The Daddy Gap
Where does low achievement come from? High school teacher Patrick Welsh writes in The Washington Post:
"Why don't you guys study like the kids from Africa?"In a moment of exasperation last spring, I asked that question to a virtually all-black class of 12th-graders who had done horribly on a test I had just given. A kid who seldom came to class -- and was constantly distracting other students when he did -- shot back: "It's because they have fathers who kick their butts and make them study."
Another student angrily challenged me: "You ask the class, just ask how many of us have our fathers living with us." When I did, not one hand went up.
I was stunned. These were good kids; I had grown attached to them over the school year. It hit me that these students, at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, understood what I knew too well: The lack of a father in their lives had undermined their education. The young man who spoke up knew that with a father in his house he probably wouldn't be ending 12 years of school in the bottom 10 percent of his class with a D average. His classmate, normally a sweet young woman with a great sense of humor, must have long harbored resentment at her father's absence to speak out as she did. Both had hit upon an essential difference between the kids who make it in school and those who don't: parents.
My students knew intuitively that the reason they were lagging academically had nothing to do with race, which is the too-handy explanation for the achievement gap in Alexandria. And it wasn't because the school system had failed them. They knew that excuses about a lack of resources and access just didn't wash at the new, state-of-the-art, $100 million T.C. Williams, where every student is given a laptop and where there is open enrollment in Advanced Placement and honors courses. Rather, it was because their parents just weren't there for them -- at least not in the same way that parents of kids who were doing well tended to be.
A 2005 Kay Hymowitz piece from City Journal that I've linked to before takes a historical look at the problem, from the Moynihan Report on:
1. entrenched, multigenerational poverty is largely black; and 2. it is intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.By now, these facts shouldn't be hard to grasp. Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto "baby mamas." Not so; it is a largely low-income--and disproportionately black--phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal--one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.
Black leaders like Jesse Jackson need to take a little time off from blaming white people for everything and start stigmatizing single motherhood in the black community, and start teaching that every time a child is born to some poor single mother, it's a tragedy.
Nice that he notices the lack of fathers has a definite bearing on how much effort a child puts into school. Must place him in a difficult position, being so powerless to do anything about it. As Suzanne B. Johnson points out in her article, "I Wants To Go To The Prose," the function of schools is not to be the daddy that a kid never had. The function of schools is to teach.
And I agree 100% with your assessment of black leaders such as Jesse Jackass and Al Sharpton.
While I think Obama is a horrible president and most definitely a racist, he did once point out that black fathers need to start being hands-on parents...much to the consternation of Reverend Jesse Jackson (understandable, given his own parental history), who threatened to castrate him. Score one for Obama and also for Bill Cosby.
Patrick at October 24, 2009 3:34 AM
It's not just Jesse Jackson who needs to start stigmatizing single motherhood. It's the media and our whole society.
Ann Coulter spent half of her last book documenting how single mothers are held up as heroes by the media and even politicians to the point that now having a child by yourself is something to aspire to.
sean at October 24, 2009 4:00 AM
Sean writes: Ann Coulter spent half of her last book documenting how single mothers are held up as heroes by the media and even politicians to the point that now having a child by yourself is something to aspire to.
Ann Coulter has demonstrated a certain indifference to the truth of any given matter she cares to weigh in on. There is absolutely no reason that a serial exaggerator like her should be taken seriously. She isn't out to shed light on any particular issue. She's a serial bomb-thrower who has proven beyond all doubt that her only interest is Ann Coulter.
Patrick at October 24, 2009 4:50 AM
So your advice is "ignore the truth, because I don't like who's telling it?"
MarkD at October 24, 2009 6:00 AM
MarkD writes: So your advice is "ignore the truth, because I don't like who's telling it?"
No, my advice is that when a compulsive liar presumes to tell you something, you take their "information" for what it's worth: nothing, and you investigate on your own and find out the facts of the matter, if you're at all interested. "Ignore the truth"? If Ann Coulter actually told the truth, that would be a refreshing change.
Patrick at October 24, 2009 6:22 AM
Patty, what a douche you are.
Coulter's books are some of the best researched and footnoted books of any "political commenter".
She's had pinheads like you dogging her for the tiniest mistake her whole career. The end result is just moonbat blathering like you produced here.
sean at October 24, 2009 6:45 AM
Patrick, it would be a lot easier to "score one for Obama" for his having said one right thing had he not demonstrated that what he *says* bears absolutely no relation to what he does or any end he hopes to achieve.
Specifically, what has he *done* to put any substance to his statement? Crikey, even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again.
BlogDog at October 24, 2009 7:16 AM
Black leaders like Jesse Jackson need to take a little time off from blaming white people for everything and start stigmatizing single motherhood in the black community...
The truth is, a lot of 'black leaders' do, and the majority of the black community is in agreement, but that's not what white Liberals want to hear, these people don't exist for them, or they're cast as self-hating panderers. So you see very little acknowledgment of these sentiments in the media and academia.
John McWhorter and a bunch of other black intellectuals have commented on this phenomenon - that for Liberals, the only 'authentic' black is one who fulfill their stereotype of underclass blacks.
In truth Progressivism has always been racist. It originated as a white nativist ideology that advocated white supremacy and later eugenics. What progressives promote today is just a kinder form of white supremacy. They still believe that blacks are their 'monkey children'.
Maurice at October 24, 2009 7:20 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674261">comment from BlogDogI haven't read Ann Coulter's books, and I'm all for her documenting how single mothers are held up as heroes by the media, which disgusts me to my core, but let's be honest here. I heard her on CNN recently saying there's no racial profiling or something to that effect. I've also heard her in other exaggerations on TV. Come on, let's be honest here -- while I'm against this culture of assuming everything is about racial victimization, or victimizing women because they're women, etc., to say there's no racial profiling is ridiculous and reflects a greater concern for one's image and ginning up popularity from one's political "team" than telling the truth.
Amy Alkon at October 24, 2009 7:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674263">comment from Mauricestigmatizing single motherhood in the black community... The truth is, a lot of 'black leaders' do,
Other than Thomas Sowell and McWhorter and a few others, I don't hear it.
Amy Alkon at October 24, 2009 7:32 AM
It's practically illegal to "stigmatize" single motherhood. See Bill Cosby. My only question is how long Patrick Welsh will keep his job before he's fired for his insensitive, racist attitude.
Robin at October 24, 2009 7:39 AM
"While I think Obama is a horrible president and most definitely a racist, he did ONCE point out that black fathers need to start being hands-on parents...."
Once? I'm supposed to give points for "once?"
I sure hope he has addressed that nightmare more than once. If not, well, I'm inclined to mark him down. He sees the problem, it appears, but his courage fails him when addressing it.
Spartee at October 24, 2009 7:40 AM
Obama's taken pretty much every position under the sun once. I'm sure that one's expired by now and it'll turn out he didn't "articulate clearly", or he "simply said" something completely different, or we rubes didn't correctly grasp the nuance or the context or something.
Robin at October 24, 2009 7:53 AM
Seanette, what an effeminate little pansy you are! Why is it that the conservative contingent gets their widdle feewings huwt so desperately every time their idols are called on the carpet for what they are?
I called Rush Limbaugh a liar, which he is. And although I did not attack Brian personally, or say one word about him, he chose to call me an asshole for it. I didn't attack you personally, Sean, until now. All I said was Ann Coulter should not be trusted as a reliable source of information, as she's been caught in many lies and is unrepentant about them.
And without a single indictment on you personally, you're basically, "Hith! Hith! I'll scwatcth your eyeth out!"
Acquire a thicker skin, Nancy.
I could give more examples, but suffice to say, some of you airy-fairies need to stop being so hyperdefensive when your heroes are attacked. If the people you idolize were this thin-skinned, they'd have removed themselves from the limelight screaming hysterically a long time ago.
First of all, Ann Coulter has not, never has, and never will have footnotes in a single one of her works. Footnotes appear at the foot of the page, hence the name, and are easier to reference. What Coulter does use are endnotes, and appear at the end of the book.
I could give many, many examples of Coulter's deliberate misconstructions, but those are all over the internet. And if you choose to close your eyes to the indisputable fact that Coulter is a serial liar, then I have no use for you, or anyone like you. Ann Coulter has shown her disgusting stripes literally the second she slithered her way into the public eye, starting with the fact that deliberately sabotaged Paula Jones' case against then-President Clinton to forward her own interests. She was providing behind the scenes assistance to Jones, and her sole purpose was to type the briefs. Jones' lead counsel correctly advised Jones that her case was weak and urged her to settle. Coulter, willfully defying the lead counsel, which she had no right to do, leaked attorney-client privileged information to the media, forcing the case to go to court, and the results of that fiasco was common knowledge. Why did Coulter do this? Because apparently Paula Jones' agenda didn't jibe with hers, which was, according to her, to "get the president."
So, she FAILED her client by sabotaging her case. And she FAILED in her own agenda to bring down Clinton. Great lawyer. She should have been disbarred. No one in his right mind would hire her to represent them in court. Appalling lack of ethics.
And if any of you care to challenge this, it's all documented fact and available on the internet.
Here's one example of her deliberate misconstructions:
Where to start...The quote is from an article called "Naked Air." The article is satirical and suggests that we could avoid terrorist attacks by making everyone fly nude, since no "religious fundamentalists of any stripe" would board a plane naked.
Not a single word about "religious fundamentalists of any stripe" are responsible for twenty years of terrorist attacks.
That is not just "any little mistake." That is a deliberate lie to suggest that Friedman was laying the blame for terrorist attacks on "religious fundamentalists of any stripe."
Patrick at October 24, 2009 7:55 AM
One doesn't want to start letting these kids use it as an excuse. Frankly, if some kid whines "I didn't do my homework because I don't have a Dad," the correct answer is "That isn't an excuse".
Which isn't to say that kids don't need Dads. They do. But not having one is no excuse.
From what I recall, isn't the biggest predictor of academic success family income? Do you think it is the lack of income (not having enough dough for tutors, enrichment activities, science camp etc), or the lack of Dads, or the combination?
NicoleK at October 24, 2009 8:06 AM
Spartee writes: Once? I'm supposed to give points for "once?"
Why not? If you want to give credit where credit is due, I would. You should keep in mind that following every little thing that Obama does right also gives you license to follow every little thing he does wrong. So, if you give Obama one point for saying the right thing, in the right/wrong columns, what do you think the score would be? About 1 right to 17,863 wrongs?
And besides, he infuriated the good "Reverend" Jesse Jackson with it, causing him to make a decidedly "un-Reverendly" remark, which was picked up by the microphone and made public knowledge. So, you really have to give credit for that. It's true I don't like Obama, but I like Jesse Jackson even less.
While Jackson needs no help in making an idiot of himself, I'll happily award points to anyone who wants to do so.
But yes, Spartee, I do see your point. It's saying the right thing once, vs. many wrongs both said and done. I hope you can see the points I'm making, though.
Patrick at October 24, 2009 8:10 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674277">comment from SparteeObama "did ONCE point out that black fathers need to start being hands-on parents..."
And Jesse Jackson heard this and muttered that he wanted to "cut his nuts off." (I think that's the quote - or close to it...sorry, deadline.)
Amy Alkon at October 24, 2009 8:28 AM
Patrick: If you want to give credit where credit is due, I would. You should keep in mind that following every little thing that Obama does right also gives you license to follow every little thing he does wrong.
The problem here is that he didn't do anything. He only said something. As I've been telling my daughter practically since she could talk, anyone can say anything. You only get credit when you back it up with meaningful action.
Robin at October 24, 2009 8:30 AM
Amy, you got it right. Here's the video, and Jackson's soi-disant apology.
Now go meet your deadline.
Patrick at October 24, 2009 9:03 AM
Specifically, what has he *done* to put any substance to his statement?
First, and most importantly: He has stayed married to his daughters' mother and ensured that his children get a good education. Doing the right thing starts at home. The most prominent African-American father in the world is by all appearances devoted to his wife and his children. This is not nothing.
Most commenters here are lean conservative or libertarian, and bemoan governmental intrusion into people's lives. I'd be interested in what you would have Obama do, besides regularly use the power of his example and the bully pulpit to encourage that men do the right thing. The fatherhood thing is not a just one speech for Obama, it's a theme that he has returned to time and again. His own abandonment by his father clearly had a profound affect on his perspective:
“Someone once said that every man is trying to either live up to his father’s expectations or make up for his father’s mistakes,” he once wrote, “and I suppose that may explain my particular malady as well as anything else.”
Father’s Day 2007: “Let’s admit to ourselves that there are a lot of men out there that need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; who need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise a child.”
Father’s Day 2008: “Any fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”
Father’s Day 2009: “We need to step out of our own heads and tune in. We need to turn off the television and start talking with our kids, and listening to them, and understanding what’s going on in their lives.”
Whatever at October 24, 2009 9:26 AM
Whatever, you said it well.
Rojak at October 24, 2009 9:41 AM
Except for this:
The most prominent African-American father in the world is by all appearances devoted to his wife and his children.
For the millionth time, he is NOT African-American. He is BI-RACIAL. Other than that, yes, Whatever, well said.
BUT, only one person, no matter how "prominent", saying these things and acting on them doesn't change the fact that there are how many more out there who don't even think these things. And that is what needs to change. So. How do you (how does anyone) go about the process of changing the mindset of all these "baby-daddies" (and goddess, how I hate that term) who just don't seem to give one rat's ass about anything other than themselves?
Flynne at October 24, 2009 10:59 AM
Psssst- Hey Amy, I really liked this tweet it explained the best and the worst of what I've written here.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 24, 2009 11:18 AM
"How do you (how does anyone) go about the process of changing the mindset of all these "baby-daddies" (and goddess, how I hate that term) who just don't seem to give one rat's ass about anything other than themselves?"
Perhaps we could start by focusing elsewhere for a moment. Are the women (and their extended families) involved in the baby-making engaging in behavior that will keep men around?
