well, the most common reason I’ve heard is the Welfare state. once mothers were incentivized not to have a father in the house, the results were predictable.
I’ve never done any in-depth research, and I feel bad just typing this, but what is a better answer, respectively..?
Thirteen times as likely to be killed - ponder that statistic - that should blow you away.
But are we jumping to causation conclusions based on what could be only a strong correlation?
The Moynihan Report has been sitting round for lost 60 years, mostly ignored; instead we showcase Kendi and his ilk.
In the best of times, it is difficult to talk honestly and openly about race. Maybe we have gotten to the point where for a generation or so, it will be impossible.
We are so smart, we have so much information, so many resources, and yet we have become unable to address certain critical problems?
There's another problem here. When did fatherhood lose value in our culture? Children are adversely affected by lack of father/"male role model" regardless of race.
Fatherhood lost its value when the sexual revolution and civil rights era converged. When free love and free thinking made its way into the national psyche in the 60s, the Age of the New Enlightenment was born. Further, when blacks felt vindicated as a result of the civil rights movement, they, too, saw a new era freedom; for blacks, the chains of racial AND sexual bondage were off. Consequently, the idea of the traditional patriarchy suffered a devastating blow.
You can attribute a good bit of that to feminist ideology. While it started out being about equal rights for women, feminism has been twisted and perverted over the generations to where today, as 3rd wave feminism, it poisons the minds of women telling them lies about what will make them happy and what men seek from women. It promotes beliefs that result in women wasting the prime years of their lives to find a good husband and start a healthy family. A healthy family being household with 1 man and 1 women working towards the best interest of their children.
Feminism tells women that they are the same as men and can do anything a man can. This is toxic to relationships because it causes women to believe that men seek in women the same thing women seek in men. It also twists the woman's view of reality by causing her to think that men's experiences are the same as women's. For example, any decent looking women can get sex any day of the week; the same is not true for a man even a man most women would consider to be of high value. These idea plosion the possibility of healthy relationships because it causes women to act like men which is a huge turn off for most men. The "Boss babe" fad has taken off recently and women think that because as a woman they seek a man who has achieved success that men seek the same and so they are confused when as a successful boss babe they can't find any man they want who is willing to engage in a serious relationship with them. The men they seek will have sex with them but that's it. This is also a problem as it causes women to assess their own SVM (sexual market value) as being higher than it really is. In general a women who is an 8 will not engage in sexual relationships with a man who is a however a man who is an 8 will absolutely have sex with a 5. When this happens teh women who is a 5 falsely believes that she is actually an 8.
Feminism has seriously damaged otherwise healthy heterosexual relationships in numerous ways; encouraging fathelress households is just one.
The Moynihan Report of 1965 foresaw what was coming after the adoption of LBJ's Great Society programs that provided income supports to impoverished persons. Earlier in the last century, black Americans were poorer and treated badly in this country. At that time, the two institutions that gave them comfort and acceptance were churches and family. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that giving more money to single-parent families might be well-intentioned, but would encourage encourage formation of more of the same. His predictions were not persuasive then, but they turned out to be right.
I’ve read the Moynihan report. The text under the subheading “The Demand for Equality” should be read by everyone who wants to really understand the demand for ”equity” we see today.
To the point you’re making: I don’t think the Moynihan Report really digs into *why* there was a racial disparity between blacks and whites in non-marital birth rates.
Just wait, soon they will flip the definitions so that Equality means equal outcome and Equity means equal opportunity. They know the "Equal outcome" angle isn't being as well received as hoped so they're already trying to switch out the 2 words definitions so that on face value they can say equity is equal opportunity while behind the scenes implementing it as it's actually defined. I've already watched content where they are doing this, swapping the definitions.
The economic incentive for the high out-of-wedlock birth rate is provided by the welfare state. In most cases these children are raised by their mothers who are supported by the government instead of by the childrens' fathers. The fathers have no responsibility to raise their own kids or help support them. The children who are raised without a father's influence are more likely to suffer poor education, unemployment, drug addiction and a life of crime. For more information, read "Discrimination & Disparities" by Thomas Sowell, "War on Cops" by Heather MacDonald, and the "Upward Mobility" opinion column by Jason Riley published in the Wall Street Journal.
" The fathers have no responsibility to raise their own kids or help support them"
That is not entirely true. In family court women are with rare exception awarded the children and the husband required to pay child support. Even when the husbands and wife have made a private agreement on how to handle support the courts will still over ride this because of title 4 of teh federal code which awards teh state government with 63 cents for ever dollar collected in child support. The Feds pay the state's to collect child support and so their is a monetary incentive on the sate and the family court side to ensure that the person likely to pay teh least amount of child support is the one who gets the kids and that is almost always the woman as the man usually has the higher income. This is made even more perverse in some states like TX where the states Judiciary retirement program is funded in part by monies from title 4. That's right, in TX a judge in teh family courts has a direct monetary incentive to ensure the children are awarded to a parent not based on who is the best parent but based on who can pay the most in child support thus providing teh state and teh judges retirement the most money possible. How's that for perverse government?
