Philip Cohen Attempts to Exonerate Single Motherhood

by W.F. Price on December 4, 2012

Writing for The Atlantic, sociology professor Philip Cohen makes an effort to decouple crime and single motherhood, using data that shows crime rates falling despite little to no decline in single mother households.

Cohen’s graphs look persuasive, but there’s something missing from the equation. While Cohen does allow that increased incarceration had an effect on crime rates, he minimizes this factor, perhaps as a rhetorical trick to bolster his argument where it is lacking. However, there’s something more important to consider than the incarceration rate, and I was surprised to see that nobody brought it up in comments.

Crime in the US peaked in the early 90s, during the era of crack wars and gangsta rap those of us in my demographic (born in the 1970s) remember all too well. Roughly 20 years before the crime wave, fertility patterns were going through an unprecedented transition. Birth control and abortion had just been legalized, and illegitimacy was soaring, hence the focus on single mothers being responsible for crime. However, single motherhood circa 1970 was significantly different from today’s for a few reasons. First, it was not generally intentional, but rather an organic phenomenon. Today, most women who become single mothers do so by choice. In 1970, it was as often as not a 15-year-old girl in the inner city getting knocked up and having a baby with God knows who.

I grew up close to what could be considered Seattle’s most inner-city neighborhood, and had some friends and acquaintances from the projects. Although we didn’t exactly live together, we played sports together, used the same facilities and for the most part got along OK; occasionally we’d visit each other’s places. A lot of these kids, unfortunately, had no idea who their fathers were. None at all. Their idea of family was extraordinarily flexible by necessity, hence the attraction of street gangs, which filled some of the enormous kinship gaps that existed in their society. The level of dysfunction in these neighborhoods was unfathomable from a middle-class American perspective at the time, and simply having some limited experience with it first-hand – even in a city where it was nowhere near as bad as LA or Chicago (my family drove past the Chicago slums back in ’86 and I could only stare in disbelief) – set me apart from other white kids at the private school I attended. For example, I once went on one of those Thanksgiving relief missions where you bring food to needy families, and for some pious reason the school thought it would be a good idea to bring middle-school students along to distribute the food directly to the poor single mothers. The desultory depravation of the projects was familiar to me, so I took it in stride, but the looks on the other white kids’ faces displayed complete alienation and confusion. They just didn’t know what to think, and couldn’t relate at all. I don’t think they learned a thing from what they saw, and to this day I think it was a mistake to take them there, because there’s no way they could have drawn any useful or accurate conclusions from the experience.

But getting back to the point, these mothers in inner cities were not only younger than the current crop of single mothers, they were more fertile as well. They started early and kept going. I recently wrote about the decline in the black middle-class birth rate, which is a demographic problem for American blacks, but another demographic problem – teen motherhood – was at crisis proportions around 1970. Total black fertility was around 50% higher then than now, and the number of children being born to minors made up a much larger proportion of it. And these mothers were often hopeless people with no skills or education to make it in the world. They lived a dismal, third-world existence, right in the heart of our cities.

The sexual revolution, wrong-headed welfare policy and the fact that urban blacks were uprooted en-masse from their rural, southern origins combined to guarantee social pathology in years to come. And it came with a vengeance. If there’s anything that could sum up the results of those trends, it would be the 1992 LA riots. To get a sense of the problems in our cities at that time, look it up on YouTube and watch some of the chaos. I wonder sometimes what my kids will think of those scenes when they grow up — I doubt they’ll understand it much at all, and that might be a good thing.

To put it in numbers, if you want to see the correlation between single motherhood and crime – and it does exist – you have to include single mothers’ fertility as well as teen mothers’ fertility. Today, most single mothers have one or two kids and stop. This wasn’t the case 30-40 years ago. Additionally, you have to go forward about 20 years from any given fertility snapshot to see the correlation between crime and single motherhood, because late teens and early 20s are the most crime-prone years.

In a 2008 post, Atlantic writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, who also appears to also be skeptical of the idea that single mothers are as prolific as ever, found that black illegitimate fertility was about 75% higher in 1970 than in 2005:

In 1970 the birth rate for unmarried black women was 96 per 1,000. In 1980, it was 87.9. In 2005 it was 60.6. There is a huge spike in the late 1980s, but the overal trend is clear–the birth rate for unmarried black women has been declining for almost 40 years.

Coates also links to a CDC report that finds that teen fertility peaked in the US in 1970 (p. 5):

The birth rate for teenagers 15–19 years declined 1 percent to 40.5 births per 1,000 females (Tables A, 4, and 8). The 2005 rate was 34 percent lower than the rate for the recent peak in 1991 (61.8). (See Figures 3 and 4.) The number of births to teenagers 15–19 declined very slightly to 414,593, the fewest reported since 1946. Births to 15–19-year-olds in the U.S. peaked in 1970 (644,708) (17).

It appears that 20 years after record numbers of teen and illegitimate births in black America there happened to be an unprecedented crime wave in that same demographic. Philip Cohen would have us believe that single motherhood is not responsible, but if that’s the case why did he leave out these important numbers, focusing instead only on the fact that more households are headed by single women? Isn’t it a pretty weak argument if these single women are having far fewer children relative to the population than they were in the early 1970s, and their children constitute a much smaller share of the population?

Cohen writes:

By my reading of the research, it is true that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes. But other factors are more important…

Of course they are. If you’re going to calculate violent crime per 100,000 people, a very important factor is the number of teen and young adult children of single mothers as a proportion of that 100,000 people. In urban black America in 1990 (he uses a graph of DC crime rates), it was far higher than today – higher national rates of single motherhood notwithstanding – and Cohen should know enough about demographics and statistics to see that — it is his job after all.

However, Cohen has an agenda, and he isn’t in the least bashful about it. From his bio:

Philip Cohen, Professor of Sociology, has a long-standing research interest in the area of Gender, Family, and Social Change. In particular, he has published extensively on the gender division of labor within families, and between men and women outside of families. In addition to the substantive aspects of this research, he has maintained a strong interest in measurement issues in the area of household and family structure, which has included participating in Counting Couples research conferences at NICHD and consulting with the U.S. Census Bureau on household measurement issues, as well as publishing in demography and sociology journals on these questions.

