Black men are good fathers, loving fathers. Present fathers.
President Obama didn't grow up with a father, so he can be forgiven for grinding the ever-popular "irresponsible black father" axe. ""If we are honest with ourselves," he said, "we'll admit that... too many fathers also are missing--missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it."
Barack Obama is out of pocket.
If the Dad in Chief really cared about the state of black America and the black family, he would retire the worn-out tropes and consider ratifying outmoded laws that encourage and support single motherhood. He would make it easier for men to keep and enforce thier parental rights. And he would stop suggesting that black men are animals with no human connection to their own children and make women at least as responsible for thier own failures and bad choices. There is almost always two sides to the story. It's never as simple as "father leaves child." Black men are no animals.
I write about father's issues alot, because I'm a single dad. Most of my male friends are single dads, and not by choice. All the men I know, up to and including my father, have had to fight in one way or another to stay in thier child's life. And I know many men, from all walks of life. What's that about?
Most men are on the other end of divorce, as women file far more often than men. We presume that the man did something heinous to precipitate it -- like wearing a bubble coat or drinking cocoa when he should have been drinking coffee, girl! --- but I don't know if that's a safe assumption.
But let's assume that Dude is a sh*t-heel. Fine.
FACT: No matter what may have caused your particular break-up, the father doesn't lose rights to his children. I mean, even Rasputin probably got liberal visiation, so the fact that a father's parental rights are always intact, no matter how evil his deeds, should be a given, right? WRONG. I promise you that if a woman does not want a man to see or have contact with his children -- step-children, or kids you all may have made Ye Olde Fashioned Way -- the man will have to shell out thousands upon thousands upon thousand upon thousands upon thousands of dollars to get Da White Man to enforce rights that are his on principle. Promise. Anyone telling you that it's easy and you should do what it takes and pay what it cost like it's a walk in the park is batsh*t and/or a woman. Women don't know anything about having to fight for custody, and the way the system is geared, they never will. Because a woman can be jobless, degree-less, tooth-less, cooth-less, on crack, living in a house made of crack, sitting on bean-bag furniture filled with crack with six syphillitic mongoloid boyfriends living in the basement cooking crack on a crack-fire and a judge will still make you prove that you are the better parent. Square Biz.
But, of course, you should do what it takes-- but it takes alot, and if you don't have that kind of loot, you are ass-out. Because the state will send The A-Team looking for you if you owe child support --- and maybe they should, right?-- but if you are a man, there are no hard laws to secure your right to see your child. She will suffer no penalites by withholding your kids from you. And the kicker is, even after you lawyer-up, the authorities may or may not enforce the few rights you DO have. You will have a hard time and spend alot of money trying to father your children if an angry woman decides to use the children as a pawn, as angry women are wont to do. And that's not all.
The child support laws of most state encourage Baby-Mama as laudable profession, promote a "pay-to-play" dynamic with fatherhood, empower women and emasculate men, all the while rewarding irresponsible behavior.
This first: You Must Pay Child Support. If you make a baby, you have to contribute whatever you can to that child to keep them healthy and vital. So not paying child support is not even a conversation.
The problem with the present child support system, as I've noted many times, is that it encourages women to have as many children as possible -- there is no mechanism for compelling the mother to take control of her own destiny by enrolling in school, finding gainful employment or somehow trying to better herself for the good of herself and the child. There is nothing to monitor how the support money is spent, as noted sociologist Kanye West opined: "She was 'spose to buy ya shorty TYCO with ya money/She went to the doctor got lipowith ya money." More often than not, some women prefer to cash the check and not deal with the man.
I know, I know.... that's not what Oprah Winfrey says. I've told you before that Oprah Winfrey has rocks for brains -- she's one of the dim bulbs who are part of the problem. She would have you believe that men are are burning rubber to leave thier women and children behind in divorce court. She would have you believe that in 2009, in a world where there are multiple over-the-counter birth control options for women (including the "morning after" pill), that women can't control thier own sexual choices, that black men have remote-control leg-openers and the power to Dicknosis and are singularly responsible for the plight of single motherhood. Her and Obama are promoting a cult of black male apology, where every brother is John Coffee, resigned to soak up every sin of the mortal world. That dog don't hunt.
But let me say this, once and for all time:, despite what Obama, Oprah and Essence Magazine would have you believe, everything is NOT the black man's fault. When given the opportunity black men are good fathers, loving fathers. Present fathers.
