I Heard it ALL Now! Mr. “Is Marriage for White People” Accused of Black Woman Blame. Da HAYELL?!

Heh, I knew I would get a link to that same story (kinda like people always linking to Ta-Nehisi Coates' Atlantic piece that downplays OOW numbers or the piece that uses data from the 1980s to say that BW who marry IR marry down) and not the Census data... no one can actually find "However, when analyzing the black women who are 35 and older, the percent who have never been married drops to 25 percent" in an actual Census document.

Those two professors are the only ones touting the 75% statistic and if most academics read that article, they'll find it's very poorly sourced — which is likely why few reputable news agencies have picked it up and why this information is not in any academic journals and only on a niche website that one of the professors happens to be a contributor to.

However, I do see what you're saying in that the wording of their statement is that 75% of BW 35 and older have been married at some point in their lives, not 75% of BW are married by 35. I did misread that comment, and what the professors are saying is statistically correct.

But once again though, the devil is in the details. There's a lot of stretching to reach that 75% and gaslighting involved in an attempt to mask the true picture... which I DID address in my earlier post with the Census data.

You don’t reach a statistic of 75% of BW having been married at some point in their lives until the 50-54 age range, in which 24.5% of BW in 2009 reported never having been married. Meanwhile, EVERY other group of women reached the 75% threshold by age 35, and all but Hispanics reached it in the 30-34 age cohort… but 53.6 percent (!!!) of BW ages 30-34 in 2009 had never been married. The only group closest to that was Hispanic women, and the number was only 27.2%

So, are we really celebrating the fact that in 2009, by age 55, 75% of BW could finally say they'd been married, while almost every other group in the country had 75% of their women married by the time they were 35 and all groups but blacks could claim that by 40? "Women over 35" is a very broad category... that includes everyone from the BW that marry at 36 to the BW that marry for the first time at age 50. I hope no one is really trying to act like this is such a great achievement that 75% of BW get married by 55. Where's my champagne?

I'll also reiterate what Alana 2 said... "Man, these folks are disingenuous. I bet they overlook the fact that focusing on women over 35 means that they’re focusing on women in their less fertile years as well. Considering the large % of BW, like most women, who want to be wives AND mothers, simultaneously, ignoring age as it relates to fertility is an incomplete analysis that could lead some women astray b/c they think, “It’s ok to wait some more."

Luckily, smart women are not going to be fooled by this...

Actually, Bunny those numbers are a little off. When my husband and I filled out our Census form last year we were still shacking up in sin, but he did finally make an honest woman of me this year, and I turn 35 NEXT year. ;-)

LOL! Alright now, I will gladly stand corrected in that case! ;)

On that note, I'm mad that the 2010 Census happened seven months before my wedding! So you can count me as well as one fewer person in that never-married BW category... and I'll be 35 NEXT year too!

Hot dog! Let's pop the Cristal in celebration. No wait, I forgot everyone drinks Moscato now. :-) Regardless, CONGRATULATIONS to us both!

Those two professors are the only ones touting the 75% statistic and if most academics read that article, they’ll find it’s very poorly sourced — which is likely why few reputable news agencies have picked it up and why this information is not in any academic journals and only on a niche website that one of the professors happens to be a contributor to.

Banks article is not in any academic journals and news agencies tend to emphasize the negative with black folks. Always have. Just as you ask for sources, can you please refer to a source that proclaims the article to be "poorly sourced" or are you just proclaiming this yourself due to not liking what they say?

Banks article is not in any academic journals

That's because he didn't write an article, he wrote a book. The book IS an academic piece of work with a full bibliography and 244 footnotes referring to Census data, studies, surveys, news articles and other documents.

Whether or not news agencies want to emphasize the negative with black people, few who've actually reviewed Banks' book (you know, by reading it) can deny that he did his research AND documented it accordingly.

Just as you ask for sources, can you please refer to a source that proclaims the article to be “poorly sourced” or are you just proclaiming this yourself due to not liking what they say?

Poorly sourced is a statement of fact. See, in academic works, they have these neato things called "footnotes" or "endnotes" So, if someone makes a statement like, "15% of black women have horns growing out of their heads," a footnote would be used to say where exactly that information came from.

