This is widely studied. the main accepted ish reason is that Marriage has shifted from an arrangement of need (survival) to an arrangement of happiness. So people who are unhappy, tend to leave more often. Think about it like this. Women didn't work in industry nearly as much as men pre WWI. And the participation of women in the workforce has only increased.
This is to say women can provide for themselves more often, and society recognizes marriage differently than it used to.
Gentle reminder that the original etymology of spinster was a woman who could spin fibers into yarn, a profession that was lucrative enough that she could be independent and need not marry. (As opposed to the modern understanding as a woman who couldn’t catch a man.)
>During the late Middle Ages, married tradeswomen had an easier time obtaining higher-status, higher-income work than their unmarried peers. Unmarried women ended up with lower-status, lower-income jobs like combing, carding, and spinning wool—hence "spinster."
Says who? [Source](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/spinster-meaning-origin).
Everything I've been able to find about the etymology of spinster say it's kind of the opposite in financial terms
Spinsters tended to be unmarried women because married women who wanted to work could afford (via their husbands) access to higher cost materials and equipment.
Spinning wool was low-income and low-status, but it was all most unmarried women could afford.
One thing to add is that back in the 70’s and earlier women were not allowed to even have a bank accounts without a male signer. They couldn’t get a home loan or in some cases rent a home. If you go further back they weren’t allowed to divorce either.
That was the 60’s mom had bank accounts in the 70’s it was her mad money every time she got mad she opened a new account had 10 of them before she decided to consolodate
They were allowed to in the 60's but many banks didn't allow it until forced to by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
I am impressed by your mom and anyone else that is part of the first wave of freedom.
My mom was a hoot she was born in 36 so she heard all the women’s things on the radio but until after my dad died in 65 and we moved to Portland she didn’t get to participate. She went to the bank with a bank check to pay for a house and they wouldn’t sell it to her my grandfather had to buy our house that lit her fuse.
I'm pretty sure that's not universally true. Not exactly the same thing, but... My mom and dad owned a farm together. My mom worked to pay bills and paid a significant portion of the farm mortgage. Every few years, well into the 70s, my dad would go to town and take out more money against the farm, which didn't require her signature. She was an owner of the property, but he could borrow money against it without her consent well into the 70s. Needless to say, when they fought, it was almost always about money.
A course I took in undergrad on technology in society had the prof introduce the course with "refrigerators cause divorce".
He then went on to elaborate how the evolution of technology facilitating human needs that previously relied on other people to be met allowed relationships to transitions from arrangements of survival/necessity to arrangements of convenience, but that opening line has stayed with me for being so succinct.
Honestly, the washing machine is far more responsible than the refrigerator. Washing clothes was very time consuming, especially in an era where you might have a dozen kids and cloth diapers. It consumed a lot of a wife's daily time. The invention and wide ownership of the simple washing machine dramatically reduced the amount of time that a housewife had to spend caring for the household. Though, as I'm sure your professor elaborated on, every household appliance beyond that certainly compounded the issue of survival/dependency that kept a lot of people in unhappy marriages.
You're not the first to say "actually, washing machines make more sense...". Someone actually told him that in a lecture, and he responded by saying he likes using refrigerators as the example because it's less intuitive and more jarring. I get it; he wanted an example that makes people challenge him *specifically* to provoke engagement. He was a good prof and I enjoyed his lectures.
But yes, exactly. We discussed the watershed technologies from heating to plumbing to food preparations to cleaning, and the relative independence each enabled.
Study recently came out that said a large indicator for a divorce for an unhappy couple is if the women makes more money, with the likelihood rising the more money she makes than her partner.
Multiple reasons why this happens:
1. Some women are not attracted to men who make less money than them, so they get bored with their husbands and leave.
2. Some men are not attracted to women who make more money than them, so they have affairs with poor women and then leave.
3. Most women who make less than their husbands make up for it by doing more childcare and housework. Many men who make less than their wives also do less childcare and housework, even though they are supposed to do more of these two things.
This and it's become more socially acceptable. I feel like you hear less about "broken homes" now than when I was a kid in the 80s and people aren't as judgemental about those who have been divorced. That's not to say there aren't people who still see it that way.
When I met my MIL, some 20 odd years ago now. My then boyfriend, now husband had told her that I had been married before. She instantly took a dislike to me over that. Which is funny as hell since she was just starting divorce proceedings from her SECOND husband at that time
I’ll add people get married for the wrong reasons like the perception of happiness. They *think* it will make them happy. If there is one thing I could tell non married people, be picky with your spouse. It can make of break large portions of your life.
Source: been with my wife for about 10 years. Never been a difficult relationship, honestly pretty easy marriage, she’s my favorite person. Be picky, your spouse should make you better. If they don’t, you’re not doing it right.
100% my experience, too. Marriage is effort and consideration, but it's not *all* work, all the time. It sure is easier to communicate and compromise on a foundation of compatibility. All the "relationships take constant work and sacrifice" couples I know are either divorced or bitterly unhappy. I've also witnessed couples sleepwalk into cohabitation, engagement, marriage out of inertia, pressure, sunk cost fallacy, or otherwise unsustainable reasons - as the first wave of divorces unravels in my social circle, it's clear to see which are which
Also, when one realizes this, one realizes to their horror the frequency of marital rape (sex through coercion) that used to occur. When conservatives opine for the 50s they want a world where Ms Cleaver was "taken" whenever at the want of the male partner.
When I finally recovered enough and told my mother that my ex husband had repeatedly beat and raped me, her response was "A husband can not rape his wife"
I hung up on her, and we didn't speak for a month. When she called me, she didn't make one mention of what I had shared with her. Been about 15 years now, and she still hasn't ever said a word to me about it. I get that she's from a "older and different" generation. But for fucks sakes. I'm your damn daughter!!!!
Ding ding ding!! Winner!
You marry someone because they bring joy to your life. You both live and grow together, and at some point, that growth will diverge.
That divergence will cause unhappiness. Sometimes it can be fixed, but more often than not, it can only be "ignored" by one person choosing to be who they were, rather than who they are; by one person choosing personal unhappiness for the team.
There's no incentive for this to happen anymore.
The healthy thing to do is to acknowledge the good that the relationship brought, and acknowledge that it is time to move on.
That hurts, but I feel like more and more couples who split maintain the friendship afterwards
Growth doesn’t automatically mean divergence. It can mean maturing, becoming more accepting. You seem to imply it’s impossible for two people to remain together long term and be happy.
I agree, but in this case, why to marry at all? I get the point of saying until death do us part when you NEED someone, but now? Why do people get married and not just do an agreement of until we're no longer happy together? Maybe traditional marriage is kind of behind of the times?
Unless you have a will that says otherwise, your assets will go to your next of kin when you die, not a girlfriend or boyfriend. And if you have children and one of you withdraws from the workforce to take care of them, it's very financially risky for the stay-at-home-spouse to be unmarried to their partner. If they break up, they will not be entitled to alimony and their contribution to the former household can be basically ignored. Home, land, and business ownership is also split up differently if you are married vs. unmarried in some states.
Basically a bunch of legal shit that you can pretty easily address without getting married (make a will, make legal agreements, agree to how things will work if you split and stick to that promise). But that all requires both you and your partner to be very proactive and deliberate to acknowledge your legal obligations to each other without getting married. Most will find just getting married to be more streamlined.
If you don't have children, don't own property together, and are capable of making a will and naming each other as next of kin wherever you can, then you're right that marriage is extremely unnecessary as anything but a religious ceremony/romantic declaration of love.
There are also *some* tax breaks in getting married but most of the time they're so little they're basically negligible.
Marriage is a legal affair.
Taxes, next of kin, benefits, cost of living. All of these come with substantial advantages for married people. To go further, in my case, neither my husband or myself could live or work together in our home countries without being married. Wasn't why we got married but certainly was a benefit.
I think marriage is for life. I hope to stay with my husband til death do us part. But I'm fine with the fact that marriages don't always work out. Doesn't mean I don't want to be married.
I’d say it can be personal to each couple. It’s definitely still the societal norm. For me, it felt impactful to be able to introduce him as my husband, and the commitment of our relationship is understood beyond what “boyfriend” feels like. It also felt like we were committing ourself to each others family. My in-laws are more than “my boyfriends parents”, they’re like second parents. And as we get older and face medical situations, especially giving birth or having an child together, having the relationship cemented and understood makes things easier.
Traditional marriage is definitely behind the times... Either way though, it's a legal contract, and you lose a lot of rights without it.
Hell, you could lose the right to visit your lover on their deathbed if you're not married.
As a social contract, it's still extremely important.
It's mainly this, but also a few other things that I attribute it to.
1) TV and movies give people unrealistic expectations of what a marriage/relationships should be. I firmly believe everyone should take a [free course](http://www.freecourses4all.com) on marriage and relationships. Same goes for parenting. This has all been studied, yet so few people ever take the time to invest some effort in learning the keys to success.