In other words, he’s just another version of Michael Kimmel, only with a somewhat more quantitative style. Like Kimmel, he is a professional, academic feminist, making a good living off deconstructing the family on the taxpayer’s dime.

It might be tempting to write off these guys as relatively unimportant, but countering their agenda and deliberately flawed analysis takes both time and some mental effort, and it’s an important job. This is because it all too often makes its way into policy, and that’s a problem for us down the road. If a professor such as Cohen is willing to obfuscate the clear link between crime and family disintegration in order to promote single motherhood, then it follows that he prioritizes single motherhood over social peace and welfare. This is not the kind of person who has our best interests in mind.

{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }

The Trend December 4, 2012 at 08:30

Call it the family cliff- and we went off it a long time ago. Like the politicians who would sacrifice the country before their career On the “fiscal cliff” the likes of Cohen are glad to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of fatherless black and Hispanic teens before they admit the importance of fathers. Is he asking people to believe that poor dropouts having babies is a good idea?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader December 4, 2012 at 08:34

Welmer
It might be tempting to write off these guys as relatively unimportant, but countering their agenda and deliberately flawed analysis takes both time and some mental effort, and it’s an important job. This is because it all too often makes its way into policy, and that’s a problem for us down the road.

No kidding. Mandatory arrest policies on DV calls all can be traced back to a tiny handful of poorly done studies in Minneapolis circa the late 1970′s (1978 – 1980 IIRC). The notion that women are always victims of DV and men always aggressors can be traced to some other badly done studies in the 1970′s as well.

Bad science that supports a political agenda all too often turns into policy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lysander Spooner December 4, 2012 at 08:56

Single Mothers=Entitled Welfare Hoes, best to keep a silver bullet or wooden stake handy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed December 4, 2012 at 09:01

A lot of these kids, unfortunately, had no idea who their fathers were. None at all. Their idea of family was extraordinarily flexible by necessity

A bit of anecdotal evidence which supports that observation and points to some of its implications –
I live in a transitional neighborhood which was about 80% white when I moved there, and over the past 25 years has become about 60% black. I spend a lot of time outside working on my place, and kids from the neighborhood always come up and talk to me.

There are odd and subtle variations in the language they use, which point to their deeper structures of thought in how they mentally order the world they inhabit. None of them has ever asked me “do you live here”, they always ask “do you stay here?” When I noticed that bit of linguistic oddity, I started experimenting with it.

“So, where do you live?”
“Well, right now we are staying with my grandmother (aunt, etc) down there.” (points down the street)

Seldom do they mention a male person they are “staying” with.

Not only is their idea of family very flexible, there was an almost complete lack of any concept of permanence.

“So, how long have you been living with your grandmother, and where did you live before?”
“We have been staying with her a year or two, before that we stayed with my momma’s sister.”

These kids are growing up as urban nomads. They “stay” one place for a while, then they move and “stay” somewhere else.

Perhaps the most heartbreaking manifestation of no sense of permanence, and no optimism about the future, comes from the boys who say things like –
IF I grow up, I want to be a fireman.”

It wasn’t “when I grow up”, it was “IF I grow up…”

The boy who said this to me about 15-20 years ago – when he was about 5 or 6 – didn’t. He was popped with a 9mm about 5 years ago by a drug dealer who thought he was moving in on the thug’s territory.

Problem is – the thug was right – “Slick Rick” was dealing in the thug’s territory.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster December 4, 2012 at 09:05

In 1970 young single mothers were compensated based on the number of children they had to provide for via state Welfare; the more children, the bigger the monthly check. After Welfare reform in 1994 shifted Welfare from the gubmint to the BabyDaddy, inner city women were less apt to birth multiple chillins because tracking down multiple BabyDaddies for child support was a challenge. Also at this time Affirmative Action pressed employers hard to hire black females, and PlannedParenthood set up shop in most black neighborhoods, making abortion free and convenient.

(George Wallace ran against Richard Nixon in 1972, his key issue being welfare reform. He was called a racist, and diminished to obscurity.)

I wonder sometimes what my kids will think of those scenes when they grow up — I doubt they’ll understand it much at all, and that might be a good thing.

They’ll be able to see it live in a matter of years, if not months.

“Things are getting worse in San Bernardino. The city filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, but its financial situation has continued to deteriorate. And now with what promises to be a heated court battle over payments to the state pension fund in the offing, further cuts are likely.

“Things are getting so bad that at a recent city council meeting, the city attorney advised residents to ‘lock their doors and load their guns’ because the city could no longer afford to keep up a strong enough police force.”

It will work it’s way out from city to city, and eventually the entire state will collapse. Democrats are the majority party in all aspects of government. The few Republicans can’t even fillibuster. LaLa Land will be ground zero for the inner city violence to come. It will make 1992 look like a little skirmish among some boys. California will look like Greece, only with very angry and armed blacks taking to the streets, not gentile, docile Greeks….when the austerity measures kick in.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
keyster December 4, 2012 at 09:16

Shifting demography:

A Nation of Singles

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nation-singles_664275.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Poiuyt December 4, 2012 at 09:44

Ours and our childrens salvation isn’t going to come about as a result of better and more detailed social/political analysis, but as a result of a growing unaffordability of misandries ballooning negative consequences.

Money cannot be printed, borrowed or taxed endlessly nor forever with which bastardising and child sodomising burreaucrats handsomely pay themselves to construct a system wherein to practise crime. A reckoning is acomming down the line.

But that which drives my unlimited wrath and foaming rage is the realisation and understanding of the following :- That the primary proposers, endorsers and enforcers of this model-odium of abortion, divorce, bastardy and fatherlessness, themselves originate from good stable homes where-from fatherhood reigns supreme. That is, homes from which parternal kinship and unbroken familial ties prevail.

