Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

by **Monkeyboy** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 13:13:43

I guess that's Christie's Freeh report: Beat the real investigation to the punch and control the narrative.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 13:35:39

pacino wrote:the most important myth-busting info no one is reading

What myth is this busting? The problem people talk about isn't that black fathers are worse than their counterparts from other races, but that a disproportionate percentage of African Americans are being raised by single mothers.

From your link:

"Non-Hispanic white men aged 15-44 had the largest difference between those with coresidential children (37%) and those with noncoresidential children (8.2%). The difference was smallest among non-Hispanic black men, with 33% having coresidential children and 24% having noncoresidential children." So white fathers live with their kids 4.5x more often than live apart, black fathers about 1.4x more often.

by **pacino** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 13:38:13

it's that they aren't in their children's lives, 'an entire generation of children without fathers'. that's simply not the case. living apart is not the same as being absent, and living together is not the same as being there.

edit: and the idea that black men are simply also not in the household is pretty much vastly overblown.

by **td11** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 13:43:01

jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:the most important myth-busting info no one is reading

What myth is this busting? The problem people talk about isn't that black fathers are worse than their counterparts from other races, but that a disproportionate percentage of African Americans are being raised by single mothers.

From your link:

"Non-Hispanic white men aged 15-44 had the largest difference between those with coresidential children (37%) and those with noncoresidential children (8.2%). The difference was smallest among non-Hispanic black men, with 33% having coresidential children and 24% having noncoresidential children." So white fathers live with their kids 4.5x more often than live apart, black fathers about 1.4x more often.

you don't think the "base" of the republican party would find the numbers here to be surprising? this is all well-established in mainstream republican circles?

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 13:47:37

pacino wrote:it's that they aren't in their children's lives, 'an entire generation of children without fathers'. that's simply not the case. living apart is not the same as being absent, and living together is not the same as being there.

78% vs 13%
70% vs. 13%
82% vs. 16%
35% vs. 8%
62% vs. 2%
27% vs. 5%
67% vs. 18%
41% vs. 10%

While living with your kids doesn't automatically make you a good, involved father, and not living with your kids doesn't automatically make you a bad, uninvolved father, the data you've presented make it pretty clear that living with your children makes you 4 or 5 or 6 or 30 times more likely to participate in various aspects of your child's life.

Still not seeing a mythbuster here. If anything, more evidence to support conventional wisdom.

by **swishnicholson** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 13:50:20

td11 wrote:you don't think the "base" of the republican party would find the numbers here to be surprising? this is all well-established in mainstream republican circles?

I'm not sure what this "base' would think, but I'm pretty sure the accepted assumption is that there is a higher percentage of black children living with absent fathers, and that absent fathers provide less care to their children, an assumption (the second one) this chart supports. I'd love to see numbers that prove the first assumption isn't true as well, but I don't think these do.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 13:57:31

pacino wrote:edit: and the idea that black men are simply also not in the household is pretty much vastly overblown.

jerseyhoya wrote:From your link:

"Non-Hispanic white men aged 15-44 had the largest difference between those with coresidential children (37%) and those with noncoresidential children (8.2%). The difference was smallest among non-Hispanic black men, with 33% having coresidential children and 24% having noncoresidential children." So white fathers live with their kids 4.5x more often than live apart, black fathers about 1.4x more often.

by **pacino** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 13:58:15

My question would be, and? Are they supposed to have stayed together for the children? That makes little sense.

the numbers for whites and blacks who stay in the home are incredibly comparable, with 33.4% of black men 15-44 and 36.7% of white men 15-44. Latino men 15-44 are there 43.5%, the greatest percentage. Black men are actually more likely to see their children when living apart from the mother. The idea is the myth of hte absent black father. it's simply not the case. when in the home, they as or more present, same as when not in the home.

by **swishnicholson** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 14:05:58

jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:edit: and the idea that black men are simply also not in the household is pretty much vastly overblown.

jerseyhoya wrote:From your link:

"Non-Hispanic white men aged 15-44 had the largest difference between those with coresidential children (37%) and those with noncoresidential children (8.2%). The difference was smallest among non-Hispanic black men, with 33% having coresidential children and 24% having noncoresidential children." So white fathers live with their kids 4.5x more often than live apart, black fathers about 1.4x more often.

How much of this, though, is the general population and how much is Shawn Kemp?

by **pacino** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 14:09:39

the explanation for that difference can be found in another study:

Dorius found that a multiple-father type of family structure was more common among minority women, with 59 percent of African-American mothers, 35 percent of Hispanic mothers and 22 percent of white mothers reporting children with more than one father.

