Poor Women's Magical Outlook
 

I was watching Washington Journal on C-Span this morning (I 'm a nerd, I know) and they had on there two people, Robert Reich, former Secretary of labor for the Clinton Administration and Jennifer Marshall, the Director of domestic Policy Research for the Heritage foundation. They were discussing and op-ed piece in the Washington post by William Raspberry entitled "Poor Women's Magical Outlook", mainly about a book written by 2 sociologists who did a 5 year study on single mothers in Philly and Camden, NJ. Their study suggested that single parent-ness may be resulting from a conscience delay in marriage because women want to be more independent when they get married so when they do, they won't have to be so dependent on the abusive, controlling men that they see in their community. The article goes on to show how this notion of marriage sets these women, and their children, up to stay in poverty for long time because marriage is probably one of the best things that people can do to rise out of poverty.



Question, why is marriage declining? And Also, is advocating for people to get married good socio-economic policy, considering all of the non-scientific, non- quantifiable, non-logical:-) (the Apostle Paul called it a mystery, I believe) things that actually will make a marriage last (namely love of self and spouse, etc)?

I have included links to the bios for the people who were debating this issue and a link to the column by Raspberry. The Raspberry piece may ask you to resister with the site, I would, it's free and the Washington Post is one of the papers we all should read for info on political "goings on".





Raspberry Column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092600294.html

Reich Bio:

http://www.robertreich.org/reich/biography.asp

Marshall Bio:

http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/...erMarshall.cfm

Re: Poor Women's Magical Outlook
 

I am guessing that you are wondering why folks actually getting married for the first time is declining, rather than folks having marriage failed, who get divorced, then remarry?

I think statistics show that folks have marriages that fail, get divorced then either remarry or not ever get married again... I think that divorcees deciding to not remarry is on the decline... At least that is what all the marriage enrichment websites are saying: namely "smartmarriages.com", "centerformarriages.com", "gottsmaninstitute.com", etc.

Young people under the age of 30 are not accelerating to the alter like their previous ancestors are. There are numerous reasons for that. The main one folks are saying is that the opportunities for women have exploded and that women no longer need a "man" for a "life", etc. That marriage is a luxury item, rather than a necessity for a smart, intelligent, working career minded woman...

Another reason is that men statistically are no longer the huge "breadwinners" as they were 20 years ago. Decline in economics, etc. are stated as the reasons. Most folks who have a college education, then pursue professional school may have indebted themselves in student loans. These loans are barely paid up until one reaches their 30's, if not later. Coming into a marriage with a huge amount of debt is tough on the relationship, generally.

The way I read William Raspberry's column was that many young teen mothers have a "rose colored glasses" view of life. It sounded like they were hoping for a "Prince Charming" to come in on his "white horse" and "ride off into the sunset"--rather than a realistic notion that if you bring a child into the world without parental resources and guidance, that ability to even meet that "Prince" will never happen because all your time will be taken up on barely surviving for that child. And a child taking care of a child is tough... Compared to a 30 something unmarried woman having a child out of wedlock... (I have my own issue about that concept alone)...

So advocating marriage for the "poor woman" is in seems fishy to me at first glance. It looks like the state is removing itself from its responsibilities to the young, single, unwed mothers and forcing her to contend with a man that neither one of them expected the outcome and they have to take care of each other to get their families going...

On the other hand, it is about sacrifices when you marry and it's worse when you have a child or have children. Because you have the marriage penalty tax assessed on you, but your incomes now get considered as one and decisions can be made jointly...

However the advocation of "poor women" to get married to their baby's daddies seems like we are going back to the 50's of the nuclear family...

And when is the last time a Black family ever has been completely nuclear? Nuclear annihilated, yeah... But the consummate nuclear family? Okey...

And the last thing is you can have all the glazed feeling of true love for a marriage... But that's the only thing that will get you to the alter--NOT maintain the marriage... It's helpful to keep the marriage going... But yeah, finances, sanity, sensibility, practicality and all those things are needed to maintain the marriage... Most Black folks can get married, but maintenence issues are a problem... That's why we need culturally-relevant and specific marriage enrichment...

Also, there is no need to have a house full of kids to work land or contribute to the household income. In addition, the high rate of AA men in jail makes slim pickings for many sisters.

Oddly, I insisted my godson not marry until he is 35. I suggest young professionals need to explore life, the world and develop themselves. Unfortunately, his girlfriend is with child and i'm spending every dime I have to pay for a wedding in November.

Re: Poor Women's Magical Outlook
 

Interesting piece. I think inner-city aspirations decline, or disappear due to the weight of present circumstances. Educated folks (not merely academically but folk educated with a sense of familial-religious-cultural grounding) make choices with some sense of a future in mind. People faced with bleak choices today and little prospect for better choices tomorrow, are, over time, going to opt for immediate gratification, no matter how wrong/detrimental.

