What Serena Williams's scary childbirth story says about medical treatment of black women

[Almost there]

Ahh the myth of the absent black father.

It's not a myth.

 

[Almost there]

I absolutely would NOT admit to finding information online. That is a joke and doctors will treat it as such.

I went to my doctor with a toe in excruciating pain. He did x rays and couldn't find anything but said to just see if it got better. I went home and googled it. It took me five minutes to find out it was gout, and another to find out that black cherry juice or apple cider vinegar would fix it. My wife went to QFC and picked up both. In two days it was gone. I had a couple of follow up flair ups over the years and it got quashed before it became really painful. This was 8 years ago.

I've been to the doctor once since then. And he didn't tell me anything I didn't already know from the INTERNET. This is why I don't have health insurance.

 

[Almost there]

The links you posted are interesting, but IMO don't really contradict the original video. They do raise other good points about how racism may impact levels of absence (e.g. via incarceration rates) which leads to higher levels of absence (which the video doesn't do).

To a certain extent it seems blindingly obvious that if a family is broken up, the outcome for children is on average going to be worse. The question should be how to reduce that breakdown.

This is the thing that Ben Shapiro points out. The poverty rate among black families with fathers is around 7%. The rate for single white mother families is over 25%. And as I noticed in the late 70's the video I posted points out that the black man's main competition for a woman's affections in the poor black community is the government.

Here's ben on it starting at the 1 minute mark:

 

[Almost there]

In Serena Williams' case, it was a matter of actual prior treatment.

Yes, but I have white friends that have had the same poor treatment. And some of them were actually very polite. It seems to be a systemic problem that spans all races. It's getting a bit like the UK. Single payer means a bunch of overworked doctors from india that usually have neither the time nor the inclination to "care".

 

[Almost there]

Besides a nakedly bias joke, what exactly kind of "University" is "Praeger University" because every video I've seen from them, besides displaying obvious bias, rarely makes their point competently and with solid and specific data. It's like they use data that skirts the issue instead of data that would DIRECTLY speak to the claim.

Ignoring the nakedly ad-hominem attacks in that paragraph, it is an extremely effective at explaining information to those with an open mind. Their information is excellent and their videos are some of the highest quality and informative on the interwebs.

But I understand that, due to your bias, you disagree with what they share. And this being a free country (and internet), that's ok. You are free to have whatever opinion you choose to have, and focus on whatever sources you choose to give the most authority.

So am I.

 

[Almost there]

It isn't a university in any shape or form. It's merely a conservative christian video blog.

I wouldn't use the word, "merely". What it is is an internet video site that presents information that is easily verified, just like Adam Ruins Everything, CNN, or anybody else out there.

Their videos are just very well made and extremely well researched. YMMV

 

[iluvatar5150]

Someone fell back to education level and attitude towards authority without recognizing this has long been an issue.

Nothing Protects Black Women From Dying in Pregnancy and Childbirth
Not education. Not income. Not even being an expert on racial disparities in health care.

More people need to read this.

 

[Almost there]

More people need to read this.

Single mothers tend to not have good health care coverage. The story in the article is very sad, but it is also anecdotal. The stats need to be scrutinized. e.g. were there other factors besides race involved? Is it about race, or is it about poverty, or is it about single motherhood, or some combination of all three?

This is also alarming:
American mothers die in childbirth at twice the rate they did in 2000

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I wouldn't use the word, "merely". What it is is an internet video site that presents information that is easily verified, just like Adam Ruins Everything, CNN, or anybody else out there.

Their videos are just very well made and extremely well researched. YMMV

Nah. "Merely" fits perfectly. They might be well made and "researched" but they are no more authoratative than any other conservative christian blog/video and full of misinformation pushing a specific political and religious agenda. They are not a "source" and they cite no sources in their videos.

Here, have a look at one of my favorite youtubers critiquing PU:

 

[iluvatar5150]

Single mothers tend to not have good health care coverage. The story in the article is very sad, but it is also anecdotal. The stats need to be scrutinized. e.g. were there other factors besides race involved? Is it about race, or is it about poverty, or is it about single motherhood, or some combination of all three?

That's addressed in the article.

