Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Word to the Wise: Never Date a Guy Who Reads Details Magazine

Posted by Jill Filipovic, Feministe at 3:19 PM on October 28, 2009.


A few experts discuss the "trend" of women tricking men into impregnating them, without offering any hard information or statistics.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Jill Filipovic in your
mailbox!

 

Shorter Details: Tricky bitches will get themselves pregnant and then make you pay for it.

Imagine for a moment this perfectly plausible scenario: You’ve had a steady girlfriend for a year or so and everything’s going great. You still hold hands at the movies. Friends tell you you’re good together. You’re both around 30 years old and making plenty of money, maybe living together, but you’re nowhere near considering fatherhood. And though you occasionally get the feeling that her biological clock is set far ahead of yours, she tells you she’s “safe,” so you don’t worry. Why would you? It’s not as if you’d just picked her up on Dollar Margarita Night at Senor Frog’s. But one morning she tells you something has gone wrong. Unlikely as it sounds, she’s pregnant-and she wants to keep it. What she doesn’t tell you, though, is this: She wasn’t being safe all along. She wanted to have that baby— and the way she saw it, this was the only way to make it happen.

You know where this is going, right?

A few experts discuss the “trend” of women tricking men into impregnating them, without offering any hard information or statistics. A few odd people are interviewed, and they confirm that they’ve heard that other odd people are getting pregant accidently-on-purpose. And then we get to “Roe v. Wade for men”:

 

Last year, Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Saginaw, Michigan, says he had the same reaction when his girlfriend, Lauren Wells, allegedly pulled something similar. Dubay claims she told him she was infertile and was using a contraceptive “as an extra layer of assurance and protection.” But when she got pregnant anyway and told Dubay she was keeping the baby, he said he wanted no part of it. Earlier this year, he argued in court that her alleged deception should exempt him from having to pay child support. His lawyer, Jeffrey Cojocar, reasoned that Michigan’s paternity law violated the Constitution’s equal-protection clause: If the situation were reversed and Dubay had gotten Wells pregnant after claiming he was sterile, he’d have no way of forcing her either to keep or to abort the child. The judge didn’t buy his argument, but it’s helped open a broadening national dialogue: Where do you draw the line between deadbeat dad and victim of deceit?

Of course the National Organization for Men, a men’s rights group, is all over it:

“Matt is asking for the reproductive choice he would have had if he were ‘Mattilda,’” the website says. The NCM doesn’t have much contact with men who acquiesce to their role as new fathers. The guys who come to the organization see their situations as deception in its purest form.

“A lot of these men feel like they have no control,” says Mel Feit, the NCM’s executive director. “The courts are ruthless in enforcing getting money and not asking questions. Judges aren’t allowing the fraud argument, either.”

Interestingly, Matt does have the same amount of reproductive control he would have if he were Matthilda — he can do what he wants with his own reproductive capacity. Matt and Matthilda’s reproductive capacities differ — the window for Matt to exercise his reproductive rights may end before Matthilda’s — but both of their reproductive rights begin and end with their own bodies. No one is telling men that they can’t wear condoms or use birth control or get sterilized. In fact, Matt could probably try to have an abortion if he wanted to, but it sounds like he’s a cisgender dude and it’s not going to work out. So it’s unfortunate that he feels he has “no control,” but what he actually wants is the right to control his female partner. Or, at the very least, he wants the right to not have to be responsible for a child he helped to create.

No, it’s not “fair” that some men don’t get to decide whether or not to have a baby when their female partner gets pregnant. It’s also not fair that some women have to push something the size of a football out a hole the size of pencil. Welcome to biology. You don’t see us suing over it.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that some people are jerks. Some people are also manipulative, abusive and selfish. Some of those people are women. I do not doubt that some women, somewhere, have lied about being on birth control in order to get pregnant. But some manipulative jerks does not a trend make. I feel bad for any man who is manipulated or lied to so that his partner can get pregnant against his wishes. That is a really bizarre, selfish and terrible thing. But it doesn’t justify subverting the basic bodily autonomy rights of an entire class of people (or even the basic bodily autonomy rights of the jerk in question). The way around manipulative jerks who would lie about being on birth control is to use birth control yourself. You know that “control” you feel like you’re missing? Here’s how you get it: Wear a condom. Get your tubes tied. Put some pressure on drug companies to come up with male birth control — the reason they aren’t developing or marketing it is because they don’t think there’s a demand.

