If there is a stage in the life of a child where the mother has a right to shut out the father and make calls on their own, then wouldn't that be a prime example of inequality between the genders?
Finland is currently just processing a major legal case regarding a loosely related situation, that this conversation has just reminded me of. A married couple conceived a child up to the age of over a year old, and only after that point did the mother admit she'd cheated and the child was not the husbands. This was later proven via a DNA test as well. However, due to how the law is written here, the father is now hooked up to the child and has to pay for its upbringing up to the age of 18, because he did not think to dispute his fatherhood early enough in the child's life.
If, prior or during the pregnancy, the mother makes decisions that the father disagrees with, the law always comes down on the side of the mother. Want to terminate an unborn child even if the father wishes to raise it? Tough luck, mother has her rights. Want to carry a child to term despite the father not wanting it? While I'd agree the father would have no right to demand termination, the law still says the father has to pay up because the child is his. Want to cheat, bring some other mans child into the marriage and hook the husband up to pay for its upbringing? Go for it, as long as you don't get caught too early!
If the goal was equality between the two genders, then this all seems rather skewed one way. Small wonder western societies are having less and less children on their own...
EDIT: Also, a wonderful apples-to-oranges comparison there.
I previously made the point that the way people create entertainment is based on biological principals, and somehow that is then read to mean I think laws should be written as unequal because of those same principals as well, when I've specifically pointed out that law and culture are two very different things.