In a divorce it's much more about the kids than it is about the wife. The kids get stability in a divorce. Where possible kids live in their home with their primary carer, don't have to move to a new school etc.
Why is the wife the primary carer? It starts because the husband can't get pregnant or breastfeed. It's supplemented by the likelihood that he's already the highest earner, which generally meant that he slept on so he could work the next day, while she is more likely to lose sleep nursing a crying baby.
Biology is a reality. Reality is literally sexist, and women get the rough deal in almost every way. I wouldn't want that at any price. People think they can opt out of biology these days, but that's a luxury belief that comes crashing down when sex and reproduction comes up.
I can't imagine risking getting pregnant because of sex. I can't imagine having to be pregnant for 9 months for every kid, impacting my health. I honestly don't even want to imagine the painful, stressful and risky job of giving birth. I can't imagine lactating, and therefore being the one who can instantly feed a crying baby at night. And eventually losing out on a career because I'm tied to the home for 8 years straight to raise 3 kids.
Having said that, this norm, which has obvious and sensible roots in human history, is abused. And it is somewhat dated in some countries today where there equal parental leave for mother's and fathers, breast feeding stations at work, creches etc. But how many women, even in first world countries have those luxuries? And is childbearing and rearing not still extremely sexist by definition? Yes! Unless you're rich enough to pay a surrogate. But then it's still "some woman" taking on the physical discomfort and risk, albeit for money.
So, prime example: Heather Mills getting millions out of Paul McCartney was totally unfair because she didn't take a career break and lose out because she was raising their kids while he made his money.
Totally agreed biology IS a factor here. The problem is biology doesn't come with a label and sometimes it's not clearly designed for a singular concept.
There's no Label on exactly which parent is supposed to be the better care taker and maybe there's not supposed to be a clear answer here. But there is this:
Divorce is about people not wanting to live and share their life together, it is a union where both parties should benefit (why else go into such an agreement).
In many cases after a divorce the man does not get to see his children due to the women getting more money the less the man take care of the children. This is really bad for the children, research show that children do a lot worse the less they have contact with both parents.
In the modern western society (Europe/USA) the men get the worst deal and this show in almost every respect (93% men in prisons, double the amount of drug users, single custody (80/20). Women also live longer, die less often of work relegated injuries. In general women gets taken care of by society to a greater extent than men.
I don't know where you live but that's not how it works most places. I know lots of divorced people. They don't live together any more. The woman gets full custody of the kids for all the reasons I mentioned above, but again, it's more about what the kids want. Even if they choose to live with their mother the father does get to see his kids. But he can't continue living with his ex, and they both live busy lives and have other relationships, so he can't just drop in to see the kids whenever he likes. Which is why they decide on a schedule. That's how it works with almost every divorced couple I know.
In a divorce it's much more about the kids than it is about the wife. The kids get stability in a divorce. Where possible kids live in their home with their primary carer, don't have to move to a new school etc.
Why is the wife the primary carer? It starts because the husband can't get pregnant or breastfeed. It's supplemented by the likelihood that he's already the highest earner, which generally meant that he slept on so he could work the next day, while she is more likely to lose sleep nursing a crying baby.
Biology is a reality. Reality is literally sexist, and women get the rough deal in almost every way. I wouldn't want that at any price. People think they can opt out of biology these days, but that's a luxury belief that comes crashing down when sex and reproduction comes up.
I can't imagine risking getting pregnant because of sex. I can't imagine having to be pregnant for 9 months for every kid, impacting my health. I honestly don't even want to imagine the painful, stressful and risky job of giving birth. I can't imagine lactating, and therefore being the one who can instantly feed a crying baby at night. And eventually losing out on a career because I'm tied to the home for 8 years straight to raise 3 kids.
Having said that, this norm, which has obvious and sensible roots in human history, is abused. And it is somewhat dated in some countries today where there equal parental leave for mother's and fathers, breast feeding stations at work, creches etc. But how many women, even in first world countries have those luxuries? And is childbearing and rearing not still extremely sexist by definition? Yes! Unless you're rich enough to pay a surrogate. But then it's still "some woman" taking on the physical discomfort and risk, albeit for money.
So, prime example: Heather Mills getting millions out of Paul McCartney was totally unfair because she didn't take a career break and lose out because she was raising their kids while he made his money.