A serious problem.
 

I recently found out what I consider to be a disturbing statistic while in a training one of the speakers pointed out that 69% of black children were born out of wedlock. My first reaction to this was disbelief b/c that would mean that only 31% of black children were born to married parents I feel this is a problem that causes other social ills in the black community.

I feel that the greater problem is the home environment in which the child is raised, not just whether the parents are married or not. I think a child raised in a single parent loving environment will be better off than a child raised in a two-parent abusive environment.

Well said.

I don't think we can totally dismiss the importance of a funcitoning two-parent family so easily. Yes, ladygreek makes an excellent point, but we need to keep in mind that a father (or father-like figure) is very important to the life of a child, both a boy and especially for a girl.

A father is the first and most influencial image of a man that a young child (especially a girl) will see. He has the power to shape her entire view of men, love, relationships, self esteem, etc. that will affect her as she grows and most likely even throughout adulthood. If there is no functioning father figure in the home, she will seek that male attention from somewhere in some form (sex, unwanted pregnancy, multiple partners, etc.).

I agree with AXEAM. While I don't condone people getting married just to say "hey, I'm married" - I think its painfully obvious that over the last 30 years, as the "Black Family" has erroded (going from "the norm" :) to the exception :eek: ) so have our communities and even the mindset of those generations that have followed.

I mean, when you have girls in high school that look forward to having or throwing a baby shower while in high school - something is up!

I believe Honeykiss hit the nail on the head...I also believe that a lot of the relationship problems that face Blackmen & Blackwomen stem from not having married parents in the house. How can a person know how to treat or know how to expect to be treated by a member of the opposite sex when they never witnessed it being done.

True, but what if that treatment being shown is cold or abusive, or just cordial at best?

I think we all would agree that having one "average" parent is better than have one or two that are abusive. So let's just keep the conversation in terms of the "average" parent (ex. has a job, does their best to raise their children, etc.).

Regarding the other examples (cold, cordial), I do think that when it comes to parenting styles (loving vs. cordial, strict vs. liberal) it can get VERY subjective. For example, what I deem as nothing more than "disciplining out of love", someone else may not think otherwise and deem me a bad parent.

And that is my point, too. It is subjective. Per the original post I am part of the problem.

Do we not feel that two good parents, is better than one great parent?

I guess I didn't take the OP to mean that he was knocking ALL single parents but mostly those of my generation.

I believe that a 2 parent home is ideal and this is coming from someone who grew up in a single parent home since the age of 12. I know my mom did a wonderful job with me (:D ) but I'm not going to pretend that the total absence of a father figure had no effect on me.

Realistically speaking...
 

The problem ISN'T with women who, out of wedlock, have children who can adequately support them. We know that those who have the PRIVELEGE of using this forum are outside of this consideration---obviously, they have been themselves or are the product of women/men who knew what it took to be a parent--not just a 'baby mama/daddy'. It's with the women who CANNOT.

The cycle of Black women who aren't (and I use that word deliberately) financially, socially or emotionally sound who continue to have babies, is the issue that permeates the Black community. True enough, if the majority of children of this 69% were living in *healthy* situations, then it wouldn't be an issue of morality or otherwise. In fact, it wouldn't even be a discussion. The blame wouldn't be placed on inadequate/non existent birth control, foolish decisions and, as mentioned before, the lauding of teenage pregnancies, to mention a few. While few to no single mothers will say "My baby wasn't a blessing; I wish I had never had him/her", let's be honest here: it's hard enough having a child with TWO parents, let alone ONE.

And for economic, social and psychological reasons, having a two parent home IS the ideal for obvious reasons. Not to say that every two parent home is best--most homes in general aren't
*perfect*. But having a partner (let's speak in average--not extenuating circumstances like abusive, emotionally neglecting, etc)to help in making even the most minute decisions that affects a human being for their well being for the rest of their life is of course, the smart move to make.

Besides, it takes two people to PRODUCE a child. It takes a village to RAISE one. And that village starts with the home.

enigma_AKA

Okay, then let's take the issue off of just the Black woman and discuss why our Black men are being "baby Daddy's" to multiple children in the first place. Yes, it takes two folx to produce a child, but usually it is the man who runs away after that happens. But it is the woman/girl who gets put into the statistics, and are considered the problem. Maybe they just fell for the okey doke.

