And so a man who had nothing to do with bringing this kid into the world should be condemned to paying for the child he was in no way responsible for bringing into the world as well as for the woman who cheated on him?
Why not have the real father pay child support? Why should not the cheating slut not have to work to cover her share of the child rearing expenses?
First, the man did have something to do with bringing this kid into the world: 1.5 years of raising him. That accounts for something.
Second, there is an assumption that the genetic dad is always the "real" dad. I think the real father is whoever steps up to the plate. Sure some people wouldn't do it if they knew they were not also the biological parent, but even this guy actually considered it for a while (and probably missed the deadline because of his indecision).
Third, this slut did work and does cover her share of the expenses. We know this, because she was convicted for embezzling her
employer later on. The amount of child support is gender neutral and depends only on the amount of actual expenses, and the relative income of the parents. Had the man sued for custody, she could be the one paying him.
In the US and Europe it is financially very dangerous for men to be married to a woman. Or even just to date a woman, as we have seen in the previous thread where a sexist court condemned a man to pay his ex-girlfriend alimony even though they were never married.
Europe is not a monolith. Every country has its own rules. I would say that in Finland, it's hardly "very dangerous" for any man to get married or sire a child. At most, it's a slight risk of moderate inconvenience.
You posted it under the header "this week in the strange death of Europe". If you don't think it's fatal to Europe, why did you use that phrase in your description of what you were talking about?
Death by a thousand cuts sort of thing.
I also think alimony payments should be gender neutral. If the Finns want to keep alimony as part of the legal system, then they should make sure both men and women can be required to pay it, and are eligible to receive it.
Even if laws are written in a gender neutral way, courts do not apply them in a gender neutral way. There is a lot of bias to awarding a woman alimony when a man making less than his ex would be dismissed and told that he should go find a job. I think women who get divorced should go find a job too.
Alimony should be, if not abolished completely, extremely rare, limited to no more than a year, and applied in a gender neutral way.
That's the way it is over here. Extremely rare, and only for a few years. The assumption is that the ex-spouse should be able to fend for him/herself.
As for laws being gender neutral, but application of the laws not, there are two reasons for it: 1) The parenthood of the mother is hardly ever in doubt. So they never end up in a situation where the man cheated on them and left them with paying for child support, and 2) the custody of the child is often granted to the woman, so she ends up being the one receiving money.