Interracial Divorce. A New Study.

Hat tip to Andrew over on his blog "Mr. Laurelton Queens" for pointing out a new study entitled "Broken Boundaries or Broken Marriages?". Andrew references Evia's discussion of this study and her rather comical attempt at discrediting it. It is that attempt that I am going to discuss and how it relates to a certain habit exhibited by her and her fellow IR bloggers along with discussing some key points of the study.

Basically, the recent study by Vincent Kang Fu and Nicholas H. Wolfinger, both of the University of Utah, contradicts a previous study posted in a journal from the National Council on Family Relations by concluding that interracial marriages between black women and white men are more prone divorce than all other marriages involving white men. Evia's reaction to this is as followed:

Anyway back to the study sent to my private emailbox. Another red light
about the linked-to study above was that the women in the study married in
the 1980s and 1990s, were in their upper teens (TEENAGERS!) and early 20s and
typically only had high school diplomas and "some" college.

Really?

The National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) research that I
posted first in October 2009 studied couples who were more educated
and more mature in age. Those black women were women like us. The study
referred to the similar education level with their white husbands and the
vetting that went into selecting each other. This is a far cry from the way the
very young select their mates.

The typical bw-ir candidate these days is NOT a teenager and not
even in her early 20s.
The type of bw who I aim my blog at or who
reads my blog is not the type of bw in the study who is a married teenager
or early 20-something with a low education level. LOL! The typical bw who
reads my blog is a college grad and many have 2nd degrees and/or are the
graduates of professional schools, i.e. law, medicine, or have professional
licenses, i.e. cpa, pharmacy.

I would EXPECT for American women who marry when they're teens or early
twenties with high school diplomas or "some" college to not be able to meet the
challenges of marriage. So I'm not surprised if those relationships had a high
failure rate. Successful marriages are helped tremendously
by maturity. So those research findings did NOT contradict what
I've said here. I would venture to guess that those women also had lower
incomes, fewer options of all types, lower social exposure,
lower social standing, etc. than many bw who read my blog or are interested in
dating and marrying out these days.

Now here is the problem. The "NCFR research" is actually research by Bratter and King that was posted in an NCFR journal. Fu and Wolfinger reference the Bratter and King study and compares it to their own study. Fu and Wolfinger note that they themselves "use data from the 1995 and 2002 waves of the National Survey of Family Growth to investigate divorce differentials between endogamous and intermarried couples". Likewise, they note where Bratter and King acquired their date for their research. Can any guess where they acquired their date from? FROM THE 2002 NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILY GROWTH.

In other words, all of those surveyed in the "NCFR research" were surveyed in Fu and Wolfinger's research. The difference is that Fu and Wolfinger's research likewise included the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. This is noted on page 22 of the paper:

"Bratter and King (2008) use the 2002 NSFG, half of the data that we use".

So the question is where did Evia get the idea that the study that she likes had more mature, better educated and more financially able women being surveyed? All of the women from the study she likes participated in the study she doesn't like and the study she doesn't like additionally includes women from a version of the very same survey done seven year earlier. So where did Evia get this notion from? Quite simply, SHE MADE IT UP. She does something that she and the rest of her IR/black female empowerment cohorts routinely do. They simply imagine up things and present them as facts and damn anyone who asks them to provide evidence.

Now the interesting part of study is that it aims to show whether the generally higher rate of divorce for interracial marriages is due to intermarriage in and of itself or more so due to the acquisition of spouses with high divorce propensities. The research explains that black marriages have high divorce rates and the research leans toward the reasoning being that both black men and women have high divorce propensities. Basically, black people in general bring personal characteristics to marriage that increase the likelihood of divorce. The hypothesis is that if divorce rates for intermarried couples reflect a predicted mix of the divorce rates for the two constituient origin groups, then the divorce rate is not due to marriages being interracial. This is the finding of the research with regard to black/white marriages. Marriages between whites and blacks dissolve at higher rates than endogamous white marriages because the intermarriage contains a black spouse and not because they are intermarriages.

