Editor’s Note: Hugo Schwyzer’s piece “I May Have a Son, but I’ll Never Know for Sure,” a version of which was printed on Jezebel, and excerpted Hugo’s own blog, where he also answered some questions that were brought up: “Do I Have a 13-Year-Old Son?” The post touched off a firestorm of debate, with almost 500 people commenting as the discussion rolled out across the internet. The piece below first appeared on Hugo’s blog in response to some of those comments. We thought it worth reprinting Hugo’s reactions here.
♦◊♦
If many of the comments around my 13-year-old son piece seem hostile, you should see the ones that were deleted in the moderation queue. The Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) have stirred themselves into quite the tizzy, with posts like this one representing some of the more moderate response.
Leaving aside the admittedly complex specifics of the Hugo/Jill/Ted/Alastair situation, what strikes me is the way in which so many of the MRAs have framed this as a cuckolding issue. The term “cuckold” is a very old term for a man who unknowingly raises another guy’s biological children, thanks to an unfaithful wife. (See the wiki.) It’s not an accurate term to use in my scenario, but the fact that this is such a profound fear for some men is worth exploring.
One classic theory of patriarchy assumes that men’s desire to control women is rooted in the fear of being cuckolded. A woman is never in doubt as to who the mother of her child is, but for reasons of basic physiology, men can never have that same reassurance. The need to control women’s sexuality (insisting on pre-marital virginity and post-marital fidelity; female genital mutilation; the insistence on modest dress) may well all be rooted in responses to this ancient, fundamental masculine anxiety. It’s a cruel calculus: the more I can control the women in my life (and the less sexual expression I permit them), the greater the likelihood that my offspring will in fact be “mine.”
I don’t think I’d realized how alive and well this fear is. See this comment from Amir, whose words I noted yesterday:
I have a beautiful son and if he was not mine my world would end. And
yes, I would no longer love him if he didn’t have my genes. My genes
makes him my son before all the environmental influences.
Another MRA commenter at GMP compared cuckolding to rape, only worse. Daniel writes:
This is horrifying.
Cuckolding is the worst thing that can happen to a man. If my son would have the genes of another man my life would end. This is much worse than a rape and is accepted unpunished by the justice system. Rape can last for several minutes but this is years and years of deceit and lies. I despise all the men and women supporting/understanding this.
If you read through the lengthy and often vile comment sections at GMP and Jezebel (or at the “Voice for Men” site), you’ll see that Amir and Daniel are, alas, far from unusual in their insistence that love depends upon shared DNA.
As a father, I have nothing but contempt for any man whose love is contingent as Amir’s and Daniel’s so clearly is. If I were to find out that Heloise was not my biological daughter, I’d be stunned (and shocked at my wife’s deception.) It might change my relationship with Eira — but it sure as hell wouldn’t change my relationship with Heloise. Coming from an extended family where half-siblings and adoptees and step-children abound, I know how absurd it is to link devotion and biology. What makes Heloise “mine” has damn all to do with my DNA — and everything to do with the energy and devotion and commitment I have put into my relationship with her since she was in her mama’s womb.
There is nothing wrong with expecting a partner who has promised to be faithful to keep that promise. (A reminder, Ted and Jill were not in an exclusive relationship when she last slept with me.) It’s perfectly reasonable to be devastated by betrayal. But there’s a world of difference between the hurt of infidelity and the fear of being cuckolded. Eira made me a promise when we were married that she wouldn’t sleep with other men. If she broke that promise, it would alter my relationship with her significantly. But Heloise made no such representations. The circumstances of her conception (and the sperm used to conceive her) have nothing — nothing — to do with my devotion to this remarkable little girl, whose sweetness would be no less delightful if she didn’t have my DNA.
It’s telling that the atavistic fear of cuckolding still runs so strong in the men’s rights activists. And given that so many of them are associated with the “father’s rights” movement, it’s telling as well that their definition of “father” is so fragile, so contingent, so limited, and so utterly narcissistic.
–
Photo by fekaylius / Flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
Vocalyze
you keep dancing around what the majority of commenters are concerned about. Jill’s dishonesty (and your weak minded complicity in it) was potentially the turning point in Ted’s entire life. He made a life changing decision without complete information. We all do this all the time but the tragic fact here is simple; Ted was knowingly betrayed by the person who was supposed to be his closest ally.
The majority of objections arent about controlling women (when you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail I guess). Ted’s agency, his own human right to free will, was compromised by the person who should be the one he can trust completely. You and Jill acted without honor (a trait shared by both good men and good women everywhere.)
Who knows what Ted would have done if he had known the truth? Perhaps he would have married Jill anyway, perhaps not. Ted deserved to make an informed choice.
This comment pretty much sums it up. Schwyzer only addresses the comments that mention cuckoldry or controlling women, but the only important issue here is Jill’s dishonesty and Schwyzer’s collusion and lack of moral fiber.
Funny too that Schwyzer considers himself a “deadbeat” during the period of time when this took place, but he doesn’t use similar language to describe Jill. All of this “you can’t judge women” stuff is way out of control.
You have conveniently latched on to a straw-sperm as a mental lifeboat. Hang on for dear life sailor; terra firma is but a world away from your current latitude.
The straw-sperm: How can anyone not love a child they have raised, regardless of whose cock the DNA came from!! The monster! The cuckold-fearing patriarchal control freak!
The fear of cuckolding exists because of the deception, not despite it. If there is no deception, the proper term to use would be either adoption or some form of surrogate parenting. It’s the deception that makes it nasty sailor.
Do you see how different words have different meanings?
I’d like to see how you would react if it was a female being similarly deceived about her progeny, future, emotions and fiances by her male partner.