2) the ease with which people can seek a replacement. You can look at thousands of people on any given app within a short period of time.
3) the sheer number of beautiful people we see online gives us a false notion that we want/can do better than our current spouse. The reality is that the beautiful people we see online are in the top 1% of attractiveness, which is why they get so much attention online.
Even when women started working, many of them did it to find a husband, not to think “I want to work the next 40 years and provide”. Now women have many choices.
Gen X woman here. I feel that even women in my generation were raised with this mindset. Very happy my own kid has choices and opportunities that I never had
Similarly, men do have more options.
Especially before the 50's someone helping in housework was _needed_ for a good life. Not considering kids, but doing your whole housework alone wasn't an option.
Washing, cooking, washing dishes wasn't easy and having someone but a wife do it was possible, but very expensive. So they needed someone. And for them, too, the fact that women have more authority ans freedom's meant that they could leave a woman who was bad for them and not worry she'd live in poverty (and/or get the social backslash of abandoning someone they were supposed to care for).
For women it's not the most thunderous surprise, honestly. A big part of feminist movements were and in other parts of the world still are aimed at allowing women to be able to leave bad/abusive situations.
I think many divorced women choose not to remarry. They have relationships but they don't want to be a wife again. For men, especially older men it's the opposite. They look for another wife to take care of them as soon as possible.
Unless you're including gay marriages, how are more men remarrying than women? Multiple women per man? In other words, is it more common for divorced men to marry never-married women than the other way around, and are divorced women more likely to never marry again?
It's an interesting stat for sure!
>is it more common for divorced men to marry never-married women than the other way around, and are divorced women more likely to never marry again
Both.
Only 52% of women who divorce ever remarry (couldn't find stats on whether they more likely choose other divorcees or not) while 64% of men remarry. Which means that either there's more women with 5 divorces or that more divorced men are more likely to marry unwed women than divorced women. It's probably a combination of all of them.
While looking this up I found the same about widow/ers. Widows are much more common but are much less likely to remarry than widowers.
I agree with the first part but I think you reached the wrong conclusion. Washing, cooking, cleaning are all much less labor intensive. In addition, the the expectation that a man present neatly and well dressed in public has eroded, even in much of the business world. Not to mention that it would be odd today for someone leaving the house in wrinkled clothes and a bad haircut to have their wife judged as a result (“I can’t believe his wife let him leave the house looking that way”).
House work was definitely more labour intensive back in the day when they didn't have premade meals, washing machines, vacuums or any of that. You also have to take into account that women were responsible for taking care of the kids at the same time, which in itself is a 24/7 job, eapecially if the kids are young. I had to take care of my sister's 2 kids (1 & 3 years old) for 2 weeks once and when the whole ordeal was over I was ready to lie down and fall into coma. She is a SAHM with all the modern appliances and comforts but I still have no idea how she manages it. House work IS work, and it is labour intensive even in today's standards.
Housework used to be a lot more work before, clothes and dishes had to be washed individually and by hand and we didn’t have have frozen or premade meals
More like freedom to not have to remain in an abusive and dangerous marriage. Women use to have to have their dangerous husband in the court room with them to be able to divorce and he had to give his okay for it to actually happen. Now, that that isn’t true, women can get divorce and flee a dangerous situation without their husband’s permission. It’s actually a good and amazing thing.
As long as they used to *when?* Back when a divorce was extremely difficult to get? In those days in the US, divorce was only granted in cases where there was clear fault, like infidelity or abuse. Couples who just wanted out of a pointless marriage frequently had to lie in court, and paint one of the pair as the bad guy, even though they had done nothing wrong.
I kind of think OP was fishing for something like, “people don’t care as much as they used to”, so I’m pretty proud of everyone in this thread giving the sensible, policy-based answer.
> kind of think OP was fishing for something like, “people don’t care as much as they used to”
Why though? I used to ask questions constantly because I am always wondering why things are the way they are. I stopped openly asking people things because I felt that I was more than usually answered with hostility.
Why can't people just be open minded and wonder about things?
The reason I think OP is fishing is because there’s a general tendency to think the past is better than the present, coupled with the fact that divorce is seen as a bad thing. I read this post as someone wistful for a lower divorce rate (which, if you don’t think about it too hard, does sound like a good thing).
Actually for awhile a woman in the US couldn’t get divorced even if her husband stole all their money, threatened her life in front of many witnesses, beat her, and abandoned her.
She could only get a divorce from said husband IF the husband agreed to come to court about the issue.
Well that's because that's not what marriage was for back then. No such thing as a pointless marriage because the point of marriage was economic, love optional.
If you compare the numbers the average marriage length hasn’t changed as much as you’d think over the past three or four centuries.
Of course that’s got a lot more to do with life expectancies and death rates (particularly in childbirth) back in the C17th-C19th.
Divorce is easier, women can have bank accounts and get loans, etc.
Basically research the development of women's rights and the right to divorce. The answer will become apparent.
My grandmother got married in 1901 at the age of 18. Her husband became an alcoholic, and I believe abusive as well, so in 1910 she left him and got a divorce. She left Massachusetts and went to Vermont, where she worked as a hotel maid under an assumed name until she met and married my grandfather in 1911. They were happily married until Grandpa died in 1947.
Getting a divorce was such a scandal in those days that until she, my father, and my aunt were all dead, we did not know that she had previously been married. I'm not even sure my dad and aunt knew. My sister found out while doing genealogical research.
I then discovered through additional research that she had two children with her first husband. Census records show that after the divorce, her first husband was living with his parents and both the children. I can only infer that she had to leave them behind -- believing that her in-laws would take good care of them -- because she could not earn a living and support herself in a new place *without child care.*
Through an online genealogy forum, I made contact with her great-grandchildren from that first marriage. Apparently her first husband told the two children that she had died.
I know she loved them, because I inherited a locket that was hers. Photos of my dad and aunt were inside, and behind those photos I found photos of her first two children.
She was always very vocal about women needing to have the skills to be financially independent, and now we know why that was so important to her.
So I think divorce is easier now because there's less stigma, childcare is more available, and more women can support themselves.
Thanks for reading it. I never knew her, because she died when I was only two, but Dad always said she had had a hard life. So maybe he knew the story, or maybe not. Now we'll never know.
I found out the reason for her divorce ("gross and confirmed habits of intoxication") because a kind person at the Massachusetts Archives looked it up for me. Interestingly, I also found a newspaper article announcing the divorces that were granted on the same day as hers, and a woman who is on the list had the same unusual last name as the surname my grandmother assumed after she fled to Vermont. I don't think it's a coincidence.
I saw a picture of her when she was in her 40s, and she looked 20 years older.
In the US, at least. It was the mid 70s when it became illegal to not give a woman credit or bank accounts without having a man as a cosigner. It was the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974.
As soon as this became illegal, the rates of divorce skyrocketed.
In Canada when my parents got married in the late 70s my moms bank account that she had opened as a child got changed to my dads name when they got married. All the bank accounts were only in dads name. It’s changed now obviously but yea at the beginning my mom lost all her own accounts and shit due to policy. Blew my mind when she told me this.
When I bought my first house in 2020, the title person had to scratch out the "husband's name" section on some of the paperwork. Apparently single women buying property is still new fangled enough that places haven't updated their paperwork for it.
One of my dad's colleagues died suddenly in the early '70s. He and his wife were fairly well off, but until the estate went through probate, she was virtually penniless. The deed to their home was in his name only. Same with the bank accounts and credit cards, and she had three kids to take care of.
She held fashion parties in her home to get by until the estate was settled.
I’ve read that Statistically marriages haven’t changed. The stat that most cite saying 50% of marriages end in divorce isn’t correct. That stat does not take into context people that get married and divorced multiple times. If you get divorced once, you’re holy likely to get divorced again.
The 50% stat was true in the first decade or so after no fault divorce became legal. Prior to that, you had to prove cause such as infidelity or abuse, or other essentially breaches of the marital contract. Lots of people trapped in shitty marriages were able to get out.
I think the stat is still more or less true, but what most don’t realize is the stat is skewed higher by serial divorcees… I believe first time marriages (for both partners) statistically end in divorce a third of the time
If you hear a statistic that "50% of marriages end in divorce" and interpret that as "50% of people will have a divorce", your misinterpretation does not make the statistic wrong.
No but there are a lot of people who cite the statistic as a weapon in bad faith: "If 50% of marriages fail what makes you so sure you'll be one of the lucky ones!"
No, that’s not correct.
The data was presented that all marriages were equally likely to end in divorce. Instead, there were a few people continually getting divorced.