This of course is only true if the woman identifies who the father is however not all fatherless black households are fatherless because the father is unknown, just absent and in some cases it not by the fathers choice.
What happened after 1963? LBJ initiated the Great Society, that's what happened. Like most Federal Legislation the name used to market the legislation to teh public is almost always the opposite of it's intent. For example, the "Patriot Act" was from patriotic.
The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the US initiated by LBJ in 1964-1965. The primary goal as it was marketed to the public, was the total elimination of poverty and racial injustice. Since I know you don't like Conspiracies I'll avoid discussing whether it's outcome was intentional or not but either way we are seeing the end result of this. It's been almost 60 years, 3 generations, since LBJ launched the Feds war on poverty and social injustice and as with most wars by the Federal government that aren't against an actual nation, it has failed miserably. While some behind it may have had the best of intentions the fact is they encouraged women to have babies but stay out of marriages and even avoid having male father figures in teh household leaving the child to be raised by the mother who is teh worst of the 2 parents to raise a child. It's popular belief that the mothers is the better of teh 2 parents to raise a child but studies an data disprove this. Children from motherless homes are less likely to engage in violence than children from fatherless homes. Women are better care providers which is important those first few years but later on as the child grows it is the father who directs teh child away from a path of violence. It's not that mothers steer their kids especially their sons towards violence but that they lack the skills of men when it comes to discipline which is key to guiding a child down the proper path to being a valuable member of society. This is not something relatively knew. Those within the sciences involving human psychology, child rearing and discipline were fully aware back in 1964 that fatherless homes increased the risk of a child following a path of violence and yet this Great Society was heralded as being that which would eliminate poverty and social injustice.
Granted it's not just the Great Society that has lead us to where we are but it is the primary factor behind the disproportionate increase in violence within the black community. Within the black community three is a culture that promotes violence, that indoctrinates young black men and women into believing that they are oppressed and major institutions are now encouraging those within that culture to act out violently and telling them they are justified in doing so. In a very few years we've gone from "We want equality" to "Kill the whites" and that's not exaggeration.
NOTE: I had a longer more detailed reply but I know lengthy replies often aren't read so there's that.
Careful Peter, making statements like this, regardless of how factual they are, which challenge established narratives can get you banned on social media. I just got banned from Medium for sharing similar stats about inner city violence; Medium said it broke thier hate speech guidelines.
If the issue is unmarried mothers and if its at this level then we need technology to come to our aid and put in mandatory and unavoidable birth control for all non married status people... and this only gets lifted when a wedding takes place..
I understand your reasoning but that is a VERY dangerous precedent to set. We should never seek more government control over individuals as the solution to anything.
Ok no government control? then no social assistance to these people with my $ and don’t ask me to tolerate the crime that may result….then we need to go back to some form of social segregation to protect the rest of us from these centers of crime.
Agreed. We need a massive across the board reduction in government assistance. Today and for several decades the Federal Government has encouraged women to divorce (after having kids) and apply for government aid ( to replace the role of the husband/father/income provider ) to cover whatever family court doesn't squeeze out of her ex. We have multi-generational government funded families getting everything from food to housing and money in general and I know for a fact much of it is pissed away. I used to work at a retail outlet that sold concert tickets and we'd get women with kids in tow (sometimes with no shoes) who were there to "get tickets to the show" and that's exactly what they'd say. It also was common for them to try and pay for it with the card the government gives them to use their federal funds with. It really pissed me off to see this. These 3rd generation welfare women were using my tax dollars to get tickets to the show; the show typically being some rap and or R&B concert and or comedy event.
I agree with the problem, we just differ on the solution. Less government (ie getting rid of all these handouts ) would solve the problem without giving it more power/control.
You have every right to expect data. Unfortunately, I find that I have the energy to post things I know to be ttrue, but not the energhy to post citations.
And not everything needs a citation especially if it's something one can easily access via Google's page one results. For example in this post I don't feel teh need to provide a citation on how to use google to search for things.
Excellent discussion - finally the main questions are addressed in a direct, sincere, and approachable manner. Thanks!
well, the most common reason I’ve heard is the Welfare state. once mothers were incentivized not to have a father in the house, the results were predictable.
I’ve never done any in-depth research, and I feel bad just typing this, but what is a better answer, respectively..?
