The sad fact is that to a great many people this is seen as redundant.
Hence we hear about "the good of the mother and child". Never "the good of the father and child". That sentence just sounds weird doesn't it? Why would a father want to be around his child? He must be some sort of pervert or at best he's doing that to harm the mother-child relationship out of spite. (
from me, utter sincerity from others).
It's assumed that mothers A) want to raise their children, B) want to do what is right for their child and C) are always mentally capable doing both A and B.
Which is why the mom has to be something special to lose custody in a divorce. Whereas the dad pretty much has to be a saint *and* hope that the mother physically abuses the child in front of the judge if he's to have any hope of gaining custody.
This would be a great sentiment if women were perfect. Or if motherhood transformed even deeply flawed and selfish individuals in to wise care-givers.
But since women are human and subject to all the flaws that men are that simply means that we're limiting the options of creating a stable home for a child by assuming that the child must go with the mom. If she's the best parent sure. If she isn't then absolutely not.
This would be another area where equality would be seen as quite oppressive to women. Going from 90% or so custody to 50/50 would be considered a major step down by most women I would suspect.
/but I believe there are many people who will never acknowledge this. To say otherwise is to reveal that women are just as flawed as men and that men aren't some horrible threat to be protected from but rather are just people. And women aren't saints to be protected but rather are just people. It goes against too many deeply held views. Let's see if RQ proves me wrong. I'd very much like for her to do so and acknowledge that abuse isn't a male problem. It's a people problem.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read