I think it's probably another example of how things are set up so marginalized groups just can't win. Take one path? You're living a negative stereotype and are a bad example. Take another? You've left your roots behind and are a ____ in name only, and are a bad example. Take a third path? Well, you can't have it both ways you know.

I cannot imagine living under the spotlight a sitting President always does, let alone the first African American one. It's a shame the Obamas can't so much as have a date without it becoming a political football. We sure are going to find out some interesting things in 2040 or so.

Dumbass, three quarters IS 75 percent.

"Statistically more women are choosing to have children out of the institution of marriage."

This may be an inaccurate way of portraying the report you've cited. The report itself says nothing about choice, or what circumstances a choice takes place under. I suppose it bothers me to use "choosing" because it's such an empowering word, and very few single mothers are actually empowered.

"It is certainly not a sign of a crumbling world and a crumbling community, but instead showing us that marriage is not something that should be the backbone of our society as would have it."

The same report invokes other research, pointing out that infants of unmarried mothers are at greater risk of low birthweight, preterm birth, dying in infancy, and are more likely to live in poverty. It would be very interesting to see the split between unmarried women cohabitators (another survey: 40% of nonmarital births are to cohabitating partners) and unmarried single mothers on these issues, but I would say increasing risks to children are a sign not of crumbling community (that sounds a little Values Voter panicky to me), but of a system (unmarried and possibly single motherhood) that does not work for many women, and that they are often forced into rather than actively choosing.

I think it is always better to have two caregivers involved provided they both pull their weight, aren't abusive, etc etc (and there are most likely unicorns that fart rainbows and happiness somewhere in there too). A similar structure (a mother and her family, a mother and older siblings, a single father) may achieve reasonably similar benefits, but I'm not convinced it's a desirable replacement or that a two-parent family structure is hackneyed and overrated. Marriage status conveys certain legal, financial, and social benefits in many cases but it is not an option everyone is capable of taking, and furthermore it is not an option everyone wants. I don't think marriage has as much effect as the presence of two parents, period. Not to stray into the land of anecdotes but the single mothers I know have never felt empowered by their single-ness.

If there is anything nice coming out of that study, it is surely the fact that as single motherhood is on the rise, social stigmas against single mothers have fallen (from the cited works on the report).

The Santorum quotes smack of "the boy needs learning" and become more hideously offensive each time I read over them. His statistics also appear to be inaccurate (though since he's just painting all inner city black communities with the same brush, who really knows?) but I think it's the fact that it ever occurred to him to think about other people this way that's the chief mistake. You're right that it's a little baffling to even try and discern his logic, but I am glad you brought it up. I have a problem with my eyes glazing over whenever I read punditry and it's remarks like these that remind me I still have to pay enough attention to respond.

Ew, gross. I think the first Amendment should apply to everybody except Rick Santorum. I'm so proud to be from Pennsylvania (even though he wasn't actually living here when he was a representative).

My partner's away on a two-week road trip with his band, and I honestly got a little romantic tear in my eye when I heard about the Obama date. If only because I have a tiny little crush on Michelle, and also I think the way they interact subverts a few gender norms in the sense that they just seem to really respect each other within their relationship, which is admirable in any context - married, black, white, poly, gay, whatever.

Anyway, who'd go on a date with Rick Santorum down to "the corner bar for a shot and a beer!!!!"
Such a horrific thought - from a man who equates bestiality and child-molestation with consensual sex.

because you do things like group gay sex with incest

Hmm. Just a suggestion that you might want to add the word "together" after "group"? Or something? Because the first time I read this, I'm thinking "what, I never heard of a scandal involving Santorum engaging in incestuous, gay group sex!!!!" And then I realized "oh, no, he doesn't engage in group gay sex with incest, he compares gay sex with incest!"

Maybe I'm the only one who read it that way, but I'm just saying :)

I know that the institution of marriage isn't perfect but I think many people in the African American community DO view marriage (and look up to the Obamas) as part of the solution to economic and social disenfranchisement that has plagued our community.

I do think that while some women are choosing the stay single, marriage rates have plummeted because of the high levels of incarceration which reduce the human-capital potential of whole communities.

In addition, some estimate that even relatively small gender disparities have wider implications on shifting partnering preferences and expectations. Expectations weren't balanced to begin with, because women are burdened with the sexual gatekeeper role. So now, gender imbalances skewed in favor of men, serve to essentially remove the gate altogether...

Solving the problem requires systemic changes such that resources and human capital flow into communities, not get sucked out.

I agree with you, pleco. While I fully support demolishing the stigma of single motherhood (notice how the stigma is on single mothers and not fathers-no, single fathers are "brave") and taking hetero marriage with the white picket fence and 2.5 kids off the pedestal, I am wary of anything that glamorizes single parenthood.

I am married, but my husband has been in the Guard for looong stints. I have experienced being a single parent, although I was much more priveleged, because we still had his income coming in. Having your child 24/7, with no support, is difficult under the best circumstances! Dealing with sickness, childcare, sitters and all the little jobs that come with parenthood with no relief wears at you after a while. I couldn't imagine being totally alone, completely poor, unable to work because I can't get decent childcare, dealing with an abusive ex, etc.

This is why it always irks me when MRAs see "getting the kids" as the ultimate "reverse sexism", disenfranchising fathers. Um, no. Men are allowed to continue on as if they were always single. They don't deal with the hassles. They can work without having to juggle childcare. As a result, they can advance their careers during their youth while mothers must sacrifice their earning potential. For all the noise about father's rights, would men REALLY accept it if they were socially expected to raise their children, especially during the infant/small child phase, while their exes pay child support and get them on the weekends? Wait, I forgot, mothers are biologically "better" at parenting young kids. Never mind that they just get more practice from the beginning because society sets it up that way. If MRAs had half a brain, they would realize that it's sexism against WOMEN that sets this whole scenario up and yes, does affect the men who would like to be full time parents. It is not big bad wimmenz taking kids away from their dads.

