Sure, the world is improving, overall, in many ways & it'll swing back to a better balance! Problem being what 'equality' means in human terms. I'm as human as somebody who's got no legs but there's plenty of clear practical disadvantages to not having them. Only, with the sexes, the differences (the ones relevant to a general discussion about it) are less clear & what they do mean is much less so. Along with people's ability to make total nonsense sound plausible, it's a minefield of a debate, at best! lol
OK this is what I mean Bruce
There was a time that husbands were allowed to beat and rape their wives. Nowdays this is very much looked down on and crimislised (like it should be). Men can no longer use this to dominate women and trap them.
However how often in cases where a woman wants to "punish" a man, will she use this or even the insinuation of this "the voilent ex" to get better support for herself or put up barriers to child access. The courts and social services will support her and the man is disempowered and can for no good reason be barred from seeing his children or have what may be reasonable access denied on a spiteful fancy.
Better than the alternative though.
The same with general allegations of rape. There was a time that to make a case for rape the victim had to go through a gruelling process in which she was basically classed as guilty herself to make a case for her claim of rape. She would have to prove that it was not consensual and that she made every effort to fight him off and resist.
Nowdays many women in situations where they are wanting to punish the man or where they regret the encounter will use this as another way of attacking a man. The rape claim. It is appalling because it waters down the legitimate claims that NEED support.
Child support from my understnding was set up to force the male partner to paying towards the children and stop them from initiating a dissolution of the relationship and leaving the mother a single mother and having to support herself and her child alone. They tried from what i understand to make this a deterrent costwise for the man to leave.
However with more than 50% of marriages not working , it is not always the man wanting to leave nor the want to desert his parental responsibilities. If there is a breakdoen in the relationship shared care is still not a default and it means that a father wanting to see his children will often have to work long hours to afford to pay tax an dchild support and get little access and not be able to set himself up fionancially for at least the 18 years of the child growing up. His chance at being able to provide for yet another family is restricted and The ex-wife will get the child support and often social support and/or welfare and society will endevour to look after her interests in thougt that the children will be alright. All the while she will get the lion share of the child access and usually a lions share of assets on the dissolution of the marriage.
In all of this, which is the better alternative? I am a man and i still say today's way is far better and fairer. It is simply not good or commendable but far better.
Of course in all of this there can be made very good cases for things working in reverse and individual casess where such and such happened and none of this is hard and fast BUT the point to be made is that the changes in society are not all beneficial and very open to abuse and even with acknowledging this, today's way is better and would not have come about without Feminism.
