As I have already outlined, equalitarianism will enable men to do equal parenting, and in fact, women, particularly working mothers, have been pushing men to do that for a considerable amount of time.
Women have proven they can work equally as hard, and often, better, than men, in fields that do not rely on physical strength.
If women can do tasks traditionally performed by men, then the converse can also apply.
And this is already the case, of all the families I know, in 50% of them the woman is the primary breadwinner and the man stays home and raises the children. Of course, those families are still intact. But it's still pertinent. In situations where fathers aren't alcoholics, lazy entitled idiots or criminals, there is no reason why men should not be expected to actually do 100% of parenting for 50% of the time, as opposed to 14% of the time, which frankly, is pathetic.
Feminism has enabled women to go to work and inadvertently enabled men to assume greater responsibility for child-rearing based on necessity, considering women aren't superhuman nor personal slaves who should be expected to just take care of everything. I agree that not all men lack motivation to take proper care of their children or spend time with them.
There are plenty of great fathers are around. There are also plenty of lazy fathers who contribute nothing other than money when it comes to raising their children and that's the way they like it. The children certainly wouldn't suffer from not seeing these fathers very often because such fathers don't provide adequate parenting when they see their children anyway.While I find this comment amusing on a number of levels, theoretically, Wanderling is correct: if men and women are equal in all respects, and if society is therefore structured around these theoretical equalities, then it follows that men and women as individuals should be willing and able to perform equally as parents* if afforded the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately for a hypothesis to be true, its component propositions must be true, and that is where this equalitarian fantasizing stumbles. For men and women are not equal, not biologically, not in behavior, and not in inclinations. Nor is society organized around equalitarian principles; were it so, MRAs would have little to complain about as women would not be socially and legally supreme but are instead peers. In addition, the data suggests women, while they often can work as hard as men, do not do so, even in jobs that do not rely on physical strength. Furthermore, once again, Wanderling's anecdotal experience does not extrapolate to the wider population; indeed, the 50% rate of SAHDs she cites in her social circle is nearly 4x that of the general population.
In these four ways are the propositions undergirding equalitarianism falsified, leading me to conclude that pursuing policies of equalitarianism are not likely to deliver to minor victims of divorce equal access to both mothers and fathers.
* I use "parents" loosely in this sense, for if men and women were truly equal, then there would no need for the sex differentiation other than straight-up reproduction. In application, we all know where declaring men and women to be equal leads, of course...one sex is superfluous, the other necessary. To matrifocal families, loose harems, serial and parallel polyandry, and hordes of unattached and un/disenfranchised males for whom it doesn't matter if they father their children or not, "because such fathers don't provide adequate parenting when they see their children anyway". In other words, the very same set of conditions that Wanderling herself lends her stamp of approval to. And the very same set of conditions we see far too much of today.
Going away from facts and figures to the normative world, it is entirely unreasonable to expect men to do 100% of the parenting for 50% of the time, when it is clear that women--for a number of reasons--don't do 100% of the wage-earning 50% of the time. As I wrote in my review of "A Woman's Nation, the Shriver Report":
[W]hen one adds up the hours invested by married men and women in the whole of household support...lo and behold, one finds that married men invest an average of 7.82 hours per day [while] women invest an average of 7.94 hours per day, a difference of 7 whole minutes. Widening the aperture to include between men and women not legally married to each other or single/divorced Americans yields a shocking 9 minutes in favor of women. Clearly, the data suggests that the feminist "second shift" narrative is a lie.
But the dissonance between the reality and the propaganda doesn't stop there. Drilling down into the notes that accompanied the BLS data, one acquires even more nuance. Specifically, one discovers interesting nuggets like this:
Primary childcare activities include time spent providing physical care; playing with children; reading to children; assistance with home-work; attending children's events; taking care of children's health needs; and dropping off, picking up, and waiting for children. Passive childcare done as a primary activity (such as "keeping an eye on my son while he swam in the pool") also is included [emphasis mine]. A child's presence during the activity is not enough in itself to classify the activity as child-care. For example, "watching television with my child" is coded as a leisure activity, not as childcare.
Secondary childcare is care for children under age 13 that is done while doing an activity other than primary childcare, such as cooking dinner. Secondary childcare estimates are derived by summing the durations of activities during which respondents had a household child or their own nonhousehold child under age 13 in their care while doing activities other than primary childcare. It is restricted to times the respondent was awake. Secondary childcare time for household children is further restricted to the time between when the first household child under age 13 woke up and the last household child under age 13 went to bed.
So here we see that activities that involve significant amount of leisure for women have the potential to be coded as "work" by statisticians [and] what housewives consider to be "work" and what the reality of "work" is for blue-collar men and pink-collar women are very different things indeed.With equalitarianism thus demonstrated as pretty fiction, I find it very difficult to see how equalitarianism could possibly be expected to ensure 50% parental contribution to parenting before there is a divorce, let alone after one.