Honestly, had I not believed that "the white man was the devil" I could not have made sense of the world. I made it through 24 years raising 5 kids by myself. I endured alot of unfair-ness...it made it quite easy to live being able to dismiss those unfair actions as being attributed to a devilish nature...it helped me too understand phrases like "absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
So, in your mind, only people you perceive to be Black go through unfairness?? I know you really don't think that because you have brought up poor whites who live in the Kensington section of Philly.
Since I grew up in an overwhelmingly White environment, I saw things with Whites from upper middle class backgrounds that a lot of people attribute to inner city Blacks or "trailer park" Whites. The only difference was the neighborhoods they lived in and they had a little money behind them. In some cases that money did not make a difference. Some ended up in prison or dead. Some are still trying to find their way. Some were victims of police brutality. I listen to what some folks of you mindset say, and I think, "gee how come that doesn't happen to me??" What is it about me, someone who is obviously mixed, but many see as a Black, that I do not endure certain treatment that some Whites I have known have gone through, and I mean negative treatment. Is it the way I conduct myself, that people deem me not to be a threat??? I don't know. My parents were well respected members of the neighborhood in which I still live in. My folks reside in MD now. My great grandparents were well respected in their neighborhood on the South Side of Poughkeepsie, NY, an area still today that is predominately White, let alone when they bought their house in 1907.
So perhaps you took "the white man was the devil" to motivate yourself. Maybe it worked for you. But I see it as negative energy. Negative energy usually produces negative results, not always, but usually.
I would say a more postive motivating factor with inner city people would be this: "The White man thinks I'm a droopy drawer wearing rap singing drop out who speaks Ebonics, I'm going to show him that I am an intellegent, articulate, well dressed, well mannered young person."
Anything else, and they are doing what they are expected to do....like a lot of them already are.
I think I should split this.
Chapman, I am going to assume you are a man...
I had to choose to focus on my children than focus on myself. I could have spent $45 to $100 to keep my hair "did" but instead I wore dreadlocks before they were fashionable and I was tormented by whites.
I'm six feet tall so back in the day female pants in my size were $60 where a if I were a couple inches shorter I could have easily paid $12.
Only a devil would expect that a mother of 5 would do those things to please them and take from my children. I would have had to have taken from my children's minds, stomachs and backs.
I've learned more about the charactor of others by just being myself.
Now as an older adult, believe me, all these single moms (of all shades) are suffering and so are their children. I always tell them to choose their children FIRST!
I'm sure you're a wonderful mother and all, I'm glad you took care of your kids FIRST rather than blow welfare on yourself. That's one reason why there was a blacklash against it in the late 90s which led to reforms under Clinton.
But all these chiren ( ) are only suffering from: 1. lack of a father, who helped create them but didn't stick around, (women, esp. AA women need to DEMAND marriage prior to babies), and/or lack of family planning.
Melani says....I'm sure you're a wonderful mother and all, but all these chiren ( ) are suffering from is either 1. lack of a father, or 2. poor family planning.
I say... Melani...these children ARE HERE! God knew these children were meant to be here even before the earth was formed. So folks can call it what ever they want...
The stories behind most single parents are so complex...just amongst the stories I've encountered...a mother whose handicapped child smothered her newborn to death and her relationship did not last through the grief..
I had a two parent family at my center who were both in foster care as children...they didn't have the skills to hold their family together against the strains of economics and lack of family support...
Melani says...I'm sure you're a wonderful mother and all, I'm glad you took care of your kids FIRST rather than blow welfare on yourself. That's one reason why there was a blacklash against it in the late 90s which led to reforms under Clinton.
I say...Melani, I was a state employee at the time. But the "welfare queen" was a falsehood. Welfare for 5 kid was approximatly $500 a month cash...and about $400 a month in foodstamps.
and it was better for society that these mothers were home...now we have people like me making in excess of $3,000 a month to care for the same children. Many caretakers on the commercial level are feeding these same children cheap institutionalized foods...you've got children who barely see the parents who gave birth to them...many are not getting the basics now...a clean body, home cooked food and healthy interactions with a loving parent...
hey melani, not trying to beat a dead horse but if you take a child off the public dole but then allocate three times as much from the same public tax dollars for someone to provide "care" for this same child, where is the tax savings?
Melani says....I'm sure you're a wonderful mother and all, but all these chiren ( ) are suffering from is either 1. lack of a father, or 2. poor family planning.
I say... Melani...these children ARE HERE! God knew these children were meant to be here even before the earth was formed. So folks can call it what ever they want...