In my experience, such young women and their relatives tend drive off the young men by treating them as, at best, second-tier house help and paycheck providers.
When a guy gets treated like that--especially a young guy in his late teens and early twenties--I would expect him to say "$@#% this" and bail. I might *wish* he would stay, eat that unnecessary shit he is served, and help raise that kid. But I also wish people would be kinder to each other and all sorts of other things.
Alas, people in general will not be what we wish. They will be people. So if we want the young men to stay in those homes, we should express that desire to the young men. And we should also tell the young women (and their families) they play the largest role in creating a circumstance where the men will stay. But if the circumstances require the young men to selflessly devote themselves to twenty years of BS from the child's mother and family, well, don't expect the father to put up with that. We may wish he would, but we should not expect it.
Spartee at October 24, 2009 11:26 AM
Score one for Obama and also for Bill Cosby.
Posted by: Patrick at October 24, 2009 3:34 AM
---------------------
Meh, all Obama does is blame men/fathers like a good little feminist lickspittle. Whatever's post shows that. He's all talk and its usually on Father's day or thereabouts. I don't see him castigating single mothers etc. on mother's day do you? I see him catering to women all the time in his speeches, with the "Office for Women and Children" but no Men's health office, and picking the champion of Captain Save'a-hoe types Joe Biden (apparently still shell shocked decades later from his childhood beatings by his big sister whom he couldn't fight back with).
Cosby last I heard apparently thinks much the criticism of the President is race based too, sort of knocking down his previous rants against the fall of black families (which is happening all over America now). Maybe he got tired of being castigated for daring to air dirty laundry. The truth hurts.
Sio at October 24, 2009 2:22 PM
"One doesn't want to start letting these kids use it as an excuse. Frankly, if some kid whines "I didn't do my homework because I don't have a Dad," the correct answer is "That isn't an excuse"."
NicoleK, I had to wade through all the Coulter, Obama, blah-blah to finally get to a remark that said what I was thinking. Thank you.
Pricklypear at October 24, 2009 5:43 PM
What would you have him do Whatever? Something that doesnt involve government "intrusion"? How about cut off welfare payments to people who have more children on the government dime?
lujlp at October 24, 2009 6:31 PM
i agree with the other whatever.
and i was thinking the same thing as - i think - nicolek said, having a father in your life is great, but the lack is no excuse for not doing your homework. it's a pretty lame excuse, really, especially if you're the one using it as your excuse. these were seniors, right? they're old enough to kick their own ass. in fact, they'd better start, because daddy's not going to be around to take them to work next year either.
and the single mothers have a responsibility too. i don't think there's so much problem with the lack of fathers per se. the problem is the mother comes home from working her however many jobs and thinks that because she's the only one, and she's tired, she doesn't have to parent anymore. wrong answer. if she's the only one around, she's got to be the kicker of asses. or the one who gets the kids to kick their own. pick one.
and i agree with lujlp. you can whine all you want about obama apparently only playing lip-service to getting black fathers more involved. but what exactly is he supposed to do that's concrete? and legal?
not all children of single mothers - or single fathers, for that matter - grow up to be losers. an increased number shows correlation, not causation. not saying it's a good thing. but not the only thing. there's plenty of kids in two-parent homes growing up to be losers too.
whatever at October 24, 2009 9:12 PM
What would you have him do Whatever? Something that doesnt involve government "intrusion"?
I'd only encourage Obama not to support repealing any of the Clinton-era reforms to the program that are favored by some of the more liberal members of Congress.
Then'd I'd hope he'd be focusing on figuring out how to get of Iraq ASAP and keep Afgnanistan from turning into a narco-state providing a steady stream of money to Sunni jihadis.
Whatever at October 24, 2009 9:34 PM
People rarely value things that they don't have to pay for in either blood or money. The safety net in the US is so high that it allows a lot of anti social behaviors, laziness and bad parenting without serious enough consequences to actually motivate people to change their behavior. When government picks up the slack for single mothers and has removed both the stigma and economic consequences for having children out of wedlock and the baby daddies get more social status out of impregnating a lot of women rather than hanging around and being a parent to one or two, what do you think is going to happen? People raised in third world countries or the kind of povery that existed in this country only a hundred years ago knew that study (i.e. work) was a ticket to prosperity. Kids today, black and white have no concept of what real poverty is. May they never find out. Isabel
Isabel1130 at October 24, 2009 9:38 PM
Hard to ratify people taking up arms against single motherhood, and then going in droves to see Juno. (Thank you, Diablo Cody.)
I stated previously that the media had done a decent job of kicking the image of the American father into the dirt, and not to rant against them at -great- length, theyve also done quite a number on legitimizing, and maybe even exalting, single, highschool motherhood.
This sorta thing is going to continue to be acceptable, until the majority of Americans stop "ooohing" and "ahhing" over the "progressive" nature of single motherhood, and take it back to "Thats not acceptable", where it was in the days of our parents.
I dont care if your second parent is the same gender as your first. I dont care if youre black, white, asian, or muslim. Male, Female, it doesnt matter. Once you have the child, your choices concerning your own "personal strength" and "independence" need to get packed into the trashcan next to those dirty diapers.
chronotrigger at October 25, 2009 12:07 AM
"Hard to ratify people taking up arms against single motherhood, and then going in droves to see Juno."
well said. i also wish more parents would realize that parenting is more like a second (first?) job, instead of something they're too tired to do when they get home from work. quality time, not quantity time, and you don't get to subsidize the latest video game for the lack of time you can spend with them or for the inability to help with their homework, and you don't get to skip discipline because you feel guilty about not being around or whatever. and there are plenty of dual-parent households that don't get that.
whatever at October 25, 2009 1:09 AM
It was only 40 years ago that Diana Ross and the Supremes had a hit with "Love Child". What's happened since then?
Capt. Koons at October 25, 2009 7:58 AM
Is there a name like Godwin's Law for when an interesting discussion gets completely toilet-swirled by irrelevant mentions of Ann Coulter (which even the blog proprietress, sad to say, allows herself to get sucked into)?
That one about "they're not footnotes, they're END-notes!" is especially hilarious! Not since Model UN have I seen such magnificant debating skill.
Mike G at October 25, 2009 8:15 AM
Open enrollment in AP and honors classes? How does that work, exactly.
They knew that excuses about a lack of resources and access just didn't wash at the new, state-of-the-art, $100 million T.C. Williams, where every student is given a laptop and >>> where there is open enrollment in Advanced Placement and honors courses.
bobmac at October 25, 2009 8:20 AM
I recall a conversation I once had with a black man I knew (yes, I know how that sounds, but how else to introduce this thought?) and I asked him why so many people like certain black leaders. He had excellent answers for Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.
His Sharpton answer is irrelevant to this topic, but, for a long time, he said, Farrakhan was the only black leader of consequence with the courage and integrity to say to the young black man, "stay in school, get off the drugs, be fathers to your children and stop blaming whitey for all your problems."
tim maguire at October 25, 2009 8:22 AM
You know the answer is more government programs and progressive affirmative action
JoeInVegas at October 25, 2009 8:22 AM
Must've been something in the air yesterday.
It's time, however, to challenge the men to be men. No amount of shaming women will work at this point, but men of true authority need to start kicking some passive asses.
Any dead fish can go with the flow. Smells about the same, too.
Joan of Argghh! at October 25, 2009 8:27 AM
Patrick up at 7:55 posts what he refers to as one of Ann Coulter's "lies" about a Thomas Friedman column. Let's take a look, shall we?
First, he clipped that accusation from Al "Not Enough Brains to Bait A Fishook" Franken's dreadfully stupid book. Patrick even repeats the most pathetic, limp-wristed "attack" I've ever heard, that Coulter uses "end notes" and not "foot notes." Oh my god, horrible. This is what our boy Patty says, bearly keeping the spittle off his lips.
First of all, Ann Coulter has not, never has, and never will have footnotes in a single one of her works.
Leaving aside his apparent ability to predict Ann Coulter's future decisions about end notes or foot notes, this really has to be the silliest, most rediculous objection I've ever read, anywhere. It's actually Pat's response to the claim that Coulter's books are well documented with footnotes. Oh no! he minces. They are END NOTES, not FOOT NOTES!
Which I guess means that the information in them is now rendered meaningless. Really, if you're going to get a case of the vapors about Coulter, you ought to back it up with something stronger than your fever dreams.
Moving along. The full quote from Friedman's woefully witless column is this:
If everybody flew naked, not only would you never have to worry about the passenger next to you carrying box cutters or exploding shoes, but no religious fundamentalists of any stripe would ever be caught dead flying nude, or in the presence of nude women, and that alone would keep many potential hijackers out of the skies. It's much more civilized than racial profiling.
The correlation Friedman makes is evident, and typical of Liberals. He says if we flew naked, you wouldn't have to worry about the passenger next to you being a terrorist.
Now, in the real world, we understand that "terrorists" are 99.9% of the time Muslim fundamentalists. But in the rarefied world of Friedman's palatial mansion, he immediately follows the reference to box cutters and shoe bombs with "no religious fundamentalists of any stripe" would fly naked. But are we really talking about religious fundamentalists of ANY stripe? Or are we talking about Muslims?
In the real world, we're talking about Muslims. But good multi-culti robot that he is, Friedman just cannot help himself from referencing "fundamentalists of any stripe" because god knows the shoe bomber next to you could just as easily be Gerry Falwell or Sarah Palin or some other "dangerous" Christian type. He didn't have to use that formulation. He could have easily, and far more accurately, written "but no Muslim fundamentalists of any stripe would ever be caught dead flying nude."
But he didn't, and he didn't very deliberately in order to exercise his Liberal mantra that ALL "fundamentalists" are equally nutz. But at some level he knows he's full of crap, and he gives the game away when he writes "or in the presence of nude women."
Hmmmmm.... let's see. What religious group has a particular hangup about exposing female flesh?
What Friedman's done is what the Left does routinely, which is attempt to equate Muslim fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism, as if both were equally dangerous.
Now that we've explained what's totally obvious to anyone that's not on the Left, let's revisit Coulter's "lie." She wrote:
He blamed twenty years of relentless attacks by Muslim extremists on - I quote - "religious fundamentalists of any stripe."
That is exactly what Friedman implied in his comment. Coulter does make it seem more direct than Friedman wrote it, but that's because Coulter is so well versed in Liberal-speak that she isn't fooled for a second by Friedman's attempted slyness in his remark. And what Coulter is doing is telling her readers what Friedman is trying to suggest, and she is exactly right about that.
Calling this kind of thing a "lie" is standard fare for the Left, because to them a "lie" is when you point out the truth behind their code words.
peterike at October 25, 2009 8:33 AM
Good stuff, except I would suggest that the birth of a child is never a tragedy. What happens to the child as he/she grows up may be, but not the birth itself.
Jeffrey High at October 25, 2009 8:43 AM
"It's because they have fathers who kick their butts and make them study."
If the kids are smart enough to know and say that, then they are smart enough to do their homework.
The kids are simply using the lack of a father as an excuse to justify their laziness and lack of discipline.
There is no question that growing up without a father makes life more difficult for kids, but it should never be used or accepted as an excuse for not even trying to succeed.
Dogwood at October 25, 2009 8:45 AM
It's sad to see some teachers, politicians, stuck in the "what can we do for you" mode. In the words of Malcolm X, "not a damn thing". Let the teachers teach, preachers preach, politicians politic and let the kids take responsibility!
Octus at October 25, 2009 9:05 AM
The Drug War is systematically destroying the Black Family. And no one cares. Not the Black Community and certainly not the White Community.
Demographics
But we do hear plenty of moralizing from the right. First about drugs and then about the failure of the black family.
M. Simon at October 25, 2009 9:11 AM
First, and most importantly: He has stayed married to his daughters' mother and ensured that his children get a good education.
so he does what any father is supposed to do and we're supposed to give him props for that?
steve l. at October 25, 2009 9:16 AM
Congrats on bringing up this 600 pound gorilla in the room, Amy.
Not mentioned in the Post was the lack of fathers in the black community being directly related to the Liberal do-gooder Welfare State.
The trillions spent on the War On Poverty building our Great Society -- like all liberal utopian chimeras -- was supposed to help people but instead disastrous chickens of failure and unintended consequences have come home to roost.
In fact, liberal "help" has destroyed the black community. It built a phony race shakedown business run by the "reverends" Jesse Jackson,
Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright and given us wasted generations of underachievers who think the world owes them riches.
"But what about Obama?" Ha.
Obama is not part of the black community. He's never been part of the black community.
But he has achieved "Shakerdowner-In-Chief" status.
This will end very badly indeed.
Koblog at October 25, 2009 9:19 AM
As much as it pains me to come to the defense of Jesse Jackson's slimy race-hustling butt, I have to say I've read a transcript of a talk he gave to a group of black kids where he was actually forceful and eloquent in emphasizing the importance of men sticking around to raise their kids.
Jay at October 25, 2009 9:27 AM
Whatever said:
"First, and most importantly: He has stayed married to his daughters' mother and ensured that his children get a good education. Doing the right thing starts at home. The most prominent African-American father in the world is by all appearances devoted to his wife and his children. This is not nothing."
It's not 'nothing', but remember what Chris Rock said,
"You know the worst thing about n*****s? N*****s always want credit for some s**t they supposed to do. A n*****r will brag about some s**t a normal man just does. A n*****r will say some s**t like, "I take care of my kids." You're supposed to, you dumb motherf****r! What kind of ignorant s**t is that? "I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherf****r!"
And for the other poster who tried to turn laissez-faire back on Obama's critics (what is he supposed to do?) -- how about govt policies that *don't* encourage single motherhood (the 'stimulus' contained many provisions that undermined Gingrich-Clinton welfare reform which had positive results), or act like fathers (particularly *married* ones) actually have rights wrt their kids? of course to do that last in particular would interfere with the liberal sacraments of abortion on demand and gay marriage.
