ParadiseLost
Well-known member
Original title was Paternity Un(certainty): How the Law Surrounding Paternity Challenges Negatively Impacts Family Relationships and Women's Sexuality.
My subtitle is sarcastic and based on what's in the actual article. Link below.
It was a very interesting, if very one sided, discussion of the issues surrounding paternity fraud.
First of, she starts with a massive, possibly not fair use compliant quote from Kanye West's song Gold Digger. She also talks about some literary example about paternity fraud in stories that take place in the 1800s - and how today, with genetic testing, both of those cases could be solved quickly with genetic tests.
She then drops this bomb: "This article examines three points in arguing that society should be cautious about elevating science as the highest consideration in truth claims."
Yeah, we're reading one of those articles.
The first thing she does is try to assert the frequency of paternity fraud as being "overstated." She states that it is popularly believed to be 10-30%, but is actually dependent on whether or not the father has "high paternity confidence" or "low paternity confidence." In high paternity confidence cases, its 2-3% false paternity; but in low paternity confidence cases, its 30% false paternity. Basically, if you feel you have no reason to be suspicious, that's probably a good sign the child is yours.
Of course, clever readers are immediately suspicious. Without knowing the relative rates of high/low paternity confidence, its impossible to say how far reality is from perception - which she does not acknowledge, even though her source (the textbook Fatherhood by researchers Kermyt G Anderson and Peter Gray) acknowledges that same issue. She does use there 3.7% estimate for Albuquerque - but even they admit their problem with that estimate: they had men self report paternity confidence. Obviously, its something that is likely to be underreported in a survey. (fun fact: Fatherhood also notes that in a study done in 1963 in Detroit, there was a 1.5% nonpaternity rate among whites and 10.1% nonpaternity rate for blacks - there's a reason Kanye West sung about pre-nups, man, ouch).
She then gives several examples of pre-modern legal cases around false paternity, before discussing the "old" and "modern" views.
Then she drops another comedy bomb:
Excuse me, but, what?
I can understand what she's saying here in a certain context. For example, there's a certain kind of deadbeat dad, who contributes nothing, but still wants visitation rights - and often times his (destructive) visitation demands play havoc with the life of the woman and child, who might genuinely be better off if the father had no custody. If there's an actual man the woman is in a relationship who is more responsible and willing to be the father, talking about a mother's right to choose the father might make sense. But we aren't talking in a situation remotely like that.
We are talking about situations in which a women has deceived or misled a man into thinking he was the father or her baby. The author never directly says this, but overall from the article, it seems as though she has the belief that a woman should have the right to deceive a man into thinking that a child is his - after all, if he's willing to take care of it and fulfill the social role, that's what really matters, right?
She also states that under this preexisting theory of fatherhood - basically the idea that the women decides the functional "father," regardless of biologically fact - "paternity disestablishment paternity disestablishment statutes and tort claims for false paternity" are "attempts to regulate women's sexuality."
A man no longer wanting to be held responsible for a child that isn't his is an attempt to regulate women's sexuality. That's certainly an interesting take.
She then talks about the legal aspects of this some more, which is interesting to hear about, but not particularly interesting to discuss. Suffice it to say that in some jurisdictions, men have options, and in others, men don't.
Finally, she talks about reasons women might have for keeping paternity a secret:
1. Domestic violence. Apparently, there was actually a case where a man that wasn't the father forced his girlfriend to acknowledge him as the father.
2. Rape. A woman may not want to admit that she was raped around the time of her pregnancy.
3. Genuine uncertainty about who the father is (basically, adultery).
4. Because they don't want to destroy their marriage (basically, adultery).
Anyone that thinks 1 and 2 are particularly common reasons are deluded; I think she just wanted examples that weren't just 'adultery put worded diplomatically.'
She talks about a few more cases before finishing her paper and dropping this bomb at the end:
My subtitle is sarcastic and based on what's in the actual article. Link below.
It was a very interesting, if very one sided, discussion of the issues surrounding paternity fraud.
