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

[Derec]

Of course not. The women are to suffer in silence, as the man's love-child payments come out of the household budget. She might otherwise have been able to afford a maid.

What are you babbling about? If they are divorced, there is no common household. A court would never condemn a divorced wife to pay child support for her ex-husband's children with another woman. So why should they do it to men in a similar circumstance?

He probably should have stuck with hookers, right?

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.

Hookers are a lot cheaper in the long run.

 

[Metaphor]

No. I couldn't get what your comments about paid parental leave have to do with anything..

I don’t believe you. You are not that stupid.

I understand this response even less.

 

[Derec]

The thing is, two years is more than enough time to have a paternity test done.

Only if you suspect your wife cheated on you.

Personally, I am in a (mostly) monogamous marriage with a human capable of hosting a pregnancy. If offspring are produced, that's great. It's more of a bill I can make insurance foot rather than having to shell out for lawyers to adopt.

What if that "human capable of hosting a pregnancy" did not take it very seriously with the monogamy bit and cheated on you, resulting in her getting knocked up by some random dude?

Genetics didn't walk that road and didn't mark the path,

Genetics play a big role in how we develop.

If you can't commit to being a father, if you care more about being a sperm donor, then go donate some sperm instead.

It should be a man's choice. If a man decides to raise a child that is not his, that should be his choice. He should not be tricked into it through fraud nor should courts condemn him to pay child support for somebody else's kid.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only if you suspect your wife cheated on you.


What if that "human capable of hosting a pregnancy" did not take it very seriously with the monogamy bit and cheated on you, resulting in her getting knocked up by some random dude?

Genetics didn't walk that road and didn't mark the path,

Genetics play a big role in how we develop.

If you can't commit to being a father, if you care more about being a sperm donor, then go donate some sperm instead.

It should be a man's choice. If a man decides to raise a child that is not his, that should be his choice. He should not be tricked into it through fraud nor should courts condemn him to pay child support for somebody else's kid.

You clearly didn't read the rest of the posts in this thread as to why your post is so not-even-wrong it's shameful.

 

[Jayjay]

Not counting possible benefits she might receive anyway, she would be eligible to universal child benefits of ~100 euros per month (~160 if she's a single parent) and 160 euros per month of public child support. So about 320 euros = $380 total.

What would $380 a month sufficiently cover in expenses in Finland?

Probably not. The expenses of a child-rearing are 200-500 euros per month according to one study, depending on age and gender of the child (younger kids are cheaper to maintain). The official poverty limit for a single-parent household is about 430 euros higher than the poverty limit for a single person living alone. But obviously the amount of money you can spend on a child varies a lot and there isn't a definite answer and parents don't usually think of their offspring as mere expense brackets.

I'm sure we could do without forced child support. But the public child support part (that 160 euros) is only covered by the state if there is no other parent, or the other parent doesn't have sufficient income (say, if he or she can pay only 100 euros a month, the state ponies up the remaining 60 euros). So such a system would increase taxpayer burden a little bit.

 

[laughing dog]

What are you babbling about? If they are divorced, there is no common household. A court would never condemn a divorced wife to pay child support for her ex-husband's children with another woman. So why should they do it to men in a similar circumstance?

In the cases to which you allude, the man overtly or tacitly accepted paternity. Is it implicit in your hypothetical "whataboutism" that the divorced woman overtly or tacitly accepted parenthood of the other woman's child? If not, then your example is inept. If so, your example is ridiculous.

Hookers are a lot cheaper in the long run.

You get what you pay for.

 

[fromderinside]

Generally the man is responsible for the success or failure of a marriage.

Sexist bullshit. Both parties are responsible in general. In particular case of this marriage, it is the wife's fault because she cheated and got knocked up by her boy toy.

He should have known this wife was a tart and taken precautions to prevent such as affairs and births from semen of another man. Since he hadn't shown all due diligence he is also liable (responsible) for alimony and child support when she sued him for divorce.

Typical feminist claptrap not to hold women responsible for any of their actions.

Well gee I don't want to get you all up in a political lather just because laws of marriage and divorce derive from man as the owner more or less of women and children produced by marriage.

What you just piped is patent bullshit. You need to go out and change those church agreed to laws that put the male at the head of the family so that they reflect such equality as your vainity wants. . Until they they do change you are just up shied creek.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

 

[RVonse]

Sexist bullshit. Both parties are responsible in general. In particular case of this marriage, it is the wife's fault because she cheated and got knocked up by her boy toy.



