I've been waiting five years for this moment.

> Children need daddies.

Absolutely.

They need Mommies, too. Don't you agree?

Amy - "far too many black women are doing their part by bringing their children up fatherless"

Men play a part in this process too. It's not fair to lump it all on the women.

Black communities are just the canaries in the coal mine. Combine feminist sensibilities (women deserve, and can do, it ALL) with government policies to marginalize men as heads of families, and you have the current situation for blacks and, I guarantee, the future situation for white America.

>>Combine feminist sensibilities (women deserve, and can do, it ALL) with government policies to marginalize men as heads of families, and you have the current situation for blacks and, I guarantee, the future situation for white America.

Jay R
I'm amazed you haven't yet explained global warming propaganda as the inevitable result of have-it-all feminism and the pernicious undermining of the paterfamilias!

Well, society CAN blame whitey for this. We were/are the ones in power that created a welfare state to the extent single motherhood is profitable. And the corporate media has done an excellent job of making this way of life (single motherhood) seem acceptable.

I've noted as of late in my travels throughout small town Texas that single motherhood occurs due to a combination of poverty with a lack of social stigma being attached to out of wedlock birth. At that point it doesn't appear to be a race thing. Whatever race happens to populate the area, that would be the race that exhibits this behavior. Detroit, well I guess that would be black. El Paso: Hispanic. San Angelo TX, Whitey.

So, eliminate the financial benefit, and create an environment where women (and men) would be 'embarassed' by this type of behavior.

Problem solved. Where's my medal?

HA

Amy - "far too many black women are doing their part by bringing their children up fatherless"

Men play a part in this process too. It's not fair to lump it all on the women.

Sure, but there would be no single mothers, only single women, if these women didn't go without birth control before they could provide kids with the intact family they need.

Social stigma against single motherhood is very much needed, and this includes against rich women who are "single mothers by choice."

Amy,
Totally agree this is a subject which should never be off limits just because liberals get tense looking at the statistics.

But I wish I understood HOW anyone can effectively lobby for: "Social stigma against single motherhood..".

How do you foment finger wagging?

Sterling "So, eliminate the financial benefit, and create an environment where women (and men) would be 'embarassed' by this type of behavior."
________

You are absolutely correct!
The two ethnicities that receive the greatest percentage of public assistance per ethnicity are African Americans and Native Americans.
These two ethnicities suffer the most social problems even though they receive the greatest percentage of public assistance per ethnicity.

Because people know this public assistance is available, they don't have to have a great deal of worry about the poor choices they make.
In other words- I can afford to be wreckless and make poor choices because somebody else will pay for it.

The government has made this legal extortion. A young woman can agree to have sex and become pregnant by a gang member that has a criminal record as long as your arm.
The rest of us HAVE to pay for it with the taxes the government extorts from us. She knows she is entitled to welfare, so she doesn't have to concern herself with making such a poor decision.

My social worker friend says single motherhood is connected with the extremely low self-esteem of the single mothers. What these women crave is love, and a baby offers them that. For a while, at least.

If true, cutting financial benefit will simply mean you have poor single mothers, living on the street.

>> but in 2007, 72 percent of out-of-wedlock births in this country were to black women.

Amy- the math doesn't seem right. Where did you get the 72% figure? Was it maybe 72% of black children are born fatherless?

Oh! Well, if it's a cultural thing, you may not criticise it.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=44768&in_page_id=34&expand=true

The article (from April 2007) begins "Almost half the black children in Britain are being raised by single parents, new Government figures reveal.

A quarter of all youngsters live in one-parent families – treble the proportion in 1972, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The biggest percentage of lone-parent households is among black ethnic groups. Forty-eight per cent of black Caribbean families have one parent, as do 36 per cent of black African households."

The interesting bit is the outrage, victimhood, special pleading, misogyny, misandry, etc in the comments.

My (adopted) little boy was born for one reason only- he was an accessory to the mother, and the (in-and-out incarcerated) father already had two other children with two other women. The mother was hanging out with other women who had children, and they were all out of work and watching TV all day, drinking Zima's in filth. All were white and living the life in Spokane, Washington. Just like music, this is now a cultural thing that melds between races, and more and more between the economic classes.

It was such an eye-opener to me to see the pandemic lack of responsibility, compassion and morality. When I was growing up, 40 years ago, it seemed like everyone was pretty much raised equally. Now there only seems to be extremes, helicopter parents who focus every minute on their kids, and the other parents who don't give a damn.

Amy,

I don't agree with the how they did it in Africa has necessarily translated to an ingrained mindset in the black community in the US.

The best counter argument to what you said is the fact that immigrants from Africa (actual African-Americans) have the highest educational attainment levels of any immigrant group.

**In an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Journal of Blacks in higher education, African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group.

So I don't think it's necessarily an "African" trait as much as it is a American trait. I've actually met a number of African immigrants who don't really want to be associated with american blacks.

> But I wish I understood HOW anyone
> can effectively lobby for: "Social
> stigma against single motherhood..".

I don't understand that sentence. What's to understand?

> How do you foment finger wagging?

Ridicule! Once in motion, it has a self-regenerating quality, like those KERS systems on F1 cars.

> connected with the extremely low
> self-esteem of the single mothers.

Low self-esteem comes from never having done anything estimable. It's not about the larger society.

PS Amy— Be sure and get back to me on the Mommies thing, 'K now?

>>Ridicule! Once in motion, it has a self-regenerating quality

Okay, I say finger wagging, you say ridicule, Crid.

The question remains: how do you set this powerful social force in motion in the first place?

Crid - "Low self-esteem comes from never having done anything estimable. It's not about the larger society."

I didn't say it was. But I will now. *Some* low esteem surely comes from not having much opportunity to do anything estimable. If you are born & brought up in a sink estate (don't know the US term - a sort of white trash rented housing area) then it will take a lot more get-up-and-go to do something estimable than if you are brought up in a middle class family that encourages and supports you and has the means to do so.

> Squeezing out a child doesn't make
> one a mommy.

Well, you know, it kinda does. Kinda like making a woman pregnant makes you a Daddy.

The verge between responsible and irresponsible parenthood is clear to us all. But if you're ready to concede that children need one of each of a Mommy and a Daddy, there may be implications for other discussions which appear on your blog somewhat regularly.

> The question remains: how do you
> set this powerful social force in
> motion in the first place?

I do not comprehend your epistemological distress in this matter. The forces are set on motion when good people speak out. For example, here in the United States, the enslavement of black people was once common practice. Then people started speaking out.

I sensed that their family had little respect for people (of any color) who didn't have a strong work ethic. (Amy)

On to the topic of the blog post. Just like the 1980s, we still have a rhetorical problem in our society. Only Blacks can criticize Blacks and offer serious solutions for their social problems. Same for women. The issues raised on the post touch both untouchables.

In every other endeavor, we look to those who are successful to see how we can improve. Blacks should examine the practices of other groups, to get better results. Unfortunate, such suggestions are violently (literally) opposed by the Black community.

