Before 1960, about 80% of black children grew up with 2 parents. Now only 30% do

Through all the slavery and racism, black families all the way until 1960 still maintained a nuclear family. After 1960, the number of black children growing up in 2-parent households declined dramatically.

What happened in the 60's that caused this dramatic shift?

yep, slavery was totally good for the family unit.

not counting all the times the families were sold separately.

where do you people come up with this stuff?

The rejection of the nuclear family as an ideal model of parenthood? Makhaidos

Boom.

If you do a little more looking, you'll see that blacks aren't the only ethnicity that's seen a steep decline in that regard. 

Do you have links or statistics to back up your statement? I mean it's there on Google but if you're going to make a statement like that then back it up with some links.

It's a disturbing trend but the nuclear family is dying for all ethnicities.

Do you have links or statistics to back up your statement? I mean it's there on Google but if you're going to make a statement like that then back it up with some links.

It's a disturbing trend but the nuclear family is dying for all ethnicities.

leviathan91

[QUOTE="Makhaidos"]The rejection of the nuclear family as an ideal model of parenthood? the_bi99man

Boom.

If you do a little more looking, you'll see that blacks aren't the only ethnicity that's seen a steep decline in that regard. 

Do you have links or statistics to back up your statement? I mean it's there on Google but if you're going to make a statement like that then back it up with some links.

It's a disturbing trend but the nuclear family is dying for all ethnicities.

leviathan91

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc1.asp

"Blacks struggle with 72% unwed mothers rate"

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39993685/ns/health-womens_health/t/blacks-struggle-percent-unwed-mothers-rate/#.UhL0BW34K4w

"In 1960, the year before Obama was born, 22 percent of black children lived with single parents." (that's where my about 80% number came from)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/23/barack-obama/statistics-dont-lie-in-this-case/

yep, slavery was totally good for the family unit.

not counting all the times the families were sold separately.

where do you people come up with this stuff?

Riverwolf007

What happened in the 60's that caused a dramatic shift?

The FBI, Jay edgar hoover, the injection of crack into the communities by the federal govenrment. The list goes on. Our government caused the problem.Marth6781

Through all the slavery and racism, black families all the way until 1960 still maintained a nuclear family. After 1960, the number of black children growing up in 2-parent households declined dramatically.

 

What happened in the 60's that caused this dramatic shift?

BMD004

War on drugs.

and

Feminism

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Do you have links or statistics to back up your statement? I mean it's there on Google but if you're going to make a statement like that then back it up with some links.

It's a disturbing trend but the nuclear family is dying for all ethnicities.

Makhaidos

Single mother households create almost all criminals in our society.

is it 30% with single parents or is it 30 % that don't have two married parents?

[QUOTE="Makhaidos"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Do you have links or statistics to back up your statement? I mean it's there on Google but if you're going to make a statement like that then back it up with some links.

It's a disturbing trend but the nuclear family is dying for all ethnicities.

GummiRaccoon

Single mother households create almost all criminals in our society.

stats please? 

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Makhaidos"] Why is it disturbing? The nuclear model isn't the only one in existence and doesn't need to be.lostrib

Single mother households create almost all criminals in our society.

stats please? 

http://deltabravo.net/cms/plugins/content/content.php?content.284

It seems shocking and extreme but two-parent households are on the decline for all races. Women now work and have careers, divorces happen and single parents are a lot more common these days.XilePrincess

In 1960, about 90% of white families had a 2-parent household. In 2012, it is about 75%.

In 1960, about 80% of black families had a 2-parent household. In 2012, it is about 30%.

So yes, it has declined for all races, but blacks have been affected a LOT more since 1960.

It isn't just women working. That of course is a reason, but seems to be a small reason.

And 72% of black children are born to unwed parents anyway... so it can't be that divorces are more common since the parents aren't even married to begin with.

So what can be the real reason?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Single mother households create almost all criminals in our society.