Otherwise, people could throw out all sorts of false information (like that fake stat I just made up). A footnote lets you know exactly where one can find such information.

The EmpowerMag article you posted has ZERO footnotes. The only sourcing used is this...

For all of our analyses we used the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS)[Endnote], which consists of sixty-six high-precision samples of the American population drawn from fifteen federal censuses, and the American Community Surveys (ACS) of 2000-2009. This file concatenates sixty-one of the IPUMS USA samples into a single data set that allows 160 years of micro-level census data to be accessed with single queries using PDQ-Explore. For most analyses, we only used the most recent year of data, 2009.

While that is helpful, when Marks and Toldson present numerous statements of fact, they don't note WHERE you can find such information... which therefore, makes their article poorly sourced. No academic worth his or her salt would take that article seriously with its clear lack of footnotes, endnotes and list of references. There is also no peer review here.

Banks, whether you agree with him or not, has 244 footnotes in his book and full bibilography of books, articles, papers, journal articles and other sources he used to compile his information. He also presented portions of his work BEFORE it became an academic book to forums at the University of Michigan and University of Virginia.

One can disagree with someone's conclusion and still note that his or her work is academically sound. I don't agree with those other professors who didn't like Banks' conclusion, but they have written well-sourced, academically sound works.

Marks and Toldson are not stupid guys... they have Ph.Ds and their work is strong in other areas. But the article they use to supposedly "shatter myths" would fail most standards of academic review. That's not my opinion, that's how academia works... and anyone who has experience with graduate-level research would say the same thing.

Hello Bunny77 and everyone else,
I've read, with some amusement, the comments on this blog.

First off, I want to say that I am not against interracial marriage. I do not believe that one should select, or reject, a partner based on race. The woman who I married happens to be black, and we have a beautiful black daughter who I hope will find happiness when she grows up.

Second, my article on Empower was not meant to be an academic contribution, however, I reject the notion that I, present numerous statements of fact, they don’t note WHERE you can find such information." ALL of the facts I presented was based on original analysis of the ACS and US Census. There is not a single finding that can not be replicated by using the method you've already revealed from my article.

Third, I caution against asserting the scientific merits of a book, simply because they use a lot of sources. If we did that, we would accept the findings of "The Bell Curve," and believe that Black people are genetically intellectually inferior. It's OK, to agree with Dr. Banks, but it's also OK if others are skeptical. He uses a lot of case study. I could find 100 successful black marriages, find 200 references, and produce a book that says the opposite of Dr. Banks. At the end of the day, people who can relate will accept it.

Finally, I think many of the users of this site should move "beyond black and white." Much of the social conditions that are associated with being or not being married are the same across races. Single black women have a lot more in common with single white women than they realize. Many of the users seem to have an idealized view of white men, white love, and white marriage. There are social and economic trends, including urbanization and the declining middle class, that are placing a strain on all marriage. Now, there is a measure of apathy among white men that is gaining some attention (http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/04/opinion/bennett-men-in-trouble/index.html?hpt=hp_c1).

Overall, your concerns are legitimate. Much of the inaccurate portrayals of black men in the media, have made successful black men feel like they are a commodity. Many black men at Howard University thump their chest at the notion that the female to male ratio is 15-to-1, but they return to Earth when I show them that it's actually around 1.8-to-1. But black male bashing, while waiting for the white male Calvary to rescue black women, I think is ill-advised.

But, however you find love and happiness, if it works for you, I'm not going to knock it. Unlike Dr. Banks, I'm not going to tell you who, or how, to love. I don't have a book to sell on this topic. My forthcoming book is on black male teachers... And trust me, it will have a lot of sources! :)

I know you didn't reference that opinion article by Bennett from CNN to prove your point...really. Stop it LOL.

Hi Dr. Toldson. Welcome to the page. Glad you chimed in.

I'll only speak for myself on this. I don't think you're against interracial marriage (although if you were, it really wouldn't matter to me). I looked up your bio, you've done some good work and continue to do so. So I have no beef with you or Dr. Marks whatsoever, or with your opinions.

