TNC and others disputed that 7O percent of black children are born out of wedlock. Here is one source that supports that figure.In fact, I dispute no such thing. Here is what the commenter is referring to:Government statistics reveal that the percentage of all babies born to unwed mothers nationally rose to 32 percent in 1997 from only 5.3 percent in 1960. Among blacks nationally, 69 percent of births were to unwed mothers.
http://www.dadi.org/dn_bleak.htm
Here is another source that says that in Indiana, 80 percent of black children are born out of wedlock.
the scholars are united that most black children are in fact born out of wedlock.
The basic conclusion is that the birth rate for unmarried black women is--and has been--declining. In 1970 the birth rate for unmarried black women was 96 per 1,000. In 1980, it was 87.9. In 2005 it was 60.6. There is a huge spike in the late 1980s, but the overal trend is clear--the birth rate for unmarried black women has been declining for almost 40 years.The data to support this can be found here and here. In other words, no one disputes that 70 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock--or maybe they do, I never have. What we dispute are the reasons why. One notion that's gained quite a bit of currency is that over the last 40 years, black mothers have, for whatever reason, decided that they'd much rather be single mothers. But the facts don't back this up. As the data shows unmarried black women are having less, not more, kids then they were having 40 years ago. Furthermore, the number of unmarried black women having kids is declining, while the number of unmarried women--overall--having babies is increasing. From the report:
Something else that should add some context to that 70 percent figure which we all love. The birth rate for married black women has declined way more for married black women than it has for married white women. Also, the birth rate for unmarried women overall is on the increase, but that seems to be being driven by an increase among white and Hispanic women. It's also worth noting that the rate for unmarried black women is still waaayyyy higher than the rate for white women, while lower than the rate for Hispanic women.
I was not a statistics major in college. If anyone wants to debunk these or add context, I'm totally open.
In 1970 the rate for unmarried black women, 96 per 1,000, was nearly 7 times the rate for unmarried white women, 14. By 1998 this differential was just under 2; the rate for black women fell to 73 whereas the rate for white women rose to 38 per l,000.Now, you can argue, that double is still too high. What you can't argue is for any sort of "moral decline."
The rate for unmarried white women more than doubled from 18 per 1,000 in 1980 to 38 in 1994, and has since changed little (38 in 1998). (The rate for non-Hispanic white women has also changed little since 1994; it was 28 in 1998.) In contrast, the rate for unmarried black
women increased about 12 percent from 81 in 1980 to 91 in 1989, and has declined steadily since, by 19 percent, to 73 per 1,000 in 1998 (figure 8 and table 3).
Rates for unmarried Hispanic women are available only since1990. The rate was highest in 1994, at 101 per 1,000, and has dropped11 percent since (figure 8, table 3). The birth rate for unmarried Hispanic women is the highest of any race or ethnicity group; this is consistent with the overall fertility patterns for Hispanic women (2, 4).
How can it be true that unmarried black women are having less kids, and yet the number of black babies born out of wedlock is 70 percent? Well, that question only looks at half the equation it never asks, "What is the behavior of maried black women?"
Birth rates for married black women have declined even more than rates for unmarried black women and are now quite similar (tables 3 and 8). As a result, the proportion of births to unmarried black women remains high, 69 percent in 1999. Birth rates by age for unmarried non-Hispanic white and Hispanic women have generally stabilized or declined during the mid-1990's, while rates for married women have been increasing. Despite this, the proportions of births to unmarried non-Hispanic white and Hispanic women increased during the 1990's.Birth rates for married black women haven't just declined, they're actually lower than for married white women:
It is important to realize that the "percent of births" is not a birth rate. The birth rate is the number of births for every 1,000 women in a specific category. The last marital birth rates calculated by the National Center for Health Statistics were for 2002. In 2002, the black marital birth rate was 64.9 births for every 1,000 married black women. The white marital birth rate was 88.2 for every 1,000 married white women. The black marital birth rate was 23.3 births less than the white rate. In the past, the black marital birth rate was higher than the white rate. Because there is such a low number of births among married black women, the percent of births to unmarried black women is especially high.To summarize--there is no data to show that the black "illegitimacy" figure of 70 percent has been caused by unmarried black women having more kids than they did in the past. In fact, the trend is the exact opposite. What is clear is that the behavior of married black women has changed, to the point that married black women are actually having less kids than married white women.
This is why stigmatizing lifestyles is a strategy for neanderthals, why it's always sinful to look past the weeds in your lawn in order to lecture your neighbor. I'll live for the day when all these social conservatives who think that the 70 percent figure is the cause of all that's wrong in black America, start hectoring married black people to have more kids.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Well, the organization to which that commenter linked would also be perfectly happy stigmatizing lots of families. Bunch of right-wing, anti-gay, anti-woman MRAs, it appears.
If the proportion of unmarried black women having children is declining, but the proportion of black children born out of wedlock is increasing or holding steady, then the remaining variables are (a) the proportion of black women of childbearing age who are married, and (b) the number of children they have.
If either (a) or (b) has been decreasing substantially over time, then the overall rate of black children born out of wedlock could have remained constant or increased, despite the decreasing number of births to unmarried black women over time.
I'm going to be too busy this morning to dig into the numbers, but for anyone with the time, the Census Bureau's page on America's Families and Living Arrangements might be a good place to start: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html
I'll live for the day when all these social conservatives who think that the 70 percent figure is the cause of all that's wrong in black America, start hectoring married black people to have more kids.
*giggle*
The same folks worried about white women not having enough babies and the "browning" of America?
That'll be the day.
You know what stat I like? Percentage of white Alaskan governor's daughters who said they were getting married while they were pregnant but still haven't yet and have no plans to in the immediate future, thus weakening that governor's claim to uphold the family values Rod Dreher is banging on about:
100.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2009/02/bristol-palin-s.html
LTC,
The data's in the second half of the post. Mmarried black women--per thousand--have less kids than married white women. Much less.
"The last marital birth rates calculated by the National Center for Health Statistics were for 2002. In 2002, the black marital birth rate was 64.9 births for every 1,000 married black women. The white marital birth rate was 88.2 for every 1,000 married white women. The black marital birth rate was 23.3 births less than the white rate. In the past, the black marital birth rate was higher than the white rate. Because there is such a low number of births among married black women, the percent of births to unmarried black women is especially high."
The concern is not about the mothers' moral fiber, it's about the future of that 70%. If the married women started having more kids, it would not make a difference to that 70%. Obviously, if all those mothers got married tomorrow, it probably wouldn't do a whole lot for the kids either, I'm not arguing that marriage solves everything, and again, I'm sure that many of the kids who fall into that 70% will have great upbringings. The unwed mother thing is more of a symptom than it is the root problem, but I question why your first instinct is to parse the statistics to explain that this figure doesn't indicate a great moral decline and encourage everyone to focus on their own lawn.
Hey, I'll bite. Married black women! Have more kids!
Since I've never weighed in on this and feel like being annoying, let me just say to Ta-Nehisi that I would think he really ought to just go ahead and get married already, basically because when you say that publicly solemnizing your relationship in front of the rest of world is meaningless to you, you're kind of kidding yourself. In much the same way that a recovered alcoholic who thinks going to AA meetings is pointless is kidding himself.
