The Collapse of the Black Family

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
After 100s of dumb posts similar to this, it's obvious you have serious mommy issues and the courts are making you pay for a child you fathered but didn't want.

His question has its moral points . If its truely a womans choice than the man owes NO ONE nothing . You can't have it both ways . The Mother can murder the unborn child . The man has NO say .. Its the Womans choice . Demwits only want the evil part done . They want nothing to do with fairness or morality. I have 2 bastard grand children . I love with my whole being . I would not have allowed daughter to abort . As we parents would happily take those children . Daughter asked me if she should marry . I told her no. Your chilldren will always have a home as do you.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
I heard someone theorize that the effects of feminism are a couple of decades further along in the black community than in the white community. And that in due time, it will get just as bad among whites. Not sure about that, but it may have some merit.

Btw I have self-identified as a "male feminist" for most of my life, but I have changed my tune lately. Now, don't get me wrong... I still believe there were too many societal barriers to women pursuing certain avenues in life prior to the feminist movement, but I feel it stopped being about equality and started being about attacking and disadvantaging men.

Nowadays we have a situation where men are basically just treated like piggy banks, the attitude of a lot of women becomes "well, I don't need you around because the government will still force you to pay child support even if you're gone, so GTFO"

Men's contributions to society used to be respected and admired. The father, the provider, the head of the household... he was looked up to as a societal pillar. Sometimes, in those days... he would abuse his position and hit his wife or kids, be overly controlling... and that was another thing that needed to be addressed. But now we live in a time when the fact that most domestic abuse is actually at the hands of women is ignored, when our society and government pretty much act like women cannot be offenders in this regard or men cannot be victims. Very far from the truth.

Men are denied access to victim services, men are denied any sort of choice whatsoever about becoming a father, men are denied any respect or power in a relationship, men are denied access to their children, and control of their money if the woman desires it.

Society has sent men a very clear message when it comes to the family. You aren't needed, you are disposable and can be removed from this situation at any time. Your rights as a father are non-existent, and any access to your kids you end up with just feel lucky you got because your wife or the court systems which will side with her pretty much every time, dained to allow it.

Also our schools now have woefully few male teachers, and the entire curriculum is more geared toward female learning. Our entire society has moved toward the more female model of worrying more about feelings than facts, and studying things which only produce jobs in re-teaching that same subject... our society has stopped appreciating or looking up to or championing real work, the work that builds and sustains a nation and a civilization. The work that has always been done overwhelmingly by men and still is.

Boys are struggling in school, in college... male identity is in crisis. Each male raised without a father figure is missing crucial puzzle pieces to becoming a man himself.

In a society like we used to have where female aspirations and educational needs were not being fully addressed, the bad result of that was some women being unfulfilled.

Now in a society where we've over-corrected for that HUGELY, the danger of wayward directionless men in a society that doesn't give them good role models, doesn't respect what they can contribute... well, the consequences are far, far worse.

Because when men are directionless like that, they start being criminals, or if they're homeless as 94% of homeless are in fact men... the services available, the degree to which the society gives a shit, is a fraction of if the homeless person is female.

But once these social shifts have even more decades to solidify and work their "magic" even more men will become wayward criminals who eat away at the fabric of society. Who make the streets less safe. Who aren't contributing to society continuing. This affliction will spread increasingly to ALL culture groups, as it is doing.

I agree with some of what you post, but the piggy bank premise is just off.

I personally have gone to court fought for custody when mom only wanted the money for support and me gone.

Courts do in fact allow men custody and visitation.

The support a man pays is directly related to the amount of custody he has among other income considerations.

Obviously infants are treated differently to a degree as they should be.

I currently have joint legal and 60/40 physical custody of one of my kids.

Mom has come around and we co parent fairly well.


I think the courts penalize willful absent fathers with large support amounts. I think it's good that they do.

Want to pay less support spend more time with your kids.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Who gives a shit? Shouldn't we act in a way that's best for the nation, not best for ourselves or our political parties?

.

/this

but it won't happen. the people really in power don't want it to. IF it how it was done changed it would change that politicans care more about corps then people.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
His question has its moral points . If its truely a womans choice than the man owes NO ONE nothing . You can't have it both ways . The Mother can murder the unborn child . The man has NO say .. Its the Womans choice . Demwits only want the evil part done . They want nothing to do with fairness or morality. I have 2 bastard grand children . I love with my whole being . I would not have allowed daughter to abort . As we parents would happily take those children . Daughter asked me if she should marry . I told her no. Your chilldren will always have a home as do you.

