Breakdown of the Black Family, and Its Consequences

1313366450_img2

According to the modern-day civil-rights establishment, most of the problems that currently afflict African Americans result directly from the intractable white racism that allegedly continues to plague blacks in every region of the country — across all age groups, all educational levels, and all income brackets. This civil-rights elite largely ignores the role of issues within the black community, such as the calamitous breakdown of the black family since the 1960s, in framing its critique.

In mid-1960s America, the nation’s out-of-wedlock birth rate (which stood at 7.7 percent at the time) began a rapid and relentless climb across all demographic lines, a climb that would continue unabated until 1994, when the Welfare Reform Act put the brakes on that trend. Today the overall American illegitimacy rate is about 33 percent (26 percent for whites). For blacks, it hovers at near 70 percent—approximately three times the level of black illegitimacy that existed when the War on Poverty began in 1964.

Illegitimacy is an important issue because it has a great influence on all statistical indicators of a population group’s progress or decline. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women, and that trend continued uninterrupted until the passage of welfare reform. The black out-of-wedlock birth rates in some inner cities now exceed 80 percent, and most of those mothers are teens. Because unmarried teenage mothers—whatever their race—typically have no steady employment, nearly 80 percent of them apply for welfare benefits within five years after giving birth to their first child. No group can withstand such a wholesale collapse of its family structure without experiencing devastating social consequences.

Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of our society’s economic ladder. Unwed mothers, regardless of their race, are four times more likely to live in poverty than the average American. Female-headed black families earn only 36 percent as much as two-parent black families, and female-headed white families earn just 46 percent as much as two-parent white families. Not only do unmarried mothers tend to earn relatively little, but their households are obviously limited to a single breadwinner—thus further widening the income gap between one-parent and two-parent families. Fully 85 percent of all black children in poverty live in single-parent, mother-child homes.

 

____________________

 

The destruction of this stable black family was set in motion by the policies and teachings of the left, which for decades have encouraged blacks to view themselves as outcasts from a hostile American society; to identify themselves as perpetual victims who are entitled to compensatory privileges designed to “level the playing field” in a land where discrimination would otherwise run rampant; and to reject “white” norms and traditions as part and parcel of the “racist” culture that allegedly despises blacks. It is not inconceivable that one of those traditions which many blacks have chosen to abjure is the institution of marriage. In their landmark book America in Black and White, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom make this profoundly important observation:

“In the past three decades the proportion of intact married-couple families has declined precipitously even though the fraction of black women aged fifteen to forty-four who were divorced, separated, or widowed also went down.… It is thus not divorce but the failure to marry that has led to such a momentous change in black family patterns. The marriage rate for African Americans has plummeted in the past third of a century. In 1960 … [b]lack women were only a shade less likely to marry than white women…. Today a clear majority of African American women aged fifteen to forty-five have never been married, as compared with just a third of their white counterparts…. Many fewer black women are marrying, and yet they continue to have children—which was not the case in an earlier era.”

Read the entire piece here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1261

What do Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, Bill Cosby and this man have in common? “Responsi-damn-bility.”

I’ll tell you what Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, Bill Cosby, Frederick Wilson II and Clayton Craddock all have in common….the message of taking personal responsibility for your actions. Or, as my man in the video below said, “responsi-damn-bility.” I hope more people can hear this message, again, because it seems to have been repeated to the masses of black folks for well over 100 years.

We have to take care of our own people. The “Great Society” of LBJ has failed black people. Democrats seem to only want to keep us dependent on all levels of government so that they will vote for them and control us in perpetuity. Maybe the events in Ferguson are the start of another black awakening in America.

I feel it is time to reject the notion that you cannot compete with other people and need a handicap. We have to reject the pop culture of violence death and destruction. Reject the notion that we need a ” black leader” and start thinking for ourselves. Take control of your families and keep “family court” out of your lives at all costs. Speak proper English. Mothers and fathers keep your children by your side and raise them together in the same home. Be faithful to your spouse and reject any notion that the nuclear family is unimportant. Emulate the strong black men and women of generations in the past.

It is time to tell the story of the people who don’t follow the democratic talking points. We all don’t think alike and we want change from within.

Sometimes, we are our own worst enemy.

