Here we go some more:
Sure, being single is fun—for a while. But most people don’t want to stay single forever. Men and women are irrevocably drawn to one another. Since the beginning of time, this attraction has been the driving force of our survival as a species—and until recent decades, has almost always resulted in lasting marriage.
Sound [redacted because ableism]? Silly? Something only our grandmothers did? Perhaps. But our grandmothers found husbands and kept them.
No. NO. Are you people writing these glowing treatises of marriage dense? (See previous post here.) Are you willfully obtuse? Is there seriously some university somewhere that gives out history degrees in fake 1950's history? Is that what it is?
The Marriage Forever And Ever thing is so willfully obtuse I don't know where to start. Divorce and annulment has pretty much always been available to privileged men. The only thing that has majorly changed in recent times is that the privilege of divorce (and/or annulment) has been extended to the less privileged people, including women and poorer people.
And the Found Husbands and Kept Them thing is so mendacious because it equates "stayed married on paper" with "stayed married in spirit". Lots and lots and LOTS of married people have stayed married through separations (both physical and emotional) and have sought love and comfort outside the marriage (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's worth pointing out in a post about how women "kept" husbands as though the husbands were all universally faithful to their marriage).
I'm really getting so terribly tired of these authors who basically ignore everything we know about the history of marriage and insist that all marriages were permanent and faithful and fulfilling by definition. We have copious evidence that that is a fiction.
(Hat-tip to The Historianess.)
P.S. Anything recommended by Christina Hoff Sommers should probably be avoided on principle.