no, marriages are not worse. Women just have options. I think it's very telling that the only way to keep marriages together in the past was by removing all the power and rights from women so they would be forced to stay. Doesn't say much about marriage as an institution does it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is mixing and matching stats. The 1955 stat is 2.3 divorces per 1000 people per year. This is a very different statistic than percent of marriages that fail.

The current divorce rate is actually only 2.4 divorces per 1000 people per year. (though the marriage rate has also declined quite a bit)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/marriage-divorce/national-marriage-divorce-rates-00-22.pdf

This can’t be right given more than 50 percent of marriages end in divorce.

That stat has been outdated for a decade now.

I think in general people’s interpersonal skills like conflict resolution, de-escalation, and working together as a team are worse than before, and I really fear for my kids’ post-covid, screen generation. Theirs are even worse.

No, women just get unhappy in LTRs and blame everything on their partner. Theres a reason why lesbians have the higheat divorce rate out of any type of relationship

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The rich don’t divorce cause they have more to lose in a divorce. They can afford (time-wise and money-wise) to have affairs, so they bear out their marriages.

lol. When you say rich what do you mean? Real reach sure. Working rich not so much.

Like Mackenzie Scott and Jeff Bezos? Or Sergey Brin?

Or like the Hollywood star musical beds?

Or like the UMC who are constantly divorcing here on DCUM?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is mixing and matching stats. The 1955 stat is 2.3 divorces per 1000 people per year. This is a very different statistic than percent of marriages that fail.

The current divorce rate is actually only 2.4 divorces per 1000 people per year. (though the marriage rate has also declined quite a bit)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/marriage-divorce/national-marriage-divorce-rates-00-22.pdf

This can’t be right given more than 50 percent of marriages end in divorce.

DP. You exemplify why math literacy is so important - and I say this as a humanities major. The marriage rate per 1,000 people is a different statistic than the percent (number per 100) of marriages that fail in a given year.

Anonymous wrote:OP is mixing and matching stats. The 1955 stat is 2.3 divorces per 1000 people per year. This is a very different statistic than percent of marriages that fail.

The current divorce rate is actually only 2.4 divorces per 1000 people per year. (though the marriage rate has also declined quite a bit)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/marriage-divorce/national-marriage-divorce-rates-00-22.pdf

This can’t be right given more than 50 percent of marriages end in divorce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, women just have more options. Remember it wasn’t until the 70s that a woman could even open a bank account in her own name. Men used to have us financially, emotionally, socially, and physically trapped.

This was true in the United States or in Saudi Arabia?! WTH

Could a single working woman open a bank account? What would she do with her money? Or was it just married women that had to have their husbands name on the account?

I believe it would have to be under her father’s name in that case.

No -- everyone stop this. Women could open bank acounts in their name since the 1800s. Was there discrimination (some banks would not open for some) --- yes -- the law in the 1970s ended that. But there were banks all over the country that opened accounts in women's names only.

https://femmefrugality.com/myth-busting-womens-banking/

That's your source? Did you even read that poorly written, poorly documented article. No one has said women weren't allowed to open bank accounts. There were a few banks that would allow them to do so independently but the majority of banks would not unless her DH agreed. My widowed grandmother experienced this in 1968. My uncle, her son, had to approve it.

The same uncle, BTW, married my aunt right after the Supreme Court ruled women didn’t have to take their DH's surnames. They hyphenated their kids' surnames. When my first kid was born in VA in 2003, we couldn't hyphenate his last name. We had to file a name change request a few years later so he'd have the same last name as his siblings.

From Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/when-could-women-open-a-bank-account/#:~:text=Technically%2C%20women%20won%20the%20right,refused%20service%20by%20financial%20institutions.
It wasn’t until 1974, when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed, that women in the U.S. were granted the right to open a bank account on their own.

Technically, women won the right to open a bank account in the 1960s, but many banks still refused to let women do so without a signature from their husbands. This meant men still held control over women’s access to banking services, and unmarried women were often refused service by financial institutions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Research.

If you are a young woman or man asking this question, do the research. The world was a different place in 1955.

An average woman in 1955 could not drive, did not have a college degree, could not get a job beyond retail/minimum wage, would not be approved for a credit card...was not even allowed to open a bank account or rent an apartment without a male co-signer.

How is she getting a divorce?

Your later points are fine. But in 1955, most women drove, many not most went to college and jobs were there well above minimum wage.

And in most places women could open bank accounts.

My mother in 1955 who came from a poor family had a job (Bell South) that paid more than my father who was a new doctor. She had a car and a bank account. No college though.

What bubble of privilege did you grow up in? The only reason your mother had a bank account was because a male relative approved it. The vas That requirement is well documented. 'Many' women did NOT attend college in 1955. Only 21% of college students were women. Fewer than 6% had college degrees and fewer than 40% graduated from high school.

In 1955, men earned an average of $3.4K/year - an increase over the previous year. Women earned an average of $1.1K - same as the previous 3 years. Doctors earned $8K - $28K. I have to wonder what your parents were doing if your mother made so much more than your father.

Oh, these stats primarily apply to white people. POC stats were much, much lower.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_104.10.asp

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-history-and-legacy-of-title-ix#:~:text=Women%20were%20underrepresented%20both%20as,students%20in%20the%20mid%2D1950s.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1956/demographics/p60-23.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjjiu7Bu5OFAxXrD1kFHdjyDNgQFnoECBUQBg&usg=AOvVaw235WcZMVbu4XBJnTwQRSdj

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, women just have more options. Remember it wasn’t until the 70s that a woman could even open a bank account in her own name. Men used to have us financially, emotionally, socially, and physically trapped.

This was true in the United States or in Saudi Arabia?! WTH

Could a single working woman open a bank account? What would she do with her money? Or was it just married women that had to have their husbands name on the account?

I believe it would have to be under her father’s name in that case.

No -- everyone stop this. Women could open bank acounts in their name since the 1800s. Was there discrimination (some banks would not open for some) --- yes -- the law in the 1970s ended that. But there were banks all over the country that opened accounts in women's names only.

https://femmefrugality.com/myth-busting-womens-banking/

I think people (a) expect more and (b) give less. Our society is incredibly selfish. I also think a lot of people don’t take their vows seriously.

My grandparents certainly didn’t have perfect marriages but I think they gave each other a lot of grace/used selective hearing etc. They also maintained a sense of romance. I think there’s a lot less of that now.

Anonymous wrote:The rich don’t divorce cause they have more to lose in a divorce. They can afford (time-wise and money-wise) to have affairs, so they bear out their marriages.

lol. When you say rich what do you mean? Real reach sure. Working rich not so much.

Anonymous wrote:In 1955, 2.3% of marriages ended in divorce. Today it is between 35-50%. That’s huge! Are marriages a lot worse today or are men worse husbands/women worse wives? Were 47.7% of people just absolutely depressed and miserable in their marriages in the 50s and we don’t know about it?

No. Women have options and don’t have to stay. Marriage is not prison.

The rich don’t divorce cause they have more to lose in a divorce. They can afford (time-wise and money-wise) to have affairs, so they bear out their marriages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, women just have more options. Remember it wasn’t until the 70s that a woman could even open a bank account in her own name. Men used to have us financially, emotionally, socially, and physically trapped.

This was true in the United States or in Saudi Arabia?! WTH

Could a single working woman open a bank account? What would she do with her money? Or was it just married women that had to have their husbands name on the account?

I believe it would have to be under her father’s name in that case.