Is marriage becoming the preserve of the affluent?

[ChocolateWombat]

Having been a parent at a state school in a socially mixed area, and also a parent at an affluent independent school, I have noticed a real difference in whether parents are married or not.

In the independent school of almost 600 pupils, almost all of the parents are or seem to be/have been married - on the parents list, almost every mother is Mrs...
However, at the socially mixed school, probably 2/3 of the parents were unmarried. Those who were seemed to be the more middle class ones. It just got me thinking.

Now before this turns into a state school/independent school issue, I really don't want it to. My interest is in the role affluence plays in whether people marry or not - I can totally see that in state schools in affluent areas, similar numbers of parents are likely to be married.

Is marriage becoming the preserve of the affluent and something out of the ordinary for the less affluent? Is this the case and if so, why?

If you have a career then to maintain your standards, once you decide to have DCs, you will need a second person to help pay mortgage etc.

If you don't have a career and live on a minimum/low wage then having a child will improve your standards as you will receive benefits you weren't entitled to when single. Whether you have a partner or not makes no difference, in fact might mean fewer benefits (if what the DM says is true)

The interesting issue is people thinking a lot of people will be low paid so my children might as well. That's fine but it does illustrate the differences in upbringing and perhaps shows why some children from certain "ambitious" homes/private schools tend to do better and have higher aspirations. I have never said I am more proud of my lawyer daughters than the postman son although I think he's made a tough choice. Life can be easier if you're not on mumsnet credit crunch threads and worrying about the rent. So I think it is good if parents can encourage children into higher paid jobs.

Mind you the easiest way for a pretty girl to get a lot of money is to stay thin and hang out where wealthy men are and get one to marry you. Women more than men tend to have two routes to wealth - their body and their mind. They can sleep (screw) their way to riches or they can earn the money themselves. If you go for the former you make more as a wife than a live in lover. If you go for the latter you can avoid paying out a fortune to a lower earner spouse as I did on my divorce by not marrying.

If you don't have a career and live on a minimum/low wage then having a child will improve your standards as you will receive benefits you weren't entitled to when single.

Only if don't spend any money on your children. Generally this will get you in trouble with Social Services.

I'm not so sure. Some women will have a child every 4 years over a long period as that is easiest - you get one to school age and then have the next and brings the biggest continuous state benefits.

I see lotus has hinted at the 'marriage as socially approved prostitution' line of argument.

Tbh when I look at some women's marriages I think there can be a bit of a point there.

Even on mn if a married woman comes on saying she refuses to ever have sex with her husband again lots of posters will say he is justified in divorcing her.

Re: the later point about low income women, it can be true, depending on circumstances that a woman is better off on benefits as a single mum than in a couple with a low paid man. (This isn't just the case in the UK, either) even if on paper the household is better off, if he doesn't share his wages fairly (look around mn for plenty of evidence that this is rife), she will have more actual cash at her disposal claiming directly in her name from the state than belying upon his good grace as a fair partner.

I have DCs with big but not huge gaps and even though I'm not 'on benefits' I'll be claiming child benefit for 31 years!

I haven't read all the the thread, but I agree with the OP that in my limited experience it seems to be true. I manage a number of 3 bed semis in a pretty working class town. All my tenants have been families, and none of the couples have been married. I'm just about to let one of them to a single woman with 3 children and I am positively keen to have her rather than a couple because I know she will have a reliable income from benefits and she is likely to be a stable tenant. Several times now I have had problems with rent being paid because of unstable relationships. Once the woman is in the house on her own she sorts everything out, claims housing benefit, voila, rent comes in on time every month. I think probably at the lowest end of the income scale, the benefits system is a positive disincentive to marriage.

The interesting issue is people thinking a lot of people will be low paid so my children might as well.

On this thread? Who said that?

I'm unmarried and unlikely to ever be, I think it's a complete waste of time and frankly am far happier on my own but appreciate I'm not typical.

I also earn my own money and can support DS quite well on my own, which is just as well as I get a piddling amount of maintenance from his Dad. Not well off but we do ok.

Of course being married confers a degree of legal protection but it doesn't stop your husband (or wife) behaving badly if they are minded to do so. A quick skim of this topic will tell you that.

I use the title Ms as my marital status is nobody's business but my own.

Oh, I was disowned by a relative for having DS out of wedlock. Somehow I have recovered from the shame .

Do you think David Cameron would have been accepted for the role as prime minister, if he had Sam as his live with him partner?
So yes it does seem that the more "status" you have the more chances are that you are married.

Well ed Miliband was pretty much fixed into getting married wasn't he?

In politics there are very few unmarried parents.