In many cases that happens here too - not in all cases and I've been unfortunate enough to be at the sharp end of some of the most acrimonious and childish adults using children as their squabbling tools. Nobody is a winner.

That said, when you and I talked about conscription, your defence was that children need their mothers more than their fathers - and this would be born out if they were choosing. For the most part I think you're right. I think (as a general rule) men tend to be better financial providers and women tend to be better caregivers. Not exclusively and not always. When faced with a choice of separation, I think the average couple in negotiation will pick for women to continue care and men to continue to provide. Again, not always and not exclusively.

But I think it's a trade off.

In my honest opinion, I think a child would be better off being parented by Dad and provided for by Mum in many instances. Why? They are often already surrounded by mother figures - teachers, health visitors, grandparents etc. The gap in the psychological market is often already filled. However, society doesn't tend to think this way, partly because of biology (maternal instinct) and partly because of social conditioning (that's just what we do). Mums are often better equipped to do the childcare because of sexism (men tend to be promoted quicker and faster) and also through some aspects of choice. Many pregnant and newly-minted mothers I know are very happy with their part time working arrangements.

Ideally we don't deprive children of either parent - and we fill the gaps if we do. Liberalism is great, but we've heavily pushed the individualism aspect that makes it difficult to solve collective problems. I have said 'the problem is that children are not getting enough male attention in their formative years' - and you have essentially replied 'come and get them then you selfish bastards'. The solution isn't necessarily a conflict from the get go - but the solution does need to be discussed rationally. :o)