The baby is 50% his when she wants money for it, but 100% hers when she wants to decide whether or not to keep it ... and if she decides to keep it, then it’s 100% hers to decide which — if any — man will play a role in raising it.

I think what a lot of men would like to see is some consistency about the role of the father, rather than laws and social expectations that seem only to assign “responsibility” on the basis of which will give the mother the greatest power over the child — and any man in the child’s life — and the greatest access to Other People’s Money.

Men are frustrated by the attitude, embodied also in the law, that “He’s not good enough for me and ‘my’ child, but his money sure is! And I deserve to have the government make him give it to me! Even when he doesn’t have it because he’s already in jail for not giving it to me!”

No-fault divorce should be limited to young childless couples or empty nesters, and alimony should be completely banned: if you want him to support you with his income and his property, then you have to stay with him. Alimony allows women to have their cake and eat it too: i.e. posture as strong and independent, yet collect a “relationship pension” indefinitely, and even have it grow with the man’s income or at least have it fixed based on what the man was making even if his circumstances change. If you have a child and want to divorce the father, then you should have to prove wrongdoing on his part (either to yourself or to the child) — not just “I really think I can do better” — and then if you want child support, then you need to settle for joint custody — and meaningful joint custody, not just one weekend a month and every other holiday. Unilaterally terminating not only your relationship with him but also his relationship with “my” child, then turning around and demanding money for “his” child — after you fought so hard to kick him out of the child’s life — is just a nakedly cynical move.