TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

TIL - One of the most feminist countries in the world has out of wedlock birthrate of 70%. South Korea is 2%

furry8

November 21, 2019
57 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.fatherly.com/love-money/relationships/why-iceland-has-so-many-babies-born-out-of-wedlock/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title TIL - One of the most feminist countries in the world has out of wedlock birthrate of 70%. South Korea is 2%
Author

furry8

Upvotes 57
Comments 42
Date November 21, 2019 12:11 PM UTC
(6 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dziexm/til_one_of_the_most_feminist_countries_in_the/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/til-one-of-the-most-feminist-countries-in-the.1202578
https://theredarchive.com/post/1202578
Red Pill terms in post
feminist
Top posts by furry8

(A) Female-only scholarships outnumber male-only scholarships by a ratio of more than 11-to-1. (B) Female-only scholarships were established to address gender imbalances in colleges. (C) Women earn 57% of all bachelors degrees.

3291 upvotes
June 20, 2020
/r/MensRights

Research : "Women with tattoos reported greater willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual relations."

724 upvotes
April 10, 2020
/r/TheRedPill

Labour party MP in the UK: "We need to hold men back if women can't be chosen as our party leader"

432 upvotes
December 12, 2019
/r/MensRights

Great to see Amber Heard's gloating words being used to expose the reason male victims of domestic violence are under-represented in official statistics. "No one will believe a white male." We should all be ashamed we have allowed feminists to deny these victims any support.

396 upvotes
February 9, 2020
/r/MensRights

California universities offer 117 scholarships for females and only FOUR scholarships for men.

278 upvotes
August 31, 2019
/r/MensRights

[False accusations] Jealous woman recorded faking bruises & confessing to faking allegations. Canadians STILL issue arrest warrant for the guy

217 upvotes
July 7, 2019
/r/MensRights

Willow Smith says she's 'proud' of mom Jada, 49, for talking about her 'entanglement' with August Alsina, 28: 'That's the real deal'

207 upvotes
September 30, 2020
/r/MensRights

Gender Bias in Job Referrals: An Experimental Test": Our data suggest that women tend to favor women when choosing a candidate, whereas men do not attach much importance to the gender of potential candidates" (!)

175 upvotes
October 4, 2019
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 47 points48 points49 points 6 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Feminism marries off women to the government. And the tax department to the men's bank accounts. No surprise here.

[–]furry8[S] 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Thats a beautiful way of summarizing it

[–]Demonspawn 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Bureaugamy is the #1 MRM issue. A lot (I daresay most) of the solvable MRM issues can be resolved by ending Bureaugamy.

The problem is what it will take to end Bureaugamy.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

The problem is what it will take to end Bureaugamy.

Reliable and safe male birth control options.

When men can prevent pregnancy, then birth rates will plummet...

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately the root cause of Bureaugamy is women's suffrage: women controlling 56% of the vote while only contributing 25% of the taxes. Politicians have run on robbing Men to fund programs which benefit Women in order to bribe votes from the controlling interest.

[–]nisutapasion 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

there must be a way to solving this without removing women's right to vote.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Let's think this through:

Women control 56% of suffrage. That's a 12 point lead. Put another way, if 10% of women and all men vote one way and 90% of women vote the other, the 90% of women win. The vote lead women have is extreme.

Women have used that 12 point gap to increase taxes 2000% relative to GDP since women's suffrage. Men now pay 75% of taxes while women receive 80% of government welfare. In the USA, that represents $2T/yr taken from men to be given to women.

In recent history, we watched a "war on women"... the idea that women would have to pay for their own birth control under the ACA. Mind you, men were already slated to have to pay for their own birth control. Treating women the same as men was seen as a "war on women". That's how entitled the women voting population is: Being treated the same as men is a war on women.

I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see anything beating women's 56% control of government and politicians taking from men to bribe women's votes other than removing universal suffrage. It's possible that we could change suffrage to landowner vote or requiring net positive taxes to vote (latter would require a Constitutional amendment) would prevent the abuse of suffrage, but either of those solutions would still require revolution to implement.

[–]nisutapasion 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I see your problem.

You are thinking at people as groups instead of individuals.