The issue will never be taken off Black women because...
 

Black women are giving birth to these 69% of children born outside of wedlock.

I see what you're saying. However, since we KNOW that Black men are running off, having many babies with many women, shouldn't that be even more reason for women to take more precaution? At the end of the day/nine months, if the woman knows that she not only has to carry a baby to full term BY HERSELF and then possibly take care of the baby BY HERSELF, then wouldn't the rational answer be: be careful. Do what it takes to not have a baby. It's not even that difficult to NOT have a child. What's difficult is TO have one.

Especially Black women. We have been nutured in an attitude of self-sufficiency. When Black men oftentimes left us hanging, we were/are forced to make a living/to survive by any means neccessary. And when you are SURVIVING, it doesn't mean you are living; it means you are doing what it takes to get by. And THEN you try to bring another life into the world, barely making it with yet another mouth to feed, another spirit to nurture. This is NOT how one should raise a child in a *healthy* enviroment. Not to say it can't be done, but I mean, honestly...which would you have?

As far as the Black men who put themselves into the situation to be a 'baby daddy', that's about dual accountability. When two people are having sex WITHOUT protection, both are at fault. Yes, fault. To not concern yourself with the possible outcome of that short-time (however enjoyable) is foolish, on both ends.

Black women are 'enablers'; that we, knowing the consequences and the eventual burden, would allow ourselves to be put into situations as to have the child. Leroy the _____, might be everything and a bag of chips, BUT you know deep down and he knows, he will not be a great parent. Let's stop making excuses--'maybe he'll come around', 'maybe he'll pay the child support', 'maybe this', maybe that'. And in the midst of these maybes, a child will suffer. Maybe not in the ways most people can see, but a lasting impression will be manifested in more ways than one.

And our Black men need to stop and think. Laquandanisha might be great as all get out. But do you REALLY want her calling you day in and day out, getting your pay checks cut, possibly getting you in trouble with the feds worth a few seconds/minutes/hours of some a$$? Yeah, right. GROW UP. These are simple matters of consideration. Not rocket science--so we, Black women and Black women should expect better. For us to DO better.

Just another thought that a friend brought up to me today:The excuse that people don't 'think about it in the heat of the moment' or aren't thinking long term, while in the short term, is not enough. It never was, really, but we allowed ourselves to push it to the back burner. And not that pot is beginning to boil over. It is IMPERATIVE that we *think* about it. We need the proper guidance and models in our communities to promote THINKING ABOUT IT.

enigma_AKA

Re: The issue will never be taken off Black women because...
 

, possibly getting you in trouble with the feds worth a few s[QUOTE]Originally posted by enigma_AKA
[B]Black women are giving birth to these 69% of children born outside of wedlock.

I see what you're saying. However, since we KNOW that Black men are running off, having many babies with many women, shouldn't that be even more reason for women to take more precaution? At the end of the day/nine months, if the woman knows that she not only has to carry a baby to full term BY HERSELF and then possibly take care of the baby BY HERSELF, then wouldn't the rational answer be: be careful. Do what it takes to not have a baby. It's not even that difficult to NOT have a child. What's difficult is TO have one.

Especially Black women. We have been nutured in an attitude of self-sufficiency. When Black men oftentimes left us hanging, we were/are forced to make a living/to survive by any means neccessary. And when you are SURVIVING, it doesn't mean you are living; it means you are doing what it takes to get by. And THEN you try to bring another life into the world, barely making it with yet another mouth to feed, another spirit to nurture. This is NOT how one should raise a child in a *healthy* enviroment. Not to say it can't be done, but I mean, honestly...which would you have?

As far as the Black men who put themselves into the situation to be a 'baby daddy', that's about dual accountability. When two people are having sex WITHOUT protection, both are at fault. Yes, fault. To not concern yourself with the possible outcome of that short-time (however enjoyable) is foolish, on both ends.

