I read all articles linked by all parties - the 1st two you linked, Drifter, are trash - the 2nd is just a blurb to sell a self help book. Are you really that naive? You are taking from those 'articles' by women what you want to take - that there are women out there who agree with you. And I don't doubt that there are. The experience describing marriage break-up in both those articles is, however, not mine, nor do I have any female friend who could honestly say that's how her marriage broke up. I can think of one male acquaintance who would say that his ex behaved that way, but I never knew her terribly well and only really spent any time with him after the relationship ended so I can't say either way what else, if anything, may have been going on.
On the other hand I can think of 2 very close female friends who, were you switches sexes in those articles, would say that perfectly describes the behaviour of their ex-partners.
Does the behaviour in the article ring completely false because I have no evidence of it? No, of course not. Does the fact that both authors paint this as typical behaviour sit badly with me? Yes. Both are trying to sell their ideas, one literally, and know that they need to appeal to an audience of hurt men who want to push their misgivings about their own behaviour off on to the other party.
Of the relationship break ups, some permanent and some temporary, I have known a lot about there has not been one where both parties were not at fault. The idea that there is this female behaviour set that exists that will destroy a marriage that does not even MENTION one half of that marriage is, to me, an idea that should be dismissed. Completely. And probably urinated upon... though that may be going a little far. I would say the same to any theory that blamed male behaviour alone for any percent of relationship break-up.
The article about Dan Savage made one simple point for me - and the point was not that men and women are the same, it was that all
people should have equal rights and responsibilities within a relationship. The thing is we are all individuals (queue the Holy Grail reference...) and going into any relationship with pre-conceived ideas on how parties should or will behave dependent on their sex is, frankly, ridiculous.
What a hate-filled piece of shit that was. Seriously? You are putting that out there as a position you want people to read to understand you? Are you? Because if you are I think I need to reevaluate our friendship.
Men, I fear, will have to demand nothing less than the full reestablishment of what feminists call patriarchy—the male-headed family as the normal social unit. This may be a “radical” idea, given how far our society has gone offtrack, but it is hardly revolutionary. It is really just the radical restoration of the natural and traditional order of the human family.
Ah yes, the 'me strong, me in control' argument - a coverall for rape, abuse, war and other forms of violence. Reintroducing that to family law will benefit one member of the family and one alone, the male 'head'. I sorry you don't like the world where who actually put the most care, attention and effort in raising children has the greater say in how they are raised and not the one who can slap harder.
Baskerville doubts whether a return to father custody can “find acceptance beyond the fringe of political debate.” I think he is mistaken about this. There is no such thing as a fixed “fringe” to political debate. One of the most important forms of political activity consists precisely in moving the fringe. It took much more determination on the part of homosexuals to get us to where “gay marriage” is discussed with a straight face than it would for normal men to restore the presumption of father custody. Indeed, I suspect that men, once politically united, could dictate almost any terms they wished to women.
They did, for years, and then a little thing called women's suffrage happened. I can understand why some men would like to go back to the way things were but it isn't going to happen. There are too many intelligent men and women who realise that subjugating the 'other' (be that 'other' woman, slave, lower class, whatever) is not ever permanent. As long as there is a power group there will always be revolution waiting in the wings.
We are intelligent enough to conceive of equality, we just have to be intelligent enough to practise it.
I could honestly care LESS about such meaningless things under normal circumstances. 
