‘That one really hurt. You are not the father. You are not her father. By what right could one say such a thing?’
In the latest excerpt from One?, Dan describes how his paternity of his daughter was groundlessly challenged by a later romantic partner—not the mother, and with no knowledge of actual events—who used this accusation as a way to hurt him. Despite the fact that the accuser had absolutely no direct knowledge of or connection to the mother, Dan couldn’t merely deflect and ignore this attack on his paternity.
♦◊♦
“Well, you’re one to talk. You are a shitty father. You left your wife and daughter.” “Well, we were really unhappy, and I thought that Meredithe was better off with our divorce rather than us staying together and arguing and not getting along and all.” “But a good committed father wouldn’t have left” [but why did you seduce a married man?]. So are you saying that parents should never separate when kids are involved, no matter what the circumstances?” “I just don’t think you were committed. You ask me for a commitment, but you abandoned your child.” “So if there was abuse involved the abused parent shouldn’t leave?” No answer. “Besides, you’re probably not even the father.”
That one really hurt. You are not the father. You are not her father. By what right could one say such a thing?
♦◊♦
I told Amy (my therapist) about how Spuz frequently accuses me, in very nasty terms, of not being Meredithe’s father. Amy cringed, incredulous that someone could be so cruel. Again forcefully encouraged me to leave her. And she absolutely should have.
♦◊♦
|
Fatherhood was part of, is part of, my identity. Once my child was conceived she immediately merged with the core of my being. Like a new limb, perhaps. My redefined essence.
|
Here is a case in which origins are paramount. And intensely personal. Fatherhood was part of, is part of, my identity. Once my child was conceived she immediately merged with the core of my being. Like a new limb, perhaps. My redefined essence. In this case, the beginning was definitive. To be sure, there are stepfathers and adopted fathers, and yes, they are still fathers, but, owing to a difference in origination, they instigate redefinition of an entirely different order. Less foundational. Why should this be the case? From a Darwinian perspective it is obvious. [Aren’t we all Darwinians—prisoners of Darwin?] We cannot escape our genetic evolution, our history [there it is again]. It would seem to be impossible to, as it were, think outside the box. The black (or at least translucent) prism that is evolution. And yet people (pretend to) do it. To imagine, even for a moment, that Meredithe is not my genetic child is to undermine my worldview in a most horrific manner. More importantly, my self-view. As if that weren’t already sufficiently unsteady.
♦◊♦
In retrospect, which has greater meaning—the beginning or the end?
We struggle to hold on to the beginning, but we are ultimately left only with the end.
Introduction of uncertainty as to the Meredithe’s paternity not only affects my self-concept, it has changed my history. The certainty of the original act, of conception, has been challenged, painfully so. The fact of her conception (which I believe I witnessed) has been replaced with a set of possibilities that have greater or lesser probabilities of being correct. Where one path existed, many now do. An almost infinite number. In a quantum sense, any male on the planet could have been the father. Obviously, some are more likely candidates than others, and I am the most likely. Further, in the multiverse view, there were many fathers, and which one is identified depends on which universe the observer lives in. But wait, an objection: there could be only one father, the observer can only speak to the universe in which he lives, and you live in this one, and in this one you are the father. Your paternity is verified by the mother (this mother). Yes, but that assumes that the mother has only one history.
The fact of one history has been replaced with the reality of many possible histories, and now I must revise my narrative. Because my history is my story. It is not merely my perspective on my history that has been altered, but my actual history. The past has been rewritten, and I don’t like it. Please stop it.
♦◊♦
Notes from the author:
This passage touches on a theme that lies at the core of “manhood.” It seems to me that three of the greatest emotional threats to a man’s gendered identity are the inability to work, the possibility of castration, and the undermining of his paternity or “father” status. Here I focus on just the third.
There is something foundational about fatherhood. The moment at which one embraces fatherhood as an identity produces changes that are radical and irreversible. Once a man has a child, and raises and nurtures her/him, he’ll always be a father, regardless of the fate of the child. Once embraced, he cannot let go of that component of his being. Consequently, when my paternity was groundlessly called into question—even though, or perhaps particularly because, it was by a person with absolutely no knowledge of the actual circumstances—it devastated me. And it certainly didn’t help that I was already in an emotionally compromised position.