Take some “Responsi-damn-bility” and let’s make real progress. This is a great video and spot on:

The Accused

IMG_7466.JPG

Jason — until recently a student at an Ivy League school under Title IX investigation that has faced intense public criticism for the way it handles sexual assault cases — met Vanessa for the first time late at night at his fraternity house last March. Jason was drunk and doesn’t remember much, but he remembers giggling and talking about their hometowns.

Multiple bystanders saw Jason and Vanessa go up to his room. They also saw them making out on Jason’s bed. No one thought the situation seemed weird, according to witnesses who later volunteered to testify. But then, suddenly, Vanessa began to vomit. When she “came to,” Jason recalled, Vanessa didn’t know where she was or what was going on.

The next week, police knocked on Jason’s door. Vanessa had contacted both campus public safety officials and, later, local police after being urged to do so by friends who heard what happened, she said at the time. A campus public safety officer reported that Vanessa did not have any visible signs of injury or distress, and a detective noted that Vanessa did not report what happened as “harassment,” “sexual assault,” or “nonconsensual.” That’s because Vanessa didn’t remember what happened at all. She underwent a rape kit examination in hopes of finding out.

In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Jason said he understood why the police were investigating. If his sister or a friend had been in a similar situation, he would want the same. He told police that he barely remembered what happened either, but didn’t recall doing anything more than kissing and touching. He said Vanessa didn’t seem that drunk at the time.

“I think the police investigation was in good faith,” Jason said. “But the disciplinary hearing was not. They treated me as if I was some kind of monster.”

Jason has yet to file suit, but he and Miltenberg have compiled a lengthy list of the ways they say Jason was mistreated. For example, the process took significantly longer than 60 days, which violated the university’s own stated policies, as did Jason’s subsequent appeal, which took two months instead of two weeks. The school didn’t give Jason sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. The administration was required to provide him with all relevant case materials at least five business days in advance, but Jason had less than three business days. Vanessa submitted her 17-page-long transcript of her police interview to the college as her official complaint, but Jason was not given the same opportunity to submit his. One student on the hearing panel had been in a class with Vanessa. When Jason protested, the student said she thought she could be impartial.

On the day of Jason’s resolution meeting to discuss his fate, he woke up to an email asking why he didn’t attend. Administrators had rescheduled without notifying him.

According to legal documents, the police department that investigated the incident stated that “a significant factor in this will be whether semen is found” in Vanessa’s rape kit examination. Jason had told them that there wouldn’t be, and asked the panel to wait for the results of the kit before making a decision. They didn’t. Later that summer, the kit came back negative.

Jason was ultimately found responsible for violating the school’s policy that a “reasonable person” should have known that Vanessa was too incapacitated to consent. He was suspended for one year. Now, Jason is working for a friend’s company. He’s too scared to apply to graduate school, as previously planned, in fear that he’ll have to explain his record.

Jason acknowledges that the issue of consent is complex, but doesn’t feel it was right that the burden was all on him.

“They couldn’t prove that I wasn’t just as drunk,” he said. “So why was the burden of consent immediately assigned to me instead of her?”

Read the entire piece HERE

The Brotherhood of the Stay-at-Home Dad

A group of fathers and their children meet weekly in New York for outings, including to the Ancient Playground in Central Park. Credit Katie Orlinsky for The New York Times

A group of fathers and their children meet weekly in New York for outings, including to the Ancient Playground in Central Park. Credit Katie Orlinsky for The New York Times

An excerpt from this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/fashion/the-brotherhood-of-the-stay-at-home-dad.html

“Choo-choo-wa! Choo-choo-wa! Choo-choo-wa-wa-wah!”

The words — the theme song of a children’s cartoon — were being bellowed by six grown men huddled on a makeshift stage in a hotel banquet room.

The song leader, an education specialist, held up a baby rattle.

“What can we do to encourage play?” he asked the all-male audience.

“Give them alone time,” one man offered.

“Follow their lead,” another said.

“Have stuff around that they can interact with,” a third suggested.

All were correct. And why wouldn’t they be? They were stay-at-home fathers observing a presentation on children and play.