It can’t end well for anyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu December 4, 2012 at 10:03

Why do you keep up with the same shit keyster? It didn’t work, it’s not going to work if you try harder.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
zed December 4, 2012 at 10:10

Shifting demography:

A Nation of Singles

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nation-singles_664275.html

Here is something I wrote in 1996.

Surviving a culture of singleness: choosing unmated lifestyles

You would have to have been living under a rock for the past 30 years to have been unaware of the major social shifts occurring in the structure and function of marriage, the family, and child rearing.
Ethical, caring, progressive men have few palatable choices in the mating game today. Culturally, fathers have been reduced to walking wallets. Men who want a real role in raising their children are confronted with the growing acceptance of single motherhood, with its inescapable implication of single fatherhood. As the battle for “wage parity” continues, gains in women’s income are often offset by the reduced numbers of men who out earn them and are thus considered “eligible.”

Resource competition is reaching levels never even dreamed before. The entire notion of “necessity” has been redefined in two generations and very little which is regarded as essential today was even dreamed of by the generation that spanned the great depression and WW II. The notion of entitlements introduced during the 1930s to pull the nation out of the depression has fossilized into making the government the parent of all. Fathers are disposable as long as the mother has income from somewhere. Mothers are disposable because now we have “day care” and “quality” time.

I believe that Charlie Chaplin’s vision in “Modern Times” has become reality. Human beings have been mechanized just like industry and standardization has become the rule of success. Individuality, individual variation, and uniqueness have all succumbed to mass culture.

Since the 1960s, the focus in the realignment has been women’s roles and women’s issues. The movement which has spearheaded this effort has even had a feminine name. In fact, feminism literally is the ideology of the feminine. (now known in the manosphere as “the Feminine Imperative”)

Despite all the changes in women’s roles, the expectations within the culture were that men would continue to fulfill all their old duties. And, since the generation of men entering into the gauntlet that the mating years were to become, was brought up expecting to do just that, the boomer generation for the most part tried to comply. However, the change in women’s roles has had such profound and lasting changes that men’s roles are in transition whether anyone likes it or not.

As the provider role falls by the wayside on the pilgrimage to wage parity, and the disciplinarian role falls to the relentless efforts to uncover victims of abuse, men are faced with being criticized for what they were brought up to do. There has been deep and long standing bitter resentment of that by men. And the net effect on men raised after this vast social change will take decades to fully assess.

However, one effect is already beginning to become apparent and that is an awareness of just how expensive fertility has become. Particularly in the US, people accustomed to the highest living standard in the world are ripping and tearing at each other over the belief that the share of the wealth which they are receiving is not large enough. Having children and taking on the providing role means you have to take on the responsibility for providing them with ENOUGH.

Remember, everyone wants to “HAVE IT ALL” these days. It’s not just “men against women,” children are turning on their parents these days. Remember the Menendez brothers?

With so many obstacles and burdens to raising children, as opposed to simply becoming pregnant, it is something that men will begin to avoid with the same fervor that women have pursued birth control and such radical tactics as abortion. C4m, choice for men, is the legal equivalent to abortion. Male birth control pills are being tested. Men are challenging in court the rights of women to conceive and stick them with the bill.

We have reached the stage in polarization between the genders where the user of birth control now has to warrant its effectiveness.

The disruptions in fertility patterns will soon shift from the generalized right to NOT reproduce, to certain more fundamental questions about the right TO reproduce. Based on cost alone, many will have to make the decision to not have children because they can’t afford them.

The primary question will end up being whether the sex drive can be successfully defined completely away from its history-long biological purpose – continuation of the species – into a new “social” mold. Can everything about us, from our bodies to our most basic drives, be simply redefined in semantic terms and become, like feminism, whatever we say it is?

I contend not.

The legal and cultural situation is forcing a reversal in some of the responsibilities of relationship initiation and maintenance. Men are being forced to take on the role of gatekeeper and deal with women who are very aggressive in pursuing sex. The crushing burdens of the current idealized father role and the legal risks posed by Sexual Harassment and Rape laws take a great deal of the attractiveness out of women in general.

Maleness, liking women, wanting to have sex with them, and fatherhood have all been criminalized. It is easy to tell what a culture is trying to stamp out by what it criminalizes. How boys and young men will respond is hard to predict. But they will doubtless react very differently from their fathers whose actions were criminalized after they committed them.

For the near future, at least, it seems that both men and women will need to adjust to unmated and childless lives. It is highly doubtful that government subsidies will be extended to children conceived through a sperm bank, at least not for very long if women continue to take on increased tax burdens as their income increases. For as hard as the conservatives have fought to preserve it, the nuclear family looks like it is going into mothballs like nuclear arms.

What will replace it is anybody’s guess. And everybody is guessing. And the stakes for a wrong guess just keep getting higher.

The boomers were the straddle generation. They were born and socialized under the old ideas of family, even though they were already breaking down, then tried to make the transition to living under the new ones. The results were wildly mixed.

Now, the boomers are increasingly adopting singleness as a lifestyle and retiring from the gender armies to let the younger ones fight it out. The question is whether the young will keep on fighting it, or reject the gender war just like the boomers rejected the Vietnam War. Interestingly, I saw a boomer post on a web forum “They’re turning on us.” Well, that’s what we taught them.

I hope this turns out to be the case. Young men and women have inherited a legacy of hatred and distrust that will be hard to overcome. They have all been fed a lot of propaganda. I’m glad I grew up before all this started to happen. I don’t envy them the task.

One thing seems certain – that both genders will need to approach fertility in more cautious and planned ways. But certainly for men, exploration of alternatives to fatherhood will definitely need to be considered.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Zorro December 4, 2012 at 10:12

In other words, he’s just another version of Michael Kimmel, only with a somewhat more quantitative style. Like Kimmel, he is a professional, academic feminist, making a good living off deconstructing the family on the taxpayer’s dime.

And in still other words, he’s an overeducated scumbag that gives society terminal cancer and has the balls to send a bill for services rendered.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster December 4, 2012 at 10:31

That is, homes from which parternal kinship and unbroken familial ties prevail.