What’s more, even relatively well-off black women like Shalon Irving die or nearly die at higher rates than whites. Again, New York City offers a startling example: A 2016 analysis of five years of data found that black college-educated mothers who gave birth in local hospitals were more likely to suffer severe complications of pregnancy or childbirth than white women who never graduated from high school.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, but I have white friends that have had the same poor treatment. And some of them were actually very polite. It seems to be a systemic problem that spans all races. It's getting a bit like the UK. Single payer means a bunch of overworked doctors from india that usually have neither the time nor the inclination to "care".

This is not something that has just started with doctors from India, it has nothing to do with single payer. This has been long standing and been endemic and systematic for over a century...as long as medicine has been "modern."

 

[Almost there]

This is not something that has just started with doctors from India, it has nothing to do with single payer. This has been long standing and been endemic and systematic for over a century...as long as medicine has been "modern."

Naw, I'm just saying where we are headed.

But I do like to take everything on a case by case basis. I found it interesting regarding the maternal mortality rate doubling in the U.S., regardless of race. This seems to be an issue off my radar.

 

[Almost there]

That's addressed in the article.

So, the question is, why? Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Rion]

I'm a white male, and have found that doctors don't really listen to me. I'm finding it hard to believe that this is a race issue.

The world could explode and, for a certain type of individual, their last thought would be that this somehow affects their race most of all.

 

[rambot]

It's not a myth.

Outside of your own mind, you don't get to just say this and pronounce it as true. You need to deal with the statistics and research I provided if you want to do anything other than talk.

Ignoring the nakedly ad-hominem attacks in that paragraph, it is an extremely effective at explaining information to those with an open mind. Their information is excellent and their videos are some of the highest quality and informative on the interwebs.

I was not critiquing their specific argument about the myth of the absent father in my post so it was not an ad hominem. Also, as I pointed out, they do not use research and data that supports their point.
You addi
Now, specifically to their argument, they constantly conflated a history of divorce/single parent/poverty with absent fathers. That doesn't actually speak to HOW absent a father it. It speaks to the social circumstances. Now, there has been correlated studies that show how divorce and poverty can contribute to poor parenting situations but still the prager video doesn't actually provide data saying HOW absent father's are.
There is a reason I wrote: "If you were to take a critical eye of your source Almost there, you would see that at NO POINT does the dude ACTUALLY discuss the specifics of absent black fathers; instead, conflating poverty and children out of wedlock with absent fathers."
You speak about how it's good at explaining information to those "with an open mind". Forgetting the self congratulatory silliness, I will say that they make a slick product and in my experience certainly have provided research. But as I said, a critical eye can speak to the veracity and usefulness of the data and research they do present. It is the "open mind" that takes it all in without thinking that will not see the problems with what they are sharing.

I went to my doctor with a toe in excruciating pain. He did x rays and couldn't find anything but said to just see if it got better. I went home and googled it. It took me five minutes to find out it was gout, and another to find out that black cherry juice or apple cider vinegar would fix it. My wife went to QFC and picked up both. In two days it was gone. I had a couple of follow up flair ups over the years and it got quashed before it became really painful. This was 8 years ago.

I've been to the doctor once since then. And he didn't tell me anything I didn't already know from the INTERNET. This is why I don't have health insurance.

Sounds like you have an incredibly terrible doctor. I mean seriously, if you come in to a doctor with toe pain and no traumatic event associated with said pain, it seems ludicrious to just throw up your hands and say "see if it gets better".

 

[Almost there]

Outside of your own mind, you don't get to just say this and pronounce it as true. You need to deal with the statistics and research I provided if you want to do anything other than talk.

My sources preceded your "myth" argument. And my follow ups add more. I don't need to spam you. We all have google and bing.

 

[Almost there]

Nah. "Merely" fits perfectly. They might be well made and "researched" but they are no more authoratative than any other conservative christian blog/video and full of misinformation pushing a specific political and religious agenda. They are not a "source" and they cite no sources in their videos.

Here, have a look at one of my favorite youtubers critiquing PU:

I've seen that video. I actually was excited to get a good "counter" viewpoint regarding the Prager U videos. I was very disappointed. It doesn't compare with the production quality and scholarship of Prager U videos. He's giving a counter argument, but now I'd like to see Pragar U's response to him. It's the equivalent of a guy with a computer arguing that the NYT is full of baloney. And your posting him reminds me of a guy that, when I mentioned a good, though controversial, book, he posted a review of the book by someone who was on the other side of the controversy as proof that the book was nonsense.

