Historically, the division of labour in marriage often saw men as the breadwinners, while women tended to the home. Granted, this is traditional, and the feminist in me could talk all day about how such arrangements are informed by and perpetuate misogynistic stereotypes under patriarchal practices (but I will save that fiery discourse for another article). Nonetheless, viewing it through a purely functional lens, this model does establish a mutualistic, symbiotic relationship; both parties have their roles and contribute to the marriage accordingly.

This begs the question: in the context of marriage, who gets the better end of the deal? In the traditional setup, picture a scene where some wives morph into second mothers, perennially picking up dirty socks—a throwback to their husbands' teenage years. Here, it seems, the husband might be getting the better deal. Conversely, consider a husband toiling away to provide a comfortable lifestyle for his household at the expense of family time and personal leisure, only to feel underappreciated and unrecognised for his sacrifices. In this scenario, the scales might tip in favour of the wife.

Therefore, to come back to our question, your answer most likely hinges on a simple "it depends," given the varied dynamics in marital relationships. However, times are changing and with it these relationship dynamics. More women are not only entering the workforce but also excelling in it, thereby flipping the financial script within marriages. “Go girls! Hooray for feminism!” I hear you cry. Not so fast. The professional transgression of women does not translate well into marital dynamics.

The ideal, you'd think, would be a smooth transition away from patriarchal stereotypes, with these women finding partners happy to take on homemaking and child-rearing. A stay-at-home husband? Hot. But now, in a different way, many marriages are falling short of the ideal, balanced, 50/50 partnership.

Women are increasingly taking on dual burdens—earning the income while still expected to juggle housework and childcare. Where one stereotype is fading (men as the primary breadwinners), the other is not (women as chiefly responsible for the household). The supposed symbiosis is thus disrupted, leaving women to ponder the benefits of marriage when they're effectively doing it all.

This shift has profound implications for the institution of marriage itself. Where women once might have seen marriage as a route to financial stability—given historical discouragements from pursuing careers—they now find themselves capable of financial independence, able to pursue passions and talents outside of the traditional roles prescribed to women. So, why would I get married if I’m girl-bossing a nine-to-five to bring home the bacon and I have to pick up socks and do the dishes and change nappies? Why marry if the economic benefits are paired with disproportionate domestic responsibilities?

This dilemma for career driven women in the contemporary age is reflected in statistics showing more and more people refraining from marriage altogether. Divorce rates spike when husbands earn significantly less than their wives, and their stress levels soar when their wives bring home more than 40% of the household income. It’s becoming apparent that the marital arrangement only thrives when it is a traditional one. The increasing participation of women in the workforce and academia, coupled with their growing financial independence, seems to be complicating the marriage institution.

As young women, this is scary. Many of us want to get married, to say “I do”, to have that picture perfect romance and Amalfi-coast wedding. But we are facing the reality that achieving this often requires sacrificing the pursuit of financial independence and a career, which is something many of us want as well.