Anyway, the men’s movement has rejected your position, most of the readers at Jezebel have rejected your position. Rad-fems have dismissed you as a rapist and “just another overprivileged dilettante”. The only support you are get is from Tom, who is another woman firster and some the naive kids that come here with you from your classes.
Hugo-
At this point you’re being deliberately obtuse. I don’t like the MRA’s much either, but using them as a foil doesn’t make your argument more valid or your actions somehow noble. While the conversation of whether genes make love is an interesting one, it’s a sideshow in this particular issue. The issue is not whether or not Ted can or should still be a good father even if Alistair is not his son – he’s clearly a far better father than you, and it’s cheap of you to turn a conversation about your actions into how a man in his position is obligated to behave. What’s at issue here are the choices made by you and by Jill. You willfully chose to participate in the possible deception of Ted and Alistair too, and you pretend it was a noble act of self-sacrifice, when the reality is you wanted nothing to do with the pregnancy and with Allistair and jumped at the out you were offered. That’s not goodness, that’s sleaze, and your deception here is sad. You’re decieving yourself, and attempting to decieve your readers by pretending that all but frothing paternalistic mysoginists agree with you. That is absolutely untrue.
FeministFool
Do you dislike MRAs because of what they are really about or because of the way they are misrepresented by asshats like Hugo, Kimmel, Marcotte, Futrelle et al?
I must admit I do think Hugo wouldn’t be so sanguine about this if it were possible for, say, Maria Shriver to be legally forced to have Arnold’s love-child by the maid in her life.
I’m glad GMP ran the photo of the paternity test kit. That’s the real issue here, isn’t it.
Keeping a promise initially in response to such a profound and difficult event and now in the face of this barrage of character-bashing seems the opposite of sleazy.
I picture a man standing true to his convictions while a sea-storm rages around him.
I guess some can’t let the past go…even when it isn’t theirs.
Hugo is the great-misunderstood hero in all this? Hugo, this has to be you. Post under your own name.
Ah yes. Keeping a promise to lie and deceive. How noble! Birds of a feather, Andrew.
“It’s telling that the atavistic fear of cuckolding still runs so strong in the men’s rights activists. And given that so many of them are associated with the “father’s rights” movement, it’s telling as well that their definition of “father” is so fragile, so contingent, so limited, and so utterly narcissistic.”
You Hugo like many feminists are a flat out liar and you go out of your way to misrepresent the mens and father rights movement and its member. I identify as an MRA (we are the real egalitarians, not woman worshipers like you) I was adopted, I have considered bringing another mans child up as my own and I have paid for an other mans abortion, which is the flip side of that I suppose.
I feel the one with narcissistic traits here is you. Your preaching, your judging, your re-framing of your bad behaviour as heroic behaviour, apparent lack of empathy, warping of reality and the truth and need for constant approval from women all point to traits of personality disorder.
“I feel the…narcissistic [one] here is [Hugo]. Your preaching…[and] re-framing of bad behaviour as heroic behavior…point to traits of personlity disorder.”
Would it was this complicated, ACO. Hugo simply likes to look cool with feminists. Builds his brand, you see. Even as a jackass, he’s a jackass.
I’m sorry I missed the part where Hugo actually addresses the fact that he and Jill actively decided not to tell Ted (and Alastair when he gets older) about the possibility that they are not genetically linked. Or it is actually not in there because he only did this post to attack MRAs? This is not about men trying to control women this is about honesty and truth.
It might change my relationship with Eira — but it sure as hell wouldn’t change my relationship with Heloise. Coming from an extended family where half-siblings and adoptees and step-children abound, I know how absurd it is to link devotion and biology.
Again deciding that his (hypothetical) choices are the moral high road. In this situation let’s say you find out Eira did decieve you about Heloise. If its got nothing to do with sperm then why didn’t she tell you sooner?
I mean if its not all about whose sprem it is then why lie about it in the first place? Why not didn’t Hugo and Jill just lay it for Ted and actually let him make the choice rather than holding it secret until enough time passes that Ted would be the jerk for leaving. Withholding a lie until enough time passes that that person that was lied to ends up being the enemy for whatever choice they may make is cowardly.
It’s telling that the atavistic fear of cuckolding still runs so strong in the men’s rights activists. And given that so many of them are associated with the “father’s rights” movement, it’s telling as well that their definition of “father” is so fragile, so contingent, so limited, and so utterly narcissistic.
And guess what Hugo? You just proved the validity of their fears. Because if MRAs are narcissitic, limited, and fragile and feminists are so selfless, progressive, and strong what does that say about feminists (no all feminists would not support this but its pretty stunning to see how many do) who supports deceiving men and then expecting them to just “get over it” if they find out? You’re basically saying its okay for a woman to decieve a man because a “real man” should be able to get over the deception. And even if you try to parse this out and say while it would affect the husband/wife bond but not affect the father/child bond I think you’re wrong if for no other reason than children observe their parent. Over time they would see the tension, pain, and anger. And if divorce happens well obviously that would affect it in some way.
No, what he is saying is… love is love. If you love your child…not in a weirdo possessive way but in a genuine way… biology is not the core of it.
Just a while ago, there was a story circulating about a woman who was switched at birth in the hospital. The woman’s mother did not stop loving her… did not cease to consider her, her daughter. She just considered now she had two daughters to love.
Making it about bitterness and possessiveness is being selfish and small minded.
ok, I get that. Only a couple dissenting commenters are even debating that in the entire discussion.
Here is another set of questions that Hugo doesnt address:
1. What if the hospital was careless? Is that OK?
2. What if the hospital was willfully negligent (or presumptiously assumed authority) and switched the babies on purpose? A-OK again?
