Thou Shalt Not Desire Paternity Confidence

Whatever social-constructionists may tell themselves, there are certain aspects of male-female interaction that are cross-cultural universals, because they follow inevitably from the anatomy of reproduction. One, because female reproductive potential is lower, males must compete and females must select. Or else somebody must select on behalf of the female. Two, if males contribute parental investment, they must necessarily be interested in female fidelity, lest their resources be wasted. The feminists’ insistence that the desire for paternity confidence is wicked may be dressed up in idealistic language but is in fact a tactic to promote the female’s equal and opposite interest, namely freedom to conceive her children with a genetically-superior sperm donor who is not particularly interested (as they tend not to be) in parenting.

Of course men try to control female reproduction; their own reproductive predicament dictates that they must, just as the women’s reproductive predicament dictates attempts to escape that control. Of course men try to have it both ways, monopolising sexual access to one woman while grabbing low-cost sexual opportunities as well; that is their optimum strategy, just as the optimum female strategy is to monopolise the economic resources of one man while tapping those of as many other men as possible. One buys cheap and sells dear, and no amount of moralising is going to change that.

All women complain bitterly about “the double standard” whereby in all societies male adultery is viewed far less seriously than female adultery. Apparent exceptions to this rule are illusory, they say, for when the man is sanctioned, it is not for the offence against his wife, but for his violation of another man’s property rights.

If adultery is regarded merely as a symmetrical breach of faith between two partners, then this differential is indeed ethically offensive. But it can only be so regarded by those who resolutely refuse to contemplate the possibility of adulterous offspring, or by those who cannot understand why a man might object to spending his life caring for another man’s child. The progressive women who so insist that a man should bring up and love any child that his partner produces, no matter with whom, and who so abuse any man who wants his ‘own’ child, should therefore be invited to view with equanimity a mix-up at the hospital that means that the baby they take home is not their own flesh and blood. As we know, whenever this happens the women emote and campaign all their lives until reunited with their “own” child. Instead, they should be told that any such changeling must be loved and cared for regardless – the same insistence that they themselves serve up to men who fret about cuckoos.

The asymmetrical nature of marriage is also illustrated by the fact that men are more upset by their wives’ casual sex than by their deep platonic affections, while women contemplate their husbands’ casual sex with greater equanimity than any competition for their attention, however platonic. Before the era of economic equality, such husbandly distraction threatened withdrawal or diversion of the economic support that was the wife’s main reason for contracting marriage; while financially-independent women find diversion of male interest equally intolerable, because the female appetite for attention is not a thing that can be satisfied in this life or the next.

Posted on November 29, 2012 at 11:18 by Hugo Grinebiter · Permalink
In: WHAT WOMEN WANT, The Cult Of St. Joseph

Leave a Reply