Marriages don’t last anymore because..

[PictureImperfect]

Had a debate with an colleague about why divorce seems so much more common now.

They said that in past generations, couples stayed together because they wanted to work through things and were more committed to making relationships last. I said I think it’s mainly because women have more freedom and independence now. Yes, most of the childcare still falls on women, but that was even more true in the past. Back then, loads of women didn’t have the opportunity to work full time and build careers like their husbands, so they relied on them for financial stability. Now that women can provide their own stability, they’re simply less likely to tolerate an unhappy marriage.

To me, that just seems like basic common sense but my colleague laughed and said I was completely wrong. According to them, people today just can’t be bothered to put in the effort and treat relationships as disposable. They also scoffed when I said women still don’t have the same opportunities as men.

It’s had me thinking, I honestly thought this was just obvious, but now I’m wondering what others think. AIBU, or is my colleague?

@BaconCheeses this is a very good point I never see mentioned on threads here ever- that men expect a housewife yet from their wife who is also working; because (ok some women would like to work regardless) but often because the man’s salary isn’t worth two people’s income and they cannot afford to support their wives / families alone. IMO this notion is why there is such venom towards SAHM because I think that there are undertones in modern society that being - or ‘having’ for a man - a stay at home wife; is seen as a luxury and I wonder if marrying a man and having his kids when he can’t financially support you, is still seen by women as a bit of a failure. Maybe the state still even underlines this old fashioned view by having a a crap CMS and rubbish support for women with children on their own. Of course this is a v unpopular statement and is a massive generalization but all the threads around women as SAHP end in horrible dog fights.

Financial freedom literally means a very different life!
❤️

I dont think it is just about finances - women also have higher expectations too (and quite rightly). You only have to look at the information on dating at the moment to see how many women are reporting absolutely awful men out there who still seem to be living in the 1950s.

In my next life I’m definitely not getting married. I’m going to run an animal sanctuary .

When you get past the Pearly Gates look me up and I'll help you out !!

It’s less that women didn’t work or have money ( most working class women worked). It’s that they were systematically paid less, fired for being pregnant, could be fired for being a mother or getting married, couldn’t own a bank account without a male co-sign, couldn’t own a property without a male co-sign and couldn’t get a mortgage. They were shamed for being a single mother or getting divorced and legally the children would usually be given to the father after divorce.

Sorry, but I think this is bollocks. Who actually divorces their spouse because Jack and Jill posted their trip to Dubai on Facebook? Sure, social media might amplify that kind of thing, but ‘keeping up with the joneses’ has always existed.

I don’t personally know any women struggling in their marriage because their husband hasn’t whisked them off to Paris or filled the house with roses. But I do know plenty, across generations, who struggle because their husbands don’t pull their weight at home or with the kids and expect their wife to pick up the slack and also to contribute financially.

As others have said, many women can now provide for themselves and their families, so they’re choosing not to put up with it anymore. And isn’t it interesting that now women can finally assertive themselves, theres suddenly talk of a male loneliness epidemic?

Sigh. I find that it's always the happily married people who trot out this line about people not being as committed anymore. Perhaps they have gone through challenges in their own marriages and have been able to work them out, so it's a kind of self-congratulatory pat on the back. And good for them if they have worked things out.

However, I find it very rude, because to an extent, they have had an element of random good luck as well as working at it. No amount of working on a marriage can change an abusive person into a non-abusive person, or a serial cheat into a faithful spouse, or an addict into a sober spouse, unless the person really wants to change and commits to it. And how often does that happen?

They also seem oblivious to the fact that many abusers only let their mask slip once you are good and trapped, as happened to me.

The attitude described by the OP is SO rude, because so many divorced people have tried to move heaven and earth to keep their marriages together, and flogged and flogged a dead horse. People with this attitude have NO idea why a given person's marriage broke up, so they should stop with the judgement. Yes, there are always going to be people who don't take marriage seriously, but most people value their marriages highly and don't let go of them lightly.

And also, people with the attitude that OP describes should be aware of the saying about glass houses...As those of us who had bad spouses know, you really have so little control. If one person decides to cheat or gamble or whatever, there's nothing you can do to stop that. They can find themselves on the other side of the divorce debate in a trice, through no fault of their own, so they should practise some humility.

This post is exactly why I expect men to pay on first (and subsequent) dates, and to carry shopping, pay the larger expenses. So many 'feminists' say that's so regressive. More fool them. They're the ones stuck in relationships with man children who want as you say the benefits of women's equality without the other side of taking equal responsibility for the household.