The hospital was negligent (or at least that is what they were going to be sued for)…
But that did not factor into the fact that the parents mother and father of the switched at birth daughter, loved and were attached to and got immense joy from raising their daughter.
The attitude of posters who would disown their child if it turned out not to be their bio child are selfish because they must have not placed any value on the joy raising their child brought them. It also shows they probably don’t interact with their child enough or not really bonded or love their child if something like that could change their feelings overnight.
A child is not a signed baseball card that when you find out it’s lack of authenticity you chuck it out. The child has a soul… Jesus… get a grip.
“The attitude of posters who would disown their child if it turned out not to be their bio child are selfish because they must have not placed any value on the joy raising their child brought them. ”
You mean the possible attitude of that ONE guy? That ONE guy Hugo has conveniently decided to make this argument about rather than deal with the fact that he was complicit in allowing another man to enter into TWO lifelong relationships based on lies?
anon… EVERYONE (including me!) except for 1 guy pretty much agrees that one can love a child who is not biologically theirs. If Ted decided he no longer loved his son because of his wife’s deception I would personally think he was wrong in doing so. I wouldnt blame him if he left Jill though.
Hugo is trying to spin the whole story away from what everyone here is talking about.
Jill & Hugo are worse than the negligent hospital. The hospital was CARELESS but didnt willfully set out to deceive the parents. Jill and Hugo conciously and willfully deceived Ted. They acted with intent. If the hospital is guilty of a crime than so are Hugo and Jill.
You’re not only welcome to your opinion, which I don’t gainsay, you’re welcome to continue loving a child after learning he or she was presented fraudulently to you as your biological child. Let us know how that works out for you, OK, babycakes? Maybe Hugo, Jill and Amanda Marcotte can give you tips. What with their vast experience at making tough moral decisions and all.
True but none of that answers this question, “I mean if its not all about whose sprem it is then why lie about it in the first place? ”
If its not about the biology then why (possibly) lie about the biology?
The attitude of posters who would disown their child if it turned out not to be their bio child are selfish because they must have not placed any value on the joy raising their child brought them. It also shows they probably don’t interact with their child enough or not really bonded or love their child if something like that could change their feelings overnight.
And that’s exactly what I mean when I talked about the being lied to becoming the jerk all of a sudden. I say that because the people that are so quick to judge the decieved party as such while conveniently skipping over the possibility that said deceived person has a right to their anger in that situation and has a right to choose their own path.
If people are so worried about the child’s wellbeing then why not hold the parties that made the mess in the first place responsible instead of giving them a free pass on their deception? Yeah if said man chose to leave it would probably harm that child but again instead of trying to blame him why not say something to the folks that not only created the mess but literally had the power to prevent it from happening in the first place?
Getting real bored of this notion that any man that doesn’t march to a certain tune (even when that tune might be a lie) then he’s the enemy.
Wow. That’s all I can say.
I don’t see how Hugo did anything wrong in his relationship with Jill. Jill and Ted were not in an exclusive relationship at the time that Jill and Hugo had sex. This means that both Jill and Ted were free to see and have sex with other people and they both knew it. If Jill or Ted were concerned about the paternity of Alastair, then it would have come up and been dealt with by now. I actually don’t even see how Jill did anything wrong.
In my opinion, men who get all worked up about paternity stuff rather than infidelity are usually insecure about their manhood and their ability to sexually satisfy the woman/women in their lives. Ho hum…whatever…they’re the kind of men I avoid like the plague.
Here’s a favority quote:
“If a man can possess a woman sexually -really possess- he won’t need to control her ideas, her opinions, her clothes, her friends, even her other lovers.”
— Toni Bentley
The objections about about the deception, the fraud and not being given a choice, not paternity as such. And to reverse your logic, a woman who doesn’t want to be deceived by her partner is frigid with a loose vagina. Ignorant feminist. As for your Toni Bentley quote. This has nothing to do with psychopathy and control.
I see no deception.
I don’t want to be deceived by my partner which is why I am in an open relationship. He’s welcome to have sex with other men and women as long as he gives me that same right. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
The men in this world most concerned about the paternity of their children are also the ones most hell-bent on controlling a woman’s sexuality, her career, and her life. I grew up in Spain and studied its literature and history. It, like many other countries in the western world, has a long history of using honor killings and other methods to control a woman’s sexuality.
The only reason why this triggers men like Amir so (for years) is because he’s constantly reminded his wife/lover/girlfriend had sex with another man and got pregnant by him. Talk about insecure.
Lastly, you have no idea if any fraud was committed. As I said before, if there was any question or concern about the paternity of Alastair, everybody involved seems to have gotten over it a long time ago. Ted is happy. Jill is happy. Alastair is happy. Hugo is happy. You folks are making a mountain out of a molehill.
So what if Alastair is Hugo’s kid instead of Ted’s? All that matters is that the kid is being loved and taken care of. Get your ego out of this situation and focus on what really matters.
All the OP would have to do is admit that paternity or any sort of relationship based on fraud and deception is not particularly good and that perhaps the man should have been given a choice, but he cant do that much. Instead in typical feminist fashion he attacks a strawman reinforcing the impression that feminists are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Why would you assume that Ted knew that Jill was having sex with anyone else? If partners are having sexual relations with others, its their obligation to be HONEST about it, not hide it. Maybe your “open relationship” is only one-sided. Did you even bother to inform your partner about that status? It seems Jill didn’t. Since she knew that the child is at best only 50% likely to be Ted’s, it is her moral obligation to inform him. Instead she chose to deceive him and Hugo happily took the opportunity to be a deadbeat parent. You’re basically claiming that its up to Ted to figure it out. To you, the ends justify the means. How utterly ridiculous. Too bad HONESTY and morality wasn’t part of your Spanish upbringing.
