Men's RightsSwedens Liberal Youth Party suggests men should be able to denounce fatherhood for as long as women can have an abortion (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by taracus

Link to article: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22380686.ab

(I think the newspaper is protecting its article against search-enginges so google refuses to translate it for me, translate it manually if you're really interested)

Summary: So youth-part of the Liberals suggests men should have the same option to opt out of a pregnancy as a woman

Body: The idea is that men should be able to reject parenthood up untill the 18th week (for as long as women can have an abortion without special circumstances).

Note that this is most likely mostly to get attention as the same party suggested that necrophilia and incest should be legalized a few weeks back. Still the motion put the "equality" principle to a test and shines some light on the fact that men have next to no power when it comes to deciding if they want to become a parent or not (wrap it up boys and dont let anyone close to your condoms).

He also points out that this would obviously be an irreversible decision, so you wouldnt be able to change your mind once your kid is successful.

To me this is a very sound and logical idea and the fact that it plays into the "gender-equality" ideal makes it even harder for feminist to try to denounce it. Im obviously not naive enough to believe they wont try.

So what's your opinion, do you believe it could work?

Would less women go through with their unexpected pregnancies if they knew they couldnt use their babies as pay-checks?

Inb4 "cuck-old sweden", "Sweden is getting raped by muslims" etc.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 261 points262 points  (48 children)

Women also have the right to give their child up for adoption at any time and thereby exonerate themselves from their only real responsibility in life.

Men do not have this option - child support cannot be exempted.

[–]wanderer779 99 points100 points  (2 children)

yeah this is the thing that makes me laugh when feminists talk about a patriarchy.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

The whole thing relies on the premise that men are stronger than women and are responsible for taking care of them.

Feminists should go all the way through and make it illegal for a man to provide for a woman without her permission, and make it impossible for a woman to demand a man to provide for her without his consent.

[–]LyricBaritone 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That would make sense is Feminism was interested in equality. They want women to have more priveleges and less responsibilities.

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points  (6 children)

I have a friend whose former SO had their child in secret, then gave said child up for adoption. The two meet up about 10 months later. She gets drunk and tells him. He lawyered up and went and got his son... Full custody. Men do have some judicial recourse, just not in the other direction.

[–]1GroundhogLiberator 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Had his child Been adopted? That must have been heartbreaking for the adoptive parents.

[–]danielcc07 11 points12 points  (0 children)

That would majorly suck... imagine fighting for a kid and then having it snatched away. Especially in such ugly circumstances.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The child had been adopted. Adoptive parents were heartbroken.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Huh what?

Was she fat as all hell? How did he not notice she was pregnant?

[–]Dath14 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The key word in their statement was "former." I assume they broke up sometime at the beginning of the pregnancy, then met again later after she had gone through the entire pregnancy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She disappeared for about 10 months. They broke up and he didn't see her until afterwards.

[–]SolarPoweredSauna 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Where is this that women can give up their child for adoption at any time?

When my wife and I adopted, we had to track down ALL of the potential fathers and get them to consent to paternity tests and/or grant us permission to adopt their child (or at least prove that we had made very reasonable to locate them). The two potential fathers who were incarcerated gave us the most difficulty....and they were in no position to support their child financially, emotionally, or otherwise.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 1 point2 points  (1 child)


When my wife and I adopted, we had to track down ALL of the potential fathers and get them to consent to paternity tests and/or grant us permission to adopt their child

Potential fathers? Why not just the real one?

Yes, when a woman gives up her baby for adoption, the father could get primary carer status. However the father does not have the right to absolve himself of care responsibility like the mother does.

[–]SolarPoweredSauna 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The mother did not know which man was the father. She provided us with a list of the men she could identify as possible fathers. But she didn't even have a name for everyone.

In my case, the mother could not have given up the child for adoption without the father's permission. Refusing to grant permission would have prevented the adoption and left the mother with fewer options.

[–]taracus[S] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

If a woman gives her child up for adoption, can she or the father later be ordered to pay child-support in anyway?

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 23 points24 points  (4 children)

can she or the father later be ordered to pay child-support in anyway?

She: no, of course not. Don't be silly.

He: not sure. Probably not, but I don't know for sure.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 20 points21 points  (3 children)

i wouldnt be surprised if he did. we live in a country where a statutory rapist is receiving legally enforced child support checks from their victim (meaning the courts are forcing him to pay under penalty of incarceration). she raped him at 12, had a baby, and he has to pay child support now that hes 18. he also owes the back support from when he was a minor.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 23 points24 points  (1 child)


Underage rape victim? You gotta pay, son

She kept your sperm in her mouth and inseminated herself? You gotta pay, son

Coming soon: she combines your hair follicle with her egg and creates a baby. Guess who's gotta pay?

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 11 points12 points  (0 children)

which is funny because we just recently thought of a way to turn skin into sperm.

[–]1Entropy-7 12 points13 points  (0 children)

There are multiple legal cases in the USA where a woman raped a boy and then claimed child support against him and won. That is so messed up in so many ways and yet that is the law of the land.

[–]SecularNotLiberal 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nope, she can't be forced to pay CS in the adoption case. Not too sure about the guy but I'm going to bet "probably not".

Women can do another thing though: legal baby abandonment. The vast majority of states have laws in place to allow this. A woman can legally go up to any designated place, usually a hospital, police dept, even fire dept, and abandon their infants. No questions asked, no identification taken, nothing. Europe even has nice little baby boxes for dumping the baby, and anyone can do it! Man or woman. No one would know.

[–]1Entropy-7 118 points119 points  (93 children)

This idea has been floating about for a few decades. Back in the late '90s when I was on the university debating team I ran a case called "BYOB: bankroll your own baby". Same basic idea: a guy can opt out of fatherhood. So no parental rights, but no child support obligations either. Then it's up to the woman to decide if she will follow through with the pregnancy.

A few guys have tried to make a legal case out of it but the courts would not indulge them. I'd have to do a bit of digging but I recall one case in Quebec and another in America but they crashed and burned.

It is a curiosity as to whether women would get an abortion if the guy got himself a "financial abortion".

