The incentives aren't specific to women though.

Suppose you were a stay at home dad married to a high earning wife. You then meet a new woman you find more attractive. Under most Western countries' laws you can divorce your wife for no reason other than you no longer find her attractive, and she has to pay you alimony and child support to maintain your lifestyle while you're dating your new, hotter partner.

What's the downside to you? Seems there isn't any.

It seems obvious that a system setup like that will increase divorces initiated by stay at home parents, and hence increase single parent households.

So, the no fault divorce system has to be absolutely perfect to be acceptable?

To be honest, I don't see anything wrong in your scenario. People fall out of love for lots of reasons, making them miserable by making it harder to split up doesn't seem like a particularly good solution to me. The scenario you've raised would have to involve a very emotionally shallow individual whom the other partner would be better off without anyway.

> whom the other partner would be better off without anyway

So you think half your future earnings is a reasonable price to pay to rid yourself of a shallow partner?

The scenario isn't fleshed out enough to make any judgment on that.

Is Shallow Hal doing the majority of the childcare? Do they need to find somewhere to live to perform that function?

In the general sense that a house husband should be treated like a stay at home mom in a divorce settlement, there is nothing at all wrong here.

> "So, the no fault divorce system has to be absolutely perfect to be acceptable?"

Didn't you just write in another post above "There is only one acceptable level of violence and abuse and that is zero."?

This is exactly the kind of refusal of admitting the existence of trade-off I was speaking of. To pursue a noble goal of reducing abuse and violence to zero, other noble goals are sacrificed. This sacrifice, while very real, is not acknowledged, because the narrative claims we can satisfy all of our goals perfectly at the same time. This might even be possible, but, quite apparently, not using the currently proposed approaches. Nevertheless, the narrative rejects the idea of admitting that the current approaches are anything less then perfect, because it would mean admitting the existence of the trade off.

Thank you for proving my point.

You're welcome!