What you didn’t know didn’t hurt you
Prior to DNA testing there was no way of knowing for sure that you weren’t the biological father of your children.? DNA testing has opened up a whole can of worms that society has yet to learn how to deal with.?
The term paternity fraud is? incorrect since 9 times out of 10 the woman cannot know for sure that a child is not the supposed father.? This reflects the judgment made? in the Australian High Court when Meredith Magill made her successful appeal against the previous $70,000 litigation.? To assume that all cases of misappropriated fatherhood are fraud? and that the mother is at fault completely lets off the hook the male who is invariably involved in all these cases.?
Actual statistics of misappropriated paternity are hard to quantify.? The link at http://www.australianpaternityfraud.org/statistics.htm? might give some idea.? Basically for most of humankind men have been bringing up children for whom they are not the biological father.? They have not been experiencing any devastation or stress because they haven’t known.? What they didn’t know didn’t hurt them.? Now that we have DNA testing we suddenly have this male insistence that the only true father is a biological one.
The existence of DNA testing changes everything.
We have to approach child birth from a completely new angle.? Some ideas can be found here
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/The_Age_Secrets_Lies_26NOV05.htm
What all this should make clear is that the current child-support payment system, which assigns payment obligations on the basis of biological paternity, not parenting commitment, is tragically flawed. Regardless of whether the father suspected, knew or had no idea that the child he was parenting was genetically unrelated, and notwithstanding however culpable his female partner’s behaviour was in creating that situation, the law needs to recognise and affirm men’s value to children as parents – and people – not sperm donors. Playing the biological card not only undercuts research findings that affirm the importance to children of having an active male parent in their lives, but lends support to the insulting claim made by a sperm donor interviewed on Four Corners last month that he, not the man who invested 20 years of time and love, was his daughter’s “real” father.
After the Magill case, this is where the law is quite likely to go.
And this too:
Of course, rejecting mandatory paternity testing at birth does not mean that men should not be assisted to accept the obligations of fatherhood in a more informed way. Upon the birth of a child, men ought to be given the opportunity to give one-time-only non-rescindable consent to their acceptance of the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. If they feel unable to sign on the dotted line without conclusive proof that they are the biological progenitor, they should be offered a DNA test free of charge.
However, once a man does formally accept social and legal responsibility for a child – either with knowledge of their genetic paternity or in the face of a fully informed waiver of that knowledge – their status as the child’s legal father should rightly be set in stone. No DNA skeletons rattling out of the cupboards at a later date should affect what they legally owe their child or, hopefully, how they feel about the kid who calls him dad.
This site is supposed to be supportive of the need for? children to have a father? present in their lives.? I would expect nothing less than a positive response to these ideas from fellow posters.
?
?
Commentary: Leslie Cannold &
“Paternity denied: the other side of the story”
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 24th July 2006 @ 6:05 pm
Yes, there are always two equally valid sides to every argument and they are put forward very well on that link.
When changing the status quo one has to be careful that you are moving forward and not backward. DNA testing is a new phenonemon which requires new thinking. Prior to it biological paternity was less of an issue. In the past, social obligations surrounding the nuclear family ensured that fathers did their job as fathers regardless of any suspicions involving paternity.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 24th July 2006 @ 7:14 pm
New Zeal,
Is that for real? Where did you get those statistics from?
I can tell you that women would flock to the men’s side over that.
Comment by julie — Mon 24th July 2006 @ 8:00 pm
Julie, Check out the critique of zeals repost on the link provided earlier.It critiques all of Cannolds article.
The myth of comment 2 is also exposed on the site on the link in comment 1
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 24th July 2006 @ 8:11 pm
Julie,
I think that the difficulty in quantifying the incidence of misattributed paternity is a fair indication of the uncertainty of knowing who the father is. In Meredith Magill’s case she was unsure. With neither of the two youngest children did she know for certain that Liam was not the father. I am guessing when I say that 9 times out of 10 there is an element of doubt that only a DNA test can determine, and that guess reflects the accuracy of all statistics in this area and the High Court judgment made in favour of Meredith. The only way that a woman can be 100% certain is if she did not have sex with the supposed father during the conception period and/or the physical features of the child bear strong resemblance to a one time lover. Meredith was in her early twenties at the time of her pregnancies and in full flight of sexual activity.
