities within an ethnic group.
It is happening to whites too. This sort of dumb and dumber breeding programs at the lower end of the spectrum isn't going to make our population smarter.
If Jews were doing it, I'd be concerned about them. If Asians were doing it, I'd be concerned about them too. But, as Amy says, you rarely see Jewish and Asian teenage unwed mothers. I've never seen one. She's right.
So, is it purely a coincidence that the two ethnic groups with the highest average 1Qs - who test the highest on SAT scores as well as standardized tests - are also least likely to behave in that manner?
lovelysoul at September 25, 2008 8:29 AM
>>Why? No one really knows, but is it really so taboo to ask?
In a nutshell, lovelysoul, you've proved (above) why I loathe your line of argument here, on the grounds of a glaring lack of logic and rigor and honesty.
Spare me the disingenuous spin "is it really so taboo to ask?"
It's not taboo: it's simply you already know what you think - despite the hands-in-the-air "no one really knows".
If you're honest, you're simply posing the question rhetorically.
On the one hand, you vaguely agree James Watson admitted his controversial opinion wasn't "science". However - you argue - the IQ and race problem is based on "testing".
What is the value of this "testing" if it's not objectively verifiable, and thus scientific?
You are not even consistent, either. Mentally sub-normal people with an IQ of 60 are statistical outliers across the population. Yet you claim you spot evidence of your brother's low IQ -of 60 -significantly mirrored in black communities, and among some failing whites too.
That's most unlikely.
Look, we'll have to agree to strenuously disagree here.
I think your comments are utter rubbish on this topic.
You also say: You can quibble over little things, but you haven't disputed that blacks score lower.
Back atcha: to which tests do you refer? How many points are we talking about? What peer reviewed studies are you citing?
(Grimy best sellers called "The Truth About Sub-Normal Blacks" don't count.)
Jody Tresidder at September 25, 2008 9:20 AM
Just read "The Great IQ Debate." It is not a racist book. The tests are verifiable. They are Stanford-Binet 4th Edition IQ tests. I don't have the exact statistics on SAT scores (that is our major standardized high school and college entrance exam test here in the US), but I'm sure you can look them up. You are welcome to prove that blacks score higher than whites if you can find evidence.
Most of my thoughts on this actually came from reading a black newspaper columnist about a year ago who wrote a piece complaining about the SATs and how he found it embarrassing that colleges still had to lower the standard score for black student admission. He was saying that it was a real problem that the black community wasn't addressing: Why aren't our students scoring better?
He even went so far as to say that in affluent communities - where black students attend the same prep schools as white kids - that they STILL were not scoring as high on the SAT as whites. And this mystified him. He wondered if it was just a cultural lack of emphasis on the test or a part of deeper problem.
I didn't mention that earlier because I don't know where he got those statistics. But he was black and he was essentially saying, "We can't keep using racism as an excuse."
It impressed me because it is rare to have a black voice addressing these issues, but it is what needs to happen. Black leaders need to stop crying racism and start addressing the social problems within their community.
lovelysoul at September 25, 2008 10:12 AM
> So, I ask: Should
> she leave?
I think women are enchanted by the pornographic nature of these scenarios... A natural enthusiasm for storytelling and the feelings that come with it is what made soap operas happen for sixty years.
I'm tired of being asked what a woman (or man) is supposed to do once the kids are already there. There's no new or special threat presented by manic depressives.
I want people to marry well, and not whine when they don't.
Crid at September 25, 2008 10:26 AM
This is a similar article. I don't think it's by the same writer, but at least you can see that I am not making up the fact the scores are lower. Some colleges are thinking of avoiding the problem and just dropping the test. I think this writer has the right attitude...
http://www.time.com/time/education/article/0,8599,101325,00.html
lovelysoul at September 25, 2008 10:32 AM
Here's some actual SAT statistics regarding the racial divide. It is narrowing...but it seems that might also be because whites are doing worse on the test...
http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html
lovelysoul at September 25, 2008 10:41 AM
Lovelysoul,
I just read your last two detailed and discursive links (the Time mag, and The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education). Thank you.