It's seems simple to me. A culture that values government handouts, will probably under-value individual entrepreneurship. A culture that values lots of leisure (a perfectly rational choice, btw), will probably not value industriousness. A culture that values flashy, expensive consumer goods, will likely under-value saving and investment. That last one applies to lots of people in my white bread neighborhood. Which brings me to my point.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Every cultural, social, economic choice has opportunity costs. Those costs should be carried by the people who made the choice, not other people. This would encourage good decisions, punish bad ones, and generally align personal interest with the general welfare.

We should stop paying women to have children they can't afford.

My old joke: "You need a license to cut hair, but it takes only working ovaries to have a child." I believe flower-arranging also takes a license.

Heck, I am a bloody super in a condo tower and I needed a diploma to get the job!

I have to agree with many people up here on the comment thread; the day we will chose to cut the welfare system fueling the "Sloth Lifestyle" we will see change in the Black-Americans culture, not before.

brought up in a sink estate (don't know the US term - a sort of white trash rented housing area) - Norman

Trailer Park

> Speak out as I am above and you're
> sure to be called racist.

Don't be grandiose, or you'll be throwing a girly punch anyway. Your problem is with unmarried mothers, right? Not just unmarried black mothers. If you're fighting the good fight, you should worry about being called sexist.

And again, I'm looking forward to your thoughts about the complimentary essential motherhood to match your newfound admiration for loving fatherhood.

> *Some* low esteem surely comes from not
> having much opportunity to do anything
> estimable.

First of all, don't call me Shirley.

> it will take a lot more get-up-
> and-go to do something estimable

Ridiculous. Preposterous. Nonsense. Every sentient being has the "opportunity" to be more courageous, more industrious, more compassionate, and more studious. These challenges are hardly the province of the rich.

A favorite aphorism on this point: "If poverty caused crime, Bel-Air would be a seminary."

It's a difficult situation, because what happens if we cut off financial support for the children of single mothers? It's nice to think people will stop bringing children into poverty, but it may just happen that we have a lot more sick, starving children wandering the street. I dislike the idea of cutting off children, who can't legally get their own jobs and health care. I'd like to see professional-administered birth control (IUD, shots, etc.) as a condition for welfare, but that comes with its own obstacles.

"I'm looking forward to your thoughts about the complimentary essential motherhood."

Crid, I'm a bit confused. No one ever questions whether motherhood is essential (except some feminists, ironically). It's only the guys who now find themselves having to prove that they're worthy of a place in the nursery or playground -- often in the face of mothers' "gate-keeping."

Maybe my sarcasm filter isn't working ...

"Jay R
I'm amazed you haven't yet explained global warming propaganda as the inevitable result of have-it-all feminism and the pernicious undermining of the paterfamilias!"

Jody T,

I'm not quite sure if your concern is the warming or the propaganda, but I'll play. :)

In fact, family break-up is a negative environmental factor. The nuclear family is far "greener" than the everyone-has-their-own-place arrangement. Whether global warming is real or not, or whether we are worsening it or not, I'll leave up to scientists like yourself.

You mock me (or try, anyway), but don't respond to the substance of my comments. You seem smart, so why not? Don't just take pot-shots from the sideline, or I'll conclude you are not capable of doing better (by which I mean, being more interesting).

You came in late, Jay. Buy a beer, sit back, and enjoy a few innings, OK?

Amy has acknowledged that loving fatherhood is essential in childrearing. Momentarily, she will acknowledge that loving motherhood is equally important...

And then I'm going to pounce like goddamn cougar.

Why Crid, you sounded just like Dirty Harry there.

(Thanks Grace.)

I'm thinking Crid's about to pounce on the "evils" of gay parenthood. Am I right? Am I right?

Crid - "Every sentient being has the "opportunity" to be more courageous, more industrious, more compassionate, and more studious."

Agreed. But the opportunity is not equally available for all. My son had a gap year (3 months actually) in Ghana. He learned a lot and it looks good on his CV. It was only possible because his parents were able to afford it and thought it a valuable experience. Both my kids had their own computers 20 years ago and private music lessons, horse riding etc. When our daughter was bullied at school, we waded in and tackled the school, and got her a pony to help her self esteem. This is ordinary middle-class behaviour, and it simply is not an option to 90% or more kids who are brought up in a trailer park (thanks lujlp). So it is much harder for poor kids in a slum to do anything estimable. Not impossible, just a lot harder. So fewer of them have good self esteem. Simple stats, I'd say.

Those who do rise above their miserable upbringing by uninspiring parents are exceptions and are paraded as such, which makes my point. (Abe Lincoln & his log cabin, if you want an example, though II expect it's a myth.)

Jeff said: Just like the 1980s, we still have a rhetorical problem in our society. Only Blacks can criticize Blacks and offer serious solutions for their social problems. Same for women. The issues raised on the post touch both untouchables.

When did this identity politics crap start anyway? It is perfectly acceptable to my mind to criticize irresponsible behavior, no matter if it is involving blacks, women, handicapped people, old white WASPy men, or whatever, as the critiquer or the critiqee! Let's bring it up a notch and argue on the basis of righteous argumentation and leave the status of the human out of it. I'm with you Crid on your comments that anyone can be a better person, and will add that the only thing being a victim ever did for anyone is allow them the opportunity to assess the situation and change their life.

I know this bores you, but "in France" they have rather strong ideas about fitting into the "Republic", to the point that ethnic data is not even collected. This has been a subject of much debate recently, however, and affirmative action is slowly becoming a reality.

so we've got the stick - we could curtail the extra money for kids - but where is the carrot? The thought or idea, not JUST that having a kid alone is bad, but that having a life together is GOOD, and oh yeah, you could have kids too. Getting things in the right order, means thinking about how all the parts fit in with the whole.

As with the conversation of getting pregnant "accidentally on-purpose" the are a LOT of people who see children as something that will just happen, rather than something that is planned in along with the rest of their life plans. Without a plan you don't need to put things in place to make that work, like having a partner or a job.

Seems like that's equal parts carrot and stick, really.

On the other hand? My cynical brain say that single mothers are like "sheltering in place". There is no way the government could deal with this many half-orphaned children... so, essentially they pay contractors to individually take care of them. That those contractors will be paid more if they have more children to care for, is just a downside of the procurement system. From that perspective, that would be QUITE the jobs program, eh?

Jay R,
You see - that's the problem (and I'm not going to say what you think I'm going to say).

Your most recent comment? Funny, really quite charming, a bit stroppy (not without cause), perfectly sane - clearly a man in charge of his mouth.

But it's not the real Jay R - resident male rights blowhard & a prince of condescension - is it?

(btw - I'm not a scientist. Though I wish I was sometimes. I'm your standard liberal arts-type broad).

You've heard a lot of people say that having kids isn't easy, but as far as you can tell, the man's dingle just goes into the lady's hoo-hah. Well at least that's what it says in The Onion

Of course, that's the making. The rearing, well therein lies the problem we are discussing. Not enough lazy fuckers willing to take responsibility. Men and women, black and white and whatever. And it sucks, it sucks donkeys especially for me, the guy who never wanted kids, but got suckered into it.

