Marriage is a deeply flawed institution. Historian Stephanie Coontz traces its use as a tool of oppression across centuries—from property arrangements to legal coverture to the systematic denial of women’s autonomy. And yet, 90% of young people still say they expect to marry.

Most young couples think they’re beyond worrying about gender norms, that the world sees men and women as equals. But the research actually shows that we’re nowhere near as progressive as we think we are. The patterns are still there, just better disguised.

The Illusion of Equality

All modern marital education programs are based on outdated gender science. They teach communication skills and conflict resolution, which are valuable, but they completely sidestep the structural inequality baked into marriage as an institution. They assume couples start from a place of equality and just need tools to maintain it.

They’re wrong.

Meanwhile, social media is flooded with conversations about the persistence of unequal partnerships, weaponized incompetence, and the mental load—concepts that have exploded in cultural consciousness, precisely because they name something millions of people are experiencing but couldn’t quite articulate. These aren’t just trendy terms. They’re describing real patterns that are destroying marriages.

Weaponized incompetence—when someone strategically performs tasks poorly to avoid responsibility became one of 2025’s most discussed relationship dynamics. It’s the partner who “forgets” how to load the dishwasher correctly, who claims they “just aren’t good at” making doctor’s appointments for their own children, who needs constant reminders and detailed instructions for tasks they’re perfectly capable of managing. Recent research identifies this as more than just annoying; it’s a manipulation tactic that shifts the mental load onto one partner while the other maintains plausible deniability.

The mental load—the invisible cognitive labor of managing household operations—has become a defining feature of heterosexual marriage inequality. One partner holds the family schedule in their head, tracks what needs to happen when, anticipates future needs, and manages the emotional work of keeping everyone functioning. The other partner might “help” when asked, but never carries the weight of actually remembering, planning, or initiating.

But researchers have now identified something even more insidious: personal essentialism. This is where couples use “personality traits” to justify fundamentally unequal behaviors. “She’s just naturally better at organizing.” “He’s not a details person.” “I’m the worrier in our relationship.” These explanations allow couples to acknowledge inequality while denying it has anything to do with gender ideology. Instead, they understand patterns as simply who they are—not as men and women, but as individuals.

Researcher Allison Daminger‘s work reveals how this personal essentialist logic helps couples maintain the peace while simultaneously ensuring nothing actually changes. When inequality is reframed as a matter of personality rather than power, there’s no reason to challenge it. After all, you can’t argue with someone’s essential nature, right?

Except that these “personality differences” map almost perfectly onto gender lines. The partner who is “naturally better at emotional labor” is overwhelmingly the woman. The one who “just isn’t wired for multitasking” is overwhelmingly the man. Personal essentialism is just gender essentialism in more palatable packaging.

Why 70% of Divorces are Initiated by Women: The Numbers Tell the Story

Consider this: women initiate approximately 70% of divorces in heterosexual marriages. This isn’t random. Research by Michael Rosenfeld demonstrates that women file for divorce more frequently because they’re more dissatisfied with the marriage—specifically with the unequal emotional labor, the weaponized incompetence they’re managing, and their increased economic independence that finally makes leaving possible.

Women as a whole don’t reap the same benefits from marriage that men do in heterosexual partnerships. Study after study confirms what many women already know from lived experience: most heterosexual relationships are simply not equal, no matter what couples believe about themselves going in.

The Wedding Industry’s Role—And What Marital Preparation Ignores

The wedding industry itself contributes to upholding inequality. Wedding planning is typically the first major project couples manage together, and research shows that unequal wedding planning predicts unequal household labor throughout marriage. Who researches vendors? Who manages family dynamics? Who carries the mental load of tracking deposits and timelines? These patterns establish the relationship standard and often lock in for years.

But here’s what almost no one in the wedding or marital preparation industry will tell you: the systemic barriers different couples face aren’t just about gender. They’re about race, class, ability, sexual orientation, and whose relationships get treated as legitimate in the first place.

The most popular premarital education programs—PREPARE/ENRICH, SYMBIS, PREP, Gottman Method—were all created by white men, for white heterosexual Christian couples. They assume a certain kind of normal: dual income but still somehow organized around traditional gender roles, middle-class, able-bodied, and operating within a cultural context that validates their relationship’s existence. When these programs offer “customizations” for diverse couples, it’s typically limited to faith traditions—and even then, only certain ones. There are workbooks for four Christian denominations and Jewish couples, but nothing for Muslim, Hindu, or interfaith partnerships. Nothing that addresses the specific challenges faced by same-sex couples, interracial couples, or disabled couples. Nothing that acknowledges how systemic racism, ableism, or homophobia creates unique stressors that require different tools and frameworks.

The wedding industry reflects this same hierarchy. Yes, there are wedding vendors who embrace equality, those who work intentionally with both partners, who challenge gendered traditions, and who celebrate all types of love. But other wedding vendors have literally been used as tools to try to dismantle marriage equality at the level of the Supreme Court. And many more operate in the vast middle ground, paying lip service to inclusion while their default assumptions center white, heterosexual, traditional partnerships.

When marital preparation programs ignore these realities, they don’t just fail to help couples—they actively harm them by suggesting that systemic barriers are personal problems to solve. A Black couple navigating racialized gender expectations doesn’t just need communication skills; they need acknowledgment that the pressures they face aren’t their fault. A same-sex couple building a relationship without cultural templates needs more than generic advice about conflict resolution. A couple where one partner is disabled needs recognition that ableism will shape their partnership in ways that matter.

