The Institute (協会)

"(and the dominant culture doesn't seem to get it)"

Possibly because the dominant culture is in the midst of its own marriage crisis. Even among evangelical circles, it seems that young people, esp. young men, are terrified of marriage, or too lazy to marry. And when a young man does express an interest in marriage, if he's under 25, everyone thinks he's out of his mind and needs to live first. (as if marriage isn't living) The problem is much deeper across the board than simply ethnic/cultural ratios--it is a complete lack of understanding about what marriage is, what it is meant to be, and what one should be looking for in a marriage partner. If the church will strongly address those problems, (of which there seems to be a dawning awareness) then issue of ethnic/cultural ratios will begin to disappear--because then it won't matter from which "group" the single person down the pew is, it will matter what his/her character and spirituality is.

"If the church will strongly address those problems, (of which there seems to be a dawning awareness) then issue of ethnic/cultural ratios will begin to disappear--because then it won't matter from which "group" the single person down the pew is, it will matter what his/her character and spirituality is."

Drama, if this were only true. This is an example of what I mean by "don't get it." Ask you black female Christian friends about "it won't matter" racially and see what they say. For the black women I know, it does matter A LOT!

Anthony, it's easy to blame whites for everything, but it's neither Christian nor right. By the way, you need to lose the "dominant culture" euphemism. You're not fooling anyone. Everyone knows you mean white people, so you should just say it, instead of coming off like a liberal PC type.

Nearly 60% of black men don't ever marry, and almost 50% of black women don't ever marry. And somehow this becomes justification for you launching into yet another criticism of white people. You say that black women are often dooming themselves to a lifetime of celibacy by joining white churches. And that it's cruel for whites to inquire about their romantic lives, even with the best of intentions. Of course, if they never asked, you'd instead be writing about how cold and callous white people are to women of color because they don't seem to care if they ever get married or not.

And then dramaturge goes on to add his two cents, and make it clear that he doesn't understand the phenomenon any better than you do:

"If the church will strongly address those problems, (of which there seems to be a dawning awareness) then issue of ethnic/cultural ratios will begin to disappear--because then it won't matter from which "group" the single person down the pew is, it will matter what his/her character and spirituality is."

Ethnic/cultural "ratios"? What are those? I have no idea what he means by that. But it's clear from the rest of the passage that he thinks if Christians will just get their hearts right, then white guys will stop caring what race their future wife is and will start dating and wooing black women, which will solve the problem. But that's a pipe dream caused by the self chosen blindness of insane egalitarianism.

This idiotic belief that there are absolutely no meaningful differences between people of different races has done much to destroy common sense and integrity. There certainly are differences between races, and many of them are far from minor. A huge one is the aesthetic factor. Black women who attend white churches are up against a virtually insurmountable problem when it comes to finding a husband. They are competing with white women for the same pool of prospective husbands. Which tremendously handicaps the African-American young lady, because just like almost everyone else in the world, white men find white women to be far more attractive than black women. There may be a a few Halle Berry's out there, but they are extreme rarities. The average black woman just cannot even come close to comparing with the average white woman in the looks department.

I guess everyone missed the recent report on Frontpagemag.com about the interracial rape stats. In 2005, black men raped over 100 white women each and every day in this country. 37,000 cases of black men raping white women per year. How many cases of white men raping black women in 2005? Zero. That's right. Zero black women were raped by white guys for the entire year of 2005, while 100 white women are raped by black guys each and every day. And please don't give me the tired old pc line that rape is about power, not about sex. Maybe sometimes, but it's usually, almost always in fact, about lust. And almost all men of all races find white women much more attractive and desirable than women of other races. And at the bottom of the aesthetics totem pole are black women. If you doubt that, just head down to Barnes and Noble and scan the magazine rack. Look at the hundreds of hundreds of magazines which feature people on their covers. Notice how many of them are white people, especially women. Notice how few black women there are on the covers. Then go back every month and do the same thing. You'll find the same thing every time. Why? Because magazine publishers want to sell magazines, and so they need their covers to be as attractive as possible. Vanity Fair has had one black person alone on the cover in 30 years-Beyonce. A woman who goes to great lengths to look as white as possible by the way.

But there aren't lots of black women that look like Beyonce and Halle. There's hardly any. And the average black woman will never be able to hold her own in the marketplace of looks. And while character and spirituality are factors in choosing a potential wife, looks are certainly a major factor. Anyone who thinks that's somehow wrong, or believes that Christian men shouldn't care what their potential wife looks like, is living in la la land. If a man does not find a woman attractive physically, there's very little chance that the two of them would ever have a happy marriage.

Maybe black women should start getting married to black men, instead of complaining that they can't find a white man to marry.

I don't mean to offend anyone here, and I hope I didn't. But everyone's always talking about how we need to have a frank discussion on race, like after the Imus incident. Well, the frank part is going to include things that are unpleasant. But we've got to start dealing with them openly and honestly

"it's easy to blame whites for everything, but it's neither Christian nor right."

Ahhh, Jason O, could you please quote the sentence where blame is being assigned?

I hate to use a pun here, but Jason, the issue is just not so "black and white." The culture/color of skin seems to be far more a physical identifier of a problem that has far more to do with socio-economic background.