Until DNA testing came on the scene women could ensure their own protection and the protection of their children through indefinite paternity. Now that DNA testing is so fashionable they no longer have that protection and they have to be a lot more careful. How men and women plan/don’t plan their sex lives has to be a whole lot different. Also, now, if a woman has suspicions about the paternity of a child she has to act immediately. This and many other things are bourne out by the link provided by scrap, which is well worth the read.
Thank-you, Scrap.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 24th July 2006 @ 9:58 pm
Scrap,
Thank-you but that is too much of a fuss to figure out. I cannot find facts to back up 90% of fraudelent births from this.
If this was the case then I would tell everyone to run to Religion. I know that sounds silly but I would absolutely freak out.
I would never doubt what Mark says so I would not doubt what you say. Can you give a better explanation to this?
This just seems above my head.
Comment by julie — Mon 24th July 2006 @ 10:07 pm
New Zeal,
You are very naughty for this remark.
Women are known to be on heat in their 30’s. But never quote such a thing for we are so unpredictable.
Comment by julie — Mon 24th July 2006 @ 10:15 pm
Julie,
try reading this:
http://www.cannold.com/articles/2005-11-27-a/
It cites actual research that has been done and quotes actual women’s experiences including the woman who mistakenly thought an Ozzy MP was the father of her son only to find out he wasn’t, all in the glare of the public media. Then there was Liz Hurley and her very public uncertainty over the father of her child. Tell me that 9 out of 10 isn’t a good guess!! I don’t really care what the real ratio might be, but actual paternity fraud where the mother knows for certain is probably less frequent than it is made out.
Yes, women and men are both unpredictable, and life would be pretty boring otherwise!!
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 24th July 2006 @ 10:59 pm
What a bizarre thing to say.
I would certainly hope a child isn’t a father.
And if your saying 90% of the time women don’t know who the father is I’d say that’s a statistical fantasy with no basis in actual research.
If it were a realistic percentage as it appears you suggest in your last post, then holy shit that’s a lot of sluts having unprotected sex.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 4:56 am
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn’t say 90%, I said 9 times out of 10 which is an off hand remark not meant to be statistically binding. I am referring to cases of misattributed paternity, which, depending on who you listen to varies from 1% to 30% of the population. I am suggesting that most of these cases, the woman does not know for sure who the father is, sufficient for it to be identified as fraud. In the Magill case, which is not a fantasy, the judge ruled that indeed Meredith did not know for sure therefore it could not be considered fraud.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 7:59 am
To rephrase, Stephen, claiming paternity fraud in all cases where there is misattributed paternity, is misleading if not totally incorrect. I am suggesting here that paternity fraud only applies in a small percentage of cases where it is claimed. I live in a country where you are innocent until provem guilty so I would find misattributed paternity a better definition. Besides it better reflects the unpredictable nature of both men and women! To think that every time a married woman goes out and has an affair with unprotected sex is potentially committing paternity fraud is laughable unless the men who are partially responsible for the ‘fraud’ aren’t brought into account too. Or is the woman only to blame because she is in control of contraception?
Having said that, I think we are moving into an era in which if women are not sure that the child they bear is the biological offspring of the partner they live with and call spouse, then they need to make sure either way with a DNA test, and present him with the facts. This can be done during pregnancy, giving the couple sufficient time to separate, set up different houses etc. (or have an abortion) if the child is not his.
From the time that this practice becomes commonplace, THEN we can talk about paternity fraud as a definite occurrence. Until then it is too complex a matter to jump to such conclusions.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 8:22 am
Julie,
I will contact you offline.
Zeal is being very dishonest in this discussion.
1) He presents a myth as fact. (There is no basis for this claim)
2)
He is not guessing he is reposting a myth from fem blog sites
3)
Ask Gordon Dowler (See the massive press on this last year including doco showing mutiple cases of paternity fraud)
This is more dishonesty,
Liam is a paternity fraud victim.
Paternity Fraud is not a new problem it streches back centuries in english law.
Blood testing has been used extensively for proving/disproving paternity.DNA is just more reliable science.
Once agin go to comment 1 and browse the links.It clears up the mist that the Zealots are trying to create.
Now there is a solution to the problem, but that solution strengthens the importance of what the Zealots call the biological father over the socially constructed father. Apart from this it requires making women accountable and responsible for their actions.
Zealots ( a fervent and even militant proponent of something) are ideologically driven by a post modern view of the world where truth is irrealevant and responsibility and accounability go out the window.
Your agenda is clear, your dishonesty blatant.You are a zealot for your anti dad and anti child agenda.
