There has been a lot of hullabaloo recently about the NYT article about the married and unmarried mothers. HBDers find it a compelling argument against mudsharking, feminists think it’s picking on the poor helpless saints/martyrs.
Whoever you are, you can’t deny the article has a powerful subtext. The reporters and editors of the NYT aren’t stupid- they know things mean more than they say, and they know those meanings are quite clear to anybody who isn’t really thick in the head. They have just published an article making it excruciatingly clear that getting knocked up when not married by an irresponsible black guy is going to really fuck up your life.
They are also smart enough to have left themselves a huge out of plausible deniability. Any argument or exposition using examples can be disregarded or dismissed with the counter argument that it’s just one case, and cannot be said to be representative, or in other words is “anecdotal evidence”. The clever can use this not simply to attack the arguments of others, but in self-defense. Bullies, in this vein, if called on their harassment will say they were “just joking” or “didn’t mean anything by it” and those correcting them should “relax, lighten up”. Plenty of people have accused the NYT of being hard on single mothers, but no one has accused them of racism. One, the article generalized from the examples given to the difficulty and undesirability of single motherhood, but not to the difficulty and undesirability of interracial relationships. Two, you can’t accuse the NYT of racism.
Had anyone accused the NYT of racism, their defense would have been simple- “We had to mention the race of the father of the single mother’s children. We showed pictures of them, so it was obvious anyway. But this is just one case, and you can’t generalize from one case! That would be using anecdotal evidence! We would never do that, and we are shocked that you are!”
Trouble is, people learn lessons and draw conclusions from examples, or anecdotes, all the time, and it is not unreasonable that they do so. Asking people to draw conclusions only from large samples is unreasonable. And when people do draw conclusions from large samples, the wrong ones, they are told they are wrong. If you point out that blacks behave badly quite often, you will be told that yes, some blacks behave badly, but not all, so you can’t draw any conclusions about blacks in general, assume anything bad about any specific black, or even judge any specific black on his actual bad behavior, rather than regarding it as an unfortunate anomaly obviously produced by racism.
The sadness of the article is not so much in the gross irresponsibility of the black father, but in the poignancy of the devotion and kindness of the white father. It mentions, for no particular reason, his height- 6’8″. Among upper middle-class people, a man’s size is of little consequence, since such people don’t resort to fisticuffs. They do know, however, that among lower-class people the ability to physically intimidate is an important resource, and that the kind of nasty and aggressive people that are frequently found in that environment will be strongly discouraged from messing with his wife and kids. This lady doesn’t have a knight in shining armor, but she does have a bouncer.
At the same time he’s a sweetheart. He mentions being motivated to finish college by the desire to marry his wife. Here he reflecting a value the upper middle-class understand well- marriage is the privilege of a certain amount of economic achievement. When his son starts crying on the camping trip, he doesn’t tell him to get a grip- a typical, not inappropriate father response- or comfort him, a typical, not inappropriate mother response- but challenges him to a game of tug-of-war, which immediately cheers the boy up. He seems to have a high degree of emotional intelligence as well, regarded as very important by the upper middle-class.
There are various ways the reporter or editor could have made this come out differently. They could have not shown the children of the unmarried mother, and not mentioned their names. They then would not have had to mention the race of the father. All this would have been quite reasonable on the basis of privacy. They could have said little about the white father, only mentioning his employment, salary and family duties. It would have made the article much less compelling, but it would have kept the focus on economic rather than emotional issues.
They can claim they didn’t mean to say it, but they said it. Don’t have kids until you are married to a responsible, caring man, even if he is not an exciting guy. Black guys are likely to be trouble. The gina tingles you feel as a 19 year-old will cause you grief the rest of your life.
This is all utterly obvious to the non-idiotic, but the official position- what you would expect to see in the NYT- has been just the opposite since the 70’s. Not married and pregnant? Single motherhood is great! Women can do anything! The government will take care of you, and will coerce employers to accomodate you! Married, with kids, but not feeling the tingle any more? Kick the bum out! No husband, no problem!
My feeling is that the elites look at what they have wrought, and are having second thoughts. They need a lower class which is incompetent, and not threatening to them, but is at least functional. The single white mother/mulatto children family functions poorly and is a drain on society. These people will always be net consumers of government services. They will support the system politically, but the system will support them financially. The white family is no threat, but the parents are functional and independent, and the children can be expected to be functional and independent in the future. Having encouraged single motherhood for 40 years, they realize maybe it is time to reverse the trend.
Here’s another example of the elite shifting positions- fat people. The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance has been around since 1969, the same year the homosexual rights movement started. In the 70’s, 80’s and into the 90’s the idea of fat people as an unfairly discriminated-against minority was taken quite seriously. Proposals were made to protect fat people from employment and other discrimination, although those haven’t gone anywhere. Fat people can be covered under disability laws though.
The idea that obesity is a horrible social problem is relatively recent. But now that is something you hear about every day. I was thinking about a sitcom episode in which a woman who has gotten fat and is getting crap about it makes it into a feminist issue- as in “Fat is a Feminist Issue”. The TV episode is from 1989, the slogan from a book published in 1978. But when is the last time you heard such sentiments?
Again, encouraging lower-class women to be fat- upper middle-class people never get fat, it’s a fundamental class marker in America, just as having illegitimate children is- was at one time seen as a good idea by the elite, but they realized they went too far, and want to reverse the situation, at least partly.
The elite does change their mind about things, or change their position depending on what they are trying to accomplish. A lot of things they do are ham-handed, insensitive and cruel, but they have some flexibility, which has helped them stay on top.