You know what is an actual established problem, bolstered by research? Men sabotaging their partners’ birth control pills as a form of control and abuse. Just sayin’.

What men like Matt want isn’t reproductive rights; they want reproductive veto rights over someone else’s body. Or they at least want to be able to get out of having to pay for a child once it’s born, because they were tricked into having unprotected sex.

The National Center for Men and all the Matts of the world would probably be better off agitating for male birth control or other forms of actual reproductive rights for men, rather than just targeting women and trying to get out of paying child support. And Details would probably be better off writing about actual problems rather than the misogynist fantasies of men’s rights activists — this article almost tops their “Is It OK to Demand Anal Sex?” feature.

At the very least, Details provides us all with a handy dating tool — if you see a copy in a dude’s apartment, run the other way and run fast.

Digg!

Jill Filipovic is a New York-based freelance writer and a law student at NYU. More of her writing is available online at her blog, Feministe.


So the Stupak Amendment Sucks: Here's What You Can Do About It
Find out how your representative voted on and call their office, to thank them or to tell them that you'll be supporting a pro-choice democrat in the next primary.
November 10, 2009.
Should a Woman Change Her Name When She Marries? 70 Percent of Americans Think So
Another 50 percent believe it should be required by law.
October 26, 2009.
You Don't Have to Dress as a Bigot or a Slut for Halloween: Here's Some Better Ideas
Here's some great DIY costume ideas for those of us who hate having to choose between Slutty Nurse, Slutty Cop and Slutty Cat every year.
October 21, 2009.
Women Should Cut Out the "Fat Talk"
The nasty comments women make about their bodies are uncomfortable and harmful.
October 19, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Wrong!
Posted by: bornxeyed on Oct 28, 2009 4:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but what he [Matt Dubay] actually wants is the right to control his female partner.

What he wants is the right to not have to pay for her choice.

I didn't see where Mr. Dubay was trying to exert control over his pregnant girlfriend's choice. He only wants the same choice she has: to not deal with the long-term consequences of each's choice to have sex.

Now, where's "Honky" when we need him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Subscriptions to details, paying for premium cable services (Fox News/MSNBC), paying for the...
Posted by: franklyspanking on Oct 28, 2009 5:47 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...latest in gadgetry.

No wonder the few working savers are having to bail out Generation I Want More (Of Yours).

This nonsense is a symptom of a larger disease.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lower Double Standard - Crap article
Posted by: felipe on Oct 28, 2009 7:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love how the author dismisses this issue because the lack of "any hard information or statistics", yet fails to provide any information or study that backs up her POV that this is a non-issue.

Just because these situations have not been study or quantified does not mean they do not happen, perhaps more frequently than the author realizes.

"You know what is an actual established problem, bolstered by research?

Lets look at the study the author cites:
"Miller found that a quarter of teenage girls with histories of abusive relationships living in poor neighborhoods in Boston reported that their abusive partners actively tried to get them pregnant by manipulating condom use........"

25% of an incredibly small, very specific demographic does not make a trend either Jill.

Try again

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Honky - my hero!
Posted by: bornxeyed on Oct 29, 2009 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, only hyperbolically.

A minor correction, Honk, old bean.

It's "culpable", not "capable".

According to feminist dogma, men are only capable of abuse, lazing on the sofa and paying 30% of pre-tax income for 18 years for a 20 minute mistake.

I'm waiting for the lawsuits to start demanding a man pay 30% of what he is potentially capable of making rather than what he actually is making.

Why should her bastard be denied the life it's sperm-donor is potentially capable of providing?

That violates the bastard's rights, doesn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personal Responsibility
Posted by: Fojie on Oct 28, 2009 9:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Matt absolutely, no exceptions whatsoever, did not want to father a child, he should have absolutely and completely avoided vaginal sex.

If he was willing to accept some risk in exchange for getting more than oral sex, he should've worn a condom, no matter what his partner said she was doing herself to prevent pregnancy.