The reality is that once a baby is on the scene, the government will flail about to tag some guy to foot the bill rather than use taxpayer money from general revenues. As much as you will hear women go on about how horrible an idea this is, it really has nothing to do with "taking responsibility" (which is a complete joke coming from a woman).

The standard argument that women have is "keep it in your pants if you don't want a kid", but it is totally lost on them that women have no obligation to keep it out of their pants, and they can always dodge the bullet by heading out to Planned Parenthood regardless of what the putative father thinks about it.

There have also been cases where a woman will get pregnant and then extort the father's family: "Pay me cash or I will get an abortion".

The logic is sound and the thrust of this sort of policy would be fair, but feminism has never been about logic nor fairness. It's just about women seeking resources from men while offering nothing in return.

The courts and the politicians - as well as about 80% of the guys in the general population - are so cucked that this policy would never fly. Even if you could sneak it past 50%+1 vote in any legislature, the SJWs would come out in force and say it is unconstitutional, and the courts would be all too happy to strike it down.

[–]u-r-silly 34 points35 points  (4 children)

Women fought for their right to abortion and contraception. The "keep it in your pants" argument and "take resppnsibility" make absolutely no sense.

[–]1whatsazipper 10 points11 points  (2 children)

It makes sense when you realize they're arguing in favour of anything that benefits themselves, even if it logically contradicts previous successes.

[–]TRPmmm 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Since when has any large demographic ever argued in favour of another though? The problem is that most men are too spineless and concerned about being politically correct to stand for themselves. Most men see a sacrifice of their own rights for those of a woman as a noble cause.

[–]1whatsazipper 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Since when has any large demographic ever argued in favour of another though?

Most men see a sacrifice of their own rights for those of a woman as a noble cause.

You said it yourself.

Yesterday, some betas at work were arguing for schemes that would redistribute money to women (topics were children, families, maternity leave). They were horrified that I argue on my own behalf instead of caving into self-sacrifice. They always love pulling the "greater good" line, too. If I'm less of a liability and produce more value, then no, you shouldn't tax me, you should pay me more.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (36 children)

There is a third option from child support or tax money. That is leave the woman without any assistance and it's the only right thing to do. Otherwise you kill your society.

[–]1Entropy-7 8 points9 points  (19 children)

The angle is always that the assistance is for the child, not for the woman. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

[–]fiercealmond 10 points11 points  (15 children)

This girl I have been dating has a millionaire father she has no contact with, her mother takes 2000 plus dollars a month in child support and uses it all for rent and food for herself. She's in college now and still wearing clothes from middle school to college some days. Child support is the fucking worst. I've told her she has leverage on the situation, but since her mother (who has a masters in occupational therapy) hasn't worked in years, she only makes money from child support, thinks it would ruin her mom's life or something.

[–]PapaFedorasSnowden 9 points10 points  (7 children)

On the other hand you have people like me. My mother works ~70hours a week because my (rich) father won't even talk to us. My only criticism for the RP view on child support is that the man IS the provider, and the child is as much his responsibility as it is hers. No one should have the right to renounce to their children. This is why I believe the father should have to co-sign the abortion. In the case of rape (more often than not it is legit, but we hear about the exceptions), a court order can override either parent's wish. Obviously it's not going to happen, but that's how I'd structure it.

[–]fiercealmond 4 points5 points  (4 children)

I'm of course not claiming that all mothers do that. I think that father's should have the choice to take custody if the mother wants an abortion, but on the flipside father's shouldn't be forced into paying child support. Both parents should be equally responsible in an ideal world, but in reality its the mothers decision to keep the baby so it should be her responsibility to find a decent father or else raise the baby. But you know, I might be a little biased, my 3 year-old's mother took off to live with her coworker and left her with me, so I don't really have any sympathy for "moms who got stuck" or something like that. I have had 0 choice in the matter and get 0 money from her or her family. I'll always love and support my daughter and don't need to garnish her mother's wages for two decades, even if she is a piece of shit.

[–]PapaFedorasSnowden 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I fully understand your point, given your situation, but I grew up without a father and barely had a mother because of that very point. After the child is born and the parent is registered, the law must interfere when one does not want parenthood anymore; that is not how it works, you don't pick and choose when the child is yours or not. The impact of not having a mum is very big. As much as you love her, you can never be a mother and a father. I'd be inclined to think that you would have sympathy for mums who got stuck, since you "got stuck" with your daughter, but it is all a matter of perspective. My experience as an abandoned kid says that if the parent is not going to be present, they should at least pay so the other can be there more often and try to substitute the other.

I have had 0 choice in the matter and get 0 money from her or her family. I'll always love and support my daughter and don't need to garnish her mother's wages for two decades, even if she is a piece of shit.

Of course you don't, neither does my mum, but if your daughter's mum, and my father both paid, we (your daughter and I) could actually spend more time with the parent that does care about us. The only thing is that a requirement for child support which states that all child support money must be used for the child, either at the moment or to be put into a fund, should be set.

[–]fiercealmond 2 points3 points  (1 child)

First off, I don't see myself as getting stuck with my daughter at all, most fathers don't get the chance to spend time with their kids like I get to!

So, I see the distinction you are making. Yeah, both parents should have a limited time to opt out consequence-free (legally at least). The law is just lopsided. If you have money for a good lawyer, you can end up not paying your fair share. If a mother has nefarious intentions, the law can give far too much power to her. It should be a flexible, pragmatic system, allowing parents to find alternative ways to contribute, instead of wage garnishment or imprisonment. Wage garnishment is just not a power I think the state should have, and we all know how great jail makes dads. Especially when they get out at baby mama is chomping at the bit for that court ordered back-pay.

PS. It's nice to see someone in trp who doesn't see all women as diagnosed psychos. Mad respect for your mom coming from a single dad!

[–]PapaFedorasSnowden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean you didn't want to be with your daughter, I just said stuck in the sense that you "never expected to raise her by yourself."

All the best for you and your daughter.

[–]1FunAndFreedom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to go after you personally, but I can see things from a fathers point of view.