Its called the Great Society and it was launched by Lyndon B Johnson in 1963/1964. they called it a war on poverty and social injustice.
Thirteen times as likely to be killed - ponder that statistic - that should blow you away.
But are we jumping to causation conclusions based on what could be only a strong correlation?
The Moynihan Report has been sitting round for lost 60 years, mostly ignored; instead we showcase Kendi and his ilk.
In the best of times, it is difficult to talk honestly and openly about race. Maybe we have gotten to the point where for a generation or so, it will be impossible.
We are so smart, we have so much information, so many resources, and yet we have become unable to address certain critical problems?
There's another problem here. When did fatherhood lose value in our culture? Children are adversely affected by lack of father/"male role model" regardless of race.
Fatherhood lost its value when the sexual revolution and civil rights era converged. When free love and free thinking made its way into the national psyche in the 60s, the Age of the New Enlightenment was born. Further, when blacks felt vindicated as a result of the civil rights movement, they, too, saw a new era freedom; for blacks, the chains of racial AND sexual bondage were off. Consequently, the idea of the traditional patriarchy suffered a devastating blow.
You can attribute a good bit of that to feminist ideology. While it started out being about equal rights for women, feminism has been twisted and perverted over the generations to where today, as 3rd wave feminism, it poisons the minds of women telling them lies about what will make them happy and what men seek from women. It promotes beliefs that result in women wasting the prime years of their lives to find a good husband and start a healthy family. A healthy family being household with 1 man and 1 women working towards the best interest of their children.
Feminism tells women that they are the same as men and can do anything a man can. This is toxic to relationships because it causes women to believe that men seek in women the same thing women seek in men. It also twists the woman's view of reality by causing her to think that men's experiences are the same as women's. For example, any decent looking women can get sex any day of the week; the same is not true for a man even a man most women would consider to be of high value. These idea plosion the possibility of healthy relationships because it causes women to act like men which is a huge turn off for most men. The "Boss babe" fad has taken off recently and women think that because as a woman they seek a man who has achieved success that men seek the same and so they are confused when as a successful boss babe they can't find any man they want who is willing to engage in a serious relationship with them. The men they seek will have sex with them but that's it. This is also a problem as it causes women to assess their own SVM (sexual market value) as being higher than it really is. In general a women who is an 8 will not engage in sexual relationships with a man who is a however a man who is an 8 will absolutely have sex with a 5. When this happens teh women who is a 5 falsely believes that she is actually an 8.
Feminism has seriously damaged otherwise healthy heterosexual relationships in numerous ways; encouraging fathelress households is just one.
Very good discussion
Does anyone know of a *quality* paper on why non-marital birth rates exploded after 1963 and why at a much higher rate for blacks than for whites?
The Moynihan Report of 1965 foresaw what was coming after the adoption of LBJ's Great Society programs that provided income supports to impoverished persons. Earlier in the last century, black Americans were poorer and treated badly in this country. At that time, the two institutions that gave them comfort and acceptance were churches and family. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that giving more money to single-parent families might be well-intentioned, but would encourage encourage formation of more of the same. His predictions were not persuasive then, but they turned out to be right.
I’ve read the Moynihan report. The text under the subheading “The Demand for Equality” should be read by everyone who wants to really understand the demand for ”equity” we see today.
To the point you’re making: I don’t think the Moynihan Report really digs into *why* there was a racial disparity between blacks and whites in non-marital birth rates.
Just wait, soon they will flip the definitions so that Equality means equal outcome and Equity means equal opportunity. They know the "Equal outcome" angle isn't being as well received as hoped so they're already trying to switch out the 2 words definitions so that on face value they can say equity is equal opportunity while behind the scenes implementing it as it's actually defined. I've already watched content where they are doing this, swapping the definitions.
The economic incentive for the high out-of-wedlock birth rate is provided by the welfare state. In most cases these children are raised by their mothers who are supported by the government instead of by the childrens' fathers. The fathers have no responsibility to raise their own kids or help support them. The children who are raised without a father's influence are more likely to suffer poor education, unemployment, drug addiction and a life of crime. For more information, read "Discrimination & Disparities" by Thomas Sowell, "War on Cops" by Heather MacDonald, and the "Upward Mobility" opinion column by Jason Riley published in the Wall Street Journal.
