1/4 of mothers are single parents after being enticed by benefits 'lifestyle choice'

Kohoutek

It's reported here as well, in a more measured tone. It's based on an academic paper written by a Sociology professor, not Daily Mail journalists themselves:

http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2010-02-24-Single-mothers-living-on-benefits-as-lifestyle-choice

It raises some interesting points:

"Geoff Dench, who presented the findings, said the proportion of lone mothers has risen from 10% to 25% during the last 20 years.

At the same time, he said, there was a significant change in the characteristics of lone motherhood.

In the 1980s a lone mother typically had separated from a partner after some years of marriage or cohabitation.

Now, a growing proportion have never been in a co-resident relationship, Mr Dench claimed.

In 1986 just 15% of single mothers with children under 13 described themselves as never having married or cohabited, but by 2006 the proportion had increased to 57%.

Mr Dench said: "It seems that lone motherhood is less a result of relationship breakdown, more a lifestyle choice.

And the existence of state benefits as source of economic security seems to be encouraging young mothers not to bother with male resident partners. Their positive attitudes towards welfare suggest, however, that they regard the state as more likely to provide security than a typical male partner."

markharding557

Really2 wrote: »

Just thought I would try for the editors job at the DM
But then come to think of it I used a fact so perhaps I failed.

You would have to be a professional bullsh@tter like a politician.

carolt

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's reported here as well, in a more measured tone. It's based on an academic paper written by a Sociology professor, not Daily Mail journalists themselves:

http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2010-02-24-Single-mothers-living-on-benefits-as-lifestyle-choice

It raises some interesting points:

"Geoff Dench, who presented the findings, said the proportion of lone mothers has risen from 10% to 25% during the last 20 years.

At the same time, he said, there was a significant change in the characteristics of lone motherhood.

In the 1980s a lone mother typically had separated from a partner after some years of marriage or cohabitation.

Now, a growing proportion have never been in a co-resident relationship, Mr Dench claimed.

In 1986 just 15% of single mothers with children under 13 described themselves as never having married or cohabited, but by 2006 the proportion had increased to 57%.

Mr Dench said: "It seems that lone motherhood is less a result of relationship breakdown, more a lifestyle choice.

And the existence of state benefits as source of economic security seems to be encouraging young mothers not to bother with male resident partners. Their positive attitudes towards welfare suggest, however, that they regard the state as more likely to provide security than a typical male partner."

Actually, not in a more measured tone - that's more or less verbatim what it says in the Daily Mail article too.

Those who can get away from the fact it's the Daily Mail - shock horror! (actually, it was widely reported elsewhere as well) - and actually read the report, will note that it suggests a worrying trend away from (a) children being conceived in the context of a stable relationship and (b) from women viewing a life on benefits enabled by producing children as a lifestyle choice. I think the first is very sad, esp for those children, and the second worrying for an economy desparately running out of funds.

57% of these women producing children had never lived with or married the father of their child!

I find that shocking, and if that makes me part of the blue-rinse brigade, whatever that may be, lemonjelly, then I'm proud to declare myself blue-rinsed, hereon.

sjaypink

carolt wrote: »

Actually, not in a more measured tone - that's more or less verbatim what it says in the Daily Mail article too.

Those who can get away from the fact it's the Daily Mail - shock horror! (actually, it was widely reported elsewhere as well) - and actually read the report, will note that it suggests a worrying trend away from (a) children being conceived in the context of a stable relationship and (b) from women viewing a life on benefits enabled by producing children as a lifestyle choice. I think the first is very sad, esp for those children, and the second worrying for an economy desparately running out of funds.

57% of these women producing children had never lived with or married the father of their child!

I find that shocking, and if that makes me part of the blue-rinse brigade, whatever that may be, lemonjelly, then I'm proud to declare myself blue-rinsed, hereon.

i confess to not reading this yet, but is this a rise in single mothers claiming benefits, or just single mothers (which are presumed to be on benefits?)

peterg1965

lemonjelly wrote: »

Oh !!!!!! ridiculous headline by the daily mail!