There is obviously no blame being assigned here, but I know darn well I'd be wrong in saying that I understood what a black man/woman went through being an incredibly small minority in an Evangelical Church. Flip the tables, and I don't know that I would ever be comfortable going to an african american church. Is that right? Maybe, but probably not. Just being honest.

Besides, who can be against understanding each other? Chillax, yo.

"Ahhh, Jason O, could you please quote the sentence where blame is being assigned?"

Sure thing, Anthony. Here's one.

"As such, black female singles in evangelical circles are often asked profoundly hurtful and flippant questions because many people don't understand, and are completely unaware of, some of the realities."

So now you're claiming that it's perfectly alright to ask profoundly hurtful questions? It's no big deal to profoundly hurt black women? It's not a sin to treat people flippantly? And I realize you say white people do this out of ignorance or lack of awareness. In other words, you also blame them for their lack of awareness which leads to them profoundly hurting black women with their questions.

And one more time. White people who ask these questions do so out of love and concern for the lives of their black female sisters. And we all know that if black women were complaining that their white brothers and sisters never ask these sorts of questions, you'd be accusing them of being cold and unconcerned, and not treating black women the same way they treat white women. You'd accuse whites of ignoring and marginalizing black women. You're real good about always finding a way to criticize "the dominant culture", i.e., white people.

"The average black woman just cannot even come close to comparing with the average white woman in the looks department."

Jason O- I am an average white woman and I take offense at your comment.

All you prove with your statistics is that black women are perceived more negatively than white women in the Western world, and that "whiteness" with it's accompanying traits, is more culturally acceptable. Think about it: the magazine covers at Barnes and Nobles don't just reflect what we perceive to be beautiful, they also influence it.

It's just more evidence that though our country is supposed to be "equal," racial preference is alive and well and the "dominance" of the white culture continues to be an issue, though you seem angered when Anthony mentions it.

Your numbers are merely more evidence of the obstacles that black women have to surmount. Thus, a little sensitivity, as Anthony is trying to encourage, would be appreciated. And I don't think calling an entire race of women (excepting two), "at the bottom of the aesthetics totem pole," indicates that you are one of these loving, compassionate brothers just trying to help a sister. Basically, you come across as racist and angry. Even if you would never dare say that to a black woman's face, the fact that you believe it and publish it shows a lack of genuinely "seeing" your black sisters and the beauty they posess.

"The average black woman just cannot even come close to comparing with the average white woman in the looks department."

Jason O- I am an average white woman and I take offense at your comment.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm sorry to hear that.

"All you prove with your statistics is that black women are perceived more negatively than white women in the Western world, and that "whiteness" with it's accompanying traits, is more culturally acceptable."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Actually, the stats on magazine covers don't prove anything. It could be that white women are featured more often because all the publishers think white women are not very attractive, and they think that less attractive covers will sell more magazines. Another explanation could be that all these white women on the covers are daughters, nieces, or friends of the publisher, editor, art director, etc. There are lots of possible explanations. But I think mine makes the most sense to the most people-publishers want to sell magazines, so they put the most attractive people they can on their covers.

"Think about it: the magazine covers at Barnes and Nobles don't just reflect what we perceive to be beautiful, they also influence it."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Actually, this goes back to your idea that white women aren't really more attractive, they're just "perceived" that way. (No doubt due to racism and Western bias, etc.) But there really is such a thing as beauty, and there are standards for beauty, and they are timeless. it's true that preferences for body shapes and fat levels have varied over the centuries. But what constitutes a beautiful face hasn't. Beauty is real, and people recognize it and are drawn to it.

"It's just more evidence that though our country is supposed to be "equal," racial preference is alive and well and the "dominance" of the white culture continues to be an issue, though you seem angered when Anthony mentions it."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm not angry at all. But I do think he tends to criticize white people as a group in ways that he rarely if ever criticizes other races as a group. And he does it quite often. And again, beauty isn't a function of "cultural dominance". It's real, and around the world white women are considered the most beautiful. It's not because whites simply prefer white women and think they're more attractive. All races do. 100 white women are raped by black men in this country every single day of the year. No black women were raped by a white man in America during the entire year of 2005. So it's not just white guys that are more sexually attracted to white women.

"Your numbers are merely more evidence of the obstacles that black women have to surmount."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

No, they're evidence that black women who have to compete with white women for husbands face obstacles that the vast majority of them simply CAN'T surmount. You can't change human nature. God made men a certain way, and he did it for a reason, and they're going to stay that way. Men are attracted in large part by facial beauty, and white women have a lot more of it than black women do. I know it' s not polite to mention it, but it's simply a fact. And if we're ever going to have the frank discussion about race that everyone claims to desire, it's going to include a lot of elements that are painful to talk about. Such as the fact that the average white woman is far more attractive than the average black woman.

"Thus, a little sensitivity, as Anthony is trying to encourage, would be appreciated. And I don't think calling an entire race of women (excepting two), "at the bottom of the aesthetics totem pole," indicates that you are one of these loving, compassionate brothers just trying to help a sister."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Who's more compassionate? The person who tells the truth, as politely as possible, even though it's painful? Or the person who sugarcoats things and gives black women false hope because they don't want to hurt their feelings? It's simply a fact that black women can't compete with white women when it comes to looks, and the vast majority of them who are hoping to land a husband in a white evangelical church are going to be very disappointed. Again, it's unpleasant, but it's true. It's cruel to give people false hopes, especially in a matter as important as this.

