Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm curious, from your own unique perspective, to hear what you think about what I will ask here, which relates to some aspects brought up in this thread:
In other words, what do YOU PERSONALLY think is the actual exact psychological motivation(s) or drive(s) that drive them to go this path? They can hardly (if at all) take care of themselves and they often enough don't even stick around to be around all those children (or not all at once for all of them . . . and how could they, if they have multiple different women that they made pregnant?
This thread bought up many things. Your entire post is really good and asks some tough questions. Even though in your heart you may not be racist or classist you have ignored that many women of different circumstances go through a similar fate. I know women that are not Black, and actually one that is Jewish, their parents were married. The husband left the family for whatever reason. Starts another family and somehow shifts his assets around so he pays little if any child support to the children he left behind. Also just refuses to see them while they are growing up. It has the same effect on the child, except maybe they have more money and the mother has or can get a job and keep enough income to live in a decent neighborhood, because she had a decent education, before she got married.
Everyday the family courts and jails are full of men of all races that don't pay child support.
Why do these men do that as well? No one knows. No one can answer except the men themselves. Sometimes the men themselves in all of these situations can't answer the question.
What I would like to see. Is for your questions to be asked to boys in 7th grade to 12th grade, and have them write out their answers. Give them time to think about it. Some of the boys will have obviously experienced it in their own lives but never thought about it, from the perspective of: What if I were my father? So they end up repeating the cycle. Some do everything they can not to repeat it.
Girls should be asked to the same, maybe changing some of the questions and situation to suit them better. What if I were the mother?
Otherwise things can happen and usually start to happen in between the ages of 12-18, and spiral out of control. The teens will remember what they wrote, especially if the lessons are repeated periodically. Of course things will still happen but it may not be that bad.
I'm curious, from your own unique perspective, to hear what you think about what I will ask here, which relates to some aspects brought up in this thread:
I'm reasonably sure that you've seen various postings of mine over the course of time whereby I chastise and condemn others for simple and pure racial/ethnic hatred or enmity and to instead encourage them to focus on "the color of behavior" rather than "the color of skin". I just try to look at all matters in a dispassionate, intellectually honest manner and just focus on the choices made by individuals (regardless of what race, color, ethnicity, nationality, creed, gender, age, religion, et al that individual or collection of individuals comes from). I ask this of you as a dispassionate and impartial social scientist would (re: a sociologist or social psychologist) . . . just to try to understand the "whys" and how comes" regarding certain individuals or persons reflective of certain categories or types of the human population at-large who choose to or appear to engage in certain wrongful or questionable behavior patterns (seemingly as a way-of-life). These are asked of you in particular in this thread, as I sense that you yourself are a person-of-color and one who is an often-sympathetic spokersperson and defender of people of color and especially those of lower socioeconomic standing. And I'm assuming that, judging from the bulk of my own postings over the course of time, you are able to gauge me as being sympathetic as well (or enough so to be reasonable). Yet I DOoften wonder what is the real honest-to-goodness TRUE motivation(s) or drive(s) for why certain stereotypical behaviors are so frequently engaged in by select members of the population-at-large and would be interested in YOUR OWN opinions and perspective. The question(s) is/are:
From your own unique insights and perspective, WHY are there those in the low or lowest income bracket (or even perhaps the no-income bracket) who take it upon themselves to have multiple children and then with multiple mothers (such as Eric Garner having 6 children up to the point of his untimely death with 3 different women . . . and, for all we know, he may have taken it upon himself to have even more children if he were still to had continued living) when they truly do know, in their own heart-of-hearts, that they are teetering on the edge of survivability and viability themselves and burdened often with other pressing or even overwhelming issues (e.g., medical issues, addictions, a proclivity to getting in trouble with the law and serving extended time incarcerated, a lack of viable skills to work more regularly or viably, psychological or psychiatric or neuropsychiatric problems, varying degrees of homelessness or at least sometimes)? In other words, what do YOU PERSONALLY think is the actual exact psychological motivation(s) or drive(s) that drive them to go this path? They can hardly (if at all) take care of themselves and they often enough don't even stick around to be around all those children (or not all at once for all of them . . . and how could they, if they have multiple different women that they made pregnant? are ALL the differnt women and ALL the different children going to live under the same roof at the same time?). It appears that they are often what we term "absentee fathers" and it appears (to my mind, unless I'm misperceiving the truth) that they truly do KNOW that they will be absentee fathers or at least most of the time. So then why create all these chldren in the first place and then put such an undue economic, psychological, social and physical burden on oneself and on the children? What is the TRUE HONEST-TO-GOD rhyme or reason behind these choices of theirs . . . from your own unique opinion and perspective?