Guaranteed to ensure their blue rinse closet racist brigade continue to buy the paper.

No doubt the rest of the paper is full of "Oh if only Diana were still here" articles.

It's the hateful daily mail! They have an agenda!

Good lord. lir gave me hope in the human race yesterday. That hope has vanished in the space of 1 headline. I'm off to shoot meself or summat!

Interesting description of a paper read by millions of people daily, so by inference everyone who reads the Mail is a closet racist? I read it, along with the DT, I does have a fair dose of tabloid rubbish, but it also carries a fair few stories which constitute the social conscience of this Nation from the Middle class perspective. It is not hateful, it is anti Labour along with the majority of the country.

I suggest you continue to read the Guardian - that font of all things equal, liberal and Labour

carolt

I only started reading the Mail after coming on here, because people kept quoting it - never opened it before in my life (or any other tabloid, really). No-one in my family would dream of reading a tabloid (unless you count the freebie London papers).

I confess I'm addicted now to the stories of 'celebs looking stupid' etc.

Plus I read The Guardian, Times & Telegraph online daily. Not picky. No longer read the FT since they required you to register and limited what you could see.


NB This story was, as I stated above, widely reported elsewhere.

Kohoutek

carolt wrote: »

57% of these women producing children had never lived with or married the father of their child!

I find that shocking, and if that makes me part of the blue-rinse brigade, whatever that may be, lemonjelly, then I'm proud to declare myself blue-rinsed, hereon.

Of course it's shocking. If you went back in time a few decades and told people that would be the situation in the UK in 2010, they would be horrified.

I don't understand how you can argue against the idea that families produce a more stable environment for children in principle. Of course, I would never pass judgement on individual parents because I understand that many single parents have gone through abusive relationships.

The reason we have policies that have this effect is largely because of the socialist dogma of people like Harriet Harman, who clearly have a huge social engineering agenda.

carolt

sjaypink wrote: »

i confess to not reading this yet, but is this a rise in single mothers claiming benefits, or just single mothers (which are presumed to be on benefits?)

The relevant bits are here:

"It shows that in the 1980s it was trued that a typical single mother had broken up with a partner after years of marriage or cohabitation. In 1986 only 15 per cent of single mothers of children under 13 said they had never married or lived with a partner.

But by 2006, 57 per cent of single mothers had never lived as part of a couple. :eek:

The research also showed that more and more single mothers want to stay at home with their children rather than go out to work. In 1990, only 38 per cent thought that 'being a housewife is rewarding'.

The share who liked being a housewife was up to 50 per cent by 2006."

carolt

Kohoutek wrote: »

Of course it's shocking. If you went back in time a few decades and told people that would be the situation in the UK in 2010, they would be horrified.

I don't understand how you can argue against the idea that families produce a more stable environment for children in principle. Of course, I would never pass judgement on individual parents because I understand that many single parents have gone through abusive relationships.

The reason we have policies that have this effect is largely because of the socialist dogma of people like Harriet Harman, who clearly have a huge social engineering agenda.

I don't really agree it's down to socialist dogma or Harriet Harman; I think it's more to do with base political reasons - bribing potential voters.

sjaypink

carolt wrote: »

The relevant bits are here:

"It shows that in the 1980s it was trued that a typical single mother had broken up with a partner after years of marriage or cohabitation. In 1986 only 15 per cent of single mothers of children under 13 said they had never married or lived with a partner.

But by 2006, 57 per cent of single mothers had never lived as part of a couple. :eek:

The research also showed that more and more single mothers want to stay at home with their children rather than go out to work. In 1990, only 38 per cent thought that 'being a housewife is rewarding'.

The share who liked being a housewife was up to 50 per cent by 2006."

So basically then, there is no stats in the article relating to the quotes:

'Researchers called for more efforts to encourage young men to take jobs so that more young mothers will choose living with a reliable breadwinner over a life on benefits.'

One in four mothers is now a single parent, having made a 'lifestyle choice' to rely on benefits

hmmm, this is why (some) people detest the DM :cool:

...not saying there aren't issues, there blatantly are, i just hate the DMs journalistic style!