But I say I *would* think this; in fact, I don't. And the reason I don't is this: getting divorced is really expensive, and that makes no fracking sense. It's nice to have this institution which uses public status to reinforce people's psychic sense of commitment to each other. But if and when tragedy strikes and the relationship falls apart, hitting them with a legal bill just to get a consensual divorce is completely idiotic. If the couple has kids, there's a lawyer sitting there literally taking money out of the kids' college funds. To me, this effect pretty much vitiates the positive public-commitment effect.
Barack, no disrespect but this is just wrong:
"If the married women started having more kids, it would not make a difference to that 70%."
On the level of basic math it's demonstrably false. If married black women had more kids, the percentage of black kids born out of wedlock since--by definition--more would be borne in wedlock. It's the math.
If your concerned about that 70 percent number, the logical course is to focus on what's making that number possible. The biggest change isn't in the number of unmarried black women having kids (that number is declining)--it's in married black women not having kids.
I guess I don't really understand the point here.
I think everyone knows that children born to single mothers, whatever their race is, have a lot higher chance of growing up in poverty, not graduating from high school and being poor as adults than children from two parent households.
So, I don't see what the birth rate among married women has to do with the fact that 70% of black children being born to single mothers is a big problem, big disadvantage and big predictor of liklihoood of being poor as an adult.
I would argue that the increasing rate of unmarried women of all races IS an example of moral decline and the decline in traditional values across the board and a buy in to the idea that there is nothing wrong with being a single mother...when almost every statistic out there points to the fact that being a single mother, regardless of race, puts you and your child at a serious economic disadvantage.
Don't care if the parents are married-- I just care if they are taking care of their kids, the kids are fed and clothed, in school and on task, headed for a successful future.
One thing to remember about marriage is that in many ways it is a _protection_ for mothers and their children-- it gives the women a stronger legal standing in reference to the men, and forces the men to circumscribe bad behavior a tad. i know marriage doesn't act as a stop on men being really bad, but don't dis the legal protections too quickly.
BTW, T-NC. please please pay attention to the difference between fewer and less. It's not that hard.
"they are having less, not more, kids then they were having 40 years ago"
Think of it this way
less= uncountable (milk, water, rice, sand)
fewer= countable (kids, cars, dollars, rappers)
Actually, you could argue that the movie "Idiotocracy" is a sustained argument that wealthy married people, black and white, should have more kids.
Regarding statistics, most interesting statistics are comparisons between two numbers - and either number can change (births in total, or births by one category)
The fundamental problem is that "percentage born out of wedlock" is a proxy statistic. It's not really the statistic we care about.
TNC's son counts as a child born out of wedlock, but that young man has two committed parents and a family system that has grandparents available and resources available to assist in raising him.
Reporting statistics this way seems like pretending that there is no such thing as a long-term committed relationship without a marriage certificate, and I know this is not the case, I can cite several examples.
I don't stigmatize single parents as a class, I'm sure most of them do the best that they can, and for some that's pretty darn good. But I mean true single parenthood. Teen pregnancy, too. When a 17 year old impregnates a 15 year old, good outcomes are hard to come by, especially when you mix in low family incomes/wealth.
Did you just watch "Trading Places," Lebecka?
"This is bacon...Like you might find in a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich."
I think it's important to distinguish between planned and unplanned single parenthood.
Plenty of women of all races want to have children, but can't find a decent man to marry. If a woman in that position can earn a decent living and raise children well, with a social support network and community ties, then I don't think she should have to remain childless just because some man didn't come along. Women in that position generally know that they would prefer to be married, but they don't want to marry drunks, gamblers, or men who hit. That sort of thing is worse than single parenthood, for both the women and the children.
While that situation is unfortunate, it's the result of sensible, adult women evaluating their options. The tragedy is single motherhood among girls who are too young and/or uneducated to even think options through. Pregant at 15 and quitting school is not the same as pregnant at 35 with an established career.
My guess is that TNC is an outlier and not really representative of the bulk of unmarried people.
My very unpopular opinion is that our society has become afraid to make any but the most basic moral judgement,e.g. murder is wrong, having sex with children is wrong.
If statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children born of single mothers do not thrive as well as children whose parents are married, then why shouldn't society discourage by any means necessary, even including the dreaded 'moral stigma' single women from having children? There are always exceptions to every rule, but it seems fairly well grounded that single parenthood is a strong predictor of poverty, so single parenthood should be actively discouraged. Isn't this common sense?
I want to pick up on a point Anon made. While I don't agree that the increased number of out-of-wedlock children is a sign of moral decline for a number of reasons (the empirical one being that "wedlock" is a proxy for other resource advantages) I do understand Anon's confusion as to the argument you're making. When I first started reading your breakdown of the 70% number I also remember thinking -- Alright so, the birthrate for both married and unmarried black women is declining and the decline among the married portion is shockingly steep, but that really sort of avoids the issue of what kinds of conditions the children born to unmarried, poor, black women are likely to have (like I said, with resources, the "unmarried" bit doesn't matter -- there may be an increase in black professionals who are choosing lifestyles like TNC's long term, stable cohabitation. It's long been a trend among whites).
I know your point is to debunk the statistic itself and show how a "crisis" can be defined through twisting the facts, but even properly understood these numbers may point to a crisis, just a different one than Dreher et al. recognize. That proportional number is still a doozy, especially disaggregated by socioeconomic status. Obviously, I'm not interested in the kind of tired, putative out of touch moralizing that Dreher and to a lesser degree, Douhat favor, but I think as honest observers we still have to deal with the implications of that proportion.
Why do married black women have so many fewer children? Is a childless lifestyle becoming an ideal among some portion of affluent black women (as it has among affluent female populations in parts of Europe) or do they not have children because they really feel like they can't? What kinds of social institutions would help them to manage having more if they wanted to?
Why is the birthrate among unmarried black and hispanic women so high (relative to white women)? How do we design systems that will help to educate and support unmarried women in their effort to raise educated, well-adjusted kids? etc.
I just always wanted to hear what you thought of these questions, which seem to me the ones brought to the fore by the 69% stat.
"I think everyone knows that children born to single mothers, whatever their race is, have a lot higher chance of growing up in poverty, not graduating from high school and being poor as adults than children from two parent households."
This again. It's not clear that the absence of two-parents that makes children more likely to end up poor; what's more likely is that being poor means one is less likely to have two parents in the home to start with. We're not talking about scores of middle class mothers who have kids out of wedlock, therefore kickstarting a cycle of downward economic mobility for their kids. It doesn't work like that.
This marriage-as-a-balm-for-poverty completely misses the way poverty functions as a destabilizing force. Why do you think conditions that don't lend themselves to regular employment, adequate housing or education magically lend themselves to healthy, stable marriages?
I don't buy the argument that poverty creates the conditions for single parenthood since for centuries the vast majority of poor people also got married.
What has changed, despite a strong reluctance to admit it, is that there is no longer any social stigma associated with being a single parent. And so the major stabilizing force that could exist for many poor children..two parents..two incomes...does not exist for them any longer, which makes their chances of success even slimer.