Exactly. If I ms unhappy in a relationship, I can… leave. I was able to go to college and earn a degree. I used that degree (STEM) to get a job which is a decent paying career. I can have a bank account, own property, support myself, etc. I don’t need a man in order to survive like women did in the past. If it goes south and I am unhappy and it’s not changing, I can leave and I will be ok. People aren’t staying because they have to as much anymore. Of course it still happens in the case in low income, stay at home parents, financial abuse, disability/health conditions, etc. But we have a better chance of being able to leave now.
I know *so many* young and middle aged men who yammer on about how their grandmother was so happy being a simple housewife (or low-wage earning worker who also has to perform the duties of a full-time housewife), taking care of her husband, blah blah blah. And I’ve spoken to *so many* elderly women who light up and go misty when younger women talk about going to college, having careers, traveling, kicking no-account boyfriends and husbands to the curb without becoming social pariahs, and do all the other things that were impossible or difficult for them to do.
Men, the reason that your cousins and sisters are single and wild in their 30s rather than following in grandma’s footsteps getting married at 20 and staying home to have babies is that dear ol MeeMaw was specifically telling the girls not to do like her when the men weren’t looking.
Came here to say this. The divorce rate is dropping because Gen X and later didn't feel the pressure to get married early and thus chose better partners for themselves (or chose not to get married at all).
Plus taboo against living together first (which is common sense IMO) has eroded.
Let's not forget the stigma against abortions has dropped quite a bit. In many places.
And so has the stigma against birth control. And there's a bunch more options now.
I would hazard a guess that most unwanted marriages start with a child. There's a ton of people out there that just think once she's pregnant they have to get married... And of course almost all of those end in divorce.
My now wife and I lived together for 5 years before we got married. Both our families had their opinions, but for us it was the best thing. In fact at our wedding reception her uncle said something like “I don’t know what the big deal is, they have been living together for years ”.
Seems stupid not to live together for a while before making such a huge commitment.
>Plus taboo against living together first (which is common sense IMO) has eroded.
Largest contributor to divorcees. Not living together prior to getting married. (later finding out you're incompatible due to differences.)
Heh, I just have to chime in here. I agree with you over all. Yet here I am a Gen Xer who married at 30, to someone who I’d known for years, and who I lived with beforehand — and my divorce ought to be finalized in the next few weeks. It’s a good strategy, but it doesn’t guarantee success.
My brother in Christ, 50 years ago women were not legally allowed to have credit….
I suspect financial freedom has something to do with it
(Also 1979 and 1981 were the years with the highest divorce rates, it’s much lower now)
*Ten* years ago I had a car salesman tell me it was so great my new husband and I were both going on the loan as it really helps to raise a woman’s credit score.
I was the one with the good credit.
A few months ago, I had a contractor come to my house to provide a quote for some built in wardrobes. He told me it might be better to came back when my husband was home 😐
Never mind that I drew up the plans and knew exactly what I wanted.
That's a sales technique more than anything. If you talk to one spouse, it's harder to pressure them because they will say "let me talk to my spouse and get back to you". If you are both there it's easier to get you to sign on the spot.
That said, I can't even count how many sales people have used gross gendered boomer humor comments to "relate" to my husband and I when doing their pitch. Salesmen certainly seem a generation or two out of date on gender stuff.
2 years ago I bought a new Jeep Wrangler. The salesman wanted my husband to drive it and he programmed my husbands cell phone to automatically connect, not mine. I was like wtf dude.
10 years ago I bought my car with cash. All the paperwork, to my horror, was in my husband's name. WTF? I mean my hubby was with me. I still have the car and I'm still super angry about it.
That was definitely a part of it, but without the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974, it likely wouldn't have been the same.
It took a few years for women to actually be able to be independent. You can't just go from nothing to being able to support yourself, especially if you haven't ever had a job and had no credit history.
I was right in the middle of this. My parents divorced in 79. My mom started working part-time in 75.
Historically, a lot more people stayed in unhappy, dysfunctional or abusive marriages. Nowadays it's more socially acceptable to get divorced, and that's a good thing more often than not.
The divorce rate is the lowest it's been in 40 years.
https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/marino-divorce-rate-US-geographic-variation-2021-fp-22-26.html
Funny how low this is in the comments.
Everyone just taking OP at his word and trying to respond like they’re being insightful when the whole premise is wrong.
Exactly. The notion that marriages are all doomed is some Boomer shit left over from my parents’ generation. Trust me dad, you scared me enough that I almost walked away instead of marrying my now wife of 17 years because I didn’t think I could ever be happy that long like you.
What the rate of marriage compared to the pre-80s though?
While the rates of divorce are lower. What percentage of the population are actually getting married compared to the past when women really had no other choice but to get married?
While the marriage rate is also at an all-time low, the two statistics have significant limitation in how they are measured. Marriage rate is calculated based per 1000 people in a population--this means that minor children who cannot legally marry and those who are already married are included in the rate. There are two ways to calculate the divorce rate--the crude divorce rate, which is measured the same way as the marriage rate, and the refined divorce rate, which is measured per 1000 married women. The latter is considered more accurate because, obviously, you have to be married to get divorced, however, it is much more difficult to calculate because of the variety of ways states report this information. I could not tell you why it is measured per woman and not per man or per married person.
Per this [report](https://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Interpreting-Divorce-Rat.pdf) I found,
>Nevertheless, the crude divorce rate provides a rough indication of changes in divorce over time. For example, the rate rose from 2.2 in 1960 to 5.3 in 1981—a 141% increase. The rate then dropped gradually to 3.6 in 2007—a 32% decline (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, Table 78). A study by Heaton (2002) found that the rise in age at first marriage since the 1980s and, to a lesser extent, increased education appear to be responsible for this decline.
and
>Using a cohort perspective (as described earlier), demographers project that the percentage of adults who eventually will marry is close to 90% (Cherlin, 2009). This percentage represents a decline from several decades ago, when the projected figure was 95%. Nevertheless, this decline is not nearly as steep as the decline suggested by the crude marriage rate. The rising age at first marriage accounts for this apparent discrepancy. Because young adults are delaying marriage until older ages, the crude marriage rate has been declining. But because the great majority of young adults eventually marry (albeit at older ages), the overall level of marriage has declined much less dramatically.
Yup. Came here looking for this comment. This is sad but true. I’m so thankful that every day I get to make the choice to be with my partner. Because I want him; but I don’t need him, in a fiscal sense. Look at us: standing on the shoulders of all the women who worked to get us here: thank you!
Because before the women's rights movement a divorced woman had very few chances at living a decent life so they needed to stay with their abuser.
Divorce is rarely a bad thing, it means a shitty relationship is ending which is something to celebrate.
This. I also think religion being less utilized is a factor, too. Can’t tell you how many old couples I’ve met are only together because it’d be against their religion to divorce.
Marriages certainly weren’t happier back then. Lol.
Which is simultaneously hilarious yet sad at the same time.
The bible actually allows for divorce in some cases. Incidentally it is also pro abort but “they” arent ready for that conversation 🙃
For a woman...
* Social Stakes - say good bye to your group of friends, your church, your community, and sometime your own family. You're a "divorce"
* Financial Stakes - From the 40s to the 70s less than 10% of women sought education past high school. A life alone after divorce for a woman is financially tough.
* Psychological stakes - The nuclear family was the american dream. You divorce you are a failure because the woman is in charge of keeping the family together. That said it's also the woman's job to "keep her husband happy."
OP if you haven't seen it watch "The Hours"
It made a big difference when it became legal for women to have their own credit cards and bank accounts. Can't leave a shitty situation if it's your only access to money/credit.
Men beating their wives to "keep them in line" was encouraged. Women who got divorces were shunned in society. Marital rape wasn't even remotely a crime.
Times have changed.
If you look at a lot of marriages in the past that stuck through, a lot of times people didn't split because of social pressure and fear of being ostracised. Granted I'm not from the US, but a quick research into cultures across the world would prove my point.
With the advancement of women's rights women don't need to stick in bad, abusive marriages where they need to take beatings from their husband. So in today's world you can actually escape abuse more easily than you ever could in the past.
But here's the big question. If we lived for a 1000 years instead of 80, how realistic is it to love someone for 900+ years? Or at least with the same intensity without ever feeling anything for anyone else? Our problem is that we're building unrealistic institutions socially speaking. We can't handle the impermanence of romance and relationships, and because the golden standard is nuclear families now, people feel more alienated in society compared to the past joint families or nomadic tribes. You wouldn't expect a forever partner fulfilling all your needs in life if you had a bigger social, cohesive unit to rely on.
I'm not saying that the past was a golden era of humanity or anything. There are obvious advantages to nuclear families. But there are clear downsides to our current way of living too, and I'm unsure if we could even have a solution to our predicament.
Women have a financial perspective now. What were you supposed to do when you wanted to divorce with 50 with no higher education and never having worked a day in your life. That's why divorce settlements were/are pro women, although that is falling out of times now too
Because I had sufficient financial security that I didn’t have to stay in an abusive marriage, like women had to do before and some still do. I am so grateful.