Today’s children could be raised by modern day Ozzie and Harriet’s, but they’ll STILL be influenced (indocrinated) by a liberal/feminist biased education system and mass media. This is why some conservative parents are home-schooling and/or sending their kiddies to charter schools…and limit the amount of TV; what shows they watch.

A friend of mine and his wife are both very religious/conservative people. They have three daughters who are fairly strident liberal/feminists. How? They all came back from college transformed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed December 4, 2012 at 10:39

In other words, he’s just another version of Michael Kimmel, only with a somewhat more quantitative style. Like Kimmel, he is a professional, academic feminist, making a good living off deconstructing the family on the taxpayer’s dime.

And in still other words, he’s an overeducated scumbag that gives society terminal cancer and has the balls to send a bill for services rendered.

Now is it beginning to make more sense why one of the first things revolutionaries like Mao Zedung and Pol Pot did when they seized power was to empty out the universities and send the leeches out into the fields to either actually become productive and useful, or perish there?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pirran December 4, 2012 at 10:56

@WFP
“This is not the kind of person who has our best interests in mind.”

Certainly not. Perhaps more importantly, his pseudo-credentialism and flawed research gives the trad-fems and yattering yentas of think pieces on The Atlantic (and Slate, Jezebel, you name it) the underpinnings for substantiating their nonsense (“But, but he’s a Distinguished Professor of Empathy Studies. He MUST be taken seriously”).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
joeb December 4, 2012 at 11:01

Unless you can compare the negative effect of VAW laws and adjust the methodology to the gender forgotten( males ) its flawed .
We can’t get to the truth by looking at one gender .
The violence caused by corrupt laws is impotent to the scheme .
Also Its hard to believe a married women with a dedicated partner is as safe as a single Mom . Hog wash .
If you put them all into baby farms ( A brave new world ) then discount the act The Number will work out in the favor of the Harvesters regardless of the social crimes .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Morrisfactor December 4, 2012 at 11:11

Keyster-

Thanks for the link to the Weekly Standard article – it was definitely worth reading – note that as good as the article was, the author never once mentioned the role of feminism/Marxism in the decline of marriage.

Zed -

Thanks to you too for the reprint of your views – I’ve learned lot from you, hope you keep posting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Justinian December 4, 2012 at 11:19

A friend of mine and his wife are both very religious/conservative people. They have three daughters who are fairly strident liberal/feminists. How? They all came back from college transformed.

Which once again shows how utterly clueless religious conservatives are in transmitting their faith and values to the next generation.

I’m in my early 30s and grew up in a conservative Catholic parish where a half-dozen children to a family was common (but not common for the wider culture in the 80s).

I remember back in the day, my friends’ and acquaintances’ parents were crowing about how they were going forth and multiplying while the secularists aborted and contracepted themselves out of existence.

Yet this was a upper-middle class community where all the privileged daughters were not at all prepared for their own marriage and family. They were sent to college on daddy’s dime or got lucrative scholarships with family connections.

I’ve been following most of my childhood friends/classmates on Facebook and not a single one is following the mold of a traditional religious family with large numbers of children.

A huge percentage of both the boys and girls I grew up with are still single and childless in their 30s. The ones that do have children typically have 1 or two within a dual-career, dual-income household.

The individual with the most children (4) was a high-school pothead who married the mother of his children after #3 was born. They got divorced after #4 and his life is essentially over as he is getting hounded mercilessly for child support. He occasionally makes posts on facebook that sounds like he is contemplating suicide.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anon7 December 4, 2012 at 11:47

“Democrats are the majority party in all aspects of government.”
@keyster

30 states have Republican governors. 29 states have Republican majorities in their state legislatures’ upper house. Etc.
BOTH parties fall all over themselves to align with feminist beliefs when it comes time to vote.

See this link for the dismal actual numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
joeb December 4, 2012 at 12:06

Ha zed , Nice catch prepositional logic is a course all men should take . I always look for negation and tricky use of ifs and whats but, and just plain verb tense .

Contrariwise,’ continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 4, 2012 at 12:19

I saw this the other day and wondered about some of the same things.

I am especially interested in how prison sentences have changed the crime rate. It was around the late 80 and early 90s that mandatory sentencing became widespread, especially with respect to crack. A guy I used to work with sold crack on the side, he lived on the hill(a southern term for the ghetto) and was the product of a single mom, because he liked the money and used it for his baby mommas. Well, he got busted with just a small amount of crack cocaine, note that he didn’t use it and often made fun of the slags and hoes who would offer sexual favors for a bit of rock, and he didn’t have any guns or anything like that but had a few minor previous misdemeanors. He got a mandatory 10 yrs.

Now, with good behavior and overcrowding and what not he might get out in 2/3-5 or so but that is still a lot of time to be off the street. Factor in recidivism and escalation of crimes and severity and you could easily have a medium sized population that spent the majority of their time during the 90s to the 00s behind bars for one reason or another. You also have the possibility of having guys end up back in prison for not actually creating a crime that would be counted in the samples given, like various parole violations.

While some of you guys are focusing on minority crime I gotta say that I think you are missing the mark. Here in the south/south east we have huge crime rates and most of it is committed by white guys who are the products of honey boo boo child type single mothers by choice. The same is true in Maryland. While shows like The Wire focused largely on the black projects, the formerly blue collar areas have been turned into ghettos and all the time I am meeting young guys my age who have moved south to get away from the high crime rates and gangs. I used to live in Maryland and I always find it interesting how many guys move south to get away from the drugs only to find out that we are steeped in meth and oxy here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price December 4, 2012 at 12:25

While some of you guys are focusing on minority crime I gotta say that I think you are missing the mark. Here in the south/south east we have huge crime rates and most of it is committed by white guys who are the products of honey boo boo child type single mothers by choice.

-Troll King

I’m sure the trends apply to any race, but when when you’re talking about urban crime in the 90s (like Cohen was) you can’t exactly ignore minority crime. I think we’ll see a much more criminal white underclass develop though, for sure. We’re headed closer to British norms in that way.