My issue was with the fact that, although you did not mean for your piece with Empower to be an academic work, the fact that you are a Ph.D. and that you talk about your research in that article make me expect something more substantive in terms of sourcing and use of statistics.

The ACS is a huge document. There are multiple tables and charts. For example, what tables are you referring to when you mention the high-earning occupations for black men without college degrees?

(And I must say, I don't think that your percentages of black women married to professional athletes can be found in the ACS... ;) And what years of professional athletes did you study? What leagues? NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL? Golf? Or just two? Are retired professional athletes in your study?)

That's what I mean when I question the sourcing. There's a lot of information you put out there -- and I haven't questioned the validity of it, but I'm questioning how its presented without reference or just a general reference to the ACS and general Census data.

My final major issue is with the use of a large age cohort "black women over 35." The conditions of an 89-year-old black woman who married in 1942 at age 20 and a 67-year-old black woman who married in 1971 at age 26 have little relevance to the 41-year year old black woman who married in 2011 for the first time at age 41. Yes, these are all living black women over age 35 who would be counted in the category of women who have been married. But the situation for the latter woman is significantly different than that of the other two, and her ability to have children within marriage is compromised significantly, unlike the two older women.

But besides that, comparing situations over such large age and birth-year cohorts presents a skewed picture of what is taking place currently.

Those are my only main issues with your article from an academician's standpoint. Sincere good luck with your sourced book on black male teachers... my father is one...

P.S... while no group of men should be idolized, and while I do know plenty of white women in their 30s bemoaning the behavior of their white dates/boyfriends and lack of interest in committment, only 22.6% of white women ages 30-34 reported never married in 2009, while 53.6% of black women ages 30-34 had never been married in 2009... just two years ago.

I'll take the white women's numbers, thanks!

But black male bashing, while waiting for the white male Calvary to rescue black women, I think is ill-advised.

With due respect, I don't think anyone here is saying white men are a panacea. In fact, the latest post is about a disaster-relationship one reader had with a white man. I'm surprised that you would say we're bashing by simply expanding our options. That sounds like an emotional reaction, and I'll give you a pass because you are probably new to this site. Yes; it's true that most of us are coupled with white guys, but there's a lot of reason for that...mainly because they are a majority, and it's easier to find one who doesn't have a hang-up about race, unlike other minorities, who (generally) have a perception that black women are at the bottom or the barrel and they have their own social climbing to do. But I assure you many of the readers are happily coupled with Asian, Hispanic, and Indian men. But take the stats out of it, I think it would serve black women best is to look at what's going on around them for the truth. Nothing like a personal narrative to bring home the truth.

As I asked above, can you please give me a link to the Census data that shows the 75 percent figure? Thanks.

While we're waiting for the source of the mysterious 75% of BW are married by 35 statistic, I found this from the Centers for Disease Control.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db19.htm

"Among women aged 35-44 years, higher percentages of non-Hispanic black women have not married by age 35 compared with non-Hispanic white and Hispanic women. While 17% of Hispanic and 12% of non-Hispanic white women have not married by age 35, 42% of non-Hispanic black women have not married by this age.

100-42 = 58 percent of black women married by 35. That's from 2002 statistics.

So, whether we're following the American Community Survey Census data for BW in 2009 or the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, we've got around 60% of BW marrying by 35 during the early 2000s.

Also, this is from a 2002 CDC report:

http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/cdc.html

"75% of Black women are likely to marry at some point in their lives, compared to 91% of White women, though both rate it equally as important"

Awesome! 75% of black women will marry before they die! Yeah!

LOL hahahahaha

Awesome! 75% of black women will marry before they die! Yeah

That's all in fine, but I have repeatedly read commenters on IR/BWE sites proclaim that 70% of black women will NEVER marry.

That same report says that 91% of white women will marry before they die. That's a 16% difference, which is no monstrous difference. Also, shacking and starting a family before making it official has become mainstream among blacks. I know couples who have lived together for 15 years and had all of the children they are going to have and suddenly decided to get married.