Once the marriage has been shattered and the children become a liability, the best way to maintain happiness is to have a clean break. The father may need to work a little extra to offset the cost of child support/alimony, but emotionally he can have freedom. He can recover and have a new life without a connection to the failed family.

It's also the ultimate Nuclear option fathers have. In most cases the divorcing mother wants the father to stay "a father", while getting those checks every month to subsidize her life. If the father agrees to pay the monthly costs, but severs contact from the family, the mother is in a much worse position. All her power plays go out the window and she is left with a few grand each month, which given women's money management skills isn't a lot.

If I were married with kids and my wife did me dirty in a divorce, I'd pay whatever checks I had to pay but then focus my energy entirely on myself.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

She's in college now and still wearing clothes from middle school to college some days.

You have quality girl if she still fits in clothes that are 4-8 years old.

[–]fiercealmond 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Yeah, she's tiny and cute, but I don't really like being out with her when she got rhinestone ass jeans.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Take the money you would use to go out.. and buy her some new jeans.

Netflix and jeans.

[–]fiercealmond 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, I have, but it's a bit of a process

[–]hhamama66 0 points1 point  (2 children)

The thing that people don't realize is that a child cares more about growing up with both parents than they care about having those "kick ass new Nike's" or whatever.

I lived in a foreign country for a good period of time away from my parents and was jealous of all the kids my age who lived with their biological parents, while I lived with relatives. I felt like an ugly duckling lol. Anyways, after months of kicking and screaming I finally get brought back to the US. Meanwhile, my mom is working nonstop and my dad is pursuing other things and can't be bothered to give a fuck. I've gotten into numerous arguments with both my parents about how a child needs the guidance of both their parents and not just their money since it does them nothing. But as usual, they were stubborn as mules and didn't want to give up their view points. Finally, it hit me that if I wanted to become a real man, I'd have to drown out all the stupid shit they had to say as none of it is logical. I'm still trying to find myself to this day, but luckily I was smart enough to avoid doing anything that would land me on jail or ruin my record for the rest of my life

[–]fiercealmond 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well she's adopted and doesn't really want time with her parents, but I have had the same experience as you with my parents (divorced ). My dad's the type of guy who tries to throw money at emotional people because he doesn't have the attention span. I spent my teenage years trying to explain to him I just wanted to go back to watching a movie with him or playing quake. Don't need a bigger tv, don't need a new gameboy... I need attention from my dad. Didn't get through to him, and he is worse with my little brother because he doesn't try and fight it.

[–]hhamama66 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After a while, I realized that even if I did manage to convince them I was right (which is impossible with this world parents who think that their age magically makes them more intelligent and wise), I would gain nothing of value from them. So I decided to just give up on them. Best decision I've ever made. The only thing I can say is, if you plan on having kids (if you don't, I won't judge, I don't want them either), don't make the same mistakes your parents made. Or better yet, don't have children you're not ready or are unwilling to take care of.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Which in an ideal world is a valid reason. Children are in fact the future of our society, and as such we should be raising them right. To do so you need to be able to feed your child a basic meal and clothe them, and if the family cannot do that it's up to the public to do it because the only way to get winners in your society is to raise winners in your society.

[–]2Overkillengine 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Then the funds should be handled by a (randomly rotated) case worker, not the mother.

The best interest of the child is to have their assistance handled by someone without a conflict of interest.

Which is how pretty much all social welfare programs should be handled to be honest- just handing someone money and expecting them to use it for its intended purpose without some sort of oversight is naive and stupid.

Edit: Especially to someone that has already demonstrated poor decision making in that they got knocked up without having a personal plan for providing for the child on their own and didn't pick a man that would stuck around either.

[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Won't happen: courts have far too much faith in the good judgment of mothers.

[–]CuilRunnings 3 points4 points  (9 children)

"Oh, but what of the poor children!" screamed liberals, women, and the feeble-hearted all in unison! "Who would leave them to starve on the streets?!?!"

[–]heldericht 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Well...? What's the answer?

I'm all for equal rights for men, but I don't see a valid solution to the problem. It's much easier for the man to walk away than for a woman to go get an abortion.

[–]2Overkillengine 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Then the funds should be handled by a (randomly rotated) case worker, not the mother.

The best interest of the child is to have their assistance handled by someone without a conflict of interest.

Which is how pretty much all social welfare programs should be handled to be honest- just handing someone money and expecting them to use it for its intended purpose without some sort of oversight is naive and stupid.

Edit: Especially to someone that has already demonstrated poor decision making in that they got knocked up without having a personal plan for providing for the child on their own and didn't pick a man that would stuck around either.

[–]heldericht 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Fair enough. That can be an alternative, although the same people will rail against unnecessary government interference in their lives. But a 3rd party being involved would be the fairest way to go about it, it would seem.

[–]2Overkillengine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would posit that they were free to conduct themselves in a way that would have kept them free from government involvement, but chose not to do so.

Additionally, I would posit that government involvement should be inconvenient so as to encourage independent and responsible citizens.

Unfortunately I am not Glorious Dictator for Life.

[–]break_main 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yeah call those people assholes, then forget to explain why they are wrong.

[–]CuilRunnings 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I can't, without making myself look like a bigger asshole. To be honest, I don't give a fuck if someone who has completely different views on delayed gratification and diligence than me, has a 5th kid they can't feed. I say fuck it, let them starve on the streets. You'd probably end up with the same amount of people starving now, after people adjusted their behavior, but the transition would not be pretty. People are nothing but dumb animals who like to pretend they're better than the forces of nature.

[–]strps 1 point2 points  (6 children)

The courts and the politicians - as well as about 80% of the guys in the general population - are so cucked that this policy would never fly. Even if you could sneak it past 50%+1 vote in any legislature, the SJWs would come out in force and say it is unconstitutional, and the courts would be all too happy to strike it down.

I'm not sure I believe you here. It took a lot of work and campaigning to make abortion legal, work that lasted a long time. It certainly won't happen in the next five years, but this is very likely what will happen in the long run, for both economic and social reasons. It will happen faster if enough people stand up and shout for it.