Anon, please read G.D.'s response. Common sense is a useful thing, but only if the "sense" part is true. Poverty leads to out of wedlock births, out of wedlock births do not lead to poverty unless the participants are already poor. Marriage is a symptom, not a cause. Stigmatizing the unmarried only aggravates the problem, which is not that people aren't marrying, but that they don't have the resources and social networks one needs to raise healthy children. Stigmatize folks and they're even more cut off, leading to worse outcomes for them and society.
If your thinking that stigmatization or putative measures would act as a deterrent, I think you misunderstand the degree to which single parenthood, especially among the poor & young, has become a norm. My fiance is a public high school teacher on Chicago's West Side and trust me, in the world he moves in, teen pregnancy and single motherhood the reality for the majority. Do people feel like it's ideal? No. Does that feeling change the facts of cultural practice? No.
Stigmatization of the norm from outside the community will only isolate the community, not change the norm. Instead you have to give people other options. Why do you think middle-class women are more likely to plan their pregnancies? Not because they're morally superior to poor women, but because they have other shit to do. They have lives to pursue that they think they might succeed at and children are only a part of that picture, not the whole of it, as can seem the case to impoverished women.
OTOH, G.D., the causation can flow the other way as well. For example, a household with two potential earners has more income stability and more resources to fall back on in times of crisis (if one parent of two gets laid off, it's a big hit but you can keep paying the bills; if a single parent gets laid off, it's probably a bigger deal). So while god knows I don't subscribe to the Dreher "let's shame the harlots" view of things, I think it's fair to say that all else being equal, more marriage is a good thing and that if we can encourage that in a cost-free way we should be doing so.
Norms can change, history has proven that over and over.
I agree that the change/stigma or whatever you want to call it has to come from within the community, whatever community we want to talk about, but I don't agree that it is impossible.
Poverty exacerbates almost everything, a middle class drug addict is going to have a hell of a lot easier time staying out of jail, getting help and recovering than a poor drug addict. That doesn't mean that drug addiction isn't a negative no matter what your circumstances, and the same goes for single parenthood.
Of course a middle class woman is going to have an easier time of it than a poor woman...but the middle class single mother is still going to have a harder time financially than the married mother. I know, I was raised by a single, divorced mother and we lived in rental units while my father lived in an affluent neighborhood in a house he had built.
The advantages of marriage are there for all classes and all races, the disadvantages are there for all classes and all races, though they are magnified among the poor because they have less resources overall.
I don't buy the argument that poverty creates the conditions for single parenthood since for centuries the vast majority of poor people also got married.
Assuming that's true, which I am not at all sure is the case, all those married people through all those centuries were still poor, as you describe them. So where do we go from here? It would seem that higher rates of marriage are not ameliorative of widespread poverty.
@Gramsci
"This is bacon...Like you might find in a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich."
The "a" in that sentence is referring to "a sandwich", not "a bacon".
I notice the beginning part of your example sentence does not say "this is a bacon.. like you might find in a......".
Bacon is uncountable; sandwiches are countable.
OOps and sorry T-NC, didn't see the errors post before I did my original comment talking about the difference between fewer and less. I will hit the big ass email Ta-Nehisi button next time I see an all-important quantifier mistake in a post.
One thing that strikes me as absurd is the way (some) U.S. conservatives ignore the other side of the equation. Those types assign motives to black women ("they want to be single mothers") that they have no way of knowing (and that sound pretty crazy prima facie).
But those conservatives artfully ignore the other half of the question: if these women aren't getting married, why might that be? *cough* * warondrugs * cough *
To give credit where it's due, other conservatives have called for an end to the Drug War (e.g. some editors at the National Review) but too many of their peers support this never-ending crusade. And they don't, apparently, truly give a flying frak about black families. If they did, they'd stop advocating this senseless drug policy that disproportionately hurts black people. Until they start boldly advocating a change to the justice system, those conservative commentators own part of this problem. They're implicated in it up to their eyeballs, and they shouldn't be allowed to forget that.
[Caveat: I'm a whiter than white Canadian who may not know a damn thing about this. If I'm wrong, or missing something, tell me what I don't yet know.]
Deva,
I mostly agree with your first post. If you read over what I've written on black families--especially in regards to Obama and father's day--I don't maintain that all is hunky dory.
But details matter and "the 70 percent as evidence of moral decay" argument is frequently trotted out. I spent a year and a half reporting on Bill Cosby and his crusade, and that number repeatedly was raised to point out that this generation of black folks was somehow representative of a particular moral crisis.
My point is simply this--if the SPECIFIC numbers haven't changed, as they haven't with unmarried women--than this "crisis" can't really be called new or evidence of moral decay. Unless the moral decay has been with us for decades.
Details matter because they frame the question. Framing the question around the alleged amorality of unmarried, often poor, black mothers is statically bankrupt.
I'd love to have a conversation around why married black people aren't having more kids. Indeed I've done it before. Frankly, I think it's financial. Married black people of the same income as married white people, tend to have a lot less wealth. Thus the cost of kids tends to weigh on them a lot more. Just a thought.
"I'd love to have a conversation around why married black people aren't having more kids. Indeed I've done it before. Frankly, I think it's financial" - TNC
Makes sense to me. Although...don't higher income women tend to have fewer kids? What if married black women are less likely to have kids now than in 1970 because married black women now are sharply more likely to be higher-income than unmarried black women -- either the correlation is higher now than in 1970, or the correlation between income and low birthrate is higher now than in 1970, or both?
Sounds like it needs a multiple regression analysis.
"Married black people of the same income as married white people, tend to have a lot less wealth."
Yes, I have read this before. The Economist did a special report on race in America around the time of the election, and they gave some sort of stunning statistics related to comparative wealth between blacks and whites in the same earning categories. They were really astonishing along the lines of --whites in the lowest 20% of earners have an average of $25000 of wealth, whereas blacks in that earning segment had an average of $470 of wealth.
Sorry, I'm working from memory here, but I remember at the time being incredibly shocked at the numbers. Does anyone else know the report I'm talking about, or know the statistics better? If this is true, it could answer a lot of questions about the ongoing cycle of poverty in the black community.
One thing to keep in mind in the discussion about worse outcomes for children who grow up in single parent families, you really need to untangle the negative effects of poverty and low parental education from single parenthood in itself. Many sociological studies show how parent income and education level have large effects on children's well-being.
The main reason for lower outcomes for children of single parents is the low education environment and poverty in which many of these kids are raised. Think of the difference between a 35 yr old single woman with a professional job having a child versus a 15 yr old teenager from a poor family having a child. Stigmatizing single parenthood without addressing the underlying issues of poverty and low education is not going to help anything.
Latching on to Deva's comment above, it may well be the fact that one of the main reasons why single middle class young women forgo childbearing more than single poor young women is because middle class young women have real opportunities in higher education and careers that will be derailed by having a child. For many poor young women, if their future holds an (undervalued) HS diploma and a lifetime of low-wage, dead-end work, there's little (tangible)incentive to forgo early childbearing.
Finally, while we (as a nation) have a collective kiniption (sp?) fit over unmarried black women's childbearing, we should spare some time to ask the question of why their childbearing rate decreased by more than 1/3 from 1970 to 2005. It's no coincidence that this decline in unmarried (and married) black women's childbearing rates happened at the exact same time that real higher education and career opporunties started to open up for black women. This meant that for the first time, for many black women there were real (tangible) incentives for delaying childbearing. And we can see from the childbearing statistics that black women as a group have taken advantage of these new opportunities.
