Hyper feminist and male apologist Hugo Schwyzer recently let the blogosphere know that he had been party to a potential fraud involving the paternity of a child. The story goes like this…
- Jill and Hugo are banging
- Jill and Ted are banging
- Jill gets pregnant with Alastair
- Jill and Hugo decide not to tell Ted that Alastair might not be his
- Ted and Jill get married, and Ted is as far as we know* never aware that Jill was has lied to him
While anyone rational would consider this flat-out dishonest, radical feminists (and make no mistake, Hugo is one of those) have managed to spin it in this way…
- Jill and Hugo did the right thing
- Ted has no right to know who the father of this child is
- If Ted cares who Alistair’s father is, and if knowing that the child isn’t his would change how he felt about raising him then Ted is an asshole
Now remember, these are people who believe that neither Ted or Hugo deserved any say at all in Jill’s decision to abort or carry the pregnancy. So in the end here is what we are left with.
Jill is the sole ethical arbiter of whether Alistair is born and also gets to decide who she wants to portray as the father even if she lies or withholds information to do so.
The whole thing casts a sharp light on the ethical game of double standards that are at work surrounding abortion and paternity. If you read the comments you will find more than one allusion to the idea that a male makes his last conscious choice about whether or not he is willing to be the father of a child when he has sex with a woman. In that moment he is, in theory, accepting “the consequences”. Now, the argument that a possible pregnancy is one of “the consequences” of sex and that the potential parents have made the choice once and for all at that time is universally met with derision by the pro-choice crowd whenever it comes up in relation to women. They insist and demand that such thinking is barbaric and in essence punishes a woman for being sexual**.
Punishing men, of course, is just fine.
It seems only a short step from deciding that when a man has sex he accepts the possibility that he might father a of his own to thinking that if he has sex with a woman he might wind up as the father to any other child she might decide to foist on him. Don’t as me how that makes sense, radical feminism has never really been about making sense.
Things get more interesting when the topic of consent in general comes up – many radical feminists take a hard-line view of consent in that any deception on the part of a man is fraudulent and sometimes crosses the line into rape. How these same women somehow feel it is ok (and make no mistake, lots and lots of them feel it is OK) for Jill to lie to Ted is a lovely example of how anti-male their thinking really is.
As usual, we can expect some of the most sane reactions from Ren about this…
I generally cannot and do not get behind MRA whining, but for real, any woman who knowingly lies to a dude about a kid being his when she knows the kid isn’t or there is a chance the kid isn’t is a fucking selfish lying scumbag and nothing but. If a man knowingly chooses to raise/adopt a child who is not his? Good on him. If he is tricked and lied to? Well fuckin’ shame on her and yeah, heaps of contempt. There is no reason, no excuse, nothing that justifies that shit. A woman who pulls that crap is making the foundation for numerous relationships a big fat lie and causing all sorts of damage. – in context
One more interesting side note, under current law Jill could even now take a paternity test and, if it urns out Hugo is the genetic father sue him for child support even though she and he both made the conscious decision to inflict another man with the financial burden for Jill and her child under questionable paternity.
Cause that’s just how we roll in 2011 folks.
Related links…
- I May Have a Son, but I’ll Never Know for Sure
- Wrapping up Spermgate
- Of DNA and honesty
- This shit disgusts me….
* Hugo has since walked this back to imply that maybe Ted knows everything – but he has no reason to suspect this to be true
** for the record, I am pro-choice up to about the first trimester for both men and women. I think that within whatever time period the law allows a woman to decide to abort a child the male should have the option of a “paper” abortion and be able to withdraw his consent to be legally responsible for the child.
No comments yet.