The kind of absolutely insane ideas that people often attribute to feminists is mind-boggling. Melanie McDonagh of UK's Times Online is surprised that "feminists didn’t make more of a fuss" about DNA testing for paternity.
In her artcile "Paternity Tests Rob Women of Their Hold over Men", McDonagh suggests that "the ability to pass a child off on a man was a potent female weapon." For McDonagh, this was an undeniably good thing that was destroyed by mean, bad scientists and not protested enough by stupid feminists who failed to see how this scientific invention would end up by robbing women of their power: "The woman’s prerogative of knowing who is a child’s father was, when you think about it, the trump card of the sex. . . And then, all of a sudden, in our lifetimes all that changed. With the advent of DNA testing, that trump card became null and void. Men can require objective proof of a child’s paternity before they part with a penny for its upkeep. . . All of a sudden the balance of power between the sexes has shifted."
Of course, this whining about how much "power" (for what? manipulation? lying? milking men for money? What a weird understanding of women's power) women have lost with the advent of DNA testing tells us more about the journalist's own self-hating vision of women than about anything else. You need to have a pretty low opinion of yourself as a woman in order to bemoan the disappearance of a possibility to cheat both men and children out of the truth about paternity.
McDonagh seems to believe in all honesty that the truth about paternity makes everyone miserable: "You have to ask: is the man any happier for knowing that his children aren’t his? Are his children any happier now that their genetic father is proven to be someone other than their familiar father? DNA testing is the devil’s tool. It has certainly made this family more miserable." It doesn't occur to her that children might actually have a need to know who their real father is. It doesn't occur to her that men are people too and, as such, should have the right to know who their children are. She doesn't care that many women have been able to prove their children's paternity in court, which gave them access to child support. All McDonagh worries about is that you can't pass off your child on a millionaire or a Hollywood actor in order to get a lot of money for yourself (which is, of course, a problem confronted by every woman on a daily basis).
The most upsetting thing about this unenlightened and chauvinistic rant, though, is the picture it paints of feminists. The very fact of being surprised that feminists haven't protested the DNA testing presents us as science-hating money-hungry individuals who want to wrest the power to cheat and to lie from men at all costs. I wonder why McDonagh couldn't have written her piece without mentioning feminists at all. I guess the reason for that is her fear to recognize that her insane ideas are not supported by any reasonable person and are definitely not supported by the feminist movement.
24 comments:
Guess this ridiculous opinion it is a part of a discourse according to which sexual revolution and women liberation in general were more beneficial to men than to women...
V.
You mean as part of "why buy the cow" discourse? God, I hate that one. And I especially hate it when women engage in it. It's like Jews telling anti-semitic jokes. So wrong!
Yes, that's what I meant. The only thing unclear to me is by what twist of imagination she (the author) managed to assign that logic to the feminists...
V.
I know! Feminism is everybody's favorite whipping girl nowadays. Soon we will be blamed for the weather.
Also, it's scary how often this kind of patriarchal propaganda comes from women. It tells us a lot about who benefits from patriarchy and in what ways.
The quotes from McDonagh also suggests she thinks all women are liars. And don't women often gain more by paternity tests? You know what happened if you were not the wife and you said the baby was his before paternity testing? He denied it and you got jack every time. So wait in her view, first the paternity test is the man's weapon against evil lying bitches who lie about him being the baby daddy to steal his money, then paternity tests are used by evil bitches to deny men kids? Seems strangely contradictory.
"You have to ask: is the man any happier for knowing that his children aren’t his? Are his children any happier now that their genetic father is proven to be someone other than their familiar father? DNA testing is the devil’s tool. It has certainly made this family more miserable." So why is she bitching about paterity testing instead of writing in support of laws that allow parents who raise nonbiological children to gain parental rights? I think this woman's writing from the UK, but here in the US there are states that have these laws. I could agree that it is often in a kid's best interest for the parent who has raised them to have parental rights (btw, New York State law holds a similar view) but isn't building the law to support caring, involved nonbiological parents better than denying genetic tests? You do not even have to cut out bio parents. We are so focused on the notion that kids can only have two parents that we feel the need to have one legal father, but why can't a kid have two legal fathers and a legal mother?
I agree with you completely, Anonymous. The more people love the kid, the better.
McDonagh tried to bring together two of her favorite things to hate: science and women. The attempt, as you point out, is very clumsy annd doesn't hold up to any kind of analysis.
Hi,
Most feminists ARE science-hating. What they consider to be "science" is the standard model of social sciences (ie, the blank slate).
Martin Daly and Margo Wilson use the word "biophobia" to describe their attitude toward science.
Even catholics have more respect for science in my opinion.
What is it, an invasion of stupid on my blog?? Most scientists are feminists, dufus. Just think about it.
Sheesh.
I'm new here and I'd just like to say that I'm pleasantly surprised to see a feminist denouncing McDonagh and I hope to find many more trawling through your archive, but there's somethng I have to point out:
Science is pursuit of truth based on a process of refutation.
Feminism is an ideology based on genitals.
They are not even remotely compatable.
"Feminism is an ideology based on genitals."
-You've got to realize that this is your personal definition and most feminists have never heard of it. Feminism is actually AGAINST genitals definining anything politically, socially, culturally, etc. You do know that, right?