Women may can cast a vote for a party, but the party members are the ones enacting policies. So, no. it wasn't women suffrage the lead to this tax increase, it was politicians.

because, for a politician, is very easy to be generous, because he is not paying for it l.

[–]coke501 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And women, as a whole, also don't pay for it. If you know you'll be better off, if certain policies are implemented, you'll vote for it. Women are better off when welfare increases (not really, but if you only look at the numbers, they are), men are worse off, because it's their money that pays that system.

If women didn't have the vote, the power of gibs-promises would decrese drastically, because a whole lot of men will not be benefactors of wellfare.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are thinking at people as groups instead of individuals.

Because we are talking about group dynamics. Individuals don't matter in politics, groups do.

So, no. it wasn't women suffrage the lead to this tax increase, it was politicians.

Women's suffrage changed our politicians. Without women's suffrage, we would have different politicians who acted differently.

The problem here is that you are viewing politicians as people with power over the subjects. They are not. They are chauffeurs who go where the voters tell them to go lest they get replaced.

because, for a politician, is very easy to be generous, because he is not paying for it l.

And women demand that politicians be very generous with men's money.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Yeh, like maybe encouraging men to vote...

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps you misunderstand what I said above: Of those who are eligible to vote, 56% are women. If 100% of Americans who could vote did, 56% of those votes would be cast by women.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Yes but not everyone votes and women turn out to vote in higher numbers. If men used their vote, it would make a massive difference. It's non negotiable that women's right to vote should be taken away

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If men used their vote, it would make a massive difference.

Unfortunately, no. Any vote hot enough to draw in more men would also draw in more women. Again, men would be outvoted. What issue do you imagine that would draw in more male voters without drawing in more female voters? And would that issue even make a difference?

It's non negotiable that women's right to vote should be taken away

I don't see any way of fixing this without ending universal suffrage. We could move to landowner only vote with one vote per household, we could move to only those paying net positive taxes to vote, but either of those would remove far more women from the voting pool than men.

[–]Lion_amongst_gods 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

!RedditSilver

[–]MalibuStayZ -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I highly disagree on that. I want to go forward, not back to the 50s.

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Any time government expands, more of the benefit of the expansion goes to women than to men.

Going "forward" is treating men like second class citizens while they fund 75% of government. Going "forward" is treating women as more equal than men.

[–]MalibuStayZ 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure, but I think we should attempt to change that instead of going backwards. Create a society which doesn't see men as disposable anymore. Basically creating equality be improving the situation for men not by worsening the situation for women.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Create a society which doesn't see men as disposable anymore.

That's not a solvable problem. All societies will see men as more individually disposable as it does women. It's not a matter of will/won't, it's a matter of can/can't. Simply put: might make right, numbers make might, women make numbers.

Basically creating equality be improving the situation for men not by worsening the situation for women.

Because of the above, seeking equality creates a system of female supremacy. Because rights are easy to fix, responsibility is hard to fix, and disposability is impossible to fix; seeking equality makes men persons and women persons plus, which makes men second class citizens.

[–]Svenskbtch 21 points22 points23 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I am from Sweden, where out of wedlock births are only a bit lower than that - perhaps 50%. However, this figure is a bit misleading, as about half of the couples I know simply do not marry. The trend peaked in the 80s (the 70s generation), and has flagged since.

We should also keep in mind that both Iceland and Sweden have default shared custody in divorce cases, permanent alimony is abolished, and child support payments rare (and capped at modest rates).

So I would rather be a father in Iceland than in South Korea.

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I thought the same thing as a Dane. The Nordic countries are pretty areligious, so nobody thinks of it, if a couple has a child before or without getting married. I was born a bastard, because my parents just hadn't gotten around to getting married, which they only did afterwards because it removed any custody paperwork.

[–]Svenskbtch 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, this was the cool thing to do in the 70s... and since I guess Scandinavians just got used to it. And thanks for the refreshing reminder of the original meaning of bastard...

[–]MalibuStayZ 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In Germany I think we also tend to be more like you guys but not quite as far and I would love to go even further with stuff like paper abortions and such.

