| Author |
Message |
    
Thumper
Veteran Poster
Username: Thumper
Post Number: 728
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 10:03 pm: | 
|
Hello All,
I just got through watching a rerun of today's Meet The Press. Bill Cosby and his partner in crime Dr. Alvin Possant (sp) was on. The topic was Obama and his effect on the black community. For once, Bill Cosby and his buddy did not say anything that pissed me off. When the panel began talking about the education that our youth is (or not) getting, the panel agreed that parenting was the source of the problem. But, they did not present a real solution. I'm sitting there watching it and realize that I did not have a real solution to the parenting problem either. The government can not tell anyone how to parent their children, I mean parents who are not abusing or neglecting their children. Although I firmly believe that trifliness should be one of the offenses but its not.
Maybe we, the US, should adopt the Chinese notion that people should be restricted to only 2.2 kids. That would cut down on some of the trifliness by forcing some of Carey's nephews to get a vascotomy because he has already fathered 3,4,5 kids before he reached the age of 25 and aint supporting any of them. It would also have get Cynique's neices that 2 kids is enough say they have no excuse to falling for the Okey doke that Carey's nephew wanted them to have a baby and he would not treat THEIR baby like he mistreat his other ones.
How can you regulate parenting? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 13289
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 02:22 am: |
|
Well Thumper, you asked, so here I go again touting my pet solution to this parenting problem which I'm convinced is a direct result of unwed teenage pregancies. What I suggest is very radical but considering that about 90 percent of black men in prison were born to young unwed mothers, drastic measures are called for.
My idea is that all female babies should be inoculated against pregnancy at birth and only when they've proven themselves to be responsible adults should they be allowed to have the vaccination reversed.
Yes, I know many blacks would scream that this will facilitate genocide, and feminists would protest that it should be male babies who are sterilized, and religious folks would be scadalized by anything that would inhibit people from being fruitful and multiplying, but since all else has failed, this could be an effective way to stem the wanton rampant breeding that goes on among those who are the least equipped to bring children into the world.
Among the black underclass, in particular, a young boy fathering a baby with a young girl is now like a rite of passage and this act too often establishes a repetitive pattern that results in a female producing a brood of fatherless children.
The baby daddy/baby momma syndrome is a social ill that imperils the black community because the potentially dysfunctional offspring of these unstable relationships are the kids who represent the future of the race. IMO. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 7658
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 10:28 am: |
|
My idea is that all female babies should be inoculated against pregnancy at birth and only when they've proven themselves to be responsible adults should they be allowed to have the vaccination reversed.
(I think Adolph Hitler tried this out on the Jews)
In desperation, I suppose of looking at all the little pickaninies running around and this embarassing them in front of White America, people continue to try and impose a group solution on a personal problem.
The solution to the parental problem is for you not to become a parent until you are ready.
Are people going to become parents when they are not ready? Hell yes, just like they always have. As long as all you need to knock somebody up is a couple minutes upside a wall someplace this is going to happen.
Perhaps, since we like to imgaine the good ole days when there were never any OOW children, we should reinsttute the solutios.
In the old days, you knocked somebody up, you got married. Or you got rid of it.
In the old days, being pregnant was a mark of SHAME. Maybe we should do that, kicking the girls out of school and maybe putting scarlet letters on their blouses.
In the old days we stressed TWO PARENT FAMILIES.
The middle class Negroes who are screaming about teen mothers ignore the fact that a large percentage of OOW births are to single employed women in their 20's.
Jane Fonda told them they didn't need no man and they bought it.
A big difference in today and yesterday? The use of community SHAME LABELING OSTRACISM and pointing out SIN.
Bill Cosby himself had at least one OOW baby. Fine example you keep pushing. |
Carey
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 01:22 pm: |
|
The primise that this "problem" is the soul possesion of unwed mother is ridiculous. Of course that's my opinion but let me qualify it. I lived in a neighborhood that comprised nothing but two parent home. Yet, 80% of the children went to the penitentary.
Now, let's talk about Jim Crow laws. Who the hell would be the judge of this "responsible adult".
The blame SHOULD NOT be placed at the feet of the single parent. Parenting is a learned behavior. Yes, life is more challenging when one is required to raise a child on their own but the problem is deeper than most will admit.
Like Thump, with his peg leg self, I do not have many solutions but I know few answers can be found if we continue to look in the wrong place. |
Ferociouskitty
Veteran Poster
Username: Ferociouskitty
Post Number: 510
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 01:47 pm: |
|
I lived in a neighborhood that comprised nothing but two parent home. Yet, 80% of the children went to the penitentary.