Typical feminist claptrap not to hold women responsible for any of their actions.

Well gee I don't want to get you all up in a political lather just because laws of marriage and divorce derive from man as the owner more or less of women and children produced by marriage.

What you just piped is patent bullshit. You need to go out and change those church agreed to laws that put the male at the head of the family so that they reflect such equality as your vainity wants. . Until they they do change you are just up shied creek.

fromderinside, when I first read your response I thought you just being sarcastic and not serious. But since you were serious and felt it is the mans responsibility to make sure a wife does not have semen from another man, just how would that be done? Make her wear a chastity belt? If a man required that of his wife he would be accused of all sorts of things in today's society!

 

[RVonse]

To the posters who think Derec and Metaphor are wrong with regards to the OP I ask you this serious question. What reason do men have for getting married today? What good does that institution do for any of them?

And for any women who happen to be in this thread I would ask them this. Do you really want all the men of today to regard you as pump and dump entertainment with no regard to lasting wife material? Because if marriage and fidelity are totally lost in today's society that is all that is left.

 

[Metaphor]

I've pointed out that the State cannot compel any person to father a child. Some posters have waxed lyrical about their own feelings and the lack of importance of a genetic connection to them.

So, while I take this as implicit agreement that extracting money from a man who does not want to be a father to a child who is not genetically his and who he did not agree to be a non-genetic father to, the compulsion will not change his mind about wanting to be a father and does not manage to actually make him into a father.

The only reason I can think of, then, is punishing men who have the wrong feelings.

 

[scombrid]

But my genetics are the least important part of what I hope to pass on. I have lived a life, and I would see at the very least that some other human finds themselves somewhere on a road with the path to whatever enlightenment I may have found already well marked out for them to explore and perhaps completely ignore on their way towards the future. Genetics didn't walk that road and didn't mark the path, that was the product of a lot of work, teaching, and existential crisis. In fact, the most important thesis I wish to pass onto others is the capability of anyone to walk such a path given time and effort and a bare minimum of ability. That's more difficult to establish, especially if my children are "just like me".

Does that hold if the offspring are produced in a breach of trust that causes you to sever the relationship during the pregnancy or shortly after birth? Would you be able to or want to have that relationship with the child if you have the relationship ended by a breach of trust by the mother?

In the unlikely event that my husband ends up pregnant, and pregnant by someone else, and pregnant by someone else for whom I was not already aware may have contributed sperm, I would have to have a long and difficult conversation with my husband as to why that happened in the first place. We usually talk about these sorts of things before, rather than after the fact. It would have to be a very deep breach of trust.

Either way, if we stopped being in a relationship I would not willingly end my relationship with the child, nor would I balk at providing for them. They don't deserve to be deprived of parents just because one of those parents did something shitty to the other.

That is your choice. I can see why you would argue against the absolute "the system is always rigged against men" and why the state should hold responsible parties accountable. However, I do not agree that the state has a valid reason to compel anyone to support a child produced without their consent. I could be 5 or 6 years in but if I found out that the child that I am raising was produced via infidelity/breach of contract then I would certainly divorce my wife and likely only fund support of the child out of a sense of obligation. Maybe I would be bonded enough to separate with the wife but continue a relationship with the child. But the is a good chance that the fraud that produced the child would alter my relationship in a way that I would no longer wish to pass anything to the child.

 

[ruby sparks]

No. I couldn't get what your comments about paid parental leave have to do with anything..

I don’t believe you. You are not that stupid.

I understand this response even less.

Ok. I'll restate it. It has little or nothing to do with this particular example, which I agree appears from what we know to be a case of unfairness against the man by both the woman in question and the legal system. It is relevant evidence (especially here because it's Finnish and recent) against your recurring general concerns, and clearly one of the underlying reasons you post the OPs you do, about what you call 'the death of Europe' (or sometimes 'western civilisation') because it is an example of the opposite of what you say you are concerned about (men unfairly losing out in societies that are what we might call gender-progressive). Even if you still think men unfairly lose out overall (personally I'd say it's too much of a mixed bag to make a call on but at least it's debatable and could be the subject of an informed discussion) you can now hopefully get what the thing I am citing has to do with, vis-a-vis the OP. Don't worry, I get that the 'death' thing is to some extent hyperbole (albeit derec seems to have taken it to be accurate) but it features too often, explicitly or implicitly, to not represent one of your genuine underlying concerns.

