Finnish man ordered by court to pay alimony for a child resulting from his wife cheating: this week in the strange death of Europe

[TomC]

From what I've read so far, there's no particular reason to go with that. But it is possible.

Heck, I'm not sure any of this happened. Maybe a handful of incels made up the whole story then started a "GoFundMe" page.

But the story does include a visit to the fertility clinic. And while the angry ex is spreading personal information all over the internet, there's no explanation for the visit or what the results were. Sometimes, the lack of evidence is itself evidence.

That he reportedly left shortly after apparently finding out suggests that he didn't know before that. Him not knowing fits the reported facts we do have better.

The key word here is "reported".

I'm not claiming to know anything. I've read what I read on this thread, and that's it.

How do you fit the fertility clinic into this mess?

Maybe hubby and sperm donor had a discussion about this and hubby promised that sperm donor would never be held responsible for the child. Now, hubby doesn't remember that because he prefers not to remember. But the judge knows about it.

This wouldn't be the first time I listened to both sides of a nasty breakup and wondered "Were these two people ever on the same planet?"
Tom

 

[ruby sparks]

From what I've read so far, there's no particular reason to go with that. But it is possible.

Heck, I'm not sure any of this happened. Maybe a handful of incels made up the whole story then started a "GoFundMe" page.

But the story does include a visit to the fertility clinic. And while the angry ex is spreading personal information all over the internet, there's no explanation for the visit or what the results were. Sometimes, the lack of evidence is itself evidence.

That he reportedly left shortly after apparently finding out suggests that he didn't know before that. Him not knowing fits the reported facts we do have better.

The key word here is "reported".

I'm not claiming to know anything. I've read what I read on this thread, and that's it.

How do you fit the fertility clinic into this mess?

Maybe hubby and sperm donor had a discussion about this and hubby promised that sperm donor would never be held responsible for the child. Now, hubby doesn't remember that because he prefers not to remember. But the judge knows about it.

This wouldn't be the first time I listened to both sides of a nasty breakup and wondered "Were these two people ever on the same planet?"
Tom

The couple were apparently trying for a child at some point. That would explain the fertility clinic.

As I’ve said, I think the rest of your speculation about the husband knowing is a bit unlikely.

 

[Metaphor]

You mean like in the OP case?

No, not like the OP. The events reported in the OP are not the events in the scenario you invented.

Just because you don't like the outcome and believe the guy's version of events doesn't mean it wasnt legit to have a court look at the case that the world would be a better place if he were automatically assumed not to want to be a father and this would never end up in a court except if he explicitly seeks to adopt the child - or that the court didn't have access to additional facts about this case that make their ruling more plausible.

I have not ruled out 'additional facts' that you now seem quite desperate to be the case, but the 'additional facts' would have to be the opposite of the reported facts.

People tend to overestimate how much they can trust the word of a person they're infatuated with. You want to punish Sue for her humanity, for her frailty, for her emotions, while if she acted like a robot she'd be good? I thought that was a devilish thing when the guy in the OP was at the receiving end. What's good for the gander is good for the goose...

Oh I see, now you've revised your story, and Sue is infatuated and has lost all her faculties. Sue's infatuation cannot make a man who did not consent to fatherhood the father, and acknowledging that is not punishing Sue for her humanity.

I also think I read something about perverse incentives that may apply here too.

Also this "she brought it upon herself" posturing, why wouldn't that apply to the guy in the OP? He had an option to have his fatherhood annulled, he didn't take it. What's good for the goose...

It seems to me that if you use the existing law to say anything you do that doesn't comply is something you 'brought on yourself', then you can 'justify' anything. In Iran, there are many exclusive marriage and divorce rights that men are entitled to. But the solution is not to tell women 'just don't get married' (though that's happening, too), but to change the law to something reasonable.

The existing law that puts a timer on the implicit 'fatherhood' decision is unreasonable. Even in that case as in the OP, you keep speculating the court had 'additional facts', like maybe the timer started earlier than we are led to believe from the case write-up. That's the court deciding on facts on which there might not be hard evidence. My framework does not get rid of courts deciding facts and I never claimed it did.

Sometimes, the courts will get the facts wrong and that will involve a miscarriage of justice.

You're lying and you know it, or would if you were capable of reading. My scenario includes the line "after talking with both guys at length". Its in the part you quoted.