First of, she starts with a massive, possibly not fair use compliant quote from Kanye West's song Gold Digger. She also talks about some literary example about paternity fraud in stories that take place in the 1800s - and how today, with genetic testing, both of those cases could be solved quickly with genetic tests.
She then drops this bomb: "This article examines three points in arguing that society should be cautious about elevating science as the highest consideration in truth claims."
Yeah, we're reading one of those articles.
The first thing she does is try to assert the frequency of paternity fraud as being "overstated." She states that it is popularly believed to be 10-30%, but is actually dependent on whether or not the father has "high paternity confidence" or "low paternity confidence." In high paternity confidence cases, its 2-3% false paternity; but in low paternity confidence cases, its 30% false paternity. Basically, if you feel you have no reason to be suspicious, that's probably a good sign the child is yours.
Of course, clever readers are immediately suspicious. Without knowing the relative rates of high/low paternity confidence, its impossible to say how far reality is from perception - which she does not acknowledge, even though her source (the textbook Fatherhood by researchers Kermyt G Anderson and Peter Gray) acknowledges that same issue. She does use there 3.7% estimate for Albuquerque - but even they admit their problem with that estimate: they had men self report paternity confidence. Obviously, its something that is likely to be underreported in a survey. (fun fact: Fatherhood also notes that in a study done in 1963 in Detroit, there was a 1.5% nonpaternity rate among whites and 10.1% nonpaternity rate for blacks - there's a reason Kanye West sung about pre-nups, man, ouch).
She then gives several examples of pre-modern legal cases around false paternity, before discussing the "old" and "modern" views.
| Old View | Modern View |
| Best interest of the child is the focus | The real fatherhood of the child is the focus |
| Truth about fatherhood is kinship | Truth about fatherhood is genetic/biological |
| A father who has thus far raised a child should legally continue to do so even if the child is not his | A father who has thus far raised a child should have no legal obligation to continue to do so if genetic testing shows the child to not be his |
| Selfish for wanting to disestablish paternity of a child that isn't his | Within his rights for wanting to disestablish paternity of a child that isn't his |
Then she drops another comedy bomb:
Excuse me, but, what?
I can understand what she's saying here in a certain context. For example, there's a certain kind of deadbeat dad, who contributes nothing, but still wants visitation rights - and often times his (destructive) visitation demands play havoc with the life of the woman and child, who might genuinely be better off if the father had no custody. If there's an actual man the woman is in a relationship who is more responsible and willing to be the father, talking about a mother's right to choose the father might make sense. But we aren't talking in a situation remotely like that.
We are talking about situations in which a women has deceived or misled a man into thinking he was the father or her baby. The author never directly says this, but overall from the article, it seems as though she has the belief that a woman should have the right to deceive a man into thinking that a child is his - after all, if he's willing to take care of it and fulfill the social role, that's what really matters, right?
She also states that under this preexisting theory of fatherhood - basically the idea that the women decides the functional "father," regardless of biologically fact - "paternity disestablishment paternity disestablishment statutes and tort claims for false paternity" are "attempts to regulate women's sexuality."
A man no longer wanting to be held responsible for a child that isn't his is an attempt to regulate women's sexuality. That's certainly an interesting take.
She then talks about the legal aspects of this some more, which is interesting to hear about, but not particularly interesting to discuss. Suffice it to say that in some jurisdictions, men have options, and in others, men don't.
Finally, she talks about reasons women might have for keeping paternity a secret:
1. Domestic violence. Apparently, there was actually a case where a man that wasn't the father forced his girlfriend to acknowledge him as the father.
2. Rape. A woman may not want to admit that she was raped around the time of her pregnancy.
3. Genuine uncertainty about who the father is (basically, adultery).
4. Because they don't want to destroy their marriage (basically, adultery).
Anyone that thinks 1 and 2 are particularly common reasons are deluded; I think she just wanted examples that weren't just 'adultery put worded diplomatically.'
She talks about a few more cases before finishing her paper and dropping this bomb at the end:
To care for and protect their children... by extracting value from men who have they deceived into thinking the kids are theirs. I'm not sure how that's not defrauding men.
