Going back over the comments thread of the past few posts or two, a few things jump out at me that needs addressing:

DEERY: I haven't seen any figures which show that college graduates (of any race) get divorced at higher rates than their less-educated brethern.  In fact, most figures show the opposite.  Which is not to see that they don't get divorced at all of course, just that the chances are much lower.

OBSIDIAN: I never claimed any such thing. What I was focusing in on, and what Banks himself was focusing in on, was, and I am quoting him directly now, "the fragility of Black middle class marriages". The FACT of the matter is, that such marriages break up at a considerablly higher rate than do White ones, Deery. I defy you to prove otherwise. Mentions of working or underclass Blacks (or Whites, for that matter) is really disengenuous of you - especially since you have claimed to have read Banks' book. 

DEERY: Nope. Its always interesting how you decree that those that disagree with you must do "homework" to participate in the conversation, while not asking anything similiar from those that agree with you.  If it makes any difference, I have already read the underlying book in question.

OBSIDIAN: Your reading comprehension could use a bit of work; see what I said above. As for your dig, you couldn't be more wrong; please show me any post on this blog where I have stated that those who wish to disagree with me must first read all of the references made in said blog post first? I cite the references so that EVERYONE, regardless as to whether they disagree with me or not, can meaningfully participate in the discussion. Quite honestly, I am not interested in what you think, Deery. If I wanted to know that, I'd simply email you, LOL. What I am interested in is discussing ideas - and that can only happen if all parties involved even know what said ideas are in the first place. The problem here, is that you consistently want to push your "Black Men Ain't Sh*t" agenda, for which you don't need any sliderules to put across. You just pull whatever good sounding stuff out of your ass and sling it out there, regardless as to how (out)dated said data is, or how relevant it is to the current discussion or not. Which I find immensely irritating. 

DEERY: There are marriage rates, and there are birth rates, you seem to be conflating the two.

OBSIDIAN: Actually, Asians themselves seem to be conflating the two. From the article you referenced that appeared on The Economist:

This goes back to my point Lee Kuan Yew was making and how the SDU and the GMS are intertwined - because, in Asia, marriage and children go together. Capice?

DEERY: It is very difficult, in most developed countries, to persuade most families to have much beyond two or three.  Large families have gone out of style, and are extremely expensive, even with government incentives factored in.

OBSIDIAN: Such is the rumor, but of course, we see time and again that such things can be done. I think what's really going on, is a number of other factors, that we simply don't want to deal with: selfishness, ugliness, and inability to deal with others. All of which tend to correlate the higher one goes on the IQ scale. 

DEERY: But I was pointing out tha the marriage rate had gone up in Singapore since 1983.  The marriage rate can go up, and the birthrate can go down, if couples elect to have one, or no kids at all, for example.  So they aren't necessarily tied together.

OBSIDIAN: I've read the Economist article, and didn't see this "surge" you're banging on about. Seems to me what Wikipedia has to say in this regard is good enough - and the point is, that among the "best" Women, they aren't reproducing themselves. That was Yew's whole point to begin with. 

As I was saying...

DEERY: LOL.   I completely agree, though no doubt for entirely different reasons...

OBSIDIAN: Yea. Anyone who can put up with you for more than an hour at a time deserves a Medal of Honor indeed...

DEERY: According to Sig's chart, the male ratio becomes skewed by age 25 in the black community.  And keep in mind that we are not counting guys in jail, which no doubt skews the ratio even further, and younger. Sig chart counts men lost to death, only one of the factors in the black man shortage. So no, not enough brothas to go around, even on a strictly numerical basis.

OBSIDIAN: Bunk. For one thing, most Brothas don't spend their entire lives in the joint, and I know for a fact that quite a few do indeed get married upon their release. Second, if Sistas want to get married then the data HS presented is clear: YOU HAVE TO DO IT YOUNG. Waiting till you're damn-near 40 (for first marriage) just isn't a good deal. Guys don't like Women who are too old for that sort of thing, I don't know how else to tell you. 

Third, the problem here isn't that "there aren't enough Brothas to go around"; the problem is the Apex Fallacy. Perhaps you've heard of it?

DEERY: I feel like we are going around in circles at this point.

OBSIDIAN: That tends to happen when you don't follow instructions, dontcha know...

