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

[Metaphor]

Same as everyone else it would seem: if he finds out he's the biological father, he can sue to be recognize as the legal father, but he has to do so on short order (he can't keep it as an ace up his sleeve to extort the legal parents for years), and his request may not automatically granted by the courts since they may consider that the child's interests are better served by continuity.

I don't mean what the Finnish legal system would do.

I mean to ask the people on this thread what rights and obligations they think the bio father ought have in a situation like this.

It doesn't seem far off the mark, does it to you?

Yes, it does.

First, I don't understand what you mean by 'extorting the legal parents'. He can't 'extort' the bio mother. She can't somehow prove she isn't the bio mother. And I do not quite understand what it means to 'extort' the cuckolded husband. Extort him how?

I think the results in this case have come about because of a deeply flawed law. With respect to the cuckolded husband, I believe he has no moral obligation to parent a child that is not his. He did not consent to fatherhood and all the fantastic mental gymnastics offered by Toni and company cannot turn obvious non-consent into consent. Nor do I believe he is a monster for no longer having interest in parenting the child he didn't father. Feelings are beyond the scope of morality.

As for the bio father, it seems to me if any man is to be on the hook for paying parental dues, it is he. What he did was actually far closer to consent to be a father than what the cuckolded husband did.

So, we have the following situation:

A woman who cuckolded her husband.
A cuckolded husband who did not consent to being a father to the child.
A bio father who did consent to being a father, inasmuch as he impregnated a woman of his own free will.

If the cuckolded husband wanted visitation rights, his request should be considered and unless he is unfit somehow, should not be denied. He acted as a father during the time he was being deceived, and it would be wrong of the State to take away the commitment he made if he continues to want to make it, now with full consent of the situation. Of course, if he did not want to visit the child, the state cannot order him to visit the child.

The cuckolded husband should never be on the hook for maintenance/child support of any kind, including if he chooses to continue parental rights. Of course, he can pay if he wants to.

The bio father should be on the hook for maintenance/child support, because he is the bio father and he engaged in actions that indicated consent to be a bio father (unless he was underage and this woman raped him, or some similar circumstance). If he does not want to see the child, then of course the court cannot order him to see the child. If he does want to see the child, he should have visitation rights, again unless he is obviously unfit.

I do not see that the Finnish law would allow for that situation, and that is as close to a just outcome as I can build up.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is only misogyny that allows men to assume that she had nefarious motives and was in general a dishonest person.

OMG.

 

[Metaphor]

It is only misogyny that allows men to assume that she had nefarious motives and was in general a dishonest person.

OMG.

Why so surprised, ruby? A woman who cuckolded her husband and embezzled from her employer shouldn't be considered 'in general' a dishonest person. You are a misogynist for doubting her character. Women are always virtuous and perfect in every respect.

 

[ruby sparks]

The biological father is off the hook because of the same time limit that the man in this case failed to meet. The mother also cannot change her mind about who the father is. To change the legal paternity requires consent from both the current parents, as well as the biological father. So not even the mother, nor the state, can force the biological father to accept the responsibility of child support against his wishes.

So, let me get this right.

If a woman successfully cuckolds her husband long enough, and fails to inform a biological father of his fatherhood, she can determine who the real father is?

Curiouser and curiouser.

As far as I can tell, Jayjay is merely saying what the laws are. I don't think he's making a call on whether they're always fair on all parties.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think things are often tough for men in divorce cases when there are children involved, and men can end up being hard done by.

I think things are often tough for women in rape cases, and women can end up being hard done by.

(For example, about 2 years ago there was an outcry in Spain when a bunch of men who dragged a woman into an alley and gang-raped her, and then put videos of it online, didn't get a rape conviction because the woman didn't struggle).

What I'm saying is that in the round, what appear to be what we might call unjust outcomes happen.

I'm good with being annoyed by this one (based on what we know) but I'm not on board with the underlying 'death of civilization' thing.

 

[Arctish]

It doesn't seem far off the mark, does it to you?

Yes, it does.

First, I don't understand what you mean by 'extorting the legal parents'. He can't 'extort' the bio mother.

Sure he can.

He can threaten to go to the cops and say she deliberately lied on the birth certificate - a misdemeanor where I live - and then use that to accuse her of fraud. He can then claim she's an unfit mother. That would be a very serious threat.