I'm not looking for sympathy nor am I trying to be a martyr or a jackass, but I dropped out of the IT consulting industry to do the responsible thing and raise my child. And he appreciates it. And since his mom went from the trailer park to River Oaks to the Texas Department of Corrections, I'll keep doing it for a few more years. More time to work quietly at the university and prepare for entry back into the real world when he's grown up. I could have been a selfish prick and just hired a nanny, but that wouldn't be the right thing to do either, shit, he might grow up to be a snob.
sorry, lost it for a minute. high horse=off

Besides, those PTO meetings are MILF city....

I have an exceptionally unintelligent, white-trash cousin who has two children with the same (black) thug/thief/general POS. Now, her family isn't White T (her younger sister is a freshman at the University of Texas, her older sister has an MBA, is married to a nice guy, and owns a house, mom is a nurse/teacher, Dad worked worked in developement for Lockheed-Martin when he was still living), so I'm not sure how she ended up this way. Honestly, the kids are sweet, well behaved, and reasonably intelligent. BabyDaddy has impregnated another "young lady" recently.

Cousin is an idiot, both for fucking a loser and allowing herself to become pregnant. On the other hand, what the hell is wrong with this guy? What, in his mind, makes him think it's ok to bang anything that will hold still long enough, and not use any protection? Wouldn't we think he'd have learned the first time? And where is the sense of responibility for helping take care of these kids he keeps making?

It may be worth noting that Cousin is very much in to ghetto black culture.

What, in his mind, makes him think it's ok to bang anything that will hold still long enough, and not use any protection?

I suspect he thinks it's OK because he's still getting laid. If the "young ladies" started saying no, he'd have to adjust.

>> What, in his mind, makes him think it's ok to bang anything that will hold still long enough, and not use any protection?

In his mind, society is ok with it. Society is not holding him responsible for his actions, so why should he alter his behavior?

If we can prosecute people for having unprotected sex while HIV infected, why can't we prosecute those who flood society with children they have no intention of raising? A simple solution could be that every child born needs a male/female DNA identification, and the child isn't released to the mother until the state knows who the parents are. Second, hold the fathers financially responsible for the next 18 years, with work camps if necessary. Lop their balls off after the second untended child.

You'd see the sperm flow begin to dry up in a matter of weeks, I expect.

Simple.

You pop out a kid and need welfare to raise it, you get Norplant as a condition of receiving welfare. If you feel like having any more kids, get off welfare and then you can have your Norplant removed.

The sperm donors of these children should have the same thing.

Seriously, when ARE they going to come up with a reliable birth control shot for men?

ahw - The patriarchy won't allow it. Gotta keep the fems barefoot & pregnant.

Anyone interested in why there's no good male birth control should check this out: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1829107,00.html

You didn't get a pony? I've got one right here. Just send me your bank details.

so, Eric, I am assuming we will hold the mothers responsible in the same way, right? How 'bout if they can't afford the kid, it's given to the dad, that might be an interesting twist...

I would be amused to see what smooth operator above would do in that situation.

Just can't figure out why girls' knickers seemingly fall down for this guy when it's obvious he can't provide anything to them? If women aren't interested in that either, how DO they delineate between a worthwhile guy and a non? He must be amazing at telling them what they want to hear, AND in ignoring the hue and cry of other women who he has taken advantage of...

Not that I haven't seen it before with other people...

(Male birth control - at the foot of the page linked above, there's an interesting article on the difference in men's and women's pay:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1847194,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom

A bit off topic, so this post's in brackets.)

"a prince of condescension"

Dammit. Jody T, I was hoping for "king"!

More work to do ...

Second, hold the fathers financially responsible for the next 18 years, with work camps if necessary. Lop their balls off after the second untended child.

You'd see the sperm flow begin to dry up in a matter of weeks, I expect.
------------
Why not treat the mothers in the same manner?
Why do people automatically go after the fathers?
Women decide if, when, and where sex will take place. But they get paid. And no one mentions giving them the above treatment.

>>Dammit. Jody T, I was hoping for "king"!

No kidding here, Jay R. I'd actually typed out "king of condescension" then decided to demote you out of sheer cussedness - even though I lost a pleasant alliteration! I appall myself. (Occasionally).

why can't we prosecute those who flood society with children they have no intention of raising?

Because of the liberal left insisting on the preservation of the family at all costs.

Second, hold the fathers financially responsible for the next 18 years,

It's already being done -- they're just not ensuring it is the right person.

My viewpoint is that if you want welfare, you have to work for it. You have to show up with your kids everyday at a hiring hall/job assignment center. The job center has a nursery for your kid -- staffed by welfare moms. Then you have to take training to get your GED and other job skills. I'm talking basic skills -- restaurant cook, forklift operator, what have you. If you graduate and can't find a job, then you get assigned a community service job: cleaning the homeless shelter, cooking in a soup kitchen, picking up trash.

I'm sorry if you don't like it -- this the decision you made. You can either work for your welfare or get a job on your own.

I know its a fantasy, but one can only dream.

> But the opportunity is not equally
> available for all.

You are hideously, pathetically, loathsomely mistaken.

Grrrr

Jim P, I've always thought that housing projects should operate as self-sustaining Co-ops: Some people could provide childcare, others grounds maintenance, others perhaps some admin duties, etc. Wishful thinking, though. (I also agree with posters who think women on welfare should have to get a depo shot or something similiar every time they go to pick up their check.)

"The patriarchy won't allow it. Gotta keep the fems barefoot & pregnant."

Seems to me the patriarchy must be tired of footing the bill for it by now.

"My viewpoint is that if you want welfare, you have to work for it."

The problem with this in the past has been that many of these people simply can't hold down a job - trust me, you wouldn't want them working for you. (If they show up for work in the first place.) And even if they do work, since there is no way they can ever make enough money to get off welfare and pay for child care, the state has decided simply to pay them to stay home and take care of their own kids.

This, however, is basically the same thing as paying them to sit home and breed, which is the quickest way most of them see to getting a place of their own. (They are technically correct in this assumption.) So they make more kids who are just as incapable of independence as they are.

My Norplant idea is the best I have come up with yet. It's not to say the above couldn't happen, but it wouldn't happen more than once.

Crid - Grrrr back. When you have calmed down, please explain how I am mistaken. I spent extra effort to spell it out, just for you. You claim that everyone in our society - US and UK - has an equal chance in life? I'd like to hear you justify that. Maybe that's not what you claim. Go ahead and claim whatever it is, instead of growling at me! :-)

The suggestions on this thread - forced castrations, for example - are the sort of thing I'd expect to find on the arch-feminazi site that Amy posted recently, and JayR lives for.

Get real. You've been huffing too much blog. Take a yellow pill.

Jim P.-

I concentrate on the father because I am one. I expect that most children will stay with their mothers, and the father has a better opportunity to provide, at least in the first five years. Also because as a man I think the bare minimum moral expectation is that you provide for your own children, one night stand or not. The blame of how the child came to be is equally shared by the mother and father.

I wholly agree that the woman should be held to better child rearing standards as well.

>> The suggestions on this thread - forced castrations, for example - are the sort of thing I'd expect to find on the arch-feminazi site that Amy posted recently.

I agree, and posted the "lop his balls off" as a flip comment. I don't expect the Supreme Court to ever allow such a thing. But there does need to be a solution to these males who have double digit offspring with as many women.

