They haven't had to because people aren't leaving at the moment. If Switch 2 stops selling, that's what they end up doing. We'll see what happenes after the early adopter crowd is finished. 

Even if staying home and taking care of the kids was superior and far more important, you would assume that in an intelligent, civilized, logical society, the people would prefer the very best for the role then. There's plenty of reasons why woman are seen as better at those roles. It's the same reason why in divorce, the woman get the kids, or the majority of time spent with them. They are the future.

And just because woman are taking over roles seen as more masculine (in the past), doesn't mean they're doing a better job at those roles. Would society prefer the best for each and every role doing those jobs, or do we prefer everyone simply doing whatever they feel like, even if that meant less efficiency and reliability?

Not everyone see's things the same way, and not every scenario is simply right and wrong. Sometimes it's simply better than another option, at that time.

That's my point, they aren't leaving. We can hypothesize what if this happens, what if that happens, etc, but in the here and now, it isn't happening.

My recollection is that the reason women get the kids in the divorce most of the time is that men don't fight for it most of the time. If that's a factual disagreement I can try to look it up. 

I'm not saying that women are doing a better job at those roles. I'm saying that women view those roles as acceptable while men don't view women's roles as acceptable by and large. This leads me to think that most people view one role as superior to the other. In a free society I would prefer people get to do what they want over being assigned what they're best at. 

Lost me on the last paragraph. 

Women are choosing to be the support role for men less and less often now that they have the ability to not. And men are not choosing to take that role proportionally to how women are changing their roles. I take this to mean that most people view the roles as inequal and the man's role as superior. 

^ the system is rigged in favor of women, when it comes to custody battles.
Its not because men don't fight for their kids.... they just arn't allowed to have them, at the same rate women are.
Again, because of gender rolls.

Basically you have be a horrible mother, to lose a custody battle.
While as a man, unless the mother is such... chances are your facing a uphill battle, that's not in your favor.

The law should be equal, but lets not kid ourselves, women get away with alot of sh*t men can't.

What if the men aren't fighting for it because that would be stupid and wrong from their perspective? What if they personally find woman to be better parents than men overall, so therefore fighting for the kids and winning, would be a worse outcome? What if they are sacrificing their wants for the good of society?

What if it's not due to superiority, but due to difficulty, ego, wages, peer pressure, societal pressure, family expectations, etc. There's a lot of reasons why people choose the roles they do. Not that many people truly do what they love, and it's sure not because society makes it impossible these days.

I would prefer society decide what they find more important, and indirectly push to have the best take those roles. The less important roles don't matter as much so focus much less on them and let whoever loosely qualifies take those roles.

I don't care if you love to do surgery, if I need it, and you're not very good at it, then I could care less that you love to do it. I'd much rather have someone who's known to be top notch, who's parents pushed them to do it, yet they don't really love their job. Same goes for say, anything aviation related. Your people love their jobs but your airline is always having minor or major problems? I'll pass, and choose the airline full of grumpy a**holes who don't enjoy the work itself, yet never seem to have any problems. In terms of less importance, if the fast food restaurant I'm at kinda sucks, then I'll just live with it, even if everyone there loves their job, because it's just fast food.

The last point of the last post was just saying there's no definitive right or wrong in this case. Everyone will see things differently and will prefer a different outcome.

Well yes, I get your point. My point was, that they leave the moment they aren't happy. We also have to keep in mind that Nintendo is still interested in kids as their customers, so if the size of the audience remains stagnant, this means there's new people coming in at the same rate there's old ones leaving.

Actually "men don't fight most of the time" is because most men can't afford it. In the worst case scenario you end up worse than you would without fighting and on top of that you might end up paying tens of thousands in legal fees. I believe only Denmark have even remotedly fair system when it comes to divorce and kids custody and it has reduced the fights relating to kids and divorce by 80-90%, after it's implementation. This is because you need to settle the kids custody and other stuff before getting the divorce. The current system favours heavily women.

A lot of the complaints you see in public how women do this and that and men don't and don't get respect for it and so on, are stuff men don't have any problems with after they're divorced of have broke up. 

What I've found seems to show that when contested men get custody about 35% of the time. That difference could be gender bias or could be because most cases women are the primary caregiver at home and these decisions are done based on what they think is in the best interest of the child. 

https://www.divorcenet.com/resources/divorce/for-men/divorce-for-men-why-women-get-child-custody-over-80-time#:~:text=Custody%20agreements%20versus%20trial%20outcomes,over%2070%25%20of%20the%20time.