As Z_in_Oregon has pointed out, what we currently have, as far as divorce goes, is the "women as benevolent dictator" model. This is exactly why men are losing interest.
A truly "equivalent" partnership would have men getting custody 50% of the time. It doesn't happen. As somebody else originally put it, for men, marriage these days is like sharing a bed with somebody holding a nuke, and wondering when she's going to use it.
The bottom line: if marriage has more risks and hassles than rewards, from the male perspective, then men WON'T GET MARRIED. You can rail all you want about this meaning that men are selfish and immature and all that, but the fact remains that men won't get into situations with major downsides if alternatives exist. (And alternatives DO exist)
There was actually a better effective balance of power a couple of generations ago. Divorce courts favored the women then too, but everyone concerned operated under the reality that, if they pushed the man too far, he had the option of disappearing and starting over elsewhere under a different name. In the computerized age, this is no longer an option
The whole point of my original essay was that men will energeticly provide for the future IF they are motivated, and that you cannot compel that kind of motivation. It has a price tag attached. If women don't want to pay the price, then they should get off the checkout line
They should also prepare to endure the environment that a matrilineal society produces.
The whole situation with some women reminds me of the Russian Bolsheviks. They decided that the capitalist system was unfair to workers, that workers were oppressed and exploited, that it was possible to create a system where everyone was equal, and the State would enforce the equaliity. Everyone would then live in Paradise
After tens of millions of State-committed deaths later, and 70 years of poverty, they finally were convinced that tossing out workable incentive systems was a bad idea
Oops, forgot which thread I was on. The essay I was talking about was Was Patriarchy a Women's Scheme to Control Men?
Exactly. Benevolent dictator doesn't work well. Most humans favor justice and equity, not being rendered helpless to take care of themselves and sitting around HOPING the other person is going to be decent and kind. A truly "equivalent" partnership would have men getting custody 50% of the time.
No, that's a quota system. A truly equilalent partnership would be something lik Rebuttal Presumption of Joint Physical Custody (RPJPC) in which divorcing parents MUST take exactly equal responsibility for the children as the default. A parent would have to specifically petition a court to NOT fulfill his/her 50% share of responsibility. That would be equity.
As somebody else originally put it, for men, marriage these days is like sharing a bed with somebody holding a nuke, and wondering when she's going to use it.
Okay, but turning the tables back to where MEN are holding the nuke is not a better solution. Equity is a solution. No one should be held hostage in a relationship. Z's plan is to just turn the tables.
For one thing, RPJPC would be mutual deterrance to divorce, not simply turning the tables.
Also, a little trust wouldn't hurt either.