A study from the Marriage Foundation suggested that nearly half of children in Britain are no longer living with both of their biological parents by the time they reach 14 years of age.
Drawing on a dataset of 4,476 first-born children in the UK conducted by the Millennium Cohort Study and weighing the sample to represent the national population, the Marriage Foundation revealed on Monday that 46 per cent of children in the country are not living with both their natural parents by the age of 14.
The Marriage Foundation found that the majority of such cases (70 per cent) were a result of breakups from non-married couples, while 30 per cent were from families of married couples. For children whose biological parents were still together by the age of 14, 84 per cent had married parents, compared to just 16 per cent who were unmarried.
The data also showed that 60 per cent of parents who had never married were separated at the time of their child’s 14th birthday, compared to 21 per cent who married before the child was born and 32 per cent who married following the birth.
Harry Benson, Research Director of the Marriage Foundation, said that even when “considering a wide range of socio-demographic controls – such as ethnicity, age, time lived together, education and relationship happiness”, the numbers still indicated a greater probability of never-married parents to split up at 46 per cent, compared to 26 per cent for those who married before the birth and 27 per cent after.
The results back up similar findings from the Children’s Commissioner last year which found the 44 per cent of those born in 2000 spent some time living outside of a traditional nuclear family by the time they reached 17.
The founder of the think tank, Sir Paul Coleridge said: “Every experienced parent knows that if adolescents are to successfully navigate the scary teenage years they need a secure and a stable family environment.
“If you want to experience the rich rewards of fully enjoying your children… marrying the other parent is a crucial first step.”
The Marriage Foundation report called on the government to do more to support marriage. This may be a big ask, however, given that the supposedly Conservative government has in its decade-plus in power demonstrated open hostility towards the traditional family.
For example, stay-at-home mothers were enraged in 2020 when then-Home Secretary Priti Patel demanded that the government do more to incentivise the 8.5 million “economically inactive” people — nearly two million of whom were women who decided to stay home to raise their children — into employment.
The government’s tax structure already punishes traditional family structures, with the state only taxing individuals rather than recognising family units, meaning that families reliant upon a single income of £50,000 will take home less money than two working parents on salaries of £25,000, thereby incentivising both partners to work rather than stay at home with children.
If this wasn’t on purpose, it would be considered a crisis.
They incentivize divorce for women, making it hugely profitable.
Then they disincentivize healthy marriages by making them brutally expensive.
Speech by the founder of this group
How can you imagine that they are not doing this on purpose because they want to destroy the family because they know that if the family does not exist, humans do not have bonds with each other, and therefore there is nothing between the government and the individual.
The government has absolute direct rule over the isolated individual.
The Jews wrote about this as a way to stop the next Hitler.
Go read Theodor Adorno’s “The Authoritarian Personality.”
Actually, don’t read it – it is basically impossible to read. I have really high reading comprehension, because I have been reading think tank white papers for ten years and reading obscure philosophy for ten years before that, and I struggle with Adorno.
But go read the summary, read the Wiki maybe (although I’m sure that’s white-washed).
I want to get this guy Coltraine to write summaries of books for the site. He is a super-reader. He’s the most extreme reader I know. He’s read probably 1000x more books than me. I’ve never seen someone read like this.
But his writing is long-winded, and doesn’t do great with structure (which is confusing, given that he reads so much, but most people probably need outlines and don’t do them). I think I might try to do some co-writing with him, because this is just really a waste to have this guy reading all of this stuff and not publishing.
Honestly, I’ve wanted to make his book reviews one of the key features of the site for a long time. He reads all this obscure Jew stuff. He’s probably read Adorno in full, which I have not done. Honestly, if I’m just being frank with you, I’m not super well-read, especially compared to a Coltraine type figure.
E. Michael Jones is also super well-read, and his footnotes in his books are a goldmine. He’s probably also written significantly about Adorno.
We really need to get on this Adorno guy. People talk about the Frankfurt School, but they usually just go into the anal stuff and then make vague reference to “Cultural Marxism” (without ever saying these people are all Jews). Adorno is much more relevant.
Snake Baker contributed to this article.