"Although...don't higher income women tend to have fewer kids? What if married black women are less likely to have kids now than in 1970 because married black women now are sharply more likely to be higher-income than unmarried black women -- either the correlation is higher now than in 1970, or the correlation between income and low birthrate is higher now than in 1970, or both?"
Married black women aren't simply having fewer children than in 1970, they're having fewer children than married white women. 40 years ago, married and unmarried black women had more children. Today unmarried black women have fewer kids than they had in the past, but married black women have fewer kids than they had in the past, and they have fewer kids than married white women.
I'm not being hyperbolic--the stats are in the reports. The drop has been steep. That said, it's of a piece with what's happening among unmarried black women. The gap between unmarried black and white women, in terms of kids, has narrowed significantly. Again:
"In 1970 the rate for unmarried black women, 96 per 1,000, was nearly 7 times the rate for unmarried white women, 14. By 1998 this differential was just under 2; the rate for black women fell to 73 whereas the rate for white women rose to 38 per l,000."
"Finally, while we (as a nation) have a collective kiniption (sp?) fit over unmarried black women's childbearing, we should spare some time to ask the question of why their childbearing rate decreased by more than 1/3 from 1970 to 2005. It's no coincidence that this decline in unmarried (and married) black women's childbearing rates happened at the exact same time that real higher education and career opporunties started to open up for black women. This meant that for the first time, for many black women there were real (tangible) incentives for delaying childbearing. And we can see from the childbearing statistics that black women as a group have taken advantage of these new opportunities."
QFT. Stated much more succinctly than anything I've said. That's what a sociology degree will do for you.
Married black women aren't simply having fewer children than in 1970, they're having fewer children than married white women - TNC
Right, but if the correlation between being married and having high income were higher among black women than among white women, and if the correlation between higher income and fewer kids were also strong in both populations, then that could explain (some of) the fact that married black women have fewer children than married white women.
Since I have no idea whether either of these things is true, I'm just talking out my ass. But stuff like this does point out the need for a thorough regression analysis of all the possible confounding variables.
It's no coincidence that this decline in unmarried (and married) black women's childbearing rates happened at the exact same time that real higher education and career opporunties started to open up for black women. This meant that for the first time, for many black women there were real (tangible) incentives for delaying childbearing. - socgrad
Missed this before; I think it goes towards the same possibility I was talking about, but in a more rational way than I put it.
The data's in the second half of the post. Mmarried black women--per thousand--have less kids than married white women. Much less.
TNC - my bad. I evidently thought the post ended with the text under the third quote box, and missed the rest.
Now that I see the whole thing, that's exactly the sort of post to warm the heart of a stat wonk like me. Like you proved here, the 70% out of wedlock rate is an artifact of low birth rates among married black women, and presenting that as some sort of indication of rising out-of-wedlock birth rates and/or a worsening moral problem is total BS.
But details matter and "the 70 percent as evidence of moral decay" argument is frequently trotted out. I spent a year and a half reporting on Bill Cosby and his crusade, and that number repeatedly was raised to point out that this generation of black folks was somehow representative of a particular moral crisis.
United States of Innumeracy.
Put it this way. If the number of children born to married were to become zero, children born to the unmarried would be 100 percent, - even if the number of children born to the unmarried _decreased_.
"It's no coincidence that this decline in unmarried (and married) black women's childbearing rates happened at the exact same time that real higher education and career opporunties started to open up for black women. This meant that for the first time, for many black women there were real (tangible) incentives for delaying childbearing." - socgrad
This pattern is also happening in places like South Korea, Japan, Spain and Italy, where the same opportunities are opening up for women in general, who were previously quite repressed.
TNC
You are dodging the issue.
First, married black women haven't changed their behavior. Have you seen this strange group of women with the moral need to be married who despise children? Of course not. They are simply the formerly unmarried women who already have children when the marriage begins as your partner might someday even if she marries you. They have 0 children while married. They used to marry earlier especially if pregnant.
Next, you say "Furthermore, the number of unmarried black women having kids is declining, while the number of unmarried women--overall--having babies is increasing." To support this you quote the declining number of babies per 1000. This doesn't measure the number of women.
That is what the 70% number does on a percentage basis.
Basically less and less black children are born in marriage AND less and less black children are being born period. Most people are alarmed by the former while you are drawing comfort from the latter (while also noting the former is getting just as bad among other ethnic groups.) The declining rate of births overall points to the effectiveness of contraception, abortion, and a general fertility decline.
Still 70% of babies are being born out of or before marriage. It would be interesting to see how many black children are eventually growing up in a married home. That might be the more relevant social issue.
Has anyone checked the statistics to see if marriage rates for black women have decreased in last 50 years?
For example, for the sake of argument, if we assume that there are 100 unmarried black women that produce 50 babies and 100 married black women who produce 50 babies, then 50% of blacks would be born out of wedlock.
Factoring in the rise in population over time, let's say there are now 1000 black women but 700 are unmarried and 300 are married. If the birth rates stay the same and the 700 unmarried black women produce 350 babies and the 300 married black women produce 150 babies, then now 70% of blacks would be born out of wedlock.
So while it would help to have more married black women have children, it would also help if the marriage rates for black women increased.
Unfortunately, marriage rates for blacks have declined since the 1960s and today, black women have the lowest marriage rates of any group in U.S. society. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/24/DI2006032401013.html.
Regardless of the reason why 70% of blacks are born out of wedlock (married black women having less children or a simple decline in marriage rates for black women), it's clear that children out of wedlock is not healthy situation, especially when the mother is black (given that black women are less likely to be able to support the child on her own than say white women, given income, educational, opportunity, resource and environmental disparities).
"First, married black women haven't changed their behavior. Have you seen this strange group of women with the moral need to be married who despise children? Of course not. They are simply the formerly unmarried women who already have children when the marriage begins as your partner might someday even if she marries you. They have 0 children while married. They used to marry earlier especially if pregnant."
Uhh, no--this is the birth rate, not the "kids living in married households" rate. It tracks the status of the mother when the kid is born. What she does later is beside the point.
"Next, you say "Furthermore, the number of unmarried black women having kids is declining, while the number of unmarried women--overall--having babies is increasing." To support this you quote the declining number of babies per 1000. This doesn't measure the number of women.
That is what the 70% number does on a percentage basis. "
You're literally wrong. Like mathematically. 70 percent could be applied to 10, 100, 1,000, or 10,000 births. It doesn't track the "number of women." It is what it says it is--the percentage. This isn't even disputable. It's 5th grade math.
The per thousand measurement is ripped straight from the CDC. It's what they use to measure the birth rate. It obviously makes no sense to track absolute births, because some groups have more people than others. So you track them per thousand--the way cities calculate murders per capita. This is a basic fact.
SO WHAT? TNC, so what? Why do you spend your time defending that number? Ok, fine... it's not that single mothers are having more babies. It does not change the fact that they are still having too many babies and perhaps we need to encourage more marriage among our people.
I asked you this question the last time you brought the subject up -- Poussaint and Cosby have quoted the stat that over 50% of Black children grow up in a single mother household. To me, that's the salient stat. Sure, some of the mothers that have babies before marriage eventually get married (helping to explain why they don't have many kids after marriage) but most do not and those kids are growing up in single parent households and we know all the stats that attach to that circumstance.
