[zepto]

That becomes somewhat circular. It is impossible to reduce the social pressures on women to parent without simultaneously reducing the social pressures on men not to parent.

Clearly in this case, the man wanted to parent. The thing stopping him was the power of the court’s decision.

In the presence of a legal framework like this the only reasonable choice for a man is to assume he is expected not to parent, since that is what the courts will enforce.

The legislature acts to change other kinds of discriminatory legal framework, and this is no different.

[miker64]

A question I have here, is _was_ he parenting before the divorce? The court has only the testimony and financial state of the two people on which to go with. If he was the one making the money, and she was home with the child, what does that say about _who_ was doing what work?

And yes, it would be good for there to be more pressure on men to parent, and on there being more acceptable models of parenting partnerships than breadwinner and child rearer.

I don't like the idea of court standards being tied to gender (or gendered roles), but it does have to take into account who was doing what work and how to ensure the safety of children while the parents disentangle their marital and financial bonds.

[zepto]

Ok, so you think he might be lying.

That’s always possible, but it seems irrelevant to the argument.