I am not lying. I indeed read your scenario, and your sentence contains nothing about the content of what they talked about. I don't have access to your brain states and in your head you might have thought that phrase conveyed everything it needed, but it didn't. I took it to mean she talked to both men to sort her feelings out, because you then include sentences explaining her sorting her feelings out.

Grow the fuck up and learn to read

Learn to write.

instead of making unfounded and in some cases demonstrably false inferences about my beliefs,

The statement that it wasn't clear that the bio father even knew was completely justified. In the story in your head, he might have known, in the story you typed out, it was ambiguous.

Your story contains no explicit statement about Sue telling Bob she is pregnant and it explicitly says she stopped seeing Bob, not that they stopped seeing each other, implying her control over the situation.

based on your fantasy of what feminists (all of them, because they're monolithic somehow) think rather than my actual words and their implications

Haha, no. Feminists are not a monolith, because feminism is incoherent, and I enjoy their internecine spats every once in a while.

I said your scenario was gynocentric, not 'feminist'.

 

[Jokodo]

No, not like the OP. The events reported in the OP are not the events in the scenario you invented.

That's not what I said. What the two scenarios do have in common, though, is that a court gets to weigh the evidence and make assumptions about facts that cannot be proven directly either way.

I have not ruled out 'additional facts' that you now seem quite desperate to be the case, but the 'additional facts' would have to be the opposite of the reported facts.

People tend to overestimate how much they can trust the word of a person they're infatuated with. You want to punish Sue for her humanity, for her frailty, for her emotions, while if she acted like a robot she'd be good? I thought that was a devilish thing when the guy in the OP was at the receiving end. What's good for the gander is good for the goose...

Oh I see, now you've revised your story, and Sue is infatuated and has lost all her faculties. Sue's infatuation cannot make a man who did not consent to fatherhood the father,

Of course not. But it can make Sue 'incapable' of seeking written confirmation of Tom's consent (which he would have given her at the time), just like the OP guy's shock apparently made him incapable of filing for the nullification of paternity in a timely manner (which he would have been granted, it appears).

and acknowledging that is not punishing Sue for her humanity.

By the same logic acknowledging that he had a chance to have his paternity annulled and didn't take it isn't punishing OP guy for his humanity. Yet that's what you claimed.

I also think I read something about perverse incentives that may apply here too.

Also this "she brought it upon herself" posturing, why wouldn't that apply to the guy in the OP? He had an option to have his fatherhood annulled, he didn't take it. What's good for the goose...

It seems to me that if you use the existing law to say anything you do that doesn't comply is something you 'brought on yourself', then you can 'justify' anything. In Iran, there are many exclusive marriage and divorce rights that men are entitled to. But the solution is not to tell women 'just don't get married' (though that's happening, too), but to change the law to something reasonable.

The existing law that puts a timer on the implicit 'fatherhood' decision is unreasonable. Even in that case as in the OP, you keep speculating the court had 'additional facts', like maybe the timer started earlier than we are led to believe from the case write-up.

What we've seen is not a "case write-up". It's the guy's version of events, nothing less, nothing more. Neither the wife nor the court has gone to the media, as far as I can tell.

That's the court deciding on facts on which there might not be hard evidence. My framework does not get rid of courts deciding facts and I never claimed it did.

Yet when the court decides the facts of a case which you, based on incomplete information, deem wrong, you cry death...

Sometimes, the courts will get the facts wrong and that will involve a miscarriage of justice.

Yes, indeed. And if you have reason to believe that whatever it actually is you're proposing is better at avoiding those situations that the current Finnish law, we haven't seen it.

You're lying and you know it, or would if you were capable of reading. My scenario includes the line "after talking with both guys at length". Its in the part you quoted.

I am not lying. I indeed read your scenario, and your sentence contains nothing about the content of what they talked about.

It's called "pragmatics". If you are at a crossroads in life and "talk at length" with someone close, the general idea is that you probably talked about your complex situation.

I don't have access to your brain states and in your head you might have thought that phrase conveyed everything it needed, but it didn't. I took it to mean she talked to both men to sort her feelings out, because you then include sentences explaining her sorting her feelings out.

Grow the fuck up and learn to read

Learn to write.

instead of making unfounded and in some cases demonstrably false inferences about my beliefs,

The statement that it wasn't clear that the bio father even knew was completely justified. In the story in your head, he might have known, in the story you typed out, it was ambiguous.

If it's ambiguous to you, you might want to ask instead of making assumptions and attacking me for those assumptions?

