|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 10, 2010 11:59:19 GMT -5
'No Wedding, No Womb' puts black women on notice
All of us know the daunting statistic that 72 percent of black children in the U.S. are born out of wedlock. This crisis has become so stunning, that everyone from Bob Herbert of the New York Times to Bill Cosby, and President Barack Obama have lamented about the need for the black community to step up and do something to bring our families back together with one man, one woman and children joined together in matrimony as a family.
Some have gotten so outraged by the statistics, that this coming Tuesday, September 22, 2010 "100 bloggers" of note will join forces for a project titled "No Wedding, No Womb!" started by blogger and social activist Christelyn Karazin. The goal of this project or should I say movement is to force a dialogue in the black community about why this is happening and how we turn the corner on solutions that create a positive, loving and nurturing home for black children.
Although, I agree wholeheartedly with President Obama, Ms. Karazin and a host of others on this important issue; the truth of the matter is that it just isn't that simple anymore. One of the issues that we must talk about in the open is the issue of the gap in the black community between the poor, working poor, middle class, and educated class because there is a stark contrast in why a teenage girl in say Camden, New Jersey has a baby out of wedlock versus why a woman in her early 40s, who is successful, independent, owns a home and is unmarried may chose to have a baby out of wedlock.
I also think we need to talk candidly about how many couples are now co-habitating (in and out of the church mind you) versus traditional marriage. These are the unspoken issues that we need to focus in on, because they lay the foundation for the new "family values" of the 21st Century.
Like it or not, we all know that there are simply more black women than black men in America. According to 2007-2008 Census Bureau stats there are approximately one million more marriageable black women than black men. When you add in college education and or a professional degree that number becomes more lopsided.
Black women have had to "redefine" the rules of the game when it comes to becoming mothers and building families. The sheer math, if you choose to exclusively date and mate with black males is not in our favor. This is critical to grasp, because many black women like me are either choosing to adopt, or use other means of becoming mothers on their own "out of wedlock" because the stigma of being a self-imposed single mom has lessened greatly. The rationale is: I can afford kids, I can get a nanny, I will have my family's emotional support, and that of my girlfriends to get me through the tough times as a single mom. I have seen it with some of my friends and considered it all myself.
But here is the key to addressing this problem in the black community (by the way the white community has out of wedlock rate above 30 percent so if they are not careful they may eventually catch up to the black rate): The key is open, honest, practical (maybe even uncomfortable) dialogue in our churches about human sexuality, emotional scars, breaking cycles of co-dependency and family dysfunction, loneliness, self-esteem, poverty, and morality. The reality is that we have already lost many in this battle. It is not at all uncommon to go into any major urban area in America or even in rural communities and see young black women with two or more kids by two different black men. I have at least two cousins on the west coast that fit this very description. And we all know that these girls will turn into women, who raise their kids alone, become grandmothers prematurely and stay stuck in a cycle of government assistance, abuse, emotional neglect and poverty. This has got to change.
But be clear that some of the out-of wedlock birth rate phenomenon in our community is by choice.
In the final analysis, I believe the urge to be a mother is stronger than the urge to be married. I say this based on the research for my own book Redefined (which is coming out next year) and the many years I have spent talking to black women (particularly college educated--professional sisters) who want children of their own. This may not be what we want to hear, and I know that as church going--religious people we want to follow the precepts of our faith (e.g., sex in marriage and marriage before kids) but I have had to wrestle with my own demons on this question and I have come to conclude that we simply live in a time as black women where we have to reconsider, and redefine the rules to achieve the happiness, love, fulfillment and families we desire.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 10, 2010 12:07:25 GMT -5
The last paragraph details one of the points I wanted to make about this article.
The other is that a lot of the issues we are having are not solely because of single mother households but becuase the STRONG mothers of yesteryear are evaporating. Blacks have always been raised by strong women who got it done regardless of the situation and instilled core values in their children. My home was a two parent one for much of my upbringing but even with a father present, it was my mother who laid down the law 90% of the time. My great grandmother, grandmother, and mother were all single mothers for periods of their child's upbringing but we have not been plagued with many of the misfortunes attributed to the situation. There's more in play than just that Dad wasn't there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on Nov 10, 2010 13:05:15 GMT -5
91 I do agree with you but we MEN have to step up as well. In a nut shell, just do better. I admit that some of us seem to develop this notion that having multiple children with different women is some how acceptable.