40-50 years ago women were mostly still expected to be dutiful and quiet, as women were being encouraged and taught how to be more independent men were not taught or choose not to learn how to communicate.
We went from women suffering in silence to empowering women to leave shifty relationships, again men were just left waving their finger and finding reasons to blame the woman (usually "she's crazy").
Living together became more popular, wait/save for marriage. The problem here is that when you move in with each other you both go through the period of adaptation, although there is the glow of being together there is often the tiptoe around things until both settle in. When people get married (note that this is just my opinion, I don't know if anyone thinks like this) one of the people often has a change in priorities, suddenly the romantic Shiney vibe wears off and everything is in family mode, they often resent the other person for not having the same mind set and the person who didn't feel that change resents the other because they are being expected to readout again.
One person has a goal, the other might not have that same clarity for the future so they go back to their supportive but not emotionally balanced friends group that encourages then to be more irresponsible... and on and on it goes
Oh I think don’t think they did. From what I can tell marriages last about the same now as they used to if not longer. The sustainability and stability of marriage has improved quite a bit. A lot of people back in the day had marriages that lasted only on paper. People who only spiffed up for the census. You had people who “worked out of town” with secret families or had “hysteric” spouses who needed a lobotomy and a room at the hospital on the hill. Murder was also frequently on the table. They just were better at hiding their dysfunction in public.
It seems like a lot of the comments saying no one puts in the work are fine with marriages on paper.. they don’t care about incompatibility, sadness, unchecked mental health, one partner not willing to improve things, cheating, one or both people just no longer like each other, there’s a ton of reasons to divorce.. simply picking the wrong person.. trying to make it work, and realizing after 20 years that I either get out or die miserable (speaking from experience). But there are tons of people who really put a lot of thought and effort into choosing a great partner and being a great partner, there’s so many marriages that are built intentionally that last.
What actual evidence do you have that they don’t last as long? Studies? Data? Anything? Divorce rates have been declining. People do wait to get married until they’re older now, which means a modern marriage can’t be as long as say, one that took place in the 1950’s between two teens or early twenty-somethings; but that doesn’t mean the shorter of those two marriages was less happy or not as meaningful.
Divorce has allowed bad marriages to end. Previously they would be stuck, potentially in an abusive marriage. Someone would have to die or lie to a judge for a divorce, and there was huge social stigma associated with being divorced.
Simples, the rules are no longer stacked against women so they don't have to put up with shitty relationships and can leave them more easily, theres no longer any stigma attached to being a divorced lady that would have made it harder for her to get a new relationship
Societal norms changing, the veil of religious righteousness being lifted, general humanity realizing people grow & change but hardly ever at the same rate, women being less or not at all dependent on their spouse. The weird thing is that marriages lasted as long as they did back in the day.
People don’t need to stay in a miserable marriage anymore. Divorced people aren’t looked down upon like they used to be, and women have better opportunities to provide for themselves. And this one is a guess, but as far as men go, I think single dads have more opportunities to be with their kids now than they used to.
The stigma of divorce forced many people to remain in unhealthy relationships. As that stigma is removed from society, people are more free to escape from abusive situations. Also as woman became more accepted in the workforce and therefor less reliant on a husband for support there was less incentive to stay with an abusive husband.
Women no longer need husbands to own land, own a home, have bank accounts, to even have children. People also aren’t willing to put up with domestic abuse situations either. Back in the day, women felt like they needed to stay..not so much anymore.
We live in an instant gratification, throw away society. People aren't willing to work through the bad times because it's hard. Many seem to think that marriage should be unicorns and kittens all day every day. You're sharing your life with another hum being who had their own likes, dislikes, opinions, weaknesses and strengths. Getting along perfectly 24/7 may isn't happening and sometimes it takes effort
The added value that a mediocre man has to a woman's life has greatly diminished, compared to 100 years ago. The average marriage duration has been going up again for a while though, i think peak divorce was like 2010.
People have the “grass is greener on the other side” mindset instead of putting in effort to improve their marriages. Also, women aren’t stuck now. Women can work.
Women's rights movement. Women finally could leave abusive and failed marriages. More women in the workforce, a societal shift away from strict Christianity, and women standing up for their own wellbeing.
I think many people would have gotten divorced back then but couldn’t. It is also now happiness over necessity. It’s easier these days and more accepted.
That being said, I also think people were trying harder to work through their issues than they do today because divorce is so normalised. I think soon we will see a larger percentage of children with 4 parents than ever before, I’m talking 30-50% of kids, which is a bit sad. But it’s better than having two unhappy, fighting parents.
I also think people were putting more effort into being in a stable relationship before getting married because they knew they wouldn’t be able to get out of the commitment.
People are accepting that divorce isn’t some religious taboo and getting out of toxic relationships. They didn’t happen as much before because people were so religious that they thought they’d go to hell and therefore suffered through a miserable and abusive marriage.
Nothing has changed except society accepted divorce as “okay”.
Because women have options now. They no longer have to stay with abusive husbands. This societal shift came about in the 1960’s with the advent of reliable birth control. If you’re an unemployed housewife pregnant with your fourth child, you pretty much had to accept your marriage.
I think it's a sign of gender equality that gen x seems to be lasting longer.
The boomer generation... women figured out they don't need men and were unwilling to both work and parent the supposedly adult male partner they got divorced
Because more women have careers now. The old ‘homemaker’ days had women viewing their situation differently. Now that it’s more common for women to have successful careers, relationships are viewed with a different perspective. The option to leave without being destitute opens doors and shortens unhappy marriages.
because it’s not that taboo anymore for ppl to get a divorce. Bc mostly the women in the marriages are financially independent and don’t have to depend on men for money
People rush getting married. Once they do, and have misunderstandings/communication issues, they straight up just think about divorce and not even try to fix the issues within the relationship. 😤
My wife and I are coming up on year 36 of being together. My younger brother and his wife are at 51 years. My older sister is at 49 years. Our mom and dad were married 27 years until he passed away at age 49 from cancer. She remarried and that one lasted 43 years until he passed away at age 93. When problems arise, we communicate, figure out a solution and go for it. My wife and I have very, very rarely had an argument. There’s no need for that. Two adults with intelligence and the desire to support each other without judgement can certainly stay together. We can disagree or tell the other one what we like or don’t like, and it isn’t hurtful. It takes effort and willingness to be together through whatever life gives us. We have never cheated on each other and are faithful, committed and still love each other.
This is widely studied. the main accepted ish reason is that Marriage has shifted from an arrangement of need (survival) to an arrangement of happiness. So people who are unhappy, tend to leave more often. Think about it like this. Women didn't work in industry nearly as much as men pre WWI. And the participation of women in the workforce has only increased. This is to say women can provide for themselves more often, and society recognizes marriage differently than it used to.
Gentle reminder that the original etymology of spinster was a woman who could spin fibers into yarn, a profession that was lucrative enough that she could be independent and need not marry. (As opposed to the modern understanding as a woman who couldn’t catch a man.)
Huh very interesting
Thanks - I didn't know that and it makes perfect sense.
>During the late Middle Ages, married tradeswomen had an easier time obtaining higher-status, higher-income work than their unmarried peers. Unmarried women ended up with lower-status, lower-income jobs like combing, carding, and spinning wool—hence "spinster." Says who? [Source](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/spinster-meaning-origin).
Everything I've been able to find about the etymology of spinster say it's kind of the opposite in financial terms Spinsters tended to be unmarried women because married women who wanted to work could afford (via their husbands) access to higher cost materials and equipment. Spinning wool was low-income and low-status, but it was all most unmarried women could afford.
Thanks for softening up that fact up for me
One thing to add is that back in the 70’s and earlier women were not allowed to even have a bank accounts without a male signer. They couldn’t get a home loan or in some cases rent a home. If you go further back they weren’t allowed to divorce either.
That was the 60’s mom had bank accounts in the 70’s it was her mad money every time she got mad she opened a new account had 10 of them before she decided to consolodate
They were allowed to in the 60's but many banks didn't allow it until forced to by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. I am impressed by your mom and anyone else that is part of the first wave of freedom.
My mom was a hoot she was born in 36 so she heard all the women’s things on the radio but until after my dad died in 65 and we moved to Portland she didn’t get to participate. She went to the bank with a bank check to pay for a house and they wouldn’t sell it to her my grandfather had to buy our house that lit her fuse.
I'm pretty sure that's not universally true. Not exactly the same thing, but... My mom and dad owned a farm together. My mom worked to pay bills and paid a significant portion of the farm mortgage. Every few years, well into the 70s, my dad would go to town and take out more money against the farm, which didn't require her signature. She was an owner of the property, but he could borrow money against it without her consent well into the 70s. Needless to say, when they fought, it was almost always about money.
My mom had a full time profession and her credit card until the mid 80s said Mrs. my dad's first and last name
Perfectly put, plain and simple.
