MEN ARE PARENTS TOO!

This a revised blog entry from our myspace account in 2008. ¿What do an olympic skating champion, Hall of Fame NFL quarterback, and a NYC politcal candidate have in common? All where raised in a single-father household.The blog title is the title for our documentary. We in pre-production, doing research on the subject of single-fathers.

We know so little about single-father families that they are treated as being non-existant.If you are a single-father or are being raised or have been raised in a single-father household, please reach out. AfterDark CATV PRO is interested in presenting case studies for the documentary. We ask that everyone be open minded and progressive.

It took me a while to get the wording correct and evoke thought but, let me begin by sending my condolences to the (Eddie) Levert family. That's Eddie Levert of the O'Jays.

The grief of losing not one but two sons by the age of 40 has to be especially hard. It is difficult enough to lose your children and live with only memories. ¿What if those memories were erased instead, like in the movie, BACK TO THE FUTURE? ¿Does this seem like a cruel question to ask? ¿Bias? Maybe. ¿Sexist? Coming from a man, some would say it is.

If you wish to look at this question from a different prespective, then try this. Being the sibling in question (Marty McFly), would you rather be given birth and raised by either (single) parent or would you perfer to have been aborted as per the decision of only one?

(Sean) Levert's death, in the Spring of 2008, brought up one of those social topics that are taboo and kept in the closet. On a lighter note, "BACK TO THE FUTURE" does as well, but, it presents the very moment where anyone, being McFly, has the chance to decide their future, birth or abortion. Remember, you can't have both. It wasn't in doubt that Michael Fox's character wanted to have been given birth to. Tragic ending aside, I don't doubt the the Levert parents would rather have had the experience of having their sons with them for the too short forty years. Yet, there are those who would charge that one partner, not both, should have sole proprietorship of reproduction. It doesn't make a difference who the one partner is, the consequences are the same, birth and single-parenthood or abortion.

Here is my opinon. Irrespective of which sex the privilege is bestowed upon it remains a medieval and sexist notion that birth and abortion are the exclusive right & privilege of one sex partner and one sex partner only. In school, I learned, I'm sure you did as well, that procreation is an adamant necessity for both sexes. As a species, if it doesn't procreate, the species, including humans, simply dies out. Each sex plays an equally vital part in the process. Women do that voodoo that only they do (so well) and men do theirs. ¿So why propose an exclusivity clause on procreation and putting at risk human existance, the birth rate, ratio between the sexes, and what genetic traits are past on?

Let's be poistive here. Besides all the negative consequences that have arisen from obligating an unwilling sex partner into parenthood the agruement for exclusivity seem, to me, bias and abusive.Where unprotected sex is the voluntary decision of both sexes, both sexes should be privileged to the choice of becoming a parent and accept the obligations and responsibilities of the consequences of their decision and action. It can't be said that a woman, choosing to use her body in the act of voluntary unprotected sex doesn't know, through her physical senses, that the man she chose to have sex with is...unprotected. I can' imagine her not knowing as much of herself, either.

Unfortunately, we shouldn't assume that Sean Levert's death is a first of its kind. What is more probable  that his is the first case many have heard of. Financial support, detachment from children, I believe, is a knee-jerk response to not having any say in determining the birth or abortion of children that they will be held accountable for.

Since men don't bear (carry) children and avoid the medical risks associated with pregnancy and child birth, they are thought of as being the "wrong sex". It sounds alot like being...an illegal human, or the wrong color to sit in the shade of a tree, or the wrong race to whistle at a woman you think is attractive. Science doesn't support the notion that only men have unprotected sex and there isn't anything other than bias that says that children can't or shouldn't be raised by a single-parent man.

It takes a village to raise a child AND two to create one.

I'll end this thought by giving you more food for thought on the issue of single-fatherhood. ¿Which of the following best describes the situation by which you became a single-father or were raised in a single-father household? Is it:

1.      The death of the maternal parent

2.      The incapacitation of the maternal parent

3.      The imprisonment of the maternal parent

4.      Custody battles during divorce proceedings.

I can only wish single-fathers and their off-spring would come out from the proverbial closet and give public testimony as to their experience.

Crisis, hope, and change

Whenever there has been a major, and I mean major, crisis affecting the dominant class in a society, and the military isn't being helpful, their last resort for maintaining the status quo is to let (some of) them eat bread. Si! Si! Si! I took liberty with Marie Antionette's line before she, ...er, lost her head over the matter of poverty and oppression in the France of her day. The point here is if bread that they want, but haven't been getting, then, give them what they want...at least some of it...to a chosen few.