" The fathers have no responsibility to raise their own kids or help support them"
That is not entirely true. In family court women are with rare exception awarded the children and the husband required to pay child support. Even when the husbands and wife have made a private agreement on how to handle support the courts will still over ride this because of title 4 of teh federal code which awards teh state government with 63 cents for ever dollar collected in child support. The Feds pay the state's to collect child support and so their is a monetary incentive on the sate and the family court side to ensure that the person likely to pay teh least amount of child support is the one who gets the kids and that is almost always the woman as the man usually has the higher income. This is made even more perverse in some states like TX where the states Judiciary retirement program is funded in part by monies from title 4. That's right, in TX a judge in teh family courts has a direct monetary incentive to ensure the children are awarded to a parent not based on who is the best parent but based on who can pay the most in child support thus providing teh state and teh judges retirement the most money possible. How's that for perverse government?
This of course is only true if the woman identifies who the father is however not all fatherless black households are fatherless because the father is unknown, just absent and in some cases it not by the fathers choice.
What happened after 1963? LBJ initiated the Great Society, that's what happened. Like most Federal Legislation the name used to market the legislation to teh public is almost always the opposite of it's intent. For example, the "Patriot Act" was from patriotic.
The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the US initiated by LBJ in 1964-1965. The primary goal as it was marketed to the public, was the total elimination of poverty and racial injustice. Since I know you don't like Conspiracies I'll avoid discussing whether it's outcome was intentional or not but either way we are seeing the end result of this. It's been almost 60 years, 3 generations, since LBJ launched the Feds war on poverty and social injustice and as with most wars by the Federal government that aren't against an actual nation, it has failed miserably. While some behind it may have had the best of intentions the fact is they encouraged women to have babies but stay out of marriages and even avoid having male father figures in teh household leaving the child to be raised by the mother who is teh worst of the 2 parents to raise a child. It's popular belief that the mothers is the better of teh 2 parents to raise a child but studies an data disprove this. Children from motherless homes are less likely to engage in violence than children from fatherless homes. Women are better care providers which is important those first few years but later on as the child grows it is the father who directs teh child away from a path of violence. It's not that mothers steer their kids especially their sons towards violence but that they lack the skills of men when it comes to discipline which is key to guiding a child down the proper path to being a valuable member of society. This is not something relatively knew. Those within the sciences involving human psychology, child rearing and discipline were fully aware back in 1964 that fatherless homes increased the risk of a child following a path of violence and yet this Great Society was heralded as being that which would eliminate poverty and social injustice.
Granted it's not just the Great Society that has lead us to where we are but it is the primary factor behind the disproportionate increase in violence within the black community. Within the black community three is a culture that promotes violence, that indoctrinates young black men and women into believing that they are oppressed and major institutions are now encouraging those within that culture to act out violently and telling them they are justified in doing so. In a very few years we've gone from "We want equality" to "Kill the whites" and that's not exaggeration.
NOTE: I had a longer more detailed reply but I know lengthy replies often aren't read so there's that.
Careful Peter, making statements like this, regardless of how factual they are, which challenge established narratives can get you banned on social media. I just got banned from Medium for sharing similar stats about inner city violence; Medium said it broke thier hate speech guidelines.
If the issue is unmarried mothers and if its at this level then we need technology to come to our aid and put in mandatory and unavoidable birth control for all non married status people... and this only gets lifted when a wedding takes place..
I understand your reasoning but that is a VERY dangerous precedent to set. We should never seek more government control over individuals as the solution to anything.
Ok no government control? then no social assistance to these people with my $ and don’t ask me to tolerate the crime that may result….then we need to go back to some form of social segregation to protect the rest of us from these centers of crime.
Agreed. We need a massive across the board reduction in government assistance. Today and for several decades the Federal Government has encouraged women to divorce (after having kids) and apply for government aid ( to replace the role of the husband/father/income provider ) to cover whatever family court doesn't squeeze out of her ex. We have multi-generational government funded families getting everything from food to housing and money in general and I know for a fact much of it is pissed away. I used to work at a retail outlet that sold concert tickets and we'd get women with kids in tow (sometimes with no shoes) who were there to "get tickets to the show" and that's exactly what they'd say. It also was common for them to try and pay for it with the card the government gives them to use their federal funds with. It really pissed me off to see this. These 3rd generation welfare women were using my tax dollars to get tickets to the show; the show typically being some rap and or R&B concert and or comedy event.
I agree with the problem, we just differ on the solution. Less government (ie getting rid of all these handouts ) would solve the problem without giving it more power/control.
The profile is identical (except for race) for terrorists around the world.
Interesting. Data?
You have every right to expect data. Unfortunately, I find that I have the energy to post things I know to be ttrue, but not the energhy to post citations.
And not everything needs a citation especially if it's something one can easily access via Google's page one results. For example in this post I don't feel teh need to provide a citation on how to use google to search for things.
I hear ya. These are wearying times.
From 1962 to 1965 there was the II. Vaticanum. Before the Religion was intimidating the believers.