What's wrong with this logic?

Why do women overwhelmingly file for divorce? Until 1964, an employer could refuse to hire you because you're a woman. Until 1974, refusing to sell a woman a home was legal. Until the 1970s, banks could refuse a women credit cards and bank accounts unless co-signed by her husband. Until 1988, you could refuse to rent to women with children. Grandma didn't stay in relationships because they were better then, it's because society wasn't built for her independence. 

The reasoning in this passage is attempting to answer the question of why women overwhelmingly file for divorce by citing historical legal restrictions on women's independence. However, there are several issues with the logic and reasoning:

1. **Correlation vs. Causation Fallacy**: The passage implies a causal relationship between historical legal restrictions and why women file for divorce today. While historical contexts certainly impact societal dynamics, the passage doesn't provide direct evidence showing that these specific legal changes cause the current higher rate of divorces filed by women.

2. **Oversimplification**: The explanation reduces a complex issue to a singular historical perspective. The dynamics around why women file for divorce are multifaceted and can include contemporary factors such as changes in societal norms, economic independence, shifts in gender roles, personal relationship dynamics, and more.

3. **False Dichotomy**: The passage suggests that the only reason women didn't file for divorce in the past was due to societal restrictions, ignoring other possible reasons like personal, cultural, or religious beliefs, or contentment in some marriages despite societal constraints.

4. **Historical Context Misapplication**: While it's true that past societal structures limited women's independence, these historical facts are not directly addressing the current societal reasons for why women might choose to file for divorce today.

5. **Appeal to History**: The argument heavily relies on historical practices to explain a contemporary issue. While history can offer insights, it is a logical fallacy to use historical precedent as the sole explanation for modern phenomena without accounting for current societal changes and individual agency.

Overall, the passage needs a more nuanced approach, considering a wider range of contemporary factors and evidence, to effectively address the question of why women today file for divorce with greater frequency.

This is not a “Dear Abby” website. I don’t know where you get the information you use as premises, but from personal experience, I can tell you you should check your premises because what you claim here as facts is wrong. 

The examples provided show a pretty clear pattern of changes that were made to the law which allow a woman to be financially autonomous without a husband. So, it stands to reason that there likely were women who wanted to divorce their husbands, but didn't for financial reasons, and that more women would seek divorces as the laws become more equal. 

The issue, though, is that it doesn't go on to explain why the rates are unequal. If unequal laws were the only factor at play, you'd expect the rates of men and women initiating divorce to be about equal once they're removed.