You support the abuse of children by a mother who lies about paternity and try to whitewash it as being in the best interest of children to let this abuse continue.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 9:55 am
Stephen,
Your comment that Zeal’s statistics suggest that there’s a lot of “sluts having unprotected sex” is troubling. Women and men both cheat on their partners – yet men are more likely to get away with it because they can’t become pregnant – there are less tangible consequences. (I would also point out that those so-called ‘sluts’ might have used protection and been unlucky). Men who cheat on their partners or cheater with a married women are not scorned yet the women are. You’re implicitly holding women to a higher sexual standard than men and I think it’s sexist.
Getting back on track to Kent’s point -which is the more interesting debate in my opinion – how do we define fatherhood? On one hand, men shouldn’t have to financially support children who are not their children. On the other, if those men have already acted like father figures do they really want to just drop out of the child’s life just like that? Surely they must have attachments to the children just as the children will be attached to them. I’m not just talking about the issue of child support – I’m talking about fatherhoood. If a man sues his ex-partner for paternity fraud, what message does that send to the children who consider him their Dad?
Comment by toni — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 10:22 am
Also, I think it’s important to differentiate between accidental misattribution of paternity and fraud. It might be reassuring to think all women are intentionally deceptive but it’s not the only answer to the discovery that one is not the biological parent of one’s child. If a couple were both playing the field before discovering the woman was pregnant, the child was born in a time when biological testing was either physically or financially inaccessible and given the pattern of sexual activity it was most likely that the child was the woman’s husband’s, how can this be considered fraud? Again – do people on this thread think the woman should be more accountable than the man who may also have been playing the field?
The black and white ‘you’re the biological father or it’s paternity fraud’ is similar to the ‘the court found him guilty, it’s rape or the court found him innocent, she’s a liar’ dichotomy. It’s how we run our courts and its the best system we’ve got at this point but such judgements don’t adequately reflect the complexity of real life or real relationships.
Comment by toni — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 10:32 am
Good points, Toni,
Whether or not the situation is the result of misattributed paternity is irrelevant to the fact that the two non-biological children will have formed a relationship with the person they call father. That relationship is not the sole ownership of the father. The children have a say in it too and they have a right to have the relationship continue.
By supporting Liam’s lawsuit you are to a certain extent supporting two more children in our society becoming ‘fatherless’, one of them being a male. How is Liam’s actual biological son going to feel about his father treating his blood brother and sister in this manner? These are real human being’s lives, not just principles of biological fatherhood.
But hey, if it makes you feel good, stick to your principles and ignore people’s lives.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 11:31 am
Toni,
you can shout sexist all you like bro’. LOL!.
In my book a woman who gets herself pregnant by either not using contraceptives herself or making sure the bloke she’s shagging with does, then can’t be sure who amongst multiple partners is the actual father of the child she carries is a slut.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 12:13 pm
I’m with you Stephen, I know of women who have narrowed down the possible father of their child to half a dozen!! Isn’t it bad enough that the women was having an affair let alone not taking precautions to stop herself from getting pregnant. On the other hand if the male is having an affair and the woman gets pregnant then he would be liable for child-support. No win situation for the male.
Comment by Chrissy — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 1:03 pm
Is a man who gets the woman (or women) he is cheating on his wife with pregnant by not using a condom or making sure she is using contraceptives (a scenario as common as that of the woman cheating) also a slut then? What about the man who fathered the child with a woman who he knew was married/in a relationship? Is he a slut?
In this discussion thread, no one is too concerned with judging the sexual behaviour of the third man in the ‘paternity fraud triangle’ – just that of the woman because she’s holding the evidence of her misconduct (the baby). I call it a double standard.
Women don’t ‘get themselves’ pregnant – it takes two to make a baby. That Zeal’s point – the notion of paternity fraud implies that the control of conception and contraception is entirely the woman’s responsibility. And that the failure to adequately control conception or contraception is automatically deliberate ‘fraud’.
I am not denying or diminishing the pain caused to men by misattributed paternity. But there are a number of situations where this could happen that do not involve deliberate fraud but instead, a genuine belief the baby is the husband’s, a genuine desire (on the part of both parties) to make a failing relationship work after cheating, the failure of contraception and so on… This is not to condone cheating but how can we legislate relationships and human interactions in such a cut-and-dried manner?