The de-coupling of the marriage/family thinking isn't surprising either, sadly. That the surveyed women saw potential mates right off the top as possibly "controlling, or demanding" forces rather than potential uplifting, stable, life-mates may, sadly, reflect the truth of their environment (somewhat). If you have the means to roll out and find something better, you may. If not, you won't, and predictably stop looking, perhaps.

Advocating marriage as good socio-economic policy? Historically the U.S. govt. isn't clean enough to open its mouth on the subject, given what it's attempted to do the black family. However, marriage is certainly "honorable" and will always resonate with most people, IMO. I think we'd do better first helping people see their cultural linkages to their past and futures, giving them a sense that they have a future (that includes strong, supportive marriages) they need to help safeguard with a variety of better present-day choices.

We often talk about the "two americas" one black, one white. But we better watch that the breach of the two "black americas" (one functioning/thriving, and the other poor and bereft of hope) doesn't widen any further. Standing in this gap is where we -- churches, frats/sororities, community, HBCUs, extended families -- all come in.

Re: Re: Poor Women's Magical Outlook
 

excellent points - - - -

Re: Re: Poor Women's Magical Outlook
 

The de-coupling of the marriage/family thinking isn't surprising either, sadly. That the surveyed women saw potential mates right off the top as possibly "controlling, or demanding" forces rather than potential uplifting, stable, life-mates may, sadly, reflect the truth of their environment (somewhat). If you have the means to roll out and find something better, you may. If not, you won't, and predictably stop looking, perhaps. [/b][/quote]

I don't find it surprising either... But from what I read in the article, I could understand why a woman would not want to marry anyone who was "controlling or demanding"--but have a baby with him? The sex is just not worth it that much to me... But may it is because I am beginning to become a old foggie...

That's why I was thinking all along!!! Great minds think alike!!! ;) :D


What I find interesting is that as much as some folks may distance themselves from the realities of the impoverished folk, we always have that one family member that is waaaayyyy out there all up in the midst of unbelievable destitution due to the "usual reasons"--crime, drugs, addiction, etc. Whereas, I find that many of my caucasian counterparts barely have any members living in that kind of circumstances... My question is why? Particularly what is that "we" are "visualizing" here? What is going on and what is about to happen--can we put a stop to it because it doesn't look good from my vantage point?

in my best marvin gaye voice "What's Goin' on ?"
 

Great points everyone.

I think the real issue here is that the disproportionate poverty and discrimination in our community have resulted in people struggling to find happiness in this world, even if it means the temporary happiness that Bro. TonyB06 notes. In sociology, there is a theory that states that with high class status comes better opportunities to enjoy life and find fulfillment in life. Those opportunities are called "life chances". For some people, they can have life chances by taking vacations, taking up a hobby, reading a book, participating in civic and social gatherings, etc. Those things require a certain amount of class status. If you are poor and black, chances are that you will not have access to these types of experiences. But, the desire to gain enjoyment and fulfillment in life still remains. Some poor people find that fulfillment in conspicuous consumption or living above their means (thus having bad credit, therefore having a hard time building wealth), others find it in church (both healthy and harmful outcomes can come of this, depending on the type of church), yet others may escape in drugs and alcohol.

But I think most poor people probably find the best opportunity to find life chances by entering into sexual relationships. This may answer why these women will have sex with these men they don't deem fit to marry. The sex with the men fills a need in there lives to find enjoyment and fulfillment, although this is only fleeting. But, the temporary feel good suits most poor people just fine because they have come to value the "now" way more than the future because of a loss of hope due to a critical assessment of the type of future that they will have. Being poor in America is as good as a death sentence to most. With poverty comes lack of fiscal, social, and political "capital" that can serve to help people get those "life chances". The heart breaking thing about this is that the loss of hope sets in very early on (I have taught kids in the 3rd grade who saw themselves as 'hustlas' because they didn't think people like me were real). This hopelessness characterizes most of the choices that poor people make, thus we see choices that appear as undisciplined and hedonistic, when in reality they are just responses to hopelessness.

In our Sunday school class, we talked about how a generation of black folks could come along in 2005 that is so hopeless (I finally got them to see that it wasn't just that the kids were not as strong as we were, but that they were growing up without the community that we had). One would think that with all of the churches in our community, hope would be one of the few things that we had. But, as we see in this article, many of the things the church teaches (like Marriage and sex only in marriage) are not being valued by our young people, because they don't see the point. There is very little "hope in Zion" so to speak. We in the church are not critical enough of poverty and discrimination to show our youth that things can get better and that there is value in living a more disciplined life. Too often, the message of the black church blames the victim for their condition, which in turn breeds more hopelessness for some, and "other worldliness" in most (this is how I think retreating to the church can be harmful).

