America still celebrates the "single by choice" mother, and awards custody to women over men despite the overwhelming risk of death or neglect this exposes children to.

Maybe we should focus more on changing this situation, which exposes children to a whole range of horrors and risks.

Where are the women's groups who are concerned about children's welfare in this situation? The silence is deafening - women will never admit mistakes, no matter how many children are sacrificed.

America still celebrates the "single by choice" mother, and awards custody to women over men despite the overwhelming risk of death or neglect this exposes children to.

Maybe we should focus more on changing this situation, which exposes children to a whole range of horrors and risks.

Where are the women's groups who are concerned about children's welfare in this situation? The silence is deafening - women will never admit mistakes, no matter how many children are sacrificed.

Feminist groups have lobbied hard against presumptive, rebuttable joint custody legislation across the country.

If they were really interested in children's welfare and in an inclusive approach to child-rearing, that wouldn't be occurring.

Try paying attention to the facts, and not throwing out some Women's Studies version of feminism, which does not exist as far as society and the law are concerned in the U.S. today.

It exposes the true sentiments of American feminism today.

"Children should be encouraged to grow as individuals and they should be loved and respected for their uniqueness, not for their gender."

Well put.

Brightstar, you really should just try to get out and date as many women as possible. Once you overcome the initial hurdle to ask them out, you might find someone you are interested in spending more time with.

This is the funniest thing I have read all day!

He is dynamic, thoughtful, and is unencumbered with political baggage. I hope he wins the nomination. Hillary would be a disaster for the Democrats and for America.

Serial Kisser, you are a slave who is rebelling against your servitude. Stop now, or your kids will be taken from you along with your house and your livelihood.

If she decides to divorce you, you will also have to pay your mistress for the rest of her life so that she can enjoy a standard of living you slaved to provide for her while you were married.

Forget all that feminist crap you were fed and bought into in college. If you lose your temper when she alienates your children against you, you may go to jail. If she decides to kill you or your children, though, then she is likely suffering from Battered Woman's Syndrome or Post-partum Depression.

If your wife is out kissing other men, then, well, you just aren't doing your job. She still gets the house and the kids, though.

The advice to you from the many feminist prigs who have written in from all corners of the country is quite clear: OBEY, and stop your rebellious behavior immediately, or else you will be punished.

Do you hate men?

Regardless of how you behave, as a legally privileged female in Family Court you will more likely than not get the kids, house, and a nice annuity if your hubby was stupid enough not to get a prenup.

If you shoot your husband in the back and watch him bleed out from the lower spine before calling the cops, you can get a minimal sentence (see Mary Winkler).

If you murder your husband in front of his daughter from a previous marriage, you can still get joint custody of your biological children (see Clara Harris).

Despite the fact that it is documented that children in divorce want to preserve their relationships with both parents, as a woman, you are still apt to get custody of the children in over 80% of divorces.

If you murder your children, though, you can claim post-partum depression, or some other such gender specific "disorder" that will allow you to evade serious punishment for killing your children (see Andrea Yates).

"Equality" in its truest sense is something feminists never want to see put in place under the law.

Right now in California, dogs have more state money resourced to them in domestic violence disputes than men do.

No, mattielesbon, my divorce was difficult, but not as acrimonious as some. Most importantly, after several years and tens of thousands of dollars, I was able to preserve my relationship with my daughters, despite my ex's and the court's attempts to prevent that relationship. I was appalled during that divorce to see how women get the green light in Family Court for just about every type of behavior. Women and the law treat children like chattel in today's Family Court.

Good luck in your search for a new man to marry.

Perhaps there is one out there just as ignorant of the law as you are.

I am sorry for your experience.

Your comment that the bias in the law has nothing to do with the LW's situation is completely wrong, however.

A marriage is a contract between three parties - two people and the state in which they reside. The latter party dictates what happens in the event of a divorce. The LW should be very aware of the consequences and liabilities of his actions in the context of the bigoted family law system.

And he should be aware that most of those consequences and liabilities do not exist where his wife is concerned.

Why was it, Ms. Clark-Flory?

If you choose to ignore the legal dimension of marriage, then the LW has entered into an equitable agreement.

If you choose to be aware of all of the totality that marriage implies, you realize he is in an asymmetric relationship where leverage and power are concerned.