GummiRaccoon

stats please? 

http://deltabravo.net/cms/plugins/content/content.php?content.284

perhaps I missed it, but I do not see where it says that almost all criminals in our society come from single mother households

not to mention that that source doesn't seem to have any articles or references after like 1995

[QUOTE="Makhaidos"]The rejection of the nuclear family as an ideal model of parenthood? the_bi99man

Boom.

If you do a little more looking, you'll see that blacks aren't the only ethnicity that's seen a steep decline in that regard. 

So far in this thead I've seen:

- War on drugs .... that didn't start until the 70's I believe. The spike of single parents happened in the 60's.

-Feminism... plausible. Although it seems like this is more of a part of it and not the main reason. Because white families are not affected like black families. Feminism affects everybody.

- Great society... that's an interesting view. What about the Great Society?

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

stats please? 

lostrib

http://deltabravo.net/cms/plugins/content/content.php?content.284

perhaps I missed it, but I do not see where it says that almost all criminals in our society come from single mother households

not to mention that that source doesn't seem to have any articles or references after like 1995

"80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes --Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26"

"85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home --Fulton County Georgia jail populations & Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992"

So far in this thead I've seen:

 

- War on drugs .... that didn't start until the 70's I believe. The spike of single parents happened in the 60's.

-Feminism... plausible. Although it seems like this is more of a part of it and not the main reason. Because white families are not affected like black families. Feminism affects everybody.

 

- Great society... that's an interesting view. What about the Great Society?

BMD004

also there was a war going on in the 60s, although I'm not sure if that would have negatively affected one race more than others.  Of course, there was a lot of drug use in vietnam or due to vietnam.  So drug addicts plus war on drugs?

There were all sorts of things going on in the 60's both politically and socially, and there continued to be cultural shifts into the 70s, 80s, and 90s with things such as civil rights, crack, AIDS, gangs

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

 

http://deltabravo.net/cms/plugins/content/content.php?content.284

GummiRaccoon

perhaps I missed it, but I do not see where it says that almost all criminals in our society come from single mother households

not to mention that that source doesn't seem to have any articles or references after like 1995

"80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes --Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26"

"85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home --Fulton County Georgia jail populations & Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992"

which is very different from "almost all criminals in our society"

so apparently it's 80% of some subset of rapists and 85% of criminal youths in prisons at the time in 1992

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

perhaps I missed it, but I do not see where it says that almost all criminals in our society come from single mother households

not to mention that that source doesn't seem to have any articles or references after like 1995

lostrib

"80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes --Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26"

"85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home --Fulton County Georgia jail populations & Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992"

which is very different from "almost all criminals in our society"

so apparently it's 80% of some subset of rapists and 85% of criminal youths in prisons at the time in 1992

How many sources do you need?  I've written several papers on the subject but those are in storage.  You asked for a quick cite and I did, there are mountains of data backing up my claims those are just what I had handy.

The Civil Rights Movement happened in the 1960s and perhaps black male entitlement might have something to do with it.

Once they felt more entitled in society then the fathers left the home looking for more to do in life as there was more they felt was open to them.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

 

"80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes --Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26"

"85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home --Fulton County Georgia jail populations & Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992"

GummiRaccoon

which is very different from "almost all criminals in our society"

so apparently it's 80% of some subset of rapists and 85% of criminal youths in prisons at the time in 1992

How many sources do you need?  I've written several papers on the subject but those are in storage.  You asked for a quick cite and I did, there are mountains of data backing up my claims those are just what I had handy.

Well the source you cited didn't back up your claim and appears to be out of date by about 20 years.  

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

which is very different from "almost all criminals in our society"

so apparently it's 80% of some subset of rapists and 85% of criminal youths in prisons at the time in 1992

lostrib

How many sources do you need?  I've written several papers on the subject but those are in storage.  You asked for a quick cite and I did, there are mountains of data backing up my claims those are just what I had handy.

Well the source you cited didn't back up your claim and appears to be out of date by about 20 years.  

Are you kidding?  They support my claim.  and that is all I quoted from that site, go ahead and read it over rather than just skim it.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

How many sources do you need?  I've written several papers on the subject but those are in storage.  You asked for a quick cite and I did, there are mountains of data backing up my claims those are just what I had handy.

GummiRaccoon

Well the source you cited didn't back up your claim and appears to be out of date by about 20 years.  

Are you kidding?  They support my claim.  and that is all I quoted from that site, go ahead and read it over rather than just skim it.

I did read. And so you decided to use quotes that did not back up your claims of almost all criminals being from single mother families.  I already pointed out how those quotes do not back up that claim.  

Change in attitudes toward relationships and sexual freedoms. In the 50s and earlier if you knocked a girl up you married her or you ran. Oddly enough birth control and abortions also could have caused this. Before pregnancy and having a child was pretty typical if you had sex, eventually it's going to happen unless one person is sterile. With changes to this norm of course people are going to be a bit more liberal with who they f*ck, I'm sure some of us know this from personal experience. So all of a sudden there's a cultural change in what it means to be a couple, women becoming more independent, and means to prevent the negatives of sex. On top of this all drugs became more readily available during this time. Each of these alone may not have any real effect but together it sure seems plausible. So why blacks? Unfortunately it was a rough time for civil rights too and a lot of black families weren't exactly sitting pretty on a pile of money and as I'm sure we all know once you're poor it's hard as hell to stop being poor and this is only more true when you have kids to take care of. It's that vicious cycle we keep hearing about.Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Change in attitudes toward relationships and sexual freedoms. In the 50s and earlier if you knocked a girl up you married her or you ran. Oddly enough birth control and abortions also could have caused this. Before pregnancy and having a child was pretty typical if you had sex, eventually it's going to happen unless one person is sterile. With changes to this norm of course people are going to be a bit more liberal with who they f*ck, I'm sure some of us know this from personal experience. So all of a sudden there's a cultural change in what it means to be a couple, women becoming more independent, and means to prevent the negatives of sex. On top of this all drugs became more readily available during this time. Each of these alone may not have any real effect but together it sure seems plausible. So why blacks? Unfortunately it was a rough time for civil rights too and a lot of black families weren't exactly sitting pretty on a pile of money and as I'm sure we all know once you're poor it's hard as hell to stop being poor and this is only more true when you have kids to take care of. It's that vicious cycle we keep hearing about.EagleEyedOne

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

Well the source you cited didn't back up your claim and appears to be out of date by about 20 years.  

lostrib

Are you kidding?  They support my claim.  and that is all I quoted from that site, go ahead and read it over rather than just skim it.

I did read. And so you decided to use quotes that did not back up your claims of almost all criminals being from single mother families.  I already pointed out how those quotes do not back up that claim.  

Have you written a research paper yet?  What I provided was proper support for my claims (especially given the "hey give me examples right now" aspect).

If I were to feel inclined I could have a proper 10 page paper typed up with at least 10 sources cited using the apa format in a few days.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

"The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families."

- Great society... that's an interesting view. What about the Great Society?

BMD004

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Are you kidding?  They support my claim.  and that is all I quoted from that site, go ahead and read it over rather than just skim it.

GummiRaccoon

I did read. And so you decided to use quotes that did not back up your claims of almost all criminals being from single mother families.  I already pointed out how those quotes do not back up that claim.  

Have you written a research paper yet?  What I provided was proper support for my claims (especially given the "hey give me examples right now" aspect).

If I were to feel inclined I could have a proper 10 page paper typed up with at least 10 sources cited using the apa format in a few days.

yes i have, multiple papers actually.  And no that is not proper support.  You claimed "almost all," which itself is a useless term unless you give it a numerical basis; but taking all to mean 100% so almost all I would imagine would be within 10%.  If you meant greater than 50%, then you should have said "the majority of."  

But no those quotes you used and the source you cited do not back up your claim of almost all criminals are from a single mother families.  Unless by criminals you meant only rapists with displaced anger, and youths incarcerated in the early 1990s.  Not to mention it is using statistics and data that is almost 20 years old.  