And Amy, there are a fair number of 'black leaders' who aren't intellectuals or public figures who speak about this every week, but as fairly conservative preachers who are more real Christian rather than Jacksonesque or Sharptonian politician, they are of no use to the Dem establishment except for the occasional campaign season photo op (they're also inconveniently generally against gay marriage).
BTW, if anyone else saw the blurb about Farrakhan saying blacks needed to keep up the pressure and not let up just because we have a black president -- I fully expect that at some point it is likely that the Jacksons, Sharptons et al will again trot out the charge that Obama is not really black, not really 'one of us' when its convenient or needed to get some attention/payoff. The funniest thing about that is that its actually true, in that Obama actually is not an American black at all (parachuting into Chicago and the arms of Rev. Wright notwithstanding) -- he is neither descended from slaves (not even counting the whit half at all) nor has he had the shared life experience of growing up culturally 'black'. To have embraced him so resoundingly merely because of some melanin and some very distant-cousin East African genes, is actually the most shallow of racial thinking.
(By contrast I offer up the underappreciated Clarence Thomas -- it doesn't get anymore 'authentic' than him -- google his childhood.)
newscaper at October 25, 2009 9:34 AM
I don't buy it.
I don't remember my ol' white dad having anything to do with whether I did my homework. And it's not because he wasn't around; his office was in the house, and he practically never left.
It sounds to me like just another convenient excuse. "Because I'm --- I have --- and don't have ---, and that's why I don't do my homework." A bunch of self-serving hooie.
tom swift at October 25, 2009 9:34 AM
Excellent topic Amy, thank you. On the thread of "it's an excuse" allow me please to introduce the following life facts for the commenters' consideration: I'm a fraternal twin (twin is my brother). We never met our father for over 20yrs. Bohemian parents, didn't survive the 60s zeitgeist through even year one. Mom has good job (middle class at best), Dad - meh, zero in the picture (zip, zilch, nada). 25plus years later: I - PhD in advanced science from best schools in US. Brother - very sad life of drugs, crimes, children, no steady job, no fixed address. Support - Mom tended to focus on Bro, as he needed it more than I did. Attitudes? I - what will I do make the most of what's available? Brother - where is my bad dad to make my life right? I concur there are effects from where you start, but I submit by far the biggest determiner in 'getting ahead' is the attitude you yourself form and project. I picked the path of taking responsibility for my actions; Bro, not so much. A good example of the tension in human behavior between accepting responsibility for your own behavior or not I think may be found near the end of Stienbeck's Grapes of Wrath, where the concept of "choice" and consequences of actions is beautifully illuminated.
WestCoastTwin at October 25, 2009 9:37 AM
Open enrollment in AP and honors classes? How does that work, exactly.
In many school districts, kids have to take the CogAT test, kind of like an IQ test, not an achievement test, and score ridiculously high on it (97th percentile) to place in Honors classes. So you have a situation where kids who fly through the classwork and get nothing but As, but who don't place in the very tippity-top percentiles on a single test get stuck in the regular classes.
My 7th grader is bored silly and we're doing enrichment after school while we try to get him into a school that will challenge him. Open enrollment in Honors and AP classes removes the barrier that keeps bright kids who don't super-achieve on the CogAT out. In the school districts around me, there's the definite sense that the districts are actively trying to keep the kids out of the Honors classes because providing Honors classes costs them money. It's a simple yes-no decision to place kids in the Honors class, and years of high achievement are not even considered, nor is teacher input.
Open enrollment in Honors may seem like an odd thing, but all it is really doing is encouraging kids to reach for it, and signaling that the school is willing to deal with re-scheduling a student who tries Honors and can't handle the work.
Joan H. at October 25, 2009 9:40 AM
"The Drug War is systematically destroying the Black Family." m.simon
it's a great theory, but pretty much that Demograph article has a strange setup. They talk of ratios worldwide, etc. etc, and how that sets up issues in every group... then: "Black America, which has had the lowest gender ratio of any of the major U.S. ethnic groups for the past century and a half,"
OK, fabulous 150 years of bad ratio.
And Then?
Blame it on the 'drug wars' of the last 30 years or so.
I see a problem.
If the issue has existed for something like 150 years there must be a structural issue beyond what's been going on recently, perhaps? I'm not saying that the problem mightn't be exacerbated by so many men taking themselves out of the pool, but that is hardly the reason for it.
Here is an interesting snippet of an idea: "The post-civil rights era increase in interracial marriages has further contributed to the unavailability of black men, who take white wives twice as often as black women take white husbands."
Do you think the fact that Black women don't marry out, might be a contributing factor? The premise is that without a pool of marriagable mates, the illegtimacy rates climb. But it's not like we are talking peole who live in the middle of the ocean. Black males who marry out, haven't let race stop them from finding a mate. It's just as logical a reason to say the the women are self limiting, then that the drug war is dropping the number of male candidates.
It is an astonishing complex issue of WHY these communities make such choices... but placing blame on an externality that is recent really doesn't help much.
SwissArmyD at October 25, 2009 9:52 AM
Is there any metric which compares children raised with and without fathers that does not show children with fathers do better? (Better defined as better off, not having more children.)
I do not know of one.
So, our liberal society is just reaping the fruits of its efforts to undermine the family.
As to why more men don't stick around? Why should they. Marriage laws, for one thing, treat men with great hostility.
And, don't forget the women. They are not paragons of virtue. They reject 75% of men sexually, and only marry if it is economically advantageous. Given the poor economic situation of the black male, and the welfare benefits available, black women have little reason to marry. And, if they marry, the marriage laws give nothing of benefit to her black husband.
So, get used to it. This is our reality. We asked for it. We got it.
joel at October 25, 2009 10:00 AM
Sorry folks, study and homework is a good thing in general, and if these students had a father in the house obviously they would do better. The 'D' student might move up to a 'C' student, maybe. But why kid ourselves, certain segments of the student population are always going to do less well than other segments, and certain segments of the student population are going to better than other segments. For example, if you look at large groups of students, you might note that Korean-American students do better in math than some other group(s)
and no amount of money, top facilities, fathers at home, or dedicated teachers are ever going to change this fact of life. Leftists, socialists and liberals all believe (it is one of their core beliefs) that each person is a blank slate at birth, everyone having equal potential. This is simply false.
douglas at October 25, 2009 10:02 AM
Black women make up 13% of the USA female population , yet they have 40% of all abortions.
Since Barack Obama is hopelessly enammored with abortion , his war on his black side is astounding.
edwards at October 25, 2009 10:03 AM
"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
It's not a black problem, it's a culture problem.
Jesus at October 25, 2009 10:06 AM
Means testing for all parents. If society has an interest in the well-being of any child born in our nation, and it clearly has passed laws to protect that interest, then it may and should extend that interest to protect children from unqualified parents.
That begs the question: what is a qualified parent? The answer cannot simply be "any person who has functioning ovaries." The answer is complicated, but we can't duck it. By ducking it, we condemn too many children to poverty and a nearly inescapable banishment to horrible inner city areas.
There are terrible red-neck parents here in Georgia whose children deserve our rescue. So it's not simply a black problem. But it is overwhelmingly a black problem. Stop denying that--and you're en route to a solution.
Good people need to rip children from the claws of undeserving and incompetent parents and parents who lack the means to provide what we as a society set as the minimum amount of support. Until we develop the courage to care for children at the expense of bruising their deadbeat parents' feelings, we're complicit in the failures of all of these children.
RickinATL at October 25, 2009 10:46 AM
I'm a teacher in a lower-income, high-minority school district in the same state as TC Williams. I can attest that the biggest factor in the achievement gap is definitely parental involvement. Far too often, although the single mother values education for her child(ren), she is too busy working to keep food on the table (and cell phones and fancy shoes, etc.) to take an active role in his or her education. Many of us teachers try to be the encourager, but we see these kids for 90 minutes a day, five days a week. And only 10 months out of the year. And, we've simultaneously got another 25 or 29 other kids to worry about. We just don't have the influence that a parent has.
SP at October 25, 2009 11:01 AM
Talk about cheap analysis, going right to the "blame the blacks" card rather than any mention of how Bush's disasterous No Child Left Behind has destroyed the American education system, which is not surprising because Bush didn't want kids to be smart enough to understand his illegal wars on Iraq and Afghanistan and his desire to make Haliburton stockholders rich.
Vinny B. at October 25, 2009 11:02 AM
yeah, vinnieB 'cuz this has never happened before, or over time, it was that leave every child behind law, that forces you to get tested for progress an' stuff. seriously do you READ yourself?
SwissArmyD at October 25, 2009 11:05 AM
Why do complaints against single motherhood seem to run 10 to 1 or worse compared to condemning absentee fatherhood? There are no baby-daddies, just fathers not doing their job.
Tom Perkins at October 25, 2009 11:13 AM
This is old, OLD news. I had professors talking about this topic over 30 years ago.
What is news is that this cultural behavior has now been transferred to the hispanic community.
And Vinny B, you are a tool.
belle de ville at October 25, 2009 11:21 AM
Yo, Victerats, put this in your bong and torch it:
http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction#p/a
Terrence d'Acondia at October 25, 2009 11:27 AM
Heh, this is certaintly not the point of Ms Alkons OP, but I felt it ok to slide in here:
With regards to the Obama/Sharpton/Jackson/Black Community skirmish in this thread, in my most humble opinion, perhaps we would all do well (O-Man himself, included.) to remember that there is no black president. Im sad to say that there have been several white ones, but there isnt a black one.
Last I checked, assuming the office meant you have officially lost your ability to "color" your vision.
Obama is THE president. Not the Black Prez. Not the White prez. He is the AMERICAN prez. He is all colors, and no colors. The Commander in Chief. He (and someday, She) can not allow themselves, nor be allowed by the country, to narrow the vision that got them into the office, down to a single ethnic, religious, or gender creed. He/She must be above that. Now, and for as long as this government claims to be For the People.
chronotrigger at October 25, 2009 11:30 AM
> Talk about cheap analysis, going right to the
> "blame the blacks" card rather than any mention of
> how Bush's disasterous No Child Left Behind has
> destroyed the American education system ...
Heh. You mean the No Child Left Behind Act that was mostly written by staffers of the Lion of the Senate, Teddy Kennedy?
And if it indeed "has destroyed the American education system," then why is it that black children are the ones who aren't learning? Did Teddy Kennedy hate black people?
Yes, Vinnie, you are a tool.
murgatroyd at October 25, 2009 11:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674476">comment from Tom PerkinsWhy do complaints against single motherhood seem to run 10 to 1 or worse compared to condemning absentee fatherhood?
Just as it's a diabetic's responsibility to not eat donuts, a woman is the one who gets pregnant. There are probably plenty of men I've slept with who would be terrible fathers. Note that I did not have a child -- and it's a woman's responsibility to see that she only brings a child into the world with a man who will stick around and maintain an intact family with her. She is the first line of defense.
Amy Alkon at October 25, 2009 12:39 PM
"condemning absentee fatherhood?"
you tell me, does busting their chops bring them to the table? I will complain about them to anyone that will listen, but that doesn't make them want to do anything.
SwissArmyD at October 25, 2009 1:05 PM
Because George Bush and a seven-year-old law are responsible for forty years of declining test scores, literacy, and math aptitude. C'mon, Vinny, you can do better than that.
And, according to Wikipedia, NCLB is "is a United States Act of Congress that was originally proposed by President George W. Bush immediately after taking office. The bill, shepherded through the Senate by Senator Ted Kennedy, one of the bill's sponsors, received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress."
Conan the Grammarian at October 25, 2009 1:22 PM
Yes, Obama did at one time point out thst black kids ned fathers.
But all his policies are aimed at NOT making it difficult for single women to have kids, not stigmatizing or embarrassing them, etc.
Which is understandable, but the simple fact is that you can have a zillion programs to encourage men to help raise the children they father but without the sting of embarrassment or actual financial penalties, it's all just spitting into the wind.
Not pleasant choices, really chosing between painful ones, but that's life.
Marty at October 25, 2009 2:24 PM
Not to defend Ann Coulter, but I'm curious about a point made earlier. Is racial profiling always a bad thing? Or ethnic profiling? That is, if 99% of all airplane hijackers are of Muslim background, does it make sense to frisk Japanese grandmothers at the same rate as young Muslim men? If 40% of the population in a given area is black, and 85% of the crimes committed are reported as having a young, black, male perpetrator, should middle-aged, Hispanic women be pulled over by the police at the same rate?
At what point can prevalence of characteristics trump political correctness in *criminal* profiling?
Buford Gooch at October 25, 2009 2:36 PM
Black leaders like Jesse Jackson need to take a little time off from blaming white people for everything and start stigmatizing single motherhood in the black community,
You are assuming he actually wants black people to progress, rather than profit the way he has from the present situation.
No victicrat wants the situation they rail against to actually improve. The same goes for feminists.
Toads at October 25, 2009 2:53 PM
"She is the first line of defense."
That's bull. The man can wear a condom--or not have the sex--no matter what the woman does, doesn't do, or lies about, or is mistaken about. He's choosing every bit as much as she is. Not holding men to be equally accountable does both men and women a great disservice. The men should know that if a pregnancy is created by their mutual action, they are a father and will be held responsible as such.
Period. Full stop. Nothing else can work.
So were you talking about is's, or ought's?
Tom Perkins at October 25, 2009 2:54 PM
Does anyone know if countries that -don't- have a social net also don't have single mothers, or children born into poverty?
I'm not even sure how to google that question...
NicoleK at October 25, 2009 2:55 PM
The root cause of the problem is never addressed: welfare, the enabler of this ongoing disaster. Jim Crow in his wildest dreams would not have thought it possible to do the harm to the black community that abortion and welfare have done. If ever there was a proof for the laws of unintended consequences and perverse incentives.