"Basically, you come across as racist and angry. Even if you would never dare say that to a black woman's face, the fact that you believe it and publish it shows a lack of genuinely "seeing" your black sisters and the beauty they posess."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Again, I'm not angry. And I don't consider myself a racist.

I don't see the beauty my black sisters possess?

You're blaming me?

60% of black men will never marry according to Anthony. Almost 50% of black ladies will never marry. Now, with all these single black men out there, how come they're not grabbing up these beautiful black women?

I'm racist for pointing out that if black guys don't seem to interested in marrying black women, then we shouldn't be surprised that white guys aren't interested either?

And remember how just the other day Anthony was telling us how marriage has become an idol? So maybe Anthony and John Piper should be rebuking these black women for making and idol of marriage. According to Piper, it's our relationship with Jesus that counts. All the other stuff is just temporary and fleeting, and means nothing. Or is marriage only an idol for white evangelicals?

Here's the post from the other day. I'm still trying to reconcile that post with this one.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

John Piper preaches on how evangelicals have made an idol out of marriage and family. Here's the sermon.

Here are his four points:

1. That the family of God grows not by propagation through sexual intercourse, but by regeneration through faith in Christ;

2. That relationships in Christ are more permanent, and more precious, than relationships in families (and, of course, it is wonderful when relationships in families are also relationships in Christ; but we know that is often not the case);

3. That marriage is temporary, and finally gives way to the relationship to which it was pointing all along: Christ and the church—the way a picture is no longer needed when you see face to face;

4. That faithfulness to Christ defines the value of life; all other relationships get their final significance from this. No family relationship is ultimate; relationship to Christ is.

Alistar Begg was the first pastor I've heard say this. The idol of marriage is very pervasive.

Jason,
1.) Idol does not equal healthy desire. This was covered in that post as well.
2.) Your own "statistics" seem to ignore common sense in probability (i.e. your alternate reasoning for cover girls on magazines is just nonsensical).
3.) I'm a white dude, and I can see where Anthony is coming from. Get off his back. Discussion of racial issues does not equal racism.
4.) You've already wasted way too much time replying in anger and frustration. Read what Anthony is writing, not what he is not writing. He is not blaming anyone for the problem, only expressing a potential for misunderstanding.
5.) "Again, I'm not angry. And I don't consider myself a racist." - If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. You're not giving anyone a very convincing case.

Just sayin'.

Jason O:

You say you are not a racist, but out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. You say that your comments are "compassionate" because they are "true" but love is kind, it is not rude, and it always protects. If you are a Christian, you need to repent of the hate and bitterness you have toward black people, and ask Christ to send His Spirit to help you learn to love your neighbor.

I have a lot of repenting I need to do too, with regard to my feelings toward you, but I'll try to collect myself enough to offer some responses to your thoughts.

You offer two primary illustrations as evidence that people "around the world" consider white women more beautiful than black women. First, you enlighten us about the predilections of rapists. Even if we are to believe your statistics--Are you kidding?!? That argument is so ridiculous I can't believe you even dared to put it in writing. So, you're saying that one way to determine the standards of timeless beauty is to take note of the preferences of some of the most perverted and grotesque examples of human beings in our society. That is preposterous.

Second, you point to the prevalence of white women on the covers of magazines. Let me say a few things about this argument. First, I highly doubt that we can put much stock in the reliability of your observation and reportage. Since you have such an obvious disdain for black women, you probably don't pay attention when black women are on the covers of magazines. I'm quite certain I've seen many black women on the covers of many magazines. Second, it is my guess that you tend to live and spend your free time primarily among white people. And yes, it is true that most people are naturally attracted to people who look like themselves (although, I'll address the relevance of this fact in a moment). Thus, most of the Barnes and Nobles in the white suburbs that you shop in are going to target their merchandise to white customers. For the last 6 years, however, I have lived in two neighborhoods in St. Louis that have each been majority black neighborhoods. I can tell you, in the grocery stores and department stores in my neighborhoods, nearly all of the magazines feature black people on their covers. All this is to say that I don't think your magazine cover evidence is of any statistical value.

You know, every racist who doesn't want to admit to being a racist tries to present himself as a "realist." They say, "Hey, I'm just telling it like it is." Or, "You can't change human nature." When people who claim to be Christians use that human nature line, it drives me crazy. Show me one bit of evidence from Scripture that says we should live and organize our societies according to human nature. You won't find it. Instead, it says things like live according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh. And, repent, for the kingdom of God is here. In other words, we are called to live according to the ways of the kingdom and the standards of the King, and not according to our natural ways and standards.

Further, I often hear people, including Christians, talk about how physical beauty is objective and eternal. Where is that in Scripture? Yes, it's in Plato. But where is it in the Bible? What I see in Scripture is that beauty is only truly judged by God, because beauty is a matter of the heart and not a matter of appearance. But, even if there were an objective eternal standard of physical beauty, are you saying that Vanity Fair has it nailed? Can you really make a convincing case that human sinfulness has not warped our sense of what is truly beautiful or that it does not affect the way we respond to it or communicate about it? I think it's more reasonable to conclude that generations of oppressing and denigrating one phenotype of people has skewed the perceptions of both the dominant and the oppressed groups of people.