She can't somehow prove she isn't the bio mother. And I do not quite understand what it means to 'extort' the cuckolded husband. Extort him how?

By threatening to air the family dirty laundry, expose him to ridicule, and ruin his relationship with the child he presumably loves.

I think the results in this case have come about because of a deeply flawed law.

It's not so much flawed as outdated.

Reliable DNA tests are very recent development. Go back before they were available and putting a time limit on challenging paternity made a lot of sense. It's not like people's memories of what was going on 9 months before a baby was born gets better with age.

I think the law needs to be tweaked so that the 2 year limit begins when evidence of non-paternity is first discovered. But it's up to the Finns to decide.

With respect to the cuckolded husband, I believe he has no moral obligation to parent a child that is not his. He did not consent to fatherhood and all the fantastic mental gymnastics offered by Toni and company cannot turn obvious non-consent into consent. Nor do I believe he is a monster for no longer having interest in parenting the child he didn't father. Feelings are beyond the scope of morality.

As for the bio father, it seems to me if any man is to be on the hook for paying parental dues, it is he. What he did was actually far closer to consent to be a father than what the cuckolded husband did.

I generally agree, but don't expect me to respect a man who'd abandon a child who loved him and thought he was their Daddy. I know a guy who did that, and he was one of the most selfish, manipulative a-holes I've ever met. And I know a guy who was a good father to a kid he found out wasn't his, because he's a good man and he loved his kid despite the absence of his DNA in her genome.

It is only misogyny that allows men to assume that she had nefarious motives and was in general a dishonest person.

OMG.

Why OMG?

Lose the misogyny and the presumption the wrong name is on the birth certificate because the woman had nefarious motives is a lot harder to defend.

 

[ruby sparks]

... don't expect me to respect a man who'd abandon a child who loved him and thought he was their Daddy. I know a guy who did that, and he was one of the most selfish, manipulative a-holes I've ever met. And I know a guy who was a good father to a kid he found out wasn't his, because he's a good man.

I would say that it depends on the individual circumstances.

I am finding it very difficult to be as harsh as that on the husband in this case, based on what we know.

And actually, it's not clear how he feels about the child. Probably mixed feelings I'm sure. But it was her, not him, who filed divorce proceedings not long after the truth came out, at which time she was apparently still seeing the other man. And apparently, he asked for access rights to the child, but she denied it. He may not be perfect, but I'd be reluctant to label him 'not a good man' just because he apparently couldn't cope with this by making what some might call the necessary 'good man' sacrifices. I think we should cut him quite a bit of slack. He's a person too.

I do not know what I would have done in his shoes. I doubt I'd have wanted to stay with her either, based on how she seems. It would be difficult to ever trust her, I think (and her embezzlement conviction wouldn't have helped, nor her going for my money) and it doesn't seem like she really even wanted to be with him. It doesn't seem to me that he was what I would call a bad man, not deserving of respect.

 

[Jokodo]

It doesn't seem far off the mark, does it to you?

Yes, it does.

First, I don't understand what you mean by 'extorting the legal parents'. He can't 'extort' the bio mother. She can't somehow prove she isn't the bio mother. And I do not quite understand what it means to 'extort' the cuckolded husband. Extort him how?

I think the results in this case have come about because of a deeply flawed law. With respect to the cuckolded husband, I believe he has no moral obligation to parent a child that is not his. He did not consent to fatherhood and all the fantastic mental gymnastics offered by Toni and company cannot turn obvious non-consent into consent. Nor do I believe he is a monster for no longer having interest in parenting the child he didn't father. Feelings are beyond the scope of morality.

As for the bio father, it seems to me if any man is to be on the hook for paying parental dues, it is he. What he did was actually far closer to consent to be a father than what the cuckolded husband did.

So, we have the following situation:

A woman who cuckolded her husband.
A cuckolded husband who did not consent to being a father to the child.
A bio father who did consent to being a father, inasmuch as he impregnated a woman of his own free will.

If the cuckolded husband wanted visitation rights, his request should be considered and unless he is unfit somehow, should not be denied. He acted as a father during the time he was being deceived, and it would be wrong of the State to take away the commitment he made if he continues to want to make it, now with full consent of the situation. Of course, if he did not want to visit the child, the state cannot order him to visit the child.

The cuckolded husband should never be on the hook for maintenance/child support of any kind, including if he chooses to continue parental rights. Of course, he can pay if he wants to.