Comment by toni — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 1:22 pm
Stephen, many cases of misattributed pregnancy are the result of rape. Rape is not something that a female can do to a male. Historically it has been hard enough for women to speak out about rape let alone tell a partner that it has happened and during the time in which they conceived a child. But maybe now, with all this focus on paternity and with the openness about rape, then they will speak out and maybe society will allow them to get an abortion with dignity.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 1:28 pm
I just want to throw in my story. I can remember the 2 nights my 2 children were conceived. I remember so many details of those nights, what was said, the places and much more. It is normal for women to have such good memories for they remember all the things you have done wrong when it comes to court don’t they?
Also a woman would want to know who the father is not just for pinning child support on him but also for medical reasons down the track. It doesn’t make sense for 9 out of 10 women to not know the father of her children. I have known of adults that track down thier fathers because their mothers finally told them who the biological father is.
Comment by julie — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Julie,
I am scrambling here to correct a misunderstanding that has come about as a result of what I said. I am not trying to say that 9 out of 10 of ALL pregnancies have uncertain paternity. I am saying that 9 out of 10 of the cases of so called paternity fraud have uncertain paternity. if someone is sleeping with two men around about the time of conception they cannot know for sure who the father is unless they have a DNA test. I am not advocating that women should sleep round, but the reality is that it does happen. The rate of paternity fraud/misattributed paternity is anywhere between 1% and 10% of the population depending on which expert you refer to.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 4:43 pm
New Zeal,
Oh, I see and understand now. Phew, for that.
Comment by julie — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Bollocks!
You cant give a figure as all the experts disagree.What is being measured is the issue as well as the sample population. Be honest Zeal. The best hope is a range and this range is but one of many possible ranges.Its not gospel like you espouse.
Some “experts” put the range between 10% and 30%. The point is you claim validity for this 1-10 range when you know full well its a crock.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 25th July 2006 @ 6:24 pm
Dear Toni,
You seem to appear on Menz when Zeal gets into trouble on one of his zealot rants. Are you his sidekick or something? You never question him, and only come to question anyone who question’s him. Please if you have any issues you disagree with him on, let us know so that we may not see you made of the same cloth in action over any possible differences you may have.
Comment by Intrepid — Wed 26th July 2006 @ 10:38 am
As women have the ultimate, in fact UNILATERAL veto power over conception – ABORTION I still stick with what I said
above.
When women give birth without taking enough care to see to it that they or thier male sex partners are using contraceptives and then subsequently don’t even know who the father is, in my assessment they’re sluts.
toni –
Of course men who sleep around without care about contraception are sluts too.
You could have simply asked me if I agreed with that notion toni.
But you chose to try smearing me as sexist. So I’m left wondering about you.
In my book with power should go responsibility to wield it justly.
Because of the way the law is framed women are the ultimate gatekeepers of conception.
To me that means because they have in a sense ALL the power, and subsequently they should excercise ALL the responsibility (to make sure they themselves or thier male sex partners are using contraceptives if either party doesn’t want a child right then).
That was part of women’s make up which appears to have been weakened by the availability of on demand abortion.
It’s fascinating to see the squirming going on now that power in some reporoductive is shifting to men with DNA testing and the male pill.
Anyone want to bet the fems will drag thier heels resisting men being as empowered as thier sistas by having these technologies?
Comment by Stephen — Wed 26th July 2006 @ 12:22 pm
Stephen, I think the female pill was the reason that it all went wrong. Prior to this women knew that if they had sex they would likely get pregnant so it was up to them to hold out until they got married. with the pill and the promotion of free love etc women no longer had that good excuse not to have sex prior to marriage. since then, all the propaganda has been to have sex as often, with as many partners as possible. It changed society a lot. when I was a teenager my father tried to ban ‘Comopolitan’ magazine from the house on the grounds that it was morally wrong. He lost, but now I am older I see that we were conditioned to think that it was ok to have sex with anyone and technique rather than morals was the burning question. So we now have a society where marriage is out of favour and the traditional family setting has been eroded to a rarity. Girls are under pressure to have sex and running out of reasons to refuse. If they don’t they are frigid and if they do they are sluts. My father always said the family was the most secure and solid force you could be in. It was there to protect you and you should be able to trust each other totally. Even though my own marriage was a total disaster I still like the idea of 2 parents and a bunch of children standing as a united force against the evils of society.
There is no trust nor honesty left.
I realise that you will forever brand me as a unilateral abortion decider however you have never asked me for all the details so I try not to take offence at the accusation.Feel free to email me if you want to discuss it further.
So if I can attempt to bring all this back to the topic, I think no matter what contraception etc is available the problem is greater than that. Where is the relationship building? where is the blending of 2 individuals into a ‘couple’ or a family. I realise that I have a ‘Disney’ expectation of families but shouldn’t it be more than 2 strangers wanting to have sex but neither wanting to have any responsibility?
