The party that has always been the primary caregiver is expected to keep that role, in general. Without a partner who works and gets paid, they are left scrambling to find a job. Since their resume has gone stale, they end up making a fraction of what they would have, had they stayed working. Don't forget, they're still probably the primary caregiver and have to handle finding daycare or babysitters so they can work and take care of of kids.
You can guess which parent generally get the more difficult role. So which side has it better?
My wife hasn't worked since she completed her Masters. If we split, she'd have a degree that qualifies her to be a teacher but not valid certifications. I make a very good salary. She'd have our kid because there's no math that would make sacrificing my job a reasonable option. I could give her half my net and I'd still live the high life but she would have to deal with all the details of scheduling our kid's life and I'd be able to opt out of it. I never plan to split but my life would be much easier than her life would be, if we did.
This is flat out incorrect. More than 2/3rds of married mothers in the US work.
Also, the division of assets is not out of proportion I think. If I got married and my partner left the workforce to take care of the home/children, I do think they should get their fair share of assets in case of divorce.
In the cases where both do, majority custody is almost always given to the wife.
> noting that nearly 30% of fathers surveyed did not want physical custody
> The outcome matched the re-quest for maternal custody in nearly 90% of such cases. See id. In contrast, paternal physical custody was awarded in only 75%
> in a 1992 study of 1,124 divorced families, 67.6% of children lived with their mothers; 15% lived with both parents on a joint custody basis; and only 9.5% lived with their fathers
If it was the 19th century and I observed that most women who took the bar exam passed the bar exam, would that prove that men and women were on an equal footing?
It would require other evidence (of which there is plenty, for the 19th century legal training pipeline, including explicit institutional discrimination) to show the bias.
But other evidence isn't just an unsupported narrative.
~30% of men don't want ANY custody. Yet ~67% of children live only with their mother.
Assuming that 100% of children that the father didn't want go to the mother (they don't - some go to the system or relatives) - that means in 47% of the other cases, the mother gets FULL custody.
So this means for 100% of those 47% of cases, the father did not want the mother to get FULL custody, but that's what the court decided.
:popcorn:
It says that men are more likely than women to take risks across several domains. This does not support the idea that men (more than women) are "risk assessors by nature".
The article also says that women and men are equally likely to take risks in the social domain... which probably includes marriage.
In general, I think the blithe characterization of men and women in this way does not move the dialogue forward.
There's a proverb about apples that seems relevant.
Marriage is a huge liability. Men are gambling with nearly all their lives on their partner's unwillingness into a divorce.
On the other hand I've heard rumors where therapists were suggesting divorce to married women. I don't know how widespread that is but maybe something worth looking into.