This is a huge problem and trying to nuance it does nothing to solve it.
YAY, I made the Atlantic's front page! I may start that blog yet......
To be honest, TNC,your response is kinda weak sauce. I didn't even mention morals in my comment, nor do I believe that we should go around stigmatizing folks ( I think Rod Dreher is kind of a tool, myself).
What I am saying is that the huge percentage of black out of wedlock births is a drag on the community. I have pointed out that social scientists agree that it is a major cause of the poverty, high crime rates, high drop out rates and other pathologies in the black community. Your father's example notwithstanding, out-of wedlock children are generally fatherless children, growing up in single parent households.Such children are usually bound for trouble. Again, there is no dispute about any of this in the social sciences.
Now you are right that unmarried father CAN take care of their kids at a rate similar to that of married fathers- in a perfect world. In this world, they don't-not even close. You are the exception, not the rule.
Be careful what you say about morality, here. After all, you are saying that it is a man's duty to be involved with his children. That's a MORAL obligation-just one you happen to support.The deadbeat dad who abandons his children is acting IMMORALLY, or maybe AMORALLY.
From his point of view, you are just as " Neanderthalish" as your right wing enemies. Welcome to the cave :-)
"SO WHAT? TNC, so what? Why do you spend your time defending that number?"
Do you mean why do I spend my time attacking the 70 percent number? Uhm, because it's false. There are no "good lies" in this case.
As for encouraging two-parent households, I've never, not once, spoken against that as a goal--and have many, many times spoken in favor of it. In fact, I wrote a whole book about it. I talk about it constantly when I'm on the road. But, as I said above, facts matter. I don't have the luxury of being slippery with the stats.
You seem to have been bothered by this before. Send me a note. I'd love to talk it out.
Stonetools:
Being raised in a single parent family doesn't cause poverty, being raised in a poor family "causes" poverty. Check out statistics / research on social mobility. Coming from a poor family, married or not, makes a person much more likely to be a poor adult compared to growing up in a middle income family.
This may sound like splitting hairs, but it's not. Most of the worse outcomes for children of single parent households comes from the fact that these households are likely to be very poor. Think about it, these issues of criminality, drug abuse, poverty, HS dropout rates, are endemic to poor communities, not just single parent families. If single parents, particularly single mothers had jobs that paid decent wages (ie if they were not poor), many of these problems would be seriously ameliorated.
I'm confused, you say yourself that the 70% number is not false, that it is true that 70% of black children are born to single mothers.
It seems to me you are disputing something--that unmarried black women are having more children period--which isn't contained in, or even implied, by the fact that 70% of black children are born to unmarried women.
TNC
Ok I wasn't clear, but you are wrong and doing a statistical dance.
You say (and cling to a silly notion that)..
"What is clear is that the behavior of married black women has changed"
Married black women ALREADY had the kid!! So of course they aren't showing up in the delivery room. The number of married births would also have been higher previously because many women would have quickly gotten married before the birth, but not now.
The rate of out of wedlock births has gone up on a percentage basis of black BIRTHS which was my intended point. The decline in the number of births per 1000 unmarried black women just shows the decline of fertility. With less overall births the number of births per 1000 in any given year will be lower, but the number of WOMEN having births outside of marriage could remain constant over a period anyway (that's above fifth grade math I promise).
The charge of immorality has never been the number of babies as you are pretending but the marital status of the mother in any given birth. Like I said I would like to see the more relevant stat of how many of these kids go one to be raised in a married family.
Pardon me for thread jacking, but when I think of this issue, I can't help but think of this in a more global sense. One of the most pernicious aspects of institutionalized social values from Reagan through Bush, with a blip during the Clinton years, is how world wide Planned Parenthood has been hamstrung as a result. And the issue is institutionalized sexism. In every study I've ever read, the economic lot of women and children are vastly improved when women are educated about and provided with information and options in all aspects of their lives, not the least of which their reproductive rights. This is an environmental issue of catastrophic proportions, and ere as with every other aspect of this debate, the blatant hypocrisy, cruelty, and abject lack of responsibiity of right wing social values advocates demonstrate their true colors.
I'm sorry Simon. I really don't understand what your saying. I'm not joking. I don't get it.
I have no idea what this means:
"Married black women ALREADY had the kid!! So of course they aren't showing up in the delivery room."
Uhm, yes they are--when they have the kid. And they're counted as married--if they're married at the time the kid is born, not if they get married later. If they aren't married, they are counted as unmarried.
And this:
"The rate of out of wedlock births has gone up on a percentage basis of black BIRTHS which was my intended point."
Makes no sense. The rate isn't a percentage--it's just the rate. And the CDC measures it in births per 1000. This isn't just for birth rates--it's how you measure the murder rate in cities, the infant mortality rates in countries etc.
I'm assuming you mean that black out of wedlock births make up a higher percentage today than they did 40 years ago. Again, that's fine. But looking at the birth rate, it's not unmarried women who've changed. In fact unmarried women are having less kids. It's married women. The point is if you to improve that 70 percent figure, you'd be wise to spend your time talking to married black women about why they aren't having more kids.
Lebecka, you utterly, completely, wholly missed the point of my allusion to "Trading Places." It has nothing to do with the issue of countable versus uncountable, but rather how pedantic you were in listing countable things like "rappers." (As if TNC were too stupid to understand it if you didn't include "rappers" in there, much like the gentlemen condescends to Eddie Murphy in explaining what bacon is).
Ironically by taking it the way you did you only reinforced my impression of your pedantry, the possibility of counting which I am sure you can explicate.
We need Nate Silver on the case. STAT!
TNC
Thanks for taking the time to continue this. Statistics is hard to discuss over the internets.
You say women are changing their behavior as if some study needs to be done on what is causing the crash in their fertility rate. But they now enter marriage with two children, and want no more just like in 1970. In 1970 they were married first and then contributed to the married stat. Now they don't because they are done. Less married black women need to have kids because they already contributed 1-2 kids in unmarried column over the last five years. Take an extreme...So in 2008 out of every 1000 married black women let's just say there are 0 births because they already have two kids as will all black women before marriage. This 0 is then represented as "a massive decline in married birth rates which makes it appear that 100% of black women have children out of wedlock. What we need is to understand why married black women have changed their behavior!" But there is no mystery to be solved about married black women, they don't suddenly hate kids. They already had them.
My other point was that a declining birth rate per 1000 just means unmarried black women might used to have had babies in two or three separate years increasing the birth rate over different years in a decade, but now they have less, say just one, affecting a single year and so lowering the birth rate per 1000 that year. The same number of women or more are giving birth out of wedlock over the decade just having less kids out of wedlock.
That's has to be clear, maybe wrong, but clear.
If single parents, particularly single mothers had jobs that paid decent wages (ie if they were not poor), many of these problems would be seriously ameliorated.
--------------------------------
Unfortunately, most of those poor single folk often engage in behavior that keeps them poor- like having babies instead of going to school. Going to school is hard, but doing the stuff that makes for babies is easy and fun. You can't get a good job these days without at least finishing high school. This crosses racial lines, too, btw-just think Bristol Palin.
