What About Our Daughters

I agree, asking the female family members to some how make a grown man do the right thing in order to get the baby christened is wrong. I totally agree with the absentee father posse. If they passed the collection plaste for something like that I'd definitely contribute.

Why Why Why Roland Martin???? Thank you for highlighting this adding more salt to the wounds of those abandoned by absentee fathers.
I hope he and his ilk repent from this behavior...
Being a single mother of a now grown son, I have had to endure such insults including "It's your fault your son's father isn't in his life".....
Unbelievable that this scarlett letter foolishness is still going on in 2009 but hey holier than though folks always need a whipping post, I just hope they land on that pile of manure when they tumble from their high horse!!!!!!!

My, my , my.

Sadly, one of the most difficult things is to get church members (sometimes even the ministers) to do home visits. You may be able to find a few to do hospital or nursing home visits, but home visits? Very challenging.

I can not imagine the pain of a mother--knowing she is facing a hard time raising a child without a husband-- who brings her child to the church for "christening" or "dedication" only to be turned away because the baby's father refuses to show up.

Roland Martin's comments are "totally male focused", TMF--concerned only for the rehab of the AWOL man and thoughtless of the needs of the child and the rest of the family.

Where have we seen that type of thinking before?

Amen and amen!

Round up the posse and go get those wannabee men! Accountability for one, accountability for all!

And that reverend ought to be thanking the Good Lord that all of the women in our community haven't given up on the fatherless children!

As you said: been there, done that..........got the T-shirt. And thank God, my sons (19 & 17) are healthy, sane, responsible and spiritual young men.

My dad remembers being taken on home visits by my grandfather. It was the most important part of the job. It's easier to wag a finger at a captive audience of desperate females than to go confront a man who doesn't value his own kin. Guess Pastah's scared.

gem~may I assume that you emailed your post to Martin.

He is as irresponsible as the males he attempts to chastise.

When are some of these BM gonna learn, you will risk getting emasculated when you put all the responsibilities on a woman. You cannot command respect on behalf of your gender if you don't play your role. Lord knows many women and children aren't getting the respect and protection just for their age and gender.

Excellent, well-cited post. Thank you for writing this. I have never liked Roland Martin and I don't understand why he gets the praise he does. On this particular issue he sounds more foolish than usual.

Sounds like something my mama recommended years ago in response to churches forcing young girls to 'confess' before the congregation for having babies OOW. My mama scolded the pastor and told him that he and the deacons should go find these young men and hold them accountable as well. Goes without saying that my mama was scolded for being too 'mouthy' and eventually left that church. Organized religion bites.

Sigh, one of the reasons why people are rejecting Christianity left and right. Discriminating against a baby because of his/her parents is cruel beyond words. Do these folks realize that God creates all life including children born out of wedlock. So they are in a sense rejecting some created in God's image.

Since folks wanted to weigh in on this, you need to understand my rationale.

The problem we have is that we seen lines of women walking up to the altar, and we never see the father. So, how can anyone ever reach these young men if someone never talks to them?

Right now, we let them off the hook. We have babies being christened and no one even talks to the father. Don't you think someone should at least have a conversation to talk to them about manhood, being a father, and their responsibilities? If not the pastor, then who should do it?

If you want to get married, a woman cannot go to the pastor and do it without the pastor meeting with both. The same for a man. So why do pastors require a meeting with both individuals, but no do the same for a baby dedication?

You guys keep focusing on denying the baby a christening. I'm focusing on denying the baby a father. This is called ACCOUNTABILITY. No one seems to want to hold men accountable.

If the church makes a good faith effort to reach the father and meet with him, and nothing happens, fine, dedicate the child. But if we are going to confront this epidemic of men not handling their responsibilities, we must reach them somehow.

So instead of calling it cruel and all of that, what's your solution? If a 17-year-old woman gets pregnant and we never see the father, then the cycle repeats.

From my perspective it's not organized religion that bites, as everyone's organized religion experience is going to be different. What "bites" are the people who misrepresent Christian beliefs and hold women solely accountable for the actions of men. I agree that the solution to the problem is not to punish the child for the sins of the parent; a much more effective solution would be to visit these absentee fathers and hold them accountable.