[–]furry8[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Child support payments are rare in Sweden? Thats really surprising for another famously feminist government

[–]Svenskbtch 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Remember NOW also wanted to abolish alimony and large child support payments, seeing it as a necessary step towards liberating women, back in the 70s? The difference is: American feminism reversed course as the women in the radical 70s generation changed their minds after having children; Swedish feminism did not.

Swedish feminism can still be pretty wacky. Just not in this respect.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I've seen a lot of posts slagging off Sweden lately and I think it's strange when they have far better paternity rights than many countries. Isn't it true that parental leave is 2 years and must be shared?

[–]hasnas 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

18 months and 3 must be taken by the father or they go to waste.

Also Swedish and have more friends with kids and still together with the other parent than that are married.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've observed that too, but in the UK. I know of some wonderful marriages, but I think too often people get married for the wrong reasons, and then surprise, it ends in tears

[–]Svenskbtch 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Parental leave is 18 months at 70% of salary up to 2-3 k USD a month, out of which 3 months have to be taken by the father (or mother). I think the left wants to up that to 6, but not sure.

The invective against - and celebration of - Sweden in the US debate is indeed puzzling. Though I do not live in Sweden, and though integration of immigrants is a concern, we are not at risk of going under any time soon. We are also far from a Socialist Utopia - we have low corporate taxes, one of the most liberal employment regimes in the world (you can hire and fire at will, and consistently rank near the top in ease of doing business. What we DO have is day care, parental leave, and solid unemployment insurance - but we also require unemployed people to go through job training to receive benefits and have very few long-term unemployed. Our taxes are only marginally higher than those in California, but for that, we get free education, almost free, universal health care, clean streets, and the assurance that we live in a society where destitution is practically non-existent. That is why few people complain about paying taxes.

Of course, my list of negatives will, if more innocuous, be at least as long...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This was my very first thought. simply noting the relative levels of legal marriages doesn't really give you an accurate picture. I would be surprised if the rate of single parents was even close to that.

Further, I'm skeptical that children raised by two married parents who hate each other is preferable to being raised by separated parents.

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My parents divorced when me and my sister were 11 and 13, but stayed close friends and live near each other. I'd take that any day over them staying together and growing resentful of each other.

[–]Svenskbtch 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Again, I have no data on this, but out of many divorced couples in Sweden that I know, none are estranged. In the US - more than half. Hard to imagine that the much more adversarial legal system in the US is the sole cause, but there you are...

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Interesting, I'm not against people getting married but personally think its an outdated institution that hurts men and women alike. Probably men more so

[–][deleted] 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]subter1 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Divorce rates are not at an all time high. It's a myth that keeps being perpetuated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/

[–]furry8[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I think the worrying trend we see in these feminist countries - if you don't get married you still pay for women's decisions to have as many babies as they want

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In that case it doesn't make a massive amount of difference what the marriage rate is. If this is really about men getting tricked into having kids then why not say so.

Paper abortions and the male birth control pill are, in my eyes, the fairest resolution to this issue. Condoms are over 98% effective and if you really don't want kids then vasectomies are a reversible option and usually most doctors are happy to perform them. The same can't be said for hysterectomies, so that is a small win for men.

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There are a lot of semi permanent reversible birth control options for women, like IUD, so hysterectomies are rare unless there are other medical reasons.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes indeed. I have an IUD myself and it has caused me to grow a full beard, I also bled every day for 6 months. Let's not pretend any of this is a walk in the park. The sooner the male birth control pill is developed the better.

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol you know fuck all about neither the Nordic countries or South Korea. In the Nordics it's common to not get married at all, but still be a couple. Me and many of my friends were born out of wedlock to loving couples, who end up living together for decades without getting married, or only get married after having children.

South Korea on the other hand is super traditionalistic and much more formal about marriage, but that doesn't mean that fathers have better relationships with their children, because 60+ hour work weeks are normal for men.

I'm biased as a Scandinavian, but I would much rather be a father in the Nordics than in South Korea.

[–]furry8[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I knew all this. Thanks for your polite feedback

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then why do you think it's worrying? Couples staying together for life and both of them deciding to have children without getting married is bad because? The man is paying for the womans decision to a much larger degree in East Asia than the Nordics regardless of what wedlock rates say, because wedlock rates are garbage unless the countries being compared have the same views on wedding.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter