Nowhere have I said that all women are always at fault. Nor did the article imply any such thing. So, for the record, my belief is that in most cases both parties share blame, although usually not equally. I don't think there is any justification for placing blame predomininantly on persons of either gender. In fact, that's my problem with the current system: men are presumed guilty unless they can show the woman is a real loser.
If you don't want to take the risk. Don't marry don't have children. Nothing in life is risk free.
Actually, I have never married and have no children. And I doubt I ever will, given the way things are in this society. Risk is one thing. Risks unfairly placed on the innocent is another.
I don't think men understand what it's like to be a female. If men think they have it hard. Women have it 10 times harder.
Two wrongs don't make a right. It's morally wrong to try to compensate for whatever wrongs and indignities that women may suffer by blindly hurting innocent men. Only individuals have guilt or innocence. Only individuals have rights and responsibilities. It's the socialists who think otherwise.
The facts of life are that women initiate 90% of divorces, of the 50% of marriages that end in divorce. Shall we assume that in 90% of cases the man is an evil beast, or shall we assume that, with the deck stacked against the male so much, the woman HAS NO INCENTIVE to work to make the marriage work?
How so?