Your insistence that the only legitimate analytical technique or "serious approach" is to make lists of specific cases that we can analyze one-by-one after-the-fact is bogus. It marks you as a lawyer, with a lawyer's penchant for driving while looking in the rear-view mirror; and as one who is refusing to see the bigger picture, and hence the real problem.
It is as if, presented with a camel with a broken back, you insist that we examine the straws individually to see if any of them were heavier than they should have been. If, upon information and belief, we claim that all of the straws were to specification, you will presumably argue that everything is fine, even though our camel now has a broken back. It is a lawyerly response, I grant you that. But this is why so many people think that lawyers should be kept in cages, and far away from policy-making positions.
It is simply not true that after-the-fact analysis of cases is the only legitimate form of thought. It is merely the only one you know. But that is your limitation, not an inherent property of the Universe.
Some of us, by means unknown to lawyers, are able to foresee that eating a thousand candy bars will cause a horrible stomache ache. We find your insistence that we examine the candy bars individually for defects to be annoying and offensive, and a total waste of time. The problem isn't the candy bars. It's that the system is not designed to handle a thousand of them at a time.
In a similar way, human societies are not designed to operate in the presence of a governmental entity that systematically removes male parents from their childrens' lives as a matter of policy. We know that because there has never been a human society that had such a thing. When you think about it, it is an absolutely outrageous thing to have. It is lawyerism run amok... probably the most inhumanly cruel government policy ever devised, rivaling anything ever imposed on human beings by the most vilified tyrants in history.
If this happened once or twice in a blue moon, we could probably live with it. But when we see news reports that 60% of this nation's children are not living in the same house with their fathers, someone with more brains than a lawyer should probably stand up and say, "Folks, this is trouble."
It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.
If saying this was meant to bolster your case, it's a mistake. It's basically a public announcement that you yourself do not know what is true, and that you are relying on popularity measures to claim legitimacy for your arguments. That's right down there with dispensing psychological advice as an admission that you're really just blowing smoke and trying to get away with it.
Finally, I see that you are complaining now about "personal attacks." You need to understand something, and I know you are having trouble with this concept, so I will try to explain it real slowly. You are addressing half of the population as if they are sub-human afterthoughts who have no God-given unalienable right to live with, or participate in raising, their own children. Well guess what: They perceive this as a personal attack. They perceive that you are spouting unbelievable hateful bigotry, and seriously advocating that they should accept having their basic human rights abrogated by the court system because, well, they are only males and don't really matter. You are so immersed in this bigotry that you don't even know you're doing it. You think you are guilt-free on the subject of personal attacks, when in fact you are advocating policies that proceed from the assumption that these other creatures just don't matter and have no right to be treated as real human beings. Sorry, but some people are going to take that personally.