Gender Equality in Canada and the US

[guyser]

I have a few questions. If a man's wife had a baby and he thought that child was his and obviously was raising it as his, and perhaps ten years down the road he found out that he wasn't the father of that child, do you think he would be able to just walk away from him/her - even in a divorce? Would he love him/her less? Would he no longer care what happened to the child? Could a caring, loving man do that to a child who loved him and sees him as his/her Dad? Do you think the the DNA of the child the reason men love him/her and want to be part of his/her life?

Sadly, some do want to walk away. Some rather would have the kids come live w him, let her (wife) flail in the wind.

Some men get so bitter about being lied to and hoodwinked that they try to walk away.

A caring loving man however would bite down and honour his obligation.

The law is showing its hand in this though. The court seems to take the approach that if you loved it for so many years, treated the child as your own then you will be financially liable for the child until such time as it graduates out of the support network.

I think (yup think!) that most of the time it is the lack of any serious penalties to the mom for the ongoing fraud that upsets the men in this situation.

I am curious about something, I wonder what the kid in this situation thinks when he gets older and truly ponders the actions of his/her mom?

[Guest American Woman]

That is what the females rely on when committing paternity fraud. It's an abuse of power, more powerful than money. The woman could have made a mistake and is trying to cover it up. The woman might have realized that the douche is an ex con and won't make a good dad. The testing is becoming cheaper and cheaper. You can buy self test kits for a few hundred. Just lump it into the cost of the official birth certificate.

I assume you're speaking of couples who are not married here. I agree that everyone who is not married should have DNA testing, and both the man and the woman involved should share the cost.

It should just happen as part of the registering a baby properly process. Then there is not opportunity for these evil women who commit paternity fraud to get away with it.

"Evil women?" I'm sure a lot of times they do believe the person who they say is the father IS the father. But here's the thing - the man could choose not to have unprotected sex with said "evil woman," or better yet choose not to have sex with her at all since nothing is 100% effective. If the man believes he is the father, then he had sex with her, so he's not completely an "innocent victim" - and of course he does have the option of asking for DNA testing, so if he doesn't, he is also to blame. So. I believe, as I said, when the couple is not married that there should be DNA testing - it should be part of the child support process.

To the first half of your comments, many Dad's don't think about the after effects of finding out but say that they are glad they know. You have to remember that the poor man did not create the situation, he is the victim of an unscrupulous female using the status of her body and security of knowing that the child is hers to place burden of responsibility on a male that had no part in the creation of the child.

Again, I'm not so sure the scenario is quite as sinister and one-sided as you present it. I also don't believe that men are entirely the "poor victim" that you make them out to be.

IMO, It should be his decision if he will continue to have a relationship the child if he had been the father figure for more than 2 years.

Doesn't say much for the man if he chooses not to, does it? The child is ultimately the loser, the one who pays the price, and I don't see how a man's feelings, love for a child he has been helping raise, can suddenly be turned off. Doesn't say much for the degree of his "love and caring," IMO.

I repeat, however, that I strongly believe that DNA testing should be part of the child support process when the couple isn't married. I also thank you for addressing my questions.

[Guest American Woman]

Sadly, some do want to walk away. Some rather would have the kids come live w him, let her (wife) flail in the wind.

Some men get so bitter about being lied to and hoodwinked that they try to walk away.

I truly understand that they are bitter about being lied to, but women are lied to by men who have affairs, too - the men just aren't the ones to get pregnant as a result. Women always know the child is theirs, though - but sometimes if they have an affair, I think they hope and convince themselves that the child is their husband's. I think they truly believe that that's the best way to present it for everyone.

A caring loving man however would bite down and honour his obligation.

I assume you're speaking of a married couple here - or I suppose a couple who has been together for some time, whose name is on the birth certificate - and the child knows him as "Daddy." I agree, and the payoff is the relationship with the child. It would be pretty difficult for a child to understand that the man who they know only as their Dad, not understanding the biological end of things, suddenly doesn't want to be their dad any more. I would think that would be devastating and have lasting effects. Unfortunately it's the children who too often pay the price.

The law is showing its hand in this though. The court seems to take the approach that if you loved it for so many years, treated the child as your own then you will be financially liable for the child until such time as it graduates out of the support network.

This is when the father accepted that he is the father - has accepted it for years? That's the way I'm reading it, and in that case, I have to agree with the law. The man, after all, had the option of getting DNA testing. In a marriage, where the man assumed the role of father and his name is on the birth certificate, I believe it's a given.

