[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
So you cannot be committed to someone in your view unless you’re married?
Is that the be all/end all of commitment?
And yes,poverty is a vicious cycle.No one has stated otherwise.
[/quote]
If you really were “committed,” why aren’t you married before having children?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So you cannot be committed to someone in your view unless you’re married?
Is that the be all/end all of commitment?
And yes,poverty is a vicious cycle.No one has stated otherwise.
Are you trying to make a point that many/most of these kids are living with their both their parents? I do not think that is the case.
No,not at all,I agree with what you’re saying.What I’m trying to convey is that ‘wedlock’ is hardly a guarantee that the family unit will stay intact,and seeing it as the only possible formula and solution to the issue
is not realistic.
The fact that babies may be born out of wedlock is not the cause of the malaise.
Poverty is.[/quote]
But children out of wedlock contributes to the poverty no matter how you look at it. It is a huge roadblock to the mother getting an education etc.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So you cannot be committed to someone in your view unless you’re married?
Is that the be all/end all of commitment?
And yes,poverty is a vicious cycle.No one has stated otherwise.
If you really were “committed,” why aren’t you married before having children?[/quote]
Because not everybody may share your particular code of behaviour?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So you cannot be committed to someone in your view unless you’re married?
Is that the be all/end all of commitment?
And yes,poverty is a vicious cycle.No one has stated otherwise.
Are you trying to make a point that many/most of these kids are living with their both their parents? I do not think that is the case.
No,not at all,I agree with what you’re saying.What I’m trying to convey is that ‘wedlock’ is hardly a guarantee that the family unit will stay intact,and seeing it as the only possible formula and solution to the issue
is not realistic.
The fact that babies may be born out of wedlock is not the cause of the malaise.
Poverty is.
But children out of wedlock contributes to the poverty no matter how you look at it. It is a huge roadblock to the mother getting an education etc.[/quote]
I don’t understand how it’s even argueable. If I’m a single mother, I’m stuck. Maybe I can find a sitter while I go to work. But, going to work, continuing my education, and raising a child alone?! If a husband’s involved, at least one of the parents could work days and go to community college at night, eventually pulling themselves out of poverty.
And that’s not even getting into the benefits of having a father figure around, daily.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So you cannot be committed to someone in your view unless you’re married?
Is that the be all/end all of commitment?
And yes,poverty is a vicious cycle.No one has stated otherwise.
Are you trying to make a point that many/most of these kids are living with their both their parents? I do not think that is the case.
No,not at all,I agree with what you’re saying.What I’m trying to convey is that ‘wedlock’ is hardly a guarantee that the family unit will stay intact,and seeing it as the only possible formula and solution to the issue
is not realistic.
The fact that babies may be born out of wedlock is not the cause of the malaise.
Poverty is.
But children out of wedlock contributes to the poverty no matter how you look at it. It is a huge roadblock to the mother getting an education etc.[/quote]
If the child is born in wedlock in poverty ,the mother is not going to get an education ,regardless.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So you cannot be committed to someone in your view unless you’re married?
Is that the be all/end all of commitment?
And yes,poverty is a vicious cycle.No one has stated otherwise.
Are you trying to make a point that many/most of these kids are living with their both their parents? I do not think that is the case.
No,not at all,I agree with what you’re saying.What I’m trying to convey is that ‘wedlock’ is hardly a guarantee that the family unit will stay intact,and seeing it as the only possible formula and solution to the issue
is not realistic.
The fact that babies may be born out of wedlock is not the cause of the malaise.
Poverty is.
But children out of wedlock contributes to the poverty no matter how you look at it. It is a huge roadblock to the mother getting an education etc.
If the child is born in wedlock in poverty ,the mother is not going to get an education ,regardless.
[/quote]
why? or are you saying it will be harder on her?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So you cannot be committed to someone in your view unless you’re married?
Is that the be all/end all of commitment?
And yes,poverty is a vicious cycle.No one has stated otherwise.
If you really were “committed,” why aren’t you married before having children?
Because not everybody may share your particular code of behaviour?[/quote]
Than you live with the damned consequences, and don’t you dare vote for a democrat. If you can’t even practice self discipline, restraint, etc., don’t come to the taxpayers whining about needing a social program. And don’t complain about the rates of violence and drug abuse in poor neighborhoods. Don’t complain about cyles of poverty and inequity in living standards. Just don’t complain.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So you cannot be committed to someone in your view unless you’re married?
