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?

My aunt (psychologist/counsellor) would probably agree with this to some extent. I recall her expressing the view that married people have unrealistic expectations of each other these days. She wasn't talking about the apportioning of childcare or household tasks but rather what she perceived as being a tendency to expect a partner to be able to meet ALL of one's emotional needs. Whereas in days gone by, she felt people were more realistic about this and would go to their mothers for one type of support, their friends for another type of support, and their spouses for a different type of support yet again.

My grandmothers (born 1913 and 1918) told me they perceived a 'good husband' to be someone who was hard-working and didn't drink away his earnings. That was it. Probably not beating the crap out of his family would have run a close third but I don't recall either of them mentioning it. So expectations of one's spouse also appear to have been LOWER. And of course, men didn't expect women to be shaved from top to toe, or complain that they didn't want to do threesomes/anal/strangulation because "everyone else is doing it". So there's that too.

Marriage is actually quite hard to get out of, splitting assets and creating two households out of one in a cost of living crisis is very off putting. So I think many couples are staying married who would rather not! It's much easier to split if you aren't married and statistics show the separation rate for unmarried couples is much higher.

So I think the reasons for staying married have shifted since a couple of generations ago. When my parents were kids (they are 80ish now) it was relatively rare and socially scandalous to get divorced. Of course women were also less likely to have careers and independent income so they were often financially trapped too.

As society shifted and women earned their own income more, divorce rates rose. However as cost of living/austerity has increased, the divorce rate has also decreased. Some marriages are stuck in an austerity trap, without which they wouldn't still be limping on.

My mum (like your colleague) bangs on about people not being bothered to work at their marriages. But she actually means women aren't prepared to put up with crap any more (and they should). A lot of men are happy to have a wife who contributes financially but still expect a traditional marriage in other ways - with the woman covering the majority of cooking, cleaning, childcare and the man being the head of the household, everyone taking his surname blah blah. Women now have careers and jobs and it's usually men who dont want "to work" at pulling their weight with the other stuff. It's hardly surprising that women think "hang on a minute, I earn a good salary, i do all the kid stuff, all the mental load, most of the domestic stuff, so what's the point of that selfish arse parked on the sofa?" More women than men instigate divorce and that remains the position today. If my husband had that attitude I would have divorced him years ago.

So you are both right. But your colleague should perhaps consider further the lack of "work" some men put into their marriages compared to their wives.

What can I do to support them, is a lovely notion, however, men just don't think like this because they aren't conditioned to. Years ago males were expected to provide financially for their families, but even that has broken down.

I did my best to love and support my ex throughout our long marriage. Didn't stop him buggering off with someone else - and I don't have tiktok! What a ridiculous stereotype you painted in your post!

It’s no longer expected for people to stay in abusive relationships.

I remember my MIL telling me that my FIL had been abusive throughout their 60 plus years of marriage but that it wasn’t the done thing to leave so she stayed. She was telling me because she suspected that her son was abusing me (he was but we had obviously never discussed it) and she didn’t want me to be on my deathbed (as she was) having put up with a lifetime of abuse. She wanted me to know that I didn’t have to put up with it and that I had choices that she never felt that she had. She was amazing.

How do they make better choices? I'm talking about the women who are picking men that on paper appear good but are lying. Even the police have trouble and they have training. How is a woman (assuming young enough to have children) meant to do better than the authorities?

Also I would argue that many women are choosing better by not having children at all. If you can't tell and will be judged if it doesn't work out then why bother?

Your colleague sounds like they have swallowed the standard conservative rhetoric on this, that its because people no longer want to "work on their marriage" etc. (For my money "working on a marriage" is usually code for "keeping your mouth shut and swallowing poor behaviour to keep the peace", so i don't see this as a bad thing.

At heart you're correct: until fairly recently marriage was the most realistic path to economic security for most women, now its much easier for them to be economically independent so they no longer need to put up with shit for their own economic wellbeing (and their children's). This is also a good thing in my view.

There's also a big moral/religious element to it: in the past divorce was considered shameful (particularly for the woman) for religious reasons and in some communities was actually impossible. And until recently women were significantly disadvantaged economically by divorce. Again, I think it's good that the stigma around divorce has been eroded. I don't want people to be publicly shamed for the fact their marriages have failed.

It is also the case that fewer people get married nowadays than 50 years and they tend to get married older, so those people who have gone to the trouble of getting married are probably more likely to work at staying together. So the marriages which do take place are probably more "stable" than they were historically.

I think of marriage at heart as a form of economic insurance for women who can't or don't want to work while they are bringing children up. It has no moral, emotional or spiritual significance for me. I've always worked and been financially independent and getting married for me would be a highly risky financial move. So I can't get too exercised about its decline.

This. There's an awful lot of men who want it both ways.

A lot of people don't marry so it is very easy to just walk away at the first problem for men and women. Often the woman is then left with nothing.

