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?

People are too quick to want to move on instead of working things through.

Divorce is easy. No shame or sigma anymore.

Makes you wonder why people bother getting married at all today.

I guess its like Christmas. People have been brainwashed for years into thinking they have to partake.

Agreed on abuse, domestic abuse is criminally ignored.

I can't agree on the marriage requirements - if those were the best and only three qualities I could name in my husband, I would definitely prefer life on my own - and would think that better for my children than modelling a relationship so unequal.

I agree. I dont think a lot of men in the 50s would have dreamed of behaving as they do now - as men lost some of their assumed priviledge, ways of keeping women down went underground - the cult of the superwoman who does everything. Now we have a few generations of inadequate or mediocre men not being able to coast by, the frustration and anger is peaking in the manosphere.

I also think that once something happens - divorce, suicide - in your circle, you are more likely to experience it yourself. Its almost like being around it makes it more of a possibility for you.

The welfare state claim sounds like bullshit, btw.

Exactly this. ^ I said something similar on a thread a few days ago, and got some really salty responses. I dared to suggest that some women 'settled' some 35+ years ago, and were now in their 50s/60s and stuck in a marriage to a man they don't really love, but tolerate, and they stay because they rub along OK.

Also, they can't afford to leave, and will struggle financially, and for many, they will stay because it's easier than leaving all round.

I got berated and told women are not that dim and weak that they will stay in a marriage for 'convenience.' But many women do. I did say though, that younger women (born post mid 1980s) will be more likely to leave an unhappy marriage because they have way more opportunities these days. Indeed, women are more likely to not be regarded as some kind of weirdo if they don't get married these days. Some years ago - pre mid-late 1980s, many women were made to feel like some kind of anomaly if they weren't married by 21.

Some posters denied all of this. What I found funny - and very telling - is how some posters claimed to be deliriously happily married, and said they don't regret it one bit, and love the bones of their husband, even after 25-35 years of marriage. (Or more, like 35-45 years.) But then they went on to say if he left, or died, that they would NEVER get married again. (Even if they met/found a man they really like...)

Didn't add up somehow, and told me that they perhaps haven't found marriage as lovely and fluffy and rose-tinted as they tried to make out they did!!!

!

To be honest, some of what you said is exactly what feeds into people thinking ‘well, it is the way it is.’ To say we can’t expect employers to consider caring responsibilities is bollocks. Businesses reinvent themselves all the time to boost profits yet when it comes to supporting employees personal lives, suddenly they are treated as immovable objects. In reality, it would benefit them. By making roles unattainable for caregivers, they exclude a lot of talent, which disproportionately affects women.

Leadership roles were built back when it was assumed the person had no caring responsibilities, so they could travel constantly or work long hours. The world has changed, families operate differently, and huge technological advancements make flexible/remote working possible. Travel is reasonable, but it doesn’t have to be constant.

Non-transferable parental leave for dads would also normalise shared responsibility from the outset. In the UK, shared leave uptake is low because it’s transferable to mum, and it’s often seen as the mums to take instead of dads, which just reinforces gender stereotypes.

Change needs to come from the top, but as a society we also need to speak up. These companies won’t make these changes on their own, we have to challenge the norms and make our voices heard.

Husband & I have that conversation and both said it’s doubtful we’d ever remarry. Not because we’re not happy quite the opposite. We feel that nothing can reciprocate what we have.

Even if the welfare state claim is true, that is still a good thing. It gives people the choice to get out of dysfunctional marriages. It actually doesn't matter whether it's the man or the woman who wants out, the option needs to be there. The most functional couple I have ever known divorced when their DD was very young and ended up doing proper 50/50 co-parenting as friends. They worked better as friends than they ever did as a married couple.

And of course people like me and many others on this thread should always have an escape, whether or not with state support, from abusive marriages.

I see what you’re saying. Surely if the shared leave is being transferred to the mum then the issue lies with the dads and that’s a discussion parents have to have, though I do agree it is assumed that mother will take it.It’s not the employers problem though.
I agree in some instances things can be done remotely and should be if practicable but that is very industry dependent. As an example my husband has been away this week, goes away again on Monday for a week, then home for a week then overseas for two weeks.

One way divorce rates are calculated is number of marriage licenses issued vs number of divorce petitions filed in a given time period, so less people getting married means both numbers would drop, but the percentage would remain the same.

Women are able to hold jobs while married, have a mortgage on their own, need no “reason” for a divorce - all things that only relatively recent.

Plus the line of “one in two marriages end in divorce”, ie you had a 50/50 chance, is a complete fallacy.

@PictureImperfect indeed - whilst I do think women wanting top jobs need to be more flexible than the average - I’ve never forgotten a very very senior guy I know who actually admitted after he had moved on a lot of his travel wasn’t strictly necessary - he did it because he enjoyed business class flights and trips to US every month and getting away from home - there was little he couldn’t have got done on zoom but because the company was American his US equivalents didn’t speak up because they liked doing the reverse! I think a fair bit of that goes on

The uptake of shared parental leave in the UK is extremely low and most men only take the standard 2 weeks. That alone shows we can’t rely on personal discussions between parents and hope for the best. Many men don’t even recognise the challenges women face balancing career and parenting, just look at the attitude of my colleague from my PPs.