*SIGH* This is sooo typical of the Christian Church. Everything is the woman's fault. The woman bears the responsibility for the quality of the relationship. She should be a Proverbs 31 woman and tend to her man no matter how ridiculous his behavior is.

This reminds me of a practice that was widely used by the COGIC called silencing.

Silencing forces a person who has been caught in sin (typically gay men and women who were pregnant out of wedlock because you could "see" their sins) to openly confess theier sins to the congregation. They were forbidden to worship with the congregation. They had to sit in a certain area of the church for a fixed amount of time until their pastor deemed they had satisfied some sort of penance.

In the case of the pregnant women, the men who impregnated them were typically ministers, deacons, church musicians, other pastors, etc. They WERE NEVER PENALIZED! When I pointed the gender inequity inherent in silencing (at that pint I had not identified as gay), I was told to mind my business. The sad thing is that there were women in the church who supported this foolishness. If the man was a preacher, they were quick to remind me that he was "just a man who got tempted. She should have known better than to touch the lord's anointed. "

For Roland to abrogate men from the responsibility of presenting themselves before god and man to receive a blessing for the offspring they created is disgusting. For any pastor to actually support what he does (and I know they ay not publicly voice support for it) simply confirms my thoughts about the increasing irrelevance of the black church.

In essence, are single mothers or the female relatives representing and supporting them supposed to be punished for creating a baby with a deadbeat? Will the deadbeat man with a knack for egg fertilization EVER be held accountable?

Roland,

If you want to reach them, go out and GET THEM and bring them to the church YOURSELF. Tell the pastors to do the same thing.

How do you know the woman hasn't already attempted to remind the absentee/non-participatory man of his moral, ethical, and legal obligation to be a part of his child's life?

Whew! Sis. Gina, I agree with what you have written here, but I just want to add another point. In all these postings about the precious baby Emmanuel, rarely did I see the word(s) "s-e-x-i-s-m" and/or
"p-a-t-r-i-a-r-c-h-y." It seems our people can scream "racism" when it comes to police terrorism against our people, etc., but not much of a mumbling word when it comes to sexism/patriarchy and all of their related sins.

There is no one solution to this madness, but I'd suggest that we see this as a political problem and any solutions would also have to be seen as political, no matter how small they may seem. For the men of the church to roll up on an absent father is a good idea, but remember, some preachers and other men of the church are also guilty of the same thing. So what do you do then? "Pot calling the kettle Black" and all that.

One suggestion I'd make is that if you live in area that has men's organizations such as Men Stopping Violence, Atlanta, or Men Can Stop Rape, Washington, DC, etc., invite such organizations to the annual Men's Retreat, Men's Bible Study, Men's Prayer Breakfast, etc. But unfortunately, some men, including some male preachers, don't see such men's organizations as "real men." And that's sad indeed. :(

Roland is assuming that a woman gets pregnant and never tells the father and just shows up at the Christening with her mama and grandma. If the father and his family ain't there than mostly likely the mom and her family were led to the conclusion that the male is not going to participate in the childs life from a series of discussion/fights and events. Isn't that obvious?
Come on now, I have seen some crappy fathers at least show up at the baby shower and the 1st birthday party.

@ RevMamaAfrika
but remember, some preachers and other men of the church are also guilty of the same thing. So what do you do then? “Pot calling the kettle Black” and all that.

Uh oh, you going there. I guess Jesse Jackson just won't lead that movement.

You guys keep focusing on denying the baby a christening. I’m focusing on denying the baby a father. This is called ACCOUNTABILITY. No one seems to want to hold men accountable.--Roland S. Martin

Your holding the child ACCOUNTABLE for lack of a father. A church should find more sensible ways to go about this. Your method will do nothing but make the church look bad instead of absent fathers. Be realistic.

Roland,

Who exactly is reponsible for denying the baby a father? Contrary to what most folks believe, most women make an effort to involve the absentee father, regardless of how dysfunctional and trifling he may be. (Yes, I know that some women can be trifling too.)