Good for you if you can whip up a 10 page paper with properly cited sources, but the one you've given does not support your claims

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]Change in attitudes toward relationships and sexual freedoms. In the 50s and earlier if you knocked a girl up you married her or you ran. Oddly enough birth control and abortions also could have caused this. Before pregnancy and having a child was pretty typical if you had sex, eventually it's going to happen unless one person is sterile. With changes to this norm of course people are going to be a bit more liberal with who they f*ck, I'm sure some of us know this from personal experience. So all of a sudden there's a cultural change in what it means to be a couple, women becoming more independent, and means to prevent the negatives of sex. On top of this all drugs became more readily available during this time. Each of these alone may not have any real effect but together it sure seems plausible. So why blacks? Unfortunately it was a rough time for civil rights too and a lot of black families weren't exactly sitting pretty on a pile of money and as I'm sure we all know once you're poor it's hard as hell to stop being poor and this is only more true when you have kids to take care of. It's that vicious cycle we keep hearing about.Ace6301

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Did you home in on that and not read the rest and parse them together? I was referring to the 60s. The reason why this continues to be a trend is because a single parent raised person is less likely to be both successful and maintain a functioning relationship than someone raised with two parents and on top of that the war on drugs has thrown a lot of people in jail and a good number of them are black males.Ace6301

that would not be surprising

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

I did read. And so you decided to use quotes that did not back up your claims of almost all criminals being from single mother families.  I already pointed out how those quotes do not back up that claim.  

lostrib

Have you written a research paper yet?  What I provided was proper support for my claims (especially given the "hey give me examples right now" aspect).

If I were to feel inclined I could have a proper 10 page paper typed up with at least 10 sources cited using the apa format in a few days.

yes i have, multiple papers actually.  And no that is not proper support.  You claimed "almost all," which itself is a useless term unless you give it a numerical basis; but taking all to mean 100% so almost all I would imagine would be within 10%.  If you meant greater than 50%, then you should have said "the majority of."  

But no those quotes you used and the source you cited do not back up your claim of almost all criminals are from a single mother families.  Unless by criminals you meant only rapists with displaced anger, and youths incarcerated in the early 1990s.  Not to mention it is using statistics and data that is almost 20 years old.  

Good for you if you can whip up a 10 page paper with properly cited sources, but the one you've given does not support your claims

That's just you playing semantics, don't be such a spaz, I used a subjective term because I couldn't recall the crime rate for children raised by single mothers off the top of my head.  

Also I would say that 80% is almost all.  If 80% of voters voted for one candidate over the other for president I could very easily see headlines stating "everyone voted for candidate a"

Also I don't think you have written any papers because "supporting your claim" is not the same as "proving your point".  I made a claim, you asked for support and I provided some.

This isn't some postgraduate sociology class, I don't need to provide proof beyond a shadow of doubt that I am right.

I made a claim, provided supporting evidence and that is that.  

If you think I am wrong, provide support of the opposite.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Have you written a research paper yet?  What I provided was proper support for my claims (especially given the "hey give me examples right now" aspect).

 

 

If I were to feel inclined I could have a proper 10 page paper typed up with at least 10 sources cited using the apa format in a few days.

GummiRaccoon

yes i have, multiple papers actually.  And no that is not proper support.  You claimed "almost all," which itself is a useless term unless you give it a numerical basis; but taking all to mean 100% so almost all I would imagine would be within 10%.  If you meant greater than 50%, then you should have said "the majority of."  

But no those quotes you used and the source you cited do not back up your claim of almost all criminals are from a single mother families.  Unless by criminals you meant only rapists with displaced anger, and youths incarcerated in the early 1990s.  Not to mention it is using statistics and data that is almost 20 years old.  

Good for you if you can whip up a 10 page paper with properly cited sources, but the one you've given does not support your claims

That's just you playing semantics, don't be such a spaz, I used a subjective term because I couldn't recall the crime rate for children raised by single mothers off the top of my head.  