One thing is sure-a major reason why children of single parents are poor is that that the father's support and income isn't usually there. Kind of a good argument to encourage waiting until marriage to have kids, isn't it? Wait, get married, then having kids- its the way out of poverty - A young married black couple with both parents working has on average about the same income as a young white married couple.
http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb93_2.pdf
Yes it's clear. But this is key
"You say women are changing their behavior as if some study needs to be done on what is causing the crash in their fertility rate. But they now enter marriage with two children, and want no more just like in 1970. In 1970 they were married first and then contributed to the married stat."
This scenario would explain the decline in the birth rate among married black women. But it doesn't account for the other half--the decline in the birth rate among unmarried black women.
In other words, you have two groups. Unmarried black women and married black women. The birth rate has declined for both groups. In 1970, as I said, the birth rate for unmarried black women was 96 per 1,000. In 1980, it was 87.9. In 2005 it was 60.6. That's a decline in the number of kids born out of wedlock. In other words, per thousand, there are less--not more--kids born out of wedlock in black communities today, than there were 40 years ago.
In other words, if we're talking about a crisis of kids born into unmarried homes, that's fine. But it's a 40 year crisis. And it's crisis that's not getting worse--but getting better.
Stonetools:
My point in bringing up the issue of single parenthood and poverty is to underline the fact that, even after a young woman has a child as a single parent, we can lessen a lot of the negative outcomes associated with single parenthood by helping these women find and keep jobs that will actually allow them to provide for their families (that includes encouraging / helping the young women to continue with their educations).
And frankly, the solution to poverty among single parent families is not marriage. Have you seen the statistics on unemployment and wages for young minority men in the inner city? A young man with high likelihood of unemployment and low wages marrying a young woman with high likelihood of unemployment and low wages produces a family that is still poor, just maybe not dirt poor.
"A young married black couple with both parents working has on average about the same income as a young white married couple."
I looked at the Census brief you connected to. $40,040 median income for black married couples with both parents working and $47,250 median income for comparable white families; a 15% difference in median income is pretty substantial. This means that even among married couples with both spouses working, black couples' income distribution is weighted more towards the lower incomes than is the case for white married couples.
"Kind of a good argument to encourage waiting until marriage to have kids, isn't it? Wait, get married, then having kids- its the way out of poverty"
You missed a key link is this chain: wait, get a good job!, get married, then have kids. Without the get a good job part, you're still dealing with a poor family, just a married poor family.
@Simon,
I think you have your story all wrong personally. I am an unmarried, middle class black woman. Most of my friends (of the same class and general education background and I have PhD) are married and most of them had children WITHIN their marriage. The difference is in ME. Of my friends that are not married and have never been married who are my age (late 30s), NONE of us have children. We focused on our career. So, the likelihood that any of us will get married and have children before the clock stops ticking is pretty small.
The difference is that black women with higher educational attainment, like all women with higher education, are getting married later and many who are of higher socioeconomic and education levels are doing so post-childbearing years. We aren't single parents because we cannot afford the TIME, not the money. So, while it is likely that I will get married in the next couple of years (I have a steady, long term commitment with someone and I'm not TNC; marriage matters to me and my dad), there is a very good chance that I will not give birth to a child. I got over that at 35 when I was very single. You'd be surprised at how many black women have made that choice/accepted that reality.
So, with delayed marriage, focus on career, and infertility, it is not so surprising to me that the married birth rate is going down among black women. At the same time, many are caretakers for elderly parents, godmothers (I have 5 godchildren from ages 12-6 months and only one is born to an unwed mother but in a long term relationship), aunts, etc. This vast assumption that the only reason married black women aren't having children is because they already have some is way off the mark in my world. While that may be true for some, it is by no means true for all or even likely to be the major cause.
Now, of course, I'm generalizing from a specialized population within the black community. But it is one that matters in that it is the changes on the margin that lead to the kind of statistical changes we see in these numbers. And there is a vast increase in the educational and therefore economic opportunities for black women, arguable greater than has even happened for black men in this 40 year time span. So, the number of women in my boat has likely been growing FASTER than for white women and probably accounts for the increased disparity. Couple that with who is getting married and when, and you might better explain the phenomenon. Also, it is more likely for a highly educated married white woman to be able to drop out of the job market due to generational wealth and a higher earning husband than for a black woman. I make more money than my boyfriend, so it would be hard for me to leave the job market to take care of children.
I've already belabored the point. I just think you need to consider some serious alternatives to your theory.
It seems to me that TNC and several of the commenters have made the case that the 70% stat is deployed dishonestly in order to imply that black folks now a-days (especially black women) are morally inferior to previous generations. This is not true. We've all done the math again and again.
Other commenters, however, are insisting that despite this disingenuous use of the statistic, 70% of black kids are still, actually born "out of wedlock." Now, there is some debate on the thread about what that signifies. Though "out of wedlock" triggers the stereotype of poor & undereducated, there are at least some black women (especially older mothers) who plan pregnancies as single women (and are neither poor nor undereducated) and there are others who, while unmarried are not really single as they live in stable co-habitating relationships. For these folks, many of the socially undesirable outcomes that plague poor families will not affect them or their children.
A majority of these births, however, do occur to women who are in a demographic danger zone. And so you have still other commenters saying that society should encourage marriage as a proxy for promoting engaged, two-parent families. TNC has said he's all for promoting engaged, two-parent homes, but that promoting marriage is not a direct way to do that.
TNC seems to think that a more promising (or at least as promising) is to promote increased reproduction among married black women. I take this assertion to be part serious and part tongue-in-cheek, basically saying, "Hey there all you sanctimonious types, if you want to get at the root of the problem with this statistic, then start talking to married black women about why they're not pregnant, like right now."
Anyone advancing an argument like this in the self-righteous tone favored by Dreher's et al. would (rightly) get ripped to pieces by feminists and fair-minded people across the country because it implies that all women are good for is breeding and somehow married, middle-class black women have fallen down on the job. An assertion, which TNC seems to be saying, which is just as absurd as wagging fingers at unmarried black women who are, in a certain sense, doing their part to decrease out of wedlock black births in absolute numbers (i.e. unmarried black women are actually having fewer babies than they have at any other point since the mid-20th century).
Other commenters, like myself, accept all this, but believe that the root of the trouble with the statistic is not only the way it has been deployed by Cosby et al., but the fact that it is, in a narrow sense, true. The proportion, properly understood, still points to a problem, though one that is neither new nor worsening (if fewer births to unmarried black women is the goal, we're well on the way) in terms of raw numbers.
Taking all this in, it seems to me that most of the folks on the thread have contributed to arguing our way out of the idea that marriage is the solution (with a few bewildering exceptions), but we all still acknowledge that all the demographic dangers attached to the life chances of children born to poor (especially young), single mothers are quite real.
I appreciate TNC's attempt to reframe the debate around this issue, but I think that next time TNC debunks a problem that doesn't exist (like the 'moral decline' in the black community), it could be good to couple that with the acknowledgement of the problem that does exist as well as a crack at the solutions from his perspective. I know that TNC has bits of this kind of analysis and commentary in several writings, and speaks on it often, but it might help move the debate forward to pull all that together in one place sometime.
I personally, would love to read it.
