TIME CAPSULE: A well-known sociologist, predicted that “two-thirds of this country’s ‘war marriages’ were doomed to break up,” a figure of greatly exaggerated proportions. Other writers repeated his prediction. A year after the war’s end, Newsweek confirmed the bad news, announcing in dramatic language that “in 1945 there were 31 divorces for every 100 marriages ”¦ double pre-war totals.” It was not pointed out however, that not only were these numbers appreciably lower than those predicted, but also that there had been an artificial lull in divorces during the war due to the fact that servicemen were protected by law from a civil suit, including divorce cases. Moreover, the most sensational statistics cited were those of known “divorce-mill” states. Only at the end of the article were these two revealing comments added “only eight percent of couples with children broke up their homes” and “the majority of divorces were not GI.” A Chicago Circuit Court Judge stated: “in the 324 cases I heard during one month, 266, or 82 percent, represented pre-Pearl Harbor marriages.” In other words, four out of every five of these furor-raising divorces were the ending of marriages that began before the war, rather than one of the much-castigated wartime marriages. Doubtless, many of these prewar unions were based on the economic dependence of the wife and though this was a point none of these writers pursued, quite possibly the key to the breakup was the new economic freedom women earned with wartime employment opportunities. The fact that “women college graduates were four times as likely to make unsuccessful marriages as men graduates” also went unexplored. The statistical evidence was clear; women who were most likely to be economically independent were also those least dependent on marriage. Having the financial freedom to end a bad marriage, however, did not imply judicial freedom. “While you’re in the process of getting your divorce,” McCall warned its readers, “you’ll fret uselessly at the formidable hurdles that conscientious lawmakers have placed in your path. Nowhere in the United States has divorce by mutual consent been legalized. In most states the proof required varies and if there is a contest you may find that the courts will deny you a divorce and sometimes will deny it even when there is no opposition. Many states require you to wait regardless of time. In some states the courts have the power to prohibit the guilty person from marrying during the lifetime of the innocent spouse.” Reform of divorce laws became one of the first priorities of postwar feminists, a success story so complete that now it is taken for granted that individuals have the right to terminate a marriage they agree is no longer viable. The assumption that the state has a right to contradict the consensual decision of a couple is almost totally gone, with the major function of the state having become the division of assets and custody. Buried between the lines of many who warned against marriage in wartime is a view of women as at best, inherently naive and helpless, hopelessly romantic and dangerously beguiling to the male bereft of their advice; or at worst, fortune hunters callously entrapping soldiers for their money. The war, however, with its increased cracking of social codes, dimmed the defining lines, as “nice girls” did things that previously meant instant loss of respectability. The ancient division of women into whores or saints was less easy. When men danced with women at the USO without intention of future involvement or when they worked next to them in factory and office, they began to see women as real people who were as individually different as men. The “divorce danger” predicted by anti-marriage moralists may be instead largely a fear of the wider social change implicit when the traditionally dependent woman became financially and legally free. These views made it almost impossible for them to even entertain the idea that in some cases, divorce might be a good thing.