THE FAIRER SEX

Short Stories on Male Privilege

No. 19

Cuckoo Capers

'The claim that only biological paternity

is real paternity is asserted rather than argued

in fathers' rights discourse.'

- Leslie Cannold

I

I work for my local health authority - I'm a clinical ethicist. This job is unusual, I know: few people know that clinical ethicists even exist, let alone what we do. Well, ethics is a branch of philosophy - it is concerned with the rightness and wrongness of human conduct; the rightness and wrongness of the motives for that conduct; and the rightness and wrongness of the consequences of that conduct. Or if you like, ethicists define 'doing the right thing'. In clinical settings we offer guidance to many different parties: patients, relatives, physicians, nurses and other staff. 

Sooner or later all clinical ethicists are caught up in a dilemma posed by DNA testing. Take organ transplants, for example. We had another case last week, this time a kidney transplant: genetic testing revealed that a putative father was, actually, bringing up another man's child. Obviously, this is a very delicate matter. What should we do? Well, let's start by examining the three choices open to us: inform the mother only; inform the mother as well as the father; inform neither the mother nor the father. We call this 'managing the information'.

Most ethicists agree that only the mother should be informed. This not only protects the mother's right to confidentiality, but also respects the husband's right to ignorance. A few ethicists prefer the third option: parents should be told nothing; lied to, even - that some mysterious gene mutation was found, for example. As I said, ethicists help others to 'do the right thing'. Morality is our touchstone - this can mean concealing the truth, or, on occasion, telling out-and-out lies. But hey, who said ethics was easy!

Men's rights groups believe paternity testing should be carried out on all neonates as a matter of routine. They use weasel words: 'trust but verify'. This is ridiculous; and last week I appeared on Talk Radio to refute it. 

The program went as follows.

*              *                *             *

'Now here's a question', said Mike Graham. 'Should all new-born babies be paternity tested? This, it is argued, would put a stop to paternity fraud. I have in the studio two parties. Sharkesha Vampfest styles herself in various ways - clinical ethicist, feminist clinical ethicist, clinical feminist ethicist and ethical feminist. Erm, ethical feminist? The mind boggles. And we have Gordan Pedersen, the well-known evolutionary psychologist. An interesting juxtaposition - philosopher and scientist. Will insubstantial philosophising get the better of empirically verifiable facts? We shall see. Gordan, why do you think that all neonates should be paternity tested by law?'

'Thank you for inviting me on the program', said Pedersen. 'Men invest hugely in their children. They invest financially; they invest emotionally; they invest psychologically. In this respect, however, humans are a biological anomaly. Paternal investment occurs in only five per cent of mammals, and among our closest relatives - the bonobos and the chimpanzees - there's none at all: offspring are raised entirely by females. As yet, we cannot explain how paternal investment arose in humans. One thing is clear, however: it could not have arisen, if men were unable to establish their fatherhood with reasonable confidence.' 

'Thank you, Gordan. Perhaps Sharkesha can come in here.'

'Thank you for inviting me', I said. 'I note that you allowed Gordan to go first, with a woman second. No change there, then, Mike. Gordan is a scientist; and science, as we know, is a patriarchal construct - designed by men, for men. As a feminist, I fight male privilege - and double standards are everywhere. I also object strongly to the phrase "paternity fraud", because fraud is such an ugly and misleading word. It's much more honest to speak of paternity uncertainty, discrepant paternity, paternity misattribution or paternity mismatch. The woman might, after all, just be mistaken.'

'Well of course', said Pedersen, 'the woman might not know for sure, but she sure as hell knows if another man might be the father. She then keeps shtum, while conning another man into providing for the child. Nowadays there's no need for any doubt - uncertainly can be cleared up easily enough. What's left is fraud.'

'As a feminist I'm used to men confusing the argument with facts and logic. What counts here are feelings. Imagine a man finds out after a few years that he's not the father. Does he just switch off his love? If so, he's despicable. Love isn't a light switch, you know! Men seeking paternity tests are obviously suffering from some kind of morality breakdown in which they distrust their wives. And what about all the men who cheat? Women have no test for that!'