Carey, did you ever read Makes Me Wanna Holler by Nathan McCall, or what I consider its female companion, Laughing in the Dark by Patrice Gaines? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 13290
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 04:00 pm: |
|
I didn't say that this was the sole cause of the problem, Carey, but it isn't as if this premise is so outrageously far-fetched that it's ridiculous to think that a young unmarried mother living in the ghetto is not capable of being a good parent! How could she be? She is emotionally immature, has no male support and no income except maybe welfare. It's not suprising that she wouldn't be a good parent.
Yes, parenting is a learned skill. And babies who have babies have not had a chance to live long enough to acquire problem-solving techniques! And this dire situation is exacerbated because of the tendency of unmarried mothers to be repeat offenders.
Or would an inoculation regulation be comparable to a Jim Crow law because it would apply to all infants of all races, and it is designed to protect rather than punish females; it provides a way to prevent the early pregnancies that can have negative repercussions. It's like the silver nitrate drops that are put in the eyes of all newborns to protect them from future blindness.
Of course poverty and all of its ramifications contribute to this problem but the chances of escaping this quagmire are improved if a single woman doesn't bog herself down with a lot of fatherless children.
And who can deny the correlation between the great numbers of black households headed up by single women and the frequency of young boys joining the street gangs that act as substitute families. And the exorbitant number of prison inmates not having a father figure in the home is also a compelling statistic. The same with the neglected children who are crowding the ranks of DCFS. Great numbers of kids from 2 parent families are not the ones who are the cannon fodder for jails and foster homes
The majority of excuse-makers who want to deflect attention from the origin of the negative effects of babies having babies are the people employed by the social agencies who make a living from ministering to the deprived. These agencies generate employment just like the prison industry does. Without a supply of offenders there is no demand for these money-making institutions and all of their subsidiaries to exist. That's why instead of adopting a tough love approach, these agencies become coddling enablers.
Of course, this is an issue which could be debated ad infinitum and never be resolved. But those who oppose my suggestion offer nothing but vague phrases about the notorious, incorrigible System being the culprit, and cite a few isolated incidences or experimental programs where impovershed children are given the special attention necessary to help them overcome their circumstances.
Like the battle of the sexes, unwed pregnancies have been something I've been a spectator to almost all of my life. I think every child is entitled to be born into a home that has some degree of stability. But I do concede that "stability" is the operative word here. Which is to say that single parenting is not automatically a disaster, particularly when it is the status of a capable responsible person.
Finally, I have not deluded myself into thinking mass birth control will ever prevail. Single deprived baby-makers and those who lament the ills of society will always be with us, propping each other up. And so it goes. |
Carey
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 1504
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 04:45 pm: |
|
Okay Cynique, you did well. You took your time and qualified your opinion.
I will agree, there are a multitude of problems associated with babies having babies.
The comparision I was making to the Jim Crow laws was that a chosen few would be judging other based on their perceptions/standards of "right".
What would be the quidelines or disqualifiers.
What, You can't be single (take away all babies of divorced parents.
2. You have to have a college degree (no G.E.D's are allowed)
3. You have to live in this neighborhood or that neighborhood ( project scum need not apply, but wait, my parents lived in the projects)
4. You have to prove that you have parenting skills (don't bring in your sisters and brother that you cared for since you were 13.
5. You have to bring in a note from BOTH of your parents (nope, birds of a feather flock together and if your father didn't sign it you are out of here)
6. You have to have a job that pays a certain amount before you apply (forget about that talk of paying your dues and learning from the ground up. When you get to be boss man, come holla at us)
As you so eloquently stated, those in charge of the agencies that serve and protect are somewhat at the root of the problem. So, who would write the policy for this Parent, eye-in-the-sky?
Yes, I agree, their is a correlation between single parents and the problems of the world but to minimize the other problems by not including them in the same breathe that may be just as harmful if not moreso, is an injustice and only serves to deepen the problem. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 13293
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 05:17 pm: |
|
If it was up to me, the requirements would be to be over 21, to be gainfully employed and to live in a residence that could be child-friendly. Being married would be preferable. But not being married would be permissible if the woman was in her 30s. |
Carey
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 1509
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 07:05 pm: |
|
Hey, that's a good start. Obama is looking for a few good people and if old dusty Burris can start all over, the skys the limit. |
Troy
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Troy
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 09:09 pm: |
|
Cynique, there was an old conservative talk show host named Bob Grant who touted the same solution you have. Of course, as you can image he got a lot of grief from the left wing who equated the idea with extermination as Chris implied with the Hitler reference.
The problem I have with your solution is who and how will the rule makers decide which couples are responsible enough to have children. Once we allow the government to dictate when we can do something as fundamentally personal as bringing forth a child then we would have given up too much of our freedom.
Rules like age minimums are too arbitrary to be very useful. Some 40 year olds are unsuited to bring children into the world.
You want the governement to enforce these rules when one can argue the governement exacerbated the problem of teen pregnancy: they already provide, birth control, condoms and abortion creating an environment very permissive of sexual activity.
There are are high schools which provide day care facilities, not for the teachers -- but the students.
Sex is all over the TV in our face constantly. Ever watch some of the programming targeted to kids; depicting high school students with more drama than the day time soap operas.
Sure school are a big part of the problem. Unions have created an environment where a "mediocre gym teacher gets paid as much as a great science teacher" (from an op ed in todays WSJ). Teaahers are very difficult to fire -- even those known to have sex with students.
Teacher union leadership don't even want parents to have school choice. Rather they'll condemn our children to completely dysfunctional schools, while their own children are educated in elite private institutions. Why isn't someone going to jail over the condition of some of these schools?!
Thumper you can regulate parenting |
Troy
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Troy
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 09:10 pm: |
|
That is; Thumper, you can not regulate parenting. |
Thumper
Veteran Poster
Username: Thumper
Post Number: 733
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 09:54 pm: |
|
Hello All,
Troy; Right. And nobody else...at least to my satisfaction! *LOL* |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 13297
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2009 - 11:38 pm: |
|
My imperfect suggestion is a cry of desperation, Troy. It stems from being being frustrated because nothing else seems to work. But it has a hidden agenda because temporary sterilization could give young girls a chance to grow up and, in the process, appreciate the positive alternatives to unwed motherhood.
This maturing process, alone, could make arbitrary requirements for reversing sterilization unnecessary. Once they're adults with prospects of a better future, young ladies may very well regulate themselves, and voluntarily delay pregnancy until such time as they are ready to exchange their carefree lives for what restoring their fertility will produce. Utopia? Maybe. |
Carey
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 1511
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Hello
Kitty, As I've mentioned, people find a lot of thangs when locked behind bars. God is one and Chess is another. A bevy of books also seem to be popular. You mentioned Nathan McCall's, Make me wanna holler and Patrice Gaines's, Laughing in the dark. These types of books are passed around as if they were the bible, along with anythang by Iceberg Slim and Donald Goines. Chester Himes has value as well. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10248
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 04:54 pm: |
|
I don't have any real solutions to what the Cos presented. I do, however, suspect the REAL solutions are too PAINFUL for MOST foks to want to endure and/or bear witness to.
For example, there might actually have to be mothers and children starving on the streets BEFORE significant numbers TRULY realize that, to quote the immortal Michael Jackson, ~"If you can't feed the baby. Then don't HAVE the baby. And don't say maybe. If you can't feed the BAABY!~.
I probably would really consider signing-off on some sort of involuntary birth control measures IF such were equally exerted across BOTH sexes.
And I'd just LOVE to see WTF would happen to the rates of OOW births, child support, etc. if our judges had the guts to flip the script and err on the side of giving MEN (and even forcing such upon them if necessary) primary or sole custody of children. Think that might encourage brothas to strap on rubbers?
Carey: "I lived in a neighborhood that comprised nothing but two parent home. Yet, 80% of the children went to the penitentary."
No offense to you, bruh. But I really have to wonder WTF kinda neighborhood YOU grew up in!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! |
Carey
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 1512
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 06:08 pm: |
|
Hello
ABM, I took no offense to your question, we are cool. Not only did I not take offense to your post, I understand it.
I was addressing the suggestion that single parent homes leads the way to many of the ills of the world. I countered that argument by saying parenting is a learned behavior, regardless if there are 2 parents or 1.
Even though we spend much of or time with our parents, our behavioral patterns are also shaped by the world around us. Various sources of information finds its way to us from several sources.
It's safe to say that although there may be 2 parents in the home, we don't know what went on in that home. There's also a bigger issue. We all have heard of great parents and rotten kids. Not to mention lousey parents and great kids.
To clarify my original statement, all the individuals that found their into the legal system did not do so while living in that neighborhood. The point being, they lived with two parents and yet, (for whatever reasons) their lives took a turn.
You asked what kinda neighborhood I grew up in. Well, like many black neighborhoods of that time, there wasn't many that had well paying jobs and the focus of many parents was to give their children a better life than them. "A better life than them" ... huuuummm. For many that simply meant feeding and clothing their families. Politics and getting a higher education was not their emphasis of a better life. For many, an higher education was a high school diploma.
Your question was valid (and funny) and has inspired me to look deeper into a bigger issue of what happens to the offspring of individuals that made bad decisions that led to dire consequences. Many would be surprised at what I discovered ...well, maybe you wouldn't because you appear to be a "thinker" but it wasn't anything like "the apple not falling far from the tree".
In short, I don't know if the problem can be blamed on the neighborhood or if it was a sign of the times or a combination of the two, along with all the other issues of life. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10251
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 11:06 am: |
|
Carey,
I agree the QUALITY of parenting is more important than the QUANTITY of such. However, I generally believe there is very likely a fair amount of CORRELATIONS between parental quality and quantity.
Because A LOT of what makes up good parenting is just being able and willing to BE THERE for a child in ALL matters, be they great or small.
And TWO parents are just much more able to BE THERE than one.
And, of course, there are all the socio-economic efficiencies and advantages (e.g., more household income, more household protection, easier relating between same-sex parent and child, etc.). And that is supported by almost all the CREDIBLE social science on the subject.
Surely there are many scenarios where one parent has done as well as (or even better than) most 2-parents households ever could have done. But all other things being equal, that is much more the EXCEPTIONS than it is the RULE.
Sorry for being flippant. Given the time you came alongs, I suspect the problems many of your childhood peers encountered likely were NOT primarily the product of bad 2-parent families and communities. |
Carey
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 01:09 pm: |
|
ABM,
There is no need to be sorry for being flippant. Heck, that's what we do around here and I can be the most flippant jerk around here ...I completely knew where you were coming from ...the laughs and the seriousness of your post.
I agree, there is definitely a huge correlation between parental quantity and quality (I like that phrase).
There are just too many things two parents can do that a single parent can not. A mother can emulate a father but she can never be one. A father might have a hard time showing the compassion and love that only a mother can share.
On the issue of more income in the home; it's safe to say that money plays a major role in our lives. However, I've come to believe that the absence of sizable amounts of money in a persons early childhood builds character that gives lasting rewards.
Sure, "sizable" is relative to many factors and yes, two incomes are better than one.
If the argument boiled down to rather or not 2 parents were better than 1, I think the answer is clear. Yet, I think we are both in agreement that 2 parents does not ALWAYS trump 1 parent. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10252
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 02:12 pm: |
|
Carey,
I think there's at least a certain minimum threshold of wealth and income a family needs to comfortably and effectively rear children.
But I would also agree that once you're above that threshold of wealth and income, having MORE money can be of LESSER benefit than we (capitalistic Americans) often presume such to be. |
Carey
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 1516
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 02:32 pm: |
|
Abm,
I am standing with you on this one:
"Carey,I think there's at least a certain minimum threshold of wealth and income a family needs to comfortably and effectively rear children"
Yes, a capitalistic mentality tends to package success in terms of "thangs" that bloat the ego.
Now, if I can just concentrate on the whole meaning of the upcoming inauguration and not all the black booty running around that day, I will be doing sometin'. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 10255
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 03:16 pm: |
|
Carey: "Now, if I can just concentrate on the whole meaning of the upcoming inauguration and not all the black booty running around that day, I will be doing sometin'."
Even you cannot deny the power of the Darkside of the Force.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 13306
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 05:32 pm: |
|
Any patient person should be able to become a capable parent because this is a "hands on" skill that is learned by the trial-and-error method. Having good instincts are what help in acquiring the necessary ability to communicate with your kids. Realizing what magic results that well-deserved praise can produce is also important. An incorrigible child is who can vex his parents - until they are able to admit that he is dysfunctional and needs professional help.
Yes, being parents who are financially able is great, but having a "good sense of values" is just as important as having "a lot of cents of value".
The advantage of having 2 parents boils down to the ol role model thing. Boys, in particular, need a masculine figure to emulate. Girls can get away with being tom boys but boys who act like sissies catch hell. IMO. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 3334
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 11:02 am: |
|
Drs. C and P were on Rachel Maddow last night, speaking on PE Obama and the so-called "Huxtable Effect." It was a rather...odd interview in some respects. First, it was taped ahead of time--something I have only seen a couple other times on this show. (An Obama interview being one of them.) And it seemed heavily edited. Also, BC seemed to wander a little in his responses. As an aside, physically he did not look well. Not sure if it's just age or if something else is going on. |
Carey
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Carey
Post Number: 1522
Registered: 05-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 11:57 am: |
|
Yvette,
Maybe I am just old and out of the loop but who is Drs. C and P?
You also mentioned a "BC", again I'm lost. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 13309
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Damn, I'm older than you, Carey. BC is Bill Cosby. Dr. C refers to "Dr" Cosby and Dr. "P" refers to his side kick psychiatrist Dr. Alvin Poussiant, both of whom were mentioned by Thumper at the beginning of the post.
I agree, Yvette. Cosby has been looking sickly and acting erratically as of late. Poor ol fella. Maybe that's why Poussiant is more and more accompanying him on his appearances. |
|
Email This Page