Ambivalence About Marriage Grows—Among Girls
Twelfth grade boys are now more likely than their female counterparts to say they are likely to get married.
High school boys are now more enthusiastic about marriage than their female peers are. The news—from a Pew Research Center analysis of University of Michigan polling data—has been greeted with some alarm by conservatives.
"Something has gone terribly wrong," commented Turning Point USA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet, in one representative example.
You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.
But has it?
Let's look a little closer at what the data actually show. It's decidedly not that teen girls are rejecting the idea of marriage in larger numbers, nor that new hordes of teen boys have suddenly been bitten by a marriage bug.
The Rise of 'No Idea'
Pew's analysis—which compares data from the 1993 and 2023 "Monitoring the Future" surveys—involves 12th graders asked to choose whether they're likely to eventually marry. Survey respondents can say they're likely to get married, likely not to get married, or that they have no idea.
In 1993, only 5 percent of the surveyed 12th graders said they were unlikely to get married, and 80 percent said they were likely to marry. In 2023, 9 percent said they were not likely to marry, and 67 percent said they were.
The "unlikely to marry" group only went up by four percentage points.
The big slump in the "likely to get married" group isn't driven by people saying they're likely not to get married but by a big increase in people saying they have no idea. The "no idea" group went from 16 percent in 1993 to 24 percent in 2023.
And the rise of the "no idea" position seems to be driven by girls. Boys in the 2023 survey were about as likely as those in 1993 to say they want to get married (74 percent vs. 76 percent). But the share of girls saying they want to get married went from 83 percent to 61 percent.
That's a huge drop, indeed. But remember, the group of respondents saying they're unlikely to marry only increased by four percentage points. That means most of the 22 percentage point drop in girls saying they want to marry reflects a rise in girls saying "no idea," not girls saying certainly not or probably not.
Enter: Everyone's Pet Peeves
The real story here seems to be that high school girls are feeling more marriage ambivalence. That's interesting, certainly—but without more data, we can't really say what explains it. Which means that, of course, everyone is writing their preferred cultural narrative all over this.
For some, it's obvious that feminism has lured women into hating marriage. For others, something something abortion access. For another group, the data reflect the fact that social media have "exposed" men as unappealing, since "men no longer hide their misogyny behind closed doors." And on and on and on.
The comment that I suspect comes closest to the truth: "Women just have options now."
Many teen girls saying "no idea" will still, eventually, marry. But if recent generational trends hold, fewer will than in previous generations. The marriages that do exist will be more stable, but marriage rates will be down overall (a trend that will be more pronounced among lower-income and less-educated women than their better-paid and more-educated counterparts, contrary to so much online hand-wringing about feminist girlbosses being the ruin of everything). The bottom line is that 12th graders saying what they think they will do "in the long run" (that's how the question was worded) doesn't actually tell us much about what they will do. Nonetheless, shifts in perceptions on this question can still tell us something.
I reject the idea that the perception shift stems from the internet and men somehow showing themselves to be more misogynistic, or just generally less appealing, because of it. (This is yet another example of people today reaching for tech as the explanation for everything.) I don't recall, as a teen in the 1990s and a young adult in the early 2000s, the young men around me or in pop culture seeming particularly enlightened, overall.
I also reject the idea that abortion access has anything to do with how enthusiastically high school girls view the prospect of marriage, though I do almost admire how a certain strain of progressive these days will find a way to shoehorn any cultural debate into a referendum on reproductive rights.
As for feminism being to blame…well, yeah, sort of—though not in the insidious way that some conservative commenters imagine. There's no shadowy cabal of pink leg hair–sporting man haters with CEO jobs and 18 cats tricking ladies into going against their best interests. But decades of feminism have made it practically possible—legally, economically, professionally—for a woman to live without a husband or long-term male partner, and reduced the social stigma around doing so, too.
It doesn't seem like any great mystery why, when given an option that previously either wasn't available or would have marked one as a social pariah, some percentage of girls and young women are going to at least consider taking that path. Any time previously unavailable or difficult options are rendered more accessible, some percentage of people will at least imagine the possibility.
Beyond Culture Warring
I also think we should be careful about writing too much bourgeois culture-war sentiment onto any of this.