In contrast, men in Nordic countries take 3 months off thanks to non-transferable ‘use it or lose it’ leave. Real change needs to come from the top down.

I’m curious what your DH does that it’s crucial he’s on site for 5 days, then the team manage fine without him in person for the rest of the year?

Delusional. Divorce is very far from easy. It is a brave thing to do and hugely stressful.

Of course it easy, you can just do it online now.

I didn't take that line as literally as that would be the only three good qualities one could name, I read it as "he's fine". As in, could be better looking, could be more charismatic/funnier, could be more intellectual (etc etc) but he's fine. In which case, stay and try and work on things, rather than sacrifice the children on another roll of the dice. If you've been trying to work on things and the best you can say is that the lawn gets mowed, I'd say that falls into the later category of abuse.

Following on from my post, depending on where he travels to I do sometimes go with him so it’s not a case of him wanting not wanting to be at home.

And domestic violence? How do couples fix that together? Women have only been able to have their own mortgages for fifty years. In certain workplaces women were forced to leave their jobs when they got married & poor birth control limited women's choices further.
My clever funny grandmother had to give up her civil service job, never had a penny of her own again, no coat even, never sat to eat a meal, raised her children in her domineering violent husband's home and was not free until he died. No working it out together would have changed that.
Today she would be divorced, if married at all, back at wo rk and running her own household. Why shouldn't women have expectations, and leave if they don't work out? Yo u want them living like my grandmother until their eighties?

He’s a Global,HSE director who’s normally home based. The company has offices worldwide. With some time differences it’s not possible to do meetings etc via teams. I guess in some instances it’s not crucial but he feels it supports his team if he visits them in person. He can also get a feel for what’s going on. They have staff on clients site too so he’ll go and see them.
I do agree with you that attitudes have to change after all parenting is a joint responsibility and of that means adopting the Nordic scheme then that’s not a bad thing.

Can you quote these studies? I haven't come across one that blames meals on wheels for example for being the reason children don't visit their parents.
Sure, it can make it easier for some children who have another reason not to visit, but I've never seen a study where an adult child says they would love to visit their parents but can't because they are having meals on wheels.
You seem to be interpreting the studies according to your viewpoint.

And? Doesn’t mean divorce is easy. Amicable divorcees are easier where both parties agree that it’s not working and split things accordingly without hurt feelings getting in the way and/ or there were already agreements made in the event of the marriage breaking down, those that are not amicable, especially when children are involved are definitely not and typically expensive and the one who has the best lawyer (can afford the best lawyer) has a higher chance of winning regardless on the reasons why the marriage failed in the first place.

Plenty of threads here about spouses cheating, really think the loyal spouse should work through it if they don’t want to or the ones involving abuse which a recent study came out showing that courts were STILL failing to protect women and children in when there was evidence of men being abusive to one or both due to pro-contact culture?

"But I firmly believe that access to 24/7 porn has greatly increased men's disrespect of women and the impunity with which they express it."

Agree 100%

When women are being portrayed as a collection of body parts for mens' amusement it isn't surprising that some unenlightened men have a bad attitude towards women.
Not only that, but when a women can't meet the standard of "designer body" that these young porn "stars" have, male disillusionment can set in.

Couples didn’t put in more effort, (whatever that means), women are no longer forced to put up with abusive men.

I take it neither of these comments come from someone who lived through the 70s /80s/90s? Respect for women now is far better than it has ever been. Men always had 24/7 access to porn. It was incredibly easy to get, you could walk into any shop and pick up a magazine and adult video stores were everywhere. As a child of the 80s, even in my tiny, rural area of Scotland, there were always kids who had access to their dad’s porn stash.

The most recent change in some attitudes, spread by the likes of Tate, has nothing to do with porn.

I agree and the birthrate is going down.
The problem, or one of the problems is that men are not showing their true faces before women have children with them. To reduce the risk of this happening and still having future children and humanity would be to improve men.

I agree having had this exact experience.

I was with the father of my children 8 years (lived with him.for five of those, married for 4) before we had children. I was open about wanting children from day one and he always said he wanted them too.

However, he couldn't cope with the reality of being a parent and how it clipped his wings.
I had no way of knowing that was going to happen & truly thought I had "picked a good one".
I guess he didn't know how he would feel about it either so my point is that it's not as simple as "choosing the right man".

I'm sorry to hear that. I've seen this happen so many times. Even to my own mother but after the second child he changed. So often men will change once they have you, after a marriage or children when they think you are trapped. Then, as you say sometimes they cannot handle the family life they thought they wanted which is very sad for everyone involved.

If we want women to keep taking the risk (because no matter how good he is there is a risk if only a small one) then I believe we have to support them more. If the government was really serious about helping families or increasing the birthrate they would add in more controls to protect women whose "good" partners bail.