Your story contains no explicit statement about Sue telling Bob she is pregnant and it explicitly says she stopped seeing Bob, not that they stopped seeing each other, implying her control over the situation.

based on your fantasy of what feminists (all of them, because they're monolithic somehow) think rather than my actual words and their implications

Haha, no. Feminists are not a monolith, because feminism is incoherent, and I enjoy their internecine spats every once in a while.

What, exactly, is "incoherent" about different people sporting different opinions? The very fact that you consider a disagreement between different individuals as "incoherence" if anything shows that you do indeed treat feminists as a monolith.

I said your scenario was gynocentric, not 'feminist'.

There's nothing gynocentric about treating an adult human male as an adult human being.

 

[Metaphor]

By the same logic acknowledging that he had a chance to have his paternity annulled and didn't take it isn't punishing OP guy for his humanity. Yet that's what you claimed.

Of course it is punishing him. He did not consent to be the father, and an arbitrary time-limit has been built in to make him the legal father if he 'times out'. The time limit says 'we will interpret anything beyond this time limit as consent to permanent fatherhood, so sort your feelings out stat'.

There hasn't been an arbitrary time-limit built in with Sue. It's simply a matter of the evidence. The court could have evidence that the social father did, in fact, make the promise he made.

Yet when the court decides the facts of a case which you, based on incomplete information, deem wrong, you cry death...

The court, from what we are told, determined his time on the clock ran out. I accept the facts as reported. The problem is not the court finding that the time ran out. That seems to have happened and it is not in dispute. The problem is the legislation imposing a time limit.

Yes, indeed. And if you have reason to believe that whatever it actually is you're proposing is better at avoiding those situations that the current Finnish law, we haven't seen it.

You fundamentally disagree with the philosophy behind my framework so I'm not surprised you disagree with the outcomes.

It's called "pragmatics". If you are at a crossroads in life and "talk at length" with someone close, the general idea is that you probably talked about your complex situation.

You can try all the post-hocery that you wish, but the point is, if you are going to propose a scenario that I'm supposed to respond to, you make the relevant facts explicit.

If it's ambiguous to you, you might want to ask instead of making assumptions and attacking me for those assumptions?

It's ambiguous to anybody except you, because what you typed is completely silent on what she discussed and what information she imparted.

What, exactly, is "incoherent" about different people sporting different opinions? The very fact that you consider a disagreement between different individuals as "incoherence" if anything shows that you do indeed treat feminists as a monolith.

If different people claim to follow the same ideology, but they come to different conclusions, and each thinks their conclusion is the one justified by the ideology, there's a few possible scenarios. I'll admit I believe (3) but it could be 1 or 2:

1) Some self-described feminists are just not that intelligent, and they don't understand how to formulate the correct conclusions from feminist ideology. In that case, I concede feminism isn't incoherent, but some number of feminists have applied feminist ideology correctly and some haven't.

2) Feminist ideology is too threadbare to lead to consistent conclusions between people.

3) Feminism as practiced is incoherent, because feminists can come to different conclusions while allegedly applying feminist ideology to the same set of circumstances.

 

[Metaphor]

His approach certainly seems to be at odds with what appear to be increasingly common underlying policies about prioritising child-centred outcomes. Metaphor's views are pretty much man-centred.

It may appear to you that believing the consent of men is important is equivalent to being 'man centred'. It may look 'man centred' from the perspective of somebody who is used to gynocentrism. Or, it may look like that merely because women's consent to being a parent is almost never in doubt. A bio mother can choose to bear a child or not, or bear it and abandon it, or bear it and adopt it out. So when laws do not really take seriously parental consent, it is much, much more likely to affect men rather than women.

I would like to see family laws that treat men as if their consent mattered, and treat woman as women and not children.

 

[ruby sparks]

His approach certainly seems to be at odds with what appear to be increasingly common underlying policies about prioritising child-centred outcomes. Metaphor's views are pretty much man-centred.

It may appear to you that believing the consent of men is important is equivalent to being 'man centred'. It may look 'man centred' from the perspective of somebody who is used to gynocentrism. Or, it may look like that merely because women's consent to being a parent is almost never in doubt. A bio mother can choose to bear a child or not, or bear it and abandon it, or bear it and adopt it out. So when laws do not really take seriously parental consent, it is much, much more likely to affect men rather than women.

I would like to see family laws that treat men as if their consent mattered, and treat woman as women and not children.