The people who need relationship support most—those facing financial stress, working multiple jobs, dealing with discrimination—are the least likely to access programs that assume everyone has the same middle-class problems. The relationship education industry claims to prepare couples for success while simultaneously normalizing one very specific family structure and treating everyone else as exceptions requiring minor tweaks to the standard model.

And Yet, Marriage Can Be Beautiful

Despite everything, marriage can also be beautiful. There is a loneliness and mental health epidemic right now, and it’s affecting everyone. Our relationships are our greatest asset. They bring tremendous joy and meaning into our lives. The research on social connection is unequivocal—humans need each other.

So we arrive at an impossible question: should couples who care about equality even get married?

I don’t know. But I do know that society is absolutely predicated on the importance of marriage. It’s often the only way to secure financial rights, medical decision-making power, and parental recognition. Just as there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, perhaps there’s no ethical love under marriage fundamentalism—but we still have to live in the world we’ve got.

Building An Equal Marriage: Creating Something Different in an Unequal World

What do engaged couples need to know to build truly equal marriages? What do couples experiencing inequality need to do to right the ship? Is it even possible?

I think it is. But it requires something most couples aren’t getting: honest conversations about how gender shapes relationships before the patterns solidify.

It means recognizing weaponized incompetence for what it is—not a cute personality quirk, but a dynamic that will erode partnership over time. When one partner consistently claims they “can’t” do basic tasks that millions of other adults manage daily, that’s not incompetence. That’s a choice about who will carry the burden.

It means refusing to accept that one person is ‘just naturally better’ at the mental load. Nobody is born knowing how to coordinate family schedules or remember when the dog needs flea medication, just like nobody is born knowing how to orchestrate the entire cognitive architecture of holiday magic. These are learned skills, and the reason one partner seems naturally better is usually because they’ve been doing it alone while the other has been excused from learning. Remember, even Santa needed help, he just got all the credit.

It means understanding that wedding planning isn’t just about napkin colors; it’s a preview of how you’ll manage every shared project in your marriage. The partner who takes charge of vendor research, family management, and detail tracking during wedding planning typically continues that pattern with house-hunting, career decisions, and eventually parenting. These early patterns are remarkably sticky.

It means having these conversations before you’re exhausted and resentful, when there’s still curiosity instead of contempt, when patterns are forming rather than cemented. Once someone has been carrying the mental load alone for five years, the conversation becomes exponentially harder.

Most importantly, it means acknowledging that achieving equality in marriage isn’t about being perfect. It’s about being willing to see the systems we’re embedded in—the ones telling us this is just how things are, that these patterns are natural and inevitable—and choosing to build something different anyway.

This requires vulnerability. The person who’s been overfunctioning has to learn to step back and tolerate the discomfort of watching their partner figure things out. The person who’s been underfunctioning has to face that their “incompetence” has been a convenient way to avoid responsibility, and commit to actually learning instead of performing helplessness.

It requires both partners to recognize that equality isn’t just about who does the dishes. It’s about who holds the knowledge that dishes need to be done, who tracks when you’re running low on dish soap, who thinks ahead to what time dishes need to be finished so the kitchen is clean before overnight guests arrive. That’s the mental load, and until both partners are carrying it equally, you don’t have equality.

This is the work. Not because marriage is broken beyond repair, but because the relationships we build with intention, with eyes wide open to both history and hope, are the ones that actually have a shot at becoming what we claim to want: true partnerships.

The institution of marriage carries centuries of baggage. But institutions are made of people, and people can choose to do things differently. Every couple that builds genuine equality creates a template for others. Every partnership that refuses to accept weaponized incompetence as inevitable pushes back against the cultural current. Every marriage where both partners carry the mental load equally demonstrates that it’s possible.

So should couples who care about equality get married? Maybe the better question is: are you willing to do the work of building an equal marriage in a world that’s still figuring out what that even means? Because that’s what it takes. Not perfection. Not pretending gender doesn’t matter. But honest, intentional effort to create something better than what came before.

That’s the contribution. That’s the hope. And that’s exactly what this moment requires—couples willing to see marriage clearly, contradictions and all, and choosing partnership anyway.

Ready to build an equal marriage from the start? The Alchemy Intensive addresses what traditional premarital programs ignore: how to create true partnership equality. Learn more about our March 27-30, 2026 retreat at the Ritz-Carlton Bacara.

Frequently Asked Questions About Building an Equal Marriage

What is weaponized incompetence in marriage?

Weaponized incompetence is when one partner strategically performs tasks poorly or claims inability to avoid responsibility. It shifts the burden onto the other partner while maintaining plausible deniability. Examples include “forgetting” how to load the dishwasher correctly or claiming they “just aren’t good at” making appointments, forcing their partner to either do it themselves or constantly manage and remind them.

What is the mental load in relationships?

The mental load, also called cognitive labor, is the invisible work of managing household operations. It includes anticipating needs, identifying solutions, making decisions, and monitoring progress. One partner holds the family schedule, tracks what needs to happen when, and manages the emotional work of keeping everyone functioning—even if the other partner “helps” when asked.

Why do women initiate 70% of divorces?

Research by Michael Rosenfeld demonstrates that women file for divorce more frequently because they’re more dissatisfied with the marriage—specifically with unequal emotional labor, weaponized incompetence, and the mental load they’re carrying. Women’s increased economic independence also makes leaving financially possible when it wasn’t before.

Can you actually have an equal marriage?

Yes, but it requires intentional effort to create something different than what came before. Both partners must recognize weaponized incompetence and refuse to accept it, share the mental load equally (not just physical tasks), and have honest conversations about gender expectations before patterns solidify. Equality in marriage isn’t about perfection—it’s about being willing to see the systems we’re embedded in and choosing to build something different anyway.