From: Manumit Exchange <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Manumit Exchange <email@example.com>
Date: 02 February 2002 07:41
Subject: [MANUMIT] (USA) Larry Elder dumps on separated fathers
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
>Monitoring Service trial
>There ares three main groups of people who don't like men or other men:
>- Don't like (hates) males
>- May involve personal grab for power and control for woman at men's
>- Systematic political-religious (ideological) grab for power and control
>for women at men's expense
>- May be men, as well as women
>- Men who want to protect women or feel the need to control other men
>- Men who want to be appreciated and admired by women and are willing to
>put other men down to achieve this
>- May still be trying to please 'mother'
>- Many different men fit into this group (for a range of reasons),
>including all too many politicians, judges, lawyers, 'academics' and
>journalists. Larry Elder appears to fit the bill as a paternalist.
>Quote: Blame "The Man." Blame the economy. Pass more social
>don't expect change until people accept responsibility and quit
>exaggerating the obstacles before them.
>Elder apears to use the world 'people' (above) as a cover word for 'men':
>he wants men to take responsibility for their actions AND the actions of
>women too. He doesn't appear to be pushing for women to take
>equal responsibility. As such he is infantilising women and
>like children and less like responsible and accountable adults.
>Elder avoids the reality and issue of the level of power and control
>have once they 'own' the children (aka cash cows or dividends! :-).
>30 January 2002
>Deadbeat dads: Victims?
>By Laurence A. Elder
>"Factoring Dads Into the Welfare Equation," read the column
>Finally, one thought, an article about struggling welfare mothers that
>gives deadbeat dads a tongue-lashing for abandoning their financial and
>moral responsibilities. But no, the columnist urged understanding of the
>"plight" of poor, often minority, inner-city fathers who
>"The income of less educated men," the columnist helpfully
>dropped drastically over the last 20 years as well-paying manufacturing
>jobs disappeared and wages shrunk in fields like transportation and
>construction." Damn that NAFTA and GATT.
>The columnist quotes an "expert" who concurred, "'The new
economy puts a
>premium on education, computer skills, having a strong competitive
>position' ... Men who lack a college education or specific job skills
>been left behind economically.' ... Because the men tend to be
>traditionalists, too, their failure wounds them as well. ... 'They don't
>have much pride in their status in society ... Many of them are working
>long hours for wages that don't provide enough to be able to support a
>family ... They're discouraged, cynical.'"
>"Traditionalist"? Men with little job skills and a work ethic
to match, but
>who nevertheless breed children?
>Nowhere does the columnist mention personal responsibility. Nowhere does
>she condemn inseminators who, without regard to resources, educational
>level or income, breed kids. Nowhere does the columnist say what my mom
>dad told me: Don't breed 'em if you can't feed 'em.
>This full-of-excuses article prompted this angry response from an
>eighth-grade inner-city public school teacher:
>As an African-American public school educator in a school that serves an
>urban demographic, I'm intimately familiar to the genesis of these
>irresponsible fathers. There is little the government can do to help
>men. They must first help themselves, and their communities must help
>This year, 95 percent of the black boys I educate are failing my
>eighth-grade algebra class, despite all of them being at least as capable
>[if not more] than those that are passing. These 95 percent waste most of
>their class time, do little or no homework, are preoccupied with sports
>girls, deride the 5 percent passing my class as "weak" or
>consumed with wearing the latest "gear," only read when their
>pleads, and laugh when they get Fs.
>While I love them as intensely as I love my own son, I loathe their
>academic skills, attitude and commitment. I have no doubt the public
>system has ruined them with years of inexperienced/uncommitted teachers
>haven't demanded or expected the level of performance I have of them. Not
>surprisingly, none of these boys has a father at home (conversely, the 5
>percent that are passing do). Very few of them are promising athletes,
>which, combined with their poor academic performance and social skills
>(many of the girls find them quite undesirable), you have the recipe for
>gang-bait. The help these young men need starts at home.
>I deplore single mothers with multiple children who rely on the older
>siblings to "help with" the younger kids. I share this anger
>students, and it always strikes a nerve. Just because you're 13 or 14
>doesn't mean you don't have needs, too. An adolescent needs love and
>attention as much as a 5-year-old, yet so many of my young men don't get
>it, and thus turn to other things. We are foolish if we expect these
>men to grow up as responsible men without any models of responsible men
>I take little pride in being the first black man they've known who a)
>to college; b) doesn't smoke, do drugs or abuse alcohol; c) doesn't try
>be a "playa"; d) consistently speaks standard English; e)
doesn't have a
>criminal record. Black people must simply stop having children that
>be responsibly reared, period. It's obvious to me why this issue is never
>emphasized by the social service advocates: You can't get government
>for something most people should learn at home ...
>We could not spend enough money on these dads until we separate and
>identify the spiritual and personal commitment required by those intimate
>with these young men. Change starts with the individual, not from some
>outside entity. When these young men decide to educate themselves, ignore
>the pop-culture free-market barrage of half-truths, and accept their
>obligation to their future children and community, they will not need to
>part of the welfare equation, for they will be the solution.
>Blame "The Man." Blame the economy. Pass more social programs.
>expect change until people accept responsibility and quit exaggerating
>obstacles before them.
>Email Larry Elder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Larry Elder's Archive:
>The views expressed in the forwarded article(s) are provided for
information and do not necessarily represent those of the sender.
>Information is nothing in and of itself. The information provided
Manumit is provided to facilitate and stimulate ideas and action.
>To subscribe to MANUMIT, send an email to:
>To unsubscribe from MANUMIT, send an email to:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/