Here I am with Adam Gopnik talking about Obama's impact on fatherhood. This also give me a chance to once again link (here and here) to some debunking of that simplistic "70 percent out of wedlock" stat. Obviously I'm for more Dads being more active. But my real point here is that this idea that unmarried black women are somehow having more kids than they were, say, thirty or forty years ago is false. Again, my math is so-so. I welcome folks to debunk the debunker.
« Where I get off the "old-school hip-hop" train | Main | Black Friday » Talking fatherhood...again02 Dec 2008 05:00 pm Comments (17)
I liked the piece. Is that really how your first name is pronounced Ta-Nehisi? If so I have been saying it wrong for a while now. The data on the very low birth rate among married African American women that you linked to were fascinating. I can't help but wonder however how many of these women already had kids before they married. In other words, is part of the reason that the birth rate among married AA women is so low that they went into the marriage with one or two kids, either by the husband or by a previous partner? For example in my case I have given birth to two kids with my husband. The first was born before we got married and the second was born after we married. We are now done having kids. My marital fertility rate looks low (one child) but in reality I have given birth to two children, its just that only one of them was born "in wedlock." (Count me as another one who hates that term). I also think that the out of wedlock birth rate is a very crude proxy for whether the biological father is in the home/involved in raising the child. I assume there are better data from CDC or the Census Bureau on family stability which should capture non-married unions, etc. 
Holy crap. I'm sorry, this comment is actually for your first blog on the topic and the weird synchronicity of reading it today, right after reading the New York Times Magazine story of Alex Kuczynski's surrogate baby. Contrasting that story (Kuczynski seems to have spent something like $170,000 just to *obtain* her child, let alone raise him; she has an extra house in the Southhamptons and a baby nurse--of color) with this quote from you: We'd both love to have more kids, but we simply can't afford it. Furthermore, we don't have particularly wealthy parents to fall back on. I think that's the situation a lot of married black folks find themselves in. They simply feel that they can't have more kids.(Emphasis mine) is almost dizzying. When is the New York Times going to run essays by writers who really want to have a child--or another child--but can't afford to? Consider the ethical ramifications of winging it, hoping that it all works out, or deciding to be responsible about it and not do anything?
off-topic, but these boards are sort of my bloggy home, and i gotta vent. that f*!*ing scumbag chambliss won in georgia. normally i wouldnt care, being neither georgian nor a democrat, and furthermore being partial to the 'divided govt' argument, but i would have loved to see this bastard walk the plank. FOR endless hateful blind war and acquiescence to the Leader, and also FOR big govt bailouts? Yeah, real 'conservative'. maybe my friends are right and that word doesnt mean anything anymore. i'd piss on him if i could. back to your regularly scheduled thoughtfulness guys, sorry.
Black women are the least likely to get married. So, when they do get married, they are probably older and the window for having children is closing. I can only use myself as an example. 10 years ago, I thought I'd be married with 4 kids. 10 years later, not married. And, if I get married, I'm down to wanting only 2. Kids ARE expensive, and if you want to give the kid a certain kind of life, then yes, you limit the number you have.
It is a counter-cultural sexual revolution whose politics black radicals bought into wholesale. You cannot deal with black politics seriously if you are not aware of where it drove the culture. Lots of people conveniently forget Michelle Wallace's Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman dealing with the dysfunctions of black attitudes about sex roles and family. Moynihan was right.
Cobb, I'm not sure I understand your point, so I went ahead and take a look at your site. Is this the point you are trying to make: (quote from your site) "Who made black people stop getting married? Countercultural hippy liberals, gays and feminists. Who wants to make black people get married? Conservatives. Johnson said a government revolution was necessary to keep black families together. Conservatives say a social revolution is necessary to keep black families together."
Look, I appreciate where you are coming from, and not being a black person myself, I know I should shut the hell up about an issue I know nothing about. So, apologies in advance. However, my bullshit detector just rears its head when people start blaming things to "countercultural hippy liberals, gays and feminists". I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that we are not living in the 60's anymore where everything can reflexively be blamed to those 3 groups.
deva, What the hell does that mean? "it's not the simple fact of being unmarried that's important -- it's the negative circumstances (income, parental stability and involvement) that often accompany that status." Can we play this game with other things? It's not the simple fact that owning a car is important, it's that owning a car accompanies other things like status, increasing job opportunity, adding new recreation opportunities, etc. or It's not the simple fact that having green slips of paper we call dollars important, it's that those dollars are also valued by other people and we can exchange them for goods or services. Yes, there is a disconnect between the "word" and the benefits that generally go along with the word. The fact that I can point to 100 examples of why having a car or having money cash would be pretty much useless does not make having a car or cash very useful most of the time. So back to your statement... yes marriage generally includes those things you mentioned. Which is the point. Which is why it is important. I can point to plenty of examples where people aren't married and "it works". I can also point to plenty of examples of people not owning a car or not having cash where "it works". It doesn't make these things useless, unnecessary, or things we as a society should not value.