I hate the fact that we've hijacked Anthony's post, because I think he's brought to light an issue that is real and substantive and heartbreaking. And I think that physical attraction is only a small factor amidst other more significant factors of sinful corruption of our cultures and individual souls. But, I couldn't let your comments just float out there unanswered.

Finally, Jason O, I urge you to repent of your pride, arrogance, and hatred and seek Christ and His cross. God offers Himself to you fully and freely in the Gospel. In Christ you will find a Lord who does not rule by power, oppression, and condemnation, but by weakness, service, and self-sacrifice. Learn from Him to be one who can love your neighbor well by living out the same kind of humility and sacrificial love. I too will seek Him and His forgiveness at the cross for the ways I have failed to love you and others well. Maybe we will see each other there.

Nick,

Well said, brother.

I don't think any of us could say it better than Nick just did, so I won't add anything more to it. Instead, I'd like to ask a more on topic question:

Anthony,
Being a white dude in an Evangelical church, what can/should I do, if anything? Is there a part to play for whites in trying to figure this out, or does it simply boil down to awareness, understanding, and sensitivity?

"For the black women I know, it does matter A LOT!"

Maybe it shouldn't.
But my point was that from what I can see, the marriage crisis is almost just as bad for young white women in evangelical circles. As one of those young white women, I'm embarrassed to admit how long it's been since I've been on a date. And most of the young Christian single men I know have more commitment phobias than the average unsaved young man. And I really hate to think that a potential date might not ask me out merely because I'm white. Frankly, I couldn't care less what race a young man is. I'm far more concerned with who he is than the colour of his skin. Maybe I don't get it, but it seems to me that this racial divide issue regarding marriage in the church is merely another symptom of a deeper problem--a problem that stems from a lack of understanding of what marriage is and ought to be. And addressing those problems would seem to be the way to address the symptoms. I think I rambled. Oh well.

"the marriage crisis is almost just as bad for young white women in evangelical circles"

42.3% of white evangelical women never marry?? There is no evidence to suggest this at all. At all, regardless of your personal experience. If the marriage crisis was that bad we would know it. 42.3% of white evangelical women permanently single in those churches?? I don't see that at all and any evangelical church I've been to in America. You're probably right about the deeper issues.

And "commitment phobia" is actually a huge misinterpretation. It's an old adage that unfortunately does not talk into account what being a matriarchal and feminized church has done to masculinity. I wish it was just a commitment phobia. The identity questions are far more pervasive and important than the commitment one. Not committing is actually rooted in something much, much deeper and "making a commitment" never really addresses those deeper questions, hence, the high divorce rate. Whew, if it were just about commitment that would be easy compared to these other fears that run much deeper.

Dude, Jason O has some real misdirected passion for this topic. Although, I believe he lacks the compassion part for our sisters in Christ. It is a sad thing that in the church a person of race can attend and not be embraced. I attended a church in Fresno, CA, which the demographics of the city are over 50% Latino, and the church had a good representation from the Latino community. Did any of the music embrace the Latino culture? Not even close!! It was the same watered-down, un-cultured, worship music you hear in a majority of churches every morning. I want some flavor to my music and cultural representation in the community and church I attend.

The other issue here is the lack of Men being Men. We are seeing men acting like boys well into their late 30's and not being called to the carpet on their issues. Again, another area where the local churches fail. Call men to be men, and other Godly men should come along side of them and show them how to leave their foolish, young ways behind them. Raise them up in Godly principles and I believe the women will start to notice. I do not blame the women for not settling and their expectations should be high in the area of Godliness.

Anthony, thanks for bringing to light another area of discussion for our churches to ponder.

Anthony, I understand that the fear of commitment is intrinsically rooted to the lack of leading men into masculinity. I've definitely seen that first-hand. It evidences itself as a fear of commitment, however, and a lack of wilingness to do anything about it. It is merely a symptom, I know, but it is the most visible symptom and so I used it. I probably shouldn't have been so simplistic.

I take issue with your use of the statistic, however. Your post does NOT say 42% of black evangelical women. It says 42% of black women. That's a HUGE difference. The devaluation of marriage is a growing problem in Amercan society at large, but it is a debilitating illness in the black community particularly. I would say that a large part of that problem is the shift in popular imagery from a "man" being a good husband and father to a "man" being a big player/baby daddy. That's not a problem that can be fixed by single black women staying in black churches. That's a much bigger issue. So, I take issue with your use of that statistic unless you can break it down further. The fact that 42% of black women don't marry does not mean that 42% of black women in the church won't marry. (In this society, it also does not mean they are "single.")

I wasn't really trying to suggest that anywhere like 42% of white evangelical women aren't/won't be married. What I'm trying to point out is that you are calling for white churches to see this big problem (which, again, is not directly indicated by your statistic), and I'm saying, "How can they see it when they are facing their own version of the problem?" Singleness and divorces are much higher in the church than they have been, at least from what I see around me. I think it's very important for the church to realize that there is a problem going on around them, but I don't see that dividing it along racial lines is helpful. The crisis of masculinity in the church is pretty equally spread throughout denominations and racial groups--it just manifests itself in different types of actions that avoid marriage.