The issue is sex has the potential to lead to children. The man is making his choice when he has sex, the woman gets to make the choice after, because it's her body.
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
His question has its moral points . If its truely a womans choice than the man owes NO ONE nothing . You can't have it both ways . The Mother can murder the unborn child . The man has NO say .. Its the Womans choice .

I don't see it that way.. They BOTH have a choice, Women just have longer to make the decision.

Man always has a choice not to put his ding-a-ling in or wrap it up if he doesn't want to pay for it.. His window to terminate starts at penetration and lasts about 7-10min ( or less according to my wife)

Woman alone has to carry the baby to term, and can do so without any effort whatsoever from the man.

Because of this, her "choice" to terminate the pregnancy has a larger window than the man (right up to the point of viability)

Once the child has passed this threshold, the child is the responsibility of BOTH parents.
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
Also, haven't the courts gotten a bit better in this regard? *Subjectively* I know in my parents generation (Baby Boomers) the man really seemed to have no rights with regards to the children.

In my generation (x), it seems like guys are getting equal treatment with regards to seeing their kids.

The money thing seems to be still borked though, especially with some of the court interpretations I have seen to "make both households similar". Strangely enough, this seems to be broken regardless of sex, I know a couple of professional women supporting the household of their dead-beat ex-es above and beyond taking care of the kids.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I don't see it that way.. They BOTH have a choice, Women just have longer to make the decision.

Man always has a choice not to put his ding-a-ling in or wrap it up if he doesn't want to pay for it.. His window to terminate starts at penetration and lasts about 7-10min ( or less according to my wife)

Woman alone has to carry the baby to term, and can do so without any effort whatsoever from the man.

Because of this, her "choice" to terminate the pregnancy has a larger window than the man (right up to the point of viability)

Once the child has passed this threshold, the child is the responsibility of BOTH parents.

No man does not have the choice of just sliping it in . Thats called rape . The woman makes that decision also . What I dislike about men . Is they always want to get the women drunk to take advantage.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
Men and women usually both get drunk and both set out to lower their inhibitions with the express purpose of hooking up.

But our society treats women like children adrift in the wind of other forces and other peoples' intentions and desires.

Which is why you don't hear people talk about a drunk man being taken advantage of.

Women have the option to drop off their infant at a safe point with no legal consequence or without notifying the father. He will live in effective slavery for 18 years possibly with no part in raising the child if she desires it and makes the right claims. Men can be duped into impregnating without intent and from then on he has no control and no rights.

It's hard to strike a perfect balance fair to all parties, biology isn't concerned with equality and it's messy thing. But I know we can do better than current law.
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
No man does not have the choice of just sliping it in . Thats called rape . The woman makes that decision also . What I dislike about men . Is they always want to get the women drunk to take advantage.

Sorry, I thought we were assuming mutual intercourse here.. I don't see how the fact that the woman also "makes the decision" changes what I posted in any way. Either party can refuse intercourse without appropriate protection. Should they choose not to, both parties have an opportunity to decide, the woman just has longer period of time.

I honestly don't get what is so hard to understand. Even if you don't like it, and we accept your premise that it is unfair to men what is the end game ? Men legally able to force abortions ? Letting them "opt out" of financial support?
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Also, haven't the courts gotten a bit better in this regard? *Subjectively* I know in my parents generation (Baby Boomers) the man really seemed to have no rights with regards to the children.

In my generation (x), it seems like guys are getting equal treatment with regards to seeing their kids.

The money thing seems to be still borked though, especially with some of the court interpretations I have seen to "make both households similar". Strangely enough, this seems to be broken regardless of sex, I know a couple of professional women supporting the household of their dead-beat ex-es above and beyond taking care of the kids.

Issue is apparent when you have a high income father and low income mother.

I pay 1k per month for one kid and have %40 custody, I also provide medical and dental.

Mom has worked part time and gone to school for the last 10 years, remarried and has 2 other kids, her husband is low wage earner.

I know I pay almost all of the rent despite having my son close to half the time. I buy most of the clothes, shoes, sports activities, allowance, etc.

But I am happy to do it, they live in a good area, good school district and my son benefits from this.

While I know the money I pay goes for things not related to my son, I just don't care because even if I am subsidizing the quality of life for their entire family he is benefitting.

In 5 more years they are on their own though ;)
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It's honestly just a damn shame you came into this thread as early as you did and derailed it. Your mom may be great, but she never taught you a fvcking thing about statistics. If you read the article, if you knew anything about them, you'd know it speaks in a general sense. All socioeconomic/social analysis is done in this way. Nobody ever says, or has said, anything about 100%. There are always exceptions, always majority trends, minority trends, etc. It's ignorant of you to try and force everything through your personal experience and ignore facts like 70% of black children are born to single moms.The article in OP specifically refutes this claim.

Pretending that it's only socio-economic is wholly ignorant to differences in racial cultures. Blacks, whites, hispanics, asians ALL have differences in their immediate cultures, their values, etc. The article points to statistics proving that, for example, in the black contemporary culture there is comparitively less interest than in other races in being married and avoiding having children to teenage and/or single mothers.

A great many people are so enslaved now to the notion that there cannot ever be a negative indicator of a given race that they absolutely refuse to believe it no matter the numbers presented.
I think her point is that as asked, the question is essentially "What's wrong with black people?" when the proper question should be "What's wrong with Americans?" With the possible and partial exception of Asians, all races are moving in the same direction. Therefore who's ahead is far less material than why we're moving in this direction and what can be done to fight it without giving up the essential safety net.

My maternal great grandfather died when my grandfather was twelve, living a widow with twelve children (of which at twelve my grandfather was the oldest) and no marketable skills. My grandfather therefore dropped out of school and went to work full time at twelve to supplement my great grandmother's income from taking in washing. The other children dropped out of school and went to work between fourteen and sixteen for the same reason as the older children married and no longer contributed to the household. As undeniably horrible as have been the effects of our social safety net, we should never forget that our historical laissez-faire libertarian society had some pretty big warts as well.

I agree with some of what you post, but the piggy bank premise is just off.

I personally have gone to court fought for custody when mom only wanted the money for support and me gone.

Courts do in fact allow men custody and visitation.

The support a man pays is directly related to the amount of custody he has among other income considerations.

Obviously infants are treated differently to a degree as they should be.

I currently have joint legal and 60/40 physical custody of one of my kids.

Mom has come around and we co parent fairly well.


I think the courts penalize willful absent fathers with large support amounts. I think it's good that they do.

Want to pay less support spend more time with your kids.
Good post, and good for you. Proper parenting after divorce is in its way perhaps even harder than single parenting.

The issue is sex has the potential to lead to children. The man is making his choice when he has sex, the woman gets to make the choice after, because it's her body.
Excellent post. It isn't society or government that forces this dichotomy, it's basic biology.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Men and women usually both get drunk and both set out to lower their inhibitions with the express purpose of hooking up.

But our society treats women like children adrift in the wind of other forces and other peoples' intentions and desires.

Which is why you don't hear people talk about a drunk man being taken advantage of.

Women have the option to drop off their infant at a safe point with no legal consequence or without notifying the father. He will live in effective slavery for 18 years possibly with no part in raising the child if she desires it and makes the right claims. Men can be duped into impregnating without intent and from then on he has no control and no rights.

It's hard to strike a perfect balance fair to all parties, biology isn't concerned with equality and it's messy thing. But I know we can do better than current law.

Thing is the moment the child is born the law simply doesn't give a shit about the parents at all. Everything is done and calculated for the child's interest.

In your example above the father could get court ordered custody after the safe drop off, in fact it would be easy in most cases.
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
While I know the money I pay goes for things not related to my son, I just don't care because even if I am subsidizing the quality of life for their entire family he is benefitting.

That's a good way to look at it.. I would hope if I ever end up in your situation, I could get over that part.. I suspect that would be difficult depending on the circumstances, but manageable assuming it makes your kids world a better place.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
I think you could sum up this entire thread with.

American culture has made it perfectly acceptable to be an absent father.

I know lots of dads who pay a fuckton in support and use it as an excuse to not know their kids.

Money alone is not being a father.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
I think you could sum up this entire thread with.

American culture has made it perfectly acceptable to be an absent father.

I know lots of dads who pay a fuckton in support and use it as an excuse to not know their kids.

Money alone is not being a father.

true.

I will say that as a father the courts do screw over the father. when most fathers get every other weekend a month adn 2 weeks a year something is fucked up.

While as people said it is changing (i had to fight like mad to get a damn 50/50 time split adn still paying child support) it is slow.

does that justify it? no. courts need to change.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
true.

I will say that as a father the courts do screw over the father. when most fathers get every other weekend a month adn 2 weeks a year something is fucked up.

While as people said it is changing (i had to fight like mad to get a damn 50/50 time split adn still paying child support) it is slow.

does that justify it? no. courts need to change.

Yes I agree the courts could be more sympathetic to fathers who want more custody.

Issues that make shared custody difficult.

Infants
School aged kids where parents don't live close to each other.

I have the benefit of my wife being home full time so she can drive my son the 20 minutes to school in the morning.

If we didn't have that option I would have to settle for less custody or petition for more and win it.

So there are common tough situations and the courts do favor the mother absent a reason not to.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
What a wildly realistic plan. Would those states then no longer be required to pay federal taxes? Would they gain some autonomy? It sounds like you want another Confederacy.

We are paying for them now and I doubt it would be much of a loss besides votes for Rethuglicants....
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Good kick MN out of the union . We can give our SS money to MN. We can give our Federal taxes to MN along with our state taxes . We would be way ahead of the game.

MN is Red? LMAO......It has one phycho member in Congress and that's a fact. ;)
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
That is just code for wanting to end all welfare for blacks in the south! What a disgustingly racist position! :(

No numbnuts it's code for getting rid of the stupid fucks who backs a party that despises them.....
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,891
31,410
146
Don't assume that all black people live under the same circumstances, either. There are a lot of black people out there whose "situation" is the "exception".

Well, I think that is what he is saying.

But when I look at a change from 28% to 70%, it's not that one assumes that within that 70%, you generally expect "ghetto culture" influence.

what you see is the erosion of 52% down to 30%, of a more "socially stable" part of the community. That is not to say that form one family to the next, 2 parent households are always going to be better than 1 parent households--it is simply saying that this is a very drastic demographic change.

there are and will always be exceptions within the data--we call them outliers--Some kids have very strong mothers, and others have mothers that would prefer the children of other fatherless households raise their own children. When the potential for this outcome drastically increases, you should see an increase in this outcome.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Well, I think that is what he is saying.

But when I look at a change from 28% to 70%, it's not that one assumes that within that 70%, you generally expect "ghetto culture" influence.

what you see is the erosion of 52% down to 30%, of a more "socially stable" part of the community. That is not to say that form one family to the next, 2 parent households are always going to be better than 1 parent households--it is simply saying that this is a very drastic demographic change.

there are and will always be exceptions within the data--we call them outliers--Some kids have very strong mothers, and others have mothers that would prefer the children of other fatherless households raise their own children. When the potential for this outcome drastically increases, you should see an increase in this outcome.
Well said. Still, plenty of rural white single mothers out there too. The lure of government providing the things a husband traditionally provided - housing, food, a measure of economic security - while making virtually no demands is one that transcends race. A woman with a kid or three can be set up with her own apartment and food budget while being free to take and kick out whatever man she fancies at the moment, without the bother and required time of a job. I wouldn't downplay the harm done by the ghetto culture, but when it comes to single parenthood it's probably minor compared to the lure of Uncle Sugar's no-strings support.
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
It's honestly just a damn shame you came into this thread as early as you did and derailed it. Your mom may be great, but she never taught you a fvcking thing about statistics. If you read the article, if you knew anything about them, you'd know it speaks in a general sense. All socioeconomic/social analysis is done in this way. Nobody ever says, or has said, anything about 100%. There are always exceptions, always majority trends, minority trends, etc. It's ignorant of you to try and force everything through your personal experience and ignore facts like 70% of black children are born to single moms.The article in OP specifically refutes this claim.

Pretending that it's only socio-economic is wholly ignorant to differences in racial cultures. Blacks, whites, hispanics, asians ALL have differences in their immediate cultures, their values, etc. The article points to statistics proving that, for example, in the black contemporary culture there is comparitively less interest than in other races in being married and avoiding having children to teenage and/or single mothers.

A great many people are so enslaved now to the notion that there cannot ever be a negative indicator of a given race that they absolutely refuse to believe it no matter the numbers presented.

I didn't derail shit. I was responding to the hasty generalization the OP made about all blacks born to single mothers based on a statistic.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Well said. Still, plenty of rural white single mothers out there too. The lure of government providing the things a husband traditionally provided - housing, food, a measure of economic security - while making virtually no demands is one that transcends race. A woman with a kid or three can be set up with her own apartment and food budget while being free to take and kick out whatever man she fancies at the moment, without the bother and required time of a job. I wouldn't downplay the harm done by the ghetto culture, but when it comes to single parenthood it's probably minor compared to the lure of Uncle Sugar's no-strings support.

there are plenty of poor white single mothers too.

My ex-wife's family lives in KY (beautiful area. If there was jobs and decent schools i would move in a heartbeat). When my wife's little sister moved down there she was in shock. It wasn't go to school and get a good education. it was get knocked up and get on welfare. it was open and talked about.

the school system was a joke compared to what she was used to.

Witch is why i say this is something that is a poor peoples culture issue. not a black issue.
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
So how do you make a living . Your at this forum all the time . When do you work . How do you pay rent . Lets see a paystub/

I am not on this forum all the time. I might be logged in 24/7, but am definitely not posting or browsing most of the time as is ALL of my Forum accounts for various websites.

Don't worry about what I do for a living or how I pay my rent. I want you to focus on understanding the difference between "you're" and "your".

It seems like the normal trolls on this forum don't know the difference and before you question me, young man, you need to get YOUR shit together.