The only way out of this disaster and it is not only confined among the black community but increasing among whites and hispanics is to end welfare. Men are civilized by woman when they become husbands and fathers. When the state becomes the husband and the father what value does the young man have? All young men are driven by hormones, we all wanted to party and get laid in our youths. Not that many of us are that self controlled and directed in our teenage years and young adulthood. If welfare no longer existed woman would not be so free in getting pregnant and would be more choosy in their choice of lovers, like someone who will stick around to help raise the kid in the event of pregnancy.
So the few exceptions aside it is invariable the children of two parent upbringing that are the ones who tend to succeed in life. While ideally married to the child's mother, divorce does happen so the next best thing is an involved man in his children's life. Every study taken has always come to the same conclusion. Instead welfare has stacked the deck in a way that any man who isn't a superior earner or has other outstanding qualities is at best a sperm donator and has no other real value to these woman. And in turn such men are rarely motivated to do anything beyond meeting their immediate needs. If you don't have a future why plan on one?
cubanbob at October 25, 2009 3:06 PM
The problem of absent fathers is directly due to feminists wanting to empower women by attacking and diminishing the role of men in raising children. After decades under attack, men have learned the lesson that their contribution to parenting is neither valued or appreciated. Many have concluded it is not worth spending time and energy trying to be a father when courts and society devalue and work against their participation. The cost of diminishing the role of fathers has been horrible and has borne by generations of children.
This situation will not change until women, not men, decide it needs to change. Only when women agree fathers play a meaningful role in raising children will this situation improve. Kudos to Amy for taking a stand. But more are needed.
LoneStarJeffe at October 25, 2009 3:09 PM
Lots of new names in this thread. Where was this linked?
Whatever at October 25, 2009 3:14 PM
"Where was this linked?"
Instapundit.
Tom Perkins at October 25, 2009 3:17 PM
Blaming kids for not being responsible when they have irresponsible role models...or none at all, is just not reasonable. Perhaps these kids do know the right way to behave, and yes make the choice not to.
But making the right choices is an element of discipline.
Discipline is rarely an inborn trait, it is hammered into children from an early age with consequences, long talks, and above all demonstrably good examples. Without these things, knowing the right thing to do, and having the self discipline to do it, or the powerful, protective, and sometimes scary father figure to provide the virtues that a father was meant to...those are very different things.
Robert at October 25, 2009 3:43 PM
Black leaders like Jesse Jackson need to take a little time off from blaming white people for everything and start stigmatizing single motherhood in the black community,
You are assuming he actually wants black people to progress, rather than profit the way he has from the present situation.
No victicrat wants the situation they rail against to actually improve. The same goes for feminists.
Toads at October 25, 2009 3:56 PM
Lets be honest about the growth of single motherhood in the Black, British Chav (as documented by Theodore Dalrymple "Life at the Bottom" -- about 50% of all British births are illegitimate), Hispanic (from 17% illegitimate in 1980 to over 50% today), and White (about 20% illegitimate among the Middle Class, and 40% among the Working class according to Charles Murray).
It is the CHOICE OF WOMEN.
Women are not stupid. They know well that having a kid on their own is a one way ticket to poverty for their kids, on average.
They choose it anyway. Because Black women, White British Chav women (and middle class women as Dalyrmple makes clear), Hispanic women, and increasingly White women, WANT to be single mothers.
Or more exactly, they want to have kids by dominant, irresponsible, violent, thuggish, and exciting men.
Black women fare worse, because they have the lowest social controls, intact societies demanding control of women's desires by their brains, and putting off kids through education and career until fertility closes or nearly does. After them, comes Hispanic and British Women and White Working class women at around the same rates.
Asian women and White professional women will trade off. Asian women will take "boring" but dependable husbands and fathers, and White professional women delay fertility until a desperate search for really "any" husband and father, including men they would have ignored ten years ago, is run in a race against fertility closes. These are broad generalizations but mostly statistically correct.
In all cases, the choice of single motherhood is clear -- women WANT to have kids (often by different men) who are not husband/father material. There are plenty of men even among Blacks who would be good fathers and husbands. These men are known as "World of Warcraft players" because they have the appeal of bowl of cold oatmeal for women.
Women, when at all possible, will choose ON AVERAGE (some women will not, they are exceptions rather than rules) excitement and domination and thrills among men rather than stability and suitability for marriage and fatherhood. [African fathers are mostly absent too, in defacto soft polygamy. Only an extraordinary upper class few make the expensive air journey to the US, the cognitive elite of the elite. Most of Africa is polygamous and poor -- because of the African female preference for dominant big men. Who are exciting but poor choices to build society.]
This is seen across ethnic/racial groups, with variations due to cultural differences, demands for education, deferred fertility, and influences of families. Asian families are famously demanding of girls to marry "proper" husbands who will be steady over the long haul, and sacrifice short term excitement for long term bets. Asian families that acculturate over the decades see less of that and more trending towards White female professional norms: lots of Alpha men, no kids, until fertility is a core issue and desperate searches for husband/father material.
whiskey at October 25, 2009 4:15 PM
Whiskey: You want to provide a reference for those "facts" you state so smugly? Because to me that sounds like a bunch of racist bullshit you just pulled out of your ass.
Shannon at October 25, 2009 4:30 PM
I had to google "chav"
NicoleK at October 25, 2009 6:28 PM
I think the teacher missed a great opportunity to wake these children up and literally shake them to their core. Given that not one of the children have a father at home - and this appears to be an irreconcilable problem - the teacher could have demanded a pledge from each and everyone of these kids that they will not abandon their children to a single parent family and that the girls will be married BEFORE having children and the boys will be married to their childrens' mothers and live up to their responsibilities as fathers.
If these kids truly do believe that fathers are critical in a child's life then they should be made to understand that someday their children will depend on them just the same.
JT at October 25, 2009 6:32 PM
Shannon - She did provide the reference, Dalrymple's "life at the Bottom". This is a big part of the reason the problem exists. We cannot have a proper discussion without speaking ugly truths... but when we do, we get called racist.
52% of black pregnancies end in divorce. It is near genocide for the black race. Why so many? Cultural attitudes is a big part.
Men have a biological imperative to spread their seed far and wide. However, in modern societies, such is counter-productive. Black men, however, often vocally embrace this standard. It provides bragging rights and status. For white men, not so much. Sure, you can be seen as a "stud", but fathering a bunch of bastards does not get you kudos.
Black men have become very pro-choice. They've taken it to its logical extreme. They are the greatest anti-abortion argument going, if people will hear it. If a black woman opts for an abortion, he's down with that. If she opts to keep it, it's not his kid; it's her problem. Her CHOICE, her problem.
So, 2/3 of black kids don't know who their father is, or he's totally univolved in their lives. Another bunch are visiting Daddy every other Sunday in jail. Only 1/10 black kids are born into that "nuclear family". The other 90% are bastards. 1/3 of young black men are in jail at any given time. 1/2 of black men will see jail at some point in their lives.
Why all this? When one looks at the causes of criminality, one thing stands out: Lack of fathers. The studies have shown it again and again. The difference between the races disappears, and it is the greatest cause of criminality and sociopathy. Blacks are not more prone to violence than others, but they do commit crime all out of proportion to their numbers. Why? Lack of fathers. Marriage as an institution has been destroyed in black society.
One of the reasons is the aforementioned abortion disaster. The other is that black women are as sexually predatory as their men. So, the men don't marry them for sex, nor for their children, so they don't marry. And the blood runs in the street. Black women can stop this by closing their slutty legs, and the men will start coming around with rings and start taking responsibility for their women and children.
Another factoid: Black women outnumber black men in college by 3:1! Many educated black women are faced with supporting a less educated black man, never marrying (40% never will for lack of prospects), or marrying across racial lines. This assumes someone else will have them.
Even their men don't want them. Black men will happily marry a white woman, but not so much a black woman. And it's not because the white woman is a trophy. I don't find black women physically unattractive, but I'd never marry one and put up with their combativeness. I want a woman who has my back, not who's always in my face.
All this said, the numbers for whites are heading in the same direction for all the same reasons. They're more pro-abortion. White women are becoming trashier, more combative, and more disdainful of men. Men have become mere appendages and burdens. They are scorned, even when rich and successful.
Men's values and motivations are discounted, or totally denigrated altogether. Men are always wrong. Most have become feminized. When they have not, they are dangerous and exciting, but you wouldn't want to marry one of those Neanderthals, would you?
As to the article, lack of fathers is a legitimate excuse, as one poster pointed out. Discipline comes in two types: External discipline, when someone in authority over you forces you to do things; Internal discipline, when you make yourself do things. The former leads to the latter. Some few people naturally develop internal discipline, but most do not and cannot.
The cure is fathers. I can't stand Obama, but on this he is consistent and right. He does not, however, ever speak of the role women have in keeping their men around. Men need a little respect. How about showing them some?
Marc Malone at October 25, 2009 6:32 PM
Highschool students don't instinctively know anything. They've heard someone else say it and thought it sounded good... and true. It can *be* and probably *is* true that the lack of fathers in the home makes a huge difference. But used as an excuse it's an excuse. Sometimes life sucks. So kick yourself in the butt and do what you need to do and when you grow up do different.
Synova at October 25, 2009 7:30 PM
I am a former inner-city school high school teacher, in a mostly black school, and this article hits the nail right on the head. I last taught in the 1990s, and single parenthood was a terrible problem even then. Two of my students from different sections of introduction to chemistry, a guy and a gal, both failed my class. Part of the reason is that they had been siring a child together instead of studying. Both were on the verge of flunking out of school, both had minimally-developed reading, math and reasoning skills, and had been "socially promoted" into the higher grades beyond their achievement level by teachers before me. I have often wondered what happened to them since I left the field, if they found a way to make their way in the world, or if they became statistics like so many before them. Even then, political correctess was such that you could not "judge" premartial or single parenthood as detrimental to a young person's chances of success in life - one of many reasons I am a former high school teacher. I got tired of seeing this story play out over and over again, without being able to do anything about it. Oh, and one other thing: this author might well have mentioned the terrific toil gangsta "culture" has exacted on black America. That is yet another tragedy waiting to be told.
Pete at October 25, 2009 8:09 PM
Mr. Malone,
Your post (6:42PM, Sunday) mirrors what I saw nearly every day in the school where I once taught; young black men-children roaming the halls looking for their next sexual conquest, and young girls who thought they were mature women dressing and acting like hookers, looking to give it to them. Being somewhat naive myself to the ways of rap culture, I was asked by some students "was I a playa?" which I soon found out was an inquiry as to whether I cheated on my girlfriend, did I sleep around. I noticed young men, with actual notches on their belts - "kills" so-to-speak, gals they'd bedded and possibly impregnated. Who cared? They didn't - not that I could tell, except that it was yet another measure of their sexual prowess. Many of the young women reported wanting a baby for having "something to hold," and because they were cute. Almost always without appreciation of what was involved in raising them, providing for them.
I had a one young woman whose name I can still recall - she was a model citizen in every respect; she got great grades, was polite, and to top it off, helped support her family with her afterhours fulltime job. Those sorts of students were (and are) amazing, but sadly in my experience quite rare. Perhaps I was at a very tough school, but that was the reality.
Pete at October 25, 2009 8:22 PM
Are you public school teachers telling me that you are given twelve years -- TWELVE YEARS!!! -- to teach kids every day for nine months of each of those years...and still they fail to learn even to read?
Check that. You have THIRTEEN years counting kindergarten.
Yeah, right. Black kids don't learn because they don't have dads.
Blame the missing men but don't pretend to be teachers, when you fail to teach.
Koblog at October 25, 2009 8:37 PM
I just put my 2 kids to bed. Son studied all weekend - Honors Chemestry test on tues, and Honors Spanish on Wed. - younger daughter just finished making a cake "cell" model with a digital photo thereof diagramed (both model and printed diagram are due tomorrow. Wife stay at home with full emphasis on kids.
Guess what? Not a lot of free time, no fancy cars (yes we can afford - chose not to spend this way), no "diversions" (golf? ha! and I used to love to play); many many personal sacrifices and NO guarantees re: how kids will turn out.....but we know NOT trying our damnedest and giving it our all NOW may guarantee DISASTER for our kids later. Not "Bush's fault" not "Obama's fault" - but OUR responsibility.
Californio at October 25, 2009 9:31 PM
Is it possible that the Abortion Culture is the cause of our high rates of single motherhood? Consider that Black American families once had a lower rate of single parenthood than White families. It is hard to argue that there are income reasons for it, when, if you consider all of the things modern life offers, poor people today have more wealth than middle class people 50 and 100 years ago (when there was even less at-birth single parenthood).
Why did Black families start breaking down? When? No doubt, the bad habits middle class Whites adopted in the 60s were more damaging in minorities, because they didn't have the wealth to get help, or, probably, the average support that Whites had.
But I don't think it's an accident that abortion clinics are found in grossly disproportionate numbers in Black neighborhoods, that Black babies are aborted at incredibly high rates compared to other ethnicities and that Blacks also suffer the highest rates of at-birth single motherhood.
Consider: in the present day, a man who fathers a child only "wins" if his wants align with the mother's. If she wants the child and he doesn't he loses for 18 years. If she doesn't want the child and he does, he loses for the rest of his life, and he has absolutely no recourse. The only way to gain some power back from the decree of the Abortion Culture is to opt out, to deny responsibility. "I don't want a baby. You breed it, you feed it."
Amos at October 25, 2009 11:10 PM
Peterike writes: That is exactly what Friedman implied in his comment. Coulter does make it seem more direct than Friedman wrote it, but that's because Coulter is so well versed in Liberal-speak that she isn't fooled for a second by Friedman's attempted slyness in his remark. And what Coulter is doing is telling her readers what Friedman is trying to suggest, and she is exactly right about that.
Translation: "Friedman didn't say, but we just know that's what he meant."
Brilliant stratagem. Just make up all kinds of bullshit about what people say, and when it's pointed out to you that they didn't say it, just say that "we all know" what they really meant, though.