Justinian December 4, 2012 at 12:26

US married father’s horror after wife places his child with an adopted family without telling him

A Texas man is battling for custody of his first-born daughter after his wife successfully gave her up for adoption without telling him – to a family who now refuses to return the girl.

Terry Achane, 31, a drill instructor in South Carolina, says it was just days after he left his pregnant wife for his new job out of state that she quietly signed over their unborn baby to a family of seven in Utah.

His newborn baby, whom he had wanted to name Teleah, was given to Jared and Kristi Frei, who now say the girl is theirs and won’t give her back without a fight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer December 4, 2012 at 12:35

“…Atlantic writer Ta-Nehisi Coates….”

Who banned me from commenting at “The Atlantic” when I posited that he only pretended to like “rap” music because he thought it annoyed white people. So much for engaging a Senior Black Journalist in an open discussion of Race in America.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster December 4, 2012 at 12:57

– note that as good as the article was, the author never once mentioned the role of feminism/Marxism in the decline of marriage.

They leave that up to the likes of me and other MRM/Red Pill interlopers in the comments sections.

30 states have Republican governors. 29 states have Republican majorities in their state legislatures’ upper house. Etc.
BOTH parties fall all over themselves to align with feminist beliefs when it comes time to vote.

I was talking in the context of California being the first state to fail, due to mis-management of one (socialist) party rule.

Regarding states with Republican majorities if they meant to “fall all over themselves to align with feminist beliefs when it comes time to vote.” – – they wouldn’t be passing all these bills trying to roll back abortion rights. Remember Abortion Rights makes up 90% of the feminist agenda. Equal pay, free healthcare and day care are distant seconds. Professional feminist lobbyists are all over our state capital buildings stirring up trouble.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet December 4, 2012 at 13:22

“Who banned me from commenting at “The Atlantic” when I posited that he only pretended to like “rap” music because he thought it annoyed white people.”

Hell, I would’ve banned you, too—there’s not a word of truth here. None.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
joeb December 4, 2012 at 13:38

Justinian
Us married father story is horrible. Its full of so many culture shocks Ill be reeling all night from the pic of the white women holding her new Triple hit veteran social services slavery package .
That Baby’s gold , a veterans income is worth three HHS hits . If he argue’s he will find himself in the brig .
I wonder if she sold the rights like a stock option .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ode December 4, 2012 at 13:52

Elmer says

“…Atlantic writer Ta-Nehisi Coates….”

Who banned me from commenting at “The Atlantic” when I posited that he only pretended to like “rap” music because he thought it annoyed white people. So much for engaging a Senior Black Journalist in an open discussion of Race in America.

I’ve been banned from 3 different Internet message boards for taking a politically incorrect position on issues like race and gender. I don’t spend as much time on Internet forums as before because what’s the point of getting banned again.

Feminists know they cannot win an intellectual debate. They have no option left but to SHOUT you down and ban you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer December 4, 2012 at 15:11

“Hell, I would’ve banned you, too—there’s not a word of truth here. None.”

Oh it’s Everybody Pile on Elmer Day. Yeah, I get it, it’s cause I’m a White Male.

Forget “Work-Life Balance” — Give Us Choices Instead

http://www.forbes.com/sites/yec/2012/12/04/forget-work-life-balance-give-us-choices-instead

elmer repeats the work/life balance equation :

As always, the call goes out for profitable organizations to change their structures for the comfort and security of women, along with a dire warning that they will suffer the consequences (“loss of talent”) if they don’t. Men meanwhile have always understood the trade-offs that accompany work and either bear the burden or change their job to suit their needs.

Nobody gives you work-life balance. You take it. And if you are having a pointlessly “busy” life don’t expect your employer to make accommodations so you can “fit it all in”. There are plenty of people competing for your job that don’t entertain such ridiculous delusions.

None of you gals are as “talented” as you think or are irreplaceable. If you bring money into the organization, then you can claim “talent” and can do whatever the hell you want . Otherwise you are pushing paper around and getting an inflated ego about it.

She responds, angrily :

Susan Strayer LaMotte

@elmer: I focused on women here because they are the ones making more of the choices right now (and asking more for flexibility). The 2010 census showed that there are 3x more married households with men-only working than with women-only working.

Quite frankly, I’m sick of posts like this being tagged as feminist rants. They aren’t. The bottom line is that women want more flexibility and companies like Stella & Dot are building businesses based on that desire.

We’re NOT asking to fit it all in. That’s the premise of the article. We get that flexibility means less hours and less pay. But most employers don’t offer any flexibility anymore. I don’t know your personal situation, but I don’t know anyone who lives a pointlessly busy life. We all value what we fill our time with differently.

And if you don’t care, that’s fine. But the talent equation is shifting and if companies want women in their workplaces, they have to give a damn about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J@bberw0cky December 4, 2012 at 15:26

OT: Well team, a congratulations is in order; I’m getting divorced! I married my soon to be ex-wife about 5 years ago. Three months into our marriage she was no longer working due to health issues. This I could live with, but she would not adjust her lifestyle to reflect our new economic realities, nor would she shift her energies to being a pleasant helpmate or homemaker to compensate. Thank God I went out of my way to ensure she never got pregnant. The divorce so far is amicable, but I’ll keep yall updated on how a modern day divorce goes when both sides seem to be on the same page and no children are involved. It will not take me by surprise if things get ugly, but we have no real assets to split and our debt is minor by most standards. I live in South Carolina, so the process takes at least a year I believe by law. Any advice or heads up on what to expect is appreciated. BTW; she knew my MRA beliefs long before we got married yet she still pressured me to marry her. In order for me to agree to marriage, I repeatedly had her swear that she would never rely on me to be the main economic provider of our relationship. I’m an artist, and at the time she made very good money. After she got too sick to work I kept us afloat economically for nearly 4 years as best I could, but then simply quit trying as her behavior and attitudes remained inflexible in light of our new realities. As the picture became clear that neither one of us was capable or willing of the dramatic change that would have been necessary to save our sinking marriage, divorce was the obvious outcome. It saddens me on several levels, and we truly loved each other, but you cannot put a price on freedom, especially for someone with the soul of an artist. For a man to be truly free he cannot enslave himself to the bonds of modern day marriage. I gave it a try despite knowing better, thinking it was as ideal a situation as it could be in light of the legal and cultural realities of our time, and it still failed. It could have been much worse, but it equally could have been a whole lot better. It’s not her fault she got sick, but instead of rising to the new challenges of her life, she simply crumbled like a whiny princess unwilling to accept anything less than she felt entitled to. How does our culture react when a man is no longer productive due to illness? The sympathy would have lasted mere weeks, not nearly the years and years my wife wallowed in her own misery, completely unwilling to take charge of her own destiny or make the best of a bad situation. It’s one thing to be unhappy, it’s another thing to force your unhappiness on all the people around you. But I’m free now, and it’s no longer my problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster December 4, 2012 at 15:41

And if you don’t care, that’s fine. But the talent equation is shifting and if companies want women in their workplaces, they have to give a damn about it.