Is that the be all/end all of commitment?
And yes,poverty is a vicious cycle.No one has stated otherwise.
Are you trying to make a point that many/most of these kids are living with their both their parents? I do not think that is the case.
No,not at all,I agree with what you’re saying.What I’m trying to convey is that ‘wedlock’ is hardly a guarantee that the family unit will stay intact,and seeing it as the only possible formula and solution to the issue
is not realistic.
The fact that babies may be born out of wedlock is not the cause of the malaise.
Poverty is.
But children out of wedlock contributes to the poverty no matter how you look at it. It is a huge roadblock to the mother getting an education etc.
If the child is born in wedlock in poverty ,the mother is not going to get an education ,regardless.
[/quote]
But the poverty does not have to be there. There is so much opportunity to get out. It becomes harder if you are married with a kid and even harder for a single parent with a kid.
The solution is not to get pregnant until you can afford it.
Did I at any time advocate any increase in social programs?
No.
This goes to the core of the argument of this thread,it has to do with access to upward mobility in a society and how perceptions and prejudices in a society work to block that freedom of mobility for certain groups.
Throwing money at the issue will change very little.
[quote]Cpl. Mongo wrote:
This thread is killing me and being neither white or black, well hell I’ve been known to claim both, I being from one of these poverty stricken fatherless homes y’all talk about my race is always up for grabs.I don’t know where some of you are from because up here in the Pac Northwest most of the blacks I know are smarter and more educated than I will ever be.
Sadly the thug dressing, ebonic talking, gagsta types are all either hispanic or white boys who have never located a mirror to check their skin color. Sadly they might also be related to me. Half my family is Hispanic black and depending on how whitetrash/dirty Mex/ghetto black their family is, dictates their drive and motivation.
I would never be scared of black man walking down the street here because he’s probably terrified that there is so many white folks around, I will say that I will sterotype anybody by their appearance and actions, but maybe that is the result of a childhood in the worse neighborhoods. We were taught not to see color but to see threat or non-threat we were poor so black, white, brown, and yellow we had to hang together, it was for our survival.
To this day I will judge you by your actions not by your skin color. It’s interesting that this thread has not mentioned any other races because once again up here its the brown man that feels oppressed. He can’t get a high paying job because he might be illegal, he is just a dumb beaner because his car is on switches with gold antenana and the Virgin de guadelupe on the back window with a damn cow painted on the side.
Yet this same man knows that if he goes to a job interview to downplay his accent the best he can, dress sharp, and present himself appropraitely, now if he walks in and a black man walked in who is getting the job? The black guy, no accent, no whispers of legality, and no retarded car in the parking lot. I think this issue is a individual person problem that gets blown up by ignorant people on all sides.
RJ wanted it broke down shotgun style, well here it is, do what you are doing, break our stereotypes, teach ours the right way to treat people, and if you see some ignorant person running their mouth than stand up for the innocent and oppressed. This will always be one of the problems that has to be fought on the individual battlefields there is no magic pill just hard work and time. There thats my 2 lbs God I wanted to stay out of this one![/quote]
You should move to El Paso. You can’t get a job unless you have an hispanic accent.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Did I at any time advocate any increase in social programs?
No.
This goes to the core of the argument of this thread,it has to do with access to upward mobility in a society and how perceptions and prejudices in a society work to block that freedom of mobility for certain groups.
Throwing money at the issue will change very little.
[/quote]
There will be a meager amount of upward mobility for a people born predominately in broken homes!! Blaming racism and prejudices is ignoring the vastly bigger elephant in the room. An ever increasing negative enviroment for raising a child. If your kids already have juvie records, flunking/dropping out of high school, no self discipline of their own, using drugs, and/or having children of their own, they’re already doomed before some racist white man has rejected their college application.
[quote]
You should move to El Paso. You can’t get a job unless you have an hispanic accent. [/quote]
nice, actually where we all started out from ol’ gramps was stationed there moved up here after he got out.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Did I at any time advocate any increase in social programs?
No.
This goes to the core of the argument of this thread,it has to do with access to upward mobility in a society and how perceptions and prejudices in a society work to block that freedom of mobility for certain groups.
Throwing money at the issue will change very little.