Black women are 'enablers'; that we, knowing the consequences and the eventual burden, would allow ourselves to be put into situations as to have the child. Leroy the _____, might be everything and a bag of chips, BUT you know deep down and he knows, he will not be a great parent. Let's stop making excuses--'maybe he'll come around', 'maybe he'll pay the child support', 'maybe this', maybe that'. And in the midst of these maybes, a child will suffer. Maybe not in the ways most people can see, but a lasting impression will be manifested in more ways than one.

And our Black men need to stop and think. Laquandanisha might be great as all get out. But do you REALLY want her calling you day in and day out, getting your pay checks cuteconds/minutes/hours of some a$$? Yeah, right. GROW UP. These are simple matters of consideration. Not rocket science--so we, Black women and Black women should expect better. For us to DO better.

Just another thought that a friend brought up to me today:The excuse that people don't 'think about it in the heat of the moment' or aren't thinking long term, while in the short term, is not enough. It never was, really, but we allowed ourselves to push it to the back burner. And not that pot is beginning to boil over. It is IMPERATIVE that we *think* about it. We need the proper guidance and models in our communities to promote THINKING ABOUT IT.


This is a great post.


LG, it's not about the blame game b/c both parties males & females are at fault it's about a problem that is recking havoc on the black community. I'm not knocking single parents and I'm damn sure not knocking blackwomen b/c blackmen are just as much if not more to blame for the problem, I'm against the mindset that having kids w/o being married esp by those who can least afford to is becoming the norm in our community.

AXEAM, I hear ya. All I am saying is that we need to quit putting the total burden on the Black woman/girl, because many times (if not most) the girl is led to believe that she is showing true love for her man. I think you and I agree on that point.

So, what do you think *we* can do to change the perception/reality of what is and what is not so-called love with such dramatic results? (Serious question)

I know people who felt as though, male and female, using a condom meant you didn't trust/love them really. Is that what love means, though? Obviously not. But then, if you don't have many or any example of love with precaution, then I suppose it would make sense to believe that is the true test.

I don't want to steer the discussion away from the OP, but I think that this self-portrait of *love* needs to be examined in light of our self image. How we view ourselves as mature and loving men and women is crucial.

enigma_AKA

I think that if many of these girls grew up in a home w/ married parents the girl's father could teach and let her know how a man is suppose to treat her thus she would not crave that attention from a male and make bad choices in the process.

I have a question about the stats. Were there any stats saying what percent of the 69 percent ended up in a two-parent home, e.g., the mother and father eventually married, or the mother met someone else who she ended up marrying?

That is a good question. I'll look into it and post the answer.

Thanks. I was thinking that the stats were probably based on the birth certificate and the situation of the mother at that time. That could explain why they are so high. I mean the mother and father could be planning to marry.

There are women who grow up in two parent homes, have great fathers who treat all the women in his life like queens, and they still end up making bad choices. Having a father at home is not a guarantee that someone will make good choices when it comes to their relationships.

L.G
I have not found a stat on that yet, I'm still looking.

So true, it seems as if women need to be more selective in their criteria for romance, or we will continue to get these results, and our daughters must be taught to love themselves first, so they will not be subsceptible to making bad choices. LOL I've made a few myself-:( but thank God I had the sense and his grace to do better! it is so sad to see how our men have nothing to do with their children and thus scar them psychologically for life, let's stop the madness!

Due to personal circumstances that I watched unfold before my very eyes, I had to rationalize what was going on for it all to make sense and this is as best that I can come up with...

For Ladygreek: I think what you are discussing is a difference in "generation"... For my generation, a teen girl that got pregnant and the guy ran out on her was the norm and the girl had to just deal... Then there are "plenty" of "stop gap" programs that taught girls that there are other options besides teenage pregnancies... Those really kicked into gear from the late 1980's and were well established by the mid-90's...

For Enigma_AKA: What you are discussing is the latest and current cultural trend (if you can call it that) of what young people say, do and think. And that is where we might have a discrepancy.

For AXEAM: The stats you quote are somewhat old. The number is higher than that. Most African American children born to unwed mothers are really not from teens, they are from women older than 21 years old. Some of them nearing 30 or later... And the number is like 80%.