Lots of black couples keep their cohabitation a secret so as to continue receiving government aid for children and don't include the live in male in the census reports. Plus, 25% of blacks live in poverty compared to 8% of whites, and marriage has become a thing of the past for such people who typically live in urban ghettoes. They skew the statistics greatly. Middle class blacks women have a greater chance of marrying than what the overall statistics including the lower class would show.

Black Americans do commonly marry, raise families, get educated and live quality lives. I don't understand the desire by so many of our own kind to try and convince the world that we are a bunch of wild animals. We are not.

That’s all in fine, but I have repeatedly read commenters on IR/BWE sites proclaim that 70% of black women will NEVER marry.

Got a link to them saying that? The commentors who say that are wrong... I've seen some black women say that, but not necessarily on IR/BWE sites.

The 70% is the percentage of black women currently unmarried (which includes divorced women and widows). I've never seen anyone on BWE/IR boards saying that 70% of BW will never marry though.

That same report says that 91% of white women will marry before they die. That’s a 16% difference, which is no monstrous difference.

Not a monstrous difference, however, if many of those never-married black women had children, that means their children grew up their entire lives without a father. It means those black women are more likely to be poor in old age because they can't draw from a husband's social security earnings. My grandmother divorced my trifling grandfather, but just by her being married to him, she was eligible for veterans benefits... because he was a veteran. She received higher social security payments because HE made more than she did.

Policy makers are already expressing concern about the growing number of poor elderly black women who aren't going to benefit from a marriage in their lifetime. So yeah, that 16% difference matters...

This is from a white woman, btw...

http://surface.syr.edu/cpr/10/

Over 40 percent of all older single black women live in poverty. People quality for Social Security based either on their work record or their marital status. Most older women receive noncontributory Social Security spouse of widow benefits on the basis of their marital history. For these women, marital status is more important than employment status in shaping old-age financial security. However, the trend to marry and stay married has declined over time in the United States, particularly among black women. This, we hypothesize, means that fewer women will qualify for spouse and widow benefits in coming decades.

As for shacking... seriously? You're comparing living together with no governmental safeguards and bringing children into that situation to marriage and trying to act like that's an acceptable alternative? Plus, cohabitating arragements don't last as long as marriages...

The State of Our Unions 2005 - University of Virginia
www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/SOOU2005.pdf

"Children who grow up with cohabiting couples tend to have worse life outcomes compared to those growing up with married couples.10
Prominent reasons are that cohabiting couples have a much higher breakup rate than married couples, a lower level of household income, and a higher level of child abuse and domestic violence. The proportion of cohabiting mothers who eventually marry the fathers of their chil- dren is declining, to 44 percent in 1997 from 57 percent a decade earlier—a decline sadly predictive of increased problems for children.11

Look, it's clear you're a saboteur/troll/misdirectionist, but I'm responding for other black women who know something ain't clean in the milk here, but don't quite know exactly what to do or want to believe otherwise when they hear statistics saying that 75% of black women "are likely to marry at some point."

They don't have to date IR. Most black women who marry will marry black men. That's fine. The race of whomever individual black women marry is not the issue to me.

I just care about MARRIAGE and and as many black women having marriages to quality men for the benefit of themselves and their children. And if some black women are finding that their options for doing so lie outside black men, then more power to them.

Well played, Bunny. Well played.

For some BW, the personal is political, and sadly, they are willing to make major sacrifices in their personal lives for political reasons. All the while, most other people are living their lives for themselves and not sacrificing being & having a spouse and having children in wedlock.

The "it's ok as long as you eventually marry, even if it's after 35" idea is another reason why AAs have such a high % of children born out of wedlock. Many of the children born out of wedlock have mothers in their teens, 20s, and early 30s, so the mother has TIME to have more than one child. A woman who waits for marriage to have kids & marries after 35 has decreased fertility. This pattern is SO harmful and over time.

Can anyone explain to me the defensive BW and BM who don't see this problem? Do they live in bubbles of functioning, intact families? Are they misinterpreting Prof. Banks' message?

I don't know if you were responding to me, but I'll respond.

First, I have to point out that people use statistics that they don't seem to fully understand, or they use statistics to draw conclusions that the statistics don't support.

Marriage is one of those stats that is very very poorly understood.