And in reading back over your post, something else grabbed me that really bothered me. In essence, what you seem to be saying is, "Single black women, if you feel God is leading you into a largely white populated church, don't go! Wait until you have a man and then follow God's leading into the largely white realm of evangelicalism." So, then, what is more important: marriage, or God? And if God is leading someone to a particular place, He can't provide everything they need, including a spouse?

Jason O,
I just want to thank you for "verbally vomitting" on me and all your other sisters in Christ who happen to have black skin. That was really great. Call me some time so you can say that to my face over coffee. [/sarcasm]I'd email you but you didn't leave an address.

As for the issue at hand, "profoundly hurtful and flippant questions" is quite the melodramatic description. (Take it to Jesus already!) But it is true that half of my female friends are never-marrieds of various races over the age of 25.

If I had known how difficult it is to get married these days, I most certainly would have attended a black college because, as someone pointed out, typically, like marries like. I have no particular preferences on ethnicity (I was engaged to a Filipino guy) but from a numbers perspective, being in an all-black setting ups my chances! Furthermore, there's nothing like an all-black setting to test whether or not your non-black date can handle the pressure! Which is why I'm wary of dating white males. Been there, been through that. [Something New is the best representation of this on film. Naturally, there's a happy ending but specifically because the lead characters choose to overcome their holdups.]

BTW nick, you rock.

As a black woman who "can't hold her own in the marketplace of looks" (now THAT is funny!!) I think Jason O missed the point of Anthony's comment.

It wasn't about blaming white folks (sorry Anthony, I just need to be a little more out front than saying "dominant culture"), it's more about pointing out the reality of being a single Black woman in a predominately white evangelical church. Jason, did you even watch the video, or did you just zero in on Anthony's words and decide to go off on a rant?

If you had watched the video or better yet, if you knew any of the single Black women that Anthony is referencing, you would see how off-base your comments are.

The reality is that being a single Black woman in such an environment is not easy. Add to it that I live in mid-Michigan, and it downright sucks. Sure, I could go to a predominately Black church for community and to meet a man, but I happen to really love my current church. The people are wonderful and I finally feel spiritually fed and challenged. And, isn't that the point of fellowship and being a part of a faith community?

So, I stay where I am knowing that (1) the likelihood of me meeting a man there is pretty slim to none and (2) if I do enter into a relationship with a Christian Black man, the chance of him wanting to come to my church is also pretty slim.

One thing I do take issue with in Anthony's post is that when friends ask me about my dating status, I don't take it as a hurtful question. I know they are asking out of concern and curiousity. My response is usually pretty honest - that the pickings are slim - and they understand and we get a laugh out of it.

"So, I stay where I am knowing that (1) the likelihood of me meeting a man there is pretty slim to none and (2) if I do enter into a relationship with a Christian Black man, the chance of him wanting to come to my church is also pretty slim."

This could also be said of single women who choose to attend small churches rather than impersonal megaplexes.

And I learned a long time ago that a lot of people are going to ask you about your dating status, regardless of you race or circumstances. I lost track the first year I was out of grad school. I'm like Tam--I just answer honestly (or vaguely if they're just being conversational) and move on. It just isn't worth getting bothered over, esp. if you know it's just because they want you to be happy and settled. If they are being flippant, I'm just flippant right back. :)

And here is the issue that arises when people of color try to explain their circumstance through a racial lense...

"This could also be said of single women who choose to attend small churches rather than impersonal megaplexes"

With all due respect drama, I'm sure a similar thing could be said of the small vs. large church issue. But, I'm speaking specifically of my experience as a single Black woman, in response to Anthonly's blog about single Black women.

Let me have my perspective and speak of my experience and understand the uniquness of it without trying to draw similarities to yours.

I didn't mean to diminish your experience, Tam. I'm sorry.

"As for the issue at hand, "profoundly hurtful and flippant questions" is quite the melodramatic description. (Take it to Jesus already!)"

Those were Anthony's words, not mine. I was simply quoting him.

Tam, talking about being a black woman in a largely white church, said this:

"So, I stay where I am knowing that (1) the likelihood of me meeting a man there is pretty slim to none"

Why are your chances of meeting a man at your mostly white church slim to none, Tam? Are there zero single men there?

Not sure if your question is sincere or flippant Jason, but I'll bite.

I go to a small, young, "plant church". Our membership is about 50 and there are about 10 single men in the church. Oh, and I'll go ahead and add if you are curious that I am the only Black person in the church.

The challenge of being single and Black in this type of church is not just the fact that there are few "prospects" but also that most of the people who are married are either young (under 30) or are older and married young. So, here I am in a relatively young, very marriage minded, white culture and I'm 0 for 2. I will admit that at first it was daunting and between the racial issue, age, and marital status I almost left because I felt so out of place. But I've stayed because the fellowship is amazing and I am really building an awesome community.

Again, I'm not in the church to "date the church", but when you get to be over 30 and single your options for meeting people are fairly limited and people often point to church as a safe place to meet people. This just isn't the case for me and others who are in similar situations.

Tam, there are 10 single men in a church of about 50 people? That's an awful lot of single men for such a small church. So why are your changes of meeting/marrying a single man from your church slim to none if there are 10 single men there? I don't follow your logic. It sounds to me like your odds should be very high.

Jason O - It depends on what gender and status the other 40 are. If they're all single women, then obviously those are not such great odds.