The stories behind most single parents are so complex...just amongst the stories I've encountered...a mother whose handicapped child smothered her newborn to death and her relationship did not last through the grief..
I had a two parent family at my center who were both in foster care as children...they didn't have the skills to hold their family together against the strains of economics and lack of family support...
I just can't "dismiss" children ....
I am not dismissing them. I am 100% all for supporting CHILDREN with gov't $$, health care, etc (but not some of these trifling mothers). You yourself said that it would be a who would want to take food and clothes off of a child's back for their own pleasure. I agree.
However, people have no excuse in this day and age. If you make BAD choices, you will have to live with the consequences of YOUR bad choices.
I am also FOR putting these absentee dads on lockdown, workdown, sic the IRS on them, etc. But who looses in all of this? The child. Even having an abortion (which I consider murder) isn't going to affect the Biological father/sperm donor since his body is not involved. The mother/woman is the one who has to live with remorse, guilt, pregnancy complications, etc - emotional and physical- problems resulting from reckless sexual behavior. Even SCIENCE tells us that it is much easier for a woman to get HIV (and other STDs) from a man than vice versa.
Now that you are older, might you agree that older women and grandma 'back in the day' knew what they were talking about when they say 'don't give it up'?
But oh, I guess that's just 'being judgmental and intolerant' for many these days.
Last edited by Melani23 on Tue 06 Nov 2007 15:54; edited 4 times in total
hey melani, not trying to beat a dead horse but if you take a child off the public dole but then allocate three times as much from the same public tax dollars for someone to provide "care" for this same child, where is the tax savings?
To answer this question - and as someone who had family on it, and who has worked with TANF/ATDFC/Welfare and in Daycare
Even if it takes more $$ in taxes, the money is better spent giving these women PRIDE in having a job and doing an honest days work. Everyone has a purpose in life. By requiring them to work, they actually make more MONEY by working. By the examples I know, 'Welfare' pays LESS THAN minimum wage on a hourly rate. Now, with the reforms, they get to keep healthcare and daycare if they work (income dependent), so that excuse it out.
Last edited by Melani23 on Tue 06 Nov 2007 15:52; edited 1 time in total
hey melani, not trying to beat a dead horse but if you take a child off the public dole but then allocate three times as much from the same public tax dollars for someone to provide "care" for this same child, where is the tax savings?
To answer this question - and as someone who had family on it, and who has worked with TANF/ATDFC/Welfare and in Daycare
Even if it takes more $$ in taxes, the money is better spent giving these women PRIDE in having a job and doing an honest days work. Everyone has a purpose in life. By requiring them to work, they actually make more MONEY by working. By the examples I know, 'Welfare' pays LESS THAN minimum wage on a hourly rate. Now, with the reforms, they get to keep healthcare and daycare if they work (income dependent), so that excuse it out.
Here is what I see, based on what I know...20 hours at $8 an hour yields about $135 in take home pay. So lets say a 40 hour a week yields $270 take home pay. Using a mom with two children. She gets up at 6am, gets her and the two children ready, leaves the house at 7am to drop the kids off at 8am, so she can get to work at 9am. Gets off at 5pm to pick the kids up at 6pm and arrives home at 7pm. She then has 11 hours, 8 for sleep, 3 for dinner prep, eatting and preparation for the next day, bath, clothes prep, Etc.
The weekends are for clothes washing, grocery shopping...and mind you she doesn't have a car. So both chores will be all day, exhausting and expensive trips.
At months end she will have $1,080.00. $200 of that she has to pay in a co-pay to me for childcare (which I rarely collect). Now she has $880, even a cheap house, apartment or room is $500 a month...now she has $380 from that even if she gets food stamps...out of this small sum she has to pay gas, elec, telephone, diapers, toilet paper, soap, sanitary products, lunch, transportation...she basically has $12 a day on which to survive...now to please her co-workers she need to keep her hair done as well as wear stylish professional clothes...
You know Melani, I have never really met a trifling mother, most of these women are creating miracles, making something out of NOTHING!
It hurts that SISTERS (meaning other women) can be so critical of other women who are really suffering.
Posted: Tue 06 Nov 2007 23:44 Post subject: Same day
Here is that same day from a child's perspective. I'm try and make this as true as possible. Lets say I'm a two year old autistic asmatic boy with a 4 year old sister in head start.
I'm woken up at 6am, mom hasn't turned the heat on and although I was bathed last night I've urinated though my night-time diaper. Mom gets up and in one hour dresses all three of us. We wait at the bus stop in the cold, I have on the red girls coat my sister wore last year, it no longer zips but my mom still has the belt which holds it around my body.