Sure, for some high school girls, uncertainty or ambivalence around marriage may come down to worries that men or the institution of marriage will hold them back professionally, curb their freedom to do what they want, tie them to some 1950s housewife role, tie them to a constraining sex life, etc. In other words, it may come down to worries about men or monogamy or traditional gender norms in some way.
But others might express uncertainty about whether they'll marry—to someone identifying as a man, a woman, or anything else—not because they reject monogamy or long-term partnerships but because they just don't view the legal and/or religious institution of marriage as all that important. Maybe they envision themselves with a spouse in all but name.
Others might want marriage—with all its legal trappings—just as much as their predecessors, but look at the world around them and assess, rightly or wrongly, that it just may not be in the cards for them.
For many, it might come down not to desire but to practicality. A picket-fence existence where marriage comes first, then kids, then lifelong bliss might sound great in theory. But maybe they're extremely online and inundated with pro-divorce manifestos, tales of how women can't find a good man, and commentary about declining marriage rates. Maybe they grew up in a culture where most married couples around them got divorced. Maybe they grew up in a culture where parents tended not to marry in the first place, and dads tended not to stick around, or not to pull their weight financially when they did stay.
With rates of single motherhood having risen massively since the mid–20th century, you've got more children having grown up without a positive marriage model before them. And, perhaps, more girls than ever who grow up thinking that marriage is not a necessary component of a good life, or not within reach, or a bad bargain for women. That to me seems fundamentally different than the idea that people are rejecting marriage because they don't like the rhetoric coming from podcast bros or some guy on social media, even if uncertainty about marriage or men underlies both explanations.
In the end, I don't think we can tell a pat story about these new data, just as there's no simplistic, good/bad narrative that works when explaining declining marriage rates.
On the one hand, we have wide swaths of people for whom poor economic prospects, mass incarceration, opioid addiction, or other social ills have made marriage less feasible or appealing. We have these broad social and economic trends that have divorced marriage from child-rearing. We have a situation where stable families and marriages are becoming increasingly class-segregated. That all seems bad!
But we also live in a world where women are more empowered to leave bad marriages or to never marry in the first place. We have a society where women are much more free to pursue whatever professional or artistic ambitions they please. We have a society where birth control has helped people avoid unplanned pregnancies that, in decades prior, may have all but necessitated entering into ill-advised marriages. And one in which everyone, including women, has not only more options when it comes to life choices but also the ability to thrive whether married or not, partnered or not, a parent or not. We've opened up more ways for humans to flourish, and that is a good thing.
Disentangling the good from the bad of declining marriage rates, declining desire for marriage, or increasing uncertainty about marriage is a much more complicated project than partisan or culture-war narratives will allow for, but also a much more compelling one. There's a lot going on here. For now, let's just be wary of anyone trying to turn these data into a referendum on why they prove their pet issue right.
More Sex & Tech News
• Florida is apparently being run by 1980s-style Satanic panic–mongers. Florida Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier is pressuring the city of Pensacola to cancel a drag show because he considers it "demonic."
• "Google is hosting a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) app that uses facial recognition to identify immigrants, and tell local cops whether to contact ICE about the person, while simultaneously removing apps designed to warn local communities about the presence of ICE officials," reports 404 Media.
• I'm far from an artificial intelligence doomer, but I don't really find persuasive this very positive take on AI and education. Still, sharing because it's refreshing to see some optimism on this front. Thoughts?
• I also appreciate Yascha Mounk's measured approach to AI and college education here. Mounk suggests that too many college educators today are pretending the problem doesn't exist, when a better path forward would be to both embrace pedagogy and assessment methods that are AI-proof, and teach students how to use AI intelligently.
• Google, TikTok, and Meta are fighting back against a California law that requires parental consent before minors can access personalized social media feeds.
• Here's a great write-up of Kaytlin Bailey's one-woman show, The Oldest Profession, which writer Brian K. Mahoney describes as "part stand-up set, part crash course in 10,000 years of sex-work history, part civic intervention" and "an unflinching argument that everything we think we know about sex work—its origins, its harms, its legality, its place in culture—is not only wrong, but dangerously backward."