Luckey, you’re right, Jill didn’t inform Ted that she was sleeping with other people. That does signal a lack of integrity.
Sweetie, the first thing I tell anyone who wants to be sexual with me is that I am not monogamous. Of course, my boyfriend knows! He’s not monogamous either! Yes, it was a convenient situation for Hugo as well. However, I don’t know that it was his responsibility to tell Ted.
In your comment you are using men’s sexuality to try to control them. Specifically, telling men that if they don’t act in a specific way you choose they are ” insecure about their manhood”. This is infact common and done throughout society, men are doing extremely dangerous things in the army and volunteer to combat units at the age of 18 mainly to prove their sexuality to dear dear society.
You want to humiliate me using male stereotypes – go for it. “Man-up” comments are just another form of saying “shut up and pay”.
Judge me as you would like. I just don’t want my life to be based on a lie, why is that bad? Yes, I have insecurities. So what? Men can have fears and insecurities as well. I am EXTREMELY bothered that Hugo’s behavior is not punishable by law and some even understand it. If I were Ted, my life would be destroyed. ‘Cuckolding Is the Worst Thing That Can Happen to a Man’ is 100% accurate for me. Hugo and Jill did to another man what is one of the most horrible things that I can imagine happening to a man. And he is proud of it, not any sympathy towards Ted. YUCK. He should be in prison.
I LOVE AND RESPECT WOMEN. I just want men’s issues and fears (in addition) to be respected and protected in modern society. Being conned in such a horrendous way into a fake family, a fake life is a crime. You might not care, Hugo might not care, but I and many other men care and we will fight to protect our rights while also protecting the rights of women. Again, please note: I LOVE AND RESPECT WOMEN. This is not against women.
I think you should make it clear that you would like to be given the choice instead of being conned into “manning up” or “doing the right thing” given that these feminist’s strawman arguments hinge on pretending that you are arguing that in order to be a father to a child, the child must have your dna.
“I don’t see how Hugo did anything wrong in his relationship with Jill……
“The men in this world most concerned about the paternity of their children are also the ones most hell-bent on controlling a woman’s sexuality, her career, and her life.”
No one is saying anything about this woman’s sexuality, so stop lying, Jeni. This discussion is about a man and the child he is raising, it is about his reproductive freedom, which hugo and this woman destroyed for their own selfish reasons.
” I grew up in Spain and studied its literature and history. It, like many other countries in the western world, has a long history of using honor killings and other methods to control a woman’s sexuality. ”
The Western world has no tradition of honor killings. None. Spain does have that tradition because it is not Western, no more than any other Arab country is, and neither are you. And this part of your comment shows how uninformed you are in this discussion and how little you have to contribute.
Jim, Spain is part of the Western world as it was colonized and heavily influenced by Greco-Roman culture. Islam is a Western religion just like Christianity and Judaism. Check out Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world
Spain does not consider itself an Arab country. If you had learned your history you would have noticed that Spain expelled its Muslims and Jews over 500 years ago and then forced everybody left to be Catholic.
I think this week’s circulated news story about an appendage being cut off & thrown in a garbage disposal is probably the ‘worst’ thing that could happen to a man.
Because men think with their dicks?
Go back to your feminist site misandrist.
No, because tons of men said so…
http://www.verysmartbrothas.com/things-id-rather-happen-than-have-my-wang-cut-off/
You said it… not me.
Is cuckolding as bad rape? Ask yourself:
Would you rather be forced to have sex?
Or forced to take care of someone else’s baby for 18 years?
I couldn’t choose between the two. So it would seem that one is as bad as the other.
Although, “Or forced to take care of someone else’s baby for 18 years?” does happen in this case I think its more like, “Or tricked into taking care of someone else’s baby for 18 years?”
But even then I’m not sure.
Can I be drunk for both?
The GMP needs to fire this guy. Nobody here wants to read about why “good men” trick other men into raising their children.
WTF Swan-Boy, are you seriously trying to turn this so that your actions are perfectly finer and within the realm of normal and that reactions to the contrary are the wrong-headed thinking of a world gone mad? Loosen those feathers and just LOOK at what you’re saying…good men do not deceive each other intentionally when it comes to something as serious as paternity.
And I wonder….as a self proclaimed feminist, what would your position be if the child, YOUR child, had been a daughter rather than a son? What would win out in that woefully confused head of yours? Doing the right thing by a female (which you pride your sorry self on throughout this publication), or saving your pathetic feathered ass?
Actually, I think the child is as likely to be a daughter as a son. Maybe even more likely, as proud as Hugo has been about “disguising” the people and situations in the story.
Of course, let’s not forget the possiblity that Hugo has completely made this story up.
*fine
rage and incredulity cause typos
I would like to challenge one of the other writers at the Good Men Project to address the fundamental issue picked up by commenters here: that it was dishonest of Jill to allow Ted to marry her without ever letting him know that he may not be the biological father of her child.
At this point the Good Men Project has allowed Professor Schwyzer to run the initial story, as well as this piece, which attempts to address a subset of the concerns brought up in the original piece.
And now, it is my hope, someone at the Good Men Project will step forward and acknowledge that the heart of the concerns brought up by readers have never been addressed; that Professor Schwyzer has attempted to deflect, rather than address, the genuine concerns of his readers. If Professor Schwyzer will not do this, then perhaps it is time someone else at the Good Men Project does.
