BLM nuclear family goal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are wasting your time arguing with each other. It's rare that somebody will change their mind about race based on an anonymous online discussion. Everyone just reads what they want to read and replies with their own argument.

If you think the other side is actually reading your entire post, then you're kidding yourself and wasting your time.
t

I don’t think anyone is trying to change someone’s mind “about race”. This thread is not about race. It’s about the fact that BLM is a political movement with politically motivated founders and a political message that many supporters (or people who think they’re supporters) of “BLM” aren’t aware of. I support saving black lives. I do not support BLM as a political party/movement, because I do not agree with its goals (or its tactics, although that’s another discussion). One of those detrimental goals is normalizing single mothers and absent fathers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

It’s wise that they are squarely addressing one of the issues that has hampered their success in myriad ways. Data indicates single parent households tend to languish in poverty. Data correlates poverty with crime rates, poor health, subpar education, limited employment and housing opportunities, etc.

But the reality is that much of the stress and negative outcomes flow from single parenting in the black community. I don’t think these relationships and supports they promote will help unless people are living together and sharing bills and child rearing.

This. It's hard to argue with reality.

But something else to consider - if many of these women had only one child, there is a good chance that at some point in that child's life if the parent isn't a substance abuser, that she would reach a point above struggling in abject poverty and for that one child, he would reach the middle class changing his and his children's life long trajectory.

It's not the first child that plunges them into poverty it's having 2, 3 or 4+

The data actually suggests the first child does plunge them into poverty.

Typical scenario: girl gets pregnant and drops out in 10th grade. May or may not earn GED. Now she’s at a disadvantage. Limited job prospects with a GED. Tough to juggle childcare with a job that involves shifts outside of core daycare center/school hours (think: waiting tables, retail, etc. nights and weekends).

All it takes is one baby when you aren’t financially or emotionally equipped to provide.

If everyone (regardless of race or income) delayed parenting until they were married and financially secure, poverty rates would drop dramatically.

Beyoncé is a great role model: married and older when she had her first baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t criticize African-American families for not having “traditional” nuclear families when we disproportionately sent black men to prison for the flimsiest of crimes and outright lies by law enforcement.

Unequal justice system and racist enforcement of laws destroyed black families. That’s not their fault. That’s “our” fault - that is, this is a problem created and sustained by white people.

I don't doubt some cops are racist, but to be convicted of a felony you need to go through a trial and be convicted by a jury of your peers, while being represented by a defense lawyer.

One third of all adult black males have a felony conviction:
https://www.sentencingproject.org/news/5593/

So are all those juries racist, and all those defense lawyers incompetent...?

Omg! Yes. Did you really just ask that questions? SMH

There has been only a gazillion studies on this.

Please watch just mercy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean? Why does the nuclear family need to be disrupted?

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/06/29/black-lives-matter-plan-to-disrupt-the-nuclear-family-and-dismantle-cisgender-privilege-gains-support-in-corporate-america/

An excuse for the lack of responsibility.

This: it is a push back against the observation that 70-some-odd percent of black kids are born out of wedlock.

These last two statements are inextricably embedded in the American psyche and are one of the pillars that support the nation's systemic racism.

Specifically, the statements refuse to acknowledge (or are purposely ignorant about) the legacy of this problem - slavery. That is from August 1619 (a year before Plymouth Rock) to December 6, 1865 black women, men, and children were forced and sold away from their families, at will. Interesting that today we are expressing so much concern about black babies being born out of wedlock when marriage among slaves was not officially recognized. Honestly, ask yourself what would be the out of wedlock percentages of any race of people who had to endure such cruelty?

To enslave a people for 246 years and then mistreat them afterwards is ruthless. But to also beat them up later for not carrying on in life the way you would expect is diabolical.

1865 was a long time ago.

The percentage of black children born to unwed mothers went from 63% to 69% between 1990 and 2016.

https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels

It's 33% for those with a Bachelors degree.... great... so you support better education.

Yes, I absolutely support more education. That's the biggest determinant of one's success in life.

The unwed birth rate is only 7% for white women with a bachelor's degree. So still 1/3 of black children born to mother's with an education are born with a potential disadvantage -- the lack of being raised in a two-income family.

Great so desegregate schools. Put affordable housing in Bethesda and Potomacs of the world.

Create a structure where you don't need 2 incomes to raise kids.

Also better healthcare for black women since they die surviving birth at a higher rate.

Omg! You support everything BLM, welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

It’s wise that they are squarely addressing one of the issues that has hampered their success in myriad ways. Data indicates single parent households tend to languish in poverty. Data correlates poverty with crime rates, poor health, subpar education, limited employment and housing opportunities, etc.

But the reality is that much of the stress and negative outcomes flow from single parenting in the black community. I don’t think these relationships and supports they promote will help unless people are living together and sharing bills and child rearing.

This. It's hard to argue with reality.

But something else to consider - if many of these women had only one child, there is a good chance that at some point in that child's life if the parent isn't a substance abuser, that she would reach a point above struggling in abject poverty and for that one child, he would reach the middle class changing his and his children's life long trajectory.

It's not the first child that plunges them into poverty it's having 2, 3 or 4+

Only child here. My parents both grew up in poverty and decided to have 1 kid because they knew that’s all the could afford if they wanted to be able to provide me with opportunities in life. They were able to invest in keeping me active in extracurriculars, afford a home in a good school zone, paid for college, and helped me with graduate school. They even have me a downpayment as a wedding gift. I now have a six figure income and a 900k house. I married someone with a graduate degree and six figure income as well. It’s not popular opinion, but it’s true that having children is a huge detriment to upward class mobility, particularly if you have kids young.

That said, having multiple children at a young age without financial means is a tough cycle to break. I don’t think we can just lay the blame at lack of self control because lack of education/role models, poor understanding of finances, disempowerment of women, etc. plays into it too.

