According to Stephanie Coontz chapter 17"How the Transformation of Marriage is Changing Our Lives", in an attempt to highlight the changing role of gender in marriage and cohabitation in the society of In 21 century, in reality it does so by strengthening gender roles, rather than destroying them, exactly the opposite. Although he rightly pointed out that a successful marriage in today's world has changed a lot, many factors need to be considered in the 1950s, perhaps it is still his subconscious mind insisting on some patriarchal stereotypes. He is not completely able to free himself from the socialization that every mind goes through while growing up. In this article, I will try to analyze the assumption of gender stereotypes and prejudices present in the study through the analysis of the language used and I will suggest how a more holistic idea and marriage is a more complete idea is to improve the status of men and women. women in society. Coontz's obviously feminist articles, which try to illustrate how women and men, belonging to different social categories, think about marriage. It highlights the fact that with the development of society and new government regulations, women are now empowered, enjoy a place where they can benefit from their personal choices and make more correct decisions. However, throughout the article it is assumed that men are more provoking than women. When it comes to marriage, women as the breadwinner of the family is never considered a viable option. It is assumed that men should always be employed in a married relationship or otherwise remain single. Recruitment is compulsory for men who enter into a marital relationship, while it is not always compulsory for women. This assumption… in the middle of the paper… their partner will receive good education, equality and greater understanding. It also assumes that such a couple will be less likely to divorce if “higher-income women have more influence in marriage than in the past and are more likely to have husbands who, at least in principle, support equality of genre” (291). But phrases explained with words like “likely,” “at least,” and “hopefully” suggest that this isn't always the case. To conclude this article, Coontz's idea of ​​femininity and marriage is explained with traditional ideas of gender roles. It attempts to deny the “time-tested rules” for a happy marriage, but provides no workable meaning to the institution of marriage. The best he does is end his article with the phrase "Even more than love and marriage, fulfilling and fragile they seem to" go together like horse and carriage”(301).