I would be significantly more interested in this issue had I not been divorced in 2004. Up until that time, I would have agreed that women had a disadvantage in the eyes of the law. Now I know the truth: it is men who are discriminated against.

In April of 2004, I lived in a 2800-square-foot home on a 2.3-acre country lot. I had investments, savings, a 401K, and two beautiful daughters whom I was very close to.

A year later, as a result of the divorce, I lived in an 800-square-foot rental home with a rent of $450 a month, had no investments, 401K, no interest in the marital home, and engage in creative bill-paying -- and still don't pay my bills on time. I have over $40K in debt. I earn a good living (my ex earns about $30K more than I do), but only take home about $24K. My beautiful daughters live 500 miles away because my abusive ex -- who was arrested for assaulting me and still obtained custody -- decided she didn't want to live near me any more.

All of this is possible because the law massively and unabashedly discriminates against men. I have had three attorneys in the last two years, one of them female, and all have told me outright that white men are discriminated against, and I should always expect the law to do so as long as women can vote.

You want me to care about equal right for women, fine, I have one caveat: women have to care about equal rights for men. If the law considers a man who assaults his wife to be a safety risk with respect to his children, then the same should be considered of women. If the law believes that gainfully-employed, well-to-do men should provide child support to their children to the point where they live in poverty, then the same should apply to women. If the law believes that a woman has the right to abscond with the children for any reason, then a man should have the same right.

Since women don't want equal rights under the present law, I see no reason why I should want equal rights for them.