Ralph Richard Banks has written a book called “Is Marriage For White People?” that goes into great detail chronicling the demise of marriage in general, and the leading indicator for the white community that the marriage crisis in the African American community could represent. He has written an article about his findings, and scattered throughout it are his hat tips to gender dynamics steeped in conventional wisdom and going along to get along with the feminist zeitgeist. This is a perfect example of how someone can study something, rigorously, and the real causal data provokes nothing more than benign mention, while the effect is the topic de rigueur. Forests and trees and all that.
I’m going to start at the end of this article and work backwards. He concludes the article with:
People no longer have to marry, but most still want to do so. Whether they will, and find the happiness they seek, depends not only one women’s freedom to choose the partner that is best for them, but also on how many men are able to be the sort of husband that women desire.
Right. Women are oppressed, and men need to step up. Yawn. Women must have more freedom (In the United States how are women limited in their freedom of choice of mates?), and the men are living below potential, needing to improve themselves to earn a roll of the dice in marriage 2.0. Is he saying that to not present themselves worthy of women, men are limiting the actual freedom of women? Is this not contradictory? Even if it were true that men are not, as a class, worthy of the better women’s attentions, how does that impact the freedom of the women to choose? Isn’t implying that men need to elevate their stature so that women WILL CHOOSE them saying that women have a choice?
He builds towards this failed crescendo by decrying the state of the family in America, specifically the state of the African American family as it is, and as it is trending; He then makes the familial condition of the African American community a leading indicator of whats to come for white America, and is certainly today well in evidence. He states the facts plainly. It is his direct and his inferred nod to feminism, stated straight and through subtext, and the feminist narrative about men and women as causal, that ruins what could have been an article, and I will assume a book that did some good.
Lets assume he is right, the the trends in the African American community are foreshadowing whats to come in American society at large. Its an entirely different avenue of investigation but I submit that this foreshadowing is accurate for far more than just marriage.
I digress…he starts with a true statement:
Couples need no longer conform to rigid gender roles that have ceased to reflect how they want to structure their lives.
He goes on, as expected to celebrate this breakthrough, those blasted pesky gender roles that we used to adhere to, back when African American illegitimacy rates were nil, and before anyone regardless of ethnicity was addicted to government support, let alone having government as a backstop against the consequences of serial monogamy and hypergamy failures.
We know that 60% of college students are female now. I once read a woman’s comment about that 60/40 split where she said something like “we’ve come a long way and we will soon reach equality”. Math bad, woman studies good. Is it any wonder….
Women are a majority of college graduates now, and consequently are poised to surpass men economically.
No way, at 72 cents on the dollar this isn’t even an asymptote, they cannot possibly make it to parity let alone exceed men economically, yeah! patriarchy.
Among African Americans, nearly twice as many women as men graduate from college. As a result, women enjoy an unprecedented freedom to structure their lives as they choose, to marry only when they desire, or not at all.
The struggles of so many black men leaves black women with too few potential partners. That’s a big part of why black women are so much more likely than their white counterparts never to marry.
Even women who are content with being single might prefer to marry, if only they could find the type of partner they want.
As you will see, he later will claim that they want to marry, but cannot find a match worthy of them, thus his summary claim that the woman’s freedom of choice is being limited by men not performing to women’s standards. Do you see where he is asking the questions that need to be asked? His delving into what it is that has created the imbalance in college entrance by gender, and his obvious sympathy for the male has him digging deeper and deeper exploring the root cause of this mess that is screwing up the ladies ability to choose a worthy mate. The empathy he shows for the male is truly moving. He is trying to call attention to the plight of the American male.
Wait….he doesn’t even mention the men other than as desired accessories for the women. I suffered a wishful thinking hallucination.
Finally, after showing the achievements of women, and the foot dragging that men have demonstrated, the unwillingness to work hard and keep up with what it takes to be good productive
citizens potential partners for women, he then talks about the responsibilities that come with being the economic producers, the ones driving the economy and keeping society moving forward.
Even as many women’s economic position has shifted from secondary to primary earner, few women feel that it is their responsibility to support their spouse. Whereas men work to fulfill an obligation to provide for their family, including their spouse, many women work for a different reason: for self-fulfillment and so that they never become dependent on a man.
So, men want to work to provide, but women don’t want to be provided for(gender role). Through male guilt and gender affirmative action women have been propelled into playing bread winner, often displacing a man whose nature would have him doing same. As I hinted with my digression above, the jobs that uneducated men seek are decreasing in number leaving men aimless and jobless, which leaves women without a mate they would deem worthy of her. Many of these men are on the street, as criminals at worst, as homeless dysfunctional people at best. They are cast off and forgotten, even blamed for their poor choices. Yet, if a woman has a child, and she fails and falls, government is there to catch her, and society laments the failure of the father to care for his family. If a man cannot find a job, because the educational system is stacked for women, and the job market for women is better by fiat, society still laments the failure of the father to support a family. Holding women accountable is anathema.
There is nothing new under the sun. Men are at once not needed or wanted, yet they are not living up to the desired stature of hypergamous women. Which is it? Gender roles have been scrapped. Women have taken the aspects of manhood that they thought were cool, but rejected the coincident responsibilities. And women are now less free to choose because men have proven unable or unwilling to make themselves worthy of woman’s companionship?
This is just the next chapter in the way our society is framing what is. He describes what is. Bill Bennet described what is, the article asking where have all the good men gone described what is. Countless articles, blogs, and news pieces describe what is. But they all either fail to discern why, or ignore asking why altogether, just letting the facts hang incriminating over men’s heads.
Much has been written in the manosphere about the why. I notice that when articles show up in major media, men and some women now rush in to explain the world as it is, not as the feminist lens would have it be described. Our culture seems to be almost ready for the truth, because frankly we’ve tried every lie possible.