With regard to women, the research shows that Hispanic women have the lowest divorce propensity, followed by white women and then black women, who have the highest divorce propensity. Whether married to white or black men, black women have a high likelihood for divorce. Black men also have a high divorce propensity as well as Hispanic men, yet Hispanic marriages have the lowest rate of divorce of all marriages. Seems that Hispanic women's low divorce propensity is able to overshadow the high divorce propensity of Hispanic men.

Fu and Wolfinger also show the inadequacy of Bratter and King's research along with others. They state that:

These studies and others share a conventional approach for assessing the
effect of intermarriage on divorce: they directly compare the divorce rates of
interracial and same-race couples, ascertaining, for example, whether divorce
rates of Black wife/White husband couples differ from those of Black/Black and
White/White couples.

THIS APPROACH IS INADEQUATE because it does not uniquely identify the
effect of racial intermarriage on divorce. In the above example, Black
wife/White husband couples differ from endogamous White couples in two respects:
(I) the presence of a Black wife and (ii) the crossing of a racial
boundary. Either could be responsible for the higher divorce rate.
In order to uniquely identify the effect of intermarriage, a statistical model
must control for first-order racial differences in divorce propensities.
Only then can the effect of crossing a racial boundary be identified.

Spending Habits And Divorce

A lot has been mentioned of the high divorce rate for black marriages and it has been shown that money is the leading cause of today's divorces. With black men and women typically making less money than their white counterparts, one might deduce that this very factor makes finance influenced divorce more prevalent among blacks. But there is another factor, that being financial habits. A recent study gives a startling revelation about the financial circumstances of single black women:

"Women of all races bring home less income and own fewer assets, on average, than men of the same race, but for single black women the disparities are so overwhelmingly great that even in their prime working years their median wealth amounts to only $5."

"Among the most startling revelations in the wealth data is that while single white women in the prime of their working years (ages 36 to 49) have a median wealth of $42,600 (still only 61 percent of their single white male counterparts), the median wealth for single black women is only $5."

Now the disparities in income level between black women and white women are not even remotely as great as the disparity in median wealth between the two groups. Single white women don't come close to making twice the money single black women make, yet single white women seem to possess 8,520 times the median wealth of single black women. From the same study:

"Married or cohabitating white women have a median wealth of $167,500. Married or cohabitating black women have a median net worth of $31,500."

So when black women get married or live with men (predominantly black men), their median wealth becomes 5.3 times less than the median wealth of married or cohabitating white women. Quite a difference from 8,520. Seems that the greater frugality of their husbands make a world of difference. So how do black men do with regard to median wealth? Let's see:

"Excluding vehicles, [working age] single black women have a median wealth of $100 and Hispanic women $120 respectively, while their same-race male counterparts have $7,900 and $9,730. The median wealth of single white women is $41,500. To put it another way, single black and Hispanic women have one penny of wealth for every dollar of wealth owned by their male counterparts and a tiny fraction of a penny for every dollar of
wealth owned by white women."

"With so little in reserve, half of all single black and Hispanic women could not afford to take an unpaid sick day or to even have a major appliance repaired without going into debt."

So while black men seemingly are not doing great with regard to holding on to personal wealth, they are doing far better than black women. Even looking at the chart on the page, black men with children of any age have a median net worth of $26,000 compared to $100 for similar black women. Black men with children under the age of 18 have a median net worth of $10,960 compared to a median net worth of $0 for similar black women.

Of course, the claim will be that black women are overburdened with single motherhood, yet the fact is that there are 13 million single black women overall and 3.1 million single black mothers. Single black mothers, at less than 25% of all single black women, should not have such an extreme effect on the overall median net wealth of all single black women. So what is the reason? Here is a hint:

Almost seven in 10 (68 percent) Black women say that they buy what they really want ˜ in good times or bad. And many Black women face the temptation of unplanned spending when they are feeling stressed - nearly 40 percent report that they shop to cheer themselves up.

Two in five Black women feel guilty about how much they spend on expensive brands.

"For some Black women, excessive spending makes the road to long-term financial security even longer," Mims said. "To an extraordinary degree, Black women consider themselves trendsetters and centers of influence. Opinion-leading has its price."

As anyone knows, when a woman marries, she expects her husband to contribute to her spending habits. A woman who tends to spend money that she doesn't have will similarly expect her husband to spend money that he doesn't have. This is, in all likelihood where the "gold digger" stereotype came from. It's a misnomer. Black women are not any more likely to be gold diggers than any other group of women are are possibly less likely to be. What is prevalent is the tendency to demand excess expenditure from their men; excess being that which can't be afforded. Whether black women's men make 20 grand a year or 200 grand a year, quite often those men are expected to invest nearly all of it toward their women's desires. This inevitably causes conflict and contributes to the high divorce rate.

Signs of Regression

Pretty much most, if not all, of the pathologies prevalent in black America are present in other cultures, though often to a noticeably lower level. So basically, explanations as to why we are seeing certain negative trends in overall society, not only can be applied to black America, but black America is often a more extreme example of such negative social trends. This brings me to an interesting blog post I was linked to. It gives an interesting look at the nature of modern trends in marriage and relationships. Here is an excerp:

The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.

Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males

As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This double standard has invisible but major costs to society.

To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, and thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.

All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?

The writer then goes on to show modern trends that lift such traditional controls. With the history of black men being deprived of their authority and financial abilities by past racism, it is clear why such traditional controls have been lifted from black men and women to a greater level.

It appears that the chasing of alpha males is more prevalent among black women and this contributes greatly to the modern state of the black family. It helps create a high percentage of out-of-wedlock births, a high divorce rate and a high single rate. Our young boys are overwhelmingly being raised without fatherly influence and we are seeing the results today. A minority of black men seem to father a disproportionate number of our children and these very men are least likely to commit and/or be active fathers.

I would recommend reading the rest of the article and clicking on its links. Very interesting stuff.

Divorce and Black Men's Mothers.

With all of the discussion on divorce, I found the following article quite interesting:

Why Marriages Between Black Men and White Women Fail
March 09, 2007 by
Christy Harrell

You, Me and Big Mama?

If you are a white woman seeking a black man, make sure his mama is out of the picture first! Our culture does not prepare us for what lies ahead. I have fourteen years of experience to back up what I am about to share with you.

A white woman has no chance of ever playing an equal role to that of a black man's mama. This is a fact! Mama has an insurance policy built into her boy. He is 100% insured by Mama's Boy Indemnity Co.

You see, the black woman, she is real smart! She wants her boy around for life. She has invested eighteen years or more pampering this boy, building up his ego, and brain washing him to be at her beck and call. She will not have another woman getting in the way of this relationship. After all, at some point in her life, she will be all alone. When this time comes she has insured that her son will come to her rescue.

But beware ladies! That black man is real smart too, to a degree. He'll make you feel like you're the only woman in his life. He'll buy you flowers, treat you with diamonds. He can be so romantic, and the world knows his business in bed is, well you know. He'll keep you tantalized just long enough to have you wedded to him; all while keeping mama at bay. You see at this point he thinks he can have the crab cake and eat it too!

But ladies, let me assure you, the only good black man is the black man whose mama is non-existent, and you better have a private investigator verify this fact. There is no turning back once you have married this man. If his mama is in his life, she will move in on yours!

Her first visit will be a short visit. You won't notice anything at this point. Something stated negatively you'll just brush off as a cultural difference. Duh! The following year she visits for two weeks, the year after that, three, and before you know it, she will be living with you two months out of the year, every year.

When you finally get fed up with her coming into your home and running it, you will ask your hubby to say something. And when he refuses, you'll resort to back-up. After a few hours of marriage counseling and the counselor in your corner, your hubby will finally agree to have this discussion with his mama.

It isn't until several years later, after wading through excuse after excuse, you face the fact that your hubby never intended to confront his mother at all. You have finally come to the realization that your husband is, afterall, Mama's boy! He ain't gonna ask his Mama to do anything in your favor. You are out of your mind if you think he'll put anyone before his Mama!

Eventually you will become fed up of playing second fiddle to your mother-in-law and in the end Mama will win. She will always be first in her son's life. Unfortunately, your hubby will lose. You will walk away, and hubby will scratch his head.