Sure, but gynocentrism has little to do with why I said it was man-centred (which it is) because I was comparing man-centred to child-centred, not woman-centred. It has struck me during the thread that you have hardly taken the interests of the child himself into account much at all.

 

[Jokodo]

Of course it is punishing him. He did not consent to be the father, and an arbitrary time-limit has been built in to make him the legal father if he 'times out'. The time limit says 'we will interpret anything beyond this time limit as consent to permanent fatherhood, so sort your feelings out stat'.

There hasn't been an arbitrary time-limit built in with Sue. It's simply a matter of the evidence. The court could have evidence that the social father did, in fact, make the promise he made.



The court, from what we are told, determined his time on the clock ran out. I accept the facts as reported. The problem is not the court finding that the time ran out. That seems to have happened and it is not in dispute. The problem is the legislation imposing a time limit.

Yes, indeed. And if you have reason to believe that whatever it actually is you're proposing is better at avoiding those situations that the current Finnish law, we haven't seen it.

You fundamentally disagree with the philosophy behind my framework so I'm not surprised you disagree with the outcomes.

I fundamentally agree with your professed philosophy - that adult humans should be held accountable for all and only the decisions they made knowingly and willingly.

I disagree with the idea that a decision that has been expressed non-verbally, through one's actions, is null and void (at least when the person who otherwise might be held accountable is a man). That's not an idea that logically follows from the foundations of your professed ideology - it's an extra bit you add on top to guarantee the outcome you want.

And I fundamentally disagree that the decision to be a parent should be one you get to re-evaluate every few months.

It's called "pragmatics". If you are at a crossroads in life and "talk at length" with someone close, the general idea is that you probably talked about your complex situation.

You can try all the post-hocery that you wish, but the point is, if you are going to propose a scenario that I'm supposed to respond to, you make the relevant facts explicit.

If it's ambiguous to you, you might want to ask instead of making assumptions and attacking me for those assumptions?

It's ambiguous to anybody except you, because what you typed is completely silent on what she discussed and what information she imparted.

That's where pragmatics comes in. If it's ambiguous, adult humans either assume that they talked about the salient topic that's been mentioned in the same paragraph, or we ask. We don't assume that they talked about the Reagan presidency that hasn't been mentioned anywhere in the entire text.

What, exactly, is "incoherent" about different people sporting different opinions? The very fact that you consider a disagreement between different individuals as "incoherence" if anything shows that you do indeed treat feminists as a monolith.

If different people claim to follow the same ideology, but they come to different conclusions, and each thinks their conclusion is the one justified by the ideology, there's a few possible scenarios. I'll admit I believe (3) but it could be 1 or 2:

1) Some self-described feminists are just not that intelligent, and they don't understand how to formulate the correct conclusions from feminist ideology. In that case, I concede feminism isn't incoherent, but some number of feminists have applied feminist ideology correctly and some haven't.

2) Feminist ideology is too threadbare to lead to consistent conclusions between people.

3) Feminism as practiced is incoherent, because feminists can come to different conclusions while allegedly applying feminist ideology to the same set of circumstances.

Thanks for demonstrating that you see feminism as monolithic.

Did you know there is no bible and no ten commandments of feminism? That therefore, the phrases "applying feminist ideology to the same set of circumstances" literally makes no sense at all?

 

[TomC]

Heck, I'm not sure any of this happened. Maybe a handful of incels made up the whole story then started a "GoFundMe" page.

But the story does include a visit to the fertility clinic. And while the angry ex is spreading personal information all over the internet, there's no explanation for the visit or what the results were. Sometimes, the lack of evidence is itself evidence.


The key word here is "reported".

I'm not claiming to know anything. I've read what I read on this thread, and that's it.

How do you fit the fertility clinic into this mess?

Maybe hubby and sperm donor had a discussion about this and hubby promised that sperm donor would never be held responsible for the child. Now, hubby doesn't remember that because he prefers not to remember. But the judge knows about it.

This wouldn't be the first time I listened to both sides of a nasty breakup and wondered "Were these two people ever on the same planet?"
Tom

The couple were apparently trying for a child at some point. That would explain the fertility clinic.

As I’ve said, I think the rest of your speculation about the husband knowing is a bit unlikely.

I find this whole story unlikely.
But I find some variation on my version less unlikely than the story told.

I find it very difficult to believe that a court awarded the greedy, lying, cheating slut, who blew up her family with deceit, €50K in support for her boyfriend's son. And didn't ding boyfriend for supplying the boy with financial support. Based on a technicality over a deadline.