Where is the stuff about the observably high numbers of congenitally sub-normal children in the black community?
You know, that thing of yours that started this debate?
Jody Tresidder at September 25, 2008 11:03 AM
Obviously, Jody, those are just my personal observations from volunteering in schools for the past 18 years. Naturally, I cannot take a child that seems slow to me aside and have him or her tested. It is just a gut perception gained from having grown up beside a mentally-challenged brother.
After reading that last article, I'm depressed. It's really much worse than I'd assumed. I didn't realize there were almost no black top scorers!
My girlfriend adopted a mixed race boy 19 yrs ago. He was abandoned at the hospital. She and her family are white. The son is highly gifted - that's how I know her from a parent group of gifted children - so I'm sure he was one of the few top scorers, but that just floors me that the gap is as bad as this.
lovelysoul at September 25, 2008 11:24 AM
>>Obviously, Jody, those are just my personal observations from volunteering in schools for the past 18 years. Naturally, I cannot take a child that seems slow to me aside and have him or her tested. It is just a gut perception gained from having grown up beside a mentally-challenged brother.
I promise I understand "gut perception" opinions. What I don't grasp is the way you have galloped right past the many other complex contributory factors identified, studied and analyzed by educational officials at the sharp end of the problem -and emphatically discussed with some depth in your own linked articles - preferring instead that sharp nudge in the gut from your own unsupported personal pet theory.
I know I'm not going to budge you, lovelysoul and we all cling to gut certainties that appeal to some place in us. (Jim Watson is no different from anyone else on that score! And he often speaks without thinking & always has done...).
But you will find your views treated as ignorant and offensive (not merely bravely taboo-breaking!) I think your gut is wrong when it nudges you to extrapolate from your experience of your brother general theories about the incurable congenital mental incompetence of black people who score poorly on some tests.
Jody Tresidder at September 25, 2008 3:01 PM
Jody, I think you've misunderstood me. I didn't say that was the ONLY factor. I just said I see kids like that being mainstreamed, which never would've happened to my brother because he's white...and because it's inappropriate in that case because they grow frustrated and discouraged.
My mom was an elementary teacher and I've also seen how she's taken black (and white) kids who've been written off as incapable by other teachers and gotten them reading and learning at the top the class. So, I know there is often a teacher bias which puts black kids on a slow academic track. That explanation makes sense.
But if you look at in total, racism just can't explain it all. That's just not logical, even though I understand that would be the view of "The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education." For lack of any better explanation, they blame racism for blacks not being given academic challenge, but where is the black responsibility for TAKING the challenge? Trig and Calculus are usually electives in every high school in this country. Why aren't black students choosing those courses....because they'd rather listen to rap music?!
That's not a satisfying explanation. Either there is such an ingrained perception of failure and racial bias that a vast conspiracy of teachers prevent black kids from learning at high academic levels, or we have to look at the possibility that well-meaning teachers and guidance counselors simply know from test scores and grades by high school age that these students are not capable of handling honors-level course work.
There are obviously black students who ARE in honors classes - my girlfriend's son was and my daughter had two black friends in her gifted class last year - so I just don't believe that every school administration across the country is so racist that they are conspiring to keep such a high percentage of other black students away from these courses.
If anything, the data seems to support the theory that there is too high a percentage of black students without the mental capacity to tackle challenging course work.
I mean, Jody, these scores are nationwide, so that includes black kids in affluent prep schools, yet there are almost no black high scorers? Almost no black students can meet the level required of whites to get into Princeton or MIT?
That is a big problem. I certainly presumed that there were black students making those scores. I didn't know almost EVERY black admission to a top university was aided by affirmative action.
lovelysoul at September 25, 2008 3:54 PM
At any rate, Jody, if I was racist, I would be celebrating that data, but it makes me sad. It shows that there's an even wider gap than I thought.
I do believe there are genetic components to intelligence - like there are genetic components to diseases, eye color, almost everything about us. Identical twins separated at birth have almost identical IQs.