If you have a current partner and a former partner and have had children with both, you can be listed as part of both the 'is there' and isn't there'. either way, a black father is doing just as much as white and latino fathers, if not more in certain areas. they have children with different mothers at a higher rate.

by **td11** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 14:11:24

swish-- i was merely questioning jerz's contention of "what myth is this busting?" i don't think it's unreasonable to think that this chart would be enlightening on at least some level for many conservatives.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 14:13:43

pacino wrote:My question would be, and? Are they supposed to have stayed together for the children? That makes little sense.

the numbers for whites and blacks who stay in the home are incredibly comparable, with 33.4% of black men 15-44 and 36.7% of white men 15-44. Latino men 15-44 are there 43.5%, the greatest percentage. Black men are actually more likely to see their children when living apart from the mother. The idea is the myth of hte absent black father. it's simply not the case. when in the home, they as or more present, same as when not in the home.

I just don't think you're looking at these percentages correctly. The percentage is the portion of all males in that age range who fall in the category, so while relatively comparable percentages DO live at home with their children across races, when you look at those who do not, it is not relatively comparable. 8.2% of white men aged 15-44 have at least one child they do not live with, 24% of black men aged 15-44 have at least one child they do not live with. This is the reality of the absent black father.

by **swishnicholson** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 14:17:16

td11 wrote:swish-- i was merely questioning jerz's contention of "what myth is this busting?" i don't think it's unreasonable to think that this chart would be enlightening on at least some level for many conservatives.

I understand. And while don't think the chart makes the sort of refutation pacino would like it to, I don't doubt there's a segment of the population that thinks black fathers' role in their children's lives extends largely to giving them a bit of coke if they're too loud, strangling them if that doesn't work and abusing them if they're lucky. I read about it all the time.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 16:20:31

pacino wrote:My question would be, and? Are they supposed to have stayed together for the children? That makes little sense.

First, I'm not sure that staying together for the children (who the parents brought into the world) is the worst idea in the world. But there are also significant numbers of people who have children and haven't been married at all. This, I believe, should be discouraged. Because what your statistics show is that the overwhelming number of absent fathers are not involved in their children's lives.

So, how do we do this? To me, the solutions are obvious:
1. Comprehensive sex education and easy availability of all forms of birth control. Every high school should have accessible birth control for boys and girls. Stop stigmatizing those who use it.
2. Stop throwing so many men in jail.
3. Increase minimum wage so that fathers can provide financial support for their families. It seems to me that there's a strong correlation with the decline of purchasing power of entry level jobs and the decline of two parent families.

The real problem with conservatives on this issue is that in general, the policies they favor tend to contribute to the problem of single parent families.

by **Werthless** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 16:53:20

So, controlling for whether or not the father is absent, black fathers are as involved as white fathers?

If this is how you evaluate parental involvement, then I'm sure conservatives would react with surprise.

by **Polar Bear Phan** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 17:03:03

Wonder if Russia being ejected from the G8 will result in a geopolitical equivalent of the college athletic conference realignment.

by **Bucky** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 17:06:34

by **Werthless** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 17:14:09

These are the graphs that most troubling... it's poor, uneducated women and men who are having kids out of wedlock, when a stable marriage is a positive predictor of your future success. The parenting gap explains 40%(!) of the cognitive gap between children at age 4. Link to Atlantic article

Education policy, which is one avenue through which the cycle of poverty can be broken, is only 1 piece of the puzzle. It's up to parents to provide an example for their kids, and instill the values that are necessary for success (hard work, determination, commitment, etc).

by **Werthless** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 17:14:31

Bucky wrote:

Love this.

by **Monkeyboy** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 21:19:30

Werthless wrote:These are the graphs that most troubling... it's poor, uneducated women and men who are having kids out of wedlock, when a stable marriage is a positive predictor of your future success. The parenting gap explains 40%(!) of the cognitive gap between children at age 4. Link to Atlantic article

Education policy, which is one avenue through which the cycle of poverty can be broken, is only 1 piece of the puzzle. It's up to parents to provide an example for their kids, and instill the values that are necessary for success (hard work, determination, commitment, etc).

It's funny because we talk about these issues a good bit in my environmental science class because they affect the environment so much. To get down birth rate, which would certainly help these issues, you use contraception, reduce poverty, reduce child mortality, and provide education and equal rights to women. It hasn't been the magic bullet in Africa due to a host of other factors (colonialism, corruption, war, outside exploitation by huge corporations, etc) , but it's worked pretty much everywhere else. So, more money for family planning, education (especially for women), and a real attack on poverty rather than what's been done so far, would be the way I'd go.

Archived

Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)

Re: Crimea and Putinishment (politics)