The Good Men Project, in its own words, recognizes:
“Our readers are smart, compassionate, curious, and open-minded; they strive to be good fathers and husbands, citizens and friends, to lead by example at home and in the workplace, and to understand their role in a changing world.”
Surely allowing a man to enter into a marriage founded upon deception is not “leading by example”? Can a Good Man truly not do better than this?
So, again, I would like to ask the Good Men Project to produce a counterpoint piece that acknowledges the very real concerns that have been raised both here and in Professor Schwyzer’s earlier column.
I have a few (mixed) reactions to this piece.
First of all, I know it’s easy to take the most radical comments and turn them into a blog post. That’s what was done here. Someone who can just shut off love like a faucet for something that is no fault of the child’s is someone who probably needs his fatherly credentials checked. But those radicals were on the fringe, while the rest of us (including myself) were critical of Jill for her complete dishonesty and total manipulation of Ted. I do not understand why Hugo would defend someone who clearly shows no regard for the man she married, and I haven’t read a valid explanation for that viewpoint to date.
That having been said, Hugo is taking a lot of guff that is undeserved.
Hugo did not owe Ted an explanation. That was Jill’s job. And since Jill flat-out refused support/assistance from Hugo and asked him to keep quiet, I believe Hugo did the right thing by obliging. It was not his place. Period.
Also, Ted was not “forced” to raise the child. No one is forced. Any dad or mom can leave at any time. Jill was awful for lying, but let’s stop pretending she was holding a gun to his head and keeping him in the basement. Ted stayed because he stayed. Only he knows his reasons. But we do know he stayed on a voluntary basis.
Second, stop all of this MRA craziness. Even when I agree with some of you guys I’m hesitant to voice it, lest I be mistakenly identified as one of you. Hugo should not be fired. He’s an incredibly smart guy and a helluva writer. He brings a viewpoint I often disagree with, but almost always respect. And seeing that every single one of his posts attracts hordes of comments and controversy that last for the better part of a week, I’d say he should be promoted rather than fired.
After all, the goal of any good columnist is to start a dialogue and foster a discussion. By those standards, Hugo is decidedly successful.
Thanks, DF. I appreciate that.
I’ve said my peace on this one, but appreciate that the MRA onslaught notwithstanding, there has been some civil and nuanced discussion as well. I’m very glad I wrote the piece, and glad too to have the backing of the GMP community.
Way to lie about the comments. Plenty of feminists are ripping you up on this one, and they are right.
Daddy Files,
While it is true that no one “forced” Ted to stay and raise the child, there are many actions in our society that we as individuals are not “forced” to do, yet the pressure to do so is recognizably overwhelming.
Professor Schwyzer himself has written on several occasions that while women are not forced to look, or dress, or act a certain way in the United States, the vast majority of American women feel an overwhelming pressure to look, dress, and act according to a certain ideal.
The same case can easily be made for a man in the United States being told he has impregnated a woman with whom he is romantically involved. Yes, no one put a gun to his head and told him “You have to be a father!” But no one puts a gun to the young girl’s head as she squeezes into shoes that hurt her feet and skips lunch despite being hungry. In both cases the pressure of a society (to say nothing of friends and family!) is recognized as potentially overwhelming. (Indeed, in the case of the new father, that pressure can extend to the police and the courts who will seize his assets if he does not give of himself willingly)
Finally, I do appreciate this part of your post:
“Second, stop all of this MRA craziness. Even when I agree with some of you guys I’m hesitant to voice it, lest I be mistakenly identified as one of you.”
It’s become apparent over a year of reading Professor Schwyzer’s blog, and about 6 months reading the Good Men Project, that the quickest way to silence someone is to accuse them of being an MRA. This needs to stop. I only wish Professor Schwyzer had chosen to set an example instead of once again attempting to silence the opposition with a label. That he concedes there has been civil and nuanced discussion only makes his decision to trot out the MRA-card that much worse.
The same case can easily be made for a man in the United States being told he has impregnated a woman with whom he is romantically involved. Yes, no one put a gun to his head and told him “You have to be a father!” But no one puts a gun to the young girl’s head as she squeezes into shoes that hurt her feet and skips lunch despite being hungry. In both cases the pressure of a society (to say nothing of friends and family!) is recognized as potentially overwhelming. (Indeed, in the case of the new father, that pressure can extend to the police and the courts who will seize his assets if he does not give of himself willingly)
This seems to be a double standard that changes depending on who you talk to. Some act like only women are pressured by society to do thing while men supposedly have full control (thus meaning that society needs to change to help women but men need to take responsibilty for whatever is bothering them) and vice versa. These forces coexist and we aren’t going to get far acting like only parts of them (the ones that support our arguments) are work.
It’s become apparent over a year of reading Professor Schwyzer’s blog, and about 6 months reading the Good Men Project, that the quickest way to silence someone is to accuse them of being an MRA. This needs to stop. I only wish Professor Schwyzer had chosen to set an example instead of once again attempting to silence the opposition with a label. That he concedes there has been civil and nuanced discussion only makes his decision to trot out the MRA-card that much worse
Precisely. It bothers me to see feminists go on and on and on and on about how they are so unfairly generalized as evil man haters….and then turn around and do the exact same thing to MRAs.
And I’d still like to know something. If its not all about the genetics then why lie about the genetics in the first place (much less defense someone who may be lying about the genetics)? If they aren’t such a big deal then why not tell Ted and let him decide at the time of the pregnancy insteading hoping enough time passes that he becomes the enemy for deciding to leave (if he did).