I think (yup think!) that most of the time it is the lack of any serious penalties to the mom for the ongoing fraud that upsets the men in this situation.

The court would have to prove "fraud," though - that the woman knew the man wasn't the father. I'm not so sure that would be possible. Also, the man has the option of DNA testing, though it's not easy to ask for in a marriage. In fact, if my husband asked for DNA testing, I'd tell him right after he took a lie detector test to determine whether or not he's ever cheated.

I am curious about something, I wonder what the kid in this situation thinks when he gets older and truly ponders the actions of his/her mom?

I don't think all of the blame goes to the mom here by any means. In a situation where they are not married, DNA testing should be a given, and if the man doesn't ask for it, whose fault is that? If they are married, then should the children feel any differently about their moms in such situations than they do dads who have affairs/cheat/leave the kids' mother for another woman?

I thank you, too, for addressing my questions. It's interesting to hear about how men feel about some of these things.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I assume you're speaking of couples who are not married here. I agree that everyone who is not married should have DNA testing, and both the man and the woman involved should share the cost.

Again, I'm not so sure the scenario is quite as sinister and one-sided as you present it. I also don't believe that men are entirely the "poor victim" that you make them out to be.

The man is expected to suck it up, even when being abused. He is never allowed to be the victim, especially by women.

Why are you assuming that women who are married will not have extramarital relationships resulting in offspring? It is entirely possible. I read a case in Hamilton where a man found out that not only was he not the father of any of the 4 children, but that none of the children had the same father.

Also, women are more likely to cheat than men.

One in five said they would "definitely" have an affair if they fell for another bloke.

In contrast, just nine per cent of fellas were certain they would betray their partner.

The study of 3,000 people has for the first time exposed girls as the bigger love rats.

It found that women aged 35 to 40 were most likely to cheat.

Many were childless and embark on flings in a bid to get pregnant.

But while 15 per cent of men would forgive a cheating wife or girlfriend, just 12 per cent of women would take back a partner who strayed.

NOTE THE BOLDED AND UNDERLINED AND ITALICIZED PORTION.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

A caring loving man however would bite down and honour his obligation.

A caring loving man would tell the ex-wife that she needs to find the real father and accept her responsibility for this mess, and fine the real father to accept his responsibility in this mess.

Why the hell does it always become the mans problem?

Why is it never OK to to a woman to honour her obligation after an indiscretion resulting in pregnancy but, it's ok to tell a man that it is his obligation to take care of a child that was passed off as his?

Edited February 7, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[guyser]

A caring loving man would tell the ex-wife that she needs to find the real father and accept her responsibility for this mess, and fine the real father to accept his responsibility in this mess.

Why the hell does it always become the mans problem?

Why is it never OK to to a woman to honour her obligation after an indiscretion resulting in pregnancy but, it's ok to tell a man that it is his obligation to take care of a child that was passed off as his?

For the simple reason that a man, after loving his child for X number of years, would never walk away from that which gives him joy and pride.

Does it suck he is not the bilogical daddy? Sure it does.

Is it great he is the daddy of the child ? Sure it is.

So , look at the best case worst case scenario and you have to come to the conclusion that if he loves his kid (bio or not) he does not walk away from his commitment. The courts sure as hell wont let him.

It doesn always become the mans problem, she is the bio mother afterall. It becomes his problem to meet financial requirements as he should and or the courts will impose.

What is best for the child is best for the child, and frankly, to hell with the rest. Does it suck to find out you have been hoodwinked? Yes, and I would be furious with the bio-mommy , but the kid has no blame in this, and for that reason alone, a caring loving man would honour his obligation.

[Bonam]

What is best for the child is best for the child, and frankly, to hell with the rest. Does it suck to find out you have been hoodwinked? Yes, and I would be furious with the bio-mommy , but the kid has no blame in this, and for that reason alone, a caring loving man would honour his obligation.

A child is a person just like everyone else. While many parents are only too glad to sacrifice for their children, the child's rights do not automatically supersede the rights of an adult. Furthermore, the kid having no blame is irrelevant, since the "hoodwinked" father would quite possibly also have had no blame, and thus they are on equal footing in that regard.

Furthermore, biologically, the whole point of reproduction is to pass on your genetic material. That is the fundamental underlying purpose of every life-form with a finite lifespan. The man who gets "hoodwinked" in this way not only has not passed his genetic material on, but has been robbed of the chance to do so for possibly many years, and quite possibly in the future as well, since many women would not want to enter into a relationship with a man who is burdened with an exploitative ex-wife and a child he has to support, as well as the associated emotional scars.

