16 marriage views from the 1950s that may be considered outdated today

Ever wonder what your grandparents would think of your dating app profile or your shared Google Calendar for household chores?

Let’s take a trip back to the 1950s, a time that feels both strangely familiar and like a completely different planet. It was a unique post-war era, where the quest for security after the Great Depression and global conflict shaped everything, especially marriage.

Back then, getting married was the ultimate goal, a cornerstone of adult life. Live Science reports that the marriage rate in 1950 was a sky-high 90.2 per 1,000 people, a number that’s hard to even imagine today. Women were walking down the aisle at a median age of just over 20. Fast forward to now, and the landscape has completely changed. Marriage is a choice, not a requirement, centered on personal fulfillment and a deep, evolving partnership.

So, let’s delve into some of the marriage views from that unique time and see how they compare to our world today.

Getting married before you could legally drink was the norm

In the 1950s, tying the knot at a young age wasn’t just an option; it was the main event. The median age for a woman’s first marriage hit a record low of 20.1 in 1956. Men weren’t far behind, marrying around age 22.5.

A unique mix of post-war optimism, economic prosperity, and the sudden availability of affordable suburban housing in places like Levittown fueled this rush to the altar. According to sociologist Stephanie Coontz, the pressure was so intense that single women as young as 24 or 25 worried they were becoming “old maids.”

Today, we’ve hit the brakes. The median age for a first marriage has soared to around 28.6 for women and 30.2 for men. This massive shift isn’t about being anti-marriage; it’s about being pro-education and pro-career.

Women’s economic independence has allowed them to treat marriage not as a starting line for life, but as a capstone achievement once other life goals are met.

Marriage was practically a requirement for adulthood

Being single in the 1950s was, to put it mildly, suspicious. Marriage was seen as a near-universal duty. In 1950, a whopping 82% of women between 18 and 64 were married.

This wasn’t just social pressure; it was practically policy. During the Cold War, the stable, heterosexual nuclear family was promoted as a defense against communism, a matter of national security. Employers often viewed bachelors with distrust.

Contrast that with today, where marriage is just one of many valid life paths. The Pew Research Center reports that the share of married adults has dropped from a peak of 72% in 1960 to about half today. And cohabitation is booming. A majority of adults (59%) between 18 and 44 have lived with a partner, which is more than the 50% who have ever been married.

As marriage became a choice, it also, unintentionally, became a new marker of class and education, creating a social divide that didn’t exist in the ’50s.

Women were expected to “earn” a proposal

Getting a ring on it in the 1950s was seen as a campaign a woman had to win. The responsibility fell squarely on her shoulders. Books with titles like How to Make Him Propose advised women on how to wage a “dignified, common-sense campaign” to convince a man that marriage was better than bachelorhood.

Some women even attended “Marriage Readiness Courses” where they were taught to lower their expectations and improve their appearance to successfully “land a groom.” It was all based on the assumption that women were the primary beneficiaries of marriage and therefore had to work for it.

Today, the script has flipped. Modern relationships are about mutual choice and partnership. The whole concept has shifted from “earning a proposal” to “testing a partnership.” With higher divorce rates and women’s financial independence, the biggest risk isn’t staying single; it’s marrying the wrong person.

Cohabitation has become the new norm for risk management, with many couples viewing it as a practical “test run” before making a lifelong commitment.

Marrying for security was more common than marrying for love

While love was always part of the picture, 1950s marriage was, at its core, a business deal. It was an economic and social contract designed to create stability in a world still shaky from war and depression. The male-breadwinner and female-homemaker model was considered the most efficient way to run a household. For women with limited economic opportunities, marriage was often the primary path to financial security.

Now, love is the main reason people get married, by a long shot. A Pew Research Center survey found that 88% of Americans cite love as a very important reason to marry. Financial stability? It’s way down the list at just 28%.

This shift toward what sociologist Anthony Giddens calls a “pure relationship”—one based on mutual satisfaction—has made marriage more fulfilling than ever. But there’s a catch.

When personal happiness is the main goal, the marriage is held to a much higher standard, making it both more rewarding and, paradoxically, more fragile if those emotional needs aren’t met.