The saddest point to this comical story is that your poor hubby, excuse me, ex-hubby, won't ever understand what happened. He was brainwashed to put his mama on a pedestal early in life, so spoiled by his mama into believing that he is perfect, that naturally he will assume there is something wrong with you for leaving him.

On the bright side, you will be the wiser and much happier for it. After all, you won't be catering to mama anymore!

After reading this, I thought of Jonnetta Patton, Gloria James and Donda West. Historically, black men have very close relationships with their mothers and very often, such mothers can be hell on their son's girlfriends and wives. Jennetta Patton (Usher's mother) is a good example.

Often times, black women are compared to Italian women in that both are very vocal and aggressive and in Italy, the divorce rate is soaring. What is considered the main reason? Mothers-in-law.

Mothers-in-Law Cause of Italy’s Soaring Divorce Rate

February 3, 2007

Italy has been experiencing an unprecedented rise in marriage break-ups. The main cause bearing a high proportion of the blame? Mamma’s boys and interfering mothers-in-law.

A new poll by research institute Eures reveals that divorce happens every four minutes(!) in the country once regarded as a bastion of marriage. In 2002, Italy recorded 50,828 divorces - a 45 percent increase from 2000. While some reasons for divorce seem to be marrying too young, squabbling over money and meeting new partners, a shocking three out of 10 marriages fail because of the unusually close attachment of Italian men to their mothers.

A real life “Everybody Loves Raymond”, mothers-in-law who live in the same house or nearby, are putting strains on couple’s relationship by meddling in their affairs, finding fault with her daughter-in-law and of course, treating her grown-up son as a child.

Psychologist Dr. Annamaria Cassanese says she sees many disillusioned daughters-in-law at her practice in Milan. “In Italy there still exists a sort of mother love that is excessive,” said Cassanes. “It is a very Latin thing, deeply embedded in our social structure. For example, you will see mothers crying at the weddings of their sons, but they are not crying for joy, they are crying because they feel devastated. Their son has chosen another woman and it arouses very complex feelings, including jealousy.”

Cassanese points out two different types of extreme Italian mothers-in-law. One refuses to give in to ageing and sees her daughter-in-law as a rival; the other has dedicated her life to her family and expects payback, well, for life. The latter type of mother-in-law starts creeping in by offering to do chores such as cooking, ironing and babysitting. “This can often be the beginning of an invasion, in which the mother-in-law slowly takes over and undermines the woman in her own home,” she says. “What starts out being portrayed as something that is helpful degenerates into outright intrusion such as going into drawers and pulling out shirts that are not ironed ‘her way’ or monopolizing the kitchen. Wives feel like strangers in their own homes because the mother-in-law is always there.”

The fact that many Italian parents help out their children financially by buying them apartments or cars doesn’t help either, adds Dr. Cassanese. The so-called generosity causes the mother-in-law to expect something in return. Cassanese claims that many couples still obey invitations to eat with their parents three or four times a week.

According to Dr. Cassanese, the concept of mammoni - sons who cling to apron strings - is well known in Italy and it is not uncommon for men in their 30’s and 40’s to live with their parents. The reasons are partly economic but also come about because boys are indulged well into adulthood causing Italian men who remain close to their mothers to become emotionally immature. “The husband is used to being adored and when he doesn’t get that unconditional love from his wife, he goes running back to his mother.”

This phenomenon is being seen in other parts of the world.

KUALA LUMPUR: Every married person knows it, but a local study has confirmed it – mothers-in-law are the chief cause of divorces, especially in the Indian community.
Data in the Malaysia Community and Family Study 2004 by the National Population and Family Development Board (LPPKN) revealed that “meddlesome in-laws” is the number one reason why Indian couples get divorced.

It is also among the top three factors for divorce among the Malays and Chinese. The other two factors are incompatibility (42.3%) and infidelity (12%).
“Interference by in-laws is the main reason for Indians to divorce. It is the top-ranked reason at 30%,” said LPPKN director-general Datuk Aminah Abdul Rahman when presenting a paper on Malaysia’s family profile and its effects at Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia yesterday.

