>Expertise is right. Single-female-headed householdness
>has much more to do
>with feminism and women's rights
>movement than slavery, which is
>why you see a boom
>in SFH households all over
>the world after the Sixties.
> The prime reason that
>it's less so among white
>Americans than black Americans is
>that the wage differential among
>black people is narrower than
>among white people. Narrower
>the gap, the more likely
>women are to be married.

I don't think women are deciding to raise their children on their own and not get married, if anything they are simply not taking the first person with an X chromosome that comes along, I think a woman waiting for a good man is better then her taking any man.

PLUS, what does that have to do with the man leaving and not having any influence in the child's life?

Or people being irresponsible and making kids that they can't take care of?

SO, I don't think it's all that relevant.

>As an aside, it's also true
>that there were a huge
>number of lesbians in second
>wave feminism, see Betty Friedan
>on the Lavendar Menace or
>any history book. It's
>for the same reason lesbians
>have been grossly overrepresented in
>American progressive social movements of
>all kinds (see Faderman):
>no babies=more time. It's
>also true that the movement
>women were largely white, but
>we shouldn't whitewash history, from
>Alice Walker to Barbara Smith
>to Audre Lorde, many black
>women were involved. See Sisterhood
>is Global. And as
>for actual support for women's
>liberation:
>http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/9/mansbridge-j.html

I'm saying though, when people say: "Lesbianism" they say it as if it has everything to do with pushing some sort of Lesbian agenda and not doing something to help women as a whole.

What if most of the Men involved in the Civil rights movement were Gay, would that make their work any less significant or valid to our lives today?


>#2.
>
>>The people who says this are
>>predominantly lower income/blue collar Black
>>people who grew up in
>>and around the inner cities.
>
>
>I took a look at some
>state by state comparisons and
>teen pregnancies rates were much
>much higher in the South
>(missippi, missouri etc) than in
>the North, so I don't
>know about the inner city.
> But I'm glad you
>brought class into it, because...
>
>
>
> I've got two step-cousins
>>with 5 kids between them
>>(Neither one is old enough
>>to drink) because the guy
>>wouldn't use condoms and they
>>didn't protest.
>
>
>How in God's name can you
>say this out of one
>side of your mouth and
>then say "as a Black
>man I'm not going to
>kid myself and say that
>society isn't more friendly to
>Black women then it is
>to Black men, because that's
>not true" out of the
>other. These girls didn't
>tell the guy to go
>fuck themselves because they based
>their self-esteem/hopes/etc on his approval.
> Their souls were crushed,
> as a black person,
>as a girl, as someone
>who is poor, as someone
>whose worth is defined by
>having a man, as someone
>who doesn't have that many
>other ways to get approval.
> Society made her want
>his attention more than she
>wanted to protect herself.
>And the poorer she is,
>the more isolated she is,
>the less hope she has,
>the more she is likely
>to give in. And
>then after she has a
>kid or two, she has
>a locus of female worth,
>and can assert herself.
>This is what the patriarchy
>*does*.

I wasn't talking about how MEN are treating women with respect to pregnancies, relationships, and Man/Woman dynamics.

I was talking about barriers to success, with respect to more Black women going to college, becoming professionals, being financially stable, etc.





Peace,







M2