The positive and negative factors contributing the eclipse of marriage are fundamentally two sides of the same coin: most importantly, men have less money (negative), so they have less power to impose their will on women (positive). In this sense, neoliberal capitalism has been good for liberal feminism. Both leftists and rightists are reluctant to clearly spell out this dialectical relation, for most people want to believe that we all can have positives without negatives.
For most working-class women, single motherhood means less money.
Also, being single in old age is a big financial disadvantage for women.
<blockquote><http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-women28dec28,0,7446902.story?coll=la-home-headlines> Old story: Women may have it worse Divorce and lost earning time could put living standards in a free fall late in life. By Jonathan Peterson, Times Staff Writer December 28, 2006
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Smaller pocketbooks
The average income of older people declines as they age, and unmarried women trail both unmarried men and married couples.
Median income of senior citizens by age groups, 2004 data
Ages 65 to 69 70-74 75-79 Over 80 Married couples $44,299 $36,750 $30,413 $28,490 Unmarried men 19,194 18,013 17,580 16,939 Unmarried women 14,611 13,506 13,171 12,679 Source: Social Security Administration</blockquote>
Most women are aware of the economic penalty of divorce, single motherhood, single old age, etc. and yet choose them. That says a lot about men and marriage!
> Marriage is not doomed.
More accurately, marriage is not doomed yet. Marriage still has benefits, even for women. Most crucially, two incomes are better than one. But if marriage ceases to bring economic benefits, people are unlikely to get married. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>