My neck is exposed to the cold and my socks don't match. I'm dropped off at day care after a 30 min bus ride. I have a bowl of Kix cereal and a cup of apple juice in a bottle for breakfast. I have activities at daycare and play with children, for lunch I have mixed veggies, a turkey burger and sliced apple and milk. I sleep from 1pm to 4pm when the afterschool children arrive. I have apples, orange and chiken nuggets for afternoon snack. During homework time I have free play and a daycare worker picks me up, calls my name trying to get me to look at her. 6pm my mom and sister arrive...we ride the bus home, the house is still cold and I am hungry. Mom brought home the shrimp fried rice from her lunch, I get that and an oreo cookie for dinner. My mom fills my bottle with Pepsi and fills the tub into which both me and my sister get a quick scrub down.
Me and my sister crawl into bed with mom, between the same urine stained sheets from this morning. Me and my sister watch cable and crawl back and forth over my mom who is exhausted, dozing off and waving us away while alternately demanding we go to sleep. By 10 pm I fall alsleep, somewhere near the end of the bed, with no comforter covering me and the heat is still not on in our apartment.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Wed 07 Nov 2007 03:32 Post subject:
...meanwhile halfway 'round the world in some parts of Africa, mothers hold their young ones close to their bosom, staring into their soon to be lifeless eyes because there is no food to be had...anywhere. But we aren't talking about this I guess. Oh well.
...meanwhile halfway 'round the world in some parts of Africa, mothers hold their young ones close to their bosom, staring into their soon to be lifeless eyes because there is no food to be had...anywhere. But we aren't talking about this I guess. Oh well.
Some people are into Africa and some people take care of home...it takes ALL types. Do you think it is deeply ingrained into the psychie of Americans that we should NOT take care of each other?
I'm the staff person who held the little Autistic baby that day, he is a sweet lil healthy boy, if you met him you'd love him. He has a lil square peesy head and down cast eyes. He always eats all his vegatables, one at a time. Why as an American would you not want the BEST for him?
Is it somehow "okay" for him to have a substandard life because others are suffereing elsewhere?
What did Steve Harvey say his dad told him..."the best way to help poor people is to not be one yourself" If our American children are ALL strong and bright we can change the world.
...meanwhile halfway 'round the world in some parts of Africa, mothers hold their young ones close to their bosom, staring into their soon to be lifeless eyes because there is no food to be had...anywhere. But we aren't talking about this I guess. Oh well.
...meanwhile halfway 'round the world in some parts of Africa, mothers hold their young ones close to their bosom, staring into their soon to be lifeless eyes because there is no food to be had...anywhere. But we aren't talking about this I guess. Oh well.
Some people are into Africa and some people take care of home...it takes ALL types. Do you think it is deeply ingrained into the psychie of Americans that we should NOT take care of each other?
I'm the staff person who held the little Autistic baby that day, he is a sweet lil healthy boy, if you met him you'd love him. He has a lil square peesy head and down cast eyes. He always eats all his vegatables, one at a time. Why as an American would you not want the BEST for him?
Is it somehow "okay" for him to have a substandard life because others are suffereing elsewhere?
What did Steve Harvey say his dad told him..."the best way to help poor people is to not be one yourself" If our American children are ALL strong and bright we can change the world.
Okay finished preachin,
Steve's dad is right (clap, clap, clap). However, I don't think he meant relying on gov't aid to dig you out. What I get from his statement is - 'don't put yourself in the hole in the first place'.
And as far as your other sceanario, there's alot of people in that financial situation, especially children. Do you want to be poor? Be a single parent.
And aside from homeless people, America's poor are single mothers and children because DAD is not around.
And as far as your other sceanario, there's alot of people in that financial situation, especially children. Do you want to be poor? Be a single parent.
And aside from homeless people, America's poor are single mothers and children because DAD is not around.
I would challenge the perception that poverty is a choice made by becoming a single parent, as if there isn't a conspicious contributor called the male wage earner. This is why divorced women live at or below the poverty line and married women do not. It's not the marriage in iteself, it's the unfettered access to the male wage that is highly correlated with economic stability for women. If you are married to a bum who doesn't work I imagine being married is more of a liability.
A correlation is a correlation, not a cause. Being an unmarried female head of household is highly correlated with poverty, but it is also highly correlated with factors that contribute to having a low income (low education/skills, lack of social support and being the co-parent with a man who is not a viable provider whether married to him or not). If these women advanced their education and had access to reliable and safe child care they would be able to support their families without the man who may or may not be contributing positively to the situation. They would also be more likely to attract and choose to have a healthy relationship with a male wage earner, IMO.