"Most scientists are feminists, dufus. Just think about it."
haha it's like saying that most leaders were against women's vote, so let's just think about how right they were. Wonder if you ever heard of Larry Summers?
what brought some of your previous posters and me here:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/feminists-agitate-to-ban-paternity-testing/
"You need to have a pretty low opinion of yourself as a woman in order to bemoan the disappearance of a possibility to cheat both men and children out of the truth about paternity."
No, please not the low self-esteem defence(offence in this case). It lost its charm long ago.
Feminism defines who a person is by whether they are male/female. Genitals are what define you as mael/female. It is not my personal definition, it is what feminists visibly do.
Feminists say I am a victim becasue I am a woman and that my husband oppresses me because he is a man. That is defining me based on my sex.
Feminists only concern themselves with GENDER, specifically with how WOMEN are treated. Feminists do not care how my husband is treated becaue he is a 'he'. Feminists exclude half the population from their consideration because of their genitals. That is what they do, even though the may claim otherwise.
Someone can say they are one thing and be something very different.
Feminism says I am a victim because I am a woman and that my husband oppresses me becasue he is a man. That IS defining people based on their genitals.
It is not my personal definition, it is the founding pillar of feminism.
Someone can claim to be one thing and really be something completely different.
Sorry if this posts twice, last time I tried to post I got a browser crash.
". Feminism is actually AGAINST genitals definining anything politically, socially, culturally, etc."
At least be honest. Feminism is just another form of cultural marxism. The main goals of Feminists is the destruction of the family unit and to give women entitlements and privileges. You feminists have done a great job with destroying the relationship between men and women, and at the rate draconian laws are being erected it'll soon be illegal to even look at a woman (unless you're an Alpha male). In fact, feminists have already petitioned to do just that!
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/NYC-Considers-a-Not-Catcall-Zone-106135039.html?dr
"You feminists have done a great job with destroying the relationship between men and women, and at the rate draconian laws are being erected"
-If you stop obsessing about your erectile issues and concentrate for a moment, you will notice that you are writing on a blog run by a feminist woman who is happily married. To a man. Don't make yourself look ridiculous, buddy.
"Feminism defines who a person is by whether they are male/female. Genitals are what define you as mael/female. It is not my personal definition, it is what feminists visibly do.
Feminists say I am a victim becasue I am a woman and that my husband oppresses me because he is a man. "
-I'm a feminist and I don't say that at all. I believe that there are tons of women who oppress their husbands in many respects, and I'm against that.
You are fighting straw-men (or, rather, women) here, seriously.
"No, please not the low self-esteem defence(offence in this case). It lost its charm long ago."
-Defense of what? What are you responding to? Can you even read?
"Defense of what? What are you responding to? Can you even read?"
Right back at ya sister.
I guess, Clarissa, you may be dealing with ignorance here, not necessary some malevolent attempts to vilify the feminists... You must admit that there is a significant fraction of the feminists who indeed define themselves primarily via gender, not via their positions on social, political, etc issues. Their political views are summarized by "everything goes, all choices are good". These are the attitudes which allowed Sarah Palin and other conservatives to appropriate feminism on the grounds that they are working women (and apart form that - everything goes). Taking it a bit further for the sake of an argument - are you sure your feminism (with which I agree) is mainstream or statistically significant?
So I am not surprised that some people developed certain grotesque visions of feminism. Yes, it would be better if they'd read a couple of books on the subject, but realistically - if it is not the most important issue in their lives - they will not read said books anyway. Does not mean you have to be the one who will educate them, of course...
These are not simply patriarchally minded people we are talking about here. These are anti-women folks. On one of their sites, there was a post about feminists wanting to give child custody exclusively to women in every single case. So they raged about horrible castrating feminists who want to exclude men from child-rearing. Then, somebody linked to my post supporting a court decision in Spain to award shared custody in the majority of cases. Do you think they were happy? No. Now they raged that those evil feminists want to force men to do their job of child-rearing.
These people simply hate women no matter what women do or don't do. If you read them for a little time, it becomes obvious that they have psychosexual issues that have nothing to do with any brand of feminism. :-)
Hear, hear. I'm glad someone else read this and thought "what? that's not feminism!"
In my own response to that horrid article, I suggested that McDonagh is secretly an anti-feminist, anti-sex-outside-of-marriage fundamentalist. After all, the natural consequence if her argument were made into policy would be a dramatic reduction of sex outside of marriage. And it was published in a conservative paper. And, and, and, much of McDonagh's other work has an anti-sex/virulently-pro-marriage tone... including several articles in which she goes on rather a lot about the moral problems with discarding embryos, etc... something smells funny here.
Oh, so she is one of those fake feminists promoted by the fundamentalists to discredit feminists! Like Sarah Palin.
Thank you, Paul, for this informed comment.
I know I'm few days late to this thread but I was shocked to see this rampant ignorance on the relationship of feminism and science. "An ideology based on genitals?" Hardly! The only feminists (and granted, we are a diverse lot) who remain steeped in the gender binary/"defining people by their sex" are those of us who are feminists in terms of public policy only. But feminist theory is a whole different ballgame. And one that many people are woefully ignorant of, apparently.
Melanie McDonagh is like some bizarre reverse Camille Paglia, isn't she?
Great blog, keep it up.
Thank you, Anonymous. It's never too late to participate in the discussion. Only after I started blogging did I realize the woeful ignorance out there. On the bright side, I also discovered that there are so many extremely intelligent people who are willing to engage in interesting discussions.
Post a Comment