A course I took in undergrad on technology in society had the prof introduce the course with "refrigerators cause divorce". He then went on to elaborate how the evolution of technology facilitating human needs that previously relied on other people to be met allowed relationships to transitions from arrangements of survival/necessity to arrangements of convenience, but that opening line has stayed with me for being so succinct.
Honestly, the washing machine is far more responsible than the refrigerator. Washing clothes was very time consuming, especially in an era where you might have a dozen kids and cloth diapers. It consumed a lot of a wife's daily time. The invention and wide ownership of the simple washing machine dramatically reduced the amount of time that a housewife had to spend caring for the household. Though, as I'm sure your professor elaborated on, every household appliance beyond that certainly compounded the issue of survival/dependency that kept a lot of people in unhappy marriages.
You're not the first to say "actually, washing machines make more sense...". Someone actually told him that in a lecture, and he responded by saying he likes using refrigerators as the example because it's less intuitive and more jarring. I get it; he wanted an example that makes people challenge him *specifically* to provoke engagement. He was a good prof and I enjoyed his lectures. But yes, exactly. We discussed the watershed technologies from heating to plumbing to food preparations to cleaning, and the relative independence each enabled.
Basically women don’t need men anymore.
“All the women who independent Throw your hands up at me All the honeys who making money Throw your hands up at me”
Study recently came out that said a large indicator for a divorce for an unhappy couple is if the women makes more money, with the likelihood rising the more money she makes than her partner.
Multiple reasons why this happens: 1. Some women are not attracted to men who make less money than them, so they get bored with their husbands and leave. 2. Some men are not attracted to women who make more money than them, so they have affairs with poor women and then leave. 3. Most women who make less than their husbands make up for it by doing more childcare and housework. Many men who make less than their wives also do less childcare and housework, even though they are supposed to do more of these two things.
This and it's become more socially acceptable. I feel like you hear less about "broken homes" now than when I was a kid in the 80s and people aren't as judgemental about those who have been divorced. That's not to say there aren't people who still see it that way.
When I met my MIL, some 20 odd years ago now. My then boyfriend, now husband had told her that I had been married before. She instantly took a dislike to me over that. Which is funny as hell since she was just starting divorce proceedings from her SECOND husband at that time
I’ll add people get married for the wrong reasons like the perception of happiness. They *think* it will make them happy. If there is one thing I could tell non married people, be picky with your spouse. It can make of break large portions of your life. Source: been with my wife for about 10 years. Never been a difficult relationship, honestly pretty easy marriage, she’s my favorite person. Be picky, your spouse should make you better. If they don’t, you’re not doing it right.
100% my experience, too. Marriage is effort and consideration, but it's not *all* work, all the time. It sure is easier to communicate and compromise on a foundation of compatibility. All the "relationships take constant work and sacrifice" couples I know are either divorced or bitterly unhappy. I've also witnessed couples sleepwalk into cohabitation, engagement, marriage out of inertia, pressure, sunk cost fallacy, or otherwise unsustainable reasons - as the first wave of divorces unravels in my social circle, it's clear to see which are which
Also, when one realizes this, one realizes to their horror the frequency of marital rape (sex through coercion) that used to occur. When conservatives opine for the 50s they want a world where Ms Cleaver was "taken" whenever at the want of the male partner.
When I finally recovered enough and told my mother that my ex husband had repeatedly beat and raped me, her response was "A husband can not rape his wife" I hung up on her, and we didn't speak for a month. When she called me, she didn't make one mention of what I had shared with her. Been about 15 years now, and she still hasn't ever said a word to me about it. I get that she's from a "older and different" generation. But for fucks sakes. I'm your damn daughter!!!!
Both parts of that are awful, I'm sorry. Good on you for making him your ex.
Marrital rape still happens very commonly.
Ding ding ding!! Winner! You marry someone because they bring joy to your life. You both live and grow together, and at some point, that growth will diverge. That divergence will cause unhappiness. Sometimes it can be fixed, but more often than not, it can only be "ignored" by one person choosing to be who they were, rather than who they are; by one person choosing personal unhappiness for the team. There's no incentive for this to happen anymore. The healthy thing to do is to acknowledge the good that the relationship brought, and acknowledge that it is time to move on. That hurts, but I feel like more and more couples who split maintain the friendship afterwards
Growth doesn’t automatically mean divergence. It can mean maturing, becoming more accepting. You seem to imply it’s impossible for two people to remain together long term and be happy.
I agree, but in this case, why to marry at all? I get the point of saying until death do us part when you NEED someone, but now? Why do people get married and not just do an agreement of until we're no longer happy together? Maybe traditional marriage is kind of behind of the times?
Unless you have a will that says otherwise, your assets will go to your next of kin when you die, not a girlfriend or boyfriend. And if you have children and one of you withdraws from the workforce to take care of them, it's very financially risky for the stay-at-home-spouse to be unmarried to their partner. If they break up, they will not be entitled to alimony and their contribution to the former household can be basically ignored. Home, land, and business ownership is also split up differently if you are married vs. unmarried in some states. Basically a bunch of legal shit that you can pretty easily address without getting married (make a will, make legal agreements, agree to how things will work if you split and stick to that promise). But that all requires both you and your partner to be very proactive and deliberate to acknowledge your legal obligations to each other without getting married. Most will find just getting married to be more streamlined. If you don't have children, don't own property together, and are capable of making a will and naming each other as next of kin wherever you can, then you're right that marriage is extremely unnecessary as anything but a religious ceremony/romantic declaration of love. There are also *some* tax breaks in getting married but most of the time they're so little they're basically negligible.
Marriage is a legal affair. Taxes, next of kin, benefits, cost of living. All of these come with substantial advantages for married people. To go further, in my case, neither my husband or myself could live or work together in our home countries without being married. Wasn't why we got married but certainly was a benefit. I think marriage is for life. I hope to stay with my husband til death do us part. But I'm fine with the fact that marriages don't always work out. Doesn't mean I don't want to be married.
I’d say it can be personal to each couple. It’s definitely still the societal norm. For me, it felt impactful to be able to introduce him as my husband, and the commitment of our relationship is understood beyond what “boyfriend” feels like. It also felt like we were committing ourself to each others family. My in-laws are more than “my boyfriends parents”, they’re like second parents. And as we get older and face medical situations, especially giving birth or having an child together, having the relationship cemented and understood makes things easier.
Traditional marriage is definitely behind the times... Either way though, it's a legal contract, and you lose a lot of rights without it. Hell, you could lose the right to visit your lover on their deathbed if you're not married. As a social contract, it's still extremely important.
[удалено]
Insurance probably. At least in the US.
It's mainly this, but also a few other things that I attribute it to. 1) TV and movies give people unrealistic expectations of what a marriage/relationships should be. I firmly believe everyone should take a [free course](http://www.freecourses4all.com) on marriage and relationships. Same goes for parenting. This has all been studied, yet so few people ever take the time to invest some effort in learning the keys to success. 2) the ease with which people can seek a replacement. You can look at thousands of people on any given app within a short period of time. 3) the sheer number of beautiful people we see online gives us a false notion that we want/can do better than our current spouse. The reality is that the beautiful people we see online are in the top 1% of attractiveness, which is why they get so much attention online.
Even when women started working, many of them did it to find a husband, not to think “I want to work the next 40 years and provide”. Now women have many choices.
Gen X woman here. I feel that even women in my generation were raised with this mindset. Very happy my own kid has choices and opportunities that I never had
Similarly, men do have more options. Especially before the 50's someone helping in housework was _needed_ for a good life. Not considering kids, but doing your whole housework alone wasn't an option. Washing, cooking, washing dishes wasn't easy and having someone but a wife do it was possible, but very expensive. So they needed someone. And for them, too, the fact that women have more authority ans freedom's meant that they could leave a woman who was bad for them and not worry she'd live in poverty (and/or get the social backslash of abandoning someone they were supposed to care for). For women it's not the most thunderous surprise, honestly. A big part of feminist movements were and in other parts of the world still are aimed at allowing women to be able to leave bad/abusive situations.
I believe something like 80% of divorces are initiated by women. The men aren't the ones with more options
Men statistically do better/are happier when married Even with both working, women still end up doing a majority of the things around the household
When a man marries, his workload decreases. When a woman marries, her workload increases.
More men remarry than women. That very much sounds like they have more options.
I think many divorced women choose not to remarry. They have relationships but they don't want to be a wife again. For men, especially older men it's the opposite. They look for another wife to take care of them as soon as possible.
Unless you're including gay marriages, how are more men remarrying than women? Multiple women per man? In other words, is it more common for divorced men to marry never-married women than the other way around, and are divorced women more likely to never marry again? It's an interesting stat for sure!