Comment by Chrissy — Wed 26th July 2006 @ 3:01 pm
I think, Chrissy, that we have to live with the reality that that is no longer going to happen. My view is that we need to focus on parent-child relationships and use the parent knowledge and experience as a shield for the child against “the evils of the world”.
Parenting is quite different to what it used to be. I think that parents now take a greater interest in the well-being of their children, since they have less of them and they tend to invest more time and money into them.
Whereas the nuclear family was a social institution with certain social expectations that gave it strength (regardless of the reality), the parent-child relationship is more personal and idiosyncratic and its strength is more dependent on the strength of the individuals. Where individuals are weak, then the state can provide, financially in the form of benefits, and emotionally in the form of counsellors.
There are lots of factors involved in the break down of the family. The family is victim of human success. Reduced mortality and over population mean that we now have about 2 children per couple, compared to 10 or more 100 years ago. Women, no longer occupied full time rearing children 50% of whom die before adulthood, are freed up to work. Women and men working alongside each other means that women get to have economic independence, job opportunities that separate them from their spouses and get to meet a whole lot more men.
You seem to have a good relationship with your father, well at least use some of his life as a model for your own. That, I believe is where the strength comes from: the people we use as role models. The fact that your marriage broke up meant that you, emotionally, had to go through something your father never did. In that respect you probably were forced to make some changes that your father never had to.
Comment by New Zeal — Wed 26th July 2006 @ 3:26 pm
Dear Chrissy,
Do not dispair. Soon the male pill will arrive and many of these problems will calm down greatly. The new problem will be women demanding men stop taking the pill (with some court case no doubt), and women will get a sperm donor, or have a fling, and then demand the husband take care of the bastard (with the state and Zealot probably coming down on the women’s side for it will need the money and effeminate votes).
They will make it a law that a man can’t demand a DNA of the kid, and after he takes care of it for any amount of time (while awaiting the court proceedings Zealot’s law will come into play thus saying he has treated the child as his own and so is the adopted father already).
If he moves out awaiting the decision of the DNA result, he will be labelled brute uncaring by the like of Zealots PC crew.
Then the agenda will be laid bare for all to see. Some of us who are radicals now we be moderates then. And you best hope we can keep the combustable angry men from a nasty revolution or joining the Moslems in droves.
Comment by Intrepid — Wed 26th July 2006 @ 3:32 pm
I don’t know if you have noticed but there seems to be a media push at the moment saying that women are waiting too late to get pregnant and shouldn’t leave it till their 30s or it may be too late. Personally I think this is crap and when I started seeing it everywhere I wondered where it was coming from and whether some social engineering was going on.
YOu may need to get that male pill pushed through asap
Comment by Chrissy — Wed 26th July 2006 @ 11:51 pm
Your right Chrissy it is the establishment’s push. The Christians & other religious people will have the last laugh for they are the ones having more kids.
If you add social enginnering costs + corruption + Babby Boomers retiring (with little savings) + women who want to have it all = Males and Christians are going to have to do a lot of turning of the other cheek.
That’s why I left long ago( to fight another day). I’m very libertarian and I could never understand why I must fund art that does evil things to Chritian symbols(while at the same time pussy-foots around Moslem ones).
All this replacing of morality, that has stood the test of time, for one generation’s deconstructionist attempt at attacking daddy through politics reached my limit long ago. I “headed West young man” and hit East.
Comment by Intrepid — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 12:27 am
Chrissy,
I think where this is coming from is that both men and women are realising that they don’t need to wait until they are 39 to have a child. Workplace practices (maternity leave, holding a job for 12 months) means that women can have the choice of career AND children. Previously people, like Helen Clark had to sacrifice children for the sake of career.
