The number of married households where the husband is the primary breadwinner is no longer anywhere 90%. Yet, physical custody is still granted to women 90% of the time. Why?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
You, yourself said that in many cases, exes share physical custody - two weeks here, two weeks there. In that custody is roughly 50 - 50, why would ANY of these women receive child support? Would it not be more appropriate that each parent pay for the expenses they incur while the child is with them, and any shared expenses (tuition, unpaid medical bills, etc.) be split evenly? Why do ANY of these women get child support? ANY??
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
“Likewise, child support should then follow according to the needs and interest of the child—not as punishment or reward for the parents.”
If we're talking about the interests of the children, why is no-fault divorce permitted at all where there are children, now that we know the horrible deformation of children that divorce causes?
Because no-fault divorce is both an escape hatch for women and a way to milk men for all they have. The law is inherently biased against men.
As for punishment, how is it in the best interest of the child to see the majesty of the LAW reward people for unilaterally breaking the marriage contract without cause? Does that not damage the child's moral development? Why is the law-BREAKER rewarded, to the detriment of the child?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
“Most women in marriages are the ones who compromise with lesser hours at the less demanding jobs...”
Not as much anymore. Most college degrees today, and most graduate degrees, are awarded to women. Women have made dramatic gains in jobs and wages in the last 40 years, and are much closer to par than they once were. By the same token, job opportunities for men have declined dramatically in the past 40 years. The traditional “mommy stays at home or works part-time and daddy is the primary breadwinner” might still apply in a majority of married households, but certainly, not in 90% of divorces with children. Certainly not in my brother's marriage and divorce. Yet, women still get physical custody nearly 90% of the time. Why?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
“And I myself gave you an example of a woman paying child support, while saying that it was the exception rather than the rule.”
Big deal. You, yourself admit, it's the exception, not the rule.
“... but I have certainly been told by women of their husbands actively trying to make them leave, so that the husband could get the upper hand in a property settlement.”
This happens far more frequently to men by their lying, cheating, scum-sucking wives. It happened to my brother. The slut promised to seek joint marriage counseling if he would leave the family home, to give it, the slut, space. The slut wouldn't give him notice in writing that this is to what the slut agreed. It told him that it loved him, and he relented. That's how it got the first unjust child support agreement. When my brother brought this to the attention of the court, they didn't care. Why?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
It has changed a little over the decades. Not that long ago, men had nearly no chance at custody. Now they get it about 13% of the time.
But basically, no-fault divorce is a legal vehicle available to women to screw their husbands legally when they get bored, or tired, or fall for someone else, or just want to be free from the obligations of marriage, and want a free ride paid for by their ex-husbands.
Men who marry today do so at their own peril.
REAL women, if there are any left after my wife, should be fighting to reform no-fault divorce law. Otherwise, many of the best men will not marry.
Or, they will insist on tight pre-nuptial agreements (especially men who either have earned any wealth or come from families with any accumulated wealth) that really aren't good for women, or anyone. Very sad.
Any way, far from being the misogynist of your unjust accusation, or a bitter divorced man of your overactive imagination, I'm just a happily married guy of 30+ years with two great sons and the best wife in the world who has seen the horrors of no-fault divorce up=close, and has researched the statistics, and see that the injustices that oppress men ultimately redound to the harm of women, too.
Many men are on strike against marriage, and it is the fault of the divorce laws and the evil women who use them for their own selfish gain and pleasure.
sitetest
Wow. I feel sorry for you for seeing things through that kind of lens. No-fault divorce was actually instituted in large part to protect children from messy divorces with dirty laundry aired.
If women have sacrificed professionally for child rearing, then yes, men should supplement their income with child support unless he has fewer resources than she.
If the law does not accord preferences by gender then it is not biased by gender.
And it’s not that long ago that houses were in the husband’s name only and thereby remained his property through divorce.