A wife’s primary job was to be a homemaker

In the 1950s, being a housewife was a highly respected, full-time career. Homemaking guides laid out incredibly detailed schedules, from the 6:00 am breakfast prep to ensuring the home was a pristine “haven of rest” for the husband’s return. Popular TV shows like Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best cemented this image of domestic perfection in the public consciousness.

Today, that world is largely gone. According to the Social Security Administration, in 1950, only about 24% of married women worked outside the home. By 2021, that number had jumped to nearly 57%. The professionalization of homemaking in the 1950s was a double-edged sword.

It validated the hard work women did at home but also trapped them there, creating the “feminine mystique” that Betty Friedan would later critique.

The husband was the undisputed head and sole breadwinner of the household

The 1950s household had a clear chain of command, and the husband was at the top. The male breadwinner model was the undisputed cultural ideal. His role as the sole provider gave him ultimate authority, both in the family and in the eyes of the law. A man’s success or failure at work was even seen as a direct reflection of the kind of home his wife created for him.

That model is now a relic. Today, in about a third of couples, women earn half or more of the household income. And as of 2024, nearly half of all married couples are dual-earner families. A 2010 Pew survey found that a majority of Americans (62%) believe marriages are better when both partners work and share responsibilities.

Interestingly, this shift has created a new kind of marital stress. Research by The University of Chicago shows that when a woman’s career success outpaces her husband’s, it can sometimes lead to conflict, suggesting a cultural lag between our belief in equality and our gut-level reactions to changing power dynamics.

A wife’s success was measured by her husband’s career

A 1950s wife was often seen as the secret weapon behind her husband’s success. Bestselling books like Dorothy Carnegie’s How to Help Your Husband Get Ahead coached women on how to be the perfect corporate spouse. It was widely believed that the “wrong wife” could break a man’s career.

Some universities even gave out honorary “PhT” (Putting Hubby Through) degrees to women who worked to support their husbands through college. This was seen as the ultimate act of wifely devotion. Today, that idea seems completely foreign. But looking back, that PhT phenomenon was more radical than it seemed.

Those women weren’t just being supportive; they were actively participating in the workforce and making strategic financial investments in their family’s future, quietly challenging the very system they seemed to uphold.

Household chores were strictly “women’s work”

In the 1950s, the lines were drawn in soap, not sand. The division of labor at home was stark. Cleaning, cooking, laundry, and childcare were all firmly in the wife’s job description. The idea of a husband pitching in with the dishes was, for the most part, laughable.

We’ve come a long way, but the “chore gap” is real. A 2020 Gallup poll showed that women are still the ones primarily handling the laundry (58%), cleaning (51%), and cooking (51%). However, the trend is moving toward equality. Since the mid-90s, women have become significantly less likely to be the sole person responsible for these tasks.

This lingering inequality is a major source of modern marital friction. While women have achieved near-equality in the workplace, the division of labor at home hasn’t caught up, creating a “second shift” of unpaid work that can lead to burnout and resentment.

A wife’s appearance was part of her duty

Looking good wasn’t just a suggestion in the 1950s; it was part of the job description. Homemaking guides gave explicit instructions: “Touch up your makeup, put a ribbon in your hair, and be fresh looking” for your husband’s arrival. The goal was to be “a little gay and a little more interesting” because “his boring day may need a lift.”

A woman’s appearance could even be blamed for her husband’s cheating. Today, the focus is on self-care for one’s own well-being, not as a duty to a partner.

The 1950s advice framed a wife’s appearance as a form of emotional labor—a tool to manage her husband’s mood and, by extension, secure her own economic stability in the marriage.

The husband’s comfort was the top priority

When a 1950s husband walked through the door, the entire household was expected to pivot. Wives were advised to “minimize all noise,” from the vacuum cleaner to the children. The perfect wife had a drink ready, would offer to take off his shoes, and would speak in a “low, soft, soothing and pleasant voice.” The home was meant to be his sanctuary, a place where he could “renew himself in body and spirit.”

Modern marriage is built on the idea of mutual support. Experts now emphasize that both partners likely had stressful days and should work together to create a relaxing home.

The 1950s ideal created a “haven” for the man by ensuring the woman’s labor—both physical and emotional—never stopped, a dynamic that today’s couples actively try to avoid.

A wife was responsible for her husband’s happiness (and bad behavior)

The emotional weight of a 1950s marriage rested almost entirely on the wife’s shoulders. If a husband drank too much, had an affair, or was abusive, marriage experts of the day often pointed the finger at the wife, asking what she did to cause it. One expert even assured women whose husbands were violent that simply avoiding arguments and indulging his whims would “foster harmony.”

This is now rightly seen as harmful victim-blaming. Modern relationship psychology, like the work of the Gottman Institute, emphasizes mutual responsibility. Both partners are accountable for their own actions and for contributing to the emotional health of the relationship.

This 1950s mindset wasn’t just bad advice; it was a form of social control. By blaming the woman, it discouraged divorce and maintained the patriarchal family structure, prioritizing the institution’s stability over the safety and well-being of the individuals within it.

Emotional intimacy wasn’t a primary focus

In the 1950s, keeping the peace was often more important than being honest. Magazine articles from the period reveal a startling lack of deep communication between spouses, with one writer lamenting how “extremely difficult for married people to talk to each other” it was. The goal was a harmonious home, which often meant wives suppressed their own feelings to avoid conflict.

Today, emotional intimacy is everything. It’s now considered the absolute foundation of a strong, healthy marriage, and its absence is a leading predictor of divorce. Experts like Dr. John Gottman have shown that the small, everyday moments of connection—what he calls “turning towards”—are what make a marriage last.

This 1950s focus on performing a role rather than engaging in authentic communication led to a quiet epidemic of unhappiness, especially for women who felt isolated and unheard in their own homes.

Sexual fulfillment was considered a husband’s prerogative

The 1950s marriage manual painted a very one-sided picture of the marriage bed. Sex was framed as a wife’s “duty” and “grave obligation.” One guide bluntly stated that while a wife “is equipped for pleasure… hers is not essential.”

The medical community was obsessed with “curing” female “frigidity”—defined as the inability to have a vaginal orgasm—because it was seen as a threat to the family unit. The burden of the “cure” was placed entirely on the woman’s psyche, with little attention paid to her actual pleasure or her husband’s role in it.

This stands in stark contrast to today’s understanding of sex as a vital form of mutual connection. Modern experts emphasize that a fulfilling sexual relationship, built on open communication and mutual pleasure, is crucial for bonding and reducing stress for both partners.

Financial decisions were the man’s domain

As the breadwinner, the 1950s husband held the purse strings. Under a legal concept called “coverture,” a married woman had very few individual property rights; her legal and financial identity was essentially merged with her husband’s. He made the big financial decisions because he made the money.

Today, money management is increasingly a team sport. While there’s still a gap between the ideal and reality—one UBS report found that only 20% of couples participate equally in long-term financial planning—the goal is partnership. Modern couples use hybrid systems like “yours, mine, and ours” bank accounts and schedule “money dates” to align on goals.

This shift reflects a deeper change in marriage itself, from a hierarchy to a collaborative enterprise where transparency and trust are the most valuable assets.

Divorce was seen as a personal failure, especially for the wife

Getting divorced in the 1950s was a social catastrophe. The divorce rate was low, and the stigma was immense. Since maintaining a happy home was traditionally considered the wife’s responsibility, a failed marriage was often viewed as her personal failure. Groups like “Divorcees Anonymous” even existed to help women avoid divorce at all costs.

Today, divorce is viewed as a difficult but legitimate end to an unhappy partnership. The focus has shifted from preserving the institution to prioritizing individual well-being and the right to pursue happiness. The lifetime divorce risk for couples married in the 1970s was approximately 50%, although this number has since declined for younger generations who are marrying later and more selectively.

This acceptance of divorce represents a complete reversal of 1950s values, prioritizing the happiness of the individual over the permanence of the institution.

16 Best Jobs for Pregnant Women

16 Best Jobs for Pregnant Women

Pregnancy is a transformative and joyous period in a woman’s life, but it comes with unique challenges and demands. One of the most crucial aspects during this time is ensuring a healthy work-life balance.

Finding the right job during pregnancy is not just about earning an income; it’s about maintaining your health, well-being, and peace of mind.