The bio father should be on the hook for maintenance/child support, because he is the bio father and he engaged in actions that indicated consent to be a bio father (unless he was underage and this woman raped him, or some similar circumstance). If he does not want to see the child, then of course the court cannot order him to see the child. If he does want to see the child, he should have visitation rights, again unless he is obviously unfit.

I do not see that the Finnish law would allow for that situation, and that is as close to a just outcome as I can build up.

But what if the mother and legal father explicitly decide they want to keep raising the child together at the time and the bio-dad is happy to get off the hook - does he get to change his mind at any time in the future and force his way into the child's life with the courts' backing? Or to use the threat that he could have the legal father's status annulled simply by stating in writing that he now wants to be a father at any time, as a way to wage demands against the legal parents, or even against the child?

Changing a law because you find the outcome unjust in one particular case may have unintended consequences in other, more typical cases.

 

[Jokodo]

It doesn't seem far off the mark, does it to you?

Yes, it does.

First, I don't understand what you mean by 'extorting the legal parents'. He can't 'extort' the bio mother. She can't somehow prove she isn't the bio mother. And I do not quite understand what it means to 'extort' the cuckolded husband. Extort him how?

I think the results in this case have come about because of a deeply flawed law. With respect to the cuckolded husband, I believe he has no moral obligation to parent a child that is not his. He did not consent to fatherhood and all the fantastic mental gymnastics offered by Toni and company cannot turn obvious non-consent into consent. Nor do I believe he is a monster for no longer having interest in parenting the child he didn't father. Feelings are beyond the scope of morality.

As for the bio father, it seems to me if any man is to be on the hook for paying parental dues, it is he. What he did was actually far closer to consent to be a father than what the cuckolded husband did.

So, we have the following situation:

A woman who cuckolded her husband.
A cuckolded husband who did not consent to being a father to the child.
A bio father who did consent to being a father, inasmuch as he impregnated a woman of his own free will.

If the cuckolded husband wanted visitation rights, his request should be considered and unless he is unfit somehow, should not be denied. He acted as a father during the time he was being deceived, and it would be wrong of the State to take away the commitment he made if he continues to want to make it, now with full consent of the situation. Of course, if he did not want to visit the child, the state cannot order him to visit the child.

The cuckolded husband should never be on the hook for maintenance/child support of any kind, including if he chooses to continue parental rights. Of course, he can pay if he wants to.

The bio father should be on the hook for maintenance/child support, because he is the bio father and he engaged in actions that indicated consent to be a bio father (unless he was underage and this woman raped him, or some similar circumstance). If he does not want to see the child, then of course the court cannot order him to see the child. If he does want to see the child, he should have visitation rights, again unless he is obviously unfit.

I do not see that the Finnish law would allow for that situation, and that is as close to a just outcome as I can build up.

Like most other countries, the Finnish law probably doesn't provide for more than one man to be recognised as a child's legal father. That's not a problem of feminism though, it's a problem of a law assuming a flawless 1950s textbook nuclear family as universal, denying the existence of other familial configurations. If you want to change that, feminists are probably the best crowd to look for allies in.

 

[Metaphor]

Sure he can.

He can threaten to go to the cops and say she deliberately lied on the birth certificate - a misdemeanor where I live - and then use that to accuse her of fraud. He can then claim she's an unfit mother. That would be a very serious threat.

I don't see how a time limit would prevent that extortion. Or what in particular is the problem with reporting a crime to the police.

By threatening to air the family dirty laundry, expose him to ridicule, and ruin his relationship with the child he presumably loves.

But he would have to reveal first to the husband that the husband isn't the bio father. I don't see a problem with the bio father telling a cuckolded husband he is not the father (though it'd be tough, I imagine, if the news came from the bio father himself). And again, I don't understand how a time limit would prevent this 'extortion'. If the bio father was asking money to keep this secret, no time limit on claiming fatherhood can erase the truth. Even if he is legally barred from being recognised as the father, presumably the exposure to ridicule depends only on the cuckolded husband not being the bio father.

I generally agree, but don't expect me to respect a man who'd abandon a child who loved him and thought he was their Daddy.

I did not ask anybody to 'respect' him. I simply tried to point out that almost every person that has ever existed valued a genetic connection to their children, and why the overwhelming majority of couples who want children, try to have their own genetic children. It's like Toni and Jarhyn are from an alien planet, honestly.