[–]1Entropy-7 1 point2 points  (5 children)

But not enough guys will stand up and shout for it, and women certainly won't because it is against their economic interests.

[–]break_main 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Many of the guys you think this would serve were raised by single moms getting child support. Future guys might be pissed that their mom couldnt feed them cause dad took off and didnt pay for his kid

[–]1Entropy-7 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I think we agree on several points. This will never happen because women have the vote and it is against their interest, and most men are completely brainwashed, if not cucked, by the existing system.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 25 points26 points  (9 children)


The better way is to just abolish the Child Support Laws.

However, this might be a clever trick to achieve that... so if they are successful (unlikely) that could prove to be the start of a whole new way to attack the problem and could spread elsewhere.

Obviously the globalists will not be on board with it because their goal is depopulation and the modern family laws are carefully designed to inflict the maximum damage on the family.

If men could "opt out" then women would be forced to be feminine again in order to keep the man involved and that's like going back to nature.

Natural relationships are exactly what the Blue Pill is trying to destroy.


[–]1Entropy-7 10 points11 points  (2 children)

My understanding is that old Roman law was rather straight forward on these matters: 1) a child born out of wedlock belongs to the mother and is her financial responsibility 2) a child born in wedlock belongs to the father and is his financial responsibility (and if you get cucked, then too bad for you; paternity is assumed. It's your fault if you can't keep your cunt on a short leash)

[–]NeoreactionSafe 6 points7 points  (1 child)

That's actually very good... that's close to Marriage 1.0.

I'd like to see some better research though because that seems too good.

It's possible that the laws were changed after the fall of the Republic.


[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Marriage 1.0 had a certain logic and functionality to it. I live in China and 1.0 is the standard here so I a looking to wife up. If I have to return to Canada then will either go back to playing girls half my are or getting back into the BDSM scene, the latter of which is the closest you can get to 1.0 these days in western countries.

[–]tb87670 0 points1 point  (2 children)

After reading pages of arguments and counter arguments how to go about things I believe this here is the best post, abolition of Child Support Laws is really the only logical way to go. The existing ones are so fucked up that modifying them to be more fair to men still doesn't do justice for the rest of the clusterfuck, no down right abolition of said laws is the only option that would make long-term sense.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The courts should simply not intervene.

The kids can go to whichever parent wants them. If the wife is able to take the kids and support them and the kids want to go then that's fine.

The kids might choose the father... or maybe a son goes with dad and a daughter goes with mom.


[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kids are. . .well, kids: they can't make rational decisions for themselves. Under Canadian law, the get a say once they are teenagers.

Shared custody is fucking work, but I think it is the best outcome for the kids.

(I spent 4 years as a divorce attorney.)

[–]sir_wankalot_here 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of the globalists power is "psychological" the consumer actually has a tremendous amount of power. Case in point is China, most middle class Chinese have no desire to vote, but they want the Chinese government to start listening to them. For the most part the Chinese government is.

There are maybe 200 million Chinese middle class. They are now able to afford a motorcycle, a smart phone to access the net, a small apartment and a few luxuaries. Not much by American standard but much better then 25 years ago when he was starving to death.

The middle class Chinese now have a huge amount of consumer choices, that means they have a huge amount of influence. Also because of bad past experiences they assume their government is lying. Example of influence is the pollution problem in Beijing. For years the government was in denial. So the average Chinese decides he won't go for a vacation in Beijing. The Chinese government is now forced to admit there is a problem and clean it up.

The American consumer by contrast is stupid. The guys who bitch the most about Chinese goods on America are the ones who shop at Walmart. They then want the government to step in and fix the problem ☺

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Is there somewhere I could read more about the globalists' intent to destroy the family? I've heard that a lot

[–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's so widespread now in the "alternative media" (online) that it's hard to name one without showing a preference.

If you are in the beginning stages of enligtenment I'd suggest you seek to discover on your own for a little while. Gain your own voice in understanding things then ask again when you are more specific.

I'll give just one clue:



[–]Losendos100 165 points166 points  (32 children)

It's a fairy tale pipe dream. There is actually ZERO chance of men being given reproductive rights that are comparable to Women's.

Here is the basic flaw in your argument; Women aren't interested in equality. They're into forwarding their own fucked up agenda. At the end of the day they don't want Men to have guilt free sex and not have to pay The Fiddler at the end of it, no matter how logical it may seem.

TBH I've learned not to even humour ideas like this, because change is never going to happen. The feminists are going to keep persecuting masculinity,meanwhile Abdul and Arif carry on beating their wives and pumping out two-dozen kids, guaranteeing the future islamisation of my beloved country.

I cant wait to retire and live in the middle of nowhere away from these people.

[–]taracus[S] 37 points38 points  (16 children)

Women aren't interested in equality

According to the article the idea came from a group of "young women in the party"

Maybe you meant to say feminists?

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points  (14 children)

To be fair Swedes are so bent on equality that it may have come full circle. The youngest generation of women might actually be looking for equality at this point rather than Equality™. There's no other explanation, if women have the right to choose, logically men should too if you think of it in terms of absolute equality (save for the whole baby inside them argument, choosing is choosing and men don't have that choice).

Older feminists are the main shit stirrers in the media, considering the younger generation haven't gotten there yet. More and more I meet 18-25 year olds who call themselves "humanists" because feminists ignore men. Maybe they just say that to me because I'm outspoken and unapologetic for my views, however I don't think that's it.

Now, I'm not one for labels, in fact I think it's part and parcel to what makes feminism bad (us against them mentality), but I think at least some young women recognize that feminism is failing at actual equality, and this may be what's happening. I'm not suggesting anything major is going to change, but maybe just some minds are opening up and realizing feminism has failed.

[–]Azzmo 7 points8 points  (13 children)

I've been noticing this too. For the pessimists, this is a worthy point worth considering. 15-25 year old women are actually somewhat likely to utilize logic in some of their thinking.

[–]fiercealmond 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I'm torn on this. I'm 25, I have friends from 18-35. The college campuses are where these neofeminist ideas are growing. You'll find a rare girl here or there that actually picks these things apart and sees them for what they are, but the vast majority of girls claim feminism. Even on community college campuses, which I find very scary, there's no gender studies professors to plant these ideas there, it's all tumblr. A lot of guys on campuses are huge feminist whiners too.