'That's a piece of deflection', said Pedersen. 'If men cheat, it does not justify women cheating. More to the point, cheating men don't trick innocent women into eighteen years of fallacious motherhood.'

'What conceivable harm is done to a man? He need never find out.'

'A man duped into raising another man's child is abused. He is abused financially; he is abused emotionally; he is abused psychologically. Our nation's domestic abuse legislation has just been expanded to include financial, emotional and psychological abuse. Oddly, paternity fraud never comes under this description.'

'Oh, come on', I said, 'it's gone on throughout history - and humans managed just fine. As did men. Compulsory testing would be a human rights violation. People wouldn't be happy with that.'

'What you mean is, women wouldn't be happy with it. Men are jailed for not paying child support. Why are women never jailed for paternity fraud?'

'Gordan', said Mike Graham, 'perhaps we can come back to your intriguing point about humans as a biological anomaly. You said that scientists cannot explain how paternal investment arose in humans.'

'Well, we have an idea, but only at a generalised level. Imagine two kinds of males, those that didn't care if they were the father, but invested in paternity nevertheless; others that did care, but never invested in paternity. The first type would be outcompeted, and so expunged from the gene pool. This straightforward principal applies to all animals, of course. One of the methods males use to ensure their paternity is mate-guarding'.

'Yes', I said. 'Keeping women under lock and key. That is coercive behaviour - a form of domestic abuse. I repudiate the genetic argument - that is such a thin and distorted view of fatherhood. Men's rights groups overvalue genetic relationships. Why should men care if their own genes are in the child or not? There's so much more to fatherhood than genes. Overvaluing the genetic aspect is the reason, and the only reason, why men call it fraud. A man might be a father in the genetic sense, but that says nothing at all about his fathering abilities. And what about step fathers? Paternity testing should not be used in ways that will disintegrate families. It implies that a woman is a liar. It impugns her honesty. It is subjecting her to an indignity. It is heavy-handed and draconian. Furthermore - '

'I'd like to ask you a quick question, Sharkesha, if I may manterrupt', said Mike Graham. 'As a feminist, do you believe that women and men should have equal rights?'

'Well of course!'

'I see. It's just equal responsibility and equal accountability that you don't like.'

'No, that's not what I'm saying at all - '

'Sorry but we're out of time, thank you for coming on the program both of you.' 

'That remark is simply unacceptable; I won't come on the program again if y -'

'That was Sharkesha Vampfest, feminist ethicist, a job title I certainly wouldn’t like to get my tongue around after I've 'ad a few. Maybe I should ask a physicist aerodynamicist on the show. The croaky and oddly high-pitched male voice was Gordan Pedersen, evolutionary psychologist. I turn now to my weekly section on the Guardian, that noble champion of the downtrodden, which today carries an article headed, "Why can't we hate men?" Crafty. They always couch their bigotry as a question, don't they. They mean only white men, of course. Let me know what you think. And don't forget to tune in for "Plank of the Week" on Wednesday, where my guests will be Douglas Murray, the author of War on the West; and Dianne Abbot, the well-known intellectual heavy-weight. I'm Mike Graham, and this is Talk Radio.'

II

'Start from the beginning', said my lawyer.

'It started with a call - from an ex-girlfriend. She said, "Hi, it's Suzie. Guess what - I'm pregnant, and you're the father". She sounded happy and excited, and asked me if I was happy. But I was confused. We spoke for half an hour I guess, but I must've sounded distracted, as I was busily computing the dates in my head. We'd broken up months previously, and hadn't seen each other since then. But the dates did seem to check out.'

'So you accepted your paternity?'

'Well, what could I do? How on earth could I say, "I want a paternity test"? She would've gone ape shit.'

'Let's come back to that. Did anything raise your suspicions?'