• Waymo's self-driving cars are now being used "on freeways across the San Francisco Bay Area, Phoenix, and Los Angeles," the company reports. "We're offering freeway access to a growing number of public riders and will introduce the service to more over time, including as we expand freeway capabilities to Austin, Atlanta, and beyond."
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) details why laws banning virtual private networks (VPNs)—something that has been proposed in both Wisconsin and Michigan—are "a terrible idea." It's not "just people trying to watch porn without handing over their driver's license" who use VPNs, notes the EFF. "Businesses run on VPNs. Every company with remote employees uses VPNs. Every business traveler connecting through sketchy hotel Wi-Fi needs one." Universities often require VPNs to access certain course materials, research databases, and library resources. And the list goes on.
• Men in the U.K. aren't giving up porn in response to age verification laws—or complying with them either. "Men are simply reorganising their porn habits around the new architectures," Clarissa Smith, co-editor of the journal Porn Studies, told Cosmopolitan. "The [Online Safety Act] is likely driving adults into a more fragmented, less regulated ecosystem, largely because people are uneasy about handing over ID for sexual content. We're probably not going to see less engagement with porn, we'll see different routes to it—many of them far outside the spaces the law was written for."
Today's Image

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
There have been zero benefits from feminism to date. Destroying society should have been their stated goal so they can pretend they achieved something.
Funny how incredibly neurotic and depressed women are when they have "everything"
Once they hit late 30s or into their 40s, some understand that being assistant bossgirl in HR is not viscerally satisfying where babies rabies sets in. But their social programming is so bad, they can’t understand why a high value man won’t knock them up.
They are also convinced that because a top level dude will happily fuck them means they are a "10"
Yup. If they had an “ass-to-mouth” adventure with a high value man, they should accept he’s probably not hanging out with them again.
Sage advice.
"Hogging" isn't a concept that translates well to the female mindset.
They'll rarely bang the poorest, ugliest dude in a bar just to win a bet.
Well, they have their cats and box wine to keep them company.
"Babies with Rabies" was pretty good when I saw them on Saturday night.
Those boys understand the passport bro option. They can get married to a woman who looks like a woman and acts like a woman that values a masculine man.
How successful is that though? There are stories about men going to foreign countries and finding wives who are loyal and love them for their character, but relying on anecdotes introduces survivorship bias.
Yeah.
I mean, up to 40% of girls and women aged 15-40 are willing to move to places like Estonia or the Philippines to find real men.
I suspect most of them will fail to do that, or at most find a man who will ditch them as soon as he gets his green card.
No one wants to ,arty some demanding fat bitch with a snatchy tone that constantly screeches like a gargoyle. These feminist broads haven’t figured that out.
There are also anecdotes of doofuses trying that and striking out. Not sure there’s good data on the passport bro option.
Cultures that value men being men where women are more likely to be feminine (and not trying to be a corporate guy) is an option for some. Know a few that have done that and it worked out well for them. Think one from Russia where it went sideways (she was quite materialistic and he dumped her) and one that was literally mail order bride and that eventually failed. Trump seems happy. JD Vance (first generation wife). There’s a commenter or two here that have done that, per their posts.
Anecdotes beat the shit outta Western feminist programming and demands, but it is relative. Would you consider the failure that is modern marriage and family a success? How about a contract that incentives and rewards one party in breaking the contract.
High school boys are now more enthusiastic about marriage than their female peers are
That's not what the survey says at all. The survey says that high school girls are now far less enthusiastic about marriage than they were thirty years ago.
I think both of those can be true. But your way gets to the point better (as does the headline).
Boys are unchanged effectively but women are significantly down so they could both be true but are not.
Women have moved from " I need a man" to "I'd like to have a man". When you are unshackled from needing (can't open a checking account, can't vote, can't get a non-traditional job, etc) ... it gives you the luxury of wanting man and liking the one that you have.
No one person did this, it is a portion of society moving from dependence subsistence to independence. Need vs want is huge.
can't open a checking account, can't vote, can't get a non-traditional job, etc
I wasn't aware any of this was the case in 1993.
I remember back in the 80's when a wife would have to follow five steps behind her husband and wasn't allowed to wear shoes.
Seriously though, the period "Liberty_Belle" is referring to only happened to rich bourgeoise women. There was never a time when the average woman wasn't earning money for the family.
Not actually true, mind you. It was not illegal for women to have checking accounts. Nor did they have no right to vote for much longer than white males did (men had major restrictions). Black men and women, of course, were limited by Democrats heavily until the 60's. And women, to this day, do basically the same jobs they did 100 years ago.
But, please, continue.
Therein lies the basic problem....giving women the vote.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations-decades-100
Try that again, with some actual data this time. This also doesn't take into account that the #1 profession in the 1920 was housewife, which isn't on the chart as a profession ... but has a correlation graph below in terms of women in the workplace vs "not".
. but has a correlation graph below in terms of women in the workplace vs "not".
Oh yeah, that's the one that Nick Gillespie didn't understand when he lamented us moving away from all the public places that only had 'bathroom' and didn't have one set aside for the fairer sex.
Edit: Or... maybe he did understand it...*pulls popcorn from bag and chews with anticipation*
"the #1 profession in the 1920 was housewife"
This is a lie. That's why it isn't on the chart.
The only women in 1920 who were afforded the luxury of being a housewife, were in the upper middle class. Most working class women worked like dogs in pleb positions just like their husbands.
Modern feminism is based around the myth of the housewife which was only an option for the well off.
Feminists also believe men ROUTINELY beat their wives, which is far from reality. Feminism works if you are ignorant of history.
Feminists SHOULD be routinely beaten. Particularly the men.
Maybe back this up with something relevant and not data from before anyone involved today was even alive.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/wb/data/occupations-decades-100
So, let's look at the jobs.
2023
Domestic servant
Nurse
nursing, psychiatric aides
secretaries
customer service
cashier
manager
retail sales
waitstaff
retail supervisor
1920
domestic servant
teachers
stenographers
clerks
farm labor
launderer/laundress
sales
bookkeeper/cashier
cooks
general farm worker
Since farm work is severely reduced, those are changed. The rest look remarkably similar, 100 years later.
That doesn't explain at all why this recent change has happened. Women have been entirely free to live as independently as they want for longer than most of us have been alive.
ENB correctly points out that a change from 5% to 9% is only an increase of 4%. It is also an increase of 80%.
How you use the statistics (liars, damn liars, statisticians) depends on the story you want them to tell.
ENB is an idiot.
Marriage has been a gift for women for centuries. I bet these girls, though, have got their shit together.
Why would women want to get married right as the entire education system is prejudiced in their favor and suddenly they're on the hook for alimony?
I've made a few grand social predictions over the decades, many have been wrong, but a few have been not only right, but dead right. One that I'm sticking with is that women not only outpace men in education but are starting to outpace them in earnings, we're going to see a push for an overhaul to divorce law.
That college vis looking more and more like a problem rather than a solution, the move to cut off the spigot of money will find more understanding ears.
Feminists can say all the horrible things about men they wish --- by their story, they also RAISED the men almost single-handedly. And if you ask them simply "Is your dad/brother/male family member that?" about any critique and they melt down quickly.
Prediction: Every major institution can say all the horrible things about men they wish and women's overall happiness will continue to drop.
Ctrl+f 'gay': 0 results.
Ctrl+f 'homo': 0 results.
Ctrl+f 'trans': 0 results.
So, I guess the transgender *and* gay marriage cults are dead? Otherwise, more dudes saying they're going to marry more dudes and fewer females saying they're going to marry other women isn't really here nor there as far as the other gender(s) is concerned.
At a cursory glance, there's no indications as to total numbers or the breakdown of correspondents in either year. 81->63 is a 26% drop, while 76->74 is a 2.5% drop, meaning the polling represents males disproportionately. Whether that's males were always more willing to answer the polling questions or whether it was more equal or even predominantly equal in 1993 and is now predominantly male is unable to be determined.
Oooh! Maybe the number of biological females who intend to marry hasn't changed one bit and more 12th Grade males now identify as females and aren't going to marry.
predominantly equal in 1993
Predominantly female in 1993
The feminist movement was created by the CIA. Gloria Steinham (gew) was CIA.
The purpose of the movement was to destroy marriages by convincing women their only future is where men dominate.