Also I would say that 80% is almost all.  If 80% of voters voted for one candidate over the other for president I could very easily see headlines stating "everyone voted for candidate a"

Also I don't think you have written any papers because "supporting your claim" is not the same as "proving your point".  I made a claim, you asked for support and I provided some.

This isn't some postgraduate sociology class, I don't need to provide proof beyond a shadow of doubt that I am right.

I made a claim, provided supporting evidence and that is that.  

If you think I am wrong, provide support of the opposite.

Except it doesn't suppor your claim because it only said that 80% of a subset of a subset of criminals were raised by single mothers.  That is not even close to "almost all."  If your provided supporting evidence doesn't support/prove your point, then it's not very good evidence.  And you still havent addressed using statistics that are almost 20 years old.  And it's not my job to prove you wrong.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

yes i have, multiple papers actually.  And no that is not proper support.  You claimed "almost all," which itself is a useless term unless you give it a numerical basis; but taking all to mean 100% so almost all I would imagine would be within 10%.  If you meant greater than 50%, then you should have said "the majority of."  

But no those quotes you used and the source you cited do not back up your claim of almost all criminals are from a single mother families.  Unless by criminals you meant only rapists with displaced anger, and youths incarcerated in the early 1990s.  Not to mention it is using statistics and data that is almost 20 years old.  

Good for you if you can whip up a 10 page paper with properly cited sources, but the one you've given does not support your claims

lostrib

That's just you playing semantics, don't be such a spaz, I used a subjective term because I couldn't recall the crime rate for children raised by single mothers off the top of my head.  

Also I would say that 80% is almost all.  If 80% of voters voted for one candidate over the other for president I could very easily see headlines stating "everyone voted for candidate a"

Also I don't think you have written any papers because "supporting your claim" is not the same as "proving your point".  I made a claim, you asked for support and I provided some.

This isn't some postgraduate sociology class, I don't need to provide proof beyond a shadow of doubt that I am right.

I made a claim, provided supporting evidence and that is that.  

If you think I am wrong, provide support of the opposite.

Except it doesn't suppor your claim because it only said that 80% of a subset of a subset of criminals were raised by single mothers.  That is not even close to "almost all."  If your provided supporting evidence doesn't support/prove your point, then it's not very good evidence.  And you still havent addressed using statistics that are almost 20 years old.  And it's not my job to prove you wrong.

I am not going to provide you with anything else because you are just a nitpicking idiot who doesn't even know what support means.  Mentally go back and change "almost all" to "the great majority" if it makes you feel better.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

 

That's just you playing semantics, don't be such a spaz, I used a subjective term because I couldn't recall the crime rate for children raised by single mothers off the top of my head.  

 

Also I would say that 80% is almost all.  If 80% of voters voted for one candidate over the other for president I could very easily see headlines stating "everyone voted for candidate a"

 

Also I don't think you have written any papers because "supporting your claim" is not the same as "proving your point".  I made a claim, you asked for support and I provided some.

 

This isn't some postgraduate sociology class, I don't need to provide proof beyond a shadow of doubt that I am right.

 

I made a claim, provided supporting evidence and that is that.  

 

If you think I am wrong, provide support of the opposite.

 

GummiRaccoon

Except it doesn't suppor your claim because it only said that 80% of a subset of a subset of criminals were raised by single mothers.  That is not even close to "almost all."  If your provided supporting evidence doesn't support/prove your point, then it's not very good evidence.  And you still havent addressed using statistics that are almost 20 years old.  And it's not my job to prove you wrong.

I am not going to provide you with anything else because you are just a nitpicking idiot.  Mentally go back and change "almost all" to "the great majority" if it makes you feel better.

A majority is >50%, almost all as we established is 80-90%.  It is kind of sad that you can't defend/support your claim without resorting to name calling. I guess that should make me question your claims of having written several papers on the subject.