See, IantBacchus, that's the problem with extremism: overgeneralization. There are lots of daddies out there who happen to be married to normal women who just don't do such things. I'm one of them.

Not everybody is into fraud, you know. Neither men, nor women.

I understand your experience makes you feel bad about women in general. But compare that with the experience of a violently raped woman, and how that may make her feel all men are bad. Is she right? Are you?

So basically Mike wants all the benefits from being a father, but would like out of the monetary support aspect.

No. I think you're being unfair here. Nothing in Ms Clark-FLory's post, nor in the NYT article suggests that.

Rather, Mike seems to be concerned -- just as you are -- with the fact that the money paid ends up in the hands of his "scheming, selfish, poor excuse of a human being for an ex-wife", as you put it.

I of course can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised if Mike didn't agree with you that if the money could go to an account that the mother and her new husband had no access to, he would feel much better about it.

I would wholeheartedly support that, Sparx.

If it weren't for the fact that some men are just as bad as some women, and might simply answer, "nothing--screw the kid, it's not mine".

I certainly support the idea of getting statistics to see how frequent such cases are, so as to assess how big (or small) a problem it truly is. I also despise sensationalism -- that's Fox News stuff.

BUT: the opposite danger also exists, i.e. that you, and by association other feminists, be seen as belittling a person's suffering, and that of others, no matter how many or how few, who are in his situation. Can you see the propaganda effect that this would have, precisely for the extreme men's rights activists that you fear?

I think true feminists should NOT let extremists control the discourse on a topic so obviously valuable as an argument against them. Feminists should state out loud and clear how bad such situations are, how much they go against everything that they believe in and fight for, and so on. Or else... they will be helping the very extremist men's rights activists that you're afraid of.

Because, you see, these extremists are NOT going to miss this case, and they WILL use it to push their agenda. If they can, in addition, claim that feminists don't care, and perhaps even secretly support, such injustices... You can see where that would lead.

So, to all feminists: please don't ignore such cases, even if they're rare. Justice shouldn't depend on frequency. If you're for justice, then you're for justice. No buts.

I think you're right about the origins of these orders, but haven't we replaced many other common law interpretations by statute or judicial recognition of new social realities (and basic principles of justice). It's interesting that this particular remnant of common law reasoning is so very tenacious. It does seem reasonable to credit feminism and, I think, a certain sort of prejudice and contempt against cuckolds, for the resiliance.

Historically, haven't cuckolds often been men of lower status? To what extent does the common law tradition grow from class privilege?

I think the point is that, since being fatherless was a fate worse than death itself, finding a father was important enough -- it could be a matter of life and death for the child. (But remember also the consequence of being illegitimate, which were also quite dire in the past.)

But it is not logical to fault feminism for it -- this would be like claiming feminism is also guilty of racism, since it didn't work against it. Or that the NAACP is guilty of sexism, since it didn't work against it.

The source is historical, the importance of the father's role for the social status of any individual in the past (your pater familias was your gate to anything else). It was in the child's interest to establish he had one.

at the girl's biological parents. I mean, haven't her bio-daddy and mummy any sense of shame? How can they justify actually cashing Mike's check to each other? Or should we assume they're scoundrels, so be it?

Mike shows that he's a wonderful guy, and that the bond established with his daughter--I wouldn't use any other word, she is his daughter, no matter what the DNA test says--is strong. But the kind of fraud that his ex-wife and her new husband are playing on him seems so wrong, I can't see how they can look at themselves in the mirror every morning.

Clearly something has to change in the legislation. I wonder what exactly the judge said in his decision -- he can't have said his decision, no matter how strongly the law supported it, actually respected the spirit of justice.