Just to be clear, there are studies that say primary caretaker is better and studies that say 50/50 is better. There are pros and cons for each. People and Organizations , like NOW, tend to site studies that are aligned with their position. This means NOW will site studies that show that 50/50 custody arrangements are harmful to children. Personally, I cannot believe that, generally speaking, cutting one parent out of a child's life in order to make their children’s schedule easier is good for the child. I think this is bad for boys, in particular, who will grow up without a male role model present in their day to day life. Sorry to keep repeating this but I’m countering the notion that 50/50 is only good for the father and typically bad for the children.

There are countless studies that demonstrate that boys suffer when their father isn’t present. I cannot believe that my children would be better off without my presence. However, that is my personal opinion. However, that belief is what makes me strive to be a good parent. To me, it matters.

NOW (from their website) has stated a preference for primary caretaker custodian as the default. I agree, we should evaluate each case. If the father doesn't want 50/50 or the child doesn't want to live with the father, I think primary caretaker in favor of the mother is fine. However, the presumption that a father, post divorce, should have little presence or authority in his own children's lives as a the default position of family courts is something I oppose. Make no mistake, that is what NOW recommends.

To bring this back to the original discussion. The claim that feminists believe that the caretake of children role is not gendered and that both parents should participate equally is hindered by NOW’s position on default custody arrangements. How can you claim that you believe that men are just as important as women in parenthood, if you think, by default, that it’s OK to cut them out of their children’s lives in order to keep an easier schedule for the children?