Far more likely, to me, is that the court had information that we don't have, and the fertility clinic results played a big part in that.
Tom

 

[ruby sparks]

I find this whole story unlikely.
But I find some variation on my version less unlikely than the story told.

I find it very difficult to believe that a court awarded the greedy, lying, cheating slut, who blew up her family with deceit, €50K in support for her boyfriend's son. And didn't ding boyfriend for supplying the boy with financial support. Based on a technicality over a deadline.

Far more likely, to me, is that the court had information that we don't have, and the fertility clinic results played a big part in that.
Tom

Then you'll have to wait for more supporting detail. At this point, it seems the court did award on the basis reported.

 

[ruby sparks]

If different people claim to follow the same ideology, but they come to different conclusions, and each thinks their conclusion is the one justified by the ideology, there's a few possible scenarios. I'll admit I believe (3) but it could be 1 or 2:

1) Some self-described feminists are just not that intelligent, and they don't understand how to formulate the correct conclusions from feminist ideology. In that case, I concede feminism isn't incoherent, but some number of feminists have applied feminist ideology correctly and some haven't.

2) Feminist ideology is too threadbare to lead to consistent conclusions between people.

3) Feminism as practiced is incoherent, because feminists can come to different conclusions while allegedly applying feminist ideology to the same set of circumstances.

Thanks for demonstrating that you see feminism as monolithic.

Did you know there is no bible and no ten commandments of feminism? That therefore, the phrases "applying feminist ideology to the same set of circumstances" literally makes no sense at all?

Don't worry. Feminism is just a temporary derail. Remember, we're only doing problems with traditionalist policies.

 

[TomC]

I find this whole story unlikely.
But I find some variation on my version less unlikely than the story told.

I find it very difficult to believe that a court awarded the greedy, lying, cheating slut, who blew up her family with deceit, €50K in support for her boyfriend's son. And didn't ding boyfriend for supplying the boy with financial support. Based on a technicality over a deadline.

Far more likely, to me, is that the court had information that we don't have, and the fertility clinic results played a big part in that.
Tom

Then you'll have to wait for more supporting detail. At this point, it seems the court did award on the basis reported.

Honestly, I don't want supporting details.

For the sake of the child, I sincerely hope that this sordid story goes away. I hope he doesn't get even more screwed up by becoming a thing on the internet. The adults in his life have already done too much of that.

He's the real victim here. The boy with two fathers, but no parents. I don't see any version of the story where the adults were sufficiently concerned about the child.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I disagree with the idea that a decision that has been expressed non-verbally, through one's actions, is null and void (at least when the person who otherwise might be held accountable is a man).

I didn't say it and I don't believe it.

 

[Metaphor]

Sure, but gynocentrism has little to do with why I said it was man-centred (which it is) because I was comparing man-centred to child-centred, not woman-centred. It has struck me during the thread that you have hardly taken the interests of the child himself into account much at all.

That is false.

Toni and others, in this and other threads, consistently talk about the needs of the child, but their rhetoric has nothing to do with reality. There are reasons why children with involved fathers do better than children without them: fathers help provide financial resources, and fathers provide non-financial resources (such as loving their children, spending time with them, helping them, instilling values in them, teaching them, comforting them, etc).

Financial resources are important, but they are also fungible. More importantly, financial resources are the only kind of resources that the 'think of the children' rhetoricians can actually extract from an unwilling legal father. They cannot extract non-financial resources; no legal system could possibly do so.

So the think of the children rhetoricians are not really advocating anything of value for the child, although perhaps they think they are. When a child does not have a consenting father, the only person who could have orchestrated the situation is a mother. And when a child does not have a consenting father, there is no legitimate father to extract financial resources from. It's as simple as that.

 

[Jokodo]

Sure, but gynocentrism has little to do with why I said it was man-centred (which it is) because I was comparing man-centred to child-centred, not woman-centred. It has struck me during the thread that you have hardly taken the interests of the child himself into account much at all.

That is false.

Toni and others, in this and other threads, consistently talk about the needs of the child, but their rhetoric has nothing to do with reality. There are reasons why children with involved fathers do better than children without them: fathers help provide financial resources, and fathers provide non-financial resources (such as loving their children, spending time with them, helping them, instilling values in them, teaching them, comforting them, etc).

Financial resources are important, but they are also fungible. More importantly, financial resources are the only kind of resources that the 'think of the children' rhetoricians can actually extract from an unwilling legal father. They cannot extract non-financial resources; no legal system could possibly do so.