Bro. Tony B06 is correct in that the Gov. should be the last place that talks about the need to strengthen the black family, but the church probably should be the first. But, I think it will take more than a couple of sermons to make marriage more accessible to more young ppl. Like my wife likes to say, we need more practical information about relationship building, life planning, and personal development in order to make marriage more of a reality to young ppl. Our churches need to be more critical!!!

Blackwatch!!!!!!

Re: in my best marvin gaye voice "What's Goin' on ?"
 

Some of your assessments are valid. But from what I've read and seen, it has been my experience that many of those in leadership positions in the church are not family oriented--which scares me when we discuss the "traditional familial relationship"--meaning a man and woman get married and have 2.3 kids...

Okey, when has that EVER been a condition in the Af. Am. community? More than likely, a high educated Af. Am. woman desires marriage and she has a few options: Marry beneath her class level; get married in reverse (kids, then married) or not get married... Another option is pursue an alternative lifestyle... The Black Church FAILS miserably on being open to the widening definition of a family...

Then, we aren't EVEN going to get into the number of Af. Ams. in multi-racial relationships that get married and have kids--given that the numbers indicate these kinds of relationships have a higher divorce rate percentage... These data just came out about 4 months ago on marriage... Goggle it... There was an article in the Seattle Times about it 4 months ago...

The Black Church is extremely strict on it's definitions of a bonafide relationship. And does little to uplift any kind of "ship" that folks have. People are just plain sick of hearing the preaching and are completely turned off. I know I am... And my pastor is DIVORCED from HER husband!!! :eek:

(Highly trained pastor, knows her stuff very well and speak on the Bible and it's teaching. She's moved and touched in the Spirit, but family life is a tad bit lacking--but that's because her husband did abuse her...)

When I wanted to implement strong maritial enrichment courses in my church, folks clowned me. My husband and I had to goto the caucasian churches, pay $50 for a 2-day session on basically, "how to be married" with "conflict resolution skill"--how to argue fairly... Moreover, there are 100's of "marriage enrichment books" out there--NONE OF THEM APPLICABLE TO US!!! NADA!!! I've looked...

Now marriage takes a lot of work. Most folks don't wanna put that much work into anything, much less the inability to communicate effectively with supposedly significant other. It's easier to quit and yell at your kids...

And if Af. Ams have that mentality too, then it should be no surprise that many a sistah goes it alone and a brotha has a misconception...

I've spoken to folks from other cultures, especially Islamic and Hindus. And their cultural understandings of the expectations in a marriage... It DEFINATELY AIN'T like ours--the American Way... And although folks don't like the folks at the Focus on the Family--because they are rather bigotty--they do have a point in strengthening our family--at least they are trying to do it in someway--i.e. the Covenant Marriage Licenses and Vows with the pre/post and mentorship maritial training...

I agree with some of the tenor of Bro. Cushite and AKA_Monet's comments, but perhaps am less hesitant to lay dominant responsibility at the base of the church house doors. Let's be real, there are a grip of folks out there that ain't looking to darken anybody's churchhouse door. some because they may see it as "irrelevant" and some because they may not want to deal with the truth they hear spoken there. So who reaches these folks?

Yes, there are church institutions that are lacking in their mission of spiritually feeding the mind, body and soul. But some, particularly when you look at AfAm church attendance rates, are indeed on point. My church's motto is "Saving Souls and Salvaging lives"--recognizing that Christians have heaven "made" already. The hardest part is successfully living here, and drawing others to the same eternal gift we've accepted. My church has a K-4 grade school, an elder care, and has run a business incubator for minority start-ups. And a range of services/programming for different strata within the congregation. (but all services/programming are open to anyone in the community.)

So, I think good church doors will always be open and aggressive in attacking these issues. But what else, concretely, should our community be doing from a social-service perspective, for a whole group of folks who aren't looking for church intervention? (also, I wonder if anyone is aware of what percentage of the "inner city" population, even considers themselves "churchgoing?")


...this is an interesting discussion.

Family Structure and the Church
 

AKA_monet brings up an interesting point about the Nuclear family structure in the black community. True, studies have shown that the black family hasn't taditionally been "Nuclear" in the sense of a breadwinning man, a domestic woman, and 2 kids. Mainly due to historic and social forces prohibiting such. At best, we see approximations of the Nuclear family construct in our community, with extended family and fictive kin (check the work of Robert Staples and Patricia Hill-Collins). Chances are, when you see the black family, you are gonna see blended families, single mothers, and extended family members taking care of the kids. But, I think that, considering the fractured state of our community, we have to seriously explore the notion advocating for a more nuclear family structure in our community. I am not talking about nulcear family role definitions, but a nuclear family structure, with two parents in the home who earn living wages so that they do not have to work 2 and 3 jobs just to make ends meet. This way, they have a better opportunity to be better parents. Studies also show that when a father is in the home, things like juvenile deliquency, teen pregancy and school trunacy all go down. Without the community there to step up when a single mother has a child, can we say that the single parent family is the most responsible family structure considering the socio-economic climate of 21st century America? This nuclear structure isn't probable for many black people unless there is social, political and economic reform. I think this is where the church should step in.