It is called "marriage in reverse". A women wants a man so bad that she will have his baby and "thinks" (illogically) that he will marry her because of having the child... I have several "friends" that in fact did just that.

They were not teens who didn't know where babies came from or were unsure about there reproductive health... These are grown women that practically took an ovulation test to make sure they were going to "trap" the guy into marrying them...

Sometimes, it worked. Other times, and most of the time it did not. And if they married then found out they hated each other, they often got divorced--there in you have your divorce stat--like 50% or more... And yes, there are rare exceptions.

But I just asked a young lady who was a teen mom what she would say to her daughter when she became of "age", she told me she would make sure that her daughter did not "buy into" foolishness play game lines that guys who only want sex would say...

It is the "bedazzlement theory"...

But there is also the concept that a woman would have a man's child, but wouldn't marry the fool... That marriage is really hard and you'd have make it work, sacrifice. However, that thinking all changes after the baby is born--both events in life are equally difficult to do and there are sacrifices that are made anyway so you may as well do it with a partner that you love...

My husband vehemently believes that a couple absolutely should not marry just because of the child or pregnancy...

I think at a certain age that folks need to be responsible for their actions and use the theory of evolution by naturally selecting their mates and think before the get their groove on... Those concepts need discussion before you lie together. But I guess I live on Fantasy Island and most folks don't be thinking when it comes to sex...

^^^^ well said.

Several comments made in this thread are valid however the main topic was about the percentage of minority babies born to unwed mothers. Someone made mention of the situation of the mother at the time, the stats do not examine how many of these women were "cohabitating" which is what I look at. Just because the mother isn't married does not mean that a person was not raised in a two parent home.

Now I can only speak about what I know and alot of what I know is limited to the people in the Caribbean community. A large number of my friends (myself included) were raised in 2 parent home (whether it is biological father or "step-father") where the parents just never bothered to get married. My mother would be considered a statistic but she was with my stepdad 16 years before they got married. I have a male cousin who was not married to the mother of his two daughters but to see a man this involved, making a strong but failed attempt to braid hair and sitting at a pink table drinking imaginary tea out of a tiny cup is touching. Alot of these men are not just weekend dads, but are fully involved. Unfortunately these men may be an exception to the rule but there are no stats about them.

That's the other thing I forgot, too. In other countries, there is the issue of marriage cost. In the United States, "certain folks" can get married relatively easily--if they just make it to Las Vegas and get thru the drive-thru wedding and marriage license... :rolleyes:

But it is my understanding that in other countries, marriage licensing is a whole 'nother process which involved a lot of cost associated with it, and that does not include the required tradition that MUST happen for a wedding.

I could see why most folks would not bother with having to undergo the bureaucracy to just get a marriage certificate and license for solemnization... Then get cursed out for having lay down tons of money for a ceremony... That's just crazy... Like in some countries a wedding ceremony is a week to a month... And that doesn't include the planning activities...

Though this may be true in some countries, the process is not so complicated in my country. I believe that for some of those people it's just not that big a deal to have a piece of paper saying that you are husband and wife (again this is my opinion and observation). Many couples live many years together without making it official and are not looked down upon for it.

In some countries, the families put a couple together - arranged marriage is quite widespread outside of the U.S. and I, for one, think it's a pretty good idea when I consider what biblical marriage is. Anyway, there is no ceremony at all, but the couple moves in together. The "wedding" lasts for two years. If the woman is not pregnant by the end of two years, the couple can decide to either separate (but they cannot marry anyone else) or stay together (which most people do). Only after the two year period does the community recognize the marriage. It is then that an extended celebration occurs. The celebration can last months depending on the wealth of either family.

But, from the jump, the couple is considered married!

To my knowledge, this is also true in Haiti. I spoke to a few Haitian couples to find out why (not to be nosy, but as an exercise in expanding my own understanding - I was able to approach the couples speaking as a student doing research, as it was for a class assignment. People are very generous when they know you're trying to educate yourself!)

What I found was that it is extremely rare for a cohabiting couple to separate - mostly because the families become so intertwined - that cohabitation is seen as pre-marriage, leading to a definite marriage. I also found that it is looked down upon if the couple doesn't stay together.

