The Absent Black Father Myth— Debunked By Cdc

Barns, I know you asked to keep the thread on topic, but I think the Baltimore riots are a good case in point, and since you replied along those lines...

I'm somewhat perplexed that you see a moral equivalence to the Boston Tea Party and the Baltimore riot. I outlined the differences above, but you did not address them. Let me just highlight again what seems a clear distinction to me. The Boston Tea Party did not steal anything for personal enrichment. It was not random acts of violence. It did not disrupt an entire city. It did not harm anyone. Yes, it was a political act of defiance that is open to debate in terms of morality and potential application to society today, BUT is entirely different than what took place in Baltimore.

The Baltimore riots were random, violent and harmful toward innocent people, destructive toward an entire section of the city, an excuse for looting for personal enrichment from those who had ZERO relationship to the supposed "cause".

I would argue the first event (BTP) was a product of good parenting patterns while the second (Baltimore) was a product of the opposite.

 

@TIME I'm on my phone so I'll have to be brief. I did address your point about the differences when I said the BTP was a planned act to destroy other people's property, while the Baltimore riots were not planned. The examples you're giving about the differences are minutiae of the overarching concept which I think is very important. The BTP was a planned destruction, and the Baltimore riots were not. Again I'm not in favor of either, but people act out emotionally when they feel a great injustice affects there lives. This brings me to another point that is important if we do look at the differences in destruction you're bringing up. The Baltimore riots were about a repeated pattern of the police killing unarmed black men. The Boston Tea Party was about a 2% British tax. I think the difference in destruction between the two is pretty equivalent to the difference in how much each affected people's lives.

Getting it back to the topic of parenting, how can you say it's good parenting that leads to the planed destruction of someone else's property? I don't think either the Boston Tea Party or the Baltimore riots are necessarily good, I just understand them both to be how people react to injustice, perceived or otherwise. It has almost nothing to do with having a good or bad father in their life. It has much more to do with a lack of options to rectify an injustice you deeply care about.

 

I'm with Punk. Some of my clients... I look at them (as low in age as 4) and I think to myself, "this kid will be in prison." Heartbreaking. Note: this particular kid is white.

90% of my clients are victims of hitting the bad parent lottery.

 

@Barnstable, what you are characterizing as differences of minutiae are in my view event defining differences. As I acknowledged above, the BTP destruction of a tea shipment is debatable in regard to it's morality. What is not debatable is that no one was harmed, nothing was stolen for personal gain, and the city itself was not attacked. In Baltimore, all of that was done in the name of a "cause". How in the world does looting of innocent unconnected neighbors and businesses happen as a morally appropriate reaction to government abuse of authority?

I don't disagree that the government problem in Baltimore was far more severe than in the BTP event. But, I did not bring up the BTP, you did. I'm only responding to the argument that frames the two events as being somehow similar or morally equivalent.

On your parenting question to my good / bad parenting point: I absolutely see the actions of the BTP as a product of good parenting specifically because the participants did NOT riot, act out randomly, harm any innocents, or steal from anyone. Again, we could debate whether even their targeted and limited symbolic act was moral, but that's for a different thread I'm sure.

One last parenting point that has not been mentioned yet. The study you posted seems to only take into account amount of time spent with children. I agree with Punk's point above about whether the fathers are actually present in the home as being a factor, and I'll add another element that was interestingly portrayed in the season finale of our shared favorite show, Justified. In the future Raylan was an absentee father. He was spending time with his daughter and clearly loved her. That is for sure a healthy influence in the daughter's life. But what Raylan had lost was the authority figure aspect of their relationship. He was now the ice cream cone Dad. The new live in boyfriend that showed up was now the authority figure, or the Mom would have been if she was still single. It's the authority element of the father-child relationship that is so key to shaping the character qualities of the child into adulthood.

My Mom divorced when I was 2 and remarried when I was 5. My Dad maintained his relationship with me, but he became more of a glorified big brother / pal to me than a real father. He never put his foot down, never disciplined me, and never corrected me. The time he spent with me was devoted only to having a good time doing some activity I liked. The authority figure was my step-father. He set the rules, disciplined me, and really raised me in the sense of parenting me. I credit any character I may have today to my step-father entirely, and to my actual father not at all as a result.

 

@TIME I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the Baltimore Riots/Boston Tea Party comparison. I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your take on the comparison.

From the replies, I'm thinking most of you understood the importance of that article and study differently than I did. I know and acknowledge that not enough black homes have two parents, and the impact on future generations. Yes, that is important. But that is an entirely different subject. I'm talking about the degrading talking points made without factual proof. I'm talking about media and social rumors and myths being spread. What I read into that study was debunking the myth that black men are all deadbeat dads that don't care and don't spend time with their kids. I've heard too many news shows with the talking heads bringing up that exact point painting a picture of black men being lesser parents, screwing anyone they find and then never seeing their kids that are the product. THAT is what I'm talking about. I don't mind talking about problems in black families, but that is a different topic to the significance of this particular study and article IMO.

 

The better lawyers part is the crux of it all, IMO. We have race issues in this country, but IMO, we have a much larger "class problem." Show me some poor whites and latinos and I'll show you the same issues that poor black people are dealing with (low educated parents, absentee fathers, drug abuse, illegal activities, a survival mentality, fear and hatred for the police, a revolving door in the local police station).

No class is immune from a lot of the issues listed, but the rich can afford the lawyers, counseling, and have connections to a college education or a job that will mask the issue until they figure it out.

 

Wholeheartedly agree.

 

We've not had a free capitalistic society ever, at least not as the USA. Given what Flagler, Rockefeller, and Ford were able to do with the assistance of the government, there was clearly no laissez-faire capitalism by the start of the 20th century at the very least.