Once we (men) get over this fear of we may be missing out over at the other woman's house, or (a page from Wayne) ef Every girl in the world and develop a sense of stability and self control then we could be ok. Staying with one woman is hard. When times get tough, YES it is hard. Raising a family it is hard...But STAY. Stay with your family. Stay with that lady and go threw those difficult times....that's what family is.
I know these are general terms and there are several more factors that can play a part in a relationship that weighs heavily on any decision making.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Nov 10, 2010 22:49:20 GMT -5
In addition to relationship issues, I think more older, professional women are opting to raise kids on their own, which affects the numbers. Some people just don't want to get married, but that doesn't mean they're not committed to raising their children. I think two parent families are best, but a marriage license does not a family make.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 10, 2010 23:45:06 GMT -5
Sappy, my issue with the opting to raise the child alone (and I have dear friends who have done this) is that it is extremely selfish and self serving. Parenthood isn't about the parents. I'm of the mindset that a parent should love his/her child enough to meet that child's needs including a daily relationship with the other parent AND a daily example of a healthy, positive intimate relationship.
Another peeve with this is... these same women who insist on being single mom of the decade turn around and complain about the lack of support. I'm not just speaking financially either. Children are exhausting. They simply cannot be truly raised by one person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Nov 11, 2010 0:25:17 GMT -5
I see what you're saying Pep. My example we more for women who don't have a significant other. So if you want to have a child and you're not in a serious relationship what do you do? Forgoe the joy of motherhood/parenthood? How would this be different if a person wanted to adopt a child and give it a home? Also just because you're not with the father of the child doesn't mean the child won't have a relationship with the father. It only means that you're not married and in a relationship. To me it's the same situation that would exist if two people were married and got divorced. The parenting dynamic would be the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 11, 2010 10:03:27 GMT -5
That is still selfish in my opinion. Your desire to be a parent should not outweigh your love and desire to act in your child's best interest. The difference with a divorced couple is that the intent from jump was not to place the child in that predictament. To go into a situation with the mindset that one half of the child's being is irrevelant just isn't right. Get a dog, cat or something.
With adoption, if the child is older and the option is either age of out a jacked up system or have a loving home, then by all means adopt. Again the difference is that the child wasn't created for the sole purpose of fulfilling some lacking person's void. The child ended up in a situation outside of his/her control and needs someone to help mold him/her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Nov 11, 2010 10:20:14 GMT -5
Very interesting conversation.
How does this phenomenon of voluntary single motherhood relate to the topic of children being raised without the opportunity to learn healthy relationship behaviors. In another thread, we were discussing how children being raised without fathers were on some levels dysfunctional. That's not to say that they are messed up or that children raised with two parents AREN'T messed up but that was the "gyst" of our conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Nov 11, 2010 10:54:01 GMT -5
That is still selfish in my opinion. Your desire to be a parent should not outweigh your love and desire to act in your child's best interest. The difference with a divorced couple is that the intent from jump was not to place the child in that predictament. To go into a situation with the mindset that one half of the child's being is irrevelant just isn't right. Get a dog, cat or something. With adoption, if the child is older and the option is either age of out a jacked up system or have a loving home, then by all means adopt. Again the difference is that the child wasn't created for the sole purpose of fulfilling some lacking person's void. The child ended up in a situation outside of his/her control and needs someone to help mold him/her.
