Middle-aged men from disadvantaged backgrounds are twice as likely to be single as those from rich families, according to a new study that highlights the lack of social mobility in Britain.
Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that men’s marriage prospects are linked to their upbringing, and that the disparity between those from well-off and poor families has widened in recent years.
The study found that one in three men from disadvantaged backgrounds were single at the age of 42, compared with one in seven from rich backgrounds.
Not that marriage or not particularly shows anything these days. But let’s deal with what they’re talking about. So, women choose men at least partly upon the basis of the social status of the man. Lower social status men are less likely to get picked.
Thus sports cars, big watches and status competition among men.
And?
State-appointed wives for all! In the name of progress!
What a tangle, both the piece and the Tim.
“Middle-aged men from disadvantaged backgrounds are twice as likely to be single as those from rich families”: among the young and (I assume) the middle-aged, “single” does not mean that you are unmarried, but rather that you are not living with someone.
“men’s marriage prospects” are therefore a distinct issue from their prospects of having a wife or bidie-in.
So, this may have nothing to do with the attractions of a rich husband or lover, but simply that fewer of the poor bother to trouble the vicar.
I agree with Julia. Allocation must be random in the name of fairness and equality.
And as there are no differences between men and women, there are no differences between men, correct?
I would be delighted to volunteer for the arduous task of allocation. Naturally, as adequate compensation will be required for these vital duties, I should myself receive a generous allocation, at my discretion.
What proportion of the 1 in 3 poor single men used to be rich married men?
Marriage is increasingly a middle-class institution. The chaotic lifestyles of the under-class prevent the acquisition of those qualities (eg commitment, long-term planning) necessary for marriage and a measure of success. Character is destiny.
BiG
Your compensation may include a rich harvest of STDs. Think on’t, lad.
(Extra points for anyone who gets the Councillor Duxbury reference.)
BiG
Tough. You get Polly Toynbee.
And when these poor men “pull their finger out”, get wealthier and married their wives can divorce them for “emotional neglect” because they spent too much time working, and they’ll be poor men again.
And NiV gets Chelsea Manning.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/aug/11/chelsea-manning-fronts-vogue-magazines-september-issue
Re Chelsea Manning:
If you serve in the military honestly and loyally then the Guardian hates. If you betray tour comrades and your country and then chop your own knob off, well then tou’re the hero.
Theophrastus
Oh, FFS
These people are mad
Ironman
Quite so. The Guardian is the quintessence of decadence.
As one gay friend of mine said about ‘trans’ people….
Why would a really pretty boy want to become an ugly woman?
Freedom does indeed include the right to chop your bits off and wear a swimsuit on the beach. There are plenty of countries in the world where at least one of those isn’t allowed.
>What proportion of the 1 in 3 poor single men used to be rich married men?
+1
Single vs Married is a really strange incomplete analysis. Loadsa category errors, not that i would expect an Economics Editor with a History Degree to find them :-).
Theophrastus,
BiG may well not be upset by getting Polly Toynbee. After all, he could be a RoPper, in which case he is allowed to chastise her … and he can keep his sexual attentions to the other three. Surely at least one in four (OK, three) can’t be too much of a dog?
AM
“Freedom does indeed include the right to chop your bits off and wear a swimsuit on the beach.”
It does, indeed. They have a right to be tolerated, but no right to be endorsed or subsidised. If you choose a deviant lifestyle, that’s fine by me – just don’t expect the full panoply of equal rights – gender neutral forms, toilets, speech etc – demanded by the devotees of the Religion of Equality (aka, in Ecksian, CM scum).
“BiG may well not be upset by getting Polly Toynbee…”
He’s welcome to chastise her. But leave the poor canines out of it: he’ll have to make do with a goat.
Well Theophrastus, I can’t agree with that until religion is no longer endorsed or subsidised by the state either.
Matthew L: until religion is no longer endorsed or subsidised by the state either.
Do you have the CoE in mind? It is no longer a religion – it’s a social movement disassociated from any non-material beliefs and objectives.
It’s endorsed and subsidised by the state in much the same way as is the RSPCA.
” I can’t agree with that until religion is no longer endorsed or subsidised by the state either.”
Given that State and religion are separated in the US, you’re fine with any refusal to pander to trans rights claims there then?
“Theophrastus
August 11, 2017 at 8:22 am
And NiV gets Chelsea Manning.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/aug/11/chelsea-manning-fronts-vogue-magazines-september-issue”
Still looks like a drag act/shit lesbian comedian.
And ffs- do they not do psych screening for intelligence roles?
Anyone that mad should have been weeded out before they got access to anything more sensitive than the office coffee machine instruction pamphlet
Why don’t poor men marry other poor men? They’ll then have a companion to wallow in their poverty with.
Is it still the case that a lot of people from “disadvantaged backgrounds” don’t marry because they’re doing a social housing fiddle?