True, a person doesn’t need to be a father to be a man or to be masculine. But fatherhood is inherently masculine. Not in the macho sense of being a tough guy, but in an ordinary, less hyperbolic sense. While stepfathers are no less “manly” and can be better fathers, the possible subtraction of genetic fatherhood from one’s identity as a man can effectively undermine that identity, leaving one feeling less manly, less masculine. To have one’s sense of fatherhood undermined may be somewhat parallel to being told that the people you believed to be your genetic parents were not. Either revelation would require rather substantial cognitive and emotional reorganization in order to effectively cope with the resulting redefinition of the self.
Doubt about one’s role in conceiving a child is an existential problem that is necessarily and uniquely male. Evolutionary psychologists speak of the “paternity uncertainty hypothesis,” which suggests that throughout our ancestral history men have never been completely certain that they were in fact the father of the children they raised as their own. A number of psychological implications arise from this hypothesis, including those concerning identity.
I honestly don’t know who I would be if genetic fatherhood were extracted from my self-concept. I just know that I would be somebody else.
—Photo khrawlings/Flickr
About Daniel W. Barrett
Your partner’s comments were spiteful and painful.
It strikes me, though, that you are more upset by the idea that your child might not be yours biologically than by the idea that you may not be doing a good job of parenting.
As terrible as it would be to discover that your child wasn’t really related to you, for the child the most important part of what makes you her parent is going to be how you treat her.
I don’t know how your life has turned out, but in general what a kid needs if their dad leaves is for him to make a commitment to live near them and to work out conflicts with mom.
You raise an interesting point. I focused on paternity because I felt (and feel) secure in my skills as a parent and have a wonderful, healthy relationship (as well as frequent contact) with my daughter. This woman’s criticisms in this area were easy to ignore and deflect. For the most part I agree that what makes me a true parent is how I treat my daughter. My point in the above is that, despite the fact that I have a good relationship with her, and that I am confident in my parenting skills and such, questioning my paternity was very painful. It is hard to shake off because, short of DNA testing (which the same person practically demanded but I dismissed), a man’s paternity is never certain. This is true no matter how much faith he has in the child’s mother. Most men probably don’t think about it much, but when the question rears its ugly head, it can be hard to simply put aside.
But I wonder why it is hard for you to put it aside. Maybe I am just being hopeful, but I like to think that if someone suggested to my husband that our children were not his, he would just laugh. Perhaps the problems you had with your wife make you more fearful, especially if you slept with your girlfriend while you were married as the article seems to suggest.
It is no longer hard to put aside. At the time I was in an emotionally vulnerable position and was particularly affected by this. Today I might laugh. At the time, I could not. Emotions don’t always succumb to reason, nor are they bounded by reason. The paternity uncertainty issue is not unique to me. In fact, as you suggest in your other posting, this very problem has resulted in specific, species-wide, psychological adaptation (sexual jealousy) designed to minimize this threat. Maybe I am misreading you, but you seem to want to blame me for the reaction, or somehow attack me for it. Sure I take ownership of the reaction, but you are speculating about my marriage although you have no knowledge of it.
No, I don’t blame you for the reaction. I just don’t want to say it’s evolutionary biology and somehow inevitable to all men. As I said, I would like to believe that my husband doesn’t feel insecure about this. I’d like to believe that most men aren’t worried about it.
As far as your marriage goes, in the article you talk about being divorced because you had too many fights. You also suggest that you had an affair. I don’t think it’s speculating to conclude that your marriage had problems.
I agree that the concern is not something men must have (from an evolutionary perspective), or do have, and again I didn’t have it until someone inappropriately (and again, with no knowledge of the situation) raised it as a way to hurt me. It took me a while to shake off the doubt.
In terms of the marriage, the events that I reference happened well after I left it. And the problems in the marriage were not at all related to paternity.
I’m glad you don’t think that the concern is something hard-wired into men, although your last paragraph is confusing then.
When you imagine asking your girlfriend, then why did you seduce a married man, it sounds like you had an affair with her. If that’s not the case, you might want to consider re-wording your piece.