'I asked around. I had to be careful, as I didn't want news of my investigations getting back to Suzie. I didn't find that much. In the maternity unit, however, Suzie and her mother seemed oddly insistent that the baby looked like me. They laid it on a bit. I noticed that. I thought they were over-egging the custard.'

'Your name is on the birth certificate?'

'Yes.'

'In that case nothing can be done. You are legally the father, and you're responsible for eighteen years of child support.'

'How can that be? Nowadays DNA testing can remove all doubt.'

'You will have to get the mother's permission.'

'How on earth can I do that? It'd be accusing her of deceit. Of fraud. We'll probably marry - she wants that, and so do I - if I'm the father, that is. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to be a father. It wouldn't be the way I wanted or imagined, but life's like that. It's just the doubt that bothers me. I might well be the father, for all I know. Asking for a test might scupper the whole relationship, perhaps needlessly!'

'The present situation in the UK is this. A putative father need not have the mother's permission, according to the Human Tissue Act, 2004. However, the Department of Health flatly refuses to endorse DNA testing without the mother's consent. Consequently, no state-run laboratory will carry out a DNA test for you without the mother's consent.'

'Aren't there any privately-run laboratories?'

'Indeed, yes. You might get a test there.'

'That's what I'll do, then.'

'That will change nothing, I'm afraid. Let's suppose that you successfully prove that you're not the father. Well, no governmental body will recognise the result - including the Child Maintenance Service. Hence, you must continue paying child support, whatever the test might say.'

'If I'm not the child's father then I'll just stop paying child support!'

'I wouldn't recommend that - it's a criminal offence. You might well end up in prison.'

'Even when I'm not the biological father?'

'Yes.'

Several seconds of silence ensued while we stared at each other.

'One flew over the cuckold's nest', I said.

He shrugged, and forced a smile.

'The Human Tissue Act gives me the right to a DNA test without the mother knowing anything about it.'

'Yes, it does. Provided, also, the child is below a certain level of competency, which clearly a baby is.'

'And yet governmental departments refuse to abide by this legislation?'

'Yes'

'How on earth do they get away with it?'

'Paternity tests without the mother's consent are considered to be "not in the best interests of the child". This is feminist-speak for "not in the best interests of the mother", and sometimes bureaucrat-speak for "not in the best interests of the state". I'm just guessing - this is strictly off the record: if you quote me, I'll deny I said any such thing. The man is forced to ask the mother for a paternity test, because, as you say, doing so may fatally damage the relationship, even though, as far as he knows, he may be the father nevertheless. I believe this policy is deliberately designed to make the man shut up. But, even if he asks, the mother can just say "no" anyway. What I suspect is this - powerful parties want women to continue controlling what they've always controlled. You see, throughout human history, women have had the freedom to pick two fathers, a biological one and a social one. The biological father may be of high status or genetically superior, but unavailable or unsuitable as a long-term mate. Alternatively, cupcake has some extra-curricular hanky-panky that goes wrong. Cupcake then dupes - forgive me, I mean picks - a social father, who then provides for her and the child; and who, ironically, may be the better provider. DNA testing threatens all of that. No-one knows the full extent of cuckoldry. But if men repudiate their children in large numbers, then - who will pay to raise these children? Many of the real fathers will refuse to provide tissue samples voluntarily. Should the state force them? That's a slippery slope, if ever there was one. No; the state would have to pay to raise the children instead. Better that the wrong man pays, than have the state pay. What I can tell you is this: of all the men who do get a paternity test, one third of them find out they're not the biological father. Now I wouldn't wish to extrapolate that to the general population, as in such cases there's already a suspicion. But in the USA, it's reckoned that a million men are unknowingly bringing up some other man's child.'

'What about suing the Department of Health or the Child Maintenance Service? This is a violation of my rights, after all.'

'Yes, it is a violation of your rights; and yes, legal action is possible. To get started, I'll need a retainer from you of £100,000. After that's gone, it'll start to get expensive.'

'Men have been wrongly convicted of rape - DNA testing has got them released'.