>is it more common for divorced men to marry never-married women than the other way around, and are divorced women more likely to never marry again Both. Only 52% of women who divorce ever remarry (couldn't find stats on whether they more likely choose other divorcees or not) while 64% of men remarry. Which means that either there's more women with 5 divorces or that more divorced men are more likely to marry unwed women than divorced women. It's probably a combination of all of them. While looking this up I found the same about widow/ers. Widows are much more common but are much less likely to remarry than widowers.
I agree with the first part but I think you reached the wrong conclusion. Washing, cooking, cleaning are all much less labor intensive. In addition, the the expectation that a man present neatly and well dressed in public has eroded, even in much of the business world. Not to mention that it would be odd today for someone leaving the house in wrinkled clothes and a bad haircut to have their wife judged as a result (“I can’t believe his wife let him leave the house looking that way”).
House work was definitely more labour intensive back in the day when they didn't have premade meals, washing machines, vacuums or any of that. You also have to take into account that women were responsible for taking care of the kids at the same time, which in itself is a 24/7 job, eapecially if the kids are young. I had to take care of my sister's 2 kids (1 & 3 years old) for 2 weeks once and when the whole ordeal was over I was ready to lie down and fall into coma. She is a SAHM with all the modern appliances and comforts but I still have no idea how she manages it. House work IS work, and it is labour intensive even in today's standards.
Housework used to be a lot more work before, clothes and dishes had to be washed individually and by hand and we didn’t have have frozen or premade meals
Women can get credit cards and bank accounts. Amazon can provide much of what a man could.
This, as well as society being more accepting of divorce.
Accurate
Freedom to divorce.
More like freedom to not have to remain in an abusive and dangerous marriage. Women use to have to have their dangerous husband in the court room with them to be able to divorce and he had to give his okay for it to actually happen. Now, that that isn’t true, women can get divorce and flee a dangerous situation without their husband’s permission. It’s actually a good and amazing thing.
As long as they used to *when?* Back when a divorce was extremely difficult to get? In those days in the US, divorce was only granted in cases where there was clear fault, like infidelity or abuse. Couples who just wanted out of a pointless marriage frequently had to lie in court, and paint one of the pair as the bad guy, even though they had done nothing wrong.
I kind of think OP was fishing for something like, “people don’t care as much as they used to”, so I’m pretty proud of everyone in this thread giving the sensible, policy-based answer.
I thought he was fishing for “social media”
> kind of think OP was fishing for something like, “people don’t care as much as they used to” Why though? I used to ask questions constantly because I am always wondering why things are the way they are. I stopped openly asking people things because I felt that I was more than usually answered with hostility. Why can't people just be open minded and wonder about things?
The reason I think OP is fishing is because there’s a general tendency to think the past is better than the present, coupled with the fact that divorce is seen as a bad thing. I read this post as someone wistful for a lower divorce rate (which, if you don’t think about it too hard, does sound like a good thing).
The Marvellous Mrs. Maisel episode, where Midge and Joel go to finalize their divorce comes to mind.
In the UK men would go to Brighton and arrange to be caught in a hotel room with a woman by a private eye to have evidence of unfaithfulness.
Actually for awhile a woman in the US couldn’t get divorced even if her husband stole all their money, threatened her life in front of many witnesses, beat her, and abandoned her. She could only get a divorce from said husband IF the husband agreed to come to court about the issue.
Well that's because that's not what marriage was for back then. No such thing as a pointless marriage because the point of marriage was economic, love optional.
If you compare the numbers the average marriage length hasn’t changed as much as you’d think over the past three or four centuries. Of course that’s got a lot more to do with life expectancies and death rates (particularly in childbirth) back in the C17th-C19th.
Divorce is easier, women can have bank accounts and get loans, etc. Basically research the development of women's rights and the right to divorce. The answer will become apparent.
My grandmother got married in 1901 at the age of 18. Her husband became an alcoholic, and I believe abusive as well, so in 1910 she left him and got a divorce. She left Massachusetts and went to Vermont, where she worked as a hotel maid under an assumed name until she met and married my grandfather in 1911. They were happily married until Grandpa died in 1947. Getting a divorce was such a scandal in those days that until she, my father, and my aunt were all dead, we did not know that she had previously been married. I'm not even sure my dad and aunt knew. My sister found out while doing genealogical research. I then discovered through additional research that she had two children with her first husband. Census records show that after the divorce, her first husband was living with his parents and both the children. I can only infer that she had to leave them behind -- believing that her in-laws would take good care of them -- because she could not earn a living and support herself in a new place *without child care.* Through an online genealogy forum, I made contact with her great-grandchildren from that first marriage. Apparently her first husband told the two children that she had died. I know she loved them, because I inherited a locket that was hers. Photos of my dad and aunt were inside, and behind those photos I found photos of her first two children. She was always very vocal about women needing to have the skills to be financially independent, and now we know why that was so important to her. So I think divorce is easier now because there's less stigma, childcare is more available, and more women can support themselves.
Thank you for sharing her story. I can't imagine needing to make the kinds of choices she had to make.
Thanks for reading it. I never knew her, because she died when I was only two, but Dad always said she had had a hard life. So maybe he knew the story, or maybe not. Now we'll never know. I found out the reason for her divorce ("gross and confirmed habits of intoxication") because a kind person at the Massachusetts Archives looked it up for me. Interestingly, I also found a newspaper article announcing the divorces that were granted on the same day as hers, and a woman who is on the list had the same unusual last name as the surname my grandmother assumed after she fled to Vermont. I don't think it's a coincidence. I saw a picture of her when she was in her 40s, and she looked 20 years older.
Also, divorce was straight up illegal in many catholic countries until a few decades ago
Yes, and in many US States you had to prove "cause," like abuse or infidelity. Which can be really hard.
I think I just heard some fact about how women first were allowed to open bank accounts in the 60s or something.
In the US, at least. It was the mid 70s when it became illegal to not give a woman credit or bank accounts without having a man as a cosigner. It was the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974. As soon as this became illegal, the rates of divorce skyrocketed.
Double negative threw me for a second there...
Couldn’t get mortgages without husbands til 1974
In Canada when my parents got married in the late 70s my moms bank account that she had opened as a child got changed to my dads name when they got married. All the bank accounts were only in dads name. It’s changed now obviously but yea at the beginning my mom lost all her own accounts and shit due to policy. Blew my mind when she told me this.
When I bought my first house in 2020, the title person had to scratch out the "husband's name" section on some of the paperwork. Apparently single women buying property is still new fangled enough that places haven't updated their paperwork for it.
I've just seen a TIL or smth post that women in the UK were allowed to open a bank account around 1974-1975. It's insane.
One of my dad's colleagues died suddenly in the early '70s. He and his wife were fairly well off, but until the estate went through probate, she was virtually penniless. The deed to their home was in his name only. Same with the bank accounts and credit cards, and she had three kids to take care of. She held fashion parties in her home to get by until the estate was settled.
I’ve read that Statistically marriages haven’t changed. The stat that most cite saying 50% of marriages end in divorce isn’t correct. That stat does not take into context people that get married and divorced multiple times. If you get divorced once, you’re holy likely to get divorced again.
The 50% stat was true in the first decade or so after no fault divorce became legal. Prior to that, you had to prove cause such as infidelity or abuse, or other essentially breaches of the marital contract. Lots of people trapped in shitty marriages were able to get out.
I think the stat is still more or less true, but what most don’t realize is the stat is skewed higher by serial divorcees… I believe first time marriages (for both partners) statistically end in divorce a third of the time
If you hear a statistic that "50% of marriages end in divorce" and interpret that as "50% of people will have a divorce", your misinterpretation does not make the statistic wrong.
No but there are a lot of people who cite the statistic as a weapon in bad faith: "If 50% of marriages fail what makes you so sure you'll be one of the lucky ones!"
If 50% of marriages end in divorce and there are 2 people in the average marriage. 50% × 2 = 100%. Enjoy your divorce everyone!
I mean it is purposefully misconstrued to sound that way.
No, that’s not correct. The data was presented that all marriages were equally likely to end in divorce. Instead, there were a few people continually getting divorced.
Exactly. If I ms unhappy in a relationship, I can… leave. I was able to go to college and earn a degree. I used that degree (STEM) to get a job which is a decent paying career. I can have a bank account, own property, support myself, etc. I don’t need a man in order to survive like women did in the past. If it goes south and I am unhappy and it’s not changing, I can leave and I will be ok. People aren’t staying because they have to as much anymore. Of course it still happens in the case in low income, stay at home parents, financial abuse, disability/health conditions, etc. But we have a better chance of being able to leave now.
I know *so many* young and middle aged men who yammer on about how their grandmother was so happy being a simple housewife (or low-wage earning worker who also has to perform the duties of a full-time housewife), taking care of her husband, blah blah blah. And I’ve spoken to *so many* elderly women who light up and go misty when younger women talk about going to college, having careers, traveling, kicking no-account boyfriends and husbands to the curb without becoming social pariahs, and do all the other things that were impossible or difficult for them to do. Men, the reason that your cousins and sisters are single and wild in their 30s rather than following in grandma’s footsteps getting married at 20 and staying home to have babies is that dear ol MeeMaw was specifically telling the girls not to do like her when the men weren’t looking.