Sorry if I was unclear in my discussion of the nature of paternity uncertainty. Let me try to clarify. All humans face particular adaptive problems with regard to survival and reproduction. Universal adaptive problems do not necessitate that every member of the species express the same adaptation, or potential solution, although most would do so. There is a difference between an inherited tendency (hardwiring) and its expression or manifestation in any particular individual. Evolutionary psychology does not try to predict what any specific person will do or feel, but only what most will. In “The Adapted Mind,” Tooby and Cosmides (1992) provide an excellent description of the relationship between inherited tendencies and variability in expressed behavior (that is much more articulate and detailed than I can provide here). The two are quite compatible. According to them, an adaptation is “a system of inherited and reliably developed properties that recurs among members” (p. 61) but is not necessarily expressed in every individual. They go on “adaptations are mechanisms or systems of properties crafted by natural selection to solve specific problems posed by regularities in the physical, chemical, developmental, ecological, demographic, social, and informational environments encountered by ancestral populations during the course of a species’ or population’s evolution” (p. 62). Evolutionary psychologists don’t subscribe to biological determinism. This is the reason why not all men may express uncertainty as to their paternity. However, I suspect that most, of not all, would, given certain environmental considerations (e.g., lack of trust in a partner, knowledge that a partner has herself had other simultaneous sexual partners, etc.). So the fact that one or some men don’t presently express this concern does not therefore disapprove the evolutionary hypothesis. Similarly, simply because some people choose not to have kids does not mean that there is no inherited “drive” to reproduce. There is an interaction between genes and the environment that, together, produce social behavior. Anyway, I hope that clarifies what I meant (even if you still don’t agree with my statements). Tooby and Cosmides do much more justice to evolutionary psych than I do, and they, along with David Buss and others, more fully explain the logic and evidence behind what I am trying to summarize here.
That all makes sense to me, but I don’t think I come to the same conclusion as you. I would agree that human biology and psychology are shaped by evolution. Traits and drives that lead to behavior that promotes passing on your genes are selected for. There’s variation between individuals. Some behaviors only come out in certain situations, so you might not see them in most individuals even if the potential were there.
Where I balk is at the idea that an actual, explicit desire to raise your biological children exists and is one of the drives we evolved. There are other drives men have that would mean you usually raise your biological children. It would be hard to see how such a drive could evolve – it’s too cerebral to be innate. Not everything that would make an animal/person more fit actually evolves.
The modern desire to have your biological child is mediated by our knowledge of science and our understanding of what parenthood means. We know where babies come from – that’s not an innate knowledge.
I have a slightly different view of how evolution works in this area. Evolution cannot instill in us a thought that we want a child who is genetically ours. Instead it works more indirectly.
People who are jealous of their mates pass on their genes more often (if they’re men) and have children who survive better (if they’re women). By being jealous men ensure that they are raising their own children without having to consciously think about it.
People who bond to their children and want to care for them have children who survive better. Most of the time, if you bond to the baby in your arms or your mate’s arms, you will be bonding to your biological child. Bonding takes place while caring for the child and interacting with it. You can bond just as strongly, however, to an adopted child. The drive to bond to the child you are raising (along with monogamy and jealousy) promotes your genes being passed on; you don’t have to care about the genetics of your child.
I think the desire to raise a child that is biologically ours is a cultural one. However, if you have a child you believe is yours biologically , the idea that they may not be is upsetting. It challenges your understanding of reality. It’s like an adopted child being more upset to discover at age 18 that they were adopted than to grow up knowing it. For a man finding out that the woman he loved was unfaithful would be an additional betrayal, even if the couple ends up divorcing.
Central to evolution is the drive to reproduce, to continue one’s gene pool. This is found in all species and does not require, in and of itself, “thought.” Nor is it culturally based. Nevertheless, humans have the cognitive capacity to articulate a desire for genetically related offspring, and many do that. Most people (but of course not all) would prefer a genetic child to an adopted one. I am making a factual statement, not a normative one (which is to say that I am not what people should want, just what they typically do).
I don’t think that jealously ensures anything, but it certainly minimizes the likelihood of undesirable outcomes.
And I completely agree that a genetic tie is not required for bonding, or good parenting.
Yes to everything you said.
My point is that although we have evolved to have certain feelings and drives that will make us more likely to raise our biological children, we haven’t necessarily evolved a desire that our children be ours biologically. The specific desire you articulate to raise your biological child is probably cultural.
I don’t see how you could evolve a desire for a biological child beyond jealousy of your mate and bonding to the children who are near you. How exactly could our genes code for the thought I want my biological child? It probably wasn’t necessary either because when we evolved, it’s likely that the children who were near us were either our nieces and nephews or our own sons and daughters.
There have been/are human societies where men raise their nieces and nephews, not their own children. That goes against the idea of an innate sense that they wanted to raise their own biological children.
I do believe that it would be profoundly upsetting to discover that the biological tie you thought you had was not there. I just don’t think that’s a matter of our biological drives.