The men are part of a group called the National At-Home Dad Network, which on an early fall weekend had gathered here for an annual retreat (and a rare night without the kids). The men — 100 in total — had traveled from all over: the Midwest, Canada, Washington State. Over two days, they would attend a workshop on seatbelt safety and bro out at a Colorado Rockies game. They traded recipes — Tex-Mex spaghetti squash, lentil soup, piled into a box in the lobby — and asked questions of a panel of working women. (“Is it weird when your husband gets you a gift with your own money?”; “Who handles your finances?”) The men exchanged email addresses and made plans to meet up in playgrounds across the country.

The National At-Home Dad Network drew 100 men to its annual convention. Credit Brad Torchia for The New York Times
By Sunday, they left, as the convention organizer put it, “better men, better husbands, better fathers.” It was the largest gathering of stay-at-home fathers ever, according to the organizers.

Some may wonder why fathers need a convention at all. But these men said the answer was simple: They wanted other dads to talk to.

At-home mothers have every support resource in the book, as well as a changing vernacular for how to refer to them (they too are “working moms”). Yet when it comes to dads who are the primary caretakers of their children — a group that is growing swiftly, both in size and visibility — the resources remain dismal. Few books. Fewer community groups.

“You’ll hear many guys describe it: I’m alone on an island in a vast sea,” said Jim O’Dowd, the conference organizer, who is a former mechanical engineer and a father of four. “There’s no history, no social structure, no guidebook. A guy jumps into this blind.”

And yet, he is also more visible than ever. According to a June study by the Pew Research Center, stay-at-home dads now account for more than 16 percent of at-home caretakers, a number that has more than doubled over the past decade (and still does not factor in dads who work part time).

By no means are single-earner households the norm in this country. And yet along with women’s economic rise — 23 percent of wives now outearn their husbands — has emerged a new kind of male caretaker: the out-and-proud involved dad.

Sure, he raises his children differently than a woman would. But he’s also there by choice. He isn’t a product of the recession, necessarily. And, according to a Boston College survey, a majority of his full-time working brothers wish they could join him — if their wives’ incomes only allowed.

Read more HERE

Why Feminism Is NOT ‘The Fight for Equal Rights’

2014-11-06-allforequalityhashtag-thumb

An excerpt from this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-good/feminism-equal-rights_b_6111752.html

By Chris Good – Writer, Blogger, Musician, habitual Tinderer and coffee addict.

Is feminism fighting for equality? With respect, no, it isn’t. Here’s why.

The fight for ‘equality’ of the first two waves of feminism fought to raise the standing of women in society where there were clear and vast imbalances. Men in all eras of history were also imprisoned in gender roles and forced to live and act accordingly, but it’s right that women’s liberation movements fought for balance in democracy, the right for women to work, earn, own property and shape their own lives. In order to fight for equality, the woman’s rights needed to be elevated to that of a man’s. In that era and political and social climate, fighting for the rights of women was, indeed, “the fight for equality”.

The new wave feminists constantly declare the fight for equality despite glaring oversights. Why? Today’s feminism fights a new and changed Western world with an old definition of what it means to fight for equal rights. Fighting solely for the rights of women was relevant to the first and second wave of the movement that were staring at glaringly biased legislation and cultural values, but in today’s changed world it is not only outdated, but misplaced.

Both genders, as citizens, now have equal rights. There are further developments that deserve attention for each gender, so a campaign should be run by both men and women who, together, tackle highlighted equality issues that affect men and/or women; it would be wrong to fight for, only, the rights of women, as feminism clearly does today.

We heat a room when it’s cold, but there comes a point when the temperature simply needs regulating to maintain a comfortable environment for everyone. To continue heating it, would become too hot. Too extreme. Where this wave of feminism is still cranking up the dial on the thermostat, past 22 degrees to Max Women’s Rights, it’s becoming uncomfortable.

Furthermore, in claiming it is the fight for equality and, yet, only advocating for women, feminists show the movement as stubborn-minded and prejudiced, acting upon illogical, biased and, therefore, extremist values. A movement is its voice in the media, and ours is constantly bombarded with the notion that women are the only oppressed gender while men are the perpetrators of rape, rape threats, domestic violence, cat calling, sexual objectification and with headlines such as ‘a sea of misogyny’, ‘men should just shut up’ and ‘men avoid housework and don’t do their share’. This can only have one outcome: suspicion, dislike and blame toward all men.

Read more HERE