From my point of view, this "hoodwinking" is almost the worst thing that could possibly be done to a man short of murder.

Personally, I think a genetic test should just be part of the standard procedure at childbirth. That way, no one has to ask for it. A genetic test at birth has many valid medical reasons, such as screening for a wide range of possible diseases and mutations to allow for the optimum medical care for the newborn child. And, of course, if an anomaly such as the DNA of the child not matching the supposed father is found, that information should be revealed to the appropriate party.

Fortunately, genetic tests are becoming increasingly simpler, and a pocket genetic tester that could use a few dead skin cells and cost a few hundred dollars is a real technological possibility in the very near future. The device would get the genome sequence, which could then be uploaded to and analyzed by a secure online server.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

For the simple reason that a man, after loving his child for X number of years, would never walk away from that which gives him joy and pride.

Does it suck he is not the bilogical daddy? Sure it does.

Is it great he is the daddy of the child ? Sure it is.

That's what I don't get - is the love only dependent on the child having the man's genes? Seems rather shallow to me.

So , look at the best case worst case scenario and you have to come to the conclusion that if he loves his kid (bio or not) he does not walk away from his commitment. The courts sure as hell wont let him.

People adopt children all the time and love the children as their own - right from the beginning, without the years of interaction. Also, in rare cases where babies have been switched in the hospital, no one, to my knowledge, has ever wanted to give up the kid they have, the one they've raised and loved, for the biological child.

What is best for the child is best for the child, and frankly, to hell with the rest. Does it suck to find out you have been hoodwinked? Yes, and I would be furious with the bio-mommy , but the kid has no blame in this, and for that reason alone, a caring loving man would honour his obligation.

That's the bottom line - that the child had nothing to do with it. And I repeat - the mother sometimes believes that the man she named as the father is the father, and if they aren't married, the man has a responsibility to find out if he is the father or not. He has to live with consequences of his actions and his choices - and bear some responsibility for it.

At any rate, I can't imagine that I would feel any differently than you do if I were a man.

[guyser]

That's what I don't get - is the love only dependent on the child having the man's genes? Seems rather shallow to me.

Very shallow bordering on...no lets call it what it is, pathetic.

It would appear to me, some people wouldnt protect a child because it 'isnt mine' . Hypothetically speaking, if one has a daughter and her friend is with her, does one not lay down their life to protect the kids or does one say "well that ones not mine" .(absent any other adult)

That's the bottom line - that the child had nothing to do with it. And I repeat - the mother sometimes believes that the man she named as the father is the father, and if they aren't married, the man has a responsibility to find out if he is the father or not. He has to live with consequences of his actions and his choices - and bear some responsibility for it.

At any rate, I can't imagine that I would feel any differently than you do if I were a man.

I bet we dont agree on this but frankly I dont think almost any woman doesnt know who the father is. Married or not, I believe (of course absent of any proof )a woman knows very quickly when she is pregnant

I hear that all the time..."oh I knew the moment" (ok the moment is hyperbole )

Obviously there are exceptions, multiple sex partners in a night , but generally I think most women know. They may say they dont for obvious reasons .

Let me ask you, and I understand if you dont answer, but did you know you were pregnant the next morning? Was there that 'feeling' as I have heard some many times before?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Very shallow bordering on...no lets call it what it is, pathetic.

It would appear to me, some people wouldnt protect a child because it 'isnt mine' . Hypothetically speaking, if one has a daughter and her friend is with her, does one not lay down their life to protect the kids or does one say "well that ones not mine" .(absent any other adult)

You do know that the female can cut off the father from the non-biological child, right?

You do know that the biological father can be sought for child support? Don't you?

How does this child need "protecting"??? Your line of thought makes absolutely no sense. Is the child unsafe in a single parent situation? The family has already been destroyed by the mother.

It's SICK AND TWISTED to blame this on the father. Cruel and unusual punishment.

[guyser]

A child is a person just like everyone else. While many parents are only too glad to sacrifice for their children, the child's rights do not automatically supersede the rights of an adult. Furthermore, the kid having no blame is irrelevant, since the "hoodwinked" father would quite possibly also have had no blame, and thus they are on equal footing in that regard.

A child may be a person like everyone else, but the childs rights trump the adults. In law, in life ina pratically every aspect that I can think of.

There is no 'equal footing" as respects a childs rights and a mans rights (or adult) If there was then there would be no reason to have enacted laws against ..contracts ....driving....alcohol...education..freedom of movement...you get the drift I hope.

