But no. It’s too late for that. Sorry, folks…this is going to happen.

Of course, Forbes writer Gene Marks is willing to concede that:

I am not a poor black kid. I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for me. But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. It doesn’t mean that there are no opportunities for them. Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind. I don’t believe that. I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed. Still. In 2011. Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia.

He is not from that background and hasn’t lived those experiences, but despite that, he feels eminently qualified to tell those poor black kids what they should be doing to overcome racism, poverty, and socioeconomic injustice. (NB: he’s not interested in discussing the actual problems or what might be done to solve them.) It’s mansplain-y, clueless, condescending and masquerading as coach-y pep talk. Here’s a taste:

It takes brains. It takes hard work. It takes a little luck. And a little help from others. It takes the ability and the know-how to use the resources that are available. Like technology. As a person who sells and has worked with technology all my life I also know this.

If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. I would make it my #1 priority to be able to read sufficiently. I wouldn’t care if I was a student at the worst public middle school in the worst inner city. Even the worst have their best. And the very best students, even at the worst schools, have more opportunities. Getting good grades is the key to having more options. With good grades you can choose different, better paths. If you do poorly in school, particularly in a lousy school, you’re severely limiting the limited opportunities you have.

And I would use the technology available to me as a student.  I know a few school teachers and they tell me that many inner city parents usually have or can afford cheap computers and internet service nowadays.  That because (and sadly) it’s oftentimes a necessary thing to keep their kids safe at home then on the streets.  And libraries and schools have computers available too.  Computers can be purchased cheaply at outlets like TigerDirect and Dell’s Outlet.  Professional organizations like accountants and architects often offer used computers from their members, sometimes at no cost at all.

Oh yeah, and if I were a poor black kid, I’d have access to all the same information and technology as an affluent, college-educated white reporter for Forbes. My parents and I would have contacts with professional organizations of accountants and architects, even though I live in a neighborhood with high unemployment and none of my relatives went to college or work white-collar jobs. Plus I’d have lots of spare time to spend hunting down those resources since I wouldn’t have to help care for my family or work any after-school jobs in addition to going to school. I’d also have the know-how to use all this technology because the public school I went to would have adequate funding for the best teachers, computer labs and after-school programs. And of course, I’d be completely safe in my neighborhood and at my school so that I wouldn’t have to worry about harm to me or my family while pursuing my goals.

Even if all of Uncle Gene’s advice magically worked for one poor black kid, what about the rest? Implicit in Marks’s argument is his belief that the majority of poor black kids will not succeed through no fault of their own, simply because the deck is stacked against them. He’s conceding right up front that upward mobility is only possible for the “very best”: the lucky, the exceptionally intelligent and hard-working. If those kids were white or reasonably affluent, then they could be mediocre and lazy and unlucky and probably still have a halfway decent life. What about the merely average, unlucky, or lazy poor black kids? Apparently, Gene Marks has no helpful advice for them.

“If I Were a Poor Black Kid” brought to mind an unforgettable rant in the book The Corner, by David Simon and Ed Burns (Simon is best known as the creator of “The Wire”, but he wrote two books of extraordinary reportage about Baltimore in the 80s and 90s.) After detailing the struggles of a black inner-city family mired in generational poverty and drug addiction, Simon lashes out at people like Gene Marks, people utterly convinced that if it were them, they’d know exactly how to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It’s the single most blistering indictment of complacently racist white America that I’ve ever read—one that smacks you upside the head like a lead pipe:

If it was us, we’d endure. Succeed. Thrive. No matter what, no matter how, we’d find the fucking exit.

If it was our fathers firing dope and our mothers smoking coke, we’d pull ourselves past it. We’d raise ourselves, discipline ourselves, teach ourselves the essentials of self-denial and delayed gratification that no one in our universe ever demonstrated. And if home was the rear room of some rancid, three-story shooting gallery, we’d rise above that too. We’d shuffle up the stairs past nodding fiends and sullen dealers, shut the bedroom door, turn of he television and do our schoolwork…And if there was no food on the table, we’re certain we could deal with that. We’d lie about our age to cut taters and spill grease and sling fries at the sub shop for five-and-change an hour…we’d work that job by night and go to class by day, by some miracle squeezing a quality education from the disaster that is the Baltimore school system. We’d do all the work, we’d pay whatever the price, and when all the other children are out in the street, learning the corner world, priming themselves for the only life they’ve ever known, we’d be holed up in some shithole of a rowhouse with our textbooks and yellow highlighter, cramming for finals…

That’s the myth of it, the required lie that allows us to render our judgments. It’s a reckoning of another kind, perhaps, and one that becomes a possibility only through the arrogance and certainty that so easily accompanies a well-planned and well-tended life. We know ourselves, we believe in ourselves; from what we value most, we grant ourselves the illusion that it’s not chance and circumstance, that opportunity itself isn’t the defining issue.