By failing to fully act to protect his own desire to not father a child, he tacitly accepted the risk of pregnancy, and now must be held responsible.

Maybe some nice homophobe org will help him turn homosexual, proving their 'gay is a choice' bs, making Matt an "unfit parent" in many states, and ensuring that his future sex partner(s) will not have ovaries, or for that matter, a vagina.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Personal Responsibility Posted by: Demosthenes XXI
Totally unfair. And you know it too, don't you.
Posted by: halfmoon on Oct 29, 2009 12:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can one be pro-choice and at the same time deny someone's right to not be a parent?

How would the author feel if she got pregnant, realized she couldn't afford a child and chose to have an abortion? She wouldn't like it if the father insisted that she had to have it anyway and pay for it, whether she could afford it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What If Abortion Was Legal for 1 Week After a Baby is Born?
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Oct 29, 2009 2:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would women agree to letting men choose to abort after the birth but before the week is up?

Partial birth abortion often receives less support than abortion at earlier stages. Our current cutoff in most places is birth. A fetus can be aborted any time before birth. That standard is not based on the level of self-awareness of the fetus.

Allowing abortion up to a week after birth would not change the fact that a fetus at that age is not self-aware.

Women who disagree with abortion are usually the ones who carry a fetus to term when the man wants to abort. The issue for them is not control over their bodies but instead about their disapproval of abortion.

Abortion is less dangerous than child birth.

So we have a system where one parent gets to decide if the fetus lives or dies and the other has no say.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another crackpot lawyer
Posted by: laoma on Oct 29, 2009 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not good for women and feminists or men trying to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You've got to be kidding - you expect anyone to believe this???
Posted by: charles000 on Oct 29, 2009 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You've got to be kidding - you expect anyone to believe this???

Let's see now - you're suggesting that there aren't millions of women out there who are not scheming to trap men into marrying them or getting 18 years of child support payments by getting pregnant?

Really???

What planet are you living on?

I'm willing to give Alternet a lot of tolerance for expressing views and publishing articles which may express views other than my own - after all, that's the value proposition that websites like Alternet provide, and I certainly respect and support that general concept.

But really, this has got to be the most absurd example of way, way . . . . way outside the box of credibility piece I have ever seen published here.

I would gently suggest the author take a break . . . and a serious reality check before grinding out any more material.

Ever hear of a term, known as "credibility"?

It's a concept - think about it . . . the operative word here being "think", a process which apparently was not applied in the authoring of this article.

Sorry folks, but this is an embarrassment for Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't think so...
Posted by: zipper696 on Oct 29, 2009 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" The way around manipulative jerks who would lie about being on birth control is to use birth control yourself. You know that “control” you feel like you’re missing? Here’s how you get it: Wear a condom. Get your tubes tied."
----------------------------
Yeah, cool idea. But they aren't "manipulative jerks" until they lay the "honey, I've some news.." line on you.
Up until then the guy is in a caring, sharing, loving relationship and has trusted his partner when she claimed either infertility or use of contraceptive devices.

Makes a difference.

Disclaimer: No, it didn't happen to me...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I don't think so... Posted by: goldmarx
» Think about it.... Posted by: bornxeyed
A waiver before sex
Posted by: rational_moderate on Oct 29, 2009 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Condoms aren't perfect.

There should be some means of having a man and woman having a legally binding agreement that the woman doesn't intend to bear a child and thus gives the man immunity from the responsibility of supporting a child. There could be variations where he would share responsibility for paying for an abortion if it ended up being necessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't know if this would legally work, but....
Posted by: Plexius2 on Oct 29, 2009 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how about having both people sign statements as to the status of their fertility and both stating what will happen in the event of pregnancy, BEFORE they start having ANY unprotected sex. The document would include a statement as to the issues of child support and abortion. It seems to me that a court would have to dismiss child support requirements of a father if the mother specifically states in writing before pregnancy that she does NOT want the male to pay support in the event of pregnancy. Such a signed and notarized statement might well relieve men of the fear of a deceptive woman.