Infidelity is the marriage breaker among the Malays and Indians but it is tolerated among the Chinese.

“Among Malays, the second most common reason is infidelity and refusal to put up with polygamy,” she said.

“Among the Indians, infidelity is the second highest ranked reason for divorce at 25%,” she said.

However, the Chinese considered infidelity as the least crucial reason for a divorce.
Cheating was at the bottom along with health and gambling addiction at 4.2%.
Surprisingly, abuse is not a reason for divorce among the Malays and Chinese, but is a reason among Indians at 5%.

“Another overall reason which ranked high among the three races at 11.5% is ‘not being responsible’,” she said.

Although it is common perception that the family institution is quite fragile and divorces are rampant, data shows otherwise - only 0.7% of the population was divorced in 2000.

The data shows that divorce is more likely to happen to those under 25 and above 40.
Meanwhile, Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil said that more Malaysian women were choosing to marry later in life and it could cause a reduction in fertility rate and an ageing society.
“The National Family Policy and its action plan will address this issue of late marriages,” she said.

The policy would be presented to the Cabinet soon.

Even back in the 40s, mothers-in-law seemed to be a possibly important factor in divorces.

So that brings to question whether black men's mothers contribute significantly to the high divorce rate in marriages involving black men. Black women are often quite aggressive in their desire to run the show and can be immensely possessive. Few women can give a daughter-in-law hell like a black woman. Let that daughter-in-law be white and the animosity increases considerably. The first article's writer sees her ex-husbands mother as the main reason for their divorce and views his mother's interference as something far less common or intense with white mothers. Food for thought.

"But Will It Last?". About interracial marriages and divorce.

There have been comments made by several black woman IR bloggers proclaiming the notion that IR relationships between black women and white men do much better than those between black men and white women. The first piece of "evidence" that they cite for this comes from this study and this specific part:

"Compared to White/White couples, White female/Black male, and White female/Asian male marriages were more prone to divorce; meanwhile, those involving non-White females and White males and Hispanics and non-Hispanic persons had similar or lower risks of divorce."

Now somehow, the term "non-white females" in this statement ended up meaning "black females". The fact that Asian and Hispanic women are also considered to be "non-White" never entered these women's minds. The fact that there are three times as many white male/Asian female couples than white male/black female couples should indicate to any logical person than this part of study mostly give indication of the stability between white men and Asian women.

The next piece of evidence they give is a ranking of interracial marriages that mysteriously formed out of the ether. It proclaims black woman/white man marriages as the second most stable interracial marriages with black men/white women marriages not even making the list. One their numbers posted a video on Youtube promoting this. Of course, it is like pulling teeth to get them to reference this information or provide a link to it. Sarah made an attempt to reference it by claiming that this was how Cosmopolitan Magazine ranked them in a mysterious issue ten years ago. Of course, nothing more specific was given as far as the date of the issue, volume, issue number, etc. I can't find it it through a Google search. We must all just take Sarah's word that it exists and says specifically what she claims that it says. We all know that Sara is filled with loads of honesty. NOT!

But during my searches, I did find something. There is a book called Exploring Black Sexuality by Robert Staples. Some pages of this book can be found on Google Books and part of it caught my attention. This part says:

“Interracial couples have a much higher divorce rate, especially Black women/white men, than coupes of the same race.”

The book references the statement to the "United States Bureau of the Census, Interracial Couples: 1960 to the Present. Washington, D.C.:U.S.Government Printing Office, 1999".

Now I don't know what is specifically written in this U.S. Census Beureau report, but I find it hard to believe that Staples would give a false statement in one of his several books and then falsely reference the false statement. So this is a good lesson in not taking anything the Black Women Empowerment Bloggers say at face value. Do your own research.

ADDENDUM: Truth B. Told referred me to a study that, while showing black men/white women marriages to be the least stable interracial marriages, the study also shows black women/white men marriages to be the next least stable interracial marriages. Thus, one thing that seems to be clear is that black women/white men marriages are NOT the second most stable interracial marriages and are at best the second most UNSTABLE interracial marriages.