Gina writes, "McTear got started early when he beat up his own mother at the age of 14 because she wouldn’t let him go stay with his Daddy in the projects."

(Record scratching) WTH??? And he is still breathing and walking the Earth.

Excuse my french, but we have some punk azz parents. The world is in the condition it is in because of punk azz parents and DYFS.

I was speaking with a father who stated that he was paying a court fine for his son who is a member of a gang, smokes weed in his father's home and does not go to school. The father lamented on how he had to remove gang signs painted on his home.

Excuse me, Punk azz Dad, but why is your son still in your home? And why are you paying your son's court fines?

Punk azz Dad's answer, "Because he is my son."

So there you have folks.

I will now finish reading the post.

So Minister Martin's solution is to not dedicate "bastards" to God because the sperm donor does not want to participate in the christening.

Okay, Roland Martin, sit your azz down and shut up.

I am done.

Sorry Roland, but you really screwed this one up.

A Christening is about welcoming that baby into the church or christ's pact with that child. So you want to deny the CHILD that act, because of the PARENTS, particularly, the MOTHER.

You can deny it all you want, but you want to punish the MOTHER and FEMALE members of that family for not having the father there. You are essentially blaming them for the absence of the father. So you and all the MALES of the church (yeah, try to get this crap past a female pastor) plan to do is PUNISH the women and deny them the chistening.

In the end, as it usually is when people attempt to punish the mother, it's the CHILD that suffers. In this case you're sentencing the kid to purgatory for sins of the FATHER.

Nice going, Roland.
You really should be embarrassed by this suggestion.

How about coming up with a plan of directly HOLDING THE FATHER accountable for his actions?

And you know what Roland its that same mentality that is asking why don't the mom and grandma go get the father to come to church is probably one of the reasons why some men don't take care of their kids. They figure oh her mom, grandma, aunt is gonna help her out with the kid. They think big mommas are supposed to raise the family on her own.

Mr. Martin, please schedule a show on this topic and invite me as one of your guest.

I can be reached at attorneymom96@yahoo.com.

I was thinking the same thing as I started reading your post. I remember seeing a special on Irish people in America and seeing a segment in which someone described the old school Irish Catholic priests as pugilists in their demeanor, stature, and physiology. If I recall, the narrator in this part of the documentary described an incident in which a man wasn't taking care of his children and the local parish priest went to "visit" the man.

Another thing that enters my mind is the fact that the clerics who populate the Civil Rights establishment say next to nothing about this. I was stunned when I learned that Michael Eric Dyson was an ordained minister. He too is one of the great enablers of Black on Black dysfunction.

Say what you want about the Nation of Islam but I 've noticed them to be quite old school in terms of their treatment of womanizers. Yes, they can be chauvanisitic but I think it goes hand in hand with their penchant to resort to physical coersion where the abuse of their women are concerned.

Can somebody please tell me how a child's mother, 20 black men from the church, or even a judge can force a grown, free man to be where he doesn't want to be?

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I call shenanigans on you Roland Martin, and all others like you with your outcry for 'accountability.' Once again, it's the woman's responsibility to make a grown man do what it is he's supposed to do. Do you really think these women are banning these sperm donor's from their children's baptisms? I have little doubt that most wouldn't fall down on their knees and thank the Blessed Virgin fulsomely if they could get him to show up! And the only person who will suffer for this is an innocent baby who didn't ask to be born.

Here's a radical thought Mr. Martin. How about we actually hold the MEN accountable? Why is it, that all these churches with all this money to raise $50k 'love offerings' and 'threshing floors' and miscellaneous other crap, can't put together an outreach ministry to mentor these young men? Why is it that deacons, bishops and whatever other 'titled' persons in these so-called churches can't be bothered with a REAL ministry? With some REAL accountability.

See, one thing I remember from both my wedding, and my son's baptism was the priest reminding the congregation of their roles in helping to maintain our marriage and the well-being of our child. So yes, Mr. Martin, we are our brother's keeper, and if we're serious about that role (and I spent enough time in churches to know that most ARE NOT), then it's time to get on with it. Or at least stop blathering about this pseudo-accountability. Nobody has time for more pretenders to the throne.

Blkseagoat wrote: "In the case of the pregnant women, the men who impregnated them were typically ministers, deacons, church musicians, other pastors, etc. They WERE NEVER PENALIZED!"

Did we go to the same church?? There was this church incident (among many others) that left an indelible impression on me as a child: One Sunday a single, visibly pregnant woman came forward, of her own will, to confess her affair with one of the deacons, a young married guy. Instead of embracing and forgiving this woman, the church leadership "rebuked her in the name of Jesus" and literally ran her out of the church! Nothing ever happened to the deacon. As part of next Sunday's sermon the preacher remarked how the "devil" had tried to ruin brother so-and-so's marriage.

I learned then that the "black church" would never champion, validate, or protect a woman, even if she sought to abide by its rules.

"Right now, we let them off the hook."--Roland Martin

When I struggled with a major, personal injustice in my life, it was pointed out to me that I do not HAVE a hook.

We naturally want to hold people "accountable" (which usually means make them do what we want) when we see wrongdoing. It's not always possible.

We need to look at what happens when one person fails to do the right thing? Do we throw everybody down the well with them? Do we allow them to determine everybody's fate?

There is no way to justify the foolishness that goes on in so many churches. The question becomes: how much of my life will I let a fool define? The mother, grandmothers, aunts, etc. who will stand up for the baby in church deserve respect and consideration regardless of what the father does. The sexism that doesn't see that truth says this: "Punish everyone until Daddy decides to do the right thing."

I am truly starting to dislike Roland martin. I think it began when he proudly recalled how he voted for Bush. I knew then that his elevator did not go to the top. I agree that black women are once again supposed to do the work. A child is being brought to be dedicated to God, and a community pledges to guide the child. But this precious baby should be turned away just because some man does not see fit to be there??? What would Jesus do, Roland? And you call yourself a man of God? How does this make a man accountable & what purpose does it really serve? Just think if 44 years ago someone turned baby Barack away simply because his father would not stand at the altar? Yes, fathers are important but Pres Obama has shown that a loving family unit can indeed raise a great person. We need supportive families & communities. We need our children to have a fair education. Surely Roland there is something more important that YOU can do than call on single mothers to be turned away with their precious babies. There before the grace of God...And you, Yoland Martin, call yourself a man of God? SMH....

Miki,

I'm there with you and it's one of the reasons why I was kinda sorta "put out" of the church. My love affair with the black church was over eons ago.

Roland's position isn't new or unique. Black churches have been throwing black women under the bus for years.

I was very clear in what you were saying in this post, Gina. Roland Martin appears to have cotton in his ears for he only repeated what's already been said. What the heck does he offer as a SOLUTION? We already know the building is on fire, DUH!

Gina,

I don't have assistants. I respond myself.

Second, to the folks who seem to criticize my solutions, which include personal and institutional accountability, what's yours?

You can continue with the notion of throwing black women under the bus, but that is total BS. I'm married to an ordained minister. The both of us use our ministry time speaking, teaching and mentoring singles and young couples. We address issues such as womanhood and manhood.

And I put my money where my mouth is.

I made my sister give us her four daughters to raise. She and her husband were doing a horrible job, their marriage is a joke, he is an absolute terrible and irresponsible father, the kids had no stability, had never spent a full year in one school due to their parents always getting evicted (oldest girl is 10) and the oldest girls were two grade levels back in school. The twins, who are 5, are far more advanced because we got them when they were 1 1/2 and really taught them for the almost a year we had them. We got them at the right time.

So I am a huge advocate of people doing this so children can have a fighting chance.

And my other sister who left an abusive marriage lives in my Texas home with her two daughters and all three lived with me for 3 years before I left for Chicago. If anything happens to her, those two girls also come to live with me and my wife.

I have a father who did his job for almost 41 years. Yea, there were ups and downs, but my parents didn't run from responsibility. They handled it.

So go right ahead and spend time complaining about what someone else suggested. But if all you're doing is writing and not taking action, then it's a waste of time.