Furthermore, biologically, the whole point of reproduction is to pass on your genetic material. That is the fundamental underlying purpose of every life-form with a finite lifespan. The man who gets "hoodwinked" in this way not only has not passed his genetic material on, but has been robbed of the chance to do so for possibly many years, and quite possibly in the future as well, since many women would not want to enter into a relationship with a man who is burdened with an exploitative ex-wife and a child he has to support, as well as the associated emotional scars.

Pass on genetic material? I dont know about that one. Yes it is something that occurs passively , but I seriously doubt people are having kids for that purpose.

Passing on a name is probably something that more men are interested in.....until they have all daughters.

He is not robbed of anything to be honest. He has been fraudulently dealt with, I grant that, but beyond that, he has a son/daughter that 1 second prior to finding out he is not the bio-father , he loved with all his heart?

What did the son/daughter do to deserve the love of a father to be turned off 3 seconds later?

A woman who does not want to enter into an expoitive ex-wife scenario cannot be considered as a factor because the the woman has no legal nor moral boundaries to be presented that way.

From my point of view, this "hoodwinking" is almost the worst thing that could possibly be done to a man short of murder.

Not many would ever disagree with you on that. I think it would be quite traumatic to find out that baby I hold, be it 1 day ,6 mths ,or 8 years old (an they are all our babies)is not my bio-offspring.

But this is exactly where the rights of the child trumps the adult. By treating that child as if it were your child, you enter into a legal contract that is not easily, almost impossible, to exit from. And thats by design since the child is innocent and a minor.

Personally, I think a genetic test should just be part of the standard procedure at childbirth. That way, no one has to ask for it. A genetic test at birth has many valid medical reasons, such as screening for a wide range of possible diseases and mutations to allow for the optimum medical care for the newborn child. And, of course, if an anomaly such as the DNA of the child not matching the supposed father is found, that information should be revealed to the appropriate party.

Fortunately, genetic tests are becoming increasingly simpler, and a pocket genetic tester that could use a few dead skin cells and cost a few hundred dollars is a real technological possibility in the very near future. The device would get the genome sequence, which could then be uploaded to and analyzed by a secure online server.

I see the validity of such a thing, but I also see the downside too.

Upside, you know if you are or arent the dad.

Downside? Abortion increase due to genetic engineering. And thats a whole new game and thread.

[guyser]

You do know that the female can cut off the father from the non-biological child, right?

My understanding si a woman cannot do so if both were in a relationship of permanence.

You do know that the biological father can be sought for child support? Don't you?

I believe so. However, ten years after the fact (for instance) can she find him, does she know the name, can she get a court order to have his blood tested because 'she thinks' it might be him? ( I doubt that last part)

In fact the bio-father and the husband can both be forced to support the child in accordance with the rules of support in Family Law.

How does this child need "protecting"??? Your line of thought makes absolutely no sense. Is the child unsafe in a single parent situation? The family has already been destroyed by the mother.

It's SICK AND TWISTED to blame this on the father. Cruel and unusual punishment.

My line of thought is in line with the courts.

The child, any child, needs protecting. His emotional, physical self needs to be protected. A child is in no posotion to understand that his 'dad' walked out this morning because his mother is a fruitcake and did the dirty with someone else nine months before the child was born.

The family compact has been compromised, I agree, however it is not destroyed if the parents act like adults. I see the conundrum in what I just posted here....if mom wasn't out screwing around none of this would happen, however what we have are two adults that need to try and be responsible and provide the child with the best they can.

To hell with letting the kid in on the blame game.

The courts have looked at this from all angles and the child is the most important person in the room. Thus that child will be provided for , monies, a roof, clothes and an education through the support from both parents....by law

What changes for a man, when after 10 years of calling lil Jimmy his son, he finds out he is not the bio-daddy?

Does he walk, shrug his shoulders and say,. sorry kid, your moms a wh*** ? Have a nice life? No, not if he has any respect for anything.

It is not an easy scenario for anyone, but at the end of the say, non-bio dads have to step up and be men.

And just for the record , no one is 'blaming the father' , but the father, bio or not, will pay.

[Bonam]

A child may be a person like everyone else, but the childs rights trump the adults. In law, in life ina pratically every aspect that I can think of.

There is no 'equal footing" as respects a childs rights and a mans rights (or adult) If there was then there would be no reason to have enacted laws against ..contracts ....driving....alcohol...education..freedom of movement...you get the drift I hope.