There are benefits to having children in your 20s: you have more energy and your are more likely to enjoy grandchildren. The downsides include not having as much money, being less mature and being extra busy.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 7:54 am
Intrepid,
Although I agree with most of what you say I am going to take exception to “women who want it all” and suggest that this was also a piece of social engineering. There are plenty of women who think that staying at home, raising the children and providing a pleasant home for the family is more than enough. Perhaps a parttime job when the kids are at school to help provide some luxuries. However, women are now run down by both sexes if they now do this. they have to hold down a full time job or preferably a career and have children. Something had to give and it was the “family” environment. When I was pregnant and before my husband left I thought I would take at least a years maternity leave and in that time I would have done all the cleaning/cooking and looking after the child. It seemed fair if husband was going to work and I wasn’t contributing to the family income that I would participate in other ways. As it turned out, I ended up a solo mother with a fulltime job ie I had it all. It wasn’t much fun. You talk about men being ‘sperm donors’ well I felt like an incubator. Produce the child then pay someone else to raise it. What was the point? I was stressed out at work, guilty for leaving my little one at a creche with strangers all day, then exhausted when I got home. I used to let her stay up late because otherwise I would have only seen her for a couple of hours a day. I was lucky in that I did take the years maternity leave so had that time with her when she was a baby and for her second year my best friend looked after her. My daughter refers to her as her 2nd mum. Eventually I burnt out, took redundancy from work and decided to go on the DPB and study. My daughter is now 6. I get to drop her off and pick her up from school. I can take her to afterschool activities and I can be involved in school activities. In 18months I will have my degree and get another fulltime job. My child will go to afterschool care. But at least I have had those early years with her
Comment by Chrissy — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 11:52 am
Dear Chrissy,
You are right that slogan did come from the establishment (as long as you see feminists being part of this establishment, which I think you do).
You shouldn’t see me as an old fashion bloke. I can deal with the old fashion women, the new fashion women (who quietly pulls her weight) and even a mix of the old and new(clearly discussed).
My enemy, a word the women don’t like to use, is the Susie Homemaker or feminist who switches between the old and the new depending on her feelings for the day, hour and minute. A family then becomes led by the tyrannical emotional soul of the wife (or effeminate husband if the trait flips over) and I’d rather die alone than live a life under such a despotic leadership.
Luckly I’m happily married again for over 10 years and we have a pretty good balnce(knock on wood). My wife wanted to be a business women, and I said go ahead, for you won’t like it later. I wanted to be small business man who works at home and can be “king of the castle.” I’m the last to drop off my son off at school and the first one to pick him up. I’m the only father at the playground every sunny day framing his character teaching him to be both deciplined and imaginative, while most of the mothers honestly talk too much .
My wife has changed her view, like you did about work, but I haven’t changed mine. I don’t follow fashion and you should continue to follow your father’s lead along with the tradtions that you have in your church(for it is much better than any fashionable Soap opera or talk show ideas that are about).
As for the church I would suggest you read the “Church Impotent” by a US writer. I’m not a church goer, but respect cornerstone traditions so much that I don’t like to replace them unless a new idea has been tested over several generations. The 60s generation is still with us and has brought on this rot, and is a case study in how not to let one generation play at social enginnering.
Hope to talk serious with you some more. Have a nice day.
Comment by Intrepid — Thu 27th July 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Stephen, I’m sorry if you thought I was singling you out as sexist. I did not mean to mean malign your character. I was responding to the thread in general – that instead of focusing on how we define fatherhood in light of the issues resulting from miattributed paternity fraud, people were focusing on judging the woman (I was reading the thread feeling uneasy and when i saw the word ‘slut’ in your post that clarified it – so I guess that’s why I responded to your post specificially). I think I made that clearer in my second post when I actually meantioned the thread. It’s also worth pointing out that what I meant (and I didn’t make this clear) was that that kind of double standard (which Chrissy has alluded to the – the slut/good girl dichotomy) is endemic in our society. So while it’s ‘sexist’ – I didn’t think YOU (or anyone else on the thread) were consciously being sexist but reflecting a pretty common cultural belief.
Toni
Comment by toni — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 10:51 am
Intrepid,
I’m not Zeal’s sidekick sorry. But we do seem to hold similar views. I also disagree with him sometimes but mostly on nuances of interpretation. E.g. I defintely don’t agree with the idea of ‘what you don’t know doesn’t hurt you’ but haven’t posted these objections because they tend to be minor matters of interpretation rather than outright disagreement.
Comment by toni — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 10:56 am
Zeal.. nice comments in 27..
don’t you think in this day and age we need good role models to bolster/ support/ learn from so parent experience would then be best to if not protect the at least make the child aware of outside evils?
at the mo.. all i can see is the glamour of TV soaps like shortland st etc reflected in majority lifestyles and a lack of values …
Comment by starr — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 5:10 pm
Yea, Starr, I think role models are more important than laws and institutions. Although we can easily point out all the things wrong with our society, like overconsumerism, junk food, apparently loose morals etc etc, the reality is that our behaviour is guided not by those things, but by the often very tight morality defined by people who are significant to us, such as our parents or close friends. The role model influence of a real live warm living being is far more powerful than anything else. TV and what have you are reflections of society, and if you study soap characters closely you will see that most of them have high levels of ‘morality’ and the range of morals is a good reflection of society.