Deva,
Great post. And point taken. If you have a chance, please drop me an e-mail. I'd love to pick your brain a little further. I'm learning here, too. Even if I seem argumentative.
Also, it is more likely for a highly educated married white woman to be able to drop out of the job market due to generational wealth and a higher earning husband than for a black woman. I make more money than my boyfriend, so it would be hard for me to leave the job market to take care of children.
Three cheers for your post Karen. My demographic space looks a lot like yours, though I am younger and am extremely committed to giving birth to children. This is going to require a Herculean effort on mine and my partner's part, however, and if I had been just one (scholarly) generation older, I might not have been able to do it at all being that there was a lot of way-paving that had to be done before a black woman scholar could be taken seriously, while still having familial priorities. Thanks for that, by the way ;0)
@deva
I think you are giving TNC a bit too much credit here. TNC may think that the talk of crisis about out of wedlock births is overblown and that the problem is abating, but the scholarly consensus is that the crisis is in fact NOT abating and that this still remains a gigantic problem in the black community. Now marriage is not a magic bullet that will solve all problems in the black community but encouraging marriage definitely will help.Married couples do stay together long, and have better outcomes for raising children than other combinations.Again, that is the scholarly consensus, not right just right-wing bloviating.
TNC has done a lot of statistical tap-dancing but the rate for out of wedlock births among black has risen from 18 per cent in 1950 to 70 per cent today.For him to argue that the crisis is abating is simply arguing in bad faith, IMO. Either that or he really, really doesn't know statistics. Still, I wait to see his commentary and analysis of the problem.
@socgrad
You will have a tough time finding a good job if you drop out of school at 17 to have a baby with a guy who isn't around to help you take care of it. Things get worse if you have another baby by some other guy two years after that.
That's whats happening in the streets out there. Your plan about helping these women find good jobs is a good, hopeful one. But the behavior of the women that you want to help will wreck any such plan.
Stonetools,
This:
"the rate for out of wedlock births among black has risen from 18 per cent in 1950 to 70 per cent today.For him to argue that the crisis is abating is simply arguing in bad faith, IMO."
Is dishonest. I think you're a troll. Please don't comment again. Your posts will be deleted.
"My very unpopular opinion is that our society has become afraid to make any but the most basic moral judgement,e.g. murder is wrong, having sex with children is wrong."
Who the hell thinks this? That murder is ok. That pedophilia is ok. Your mythical permissive, knee-jerk PC liberals? Come on! God! I am so freaking sick of this "the world is going to hell because of liberal moral relativism" meme. Who the fuck is even talking about murder here?
Geesh.
TNC, (at this point it's all for you)
Okay so if the decline in married black births is explained as an artifact of the high unmarried percentage, then we are left with only the fact that the average number of children born to each (1000) unmarried mother is less. You see this as a decline in the "problem".
But the absolute number of children born to unmarried black mothers during that 3 decade decline is still on the rise (or plateaued at maximum) because of the increase in the number of "per 1000's" part of the fraction. Marriage rates have decreased the CDC report showed like by 30-40% in the 80's. It is simply the case that most black children (again 70% is the CDC number) are coming into the world in an unmarried situation.
That the unmarried black women have lowered their average is cold comfort to most of us. It's not clear to me if you are rejecting, accepting or qualifying the 70% number. It appears to me if no black woman ever married and all had only one child, you would be happy the "rate declined" and would say "there is no crisis, married black women just aren't having kids" all while not one black child would be born in a married family. That is analagous to what is happening here.
The Census and other studies attribute the decline in the rate to better contraception and a 43% abortion rate for unwed black mothers. Think what the unmarried rate would be without the abortions! Welfare incentives have been reduced if they ever affected things. Also the Census says shotgun weddings (between conception and delivery) have dropped since 1970 from 23% to 6% among blacks so that lowered the married birth rate from 1970. That may be a good thing, who knows?
Again a stat I think you need is one showing where these kids end up in a few years post-delivery. What percent end up in married families? It could all be just a change in family formation. Then there is less of a crisis.
I'm done, I promise.
You asked for some help from math types. Here's simple arithmetic to show that:
What is driving the high percentage of black out of wedlock births (that 70% figure) is NOT the birth rate for married women, but the MARRIAGE RATIO of married to unmarried women. The latter is most important.
Even if the rate of births to married women is HIGH relative to unmarried women, the out of wedlock birth rate will still be high if most mothers are UNMARRIED
And even if the rate of births to married women is LOW relative to unmarried women, the out of wedlock birth rate will still be low if most mothers are MARRIED.
Here's the math (and someone please tell me if I got the calculations wrong):
Suppose the birth rate for unmarried women is 40 per 100, for married 20 per 100, for blacks and whites.
Suppose 80% of white women are married, 30% of black women are married:
Calculate the number of children born to:
1000 white women:
married: 80% (800) x 20/100 = 160 children
unmarried: 20% (200) x 40/100 = 80 children
% born out of wedlock = 80/(160 + 80 = 240) = 33%
1000 black women
married: 30% (300) x 20/100 = 60 children
unmarried: 70% (700) x 40/100 = 280 children
% born out of wedlock = 280/(60 + 280 = 340) = .82 = 82%
the white to black ratio of out of wedlock birth rates is 2.5:1
Now suppose we DOUBLE the birth rate for black married women (leaving the rate for white marrieds the same, and now lower by half) -- would this change things much?
1000 black women:
married: 30% (300) x 40/100 = 120 children
unmarried: 70% (700) x 40/100 = 280 children
% born out of wedlock = 280/(120 + 280 = 400) = .7 = 70%
Down a little, but still sky high, and much higher than the rate for whites
Once again, what matters most by far is the ratio of married to unmarried women, not the rate of births to married or unmarried women.
Once again, tell me if I have made a mistake in calculations.
"Again a stat I think you need is one showing where these kids end up in a few years post-delivery. What percent end up in married families?"
Yup -- that's what matters. that's what it comes down to. And that all depends on the marriage rate in the black community -- which is very low relative to other groups.
TNC -- Your point that the 70% figure isn't due to rising birth rates among unmarried women is important and correct. But Nathan's right that it's also not primarily attributable to birth rate declines among married women. Almost all the action is due to the fact that marriage rates have declined so precipitously among African Americans. As a result, among women of child-bearing age, a much higher proportion are unmarried than was the case in the past and, in turn, a lot more of the births are to unmarried women.
The real question is why the change in marriage rates. It sounds to me like you consider non-marriage a preference-based "lifestyle" choice, like it might be for you. Data suggest that you're atypical though. Black folks overwhelmingly report that they want to marry--with rates similar to those of other ethnoracial groups. Even poor couples who have a birth out of wedlock say they want--and plan--to marry (see Edin & Kefalas' "Promises I Can Keep"). But the relationships break up a astoundingly high rates.
Anyway, I don't think African Americans--or folks from any other groups--need to be "pushed" to marry. Most already want to. The issue is what's stopping them from getting to where they want to be.
I think marriage is a big issue.
The cults of "diversity" and "autonomy" have resulted in marriage being seen as a just a lifestyle choice. The educated elites talk that way -- but look at how they live! The out of wedlock birth rate among educated whites is miniscule. (Do you want data on that? Don't get me started on Asians, and the results speak for themselves.) Go to any tony suburb, and most kids have two parents living at home. These people talk the "diversity" talk, but don't walk the walk. They know better! Somehow they intuitively know what's best for their kids. (The Obamas know it,too!)
