Search Results: family vs relationship

Basically, in order for relationships and I guess society to improve, should men improve first, or should women?

And now here's the long explanation.
It's no secret that the divorce rate has increased in the past decades. It's also no secret that single parenthood - especially single motherhood- households have increased substantially. We are now seeing its (detrimental) affects on kids and society - higher rates of depression, aggression, suicide, poor grades and disciplinary issues, dropping out of school, unemployment, poverty, drug and substance usage and addiction, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior and incarceration, etc.

We see constantly people asking why relationships are failing, where society is heading as the nuclear family is being worn away if we continue this trend. Women wonder where are all the good men? Men wonder, especially in the west, are there much "marriage" material women left? How to attract such mates? I've heard many women say what's the point of being a good woman if they still get cheated on. And I've heard men say what's the point of being a good man if women aren't attracted to good men.
Common advice is you need to be a good woman to attract a good man, and vice versa. But in society, which gender needs to improve first. It's kind of a chicken vs egg, which comes first?

TLDR: So my question is, in order for relationships to be fixed in society (reduce divorce rate, reduce single parenthood, etc), who needs to improve first? Men? Women? Both? Neither? What is a "good man/woman"?
Please no trolls, misogyny or misandry.

I asked a question regarding stay-at-home motherhood, & a lot of people said "that's sexist!!! What about stay-at-home fatherhood?"

But stay-at-home fatherhood *isn't* as practical as stay-at-home motherhood. Unless a family is fine losing income whenever the mother needs to take off work for morning sickness during pregnancy:

"70% of women experience moderate to severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy... Half of pregnant women end up having to miss work due to nausea and vomiting, 74% of which miss at least 3 days."

And even when you're in work, it's understandable it'd be harder to work as efficiently when you're in so much pain from nausea, body aches, heartburn, etc. So the man could probably get income more efficiently.

After the birth, men don't have the breasts necessary to breastfeed for the 2+ years recommended by doctors the optimal physical/emotional well-being of the child.

Someone pointed out that mothers rarely keep breastfeeding for that time, which is true, but that's because most mothers have to go back to work, which wouldn't be the case in stay-at-home motherhood.

Some people advocated breast-pumps, but that's still depriving the child of the unique hormonal benefit of oxytocin that comes from latching against the mother's breast.

Anyway, even from a feminist perspective, stay-at-home fatherhood isn't ideal because studies show that women do most of the housework even when the man doesn't have a job.

It's true that SAHM means women make less money economically, but the greater bond with the children also means that the children will be more willing to financially support them later.

Before the kids have jobs, it makes it harder for the woman to escape an abusive relationship, which is why we should advocate for available/suitable shelters/services for abused women, rather than advocating more women in the workforce.