[–]Azzmo 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Only 23% of young women consider themselves feminist.

I think you have that impression because the crazies are fucking crazy and the rest aren't willing enough to denounce them. We tend to let outliers bias our perception.

[–]fiercealmond 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, makes sense. The friends I make don't tend to be like that. The closest you get to the end of the bell curve the louder you seem in comparison.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Exactly, the older guys here may not see it as much since their peers are older women, generally speaking. I think it has to do with younger women being brought up in what for all intents and purposes is an equal society, despite the recent articles regarding emojis being sexist, the HORROR. They have their male peers next to them to compare themselves to and don't see that great of a difference in what society allows them to do (what society expects of them is different, men get the shit end of that stick).

Older feminists might remember a time where women in a professional setting was new and maybe even controversial. Young women simply cannot relate, with more college grads today being women than men, the professional landscape has shifted dramatically. Granted people in general love the victim mentality, many young women cling to it for dear life, it's in their own self interest to do so afterall. But there's a subset that actually take in what's around them and care about others. Those are generally the ones you see sympathize with men.

[–]1Entropy-7 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I am both curious and frightened at what 4th Wave Feminism will entail.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I hadn't considered more waves. Hopefully there will be a backlash as women try and regain femininity and submissiveness. They see all the single feminists in their 30s with no kids and no men, and the wreckage of their dads and brothers and decide not to be total cunts.

More of the 'I can be a feminist and still be a stay at home wife/mom' stuff. Blue pillers think the men on on the Red Pill are angry? Or that Red Pill women are Stepford wives wanna-bees? Just wait until more Red Pill moms get out there. My aunt and mother get hilariously 'sexist' sometimes.

[–]1Entropy-7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The internet is not always the best indication of what is happening in the real world but it seems that the pendulum is swinging back. Maybe there will not be a 4th Wave of Feminism. Maybe men, women and confused people in between will come to their senses and move things towards something more reasonable.

It's hard to say for me since I have been living in China for the last three years; a place where women are women, men are beta but happy because the government does not encourage hypergamy; and you won't see a Pride Parade marching through Tiananmen Square any time soon.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (4 children)

I think you are both a bit too willing to take women at face value. If they grew up actually believing in 'equality' and fairness and logic, then feminism could never have arisen in the first place. Remember, Machiavelianism, for men, is an art form; for women, an instinct. Women are seeing just how much men despize feminists, and recognise that in order to manipulate them for their own ends better they need to play a different tune. Given how much social standing matters to women, it wouldn't do for them to be shunned by men.

[–]Azzmo 0 points1 point  (3 children)

While all of that is true I maintain that there is logic occurring. One example is the polls that show that something like 85% of women under 30 plan to vote for Bernie instead of what might be the first female president ever. I have to think that they're utilizing logic. That alone says to me that they aren't as overtly YouGoGirl as we're sometimes led to believe. Those polls are anonymous so it's not pandering to men.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

They are recognising that feminism hurts women. It didn't (much) for a long time, it harmed men and children, but now that men are starting to react against it, they try to distance themselves.

[–]Azzmo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If men lead, women will follow. Demand respect, receive respect. It stands to reason that groups of men taking stands on divorce rape, custody bias, false accusations, false narratives re: wages, and being less willing to be punching bags has led to a young generation viewing men with some respect.

For all the mocking MRAs get, they (we? I stand for all the same principles but don't seek a label) seem to be shaping the thinking of a generation of young people into a more egalitarian mindset.

[–]Calypto- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Women vote socialist and Bernie fits the bill for betabux.

[–]AlexTheIndecisive 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Lol'd at Abdul and Arif part

[–]cariboo_j 2 points3 points  (8 children)

Well they announced they want bestiality to be legalized last week... so my guess is no one takes these clowns seriously.

[–]1Entropy-7 7 points8 points  (7 children)

Given that the average American woman has a BMI of 29, "bestiality" is now mainstream. Or should we say "hambeastiality"?

[–]cariboo_j 1 point2 points  (4 children)

hahhaah oh jesus. BMI of 29 is 5'4" and 170lbs for example.


[–]1Entropy-7 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Nasty but true, lol. There is all sorts of nonsense talk about the "top 20%" of men but it seems to me that even a modest HB6 is in the top 20% of women, at least in America.

My rule of thumb is 100 pounds at 5 feet tall and then + 3-5 pounds per inch thereafter. So a 5'4" girl SHOULD be 112 to 120 pounds, but look around: how many fit that profile?

[–]BallisticTherapy 0 points1 point  (1 child)


Sounds like a finishing move from one of the Mortal Kombat games.

[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you bone one of these chicks then "flawless victory" is ironic at best.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 1 point2 points  (2 children)

meanwhile i'm just waiting patiently for the emergent artifical sentience to happen, and it will either kill us or love us. if it loves us i'm totally gettin me some robo booty.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

If this happens in our lifetime all the issues we stress over today will be moot.

Because either humanity will be annihilated or we will ascend to immortality.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

on one hand weve got robo booty, and the other total annhilation. seems worth the risk to me.

[–]fetterbender 28 points28 points [recovered]

So you just inform the happy father-to-be in the 19th week?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

This could be easily solved. Guys could sign a document saying something like "I renounce the rights to all my children, known and unknown." Could later add exceptions if he did want to have kids. This works out better, parenthood should be an opt-in thing, not an opt-out one.

[–]LA_producer 6 points7 points  (1 child)

This could be an interesting counterpoint to all the "affirmative (sexual) consent" shit that's floating around college campuses right now: affirmative parental consent.

[–]1Entropy-7 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Affirmative parental consent": that made me giggle. Women have had that option for a good half century but men are trapped by what the woman wants.

My understanding is that an effective and reversible male contraceptive is coming out of the gate soon; that will change the dynamic.

I have talked to GPs about a vasectomy and they have a weird way of advocating against it.

