One of Dr. Helen's commenters made a great example of how paternity fraud in state-licensed marriages is well-defended by the system and those who claim to "represent women" like the average feminist:
For men, there are no reproductive benefits to marriage anymore. They literally enjoy no additional rights, privileges or prerogatives regarding their children than unmarried men who have a whole slew of children outside of marriage would enjoy. In the past, conservatives have argued that marriage is the process by which men gain a right to access to their children, but clearly that conservative argument is dead on arrival thanks to the state of modern American marriage and family law.
Taken as a whole, the legal system makes an abject mockery of contracts, which should frost every libertarian, be they political or cultural. There are few practical consequences for a woman who flagrantly violates her marriage contract, and men generally enjoy no protection of their end of the contract, even when it is laid out in exacting detail in a prenuptial agreement. There are few examples that put this into perspective as succinctly and undeniably as the way that the modern marriage law gives men no protection or guaranteed recourse from being systematically defrauded on paternity.
Forget the fact that it is impossible for a moment, and consider a scenario with the following factors:And yet, this situation is completely support for women. A man can have an unfaithful wife who bears half a dozen children, none of whom are his, and yet he is legally on the hook for their welfare after the divorce. Furthermore, there is no legal counterbalance that gives him custody of the children in this case, or that sends his wife to prison for the better part of her life for committing adultery (or felony fraud, if you prefer). In short, there is nothing in place to protect the man's interest in this critical aspect of marriage, and there are a lot of people who have a psychopathic form of chivalry or who are pathological male bashers and who won't budge an inch on limiting the wife's prerogatives.
* Man commits adultery.
* Man lies to woman about adultery.
* Man divorces woman.
* Through lies and fraud, man collects money from woman for 15 years for a child that is not hers
* Man's lies and adultery is exposed.
* Man then collects money from the women he committed adultery with, while keeping the money he fraudulently got from his ex wife.
Basically, the man benefited from adultery and fraud, doubling the amount he would have had if he were a faithful husband.
Now, is there a representative of feminist alive who would think that this was fine, since it was best for the children?
For men, there are no reproductive benefits to marriage anymore. They literally enjoy no additional rights, privileges or prerogatives regarding their children than unmarried men who have a whole slew of children outside of marriage would enjoy. In the past, conservatives have argued that marriage is the process by which men gain a right to access to their children, but clearly that conservative argument is dead on arrival thanks to the state of modern American marriage and family law.
Taken as a whole, the legal system makes an abject mockery of contracts, which should frost every libertarian, be they political or cultural. There are few practical consequences for a woman who flagrantly violates her marriage contract, and men generally enjoy no protection of their end of the contract, even when it is laid out in exacting detail in a prenuptial agreement. There are few examples that put this into perspective as succinctly and undeniably as the way that the modern marriage law gives men no protection or guaranteed recourse from being systematically defrauded on paternity.
"They literally enjoy no additional rights, privileges or prerogatives regarding their children than unmarried men who have a whole slew of children outside of marriage would enjoy."
I submit they have less. For children born to a man married to a woman are presumed to be his, whereas that assumption doesn't apply in the case of men not married to the mother.
Other than that, I have nothing to add to your post. Nicely done. Only wish more guys knew the facts, and know them early enough (i.e. at a young enough age) to avoid making serious mistakes.
Oh, and nice comment at Helen's BTW.
Well, I wouldn't call that a right, so much as a facet of society that works for unmarried men. More like an unofficial perk for working in the office than a benefit the company advertises.
As I read your article, before getting to the final paragraph, I kept saying to myself "marriage is a contract, marriage is a contract . . ." When any other contract is broken there are sanctions. The only party in the divorce receiving harsh sanctions are the men. Many women are getting away scot free, not made to be responsible for their lying, thieving actions. This is an outrage. They lie about paternity, collect a lot of money, have multiple children to earn their felonious livings, and it is not in the best interest if the child/children! These feminists are a group of radical, ignorant, thieves. I only learned of all of what is going on with this issue. I am embarassed for having lived in a bubble. A good friend of mine is threatened with jail for nonpayment of child support, arrearages, etc. He has paid out a fortune in legaql fees, he's financially crippled -- not to mention the emotional stress. AND the child isn't even his. He's not even allowed to know where she is. Where is the justice? Our government is just as responsible for allowing this to occur, mainly because they're making tons of money. It's not even nonpayment of child support -- it's these men being held responsible for paying back welfare. When I saw that they were making 112 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! I was speechless! As a woman, an artist and writer (waiting to be officially published), I have been working on 2 articles regarding this heinous, egregious state of affairs. I'm only one voice, but I am dedicated and very persistent. I WILL be heard. I don't care how long it takes. This is a gross injustice and it must end. And these feminists, well, I'd love to say where they can go . . . My heart goes out to ALL OF you. I'm angry, to put it mildly! It's time these women are punished and the men exonerated!!!
I'm sure we all appreciate your efforts, Lainey. If anything about this issue is going to change, it will be because of women like you.
The fastest way to get rid of this would be for women to concede that a woman who commits paternity fraud is unfit to be the guardian of the child in 99 cases out of a 100. I think it's fair to say that most fathers wouldn't stop loving their "adopted child" because their child was never party to the fraud and was, in fact, a victim in their own right. If men got custody in such cases, women would start to think twice about paternity fraud.