A very selective hook

The inevitable side effect of DNA testing to verify whether a man is indeed the father of a child: it can also verify whether or not a man is indeed not the father of a child. Amazingly, some people have a problem with that:

DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves… Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them. The point is that paternity was ambiguous and it was effectively up to the mother to name her child’s father, or not… Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter … in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.

I suppose this is a step above the usual feminist definition of “choice,” which means “the ability to vacuum out the contents of one’s womb with impunity, preferably at public expense,” but I have to figure that if infanticide is no more than an inconvenience, then mere fraud must be utterly insignificant.







6 comments

  1. fillyjonk »

    29 October 2010 · 7:16 am

    Wait….what?

    That whole passage you quoted makes my head hurt. (It seems to me it’s only anti-feminist to have DNA paternity testing if you believe that “being fair to the man” is necessarily anti-feminist. I would argue that a man deserves to know if an offspring he’s helping raise is truly his or not. Now, granted, many men would probably not CARE, but…)

  2. CGHill »

    29 October 2010 · 7:39 am

    I wouldn’t argue with that in the slightest.

    But the putative feminist quoted above would, and does: if this information is not available, she says, she can pick the one she likes best for whatever reasons, rather than the one with the actual biological ties. Whatever the men may think about it is irrelevant.

    See also David Thompson’s commentary.

  3. fillyjonk »

    29 October 2010 · 7:59 am

    Gah. We’re not freakin’ house wrens, where the female can trick a more-subservient but perhaps less healthy male into feeding worms to her babies while she fools around with the flashier but perhaps less helpful males in her territory.

    I don’t know, this kind of thing bugs me inordinately much. It’s like the people who would take us back to pre-Industrial Revolution standards of hygiene or medicine because it’s somehow more “pure.” I’m sorry, I prefer to live in a time when there are vaccinations, antibiotics, and water that doesn’t give me dysentery.

  4. Tatyana »

    29 October 2010 · 8:57 am

    …and especially revolting is the fact these people, advocating the kind of sly female trickery characteristic for man-dominated societies call themselves “feminists” and “progressive”.

  5. McGehee »

    29 October 2010 · 9:28 am

    We’re not freakin’ house wrens, where the female can trick a more-subservient but perhaps less healthy male into feeding worms to her babies while she fools around with the flashier but perhaps less helpful males in her territory.

    Ah, but not only can it be done that way, but the laws as written actually lock that very thing into place in many instances.

    If a man agrees to support a child on the understanding that he is the father, subsequent DNA testing may refute that understanding but the courts will hold him to the agreement. And cuckolded husbands will be held to it regardless of whether they agree.

  6. Nicole »

    29 October 2010 · 6:52 pm

    Attitudes like that of this feminist are truly appalling and show that the feminist movement exists only to continue its own existence. It was useful and necessary once upon a time. Now all they seem to do is encourage young women to treat themselves as poorly as they claim all men once did.

RSS feed for comments on this post