Crid -- "Low self-esteem comes from never having done anything estimable. It's not about the larger society."

Norman -- "*Some* low esteem surely comes from not having much opportunity to do anything estimable."

Crid -- "Every sentient being has the "opportunity" to be more courageous, more industrious, more compassionate, and more studious."

But you're both right. Crid just provided a definition of self-esteem that will keep my little brain churning happily for the next week, with its implications. But Norman is right, too - it's not that some people lack the drive, they just don't know any damn better. Probably because their parents didn't either.

If an inner-city crack whore's kid wakes up one morning with a clear head and boundless enthusiasm for being more courageous, more industrious, more compassionate, and more studious, what's his next step? Sure, WE can think of ten different things (probably involving books), but can he?

Eventually the kid's got to figure some things out on his own, sure. By having an open mind, maybe, and exercising critical thinking, or going to the library. Who will teach him how to do that? Norman's going to say society, Crid will say his parents.

As much as this pains me (sorry Crid) I'll set aside the (bright, screaming) fact that this kid himself AND his parents are MEMBERS of society. By society, Norman, do you mean *other people*?

However, the kid's parents don't have the materials necessary. You can't teach what you don't know. So other people are all that's left.

Birth control in the water, people ... come on, who would really scream if we made Norplant a requirement for getting a welfare check? If we took welfare out of the hands of the federal government, many localities would certainly do this.

Waitaminute.

Doesn't Amy usually complain about how child support laws demand that fathers pay for the children they, you know, fathered?

It seems to me that child support laws are one of the ways that we attempt to check the amount of children one produces either out of wedlock or after wedlock is dissolved, and it at least makes sure that fathers stay financially involved with their children if not emotionally or physically (granted we've already talked about people gaming the system, and I think child support needs major reforms, but still).

I grew up with a physically and emotionally unavailable father (he and my mother are still married and he did provide financial support for us) and it has had quite a negative effect on my relationships with men up until now. However, because I'm not interested in repeating my mistakes, I've identified how that has affected me and work accordingly to make sure that I don't let my childhood issues get in the way of making rational adult decisions today. However, that loss has been one of my greatest regrets.

Anybody remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1R4rhY3qZ8

>>Doesn't Amy usually complain about how child support laws demand that fathers pay for the children they, you know, fathered?

Nope, just being forced to pay for kids they did not father.

Pirate Jo - "By society, Norman, do you mean *other people*?"

Yes - everyone around the individual in question. We all learn from each other. (I like maths, but I'm not smart enough to invent it.) So if you are surrounded by deadbeats, it's much harder to learn anything useful from them.

Bed time here. See y'all tomorrow.

Thanks, Norman - yeah I remember you're about six hours away. So society means "everyone around the individual in question" - and Crid will just say, correctly, that MOST of the people around this individual are his parents. Well his parents have dropped the ball, and I'm not arguing with that.

But at this point in the timeline of the American welfare culture, this kid is from a line of people who have never learned how to catch the ball. Society's attempts to "infiltrate" these cultures and indoctrinate their kids with the joys and virtues of education, reason, and independence, they seem arrogant and hoity-toity to the people already in those cultures. No one wants to admit they've been wrong about pretty much EVERYTHING.

Well I think it's terrible, but it's human nature all the same. So we just stop funding it, and let nature take its course. Offer opportunites in our own way.

ahw:

I have an exceptionally unintelligent, white-trash cousin who has two children with the same (black) thug/thief/general POS. ... so I'm not sure how she ended up this way.

You can do as good a job as humanly possible of raising them, but once you point them at the world, their decisions are on them. Sometimes the lessons just don't take.

Pirate Jo:

Society's attempts to "infiltrate" these cultures and indoctrinate their kids with the joys and virtues of education, reason, and independence, they seem arrogant and hoity-toity to the people already in those cultures.

Worse. Anyone who decides to embrace opportunity and educate themselves is branded as a race traitor, which is a fate worse than death.

And so the thug lifestyle is perpetuated.

I say we print business cards and tuck them into any baby stroller without a father figure close at hand!

> I spent extra effort to
> spell it out

It wasn't that you were unclear, it's that you're wrong.

> You claim that everyone in our
> society - US and UK - has an
> equal chance in life?

Did I ever claim anything of the kind? At all? Go back and review the thread... The rest of us will wait here, as Amy brings coffee and lady fingers. We promise not to continue until you get back... Go on, now.

(__pause__)

So, like, I never said that, right? Can you say why you thought I had? Or did you willfully mischaracterize just for fireworks? I'm sincerely curious.

I offered a casual list of good character traits that everyone in every culture should, and could, aspire to. You flatly said that some people can't even attempt to improve their lives...

> *Some* low esteem surely comes
> from not having much opportunity
> to do anything estimable.

Those pursuits (courage, industriousness, compassion and study) are available to anyone who wants to go for them. Developing those habits doesn't require college education, or technology, or investment, or tremendous luck. These are quintessential human challenges. Some rare people even develop those things without friends, and a few blessed souls do it without a good family, or even good health.

But your cosmology won't allow people to try to improve themselves:

> But the opportunity is not
> equally available for all.

So, like, what's the fuckin' deal?

Aha! I think I have it! The problem is that you're not an American. We Americans have all sorts of audacity and enthusiasm that isn't present in the hearts of normal people. (PJ O'rourke expressed this best.) This is why we, y'know, rule.

And I mean "rule" in the metaphorical sense. It's important to be clear about that with people from cultures of regency... Because in your tradition, everything great that can happen to you comes from the beneficence of some syphlitic King in an adjacent valley. We in the States like to do stuff for ourselves...

Like Lincoln did. The log cabin was real, though his poverty was not atypical. And I've never heard that his family wasn't loving.

You're a cynical guy, Norman. I don't think you're a very nice man.

I'll never forgive myself for not saving it to disk... But in recent months, Dalyrmple wrote a piece about the newish drunkeness of Britain. He noted that the meddling of government there saps people's lives of meaning. People's needs for food, education, career, and care are all managed from above. All that's left for them to do is get shitfaced, soccer-hooligan drunk and fuck each other clumsily.

I disagree with Amy about many things (probably including a few in this post), but she seems to understand that often, one of the best things you can ask a person to do is to be strong.

Norman doesn't seem to wanna let that happen.

That was supposed to be, one of the best things you can do for someone is ask them to be strong.

It's late!

Crid - You really misrepresent me.

Rather than copy and paste, I'll try to summarise how I see this disagreement:

We agree: low self-esteem is the problem.

We agree: low self-esteem comes from not doing much estimable.

I say (and you disagree): it's much harder for disadvantaged people to do much estimable. That's pretty much the definition of disadvantaged. Not impossible, just harder, so fewer of them will manage. I could go on but that's the essential point.

-----

"You're a cynical guy, Norman. I don't think you're a very nice man."

I am sorry you think that, Crid, because I think it is so far from the truth. Cynical is absolutely not a word I would apply to myself. Perhaps it's just the blog medium that gives you this impression. I'd like to meet up some day, because despite our public disagreements, I think we might actually get on quite well in person. You're in LA, right? and I'm in Scotland. But who knows.

>>It's important to be clear about that with people from cultures of regency... Because in your tradition, everything great that can happen to you comes from the beneficence of some syphlitic King in an adjacent valley. We in the States like to do stuff for ourselves...

Thanks for so generously encapsulating the horrendous cultural disadvantage of being British, Crid.

By your own reckoning, every plucky Brit who succeeds has triumphed over the traditional rigidities of class. We commoners don't get a mandate to kick ass as our O'Rourkian birthright, we have to strive.

That's why you guys end up with Sean Hannity, and we have Monty Python.

(And sometimes, 'tis true, we take a drink for our nerves.)

> Rather than copy and paste

Aw come on, *please* tell us where I said "everyone in our society - US and UK - has an equal chance in life?" Pretty please? If you do that, no one will have to worry about being "misrepresented."

> Perhaps it's just the blog medium

Naw, I'm gonna guess that you're just not aware of how your language reflects that nastier consequences of of your beliefs. Consider someone as unfortunate as the ones you describe, with foreshortened opportunities... What do you want them to do, Norman? (Have their lives paternally sheltered by the state would be my guess of what you want. But you're welcome to surprise us with a description of the blessings of entrepreneurial independence.)

> Cynical is absolutely not a word
> I would apply

Mocking Lincoln? Outta nowhere?

> generously encapsulating the
> horrendous cultural disadvantage
> of being British

Didn't even get to the teeth thing. What does Sean Hannity have to do with Monty Python?

Ten, nearly fifteen years ago, I was on this fabulous dive boat in Fiji. There were a book's worth of lessons to be learned about how things go for former colonies anyway. (Really, really good stories; nice and pathetic tales for another blog comment.)

But mostly I'll remember some other divers on the boat: A senior lady schoolteacher from Britain by way of Canada, and a dentist from Britain who'd married an American girl and raised a family in Boston.

Over the ten-day trip, these folks expressed a love for excellence that readily curdled into sniggering demands for petty service. Especially in that geographical context (out in the islands, gossips chattered on about a visit from the Bonnie Prince 22 years earlier), I came to see how British empire could both come to encircle the globe, and then come to be ignominiously terminated.

> sometimes, 'tis true, we
> take a drink

I never said you were entirely bad... Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Who the hell was mocking Lincoln?

---

"Aw come on, *please* tell us where I said "everyone in our society - US and UK - has an equal chance in life?" Pretty please? If you do that, no one will have to worry about being "misrepresented.""

OK, here you are:

I said: But the opportunity is not equally available for all.

You said: You are hideously, pathetically, loathsomely mistaken.

I conclude that you believe the direct negative of my statement, ie "that opportunity is equally available for all." I rephrase that as "everyone in our society - US and UK - has an equal chance in life" to make it obvious what a stupid belief it is. You recognise it as stupid, but for some reason you don't recognise it as your own. I wouldn't want to recognise it as mine either, but that's not the point.

>>What does Sean Hannity have to do with Monty Python?

Oh, I'm so pleased you asked, Crid!

Each shows the way the national myth persists.

In the US, you've taken O'Rourke's brilliant riff on the yank swagger and the result is Sean Hannity with his brain dead whoop -and I quote: "America is the greatest, best country God has given man on the face of the earth."

We take centuries of kings and peasants and empire from a tiny, damp, still scepter'd isle and get a ratty bunch of middle class high achievers taking the brilliant piss as the UK citizenry collapses in mirth. (Remember the Yank Python, Gilliam, is now a Brit citizen). We worship that lot.

We've turned our past into a comic sport (and tourist dollars).
You insist even your presidents stick to Hannity's script. (Hence all the grumbles here about Obama letting the myth down on his recent world tour.)

>>Ten, nearly fifteen years ago, I was on this fabulous dive boat in Fiji...A senior lady schoolteacher from Britain by way of Canada, and a dentist from Britain who'd married an American girl and raised a family in Boston...

So fascinating, Crid.

My mother was the "dux" (equivalent of valedictorian) of Suva Girls' Grammar School in Fiji. She was brought up on a former Japanese prisoners' of war camp there on the islands (her Dad was a conchie in the old colonial services so was made to run the camp in lieu of active soldiering).

So I, too, know a little about the way empire staggered on in the outposts.

> Who the hell was mocking
> Lincoln?

The guy who thinks he was "parade" material, and his humble origins the stuff of "myth".

> I conclude that you believe
> the direct negative

Your shouldn't have tried to extrapolate: I meant only to aver that you were hideously, pathetically, loathsomely mistaken.

> "that opportunity is equally
> available for all."

Your quotation marks are for yourself, OK? They have nothing to do with anything I've said.

> I rephrase that as...

You rephrase your own vague extrapolation, and I'm expected to answer the argument? Tressider used to do this all the time, too. Maybe it's the rain over there... Or the scrambled consciousness that comes from driving on the wrong fucking side of the road. I'll never forget the disorienting terror of my first left-hand roundabout. That probably happens to you all the time.

> Oh, I'm so pleased you asked

Well, I had to, because—

> Each shows the way the
> national myth persists.

That's really a stretch... Wouldn'ta got there on my own.

> I, too, know a little about
> the way empire staggered

Do you weep with shame sometimes?

OK, maybe that was mean. I always admired this point from Cosh. I heard an echo over the weekend in this article: "Because the Turks and the British never really controlled Yemen, they did not leave behind the strong bureaucratic institutions that other former colonies inherited."

---

PS- "Subjugated good and hard" has become a favorite phrase, along with "I'd rather be a junkie in a New York City jail than King, Queen and Jack of _________."

No, wait, here it is.

Crazyshit, right?

"Your shouldn't have tried to extrapolate: I meant only to aver that you were hideously, pathetically, loathsomely mistaken."

You must try harder to make your meaning understandable. When you said I was mistaken, I thought you disagreed with me. Now I don't know what you mean.

---

"What do you want them to do, Norman? (Have their lives paternally sheltered by the state would be my guess of what you want. But you're welcome to surprise us with a description of the blessings of entrepreneurial independence.)"

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have not said a thing about what they should do: all I was aiming for was a recognition that some folk have it tougher than others.

But you are right. They should suck up to the welfare teat and be looked after. You should work hard to support them. They should be granted victim status in perpetuity.

Shit, did I just say that out loud? Blast, now that cat's out of the bag.

What do I want them to do, Crid? What a damn fool question. I want them to struggle and work and improve their lot. I want them to get educated and find a cure for cancer or invent the next internet. What do you think I want? Oh wait, you already said what you think I want. Wrong. Extrapolating is dangerous, especially when you extrapolate from nothing.

But it is possible to give these people some extra help without reducing them to welfare junkies. Example: here in the UK, some university admissions take account of the applicants' social background. Other things being equal - ie their exam grades being equally good - an applicant from a poor background has probably needed a lot more determination and drive than one from a privileged background. So it makes sense to take that into account. It's a disputed area because it verges on "social engineering" but it makes sense to me. You'll probably say something incomprehensible but unpleasant about it now.

>>>I heard an echo over the weekend in this article: "Because the Turks and the British never really controlled Yemen, they did not leave behind the strong bureaucratic institutions that other former colonies inherited."

Jesus, Crid. I'm not brain of Britain.
That article is way too long & complicated for me.

I've just had two goes at it - somehow it's an argument for more ships & boots on the ground 'cos war is geography, and geography is modern war?
Then he says the Victorians were all about terrain, not theory - and let's return to that?(The hell the Victorians weren't about ideas!!. You never met such a thinking lot - sure they also got tons of stuff done too....but) And who is the frog historian he goes on and on about?

Actually, no kidding. The article is probably brilliant. I'm shit at geography - and military tactics anyway, so it left me feeling backward.

Also, I did not like the junkie line in the O'Rourke, funnily enough. The rest of it is flawless, but that bit sags somehow.

I've tuned in too late and am a little lost, but must say how amusing this thread is. You guys are so brilliant, batting back and forth. Crid and Jody in fine form! Please keep it up. I love hearing about the Brits.

Your shouldn't have tried to extrapolate: I meant only to aver that you were hideously, pathetically, loathsomely mistaken.

Ok so to make this more concrete what is your view on the topic? I got the same impression as Norman did but I'm more familiar with you rhetoric style having blundered into that same trap of extrapolating myself.

The difference between UK and US is partly due to how skilled labor is viewed. In the UK being plumber, electrician, or carpentor is a respectable job. Unfortunately in the US (and getting worse) if you don't have a college degree your a dumb shit by default and have to prove otherwise. I think this is part of a much larger paradigm difference that would take gigs of blog space to properly hash out.

But it is possible to give these people some extra help without reducing them to welfare junkies.

That's a real fine line that once crossed can not be uncrossed. Unfortunately we crossed it and now have a growing indigent class. Starving them out of existence would be both socially catastrophic and ethically unconscionable. Now those of us that work for a living resent them and rightfully so, but can't find a constitutional way to dissuade their ranks from growing. A good idea got turned into shit soup and tax payers all get a portion.

"Perhaps the worst social problem of African-Americans: the culture that African-Americans brought with them from Africa is one of low paternal investment. Traditionally, an African husband was not much expected to bring home the bacon for the wife and kids. Today, this is reflected in the very high American black illegitimacy rate"

I can confirm that this is indeed exactly the case here in Africa; black women frequently (and often at a young age) get pregnant and have children outside of the context of a relationship, with the men often having little or no commitment to the family, and they don't seem to mind this at all, it's almost "normal" here.

Part of the reason is also that traditionally in all the African cultures here, many other members of the entire broader family play a far bigger part in raising a child than in our culture - e.g. grandmothers (especially while younger women are working) and sisters (aunts) - and in fact, aunts in some cases play a bigger role than the mother - many Africans even call their aunts "mom" or don't really distinguish between aunt and mother like we do (and also uncles often play a bigger part than the father - uncles are extremely important). In some cases young women are also supposed to culturally 'prove their fertility'.

Of course, the European model of welfare might work semi-OK for those of European culture, but it becomes a poor match for traditional African cultural practices.

Jody - it's easy to make fun of the past when you've got no future.

I need to set the scene here.

When thinking of what it will take to bring impoverished Americans into the richness of our miracle, the most hurtful part is that it looks so easy when it's not happening for you.

There are a very few people who have wealth and success and happiness dropped in to their laps. But one of the ancient principles of human nature is that if you haven't really earned what you have, someone's going to take it away from you anyway. I think American culture is so good at inculcating the unpleasant rituals of success that many successful people don't recognize how their own attitudes and habits have been finely tuned by their upbringing. And of course, the impoverished people don't recognize those lessons and sacrifices either.

Now let's get on with it.

> make this more concrete what
> is your view on the topic?

The topic began with this, from Norman:

> My social worker friend says
> single motherhood is connected
> with the extremely low self-
> esteem of the single mothers.

I think these things about self-esteem—

• Self-esteem is highly overrated. Some of the people I've most admired have esteemed themselves not at all. A few have actively hated their own lives. This had no impact on my admiration of them.

• Self-esteem is often found in really gruesome people... Selfish, cruel and torpid little bastards often think quite highly of themselves.

• Self-esteem is available to almost anyone who wants some, readily achieved by doing something oneself that would be admired if done by someone else.

• To whatever degree feelings of self-esteem nourish material and interpersonal achievement, the reverse effect is stronger by an order of magnitude.

• As a topic, self-esteem is a source of essentially autoerotic fascination by feminine personalities who enjoy describing interior lives in complicated terms even when those workings are straightforward (as with self-esteem); Self-esteem is a plaything of drama queens.

Those are my views on the topic of self-esteem. Now, maybe I shoulda just typed all that out when –in our discussion about fragmented black families– Norman decided to chirp up about his friend the social worker. (A British social worker!) We've got a social worker kinda guy as a president over here nowadays. It's not working out too well. So maybe I was little touchy. Then Norman said:

> *Some* low esteem surely comes
> from not having much opportunity
> to do anything estimable.

Who, who, who on this planet doesn't have an opportunity to do something estimable? Does Norman think that disadvantaged people are just sleepwalking through the world without capacity to improve their lives? Maybe not... but that doesn't matter, so long as he's saying things like this:

> But the opportunity is not
> equally available for all.

*THE* opportunity, he says... Not that opportunities are spread unevenly, which everyone would agree to be true... Nope, he thinks a lot of people just don't get any chance to improve their feelings about themselves.

These are weird and probably destructive things to say. I think Norman says them because he's not thought it through... Or to the extent that he has, he's speaking from a culture where almost all opportunities in a person's life are assigned by distant authorities.

The United States isn't like that. We're more effective at creating wealth (and I think happiness) than any culture in history. It's not just that other people don't have our opportunities. The typically successful American is a person who's learned to persevere in adversity and to adapt to changing conditions. Tragically, the effort that goes into grooming an American success is ofter hidden... Many of our successful people themselves aren't aware of how refined they are, of how often they stand up to challenging disappointments.

I think those habits will work for other poor people, too. I hate it when people glibly assert that for some some unspoken reason they cannot.

Anything else I can explain, Vladdy, just speak up.

Crid,
A great comment, though I disagree - vehemently -with this in particular: "Many of our successful people themselves aren't aware of how refined they are, of how often they stand up to challenging disappointments."

On the contrary, they tend to have an excellent, often detailed, recollection of their own path to success.

But I'll shut up now.

I can't even get off the hook with the word "many"? OK then, we disagree: I think several Americans (in particular) believe their path to wealth is so normative that they don't know how freaky and unusual it is. This is a cousin to the tendency of lefties (often Godless ones) to defend Islam with senseless reflex.... (A big topic for this blog.)

Meanwhile, I came across this a couple weeks ago, and remain dumbfounded.

Now, I realize it's the product of a press office for a sports enterprise... And that the United States is the unchallenged master at making products of that sort. Honestly, I get it: I grok.

But Jesus Fuck, I'd like to think that if San Antonio Spurs put together a smirking piece of shit like that, Texans would throw the NBA out of their state.

There is some seriously deranged thinking about how social opinions can be influenced in the British Isles.

Crid - "Nope, he thinks a lot of people just don't get any chance to improve their feelings about themselves."

I never said, meant or implied that. Don't extrapolate.