First, the reality is that black women do get married less than other women in this country, that is an objective fact, but it's not a bleak as many seem to believe, by writing that I am not advocating that black women not date interracially. People should be with whomever they desire for whatever reasons.

First, let's take the often used stat that only 30% of black women are married, now that statistic includes black teenaged girls and many women in their very early 20's because those stats include women ages 15-45.

You also have to understand that black people as a group are A LOT younger than white people, what that means is a higher percentage of our population is in their teens and early 20's, so by extension what that means is that even if everything were equal in order for black women to have the same marriage rate, they'd have to marry very young relative to white women.

Also that 30% stat includes women who are divorced, widowed, legally separated. In other words, a lot of the women in that statistic have been married but aren't at this moment.

Let's look at another stat the 42% of black women who have never married. First, let's note that this means that 58% of black women a clear majority have been married. People sometimes misinterpret this stat to mean that 42% of black women will never marry, but this is just flat out wrong.

Again, when you look at a stat like that, it's important to note that as I pointed out before that statistic is counting teenage black girls and young black women in their early 20's. Also you have to remember that black people are as a group younger than white people by like 6 or 7 years, that's a huge difference. This means as a percentage of our population we have many more teens and young adults in their early 20's than white people.

So that 42% stat includes many many young black teen girls and young women who will marry.

Finally, the reality is that RIGHT NOW by the time a black women reaches either 35 or 45 years of age, I can't remember the exact age, but that 75% of black women have been married by one of those ages.

This idea that black women rarely get married is just not statistically true.

Now again black women don't get married as frequently as others, this is an objective fact, but that doesn't equate to black women rarely getting married in their lifetimes.

Again right now by the time a bw is either 35 or 45 years old 75% of them have been married.

So a lot of black people are going by their personal experiences(not the best way to understand the world which includes other people who had different experiences) and they see married couples all the time. They don't personally experience this marriage drought so for them it doesn't exist.

The oow birth rate is another very poorly understood statistic. RIght now over 60% of black women 15-44 either don't have any children or are married with children.

Right now, 92% of black teen girls ages 15-19 don't have any children.

Right now about 47% of all black women in their 20's don't have any children.

Again right now by the time a bw is either 35 or 45 years old 75% of them have been married.

Do you have a link to this statistic? And not a link to Toldson and Marks' article, actual Census data.

Because according to this... (on Page 3 and Page 5) 39.2% of BW ages 35-39 had never been married as of 2009, which means that 60.8%, NOT 75% of BW were married by age 35.

If we go up to 40-44, the percentage of never-married black women was 33.1, meaning that 66.9% of BW were married by 44. Much better, but still not 75%.

You don't reach a statistic of 75% of BW having been married at some point in their lives until the 50-54 age range, in which 24.5% of BW in 2009 reported never having been married. Meanwhile, EVERY other group of women reached the 75% threshold by age 35, and all but Hispanics reached it in the 30-34 age cohort... but 53.6 percent (!!!) of BW ages 30-34 in 2009 had never been married. The only group closest to that was Hispanic women, and the number was only 27.2%

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf

Seriously BW, if you want to know what's really going on... if you don't do anything else today, read page 3 of that document. It's a serious eye-opener.

I apologize, I quoted a statistic in an erroneous manner. The actual stat is that 75% of all bw over 35 years have been married.
Thank you for pointing out my error.

Thanks for posting this article. Face it, the peanut gallery is having a hard time refuting the conclusions in Dr. Bank's book. These arguments against are weak.
My thoughts.

Mercury News Article:
“But the book's assumptions have come under attack by Howard University professor Ivory A. Toldson and Morehouse College professor Bryant Marks. They say they've looked at the same data -- from the census and American Community Surveys -- through a different lens, and found it less gloomy.
If the analysis is limited to blacks over age 35, the number of single women drops, they say. And in major cities such as Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, women with doctorates are more than twice as likely to be married as those with a high school degree. Finally, although black women have more degrees, that doesn't translate into high incomes: In fact, more black men than black women earn more than $75,000 a year.”