By the way, in the case presented in the article, it is not clear to me if the woman truly believed she could not become pregnant. I personally know a woman who was convinced that she would never become pregnant, because physicians told her it was highly unlikely. But after four years of unprotected sex several times a week, right after she tossed out her boyfriend, she discovered that the highly unlikely event had occured.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's a very simple solution...
Posted by: moloko velocet on Oct 29, 2009 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If "Matt" or whomever, doesn't want any part of the bastard (visitation, child-support, etc.), he needn't have to. The law (at least in Texas) is that a putative father may execute an Affidavit of Relinguishment (in and to his parental rights). This will mean that he'll never have any legal right of access to the bastard...or later, any inheritance rights from the bastard; and concommitantly, he'll have no legal responsibility for child-support.
So the logical preventative strategy would be for "Matt" to inform the conniving bitch up front, that if she's really not sterile, and if she ends up pregnant "accidentally-on purpose",....he intends to execute such an affidavit, and she will end up raising the bastard on her own, anyway.
If other jurisdictions don't have this law in their Family Code, the various mens' rights advocacy groups should actively lobby for it's immediate enactment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Simple solutions: Texas and Florida Posted by: eddie torres
The Reason I Have A Half Sister...
Posted by: Eric.Arthur.Blair on Oct 29, 2009 12:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason I have a half sister is because my father had a first wife before my mother. She told him he'd knocked her up - this was in 1940, when a lot of men felt it necessary to "do the right thing". He married her, but no telltale belly bulge was forthcoming: she lied. Eventially a daughter did come out of it, and somewhere along the way the marriage was anulled because of the false pretenses. This is one of the reasons all my girlfriends were on the pill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Say it loud and proud.
Posted by: daevos on Oct 29, 2009 7:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If WE have to PAY,
Then WE get a SAY.

Let's face facts here, men pay through the nose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Say it loud and proud. Posted by: daevos
Stop Whining and Get a Reversible Vasectomy!
Posted by: Red State Gal on Nov 3, 2009 2:06 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, what whiners these men are! Get a life. If you can't control the actions of your own sperm, please get a reversible vasectomy and make all of us safe from it!!!!!

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Parenthood: No Place for Morality
Posted by: cdmsr on Nov 14, 2009 9:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Filipovic, you are ridiculous, but not in a funny way. More of a sad, scary way.

If you truly embrace the stance you present in this post, then you have confirmed that feminist ideology is devoid of morality. No one with any sense of right and wrong could condone -- much less defend -- the actions of the women described in the Details article.

You obviously lack such a sense.

First, your implication that the article lacks sufficient information to support the allegations is disingenuous.

There is author Vicki Iovine saying "A lot of us feel like it's not even really fair that men should get to vote..." as a flippant justification for the tricking of men into fatherhood.

There are the Dubay court case and the first-hand account (does using an alias to protect the guilty ["Jody"] make you discount the report? Then, by all means, ferret out and publish her identity as a favor to her possible future victims.)

This isn't about these women and their biological clocks. If it were just about having a baby before their eggs go bad, they could go to a sperm bank. It might cost a little, but nothing compared to nineteen years of prenatal and child support. A lot of (honest, moral) women have gone this route, choosing to raise the child as a single parent rather than deceiving some poor guy into footing the bill.

Which is what this is really all about: money. A woman tricking a man with whom she has an established, trusting relationship into conceiving a CHILD SHE KNOWS HE DOESN'T WANT isn't about becoming a mother: it's about ensuring that there will be an income she can tap while raising the kid.

And what degree of arrogance (or self-delusion)does it take for a woman to project her desires onto the man, believing he will "come around" to the idea once the child is born, that he will "melt" at the sight of the baby?

I did a quick search to find information about past positions you have taken, ideas and causes you have advocated or espoused. One of the things that stood out is the phrase "rape culture." I may have misunderstood, but you seemed to be very condemnatory regarding it.

Yet you champion the right(?) of women to trick men into impregnating them, the most wicked violation I can imagine a male experiencing. (Possibly even worse than actual forced sodomy. Horrible, yes, but it won't last for twenty years.)

Ms. Filipovic, your hypocrisy is truly amazing, but it is not the most immoral aspect of your position. Not by a long shot. Well, we've already established that you have no sense of right and wrong. So what if you're a hypocrite, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]