By the way, the words are "ridiculous" (with no "e" in the word, and I swear it's the most commonly misspelled word on the internet, or else it's "asinine" which everyone seems to think is "assinine"), "endnotes" (one word,) and "footnotes" (also one word.
And by the way, Ann Coulter unwittingly proved for herself the difficulty of referencing endnotes vs. footnotes. She shrieked hysterically over Al Franken's catching her in a lie about Evan Thomas being the son of Norman Thomas.
Coutergeist writes: Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas' father — without saying that he was Evan's grandfather. This was one of about five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in "Slander" — and cited one million times by liberals as a "lie." Confusing "father" with "grandfather" is a mistake. Franken's deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and Evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty.
SCREEEEEEAM! SHRIEEEEEEEK! HISS! HISS! How DARE Al Franken resort to such "intentional dishonesty!"
One small problem: Al Franken did say in his book that Evan Thomas is the grandson of Norman Thomas...in his endnotes. You'd think someone so willfully engaged in the practice of hiding misinformation in endnotes would have picked up on that little trick. Nice move, Ann, you dumbass! You walked into your own trap.
On the subject Ann Coulter and her love of lying with "footnotes," let's do another one.
Reference numbers are hers.
The only correct thing in this quote is that the New York Times ran an editorial on Thomas called "The Youngest, Cruelest Justice."
He was, in fact, engaged on his judicial philosophy, specifically, what amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. (Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia apparently have no problem with guards beating shackled prisoners while their supervisor looks on and does nothing to stop the beating.)
And the string of vile epithets, contrary to what Coulter would have us believe, didn't come from the NYT. According to her "footnotes," they came from a Joycelyn Elders "Playboy" interview, and Joseph Lowery at a meeting of the Southern Christian Conference, reported by the "New Yorker."
But as always, Coulter is lying. The "Playboy" interview reports Elders calling Thomas an "Uncle Tom." Nothing else. Not "chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." Just "Uncle Tom." Lowery is reported as using only the terms "Benedict Arnold" and "Judas Iscariot," which of course, are not racist epithets at all.
The rest actually come from a book review in the Washington Times.
So, let's review. She accused the New York Times of calling Clarence Thomas a string of racist epithets in their editorial, counting on the obfuscution invariably caused by using "endnotes" and calling them "footnotes." She misattributed the source of those quotes.
Patrick at October 25, 2009 11:55 PM
Amy,
If you haven't already. I suggest you PLEASE read one of Coulter's books, so you'll see her words in context. One of the reasons they're so popular is because they are highly thought-provoking. Not necessarily correct, but they do make one think.
Stop by the library and check one out. Unless your mind is already closed -- and yours does not appear to be -- you may find it highly interesting. I certainly do.
And people DO try so hard to parse her words to place her in the most unflattering light (which is acceptable) and to twist them (not so acceptable).
For example, only a fool thinks that when one black man calls a black supreme Court justice a "Benedict Arnold" it's not a racial reference. The full quote was:
'Said Lowery: “I have told [Thomas] I am ashamed of him, because he is becoming to the black community what Benedict Arnold was to the nation he deserted; and what Judas Iscariot was to Jesus: a traitor; and what Brutus was to Caesar: an assassin” (emphasis in original). Lowery has repeatedly stated that society has a “responsibility … to have affirmative action.”'
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2359
Nope, no racial component to THAT.
Sheesh, people, go to the library, get the book, and read it.
outnow at October 26, 2009 4:15 AM
outnow writes: For example, only a fool thinks that when one black man calls a black supreme Court justice a "Benedict Arnold" it's not a racial reference.
And only a fool misquotes someone and takes their words out of context when the post they're referring to is directly above theirs, available for all to see.
I said that "Benedict Arnold" and "Judas Iscariot" are not racist epithets, and they're not. I did not say that Lowery meant nothing racial about their use. But don't let that stop you from claiming otherwise.
And since the New York Times editorial did not call Clarence Thomas any of those names (or any names, for that matter), contrary to what Coulter implies, nor did Joycelyn Elders, contrary to what Coulter plainly stated in her endnotes, she is indeed a liar.
And the real reason Coulter's books are so "popular" is because they are frequently purchased by the bulk by conservative book clubs and sold at a deep discount as part of the introductory offer. Why, lookee there! It's Coulter's latest book! And only for a dollar! So, while you may not be moved to shell out the standard fee for one of Coulter's shrieking and fact-challenged diatribes, you might be interested if you only had to pay a dollar for it.
And to the FTC, no one is paying me not to recommend Coulter's books. Just performing a public service.
Patrick at October 26, 2009 4:49 AM
"Uncle Tom" is the most misused insult ever. Probably used by people who didn't read the book. Uncle Tom is a Christ figure in the book, who sacrifices himself to save his family. He later toils beside some very jaded and downtrodden slaves, and decides not to try to run away, because he sees himself as a sort of missionary.
He also DOES stand up to the overseers when asked to do something he finds unethical, at great personal expense.
Uncle Tom is a cool guy. We should ALL be more like Uncle Tom.
NicoleK at October 26, 2009 5:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674586">comment from outnowUnless your mind is already closed -- and yours does not appear to be
Thanks - I will check out one of her books, but I have to say, I'm disturbed by anybody who insists on hyperbolizing/lying to gin up the team, and blog critically about them, right and left. I'm clearly against the tendency of people to claim they're victims instead of solving problems, and against the multi-culti whining as well (if you read through my blog items).
FYI, I've been tormenting a professor via e-mail for months (about every three weeks) because he presented something at a conference that was not evidence-based, and I went up afterward and told him to reread Ancel Keys' research, which is crap (guilty of selection bias and other poor methodology), and he told me it was excellent research, or something like that, which, to me, smacks of careerism rather than science-based, evidence-based thinking.
I feel like this in all spheres, in other words, and I'm neither right nor left, but a fiscal conservative, socially libertarian, and a "personal responsibilitarian."
I see Coulter sometimes at a dinner I go to, and expressed my sympathies about her mother's death, and the way some on the left attacked her for her column on it, which I thought was pretty vile.
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2009 5:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674587">comment from NicoleKThanks for posting that, Nicole. Kate Coe has posted something similar about "The Ugly American."
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2009 5:45 AM
Thank you for pointing that out, NicoleK. I wish I had mentioned that. I would only add that the "Uncle Tom" of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel (which was later adapted into a play by George Aiken), was believed to have been based on Josiah Henson, who fled slavery (on foot) with his wife and children from Kentucky to Canada, and started the first manual training school for blacks. He also helped over 100 slaves escape before the existence of the Underground Railroad.
Patrick at October 26, 2009 6:17 AM
Yeah, I was surprised too when I read "The Ugly American"... the ugly one was the sensitive guy.
NicoleK at October 26, 2009 6:59 AM
i find it interesting that the same blog that goes on and on about "personal responsibility" is also quick to agree with the high school students that it's their parents' fault they suck - either dad's for not being around, or, more often, mom's for not keeping dad around.
we all get to blame our parents for our flaws for awhile. eventually, we grow up and realize that while our parents may be responsible for how we started out, we are solely responsible for where we end up. anyone who is mature enough to have a reason for sucking is mature enough to do something about it. therefore, these high school students - who probably did just read that reason somewhere and use it because it sounds good - are definitely mature enough to do their own homework. no mommy or daddy will make sure it gets done if they make it to college, even if they did have both. nor will mommy or daddy be making sure they go to work and actually do the job if they don't go to college. time to blame the student for their own suckiness.
whatever at October 26, 2009 7:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674616">comment from whateveri find it interesting that the same blog that goes on and on about "personal responsibility" is also quick to agree with the high school students that it's their parents' fault they suck - either dad's for not being around, or, more often, mom's for not keeping dad around.
Children need secure attachment (look up Bowlby, I'm on deadline and can only briefly comment), and they need to be taught discipline and personal responsibility; it doesn't just occur to them if they're raised by wolves in the wild.
Kids who grow up in neighborhoods where everyone is a drug dealer or in jail or working the drive-in window at BK rightfully see no reason why they should pay attention in school. I've created a program to show them that with hard work, it's possible to do something with your life. The program has volunteers from various jobs and careers come in and talk to kids; for example, a chef lays out that it wasn't magic, becoming a chef. He first begged for a job, then got to clean the dumpster, and one day, somebody let him peel a potato.
Do you also expect children to spontaneously know how to drive at age seven?
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2009 7:34 AM
JT, I really liked your comment about getting a pledge a while back: "I think the teacher missed a great opportunity to wake these children up and literally shake them to their core." Obviously the enforcement of such a pledge is another story entirely, but just getting these kids to think differently and commit to making a positive change instead of following in the same rut as their fathers before them would be something.
@Koblog: "Blame the missing men but don't pretend to be teachers, when you fail to teach."
Understand that what I'm about to say isn't backed up by my own personal experience (not a public school teacher), but I would *guess* that in these poorer school districts, actual "teaching" takes quite the backseat to just trying to maintain some level of basic discipline and order. It's virtually impossible to create an environment conducive to learning when you're trying to keep fights from breaking out, keep kids awake or engaged who simply don't give a sh*t. What Amy's doing is so admirable--these kids need some hope, something to cling to if they are ever to break the endless cycle they are in.
We see evidence of this "gangsta" culture in the Marine Corps too--13 weeks of boot camp can't even begin break it out of most of them. And it's not for a lack of trying. I had to recommend one of my "kids" for discharge because he simply wasn't adapting to military life--went UA (AWOL) a few times, kept getting in fights and acting like a thug, no father in the picture at all, felt (and was) solely responsible for his mama and sister. We tried so hard to get him to turn himself around and become a responsible young man, but in the end he chose to go back to the only life he knew. It's truly sad how many "Unknown" responses I'd get on the parent contact forms when it came to the Father column. The black community does need to make a huge change--unfortunately the Bill Cosbys are quite the rarity, while every other black "artist" is glamourizing an entirely different agenda...I'd argue that it's not the "(White) Man" keeping black people down so much as the "Black Man"
the other Beth at October 26, 2009 8:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674635">comment from the other BethI would *guess* that in these poorer school districts, actual "teaching" takes quite the backseat to just trying to maintain some level of basic discipline and order.
That was the experience of a friend of mine who taught in Oakland, CA.
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2009 8:28 AM
Do you also expect children to spontaneously know how to drive at age seven?
etc. etc.
don't be ridiculous. these kids aren't seven, they're seventeen. bit of a difference there. and there's no evidence of what their mothers are like, or whether their parents got divorced last year or before they were born or if their fathers are absent or just living down the road. they're in school, so not doing drive bys, at least not during school hours. they're hardly being raised in the wild.
these are not kids in this story. they're a few months away from being legally adults, and they're obviously very adept at working the "it's not my fault" line. maybe mommy taught them that. she probably did have a hand in it. at the same time, it worked for them at school, and i know plenty of school programs which for one reason or another teach that line too.
they're obviously mature enough and intelligent enough to blame someone else for their failures. time to expect them to fix the problem for themselves, since they've identified the problem - no one to kick their ass. kick it yourself.
whatever at October 26, 2009 8:40 AM
To my knowledge, many studies have controlled for socio-economic factors, including number of parents in the home, and have still found an achievement gap.
b at October 26, 2009 8:44 AM
TC is a very interesting school. The school district encompasses an area of town that has some of the wealthiest residents-and smack in the middle of that, a falling-down Section 8 public housing project that's been there for decades. I keep hearing noises about it being torn down (it's surrounded by townhomes worth between $900K and $1.2 million). The mayor of Alexandria, Bill Euille, grew up in the Section 8 housing and was very proud of it-put it on all his campaign literature. (Alexandria is divided very oddly-Alexandria itself is partially considered Fairfax County and partially the City of Alexandria.)
Needless to say, this causes a lot of friction between residents of the public housing and the people who live around them. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I've worked in the City for years and have gotten to know a lot of the residents of the historic district, and most of the residents view the public housing as a giant eyesore (it is-nothing's taken care of, even simple stuff like picking up garbage) and would really just like it to go away. Every year in the summer there's a rash of burglaries (this year I think it got up to 13 break ins if I remember correctly) and it's almost always traced back to that part of town-usually teenagers stealing things like TVs and jewelry. They also resent knowing that their taxes go to pay for the free housing, and the City has extremely high property taxes, even though a lot of the homeowners can't make property improvements because it's zoned as a historical district, and dealing with the City's Council is impossible unless you have hundreds of thousands to waste on lawyer's fees.
So TC has an extreme variation of students in terms of socioeconomics. Many of the wealthier parents just pull their kids out and put them in the private schools in the City. The quality of education isn't the issue (as Amy mentioned, that school is state-of-the-art. It's massive and better equipped than my University was.), it's that parents get tired of dealing with the friction between their children and the other students, and they have the resources to send their kids elsewhere.
Not really sure where I was going with that. But anyway, TC is an amazing high school, and not taking advantage of the education offered there is just stupid, regardless of what the excuse is.
Choika at October 26, 2009 8:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674642">comment from whateverwhatever, if it's not lack of parenting that causes the problems in black kids, do you explain the high achievement in poor Asians with some sort of racial reason? Or, could it be that their strong, intact families and value for achievement pressed on kids by the parents has something to do with their success; maybe even a substantial something?
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2009 8:50 AM
"I think the teacher missed a great opportunity to wake these children up and literally shake them to their core. ...the teacher could have demanded a pledge from each and everyone of these kids that they will not abandon their children to a single parent family and that the girls will be married BEFORE having children and the boys will be married to their childrens' mothers and live up to their responsibilities as fathers."
You mean "figuratively" shake them to their core, I believe.
More to the point, young delinquents--and this room of kids sounds like a group of them--would typically meet your demand with mockery, not the awakening you imagine. It sounds nice, in that Hollywood way, but that mawkish nonsense only works in Hollywood.
It takes a lot of time to reach out to such hard cases, and most of the time the effort is in vain. By the time people are 17, it is typically well past the time where you can turn someone into something better. You usually must wait until they are older, and have been beated down by life a bit, before they may be ready to come back around to simple virtues.