I also tried to point out that forcibly extracting resources from him won't make him a father, and therefore agreeing that resources should be forcibly extracted from him is plain retribution for the cuckolded husband having the 'wrong' feelings.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why OMG?

What misogyny? Misogyny is a very serious accusation about a person. I presume you know what the definition is. It's not 'failing to do what I think a man should do in certain difficult circumstances in order to earn our respect'. I do not see any good reason to bandy about the word 'misogyny' here than I do to bandy about the phrase 'death of Europe'. They're both ott, imo.

It's as if some can't see how profoundly devastating all this could be for a man, that they have to judge him to be a misogynist just for not coping with it in a certain way.

I would have accepted 'behaved less than perfectly or wisely', but misogyny? I consider that charge disappointing and a bit uncalled for here, based on what we know. And quite honestly, the liberal, pejorative use of it is one reason a lot of people, possibly even most, and not just men in my experience, don't warm to feminism, because it suggests to them that some feminists are a bit skewed as to how they readily judge men, and possibly that feminism itself is a little bit inherently biased.

Lose the misogyny and the presumption the wrong name is on the birth certificate because the woman had nefarious motives is a lot harder to defend.

Ok, that nearly got another OMG from me. That the woman seems at least capable of having some poor or undesirable motives in all of this seems clearly evident and not at all hard to defend on its own merits.

 

[Metaphor]

Like most other countries, the Finnish law probably doesn't provide for more than one man to be recognised as a child's legal father.

But my scenario did not call for that. I used the language of visitation rights.

Imagine a scenario where a cuckolded husband finds out after three years that he is not the bio father of a particular child. Suppose that on the same day, the bio father finds out he is, in fact, a bio father to said child. This is saddening news for the cuckolded husband, but he decides that his bond with the child is too great to give up being a parent. But it's also saddening news for the bio father, because he would have parented the child from the outset had he been told, and he's sad about the lost formative years, but he too wants to be a father.

I do not see why either man should be denied visitation rights.

That's not a problem of feminism though, it's a problem of a law assuming a flawless 1950s textbook nuclear family as universal, denying the existence of other familial configurations. If you want to change that, feminists are probably the best crowd to look for allies in.

Feminists are not allies to men or women, and feminist ideology is incoherent, anti-fact, hateful, and inhumane. I think the law should be changed to acknowledge the husband's lack of consent to fatherhood in this situation, but feminist ideology is neither necessary nor desirable to make that case. Nor do I believe that feminists would push for any such alteration as I am proposing anyway.

 

[Arctish]

Why OMG?

Lose the misogyny and the presumption the wrong name is on the birth certificate because the woman had nefarious motives is a lot harder to defend.

What misogyny? Misogyny is a very serious accusation indeed. I presume you know what the definition is. It's not 'failing to do what I think a man should do in certain circumstances in order to earn my respect'.

I do not see any good reason to bandy about the word 'misogyny' here than I do to bandy about the phrase 'death of Europe'.

It's as if you can't see how devastating this could be for a man, that you have to label him a misogynist just for not coping with it.

I'm not labeling the guy in the OP. I don't presume to know anything about him or his family other than what was reported in the OP article. It was reported that he found the whole thing devastating, that he wanted to maintain his relationship with his wife the child, and that he suffered severe depression. I have nothing but sympathy for him and I fully support changing the law so that he can get a more just and fair outcome.

When I spoke of not respecting a guy who would abandon a child I was responding to some of the arguments being presented by some of the male posters. They appear to view children as burdens and would discard a son or daughter like trash if they found out they weren't related to them by blood. I would not require them to support a child they didn't father, but I would not respect them for walking out on a child like that, either.

Now, about that charge of misogyny, I want to be very clear: Toni said "It is only misogyny that allows men to assume that she had nefarious motives and was in general a dishonest person" and I agree that it is only misogyny that allows people to make that assumption.

We know less about the woman than we do about the guy in the OP, and nothing at all about what was going on in their lives when the child was born. We have no basis for assuming anything about her motives. So what allows anyone to assume her motives were nefarious? You might argue that misanthropy could account for it, but people aren't being misanthropic in this thread. So what does that leave as a possible explanation?

ETA:

Lose the misogyny and the presumption the wrong name is on the birth certificate because the woman had nefarious motives is a lot harder to defend.