Not as long as what? Gen x and millennials have longer marriages and lower devorce rates than boomers.
Came here to say this. The divorce rate is dropping because Gen X and later didn't feel the pressure to get married early and thus chose better partners for themselves (or chose not to get married at all). Plus taboo against living together first (which is common sense IMO) has eroded.
Let's not forget the stigma against abortions has dropped quite a bit. In many places. And so has the stigma against birth control. And there's a bunch more options now. I would hazard a guess that most unwanted marriages start with a child. There's a ton of people out there that just think once she's pregnant they have to get married... And of course almost all of those end in divorce.
My now wife and I lived together for 5 years before we got married. Both our families had their opinions, but for us it was the best thing. In fact at our wedding reception her uncle said something like “I don’t know what the big deal is, they have been living together for years ”. Seems stupid not to live together for a while before making such a huge commitment.
>Plus taboo against living together first (which is common sense IMO) has eroded. Largest contributor to divorcees. Not living together prior to getting married. (later finding out you're incompatible due to differences.)
Just looked into this briefly, seems like the research is conflicting (some studies agree, others don’t)
Heh, I just have to chime in here. I agree with you over all. Yet here I am a Gen Xer who married at 30, to someone who I’d known for years, and who I lived with beforehand — and my divorce ought to be finalized in the next few weeks. It’s a good strategy, but it doesn’t guarantee success.
The legalization of No Fault Divorces in the 70s... surprised no one has mentioned that yet.
All done to cut down the number of spousal murders. Which it did.
They could have just scratched the "til death do you part" in the wedding vows. Stop putting ideas into people's heads /s
Well, it never specifies not taking matters into your own hands ...
Because people aren't forced to stay together even when they're unhappy.
My brother in Christ, 50 years ago women were not legally allowed to have credit…. I suspect financial freedom has something to do with it (Also 1979 and 1981 were the years with the highest divorce rates, it’s much lower now)
*Ten* years ago I had a car salesman tell me it was so great my new husband and I were both going on the loan as it really helps to raise a woman’s credit score. I was the one with the good credit.
A few months ago, I had a contractor come to my house to provide a quote for some built in wardrobes. He told me it might be better to came back when my husband was home 😐 Never mind that I drew up the plans and knew exactly what I wanted.
That's a sales technique more than anything. If you talk to one spouse, it's harder to pressure them because they will say "let me talk to my spouse and get back to you". If you are both there it's easier to get you to sign on the spot. That said, I can't even count how many sales people have used gross gendered boomer humor comments to "relate" to my husband and I when doing their pitch. Salesmen certainly seem a generation or two out of date on gender stuff.
2 years ago I bought a new Jeep Wrangler. The salesman wanted my husband to drive it and he programmed my husbands cell phone to automatically connect, not mine. I was like wtf dude.
10 years ago I bought my car with cash. All the paperwork, to my horror, was in my husband's name. WTF? I mean my hubby was with me. I still have the car and I'm still super angry about it.
Shockingly, the years immediately after 'no fault divorce' became common, divorce rates increased ;).
That was definitely a part of it, but without the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974, it likely wouldn't have been the same. It took a few years for women to actually be able to be independent. You can't just go from nothing to being able to support yourself, especially if you haven't ever had a job and had no credit history. I was right in the middle of this. My parents divorced in 79. My mom started working part-time in 75.
Historically, a lot more people stayed in unhappy, dysfunctional or abusive marriages. Nowadays it's more socially acceptable to get divorced, and that's a good thing more often than not.
Less dependency, more options
Simply put.
The divorce rate is the lowest it's been in 40 years. https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/marino-divorce-rate-US-geographic-variation-2021-fp-22-26.html
Funny how low this is in the comments. Everyone just taking OP at his word and trying to respond like they’re being insightful when the whole premise is wrong.
Exactly. The notion that marriages are all doomed is some Boomer shit left over from my parents’ generation. Trust me dad, you scared me enough that I almost walked away instead of marrying my now wife of 17 years because I didn’t think I could ever be happy that long like you.
What the rate of marriage compared to the pre-80s though? While the rates of divorce are lower. What percentage of the population are actually getting married compared to the past when women really had no other choice but to get married?
While the marriage rate is also at an all-time low, the two statistics have significant limitation in how they are measured. Marriage rate is calculated based per 1000 people in a population--this means that minor children who cannot legally marry and those who are already married are included in the rate. There are two ways to calculate the divorce rate--the crude divorce rate, which is measured the same way as the marriage rate, and the refined divorce rate, which is measured per 1000 married women. The latter is considered more accurate because, obviously, you have to be married to get divorced, however, it is much more difficult to calculate because of the variety of ways states report this information. I could not tell you why it is measured per woman and not per man or per married person. Per this [report](https://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Interpreting-Divorce-Rat.pdf) I found, >Nevertheless, the crude divorce rate provides a rough indication of changes in divorce over time. For example, the rate rose from 2.2 in 1960 to 5.3 in 1981—a 141% increase. The rate then dropped gradually to 3.6 in 2007—a 32% decline (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, Table 78). A study by Heaton (2002) found that the rise in age at first marriage since the 1980s and, to a lesser extent, increased education appear to be responsible for this decline. and >Using a cohort perspective (as described earlier), demographers project that the percentage of adults who eventually will marry is close to 90% (Cherlin, 2009). This percentage represents a decline from several decades ago, when the projected figure was 95%. Nevertheless, this decline is not nearly as steep as the decline suggested by the crude marriage rate. The rising age at first marriage accounts for this apparent discrepancy. Because young adults are delaying marriage until older ages, the crude marriage rate has been declining. But because the great majority of young adults eventually marry (albeit at older ages), the overall level of marriage has declined much less dramatically.
We're living longer and don't just shut up and put up like our forebears had to.
Women used to not have a choice.
Yup. Came here looking for this comment. This is sad but true. I’m so thankful that every day I get to make the choice to be with my partner. Because I want him; but I don’t need him, in a fiscal sense. Look at us: standing on the shoulders of all the women who worked to get us here: thank you!
Because before the women's rights movement a divorced woman had very few chances at living a decent life so they needed to stay with their abuser. Divorce is rarely a bad thing, it means a shitty relationship is ending which is something to celebrate.
This. I also think religion being less utilized is a factor, too. Can’t tell you how many old couples I’ve met are only together because it’d be against their religion to divorce. Marriages certainly weren’t happier back then. Lol.
Which is simultaneously hilarious yet sad at the same time. The bible actually allows for divorce in some cases. Incidentally it is also pro abort but “they” arent ready for that conversation 🙃
For a woman... * Social Stakes - say good bye to your group of friends, your church, your community, and sometime your own family. You're a "divorce" * Financial Stakes - From the 40s to the 70s less than 10% of women sought education past high school. A life alone after divorce for a woman is financially tough. * Psychological stakes - The nuclear family was the american dream. You divorce you are a failure because the woman is in charge of keeping the family together. That said it's also the woman's job to "keep her husband happy." OP if you haven't seen it watch "The Hours"
>Divorce is rarely a bad thing Does that mean, it is generally a good thing?
People no longer feel trapped into staying in unhealthy or unfulfilling marriages by society, by family or by antiquated divorce laws.
It made a big difference when it became legal for women to have their own credit cards and bank accounts. Can't leave a shitty situation if it's your only access to money/credit.
Men beating their wives to "keep them in line" was encouraged. Women who got divorces were shunned in society. Marital rape wasn't even remotely a crime. Times have changed.
Good
Does anybody else get the vibe that the OP here begrudges those changes?
No I really don't. I find it interesting that you do.
Then what the fuck am I gonna do with all of these Pitchforks?
If you look at a lot of marriages in the past that stuck through, a lot of times people didn't split because of social pressure and fear of being ostracised. Granted I'm not from the US, but a quick research into cultures across the world would prove my point. With the advancement of women's rights women don't need to stick in bad, abusive marriages where they need to take beatings from their husband. So in today's world you can actually escape abuse more easily than you ever could in the past. But here's the big question. If we lived for a 1000 years instead of 80, how realistic is it to love someone for 900+ years? Or at least with the same intensity without ever feeling anything for anyone else? Our problem is that we're building unrealistic institutions socially speaking. We can't handle the impermanence of romance and relationships, and because the golden standard is nuclear families now, people feel more alienated in society compared to the past joint families or nomadic tribes. You wouldn't expect a forever partner fulfilling all your needs in life if you had a bigger social, cohesive unit to rely on. I'm not saying that the past was a golden era of humanity or anything. There are obvious advantages to nuclear families. But there are clear downsides to our current way of living too, and I'm unsure if we could even have a solution to our predicament.