President Obama spends too much time harping on the failures and foibles of black men. If Obama really cared about the black family, he would level the playing field by making all parties accountable. Instead of admonishing Black fathers to step up, Obama should be telling women to stop racing to divorce court, that baby-making is not a vocation and then he should put some laws in place to protect the rights of fathers.
Did Usher give his marriage a fair shot?
News of singer Usher Raymond's filing of divorce papers lit the Internets ablaze, but I could help but wonder how this affects all those people who thought Usher was Father of The Year not quite two years ago. I'm happy he's going in for full joint custody -- it's the only way to fly -- but did he really give his marriage a shot?
All that high-minded talk about being this kind of husband, and that kind of father, and they only actually lived in the same house together for 11 months --seriously. Dude is the Carl Lewis of love and marriage. How do you propose to give your children and your marriage all you can, and then file papers after only two years in? WTF?
Usher has two good reasons to stay in there and stick it out -- Usher Terry and Naviyd Ely. In court, he describes the union as "irretrievably broken," but I don't buy that. Sometimes you hang in there, for the kids' sake -- that's what manhood is about. Dude is too young to get that, though. All of you who proclaimed Usher the new Cosby Dad may have jumped the gun. Share custody is whatever -- it really takes two, if you're in it to win it.
What kind of father is Usher if he's not willing to stick out his marriage?
You ever notice how scared and confused Madonna's adopted kids look?
Madonna just got approved for another brown bouncer. I guess she's a lil long in the tooth to make milk-mongers the old fashioned way, and since she started out the gate on the late side anyways, so she's trying to make up for lost time by becoming the Old Woman in The Shoe, collecting random children from around the globe. Which might be ok, if she went through the same channels you or I would. But I don't think she does. Adn I question how much time she even spends with these children-- you ever notice how scared and confused her adopted kids look, as if to be saying "who is this woman?" Yeah, buddy... something's not right.
I guess what's so troubling about Madonna's quest for an African baby beyond the fact that I'm pretty sure there are children here who would enjoy that kind of sponsorship is that I can't help but think there is some kind of ugly toddler trafficking jumping off. African babies have been the new Beanie Baby for a few years now: seems like the very rich spare no expense or personal embrrasment to go to far-off lands to pick up and ship in the most exotic child they can find. Half the time, it hardly seems to matter if the kid is up for adoption or not. It's like she just walking down the street, kid-shopping. She's been accused of throwing her money her money around to buy influence and children. That's sounds about right to me. What do you think?
Can you not go out of your way to fall into every stereotype possible?
I'm a real fan of rapper-turned-singer T-Pain's songwritiing and innovation, but his most recent bit of bling makes me sad. See, T-Pain paid 410K for an insane peice of jewelery, and just raised the bar for ridiculous hip-hop coonery to a whole new level. He says he splurged because he can, and I believe him. But why would he waste money on something that large that isn't an investment in someone's future?
We could attribute it to the shock and celebration of sudden wealth, but it's interesting that rapper Eminem has never been spotted with garrish chains or fancy whips, and he's trailer trash. Seems to me T-Pain could have started a scholarship or donated that money to an HBCU. I think I understand that sometimes you buy things just because you can, but this kind of coonery is troubling on som many levels. None of us has any obligation to represent Da Race, but can you not go out of your way to fall into every stereotype possible? What do you think?
Does T-Pain deserve to treat himself to a chain, or is this just Coons Gone Wild.
The days when you could just print up a t-shirt slogan and start a march railing against the white man willy-nilly are behind us, I hope.
When Chanequa Campbell cried racism after Harvard refused to let her graduate behind a drug deal gone bad, I knew she had failed. Cries of racism have lost their potency, thank God. Her peers won't ride for her, and small wonder why. The days when you could just print up a t-shirt slogan and start a march railing against the white man willy-nilly are behind us, I hope. The Duke Rape Case taught alot of youse that it's best reserve judgement on whitey until all the facts have been tabled.
The sad thing about Campbell is she just doesn't seem to get it: no matter what color you are, if people tend to get shot around you, or your People carry a pound of weed on the regular, evidently you are wont to roll with some wild-ass emmeffers, and this fact could shade your life. Not everyone's down for dodging bullets whilst collecting their degree. The fact that Rev. Al hasn't put on the cape and cowl and swooped in strikes many people strange, but not me. Something stinks about that whole Harvard shoot-out scenario, and it's best to just fall back until all the facts shake out.
What do you think --- should the NAACP or something come to the aid of Chanequa Campbell? Is she the victim of racism?