There will be a meager amount of upward mobility for a people born predominately in broken homes!! Blaming racism and prejudices is ignoring the vastly bigger elephant in the room. An ever increasing negative enviroment for raising a child. If you’re kids already have juvie records, flunking/dropping out of high school, no self discipline of their own, using drugs, and/or having children of their own, they’re already doomed before some racist white man has rejected their college application.[/quote]
I agree with that…especially considering my own background. To the ignorant,I should not be successful because of my background and childhood. BUT because of being poor…the race card was thrown in more.
Here’s the deal: This country is fucked up. If one owns a business, he has to have a certain number of minority workers. That blows my mind. if you have ten slots and the ten best candidates are black, hire 'em. If they’re white, do the same. If they’re split down the middle, figure it out. It’s obvious where I’m going with this. The fact that we all see color and adjust accordingly is absurd. As a white kid who grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood, I can comment on certain things.
Black people as a whole move as a unit. If a prominant black man does something of note, the crowd follows suit. Not unlike a brotherhood. The thing that “weirds” white people out, is that the trend setters are athletes or rappers. And, these people can come across as inarticulate (and don’t always dress in a “proffessional” manner) to say the least. 9 out of 10 black kids think they have a better shot of being Allen Iverson than Bob Johnson [owner of the Charlotte Bobcats]. They pigeon hole themselves into this line of thought, and don’t work as hard at school or getting gainful employment.
And, in all honesty, even if there were more black ceo’s in the public eye, it wouldn’t matter. 'Cause when you’re dealing with youth, you’re dealing with heads in the clouds and stars in their eyes, regardless of race. Puting some shitty lyrics over crunk beats or scoring touchdowns is more glamorous than sitting in boardrooms and making conference calls. And it’s also a hell of alot less work.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[…] [P]eople as a whole move as a unit. If a prominent […] man does something of note, the crowd follows suit.
[/quote]
Hey, fixed it for you.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Here’s the deal: This country is fucked up. If one owns a business, he has to have a certain number of minority workers. That blows my mind. if you have ten slots and the ten best candidates are black, hire 'em. If they’re white, do the same. If they’re split down the middle, figure it out. It’s obvious where I’m going with this. The fact that we all see color and adjust accordingly is absurd. As a white kid who grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood, I can comment on certain things.
Black people as a whole move as a unit. If a prominant black man does something of note, the crowd follows suit. Not unlike a brotherhood. The thing that “weirds” white people out, is that the trend setters are athletes or rappers. And, these people can come across as inarticulate (and don’t always dress in a “proffessional” manner) to say the least. 9 out of 10 black kids think they have a better shot of being Allen Iverson than Bob Johnson [owner of the Charlotte Bobcats]. They pigeon hole themselves into this line of thought, and don’t work as hard at school or getting gainful employment.
And, in all honesty, even if there were more black ceo’s in the public eye, it wouldn’t matter. 'Cause when you’re dealing with youth, you’re dealing with heads in the clouds and stars in their eyes, regardless of race. Puting some shitty lyrics over crunk beats or scoring touchdowns is more glamorous than sitting in boardrooms and making conference calls. And it’s also a hell of alot less work.[/quote]
yeah what he said GP man
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So you cannot be committed to someone in your view unless you’re married?
Is that the be all/end all of commitment?
And yes,poverty is a vicious cycle.No one has stated otherwise.
Are you trying to make a point that many/most of these kids are living with their both their parents? I do not think that is the case.
No,not at all,I agree with what you’re saying.What I’m trying to convey is that ‘wedlock’ is hardly a guarantee that the family unit will stay intact,and seeing it as the only possible formula and solution to the issue
is not realistic.
The fact that babies may be born out of wedlock is not the cause of the malaise.
Poverty is.
