True, but once in place, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and an in-built part of sexism.
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.
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.
That’s always possible, but it seems irrelevant to the argument.
What I'm saying is that denying the fact that a partner gave up career growth to parent does not change that they did, and does not stop the pressure upon women to do so. It should not be tied to gender, it should be tied to who gave up paying work to do the child rearing labor.
Spousal and child support _are_ where divorce courts are influencing equity, by having the parent who's career was not impacted by parental duties provide monetary support to the parent who was.
This is quite clearly not true because of maternal preference, which is openly acknowledged by the courts.
They are not in fact basing their decision on who’s career was not impacted.
They are making the decision based on the sex of the parents, and simply recapitulating traditional gender role assumptions.
I’m not making a case that it shouldn’t be this way.
My point is that we shouldn’t gaslight ourselves about what is going on.