Tam, I would be interested in hearing you talk more about the overall dating situation for a young Black single woman. Does it feel like there is a real paucity of "eligible" (however you would define that, subjectively) black men in your immediate pool? If so, how does the relative scarcity of black men in the community affect relationships and how you're treated? (My dissertation is on this kind of thing, so this isn't meant to be a prying personal question).

Scott - The short answer to your question is, it does feel like there is a lack of "eligible" men in my pool. I think that is largely geography, because I live in a smallish, blue-collar midwestern city.

I would say that, yes it does affect relationships and how I am treated. I have several theories and observations on this. I don't want to completely hijack Anthony's blog, so you want to discuss this more, feel free to contact me off-line. The email is correct.

Tam, no, no hijack away. Mi blog, tu blog!!

Tam, did you not see my question? Here it is again.

Tam, there are 10 single men in a church of about 50 people? That's an awful lot of single men for such a small church. So why are your changes of meeting/marrying a single man from your church slim to none if there are 10 single men there? I don't follow your logic. It sounds to me like your odds should be very high.

Jason O- Let it Go!

I agree with Anthony's original post.

In fact, my wife and I are examples of "how it should be done": We met in the Black Church, our children were born while we were still in the Black Church, and 6-and-a-half years ago all of us left the Black Church and started attending the predominantly white evangelical church which is now our church home.

There are a few single Black people who attend our church. They are all in their 30s. To date, there has been no change in their marital status. And I happen to know that at least some of them would get married, if the right person came along.

So, yes, I agree with you, Anthony.

And, Jason O: I don't know what Black women you've been looking at, but I know a WHOLE LOT of beautiful Black women, of all shades and sizes (I happen to be married to one!). And, they are not the exception. Halle and Beyonce are not as "unique" as you imagine. Perhaps, if you removed the racist lenses from your eyes, you could see more clearly.

"In fact, my wife and I are examples of "how it should be done": We met in the Black Church, our children were born while we were still in the Black Church, and 6-and-a-half years ago all of us left the Black Church and started attending the predominantly white evangelical church which is now our church home."

That's how "it should be done"? Black people should, once they've gotten married, abandon the black church for the white church?

Wyeth, ahhh, I voice from reality (not rhetoric). Thanks for the story!! It's more common than people are willing to admit I'm afraid.

Heidi tells me I should "let it go". The reason she wants me to stop asking Tam a simple question is that she knows the answer will prove that my first post is exactly right. Tam says her overwhelmingly white church of 50 people is mostly married couples, but there are 10 single men in her church. So there's lots of potential husbands, and yet, in her own words, her odds of getting together with one of the 10 men are slim to none. Which reinforces what I posted - very, very few white men are sexually attracted to black women.

Jason - The reason I didn't immediately answer your question is because you are clearly content in living in your own idea of reality based on your wonderful set of assumptions. Since you are so comfortable being there, I didn't want to disturb you.

But, since you keep pushing...

First, the count of 10 is a miscount. It is safe to say that there are between 6 and 10 single men.

In terms of my level of attractivenes, I will say that I don't fit the Beyonce/Halle Berry type that you are so fond of referencing. Just as most White women don't look like Lindsay Lohan, Scarlett Johansen, or Angelina Jolie. But, that does not mean I am unattractive.

I am tall. I am dark skinned. I have short hair. Even with those "strikes" against me, I'm far from unattractive. For those who are are enamoured with the limited, unrealistic, and damaging Hollywood/BET ideal of beauty, I probably would not be attractive to them. And, seeing as I'm not in a major metro area, that is definitely a possibility. But, that is fine - I don't want someone who bases their measure of attraction on those ideals.

The odds of me getting together with one of the single men in my church goes beyond my how "unattractive" I am. Part of it is that we largely don't have similar interests or frames of reference - a Black, urban, liberal/middle of the road woman has little in common, with a White, suburban/rural, conservative man. Compatibilty trumps sexual attraction in the long run.

But, the bigger reason is that, for the
most part, I am not attracted to any of them. Imagine that!

But, I guess you never considered that since White men are SUCH a commodity...

Tam, I believe you when you say you're not interested in the white men at your church. But that doesn't negate the fact that they are not sexually attracted to you, either, which was the point of my first post.

Here's what I don't understand, Tam. Anthony writes about the tragedy of black women in "dominant culture" churches who can't find husbands among the white men they worship with. He evidently thinks this is terrible. You're a black woman, who's very attractive, and you don't want/can't find a husband in your white evangelical church.

Anthony is a single, professional Christian black man decrying the fact that black evangelicals have trouble finding spouses. You're a single, attractive black woman decrying the fact that your odds of finding a husband at your white church are slim to none.

And yet neither one of you seems to be interested in the other, when you'd think each of you would be an ideal catch for the other.

Hellooooo?

Jason O - I think your argument would be much stronger if instead of trying to talk about people's subjective motives as to why inter-racial matching is rare (ie, White women are prettier than Black women - something which is inherently subjective and non-falsifiable as far as I can tell), you should just stick to saying that inter-racial matching is rare possibly because of the strong sorting preferences that exist in regards to romance. For whatever reason, we can definitely say that there is a lot of sorting that occurs by race, as well as other characteristics such as geography, education and age.

