kartiya, apparently quite a lot from the segments (but in most of the footage I saw the women were standing behind the men so they may not have been aware of the issue).

My comment was not a defense of the men who did not give up a seat for a clearly pregnant woman but rather raising the sexist attitudes which still exists (for some) where it appears that the expectation to give up a seat is only on men rather than on all able bodied people. I don't think that genuine feminists would hold to this approach just as I don't think most would support the double standards that are at the heart of a lot of the issues raised in this thread. I'm interested to hear from two groups.

- The other guys who have been done over by the family law system (and all the add on bits). Were your ex partners feminists?

- Feminists. Do you support different treatment for men and women based only on gender?

Kartyia
The situation of a man not allowing a pregnant woman to sit would be very rare, but a situation that is not so rare is the 1,000 children per week that are dragged through a divorce situation (with estimates of up to 2,000 separations per week of de facto relationships, many of whom would also involve children).

About 90% of those children will then reside with the mother, while 75% of the fathers will see their children every second weekend or less (but have to pay money for that privilege). Only 40% of mothers want their children to see their fathers more often, with ample evidence that many mothers purposely obstruct the fathers in having more contact with his children.

The situation is totally deplorable, but it has been ongoing for many years.

What to do:- many things are possible, but the main thing seems to be to limit the divorces and separations in the first place, and the suggestions previously mentioned by posters would possibly do that. If you have some other suggestions then they could be stated.

Robert,
Personally I have never known a feminist to put forward any suggestions about the current situation, other than to continue with the current system.

hello timkins , sylvia , perhaps if women who married young and in their best child bearing years, had their 2 + children , stayed married to say 30 and then were guaranteed by law heavily subsidised or free university or other higher education places if they wanted them , this may encourage more happiness in our society , less pressure on women and men and may cut down the divorce rate and its huge emotional and financial cost . other compensation could be paid to mothers who do not take up the higher education option .

as the children are past the toddler stage when their fathers are in their 30's , this would make it a lot easier for father child minders ,as younger childen's care is always a big concern for most mothers because of their special needs and is probably more difficult for men . [ my experience has told me ].

I like your questions, Robert, they indicate genuine interest and an open mind. As a proud feminist who loves men ( and women and kids, I just like people, truth be told) I will attempt to answer.
Should men and women be treated differently due to gender? In an ideal world, no. Trouble is, until about 30 years ago, women were routinely treated differently. There were male and female rates of pay, jobs that were barred to women, either explicitly or implicitly, some jobs fired women if they married or got pregnant and much more. Feminists, by and large, deserve the majority of the credit for changing all that. Their feminist mothers and grandmothers deserve the credit for getting women the vote and access to higher education. Women have never been handed equal rights, people in power ( of any race or gender) have never woken up one morning, slapped themselves on the forehead and said, "Oh my God, I've been so unfair, here have half the power." Power has always had to be fought for, by feminists, black activists, indigenous activists, environmentalists, unionists, even early Christians, perhaps. The position of women has been so bad for so long, I sometimes joke that 2000 years of people being disappointed when you were born isn't overcome in 30 years. So you are right, Robert, a lot of women claim the rights gained by feminism but still refuse to accept the responsibilities. I would stand for a pregnant woman, having been one myself, as I would stand for a frail and elderly person, male or female. Feminists are no more identical to one another than any other group, there are feminists I find reasonable and many that I don't. But the world would be a very different place, and, I would argue, a worse one, without us, for both men and women. Which doesn't mean fighting for human rights for women has always been without mistakes or pain. nothing in life is like that, we are just people bumbling along, doing our best and sometimes, like everyone else, we stuff it up.

What a pleasure to read your post, enaj.

Just a comment on prenuptial agreements.

As far as child support goes, they're really limited to being a record of intentions. If the agreement provides for no child support in the event of separation, or support at a level below that provided by the statutory formula, it will not prevent the custodial parent from getting child support at the level specified by the formula.

If the custodial parent is on welfare payments, they will be forced to apply for child support no matter what their own desires are, and despite anything in a prenuptial agreement.

The rationale for this is that parents cannot contract out of entitlements that belong to their children. In practice of course, it amounts to a state intrusion into people's lives, and may result in children being protected so successfully by the state that they're never born in the first place.

Sylvia.