Move in together, don’t tell the authorities, sub-let one of the flats?
Used to be very common in London; don’t know about elsewhere; depends on how strong the local rental market is I suppose.
Also, wouldn’t we need the non-marriage rate for women of the same background, to see whether it is women trading up or just class-based tendency to marry vs shacking up together?
Jim: religion and the state are most emphatically not separated in the US. Religious people receive far more “special treatment” than trans people do.
Matthew L: Indeed they do particularly if your religion is at odds with Christianity and begins with the letter “I”.
There is more and more evidence showing the health disbenefits of being single and of not having somebody to cuddle up with at night, so how do I get me a woman to cuddle on the NHS?
Message from Whataboutery Central:-
“Well Theophrastus, I can’t agree with that until religion is no longer endorsed or subsidised by the state either.”
I do like the idea that Anglicanism and the Church of England are endorsed by the modern State. Most amusing.
“I do like the idea that Anglicanism and the Church of England are endorsed by the modern State.” Even odder, God’s Kirk is ashamed to call itself an Established Church these days; it prefers “the national Church in Scotland”.
@jgh
There are a number of women who will be happy to provide you with such companionship for a cash fee.
“There are a number of women who will be happy to provide you with such companionship for a cash fee.”
Are you suggesting that the National Sex Service be turned into a profit machine for neoliberal US corporations? How dare you suggest that people should have to pay for such a basic human need as sex. The NSS is the wonder of the world, admired for its provision of sex free at the point of need for all UK citizens, regardless of looks, or personal hygiene. Our forefathers fought a war you know to be able to start the NSS in 1947, and we should all support it wholeheartedly. I personally am looking forward to my 6 monthly NSS appointment, thats as long as its not cancelled at the last minute like last time due to staff shortages, due to Tory Austerity I’m sure!
Richard: Also, wouldn’t we need the non-marriage rate for women of the same background, to see whether it is women trading up or just class-based tendency to marry vs shacking up together?
It must be women trading up – otherwise the Guardian opinion columns wouldn’t contain female columnists complaining that they can’t find a man of the right social class to marry now they have turned 30 and want to settle down.
If the NSS is ever created then I am going to make sure I have the BUPA equivalent.
In the US the federal government started heavily subsidizing NOT getting married with money and benefits in the 1960s. So of course when you subsidize human behaviors with money you can expect more of it, thus the out of wedlock birth rates which were somewhat problematic before 1962 have skyrocketed.
Interestingly in the US there is a direct inverse correlation between out of wedlock birth rates and IQ scores among the 4 main ethnic groups. The group with the highest average IQ score, Asian-Americans also has the lowest out of wedlock birth rate and so forth.
Of course if anyone simply brought up this perfect inverse correlation they would be tar and feathered.
John Parson,
To be fair it is recognised that IQ is increased from coming from a stable loving/supportive (or borderline abusive even) family (the question is of course is whether the link between the family and the higher IQ is genetic…), so you would expect the inverse correlation anyway.
As to the birthrates, I’d be careful about saying they’d skyrocketed without one possible proviso. What I’d suggest is that what has happened is actually the number of births within three-four months of a marriage has fallen quite dramatically (one of my grandparents was born in this way…), and therefore the number of out-of-wedlock babies has increased. Plus it might well be cheaper now to raise a baby than to get married (if you want the full ridiculous modern experience), so people often have their kids first.
Matthew L:
Care to cite examples of this ‘special treatment?’ The only one that comes to mind is tax exemption, and that’s common to most charities.
Care to cite examples of this ‘special treatment?’
Bishops in the Lords.
If you accept that the ludicrous proposition that the bishops are “religious people”.
Oops, the question was about the US. How about the absurd “In God We Trust”? Or the use of religious chaplains in the army. Unless of course they have pastafarian chaplains too.
Clarissa: nah! I want it on prescription. What do I pay me taxes for?
@dearieme
There are no atheists in foxholes.
@dearieme
A sign sometimes seen in mom&pop stores:
In God We Trust
All others pay cash
Point of order: Bradley Manning wasn’t a whistleblower. He was a fucking spy. It was a measure of Obama’s contempt and fecklessness that Manning was pardoned rather than being shot.
BiCR,
I don’t know about being a spy as he wasn’t working for a foreign intelligence agency, but certainly not some whistle blower who has done everyone a favour. If he had genuine concerns for civil liberties and the security of the nation he could have gone to someone like senator Rand Paul.
Chris Miller: promoting the use of violence to force people to adopt religion. Where have I heard that before? Gosh, only from most large variants of all of the mainstream mono-sky-fairy fantasies.
@dearieme, they do have at least one wiccan chaplain. I assume you need a critical mass to get one but no reason they wouldn’t have one for the FSM (pesto be upon him).
Government Acts: Poor Hardest Hit
“There are no atheists in foxholes.” Oh balls.