Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Unmarrried middle class parents...

175 replies

RoseWhiteTips · 20/01/2018 14:05

Unmarried middle-class parents more likely to see their children drop in social status

Children of professional parents who were not married had a 53 per cent chance of being on benefits, compared to 37 per cent for those whose parents had married.
(The Telegraph 20th January 2018)

Would you seriously consider marriage to safeguard the future status of your children?

OP posts:
SleepingStandingUp · 20/01/2018 14:06

I'd want more information. I dont think a wedding the kids were never at is the issue, there has to be other associated impacts

Anotherdayanotherdollar · 20/01/2018 14:06

No.

Camomila · 20/01/2018 14:09

I think this might be one of those correlation rather than causation things...

E.g. unmarried relationships are more likely to split up while the children are young...so the children are more likely to end up with a single parent...so are more likely to be poorer.

Having said that both of the unmarried couples in our NCT class have got engaged since having the babies.

heardashot · 20/01/2018 14:10

"More likely" by a 16% difference. the 37% surprises me more...

I wonder if they looked at other factors also?

Shineystrawberrylover · 20/01/2018 14:12

This is a "more information needed" bearing in mind thre Torygraph are all about pretentious social climbers rather than a wider "middle class".

Bluepeony · 20/01/2018 14:13

Agree with camomila

RoseWhiteTips · 20/01/2018 14:18

Middle-class parents who fail to get married are more likely to see their children drop in social status as they get older, a study suggests.

Figures show that professional parents who are unmarried are much more likely to have a child who receives state benefits during their lives.

And while middle-class children are less likely overall to receive benefits at some point, the effect all but disappears if their parents were not married when they were born.

Children of professional parents who were not married had a 53 per cent chance of being on benefits, compared to 37 per cent for those whose parents had married.

The report, by pressure group the Marriage Foundation, argues that “the protection of social class only appears to apply to those whose parents were married at the time of their birth.

"If their parents were not married, when they were born, 'rich kids' are nearly as likely to end up on benefits as 'poor kids'."

Sir Paul Coleridge, former High Court judge and chairman and founder of the organisation, said “The natural assumption is always that the children of the better off will, by reason of their family wealth, be protected from ever needing state benefits.

"But this new research demonstrates that that is simply not the whole story." etc

The above comprises some of the article which i’m Sure you can read for yourself anyway, should you wish to.

OP posts:
RoseWhiteTips · 20/01/2018 14:19

...I’m sure...

OP posts:
RoseWhiteTips · 20/01/2018 14:20

I know, I know there is a pressure group involved but still it is food for thought, I think.

OP posts:
Spikeyball · 20/01/2018 14:22

The data is from children born in 1958 and 1970.

knowWhenToHoldEm · 20/01/2018 14:23

I think you're a little confused.

Im sure it's likely to do with the type of people who don't get married as opposed to those who do.

IwantedtobeEmmaPeel · 20/01/2018 14:25

The report, by pressure group the Marriage Foundation
Riiight Hmm

harlaandgoddard · 20/01/2018 14:27

It’s not the actual wedding that happens before kids are even born that will affect them though is it?

It will be the factors that make people not want to get married in the first place.

LipstickHandbagCoffee · 20/01/2018 14:30

Op,can you see the survey is not objective given it’s sponsored by marriage foundation*

Spikeyball · 20/01/2018 14:32

For unmarried parents the world is a very different place now from how it was nearly 50 years ago. I can't see information from the data being very relevant now.

Viviennemary · 20/01/2018 14:33

Most children born from 1958 and 1970 would I reckon be children of parents who are married. And if they were not they would likely be children of parents who were single when said children were born. It was unusual in those days for unmarried couples to live together and have a family without being married.

BertrandRussell · 20/01/2018 14:34

It’s the sin. Being born in a state of sin is really bad for the self esteem.

LipstickHandbagCoffee · 20/01/2018 14:34

As hard as smug marrieds find it to believe,not all women desire or seek marriage
Marriage isn’t the zenith of relationships
Not all women want to be a wife

LipstickHandbagCoffee · 20/01/2018 14:36

It’s the sin. Being born in a state of sin is really bad for the self esteem
what does that actually mean?

Snowdrop18 · 20/01/2018 14:36

couldn't resist checking the bonkers title

so many issues
with the people who conducted the study
the dates
the definition of class

and also how would this work? not everyone announces they are married.....some couples might be assumed to be married etc...

JacquesHammer · 20/01/2018 14:38

As hard as smug marrieds find it to believe,not all women desire or seek marriage
Marriage isn’t the zenith of relationships
Not all women want to be a wife

Yes this. I am divorced. I have yet to meet anyone who can get their head around the fact I won't get married again. "Don't worry it will happen", "never say never" yada yada

SusanBunch · 20/01/2018 14:39

Almost anyone can end up on benefits.

The study would have looked at children born during a time when there was still a social stigma involved in being unmarried- during the 60s and 70s. I don't know what they mean by 'professional' parents either. There is no such stigma now and the divorce rate is huge, so I cannot see what difference it makes to the child that the parents signed a slip of paper before they were born. If you think about it logically, it's ludicrous to attach such weight to a piece of paper. The only difference is that you have to pay £550 to separate- there is precisely zero screening that takes place to check whether people who marry actually are committed to one another.

I suspect that some of the harm caused to kids of unmarried parents came from the rest of society telling them and their parents that they were somehow worth less.

Oh and the marriage foundation having a vested interest in 'proving' that marriage is great? What a shock.

MonumentalAlabaster · 20/01/2018 14:42

LipstickHandbagCoffee
I think BertrandRussell was being ironic
Bertrand please confirm!

CraftyGin · 20/01/2018 14:43

I think we need to know what they mean by middle-class, state benefits etc.

I think we are a professional family in terms of occupation, education level etc, so I suppose this makes us middle class.

We have not had state benefits since they took child benefit away a few years ago. We never had the various top-ups that were introduced by the last labour government as DH was in the higher tax bracket by then..

I could see my children getting these tax breaks/benefits as they progress through income levels.

We didn’t get them because they didn’t exist when we were younger parents. My children might well get them if they have children at a similar age.

It has nothing to do with being married - we were married for six years before DS came along.

If marriage leads to a more stable family, then that is only good for the child. If living-together families are more likely to break up, then the available money is split across two households. Not sure how exactly children of motivated parents suffer long term by a drop in money (piano lessons don’t really count). Leaving private school, perhaps?

TheWitchAndTrevor · 20/01/2018 14:44

Middle-class parents who fail to get married

This first line tells me this is not going to be an unbiased report.

Failed? FAILED?

As for the research by the marriage foundation.

No I don't think it's food for thought.

Swipe left for the next trending thread