I have my own guesstimates or suspicions about what the true motivation(s) or drive(s) is/are but, rather than put words into anyone else's mouth or express what may be incorrect assumptions, I'd instead be interested in hearing YOUR OWN particular perspective. And know that this is coming from someone who is NOT NOT NOT an enemy of people of color or anyone else. I can like or even love anyone of civil- and right-standing ways-of-thinking and behaving and of redeeming character. And know that I have often enough been on the low or lower end of the socioeconomic scale myself in my life span thus far (being a Caucasisn Jewish male now in my 60s per this writing)-- though not really poor/low income any longer --so I am not ever someone who comes from a classist perspective toward my fellow humans nor is characterized by racial or ethnic enmity toward anyone (unlike enough others on the Internet who do so seemingly as a reflection of a certain underlying character type). What would be your own informed input and viewpoints on the question(s) raised here?
Arguably a person who is low income from a marginalized group may not have had much of an education concerning birth control and planned parenthood. If mental illness was involved the person may not have much of a capacity to make sound decisions.
The welfare system in the past enabled this behavior by automatically helping women with children when said system could have pushed birth control and encouraged women not to get pregnant until they have stable relationships and have good jobs.
Half a man attracts half a woman and that is what was really going on here. Lack of education, poverty, etc. Only in recent years have I see social services run ads encouraging women to wait to have children when they are older and more stable as opposed to very young.
This thread bought up many things. Your entire post is really good and asks some tough questions. Even though in your heart you may not be racist or classist you have ignored that many women of different circumstances go through a similar fate. I know women that are not Black, and actually one that is Jewish, their parents were married. The husband left the family for whatever reason. Starts another family and somehow shifts his assets around so he pays little if any child support to the children he left behind. Also just refuses to see them while they are growing up. It has the same effect on the child, except maybe they have more money and the mother has or can get a job and keep enough income to live in a decent neighborhood, because she had a decent education, before she got married.
Everyday the family courts and jails are full of men of all races that don't pay child support.
Why do these men do that as well? No one knows. No one can answer except the men themselves. Sometimes the men themselves in all of these situations can't answer the question.
What I would like to see. Is for your questions to be asked to boys in 7th grade to 12th grade, and have them write out their answers. Give them time to think about it. Some of the boys will have obviously experienced it in their own lives but never thought about it, from the perspective of: What if I were my father? So they end up repeating the cycle. Some do everything they can not to repeat it.
Girls should be asked to the same, maybe changing some of the questions and situation to suit them better. What if I were the mother?
Otherwise things can happen and usually start to happen in between the ages of 12-18, and spiral out of control. The teens will remember what they wrote, especially if the lessons are repeated periodically. Of course things will still happen but it may not be that bad.
To be completely honest at least some of these men cannot pay child support. It's possible for them to be employed or underemployed.
Throwing them in jail for child support just costs the taxpayer money and solves nothing. Ultimately child support can only be collected if the father has an on the books job.
I think classes should emphasize to young people more the consequences of having kids too young, off dumping them on your parents or other relatives and give out all the options of birth control including abortion. The Republicans want to eliminate sex ed and planned parenthood but these things have lowered the crime rate.
Responding to the comments made by DAS (posting # 141) and by NYCWRITERDUDE (postings # 143 and 144):
Both posters mentioned above took it upon themselves to respond to my question(s) asked originally of poster NJNYCKID, whereby I asked him if he could give his own unique insights and perspective (as I sense from past postings of his in varied threads that he is a person-of-color and one who is an often-sympathetic spokersperson and defender of people of color and especially those of lower socioeconomic standing) as to what he would say is the actual exact psychological motivation(s) or drive(s) of so many of those in the low or lowest income bracket (or even perhaps the no-income bracket) who take it upon themselves to have multiple children and then with multiple mothers (such as the example given of Eric Garner having 6 children up to the point of his untimely death with 3 different women . . . and, for all we know, he may have taken it upon himself to have even more children if he were still to had continued living) when they truly do know, in their own heart-of-hearts, that they are teetering on the edge of survivability and viability themselves and burdened often with other pressing or even overwhelming issues (e.g., medical issues, addictions, a proclivity to getting in trouble with the law and serving extended time incarcerated, a lack of viable skills to work more regularly or viably, psychological or psychiatric or neuropsychiatric problems, varying degrees of homelessness or at least sometimes).