It is no different today in the 21st century. Check out "The Anatomy of Revolution" (Crane Brinton, author) and you read that the tactic is the same as applied by the same profile of people for the same reason with the same outcome in mind.  In the book Brinton was comparing revolutions in France, England, and Russia. Today it would include the United States. The wealthy of this nation are looking to avoid "losing their heads" over the rising difficulties people in economic stratas below them are facing. The mortage lending industry, apathy towards and disenchantment with both major political parties, funding for war, mismangement of natural emergencies such as Katrina in 2005 and now Gustav are just a short list of things that have been on the surface but not in sight of certain people, until now. 

The traditional middle class of Post WWII Euro-Americans have lost the capacity to maintain their accustomed standard of living without the entry of previously excluded people into the 'middle class' room. Now, and in very short period of time, the middle class can't pay for its own upkeep regardless of who is let in and how many. Many middle class debutantes are losing their homes in a loan scam that will only rectify itself when developers and speculators can re-purchase the houses and condos constructed and sold at a ridiculously inflated price at a much lower price. Profit at both ends. It's the running joke in NYC's inner-city. An unsuspecting victim steps to their car to find that their tires, rims and all, have been removed. Just as luck would have it, a stranger walks by, feeling their lament and listening to their justified anger, enters into a conversation with the victim finding out about their stroke of bad luck and offering to reverse it and offer a set of tires, rims included, that he (or a brother-in-law) JUST HAPPEN to have and are willing to sell it (back) to the driver at a bargain price. 

The Republican party is certainly out of favor with the U.S. voter, Democrats aren't all that much ahead on the same point. King George (Bush) II saw to that with both the war on terror and the debacle of Hurricane Katrina. The question is "how to pacify the natives, prevent an uprising, and keep your scalp?" You do so by adding a bit of hope. It is just the 'bread' that voters want. But is it hope or just the ruling class distracting a hopeful number of voters into exhaling so as to not lose control? Does Barack know or thinks that he may be the pacifier being offered? OR is he a willing member? Maybe he has a inkling and thinks he can change things ONCE IN OFFICE, change from within?

Never mind the 'usual suspects' of white male candidates. They are an insurance, a face in maintaining the status quo regardless of who wins the elections. The pacifiers are the two little known of candidates along side them. A little know governor from one of the outlining states, Alaska, may also be as much a calculated move to squelch the restless as is Barack. 

The last two and most remote states in the union are running for office side by side. 

Obama is from Hawai'i and running for president. Palin is from Alaska and running for VP. OPposing parties, yes, but that doesn't change who they are and where they come from. Together they serve to pacify voters in several ways. First are two of the U.S.'s largest and traditionally excluded voting blocks (Blacks & women). Second is the inclusive of two states (numbers 49 & 50) that aren't taken seriously as are the lower 48, in my opinion. Being on the ticket both offer hope for change. 

Should either of them choose to have either a Native American or and Asian in their cabinet, real history will have been made. Add some one disabled and who knows what is possible? Where are the Latin@s?

How much hope can there possibly and realistically be in one election?

I am hoping that you aren't so enthusiastic about the elections as to over look these minor details. If you are; if you are disregarding the history of how the elite remain being the elite, you are playing into the cycle of pacification and maintaining the status quo.  You can just consider everything you've read here in this blog as being a conspiracy (very popular these days) or a simple coincidence. The truth will reveal itself much later on and at a time when the (negative) consequences are being thought of as what always happens and there is no point in reversing the trend and starting over again.You stand more to lose, move on!

I'm not against either Obama or Palin running for office. I visited Hawai'i twice in my lifetime and I'll visit again. Alaska, I have on my travel-to list. Nor am I against hope either. Instead, I'm aware of the situations and I connect the dots in their historical context and mapping the similarities. In my opinion, that is being astute. The upperclass' hope in these elections is for voters to go along and take what is being offered as change. The adjacent fear tatic is that an unintended someone, not as worthy as you (Black people and/or women in this election case), will sieze the moment and leep frog over you and you'll have only yourself to blame for not accepting what the dominant strata offered, a step closer to achieving the (American) dream of wealth and owning a home (even at a debt cost so far above your head that you'll never pay it off).  No one will have their bad loans reversed, re-evaluated, and re-structured. No one! What you'll hear is "It is too late for that. Too late to turn around or reverse the clock. and undo the loan. You are at fault for reaching over your head and not being smart." 