They don’t necessarily “want women in their workplaces”. They’re required by EEOC mandate to have a “gender balanced” workforce, whether they want women or not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 4, 2012 at 15:44

I’m sure the trends apply to any race, but when when you’re talking about urban crime in the 90s (like Cohen was) you can’t exactly ignore minority crime. I think we’ll see a much more criminal white underclass develop though, for sure. We’re headed closer to British norms in that way

This makes sense. Just keep in mind that I was 7 yrs old in 1990. What I know about this is from what I remember watching TV and from seeing a bunch of white trash single mother by choice bastards mimic during my early middle school years. Before I moved off to LIVE with my mom, (I have noticed the same thing Zed but your comment really puts it into perspective), there were actually quite a few middle and high school aged boys who had created their own crip and blood sects. These were all white kids, though there were some black kids from The Hill who were part of much larger gangs from baltimore and NY and Detroit and so on, from single mother by choice and divorced families. The younger ones were just assholes looking for a place to fit in but the older ones, the High School and older, were already becoming hardcore and had progressed from selling weed and petty vandalism to meth and crack.

One of the reasons I stopped going to the community center after school to wait for my mom to pick me up around 7 was because one of the kids in my class, again a single mother bastard, had joined one of these wanna-be crips and robbed me at knife point in 5th grade.

I was waiting, as usual, with my younger brother to be picked up by my mom and the last teacher, as usual, was waiting with us and a few other kids. The other kids, as usual, got picked up late and, again as usual, I got sent in to call my mom and remind her to pick me and my brother up. The last teacher couldn’t wait any longer because she had to pick up her own kids from afterschool care and I told her it was no problem, as usual, and she left me and my younger bro sitting infront of the school. Ten minutes later this asshole walks by and starts picking a fight with me. I was going to beat him down, I even made the mistake of making fun of his blue bandana sticking out of his back pocket because I had heard that that was a sign that gays used to signal each other, and he pulled a knife and took the five bucks out of my pocket.

After that I got sick of hanging around the school until 6:30 or even 8:30 at night, and also got sick of hanging around the library or community center, which were down the street from the school and across the street from each other. So, I started walking about half a mile down the street to a comic book shop and hanging out there until closing time while waiting for my mom to show up.

Years ago after I moved back to LIVE with my dad in High school I asked around about what happened to that wannabe gangsta punk, I don’t even remember his name today, and found out from some mutual friends that he died from an overdose.

By this time I was in HS and had my own crew that I partied with and sold drugs with. You basically had to have some sort of group of friends in HS to watch your back or the other crews would fuck with you nonstop. Now, by this time they had seriously started clamping down in the school on delinquent behavior. The first year I was back living with my dad you could score pills and all sorts of drugs basically anywhere in the school. This was before columbine too, so it wasn’t like it was unheard of for kids to have knives and about once a year or so someone would get stabbed in a fight outside of school grounds (back behind the fences in the back parking lot next to a cemetary usually, lots of sex and drugs went on there). Later on though, about my junior year, they really put the smackdown and this was the same time that they opened up a Learning Center to deal with the “at-risk” kids (I always thought that was a funny sounding euphemism, especially applied to me) and they instituted a zero tolerance policy and started expelling kids by the dozen. If you had a beeper, expelled. Cause it is probably for selling drugs and not for your single mom to be able to get intouch with you after school.

Wear the wrong t-shirt, expelled. Get caught with drugs, expelled and mandatory enrollment in The Learning Center after being arrested and sent to Juvie. Basically The Learning Center, which is where I went to get my GED after I dropped out which was after getting arrested for pot at 17, was used, along with harsh zero tolerance rules enforced selectively against certain “at-risk” and “disruptive influences” groups of kids, to funnel the undesirables away from the state baby sitting center and into the prison industrial complex.

While I look back on it I think it was probably a good thing but at the same time it had a disproportionate effect on guys, some of which were my friends, who needed a male role model instead of the jackboot of the school cops. I won’t even go into all the crackdowns after Columbine or the fucked up teachers and administrative staff, one of which is directly responsibile, along with the cops, for putting a friend of mine into a situation where he committed suicide over a false rape allegation (I have shared that story here before a time or two).

One of the more interesting things about the creation of The Learning Center was how it was used to nurture teen moms. All but two of the girls I knew, who are alive today (one of the hottest girls I ever knew died from a heroin overdose a few days before I said fuck it and left school), from HS had children in HS or right after HS. You are correct WF Price that they didn’t have four or five kids but instead had three at the most and most only had one or two.

One of the interesting things is that the school system set up a secondary wing, they scrapped the remaining elements of what used to be shop and automotive and ag classes that were used to funnel guys into blue collar work to create this wing, to help single teen moms. I knew many girls who got pregnant simply so they could get all this extra assistance. It ranged, actually still does because now they have a daycare there and at the other High School in my hometwon(the other highschool teaches night classes for single mothers in a variety of subjects and has two non credited classes that they can barely fill with 8 or more guys that are catered to guys. One is a automotive repair class and the other is a welding class, I recently took the welding class and there were two other guys my age group and only 7 of us total), from daycare to assistance with filing for child support to assistance navigating various single mother programs to one on one tutoring for the lil’ dearies so that they can finish HS and apply to the community college.