That is, what does he (NJNYCKID) feel or perceive are the factors that drive them to go this path when so often they can't hardly (if at all) take care of themselves and they often enough don't even stick around to be around for all those children (or not all at once for all of them . . . and how could they, if they have multiple different women that they made pregnant? are ALL the different women and ALL their different children going to live under the very same roof at the same time?). And it appears (to my mind, unless I'm misperceiving the truth) that all the absentee fathers involved in this life situation portrayed here truly do KNOW that they will be absentee fathers or at least most of the time . . . so then why create all these chldren in the first place and then put such an undue economic, psychological, social and physical burden on oneself and on the children. NJNYCKID was asked if he could please, from his own unique insight and perspective, speak of what he himself deems to be the TRUE HONEST-TO-GOD rhyme or reason behind these choices of such members of the low or lowest income bracket (or even perhaps the no-income bracket) who make such choices.
Thus far (per this writing), such a contribution hasn't been provided yet except by two other posters mentioned on top of this posting. Being that neither of them (nor the original person of whom this question was asked for his own unique insights and perspective on this issue) mentioned what I tend myself to intuit as being the likely actual reason(s) that such members of the low or lowest income bracket (or even perhaps the no-income bracket) make such choices, I will take it upon myself here to state my own reasoning and intuition about the question(s) asked by myself. Note that what I will say below was actually stated by myself in another recent C-D thread started by someone else titled "Why do the poor and uneducated have the most children?". What I said in that thread on 9-11-2015 (with some extra wording and clarification added to #2 below, which is presented as the primary reason I am putting forth that my intuition and reasoning suggests to me) is as follows:
At least as far as what prevails in the United States:
1. Many poor and/or lesser educated people in the United States often have children (and even more children than they should reasonably have in light of their seemingly perennial life status as poor/low-income) because they seemingly feel that it adds meaning and purpose to their lives. That is, they don't have "careers" that give them identity and purpose (i.e., a "calling" in life, as it is often called) like those of greater socioeconomic status so often do and, in their own minds, often feel that have nothing or virtually nothing to give their life significance and substance. So they have children (and even multiple children) to give their lives meaning and purpose . . . to define some type of role for themselves that presumably earns them some status and respect (as parent and caretaker) and to give themselves offspring who hopefully come to care about and value them and their existence. They feel that they have little if anything else to live for with their life status as perennially poor/low-income and often enough of low educational accomplishment. It is their chance (in their own minds, at least) to give their life some degree of status and respect (even bragging rights).
2. (HERE IS WHAT I INTUIT IS A MAJOR FACTOR THAT NOT EVERYONE ELSE BRINGS UP OR MENTIONS, FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH . . . WHEREAS THE ABOVE-MENTIONED FACTOR IS BROUGHT UP BY ENOUGH PEOPLE BUT NOT VERY OFTEN THIS NEXT FACTOR WHICH WILL BE DESCRIBED HERE IN THIS PARAGRAPH): I've come to feel that many in the U.S.A. who are the perennial underclass (appearing to live an ongoing way-of-life of relative poverty/low-income) have children, and even as many children as they feel they can manage or handle, in order to intentionally "play the system." That is, unless I am somewhat misinformed about how the social safety net / public assistance system works (and then, for all I know, "how it works" may vary across the U.S. from state to state), it appears that you qualify yourself for more and more public assistance of varied types and at higher monetary amounts the more children you have . . . and then, if how I think the system works is correct, if there is no father living with and involved in the day-to-day lives of the mother and her offspring, it makes it even better for her in gettingeven more assistance. If this statement I just made is, in fact, correct (though it may vary in the U.S. from state to state), I surmise this to be a major underlying reason why there are so many absentee fathers. That is, it is not just or not simply that the biological fathers of said children are willfully irresponsible and uncaring but that, often enough, it turns out to be an intentional ploy on the part of the biological mother and the biological father to bring in more monies and other aid from public assistance. For the more monies and other aid from public assistance one can get for their children's sake, some of those monies are of course used to support the parent(s) as well. Hence, this is a major incentive for them to plan on having children as early as they reasonably can and even as many as they feel they can reasonably handle. And you see that they even often have children not long as they first reach puberty (i.e, while they are tweens and then certainly while they are teenagers) -- for they are planning to get a headstart on living a life of dependency on public assistance by having children even before their middle and high school years are over (i.e., so that the public assistance can start supporting them partially or fully before they would otherwise be compelled to have to pursue education or training for a viable career or livelihood). That is, children function for them as a "safety net" by bringing monies and aid to them that they wouldn't otherwise get if they were wholly childless . . . and, if they got married and with the father living with the mother and all their offspring as a regular part of the family, this appears to bring them less aid, so it is more lucrative for them if the biological father doesn't live with them but is rather an "absentee parent."
