House of Eratosthenes

I never thought I’d see a feminist come out and admit that’s what it’s all about. The context is a column by one Melanie McDonaugh lamenting how economical and workable the DNA test has become; pining for the good old days when a lady whose discretion lost out to her lust, simply rounded up all the candidates who knew they could be guilty, and picked the wealthiest. Or least recalcitrant.

A feminist is calling for a draw-down in technology because, darn it, this is the way The Good Lord built us. Mothers are supposed to know and Daddies are not. Science shouldn’t go messing with this!

At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves.

What is surreal about this article is that there are only two words I can find in the entire thing, that even attempt to express concern for the welfare of the child. Usually when someone is anti-paternity-test, that’s the deciding factor, the child; and, in those cases, the child has typically progressed somewhat out of the womb and developed some kind of relationship with the “father.” There is little reason to believe McDonaugh is arguing out of this concern, especially when she comes out and admits it’s all about power, power, power.

Refreshing candor.

It all goes to show, once again, that feminism does indeed labor to cure our ancient inequities in the balance of power between men and women — but only those inequities that are pointed in one particular direction. True “equality” is not, and never has been, the agenda. As Glenn Reynolds notices, “How very . . . retro of them.”

It’s been about nothing but power for at least twenty years. I base this on the date of an article we all had to read in our first TA gig in a respected liberal arts program (i.e. not some bullshit like “peace studies”) at a large university. It was from the mid-80s and was written by bell hooks [sic], the doyenne of angry black radical feminism. It was about sexual harassment, and improper relationships between students, TAs, and professors. It was written in the mid-to-late 80s.

The upshot, insofar as it could be discerned amid the marxoblather, was that teacher-student relationships are perfectly fine so long as the female in the relationship felt empowered. The minute that ceased to obtain, it was rape.

I’m not kidding.

To be fair, not all the TAs-in-training, or even all the professors, agreed with this. But the fact that this has been in the academic bloodstream since at least the late 80s tells us quite a bit, no?
- Severian | 11/02/2010 @ 07:52
(a) The link points back here (peekinthewell.etcetc)

(b) Nonetheless I’m sure you’ve accurately characterized the author’s “argument,” and the most cogent point you make is “What is surreal about this article is that there are only two words I can find in the entire thing, that even attempt to express concern for the welfare of the child. ” Exactlymundo.

The whole point of Motherhood has been conveniently elided into Being A Mom – which term could be profitably expunged from the language now and forever, imo. It’s gone from “I have x children who I love” to “I’m A Mom” – or in other more accurate terms, “It’s All About MEEEE!!”

You go, girls.
- rob | 11/02/2010 @ 08:39
Rob,

you nailed it. I have lots of sympathy for people who end up being single parents – through divorce, act of God, etc. Single parenthood is tough, and it’s another situation where “libertarian me” is at war with “emotional me” (honestly, I come down more on the side of supporting some limited government help, for which they’ll probably pull my Krazy Konservative Kard… but oh well).

Anyway, the people I do NOT have sympathy for — the people for whom I have, in fact, the exact opposite of sympathy (whatever that is) — are those folks who seemingly view children as little lifestyle accessories. They’re not just self-propelled Prada bags for yuppie ladies; they’re human beings. Hence the liberalism of the estrogenated middle class — government as the Ultimate Daddy. ALL must pay for MY lifestyle, and if Trever /Tayler /Tyler / Dakota/ Moon Unit ends up being raised by some bureaucrat 3,000 miles away and ends up a sociopath, well…. that’s just social justice. Or something.
- Severian | 11/02/2010 @ 09:00
Thanks for calling me out.

Wow, what’s going on? One bold/italic tag left unclosed, and then a dropped link…and the week isn’t even a quarter of the way over yet.

Old age sucks.
- mkfreeberg | 11/02/2010 @ 09:13
Old age sucks.

Heh. You have NO ideer. But you’ll find out, if’n you’re lucky. 😉
- bpenni | 11/02/2010 @ 09:36

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Uncertainty Allows Mothers to Select For Their Children the Father Who Would be Best for Them”Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

“Uncertainty Allows Mothers to Select For Their Children the Father Who Would be Best for Them”
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010