If you wish to advocate for the introduction of such a notion into western societies you can. As long as in the spirit of equality, and i know you are for equality between men and women, that if you ask for men to, ‘men raise their nieces and nephews, not their own children’ that you also ask women in equal numbers to, ‘raise their nieces and nephews, not their own children.’
yes, yes… Yes?
Also, you if argue that for the men that; ‘That goes against the idea of an innate sense that they wanted to raise their own biological children’. Does this position also apply to women or not?
I have no desire to see people start raising their nieces and nephews instead of their own children. I am a modern American and prefer our system.
In practice, societies where men raise their nieces and nephews are matrilocal; the husband goes and lives with his wife’s extended family. The father then plays more of a role raising his nieces and nephews children than his wife’s. The mother’s male relatives help to raise her children. Since the mother lives with her own extended family, she probably helps to care for her nieces and nephews.
I don’t think it’s a superior system, just a sign that our system is not set in stone or determined by biology.
I think there is a fairly significant biological component for both sexes. Look at how often barely fertile women are willing to spend tons of money to conceive.
Of course, whether it’s biological or cultural doesn’t really matter. I would be the last person to say that a person’s feelings are somehow “wrong” or “inferior” because they were cultural.
Both sexes seem to want to try to have biological children whatever the drive.
Also, I think any man would have a huge issue with finding out that his child was not his (particularly if he was still in the relationship with the mother) because the child becomes a living memento of the mother having cheated on him, and the man having been duped into raising another man’s child.
Sorry Black Iris, I think you’re misinterpreting Men to an incredibly callous degree.
All the rationalization in the world isn’t going remove the potency of such a venomous acusation.
Men will never be able to look at this betrayal through the rose colored glasses of a Cost Benefit Analysis.
We long to be not only biological but spiritual fathers
and to bond with a child whom you believe to be of your own Flesh and blood makes the pain and humiliation that much worst….oh wait! I forgot about the finical obligations.
What I’m saying is that men are not some tragic beast of burden. If you prick us we bleed if you betray us we cry.
Sorry Dan that you were on the receiving end of that kind of nastiness. Good thing you dumped her.
I try to empathize with men who question paternity issues (i.e., their lack of control over the situation), but am tired of seeing women being attacked for something that is totally beyond our control as well (not accusing you Dan of attacking women, just that some men do, and hang on to it as yet-another reason to resent women). And by ‘beyond our control’ I don’t mean issues of infidelity, I mean pure biological functioning – we simply can’t change that women birth babies and men don’t (as pregnancy is difficult and childbirth is *extremely painful* I’m sure plenty of women would be happy to see men share that responsibility!).
If certain angry men are so upset about this issue, why aren’t they lobbying for mandatory paternity tests with every live birth? (Of course, the men would need to be around to submit their DNA in the first place.) At the very least it would encourage adulterous women to be more careful*; prevent the kind of heartache men (and children) feel when their paternity is questioned; and also make enforcing biological fathers’ responsibility for supporting their biological offspring easier (sperm donors aside, I guess). And at the very least, it would get angry men off our backs about it. Oh yeah, and those god-awful Jerry Springer shows would be redundant.
I suppose some may see mandatory testing as a violation (I don’t, but then again I haven’t really thought about the issue too deeply) – I see it as simply “getting to the root of things”, right from the get-go, which could save a lot of future heartache for all parties involved. (Not to mention, the testing would also serve to reveal any other genetic issues the child may have.) Anyway, just my thoughts after reading the article.
(*Not remotely endorsing infidelity here, but let’s face it, I doubt there are many women who want to get pregnant from any man other than her husband, primary boyfriend, etc. I mean to imply more responsibility on womens’ part too. Women who do cheat would be less likely to get knocked up because they’d know the truth will out, and/or it might make then think harder about cheating at all.)
Lyn, I agree that this is not something that men should be angry about in general, and of course it is not something we can blame women for. In my case I didn’t question paternity, but someone (not the mother) questioned my paternity (which I had not otherwise doubted). And she only did it to hurt me. Thanks for not putting me in that category of angry men!
I hadn’t thought about mandatory testing, but this an interesting proposal.
I’m not sure universal paternity testing would be a great thing. It would make life easier for the parents, but not the kids. The traditional assumption that a child is the husbands unless proven otherwise protects the child. It guarantees the child a home and support.
So I guess the question is, is truth better or protecting the kid? I wouldn’t endorse infidelity or lying, but I wonder if pushing to find out the truth is always the best thing.
I’m not sure it would have a preventive effect. I think when people cheat, they aren’t thinking of the consequences.
The best interest of the child are no more relevant to me or my dog than they are to the rights of a man who isn’t the father but is told he is.
The child is not relevant.
If a child is not your’s, you should be told and informed.
Trapping a man is not only disgusting, it is one of the lowest things a person can do.
Free Human Being–I agree with your endpoint, but not your method of getting there.
The rights of the child are very important, and children deserve to know the truth about their paternity.
Talk to any adult who was adopted as a child w/out knowing who their parents are.
The truth is nobody’s enemby, except liars.
Fathers and children need to know the truth of their paternity.
According to the American Assn of Bloodbanks, in 25% of the cases in which a “father” suspects he is not the parent and has a paternity test, he is correct.
This is almost a form of rape, and very destructive to the mother, child, and father for it to come out at a later stage.
Better to have mandatory testing at birth and minimize the emotional trauma to all.
Which is worse: For a “dad” to find out he is not the father when the child is 12, divorce the mother and the child actively LOOSES the only father they have ever known (b/c it is too painful for the “dad” to be a father to the child), or for the child to grow up with no father, or a uninvolved father who was a 1-night stand to mom?
Better that the truth come out in the beginning–this will minimize the potential harm to the child.
Given your comments on this thread, that comes as no surprise – at all. Im glad that Dan disengaged from further discussion with you, to protect his emotional balance
What a sad story you shared with us Dan, glad to see you overcame it.
Dan,
I would have cc’d you on twitter, but couldn’t find you. I put your article on my site, under “What Defines A Father? thank you for the write. http://bit.ly/njahoe
Thanks Ellen. I did check out your site. My twitter account is danielwbarrett.
Dan, I don’t think your ex-girlfriend questioned your daughter’s paternity just to hurt your feelings. That was my first reaction, but then you mentioned in a comment that she suggested that you get an actual paternity test done. I think your girlfriend was trying to get your to abandon your daughter.
Spuz was probably jealous. Or, to put it in evolutionary biology terms,
she wanted a mate who would devote all his energy to her children, not some other woman’s. Her other comments could be seen as her trying to make sure she chose a mate who would stay with her and her children, no matter what. This is why I don’t like looking at behavior in terms of evolutionary psychology – it can justify pretty much any bad behavior. We’re more used to seeing in reference to men’s bad behavior, but it works both ways.
I find it interesting that people put a child ‘rights’ above those of adults, Why should any man (or woman for that matter) put any energy into raising a child that isn’t theirs. Recently I read online about a mom and dad who found out that their child had been switched at birth. They had the child for a year or so (their bio child had died in the hospital) , when the mistake was discovered they had to turn over the child to the biological parents. The childless couple now sued and won millions from the hospital YET a man who is duped by his mate and who raises a child he believes is his, isn’t entitled to anything for his pain and suffering. I wonder , is it because he is a man and the situation that occurs with hospitals occurs to women as well.
I’ve wondered that too.
People like to wax on about at men about how “its not the DNA, its the parenting” (in fact Hugo S. has done a few posts on that here) but in the next breath will then defend decieving men in the first place. if the DNA doesn’t matter then why lie about it in the first place?
The childless couple now sued and won millions from the hospital YET a man who is duped by his mate and who raises a child he believes is his, isn’t entitled to anything for his pain and suffering.
Yes. A swapped at birth couple gets millions while a duped dad is just told that since its in “the best interests of the children” he doesn’t deserve any compensation for the deception. WTF? You would think that “best interests of the children” would kick in on swapped at birth stories because sure a hospital would be better off if it kept those millions of dollars in the hospital to spend on supplies, staff, etc…
I wouldn’t want to give the child back in that situation. I think it’s a travesty of justice that the genetic parents interests were put above everything else. Luckily the child wasn’t very old, but in general the child would be better off staying with its parents – the people who are raising it.
I don’t think the parents in that situation were suing because they’d had to raise the child. I think they were suing because they’d lost it.
@Janet – I don’t think the suffering guys feel is from raising a kid that’s not theirs. I think the suffering is discovering that a child they love is not theirs biologically. In their heart the child is theirs, but in our society someone can take it away from them. The child may turn away from them. I think it’s about loss, not about having been cheated into caring for someone else’s child.