This research was for a class I took in seminary about people and culture and how Christianity can be contextualized. What I determined was that all the cultures I look into required marriage, in some form - but that marriage certainly didn't always look like U.S. marriage.

Ok - here goes a slight hijack - Most Christians I'm in daily contact with are the most judgmental people I could imagine. When they take classes like the one I took, they can't reconcile their view of what Christianity should be with the truth of what Christianity is. When I look at cultures, where living together before a formal wedding is considered appropriate (even encouraged), I don't see raging sin. The reason is because I know that the commitment is there and I know that the culture has a way of dealing with couples who break that commitment. Difference doesn't mean sin!! /hijack

Wow, I like the direction this discussion has taken. Talk about learning something new every day!

And PJ, you and I are ===>HERE<===

So one of my colleagues is a Sudanese muslim and since her brother was "getting married" in the Sudan (but he lives in the US), she was trying to explain to me how "weddings and marriages" work in the Sudan including her own...

It is rather interesting how different cultures do things to me. Especially different religions.

What she said to me was that for her "marriage" her father went to the Mosque and there was a ceremony there to "hand his daughter over to her husband"... Incidentally, men and women apparently must be separated or do not go into the Mosque (I am not sure). From what I understand, she said they were married at that time, but from a US standpoint, it looks like an engagement. But they are allowed to live together at that point. And I think that most people plan the wedding ceremony that last for a week in the Sudan...

The differences from other cultures are that another colleague from China basically went to some government office in Beijing, signed some paperwork and the worker say "good luck" and she and her husband were married. But she said a lot of that was changing into either the traditional Chinese weddings or a more westernized version...

But the most interesting wedding I've attended is a Vietnamese wedding and all the dresses the bride changed into... Whoa... I couldn't do that...

I must admit that the government is beginning to look more closely how folks get married--basically to stave off divorce rates and single parent families due to couples not getting married--not due to widowing or other popular issues, i.e. artificial insemination, same-sex couples, etc... Just two people get busy who are not married and over the age of 20 and having children... Go to the "Focus on the Family" website and they can give you the lowdown as to why they think the whole thing is wrong--if you can avoid the crap that gets you angry...

Even before I became an active Christian I thought living together was not a wise thing to do. The lack of legal recourse alone was enough to keep me away from it not to mention "getting the milk for free" idea. So while I respect other cultures and their traditions, I do not think we should just through out the "baby with the bathwater" in terms of marriage in the US nor blame the lack of support for co-habitation on Christians.

Maybe its a generational thing for us (because let's face it - this is an age of instant gratification - a mentality of "if you don't like it, go out and get a new one"). You can live together with everyone you date from here until you die, but if you don't have the drive, determination or even wit to understand what a marriage is, much less the amount of WORK it takes to keep it going, you will always find something that the other person is doing and use it as an excuse to not marry him/her. Its like you have 2 people never learn the art of compromise, which is an ESSENTIAL element of making a marriage work.

Absolutely. The culture of the U.S. doesn't support co-habitation. We don't take it seriously enough and generally don't consider it a pre-cursor for marriage. I certainly wouldn't advise American Christians to live together!

But, in other cultures, co-habitation is part of the marriage contract. And, I believe that in the U.S. we are quickly losing our understanding of what marriage is to be (and I include Christians here - let's not lie to ourselves, the high divorce rate does not escape "Christian" marriages).

The concept of marriage for millenia - and the concept as it stands across this world - is that marriage is a vocation and a contract. This is even a biblical concept! Marriage is not intended for selfish gain but is a union for the greater good.

It is for reconciliation between families, deals between countries, caring for the family of another. But, despite what too many seem to believe, there is no formula for biblical marriage. "The proper marriage" is not found only in the U.S. or in our view of what a wedding/marriage should be.

Biblical marriage is based on God and a single principle: sacrifice. We are to sacrifice our needs for the needs of the other. But, in doing so, our needs ARE met, because our partner is meeting ours and we are meeting theirs. If a couple is committed to this principle, for life, the method of becoming married is not as much of an issue.

The rate of children out-of-wedlock is a direct result of the instant gratification you're talking about, Honeykiss. We don't understand what love, marriage and family are.