In an ideal world, fathers would be expected to be full time single parents just as often as women, and would have been socialised from the beginning to view it as okay. Single parents would have access to not-shitty childcare so they could work. They would also have support from family, friends, other parents, whatever, so they could take sanity-restoring breaks now and then.

But that's an ideal world. Sorry for the rant. :\

While much of what Santorum says here is completely misguided and misinformed, I think his basic message -- that the Obama's marital bliss can be an inspiration to the black community -- is pretty harmless and somewhat accurate.

The fact is that numerous black authors and scholars have been discussing the ubiquity of dead beat dads in the black community. Obama's father's day speech last year contained the following:

"You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled - doubled - since we were children."

Ultimately, I think Santorum (and most of his fellow conservatives) are not worth paying attention to these days. The republican party is grasping at straws, and these statements are evidence of that. While we can certainly scrutinize Santorum for his ignorance (three quarters IS 75%, silly) and examine the more absurd parts of his statement (go on a date, but don't go too big . . . okay, whatever), it's a bit alarmist to go after him for a statement (about dead beat dads in the black community) that's actually widely discussed.

I used to think Rick Santorum lived in a Leave It To Beaver-y dream world, so I guess I missed the episodes where Mr. Cleaver did shots in a bar with June.

The more I hear about it, the less I understand of the conservative "normal" idea.

i think it's cute that the Obama's have a date night and furthermore, I consider that to be a part of their personal business. regardless where they want to go or how they want to get there. i have always been concerned about single parent statistics in the black community more than i have been concerned about the marriage thing. the reality to me is that there are people out there who want or have kids who don't want to be married. i appreciate and respect that freedom. just as there are married people who don't want kids. they shouldn't be dependent on the other. my focus is the absence of the black father in the lives of many black children---it matters not about their romantic relationship with the mothers

Yeah, because a sitting president can just stroll into the "corner bar" and sit down with his wife for a beer and a quiet game of darts. There's a reason that the White House has a private bowling alley and a movie theatre: part of being the US President is that you actually CAN'T, say, casually catch a matinee at the dollar movie.

Republicans don't seem to care a lick about Bush hopping Air Force One to Camp David or Crawford whenever he wanted to, but god forbid the Obama family take advantage of some of the job perks. My how self-indulgent and downright uppity!

ugh.

"The Obamas have to play up their marriage as stable and normal so they can fight every ignorant stereotype about black people and marriage"

That is so true. It's so stupid how the media is playing up the fact that they found out that nine years ago or so the Obamas *gasp! had marital problems

Because every marriage is always a happy wonderland full of lollipop trees and unicorns?

Being married has its ups and down, Duh! But there is so much focus that the Obamas had a rough spot... hmm, that's normal, not something to be criticized or put against them

Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot and a beer.

Ah, yes: because all healthy and stable marriages MUST rely on alcohol to see them through.

*facepalm*

If Rick Santorum is so normal, why did he bring his dead baby home for his children to play with?

This is why I loved the Obama’s and the Biden’s so much because they have family values. Barack loves his wife and he is a wonderful father to his two daughters while Joe Biden have been marry to the same woman for 30 more years. These two men was not intimidated by strong, powerful wives, since Michelle was working at a Law firm before Barack show up and Dr. Biden has a Ph. D degree while teaching at a community college. Moreover, they did not got out and use their children as props to show how much “family value” they have, compares to the Palins. When I look at the Obama’s and the Bidens, I can proudly say that “that is family values I can believe in.”

I was highly disturbed by the “family values” side silence on Sarah Palin. Remember how the conservative women always blabber on about how a woman’s priority should be a good wife and mother and that is why they have been trying everything in their power to force women and girls back into the kitchen, barefoot, pregnant, and ignorant? Sarah Palin represent nothing of those things.

As a mother, she is a complete failure because even though she charges the state to work at home, she fails to supervise her teenage daughter, especially when the boyfriend was having 2 months worth of slumber party with the daughter. She failed to supervise the eldest son, who was a troublemaker and did not have a high school diploma even though he is currently serving in the military. The two youngest daughters miss two month worth of school because she was campaigning to be vice president, which is confusing given that the husband was not employed during that time and could have taken the two younger daughters to school.

I don’t understand how a mother can charge the state to work at home and failed to supervise her children? I also don’t understand why Michelle Obama was the victim of right wing conservative women, for not being a “good mother” but Todd Palin got a free pass for not taking his two daughters to school instead of letting them miss two months of school to campaign for mommy dearest.

I also think that we are a patriarchal and sexist country, in that Michelle Obama was expected to take care of her two daughters and was victimized for not being a good mother. From what I can remember, the two girls was in school more often than campaigning with grandma as the babysitter and when they were on the road, Michelle would hire a tutor to help them keep up with school.

Todd Palin on the other hand got a free pass because he was a male and not expected to do “women’s work.” He was not critique for his failure to be a good a father because as an unemployed father, he should have taken his two daughters to school instead of dragging them around the country to be use as props for “family values” for two months. He was also not critique for not supervising his teenage daughter, especially when she and her boyfriend were having slumber party at their house. The conservatives always talk about how the father is the man of the house and that he should protect his daughters, isn’t that why the Purity Ball and those abstinence only until marriage education program exists? He fails on that point and he is fails to teach the eldest son, Tree Palin how to be a good, productive citizen since the boy never got a high school diploma and join the army in order to avoid his trouble youth.