I can tell you from personal experience that your post is true, altho I also think there were other factors that contributed (i.e. no-fault divorce, the so-called sexual revolution [which I think "benefited" men more than women], Roe v. Wade, and women in the workforce).
My dad once told me that we (the '60's gen) were setting outselves up for loneliness and relational failure, that women would find they didn't need husbands for financial/physical security and men would find they didn't need wives for sex or setting up households. I think that turned out to be true.
I think there are valid reasons for divorce (adultery, abandonment, physical abuse), but irreconcilable differences is much too vague! It seems to me, now, that it was yet another '60's case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Thank you, Sam, for looking deeper into this issue and recognizing that there were other factors involved in the downfall of morality and families in our nation.
<><
Thanks for the kind words.
Did you ever see the "Willoughby" old Twilight Zone episode ? Where an overworked, burned out ad executive dreams every night on the train home of the train stopping in a quaint, charming, bucolic fantasy of the 1880's called Willoughby and spending his life away from the rat race, away from the pressure, away from his selfish, greedy trophy wife's materialistic demands ? The tragedy was that you could see that he didn't belong in that office. But she did. She had the ruthless drive to be a bang-up exec.
There was a lot of that in the 1955-1965 popular culture. The bourgeous wife as virility sucking vampire, whose husband was nothing more than a paycheck to serve her "keeping up with the Joneses" status symbol consumerism. And I'll bet lots of men felt the husband in "Willoughby", like meal tickets whose best would never be enough. And what economic use was the stay at home wife ? What did she do but watch soap operas ?
A lot of marriages were ripe for collapse when the sexual revolution hit.