One more historic reference is in the Caribbean. In Cuba prior to the Socialist Revolution's victory, there were Cuban middle class and elites who knew that the Bautista regime was corrupt, vicious, and bias. Well then, you ask, why didn't they acknowledge what they knew and join in the struggle for change? While losing their lives makes for a valid arguement many others who didn't have as much sacrifice themselves leaving the elite to think that they can remain on top and in time gather more wealth and influence if they survived. 

The reason why the ruling class weren't visible standing against the regime was because they stood to lose everything their families have come to possess, the economic wealth, political power, and social status. In some cases they achieved these are material possession  as far back as the Spanish colonial period. The risk of losing their wealth, not their lives, made becoming a rebel not worth the risk. They believed they can secretly favor the revolution as closet abolitionists and freedom fighters, but, maintain their status and wealth. They would agree that a change in the head of state was a necessity but not a change in their estate.  You can't end slavery by simply just writing it in the law book. You have to also do away with its economic and social structures.

At times like these it is very easy to over look the obvious bribe and be distracted by what position and wealth becomes within reach. Stop and ask yourself, why now? 

Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

WELCOME TO NUESTRAS VOICES The Blog

There is much to be shared and said about the human and environmental condition. Most important may be the history of human intervention on each other’s social development and the conservation of the environment. Next to that is the probability of repeating history. As I see it the only thing changing is the “skin we’re in” but not what we’re doing. In the U.S., there is a profit motivated crisis that is re-occurring. Most are not aware of it and those who are want to suppress any consciousness of it from surfacing.

In these times, history writes of the dominant group of people in power seeking to squelch discontent with gestures of desired change even it that gesture is aggression and war. Currently, in light of a changing world spinning away from the European model of cultured society and even further from the narcissistic focus of individual achievement, deliberate and debilitating efforts of concentrating wealth, private ownership and control over the means of production, plus the imperialist tendencies of dominance of the United States, we now have a (r)evolution without explosives and literal deaths and dismemberment.

Entire regions, namely Latin America, have adopted a new model for social development. Its seed is Eastern European. It is planted in the nutrition rich soil of Cuba and cultivated in Venezuela. I’m not sure what the Soviets actually thought of doing but, whatever it was the ideology has germinated in Latin America. At its core is nationalizing natural resources (taking them away from foreign countries, private corporations (domestic & foreign), and individuals) and generating profits for use developing the social fabric and not someone’s tailored look. 

It may have been happening in the Middle East, it is a bit of a stretch, but, the sacrifice of lives and the destruction of a monument of concentrated wealth gave the U.S. the excuse it needed to invade that region, set up shop, and protect its corporate interests disguised as saving the world from terrorism. It sounds much like the reason for being involved in both Korea and Viet Nam, when the terror was communism and the best defense was the offense of a pre-emptive strike. In other words, fight them over there before we have to fight them here, on our own turf. Think of Cesar’s s rationalization for deciding to invade Egypt, the assurance that there is enough wheat for bread and Romans wouldn’t have to starve. You may want to consider the reason for England’s invasion of Ireland when just as the industrial revolution used up all of its natural resources (and polluted the air and rivers). Both serve as historic tidbits to show just how far back the thinking of what the U.S. has in place goes.

With its credibility lessened by the Middle East and the social (r)evolution in Latin America, the powers that be feel things slipping away. Now is the chance to present something, anything that will restore credibility and keep thing in their own hands, an unlikely pair of candidates for the presidency of the United States, a Black Man and a White woman.

The hopefulness that both people represent gives the white male power structure the respite it needs to deal with everything else and maintain control. However, added to the list of complications and hardships is the slim chance that either of these candidates not play according to the power structure’s rules. Yes, now we have a Black man in place to achieve a milestone, as we would have had with a White woman, but, that is not to say that they couldn’t run together from the get-go, something that many thought to have been a better idea from the beginning and spare the nation the agony of the party’s nomination campaign but, that, as said in pop culture’s “PREDATOR” film, would be ‘no sport’. The audacity of the (distracting) hope is as much a part of the plan as is having both people running for one public office.

Blink a few times to wake yourself up before telling us whether it is a real change.

“reporting the news is a privilege, and a responsibility, that can not be exploited.”
A line from the film “Meet Joe Black".