[–]RichardBelmont 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Yeah, to combat this you'd have to show you attempted to notify them in writing or something like that.

Don't get pregnant from someone you don't at least have a way of contacting, or you're out on your own. I kinda like that, but that's even less likely.

[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My uncle got a big surprise. . . 16 years after a ONS!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A better concept I came up with is that he's not a father UNTIL he goes to the hospital/family centre and signs a document saying that he wants to be the father.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

"Just don't tell him you're pregnant."

If it passes at all.

[–]JakofClubs 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That's a good point you raise. A good law would be mandatory notification of the (suspected) father within 48 hours of a woman discovering that she was pregnant. Sure, it's can be hard to prove when she discovered that she was pregnant, but it sets the correct standard.

[–]yomo86 23 points24 points  (23 children)

Children are a binary choice. You don't want them or you do. The next question is the time and the girl.

Recently I got notarized copies of my vasectomy. So when some bitch is preggos and wants to cash in on my made ass she get's a nice dinner in the 20th week and handed the papers.

Never rely on the gov to change things for men, they have to cater to white knights, the economy and over 50 % of the voting population.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 27 points28 points  (10 children)

Why get notarized copies?

Just "Ok bitch, prove it". The end.

Or better still - get a signed statement from her saying you are the father. Then prosecute her for paternity fraud*

*Obviously I'm joking, noone cares about female crimes.

[–]JakofClubs 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Getting the paperwork notarized

All a notary can do in this case is certify that a copy is a true copy of the original or witness a signature. But it makes it look much more official.

Source: former notary public

[–]yomo86 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Right. But it is enough to give the papers to her so no attorney will touch this case if they are not paid up front.

[–]apoostasia 8 points9 points  (7 children)

A friend of mine went the "Ok bitch, prove it." way; he's currently paying child support because her "proving it" was a paternity test which he had to pay for, somehow. Was a broke fuck at the time, couldn't afford it, and is now paying child support for another twelve years.

She's a cunt and then some but he stepped the fuck up, made sure if he was going to be paying for this little girls life he was damned well going to be a part of it, and now is the proudest not-dad I've ever met. Yes, not-dad is what she calls him.

[–]Azzmo 16 points17 points  (3 children)

A paternity test costs like $100. You/your friend full of shit?

[–]apoostasia 5 points6 points  (2 children)

It's two hundred in Canada, not that it matters when you're a high school student with no job. This was like six or seven years ago. Who the fuck knows, he's probably full of shit, you're right.

[–]Azzmo 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I did some math and found that he would have paid roughly 58.16 fuck tons more for child support for 12 years than the initial $200 would have cost him. Next time you see him you owe him a headlock; he either lied or he's an idiot.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree with your assessment. If I were in the same situation, I would beg, cheat, borrow, or steal the money.

[–]SlimLovin 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Your story is:

He said Prove it She proved it. He paid Child Support.

Pretty standard stuff.

[–]apoostasia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My story is, she didn't have to actually prove shit. He couldn't afford a paternity test and couldn't prove it wasn't his, so by default it is. She knew these things, and while I only see either of these people rarely, I think it's pretty fucking shady on her end.

Yeah, standard, but also fucking shitty.

[–]yomo86 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Badly played. You deny having sex with her so the burden of proof is on the accusing party - you got snipped and get the "you are the daddy talk" go to a doc and re-check. Hell if you own a microscope you can do it yourself.

[–]TheRedStoic 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Same here. Genetically sterile.

I personally wait until she goes social with the pregnancy scare before sending copies of the papers to family and friends. All while wishing her the best of course.

[–]MazeMouse 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The public court. The only one that matters in these situations.

[–]stemgang 5 points6 points  (6 children)

That paperwork will do exactly zero for you once a DNA test proves you are the father.

Even vasectomies are not 100%, you know.

[–]yomo86 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Vasectomies are 100% safe.

What you mean are either botched procedures, re-attachment of the vas-deferens or a false negative probe after your procedure. Don't buy into the whore hamster talk of getting pregnant when you have had the operation done.

[–]SlimLovin 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Everything you just said contradicts the notion that "Vasectomies are 100% safe."

[–]1whatsazipper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're concerned you can get the sperm count tested.

[–]stemgang 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Vasectomy failure rate is 0.15%, which is great.

I was not talking about safety.

I was taking about the failure rate of paperwork, which is 100% when faced with a DNA-tested baby.

[–]yomo86 1 point2 points  (0 children)

got it. But remember. A positive DNA test is no the end. Their failure rate is 1/1000000 but hell several hundred guys got struck by lightning in the US. If there is reasonable doubt you are entitled to a second test. A recent negative sperm count creates that doubt.

A DNA test tests several markers in your genom it does not compare the complete genoms with each other, so when you are from a small town chances are good for a false positive. Even botched DNA tests happend, and your attorney is allowed to be present when they probe the child.

[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The separation between MRAs and other guys of our sort is that the former want to run to the government to change things. It's not going to happen. On the other hand, even with a hundred and fifty thousand members, TRP is only 0.1% of the male population of America so it is moving at glacial speeds.

[–]TRP VanguardYouDislikeMyOpinion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would love for someone to show me how much it would cost to put such a policy in place. I also don't think that many people understand the role of government.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (9 children)

honestly getting rid of child welfare laws and child support laws would do a lot of good

[–]taracus[S] 1 point2 points  (8 children)

How is getting rid of child-welfare laws doing good?

You mean less women would go through with their pregnancies if they knew they werent going to get money from the state?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Women would chose a man who is actually suitable to father a child instead of counting on child support and welfare.

Relationships would be stronger when a woman is dependent on pleasing her man (which is not difficult) instead of having the power to remove him from his children and forcing him to pay with the government backing her.

That's how you create civilization.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (6 children)

yes, they'd also be more careful with mate selection, and would be more feminine

[–]taracus[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

But this assumes that women follow a logic narrative when "mate-selecting".

It feels like they would change nothing and the children would suffer.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

they do not follow logic they follow incentives.

[–]Dr_Killpatient 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Trust me, once her child has died of hunger, because she made an emotional choice to spermjack Chad, who then wanted nothing to do with her snotty-nosed bastard, she will think twice before she does it again.