I think people who get as far as getting married probably have a much better chance of staying together because they made a real commitment and it requires more effort to separate physically and financially.

I disagree with this vehemently. A couple both working and using wraparound care can be absolutely fine - my late husband and I were fine in the days when our marriage was still good (before life and addiction, by which time our DC were teens). All it needs is for men to pull their weight at home. And all too often they still don't, even when both in the couple are working full time hours.

I think it's a good thing that people can walk away from a relationship that isn't working - but what I will say is that you do need realistic expectations of what relationships are. Expecting the rosy haze moonlight and flowers phase to be forever is setting yourself up to fail.

I don’t agree that @Chiseltiphas nailed it. I think most men have always been and continue to be self centred, putting themselves first. Women have worked hard and developed to achieve ‘equality’ however men haven’t grown and developed at the same rate. When you both work full time (regardless of pay) relationship should be team work as regards childcare/housework etc but (see the zillions of threads in Relationships) it invariably isn’t. Men/society seem to have expected women to work full time and still carry on doing all other free work at home. Women not doing this is not self centred it’s self respect and self preservation.

He's going to be that "the divorce came out of the blue 😱" guy

I had no idea she was unhappy! I mean there was that constant high pitched whining in the background but I just blotted it out, like when the washing machine says Service Wash Needed, you don't listen to the opinions of your domestic appliances do you?!

IMHO it’s not only that (more) women now have more financial independence. It’s societal expectations too:

• Shame: Until very recently (certainly up until 1970s) it was shameful to be a lone mother - it brought shame on the wider family, prospective employers or landlords would consider lone mothers (unless widows) as not respectable; prospective future partners would be put off. Of course, there were exceptions, but that was the general societal view. It still permeates today in some ways and in some social circles.

• Failure: because relationships were based on the idea of Christian marriage for life, and the church looked very dimly on divorce (or didn’t allow it), divorces (and thereby divorcees) were seen as a ‘failure’. We stay say it today: “a failed marriage”. This perspective is loaded into your question, @PictureImperfect: people don’t try hard enough - it’s their fault it ‘fails’.

I think now we’re starting to appreciate that a relationship ending in a healthy, respectful way isn’t a failure. Indeed, it can be preferable if one or both are unhappy or feel unfulfilled. People change throughout their lives and sometimes they don’t change in the same way: they value or want different things out of the next phase.

Most people make different friends who they’re closer during different phases of their life: teenage years, young single adult, couple, parent of young kids, parent of older kids, middle age etc. People rarely stick with solely the same friendship group for life. Yet, we expect to stay with a partner.

So, having more than one partnership (or indeed choosing to live alone) isn’t necessarily a failure. It can actually be much better, especially if you remain friends with ex-partners (preferable if you have children together) so you don’t lose that aspect of the relationship.

@Chiseltip when we ask "And what does he do for you OP", it's because we've spotted that one partner in the relationship is doing everything and the other is doing fuck all, not that you should only be in a relationship for what you can get out of it . Not sure how far you think a woman (usually) should go with this lovely unconditional support of her partner when she's getting nothing back.

Let me guess the colleague was a man?
I think your colleague does have a point but I definitely agree with you, even in the 80s/early 90s there was a stigma around divorce and single mothers. Women didn’t have as much independence to just leave.

Also there is more of an attitude now of not sticking around in a marriage if you’re not happy - my friend is almost 50 and getting divorced because she just doesn’t want to be with her husband anymore- no cheating, abuse etc just isn’t working and she doesn’t want to spend the rest of her life with him, and why should she?

I agree. I was in a very similar situation, to the point where my ex husband was abusive.

I spent FAR too long 'working on it, and putting effort into the relationship' in the hope things would change, but it was all one sided. He didn't give a shit about me or the marriage. One person can't make it work on their own.

I felt so free and so much lighter when I walked away.

I stayed single for a very long time afterwards, but am now very happy with my partner, who I've been with now for way more years than I was with my exh. It's a very different relationship.

This is such a heartbreaking story for your MIL, but admirable that she found the strength to reach out to you and help break the cycle.

As a PP said, it sends a shiver down my spine to think of how many women stayed in these kinds of marriages because they felt trapped. And then to hear people like my colleague convinced that their grandmother willing and happily gave up her entire life. Prioritising what another poster aptly called ‘that selfish arse parked on the sofa’’s needs over her own, is mind boggling to me.

I think men are often completely oblivious that those grandmothers they loved for enduring and keeping the family together are actually the ones whispering into their granddaughter’s ear, ensuring they know how to maintain their independence.

I agree with your colleague. I don’t think people take marriage seriously enough now. When I got married I took vows to stay with my husband for the rest of my life, through bad times as well as good, and I wouldn’t have married him if I’d not meant what I was promising. Of course there are exceptions, and I would never ever expect anyone to stay in a marriage where there was violence or infidelity, but I don’t think that’s the reason for the breakdown of most marriages. I think people just don’t take the commitment seriously now.