*Established father meaning that it was understood by both parties that the father would have no role in raising the child. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 11, 2010 11:16:49 GMT -5
Children...simply cannot be truly raised by one person. I think you need more people on this one |
|
|
|
Post by ShimmeringSTAR on Nov 11, 2010 15:31:11 GMT -5
Wow...I was raised by my mother and am just fine. I have seen reverse where those who are raised by two parents have lots of issues. Thats like the comment my siSTAR made about gay couples raising children and they shouldn't be. Wow...at my age I don't see marriage as an option but I want children and I know with or without a man I can be a successful parent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Nov 11, 2010 16:25:01 GMT -5
Children...simply cannot be truly raised by one person. I think you need more people on this one Cosign. |
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Nov 11, 2010 16:25:48 GMT -5
I think you need more people on this one Cosign. Co-signing also. |
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Nov 11, 2010 16:32:59 GMT -5
That is still selfish in my opinion. Your desire to be a parent should not outweigh your love and desire to act in your child's best interest. The difference with a divorced couple is that the intent from jump was not to place the child in that predictament. To go into a situation with the mindset that one half of the child's being is irrevelant just isn't right. Get a dog, cat or something. With adoption, if the child is older and the option is either age of out a jacked up system or have a loving home, then by all means adopt. Again the difference is that the child wasn't created for the sole purpose of fulfilling some lacking person's void. The child ended up in a situation outside of his/her control and needs someone to help mold him/her. That's cool... I can respect your opinion. I disagree, but to each his own. I think its odd that a person is considered selfless if you keep a child and put it up for adoption for another family, but selfish if you they to have a child and raise it themself with no husband. I still don't see where you're addressing the joint parenting aspect. I still don't see what changes in the upbringing of a child when two people are married or just both raising the child and not married? |
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Nov 11, 2010 16:41:41 GMT -5
That is still selfish in my opinion. Your desire to be a parent should not outweigh your love and desire to act in your child's best interest. The difference with a divorced couple is that the intent from jump was not to place the child in that predictament. To go into a situation with the mindset that one half of the child's being is irrevelant just isn't right. Get a dog, cat or something. With adoption, if the child is older and the option is either age of out a jacked up system or have a loving home, then by all means adopt. Again the difference is that the child wasn't created for the sole purpose of fulfilling some lacking person's void. The child ended up in a situation outside of his/her control and needs someone to help mold him/her.
*Established father meaning that it was understood by both parties that the father would have no role in raising the child. I think it's bull. So women that don't find love should just never have children? It's not like we can wait forever, the ticking biological clock is not just something they talk about in movies. We don't get a lifetime. And I think it's bull to say that women having children on their own are doing it to fill a void. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but why can't a woman have a kid because she wants to experience motherhood? Puh-lease...I'd get my kid and my dog (since lonely people should get pets) and we'd go for walks in Piedmont Park every weekend, LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 11, 2010 16:42:23 GMT -5
Children...simply cannot be truly raised by one person. I think you need more people on this one Please name one person who has singlehandly raised a child without assistance from anyone. A grandparent, uncle, aunt, friend, someone chips in to raise the child. It's would be physically impossible to do EVERYTHING alone. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 11, 2010 16:46:18 GMT -5
That is still selfish in my opinion. Your desire to be a parent should not outweigh your love and desire to act in your child's best interest. The difference with a divorced couple is that the intent from jump was not to place the child in that predictament. To go into a situation with the mindset that one half of the child's being is irrevelant just isn't right. Get a dog, cat or something. With adoption, if the child is older and the option is either age of out a jacked up system or have a loving home, then by all means adopt. Again the difference is that the child wasn't created for the sole purpose of fulfilling some lacking person's void. The child ended up in a situation outside of his/her control and needs someone to help mold him/her. That's cool... I can respect your opinion. I disagree, but to each his own. I think its odd that a person is considered selfless if you keep a child and put it up for adoption for another family, but selfish if you they to have a child and raise it themself with no husband. I still don't see where you're addressing the joint parenting aspect. I still don't see what changes in the upbringing of a child when two people are married or just both raising the child and not married? If you are having a child solely because you want the experience of motherhood and really don't care to have the father around regularly, you are in essence saying that you don't care about joint parenting. Joint parenting is cool if that's what both people go into parenthood understanding. Maybe it's just the people I've met in these situations, it's typically not really about joint parenting so much as it is she wants a kid. In one situation, it was so extreme that she wouldn't allow the paternal relatives to have an active role in the kid's life. If you truly feel that strongly that parenting is all about you and what you want, then you need to either to a single parent adoption, IVF from an anon donor or get a pet. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 11, 2010 16:48:06 GMT -5
I have to think about this one for a second. Does wanting to be a mother, and doing so without having an established father* that will be in the child's life, equate to fulfilling a void?
