The obvious counterpart to the assertion that, 'if parents want equal distribution of parenting time after separation they should put in equal time before' is that 'if parents want equal financial distribution after separation they should put an equal amount of time into making money beforehand'.

How could a parent full-time looking after a home and children put in an equal amount of time making money as a parent who was a full-time breadwinner? Equally how could a full time breadwinner put in an equal amount of time parenting as a parent who was staying at home looking after the children?

After separation many people will change their lifestyles - people who perhaps worked very long hours to support a family may now not have to work so much to support just themselves and a part-time one and so may be much more available to parent children after separation than they were before. Equally a parent who was tied down in full-time domestic mode may be able to get a much better job if they dont have to look after the kids all the time.

I think it is easy to blow this one out of the water by simply applying the fundamental tool of feminist intellectuals everywhere that of 'sexual transposition', ie reverse traditional roles and see how it looks. What if a woman was working 60hours a week supporting her husband while he was at home looking after the kids. If they separated would it be fair if she only got to see her children every second weekend and half holidays because her husband was primary carer?

It is shame that almost anything written by a woman is bound to have only one intention; to reinforce the feminist political perspective.
School hours and work hours should have been matched up years ago but feminists have been obsessed with power the entire time.

feminist cause? Lets consider for the moment that there is a difference between bra burning germaine greers and the basic expectation and right of equality without regard to your gender, age, race and creed. Considering 40 years ago if your husband beat you and dragged you down the street by your hair, it was his right. Consider 10 years ago, it was policy still that if a woman applied for a loan her husbands details were taken as normal procedure but if he applied for the same loan, the wife's details were not required.

There is a difference between the bra burning, Germaine Greers of Feminism and Women who have fought for equality and respect. You did not get the children 40 years ago. Not all women are stay at home and not all men are overtime workders. This is what makes the system so complicated and emotional. I work full time and even while married, I was the one who managed the house, school, medical appointments, sports events because my ex believed his career was more important than mine. As you can see working on the principle of 50/50 shared custody until proven otherwise is personl to each case. If all of a sudden the partner who never contributed in marriage decides that s/he wants to after divorce, how nice that s/he want to be more of a parent but very sad that it took a divorce to kick them into gear to get up and contribute to raising their children. Another point is if in marriage it was the principles of raising the children that mum stayed home then why do the principles have to change with divorve? Divorce doesnt and shouldnt change your parenting principles.

Alphafemale: 'Considering 40 years ago if your husband beat you and dragged you down the street by your hair, it was his right.'

This is the kind of hysterical rubbish that betrays so many women's radical bias. I happened to be alive 40 years ago and I like all the other boys of my time were taught that to use physical force against a woman was an act of utmost cowardice. If a man did drag a woman by the hair down the street men would come from everywhere and stop him - that is why it never happened in any part of the world I was in.

I was not only primary breadwinner but also primary child rearer for a large part of my children's childhood while their mother went away to study. When we broke up although the children wanted to live with me and my wife was abusing the children - a fact which was not only acknowledged by the court but one which she herself never denied - she was given custody. That is bias and it is not favouring men.

What a load of b*&^%$t Alphafemale!

"Considering 40 years ago if your husband beat you and dragged you down the street by your hair, it was his right."

In this culture it was never the right of a husband to beat his wife. This is not saying domestic violence did not happen, it did and wives also beat up their husbands.

I was raised not to offend women, I was also taught like Rob513264 not to use physical force agianst women. Unfortunately nobody seemed to tell the girls that they weren't allowed to engage in unlady like behaviour such as hitting or scratching. Maybe it was because they took advantage of the situation.

On ABC radio the point was raised that men after separation may question "why work so hard" and make changes to their lifestyle.

Alphafemale writes - "Consider 10 years ago, it was policy still that if a woman applied for a loan her husbands details were taken as normal procedure but if he applied for the same loan, the wife's details were not required."

Yes indeed, all should consider this.

And all should also consider that when that was the case, a husband was held accountable for 100% of his wife's debts. Where she defaulted, he was made to pay. The lending institution simply wanted to know where they should go to collect their money.