That's a bit of a myth, actually. It may have been true many decades ago (and depending on which list of cherry-picked half-true factoids one reads, it may even appear to be partly true on the surface), but it hasn't been for a good while-- that is, when men actively seek out custody in court and don't drop the case. It's fairly likely that they'll be awarded custody, in fact. And a great deal of custody settlements happen outside of the courtroom, and are reached based on mutual agreement.
Source: Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts



..In summary:
Study 1: MASS
2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration

29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody

Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years

67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody

Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years

41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody

Study 4: Los Angeles
63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful

Study 5: US appellate custody cases
51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)

"...The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers."

There are still plenty of problems in custody cases regardless, (and biases galore, among both judges and jurors) but it is not at all as black-and-white as many assume. I've bolded the most worrying bits:

"According to attorneys at listening sessions, there is another type of bias in the enforcement of visitation orders that reflects the different situation of custodial parents, usually mothers, and noncustodial parents, usually fathers. Although the child's interest is supposed to be primary, courts will not order a father to visit his child, even if his failure to visit distresses the child. The psychological harm that missed visits cause children also has an impact on the custodial mother, for it is she who must deal with her child's distress. In addition, female litigants participating in focus groups noted the havoc caused to their lives when fathers fail to exercise visitation or change plans at the last minute. Last minute changes make it necessary for women to scramble to find appropriate child care and impose extra monetary costs. Women expressed anger that the courts do not listen to their complaints in these matters. The essence of their concern is that visitation seems to be viewed entirely as a right of the father, rather than as a responsibility of the father toward the child and the other parent.

Similar bias exists concerning moves out of state. A noncustodial father is free to leave the state at any time, even if his children will miss their association with him. However, a good mother who leaves the state without permission may find custody taken away by the probate court. n65

[*847] The punitive approach taken by some courts toward women who interfere with fathers' visitation rights contrasts with the tolerance shown by some judges to fathers who fail to pay court ordered child support (see "Child Support") and to men who commit acts of violence against women, in violation of the criminal law and court orders (see "Domestic Violence").

Inappropriately harsh punishment for violation of a court order is troubling enough, but the possibility that mothers might be punished for violating orders rooted in gender bias that put them or their children at risk is even more troubling. And this possibility, according to attorneys' testimony in focus groups, is very real. Even if all errors were obvious enough to be corrected on appeal, many women do not have access to legal help. Correcting the bias in the trial court is the only answer.

CONCLUSION

Our charge was to study and make recommendations concerning gender bias. Thus, the goal of the recommendations that follow is to eliminate the gender bias we observed. Before making any recommendation, however, we also considered the effects our recommendations would have on the welfare of children.

Family service officers, probate judges, and appellate judges all say that giving primary consideration to the parent who has been the primary caretaker and psychological parent is in the best interests of children. n66 In practice, however, it appears that as soon as physical custody is contested, any weight given to a history of primary caretaking disappears. Mothers who have been primary caretakers throughout their child's life are subjected to differential and stricter scrutiny, and may lose custody if the role of primary caretaker has been assumed, however briefly and for whatever reason, by someone else.

We believe there is a need for a clear statement that primary consideration should be given in child custody disputes to the parent who has been the primary caretaker and psychological parent. Such a statement would advise lawyers and litigants about the applicable legal standard, [*848] and would reduce both the possibility of judgments influenced by bias and the bargaining advantage that men who have not been primary caretakers can gain by merely threatening to seek custody. The requirement that the identity of the primary caretaker and psychological parent be determined by considering each parent's commitment to the child throughout the child's life would promote fairness for both men and women. On the one hand, it would ensure that the actual behavior of individual men is considered, and not stereotypes about fathers. On the other hand, it would ensure that temporary relinquishment of custody does not result in permanent loss of custody, without regard to what went before.

Our research also considered gender bias in the awarding of shared legal custody. We found that the presumption in favor of shared legal custody which is currently held by many family service officers results in the awarding of shared legal custody in inappropriate circumstances. Such custody is being ordered over the objections of parents, when parents cannot agree about childrearing, and even when there is a history of spouse abuse."

This is a non-answer, and I think you know it. Campaign rhetoric, while often extreme, sets expectations for policy. Add inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric to an inner circle of advisors with noted ties to hysterically Islamophobic organizations and you have an administration that implements ideaological bans. The differences between Obama's 2011 implementation and Trump's 2017 fiasco are well documented elsewhere. They also don't matter in a way, because Trump repeatedly said that he was calling for a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering America". Intent matters, especially from the Twitter President. So there are direct links to Islamophobia. As for anti-Mexican sentiment, the angst here is more economic. Mexicans are a convenient other. NAFTA, for it's flaws, reduced the flood of immigration, because it moved well-paying jobs to Mexico, where labor (because of the cost of living) is cheaper. Poor Americans still like their cars, their TVs, etc. I'm not saying they must do without, but economics is heartless. Live in an American town where those things are part of the standard of living and I'll show you a Mexican barrio where they can package food/assemble electronics/make widgets as well as their unskilled American counterpart, for 20% of the wage. So the economic and racial resentment is articially manipulated by many of the same people that benefit from it. The millionaire/billionaire class a have it easier when they aim poor white ire at Mexican immigrants and complex trade agreements than the alternative.



Also a non-answer. You can't just assert I'm not living in reality. I asked you to explain your beliefs. Don't point me to a YouTube video. Type them out, learn how to express them. If you don't want to fine, but not being able to argue your positions makes you the rube too many of my friends assume people like you are. I don't, I really want to dialog. Only way I'll survive the next 2-4 years... By the way, sourcing is fine for a conversation like this. I'm being pre-emptive here, but your quick non-answers aren't encouraging.




But justice can have many shadings. Legal, societal, tribal, etc. Doesn't mean they're all moral in the same way. Pure truth in a moral or philosophical sense isn't objectively attainable. I don't know if you're religious, and that's an entirely separate argument, but all but the most stringent of codes recognize circumstance as, at least, influencing action. Regardless, I completely agree that coercion is almost never the answer (outside lawful imprisonment, and the like). Certainly not over things as petty as 'Gamergate'.

I get it. You didn't own slaves. Neither did your parents, or your grandparents, or your great-grandparents. Maybe you're family isn't well-off. Maybe your job sucks. You hear 'white privilege' and you think 'rich privilege'. That's not what white privilege means and any serious thinker will tell you that you shouldn't feel guilty for being white or feel bad for being told that you don't have it as bad as black folk. I get angry when I hear that and rightfully so. It's about the aggregate. It's about the lifetime. Of everyone. In the country. STATISTICALLY, you will have a better life than people of color. The straight line is this is due to slavery. Not your fault. Not my fault. My people were in Ireland until the early 1900's. But as a white man, I will make more money and live longer. If I get arrested for possession of narcotics, I'll likely serve less time.

What you do with this knowledge, I don't know. I'm still recovering from my rejection of the idea of white privilege, which I only seriously thought about within the last few years. But your statement is a meaningless tautology.

This is getting long. Happy to continue (takes me a day to digest and gather my thoughts, so long form correspondence) if you want to take this to email or something.