My PIL pretty much argue all the time. But they’ve been together for 50 years. I could never put up with them for that long. Sniping at each other all the time. I think the younger generation just doesn’t put up with crap any more.

The problem with this though is that the man who does all this old school stuff may well also be the kind of man who doesn't do housework because it's 'women's work'. So many people still cling to this stereotyped thinking - only this morning there was a poster on here who told OP that she needed to do ALL the housework because she worked three days to his full time. Er.... no. Housework should always be proportionally split, though you can be flexible about how that is filled in. When my husband was made to leave the family home, I barely noticed his absence (except as relief) because I was already doing everything. This despite both of us working full time and bringing in the same money.

That's only a problem if you don't marry a man who's a much higher earner.

I disagree. You can marry a man who is a much higher earner and still want to continue your full time job - because it's worthwhile and fulfilling, because it utilises skills you have worked hard for, because it gives you independence. So you're still both working full time - then what do you do if your husband won't do his bit at home? I'm not talking about the kind of scut work you can pay people to do for you, I'm talking about being a proper hands on parent and partner, not just someone who says 'I don't have to do that because I earn more'. Marrying a high earner doesn't protect you from marrying a rubbish man.

I wouldn't know, to be fair. I've never wanted children so maybe my insight isnt all that valuable. All I know is that I have always dated men who earned a bit more than me, and quite frankly kept me in a certain style.

Indeed. Far more of a failure to raise children in an unhappy home and provide them with a terrible example than to leave a dysfunctional relationship. This is why women must ensure that they are capable of financial independence, a message that seems to have got through to many younger women now (hence lower marriage and birth rates).

Schools.

Also very depressing that some women still think like this, rather than aiming to be a higher earner themselves.

It’s reminiscent of the women who pipe up on threads here where women are discussing their careers, talking about their husband’s work/ salary. Sad.

A very good post. It is all rather smug and self-congratulatory, isn’t it?

And yet how many times do we see here posts from women in total shock whose husband - often after 20+ years of marriage - has just been discovered to be having an affair/ having sex with prostitutes/ gambling or whatever, who were completely oblivious and convinced this could never happen to them and say “I would never have believed he was the kind of man to do this!”?

Yet, simultaneously, there are posters who try to disparage people who have got divorced - for very good reasons - telling them they “should have made better choices about who to marry”, as if any of that is foreseeable decades ahead. The cognitive dissonance involved is immense and, as always, it boils down to trying to blame women for men’s behaviour.

Whenever I read such comments I do think the posters writing them are tempting fate in a rather provocative manner.

A lot of studies have been done and it has been concluded, by most, that it is not financial independence (working women earning a crust) that is to blame for the disintegration of the family unit, but a social, i.e. welfare state. Reliance on the welfare state is the main contributing factor. Same goes for loneliness - welfare state-pension-social workers-meals on wheels - no need to be nice to your children and look after your grandchildren in exchange for a warm corner and one bowl of soup a day.

NRTFT but I think you are both right. It's a combination of those things imho.

That's interesting - could you furnish some links, preferably from peer reviewed neutral publications?

Your colleague - this 'they' - bloke, right?

I think because there is no stigma attached to being divorced nowadays, people are more likely to get out of unhappy or abusive marriages. Back in 'The Good Old Days',being divorced was definitely frowned upon,so many couples just soldiered on.

I have been married for 30 years. I definitely don’t judge those who get divorced. I absolutely think it is better than flogging a dead horse. And of course most divorced people usually have a good go at their marriage and compromise before deciding it is the end. I applaud those who are courageous enough to leave a marriage.

After a long and happy marriage, if things didn’t work out for me, I would be leaving my husband. And I would do so with my head held high.

I actually think it’s both. Was talking about it recently with my mum as a family member has recently decided to end a marriage for what seem on the surface very weak reasons around not feeling a spark. My mum felt, as do I, that family member could have put in more of an effort to work on the relationship and rekindle the love rather than just throw it away as the first sign of things feeling a bit tedious.

I asked her if she had ever felt that way in her marriage to my dad (40 years) and she said of course, everyone experiences boredom and disconnection. But my dad is a kind man and she cares about her family so she always gave her head a wobble and thought about how things could be worked on, not abandoned.

However it is also the case that people aren’t trapped in marriages anymore so of course this gives people more options…which might be WHY people are less willing to see if things improve.