 

[scombrid]

Here in my state if I am in a legal marriage and the children end up not being biologically mine, I must still pay child support. There are good reasons for this. Firstly the children get the financial support they need.

Need or deserve? People need lots of things but it doesn't mean that they deserve if from me. If you did not consent or contribute to the creation of the child then why do you owe anything to the child? I can understand the rational behind the Finnish law or any similar law that says that if you have acted in the role of provider for some time then you are obligated to continue that support. However, I also think that if one partner in the relationship goes out and gets kids by any means to which the other partner didn't consent then the non-consenting partner should have the right to sever contract and leave the other partner to deal on their own.

If you believe the child is yours, if you have committed acts with the mother that you know could have led to a child and indeed, believe did lead to the existence of the child in question, if you treated that child as your own, then it's your child, genetics or not.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the child the woman is carrying is not your child or possibly not your child, that is the time to raise the question and to establish paternity or non-paternity.

This is too absolute. It is almost Derec in reverse. There must certainly be cases where a person can be blind to an infidelity during pregnancy and even early in childhood but then find out that the child is a product of infidelity. That person certainly should not automatically be responsible for the child indefinitely because he was successfully tricked by his mate. I may find out when the child is four years old that the child is a product of cheating. That should start the clock on legal severance.

 

[scombrid]

One thing to mention here is that this idiot seems so concerned with genetics that he is throwing away his best chance to pass on everything that is him but is not genetic. Like, just flushing it all down the toilet.

He might was well grab any random kid off the street then. His prospects of passing anything on besides financial support aren't great when the relationship with the mother is done.

I mean here I am spinning up the finances to adopt a child that shares neither the DNA of myself nor my husband, on top of paying everything it costs to raise said child and you can be damn sure I think if I were to divorce my husband after that, that I should owe him, as the primary earner in the house, some money to care for said child.

I don't see why this should be different.

You are actively pursuing an adoption. You are consenting now to that commitment. That is a huge difference. It is the consent on the front end.

 

[scombrid]

It should boil down to consent. If you engage in a consensual act of sex then you are responsible for the product. If you consent to raise a child then you consent to a set of obligations associated with that. But, if you find out that the child is a product of a breach of contract in a relationship that you thought to be monogamous then consent is breached and you have choices. If the infidelity of your partner ends that partnership then you may not wish to pass anything on to the product of that infidelity. You find out that your partner is a really shitty person that has been cheating on you for years, embezzling money from her employer, and is just a really shit person then you should have the right to let her and the product of her behavior fend for themselves.

Does a baby deserve to be born even if it is conceived in rape or incest irrespective of the burden that places on the mother to carry to term and deliver? I don't think so. So why should a man be compelled to raise a child to which he did not consent at some step along the way?

 

[ruby sparks]

It should boil down to consent. If you engage in a consensual act of sex then you are responsible for the product. If you consent to raise a child then you consent to a set of obligations associated with that. But, if you find out that the child is a product of a breach of contract in a relationship that you thought to be monogamous then consent is breached and you have choices. If the infidelity of your partner ends that partnership then you may not wish to pass anything on to the product of that infidelity. You find out that your partner is a really shitty person that has been cheating on you for years, embezzling money from her employer, and is just a really shit person then you should have the right to let her and the product of her behavior fend for themselves.

Does a baby deserve to be born even if it is conceived in rape or incest irrespective of the burden that places on the mother to carry to term and deliver? I don't think so. So why should a man be compelled to raise a child to which he did not consent at some step along the way?

I agree in principle that in such circumstances, the man should not be compelled.

But at the same time, I can also in principle see why, for different reasons, child-centred approaches and priorities have come to be.

It is a difficult and complicated issue, with several competing and sometimes contradictory interests (the interests of children versus the interests of adults for example). Finding the right balance in any society is going to be difficult. This case appears from what we know to have arguably leant too far against the cuckold husband.

It may even be that there is scope to now re-examine the decision via checks and balances in the legal system. The case does seem to have produced a bit of an outcry, perhaps understandably.