The reality is that many women, many Black American women, have chosen to bear the children of men who are unable or unwilling to be a true parent and take responsibility for these children. Unless abortion or letting your children languish in foster care are perceived as better choices to have made, I'm not sure what else one could realistically expect a woman who has made her bed and now lies in it to make. Many of the men who fathered these children, at least in the Black American population, are not viable providers or strong male role models for their children. They are not the male wage earners that lift out of poverty or keep women from being poor. I am not sure that their continued presence in a family as husbands or participating parents is all that is required to lift single mothers out of poverty.
This is my opinion, but I think it is a sound one: Marriage is not a smoking gun. Bad marriages among people with poor relationship skills and a lack of commitment or even love have done more harm to children than we could ever quantify. The underlying behaviors of the parents matter more than the form their relationship takes. A dysfunctional yet present (and broke or irresponsible) parent does more harm to a child than their absence would. Who is to say that, no matter their financial state, these women made a bad choice NOT to marry the fathers of their children? Is it really a good idea to compound the problem by marrying a philanderer, ne'er do well, criminal or abuser? Is it really a good idea to advocate that a man who may have left a woman for good reasons keep up appearances by marrying her?
To me the mechanics of this problem come down to cold hard cash (gained through a good job and child support) and reliable, safe daycare. Women will always bear the responsibility of raising children, married or not. The more society can help them make the best of being a single parent or socialize them to avoid poor husband material in the first place, the better off our families will be.
Posted: Wed 07 Nov 2007 19:42 Post subject: Exxcellent Post
Sagascend says....To me the mechanics of this problem come down to cold hard cash (gained through a good job and child support) and reliable, safe daycare. Women will always bear the responsibility of raising children, married or not. The more society can help them make the best of being a single parent or socialize them to avoid poor husband material in the first place, the better off our families will be.
And as far as your other sceanario, there's alot of people in that financial situation, especially children. Do you want to be poor? Be a single parent.
And aside from homeless people, America's poor are single mothers and children because DAD is not around.
I would challenge the perception that poverty is a choice made by becoming a single parent, as if there isn't a conspicious contributor called the male wage earner. This is why divorced women live at or below the poverty line and married women do not. It's not the marriage in iteself, it's the unfettered access to the male wage that is highly correlated with economic stability for women. If you are married to a bum who doesn't work I imagine being married is more of a liability.
A correlation is a correlation, not a cause. Being an unmarried female head of household is highly correlated with poverty, but it is also highly correlated with factors that contribute to having a low income (low education/skills, lack of social support and being the co-parent with a man who is not a viable provider whether married to him or not). If these women advanced their education and had access to reliable and safe child care they would be able to support their families without the man who may or may not be contributing positively to the situation. They would also be more likely to attract and choose to have a healthy relationship with a male wage earner, IMO.
The reality is that many women, many Black American women, have chosen to bear the children of men who are unable or unwilling to be a true parent and take responsibility for these children. Unless abortion or letting your children languish in foster care are perceived as better choices to have made, I'm not sure what else one could realistically expect a woman who has made her bed and now lies in it to make. Many of the men who fathered these children, at least in the Black American population, are not viable providers or strong male role models for their children. They are not the male wage earners that lift out of poverty or keep women from being poor. I am not sure that their continued presence in a family as husbands or participating parents is all that is required to lift single mothers out of poverty.
This is my opinion, but I think it is a sound one: Marriage is not a smoking gun. Bad marriages among people with poor relationship skills and a lack of commitment or even love have done more harm to children than we could ever quantify. The underlying behaviors of the parents matter more than the form their relationship takes. A dysfunctional yet present (and broke or irresponsible) parent does more harm to a child than their absence would. Who is to say that, no matter their financial state, these women made a bad choice NOT to marry the fathers of their children? Is it really a good idea to compound the problem by marrying a philanderer, ne'er do well, criminal or abuser? Is it really a good idea to advocate that a man who may have left a woman for good reasons keep up appearances by marrying her?
To me the mechanics of this problem come down to cold hard cash (gained through a good job and child support) and reliable, safe daycare. Women will always bear the responsibility of raising children, married or not. The more society can help them make the best of being a single parent or socialize them to avoid poor husband material in the first place, the better off our families will be.
Yes, I am aware of these things and they support what I stated (athough you have delineated them better). If I recall correctly, 75% of children in poverty are from single (esp. divorced) households. This is old news. Statistics show that being a single parent, especially a female HOH, is strongly correlated with poverty.