Ok, that nearly got another OMG from me. That the woman seems at least capable of having nefarious motives in all of this seems clearly evident and not hard to defend, supposed misogyny or no supposed misogyny.

Noting that she is capable of having nefarious motives, and assuming she had them, are two different things.

You can defend the first merely by noting that all human beings are capable of having nefarious motives and citing research to support the claim. But how would you go about defending the assumption?

I think any defense of the assumption would have to lean hard on misogynist tropes about women being untrustworthy. Something about an apple and a snake, maybe.

 

[Jokodo]

Like most other countries, the Finnish law probably doesn't provide for more than one man to be recognised as a child's legal father.

But my scenario did not call for that. I used the language of visitation rights.

Imagine a scenario where a cuckolded husband finds out after three years that he is not the bio father of a particular child. Suppose that on the same day, the bio father finds out he is, in fact, a bio father to said child. This is saddening news for the cuckolded husband, but he decides that his bond with the child is too great to give up being a parent. But it's also saddening news for the bio father, because he would have parented the child from the outset had he been told, and he's sad about the lost formative years, but he too wants to be a father.

You and others also explicitly said they think there should be no time limit to any of that. So, do you believe that a bio-dad who, respecting the wishes of the mother and legal father, opted out of playing the role of a father when they found out he was the father (say when the child was too years old too keep it comparable to the case at hand) should get to change his mind at any time? And to nullify the legal father's status at the wink of a finger?

I do not see why either man should be denied visitation rights.

That's not a problem of feminism though, it's a problem of a law assuming a flawless 1950s textbook nuclear family as universal, denying the existence of other familial configurations. If you want to change that, feminists are probably the best crowd to look for allies in.

Feminists are not allies to men or women, and feminist ideology is incoherent, anti-fact, hateful, and inhumane. I think the law should be changed to acknowledge the husband's lack of consent to fatherhood in this situation, but feminist ideology is neither necessary nor desirable to make that case. Nor do I believe that feminists would push for any such alteration as I am proposing anyway.

That's what your religion says, I know. But here we have a case of a bad situation for a man being brought about by patriarchical assumptions that are ingrained in laws written decades ago. Feminists seem like an obvious choice of audience to fire up against that problem.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not labeling the guy in the OP.

Oh I definitely think you effectively went along with that suggestion to some extent. You at least had trouble understanding why it surprised me. Which I find a bit odd.

Noting that she is capable of having nefarious motives, and assuming she had them, are two different things.

You can defend the first merely by noting that all human beings are capable of having nefarious motives and citing research to support the claim. But how would you go about defending the assumption?

What assumption? I'm partly looking at the facts. She cheated on him for years. She embezzled her employer. As I said, the suggestion that she is capable of poor motives is not at all hard to defend, even before we start speculating about other ways it might also have been the case. I mean, it does seem likely she might have known who the biological father was. She couldn't conceive with the husband and she knew at what times she had slept with the other man. Yes, that latter part is speculation, but it's not an assumption. She also went after his money when she knew it was not his child. Legal? As it turns out, yes. Fair? Hm.

Whereas you focus on the (supposed) misogyny, after losing which aspect of the matter, according to you, the suggestions about her poor motives are hard to defend?

 

[Arctish]

I'm not labeling the guy in the OP.

Oh I definitely think you effectively went along with that.

Then you and I are miscommunicating again.

Noting that she is capable of having nefarious motives, and assuming she had them, are two different things.

You can defend the first merely by noting that all human beings are capable of having nefarious motives and citing research to support the claim. But how would you go about defending the assumption?

What assumption? I'm looking at the facts. She cheated on him. She embezzled her employer. As I said, the suggestion that she is capable of poor motives is not at all hard to defend, even before we start speculating about other ways it might also have been the case.

Whereas you focus on the supposed misogyny, after which the suggestions about her motives are hard to defend?

The terms you are using are shifting.

Toni's statement was about assuming the woman in the OP article "had nefarious motives and was in general a dishonest person". Now you're talking about "the suggestion that she is capable of poor motives".

Assuming something is true is different from suggesting it's a possibility.

 

[ruby sparks]

Then you and I are miscommunicating again.

Noting that she is capable of having nefarious motives, and assuming she had them, are two different things.

You can defend the first merely by noting that all human beings are capable of having nefarious motives and citing research to support the claim. But how would you go about defending the assumption?