Yes, if we were down there, if we were the damned of the American cities, we would not fail. WE would rise above the corner. And when we tell ourselves such things, we unthinkingly assume that we would be consigned to places like Fayette Street [in the Baltimore slums] fully equipped, with all the graces and disciplines, talents and training that we now possess…Amid the stench of so much defeat and despair, we would kick fate in the teeth and claim our deserved victory. We would escape to live the life we were supposed to live, the life we are living now. We would be saved and as it is always in matters of salvation, we know this as a matter of perfect pristine faith.

Why? The truth is plain:
We were not born to be niggers.

At the end of the original post, Forbes editors have added links to several reactions that have appeared on the web. They are all worth reading, and not just because they rip Gene Marks a new one.

Update: There is also now a most excellent meme on Tumblr: http://ifiwasapoorblackkid.com/. 

Sex and the City makes an appearance in the very first paragraph. When will that show’s usefulness run its course for conservatives? But I digress.

Douthat juxtaposes a recent MTV special about abortion with two magazine articles about infertility to illustrate how poorly the young and disadvantaged are serving the needs of the old and desperate.

Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.

Some of this shift reflects the growing acceptance of single parenting. But some of it reflects the impact of Roe v. Wade. Since 1973, countless lives that might have been welcomed into families like Thernstrom’s — which looked into adoption, and gave it up as hopeless — have been cut short in utero instead.

This is why girls and women can’t be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies, y’know? Not only do we foolishly use the Pill and delay motherhood, we kill babies who could complete other women’s families. No Easy Decision, which aired on MTV last week, chronicles the experience of a young mom named Markai, who has an abortion. It also features coverage of Dr. Drew Pinsky interviewing her and two other women about their abortion experiences.

Douthat points to Markai’s sadness as proof that she’s been lied to by the pro-choice movement and is lying to herself about what she’s done. Sadness is not the same as regret. Complicated feelings do not mean women should be forced to bear children against their will. Douthat admits that abortion was the best choice available to Markai at the time of her pregnancy, and it will allow her and her boyfriend to give their daughter opportunities she might not otherwise have. And yet, the urge to control women remains.

Douthat needs to familiarize himself with another pair of teens made famous by MTV: Catelynn and Tyler. The couple was featured on the series 16 and Pregnant, and its sequel Teen Mom. Catelynn and Tyler gave their baby up for adoption, and their storyline is the most heart-wrenching of any featured on the two series. Contrary to Douthat’s cheery fantasies, adoption is not the best or easiest option for everyone dealing with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. It’s not all rainbows and lollipops. Catelynn and Tyler are satisfied with their decision, but they both suffer a lot of emotional turmoil in the process. It’s possible they always will.

The column concludes with a poem about fetal heartbeats from the perspective of an expectant father.

…

Talk amongst yourselves.

Via Antony Pranata @ Flickr.

Women make up nearly half the U.S. workforce now. And yet, in the past week, I’ve encountered three instances of men instructing women on how to fit in, succeed, and avoid distracting menfolk at the office.

The New York State Bar Association will hold its Annual Meeting next week. The Committee on Women in the Law is sponsoring a program called “Weathering Tough Times: Strategic Planning for Your Practice.”
“What’s Our Problem? Current Issues Facing Women” will be followed by a panel entitled, “Their Point of View: Tips From the Other Side” in which

[a] distinguished panel of gentlemen from the legal field will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of women in the areas of communication, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, organization, and women’s overall management of their legal work.

Say what? A little bit of outrage ensued, and the NYSBA responded by adding a few ladylawyers to the panel and issuing a passive aggressive statement that reads, “Unfortunately, the important objectives of this panel have been overshadowed by issues raised as to the topic description and the composition of the panel.” Yes, it’s too bad your own sexist stupidity got in the way of your stupid, sexist objectives.

Men’s way is considered the natural way, and women are taught to accommodate men and adapt to environments that are considered “theirs” – not just in manners of communication, negotiation, mediation, etc., but in our wardrobes. Friday on the Today Show, Author Shaunti Feldhahn discussed the findings of a seven year (!) study she conducted on the effect of women’s tits on work environments. Donny Deutsch was invited to weigh in, presumably to lend some credibility to this lady’s claim. In sum, men are easily distracted by your sexy body, so choose your outfits carefully. You don’t want your business to fail because Tom, Dick and Harry couldn’t focus on their jobs, do you? BUT, don’t dress like a man either. By the way, you know what I find distracting in the workplace? Dickswinging.

Which brings us to my final story. Some dude named Clay Shirky wrote a “rant” regarding women’s failure to do just that. His premise is that women do not get the recognition, promotions, or compensation they deserve in the workplace because “not enough women have what it takes to behave like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks.” Shirky encourages women to be more arrogant and to become better at misrepresenting their skills to get ahead. It’s true that women tend to underestimate their intelligence whilst men overestimate theirs, but I’d rather see men get some humility and women get some confidence than be stuck in a sea of pompous assholes. Shirky does acknowledge women’s fear of being penalized for “acting like men,” but he dismisses it, insisting that women must take risks in order to reap career rewards.

The main thought I have about all this is this: It’s about time we stopped treating men as the Default Worker. They can start adapting to our environment now. Although, women have outnumbered men in the world for a while, and men still make The Rules, so I won’t hold my breath.