Spartee at October 26, 2009 9:07 AM
Nah, knowledge is racist is all.
brian at October 26, 2009 9:12 AM
Regarding the supposed age difference, the lackadaisical attitudes toward school didn't start at seventeen. Kids generally start school at five. The formative years for study habits obviously start much sooner.
Regarding Amy's "personal responsibilitarian" stance, the irony of that is her support of Monica Lewinsky. The porcine former First Bimbo is the very antithesis of personal responsibility, with her insightful declaration, "Bill Clinton ruined my life!"
No responsibility on her own part, huh? All Bill Clinton's fault? Never mind that she told former First Backstabber Linda Tripp that she came to Washington with designs on him (her "presidential kneepads" as she called it) before she even met him.
By the way, I've brought this up before, and can we just skip the bullshit this time with the hysterical shrieks along the lines of, "You're saying it's all Monica Lewinsky's fault!"
I did not say that and never did. I'm saying that her statement about Bill Clinton ruining her life suggests that she was some innocent victim who had no hand at all in her own deserved notoriety. Which is complete and utter bullshit. As the Starr Report indicates, she was hitting on him long before he had done anything improper with her.
Patrick at October 26, 2009 9:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674651">comment from PatrickI don't absolve Monica Lewinsky of responsibility, but I do feel sorry for her. We all do really dumb things in our 20s. Most of us don't get them reported in the international media.
If you're going to fool around, you owe it to your partner to be discreet, and not be a total ass about it. You sleep with married women with something to lose like Kathleen Willey.
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2009 9:49 AM
um, i don't think i've said anything about anyone's race, white black or purple. i have talked about parenting, as in however many parents there are needing to get involved in actual parenting, regardless of circumstance. i have talked about people who can identify a problem being responsible to do something about it. i have talked about "kids" who are months from adulthood needing to kick their own ass, and not spew some line about lack of whatever as an excuse for being losers.
personally, i think the cultural value of achievement and education has more to do with the success of asian kids - regardless of wealth - than whether or not their parents are married. my parents, for example, got divorced when i was a kid. and remarried. i have three different degrees. yeah, my parents remarried. my father was the violent sort, when i was a teenager, visitation was real stable (seeing has how i remember having several screaming fights on the phone about it, most cases in which he hung up on me) but i always got help with my homework, and it was unacceptable to not turn it in, and if i didn't do well on it i better have a good reason. intact families do not guarantee that kids will succeed or do well in school or do much of anything. neither do non-intact families. it makes it harder, to be sure. but it's not causative. otherwise, i'd be a drug addict or a murderer or something. not that i haven't thought about it....
whatever at October 26, 2009 10:03 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/10/24/the_daddy_gap.html#comment-1674656">comment from whateveri have talked about "kids" who are months from adulthood needing to kick their own as
It's a wee bit late to develop a work ethic and values out of the blue, don'tcha think? And that's the point -- single mother in poverty culture isn't doing kids any favors. I had hardcore Puritan work ethic Jewish parents who pushed me to achieve. I didn't wake up like Sleeping Beauty one day and decide to do something with my life.
Amy Alkon at October 26, 2009 10:10 AM
"I don't absolve Monica Lewinsky of responsibility, but I do feel sorry for her. We all do really dumb things in our 20s. Most of us don't get them reported in the international media.
If you're going to fool around, you owe it to your partner to be discreet, and not be a total ass about it. You sleep with married women with something to lose like Kathleen Willey."
Threadjacking! Oh, um, it was the hostess who did that. Er...
Well, I will say what I alway said: Bill Clinton likely had some deal, explicit or otherwise, with Hillary that permitted such stuff, as it was so pervasive throughout their marriage. That is none of my business.
It definitely became, my business, however, when he lied under oath and then wagged his finger in my face on TV saying it never, ever, never happened. But it did. And then he sent his political goons on TV to suggest that young woman was a lying stalker.
I would not accept that behavior in anyone I knew professionally. Why should I accept it in a president. He can have all the sex he wants with whomever he wants. Just don't lie under oath or call a truth-telling woman a liar to avoid embarassment. Easy rules, simple to follow.
Spartee at October 26, 2009 10:28 AM
“It's a wee bit late to develop a work ethic and values out of the blue, don'tcha think? And that's the point -- single mother in poverty culture isn't doing kids any favors. I had hardcore Puritan work ethic Jewish parents who pushed me to achieve. I didn't wake up like Sleeping Beauty one day and decide to do something with my life”
And that’s the point. Maybe anecdotal but it may shed some light. My wife has two kids and my ex girlfriend had three. Both times when I entered the scene, the kids where a handful in pretty much every avenue; schoolwork, behavior etcetera. After a period of time when it was deemed ‘safe’ for me to assist in disciplining them, and the like, the behavior, attitudes, and schoolwork improved. This didn’t happen because I’m so good, (as much as I’d like to think so) it happened because there where now two of us rearing the kids and splitting the workload.
Take it anyhow you want to, as a single parent, it can’t be easy to work your ass off to cover ALL the expenses of a family and then come home and work on homework and maintaining the household, discipline and the rest of it. My wife told me that she had no choice but to pick her battles as she simply couldn’t ‘win’ them all with everything which was on her plate in the past. You’re firefighting essentially, keeping all your plates spinning and doing the most you can with the time you have, which usually leans toward the minimum rather than the maximum in quite a few cases.
I hear you when you say that you turned out okay Whatever, but just because you did it, doesn’t mean that everyone can or even will in similar circumstances. Amy is right on the money when it comes to discipline being taught from a young age which would become harder to instill when one is doing it alone. Some single parent families are better than others, and yes some may even be more stable than more typical ‘nuclear families’ but the trends speak for themselves and usually two parent families are more successful.
Amax at October 26, 2009 10:32 AM
Her escort was gone, and her tears had dried, and she was impassively regal, the princess of a race that travels from cradle to grave at the expense of the state, like the aristocrats of old.
Roger's Version, John Updike.
I never really liked Updike, but he is really good at crafting characters that one dislikes immensely. An interesting read about the selfishness, rash stupidity, shortsightedness, and cruelty of single motherhood, albeit in an era before welfare reform.
Choika at October 26, 2009 2:18 PM
The Goddess writes:
This wasn't just "really dumb," though. This falls under the category of really, really despicable. In my twenties, I did dumb things, too, but there was some sense of ethics operating, which Lewinsky obviously does not have. (And no, no one is saying that Bill Clinton was the paragon of virtue. Merely that Lewinsky has a void where the ethics should have been installed.)
Here is a young woman who has designs on a married man and had them before she even met him. Was there ever a time when she had youthful ideals about fairness, ethics, not being a total asshole to people you don't even know, or that married men are "hands off"? Not in her case.
Regardless of what "understanding" may or may not exist between the Clintons, Lewinsky could not have known about it before she even met the man, but her mind was already made up. She said as much to Linda Tripp. When asked by Matt Lauer about a passage she wrote in her book, and if she gave one second's thought to Mrs. Clinton, she rather inelegantly avoided the question. "Oh, wow...like, fer sher...like, what about, like, yer responsibility as a journalist, ya know? Mrs. Clinton could be, like, so totally watching this show, like, fer sher."
It is fortunate for her that Matt Lauer happens to be the gentlemanly interviewer on television. Anyone less well-mannered would have not let her get away with that incredibly stupid crap. If Lewinsky didn't write it, Matt Lauer wouldn't have had anything to ask about. To try to shift blame to him for mentioning it on television is scoff-worthy.
Jenny Craig, in what has to be the most poorly thought-out idea in the business world, almost gave Lewinsky a contract to represent their product. Yes, Jenny, we just haven't heard enough about what Lewinsky's deep-throating and swallowing these days.
"Dumb" does not describe Lewinsky. "Selfish," "thoughtless" and "scumbag" fit the bill nicely. Dumb is forgivable. Amoral is not.
Lewinsky merited every bit of the fallout that landed in her lap. And the fact that she blames Clinton entirely, taking no responsibility whatsoever for her unconscionable decisions, shows me that she's learned absolutely nothing from the experience.
Are you referring to Lewinsky's blabbing it all to the disloyal Linda Tripp? Oh, you mean Bill Clinton...Clinton isn't the one who broadcast it all over creation and then felt he was entitled to compensation for it. He was being discreet compared to Lewinsky. And no, I don't buy "but she's in her twenties" argument. You want to play grownup games, you start acting and thinking like a grownup. But Clinton should not have reposed that kind of trust in a babbling airhead like Lewinsky. He should have known he was dealing with an imbecile. She only broadcasts that fact whenever she opens her mouth...whether it's to speak or give a blow job, she makes it plain that her want of brains is second only to her want of ethics.
If you want to be paid for being an asshole, become a professional sports coach.
Patrick at October 26, 2009 3:26 PM
"out of nowhere" is a bit overdramatic. nobody raises kids in a vacuum. they have, generally, aunts and uncles, grandparents, friends, whatever. they have teachers to learn from, hell, they have tv to learn from if nothing else, although that's a bad option obviously. parents are the best option, but hardly the only one. and don't you think that most parents - not just single ones - are teaching kids how to blame something else for their losership? (i like that word. yes i know it's not real.) these "kids" are intelligent enough to pick the one that will gain them the most sympathy and take the attention off the fact that they failed. if they had two parents, they would have come up with something else, i'm sure. they're old enough to take responsibility for the fact that they didn't do their homework, which can hardly have been the first time they had any. which makes it not out of nowhere for them to have learned to actually do it.
single parenthood is undoubtedly much more difficult, but it does not excuse you from the job. and all parents pick their battles. morals and a work ethic ought to be up at the top of the list. single parenthood is not the ideal. but it is not causative of anything, and how long do these "kids" have to blame lack of daddy for their problems, anyway? when they become drug addicts and murderers, do we get to still blame mommy/daddy? at what point do we say yeah you got a bum deal but suck it up, you are responsible for your own actions?
and by the way, amax, i'm not rare. not only did all three of my siblings grow up to be well-adjusted and responsible adults, but so did most of the people i grew up with, several of them from single-parent homes. i think it's a serious disservice to the single parents who do provide stable homes and good parenting to blame them as a whole for loser children.
whatever at October 26, 2009 5:24 PM
"out of nowhere" is a bit overdramatic. nobody raises kids in a vacuum. they have, generally, aunts and uncles, grandparents, friends, whatever. they have teachers to learn from, hell, they have tv to learn from if nothing else, although that's a bad option obviously. parents are the best option, but hardly the only one. and don't you think that most parents - not just single ones - are teaching kids how to blame something else for their losership? (i like that word. yes i know it's not real.) these "kids" are intelligent enough to pick the one that will gain them the most sympathy and take the attention off the fact that they failed.”
I hear what you are saying and in a prefect world this would be true, but in reality, not so much. If you were correct then single parenthood wouldn’t be such an issue, would it? Example is a powerful thing and I think you underestimate the power it actually has over children. Another anecdote; my ex girlfriend never finished highschool (yeah I know, I was very stupid at the time for dating her with three kids). She was very close to her mother and we visited her regularly. Her father was absentee (hint) and she had three kids, her older sister had four, there was a family friend who had two herself and only one who was married with no kids. All the same thing, no daddy. Sure she was close to her mother who later remarried, so was her sister, didn’t make a whole boat load of difference. You see your parents everyday, the sun rises and sets with them. What they do or don’t do is very key to their lives, if they lived with their extended family, then I could see your point, otherwise, wishful thinking.
“if they had two parents, they would have come up with something else, i'm sure. they're old enough to take responsibility for the fact that they didn't do their homework, which can hardly have been the first time they had any. which makes it not out of nowhere for them to have learned to actually do it. single parenthood is undoubtedly much more difficult, but it does not excuse you from the job. ”
And what happens when you are 7 years old and don’t do your homework? Do you get expelled, lose your grade point average? Get kicked off the football team? What are the consequences of such an action that really sticks with a child? Let me ask you a question, where do you think spoiled kids come from? Their parents giving into everything they ask for, right? Well, c’mon, then just because their parents spoil them, these kids should still be able to learn that the world doesn’t revolve around them through all the sources you stated…right?
”and all parents pick their battles. morals and a work ethic ought to be up at the top of the list. single parenthood is not the ideal. but it is not causative of anything, and how long do these "kids" have to blame lack of daddy for their problems, anyway?”
Yes all parents pick their battles, but the battles are different my good man. My wife essentially had to let certain levels of personal disrespect slide because she didn’t have the energy to take on every issue that her kids dealt her way. I heard the way they talked to her initially and I had to bite my tongue as if I had ever talked to my parents that way, I shudder at the results. This is what I mean, if you think it’s as simple as you state, try it and get back to me, it will indeed open your eyes. Raising a kid alone isn’t twice as hard, it’s 4 times as hard as you have to shoulder EVERYTHING on your own. It simply isn’t as easy as you think and even if you have friends with kids, at the end of the day you still get to go home and leave those kids behind. There is a world of difference there. I haven't see you state anything about your own kids, if you do have any my apologies, if you don't you are purely speaking hypothetically and really have no real world experience in the matter.
There is indeed a reason why our lovely host of this blog has no children herself.
“when they become drug addicts and murderers, do we get to still blame mommy/daddy? at what point do we say yeah you got a bum deal but suck it up, you are responsible for your own actions? “
Of course, I got you loud and clear, but when your formative years are spend taking care of yourself when someone should have been showing you right from wrong, what do you think is going to happen? My mother in law (who was a single mother herself, hint) had stated to my wife that a child is nothing but a retarded adult. We sometimes like to think that they are capable of so much more, but in the end they need guidance and a lot of it. If you train a baseball player the wrong way early in their career, unless someone notices and takes direct steps to intervene, this player doesn’t even know what they are doing wrong.
How many immigrants from East Indian countries who are taught that women are nothing but property will suddenly change when brought to North America?
”and by the way, amax, i'm not rare. not only did all three of my siblings grow up to be well-adjusted and responsible adults, but so did most of the people i grew up with, several of them from single-parent homes. i think it's a serious disservice to the single parents who do provide stable homes and good parenting to blame them as a whole for loser children”
And my point still stands. For every one of you or your friends, there are at least 2 or 3 which don’t make it to that level. You’re assuming the situation is far easier than it actually is and essentially assuming that kids can rear themselves...which they cannot. If it where it wouldn’t be a problem in the first place.
Amax at October 26, 2009 7:06 PM
> single parenthood is not the ideal.
So which kids deserve less than the "ideal"? The black ones? The short ones? The girls? The retarded? Your use of the word is manipulative and repugnant, as if the "ideal" were some rarified, distant, and exotic jewel from a mountain mineshaft, instead of the warmth and generosity that should be expected of any grown human beings who make children... The kind of resource which is, in fact, freely and infinitely available to those inclined to offer it.
> but it is not causative of anything
That's the stinkingest horseshit I've seen here since last week, when you said children don't need mothers or fathers... Or danced around saying so, out of God knows what convoluted impulses of shame and cowardice.
> it makes it harder, to be sure.
> but it's not causative.
Yes. Yes it is causative. How much fatherlessness would you need to see in a prison population before you'd do the math?
Or is that math even necessary?:
> otherwise, i'd be a drug addict
> or a murderer or something.
Is that our standard? Are you going to assume that anything that didn't turn you personally into a murderer is to be tolerated? Here's the golden phrasing:
> it makes it harder, to be sure.
> but it's not causative
Got that? Did everybody read that?
There's really no limit to the suffering some people are willing to bring down on the most defenseless members of our society in order to give adults some egotistical indulgence. What will they say to the kids? How will they explain this to little ones? —
Yes, little son or daughter, IT WILL BE HARDER FOR YOU, TO BE SURE, to grow up without intimate, sheltering affection from the man or a woman who loved this planet enough to bring you into it. But it would be more convenient for those grownups if you could, through some unspecified mechanism, simply have the strength and faith and connectedness and insight to surpass these "harder" challenges. C'mon, little fucker, get over yourself. You're almost seven now. Or four. Or two, or fourteen, whichever it is. Just try to keep the crying to a minimum, OK? Because Daddy hates it when you cry. That's why there's no trip to Disneyland this year... And Mommy had a long day at work....
When people say "Well, *I* turned out OK, didn't I?", I have to wonder if we're hearing the most transparent but backhanded call for help, a group-huggy kind of request for hours of mundane psychoanalysis and touchy-feely 'validation'.
But I don't want to hear about your personal little dramas. I don't care if you're trying to excuse the weakness of a single parent who did the best she could when her drunkard husband ran out, or who didn't have the social competence to keep a good man in your life for the first twenty years. I don't care if you are, in some psychologically intermediated way, trying to make sure there's not to much judgment going down in this society, because you might want a little extra patience from people yourself some day.
Maybe you didn't turn out OK. Even if you did, you aren't the one to make that determination... And "OK" should not be our standard. Almost every loathsome characteristic in the human heart is something that can be passed readily, and punishingly, from generation to generation. Afghanistan warlords ask American soldiers all the time: 'What are you guys so pissed about? I turned out OK, didn't I? Just because I won't let the women in my village learn to read....'
Mr. Whatever, I just don't think you're a very nice man. You're a shameless blog commenter though, which is kind of entertaining.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 27, 2009 2:26 AM
"single parenthood is not the ideal. but it is not causative of anything"
Well, in the sense that no outcome is 100% guaranteed and human behavior is not completely deterministic, then I guess nothing is causative of anything. At least, that seems to be your point.
So what? Does that mean we should simply ignore or dismiss risk factors because they don't always lead to bad outcomes?
If I drive home while three times over the legal blood alcohol limit, and manage to not kill anyone, I can safely conclude 'hey, drink-driving is obviously not causative of anything. All those people complaining about drunk drivers killing their loved ones are just a bunch of whiners looking for sympathy! Take some responsibility for your own problems instead of blaming others and playing the victim! '
Nick S at October 27, 2009 3:31 AM
This Nick kid's got a good fastball
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 27, 2009 3:34 AM
Well, my fastball is better than his curveball.
Nick S at October 27, 2009 4:31 AM
axman at least your argument isn't just an asshole. although the fact that crid is does not surprise me. i was actually waiting for it.
i am not underestimating how hard it is to raise kids as a single parent. just because something is hard doesn't mean you don't have to do it.
not ideal, no. definitely a risk factor, yes. what do you propose, taking away all the kids whose parents happen to be single - regardless of how they got that way? and do you suppose institutions would be better for them? or are you going to take them in yourself, because there already aren't enough foster or adoptive homes? do you really think that's a better solution?
should we be encouraging people to purposefully become single parents? of course not. should we be encouraging people to sleep with people and procreate with people who will not necessarily stick around? of course not, don't be stupid. but it wouldn't be a bad thing to encourage a society in which everyone with children is held responsible for actually raising and teaching them, regardless of how many parents they are.
and there's a big difference, axman, between a 7 year old with homework and a 17-year old. that's an asinine comparison. and crid, obviously your ridiculous example is poor parenting - but it happens in two-parent households too, or did you think that the number 2 makes it magically perfect? and generally, when something is correlative and not causative, we don't just ignore it as pointless. we make attempts to remove as many other risk factors as possible to reduce the risk.
and of course parents are the strongest influence on a kid's life. the kids in this story are 17. don't you think somewhere along the line perhaps the teachers as well failed to provide enough of a kick in the ass to get the kids to do their homework? who do you suppose gave these kids the perfect excuse? and how long are you going to absolve them of all responsibility for their failure?
whatever at October 27, 2009 9:55 AM
"and there's a big difference, axman, between a 7 year old with homework and a 17-year old. that's an asinine comparison. and crid, obviously your ridiculous example is poor parenting - but it happens in two-parent households too, or did you think that the number 2 makes it magically perfect? and generally, when something is correlative and not causative, we don't just ignore it as pointless. we make attempts to remove as many other risk factors as possible to reduce the risk."
And why is it an assinine comparison? What happens magically at 17 which will suddenly make a child hit the books when it wasn't taught at 7? This is the whole point which you miss and has been told repeatedly. Instilling a good work ethic doesn't happen overnight, it happens over years of being a good example and being consistant with proper stimulus.
At the end of the day, so long as people learn to pay their bills, which does get taught by the media, why should these people aim higher than McDonalds? No structure, no positive re-enforcement, no parent to sit them down and make them do their homework because they are out doing God knows what simply to make ends meet and then all of sudden at 17 you think these kids are going to learn this?
"and of course parents are the strongest influence on a kid's life. the kids in this story are 17. don't you think somewhere along the line perhaps the teachers as well failed to provide enough of a kick in the ass to get the kids to do their homework? who do you suppose gave these kids the perfect excuse? and how long are you going to absolve them of all responsibility for their failure?"
There job is to teach, of course, but one person already has stated it. By highschool the numbers work against you, you have 5 or more teachers and they have 90 or so students. They can assign homework until their are blue in the face, what else to they do? What else can they do? Once the student leaves the school, they are on God's good humour and whatever happens to them is in a lot of cases beyond their control.
Is it the choice of the children to fail, in a way I can see your point. However, in quite of few of those cases the deck was stacked against them.
Amax at October 27, 2009 10:13 AM
first - i apologize for apparently being dyslexic and calling you axman instead of amax.
my point between why the homework for the 7 year old was not a good comparison for the 17 year old was this: at 7, they likely have not had much homework - i don't know, school's changed a lot, it's possible they have had more than i think. but at the same time, the 17 year old has had 10 years worth of homework on the 7 year old, and therefore 10 years worth of teachers who should have been failing the student for failure to do their work. maybe the parent doesn't care if the kid get's f's, i don't know, that's bad parenting regardless of how many there are. but if they get enough of them, they should have been held back a grade or two, and i don't know too many parents who wouldn't care about that, single or no.
at 17, with single parents, yeah, i'd wholeheartedly agree, the deck is stacked against them. but at some point, their lives still become their own responsibility. what point is that? no one's answered that question either. which i find rather amusing and surprising on a blog where everyone is constantly spouting 'personal responsibility'. are we going to start asking people accused of crimes how many parents they had, and adjusting their sentences accordingly? probably not.
there is no doubt that there is a correlation between single parent households and poor outcomes. there is also a correlation between homes in poverty and poor outcomes. single parent homes are often in that camp as well, for the obvious reason of single incomes. it is not clear which has the stronger influence. wealthy two-parent homes also raise criminals - and who knows, if poor kids could get the same lawyers, maybe the numbers would even be similar, i don't know, i'm purely speculating, nobody jump on me for that.
my point is not that single parent homes are a good thing. my point is that they do not necessarily turn out bad kids, and should not be condemned necessarily because of that, especially without considering how they got that way - for example, my friend's father died of cancer when she was 10. hardly predictable, he didn't smoke or drink or do anything risky. her mother did not remarry. my friend is now a minister, married with two stepkids and one child of her own. her husband, by the way, didn't leave his family, his ex-wife did. it's one thing to condemn people for becoming single parents on purpose, or for choosing bad partners to procreate with, or for being stupid and careless in becoming single parents. but to condemn all of them, universally, is not right. while it is infinitely harder to raise children alone, it is not impossible, and good parenting should be expected of everyone with offspring, regardless of any other circumstance.
and fyi, nick s., too much alcohol CAUSES poor judgment, poor attentiveness, and slow reaction time. every single time you do it. whether or not you get home alright often depends on who else is on the road. similarly, single parenthood CAUSES an extremely tired parent with a lot on his/her plate. whether or not the kid gets out alright depends on whether or not that parent steps up to the plate.
whatever at October 27, 2009 12:07 PM
I hear what you are saying and yes, it makes perfect sense. Personal responsibility is something that everyone has to take at one point in time or another, if one wants a successful life, yes, it is actually imperative.
You are also right that single parents don't necessarily sire crappy kids 100% of the time, but you are still forgetting the vast majority are screwed from the jump. I mentioned the homework for a 7 year old because at that stage the, the consequences are smaller. So they don't do it, what does it matter? They go back to school, and fail (if they still do that, in Ontario they don't) or get passed up until they are hopelessly out of their league.
Are they powerless, yes of course they aren't, only by choice, but by 17 what have they been taught? If they want to survive, there is a McDonalds just around the corner, by that time they probably don't have the grades to aspire to anything else anyway. What have they learned? Not to put their nose to the grindstone to be sure.
I'm glad you and your friend turned out okay, but from the top of my head I can still tell you 6 people in your situation that had issues. Is it a death sentence being a single parent. No, but you and your friend are the exceptions to the rule. You and your friends are what is possible, not what is likely or even run of the mill.
A teacher is going to tell a student that if they follow a certain track it won't end well. This could be 10, 12 or all the way to teen years. They shrug their shoulders, and keep going, thinking they are smarter than some stupid teacher, right? They see this person for such a short time that their words or example doesn't have time to affect them.
The reason why I asked you if you have kids was that if you did you would know that kids won't suddenly take responsibility for themselves if they've been allowed to screw the pooch for most of their lives, or if no one was there for the nudge or more than that at the right times. It becomes the least you can get away with, this becomes your life, you learn it first hand by whatever parent is their and says three words to you before they go to sleep or back to work.
You say that it's easy to see, I can tell you that it...is...not. Watching someone be a parent and actually being one are two very different things. This is the very reason why so few at 17 decide to pull up their shorts and apply themselves BY themselves. How many criminals suddely wake up after their lives of crime? You question could be poised to them as well, when are they going to take responsibility for their lives?
I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but where was the incentive to be upstanding and law abiding? Why should they all of a sudden think delayed gratification when fast (but dangerous) cash is on the corner and asking them to be a runner for them?
You mentioned the media, okay then, they see 50 Cent getting shot and becoming a rapstar then making a ridiculously violent video game where he shoots everyone and you wonder why more kids aren't taking the responsible route??
Where is the person to tell them that these rappers and their lifestyles are full of crap, teachers are the ones they don't listen too, are you getting my point??
IT STARTS FROM YOUNG, my man. One doesn't erase their lifestyle after one year, that is a hell of a 180 for someone to make even with intervention, yet you think it's possible for these young people to do it on their own?
They have been failed right from the jump and left to their own devices most do not make it...most do not. I'm glad you are the exception, but this is exactly what you and your friends are. In similar situations, what you are thinking is reasonable simply isn't.
I'm not giving them a free pass to destroy their lives I'm sure many times people have reached their hands out to them for assistance. Yet a teacher can only do so much. A grandparent will have to get custody in most cases. Society will not step up to do a paren't job, they do so already with social programs and clubs which some can join if they choose to make the first move.
If I do not teach you right from wrong when you are a young person, how are you supposed to know it later in life?
Amax at October 27, 2009 1:16 PM
> it happens in two-parent households
> too
A lot less often. A lot less. Isn't that the point? That a loving mother with a loving father is what's best, and therefore the ideal?
> did you think that the number 2
> makes it magically perfect?
DID I EVERY SAY IT DID?
The incompetence of your argument is stunning to me. It's so obviously a case of lowballing... You want to infer that any arrangement which doesn't produce perfectly safe, happy, and well-adjusted children can be dismissed, such that any other arrangement should be permitted.
Two things about this monstrous belief of yours.
First, it's obvious that you haven't thought about this much. You just pulled this reasoning out of your ass. By whatever personal experience, you imagine it to be compassionate and forgiving, rather than oblivious and condemnatory.
Second, almost everyone in America agrees with you. Nobody wants to think that life is and should be rigorous and demanding... It's more funner just to answer base impulses and let the chips fall where they may, especially when those chips fall to the detriment of children who are unable to defend themselves.