Yes, women are more likely now to have our own careers and money, thus more options. My Dad used to say that marriage can survive many things, but not infidelity, and I think he was right. I left my first H because he cheated a lot. I just could not tolerate that. Thankfully I had the means to do so.

I do think that a lot of people just aren't forgiving enough though. Me and DH have humdinger rows, but we know we are "family" and we love each other, and we always forgive one another if someone has been an absolute dick. But we both know that if one of us cheated, it would be over.

My first marriage ended because it was exactly as you stated - ( I’m 63 now) - many if not most men wanted a mum /housekeeper with sex on tap and thought it was normal to pop down the pub 3 nights a week to meet mates - certainly in the working class mining town I grew up in .

I think you are right OP - female opportunities are a big factor.

I do think there are other factors, however. I think social media means people often compare their own lives to others and are perhaps drawn to wanting “more adventures” or feel their own life isn’t what it could be and is boring etc. We all know relationships can get stale and with young children it’s easy to become a good partner but not a good partner and people know they are entitled to need this now too and simply less likely to “settle”.

I also think we are all living longer and many looking better in their 40s than 20s! 40s used to be too old to start again or even just to be on your own - but now it’s young and you think if I can afford to live alone and be happier/ or meet someone else - I will be. Life’s too short and all that.

Also less social stigma.

There is too much choice!
My mother-in-law got married, aged 19, just after WW2. She was a fully-qualified dental nurse (should really have been a dentist, but her father did not believe in educating girls - in contrast to my parents' families).
When asked why she married so young, she said that there were not that many young men around, so you took what you could get!
In contrast, my parents did not marry until the late 1950s, both aged 26 with established careers. They were happily married for 60 years and convinced they would have met and married anyway (came from different ends of the UK) as both were considering emigrating to Canada at the time when they met.
I think today that there is far too much emphasis on the "perfect", at a superficial level, and not enough thought about life after the "perfect wedding". At the first hint of discord, instead of talking things through, due to the opportunities available these days, it is all too easy to jump ship - this applies to women and men equally!
In addition, UK society has become far more "casual" since the late 1990s. There is no shame any more in chopping and changing. Traditional societal frameworks have been loosened or broken down completely in certain demographics.
Changes to the divorce laws have facilitated divorce as an easy get-out (I know it is not that simple) rather than a last resort. People also feel far more "entitled" to personal happiness - as they perceive it - and also seem far more selfish, which has weakened the concept of family as a unit.
I am not advocating that anyone stays in a toxic or harmful relationship, far from it, but I do think people should consider more seriously what they really want from the alliance of marriage and whether they are prepared to put the effort in to facilitate this.
To quote the vicar, who married my parents, "you can stay married to anyone you would marry in the first place".

You are more correct.

Divorce rates have actually plateaued and fallen a bit since their peak - so it isn't a continual rise, more like a re-adjustment after the relaxing of previous norms/rules/necessities.

Marriages lasted previously because they had to. That is the simple fact. For most of human history, life without a husband/male figure was dangerous for women, and even more dangerous for their children. A man, even an unpleasant one, was better than the alternative.

Men don't have this incentive so much, but they have their own biological drives to pass on their genes, and for most men that was best done by marriage/committed relationships. Simply because in non-marital societies, you see a much more narrow band of dominant males doing all of the reproducing. for the vast bulk of lesser dominant males, being able to secure 'exclusivity' on one female's reproductive capacity, was a good deal. Create a societal norm that limits the dominant men from doing too much breading with married women, and you have a set up where most men have somewhat of a reasonable chance of carrying on their genes.

Now though?

Women don't need men for absolute protection, men don't care about lineage as much, a home doesn't require a full time worker to run it, kids don't require full time care, women don't require a man for a bank account/property ownership etc. etc.

The reality is that they just don't have an absolute need for each other like they used to.

So what is left, is what should be left - a want, love, desire to be together. And that is perfect when it lasts, but it often doesn't, and now when it doesn't (usually after trying to make it last as long as possible) what is left? If you don't want or need something, you aren't likely to keep it around for long.

Hahaha, this is exactly what I thought!

Both correct. Women have more means at their disposal to leave an unhappy marriage and that's a very good thing.

But also, I do think relationships are seen as more disposable these days generally. Look at the number of “it’s fine to have casual sex on the first date/sex is just a bit of fun to be had with anyone” posts on here. Not everyone feels like that, but certainly more people seem to than did in the past.

I've met a few men who lament that people don't stick to their marriages anymore meaning women have divorced them. Still too many men who think women should do the housework and childcare but happily forget their wives now work as well. It's not a lack of committment that kills many marriages, it's the wives resentment that has built up until she gets to boiling point