All your examples are examples of children having reduced rights because of the assumption that they do not have the level of responsibility/understanding/development to exercise various rights. They say nothing about a child's rights trumping an adult's rights at all.

Pass on genetic material? I dont know about that one. Yes it is something that occurs passively , but I seriously doubt people are having kids for that purpose.

Of course they are. What % of couples are open to having children, but not open to adopting children? A large majority. That's pretty much the ratio of people that want the children they raise to have their genetic material.

He is not robbed of anything to be honest. He has been fraudulently dealt with, I grant that, but beyond that, he has a son/daughter that 1 second prior to finding out he is not the bio-father , he loved with all his heart?

He has been robbed of precisely what I said he was robbed of.

What did the son/daughter do to deserve the love of a father to be turned off 3 seconds later?

It's not an issue of "love". The father may well still love the child, but he may also wish to exit his relationship with the woman who betrayed him so, find another relationship, and have a child of his own, and not be involuntarily financially burdened while doing so.

A woman who does not want to enter into an expoitive ex-wife scenario cannot be considered as a factor because the the woman has no legal nor moral boundaries to be presented that way.

Not sure what you mean. It's not about this hypothetical woman, it's about the man's chances to get his life together, and part of that is his desirability to other potential mates. Being saddled with the situation we are describing will very adversely affect the man's ability to do that.

Not many would ever disagree with you on that. I think it would be quite traumatic to find out that baby I hold, be it 1 day ,6 mths ,or 8 years old (an they are all our babies)is not my bio-offspring.

Indeed. Traumatic enough that it is easy to understand how such a revelation could drive some otherwise stable individuals to emotional breakdown, depression, crime, suicide, or murder.

But this is exactly where the rights of the child trumps the adult. By treating that child as if it were your child, you enter into a legal contract that is not easily, almost impossible, to exit from. And thats by design since the child is innocent and a minor.

No. That is fundamentally unjust. No individual's rights trump those of another. Administrating an injustice on someone who has just been horribly wronged just because of their age and gender is not something I will ever condone. Solutions must be found that do not unduly harm either innocent party in this situation, either the father or the child.

Furthermore the law must be consistent. If it is the assumption of care for the child that gives one the obligation of financial support for the child, as you claim, then biological fathers who never knew their children because they were dumped by their gf/wife at the time should be off the hook. However, that's not the case. The law will still pursue a man in that situation and force him to pay.

Frankly, the man is completely screwed in almost every scenario when it comes to family law.

I do not condone injustice. Not even on the amazingly enlightened grounds that "real men" are supposed to be tough and just suck it up.

I see the validity of such a thing, but I also see the downside too.

Upside, you know if you are or arent the dad.

Like I said, there are plenty of medical benefits, which come into play far more often than the scenarios we're discussing. Everyone should have their DNA on file. Adults should have it taken and searched for anomalies and damage during routine physicals, and it can be stored for future reference. And children should have it taken at birth, for the same reasons. The benefit of confirming paternity would be incidental.

Downside? Abortion increase due to genetic engineering. And thats a whole new game and thread.

Taking someone's DNA at birth is not the same as taking it prenatally. You can't abort a baby after it's born.

[Bonam]

The family compact has been compromised, I agree, however it is not destroyed if the parents act like adults. I see the conundrum in what I just posted here....if mom wasn't out screwing around none of this would happen, however what we have are two adults that need to try and be responsible and provide the child with the best they can.

Of course it is destroyed. Most any man in this situation will have no feelings but hate and rage towards the woman who did something like that to them. That is not a family.

[Bonam]

Bottom line is, some dads may indeed want to continue to support the child. And if they do, that's great. But those that don't want to, but are forced to do so involuntarily by the law, will only be exposing the entire family to a toxic atmosphere that will benefit no one, least of all the child. Do you think a child is nourished by having a father who wants to have nothing to do with the child or the child's mother, but is forced to remain by the government? I don't think so.

In my opinion, there is almost no better use of tax dollars than diffusing such hate-filled and potentially fatal situations.

Here's what I'd do:

- If the father voluntarily wants to remain and try to make the situation work, out of his love for the child, more power to him and he should definitely do so. You claim that "decent" men would do this, so by all means, let them do so voluntarily.

- If the father, upon discovering this information, decides he no longer wants to have anything to do with the woman and her offspring by another father, he should be set free. Since men who would do this are not good men by your standard, and because of the toxic atmosphere, the child may not benefit from having his traumatized father around anymore anyway. So just set the father free. In this case, the government can provide financial support for the child, as needed.