And so you tell them without shame: 'Hey little children, your lives are your own responsibility, whether you've been loved or not'.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 27, 2009 1:29 PM
"at 17, with single parents, yeah, i'd wholeheartedly agree, the deck is stacked against them. but at some point, their lives still become their own responsibility. what point is that? no one's answered that question either. which i find rather amusing and surprising on a blog where everyone is constantly spouting 'personal responsibility'."
The subject was school performance, and even at 17 you are still legally a minor.
But the question is pointless because you offer a false choice that does not need to be made. Your position is that people can either accept total responsibility for their whole life and everything that is wrong or else blame their parents or someone else.
Likewise, to say that kids can blame their parents for everything up until a point but then after that must accept total responsibility for their life failures is a false dichotomy.
If I walk down the street and someone assaults me, I don't get to blame that person for every problem in my life after that point. But nor do I have to give that person a free pass and accept that my pain and suffering is entirely my own doing.
Similarly, if I was raised by crap parents I don't get to blame them for everything that goes wrong with my life. But nor do I have to give them a free pass and pretend I had just as much opportunity as those raised in good families.
The point is that everyone is responsible for doing the best they can under the circumstances and the choices they make. If a child is raised by single parents, they may have fewer options to succeed in life. But they can still be held responsible for making the most of what little they have. Nor does this preclude holding the parents responsible for the choices that limited their child's options to begin with.
IOW, everyone is responsible all the time. Parents are responsible for being shit parents. And the kids are responsible for at least making an effort in trying circumstances.
Nick S at October 27, 2009 2:15 PM
> But the question is pointless
> because you offer a false choice
> that does not need to be made. Your
> position is that people can either
> accept total responsibility for
> their whole life and everything that
> is wrong or else blame their parents
> or someone else
This Nick kid's a good baserunner, too.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 27, 2009 2:53 PM
Whatever, your whole approach is that you want to get single parents off the hook. So you put all the responsibility onto the children of single parents. Then you say 'oh look. I believe in personal responsibility. If you disagree, you must be an anti-responsibilitarian'.
I want to get group A off the hook. So I will put all the responsibility onto group B. Then if anyone disagrees, I can say they don't believe in personal responsibility.
Anyone can selectively adopt the rhetoric of personal responsibility in order to shift the blame to those they do not care for. But this is not the same thing as believing in personal responsibility as a general principle.
Nick S at October 27, 2009 3:04 PM
crid you may not have said that two parent households turned out perfect kids, but you also make the assumption that single parent homes are automatically going to. you're an ass. unrelated, but still true.
at 17 the kids have had a lot more homework than a 7 year old. if the teachers have, until that point, failed to impose consequences to the kids who don't do their homework, how is that the single parents' fault? isn't that the school's responsibility to hand out f's and hold kids back who fail to achieve? and yes, a 17 year old is still technically a minor. for a few more months. but wouldn't it be better for them to be held accountable for something now, for something as relatively minor as homework, then later when it might actually be important?
i don't want to get single parents off the hook. i want to get ALL parents ON the hook.
whatever at October 27, 2009 3:39 PM
I'm pretty sure Nick could hit a Nolan Ryan fastball. We'll see.
Single Parenting does suck. Case and point, my son, 9 years old, made two A's two B's and one C first 6 weeks of third grade. Tested over the top in everything, but didn't turn in 12 homework assignments. So you say I dropped the ball, but the first two weeks of school this year, he got mad at me about reminding him of homework. So I said, then do it, turn it in, and we'll NEVER speak of it again.
Well that didn't work. It's that change from 'homework' being 'drawing a puppy' to homework doing arithmetic word problems. 2nd to 3rd grade, you parents get it.
We have fixed this in the last three weeks, but without me here to do this, it may have been over for him if this hadn't been stopped. (And unplugging that Xbox 360 from the TV in mid live play made a huge statement, then unplugging the cable modem from his computer, sweet ecstasy;-).
I just hope other people who have engaged in the raising of their own children are ON THE HOOK also.
sterling at October 27, 2009 5:11 PM
> you also make the assumption that
> single parent homes are automatically
> going to.
Statistically, they will.
Look, you're obviously just flying on fumes. Maybe we shouldn't expect a lot of clear thinking about this from a person who calls himself "whatever". But no matter how naive and forgivable you might imagine yourself to be, I can think of no greater threat to civilization than the trivialization of parenthood. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're talking about something big.
> i don't want to get single parents off
> the hook. i want to get ALL parents
> ON the hook
You technique sucks.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 27, 2009 6:43 PM
"Statistically, they will."
quit being stupid. statistically, they might be more likely. but to say they WILL requires a 100% provably CAUSATIVE relationship. but wait, we've said that already. you apparently can't read.
"trivialization of parenthood"
how, exactly, is it trivializing parenthood to expect people to actually do it? where did i say it was an easy job? i believe i've said several times that it's not. nothing worth doing is, and the most important jobs are often the hardest.
and sterling sounds like a very capable parent.
whatever at October 27, 2009 9:18 PM
> statistically, they might
> be more likely.
That's exactly the point: With such a huge sample size, bad fates are guaranteed.
This isn't meant to be insulting: Did you go to college?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 27, 2009 9:44 PM
guaranteed = 100%. single parents+ bad outcomes - not equal 100%. therefore, bad fates are guaranteed - false.
whatever at October 27, 2009 11:01 PM
It's certain, absolutly indisputable, that when huge numbers of children are raised without a loving mother and a loving father, bad outcomes will result... Some children will have grotesquely malformed souls, some (a great majority, I think) will have dislocating anger which distracts and retards their development, and a tiny sliver will grow up to live full, loving lives anyway. You apparently regard that tiny sliver as an excuse for incompetent parenting. 'Gosh, ya never know... Nothing is guaranteed...!'
Well, we do know. I want what's best for children. What's best for children is a loving mother with a loving father.
We might as well break all children's wrists with a hammer in the first grade. In twenty years, some of them will be baseball pitchers anyway, right? Surely at least ONE of them will do well in the minors...
_________
You never got back to us on that college thing.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 28, 2009 12:27 AM
i am truly clueless as to where you think i excuse incompetent parenting. i have said, repeatedly, that ALL parents, single or not, should be held to the same high standard of competence.
and you dispute your own baseless claim - in the same paragraph, you state that it is inevitable that children in single parent homes will have bad outcomes - and then state that a tiny sliver will grow up ok.
i will not answer any personal questions.
whatever at October 28, 2009 12:35 AM
why do you want to know if i went to college, anyway?
whatever at October 28, 2009 12:41 AM
> i am truly clueless as to where
> you think i excuse incompetent
> parenting.
You're cool with parents who don't lovingly raise their children. I am not.
> you state that it is inevitable that
> children in single parent homes will
> have bad outcomes - and then state that
>a tiny sliver will grow up ok.
This is why I think you didn't go to college. This is not a subtle logical point, or a clever rhetorical trick on my part. I'm saying that in a population as large as the one under discussion, lots of kids are going to get hurt. You think you win the argument if you find just one kid who (apparently) doesn't get hurt. You, having not thought about it very much, will readily consign the (remaining) vast majority of underloved kids through this maiming experience just because, y'know, they might be OK.
> i will not answer any personal
> questions.
With beliefs like yours, speculations become reliable. But...
> why do you want to know if i
> went to college, anyway?
Did you go to college?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 28, 2009 12:51 AM
you are an idiot. i have repeatedly stated that all parents should be held to the same high standard. if this somehow translates into cridspeak as i think children should be unloved and neglected, well, i can't help you there. because it's a bullshit translation.
so how about my friend who's father died? or all the other people i grew up with who grew up in single parent homes, who now lead stable, productive, and non-criminal lives? none of them have gaps in their characters or unresolved anger issues. nowhere have i said that single parenthood is a good idea. it is not causative. there are other factors that influence good versus bad outcomes. but for people who, for reasons beyond their control, end up as single parents, what would you have them do? seriously?
i repeat, why the fuck do you want to know if i went to college?
whatever at October 28, 2009 1:40 AM
> i have repeatedly stated that all
> parents should be held to the
> same high standard
Nope. In the earlier thread, you did everything possibly to dance—
> They need "Conscientious and
> nurturing adults". Yep.
—around your clearest inference, which is that children don't need Mommies (or, that they don't need Daddies). You never actually said that, you just said they don't need one of each. But seeing as how it requires one of each to create an instance of parenthood, then at least one parent isn't "being held to the same high standard".
> it is not causative.
You're not stating a belief, you're reciting a prayer. Hence the smokescreen of the next sentence:
> there are other factors that
> influence good versus bad
> outcomes.
There undoubtedly are, and society should and does consider those matters as well. But the first question we should ask is "Did the kid have a loving mother and father?" Having a team like that supervise a child's growth makes a whole lot of other stuff go away without further (and expensive) intrusion from distant parties.
> for people who, for reasons
> beyond their control, end up as
> single parents, what would you
> have them do? seriously?
First, I would 'seriously' want to know what's meant by "beyond their control". I think divorce with children (and incompetent pairing by parents) is a holocaust. In two hundred years, our generations will be judged as harshly for this as we now judge our slave-owning Founding Fathers. It's just not possible that the number of single parents out there is the product of forces "beyond their control".
(I've some intimate experience with the kind of parents whose difficulties you seek to pillage for rhetorical effect: When you're ready to consider those cases specifically and without exploitative intent, by all means let us know.)
> why the fuck do you want to know
> if i went to college?
Because I think you're saying something tremendously foolish. Some foolishness comes mostly from going to college, and other kinds come from not. So which is it?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 28, 2009 2:23 AM
i never actually commented in that thread. you will notice that i do not capitalize my ridiculous name. so sue me for not being creative with it.
i will not define causative for you again, clearly you do not understand the word.
my friend's father DIED, did you forget that? beyond his control, or her mother's. and my father beat the shit out of my mother - after 15 years of relatively peaceful marriage. not forseeable. and he's not a drunk, either, she just caught him in an affair. do you really think i would have been better off if they'd stayed together? i don't necessarily think divorce is a good thing either. but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
i'm not referring to people who get pregnant on purpose as single mothers, or even by accident. clearly these are not stable people and shouldn't be parents. i'm referring to those who did not go into parenthood intending to become single, and tried very hard to prevent it.
as for whether or not i went to college, either answer only gives you a different kind of fodder to ridicule me. why in the world would i give you that? it's far more fun to watch you wonder.
whatever at October 28, 2009 2:35 AM
> you will notice that i do not
> capitalize my ridiculous name.
If you're not the same guy, your beliefs are so similar that I'm glad to have thrown the darts anyway. And they seem to have landed in the center of the cork....
> do you really think i would have
> been better off if they'd stayed
> together?
Affairs and beatings... Do you really think that's who I mean by a loving mother with a loving father?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 28, 2009 2:44 AM
no, i don't think that's who you mean. but when my parents got divorced? my mother was a single parent. for awhile, anyway, and we were dirt poor. i mean DIRT. but i never knew it until i grew up. my mother worked her ass off. and came home and did it some more. she helped us with our homework - which we were in serious trouble if we didn't finish - tucked us in, told us bedtime stories, monitored and restricted our tv exposure (pretty much limited to the brady bunch and the smurfs) and made sure we never lacked for anything. important. i never did get that pony. but she was a single parent - which you define as worse - every time - than married parents. now i'm not saying that every single parent does this, but every single parent should. every two-parent household should. and every father who's not involved in his kid's lives, barring abuse and such, should be.
and i'm not the same person as the other Whatever, which you should have noticed, as it was pointed out - by you, i believe - in another thread i don't feel like researching.
whatever at October 28, 2009 3:00 AM
> now i'm not saying that every single
> parent does this, but every single
> parent should.
Who'd argue? THEY WON'T. THEY DON'T. (Understand this: When I say "THEY", I mean the parcel of humanity you describe as "every single parent". Got it?) And even when they do, the results are uneven compared to families raised by a loving mother with a loving father.
Single parenthood sucks, and thanks for asking.
> you should have noticed, as it
> was pointed out - by you, i
> believe - in another thread
Huh? I'm supposed to see through identical anonymizing nicknames (off-puttingly blasé ones, at that) with superhuman sensitivity to detect and salute trivial distinctions in baseless opinion?
Please... I'm just a man, fella... Flesh and blood, much like yourself. I don't actually have superhero blog-powers.
(But I understand why people sometimes think I do.)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 28, 2009 3:20 AM
by "every single parent", by the way, i meant every parent period. including single ones. just fyi.
and you seem perfectly adept at researching every single thing anyone says in any thread, so it doesn't seem to farfetched for you to remember what you said yourself.
whatever at October 28, 2009 4:10 AM
On the way into work this morning I was listening to a local morning talk show. Their guests were a local police sergeant and FBI agent working on recovering underage prostitution rings (most recent bust in California was up in Sacramento).
The local radio guy briefly paused in between the give-us-the-gory-detail type questions for a question I had been shouting at the radio dial for a good 5 minutes. "What is the common thread in all these kids lives that they would wind up working the streets for a pimp at this young of an age...what left them so susceptible to these unfortunate circumstances?"
FBI Special Agent Menerva responded; "Well, first, all these kids come from broken homes..."
They estimated there were approximately 100,000 (an incomplete estimate according to them) underage prostitutes in the US. Domestic. Not the ones brought in from slave trades from other countries.
Feebie at October 28, 2009 9:26 AM
> doesn't seem to farfetched for
> you to remember what you said
> yourself.
I resent your allegations! They have no substance! You have no citations! What you're talking about never happened! I'm offended!
_____
Feebie - Do you remember which station?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at October 28, 2009 12:52 PM
Affecting article. As a born and bred Chicagoite I love this and all things chicago. I own and work in a diner and I wish more people in these tough economic times come out to restaurants in Chicago. Check out http://friendseat.com/chicago orhttp://chicagorestaurants.com/ and visit your 'hoody dive.
gillfoodie at November 12, 2009 7:06 PM
Leave a comment