Every once in a while a discussion will wind its way through the local blogosphere that is so ridiculous to me, I hardly know how to begin to comment on it. Right now, folks are again debating a series of legislation designed to make sure that women don’t run around stealing men’s money by lying about who the father of their children is.
See, here’s the thing. Women, being human, lie. And some women will lie to you about being pregnant with your baby in order to get you to marry us. There are long, complicated reasons for that, but the short form is that we’re taught from the time that we’re very young that getting married is ‘winning’ at this thing called femininity and some women will do whatever it takes to win.
This is one reason y’all should date feminists, who are less inclined to believe in that kind of bullshit, but that is neither here nor there.
My point is, though, that, if someone claims you have knocked them up and you have the slightest doubt about whether that’s true, go get you a paternity test asap. There’s no law against it. If you are such a lazy coward that you want the law to force women to submit our children to paternity tests, when you could just go have it done, you are an idiot and I kind of wish you ill.
And, yes, I do feel bad for guys who think a kid is theirs and then find out that, biologically, it isn’t. And, I might even argue that, if the mother and the guy who thought he was the father, but isn’t, aren’t married, he should not be able to be forced to pay to support a child that isn’t biologically his.
But the time to do this is when the baby is born, before you sign your name to the birth certificate. Once you willingly put your name on the birth certificate, tough shit.
But here’s the thing I see going on in these posts and these comments that I can’t let slide–your wife is not your personal prostitute. You did not buy her and you do not have a legal, binding agreement in which you arrange for the care and well-being of your children based on her conceding to only fuck you. A marriage is not about purchasing sole access to a cooter.
If you don’t challenge paternity before you put your name on the birth certificate, again, tough shit. If some guy were out there saying “My wife and I were open to having a car. I told her I wanted a car. I wanted a Camry, but she went out and bought a Dodge Stratus. I signed the loan papers, but now I don’t want to have to pay for the car, because I wanted a Camry.” we would see him for the dumb jackass he is.
But for some reason, when a guy says “My wife and I were open to having kids. I told her I wanted kids. I wanted to provide the biological material for that kid, but she found someone else. I signed the birth certificate, but now I don’t want to take care of my kid.” we’re all like “Oh, well, maybe it’s not fair that he has to support that child.”
A person is not free from the debts their spouse incurs while they are married, even if the person in question didn’t have anything to do with incurring those debts. Why should a person be free of paying child support for a child brought into the marriage just because the person didn’t have anything to do with incurring that child?
To me, it seems like these men are pissed because, in their minds, they’re giving money to their wives and kids in order to purchase their wives’ sexual fidelity and the assurance that those kids share genetic material with him. So, on the one hand, they believe their wife and children to be their property.
On the other hand, if you ask why this kind of “property” should be treated differently than other kinds of property incurred during the marriage, they get to argue that it’s different because women and children aren’t property.
To me, though, what it looks like is that they want the ability to punish their wives for being unfaithful by cutting off funds to their kids.
So, color me not surprised that it’s Campfield who’s leading the charge to protect these jackasses.