*Established father meaning that it was understood by both parties that the father would have no role in raising the child. I think it's bull. So women that don't find love should just never have children? It's not like we can wait forever, the ticking biological clock is not just something they talk about in movies. We don't get a lifetime. And I think it's bull to say that women having children on their own are doing it to fill a void. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but why can't a woman have a kid because she wants to experience motherhood? Puh-lease...I'd get my kid and my dog (since lonely people should get pets) and we'd go for walks in Piedmont Park every weekend, LOL. Why should her desire to experience motherhood outweigh the child's right to have both parents in the home on a daily basis? |
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Nov 11, 2010 17:00:45 GMT -5
That's cool... I can respect your opinion. I disagree, but to each his own. I think its odd that a person is considered selfless if you keep a child and put it up for adoption for another family, but selfish if you they to have a child and raise it themself with no husband. I still don't see where you're addressing the joint parenting aspect. I still don't see what changes in the upbringing of a child when two people are married or just both raising the child and not married? If you are having a child solely because you want the experience of motherhood and really don't care to have the father around regularly, you are in essence saying that you don't care about joint parenting. Joint parenting is cool if that's what both people go into parenthood understanding. Maybe it's just the people I've met in these situations, it's typically not really about joint parenting so much as it is she wants a kid. In one situation, it was so extreme that she wouldn't allow the paternal relatives to have an active role in the kid's life. If you truly feel that strongly that parenting is all about you and what you want, then you need to either to a single parent adoption, IVF from an anon donor or get a pet. Oh okay... I see what you're saying. Yeah I don't agree with not allowing the father or paternal side of the family to be involved if they want to (unless there are specific issues with them that are bad for the child). My scenario was more along the lines of two people agreeing to have a child, not married just be parents because they want kids. Side note, for the invitro/adoption some people want to know who exactly fathered the child. You don't get that with those two options. |
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Nov 11, 2010 17:04:16 GMT -5
I think it's bull. So women that don't find love should just never have children? It's not like we can wait forever, the ticking biological clock is not just something they talk about in movies. We don't get a lifetime. And I think it's bull to say that women having children on their own are doing it to fill a void. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but why can't a woman have a kid because she wants to experience motherhood? Puh-lease...I'd get my kid and my dog (since lonely people should get pets) and we'd go for walks in Piedmont Park every weekend, LOL. Why should her desire to experience motherhood outweigh the child's right to have both parents in the home on a daily basis? IMO a two-parent household isn't a right it's a priviledge. I think children have a right to expect that their parents will provide for them, nuture them, protect them, raise and prepare them for life. There are too many obsticles that make it impossible to be guaranteed a two-parent household (abuse, divorce, death, disease, accidents, drugs, etc.). Plus not all two-parent households are a home or a safe and loving atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by perroloco on Nov 11, 2010 17:16:45 GMT -5
Wow, I finally agree with Peppermint. No wonder that it is 78 degrees in November. For those that co-sign with voluntary bastardization, it is great that some may overcome the absence of a father and there are definitely many messed up households where the father is present (however inadequate he may be). But we are speaking about the optimum situation for a child. Because your personal experience may seem to be fine, does not make it so for the majority. The prima facie evidence clearly speaks to the overwhelming negative, especially in how it relates to our community. For women, I could see that it may "seemingly" be easier or more successful because of the same sex.
I for one could not have imagined life without my father. My brothers and I could have never been the men that we currently are without his presence. I think many women are dismissive of what a real father has to offer, many because they have never experienced it, or saw a bad example first hand and want no part of it. I may be an outlier because my parents have been married for 50 yrs and out of my 10 uncles, only one is divorced (after 35 years).
The price of single motherhood is too high, no matter how strong the woman, or noble, or selfish her reasons, a community, a race, a culture, cannot survive, much less thrive under such dysfunction. It is one thing to be thrust into single motherhood via death, divorce, or mis-fortune, but to voluntarily do so is playing with a bad hand.