Now, I'm no lover of government power or intervention, as most here know. But this is really the kind of situation where spending a bit of tax money could bring great benefits, as well as providing justice for the wronged party. The reality is such situations are very rare and this would impose very little additional tax burden upon society, while getting rid of unjust situations that often end very poorly, when the father, unable to cope with the injustice, turns to crime, drink, joblessness, etc.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

I bet we dont agree on this but frankly I dont think almost any woman doesnt know who the father is. Married or not, I believe (of course absent of any proof )a woman knows very quickly when she is pregnant

Lots of women don't know they are pregnant until a few weeks into their pregnancy, some even later, some not until they give birth. I find that unbelievable myself, but it happens more than we'd think. At any rate, a woman would have to know she was pregnant the minute she got pregnant in order to "know" who the father was if she has had relations with more than one man; but if a woman doesn't know for a couple of months and hasn't had relations with any other man in those months, she could think the man she was with most currently was the father. Also, if she only had one indiscretion, while having frequent sex with the main man in her life, it's not crazy that she'd think the man that she had multiple sex with is the father - especially if the discretion occurred at a time of the month that would make a resulting pregnancy unlikely. Yet that can happen. So I think it's wrong to assume that in all situations the women knew.

I hear that all the time..."oh I knew the moment" (ok the moment is hyperbole )

Obviously there are exceptions, multiple sex partners in a night , but generally I think most women know. They may say they dont for obvious reasons .

I think most of the women who "knew the moment" are engaging in a bit of hyperbole themselves, or else they were trying to get pregnant and very aware and sensitive and "knew" because they wanted to believe. I have to wonder if there were other times that they they "knew they were" - but weren't.

Let me ask you, and I understand if you dont answer, but did you know you were pregnant the next morning? Was there that 'feeling' as I have heard some many times before?

With my first pregnancy I had no clue. I most definitely did not know the next morning. I had no clue at all until I finally went for a pregnancy test - still wasn't expecting it to be positive. I had some weird things going on- I suddenly found Diet Coke (which I drink every morning without fail) disgusting, and I cried to "You Light Up My Life" driving to work. Those were signs, but since I/(we) wasn't trying to get pregnant, I never put two and two together. My second pregnancy, I knew immediately. Seriously. I told everyone the next day that I was pregnant. No one believed me, of course. But I knew, because of the first experience.

But. Women who are cheating most likely are not trying to get pregnant and most likely are in an emotional turmoil, so the the so-called signs of pregnancy could very well escape them. Or they might be using birth control. Or they might not be doing it at the time when they are likely to get pregnant. I truly believe that many women are just as surprised as the men that they aren't the father. But of course there are those who are devious and at least know that more than one man could be the father. It's as I said, men who are not married to the woman should require a DNA test along with child support payment orders - it should be part of the legal system. I do not see how a DNA test can be legally required of a married woman, however - it would be singling her out, making her prove her fidelity. The same demand would not be required of the husband.

Which brings up another point - a man who cheats is no better than a woman who cheats just because he cannot get pregnant - and I doubt if men are any more forthcoming about their indiscretions.

We're on the same page regarding the questions I originally asked, but I just see men as getting a complete 'free pass' here, and I don't see that as the reality. Perhaps single men should be a bit more discriminating in regards to who they sleep with - and if they are told they are a daddy-to-be, they should ask for DNA testing. If they don't ask because the don't want to rock the relationship boat, that's their fault - they have to take responsibility for that.

Edited February 8, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

Bottom line is, some dads may indeed want to continue to support the child. And if they do, that's great. But those that don't want to, but are forced to do so involuntarily by the law, will only be exposing the entire family to a toxic atmosphere that will benefit no one, least of all the child. Do you think a child is nourished by having a father who wants to have nothing to do with the child or the child's mother, but is forced to remain by the government? I don't think so.

Cant agree.

If the dad walks without support the child is the only one who truly loses. Afterall, he did nothing to warrant being dumped and relegated to a lesser life. (Unless mom has tons of dough)

Children are not some pawn in a game.

What is best for the child will be the deciding factor on what happens. The man may very well feel impugned, upset, furious even, but frankly that is his and his ex's cloak to wear and a strong man will keep that from a child.

As anyone knows, kids are not dumb and will likely find out the truth at a later date and then decide for him or herself what to make of it.

