Paternity and Bats in Oz (Updated)
February 8, 2013 26 Comments
The Orthosphere is hosting an open discussion on the wisdom of “the appropriate reactionary position on paternity testing”.
I’m not a reactionary, so I won’t participate directly in the discussion, but the premise of looking for a reactionary position strikes me as at least partially wrong-headed. We ought to be looking for the correct position. There were no paternity tests in the good old days. Does this mean they had no concern about paternity once the deed was done did? I strongly doubt it.
“Mothers are fonder of children than fathers because they are more sure they are their own.” ~Some Newbie
There were no firearms in yester-years, either, yet these are reactionary staples now. (There will be blasters in any future worth living in, and I will trump these so-called “progressives” right now by laying a claim on their right and good use.) What’s my verdict? Don’t make a law about it, but paternity testing is a damn good thing to have widely and inexpensively available.
The comments are pretty interesting, from a sexual dynamics perspective. The commenters mostly appear to be men, and they are judicious in their approach (told you: I’m not one of them), laying out the pros and the cons of what effect of instituting such a change would be. Their comments are fraught with concern, and considerations; most eventually settling on the fact that the truth of paternity is too disturbing to entrust with normal folks.
Among these master debaters there are two mistress debaters (that I can tell), and they’re both of the opinion that no-way, no-how, not ever should paternity testing interrupt the sorceress and her business of running Oz.
It’s like the turn of the Century all over again. Carrie Nation is still enthralled with hafted weapons
“Good grief. Are we seriously fretting about the paternity rights of the interloper? Why don’t we just leave him alone with the man he wronged carrying a baseball bat, like in the good ole days?”
while Susan B. Anthony is doing her damnedest to make sure we don’t lose perspective of how women have it worse, so make it fair now:
“Wow, cockoldry worse than rape? You need to fund [sic] a sense of self before you hurt someone.”
Which was said to a man. Presumably his sense of self would be better off if it maintained its masculine bent as that’s what the good Lord gave him. No doubt she thinks she knows better. No doubt that’s the bloody problem with Oz. Let’s hope he fares better than our forefathers.
To go back to Carrie for a minute: What in the world makes her think that this forest showdown is going to go well? The bastard father is more likely to be someone like me than some poor Herb. Not only is it likely that the interloper is more physically manly, but If I’m a bastard who spawns bastards: I’m a cheater. I take advantage. Wishing for Herb to meet someone like me in the woods is to sentence him to death on Hera’s altar. It’s not fair, but my bat is bigger, and I swing it better. That’s how we got to the forest.
Through the whole
suffragette movement discussion there, there is this underlying theme that children belong to the father; with which I’m in whole-hearted agreement. If this were as true in practice as sentiment it would mean no one gives a hoot what women think: Let the fathers test or not. In actuality, it becomes a hand-wringing rout by airy monkeys:
“Why does the husband’s obligation to support his wife and children disappear when it is revealed that she is a crappy wife? Why does the husband’s obligation to love his wife as Christ loves the Church disappear when it is revealed that his wife [has cuckolded him]?”
Our Lord Christ gave us exactly one directive for when it can be considered appropriate for men to separate what God has brought together, and that monkey can’t even stick to that. PA-thetic. It’s not a command to divorce, but let’s not go crazy the other way, either. His book calls Joseph a just man while looking to put Mary away quietly; wrong though Joseph was on the nature of Mary’s situation. I submit that–barring a visit from the Almighty–a man who’s wife has cuckolded him is no sinner to put her away, and paternity testing is not anymore trust-breaking than to check the name on the wristband before taking the baby from the hospital.
Update: The monkeys have it by a vote of all to two, I think. It could be one. I want to highlight and respond to a bunch of comments there, but it would be a mess of Cane all over that page, and if he had any sense he’d delete them…which would cause me to lose the serene and graceful pose you’ve all come to love about me. Instead, I’ll respond here.
alcestiseshtemoa said: “It’s not reactionaries. It’s mostly chivalry, white knighting and Anglo Puritan/Victorian/New England mores who support this [keeping cuckolded husbands in the dark].
One of the two sensible ones; a female, to boot.
Vanessa said: “There are plenty of women out there caring for their husband’s illegitimate progeny, including some that I know personally, so sometimes life throws you lemons and you have to put on your big kid undies.”
None of whom were in the dark about the parentage of those children. It’s easy to put on your big kid undies when you’re treated like an adult, instead of a harlot’s mule. Also: a truly awful mixed metaphor.
alcestiseshtemoa said: “Doesn’t this kind of turn around the sex dynamics? Instead of a man and a woman being a collaborative unit, with the woman serving the man, the man listening to the woman, and both serving the triune God, instead the man serves the woman?”
Ding! Ding! Ding! Was there ever another plan?
There’s some fascinating comments among alcest(?) and Vanessa, but not really between them. The latter sideswipes the former as a unbeknown modernist. The latter slaps back that it’s actually the modernists who are quick to throw down the modernist label as cover, but it’s in an unrelated comment. Those two should really talk more.
anonymous said: “A righteous wife would proactively VOLUNTEER for paternity testing of her children. She’d GLADLY prove her love and fidelity by giving the gift of certainty to her husband.”
Whoa, there. Let’s not get crazy. I would have been weirded out if Mrs. Caldo gave me a paternity result for my birthday. One might get the idea she has something to prove besides love. As a sentiment, this is a misfire. BUT, there is a redeeming quality to it as it provoked the chain of thought below.
Vanessa replied: “Men never really lose the habit of saying “if you loved me, you would do it”, do they? Gosh, how many times have I heard it, and how unloving was the man for uttering it?”
In our defense, it has a fine pedigree. I’m not sure it’s a habit to be lost–though less corruption of it would be a very good thing. As to the second question: I’m sure if she can’t remember then no one else can possibly know.
anonymous retorts: “That’s a seduction line used by would-be fornicators. I never uttered it, not even once, in that or any other context. No habit to “lose”. And in case you missed it, that post said, “A righteous wife would proactively VOLUNTEER….”
Yikes. No and no and no.
Vanessa finishes: “I wouldn’t volunteer and I’d be absolutely horrified if my husband ever demanded it. I also don’t read his emails and follow him around town in a dark car.”
Not sharing virtual accounts is nuts in a world where the virtual is real. I think it says something that the first is very easy to do with no intrusion or effort whatsoever (“Here’s my password. You might need it.”) and the other is difficult and wasteful. Seriously: Who has a dark car when white vehicles are cheaper?
Zippy (big fan here) said: “What could possibly go wrong with giving the liberal administrative state tissue samples of every living human?”
I still think this is specious. The original question was what should the reactionary principle be on paternity testing. There was no qualifier of government mandated–private companies would be perfectly acceptable. You could make the argument that private companies would be strong-armed into giving the info to the government, but in a world of IP addresses, SS numbers, online bank accounts, and drone strikes on American citizens: this worry is a foregone conclusion.
Proph, the fellow who wrote the OP comes down on the side of keeping fathers in the dark–for the children. Never mind the overarching principle that the children, wife–indeed the family–belongs to the father. No matter that the studies show that concern about paternity raises the chances from about 4% to about 30%.
One more bon mote… (stet)
John Khoo writes: “I think it worthy of consideration that God saw fit to give us a son of David as our Saviour, who wasn’t really descended from David.”
Yes, he was, as Steve Nicoloso spares me from pointing out. There is a TON that can be said about the blessing of adopting a child, even under such scurrilous circumstances as cuckoldry. There is nothing good to be said about bearing a false witness against your most intimate neighbor.