While most of laws themselves are not gender-specific, the underlying formulas are aimed at the positions which men and women find themselves. They are designed to help the 'less-financially-capable' party, and also the 'primary carer' of any children.

The stated goal in custody cases before the Family Law Court is 'to do what is in the interests of the children'. In fact the interests of the children are ignored in most decisions, covered up by a vague rationalization that 'what's in the best interests of the custodial parent is in the interests of the child'.

One of the surprising proponents of the family law imbalance is the older red-neck element, who still cling to the old fashioned notion that men abandon their wives and children for young secretaries and should be punished for their actions.

But the most striking outcome is that

• Men are just refusing to get married or to have children. 'Getting men to commit' is an old cliche, but has never been more apt than in the present day. There are fewer reasons than ever to commit. Men prefer to keep 'girlfriends', and change them every six months to avoid interference by the Family Law courts.
• There are increasing numbers of desperate and aging women who are unable to find willing men to father children with them. If there is a break-up, the family law courts will make the fathers pay 18% of their marginal income, but not enforce any rights for them to be involved with their children. More and more men are deciding that it's just not worth it.

As a result more and more women are finding that it's 'too late' to have children. They have been educated through feminism to expect to find an ideal man who will agree to take all responsibility and have no rights. They are in short supply, and their biological clocks run down.

Hence our feminist politicians refer to a 'babyless' future. One popular solution is to give away taxpayers money to women to have babies (eg a 'baby bonus'). But on the whole it's not the women who have lost interest in having children.