Serious question I hope someone can offer up an answer. At what point did we as a society look to things on the margin and declare them as equally valid as activities that society generally values on average? It's as though people thought, "well since there is an exception to the rule, the rule must be useless and non-beneficial." Why is this popping up in all areas of policy/public opinion? Is it a desire to have perfectly neat rules that everything must conform to or we throw it out? Some kind of twisted layman's version of the scientific method applied?
Great interview. Glad you all big-upped Obama's book so much, I am consistently surprised how many folks our age haven't even cracked the cover. Reading "Dreams From My Father" like a year ago was what sold me on the guy.
T-NC, Liked this post and the previous two you've done on fatherhood & marriage. Have you ever done one on the divorce rate in the black community...or hell, these days, the divorce rate in America in general? Lotta people quote that 50% divorce rate stat...which isn't totally accurate. I know there's a LOT of discussion and conversation within black folks on how divorce affects the choice and honestly, the ABILITY to be a particpating, active father for a lot of men. Sorry if this is a thread jack, but maybe a post on this in the future? Apologies if there is one in the archive....
Two comments: I think the "2 or three kids are too expensive" meme is a bunch of bullshit. Now that I have been obnoxious, I have a personal question for you all. Out of curiosity, I am wondering why those of you in long-term committed relationships with one partner (including TNC here), esp. those of you with kids, have not actually married these partners? I can't imagine not being married to my wonderful, sweet, fantastic husband. Being married, either by a civil or religious ceremony, gives your relationship credence in the rest of society. Maybe you feel like "f*** the rest of society". But considering the great lengths gays are going to in order to get the right to marry, I am wondering why you have not taken up this right that you already have? I really am asking merely out of curiosity, not because I think my way is better. Could anyone pls follow up on that?
"I think the "2 or three kids are too expensive" meme is a bunch of bullshit." I'm not asking for you to balance my checkbook, but trust me it really isn't "bullshit." I'm not sure what you did to pay for child-care, but my very clear recollection is that decent child-care is a significant, significant hit. I'm not sure why you'd demean that by telling folks to "grow up." Here's the answer to your second question: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/against_marriage.php
@lebecka- Did you pay for daycare? Because the difference betweeen 300 bucks a week for 1 kid vs. 500+ bucks for 2 is a pretty big difference in my world.
Yep, i pay for child care, right out of my own pocket. and i pay for three. And i'm not rich, but very very much middle class. Want my pay stubs to prove it? Thanks for the marriage followup. will dip into it later.
Lebecka, I wonder if part of the expense is a function of where you live? TNC is in NYC which obviously has an extremely high cost of living. We live in the Maryland suburbs of DC where a full-time nanny costs between $600 and $800 a week if you hire her/him legally and ethically (green card, social security withholding, paid sick and vacation days, etc). While there are some things you can recycle when you have an additional child (provided the spacing works out) such as a crib, car seat and high chair there are many, many costs that are specific to each child (food, diapers, co-pays for pediatrician visits and anibiotics for ear infections, etc.) So I understand where TNC is coming from when he says he is afraid of the financial implications of having an additional child even though I would encourage him to try to swing it because I think sibling relationships are so amazing. But he is only 10 years out from our current reality of college tuition, room and board and $180 textbooks and he knows his own family budget better than we commenters do.
|
Subscribe to Ta-Nehisi Coates by Email 
Trailer for The Beautiful Struggle  Monthly Archives
Recent Posts
Keepin It UnrealStanley Crouch Is A Gangsta RapperConfessions of a 30-Year-Old GamerRice, Rice, Baby!Compa$$ionate Capitali$MJust Another Quick-Witted, Egg-Roll-Joke-Making, Insult-Hurling, Chinese-American RapperThe Irrelevant Rev. SharptonWal-Mart's Urban RomanceBlack and Blue |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
TNC,
I don't think that it's that unmarried black women are "having more kids" than they were three decades ago, but instead that there are more unmarried black women. Also, I just want to say again that it's not the simple fact of being unmarried that's important -- it's the negative circumstances (income, parental stability and involvement) that often accompany that status.
Posted by deva | December 2, 2008 5:48 PM