Comment by New Zeal — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 5:46 pm
Zeal
“is that our behaviour is guided not by those things, but by the often very tight morality defined by people who are significant to us, such as our parents”.
Totally disagree with this comment.. why.. look at history.. morality has eroded over time.. our parents, forefathers etc had a higher and stronger sense of morality than we do now in this day and age.. why the loss?,.. and from where..
secondly
“if you study soap characters closely you will see that most of them have high levels of ‘morality’ and the range of morals is a good reflection of society”
If you mean characters as in actors in their private personal life.. then given.. else if you mean characters in their roles.. well next time view some of these soaps continually for a couple of months.. and then compare with the standard of morality our precedents were with.. and then tell me that a high level of morality still exists..
These days every soap opera is mistaken as real life by the young generation. youngsters are mimicking the “character” rather than the person.
Comment by starr — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 7:36 pm
You have a very rose-tinted view of history, Starr.
Comment by New Zeal — Fri 28th July 2006 @ 8:26 pm
toni,
Bright feminist idea number 16722 – let’s label brothers who call **ckaround/I’ve no idea who the father of my pregnancy is – women ‘sluts’.
We can call holders of such an opinion sexist.
We could add that these morons from another age are perpetuating the ‘madonna/whore’ complex.
Meanwhile we can ignore that in doing so we just might be perpetuating a bastard/hero complex.
LOL!
Have a good day bro.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 12:29 am
Stephen,
Not long ago your posts were quite intelligible, but you have got me entirely confused with your last post (number 40).
It makes no sense. Is it written in Korean?
Comment by New Zeal — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 9:16 am
Kent,
I see you haven’t understood.
I’ve read my previous post again.
It makes perfect sense to me.
It doesn’t use hangeul lettering but the English alphabet script so no, it can’t be Korean scriptologically. It may be pertinent to Korea culturally though.
I’d explain it’s content for you, only from what you’ve blogged to date I doubt you would relate to and appreciate it.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 29th July 2006 @ 11:58 pm
Stephen,
I am confused. I have always referred to the woman that slept with my husband (and hers) the ‘old slut’.None of my girlfriends has ever told me off about this and refer to her the same way. Are we sexist or feminist or just calling it like it is?
Comment by Chrissy — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 12:33 am
Chrissy, re-
I’m not sure. I’m confused too. I’m not sure if your referring to a consenting threesome, or infedelity, or something else again.
I’m not really interested in finding out either.
Also I can’t see how the question is pertinent and relates to a case of paternity fraud or paternity confusion which is what appears to be the topic of discussion here.
Comment by Stephen — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 1:22 pm
Hi Zeal.. comment 39
if you mean you were unable to handle the heavy handed discipline Our fathers and theirs used to keep us in line and taught us responsibility and respect which I assume you probably had a hard time adopting to….then yes I am looking at it through rose tinted glasses.
Also is it any different from what military does today?.. I have watched these guys in action.. if their sergeant commands them to fall face first in mud.. they don’t ask why.. they do it. Because they know in the end.. everything has to coordinate for a successful outcome.
I came out the better for it and I am glad of what I received because it has given me the understanding I have today about what it means to look at the big picture.. to think outside the square. I understood what discipline meant.. unlike kids today.. numbers are increasing on the streets with no concept of life nor do they have any drive to achieve…. in case you have not noticed?..
Comment by starr — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 8:55 pm
No, Starr
I meant this:
You have no support for this notion that our forefathers had a stronger sense of morality. Morality is just different, probably not better nor worse. Our forefathers created Nazism, supported slavery, drove Indians off their land, treated foreign races as underclasses, put women in chastity belts etc etc.
You don’t need to be in the army to learn discipline. My eldest child is one of the most focused self-disciplined people I know and so are most of her friends. With every young generation there are those who lament the lack of direction that youth have. One of the features of youth is a general aimlessness as they reorientate themselves to a world that is usualy quite different to what they expected and to the world that their parents knew. I was aimless and lacking in drive on and off for many years. There were plenty of youth around me who took too many drugs, dropped out, took part in street riots (remember Auckland, was it 1987, after the DD-Smash concert?) So yeah I have noticed, every year since I was old enough to be on the streets: kids become aimless, get swept up by born again christians, scientology, drugs, sex, rock ‘n roll. Hey, that’s youth culture!
