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?

A few reasons (in my opinion)

people are living longer
people change dramatically over 60 years, (you couldn’t even pick a car at 20 that would do you until 80)
people are spending more time at work and are falling in love with colleagues
women have better jobs and are financially able to leave now

I feel very sorry for you - you must be surrounded by awful people.

I do not see what you are seeing.

I would say it’s a bit of both.

Too many people choose a life partner they don’t even like (in the hope things will get better).

For those who say people were more committed in the past and that nowadays people are just disposable, I have a question: did people genuinely work through their issues to stay in their marriages, or did they mostly avoid talking about problems and simply accept a lower standard of happiness?

Anecdotally, the elders in my family who are still married never have rational conversations about their issues. They argue, experience a few days of tension, then sweep everything under the rug continue to complain to the rest of the family about the same problems for decades. It’s usually the women, doing the lion’s share of the work, who end up complaining. I don’t think it’s a case of having more realistic expectations back then, they clearly knew what they wanted when venting to others, but they never communicated it to their partner or expected a change. Past generations didn’t necessarily have more realistic expectations, they just tolerated things. Perhaps now, women do communicate and expect change, and when that doesn’t happen, it’s much harder to sweep issues under the rug.

I've just got a new job with a great salary and one of my first thoughts was "now if we separate I won't be on the breadline".

Our relationship is on the rocks and I've genuinely been concerned about how I'd cope.

So I think you are right.

I agree with your colleague tbh.

1. There are people who should get divorced because they are in an abusive relationship. Which is sad did not get encouraged in old days.

1. It's what your colleague is talking about. We live in a world of technology where people expect instant gratification.

So when shit hits the fan they leave. Also I find that with technology people have become such poor communicators which also breaks down relationships.

My plan was always to go self employed/have my own business, so that's what I was working towards throughout my 20's It's what I'd have done whether I'd have got married or not and whether I'd had a child or not. So, yes, I'm exactly where I planned to me. My 20's were spent taking professional examinations, getting more qualifications, moving around firm to firm, taking promotions as I went. My last "hurrah" was as finance director in a large Worldwide engineering firm, hundreds of staff, tens of millions turnover, three factories. I couldn't have got higher up the career ladder (well an ever bigger firm probably!).

I couldn't have done that had I had children in my 20's! By prioritising career, I got where I wanted to be. I couldn't have done that job with a child as I didn't even know which country I'd be in, yet alone whether I'd be home to collect a kid from school!

Then gave it up and started my own accountancy practice, employed a few staff, and once that was established, it was time for a child. The practice continued via the staff with little more than supervision by myself over maternity leave, etc - just that I wasn't there to grow and market it, so it stagnated for a few years with no real growth, but then as DS started school, I spent more time on it and started to grow it again as I had the time to. Self employment meant I was flexible for school runs, etc.

I'd have done exactly the same without a child, but probably the business would have grown a bit bigger a bit quicker. I never planned to stay as finance director for the long term. Like all my prior jobs, I was never in one job more than a couple of years, I was highly driven and ambitious. I'd have been self employed aged 35 whether I had a child or not. That was my plan from the day I started in accountancy aged 18!

My grandmother once said that in her day (1930s) you married a man because he possessed the ability to look after you, raise your children and do his share of work in the household. That meant working and providing enough for the family to live, as well as the heavy work and the vegetable gardening. She did work as well as an evening barmaid so they did ok.
I was fairly dismissive of that story for many years. I didn’t need my husband to be the dominant partner! I worked and considered myself as contributor! But after time I saw she was right really. My husband works, he does the heavy and dirty chores, he does his share in the house. The turning point came when I was unable to walk for four months after surgery - he did it all, without question and without moaning, all did it well. And never held it over me.
Since then we’ve operated more as a team. For 34 years and counting.

My parents did. They split for a bit then worked things out and things were so much better after and they stayed happily married for another thirty years till one of them passed away, the other never remarried. There was a marked difference in the before and after split, both seemed to make much more effort and from my perspective were much better to be around. I think the idea of a permanent split rattled them enough to make a conscious effort to fix things.