If you're sitting around and not even talking to the young men and women in your own family about pre-marital sex, birth control, and the responsibilities that come with having children out-of-wedlock, then you're wasting time. If you're spending more times telling the girls to close their legs but celebrating boys with multiple girlfriends, then you're a part of the problem.

I often ask the question, "What are YOU prepared to do?"

To the critics, if your answer to that question is just another response to my suggestion, then you are a part of the problem.

So, to deal with fatherhood issue in the black community, what's your solutions? I'm waiting to hear them.

I agree with Roland. Too many young girls think they do not need a man to raise their babies because their mothers were single parents. We have got to do something to change this. The church taking a clear stand against men and women making babies irresponsibly is a good place to start.

Black folks (especially groups of Black women) are quick to trash or dismiss the ideas of others right from the start. These are knee-jerk reactions.

I think Mr. Martin had his heart in the right place on this...
The method, while not one that I would have come up with myself (because I don't identify with the "Black Church") is not that bad. Although I don't know how practical it could be.

The idea (part of the idea) is to shame these men.... Have these women attempt to get these men (boys in many cases) in front of their people so that they can bear witness to these men taking ownership of their child and their responsibility as they go up to the alter. From there, it's a Hell of a lot harder for them to run from those responsibilities.... because they would reveal themselves as failures in front of their families, their schoolmates, friends, church mates, and their community. THAT would be a challenge to their manhood. It sort of locks them into a responsibility box that is a little harder for them to slither out of.

On the other hand.... if they choose not to show up... that could be a form of shame as well.... because she (the young lady) should have to say his name in Church (Hell... I would suggest to the young lady to invite his family.... now that's pressure). Imagine him not showing up...when his mother, father, grandmother, uncles are all there. Hmmm...

There is one kink in Mr. Martins program. Mr. Martin is old school like me....and he may be assuming that public shaming has the same power that it did just 20 or 30 years ago.... but it doesn't. Many of these young men aren't afraid of being shamed or publicly staking claim to their responsibilities and then running away 3 days later... that doesn't faze them at all. Because many of these men/boys were fatherless and they have no point of reference. (this is why I often suggest that parenting courses and programs should be mandatory in urban schools and even churches to fill in that gap).

Another problem is that the values in modern Black culture in a more general sense have deteriorated so much that manhood and responsibility hold different meanings to the current generation of teens and twenty somethings. Single parent families are seen as normal and ok... so the sense of urgency to get back to a nuclear family just isn't there. And Black parents and elders aren't teaching and stressing family values like they did in previous generations.

Lastly, these young women have to take responsibility as well. I often mention "choices" here. I have seen several women refer to these young men/boys as sperm donors. But there can't be a "sperm donor" unless there is a willing recipient. Most of these women know what kind of men they are dealing with when they meet them for the first time. I get so sick and tired of women who try to defend this madness and suggest "there is no way to tell at first how a man might turn out". Bologna!!! Women aren't that naive. In many cases, these aren't college educated, sufficiently employed, hard working, responsible, well rounded, grounded, no other children, law abiding (clean criminal record), fatherly, mature men to begin with. If you date a chump...a thug... a no good man... who has little going for himself...then you should expect negative behavior after he impregnates you. Solution? Make better choices. Don't lay down with these men if they don't meet certain basic standards.

If young women aren't getting that message (and I know they aren't)... then that's where older, successful, respected, more established women have to step in and get the job done.

Sidenote:
I have to shake my head at Attorney Mom... First you curse/disrespect the man... then ask to be included on his program. lol. Come on!!!

I don't always agree with his positions...but he is an accomplished professional analyst/commentator/journalist who deserves a certain level of basic respect. He's a positive, respected figure for us... representing us...and our image on the national stage. For that, he gets my respect.

Didn't Gina suggest an alternative? In her response? I submit it would be a much better plan for the MEN in the church to approach the young men in question. Form a ministry around these unclaimed fathers and mentor them in fatherhood. Rather than laying the responsibility on a newborn baby. Sounds reasonable to me, but of course, that doesn't comply with the slut shaming meme so prevalent in the black church.