I said that some things are harder for some people than for others. I really don't understand why you have difficulty with that, but ironically it seems to illustrate the point.

---

Yesterday I read in a dead tree (which I now can't find) that Ewan Mcgregor is moving from the UK to LA because, among other things, he can't stand the way people in the UK rubbish anyone who manages to achieve success in anything other than sport. I agree with him and with you, Crid, about the lamentable state of parts of the UK. But this thread is about the lamentable state of parts of the US.

---

"Those are my views on the topic of self-esteem." So what? Your thoughts, interesting though they are, do not address point, which is whether single motherhood is connected with low self esteem.

---

"A British social worker!" Yeah, what do they know. Sorry, I'm extrapolating. What do you mean by that parenthetical remark?

which is whether single motherhood is connected with low self esteem.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's connected to fucking. Oh, and marriage, or (more accurately) the lack thereof. Because the single-mothers we are talking about here aren't the recently-divorced flavor.

"A British social worker!" Yeah, what do they know. Sorry, I'm extrapolating. What do you mean by that parenthetical remark?

An accepted aphorism here in the states is that the "Social Worker" is among the room-temperature IQ crowd. They generally tend not to contribute anything to society. In fact, they tend to be hostile and malicious.

Years ago, my mom married a man who had a bi-racial great-grandaughter. The girl was living with her grandmother, a white trash type.

This child was at the bottom of her 3rd grade class, and in the lowest possible reading group. My mom, a former teacher, started spending days with her reading books. It wasn't that the child was unintelligent. She had just never had anyone read with her for fun. There were no books at home, and perhaps because she was bi-racial, the teachers at school did not seem to expect her to be a high-achiever.

Now, she is at the top of her class and always carries a book around with her. The difference my mom probably made in her life is incalcuable, though probably profound. She passed along her love of reading, which had been passed along to her by her mom.

My point is that we tend to throw money at these problems, but that isn't all that's needed. Books are cheap, but having someone who cares enough to read them with you is priceless.

And I think that's Norman's point. Not that children like these can't achieve anything, or would never have opportunities for success, but it is valid to say that they face more limited and ever dwindling opportunities.

We are a meritocracy, and success tends to build on past success, and what concerns me is that this seems to start at increasingly earlier ages now. Children who start out on the lower achieving tracks have a much harder time reversing course or changing their destiny once this path gets established.

Yet, we Americans don't like to view ourselves as having these kind of achievement barriers, and I suspect we didn't in the past - in Abe Lincoln's day of the one room schoolhouse, for instance. That is almost like homeschooling is today. Our founding fathers were largely homeschooled or self-taught, and were arguably better educated than most kids are today.

Our modern academic system has become more and more unforgiving. Good grades lead to opportunities, and that's fine as long as you have the opportunities to make good grades. It's a rather vicious cycle, in which a lot of bright kids are disadvantaged.

>>I said that some things are harder for some people than for others. I really don't understand why you have difficulty with that, but ironically it seems to illustrate the point.

Norman,
I grasp your point - and I agree.

>>I can't even get off the hook with the word "many"? OK then, we disagree: I think several Americans (in particular) believe their path to wealth is so normative that they don't know how freaky and unusual it is.

Fair footnote, Crid. You did qualify your comment with "many".

My disagreement was based on editing (and often enough - evaluating before a publishing decision is reached) the memoirs of the great and the good. An odd niche, but I've yet to come across a professionally esteemed individual who sees personal success as something dropped in one's lap.

Children who start out on the lower achieving tracks have a much harder time reversing course or changing their destiny once this path gets established.

Does Norman think that disadvantaged people are just sleepwalking through the world without capacity to improve their lives?

History shows that lack of resources has not stopped the truly driven. Rockefeller (the most glaring example but not the only) shows both that being poor and having a shit male role model are not by default hindrances. Drive and a little bit of luck (time and place) can overcome the most humble beginnings. Coddling and pity may have a great determent as they can kill what drive one may have.

Anything else I can explain, Vladdy, just speak up.

The key argument "Is desire nature or nurture?"

As an adopted child, I find that to be an interesting question. Nurture must play a part. Of my birth mom's 4 children, I am (the one she gave away) the most successful. Surely, I inherited intellectual capabilities from her - she's very bright, as are all the children. But growing up in a series of poor neighborhoods, with a mother who didn't provide much stability or modeling for high achievement took its toll on the children she raised.

One is in jail since age 21, and two eek out very basic livings. None went to college.

I'd like to think I would've risen above that and done well anyway, even if I'd been raised by her and not my bookish, college-educated parents, but I honestly suspect I might be in jail, like my brother, who resorted to theft to help look after the younger ones. Shoplifting bread and milk doesn't leave a lot of time for studying, whereas I had the luxury of not worrying about survival and could focus solely on schoolwork.

I've heard he creates crossword puzzles for papers like NY Times while in jail. Guess he earns some cigarette money for his talents, so he still has some academic "opportunities", though it's mostly a wasted life.

That can, of course, be judged as all his failure, but I tend to think, "There but for the grace of God..."

Brian - "An accepted aphorism here in the states is that the "Social Worker" is among the room-temperature IQ crowd. They generally tend not to contribute anything to society. In fact, they tend to be hostile and malicious."

Well, I know a few and I would not put them in the "room-temperature IQ" crowd, but perhaps that just reflects my general choice of friends. Here in the UK they are an unhappy crowd. Either they are hated because they take someone's kids away, or they are hated because they don't. They can't win. I doubt whether they contribute anything to society, in terms of solving the problems they are paid to solve.

My SW friend agrees. She works in foster child placement, and after X years of slogging away at this heartbreaking job, she doesn't see that anything very much has changed, either for society as a whole, or for the individual children who she dealt with. They come from broken homes, they get separated from their siblings, they can't relate, they don't trust anyone, and eventually their foster parents can't take it any more and send them back and the child's mistrust of adults is justified. The boys grow up and go to jail. The girls grow up and get pregnant.

My SW friend reckons that what most of these unhappy youngsters need more than anything is a mother, and if possible a father, just to give the love and support that good parents give. Unfortunately, that's not something that money can buy, and money's all we've got. Good institutions - orphanages - might well be better than unsuccessful fostering, but they're not the political flavour of the month.

"Good grades lead to opportunities, and that's fine as long as you have the opportunities to make good grades. It's a rather vicious cycle, in which a lot of bright kids are disadvantaged."

So true, LS. These days, of course, those disadvantaged bright kids are disproportionately boys.

Oh, dear, Jay R, is there nothing you can't attribute to the evils of feminism? I know that's where you're going! :)

I surprisingly agree with you though. I have a highly gifted son who has not been served well by the academic system. It does seem harder for boys.

I have a highly gifted son who has not been served well by the academic system.

At both BU and WPI outside of BME most of the engineering students were male, usually non-Caucasian or with a thick accent but still male. BME had a large number of women just like regular biology. Not sure about other departments but by eye, teacher college were mainly female.

lovelysoul,
When you say: "I've heard he creates crossword puzzles for papers like NY Times while in jail. Guess he earns some cigarette money for his talents, so he still has some academic "opportunities", though it's mostly a wasted life."

Does that mean you don't have much/any direct contact with your birth siblings?