B55: Yeah. And?. Of course the single rate drops for woman over the age of 35. They drop for everybody at that age. Duh! Notice these two are not giving any information as to the make up of marriages of theses over 35 year old married woman. There is nothing here that refutes what Banks is saying.

As to the earning power of Black men. So what? If they are not marrying Black women what does that matter?

Mercury News Article:
“There, Professor Micere Keels of the University of Chicago argued that black women don't rule out nonblack partners. Rather, studies show they receive fewer advances from whites, Latinos or Asians.
"The only viable solution for black women's low likelihood of marriage is to correct society's failure to educate all our boys," she concluded.”

B55: Right and in the meantime what is a young woman to do while we are correcting societies failure. Hummmmm??????????? Why is it society's failure????? Why not Black men's failure? I mean the Black Women are getting educations right? These folks never answer why Black guys choose not to pursue or are not successful at furthering their educations.

Mercury News Article:
“Similarly, Kansas University professor Shirley Hill said in the same symposium that "dealing with structural issues" -- such as high unemployment and incarceration of black men -- "gets us closer to the root of the problem." “

B55: I have the same question for this woman. What are the current crop of marriage ready Black women to do in the meantime while we straighten out these structural issues. Issues that are affect men in general BTW. Bottom line the economy is changing. Black women have positioned themselves to be marketable in the new economy and the men have not.

Mercury News Article:
“There's a reason that black women are wary of white men: white men's attitudes toward them, said symposium participant Belinda Tucker, a professor at UCLA. "Media portrayals of black women as either hypersexualized or Big Mommas continue to encourage exploitative attitudes," she said. By dating black men, women are "safe from societal rejections." “

B55: I guess this woman has not seen the stuff so called black media is producing and the stuff we hear on a daily basis in our communities from our own men.

Mercury News Article:
“And while interracial families are a potent symbol of a society that's healing its racial divide, raising multiracial children is a challenge that Banks doesn't address, said symposium participant Jenifer Bratter of Rice University.
"Biracial children often face racial difficulties from both sides of the racial spectrum, leaving parents to help their children to make sense of these experiences," she said.”

B55: This is nothing new. Biracial children of all combinations go through this. That is called parenting. No matter the circumstances it just parenting. Why attempt to other the children of Black Women and non-black men in order to make a point?

Man, these folks are disingenuous. I bet they overlook the fact that focusing on women over 35 means that they're focusing on women in their less fertile years as well. Considering the large % of BW, like most women, who want to be wives AND mothers, simultaneously, ignoring age as it relates to fertility is an incomplete analysis that could lead some women astray b/c they think, "It's ok to wait some more."

Yes Alana! Thank you for saying this!

One problem I have with the black "community's" take on marriage is that no matter when it happens, it doesn't matter as long as it happens eventually.

Now, if you don't want to have kids (and many women don't), that's one thing. But for those women who do, then heck yeah when you get married matters! And I don't want to hear about adoption or sperm donation or whatever... some women make those choices, but it shouldn't have to come down to that as the only options to have kids when these women would like to have the opportunity to try during their more fertile years with their husbands!

I know a lovely BW who just married for the first time at age 50. She married a very nice BM (don't know if he was married before) and they are enjoying life together. But I know she wanted children... so that's not happening. She was one of those women told to put education first and not get pregnant.

Well, Mr. Right never exactly came along and she was ready to give up until she decided to try online dating. It worked for her, but again, she was late 40s when she tried it.

However, you know folks will point to this couple as proof that "black love" still exists or that "God kept his promise" or that black women DO get married. Yeah, but are we really trying to say that meeting Mr. Right at 47 and marrying at 50 and missing out on the opportunity to have children within wedlock is an acceptable outcome for black women?

So heck yeah, I want to hear about the statistics for black women marrying between 21-35... the ages in which the overwhelming majority of U.S. women marry anyway. A bunch of BW marrying between 35-50 actually prove Banks' point...

(Plus, I think there is a statistical flaw in Toldson and Marks' research, but I've not seen that addressed in any article so far... I think their numbers are too high. My research shows the number of black women married by 35 is around 59%.)

