Juliette at Baldilocks wrote a really impassioned article about (and these are quotes, not scare-quotes) "the large-scale fatherless problem in the black community" that was inspired by a conversation at Dean's World. The discussion is about an article by Glen Sacks and Reginald Brass that begins thus:
National Fatherhood Initiative's Ad Campaign Insults African-American Fathers
By Glenn Sacks and Reginald Brass"Easter Bunny. Tooth Fairy. Daddy. Eventually kids stop believing in things they don't see."
"Each Night Millions of Kids Go To Sleep Starving. For Attention from Their Dads."
"Dear Daddy, My Mommy Can't Be My Daddy Too."
Bus stop ads with pictures of small African American children delivering these biting messages to their absent fathers can be seen all over Los Angeles County. They are part of a nationwide campaign to reduce fatherlessness in the African-American community. The campaign is sponsored by the National Fatherhood Initiative, an influential Maryland-based nonprofit organization which has had ties with both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
While the NFI's goal is laudable, research shows that fathers bear only part of the responsibility for black fatherlessness. The other major factor is one which the NFI campaign completely ignores--the obstruction of fathers' visitation rights by custodial mothers.
The conversation at Dean's was brief but interesting.You should read it and the article they discuss before reading Juliette's post.
Okay, this starts a little blog-snarky, but bear with me, I need to get it out of my system. There's some clown named Oscar who said at Dean's
This whole situation is another result of the Left's promotion of victimhood as a way of life.
..like that had anything to do with the conversation. I mean, who's playing victim here...the father denied visitation? the mother who is abandoned? the child with no say in the matter?
Now that that's done...
La Shawn Barber, who I've never had a discussion with, said:
The child support issue is far down on the list...The undeniable truth is that 70 percent of black babies are brought into this world without the benefit of married parents, no fathers living with them or even involve in their lives. If black liberals find the ads offensive, tough.
My reaction will depend on whether the commas in her second sentence serve as "or"s or "and"s. If they are "and"s, she's flat wrong. And the "black liberals" thing is a bit gratuitous, but fine. In any case Black men in general do raise their kids, are involved. That they didn't do the ritual is proof of a couple of things: that the "marriage" word and ritual aren't required to do the job, and that people should be judged based on what they actually do rather than whether they've submitted to a specific ritual before they did it.
Juliette places most of the blame for the situation on Black women. Her argument would have a strong appeal to Conservatives and conservatives. I wonder if Conservatives recognize what it will take in situ to get the ideal family back to its dominant place. I mean getting seriously fundamental, children are hitting puberty at, what, nine years old? Kids 11-12 years old hit full in the face with a bag of adult hormones on the regular—no way they know how to handle it. Who is there to keep them in check? Both parents have to work to pay the bills. One parent quits, everyone does without…in a world with a someteen zillion dollar industry dedicated to making you want things you don't need, a world where possessions give one social status.
It's a hot mess. I can't tell you why kids ripen so fast nowadays, but if that can't be changed then horny twelve year olds will fuck if not physically prevented…which means one or more parents have to stay with them. And I am asking if this is important enough to Conservatives to insure the economy does not require both parents to work in order to survive. I think that's a non-starter. But what's the other options? I honestly don't know and, to be honest, no longer have a dog in that race.
Speaking of race, you'll notice I don't see this as a race specific problem. I'll justify that later; I have to dig out my copy of Two Nations by Andrew Hacker because he's already packaged the necessary stats very nicely.
Totally as a reaction to the issue, not to anyone's specific statement, a lot of Conservative social programs remind me of those wealthy seashore communities where they truck in sand every spring to replace that which the natural processes of the sea have removed. Observe without value judgments (value judgments are called for, just not while observing) and you'll have to recognize that certain genies just will NOT go back in the bottle.
Posted by P6 at June 4, 2004 10:54 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2120
Comments
"And I am asking if this is important enough to Conservatives to insure the economy does not require both parents to work in order to survive."
That is some truth right there. So many conservatives think that we can go back to a mythical 1950's world where mom stays at home and dad goes to the office and brings home the bacon. For most Black folks that world never existed (do they think all those black housekeepers and cooks were single and childless?).
I can't remember who, maybe Matt Yglesias, stated that this mythical past was based on the strongly unionized American based company and the big government that conservatives loathe. Are they willing to become liberals and support re-unionization and imposition of penalties on companys that send jobs oversees?
Posted by walter at June 4, 2004 01:34 PMWhew...Juliette and La Shawn Barber *shaking head* while i feel that recognizing the heterogeneity of the black community is important, i wonder sometimes why some of the Black conservatives don't realize how much Western/White supremacist thinking they've ingested...
in any case, the Dean article makes some good points, and even Juliette touches on something that's near to my heart: the role of women in providing the father access to his child. i'm all for women having children, but having them and denying the father access is problematic. even if he's a half-ass father, that's better than no-ass, ain't it? if the government is so serious about keeping families together, why doesn't it improve visitation laws?
the part of Juliette's (and La Shawn's) argument that bothers me is the one about the government has made it easy for such women to survive without the benefit of having a man around. been doing WAY too much research on welfare and minorities recently; in NO state does welfare provide single mothers with enough income to live above the poverty line. Even where women do get a fair amount of assistance, black and latina women get less than whites, get sanctioned more than whites, are directed to fewer jobs than whites, and are offered less child-care options than whites. (got that from Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform by Joe Soss and Sanford Schram, among other places). never mind the fact that the average single-mother family receiving welfare has 2 children or less. the state even keeps the child support it collects AFTER the woman manages to make it off welfare.
*deep breath* i'm not making excuses for women who choose to have children w/o fathers - i'm in a situation like that myself and hate that i haven't seen my daughter since 2001. i'm also not saying that the government SHOULD take care of women who choose to be mothers. i'm just infuriated by this paean to "personal responsibility" that elides the context within which issues such as unplanned pregnancies occur - like joblessness, poorly funded education, and the like (you addressed this pretty well, btw).
Posted by Andre at June 4, 2004 05:47 PMYou know guys, all I'd ask of folks is to base their positions on more than convincing rhetoric, more than reason.
I changed my mind. I want them to stop pretending their reasoning is based only on high principle. I want them to admit to the nature of their self-interest.
I'm in the process of putting together an entry about this. Will probably have it up Monday. Some of what I am thinking is in Baldilocks' comments. The fact the ads are funded by the eugenics movement is, to say the least, interesting. Does that mean I am letting the brothers off the hook altogether? No.
I've been having a dialogue will La Shawn Barber. Will email you about that.
Posted by Mac Diva at June 6, 2004 05:22 PMWow! The topic turned out to be both bigger and more interesting than I realized. So, there will be at least two entries at Silver Rights about this. The first focuses on the money trail and the ideology of the organization behind the ads. It can be read here. One of the things I discovered writing it is the blacks may actually be a secondary audience for the ads. Who's on first? Read the entry.
The second entry will address the mangled facts the Right is relying on to reach its conclusions about the need for such such activities.
Posted by Mac Diva at June 7, 2004 04:59 PM