I'd have to seriously disagree with you preciousjeni on the statement that bible does not provide a blueprint for marriage because it does, although it comes in direct conflict with today's culture and generational thought process. The bible does tell us the qualities we should look for in a mate, how a marriage should function, its structure and a whole host of things. IMO, the problem is that many people (inclduing those that call themselves Christian) want to pick and choose what parts to follow and what to omit.

Even if in the US, we saw co-habitation as "kosher", I seriously don't think it would matter. If a man wants to leave, he'll leave. If he has no intention of staying with a woman even if she has his child, that fact that co-habitation is ok won't sway him.

Like you stated, the rate of out of wedlock kids comes from a lack of internal emotions (ex. knowledge, self esteem, role model, etc.). We need to seriously address why this "lack" exist and what happened within these last 30 years to cause us to reap this type of outcome.

I agree that the reasons for the problem needs to be address b/c often times children raised in single parent homes often have more social and emotional issues then those raised in married two parent homes. I don't believe that just shacking up is an answer b/c I don't think this type of arrangement could teach the children the proper values of family and commitment.

See my comment below on what I meant by "formula." The Bible provides the elements of a godly relationship - elements that can be transferred across cultural boundaries. I think the significant issue a conversation like this will run into is agreeing on what the Bible is actually demanding. Some of the passages used to back opinions about marriage come from letters/epistles that were intended to address very specific issues in the churches to which they were written.

Taking an overview of the entire Bible - its view of women, men and marriage - will yield the elements I'm referring to.

I don't disagree with you, though, that people want to pick and choose. It's HARD to be a Christian.

I think we're saying the same thing, though. In cultures where co-habitation is part of the marriage contract, it works. In the U.S., as a culture, we do not do this. Co-habitation is a convenience and a self-gratifying experience. The reason I posted the information about Haiti (and the other culture I mentioned) was to illustrate that the U.S. concept of how one becomes married is not the be-all-end-all of marriage.

In the U.S., we say, you get a legal marriage certificate and use it within a certain number of days to be married by a religious or public service officiant. What I'm saying is that this "formula" works in the U.S., but it won't necessarily work in other cultures.

The thing is, with that legally binding contract, a marriage license, a husband cannot legally just walk out on his wife (or wife walking out on her husband). We are not discussing emotions here, we are discussing what one can legally do--what is observed by a judge, mediator and lawyers.

More states are giving "Covenent Marriages" licenses. If the marital relationship goes sour, then the couple must work it out with a counselor (pastor) or whomever and prove that they tried. The only way one can get out of the "covenent marriage" if there is something grossly wrong--like domestic violence (on paper-police report), excessive loss of money, abandonment for 2 years, proof of infidelity, or substance abuse--at least that is how the state of Arizona has it written. And the court folks just say that you can have all the "partnership agreements" that you'd like, folks still divorce and the lawyers just make more money...

I really think that for adults and not teenagers, because their thinking and life experiences are limited, just screw up like teenagers. They get drunk for that "sport EFF" and "whoops, I'm pregnant" and I didn't really know the guy...

Then it begs to question, how come someone would have a child with a loser but not want to marry him or her? Isn't that putting the "cart before the horse" thinking?

But most folks think of the "here and now"...

Repeat that last sentence again...b/c a lot of folks just don't get it.

Oh, I think plenty of folks get it... I am beginning to think that folks don't get a dayum about it.

It's like damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yah tell me not to get pregnant, but then when I do, yah tell me I should be married, but I hate the guy that impregnanted me, then you tell me not to have an abortion, so I decide to have the child because now, I am too old to not be having one, but I'm still unmarried, but I have a good job with benefits...

So on and so forth...

At least that the rationalization that I seen and heard many women go through...

But as far as men, some men are ignorant. Plain and simple. They just don't be thinking about getting women pregnant when they are not married to them. And even if they are, they still don't be thinking. As if "life doesn't really live inside them, so how come I am part of this picture?" concept.

That is what I don't get. As a man, maybe you can explain it to me? But I really don't understand it.

Some women have told me it's the fear of responsibility for another life... Is that true?