DNA Tests Are an Anti-Feminist Application of Science

I disagree. There is no nuance to be had.

Correcting some imbalance is not accomplished by wronging someone else. Simple as that.

This is a particularly vile form of deceit and it is not made even a little “ok” because women have less power overall in society than men do.

I should have realized how completely black and white your world is. For many people, there are shades of grey as well.

So, in your world of gray it is not ok but the wrong is mitigated in the interests of righting some perceived wrong by tricking men into raising a child that is not theirs. That about right?

If so then yeah, I disagree. I do not think women’s rights are enhanced by this one whit or wrongs committed against women are mitigated by this. Sure, the one woman is better off but then so is the thief who rips you off.

Why don’t you go back and read what I said. You even quoted it yourself. Here, let me help you…

Now, given that, do you not see how your statement above is completely, utterly and totally wrong? Are you that keen on thinking yourself as having won some kind of argument that you will make up the position of the other person to oppose?

Sure, we can get certainty concerning genetic parentage. But that doesn’t give us certainty concerning who should be obligated to fulfill the social role “father.”

Attempting to slip in certainty about the latter for free, illegitimately, while actually referring only to certainty about the former, is exactly the kind of trick I think this author is probably calling us out on–and she’s right that the trick serves largely masculine interests by ridding feminine interests of a certain advantage.

No.

Here, let me help you with some bolding:

You said:

From a parallel universe:

“It’s true that letting the pregnant woman choose which of her partners is to be the father reduces a male’s options if one of his partners gets pregnant and has an opinion about his suitability for fatherhood. But that’s an extremely avoidable situation: he can use protection, refrain from relationships which are not explicitly monogamous in nature, and so on.”

I don’t agree with her. I understand the argument, but don’t agree with it. As I pointed out at the beginning, assuming you read back there, there is a difference between looking at individual acts and looking at society as a whole. It is an blinkered view to look at the fairness of individual acts only. In this instance, however, she is wrong. This is not a form of unfairness that I think society is net better if it is perpetuated. However, along the lines of what I said, you know, in understanding where she comes from, I can see certain forms of unfairness which reducing would, ceteris paribus, make society less fair overall, and, therefore, reduction of such unfairness, ceteris paribus, would be a bad thing.

If you wish to read into my statements that I am supporting the results of her analysis in this current situation, when I said I was not, then that is up to you… But I consider that an utterly disingenuous debating tactic, and indiciative of a deep seated desire to feel that you have “won” something.

You responded to me by saying:

I disagreed. I feel there is no nuance to be had here. It is wrong and you apparently agree it is wrong. You then told me:

Do tell how my responses to those constitute an “utterly disingenuous debating tactic, and indiciative of a deep seated desire to feel that you have “won” something.”

Your issue seems more to be that I had the temerity to respond and disagree with you.

I think it would be more accurate to say that there are some schools of misandrism which fly under the false flag of “feminism”.

I find that whole thing to be pure pap. The real loss is in the inability to deny a destructive father access to the child. There are fathers out there that children are simply better off not knowing. It’s not all, it’s not a majority, but they do exist, and the science of DNA analysis has removed the ability that women had to say, “Father - unknown.”

Analogy fail: Choosing to work for one employer rather than another is a morally neutral decision (presuming that all are in equally legitimate fields of endeavor). Choosing to lie rather than tell the truth, or to hide behind obfuscation rather than have the truth known, is not a morally neutral decision.

It most certainly does, unless you are willing to explicitly state and defend the proposition that social institutions should be based on lies.

Well, if that’s the case, why do we allow science to determine the social mother of the child, just because scientists can see whose vagina the baby squeezed out of? Shouldn’t the father be able to choose some other woman to be the baby’s social mother? Who gives a shit which vagina the baby came out of?

Given that the author is defending the notion that the woman’s say-so should trump the actual facts, a man could not avoid the problem by any means, up to and including cutting his balls off and living on a desert island.

If she has custody, she need only tell any would-be DNA tester to stick the swab up his own ass rather than into the kid’s cheek.

I think that, to an extent, is circular - you are presuming that telling the truth is the morally preferable situation. I actually happen to agree with you in this instance 9as I have repeatedly noted). However, I don’t see an argument based on the idea that telling the truth is not always the preferable strategy as being per se flawed.

I think paternity tests are anti-masculinist, since they mean that a man can no longer deny that he was responsible for a baby. Works just as well as her point, doesn’t it?

Having not read the article (I just went with the quoted part) I didn’t have the impression she was saying that it was ever legitimate (nor should be) for a woman to require someone to be her children’s father whom she never even slept with.

I thought she was talking about situations in which there’s not certainty concerning whether the person is the genetic father. If he didn’t sleep with her, then there’s certainty about whether he’s the genetic father.

Actually, the responsibility is on you to explain why the following inference should be thought to hold with certainty:

X is the genetic father, therefore, X should be obligated to fill the social role “father”.

Suppose X is a known abuser and child molester, for example. Doesn’t that seem like a clear counterexample to the inference?

But my very point is that the inference is invalid. Certainty about genetic parentage does not give you certainty about fatherhood for free.