Besides, it's not your child, so don't concern yourself with single mommy Alpha-bastards who will probably in the future end up robbing you at gunpoint, stealing your car, or breaking into your house when they grow up.

[–]other_worlds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A baby needs to go from being a paycheck to a liability. Once this is common in society, women's "feels" would match the best scenario for reproduction.

Ride the CC with drummer with long hair that makes $200 a month, or go make some breakfast for her grad student boyfriend to cement her as wife-worthy in his mind?

When her future baby absolutely needs the resources SHE ALONE can lock down, the choice becomes weighted towards careful mate selection and being a person of high quality.

[–]TheMountainWhoDews 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm all for gender equality - and a big fan of this. Assume there are 4 possible scenarios when a baby is conceived: Mother willing/father willing - Kid is born, kid has a happy life in theory (Both parents satisfied with outcome) Mother willing/father unwilling - Father pays child support for 18 years for something he didnt want. (Mother is satisfied, father is royally fucked) Mother unwilling/father willing - Child is aborted. (Mother satisfied, father is not) Mother unwilling/father unwilling - Child is aborted. (Both parents satisfied with outcome)

I know that's oversimplified, but if you can't see the obvious weighting in favour of the mother then you're blind.

[–]donttellthefamily 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Day after day we're told to man up and take responsibility for the consequences of our actions. Day after day women are told they have complete freedom and total choice over what they do with their bodies.

If a women gives up a child, either through abortion or adoption, it wasn't the right time for them.

If a man walks a way from the same situation he is a coward. No matter his personal circumstances.

[–]Endorsed ContributorNiftyDolphin 4 points5 points  (6 children)

Abortion: Reduces the state's long-term expenses. If there is no child, the mother does not request assistance from the State to help in raising it.

Renouncing Paternity: Very probable that it will increase the state's long-term expenses. With less income and one less body available to care for the child, the mother is more likely to approach the State for services.

The fun part is that I could foresee a government passing something like this. It would green-light this law in conjunction with a Bachelor Tax.

Then, over the next several years, it would chip away at the law, eventually repealing it.

But they'd keep the tax.

Edit: It'd keep the tax, not because it was anti-male, but because once a government can take money from you for something, it abhors having to stop doing so.

[–]taracus[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

The other day I posted an article about how Swedish women can get their artificial insemination paid by the government, one could argue that this should lead to a "bachelorette-tax" (women are willingly putting babies into society that will need tax-money to be provided for them).

And to be honest I dont really buy the whole "raising a baby costs money" argument a lot of people seem to have in discussion, isnt the idea that making babies for your nation is a good investment for the future (almost no matter the cost of brining them into adulthood)?

[–]MakeEmSayAyy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It should be if the woman approaches the state for services you just take the child. You can't pay for it? Okay, then you're not a fit parent.

[–]michael_wilkins 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Note that this is most likely mostly to get attention as the same party suggested that necrophilia and incest should be legalized a few weeks back.

Let that sink in for a minute, Equality for Fathers is put at the same level as necrophilia and incest for attention seeking stunts.

[–]phrostbyt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

great idea i hope it passes (it won't)

[–]Ibex3D 2 points3 points  (8 children)

To me this is a very sound and logical idea and the fact that it plays into the "gender-equality" ideal makes it even harder for feminist to try to denounce it. Im obviously not naive enough to believe they wont try.

No it doesn't. "It's about what's best for the kid." Boom, argument over. I've had this argument a million times before. You can't win.

[–]taracus[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Single women are allowed to be inseminated on tax-money, how is that "what is best for the kid"?

[–]Ibex3D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know. I'm not the one making the argument.

[–]Tamazin_ 0 points1 point  (5 children)

So in your world, best for the kid is having the man paying childcare to the mother for 18 years? Or the child knowing that "this guy here is your birth father; he doesn't like you and won't say a word to you but he IS your father"?. Bullshit.

[–]break_main 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Best for the kid is having food, clothing, shelter. How you gonna pay for that? If mom works to get the money, then no one is watching the kid. If the state pays, it costs more money, though better than the kid going to an orphanage. Dad pays is the best option.

[–]Tamazin_ 1 point2 points  (2 children)

First its the mothers decision to have the children, if she can't afford it she shouldn't get kids. Secondly, in Sweden the governmwnt pays for everything even if the mom doesnt work, as well as having generous paternelyleave (sp?) so that isnt a problem either. And good childcare etc. When the kids are somewhat older.

[–]break_main 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yeah, i guess im mostly for it. I worry about men being released from all responsibility, though. How much unprotected sex would you have if you werent worried about the consequences? And it isnt like abortion and birth control are just simple procedures, there are side effects and risks, so to leave contraception totally in the hands of women is pretty shitty

[–]Tamazin_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But in the end the woman is the only one that have the right to decide if she's going to keep the child or not. So men atleast should have the right to legaly abort the child.

[–]Ibex3D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, I'm just telling you what they will say.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

There's a reason they make this proposal right now. Like other youth parties they are controlled by the rulers of the country.

A weeks ago they got in the spotlight they suggested making necrophilia legal, which of course taints any other idea they put forward. They were asked by the government to put forward first necrophilia, then this idea, to smear the idea of allowing men to denounce fatherhood before anybody else suggests the idea. Swedes are very anti-family, so anything having to do with splitting families will gain popular support, including denouncing fatherhood.

Basically you group sensible proposals with outrageous ones to make the public denounce them.

Denouncing fatherhood is nothing new, the romans would chose whether to call a child theirs or let it be a bastard.

[–]taracus[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

A weeks ago they got in the spotlight they suggested making necrophilia legal, which of course taints any other idea they put forward.

If you would have read my post you would notice that I pointed this out and that his is more of a media-stunt, but thanks for making it clear you were more concerned about posting something than contributing something

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I'm explaining why they put forward the issue in the first place. Do you think they put out an outrageous suggestion like necrophilia for no reason? Media-stunt are made for a reason, these guys don't make money selling records so they have other reasons for wanting to be noticed in the media.