I certainly think that too many people (men and women) based relationship choices on lust rather than trust/respect. Easy to do when you're young and randy with hormones jumping around. It's pretty unusual for the guy who "floats your boat" sexually to be the kind of guy who'll still be there in a few decades, once lust is but a faded memory, and you're dealing with real life. Sadly too many people end up not liking their partner, for whatever reason, once the lust has faded! After all, probably most of us has had our fling(s) with the "bad boy" who we know is a waste of space in terms of being unreliable, dishonest, selfish, maybe criminal, etc., but they hit the spot when it comes to sex which is what we need when we're young and horny!

Because in my case (and other cases I'm familiar with), I would have had to set myself and my career alight in order to keep the family together, while he swanned around creating more housework, ignoring me and the kids and perhaps bringing some exotic STDs home.

But sure, yeah, I could have kept us going if I'd given up my job to dedicate myself to housework, slept with him with no pleasure for me, and just ignored his 'indiscretions' so the kids could say they had mum and dad at home. But does that really sound like a good idea?

Do you really think that it's better for the kids to see that than what we have now - me single, still working (very hard), me and the kids as a family unit, and their dad giving the same amount of effort (ie. a couple of days a month where he takes them to lunch), but not able to benefit from my effort, so they actually see what effort maintaining a relationship takes, and what happens if you don't make it?

I think it may be because there was a time when women just had to put up with ill treatment from men they thought they loved but who turned out to be nasty pieces of work.

In past generations, the woman had to
give up work to look after the children and would not find new employment if they were married, so they were basically trapped and left financially dependent on someone who
might be a bully, abuser or a philanderer.

Additionally, there was the societal shame associated with it which meant that many women just put up with miserable existences.

People are less marrigable than they used to be. On the whole we're more individualistic than we used to be. Less willing to work together for the family's best interest. More interested in their own fun/joy/excitement. Less willing to go through difficult times. Less willing to pool resources. Less willing to share yourself fully, co-dependence is seen as bad.

I'm not at all surrounded by awful people.
These are all examples of things I see posted here, countless times. There in black and white for all to see.

I think it's a combination of the two.

I think people now often dont fully understand what an absolute commitment marriage is.

What does she mean by “work on it” @PictureImperfect?

If a man cheated on you repeatedly, is ignoring it because you had no money and no way to leave “working on it”?

If a man was violent, or raping you (which as his wife was legal until the 1970s) was enduring this because you had no other option “working on it”?

Was staying in a miserable marriage because you’d been forced to give up your job and become a housewife so had no income of your own “working on it”?

Not being able to get a mortgage on your own might mean you have no option but to stay and “work on it”.

And this is aside from the multitude of women who have lazy, misgynistic husbands who won’t do their 50% share of child rearing and housework. Many women were forced to “work on it” with these men (i.e. simply suck it up and accept being treated like a house servant and second-class citizen) even if the men were not physically abusive or vile to them in other ways.

Fortunately women now have choices and can maintain their financial freedom. Salaries and career progression are still hugely affected by inequality but actually the only way that will change is when sufficient numbers of women stop tolerating the misogynism and inequality and it seems an increasing proportion of young women are doing exactly that and refusing to marry/ stay with a husband who doesn’t treat them with respect as an equal and pull their own weight.

This is why most divorces are instigated by women, why the marriage rate is falling, is a contributory factor to the falling birth rate, and is also why there is a counter-movement and backlash of misogynism and incels who are infuriated that an increasing proportion of women won’t tolerate this nonsense. What they don’t realise is that this has made younger women even less prepared to entertain a relationship with a sub-standard man.

Many women have also discovered that being single is actually quite pleasant. It’s interesting how many happily married women say that if they divorced/ were widowed they’d never marry again. There were always social stereotypes (spinster, left on the shelf, crazy cat lady etc) to try to convince women that they needed a partner. This had to be done through social conditioning because we now know marriage increases men’s wellbeing, earnings and life expectancy on average and decreases all of these things for women.

