Peter G. Stillman argues: "Is it not the case that if you use 'neoclassical economics' to model a vision of the family that includes 'till divorce do us part' that the conclusions will differ, most likely, from Becker's (among other things, the wife's interest is for her to be working or to capable of working - see J S Mill, The Subjection of Women [1869])?" "If so, as I think you think is the case, then I am inclined to see Becker's article as ideological and non-feminist, because in building in a counterfactual assumption ('till death do us part') he allows himself an assumption that ... is not only wrong in 50% of the cases (or whatever) but also (neatly) is an assumption that biases his model towards keeping the little lady barefoot and pregnant (and doing housework)." On the contrary, I think the family (joint) utility function employed by most men and women who get married is of the "till death do us part" variety. The fact that 50% "or whatever" of marriages may fail does not at all undermine Gary Becker's contribution to our understanding of the marriage and divorce phenomenon. It is a matter of reality confronting expectations when one or both parties decide to divorce. As Becker well puts it: "The incentive to separate is greater ... the more convinced a person becomes that the marriage was a 'mistake.' This conviction could result from additional information about one's mate or other potential mates. (Some 'search' goes on, perhaps subconsciously even while one is married!) If the 'mistake' is considered large enough to outweigh the loss in marriage-specific capital, separation and perhaps divorce will follow." This is employing the ever present benefit-cost or pain-pleasure calculation that guides human choices, as we find even in the work of Xenophon. The response, "Because it is worth it," to the question, "Why is divorce so expensive [in America]?" pretty much reflects the same benefit-cost understanding. In fact, Becker reaches the conclusion about separation and divorce after taking into account the ease or difficulty of getting a divorce in different states as well as in Latin America. I get the distinct impression that Peter Stillman is so eager to accuse Gary Becker of carrying an ideological baggage that he (Stillman) hardly bothers to read what Becker has written on this subject. I also think it is because most people get married with the "till death do us part" utility function that divorce attorneys find so much work to do, including dividing "community property" and designing ways to assure that the "disadvantaged" party is made whole. The "till divorce do us part" variety of marriages would be rather easy to dissolve and would leave much less room for accusations of having been exploited. Becker concludes his article with a reference to "the value of our economic approach in understanding marital patterns." He preaches nothing, but seeks to explain. I think his work is more enlightening than the likes of Peter Stillman are inclined to accord him. James Ahiakpor