But children out of wedlock contributes to the poverty no matter how you look at it. It is a huge roadblock to the mother getting an education etc.[/quote]
Relevant to this discussion: an article on marriage rates plummeting in the UK:
Excerpt:
[i] A couple of generations ago, it would simply not have occurred to anyone that marriage could go out of fashion… Back then, even progressives got married after living together, people like John Lennon who fancied themselves as subversive; now even the Queen’s granddaughter cohabits and doesn’t care who knows it…
The truth is that marriage is coming perilously close to being a matter of class, along with church attendance, home cooking and male employment. This was never so before. As Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, never tires of pointing out, one of the defining characteristics of the underclass is that its members do not marry - that requires a degree of commitment, of emotional and financial stability. Think of the difference between Shannon Matthews' mother with her several children by different fathers, and her grandparents, for whom marriage and jobs were the norm.[/i]
Ties in with a different stance of mine involving avoiding taking actions that might further weaken the institution of marriage.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
With all due respect for the great Rosa Parks, there were many days before that one day that she DID sit in the back of that bus. In fact, the thing that sparked her split second decision that helped change society was the simple fact that she was tired as hell from work and her feet hurt. She simply refused at that point and accepted being arrested for the simple act of sitting in a seat.
That means there were several days before that day where she DID give a shit what others thought…because the ramifications of not doing so involved risking everything.
But the fact remains - she did something. Excuse away why she did something, if you must. But she took action none the less. Which is more than I see anyone in the black community doing currently, of for the past several years. All you get from Jesse an Al (leaders in the black community whether you want them to be or not) is whining and complaining. No action, just bitching and moaning. Not much different than what one reads in this thread.
I also don’t see you coming up with any solutions to what is obviously a problem.
Then you haven’t been reading.
[/quote]
Refusing to move on a bus was a very bold move given the time period. What possible significant action today would even be in the same area code for any one individual? Short of walking up to the White House and setting yourself on fire, to judge how people today can speak out against what they disagree with by the standards of the 1960’s makes little sense.
Further, Jesse Jackson is not my leader. Neither is Al Sharpton. One of the problems I am pointing out is how most of America groups every single black person in the same boat (and do so in a negative light) but have the audacity to scream out if someone says, “typical white person” EVER.
No matter how you flip it, most White Americans have an advantage by simply NOT being seen as part of a group instead of an individual. You get the privilege of being “a man”. I get the burden of being “a black man”. You asked what I want. I want that to change.
We are far from equality in those terms. Simply because there are no buses for me to get arrested on doesn’t erase the fact that I am voicing my opinion publicly and have already acted positively by doing what needed to be done in my own life.
Why should any black person be expected to do more? When do you get the chance to do something?
Oh, that’s right…“you all” don’t hold any responsibility other than finger pointing. My bad.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So you cannot be committed to someone in your view unless you’re married?
Is that the be all/end all of commitment?
And yes,poverty is a vicious cycle.No one has stated otherwise.
Are you trying to make a point that many/most of these kids are living with their both their parents? I do not think that is the case.
No,not at all,I agree with what you’re saying.What I’m trying to convey is that ‘wedlock’ is hardly a guarantee that the family unit will stay intact,and seeing it as the only possible formula and solution to the issue
is not realistic.
The fact that babies may be born out of wedlock is not the cause of the malaise.
Poverty is.
But children out of wedlock contributes to the poverty no matter how you look at it. It is a huge roadblock to the mother getting an education etc.
Relevant to this discussion: an article on marriage rates plummeting in the UK:
Excerpt:
[i] A couple of generations ago, it would simply not have occurred to anyone that marriage could go out of fashion… Back then, even progressives got married after living together, people like John Lennon who fancied themselves as subversive; now even the Queen’s granddaughter cohabits and doesn’t care who knows it…
The truth is that marriage is coming perilously close to being a matter of class, along with church attendance, home cooking and male employment. This was never so before. As Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, never tires of pointing out, one of the defining characteristics of the underclass is that its members do not marry - that requires a degree of commitment, of emotional and financial stability. Think of the difference between Shannon Matthews' mother with her several children by different fathers, and her grandparents, for whom marriage and jobs were the norm.[/i]
Ties in with a different stance of mine involving avoiding taking actions that might further weaken the institution of marriage.[/quote]
That seems very simplistic. I see more people in middle and lower class jumping into marriage early than those who make more money. Look at the armed services. The majority of the patients I treated were all under the age of 25 and MOST of them were already married. They sure as hell weren’t doing that well financially.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That seems very simplistic. I see more people in middle and lower class jumping into marriage early than those who make more money. Look at the armed services. The majority of the patients I treated were all under the age of 25 and MOST of them were already married. They sure as hell weren’t doing that well financially.[/quote]
I think the distinction is “early.” There are certainly studies that show that marriages entered into when both people are a little older - I think I’m recalling older than 25 - are more successful. Putting off kids for a little while helps with that too.