[–]stawek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, no, no, no!!

It is Sweden ffs.

The women will get all the money they need from men's taxes anyway. Forget cild support, when you pay 80% taxes every man is fucked by the system.

This is actually benefitting women: now they can ALL have babies with Chads while the betas pay taxes. Normally Chad will make sure not to produce too many babies or he ends up bankrupt, with the new law he'd fuck everything raw and the women would then get all their child support from government.

In a tax-liberal country it's a great idea. In Sweden it's terrible.

[–]indlife 4 points4 points [recovered]

It won't pass for many reasons:

First, many governments are broke. They function day to day, but the reality is there is no money. I have no idea how much child support is paid in various counties, but say it would be reduced even 15% and it is likely a lot of money the government would have to cover in welfare situations.

Second, while it sounds fair in principle, there is really no way to enforce the loss of all parental rights. Eventually the child gets old enough and actually does have rights, even before the age of majority. So now the child gets a lawyer to sue his/her mom to make the mother stop blacking access to the child's biological father, and this could even include requesting court orders that force the mother to give the father's personal information. Then you have questions that once a relationship is established, and if it at the behest of the minor child, does the father now have to pay?

Lastly, grandparents rights would come into play, and grandparents would either be forced to pay to see the kid. And if they did or didn't pay, there is nothing stopping them for taking the kid on vacation and oh, dear old dad who wants to be in the picture is coming now.

[–]taracus[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I dont think grand-parents have any legal rights over their grandchildren as long as one of their parents is still their legal guardian do they?

[–]Adurell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is very uplifting. Even though it won't pass

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]taracus[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Youre right, unfortunately the title cant be changed so you're just going have to live with it

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[–]aazav 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Sweden's Liberal Youth Party, son, Sweden's.

[–]taracus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm too used to autocorrect doing that for me, but you're right I'll shape up.

[–]Baron_Lipton 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I'm a little concerned that this approach leaves a potential child at risk of a fatherless home more than it 'evens the playing field' so to speak. There should be a focus on making women as responsible as men and not making men as irresponsible as women if you get me.

The family unit and being a family man is the real alpha male, lads.

[–]MakeEmSayAyy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

haha women and responsbility is like oil and water, natural aversion to each other

[–]theknowmad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Get yourself the Google Translate Chrome Extension. It will translate the page just fine.

[–]Fuck_shadow_bans 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course it could work, the problem isn't whether it will work or not. The problem is that it will cost the government a shit ton of money in child support payments. Sweden already has that, and is one of the most feminized countries in the world, so it wouldn't be much of a change tbh.

[–]TheRealMewt 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Whats stopping a pregnant woman from waiting until week 19 to break the news to the father? What's stopping the government from drawing out the financial abortion proceedings until it's too late for the man to bail out?

[–]taracus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well you would have to assume if this was to become reality, it wouldnt be impossible to write this up so that if the mother made no attempt to notify the father that time-frame extends?

Also in Sweden abortions is covered under our universal health-care so Im not sure what you mean by "financial abortion proceedings".

[–]daddymonsterpoodle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It certainly would change the dynamic. My country has an issue with teen single moms. There are too many. It is pretty obvious why. Work hard, get a student loan, and be in debt forever. Choice 2, be lazy, get pregnant, get government handouts and child support until the child is 18, You might even get a house out of it.
This is what makes me angry. A guy can be lied to by the woman he fucks about contraception. He can state categorically that he does not want her to have the child, well before it is a problem, state clearly he does not want to support the child (that might not be his anyway) and still pay 10% of his salary for the next 18 years!!! Just watch words like 'honorable', 'responsible', 'real man' get dragged out against him if he chooses not to support the child.
Explain to me why this isn't fraud "gee, I wasn't on the pill after all." Extortion (supported by the state) "give me money for 18 years or else" or supporting the worst aspects of female nature. All those feminists who fought for the right for women to be able to choose must be crying themselves to sleep as young women choose to be selfish career incubators rather than successful and independent.
No woman in a developed nation is incapable of getting contraception before, during and well after sex. Also implying no agency on the part of women is ridiculous. She was there, she helped get naked, she helped get that penis into her vagina.It is NOT laziness, maternal instincts, stupidity, ignorance or love that let's a girl get pregnant, it is conscious choice. There needs to be realistic consequences for choices. The consequences for 'I chose to believe her when she said she was on the pill' should not be a 18 years of debt. Sorry, rant over.

[–]feo83nix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I came to this as a conversation point with a friend in trying to see a fair way. I really think it could work and rings strongly for equality. Thanks for posting this.

[–]throwawaycomedian95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These people are ahead of their time. Give it time and the progressive world will likely start to recreate this.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]taracus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I guess it would mean women would have to take a bit more responsibility over whos kid they trying to give birth to.

Note as well that abortions are tax-funded in Sweden

[–]Lord_shitmeister 0 points1 point  (0 children)


[–]Drmadanthonywayne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've always felt this way. Both parties made the choice to have sex, yet should a child be conceived the woman gets to opt out after the fact (abortion), while the man has no say at all.

Choice and responsibility should go hand in hand. Either ban abortion altogether (no opt out for anyone) or give the man a veto on the abortion and/or give him an "opt out" option (renounce the child).

Honestly, I don't think many men would renounce their children, but it would put an end to pregnancy being used as blackmail.

[–]DDOS_Feeler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, that came out kinda racist at the end.

[–]thenemaxofredpill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Give that group a cookie, fast. They deserve it. Sweden should be proud to have a logical group like that as its future.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]taracus[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well if you bothered reading my post you would see that I did in fact point out that this is more of a media-stunt and that they also tried to legalize necrophilia and incest.

[–]themanbat 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This would be a great and just law. Unfortunately it will likely never fly. Feminist disinterest in true equality aside, the government has a policy of doing whatever it takes to see that children are supported. If there is a known father, then the father has to pay. Why? Because if the father doesn't pay, the state has to pay. And the state doesn't like to pay for anything it doesn't have to.

[–]Apexk9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Takes 2 people to make a baby but a women to keep one.

load more comments (17 replies)