It’s the hateful things that MRA’s say that get them labelled – I’ve read the Spearhead; the articles and comments are frankly frightening in the level of hatred spewed at women. It’s one thing to talk about unfair family laws or gender expectations that burden men, but over and over again, self proclaimed MRA’s claim that women are bad, evil, stupid, useless, lying, manipulative whores and/or prudes (depending), who are morally, ethically, and biologically inferior to men in every conceivable way. So it is hard not to conclude that MRa’s hate women. If they don’t hate women, they have a funny way of showing it.
Its hard not to conclude that all mras hate women because spearhead in the same what its its hard not to conclude all feminists hate men because jezebel?
You cannot compare Jezebel to Spearhead. That is the most absurd comparison. Not even close.
Headlines from Spearhead;
Feminist Atheism?
Careerism and Fidelity
Feminism as a Subsidy for Daughters of Wealthy
Feminist Sentenced to Life for Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity (Where they labeled a war criminal a feminist… because one of his many largely decorous titles was for a committee on women… um, have you seen the condition of women’s rights in Rwanda??? I’d hardly call him a feminist. )
Latest Feminist Triumph: Black Family Finally Destroyed
Jezebel recent titles:
Jennifer and Mark Anthony Call it Quits
What’s Playing in Movie Theaters
Paint Your Nails to Look Like Starry Night
Sarah Palin’s Movie Plays to Empty Theater
Christopher Walken Reads Three Little Pigs
Can these people really Pray the Gay Away?
While Spearhead is OBSESSED with dissing feminists, Jezebel is not at all concerned with MRAs.
Women are female humans, feminism is a political movement that large tracts of are hostile to men the civil rights of men.
Therefore feminism is not women.
And here is the name of a Jezebel article that domestic violence against men
“Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have” by Tracie Egan Morrissey.
Tha’s not my Men’s Rights Movement. You can’t generalize about MRAs like that.
“but over and over again, self proclaimed MRA’s claim that women are bad, evil, stupid, useless, lying, manipulative whores and/or prudes (depending), who are morally, ethically, and biologically inferior to men in every conceivable way.”
And then along comes this lying, manipulative whore Jill and her paramour to prove them right…..
“And seeing that every single one of his posts attracts hordes of comments and controversy that last for the better part of a week, I’d say he should be promoted rather than fired.
After all, the goal of any good columnist is to start a dialogue and foster a discussion. By those standards, Hugo is decidedly successful.”
Ann Coulter can generate “hordes of comments and controversy.” Should the GMP hire her?
Can you explain why Hugo had no obligation to tell Ted?
Can you give examples of other situations in society where Hugo has no obligation to help another person in danger from a third party?
Hugo walks by an alley and sees one man mugging another man. Hugo has a cell phone and a gun. What are Hugo’s obligations?
Hugo walks by an alley and sees one man raping a woman. Hugo has a cell phone and a gun. What are Hugo’s obligations?
Hugo is at a restaurant filled with customers and sees another customer choking. Hugo knows the Heimlich Maneuver and has a cell phone. What are Hugo’s obligations?
Hugo is a professor at a college and knows of another professor having sex with a student. What are Hugo’s obligations?
Hugo is a neighbor of an elderly person, Hugo becomes aware that person is the target of a pigeon drop scam. What are Hugo’s obligations?
Hugo is a neighbor of a 35 year old individual, Hugo becomes aware that person is the target of a pigeon drop scam. What are Hugo’s obligations?
If Ted had been properly informed, he may have chosen not to have gotten married. Regardless of his satisfaction with his children, Ted may even now regret marriage. Ted, without the marriage, may have been headed on a different life path.
Hugo helped saddle Ted with financial, emotional, medical debt that could reasonably have been taken on my Hugo. Hugo played a huge role in the possible total derailment of Ted’s life.
Hugo knew a great deal of information vital to Ted’s being able to make a fully informed decision. And Hugo willingly, knowingly withheld that.
Why do you say that Hugo had no obligation to tell Ted of the ongoing deception?
I truly don’t understand that point.
And Hugo, would you please explain this as well?
What do you perceive now as your obligations back then to Ted?
DF,
When you withhold information from someone, you force their decision by limiting their options. That’s basic logic.
You don’t know what Ted would have chosen had Jill not lied and Hugo not allowed her to (by happily accepting deadbeat parent status in exchange for keeping quiet).
Hugo,
The GMP community includes its commenters, which by a large majority does NOT support you.
As a matter of policy, does GMP support and employ deadbeat dads or not?
Your point on the “gun to the head” makes the same no sense as the above sperm diversion by the author. Again – the parental raising of the boy is not the issue. If you’re partner deceives you in some way, and you are not aware of the deception, then the “gun to the head” analogy does not work. The gun has to be visible, first and foremost. The gun becomes visible when the deception unravels into truth. If you then decide to stay / forgive / accept the calculus, with regards to the deceiver (not the young boy) then the analogy works. It’s really not that complicated.
And yes – MacDonald’s sells a lot of burgers and the author generates a lot of traffic on this site.
Good food and good men.
My friend Figleaf is epic, and he put this up at my place just now: http://hugoschwyzer.net/2011/07/13/cuckolding-is-the-worst-thing-that-can-happen-to-a-man/#comment-590424
“Hey, assholes. If you really can’t handle fatherhood then fine, don’t be a father. If you become a father and find you can’t handle being loved with all the intensity a child feels for her (or his) father (her real father, the one who’s there for her every night, the one calls you crying in the middle of the day because he or she misses you so much, the one he or she will bathe and bury and cry bitter tears years after everyone else alive has forgotten you) then let me raise him or her. Because there’s so much more, start to finish and end to end, to being a father.
What really makes me want to vomit is that these poor self-hating men imagine themselves such lowly pieces of shit that the only measure of their worth in a family, the only thing that counts or matters, is a single half spoonful of spunk.