Exactly Brenda. You know -- and maybe this will happen in future forums with Banks -- I would like some BW who are happily married to non-BM to have a say in all this. I'm tired of these sociologists (many of them BW!!!) talking around us about why Banks' proposal supposedly won't work.

I could tell Belinda Tucker, Shirley Hill and Micere Keels a thing or two... and not just from my own perspective... seriously, the more I'm looking around, the more BW I'm seeing marrying IR. My cousin, my high school friend, my co-worker... and that's just three people I know in a four-month period. That's not to mention the couple I know that got engaged and is marrying next year, the fact that my bridal makeup artist from last year said she's seeing a lot more of her BW brides with non-black grooms... the other co-workers of mine who've been married 10 years (BW/WM), the couples appearing on Just Like Me Couples/Evia's site/New York Times/Washington Post/Essence(!!!).

Something is happening here. No, it's not BW marrying in "droves" (who said that had to be the case anyway?) but there's a steadily growing microtrend (Google it) of BW quietly marrying out and not making much of a to-do about it. Among all of the people I personally know, none of them said, "I'z marrying a white guy/Hispanic guy!" It was just "I'm getting married!" and then I saw the non-BM groom for the first time in my life at the wedding!

These aren't even women in so-called IR-friendly areas (the ones I know). These are women in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. I can only imagine the story in other areas.

Our voices need to be heard more to drown out the BW and BM "sociologists" who try to give us umpteen million reasons why BW "can't" date out. I'm glad for blogs like this... and maybe I'll drop Mr. Banks a line if he goes on a Midwestern tour. ;)

And another thing though... notice that most of the BW offering negative critiques of his book (without having read it) are almost always single and well over age 30? And most, never married? Same with the women who write those silly "I can't help it, I really love BM" articles.

They always end the article saying something like, "Even though I've been hurt or even though I'm still single, I won't give up on black love or finding my black prince!"

Again, they make Banks' point with their combination of vehement objection AND continued singlehood...

I couldn't agree more with you Bunny77. That's what was my point in my earlier post/rant. That 20-30 year old BW need to realize that the men their ages attitudes/desires/ideas are totally different from their fathers and older men in their lives. These young men now days aren't just experimenting with girls/women from different races and then going to come back home and marry their black princess ... they are willfully choosing not to date/marry BW ... we can talk all day why this is so and how to fix it ... yet the biological clocks of these beuatiful, talented, wonderful BW are ticking away ... getting marry at 50 is beautiful ... getting marry at 20-30, raising your family, having a life time of memories is absolute wonderful, too ... and I'm speaking from direct exeperience ... btw I'm married to a BM who is wonderful ... so there is no intentional BM bashing here ... I'm just pointing out the facts as I see them ... everyone experience is different ... and yes there are 20 something BM who date BW ... my statements are not all inclusive ... as I hope everyone who reads them realizes.

You made a great point Arliana. While I don't have children yet, I have a feeling that if I have a son, he will be the type who's open to all races of women. I will be fine with that (hey, I married IR), but I will do my part to make sure that he at least respects and appreciates the beauty of BW. But I can't make my hypothetical son date or marry a BW!

I've seen the phenomenon you're talking about... suburban areas that might be about 70% white/30% non-white... or areas like California that have a good mix of white/Asian/Hispanic and a small proportion of blacks. Anyway, the black boys are almost all dating non-black girls, while the black girls don't date at all. I have no idea if the black girls aren't interested in dating out or if the non-black teen boys don't have the "stones" yet to ask out the black girls. Glad your daughter found one who did.

But yes, BW coming of age NOW and experiencing young adulthood NOW need solutions NOW... if they find a great BM who wants to marry them, awesome and invite me to the wedding! I'll even be a bridesmaid!

But if they're waiting and waiting and waiting for a BM and they want to be married and have children in their 20s and 30s... it's an exercise in futility when there are so many other options out there.

This is a great observation. You're right, they're rarely married and are usually pushing 40. Still waiting on a "good black man" while discouraging other black women from seeking love from men who actually want to marry and raise a family.

In the end w/ or w/o the decriminalization of drugs bw are up a creek w/o a paddle if they rely on marrying and mating with bm….not a great future there.

AMEN!!!