I suspect that White men do not like non-White women as potential marriage partners for much more complicated reasons than simply that they don't they're pretty enough. Social networks, generally, define the pool of possible mates, and social networks are largely racially segregated. The adage that Sunday is the most segregated day of the week extends to all aspects of life, it seems like. In the most intimate of areas, there is a sustained tendency - even after the various gains of the Civil Rights Movement - for Blacks and Whites to insulate themselves from one another socially. They live in different parts of the city, attend different schools, join differenent social groups, and congregate socially in different public and private spaces. That we see such widespread sorting by race actually makes your theory about the attractiveness of Black women less plausible to me. Something seems to be causing sorting across even non-romantic dimensions, which would not really be explained by attractiveness.

Regarding the point about the poor options Black women face, though. I think this discussion should consider asking the question, what role does the disproportionately high rates of Black male incarceration have on Black female marriage probabilities. Mathematically, there are not enough non-imprisoned Black males for every Black female to find a mate. Since the incareration rates skew towards Black men with little to no high school schooling, it means the remaining men are concentrated among the "better". Thus, the best women and the best men of that demographic can match, but increasingly the shortage allows Black men from the more leftward portion of the distribution to match with a better Black female, until all the Black males are matched, and the Black females left behind skew to the left in the distribution.

But that's assuming the men want to marry at all. If they do not want to marry, then you may actually see the shortage of Black men to create relationships which systematically disfavor Black women. In essence, the high rates of incarcearation create "bargaining power" among the Black men. THey may use this in various ways, but they might use it to simply "play the field" a bit longer. In a chapter from my dissertation, I find that changes in female-male ratios (which begin to change at around age 18 for Blacks, but remain the same for Whites) are associated with a statistically significant and meaningful increase in annualized female sex partners for the most promiscuous men in the sample (http://tinyurl.com/yry4wr). Most men do not appear to respond to the surplus of unattached Black women, but a few Black men appear to absorb the excess into what is possibly concurrent sexual matches.

The perceived shortage of eligible Black men is, I'm arguing, ultimately rooted in the dramatic rise in Black male incarceration over the 80s and 90s, which was a consequence of the increased war on drugs, which more or less tripled the prison population through stricter sentencing and increased prosecution of drug crimes. This has caused a dramatic shift in the sex ratio for Blacks, utlimately putting Black women at a severe disadvantage in the mating market.

"The adage that Sunday is the most segregated day of the week extends to all aspects of life, it seems like. "

Well, the problem with your theory is that we're discussing and dialoguing with black women who attend white churches, who fellowship with white Christians, and who most definitely aren't "sorted" before they ever run across potential white husbands.

So much for your Ph.D theory.

Jason, I understand that we're talking about a predominantly white church with at least some black attendees. I guess I understood your point to be that Black women in White churches will not be as competitive because Black women are on average less attractive.

But the point I'm making is that it seems like everything we see about race and intimacy in our society suggests something other than the physical characteristics of women is the reason why inter-racial marriage is so rare. Segregation appears to be the result of naturally occuring self-selection where people express some preference to be socially and personally intimate with people of the same race (education, age, geography, religion, as well).

In other words, I don't buy the argument that White men are really color-blind, and the reason why they aren't attracted to Black women is becaus Black women are ugly. The fact that there are so many other outcomes where people segregate by race - instances where the physical beauty of Black women can't plausibly explain it - makes me think this is really more about same-race preferences. When it comes to intimacy, people have a bias against color-blindness. It causes them to make many decisions earlier away from seriously considering people of a different race - as a marriage partner, as a neighbor, as a friend, etc.

Scott, if you're correct, would you say there's sin involved? Are Christians perfectly free to have these preferences? Or should the Church strive to achieve a culture in which people won't have such preferences?

"In other words, I don't buy the argument that White men are really color-blind, and the reason why they aren't attracted to Black women is becaus Black women are ugly."

By the way, I never made the argument that white men are color blind. Nobody is "color blind" when it comes to race. It's impossible. Not even color blind people, or people who are completely blind, fail to perceive racial differences.

Nor did I make the argument that black women are ugly. I said that the average white woman is far more attractive than the average black woman. That's not the same thing at all.

I just wanted to clarify that. But please answer my previous post about whether these preferences are sinful, or part of Christian liberty.

By the way, I never made the argument that white men are color blind. Nobody is "color blind" when it comes to race. It's impossible. Not even color blind people, or people who are completely blind, fail to perceive racial differences.

Your argument always appealed to the objective distribution of beautiful characteristics across Black and White populations, not the subjecive tastes of White men.

Nor did I make the argument that black women are ugly. I said that the average white woman is far more attractive than the average black woman. That's not the same thing at all.

Fine. What evidence do you have for this? Or are you just basing this on your own personal tastes and your own limited experience?

I just wanted to clarify that. But please answer my previous post about whether these preferences are sinful, or part of Christian liberty.

It depends on the person and the reason for the preferences. Not all sorting by race is racism, per se.

Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 are Jason's in quotes (I used hyperlinks to italicize which I forgot Anthony's blog removes before posting in comments), and paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 were my responses.

"Your argument always appealed to the objective distribution of beautiful characteristics across Black and White populations, not the subjecive tastes of White men."

Again, that's nothing like your claim that I argued that white men are "color blind". I never hinted at any such thing, since I don't believe it. It does not follow from "white women are more attractive than black women" that "white men are color blind when it comes to race".

