Why are you assuming the father doesn't "understand the nuances"?
Because the father isn't taking care of the child on a daily basis, dealing with all the things involved in a daily basis while the father is working? I just gave you an example of how my wife doesn't know all the nuances of picking up my kids because she doesn't do pick up. Then there is the issue of familiarity where the kids are used to one parent doing the regular daily routine over another. I know my daughter gets upset when we mix our schedule roles up.
A bigger disruption: not having food on the table. So why is the smaller disruption given precedence over the bigger one?
Where do you get no food on the table? The father is providing child support to continue food on the table. That's what child support is for. You really sound like you're talking out of your element here.
When you stated this:
The man broke into the woman's house and forced marriage upon her, impregnated her and then made her quit her job and stay home with the kids while he worked two jobs to support this arrangement that was obviously only beneficial to him. The woman had absolutely no say in any decisions made.
What else are you trying to say here other than the woman knew full well what was going on and made the decision to do it therefore she isn't owed a single thing?
I really don't see how you haven't realized that every single one of your arguments involves circular reasoning.
You don't see how it is the law that removes accountability of choices (for only one party, just as you did). That arguing for changing the law is arguing for adding responsibility for both parties.
There isn't any circular logic here. I'm showing you how your argument is flawed and how it can easily be applied to fault the father for getting married in the first place. I'm saying neither are at fault for those actions. That's not circular logic. It's showing the error in your logic.
The responsibility is if the family decides one party will work to provide for the family while the other takes care of the child or children, then that is the roles that both accept and that both are responsible for. So in divorce, the roles still stay the same because that person still provides while the other still takes care of the kids. It doesn't matter if its male or female because it goes both ways depending on which role they pick.
Lay out the consequences applied to both parties.
The person who stays at home has their future career and ability to find work in the workplace hindered while the person who provides still has to provide.
A joint decision of which responsibility is only given to the man, yeah.
No it's not. It's given to the provider of the family. If the roles are reversed where a woman is working while the husband stays at home, she would then be on the hook to support the husband.