Bro. Tony B06 notes that there are churches who step up and provide social services for people. This is true, and while I applaud those efforts, I think we have to think about the notion of charity vs. reform. The Bush admin. is pushing faith based initiatives so much because there is a practical end to the notion of charity and social service in capitalistic societies. These entities provide minimal help, just enough to get people who are oppressed and exploited to become pacified and not so focused on the notion of true structural change. Charity is necessary in our society because there are large groups of people who are exploited and need the necessities like food, clothing , and shelter. When these things are provided minimally, it helps calm the passions that could call for revolution. Charity doesn't call for structural change, in fact, some would say it helps to maintain the status quo. Bro. Dr. Cornell West put it best when he stated that we shouldn't confuse charity with justice. The church must provide aid while advocating for justice. The church needs to advocate for a more critical understanding of the social structures that characterize the conditions of people who are indeed victims of capialistic and political oppression. It's not enough to talk about "the enemy keeping you from your blessings", but talk about how this happens, why it happens, and also put a human face on that enemy, so as to not mystify or spiritualize real world issues.

For every church that is providing aid, there are 100 that are probably teaching this blame the victim, intellectually bankrupt message that breeds the nihilism or other-worldliness that I stated in my earlier post. I think that there are too many churches that open up without a definite plan for uplift in the communty. They open up from an"epiphany" of a preacher and then ride a wave of emotion that is pedalled as "the Gospel" and begin to spew forth a rhetoric that is uncritical and irresponsible. I think we as a people need to take our spiritual strivings more critically. Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mays warned against his in a book about the black chruch puiblished in 1933. He stated, among many criticisms of the church, that the message of too many black churches was too "Pie in the sky" for there to be any real hope of social change to come from them. I think this can be combatted if we hold preachers more accountable to be more theologically sound and committed to a more social gospel.

But one thing that is still true is that a black preacher, and the black church he runs, will have the attention of the largest group of black people. The black church is still the largest institution in our community that is totally autonomous. We can do anything we want to do with our churches. Now, this hasn't translated into much lately as far as social reform and structural change, but I think the potential is still there. We just need the vision that comes from thinkers like Bro. TonyB06 and AKA-Monet that challenges the prevailing attitude of uncritical and irresponsible theology.

Blackwatch!!!!!!

I was just having a conversation with someone about the rate of Divorce within the African American Community and the effect it has on children's performance in school, and how the home contributes to or impacts academic performance. So, what has happened to the BLACK FAMILY! There are more single mothers and absentee fathers which affect the children. Is marriage and the BLACK FAMILY obsolete as we once have known it. In response to the article single parent households are prone to poverty as a result of women earning less income than men. The answer would be for those women to create a life and income for themselves before bringing another life into the world as my Mom would say Make a life for yourself before you bring one into the world! Preaching to the choir I know!

It's too hard to making a marriage work...
 

Most folks wanna give up when the seas start to rumble and going gets tough...

What is a ROUGH SEA in a marriage?

Obviously, infidelity, physical-verbal abuse and abandonment...

But those events are gradual that build up over time and usually have some key moments or "red flags" that start rising to alert there is truly a problem in the relationship.

It usually starts very small. Such as a small putdown in front of folks publically--like "why do you look such and such, opposed to--whatever, whoever?"... Eventually, it turns into "You are the idiot..."

Stuff just escalates if you let it. Most folks don't even know how to try to notice when stuff until it is not going well, then by that time, it's too late...

I dunno what can change about that...

We have commercials airing talking about the importance of marriage. Do you all have commercials in your area?

It's been a week or so since I've seen it, but it was sponsored by one of the state agencies.

Not saying they do not exist, but that would not work a whole lot out here since there are folks who have alternative lifestyles that really want to be legally married...

I dunno what's best for everyone, but I do think it is selfish that one does not consider all the situations before gettin' his or her groove on that results in impregnation and birth of a child...

same here..
 

i have seen the commercials in my area also. they are sponsored by a church or christian group.

i agree with aka_monet in that when we engage in intimate relationships we must be mindful of the consequences when you are not using 'protection'.

personally, i feel women need to be more traditional in their approach. relearn how to be courted, stop settling for half-assed partners and demand more from them. learn to wait and not just run into a man's bed to fulfill a particular need. an intimate relationship should be about pleasing all of the senses not just the one between the legs.

in my experience, it is me who has dictated the relationships and how a man has treated me. i feel this is something that more of us need to look at. men will do what we allow them to do. better discernment could lead to better choices.