'Yes, I know. But you probably know the famous saying about the law and its asinine character. '

'When paternity fraud is discovered, are women ever prosecuted?'

'Not as far as I know. A handful of men have successfully sued, although of course that doesn’t mean they got any serious money back. I've never heard of the state prosecuting. Knowingly making a false statement on a public document is a criminal offence - and that includes birth certificates. And yet the state does nothing.'

'Well, I suppose "knowingly" is a get-of-of-jail-free card.'

'Yes, but the mother does know if there's another contender, and if she keeps quiet about it, then it's still fraud. All this aggravation would disappear overnight if every new-born was tested, but it's not going to happen. You might go to Jamaica - paternity testing is compulsory there. But don't go to France - all paternity testing is illegal, unless there's a valid medical reason.  There's a well-known scam in the US. The woman puts a man's name down as the father. That man is subpoenaed, because there's child support to pay. But he doesn't get the subpoena, because the woman gave the wrong address. As he didn't get the subpoena, he doesn't show up in court. As he didn't show up, the judge just signs the order to garnish his wages. The first thing he knows about it, is when he gets his wages, and finds that a big chunk is mysteriously missing. Sometimes the woman knows the man and sometimes she doesn't. They might just as well say that Elon Musk is the father. You'd think these men could get this stuff canned easily, and that the woman would end up in jail. But it doesn't work that way. Welcome to the gyno-judicial complex.'

III

A furious tumult arose in the hospital; and indeed, following extensive condemnation in the national media, across the entire country. Reporters lurked in the hospital's car park, talking to camera and pestering staff for interviews. Questions were asked in parliament. There were calls for legislative changes. There were calls for widespread sackings. There were calls for a Royal Commission. And everywhere you looked, self-righteousness was being given a bloody good airing. 

By law, the Board of Directors was required to document all failings (or rather 'performance issues') at the hospital; these were issued in an annual report, which was, unfortunately, public domain. This report contained the usual litany of statistics, for example, patients issued with incorrect medications; patients with post-operative implements left inside them; patients diagnosed incorrectly; patients with hospital-acquired infections; and patients discharged prematurely. Now, normally, this annual report incited little interest, since, when judged in national terms, the hospital's performance was, actually, quite satisfactory. But this year was different. This year, the hospital lay under a huge pall of shame. 

The Board of Directors convened a crisis meeting. 

'This is totally unacceptable', the Chief Executive Officer shouted, banging her fist on the table. She threw a copy of the Daily Mail down on the table, the headline of which pointed an accusing finger at all of them. 'This is inexcusable', she continued. 'One instance of this, is one instance too many. We must find out what happened, and ensure that it never, ever happens again.'

What the headline said was this:

'Hospital sends mother home with wrong baby'

Endnotes

·        Collins W. (2019), The empathy gap - male disadvantages and the mechanisms of their neglect, Chapter 15 'Paternity and Its Enemies', LPS Publishing.

·        Entrepreneurs in Cars, (1966) Paternity Fraud, The Truth - EVERY Man Must Watch This - YouTube

·        Geary D.C. (2010). Male, female - the evolution of human sex differences, American Psychological Association. [Contains extensive discussion about paternal investment in offspring from the vantage point of evolutionary psychology].

·        Justice for Men and Boys, (1966) 6 April 2016: Mike Buchanan and a female ethicist discuss mandatory paternity testing at birth - YouTube

·        Smith C. (2020). Trapped by law - stop paying child support for paternity fraud. Paternity Truth University Press.

·        ManWomanMyth Mirror, (1652) Family - Paternity Fraud (1 of 2) - YouTube

·        ManWomanMyth Mirror, (1658) Family - Paternity Fraud (2 of 2) - YouTube

·        Justice for Men and Boys, (1721) ICMI20: Carnell Smith - "Women’s Equality Denied by Supporting Paternity Fraud" - YouTube

·        Medical Ethics and Paternity Fraud | The Illustrated Empathy Gap

(c) Cufwulf Montagu

Cufwulf@aol.com