The comments sections is not something people use to write their autobiography. How does he know we are not helping people? I was simply disagreeing with his position that its up to the mother and grandma to go drag the father to the service.

It seems that females need the schooling on their responsibilty to any children they may bring into the world. From the moment you lay with a man who has not taken responsibility for himself, let alone you - you have engaged in possible child neglect. This is from the moment you lay with the guy. You're already saying to your child that he/she is not worthy of a responsible mother let alone a providing, loving, present father. You've already set the child up. So what's up with a christening at that point?

Mr. Martin, I agree with the sentiment and the values that this new policy is supposed to represent I think we just disagree with the execution. Perhaps the way it's presented makes it seem that you're putting all the responsibility on the female family members when in reality your church is doing outreach to the absent fathers. I think everyone here agrees that the fathers need to be held accountable, they just don't like the idea of the baby missing out on an important ceremont because the dad won't show up. I think you addressed that in your first comment, though when you said that if a good faith effort was made then you'd still have the child dedicated. I think if you emphasized the steps your church is taking to hold the men accountable directly instead of indirectly via the baby and its female relative then you'd find more agreement.

While I find that the church has failed us on so many levels, I have to agree with your solution. If these pastors are our "leaders," they need to do the work.

It's funny because when i had issues with my oldest son's mother, I would just call her pastor and he would set her straight in no time flat. Amazing! OUr folks listen to our pastors much faster then their own family members.

So you are right, the pastors should step up.

My opinion, and i tell this to my female relatives, if he don't want to have anything to do with your baby, good riddance that's what family is for.

It doesn't seem to me that Mr. Martin actually addressed any of the criticism directed toward him. And what's wrong with writing and talking about solutions before acting on them? That actually seems like a pretty mature way to solve problems to me. (And why assume that none of us are activists in real life? Or that writing can't be a form of activism?)
Also, I don't see how listing all the things you've done/do for black women addresses what we're actually talking about. That's great that you help out your family! But we're talking about the sexist solution you proposed to address irresponsible fathers. To list all the good things you do for women as a response to this criticism is equivalent to the "But some of my friends are black!" non-argument. We're glad that you're not sexist in real life. But the solution you proposed is dripping with it. Let's talk about THAT. Maybe we can come up with a better solution together!

Mr. Martin, your wisdom is wasted on these women.

*sigh*

I can't put parenting in the same sentence with the " Black church".
I was married over 20 years, raised in Apostolic faith and thrilled that I am now seen as 'a heathen' in the eyes of so many. My experience is mine and mine alone. My ex-husband was present physically in the home did very little in the raising of our 5 daughters. He believed in the 'whole man as the head of the family' hook, line and sinker. After I filed for divorce he denied being the father and fought not to give me child support. He's seen our minor daughters less then 5 times this year and he lives 12 miles away. We've been divorced over 4 years and separated for 6.
"Church' people to this day think I'm the reason our marriaged failed. They think he's the greatest, he maintains many church offices and sings and praises God all time. The biggest loss I feel is all the years, I took his verbal abuse, his unkindness, hiss mess for the sake of my APostolic beliefs. Now I'm free indeed.

In terms of Riland Martin...his rant won't convince me that the 'father' is needed at a 'blessing' of a child. Some people get this done at 6 wks., some at 1yr. some not at all. The 'blessing' won't ensure anyone that these 'parents' belong or will stay together. It's always a man it seems that wants to 'demand' and 'dictate' what a woman 'needs' to do. It's sexism at it's fullest. Blacks as a people like to 'fool' themselves into thinking that 'marriage' is better than other relationships; that 'parents' should stay together gor the 'child' and other foolishness. If these options work for a person, great. But if anyone chooses differently they should not be judged; especially by the rules of the church.

I cosign- The Angry Independent on 05.08.09 at 6:17 am. Women do have to take some responsibility here. To avoid getting pregnant altogether, don't engage in unprotected sex with a man you haven't fully evaluated and have only known for 2 months.

...somehow I guess this warped view of "blessing/christianing" applies to women that become mothers because of rape, incest and abuse as well. Women are no more responsible than the men. Roland's views and those of some here as well, continue to misplace the blame. There are plenty of people out there 'preaching' that mess...