So, to all who read what I posted above (in both the #1 indented paragraph and the #2 indented paragraph . . . but especially the #2 indented paragraph), what are your thoughts on the validity and merit of what I stated?
And may I please ask of ALL who choose to respond here that you please find it in yourself to be intellectually honest here and hence to not simply deny what was shared by myself simply because it may be offensive to you (to whatever degree) or you may not want to believe it (or, even if you DO believe it, are wary and hesitant to admit it)? If you truly and honestly feel that this is an invalid and incorrect attribution (especially indented paragraph # 2) to make for the "whys" of these very-prevalent behavior patterns on the part of the low or lowest income bracket (or even perhaps the no-income bracket) who so often make such choices, then please state your solid and intellectually-honest reasoning behind your objections . . . for the edification and education of all of us here and any future readers of this thread.
1. Many poor and/or lesser educated people in the United States often have children (and even more children than they should reasonably have in light of their seemingly perennial life status as poor/low-income) because they seemingly feel that it adds meaning and purpose to their lives. That is, they don't have "careers" that give them identity and purpose (i.e., a "calling" in life, as it is often called) like those of greater socioeconomic status so often do and, in their own minds, often feel that have nothing or virtually nothing to give their life significance and substance. So they have children (and even multiple children) to give their lives meaning and purpose . . . to define some type of role for themselves that presumably earns them some status and respect (as parent and caretaker) and to give themselves offspring who hopefully come to care about and value them and their existence. They feel that they have little if anything else to live for with their life status as perennially poor/low-income and often enough of low educational accomplishment. It is their chance (in their own minds, at least) to give their life some degree of status and respect (even bragging rights).
Strongly agree with this. It is a lifestyle, and in your chosen lifestyle you do what "works" for you.
In the lifestyle we share with many people, could call them friends, professional associates, what have you, having more than two (maximum) children is just about unthinkable. More would interfere with professional goals, and more importantly, it is not possible to care responsibly for a larger number of children.
With low income girls your points are especially true. Being pregnant and then giving birth makes them a focus of attention as has likely never been the case before.
This conceptual truth founds the second part of your comments, more "practical" if you will. Lived experience.
Eric needed to be more responsible for his actions. You can't father 6 kids and be a lazy bum. You can't get arrested 30+ times and not know how to handle/interact with cops and potential arrest.
AMEN. Situations and people like that make me wonder if eugenics is needed.
Strongly agree with this. It is a lifestyle, and in your chosen lifestyle you do what "works" for you.
In the lifestyle we share with many people, could call them friends, professional associates, what have you, having more than two (maximum) children is just about unthinkable. More would interfere with professional goals, and more importantly, it is not possible to care responsibly for a larger number of children.
With low income girls your points are especially true. Being pregnant and then giving birth makes them a focus of attention as has likely never been the case before.
This conceptual truth founds the second part of your comments, more "practical" if you will. Lived experience.
Thank you for your input and views, Harlem Resident. Yet what are your views as well on the validity and merit of my offered indented paragraph # 2 and what it states?
Thank you for your input and views, Harlem Resident. Yet what are your views as well on the applicability and validity of my offered indented paragraph # 2 and what it states?
It's not something they think through. It's just the way they do things. I think the money actually matters less than the simple fact of taking one's place in a certain life trajectory. They have been in training for this since birth. Few do something different, just as few do anything different in other walks of life.
I met mothers, heads of families, who did not differentiate between my salary, which I receive as part of a professional appointment and for performing certain duties, and their "benefits" - I did what I did, they did what they did. We both got pay checks. It didn't matter that my pay check came after significant education, many sacrifices, focused work and responsibility. This did not seem to translate.
There is growing evidence that prenatal diet, diet in infancy, the quality of language heard even before the child acquires language, near proximity of siblings in terms of age - all of these create a situation for children that prepares them to do precisely what their parents and extended families did.
We have long known that broadly speaking wealthy families often produce well-trained and ultimately successful children. Now we know why, and we can train people to do things differently. Or at least begin a process of thinking this through. Responsibility does come with this. People will need to think before making blanket statements about "the rich." It is true, but far more complex than many admit and there is agency here.
For me, the language thing is the biggest factor. There are many studies about this, most conclusive. It structures the brain and it is difficult to change this - not impossible, but difficult.
Last edited by Harlem resident; 09-23-2015 at 07:17 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