So the think of the children rhetoricians are not really advocating anything of value for the child, although perhaps they think they are. When a child does not have a consenting father, the only person who could have orchestrated the situation is a mother. And when a child does not have a consenting father, there is no legitimate father to extract financial resources from. It's as simple as that.

And when a child does have a consenting father, he doesn't get to change his mind half a year, or five years, down the road in a whim - even if that consent was expressed non-verbally, as long as it was clear.

And just because we cannot force him to make good on all of his promises doesn't mean we shouldn't try to use legal means to nudge him towards making good on some.

It's as simple as that.

 

[ruby sparks]

That is false.

No, it's not. You have been concentrating almost exclusively on the man's interests.

Toni and others, in this and other threads, consistently talk about the needs of the child, but their rhetoric has nothing to do with reality. There are reasons why children with involved fathers do better than children without them: fathers help provide financial resources, and fathers provide non-financial resources (such as loving their children, spending time with them, helping them, instilling values in them, teaching them, comforting them, etc).

Financial resources are important, but they are also fungible. More importantly, financial resources are the only kind of resources that the 'think of the children' rhetoricians can actually extract from an unwilling legal father. They cannot extract non-financial resources; no legal system could possibly do so.

So the think of the children rhetoricians are not really advocating anything of value for the child, although perhaps they think they are. When a child does not have a consenting father, the only person who could have orchestrated the situation is a mother. And when a child does not have a consenting father, there is no legitimate father to extract financial resources from. It's as simple as that.

Ok so you responded to an observation by me that you hardly addressed the needs of the child in the OP case with criticisms of those who advocated for the child (in some cases too much, imo, and at the expense of the man). And you think that's some kind of relevant response. It isn't. It's just complaining to me about other people. Also, it's not even true that those who advocated for the child's interests were only referring to money.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it's not. You have been concentrating almost exclusively on the man's interests.

In a story where the man's rights have been tramelled, sure.

Ok so you responded to an observation by me that you hardly addressed the needs of the child in the OP case with criticisms of those who advocated for the child (in some cases too much, imo). And you think that's some kind of relevant response. It isn't. It's just complaining to me about others. Also, it's not even true that those who advocated for the child's interests were only referring to money.

For fuck's sake. Their rhetoric was about more than money but the reality was not. Children are more likely to thrive when they have two involved and loving parents, but pretending the law can supply it does not benefit a child who doesn't have it.

 

[ruby sparks]

For fuck's sake. Their rhetoric was about more than money but the reality was not. Children are more likely to thrive when they have two involved and loving parents, but pretending the law can supply it does not benefit a child who doesn't have it.

I did not see anyone suggesting otherwise though. And in any case, please stop segueing to what others have said.

I was just noting that your own position was very man-centred. That's where this recent set of exchanges started. I'm not saying it's evil. And like I said, imo, some go so far towards the interests of the child that they discount the man's interests to more or less not being worthy of much consideration. Which I don't agree with.

By the way, gynocentrism is an interesting topic, imo.

 

[Metaphor]

For fuck's sake. Their rhetoric was about more than money but the reality was not. Children are more likely to thrive when they have two involved and loving parents, but pretending the law can supply it does not benefit a child who doesn't have it.

I did not see anyone suggesting otherwise though. And in any case, please stop segueing to what others have said.

I was just noting that your own position was very man-centred. That's where this recent set of exchanges started. I'm not saying it's evil. And like I said, imo, some go so far towards the interests of the child that they discount the man's interests to more or less not being worthy of much consideration. Which I don't agree with.

By the way, gynocentrism is an interesting topic, imo.

But I don't see how you can call my position "man centred" without a comparison point. I'm saying calling the current Finnish law "child centred" seems like something you've simply assumed. The current law seems quite consistent to me with conservative ideas that a patriarch is responsible for his wife's behaviour and for any children born in his household.

 

[ruby sparks]

But I don't see how you can call my position "man centred" without a comparison point. I'm saying calling the current Finnish law "child centred" seems like something you've simply assumed. The current law seems quite consistent to me with conservative ideas that a patriarch is responsible for his wife's behaviour and for any children born in his household.

But it is man-centred.

The Finnish Law, as far as I know, and like the family laws in several countries, is child-centred.

Obviously, an ideal law would be a reasonable balance between all interests.

In some ways, you could call it patriarchal. Some laws may have patriarchal aspects, yes. This one, perhaps.