Which is why I 100% support free birth control, sex education in schools, life skills/financial courses in middle and high schools, pro-choice protections, etc.

[Anonymous]

BLM is a Marxist organization.

Drill down on this fact. They dont deny it.

Marxism = extremism.

Are you comfortable supporting extremism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BLM is a Marxist organization.

Drill down on this fact. They dont deny it.

Marxism = extremism.

Are you comfortable supporting extremism?

Capitalism is pretty extreme. Like the capitalist values of profits over lives. Charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for a year of a single life saving medication? Tell me that isn’t extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BLM is a Marxist organization.

Drill down on this fact. They dont deny it.

Marxism = extremism.

Are you comfortable supporting extremism?

Stop listening to Info Wars and other conspiracy theorists. You know what is extremist, you.

Actually TRUMPs administration just declared it is not Marxist. This was determined by his appointee.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce-rightsgovernance/2020/07/black-lives-matter-support-slogans-are-ok-at-the-federal-office-osc-says/?fbclid=IwAR1fEditdCLPBXBvfIfQnYbPhfnymuf5v12rtWY-uIAfroi8glmdvQEQ2ck

BLM is thus an umbrella term for a constellation of ideas, objectives, and groups. There is no “leader” of the BLM movement. Rather, there are numerous organizations that use BLM
terminology to varying degrees, including some whose names include the phrase “Black Lives Matter.” Of these, the most prominent is the BLMGN. BLMGN is a chapter-based organization made up of more than 40 chapters worldwide. BLMGN’s stated goals are to “eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.”4 In furtherance of these
goals it organizes programs around black arts and culture, protests to achieve policy change, and provides toolkits and other resources for discussing and responding to racism.
BLMGN has not previously been involved in partisan political activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLM is a Marxist organization.

Drill down on this fact. They dont deny it.

Marxism = extremism.

Are you comfortable supporting extremism?

Stop listening to Info Wars and other conspiracy theorists. You know what is extremist, you.

Actually TRUMPs administration just declared it is not Marxist. This was determined by his appointee.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce-rightsgovernance/2020/07/black-lives-matter-support-slogans-are-ok-at-the-federal-office-osc-says/?fbclid=IwAR1fEditdCLPBXBvfIfQnYbPhfnymuf5v12rtWY-uIAfroi8glmdvQEQ2ck

BLM is thus an umbrella term for a constellation of ideas, objectives, and groups. There is no “leader” of the BLM movement. Rather, there are numerous organizations that use BLM
terminology to varying degrees, including some whose names include the phrase “Black Lives Matter.” Of these, the most prominent is the BLMGN. BLMGN is a chapter-based organization made up of more than 40 chapters worldwide. BLMGN’s stated goals are to “eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.”4 In furtherance of these
goals it organizes programs around black arts and culture, protests to achieve policy change, and provides toolkits and other resources for discussing and responding to racism.
BLMGN has not previously been involved in partisan political activity.

OK comrade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because one size fits all isn't actually one size fits all.

Not even when it delivers objectively better outcomes? Alrighty then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are wasting your time arguing with each other. It's rare that somebody will change their mind about race based on an anonymous online discussion. Everyone just reads what they want to read and replies with their own argument.

If you think the other side is actually reading your entire post, then you're kidding yourself and wasting your time.
t

I don’t think anyone is trying to change someone’s mind “about race”. This thread is not about race. It’s about the fact that BLM is a political movement with politically motivated founders and a political message that many supporters (or people who think they’re supporters) of “BLM” aren’t aware of. I support saving black lives. I do not support BLM as a political party/movement, because I do not agree with its goals (or its tactics, although that’s another discussion). One of those detrimental goals is normalizing single mothers and absent fathers.

Well put. black lives matter is not the same as Black Lives Matter (TM).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLM isn't about disrupting families. It's about creating structures that recognize and support different kinds of families. They're disrupting a system that doesn't support all families equally. Lots of people are not living in a 2 parent, married nuclear family. Families that aren't nuclear families deserve support and recognition.

No one is saying that people can't have 2 parent, married nuclear families if they want them and can make it work.

It literally says “we DISRUPT the western prescribed nuclear family...”

It says " we disrupt the western prescribed nuclear family REQUIREMENT."

You need to read more carefully.

OP is a racist and being deliberately obtuse.

Some day OP will burn in hell for being such a bad person.

[Anonymous]

That doesn't work for us. My MIL is dead and my parents are way to selfish to help in any way including an emergency. They've bene clear if we both die they wouldn't take our children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLM isn't about disrupting families. It's about creating structures that recognize and support different kinds of families. They're disrupting a system that doesn't support all families equally. Lots of people are not living in a 2 parent, married nuclear family. Families that aren't nuclear families deserve support and recognition.

No one is saying that people can't have 2 parent, married nuclear families if they want them and can make it work.

It literally says “we DISRUPT the western prescribed nuclear family...”

It says " we disrupt the western prescribed nuclear family REQUIREMENT."

You need to read more carefully.

OP is a racist and being deliberately obtuse.

Some day OP will burn in hell for being such a bad person.

OP here. You definitely sound like a much better person than me. For sure!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BLM isn't about disrupting families. It's about creating structures that recognize and support different kinds of families. They're disrupting a system that doesn't support all families equally. Lots of people are not living in a 2 parent, married nuclear family. Families that aren't nuclear families deserve support and recognition.

No one is saying that people can't have 2 parent, married nuclear families if they want them and can make it work.

It literally says “we DISRUPT the western prescribed nuclear family...”

BLM believes Wypipo are the cause of the worlds ills, and that white people invented the nuclear family. They ignore the established fact that the single most important characteristic shared by successful children is a TWO parent household.