So, I believe that if any population should do their best to encourage behavior that tends to produce more intelligent offspring rather than encouraging behaviors that tend to produce less intelligent offspring.
Black leaders need to look at this because affirmative action is scheduled to end. At the very least, it makes it more important to do what Amy has been suggesting - to shame women like Tamika Wilson. I was initially kind of against that. It struck me as too...I don't know...moralistic. But looking at this dire situation makes it seem prudent and necessary because having 7 kids with 7 drug dealers - and engaging in so much drug use - is not a way for the black population to produce high-achieving offspring.
lovelysoul at September 25, 2008 4:18 PM
Lovelysoul,
You've been patient with me - so I'll return the courtesy (since we're the only ones chatting here!).
Look, here's your position:
>>For lack of any better explanation, they blame racism for blacks not being given academic challenge, but where is the black responsibility for TAKING the challenge?
The key phrase for me is your adamant belief that there exists "a better reason" (yours - i.e. brain damage) than the multiple causes, social/cultural etc examined for grade failure among black communities.
You shore this up with anecdotes and collected perceptions from others that chime with this core belief - and you won't budge.
I think you are very mistaken, but you "like" your explanation because it seems to appear sympathetic ("they can't help it!"), sufficiently novel and controversial to make you feel slightly brave in entertaining it ("it's taboo!") and unprovable ("gee, we can't force people to test their kiddies...").
I strongly disagree with your core belief. But you know that.
Jody Tresidder at September 26, 2008 8:05 AM
I know, Jody, and it's ok. I always find your comments stimulating and well-reasoned, so I actually hope you are right and I am wrong on this issue.
You know, we had a case in my state a few years ago involving a (then) 12 yr old boy named Lionel Tate, who killed a 6 yr old playmate by body-slamming her so hard he lacerated her liver. He claimed he was acting out wrestling moves he'd seen on TV.
When I watched him in interviews and responding in court, I thought this boy is mentally-challenged. Of course, you'll say I had no basis, and I didn't. He was tried as an adult - the youngest person ever in the US - and sentenced to life in prison.
There was never any mention of his mental capacities throughout the trial. In a way, I find that racist. No one thought to check. It was like, "Well, of course, he's slow. He's black."
In 2004, the appeals court overturned his conviction on the basis that his mental capacities had never been evaluated. He was, in fact, mentally-retarded.
So, what concerns me is that there are others like him that are never really properly evaluated in school. We see a white kid who functions poorly, and we DO test them, but (I suspect) that there's a rather subtle pass given to black students. We don't want to put them in "slow" classes because that might appear racist.
Therefore, those kids, who are genuinely in need of special help don't get it, while the black students who are bright and academically capable must function in classrooms that have to be "dumbed down" to accomodate those slower students. That is what I propose may be happening.
And there's a lot of evidence that high achievers should learn alongside other high achievers. They challenge and motivate each other. So, I just wonder if that is happening enough in primarily black schools.
How is it in England? Do you all have an equivalent test to the SAT?
lovelysoul at September 26, 2008 9:01 AM
>>How is it in England? Do you all have an equivalent test to the SAT?
Lovelysoul: We're in Long Island, actually. Moved here with the kids from Cambridge in the UK 15 years ago because my scientist husband was picked for a great job here at the cancer/genetics Cold Spring Harbor Lab by...James Watson!
(Yeah, perfectly true! That's why I didn't have to look up that race row - we know Watson very well indeed and we were all in the thick of the resignation drama. I also think his comments were ghastly. Luckily, he thrives on people being rude back. He's brilliant & I'm very fond of him - but he's an effing idiot about some things at the same time...I kind of had to admit this to you - I was feeling uneasy!)
Jody Tresidder at September 26, 2008 9:32 AM
Wow, that is really funny, Jody. What a coincidence.
lovelysoul at September 26, 2008 10:36 AM
Someone please define "MSB."
Thanks in advance.
Tony at September 29, 2008 6:32 PM
Leave a comment