Marriage is a really vital institution, and people need institutions. It is a really effective organizing principle, and nothing works nearly as well for incorporateing men into the task of raising the next generation -- vital!
African Americans are being sold a bill of goods here, that marriage doesn't matter. They're only hurting themselves, I think. It's a collective delusion. (And others are left to pick up the pieces).
"I'll live for the day when all these social conservatives who think that the 70 percent figure is the cause of all that's wrong in black America, start hectoring married black people to have more kids. "
Its certainly a part of whats wrong in the black community, but only one of many disasters in its culture.
And as for hectoring married black people to have more kids? Why would that be a good idea? It seems that they are restraining and regulating themselves and are having the number of kids that they can financially support. We should be trying to convince the mothers and fathers of the 70% to be more responsible like their married counterparts and think about their actions, not try to convince the responsible married couples to become irresponsible like the progenitors of the 70%.
Nathan sez: "These people talk the "diversity" talk, but don't walk the walk. They know better! Somehow they intuitively know what's best for their kids. (The Obamas know it,too!)"
I'm not sure that that's a 100% accurate characterization of the motivation. Educated folks (generally across demographic groups--including African Americans) know that they want to get established in careers and be married before having kids because it's best for THEM, not necessarily for their kids. It's a lot easier to succeed in a career if you don't have a kid early and, once you have a kid, it's easier to jointly manage kids and a career if you have a spouse (or committed partner) to help out. Mormons and Orthodox Jews are exceptions to this delayed fertility pattern, which they see as selfish--being focused on the parents NOT the kids.
But people lower on the socioeconomic ladder don't see themselves as having much of a career future to prepare for. Disadvantaged women also--and seemingly African Americans in particular--also tend to be pretty skeptical that a guy they can trust enough to commit to for life will come along. Those two things both diminish the motivation to put of childbearing.
Has anyone ever seen any study/survey that pegs the birthrate among unmarried black women to income?
"Disadvantaged women also--and seemingly African Americans in particular--also tend to be pretty skeptical that a guy they can trust enough to commit to for life will come along."
This is a problem. Why can't they trust the guys? Why aren't those guys trustworthy? Who can make men trustworthy? Not the government. Either people are trustworthy, or they are not. It's a decision that has to be made. It's called responsibility, and doing the right thing. I know -- we're not supposed to talk about it.
All the excuses are so defeatist. What's the goal here, and what does it take? Blacks as a group won't get ahead, won't make real progress, until they go back to that nuclear family. Fathers are AWOL -- wholesale. Who can solve that for them? The people, only the people. But not until apologists for family "diversity" finally stop yapping.
If statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children born of single mothers do not thrive as well as children whose parents are married, then why shouldn't society discourage by any means necessary, even including the dreaded 'moral stigma' single women from having children?
The best way of discouraging that would be distribution of and education in the use of contraceptives. And conservatives refuse to support that.
I don't buy the argument that poverty creates the conditions for single parenthood since for centuries the vast majority of poor people also got married.
In certain times and places, yes. But it's cultural as much as anything. In much of Scotland in the Middle Ages, formal marriage was rare and common-law marriage was much more common.
"In much of Scotland in the Middle Ages, formal marriage was rare and common-law marriage was much more common."
Sorry to have to tell you, but this ain't Scotland and it ain't the middle ages. it's modern American, a highly organized intensive technological society, where building human capital in the next generation requires two present, devoted parents and a stable home. Poor people can form such a home -- and they will be richer for it!
This is what it takes. It's that simple. Do blacks want to get ahead as a group, or don't they. Do they want to make sure their children have the advantages of other children -- or don't they. I know, I know -- we need programs. The government will fix it. Sorry -- won't, can't.
Bottom line: fatherlessness is a big, big problem. And marriage and fathers in the home go together. Let's say so.
Continuing on the line of Nathan's comments:
First let me say that as Ta-Nehisi and his dad exemplify, children born to unmarried mothers aren't necessarily without a strong fatherly influence in their life.
And there are plenty of Americans (of all ethnicities) raised by strong-willed single mothers who somehow manage to raise them right. Although this situation is much more the case for girls than for boys, who are more adversely affected by the lack of a continous father figure.
But there's no getting around the fact that the young black men living a life of criminality and violence disproportionately come from households where their unmarried mother is too harried to keep them in line. Reducing the rate of children born to single mothers is a partial investment in a more stable and healthy future society.
I have to agree with something that has come up on NPR, in regards to "Big Love", Ta-Nehisi's family, etc. -- which is that even married parents can have kids, particularly boys, who get sucked into violence and criminal behavior. "Married" is not equivalent to "functional."
Examples: Somalis in London, and Tongans/Samoans in LA, demonstrate the vulnerability of traditional clan structures when moved to the milieu of urban areas. We see the same issue in the urban centers of many nations in Africa (prime example: Johannesburg), Indonesia, Manila, Kurdish youth in Istanbul, Maoris in South Auckland, etc.
People of Dutch, German, Scandinavian, English, and East Asian ancestry are much less vulnerable to these problems thanks to cultures that have adapted to many centuries of commerce-structured urban life. A focus on education over machismo, close nuclear family ties, and tight control over the behavior of children creates a greatly reduced likelihood of violent criminality.
I just discovered this blog, and this is a topic that interests me, but rarely have I read such intelligent responses to this issue.
The sad fact is declining marriages are a problem, but too often oow birth rates are used to distort the morality of black women and black people.
Right now about 41% of black women ages 15-44 don't have any children.
Of the 59% of black women 15-44 that do have children, some of them are married.
The marriage rate for black women is about 30%. Although, I suspect the marriage rate for black women with children is slightly higher.
So using the 30% marriage rate and simple math you get that RIGHT now about 58%-59% of black women 15-44 either don't have children or are married with children.
When you figure in divorced, legally seperated, widowed, and abandoned wives, that percentage is probably in the HIGH 60's percent range.
The image that is painted of most black women as having oow children is a FALSE one.
About 91% of black teen girls 15-19 don't have any children.
47% of black women in their 20's don't have ANY children.
THe issue as has been pointed out is a lack of marriage and declining birthrates amongst married black women.
"About 91% of black teen girls 15-19 don't have any children.
47% of black women in their 20's don't have ANY children."
Well, the figures are really not that different for white women. To be sure, somewhat fewer white teens have children, but white women in the their 20s are even less fertile -- whites are delaying childbearing more.
The concern is not that blacks are having loads of kids -- it's that they have them without husbands. The problem is fatherlessness -- The men are AWOL.
So why do whites have a much lower out ot wedlock birth rate, relatively -- and educated whites even lower -- closer to 4-5%?
The answer, again is: marriage: many more whites see the order as "marriage first, children next." Result: low out of wedlock birth rates, many more kids with 2 parents.
"The image that is painted of most black women as having oow children is a FALSE one."
Once again, to clarity: well, that's not the issue. The issue is that MOST black CHILDREN are born out of wedlock. They don't have a father in the home.
The issue is not: how many black children are being born. It's: of the black children being born, how many have a stable, 2-parent family.
Right now that is not the norm for black children -- far from it.