"If the church makes a good faith effort to reach the father and meet with him, and nothing happens, fine, dedicate the child. But if we are going to confront this epidemic of men not handling their responsibilities, we must reach them somehow."

If Mr. Martin had made this statement in his original commentary, we wouldn't be talking about this now. Did he misspeak (miswrite) or did he change his mind?

So, to deal with fatherhood issue in the black community, what’s your solutions? I’m waiting to hear them.--Roland Martin

I'll try to be as respectful as I can. You are ignoring the basic solution presented over and over again. THE SOLUTION IS TO GO AFTER THE FATHERS INSTEAD OF NOT ALLOWING A CHILD TO BE CHRISTENED. The caps are not used to project yelling, but emphasis. Your idea placed the onus squarely on the child and mom not to mention that it's incredibly unrealistic.

Black folks (especially groups of Black women) are quick to trash or dismiss the ideas of others right from the start. These are knee-jerk reactions.--The Angry Independent

Please like throngs of black males didn't have a knee jerk reaction to President Obama's father's day speech. Black women have a right to react to biases directed at them just as most black males would react negatively to things directed at them. Your comment shows your own hidden bigotry.

I will say this, I understand that Martin wants to fix the situation of fatherlessness among blacks. But the way to do it is to address fathers, not punish black children.

Although I mentioned the "solution" offered by those who comment here (as I understood them), I honestly believe that fatherlessness will not be solved just like racism, sexism, etc will not be solved. All I can do is speak to those who haven't found themselves in this situation...reproduce with quality men instead of those with no value as prospective fathers and husbands. After marriage is preferable but the choice is ultimately yours.

Lastly, don't assume that those who comment here do nothing but comment. Some of us are actually trying to make a difference.

Nice obfuscation tactic Mr. Martin. There was a clearly written solution being offered which has been COMPLETELY IGNORED. This childish tit for tat "I know you are but what am I" response is indicative of the serious problems with the so-called Black community.

The solution is for MEN to BE MEN. Men who procreate should PARENT and not ABANDON. Men who may be ordained ministers -of what I'd like to know but that's another discussion - should TEND TO THEIR CONGREGATIONS and THEIR NEEDS.

There's the solution. It's been offered - repeatedly.

If both genders of children have both parents be active, mature and responsible we wouldn't have such a huge problem. If people weren't doing the pile on of Black women left holding the bag while letting the "men" off scott free this wouldn't be a problem.

IF EVERYBODY WHO DOES "SO MUCH" WOULD STOP TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE DESTRUCTION IN FRONT OF THEM OR SAYING "THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM YOU FIGURE IT OUT" we wouldn't be here with the majority AA population on the brink of complete implosion.

I find it soooo interesting how Martin makes a point to criticize rather snidely Black female bloggers who critique what he says. He did the same thing to Black Snob and her post was a satire. Guilty much?

How about posting to several Black MALE bloggers and ASK THEM what their SOLUTIONS are?!!! Stop dumping this mess at the feet of BLACK WOMEN! How difficult is this to UNDERSTAND!!

Faith said:
The solution is for men to be men. Men who procreate should parent, not abandon.
***************

Well, there's the problem right there. They are not men, they are boys. Alot of women (girls) are procreating with BOYS who are not fit for anything and are not going anywhere.

I'm going to cosign with LaBelle Femme and The Angry Independent. The problem with this Emmanuel story is like many others (kids having kids and with boys who obviously will not make a good parent). As for the solution for making man parent. You can't make someone parent their kids. A woman should make good decisions on who to parent with. The responsiblity is the woman's (to act as victim is futile). In the end the kids will be hurt. My solution, treat the absent father as loss/death. Put the kids in some treatment/therapy/program so they won't grow up to be resentful and angry that their father wasn't present. They can learn to be an advocate for themselves and learn coping skills so they will learn to be a good parent. Even Gem stated: " if their own mothers think the kids are unwanted, I believe that they are sending that message to their children." So the cycle continues. The church can help with that.