In this article, I reference two pieces that discuss the decline of marriage, both published by Pulitzer-winning journalist and political commentator Nicholas Kristof. The essays, entitled Less Marriage, Less Sex, Less Agreement, and The Case for Saying ‘I Do’, were both released this year. The decline of marriage in the United States has been a prevailing topic among sociologists and policy-makers for quite some time. Since World War II, marriage as a concept has become less popular, but it was not until the 1970s that we actually began to see a steady decline in marriage rates themselves. Some reasons for this decline include economic precarity, changes in social norms, and decreases in necessity. Throughout this piece, I will explore the most prevalent reason for this decline: the consistent and increasing sociopolitical gap between men and women.
It has been studied and subsequently proven that men are getting more conservative, while women are becoming more liberal. A Gallup poll conducted by The Financial Times and published in January of 2024 showed that young adult American women were 30% more liberal than their male counterparts. According to the publication Le Monde, men are consequently feeling resentful and distasteful towards these women and their beliefs, seeking solace in opposing sociopolitical ideologies. A trend report depicting this polarization was conducted by Glocalities, illustrating how the “radical right increasingly finds fertile ground among young men” after they lose female supporters.
This polarization has already begun to affect elections and the general political atmosphere of the country. The issue of this polarization is the heart of Kristof articles, where he explains and acknowledges the gendered disconnect and accurately faults men’s inability to keep up in a world where “brawn matters less than brains.” However, he falls short in actually driving the point back to women. The self-proclaimed romantic begins the conversation by discussing his fears and frustrations with the declining rate of partnership amongst young adults, without actually exploring the depth behind why women and men are becoming less compatible, thus revealing a troubling reality.
In both articles, Kristof acknowledges—and even delves deep into—the strong negative feelings women have towards marriage and, in the case of heterosexual relations, men. Yet, Kristof fails to attack the real underbelly of the issue: why women and men are continuing to diverge across the political spectrum. While Kristof does attempt to give insight on women’s current distaste towards men by bringing up relevant internet discourse about women opting to be “boy sober” and choosing the physical threat of a bear over the sexual, psychological, and physical threat of a man, he misses the point. As feminist thought continues to aggressively seep into the zeitgeist, women are not simply developing higher standards or devaluing men as Kristof suggests—they are initiating unpleasant, albeit necessary, forms of protest.
Women, just like men, crave partnership. This idea works hand in hand with the studies done by the Pew Research Center and Brad Wilcox that Kristof examines: unmarried men and women are statistically less happy than their married counterparts. Women, just like men, want partnership. But, unlike men, women are disproportionately more likely to experience domestic violence, sexual abuse, psychological damage, a sense of unfulfillment, and many other negatives. Women, in an effort to protect themselves from these gruesome realities, have to distance themselves from marital relationships with men to relieve some of these fears. To put it plainly, women are protecting themselves from men and, subsequently, are avoiding marriage to keep themselves safe. Living in this real and valid fear keeps many women single—or at least makes it harder to find a partner, and is what I would argue is responsible for the general unhappiness single women feel.
Additionally, I hypothesize a possibility for why married couples tend to report higher feelings of happiness: married women might be asking for less—or not desiring more. Any wants or desires women hold that are against the patriarchy or stereotypical gender norms in regards to heterosexual partnership dispose them to be more unhappy with the current state of marital affairs.
Lastly, in the end of Less Marriage, Less Sex, Less Agreement, Kristof discusses possible reforms to increase the marriage rate from his reading of Richard Reeves’ Of Boys and Men. However, his proposed reforms are centered around men and their issues adjusting to an increasingly progressive world; they have nothing to do with the experiences and fears of women. Reeves’ suggested policies aimed to include more male teachers in schools, increase recesses, or hold boys back behind girls academically so they start school later. These reforms only serve to give men benefits when, in reality, they have enough—women are the ones who need to be cared for. Women are the ones who have been made to feel uneasy and fearful; women are the ones protesting the current gender affairs as they become increasingly more progressive. Yet, somehow, the solution is centered around the needs of men. Unable to experience long-term comfort, married and unmarried women should be the focus of any reform. The necessary policies should not be based on the needs of men, as proclaimed by men (Reeves and Kristof), but on the needs of women as proclaimed by women.
If the goal is to incentivize marriage, or at least male-female partnership, we must begin by prioritizing policies that enforce women’s safety. If women feel safe and protected as opposed to fearful of men, their need for protest will end, and the gender gap will heal itself.
***
This article was edited by Sofia Benzi and Emily Sauget.