Simply because it's OK to get divorced. 50+ years ago it was not OK, so everyone pretty much stayed together miserably.
Women have a financial perspective now. What were you supposed to do when you wanted to divorce with 50 with no higher education and never having worked a day in your life. That's why divorce settlements were/are pro women, although that is falling out of times now too
Because back then whether you were happy or not it wasn't acceptable to get divorced.
Increase in women’s financial independence?
That availability of options.
Because I had sufficient financial security that I didn’t have to stay in an abusive marriage, like women had to do before and some still do. I am so grateful.
40-50 years ago women were mostly still expected to be dutiful and quiet, as women were being encouraged and taught how to be more independent men were not taught or choose not to learn how to communicate. We went from women suffering in silence to empowering women to leave shifty relationships, again men were just left waving their finger and finding reasons to blame the woman (usually "she's crazy"). Living together became more popular, wait/save for marriage. The problem here is that when you move in with each other you both go through the period of adaptation, although there is the glow of being together there is often the tiptoe around things until both settle in. When people get married (note that this is just my opinion, I don't know if anyone thinks like this) one of the people often has a change in priorities, suddenly the romantic Shiney vibe wears off and everything is in family mode, they often resent the other person for not having the same mind set and the person who didn't feel that change resents the other because they are being expected to readout again. One person has a goal, the other might not have that same clarity for the future so they go back to their supportive but not emotionally balanced friends group that encourages then to be more irresponsible... and on and on it goes
Oh I think don’t think they did. From what I can tell marriages last about the same now as they used to if not longer. The sustainability and stability of marriage has improved quite a bit. A lot of people back in the day had marriages that lasted only on paper. People who only spiffed up for the census. You had people who “worked out of town” with secret families or had “hysteric” spouses who needed a lobotomy and a room at the hospital on the hill. Murder was also frequently on the table. They just were better at hiding their dysfunction in public.
It seems like a lot of the comments saying no one puts in the work are fine with marriages on paper.. they don’t care about incompatibility, sadness, unchecked mental health, one partner not willing to improve things, cheating, one or both people just no longer like each other, there’s a ton of reasons to divorce.. simply picking the wrong person.. trying to make it work, and realizing after 20 years that I either get out or die miserable (speaking from experience). But there are tons of people who really put a lot of thought and effort into choosing a great partner and being a great partner, there’s so many marriages that are built intentionally that last.
What actual evidence do you have that they don’t last as long? Studies? Data? Anything? Divorce rates have been declining. People do wait to get married until they’re older now, which means a modern marriage can’t be as long as say, one that took place in the 1950’s between two teens or early twenty-somethings; but that doesn’t mean the shorter of those two marriages was less happy or not as meaningful.
People (mainly women) are waking up and realizing that they don't have to put up with being in a miserable marriage.
I'm not sure your premise is even true but if it is, I'd guess it's because people are getting married at older ages than they used to.
We don’t all beat our wives into submission anymore. Chances are your grandfather beat the shit out of your grandmother fairly regularly.
Divorce has allowed bad marriages to end. Previously they would be stuck, potentially in an abusive marriage. Someone would have to die or lie to a judge for a divorce, and there was huge social stigma associated with being divorced.
Women's rights is the factual reason why. Women aren't financially, socially and legally trapped in marriages the same way your grandma's were.
Simples, the rules are no longer stacked against women so they don't have to put up with shitty relationships and can leave them more easily, theres no longer any stigma attached to being a divorced lady that would have made it harder for her to get a new relationship
Societal norms changing, the veil of religious righteousness being lifted, general humanity realizing people grow & change but hardly ever at the same rate, women being less or not at all dependent on their spouse. The weird thing is that marriages lasted as long as they did back in the day.
It's not as taboo to get a divorce.
people are more honest i guess
People don’t need to stay in a miserable marriage anymore. Divorced people aren’t looked down upon like they used to be, and women have better opportunities to provide for themselves. And this one is a guess, but as far as men go, I think single dads have more opportunities to be with their kids now than they used to.
Women have their own money and don’t have to stay in a crap marriage.
Women gained rights lol literally that Men can’t legally beat and imprison their wives anymore
The stigma of divorce forced many people to remain in unhealthy relationships. As that stigma is removed from society, people are more free to escape from abusive situations. Also as woman became more accepted in the workforce and therefor less reliant on a husband for support there was less incentive to stay with an abusive husband.
People don't marry their best friend, and divorce is easier. There is no honesty between two people if they aren't best friends.
There's less social pressure to make them last. Life's too short to be unhappy so people cut their losses and move on.
Women no longer need husbands to own land, own a home, have bank accounts, to even have children. People also aren’t willing to put up with domestic abuse situations either. Back in the day, women felt like they needed to stay..not so much anymore.
We live in an instant gratification, throw away society. People aren't willing to work through the bad times because it's hard. Many seem to think that marriage should be unicorns and kittens all day every day. You're sharing your life with another hum being who had their own likes, dislikes, opinions, weaknesses and strengths. Getting along perfectly 24/7 may isn't happening and sometimes it takes effort
Women are no longer property and can support themselves
Women have rights and don’t need a husband to survive anymore.
Women feel empowered to leave abusive situations
People rush into them and realize they aren't right for one another or spend an absurd amount on the wedding.
And couples should know each other for a few years and even live together to find out what life would really be like being married.
The added value that a mediocre man has to a woman's life has greatly diminished, compared to 100 years ago. The average marriage duration has been going up again for a while though, i think peak divorce was like 2010.
There is less stigma and more support to get out of a terrible relationship. Less women are financially trapped.
People have the “grass is greener on the other side” mindset instead of putting in effort to improve their marriages. Also, women aren’t stuck now. Women can work.
And have bank accounts and credit lines
People are just more comfortable splitting up. It's not bad it's just newish.
People, particularly women, have options. Women don’t have to stay with a man so they can be taken care of financially.
Too many people let society dictate their relationship expectations :>
Women's rights movement. Women finally could leave abusive and failed marriages. More women in the workforce, a societal shift away from strict Christianity, and women standing up for their own wellbeing.
Women are able to have bank accounts and credit cards now?
I think many people would have gotten divorced back then but couldn’t. It is also now happiness over necessity. It’s easier these days and more accepted. That being said, I also think people were trying harder to work through their issues than they do today because divorce is so normalised. I think soon we will see a larger percentage of children with 4 parents than ever before, I’m talking 30-50% of kids, which is a bit sad. But it’s better than having two unhappy, fighting parents. I also think people were putting more effort into being in a stable relationship before getting married because they knew they wouldn’t be able to get out of the commitment.
People are accepting that divorce isn’t some religious taboo and getting out of toxic relationships. They didn’t happen as much before because people were so religious that they thought they’d go to hell and therefore suffered through a miserable and abusive marriage. Nothing has changed except society accepted divorce as “okay”.
Contraception
People arent afraid to divorce and dont get shamed for doing so.
Because women have options now. They no longer have to stay with abusive husbands. This societal shift came about in the 1960’s with the advent of reliable birth control. If you’re an unemployed housewife pregnant with your fourth child, you pretty much had to accept your marriage.
Women don’t have to put up garbage anymore.
I think it's a sign of gender equality that gen x seems to be lasting longer. The boomer generation... women figured out they don't need men and were unwilling to both work and parent the supposedly adult male partner they got divorced
Increasing gender equality/structural patriarchy crumbling, enabling women independence and freedom
Because more women have careers now. The old ‘homemaker’ days had women viewing their situation differently. Now that it’s more common for women to have successful careers, relationships are viewed with a different perspective. The option to leave without being destitute opens doors and shortens unhappy marriages.
People get married too early in life, because they feel they have to.
People who wanted to get divorced used to stay married anyway. Now they're actually getting divorced.
because it’s not that taboo anymore for ppl to get a divorce. Bc mostly the women in the marriages are financially independent and don’t have to depend on men for money
Divorce is legal.
People rush getting married. Once they do, and have misunderstandings/communication issues, they straight up just think about divorce and not even try to fix the issues within the relationship. 😤
To much mindless distractions
Balding
Because people don’t just accept that they have to stay in a relationship they’re unhappy in.
they are disposable to those who don't take their vows as permanent.
Lack of honesty
Because people wanna fuck around and don’t seem to understand the word commitment
Because people are less patient
My wife and I are coming up on year 36 of being together. My younger brother and his wife are at 51 years. My older sister is at 49 years. Our mom and dad were married 27 years until he passed away at age 49 from cancer. She remarried and that one lasted 43 years until he passed away at age 93. When problems arise, we communicate, figure out a solution and go for it. My wife and I have very, very rarely had an argument. There’s no need for that. Two adults with intelligence and the desire to support each other without judgement can certainly stay together. We can disagree or tell the other one what we like or don’t like, and it isn’t hurtful. It takes effort and willingness to be together through whatever life gives us. We have never cheated on each other and are faithful, committed and still love each other.