(Amazing comment, btw.)

Jody, I don't really keep in touch my older brother, no. I met him twice before he went to jail. Our birth mom actually encouraged shoplifting - she taught the kids to take things from stores. Safer than her getting into trouble, as it allowed plausible deniability.

So, he had a long juvenile record, and when he turned 21 (right after we met), he tried to sell some stolen property and went to jail. While in jail, he got into a fight and injured another inmate with a handmade weapon. He got 5 more years added to his sentence for that. Despondent over having a sentence of 10 years, he tried to escape (hijacked a work bus), and they gave him even more time. Now, somehow, under the great Alabama penile system, he's a lifer!

Sounds like a bad movie, I know. Go to jail for a minor offense and never get out. That's why I'm unconvinced that everyone has the same opportunities for success in life.

Btw, we were both the oldest kids, only 2 yrs apart. If I hadn't been adopted, I'm pretty sure I'd have been right there shoplifting with him. I suspect my life would've turned out vastly different. I got dealt the much better hand.

I get very angry about the way schools won't serve the brightest kids. "Gifted" is a term that has fallen out of favor, because "everyone is gifted in their own way". Well... maybe, but some people are better at learning school subjects than others, and those kids deserve to be challenged as much as the other kids do.

When I was in Ed school, the focus was on special ed and at-risk youth. I took a class on teaching at different levels, and we got to choose our "different" ability. I wanted to design lesson plans for gifted kids, but was not supported at all. I ended up with a B, which is a bad grade at that school, but at least I got to learn something about what I wanted to learn.

If I ever go for my EdD, I'll make sure the school specifically offers gifted education.

Of course, now I'm teaching adults, so it is beside the point...

> I never said, meant or
> implied that.

Well now, yes you did. I've quoted the passages twice, the context has been accurately recounted, and your original comments are still up there for people to see. You said it.

> this thread is about the
> lamentable state of parts
> of the US.

And when the perpective of outsiders might be poisoned by their heritage, I don't mind saying so.

> do not address point, which
> is whether single motherhood
> is connected with low self esteem.

Are you a child? You're not reading words at all, you're just waving them like a talisman. It's like Amy's waist-to-hip thing, except not amusing.... Maybe we should wrap this up.

> The key argument "Is desire
> nature or nurture?"

No, the key argument is what do you want people to do? Norman doesn't want to credit the impoverished with enough capacity to materially improve their lives. I'm quite certain that no matter what government (or churches or anyone else) does for poor people, the much greater part of what improves their lives will come from the ways that they strengthen their own behavior. Chatter about 'self-esteem' retards this growth.

> I will keep my head bowed

You may kiss my ring now, but don't look me in the eye, OK?

"Oh, dear, Jay R, is there nothing you can't attribute to the evils of feminism? I know that's where you're going! :)"

Oh, LS, you know me so well! Really, though, I don't need to "go there" since you've obviously already connected the dots on your own. If you keep doing that, I won't have much left to say -- and if I'm not a pompous blowhard, then what do I have left?! ;)

(But you deserve a serious answer: There is still SO much that is not attributable to, nor corruptible by, the evils of feminism, thank God: a baby's laugh, the scent of a Mr. Lincoln rose, Yosemite Valley, dark chocolate (as for that nasty white chocolate, however, I reserve the right to blame IT on the evils feminism!), your true love's touch, and all of the other things in life that are uplifting to the spirit and bring joy to the heart. Are you suggesting that I should focus more attention on such things? Hmmmmm. It IS a thought ...)

>>Maybe we should wrap this up.

Party's over, guys.
I'll grab the empties - lovelysoul - can you hit the lights?

I get very angry about the way schools won't serve the brightest kids.

> I've yet to come across a
> professionally esteemed individual
> who sees personal success as
> something dropped in one's lap.

Well, I don't really mean the award winning, applause-upon-entering-a-restaurant kinds of people. Living a middle-class life in the United States is a pretty good life period, but compared with life across the planet's history, it's like being unbelievably wealthy, right? And I think there are plenty of reg'lar folks in the United States who know that they themselves have no special blessings to give to the world, but understand that they've been given rich lives anyway. (Nice houses or warm apartments, reliable cars, personal safety, fresh food, good health care... Things that kings couldn't have dreamt of ten generations ago.)

And so then they look out at the world's poor people and think, "Why aren't they as wealthy as I am? I'm just a claims adjuster/school teacher/etc.!"

And so they think the poverty is something that's been pressed onto the impoverished. But the school teacher isn't aware of how his own behavior has been so carefully calibrated by our way of life. He thinks an equally average bloke from Darfur (or wherever) could drop into his shoes and –after learning the language and taking a couple of other classes– live just as well, and support the American culture just as strongly.

This is what I meant to get at with the Islam thing. There are a lot of folks who think that devout Muslims brought to modern settings are likely to pursue their faith with the same gentle temperament that we in the United States bring to ours.

But these things aren't true. We have thousands of invisible habits and boundaries and routines that make this culture go.

I agree with you completely that almost anyone of any level of success is likely to regard their path as fraught and brutalizing. This is human nature. (Go back to that Sports Illustrated piece, and imagine what the football players had to deal with in practices... Having 300 pound men pummeling them for four hours every Wednesday through Saturday. Hell yes, they thought they'd earned the money! Wouldn't you?)

But we seem just as burdened by the presumption that we're all experiencing the same thing. And we don't realize how some of our cultural habits have specific consequences.

>>And I think there are plenty of reg'lar folks in the United States who know that they themselves have no special blessings to give to the world, but understand that they've been given rich lives anyway. (Nice houses or warm apartments, reliable cars, personal safety, fresh food, good health care... Things that kings couldn't have dreamt of ten generations ago.)

A wonderful comment, Crid.

I think I hear the groans behind the modest curtains in the hours before dawn more than you. But it might be my imagination.

Crid:

I say "I want them to struggle and work and improve their lot. I want them to get educated and find a cure for cancer or invent the next internet."

You say "Norman doesn't want to credit the impoverished with enough capacity to materially improve their lives"

I give up.

> I want them to struggle and work
> and improve their lot.

So you're saying they have the opportunity to do something estimable?

Anybody still reading here? Good:

...Reading is not the only cultural hurdle. In working-class and poor black culture as in many fundamentally oral ones, being asked point-blank questions--like, "When was the Declaration of Independence written?"--and answering clearly is not as central to normal communication as it is in mainstream culture. (Consult, for example, Shirley Brice Heath's Ways With Words.) Many black people of working-class or poor background mention how ticklish this kind of interaction felt when they first went to a decent school.

Direct questions as regular interaction are largely an epiphenomenon of the printed page. Most humans on earth lead fundamentally oral lives in the linguistic sense (only about 200 of the world's 6,000 languages are written in any serious way, for example), and need to adjust to direct questions. Middle class American kids inhale them at the kitchen table.

Crid: Good article. Thanks.

Don't thank me, thank this blog.

And note the link next door to McWhorter's, the one about abstraction... I think poor black kids are being poorly prepared on that side of things, too.

I don't have a problem with anyone discussing it... my problem is with simplistic and uninformed solutions. Also the hubris of those who are puffed up enough to believe in their racial superiority.