Again, go back to the statement from Steve's dad... to avoid poverty, the choices for a female are:
-To not have children period,
-To have fewer children,
-To not have children/have fewer children unless you can afford to provide for them alone,
-To get married before you have children
-To be highly educated and employable yourself and marry likewise
As the saying goes....if God saw fit to require 2 people (of opposite gender) to produce a child, then it must require 2 people to properly raise a (emotionally healthy) child.
Last edited by Melani23 on Wed 07 Nov 2007 21:34; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed 07 Nov 2007 21:33 Post subject: Re: Exxcellent Post
Monica wrote:
Sagascend says....To me the mechanics of this problem come down to cold hard cash (gained through a good job and child support) and reliable, safe daycare. Women will always bear the responsibility of raising children, married or not. The more society can help them make the best of being a single parent or socialize them to avoid poor husband material in the first place, the better off our families will be.
This was so well written!
Or them be responsible adults (18+) and not become a parent (until marriage) in the first place.
Posted: Wed 07 Nov 2007 21:50 Post subject: But what abt the children
My point is NOT to focus on the parents...but to focus on the children. There are things we should WANT all our children(and by "our children", I don't mean an individual's children but all the children within an individuals reach) to have...this current system and these current attitudes, is NOT whats best for children.
I have to put in my .02 and back up Melani here. We can talk about the children all day long but at the end of the day, forcing some citizens to give up a sizable portion of their income to pay for someone else's choices is economic slavery.
Does the taxpayer forking over nearly half their income have no rights?
The hallmark of individual rights is to give people the freedom to rise or fall on their own merits. That may sound harsh, but it's true.
We can never completely eradicate poverty but the best way to give everyone the best chance at a good life is laissez faire capitalism, which ideally includes getting race completely out of social policy (an objective that sadly we still have not reached). In socialist countries, EVERYONE except the dictators and their buddies are poor because they have no opportunity.
The best motivator to create wealth is to let each man or woman keep his or her own income. If bright people know they are tethered to support others against their will, human nature says they will not be motivated to produce.
Futhermore, when people are truly economically free, good will amongst men is engendered and there is more of a willingness to help one's neighbor who is genuinely in need.
I have to put in my .02 and back up Melani here. We can talk about the children all day long but at the end of the day, forcing some citizens to give up a sizable portion of their income to pay for someone else's choices is economic slavery.
Does the taxpayer forking over nearly half their income have no rights?
The hallmark of individual rights is to give people the freedom to rise or fall on their own merits. That may sound harsh, but it's true.
We can never completely eradicate poverty but the best way to give everyone the best chance at a good life is laissez faire capitalism, which ideally includes getting race completely out of social policy (an objective that sadly we still have not reached). In socialist countries, EVERYONE except the dictators and their buddies are poor because they have no opportunity.
The best motivator to create wealth is to let each man or woman keep his or her own income. If bright people know they are tethered to support others against their will, human nature says they will not be motivated to produce.
Futhermore, when people are truly economically free, good will amongst men is engendered and there is more of a willingness to help one's neighbor who is genuinely in need.
You have to truely understand things like corporate welfare...more of your money goes to keeping consumer products cheap, than helping your fellow man...when a $3 gallon of milk knocks me on my head and steals my pocket book then I'll agree with you.
Posted: Tue 13 Nov 2007 14:24 Post subject: Re: Exxcellent Post
Melani23 wrote:
Monica wrote:
Sagascend says....To me the mechanics of this problem come down to cold hard cash (gained through a good job and child support) and reliable, safe daycare. Women will always bear the responsibility of raising children, married or not. The more society can help them make the best of being a single parent or socialize them to avoid poor husband material in the first place, the better off our families will be.
This was so well written!
Or them be responsible adults (18+) and not become a parent (until marriage) in the first place.
Not all single mothers are teenagers. I believe most are divorced or never married adults when you take the entire population into account though I have no data either way. So if these women have jobs and can take care of their children with an ex-husband's/father's full contribution many of the problems would likely go away.
I agree that there is a huge element to responsible sexuality that may be missing but at the end of the day it is impossible to regulate the sexual behavior of consenting adults in a free society (you can punish it but once a child is here the ship has sailed).
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
) are only suffering from: 1. lack of a father, who helped create them but didn't stick around, (women, esp. AA women need to DEMAND marriage prior to babies), and/or lack of family planning.
who would want to take food and clothes off of a child's back for their own pleasure. I agree.
If I recall correctly, 75% of children in poverty are from single (esp. divorced) households. This is old news. Statistics show that being a single parent, especially a female HOH, is strongly correlated with poverty.