What do the guys get? I knew guys that dropped out of HS, and the cops and truancy sector didn’t go after them, to get jobs to pay CS for kids they never wanted and in some cases weren’t theres. Most of the guys simply disappeared though.

I see guys like them all the time. I have been staying back at home for the last two months while I look for another apartment and because it is close to the school that I was taking the welding class at, I am finishing up my last semesters at University, and I go down to the locally owned gas station and market on a regular basis to buy smokes and bread and some beer every now and then.

They put out a weekly paper here called Just Busted that has the mug shots and crimes that people in my county and the surrounding counties were arrested for last week.

My county has about 12k people if you go way out into BFE(bum fuck egypt, I have no idea why it is called that but it is just the boonies) and each week the paper is about 70% young white male and each week they have about 80 to 150 mugshots of people from my county alone. Now, sometimes they are arrested in the city about 30 minutes away or in another county but they list it by residence and not location arrested.

That is per week. These guys often have tats on their neck and sometimes faces and it is obvious that most of the crimes are related to either single mothers and custody disputes or drugs(not weed but meth and oxy mostly). Now, there are actually quite a few single mothers arrested too and some single women too. Many, if not most, are buttfuck ugly and obese but some are quite attractive.

Wow, I have typed enough.

Anyways. I thought I would share that, I am tired and kinda forgot my point. I guess the main thing is that I grew up in and around this transformation that Zed and WF Price are talking about. The state now acts as a father figure and protects single mothers while harming their bastard sons and protecting the bastard girls so that they can continue the cycle. While some look for malicious intent with feminists and social conservatives (I am talking about the southeast here) I am not sure this was ever a concious decision. Or to put it another way, looking back on all of this I don’t think it was a planned out conspiracy type of plot.

I think the state was happy subsidizing childcare because that freed women to work and give more tax money. I think many boomers figured it wouldn’t be that much different than when they were kids and mom worked 15 hrs a week in a part time job and they played ball in the park afterschool.

Then something happened. Feminine hypergamy combined with the destruction of the male social role erupted at the same time, a time that was marked by drugs and AIDS inducing sexual extravagance and a recession and a divorce epidemic and so on. I think, to a large degree (I could be incorrect), that the school system found themselves without the ability to discipline or guide wild students but with the obligation to do so and they simply were outmatched so they shuffled as many into areas of the community that they could control, or exploit, like the school to prison pipeline.

Anyways, It is beer o’clock.

Welcome to the new normal. Hope you enjoy your stay. The way you wish it were, disapeared yesterday.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster December 4, 2012 at 15:54

Congratulations J@bberwokky!

Get a collaborative divorce attorney for both of you.
It will save you thousands in legal fees…IF….
…she doesn’t contest the “agreement”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 December 4, 2012 at 16:12

A few rambling thoughts on demography: Democrats seem to think that the political fracture line is sex, with women h0lding the high cards. In a sense they’re right, but in another they’re wrong: Romney won among married women and Obama won among single men. Marriage status is perhaps the most important single factor (although many sub-factors influence the marriage rate within demographic groups). But neither major party – nor the culture – is interested in making marriage palatable to men. As a legal arrangement marriage is a crazy risk for a man: he is essentially entering into a contract in which he has life-long legal responsibilities and no specific legal rights that will be respected since the other party will be a crying female. In no other area of contract law can one party renege of their part of the deal at whim and legally force the other party to maintain their part of the deal in perpetuity.

Culture reinforces this: a husband can scarcely claim to be the “head of the household” if his wife may have him ejected for anything or nothing any time she likes. A man claiming to be the head of his own household is often not even believed by other men, who are either too pu$$y-whipped or too brainwashed to understand that female “leadership” and male submission is contrary to good order and discipline – as well as the long-term happiness and welfare of both adults and their children of both sexes.

The casual acceptance of female carousel-riding, single motherhood, and the welfare state that keeps it all afloat means that there will be more kids who don’t know their fathers – boys bound for the prisons and girls bound for the dole…

…until the money runs out. It remains to be seen what singles will do when the gravy train leaves the station. When the minutes run out on the Obamaphone, and they have to wait four months for an MRI, and the police forces in their cities can no longer confine the mayhem to the slums, will they flee to safer places? Will they double-down? One thing is nearly certain: they will not make the connection between the destruction of fatherhood and the anarchy that threatens to swallow them.
_______________________________
Elmer,

I don’t know which I find more amusing: the goofy stuff they print in Forbes for Women or you poking them with sticks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 4, 2012 at 16:27

@ J@bberw0cky

Tough luck man. I hope all goes well for you. Glad to see you are back posting here. I was wondering what happened to you. Good luck with everything. In a few weeks I should be moving into a new apt. If you need a place to crash in the future, just hit me up. Tenn isn’t that far from carolina. Best wishes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Troll King December 4, 2012 at 17:11

Regarding states with Republican majorities if they meant to “fall all over themselves to align with feminist beliefs when it comes time to vote.” – – they wouldn’t be passing all these bills trying to roll back abortion rights. Remember Abortion Rights makes up 90% of the feminist agenda. Equal pay, free healthcare and day care are distant seconds. Professional feminist lobbyists are all over our state capital buildings stirring up trouble.

-Keyster

Eh, I don’t buy that for one second man. Socons/tradcons are feminists in sheep clothing. The only difference between them and progressive feminists is that they are against abortion and generally are either secular theists or evangelical theists while progressives tend towards all sorts of wierd religions like wicca and the feminist ideology/religion of Atheism Plus (the recent attempt to take over atheism/skepticism and appropriate it as a social justice feminist cause instead of simply a group of skeptics if you don’t know).

To me abortion isn’t that big of a deal. I mean, on a moral level it is. On a practical level it might be a lesser of two evils or maybe not. On a individual or personal level I would probably have a huge problem if a babymomma of mine wanted to abort my potential child…though there is fuck all I can do about that, legally anyways.

