|
Post by jade on Mar 16, 2010 11:30:43 GMT
I see young black lads in the UK are growing up without a father, this is ruining their life but STILL its the mother's fault Sheesh
Higher education minister David Lammy today appealed for black fathers to become more involved with their children. He is aware, as I am, of the devastating consequences of absent fatherhood within the black community: 59% of black Caribbean children live in lone-parent households, compared with 22% of white children.
More than racism, I now firmly believe that the main problem holding back black boys academically is their over-feminised upbringing.
First, because with the onset of adolescence there is no male role model to provide guidance and lock down the destructive instincts that exist within all males.
Second, in the absence of such a figure a boy will seek out an alternative. This will usually be among dominant male figures, all too often found in gangs. This is the space where there is a kind of hierarchy, a ritual and, of course, a sense of belonging.LINK
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 16, 2010 12:14:04 GMT
Reductio ad absurdum.
Has this man ever seen black girls fight?
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Mar 16, 2010 12:17:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 16, 2010 12:27:45 GMT
to a very large extent it is indeed the fault of the parent
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Mar 16, 2010 14:53:52 GMT
Reductio ad absurdum. Has this man ever seen black girls fight? The ability to fight with venom, power and viciousness is no more restricted to non-white females than it is to the male gender. I recall vividly seeing six white girls setting about another one and the ferocity of their onslaught was quite extraordinary.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Mar 16, 2010 14:55:37 GMT
I am well aware that being a parent is a role that has to be learned and simply having two parents does not in itself make you capable of carrying out its duties effectively.
Of course it is always better to have more support rather than less but the answer lies rather deeper than simple numbers.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 16, 2010 14:56:22 GMT
Reductio ad absurdum. Has this man ever seen black girls fight? The ability to fight with venom, power and viciousness is no more restricted to non-white females than it is to the male gender. I recall vividly seeing six white girls setting about another one and the ferocity of their onslaught was quite extraordinary. Yes Mike, but this article was focused entirely on black males.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2010 17:34:35 GMT
I see young black lads in the UK are growing up without a father, this is ruining their life but STILL its the mother's fault Sheesh ...while the mothers, according to the article, blame the schools. And so the world goes round...
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 16, 2010 17:48:34 GMT
I see young black lads in the UK are growing up without a father, this is ruining their life but STILL its the mother's fault Sheesh ...while the mothers, according to the article, blame the schools. And so the world goes round... Perhaps the mothers should take a good look at them selves and then an even better look at some of the men they allow to fathers their children... some of them dont seem to be very fussy what they mate with
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2010 7:32:44 GMT
Perhaps we should then blame the mothers of the girls who decide to breed from these duff men? My mother was of the "no -sex-until-there-is-a-ring-on-your-finger" school of thought which of course I didn't quite follow, but the idea of having a child without a stable partner equally eager to produce never crossed my mind.
I've just come across this poem by Pam Ayres. It has little to do with this thread but it made me laugh:
Yes, I'll Marry You Pam Ayres
Yes, I'll marry you, my dear, And here's the reason why; So I can push you out of bed When the baby starts to cry, And if we hear a knocking And it's creepy and it's late, I hand you the torch you see, And you investigate.
Yes I'll marry you, my dear, You may not apprehend it, But when the tumble-drier goes It's you that has to mend it, You have to face the neighbour Should our labrador attack him, And if a drunkard fondles me It's you that has to whack him.
Yes, I'll marry you, You're virile and you're lean, My house is like a pigsty You can help to keep it clean. That sexy little dinner Which you served by candlelight, As I do chipolatas, You can cook it every night!
It's you who has to work the drill and put up curtain track, And when I've got PMT it's you who gets the flak, I do see great advantages, But none of them for you, And so before you see the light, I do, I do, I do!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 17, 2010 8:56:21 GMT
Perhaps we should then blame the mothers of the girls who decide to breed from these duff men? yes perhaps we should..afterall who gives these girls their standards...who is the example same applys to boys i and their father always took full responsibility for our childrens behaviour..good or bad its not a 100% that kids will behave as they have been brought up to behave.. there are always those who will go their own way but in the main what goes on in the home is reflected out side the home..and kids will always have their own individuality and be influenced by their peers..but the home and parents/family are the biggest influence for most of us
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Mar 17, 2010 18:07:51 GMT
Read any abortion debate and the chances are that someone will state that it is wrong to force a woman to become a mother against her will. 'Equality' demands that the men who only wanted sex not a baby should similarly be allowed to choose not to shoulder the 'dad' burden if they are not ready to, or just plain do not wish to. I don't think that it is one gender's fault more than the other, it is the whole of society's attitudes towards sex for fun or recreation which leads to children born to parents who are not ready or who were not that committed to wachother in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2010 19:00:56 GMT
It was Jade, on another board, who drew my attention to this: A growing proportion of today's single mothers are more interested in raising children than in becoming economically independent - and in the absence of marriageable men, they are choosing to rely on the state for a secure income. It would therefore make a lot more sense for policy to concentrate on dealing with male worklessness, in order to make men marriageable again. This is the conclusion of new research based on British Social Attitudes surveys, presented today to the Centre for Policy Studies by Geoff Dench of the Young Foundation, at a seminar held by the CPS in association with the Hera Trust.
Over the last twenty years, the proportion of lone mothers has risen from 10% to 25%. At the same time, Dench notes, there has been a significant change in the characteristics of lone motherhood. In the 1980s a lone mother typically had separated from a partner after some years of marriage or cohabitation. Now, a growing proportion has never been in a co-resident relationship. (For example, in 1986 just 15% of single mothers with children under 13 described themselves as never having married or cohabited; by 2006 the proportion had increased to 57%.)
Dench says: "It seems that lone motherhood is less a result of relationship breakdown, more a lifestyle choice. And the existence of state benefits as source of economic security seems to be encouraging young mothers not to bother with male resident partners."
Married and cohabiting mothers have increased their rates of employment steadily for the last 20 years. But lone mothers have only increased theirs slightly, with periodic setbacks. Single motherhood looks increasingly like an option chosen by those women most keen to become mothers (and anxious to avoid the financial risks of relying on a male provider).
(continues)
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 18, 2010 9:38:41 GMT
So. We are all agreed then. Blokes really are crap. Given the choice, a staggering proportion of young women would elect not to have the feckless young lad in their life and choose singledom over coupledom.
Only a callous state would force these young ladies into a dreadful marriage by not supporting that choice through the welfare system.
The more men divorce themselves from their responsibilities as parents the greater the gap grows between self respecting young ladies and their feckless, iresponsible putatuve partners, and so their sons grow feral and wild, their daughters only learn that you can do perfectly well without them.
Its a funny old world.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2010 12:12:57 GMT
Jade, no -one is forcing anyone into marriage. But it may require a complete culture shift to persuade young women that their lives can be okay without children.
Mothers may do perfectly well without men, but the opening post shows that their sons do not do perfectly well without fathers. And if you deliberately exclude men from your life, you also drive the sperm donor away from his child. Who chooses to be an absent dad?
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Mar 18, 2010 13:13:39 GMT
Hi Jade: I'm not sure how much 'self respect' there is in young ladies who rely on the state to support a choice of being a single mother. I may be old-fashioned but I would personally do everything I possibly could to support myself and my child before going to the state. And I would never expect the state to support me if I voluntarily chose to have a child as a single parent.
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 18, 2010 13:27:20 GMT
Lots of lads who never go near their babymothers! That, surely, is the point?
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 18, 2010 13:28:14 GMT
Me too firedfancer but I love the fact that the State will support mothers who cannot or will not depend on their feckless men
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2010 13:43:19 GMT
Lots of lads who never go near their babymothers! That, surely, is the point? The way I read it, it is the mothers who choose not to go near the men. In some cultures it seems to be the norm to have children at an early age, with or without a partner. Welfare benefits may be one incentive to become a single mum but I'm not too sure it is the only one. Which is why I say that perhaps some brave girls will kick against the trend and do the novel thing of finding a man they can share their life with before they mutally decide to have a child. Things may go wrong, but I wouldn't mind betting that the men in such relationships will be more inclined to continue contact with their children.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 18, 2010 14:00:36 GMT
Me too firedfancer but I love the fact that the State will support mothers who cannot or will not depend on their feckless men why do you love the fact that the tax payer has to pick up the burden of those who are too feckless to keep their own children if the state didnt pick up the tab there would be less single mothers....and the men/boys might even have to face financial responsibilities the state ie the tax payer should NOT be suporting single mothers and stupid males who cannot be bothered to use birth control
|
|