By Dicipres
Recently, the Journal of Family and Marriage published the article: The Effects of Family Structure on African American Adolescents’ Marijuana Use,
Abstract: “The relationship between family structure and marijuana use throughout adolescence was assessed among 1,069 African Americans from the NLSY. A model was also tested suggesting that the effects of family structure on marijuana use would be mediated by poverty, neighborhood quality, and adolescents’ self-control. As most prior studies have found, family structure was not related to female adolescents’ marijuana use. For young men, being raised with both biological parents was associated with less marijuana use throughout adolescence compared to those whose mothers never married, divorced early and never remarried, or divorced and remarried. Some support for the model was also found. We concluded that being raised without the presence of a biological father is a risk factor for marijuana use among young men, but African American young women from single-parent households have unique resources that protect them from marijuana use.” [emphasize mine],
Like virtually all modern social academic publications, this article reeks of feminism. However, the data is still useful from the MRM perspective. While only the case of marijuana use is examined, we can generalize this case to understand the entire process which created and now sustains the matriarchal welfare society in which most black boys are growing today. (e.g. 72% of black children are born to unwed mothers, and 66% of black children are growing in single parent households.)
If we generalize the results of the article, we can deduce the following conclusion: Growing in a home without a biological father hurts boys much more than it hurts girls.
Welfare and feminism made it possible (and even worth while) to women to eliminate the biological father from the family. The lack of father figure hurts boys more than girls (as seen in the data), thus creating a class of young black men which are less educated, less disciplined and generally of lower social status compared to the young black women. Women hate weak low status men (see every post ever written by the mighty Roissy) and financially poor black men needed to get status by other means, e.g. become “bad boys”. This in turn made them not attractive as husbands, and due to welfare and feminist family laws, they can just be removed completely from the family structure and the lives of the children at the will of mother, even without he hit me!/he abuse the kids!/etc.. false accusations. (This occur while they still providing child support for 18 years, and they have no say how their money is spent or how their children are raised.) The new generation of young boys have even less contact with a father figure, and thus will have a harder time to be fathers… and this is the cycle of life in the matriarchy. The cycle of eliminating fathers from the family with is the most essential part required for a matriarchy.
This, made men, and specifically the “alpha” black men who were still desired by women, to think twice before marrying. Quoting Ricketts, Erol. (1989) “The Origin of Black Female-Headed Families.” Focus 12(1): 32-36 (HT: JustBeAManAboutIt): “The increasing vulnerability of disadvantaged black males to the vicissitudes of the economy seems to explain their avoidance of marriage and their increasing involvement in loose consensual unions. Being involved in such unions and parenting children out of wedlock are ways of simultaneously keeping one’s options open and affirming one’s self.”
A Prediction
The US, as a whole, is heading for the state of the black community today. Young men growing today need to understand this, and act accordingly, in a manner that will serve their best interests, while giving no consideration at all to the well being of the modern matriarchal society. If you still want a family you need to be associated with the part of society in which family values and marriage are still alive and well (middle class, white, earning well and college educated) and women which are still worth the risk of marriage (middle class, low count of sexual partners andcollege educated). This part of society and the population of “marriage worthy” women are shrinking by the day and if you are poor/black/uneducated etc., you better prepare to live in the feminist new world order of society.
Some Other Comments
I. There was a black family in the past, Ricketts, Erol. 1989. “The Origin of Black Female-Headed Families.” Focus 12(1): 32-36.)
II. I was accused in my previous post to be pessimistic, and “downtrodden and defeatist” however, I believe that I am just a realist. In 1989 Ricketts commented in his conclusions: “It is unlikely that these problems can be easily reversed, and they are likely to get worse…” He was right.
III. Two interesting qoutes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action (another H/T to JustBeAManAboutIt): 1. “From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets chaos.” 2. “My view is we had stumbled onto a major social change in the circumstances of post-modern society. It was not long ago in this past century that an anthropologist working in London – a very famous man at the time, Malinowski – postulated what he called the first rule of anthropology: That in all known societies, all male children have an acknowledged male parent. That’s what we found out everywhere… And well, maybe it’s not true anymore.”