[guyser]

With my first pregnancy I had no clue. I most definitely did not know the next morning. I had no clue at all until I finally went for a pregnancy test - still wasn't expecting it to be positive. I had some weird things going on- I suddenly found Diet Coke (which I drink every morning without fail) disgusting, and I cried to "You Light Up My Life" driving to work. Those were signs, but since I/(we) wasn't trying to get pregnant, I never put two and two together. My second pregnancy, I knew immediately. Seriously. I told everyone the next day that I was pregnant. No one believed me, of course. But I knew, because of the first experience.

But. Women who are cheating most likely are not trying to get pregnant and most likely are in an emotional turmoil, so the the so-called signs of pregnancy could very well escape them. Or they might be using birth control. Or they might not be doing it at the time when they are likely to get pregnant. I truly believe that many women are just as surprised as the men that they aren't the father. But of course there are those who are devious and at least know that more than one man could be the father. It's as I said, men who are not married to the woman should require a DNA test along with child support payment orders - it should be part of the legal system. I do not see how a DNA test can be legally required of a married woman, however - it would be singling her out, making her prove her fidelity. The same demand would not be required of the husband.

Which brings up another point - a man who cheats is no better than a woman who cheats just because he cannot get pregnant - and I doubt if men are any more forthcoming about their indiscretions.

We're on the same page regarding the questions I originally asked, but I just see men as getting a complete 'free pass' here, and I don't see that as the reality. Perhaps single men should be a bit more discriminating in regards to who they sleep with - and if they are told they are a daddy-to-be, they should ask for DNA testing. If they don't ask because the don't want to rock the relationship boat, that's their fault - they have to take responsibility for that.

Thanks for this answer. I was treading on private issues and appreciate the candor.

You mention that you felt mothers are as surprised as the fathers that the current husband/spouse/SO is not the bio-daddy. REally? That, to me, defies logic. Afterall, she is the only ohne who knows she has had sex with another man, sufficiently close to the date of the conception. If nothing else, she must have some conscience that it may well not be that the daddy is the guy next to her. The guy has no inkling since he does not think she has cheated.

For sake of clarity, we are of course assuming that 1) dad thinks his wife is not out screwing around 2) suspects no hanky panky ....any man/woman would be wise to seek testing for paternity is #'s 1 and 2 are viable in their minds.

I agree both parties can be equally suspect and equally bad for cheating, although only one carries the burden in the long run . (Best hope she knows him and his name address etc...otherwise...uh oh)

Single guys need to be more discriminating who they sleep with? Oh man, any idea how hard it is to get in that spot and now you want morals and sober thought to come into play? Alcohol is the lubricant, no sense putting sand down for traction! Besides, thats what condoms are for! Or the RU486 . ( I kid I kid)

It is true,but not a lesson I ever hear fathers talking to their sons about. It may be said, I just never heard it. My dad certainly didnt say anything about it, only once, "get rid of evidence at the cottage" ...that was it. Had to read between the lines on that one.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Cant agree.

If the dad walks without support the child is the only one who truly loses. Afterall, he did nothing to warrant being dumped and relegated to a lesser life. (Unless mom has tons of dough)

Children are not some pawn in a game.

What is best for the child will be the deciding factor on what happens. The man may very well feel impugned, upset, furious even, but frankly that is his and his ex's cloak to wear and a strong man will keep that from a child.

As anyone knows, kids are not dumb and will likely find out the truth at a later date and then decide for him or herself what to make of it.

So paternity fraud is entirely ok as long as the mother hides it long enough.

So... I should be able to commit fraud on a banking institution... and they shouldn't be able to come after me because I have children. And we have to think of the children!

I'm just shocked how in any other context, this is reprehensible. Yet, even though the kid will probably be perfectly fine, we punish the person who is the victim.

And yet legally, it is perfectly ok for a woman to decide to have that same child as a fetus ripped out of the womb and sliced into pieces to prevent financial responsibility.

It should be the decision of the victim whether they want to continue the relationship/financially support the child. If anything, the grandparents should be sought for financial support first. They have a biological responsibility to the child, and raising an abhorrent person that would commit such a fraudulent act.

Just because our law, based of fairly ancient British commonlaw that said that all children born into a home were his, places the entire onus of responsibility on the victim, doesn't mean that it is right and just. Just the way it is.

[Wolf Larsen]

As long as you have capitalism you will not have women's equality. In fact, women in the Soviet Union obtained the right to vote a year before they had the right to vote in the USA. Women in the Soviet Union got the right to an abortion in 1919. That was the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky. Women in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries enjoyed free child care.

I can remember back when I was an adolescent and there was this talk about an Equal Rights Amendment where women would receive equal pay for equal work. I am now a balding middle-aged man and women still don't have equal pay for equal work. In addition, women's abortion rights are under attack. In addition, working women pay plenty of taxes just like working men, but there's no free child care. Instead, all we get for our taxes is endless bailouts for the rich and a big war machine (USA).

Feminism seems to have forgotten about the struggle for women's rights. Feminism got involved in a war of the sexes and also an anti-pornography campaign that makes people think of feminists in the same manner that they think of puritanical born-again Christians. Basically feminism seems to have abandoned the struggle for women's rights.

Let's just throw capitalism in the garbage can! Under socialism women will have equal pay for equal work, free quality childcare, free abortion on demand, and free birth control. Working women pay taxes, they should get something for those taxes!

Edited February 21, 2012 by Wolf Larsen

[Bonam]

Working women pay taxes, they should get something for those taxes!

That'd be all the exact same things that working men get. You know, health care, education for their children, the justice system, national defense & security, roads and infrastructure, environmental protection, scientific and medical research, the social safety net, etc.

[Bonam]

As long as you have capitalism you will not have women's equality. In fact, women in the Soviet Union obtained the right to vote a year before they had the right to vote in the USA. Women in the Soviet Union got the right to an abortion in 1919.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Soviet Union also had the right to abort full grown adults by the millions.

In fact, women in the Soviet Union obtained the right to vote a year before they had the right to vote in the USA.

Yes, they had the right to vote for whoever the communist party leadership told them to vote for. How nice.

Women in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries enjoyed free child care.

Free child care of children who were later just as likely to be worked to death in concentration camps in Siberia.

You're not doing your cause any favors by trying to claim the situation in the Soviet Union was somehow better.

[cybercoma]

I came across this interesting article on the hypersexualization of women on the cover of Rolling Stone.

we argue that the dramatic increase in hypersexualized images of women — along with the corresponding decline in nonsexualized images of them — indicates a decisive narrowing or homogenization of media representations of women.

Full article: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/12/30/gender-sexualization-and-rolling-stone/

Some of the key points from their analysis of the 43 year history of Rolling Stone covers:

• 83% of images of men are nonsexualized in the 2000s
  
• 61% of images of women in the 2000s were hypersexualized
  
• 22% of images of women were sexualized in the 2000s
  

This means that while 83% of images of men are not sexualized in any way whatsoever, the same percentage of women (83%) are sexualized.

The authors of the article address the argument that Rolling Stone does this because sex sells. Only 30% of the covers feature women. If it was a matter of sexualizing the cover to sell magazines, more covers would feature women and there would be more sexualized and hypersexualized images of men as well.

They pose the question, "what explains this trend towards women’s hypersexualization?"

[peg_city]

I came across this interesting article on the hypersexualization of women on the cover of Rolling Stone.

Some of the key points from their analysis of the 43 year history of Rolling Stone covers:

• 83% of images of men are nonsexualized in the 2000s
  
• 61% of images of women in the 2000s were hypersexualized
  
• 22% of images of women were sexualized in the 2000s
  

This means that while 83% of images of men are not sexualized in any way whatsoever, the same percentage of women (83%) are sexualized.

The authors of the article address the argument that Rolling Stone does this because sex sells. Only 30% of the covers feature women. If it was a matter of sexualizing the cover to sell magazines, more covers would feature women and there would be more sexualized and hypersexualized images of men as well.

They pose the question, "what explains this trend towards women’s hypersexualization?"

I don't know if Rolling Stone magazine is a good indicator of anything outside the mainstream music industry.

You pose a good question though. And I'm not sure what the answer is. Individualism (by product of Capitalism) maybe. Less importance of religion in our culture (capitalism again), which historically suppressed our sexual nature.

Anybody else have an idea?

[huh]

At what point does an image become sexualized? When the first women's bathing suits came on to the scene no doubt many thought they were risque or sexual, they were closer to actual suits in reality. Was it men that forced women to wear them? was it men that forced the suits to become more revealing? Or was it more liberated women that refused to bake on the baech, who wanted to be comfortable, equal to swim? But now, women are being sexualized, when it was women who wanted the freedom to wear and behave how they wished. Most of the women I know do spend time on their appearance, maybe its just normal, maybe this sexualization is just as much their responsibility as it is mine. After all, many of the most repressed societies require women to be covered at all times, yet here where they have the freedom to dress as they wish is is still the 'mans' fault when they make the choice to advertise their assets.