Lastly, think of how much more focused our BLGO's could be if we were not standing in for missing parents. Scan any successful community of people and you will find one common thread. There is no joy in mentoring youth desperate for a father figure. Being a big brother, or giving scholarship money to a kid with no father. Why, because no child should have to have another man step up to his/her empty plate.
|
|
|
|
Post by perroloco on Nov 11, 2010 17:35:11 GMT -5
IMO a two-parent household isn't a right it's a priviledge. I think children have a right to expect that their parents will provide for them, nuture them, protect them, raise and prepare them for life. There are too many obsticles that make it impossible to be guaranteed a two-parent household (abuse, divorce, death, disease, accidents, drugs, etc.). Plus not all two-parent households are a home or a safe and loving atmosphere. It is a right, that is the way God designed it and ordained it. It is only ruined by the selfishness of man/woman. Don't create life if you are not willing to follow the instructions. Because the prevailing opinion is that Black men are trifling does not give license to deny a child 50% of their life experience. Parenthetically, the reason we have so many Black Men ill-equipped for productive relationships is primarily due to missing a true father to model critical behaviors from and why Black women are so "difficult" is because they have no concept of male/female domestic balance (because Mom does and is everything ). |
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Nov 11, 2010 17:39:29 GMT -5
But Perro a two parent household can't be guaranteed. Who's to say a single women will do a better or worse job at raising a child than a widow? The widow had good intentions, but God's design took her husband way when the child was an infant. What then? Will her child automatically be better off because they were married at conception?
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 11, 2010 17:49:01 GMT -5
I can't speak for Perro but there is a difference between a relationship breaking up and purposefully placing your child in a situation where half of the equation is missing. There are no guarantees the other parent will be there forever but at least care enough about the child to not purposefully start it's life off with a missing parental figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Nov 11, 2010 17:54:11 GMT -5
My instinct tells me bringing life into the world must INHERENTLY be about something LARGER than just ourselves and our desires. Afterall single rich people can certainly provide for children materially, but it seems like the only GOOD reason for having a child is that you have "so much love and knowledge and wisdom" to pass on to them. That would seem to be a suitable rationale for adoption as well as IVF. You bring these children into your sphere of existence for what you can give THEM, not what you'd like to receive for yourself. If it's just about or even primarily about you, then I think it IS selfish. But I don't think that just because you are single and you have a child it was because you were selfish.
I don't think it's THAT you are a single parent that determines whether or not your selfish, it's WHY you are a single parent that probably tells the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Nov 11, 2010 17:56:53 GMT -5
Well said Damiepoo!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Nov 11, 2010 17:57:41 GMT -5
PS, Damez I need you to go to the For Colored Girls thread to see my special word of the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by LogAKAlly <3'n Keef on Nov 11, 2010 18:09:30 GMT -5
My instinct tells me bringing life into the world must INHERENTLY be about something LARGER than just ourselves and our desires. Afterall single rich people can certainly provide for children materially, but it seems like the only GOOD reason for having a child is that you have "so much love and knowledge and wisdom" to pass on to them. That would seem to be a suitable rationale for adoption as well as IVF. You bring these children into your sphere of existence for what you can give THEM, not what you'd like to receive for yourself. If it's just about or even primarily about you, then I think it IS selfish. But I don't think that just because you are single and you have a child it was because you were selfish.
I don't think it's THAT you are a single parents that determines whether or not your selfish, it's WHY you are a single parent that probably tells the story. Add I'd like to add that often times, people who CHOOSE to proceed with a child KNOWING that they will perhaps forego (sp) the added hands on, financial, and emotional help are sometimes they most unselfish and most sacrificing.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Nov 11, 2010 18:20:08 GMT -5
Why should her desire to experience motherhood outweigh the child's right to have both parents in the home on a daily basis? I don't see having a 2 parent household as a right so maybe this is why I'm not agreeing anything you're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 12, 2010 1:49:36 GMT -5
Why should her desire to experience motherhood outweigh the child's right to have both parents in the home on a daily basis? I don't see having a 2 parent household as a right so maybe this is why I'm not agreeing anything you're saying. I believe this is the core of the disagreement because I don't view parenthood as a right. Visitation rights and such aren't in place just because the parent has the "right" to the child but rather because the child has a right to have an established relationship with his/her family. Then again I'm a child focused person. |
|