What assumption? I'm looking at the facts. She cheated on him. She embezzled her employer. As I said, the suggestion that she is capable of poor motives is not at all hard to defend, even before we start speculating about other ways it might also have been the case.

Whereas you focus on the supposed misogyny, after which the suggestions about her motives are hard to defend?

The terms you are using are shifting.

Toni's statement was about assuming the woman in the OP article "had nefarious motives and was in general a dishonest person". Now you're talking about "the suggestion that she is capable of poor motives".

Assuming something is true is different from suggesting it's a possibility.

But who was even assuming anything? It is obvious that the woman did a number of dishonest things. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to think she might have done one or two more, such as concealing the knowledge of who the biological father probably was.

And yes, I am deliberately not using the word nefarious. To me, that's a bit too damning a word.

Anyhows, tell me about the misogyny. That's actually the only part of toni's post I quoted (from a reply to me), and the specific, relevant word that prompted my WTF, the WTF you then apparently couldn't parse for some odd reason.

I'm not even seeing the supposed misogyny yet. Is it because, as well as being deeply hurt and having his life turned upside down, and possibly because of that, he's apparently angry, including with his wife? Is that misogyny, in the circumstances? I think I'd allow a woman to be just as angry in something akin to the reverse scenario, without calling it man-hating. I think it's a cheap shot here, and it smells of dodgy ideology.

 

[Jokodo]

@Metaphor : do you believe that, if the state learns that the man who accepted fatherhood is not the biological father (which they assume he didn't know either), it should should automatically transfer legal fatherhood to the biological father?

What if he actually does know he's not the biological father (because they informally but consensually used an acquaintance as sperm donor and never thought it relevant to tell the authorities? Should he have to fight to remain a father if the sperm donor doesn't honor his part of the deal and demands to take over?

 

[Metaphor]

You and others also explicitly said they think there should be no time limit to any of that. So, do you believe that a bio-dad who, respecting the wishes of the mother and legal father, opted out of playing the role of a father when they found out he was the father (say when the child was too years old too keep it comparable to the case at hand) should get to change his mind at any time? And to nullify the legal father's status at the wink of a finger?

How would you get the idea that I think someone's legal and/or social status as a father can and should be 'nullified' by the bio father's say so in every instance? Where have I said anything like that?

If the bio father and the legal father work out an arrangement, as in your scenario, that the legal father will remain the legal father, I don't see what the issue is. If later the bio father wants visitation rights, I believe he should get them (again, barring obvious unfitness).

That's what your religion says, I know. But here we have a case of a bad situation for a man being brought about by patriarchical assumptions that are ingrained in laws written decades ago. Feminists seem like an obvious choice of audience to fire up against that problem.

Resisting religion is not a religion, Jokodo.

It also seems very strange to me that you think feminists would be allied with my viewpoint on this issue. Toni is a self-described feminist, and she is deeply opposed to my viewpoint on this issue and agrees with the existing Finnish law. Of course, other feminists might agree with me, but that's because feminism is incoherent.

 

[ruby sparks]

Now, about that charge of misogyny, I want to be very clear: Toni said "It is only misogyny that allows men to assume that she had nefarious motives and was in general a dishonest person" and I agree that it is only misogyny that allows people to make that assumption.

Go back and read post 197 again, toni's reply (to me). There was no assuming by me in my prior post, only speculation (indicated by the words 'apparently' and 'suggests') and nothing about 'nefarious', and therefore even less basis for the introduction of the provocative word misogyny into the discussion at all.

That said, I can now see that she was not, it seems, referring to the husband. My bad. Whoops. Sorry. Though I would honestly not put it past her to do. She seems to see misogyny a bit too readily, imo.

Maybe I over-reacted. Maybe it was too hot on the heels of her largely irrelevant in this case 'men should get vasectomies' comment or something she said about the husband's consent.

My overall impression is of a tendency to focus on man-blaming and women-excusing at every possible opportunity. Sorry, but that's what I'm seeing overall, in this thread and beyond.

And while I might readily agree with her in some ways generally or in some situations, it does not seem that this is the right example to be doing that with, based on what we know. It took her a heck of a time even to voice any criticism at all of the woman in this case.

What can I say? Toni's one-sided attitudes annoy my head almost (but not quite) as much as metaphor's do but in a different way.