If you get my drift.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I've seen that video. I actually was excited to get a good "counter" viewpoint regarding the Prager U videos. I was very disappointed. It doesn't compare with the production quality and scholarship of Prager U videos. He's giving a counter argument, but now I'd like to see Pragar U's response to him. It's the equivalent of a guy with a computer arguing that the NYT is full of baloney. And your posting him reminds me of a guy that, when I mentioned a good, though controversial, book, he posted a review of the book by someone who was on the other side of the controversy as proof that the book was nonsense.

If you get my drift.

lol, ok. Yeah. It's just tossing opinions at each other. That's what YT videos are for the most part. But whatever. You do you.

 

[rambot]

My sources preceded your "myth" argument. And my follow ups add more. I don't need to spam you. We all have google and bing.

1) Chronology does not make a stronger argument. Your source had weak arguments that were irrelevant to the myth of absent black fathers and I explained why and how. That is no longer ad hominem; that is a critique of an argument. Unless you care to take the time to explain HOW their arguments DO contribute to your point, your source is not useful for this discussion. And I haven't seen any significant follow up points.

Go ahead and find a hole in my sources. I welcome a thorough critique, not of the institutions but of the specific arguments that were employed when making their argument. Another poster raised a very salient argument that you could choose to add to the discussion; one for which I can't really counter very well, but even that you don't bother to restate for the purposes of your argument.

We all have google and bing, that's true. So let me show you how to use it. So let's say you searched "absent black fathers". Lo, and behold, look at the link I find:
Who’s Your Daddy: The Epidemic Of Absent Black Fathers [Original]

Whoa. Fantastic!
Now, let's take a second and find a hammer blow of a fact:

According to 2011 U.S. Census, over 24 million children live inside of a fatherless home. Now let’s break it down and divide the pie into the different races in America. 1 in 3 (34%) Hispanic children live in father-absent homes, and 1 in 4 (25%) white children also live in father-absent homes, while nearly 2 in 3 (64%) African American children live in father-absent homes. Anyone see anything wrong with those numbers?

Whoa! Sounds damning!

But then you look at my lil' jpeg again. We can see that with fathers not living with their kids, they, in fact, tend to be MORE involved in their kids' lives than their white and latino counterparts.

So suddenly, "poof" your point becomes moot.

I could continue to argue with myself but at some point, I'm gonna be seen as more crazy than I already am.

 

[Almost there]

1) Chronology does not make a stronger argument. Your source had weak arguments that were irrelevant to the myth of absent black fathers and I explained why and how. That is no longer ad hominem; that is a critique of an argument. Unless you care to take the time to explain HOW their arguments DO contribute to your point, your source is not useful for this discussion. And I haven't seen any significant follow up points.

Go ahead and find a hole in my sources. I welcome a thorough critique, not of the institutions but of the specific arguments that were employed when making their argument. Another poster raised a very salient argument that you could choose to add to the discussion; one for which I can't really counter very well, but even that you don't bother to restate for the purposes of your argument.

We all have google and bing, that's true. So let me show you how to use it. So let's say you searched "absent black fathers". Lo, and behold, look at the link I find:
Who’s Your Daddy: The Epidemic Of Absent Black Fathers [Original]

Whoa. Fantastic!
Now, let's take a second and find a hammer blow of a fact:
Whoa! Sounds damning!

But then you look at my lil' jpeg again. We can see that with fathers not living with their kids, they, in fact, tend to be MORE involved in their kids' lives than their white and latino counterparts.

So suddenly, "poof" your point becomes moot.

I could continue to argue with myself but at some point, I'm gonna be seen as more crazy than I already am.

The stats above are about the home with a father. I'm talking about the rate of fatherless homes.

This reminds me of the WHO stats on health care and how low the US rates because of the way they skew information and results. Simple example: If some in the US get amazing health care and some get poor health care, the US scores LOWER than what Trump would call a "****hole" country, where EVERYBODY gets poor health care. The reason? Everyone is treated more equal in the latter.

It's the old phrase, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics are fine, but when they seem to defy reality, you may want to check the raw data on which they are based.