Is Rising Illegitimacy Necessarily a Problem?

Post Reply New Topic

Glad we agree.



The Jim Crow laws were designed to keep Black Americans in poverty.


Quite the family man, eh? His sex life fits a rather unfortunate stereotype, except that, as far as we know, no bastard children resulted.


Introducing another strawman?

That was a blatent quote someone out of context and you know it.



Jim Crow laws have been abolished for decades.



You mean the bogus claims that went away after Herman Cain left the primary, which is traced back to David Axelrod, seriously what is it with Democrats and their obsession to smear African American Conservatives?



Pointing out the blatently obvious core of your narrative is not a strawman.

I don't even know what "a blatent quote someone out of context" means.


So now you're arguing that abolishing the Jim Crow laws, and introducing welfare, both contributed to the disintegration of the African-American family.


The claims were far from bogus, and had nothing to do with Mr. Axelrod. The claims did not "go away": they simply became moot once it became clear that the Republicans were no longer going to support Mr. Cain as their nominee. He would still be vulnerable to prosecution under the Mann Act, if our Justice Department were at all competent.

Also, never forget: the wench who finally brought Herman down, once and for all, did so on Fox News. After that, Herman couldn't get any air time on Fox at all. He had to go to Wolf Blitzer on CNN to give his side of the story, such as it was. Conservatives don't take their marching orders from any source other than Fox News. The Koch Brothers decided that this clown's 15 minutes of fame were over, and that it was time to promote another clown to frontrunner position. Donations to Herman's campaign dried up. And, that was that.


You're way out of line.

Last edited by ArrantPariah on 14 Oct 2012, 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

*sigh* Are Conservatives really incapable of presenting the rationale for their assertions, other than "because Fox News says so?" So the "Liberals" are stuck doing their thinking for them?

Due to the quaint partus sequitur ventrem laws and customs of the South, a slave-owner had an economic interest in keeping his female slaves perpetually pregnant.

For a poor woman who isn't a slave, and who has barely enough money to feed herself, a baby is much more of a liability than an asset.

If, however, the government (or another entity) provides charity payments for women with children, then a baby can become more of an asset than a liability, particularly if the charity payments are sufficient to keep mother and child alive and in reasonably good health. Eliminating welfare payments would, of course, eliminate any economic incentive for poor people to reproduce.

It is the case in the USA that huge numbers of Black American men are routinely rounded up and condemned to penal servitude, leaving large numbers of Black women and children to fend for themselves. Free poor Black men, and others who consort with poor Black women, have less of an incentive to settle down with one woman, given the huge surplus of Black women in the free population.

No individual person can own a slave any more, and our economy is shifting towards a reliance on convict labour (which is under State control). For the benefit of our economy, our nation has an incentive to replenish its supply of convict labour, which is best accomplished through paying poor women to produce babies in dysfunctional settings.

If it is it's because women make 81 cents to a a man's dollar. I think it's less a problem in countries where the income disparity is less.

There is also less incentive for black American woman to choose a mate that has settling down tenancies. If she did, her offspring would be less successful in the dating game and she will be the last in her generation. In this environment, dating skill is more important the ability to provide, as the state provides.

That's a good point. I never looked at it that way before.

I thought that all women, past the age of about 20, were lusting after the man who would be the best provider. In some communities, this may not be the case.

That's the familiar feminist battle cry.

Women are now outperforming men in school and in the workplace. Women are less dependent on men than ever for their well-being. And, bastardy is on the rise.

In countries like Saudi Arabia, where women cannot work, bastardy is quite rare.

Since this tidbit came from Fox News, I would take it with a mountain of salt. I haven't come across anything to confirm or deny this particular assertion.

However, it might make sense, from the point of view that the Civil War killed off a lot of marriageable men, and would have left a huge surplus of White women compared to White men in the South.

After slavery ended, ex-slaves were suddenly able to marry. Primarily-Black legislatures in the Reconstruction South passed laws that permitted people to marry regardless of race or colour.

After White men reasserted control of the South, they passed some very tough anti-miscegenation laws. This was particularly tough on White women, who couldn't vote and weren't consulted in the matter.

With a huge surplus of White women from which to choose, White men didn't need to be in any rush to marry any one of them in particular. Plus, White men could still go and have sexual relations with any number of Black women. While lots of White women would have earnestly yearned for a big Black sausage, any Black man who so much as looked at a White woman could get himself killed. Hence, Black men would have had a big incentive to stay within their own race, and possibly would have been more likely to marry.

However, just because this sounds truthy enough for Fox News doesn't mean that it is.

"The root cause of these [previously listed] ills lies not in poverty but in the lack of married parents."

Why do they fetishize marriage so much? It makes me sick.

I didn't say there was less illegitimacy in countries that had less pay disparity, I meant that illegitimacy is less of a problem in those countries.
Despite women making gains, having a child in your teens is a good way to be stuck in poverty for many women because they can;'t get an education and are stuck in menial jobs.
Most countries that have less pay disparity encourage birth control and have a better day care system and social safety net as well as more equitable pay so the mother and child have a higher standard of living.