On a biomedical ethics/philosophy basis both the right and left of the political spectrum are full of shit when they talk about abortion. Simply put: Abortion is about ending a life, the entire debate is about how we as a culture determine when a life is morally valuable.

Some might claim conception, others at week x, and others still even after it is out of the womb or even later. But the truth of the matter is that from a philosophical point of view that is all it is. When do we as a human collective and culture determine that a life is morally valuable?

We make these decisions, what type of life is morally valuable and under what conditions, all the time in our society. We do it with death row, with the elderly, with soldiers, with disabled patients and brain dead patients and so on.

Now, due to Neoteny, most people have an evolved response to protect the young first and that is one of the major reasons that there is such a kneejerk reaction against abortion. Also, placing pictures of dead Rhesus monkeys on billboards around campuses and calling them aborted fetuses doesn’t help.

Now, I am not really going to get into abortion as a topic because it is a very complicated issue from a moral philosophy point of view. I will say, however, that I don’t think it matters much what evangelical christians in the republican party pass. It is not likely to have much of an effect even here in the south and definately not on a national or federal level.

Roe v. Wade isn’t going to be overturned by a few, more often than not “in name only”, fetal heartbeat bills or ultra sound bills. All it will do is make the far right base feel good about themselves while their representatives go on and on about da evil of it all and then the left gets it’s base energized and ends up crushing the right.

I am amazed that anyone can have watched the last presidential election and not realized that many, if not most, of the republican politicians are in league with the democrats. These people go to the same Ivy League schools and live in the same exclusive zip codes. The last thing that most of them want is southern whites having any power, just as the last thing they want is inner city blacks and hispanics having any power.

The abortion issue is a circus side-show meant to distract by pulling on the strings of peoples moral compasses, on both sides.

The real issue, with respect to red states, is that churchian and socially/traditionally conservative women are just as feminist as the progressives. 90% of their views are the same.

Hell, just the other day I saw two different commercials and both of them were locally produced by two different churches. One was from nashville and the other from knoxville.

Commercial A:

A woman enters the screen in front of a white backdrop. She is young, about 20 in real life but dressed as a 14 yr old. She is wearing way too much freaking mascara and it has left black streaks running down her cheeks. She starts saying:

Her: He said he loved me. He said we would be together forever. I told him we should wait, but I loved him so much. He said that if I loved him, I would give myself to him….blah blah blah, you get the point I think.

Then the camera pans out and you see that she is pregnant. She then talks about how he knocked her up and is no where to be found. Then a voice over comes on the screen as she is crying and gives the name of a local teen mom shelter and mentions jesus christ as a savior and lord and then puts a hotline number for moms to call and then another number and website asking for donations. Then it says that the ad was paid for by whatever church.

The second commercial I saw basically fit the same script but was done much more professionally. It showed a number of boomer aged women at first and talked about how they could be your mother. Then it showed about five or six young women, ranging from teens to early 30s at most, one or more were visibly pregnant, and then you realize what the commercial is about.

Each woman said one or two lines. They were lines like:

Woman one: I should have left when he hit me the first time but I didn’t have the strength. God finally gave me the strength after five years in an abusive marriage, now I live here.

Woman Two: He would get so upset because he loved me so much, or that is what he said. (she looks at feet while holding back a tear in her eyes) I thought I wasn’t emotional enough for him, or that he was so emotional becaused he loved me. With the help of “insert name of charity and church” I found out that emotional abuse is real and with the help of jesus christ our savior and lord my mental wounds are healing.

Woman three and four and five basically said the same shit. I could tell it was regurgitated from some sort of Men Can Stop Rape type of thing. If I remember correctly it might have even flashed a white ribbon logo at the end.

Then…

(a tender voice over happens while flashing images of each woman, a true benetton multicultural type of sequence)

Soothing voice: This could be your daughter….your mother…your grandmother….or your sister….At “whatever name” these are all the sisters of jesus christ our lord and savior, please donate your time and money to “name” and help the methodist something or other provide care and support in our women’s shelters for the lost sisters, who are now saved, of jesus crist…blah blah blah…has hotline number flashed on screen and read aloud twice.

Now. Those are just two examples and may not be common but they still exist right here in Tenn. One of the most conservative states. On top of that, the women who run school boards and implement programs for teen sluts to have day care provided at high school and communitie colleges are by and large socially conservative women.

I really don’t care about abortion, for one, again, I don’t think it is an issue, largely cause I don’t give a shit if some progressive granola crunching vegan slut murders her crotch fruit. As far as I am concerned it is one less child raised as a Baby X in our genderist dystopia. Seriously, click on the link and read the story. This was mandatory reading in High School english at my southerm, mostly christian conservative, white trash infested school.

If we want to collapse the system then we need to focus first and foremost and rolling back the areas where men are forced through law and coercion to subsidize female lifestyles and responsibilities.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer December 4, 2012 at 17:16

Thank Lyn. I shouldn’t be so damn mean though. These gals are trying to write upbeat essays and along comes some cynical old geezer to crap on the carpet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MKP December 4, 2012 at 20:44

Oh, I definitely think Elmer poking at them is more amusing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ode December 5, 2012 at 00:44

Dragnet says

Hell, I would’ve banned you, too—there’s not a word of truth here. None.

It is not the job of a moderator to judge what is true or false. That is for the audience to decide.
So what do moderators do, they make sure the discussion remains civilized.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
YouSoWould December 5, 2012 at 06:00

Have you read Freakonomics? The idea about birth control being responsible for the declining crime rate is talked about there, amonst other things. It’s a good read.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Szebran December 5, 2012 at 18:24

I only breezed thru his article (I’m tired) but his stats seem highly irrelevant. The question should be ‘What percentage of criminals were rasied by single mothers”. I didnt see that stat anywhere in his article.
Crime may be falling but if children rasied by single moms are still comiting 60% of the offenses then his entire article is irrelevant and wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J@bberw0cky December 6, 2012 at 10:23

“If you need a place to crash in the future, just hit me up. Tenn isn’t that far from carolina. Best wishes.”

We’ll have to have a meet up one day. I’m up north in Greenville, so I’m very close to Tenn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: