So is marriage the solution to all social evils?

[BrummieOnTheRun]

"...in the wake of a Tory report that says unmarried parents are driving a generation of children into crime and drug dependency...The Tories claim the rise in cohabitation and single parenthood is unleashing a social and economic crisis.
In an appeal to grassroots supporters, the party will this week put the promotion of marriage back at the heart of its agenda, warning of dire consequences if more couples are not encouraged to wed."

So is the solution marriage, or encouraging more household back into employment?
We married this year after 15 years of sinful co-habiting and I don't feel marriage makes a blind bit of difference to a good relationship. I see the lack of any working role models in these households as being the bigger issue.
But then I'm sure some of these kids are from single-parent households where the mother is killing herself with multiple jobs trying to make ends meet, so...???
Any opinions?
Full article here: /link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2496320,00.html}

The assumption that marriage is a "cure all" to the ills of society is woefully simplistic.
Poverty, crime & under achievement will not be solved by people getting married.
However, as a divorcee & single parent myself - I do really believe that there should be much better ways of ensuring that absent parents are forced to take financial responsibility (wherever possible) for their offspring. I dislike the idea that if a girl gets pregnant there is no pressure on the impregnator to provide support.

try giving everyone a deent education, so that having a baby isn't the only life choice.

bugsy did you read in that link I put up about the governments intention to have the "csa" (eye roll emoticon) require absent fathers to pay, force mums to declare paternity, use confiscation of passports , curfews and tags to get absent parents to pay. Compulsory naming on birth certificates.

Ooh, ooh, have just started a ranty thread about that.

and of course i left out the naming andshaming website for non paying absent parents

I can't help but think that if the system is set up in this way, then you can hardly blame people for trying to find the most effective way to steer their own family through it.

We aren't going to be able to encourage marriage in the current social climate. What they should be doing is working out why it is a better option for girls to go it alone, disempowering men and creating a climate of instability.

If you have money, influence and power you can quite easily navigate your way through these situations. If you are powerless and have no prospects, you end up on the rough end of the stick no matter what you do.

some girls do actually like the idea of having a baby especially if there mates are doing it too and they know people who have already done it..it does become culturally acceptable..of course in the long term it doesn't necessarily end up as much fun as they think but by then it is too late.

If I put myself in their shoes, then I can see why they do it. As you say, in the long run, it might not be a bed of roses, but it makes sense to them in the short term.

I've been following that story GCACDV. I sent in my comments when during the consultation phase for the proposed legislation.

custardo - completely agree on education. but it IS there if they want it. might not be very good (schools hopeless in our area), but it IS there, and if you turn up every day, even if there's a higher than average number of poor teachers, you're going to get some level of qualification.

why aren't they turning up and seeing this as a way out of poverty? it has to be family and social pressures and a view that it's all a waste of time anyway? anyway, that's a little off-topic I guess.

Exactly Santa. "You make the rule, you make the trick" as a dodgy Argentinian I once knew used to say (apparantly directly translated from an Argentinian saying).

I don't know why you can't encourage marriage though - marriage, co-habitation etc., have had ups and downs throughout history. Victorian respectability was a massive backlash to Georgian licentiousness (in one simplistic view of history). Fashions come and go, marriage will come back into fashion again. But all members of society have to have a stake in it, and at the moment they haven't. (Even in respectable Victorian times, loads of couples still didn't marry - look at Eliza Doolittle's father in GBS's Pygmalion. That couple was totally resonant and recognisable to his audience. But what they didn't question was that when you got respectable, marriage was part of the deal.)

I also don't think you can even discuss the subject without reference to poverty, work-life balance, feminism, the changing expectations of men and women, blah di blah di blah. What the Tories are saying isn't as simplistic as "everyone knuckle down and get married and stop splitting up". But everything always gets distilled into simplistic soundbites.

I don't actually think there is a way out of poverty now. Having a job used to be a way, but it isn't any more. The policy research stated earlier showed that a couple on 30k between them with two children were better off on benefits.

Very strange times we live in...

completely disagree - that if you turn up to school your going to get soe sort of qualification - thats complete rubbish.

recent stats say an alarming number of children elave school not being able to do basic numeracy and literacy.

i know that if kids dont like school and they dont like being in a lesson then flicking elastic bands at your friends is muc more fun

a teacher who cannpt control that situation - other than to send kid out of classroom EXCLUDES that child from learning.

and thats not unusual.

Oh I can't believe that. I guess it would depend on what their mortgage is, whether they're renting, etc.

Very, very true Quitelymad. Very true indeed.

But, custardo, maybe the problem with education is the children themselves (not saying it is their fault obviously). Part of it is the difficulty of disciplining children who have no stake in getting a good education, no aspirations, and whose families are actively opposed to any sort of authority.

Once you have a critical mass of disempowered, disaffected children, you destroy the prospects of the ones that might have done better out of life.

Actually I gues if you were renting and having to pay £1000 a month for rent, with no chance of buying, and the Housing Benefit would pay your rent, council tax etc., it could be true.

Actually, no I can't be arsed to do the sums. I'll assume that in some circumstances, it could be true.

I think the key factor about schooling is that the child has to be motivated in order to get something out of school. Consequently, even if the school is pretty poor, providing you are willing to put the effort in, you will come out with something. I speak from experience.

Remember Caligula, most of the people you will know (and me) have bought houses while they were cheap. These days someone starting out has to pay a huge amount for housing, whether bought or rented. I know many people in 6 bed houses paying less in mortgage than a twenty something couple renting a flat.

It is a very recent change. It is very hard for any young people to access decent affordable housing, and this is one of the big factors in the benefit trap. Not the only factor clearly, but a big one.

the incentive to have a baby young and escape home and hang around with boy and girl mates and drink cider or lambrini and smoke and buy little outfits for the babies rather than study and work when you don't come from that culture and your school doesn't address that culture and offer more is huge

they don't visualise an alternative, it has no reality for them..and they see people who do study and do get work as snobs

a big shift is needed in the way we get young people to somehow see that they could do these things themselves

the key factor about schooling is good results for the school affecting the house prices and local economy - houses are advertised by catchment area for gods sake.

so if your son is the type of kid who goes to school everyday becuase his mum makes him - sits there - hates it, learns nothing. how is it my fault as a parent when the education system fails them becuase its designed to boost the economy and compete for money and resources rather than educate my child to be able to leave school after 12 years being able to sodding well read and write.

and sometimes its better to just not educate these children to give the others a better chance? that can't be your argument?

I don't believe that Speedy. I really don't think you can over-estimate the power of peer group pressure. I knew someone years ago who came from a household full of books, her mother was totally committed to education, and she was very badly bullied at her school. In order to avoid being bullied, she stopped working, learning etc. and got involved with shoplifting and stealing instead. The school failed to provide her with an environment where she could flourish because the culture was very much that you were a girly swot if you did your homework. Her home influence simply wasn't strong enough to withstand the other cultural influences she was surrounded by. (She's now a policewoman, ironically, but for a while it looked like she might be on the other side of the fence, legal-wise.)

I think GC, that the key to all of this is incentive. People have to see role models who work and live better in order to aspire to that.

The income threshold where you start to really see the benefits of work is really high. I'm not even sure whether I am far above it, despite being in a two professional job household.

Agree re housing Santa. So many social problems come down to the cost of housing. And none of the political parties have anything useful to say about it.

Depends though. I'm a lone parent and on a very low income and it's worth my while working because of tax credits. I think at the very low end, there is an incentive to work.