Thursday, April 20, 2006

Adultery, hypocrisy, fatherhood

Under most circumstances, if you lie to someone in order to obtain obtain money or services it's called fraud and carries criminal penalties. If a woman lies to a man about his paternity of her children, it's called a gravy train, especially after the divorce because then he knows they're not his kids and that knowledge is likely the cause that he can't see them any more even if he wants to and he still has to pay.

Except, in Australia, the law's catching up with one of these women. It is interesting that her legal team are defending her, at least in part, on the basis that "a finding for her husband would cause a rush of litigation against women". Why aren't "women" upset about such a slander? These guys are playing the gender card to protect women as a whole arguing they should be permitted adulterous and exploitative behavior. (I note that the article is happy to use the derogatory word "cuckold" but not its partner "adulterer".) That's why a certain kind of woman isn't complaining, she gains license to behave as badly as she likes. If a man cheats on his wife, he can lose everything, including his children, if a woman cheats on her husband, she has everything to gain. The consequences, ultimately, can only be bad for everyone, including those women who don't deserve it and most especially the children.

Back in the US, a woman writer shows some spine and speaks up, not so much in defense of men, or specifically the Duke lacrosse team, but of morality. In the process, she has a go at just about every source of "morality" we seem to have these days. It's a nice piece of analysis, but read it carefully, especially if you find your hackles rising - the chances are you misread it.

The cornerstone of her piece is "In no area except morality would a sane person believe he can't criticize something stupid because he's done it" for fear of being accused of hypocrisy. And she makes an excellent case, although her agenda is clearly right wing. What she doesn't do is explain what hypocrisy really is - the argument that a behavior is immoral with no intention of not behaving that way yourself. This complicates matters beyond the scope of her article because there is an inherent conflict between allowing bad behavior and judging it as bad and all political leanings suffer from that.

Over at Ifeminists, Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks discuss 'Roe v. Wade for Men' and observe:

'millions of unmarried men who do try to be fathers to their children find that while they are frequently lectured to "take responsibility," they're often not permitted any meaningful role in their children's lives. These stand-up guys usually get to spend only a few days a month with their kids, if they're lucky. Once mom finds a new man, they're often pushed out entirely in favor of the child's "new dad." And fathers who look to the family law system for help quickly find that said system has no interest in their case beyond keeping the child support checks coming."

Tags: , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Blog Archive