And they stride the earth imagining feminists hate men!
You know what happens to a man who “cuckolds” another man’s wife? He dies alone and unloved, he misses holidays, he misses birthdays, he misses graduations, he misses grand children. He misses everything. Meanwhile, you know what a “cuckolded” man gets? Someone who’d give them a lifetime of love so unconditional they’d lay down their life for him. And the man who’s only contribution to the “cuckolded” man’s family is ~3.45 picograms (picograms!) of DNA? On average he got between two and seven and a half minutes of friction, three to eight contractions, and then? Nothing.
I mean for crying out loud! Turn the tables the other way, gang! I know self-esteem problems make it seem unlikely but imagine it was you who cuckolded someone else. Would you sit around evenings chortling away that someone else was raising your child? Would you still be chortling on your death bead when your own biological flesh and blood was out caring for (and as often paying from their own pockets to care for) their real father in his old age? Is your dying thought going to be “look at those suckers caring and weeping over their cuckolded father instead of me!”
I mean, no offense to accountants but are the ones who think this way really men? Or are they just effectively dickless beancounters?
A real man always tips the bellboy, never counts his change, and never worries that his children aren’t “his.”
figleaf
p.s. And yes, I have thought this through. While I have no objective reason to imagine my partner ever had sex with anyone else, when my first child was born I took one look at him and said “where the heck did he come from?” Because he sure didn’t look like me! Same with our second child. So the idea really did briefly cross my mind but you know what? At those moments, when I was holding those real-life, human beings in my arms? Nothing mattered to me more than being right there with them because where ever they came from they were mine!
But guess what? Years later our oldest looks so much like me it’s not even funny. And my daughter? A dead ringer for her mom except… when I wake her up in the morning, as I have every day of her life, and I see her eyes first open? I always knew there was something familiar about them and it finally hit me: she’s got my father’s family’s eyes. But as I say I didn’t really start to see that in either of them till each was nearly 10 years old.
And if they hadn’t? My daughter still lives for me and would gladly die for me. They both still love me with a love that passeth understanding. If some kind of Darth Vader wannabe came up to either one of them and said “I am your (biological) father” they’d vomit on his shoes.
That’s what being a real father is. If you can’t get that then you’re not a man at all.”
Game, set, match.
So, just to be clear Professor Schwyzer, figleaf has joined you in not addressing the issue of a marriage between Ted and a woman who does not respect him enough to tell him the truth?
Thanks?
How do you know Jill did not tell Ted the truth? Were you there? The only truth that needed to be known was that neither of them were exclusive at the time Hugo was involved. Period.
Honestly, this seems to be about men being scared by a world that is no longer exclusively under the control of patriarchy. Please, keep whining about this and about not getting enough sex, etc. It’ll make a huge difference. In the meantime, women, including the feminists, will continue going to school, getting jobs, raising children, etc. The world will keep on turning while the men who spend time whining on this website will continue behaving like disempowered babies. Sheesh!
“How do you know Jill did not tell Ted the truth? Were you there?”
That is the assumption Hugo asks us to make.
The only truth that needed to be known was that neither of them were exclusive at the time Hugo was involved. Period.”
This is true, but this is specifically a level of honesty that Hugo tells us did not occur. Rather Hugo insists Jill demanded a deception occurred and Hugo participated in that deception.
The outrage from men and women is about that deception and Hugo’s inability to accept what that means and his role in it.
Your suggested alternative is fine, but that is an alternative Hugo states did not occur.
“Honestly, this seems to be about men being scared by a world that is no longer exclusively under the control of patriarchy. Please, keep whining about this and about not getting enough sex, etc. It’ll make a huge difference. In the meantime, women, including the feminists, will continue going to school, getting jobs, raising children, etc. The world will keep on turning while the men who spend time whining on this website will continue behaving like disempowered babies. Sheesh!”
Shorter you, you have sand in your vag and need to dump it into this thread.
Jeni
All you are doing is parroting the same strawan that other feminists here are. Relationships should not be based in fraud and deception. There is no doubt that if it was a female being deceived you would be taking a different tack, but your ideology contains gender based hate and because you can’t give men and women the same value, empathy or humanity.
Egads! You’re right! I missed the part in the previous article where it says that Jill didn’t tell Ted she was sleeping with other people before they became exclusive…although, in my world, that’s a given…but I spend all my time with people in open relationships so we always assume there are other lovers involved. Sorry. My bad there.
Still, there’s an awful lot of whining from men on this website…and, in the end, the kid is being loved. Nothing else really matters in my book and I would know, from personal experience. I am divorced. We started with 50/50 custody. All was well. My children’s father recently chose to remarry and move far enough away to where 50/50 parenting could not continue. He asked to have the kids full-time (or more like 80/20). I agreed. I would never take my children from their father because he’s a great dad. They like his new wife. They’re happy and they’re loved. That’s all that matters.
Nothing really matters in your book other than the kid being loved? Nah I call bullshit. because along with accusing men of not being real, being scared and having a small penis hiding behind children is an overused feminist argument. If it was the female that was being deceived by the male, it would then all of a sudden matter to you and it would no longer be all about the kid.
What if your ex just kidnapped your kids instead, told them you died, and provided them with a happy loving home, with you never seeing them again? Love for the children is all that matters, right?! Tell that to mothers and fathers in that very situtation. Your argument is amazingly stupid.
Jill, you support liars, manipulators, and deadbeat parents. WE GET IT!! Thanks.
She could’ve already told him… we don’t have those facts. Hugo hasn’t seen in her years. You are getting all worked up over something that might not even be an issue.