"Fine. What evidence do you have for this? Or are you just basing this on your own personal tastes and your own limited experience?"

We've already discussed this. Turn on any cable news network. Buy a hundred random magazines. These companies hire attractive women by the boatloads for their shows and magazines, because they want viewers and readers. Which is why almost all the women in such places are white. And the ones who aren't white often have white features, such as Halle Berry and Beyonce.

"It depends on the person and the reason for the preferences. Not all sorting by race is racism, per se."

Way to straddle the fence.

Is it a sin for a Christian white person to only consider white people as possible spouses? To only date whites? Because they want white kids? Because they find other races less attractive? Because their parents would disapprove?

Show some examples of "sorting" that are sinful, and some that aren't sinful. And tell us what the Church's response should be to those which are sinful.

"Again, that's nothing like your claim that I argued that white men are "color blind". I never hinted at any such thing, since I don't believe it. It does not follow from "white women are more attractive than black women" that "white men are color blind when it comes to race"."

Your argument doesn't depend on same-race preferences. You've claimed that Black women are objectively less attractive ("on average") and that that explains the scarcity of interracial marriage. This phenomenon is rare because White men like beauty, and White women are more beautiful typically. That is a color-blind argument, regardless of what your unstated opinions are.

"We've already discussed this. Turn on any cable news network. Buy a hundred random magazines. These companies hire attractive women by the boatloads for their shows and magazines, because they want viewers and readers. Which is why almost all the women in such places are white. And the ones who aren't white often have white features, such as Halle Berry and Beyonce."

Your "evidence" is the alleged over-representation of white models in the media? I believe you that White models are more common in advertisements, but why does this therefore mean White females have a higher average beauty score than Black females? You could generate the same result by assuming (a) companies know about sorting by race, and (b) Whites constitute a majority share of the "target" demographic. Assumption (a) means companies know White men like White women usually (it doesn't matter why). Assumption (b) means they'll make more money focusing on Whites. Therefore, hire White models. Nowhere does that require you assume anything about average beauty.

Also, are you saying that Black women are less attractive than White women, even if non-White men are doing the ranking? That is, if you showed a random sample of White and Black men a random collection of photographs of White and Black women, that White women would receive a higher mean score among voting Black men than the average score Black women received from the voting Black men? Or are you saying that among White men?

"Way to straddle the fence."

Only a sith thinks in absolutes, Jason. ;)

Seriously, you sound like a legalist. I'm actually more concerned about that than any racial preferences you may have.

As I said, I think there's a difference between what we mean by racism and the more general phenomenon of sorting by race. I'd have to talk with someone at length to say which applied to them.

"Is it a sin for a Christian white person to only consider white people as possible spouses? To only date whites? Because they want white kids? Because they find other races less attractive? Because their parents would disapprove?"

The law of God is summarized by loving God and loving our neighbor and each of us has to answer the question whether we love our neighbor. I cannot say that it is wrong for a White male to only consider White females for a potential spouse, because I don't know enough information. What if a man lives in the suburbs, goes to an all-white church, and has a social network that is almost exclusively White. He ends up marrying a White girl, who he loves immensely. Is it correct to describe this man as having expressed same-race preferences throughout his life in the selection of his friendships and ultimately his wife? Maybe, but it also seems that he never really had a chance to meet any Black people, either, and so it's not surprising that his relationships reflect that.

Now take a situation where a man and a woman become fall in love and want to marry. The man is White and the woman is Black. Let's say that they don't get married, though, because their parents are bigoted, and it would tear their family apart. Was it sin for the parents to forbid the marriage? Possibly. What possible reason could the parents have for opposing the marriage?

Here's an anecdote that I do think describes racism more carefully. I have a family member who is a PCA pastor. He had been a youth minister at a church in the south when he was young, and had been instrumental in leading a young Black man to Christ through the youth group. The church was southern presbyterian and largely white. The Black boy came to church, though. He later grew up, proposed to a woman, and wanted to get married in that church. The elders blocked it because he was black, and they didn't want the wedding to occur in there. When my family member intervened, they reminded my family member of his vows to keep the peace and purity of the church (ie, to shut up). The young man never ended up getting married in this church.

I consider this a form of racist sorting, and I think the Church should have investigated the Session and brought charges against them, excommunicating unless they repented.

As a 29 yr old single black woman who has been in both the black and white church, my question is this where are the men the black church? I also agree with anthony's premise, as a graduate of a southern baptist seminary, the opportunities for marriage were very slim. One of my ethics professors
devoted a class period to the topic of interracial marriage because of conversations we had.

Very interesting. After I'm excoriated for saying magazines and cable news nets pick the most attractive women they can to rope in viewers, and this means white women, The Daily Show does a report on the very same phenomenon. And out of all the "hotties", almost every one is white, and the one who's "a minority" is clearly of mixed race descent. Are the folks at the Daily Show racists and filled with hate?

Watch it here. (Some bad language and innuendo)

http://tinyurl.com/3ytp26

Quick correction, bro; looking at your source, you're confusing the # of men who are currently unmarried with the % who have never been married. A closer look reveals that the %s for men & women in the black community are similar.

(I was wondering if you just had lots of black men marrying a lot of times, but not women, or whether there was a lot of intermarriage between black ladies & non-black gentlemen, or..and then I took a look at the statistics & concluded that's a secondary issue)