DEERY:  I give you some hard facts about how education is tracked very closely to marriage in the US.  

OBSIDIAN: Facts which I never disputed; strawman, anyone?

DEERY: You give me some information about Asian birth rates.

OBSIDIAN: Wrong; I gave you a historical instance where Eugenics - and that's what Banks is arguing for, make no mistake - was tried on a national scale, AND FAILED BADLY. I cited it to say to the Sista Spinsters: give up on your notions of a Great White Hope - it ain't gonna happen, for the most part. Accept your fate. Take it like a Man. 

DEERY:  I acknowledge that this may be the case (IN ASIA), for some solid cultural reasons that do not exist in the US.

OBSIDIAN: And those reasons may not have anything to do with what we're seeing there, and everything to do with what the MEN ARE CHOOSING, which I know is something that chaps your hide. Tough.

DEERY:  I even link to an article which also outlines the reasons for delayed marriage in Asia, which btw, seems to come out of female choice more than anything else. 

OBSIDIAN: Not at all unusual for you, you left out this part of the article: "Many girls are illiterate teenagers sold (in practice) by their families to older, richer foreigners."

Or this: "As Singapore’s Mr Lee once said: “The Asian man…preferred to have a wife with less education than himself.” 

You have a problem with Male Choice, Deery. Admit it.

DEERY: In this case, I don't think the underlying reasons are similiar, and I haven't seen you directly refute any of the facts given.

OBSIDIAN: In both cases, Sista Spinsters, the ones Banks is talking about, and the Spinsters in Asia, are remaining celibate and childless. If they're doing it because marriage and the like were never in the plans to begin with, then that's one thing. If, on the other hand, they did indeed want to tie the knot, well, that's something else entirely. Clearly, this is what Banks addresses in his book. And clearly, the fact that at least a few of those Singapore Spinsters took Yew up on his offer(s), says that quite a few Spinsters, on both sides of the Atlantic, ain't at all too crazy about the prospect and day to day reality.

DEERY: The simple truth is, in the US, more education ups your chances of getting married.  Asia might work differently, but is hardly germane to the conversation.

OBSIDIAN: See above. Moreover, it could be argued, strongly, that "more education" actually hurt the chances of these Women - and the Asian Ladies and the Sista Spinsters alike...

DEERY: As noted (repeatedly) the dynamics in Asia are not the same.  The article I cited stated that many highly educated and successful Asian women shun marriage, since it means that they have to quit their job and often be at their in-laws beck and call.  Understandbly, those women avoid marriage and children, leaving it to their less educated counterparts to get married.  So its less that men chose less educated women, that's all they had to choose from in the first place.

OBSIDIAN: Not quite; please read the article again. Clearly, Men were choosing too, Deery. And that burns you up, doesn't it?

DEERY: A whole post dedicated to moi? I guess I should be flattered....Anyhow, you are correct, I do think black women, if they are so inclined, should seek marriages outside the black community. Black women/white men marriages tend to have the lowest rate of divorce, and high levels of satisfaction for both parners in the aggregate. What's the downside?

OBSIDIAN: Quite a few, actually. It appears that a number of these Swirling Sista Wives face a considerable degree of out and out racism; recall last year's Dr Laura Incident, for example. What about Halle Berry and her Baby Daddy Drama? Yes, these are anecdotal cases I am citing (and I can cite others) but I think you will agree with me that, due to the rather paucity of BW/WM pairings, we really don't have a wealth of data to go on here. That, plus the fact that these Sistas would have an incentive to fudge the facts a bit, wouldn't they? After all, the status and money is a powerful lure in keeping them in said marriages, despite the fact that they're racially insulted on the regular. If a Woman can stay in a marriage where she's kicked up one side of the street and down another, why wouldn't she stay in this one? 

Moreover, simply because a marriage doesn't end in divorce doesn't automatically make it a good one - I do hope you're smart enough to know that. We just don't have enough information to go on to make all these assumptive leaps, and that's the problem I have with you, Deery. Because you want so desperately to promote this "Black Men Ain't Sh*t" meme, you'll go to any lengths to use whatever to again, promote said agenda. I find that very troubling to tell you the truth. 

And I'll have more to say about that in due course.

Comment & reply, invited.

Now adjourn your asses...

The Obsidian