A caveat would be that it would certainly be interesting to read the court transcripts or the formal decision. Such things are often publicly available if someone knew how to access them online. Sometimes, media reports can be simplistic or sensationalist.

 

[Metaphor]

Ok. I'll restate it. It has little or nothing to do with this particular example, which I agree appears from what we know to be a case of unfairness against the man by both the woman in question and the legal system. It is relevant evidence (especially here because it's Finnish and recent) against your recurring general concerns, and clearly one of the underlying reasons you post the OPs you do, about what you call 'the death of Europe' (or sometimes 'western civilisation') because it is an example of the opposite of what you say you are concerned about (men unfairly losing out in societies that are what we might call gender-progressive).

But the kinds of events I talk about are not limited to "men losing out", though often they are. There is a kind of malaise in Western culture and it's not just about the easy dismissal of unfairness against men. For example, transwomen competing on men's sports teams harms women and not men, and the trans movement in general harms women more than it harms men. The kind of transgender ideology being embraced in the west is another aspect of the west's decline.

Even if you still think men unfairly lose out overall (personally I'd say it's too much of a mixed bag to make a call on but at least it's debatable and could be the subject of an informed discussion) you can now hopefully get what the thing I am citing has to do with, vis-a-vis the OP. Don't worry, I get that the 'death' thing is to some extent hyperbole (albeit derec seems to have taken it to be accurate) but it features too often, explicitly or implicitly, to not represent one of your genuine underlying concerns.

In the example you spoke about, what happened was that men were given a right that women already had. So, before that, women had more legal rights than men. In the OP, a man was subject to an injustice that is literally impossible for a woman to face. So, that inequality will continue.

The general ridicule, nastiness, and frankly, unvarnished hatred that this board displays when men's issues are raised is something I see reflected in the general public. Australia handed down a Budget statement in early October. The Budget set aside $240m (over five years) specifically for issues related to women in the workplace. Feminists went ballistic and used this as evidence that the current Australian government 'doesn't care about women'. Because the amount of money specifically and exclusively spent on women was not enough for the feminists. At the same time, money that was set aside targeting Indigenous boys to help keep them in school (Indigenous boys have the worst school outcome rates in Australia) drew feminist ire, because a similar amount was not set aside targeting Indigenous girls (never mind that Indigenous girls have far higher school completion rates).

We live in a world where not a single country on earth has banned male genital mutilation (called "circumcision" to disguise it). But not only has it been banned nowhere on earth, the general reaction of this board is to minimise, ridicule, and dismiss anybody who finds this concerning.

Imagine living in a world that so hates boys that they think that mutilating their penises without the boy's consent is a nothingburger. But you don't have to imagine, because we already live there.

 

[ruby sparks]

But the kinds of events I talk about are not limited to "men losing out", though often they are. There is a kind of malaise in Western culture and it's not just about the easy dismissal of unfairness against men.

I did not say or mean it was only limited to that.

In the example you spoke about, what happened was that men were given a right that women already had.

Which is exactly the point. It's an overdue male gain. Enacted in this case by a women-led, centre-left government, which therefore at least somewhat undermines your concerns about gender-progressive politics, which I truly believe are exaggerated.

So, before that, women had more legal rights than men.

Specifically in such scenarios, nowadays, in the 'west', I'd tend to agree. But that said, I have not done a comprehensive overall analysis of who the law or the legal system favours and who it doesn't in what circumstances, including beyond this sort of situation I mean. For all I know, it could be that there may be ways that things still favour men, possibly hangovers from the past, when things tended to favour men. I don't actually know the overall picture and I suspect you don't either.

In the OP, a man was subject to an injustice that is literally impossible for a woman to face.

I'm not doing the OP case at this point. I'm doing your wider concerns. I fully agree with you about the OP case, based on what I know.

So, that inequality will continue.

It may or may not. I think it's valid to complain about it, but not to ride a lopsided hobbyhorse around the forum generally, as you do, quite frankly. Because as I've often said, you have a point, but you go way too far to one side of things about it. Which then undermines the force of your otherwise reasonable point and reduces the chances of it being considered reasonable, as myopia and exaggeration always do.

.... the general reaction of this board is to minimise, ridicule, and dismiss anybody who finds this concerning.

To be fair, I think there are several here who don't do that.

 

[scombrid]

Alrighty then. Now I see into what I waded. I'm out.