The majority of women would still prefer to find a lifelong partner and build a life together but - quite rightly - demand that the partner has respect for them and does an equal share of the work involved. The primary reason the relationship failure rate is so high is that a significant proportion of men still haven’t accepted that if they want a partner and family they’ll have to do this. If not, they can thrash around in rage at the unfairness of it all but it certainly won’t make women any more inclined to marry them, procreate with them, or stay married to them if they revert to such behaviour.

The solution isn’t that women should reverse all of this progress and go back to tolerating awful relationships. The solution is that men need to behave like competent, decent adults and raise their game to be equal partners and then they may be less likely to find themselves being served with divorce papers, or with being unable to find anybody prepared to marry them at all.

I think in the past plenty of people didn't bother to work it out and just stayed miserable and married. Obviously some couldn't because they were fundamentally incompatible too. But there were plenty of unhappy marriages - see plenty of Jane Austen's older characters. Mr Bennet wouldn't have dreamed of divorcing Mrs Bennet, but he just retreated into his study instead. She does zero self reflection and develops a martyr complex. Together they fail to financially plan for the future of their daughters.

Look at Charlotte Lucas/Collins. She encurages her pompous, dull husband to spend lots of time doing other things. She occupies herself with 'parish and poultry'. I doubt they ever sat down and had a conversation about how he wasn't meeting her emotional needs. And she goes into that marriage with her eyes open to it.

If a man was violent, or raping you (which as his wife was legal until the 1970s) was enduring this because you had no other option “working on it”?

Try 1992...

…because people are living longer. A woman who takes care of her body can now expect to live to her late 80s in relatively good health. If she retires at 67, that means she’s got another 20 years of active life. My mother goes to Italian lessons and a book group and she’s 83. She has a friend who is 81 and is planning to drive down to Portugal next year. People (especially women) get to 50 or so and think “now that the kids have left, do I really want to spend the next 30 years with this miserable, moaning bloke who never wants to go anywhere or do anything except drink and watch TV.”

What is going to happen when the first generation of ant-ageing drugs hit the market in the 2030s and people start living to 120 in good health?

Add into the mix the fact that women will no longer put up with the shit their mother’s and grandmothers put up with and I can’t see lifetime marriages surviving. Marriage will have to evolve into something new.

My grandmother and grandfather hated each other. They didn't believe in divorce (devout catholics) and they made it very clear to us all how much disdain they had for each other. My grandfather would say things like, "Is your grandmother here? I didn't notice a broom at the door" implying she was a witch. At his retirement do, when he blew out the candles on his cake, my grandmother was asked if she'd made a wish too. Her response in public, "the widow's pension".
Though my grandfather was the breadwinner, my grandmother didn't take anything lying down and took him to court over finances and charged him for making his meals and washing his clothes. They were a funny old pair and kind of thrived off their hate for each other.
There was no abuse just a clashing of personalities that wasn't recognised in their 4-month courtship in their early 20's. There would have been shame regarding divorce but I don't think that's the reason they didn't do it. When grandma died, granda was very lonely and I think it would have been the same the other way round.

You say you were not hindered by having children, but you have essentially planned your whole life around ensuring you are not hindered by them, that in itself is hindering?

I wonder if men put the same thought and planning into when they will have children...

I expect more from both men and women. While I agree it’s a father’s responsibility to take care of his children, I expect women to make better choices in the father of those children - that’s their responsibility.

The problem with this is that, if women were actually able to predict which men would turn into creeps before they became pregnant or had a baby, the birth rate would be even lower than it presently is. Most women would end up not having children. There just aren't that many decent men out there, in terms of those who will actually share the burden of family life fairly. They're very much in the minority, although many will talk the talk.

Yes this ^ half of my friends are with men that quite frankly, they clearly are unhappy with. They then have kids, get married and are… still unhappy.

Let me guess, your colleague was a man??

you got so close op - two people who spend their lives looking at each other. Two people. You can’t work on a marriage on your own and it’s a sensible person (usually woman) who knows this.