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 9:56 pm
Yes Star,
You are totally right. My ancestors killed Nazis( I’ve beaten up a few too), never had slaves, never drove aboriginals off their land, never treated foreign races any different than our own(as far as I know in my family), yet Zealot tries to force us defend his or others for he seems to think his must have done these things. He believes in group punishment, and therefore feels men must suffer for our male bad apples too. We on the other hand aren’t allowed to get angry at real female villians, for we must be above it all somehow??
I once saw this as some poor vet was called a Nazis as he was entering a the Socical Credit party meeting in British Columbia, and thus was a Nazis to Zealots in BC. This poor man had fought the Nazis and lost most of his friends but had to put up with a Zealots calling him a Nazis( something that would cause me dishonor to the end of my days, even if later withdrawn).
Kent with Zeal you have once again gone back to a postion that you said you no longer adhere to.
This is what I objected to on your site and once again you have reaffirmed this deconstruction BS. Yes. I do have a chip on my shoulder for such illogical dribble. Once again to say your old line of
once again is to ignore the fact once again that you are saying something that begs us to ask whether your ideas are
and hence you mean to say nothing of importance and all your postions are therefore meaningless.
If your ideas are not better or worse than anyone one elses why say anything at all! Why debate and go back on your word again and again weekly at all, since all morals are equal.
I may have a chip on my shoulder but you seem to have nothing between yours. The only thing meaningless is an apology or withdrawn comments that come up again shortly after you said you retract them. You are a dangerous girl man in that you say others’ ideas have no meaning as you push your own as truth. Leaps of thought like this are for those who want to be cult leaders. This is what your mythical New Age stuff leads to. I can see why sciectology is not to your liking, for they are competeing for converts. Effeminates make up such flocks
.
Comment by Intrepid — Mon 31st July 2006 @ 11:58 pm
zEAL
“Morality is just different, probably not better nor worse.
its either better or worse… it cannot be both.. it appears most of the time you contradict your own self. in other words don’t know what you yourself are on about.
2. “supported slavery, drove Indians off their land, treated foreign races as underclasses”
so is what the FC today doing any different?- you seem to advocate for this org. very highly.
3. “I was aimless and lacking in drive on and off for many years. – why is this so?… i know why but i’d like to hear from you.
4. “I have noticed, every year since I was old enough to be on the streets: kids become aimless, get swept up by born again christians, scientology, drugs, sex, rock ‘n roll. Hey, that’s youth culture! ”
and thats your excuse… thats its okay for the younger generation to be swept in such aimlessness… won’t these have consequences.. consequences you as a parent neglected to make them aware of?… consequences they will later regret in life because you did not direct them as you should have?…
5. “You don’t need to be in the army to learn discipline.” you are right. yopu donb’t. but where do your kids go to learn them if you do not teach them? are they even aware of basic rights and wrongs?
now this is not getting personal but think about everything here in a larger scale… think of your self as a parent of every child in the street and then try to answer…
Comment by starr — Tue 1st August 2006 @ 5:17 pm
I am not going to argue with either of you over these subjects. When it comes to parenting there are an infinite number of ways of bringing up a child. You can discipline a child merely by acting as a well-disciplined role model, or you may constantly intervene in their life and tell them what to do.
I have studied adolescence, and understand that it is a time of reorientation. That is my understanding of it. You are welcome to yours.
There is no way we can know for sure whether or not society was more moral in the past than it is now. All we can do is have our own opinions and exchange them.
Comment by New Zeal — Wed 2nd August 2006 @ 8:14 am
zEAL
“There is no way we can know for sure whether or not society was more moral in the past than it is now. All we can do is have our own opinions and exchange them.”
Being an ostrich and burying your head will not make reality go away…
Comment by starr — Wed 2nd August 2006 @ 8:28 pm
Starr,
Much that I respect your point of view, the subject of this thread was paternity and how before DNA testing, men didn’t know for sure about the paternity of the children in their care.
This morality issue is entirely another subject all together and belongs to the deepest annals of philosophy, an area I have no wish to get into.
Comment by New Zeal — Thu 3rd August 2006 @ 8:53 am
Zeal..Comment 51..
This is where you are wrong.. and maybe deliberately muddying the waters..
A loss in morality leads to such actions does it not?. If you are a moral person.. you know that dalliances outside the marriage is wrong. So tell how can they be two different issues when they are related in such a strong manner?.
Comment by starr — Thu 3rd August 2006 @ 7:25 pm