That's an interesting share, and I suppose it basically comes back to the societal standards of the previous billion years: a successful woman trades in either wealth or education, not both. It comes down to keeping the delicate balance of ego. Regarding the bolded text, love and its concepts are fantastic, but there is just more to life than that. The majority of marriages are contracts, and both parties are primarily seeking a win-win scenario.
A wealthy and successful woman may fall in love with a man who is less accomplished (in terms of education, wealth, status, or even intelligence), but over time, love is insufficient to close the gaps that widen when the woman is unable to change the diapers or prepare breakfast on time due to a crucial meeting. Because her husband isn't as "busy" as she is, she may eventually force the task onto him. Women's liberation or male ego? He either adjusts or becomes offended. I have mostly seen the former and very little of the latter.
The conclusion isn't all that shocking because marriage is ultimately about status. You would think that its significance would eventually wane, but in the upper class, where keeping up with the Joneses is practically a means of existence, the contrary is likely true.
Furthermore, I don't think this is an either/or question because different cultures, economies, personal preferences, and other factors will determine what constitutes a good marriage. However, since the Middle Ages, we have insisted on using the same marital vows for every couple. It's truly astounding and demonstrates how foolish the previous and ongoing resistance to homosexual marriage was and is on both sides (radicals and social cons).