Now we have women on the front lines of the military, running, actually mismanaging businesses, and playing cop.
Women do not belong on the front lines in combat, they don't belong running corporations and they don't belong on the streets as cops.
Women do not belong in those positions.
You’re really into conspiracies. Was Professor Professerson your mentor?
One thing the article didn't mention was children watching their parents divorce deciding that marriage just isn't for them.
Probably doesn't help either. But that was a pretty big thing for our generation as well, so probably doesn't explain the recent shift.
Education shift for women has been huge. The better we are educated, the less of a need for marriage to be happy ever after. When educated, you start trying to make your own happy, instead of relying on someone else to make your happy for you. Better jobs, higher pay, entrepreneurial spirit, etc. Since the 80s , women have been outpacing men in education. On top of that, men have declined in education completion in comparison to themselves historically.
also,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/08/07/women-continue-to-outpace-men-in-college-enrollment-and-graduation/
Education shift for women has been huge. The better we are educated, the less of a need for marriage to be happy ever after.
And yet the happiness index of professional, educated women keeps dropping... and dropping.
Women have been outpacing men in college for at least four decades, with women surpassing men in bachelor's degree completion since the mid-1980s and becoming the majority in college enrollment in 1979. The gender gap in college completion has continued to widen, with women also increasing their share of advanced degrees.
Oh, on this, I recently got into a rare familial argument with my brother-in-law who was running his eyebrow raising male feminist schtick about how women are beleaguered in society, are disadvantaged in every institution, how they don't have any of the same opportunities in education-- and I corrected him on
someall of his facts, referencing the above statistics, he became so flustered, he just started insulting me.That is what I find funny. Tony brags about how happy women are when they, themselves, say they are not.
It's somehow Trump's fault, no doubt. But I'll bet the Democrats did it first.
The institution of marriage is unnecessary.
I was called homophobic when I said that during the gay marriage debates.
"We want our nuclear family and divorce lawyers too!" My my how times changed in just 10 years.
Marriage works and works well on a religious and cultural level. It does not work on a legal level. It needs to go back to being a religious ceremony.
Marriage in the west is not about religious or cultural norms, it's a government templatized divorce contract.
Edit: When I pointed that out during the whole "why won't the government let us love who we want to love" I was called a homophobe.
Completed it for you.
(This is yet another example of people today reaching for tech as the explanation for everything.)
Well, if one were to read Reason you'd be forgiven if you got the impression that tech is the solution to all of our problems, from an AI trained on the American Pediatric Association's stance on child sterilization, or a chatbot's ability to provide superior, more efficient medical care, to lab grown everything, to a vast array of mandated vaccines that will super-charge our body's ability to fight the cancer, to the daily handwringing that occurred when one (1) random tech company got a new owner...
Probably get an OK boomer here but I'll take a stab at it. I think it's pretty stupid to ask 17 year olds about the odds that they will marry unless they already have a high school sweetheart. I met Mrs Grimsrud in 1980 and we finally got married in 1987. We were common law married in some states but the government certificate just wasn't a priority. We had moved across the country twice and bought a house together but we were having too much fun to worry about it. Had a kid, started a business and never stopped having fun. Marriage is complicated and walking away may be seductive but the longer it goes on the more unique history you share and independence becomes less attractive or even possible. Ultimately it's the kids and the grandkids and the houses and the dogs that make it worthwhile. It actually gets better the longer it goes on but you can't explain that to a 17 year old. I grew up in a culture of monogamy but it took me decades to figure out that it's by far the best choice. The problem is a culture that doesn't value centuries of history and government that actively sabotages those lessons. The old story is that the rich man on his death bed doesn't regret that he didn't spend enough time on his business. He regrets that he didn't spend enough time with his family. That's the real deal.
Whip-smart Mary Harrington discusses how tech is probably breaking the social networks that helped people with their interpersonal relationships.
*trigger warning* discusses fatherless homes which rubs against the lab-grown-meat-what's-up-with-this-boomer-marriage-institution-thing-who-cares-about-collapsing-birth-rates-because-AI-and-choices narratives
Not mentioned by ENB: It's tough for women to find a vampire or werewolf who will choke them in the bedroom but support their high flying girlboss career.