|
@DanaC True - the argument at the time was that men had 100% of the financial responsibility so they'd keep the children in their households to keep them fed, the counter argument is that women didn't have access to the means to take financial responsibility, and so on and so forth.
The whole argument gets ridicules when you consider that - as you pointed out yourself - when you consider the slow revolving door of the time the reality is that if you could afford a divorce at all, you were most likely supporting your kids with capital from accumulated family assets, not your own income, and the people doing the day to day raising of the kids were most likely household staff, so really neither members would have much claim for earning rights through taking responsibility by today's standards. Add to that the fact that if the family owned land, chances are the children were part of the labor force - they were viewed as financial assets rather then financial responsibilities.
The historical context is important to understand why the laws today are what they are, and I appreciate that, but I don't think that changes the consequences of what they are, and while members of either genders can argue who gets more screwed over, the answer IMO remains - it doesn't work for either parties - find an alternative that does. A.K.A. an alternative contract.
|