It is also a 50% that Ted’s kid is Ted’s kid. Maybe the kid is a dead ringer and she never felt the need to call up her old fling ever again after breathing a sigh of relief that the kid has the same unibrow as his dad (Ted.)
Figleaf attacking a strawman and not the issues that were raised, just like you are Hugo.
The cuck in question doesn’t know, His marriage, his fatherhood which makes up most of his life is a deception. The objections are not about the paternity, its about the cruel deception. Were he to have been given the chance of an informed choice, there would be no objections.
You would never celebrate a sacred female getting into a live long relation based on a deception Hugo, we all know that.
Professor,
I actually know Ted. He’s a very good friend of mine.
About 14 years ago, Ted was set to enter a Ph.D program. His goal was to become an astronaut, and he was well on his way.
Then came the news. His girlfriend told him she was pregnant, and assured Ted the baby was his, and no she would not abort it. And everything about Ted, how he grew up, his values, what he respected, encouraged him to marry Jill and become a father. He didn’t think he was ready for it. He knew he would be a good father, but in the future.
He never got to that Ph.D. program or became an astronaut. He stayed at a job that he really disliked as that put food on the table. Yes, along the way he and Jill had several more children that he loves dearly, but in all that time, he has never had a job he loved, never had a career, never got that Ph.D., never attempted to become an astronaut.
And when Ted and I drink beers, late at night, once he’s good and drunk, he tells me that. He is ashamed of himself, because he does love all his children, and he can’t imagine a world without them. Never had that career. Never got the Ph.D. Never became an astronaut. Never became an academic free to blog. Fourteen autumns later, he still works a few steps above that original position.
And he wonders what might have been and what happened to him.
So Ted* is tricked into a relationship with both Jill* and Alistair* but at least gets the joy of having the little tike in his life.
Or on the other hand Ted* could have been offered a choice about what he wanted to do had the child been Hugo’s at which point Ted* could hit the dating market again and later on have a child that actually shared his DNA.
To me, this is much worse than anything you’ll find on The Spearhead. I believe that most of the really bad things said by these StrawMRAs is your typical internet Tough Guy stuff – whereas Hugo and the people supporting him actually believe that crap they’re sputtering. Worse still, Hugo is an instructor and a writer. He makes a living peddling these ideas. I’ll invoke Marcotte and Valenti here – they write for major publications and have published books.
Game, set, match.
Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error.
But would figleaf also say, “A real woman always tips the bellboy, never counts her change, and never worries that her children aren’t “hers.””?
what does figleaf’s ‘figleaf’ cover, i wonder
except he’s playing the same game you are and not the game that the vast majority of commentators are discussing. You’re either deliberately obtuse or a dim bulb.
Fairly predictable “argument” from Figleaf and a feminist further up. Avoid the real issue, attack a strawman instead and make the small penis and not a “real man” charge.
Proving yet again that feminists generally don’t intellectual integrity.
All that would have to be conceded is that deceiving the man was morally wrong and everyone would be in agreement.
You know, I thought feminists would understand that calling an action “immoral” does not take away a person’s right to do it.
You think it would be wrong for Ted not to adopt your baby? So what, it’s his right. Hold all the “contempt” you want for Ted, just don’t away his rights.
IMO they understand it, but use being willfully obtuse to try and defend their weak positions.
It’s a sad day when a self-admitted rapist claims to have the moral high ground over men who don’t want to be tricked into raising his children.
The lengths these feminists are going to avoid conceding that paternity fraud is not a good thing almost defies belief.
Its my theory is that because they have absorbed so much dehumanising anti-male propaganda, that they can’t see the male in question as a feeling human with a right to have been told the truth.
People are just going on the story they were given by Hugo. Ted decided to commit to her on the basis that he had a child on the way.
Were the father told years down the track that the marriage and his perception of his relationships with his was based on a deception as you say, it would be worse for him than not knowing. Perhaps she didn’t tell him, and continued the pattern of deception and emotional and financial abuse throughout the marriage… perhaps she divorced him for another wallet, financially ruined him, denied custody and told him to rub salt in the wound and did tell him after 10 years, laughed in his face and the took a gun to himself… we just don’t know.
But all this and paternity fraud is “nothing” to a feminists, and then you wonder why you have such a bad name reputation.
Above response Anon says:
July 15, 2011 at 11:03 pm
“She could’ve already told him… we don’t have those facts. Hugo hasn’t seen in her years. You are getting all worked up over something that might not even be an issue.
It is also a 50% that Ted’s kid is Ted’s kid. Maybe the kid is a dead ringer and she never felt the need to call up her old fling ever again after breathing a sigh of relief that the kid has the same unibrow as his dad (Ted.)”
An analogy:
My friend Karim is a practicing Muslim. Sometimes I invite him over for dinner. Karim doesn’t eat pork and I respect that. When I cook for us I avoid using any ingredients made of pork. But I could easily disrespect his wish. I mean, a bit of bacon in the soup, sausages with pork in it, lard, etc. he would never know. It’s pretty easy actually to trick a Muslim into eating pork and for me as an atheist his rule makes no sense. He eats beef, turkey, chicken, lamb why not pork? But it’s not my decision to make. If Karim cares about not eating pork I respect his wish, even if I don’t agree with his reasoning.
Hugo argues like a ruthless atheist serving pork to a Muslim. He doesn’t care about paternity so everybody else shouldn’t.
Sad but true. And to continue you analogy if the Muslim did find you he was being fed pork and raised hell all of a sudden that Muslim is the bad guy. Why reject a meal that someone else cooked just because he doesn’t eat pork? How dare he call out the cook’s dishonesty.
A “real Muslim” would just stay quiet and eat the pork I guess.