Carter and Glick, in their 1976 book on Marriage and Divorce, point out that the USA had the highest divorce rate in the world in 1900, when the divorce rate was 5%. Although it is difficult to get accurate numbers for 1800, the USA almost certainly had the highest divorce rate in 1800, as it was one of the few nations that had legal divorce in 1800.
The background history is that in all Western nations the trends followed a path driven by Protestantism. Till the Reformation, divorce was illegal in all Western countries. The early Protestant reformers, both Luther and Calvin and the others, argued that divorce was a right given to women by Biblical law (the only grounds for divorce being extreme physical abuse). So all of the nations that became Protestant during the 1500s legalized divorce. Divorce then remained legal for 50 to 70 years, till all of the original generation of Reformers were dead. Then divorce became illegal again. In most Western nations that were Protestant, divorce remained illegal until the late 1800s.
During the 1600s, only the most radical Protestant sects continued to argue that divorce should be legal. These were the sects that were the most likely to banned in their home countries, and thus they made up the bulk of people moving to the British colonies in North America during the 1600s. As such, early on, due to various religious factors, the USA had a culture that allowed for divorce.
Divorce remained rare in the USA till the mid-20th century, but the USA's background and history left it ripe for a cultural revolution that would allow for divorce to become much more common.
The Catholic Church in the USA has been effected by the overall trends of divorce in the USA. 90% of all the annulments that the Catholic Church grants, worldwide, happen in the USA.
Until the late 20th century, marriage was an institution in support of human survival—which in the recent history translated to financial security. Divorce rates were low because survival was not only a practical limitation but also collectively valued very highly, and thus many societies didn't even allow divorces.
In the late century, marriage became primarily an opportunity to accelerate your growth as a human person and help your spouse do the same. In other words, two closely bound people teaching each other lessons in life. This bound is weaker than it used to be (lacking the survivalist element) and as singles can now feed themselves divorce rates are way up.
(With regard to the above, please remember that marriage in Western tradition has been commonly just disguised as romantic love; I maintain that romantic love has never been the deepest reason for two people deciding to bond together but merely an incubator for such a bond to form. Romantic love generally disappears from any relationship after the beginning phase unless actively maintained.)
As a guy, I sorta find the idea of getting married to a women who is also well educated totally awesome. Two solid sources of income are definitely better than one, if only for protection against catastrophic situations, but having nice things is also quite fun. I don't get why we didn't do this years ago >_<. It seems like so many stories report on how this is some kind of shift in the balance of power, role reversal, or the end of masculinity. Why not talk about how awesome it could be if money could now be less of a power issue between two people in a marriage (read: only one person traditionally controls the income now no longer being the case). I think that's completely and totally awesome and good for everybody.
Now guys have to be positive contributors to 'loving relationships' instead of just bringing home the bacon...lest women leave them. Whatever makes it harder to be a tool is fine by me. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Note: this entire post focuses on marriage between men and women. But I'm guessing the rising position of women could also benefit women in marriages, civil unions, or partnerships as well. I'm kind of outside my area of knowledge making that last remark, but it makes sense to me. Feel free to knock it over.
It actually makes very little sense for men to get married (in the USA, anyway) these days. It's simply far too easy for women to
1. become "unhappy",
2. get a no-fault divorce,
3. be awarded primary custody of the kids (this happens somewhere around 80% of the time),
4. take the house, and
5. be awarded large child-support and alimony payments.
In the USA, somewhere around half of marriages end in divorce. There is evidence [1] that, among college-educated couples, the percentage of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%. Many men are blindsided by them.
Very few things in life can be worse for a man than having his kids taken away by a woman with the help of the family courts system. One day you're reading with them on the couch every night, the next you're seeing them only every other weekend. Devastating.
I know, I know. Your girl isn't like that. Well, women change when the kids are born and the real work begins.
While I don't feel like contesting the first few points, because I feel like they might be close to accurate, but your point after 5 is loaded and misleading. I feel you have cherry picked your numbers out of your own source. Here is a complimentary figure to your 90% of divorces instigated by women in scenarios where higher education is had by both couples.
"Success in marriage has been associated with higher education and higher age. 81% of college graduates, over 26 years of age, who wed in the 1980s, were still married 20 years later. 65% of college graduates under 26 who married in the 1980s, were still married 20 years later. 49% of high school graduates under 26 years old who married in the 1980s, were still married 20 years later.[27] Population studies have found that in 2004 and 2008, liberal-voting states have lower rates of divorce than conservative-voting states, possibly because people in liberal states tend to wait longer before getting married.[28] In 2009, 2.9% of adults 35-39 without a college degree were divorced, compared with 1.6% with a college education.[29]"
So maybe your 90% figure is true, but that is true in a largely reduced set of cases according to the same article.
Just skimmed over TFA so I may have missed it but it only addresses the income benefits married men have compared to unmarried ones. What about the expenses ? Even ignoring the financially catastrophic for men scenario of divorce, I'm pretty sure for frugal single guys like me marriage would be a bad move economically with all the "necessities" married life comes with.
I wonder how much these stats are influenced by the changing age differences between partners. It used to be typical for men to be older than their wives and very shocking/bizarre for a woman to much older than her husband. It seems to me that the older partner has had more time to get an education and build a career, so even if you were to compare their earnings and education at the same age and find it was terribly different, the older partner may still make more money currently. Since it seems like it is becoming increasingly common/acceptable for spouse's to be the same age or for the wife to be older, I wonder how much influence (if any) that has on these figures.
Here in Finland it seems that marriage is seen as a "standard contract", as in the easiest way to organize common issues regarding inheritance (e.g. non-married couple: kids get their share by birthright, but spouse not without separate agreement) or possessions are divided in case of separation.
All legal avenues have been pursued. Everyone knows what to expect.
What I find interesting is that, according to those pie charts, in 2007 men were less educated and yet managed to make significantly more income than their wives.
Note that I do not draw any conclusions. Just pointing out an interesting fact.
'the main' I wouldn't say. As women become increasingly economically independent, they open up the practical ability to get a divorce. Many women used to have to stay even in abusive relationships just because they had no other options. Women who can provide for themselves have the option to leave a relationship when they find it no longer in line with their life goals or desires.
You made a comment with no supporting statements or background information - I think the onus is on you to say why your position is beneficial. I suspect that is why you've been down-voted on the whole. Personally I think you're exactly wrong too but I'm pretty sure that's not the reason for all the downvotes.
The background history is that in all Western nations the trends followed a path driven by Protestantism. Till the Reformation, divorce was illegal in all Western countries. The early Protestant reformers, both Luther and Calvin and the others, argued that divorce was a right given to women by Biblical law (the only grounds for divorce being extreme physical abuse). So all of the nations that became Protestant during the 1500s legalized divorce. Divorce then remained legal for 50 to 70 years, till all of the original generation of Reformers were dead. Then divorce became illegal again. In most Western nations that were Protestant, divorce remained illegal until the late 1800s.
During the 1600s, only the most radical Protestant sects continued to argue that divorce should be legal. These were the sects that were the most likely to banned in their home countries, and thus they made up the bulk of people moving to the British colonies in North America during the 1600s. As such, early on, due to various religious factors, the USA had a culture that allowed for divorce.
Divorce remained rare in the USA till the mid-20th century, but the USA's background and history left it ripe for a cultural revolution that would allow for divorce to become much more common.
The Catholic Church in the USA has been effected by the overall trends of divorce in the USA. 90% of all the annulments that the Catholic Church grants, worldwide, happen in the USA.