Kicking. Squealing.
Emily Yoffe, aka Prudence of Slate’s Dear Prudence advice column, does her best Hugo Schwyzer impression in response to a woman who asks for advice about her son who is the biological child of a man who was not her husband. The woman cheated on her husband, gave birth to the other man’s child, and the husband put his name on the birth certificate. The husband died after a terminal illness and became re-acquainted with his own parents shortly before his death. Now the mother is faced with a dilemma: to tell or not to tell her in-laws that they are not the biological grandparents of the child. The woman mentions that the grandparents are talking about changing their will to include the kid.
Yoffe starts:
Your late husband was your baby’s father.
…
But I don’t think your late husband’s parents need to hear this. Of course they see similarities between your son and theirs. It may be that both boys were confident and verbal, so their observation is correct. In any case, seeing such connections is natural and there’s no reason to disabuse them of this. Keeping up a connection to your son’s paternal family surely will only benefit him—he’s not going to get anything from his actual biological father. And I don’t see any reason to deprive your child of a potential inheritance. (emphasis mine)
Who can say that with a straight face? Yoffe makes a debatable point – that the deceased husband knew that the kid wasn’t the product of his loins but signed up for duty anyway. It’s not something I would do, but it’s whatever. The wife is a monster, but that is self-evident. The point is that the husband knew something about the child that his parents did not. And Yoffe is suggesting to her that she essentially perform financial cuckoldry on the grandparents. She denies that the woman has a responsibility to give the grandparents the same opportunity given to their son to judge for themselves whether or not they’d like to provide for this kid. To Yoffe it’s all about getting paid. It’s all about the kid now, you know.
“The wife is a monster”
Well said.
I like this comment from ‘Prudence’ -
(When you do bring this up, you can put the best face on the fact that your husband, his father, loved him and wanted to raise him, and not cast his origin story as that his biological father was a slime.)
Yes, let’s blame him.
cunts all around. yeah, good thing these people were granted ‘rights.’
I probably wouldn’t tell them. They are probably dying to be grandparents, the kid needs more family, and this would probably destroy that bond. Their son could have told them before he died and chose not to; in that sense, it is more like an adoption. You don’t need blood to have a great child/grandparent relationship, and they are not obligated to give him or the mother money and can change the will at any time if the relationship deteriorates.
I don’t think they are entitled to they money, but it’s likely that in order to inherit anything of substance the mother will have to seriously foster that relationship, and what is the likelihood that she will? I guess that’s up in the air.
I am biased, though. We adopted, and my husband’s family love love loves my son. He is their only grandchild, and these last 8 years have been much happier for them because he was their grandson. They have said that numerous times.
She has to tell the grandparents, since she is going to tell her son. This is the right thing to do. She can make it sound a little better by saying she and her husband were separated at the time.
Her deceased husband really complicated things by putting his name on the birth certificate, knowing he was not the father. He should have just left her, but maybe because of his health problems he needed her.
Caring for a sick spouse is not easy and can make you resent that person. This may be why she had an affair.
The female imperative: look after the welfare of her children; others are merely obstacles.
The male imperative, when it’s healthy, is the same.
The difference here is that a woman can justify anything, literally any act at all, when defending her child. This makes sense, but it also makes monsters, disgusting, repulsive monsters, out of women all the time.
Oh, men too. Like Schwyzer.
I second gerp’s thinking. Disrupting the child’s family bonds should be the core principle in determining the risk/benefit here.
@Lara, your speculation about cheating on a sick spouse is at odds with observational research. When husbands have a long disability and are terminally ill, the rate of divorce drops below the “natural” rate. When wives are terminally ill, the rate of divorce increases over the natural rate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=divorce%20rate%20brain%20cancer%20multiple%20sclerosis
What does it matter? The dead husband doomed his lineage by not detecting or preventing the cheating. His parents have fewer descendents (or perhaps none). Sounds like those genes should be removed from the gene pool. As for the money, one way or another it will be gone.
It’s an arms race. Some percentage of women will cheat. Men should know that. Some percentage of men will fuck a woman and walk away when she is pregnant. Women should know that. Roll the dice.
“Disrupting the child’s family bonds should be the core principle in determining the risk/benefit here.”
Not at the cost of defrauding a third party (the grandparents).
@PA
your core principal is: truth uber alles ?
This trumps a child’s family bonds?
I presume the kid is going to know about his real father. Is the mother expecting the kid to go through life deceiving the bogus “grandparents” just to get an inheritance? What kind of moral upbringing is this?
Truth trump cuckoldry, even if it’s cuckoldry at one remove.
Grerp, jz:
I won’t mince words; I’m pretty disgusted by your immoral rationale of the ploy this woman has been advised to undertake. You’re both usually smart, rational women; I’m not sure why you’re going off the tracks here. Probably has something to do with my last sentence on this piece: “it’s all about the kid, you know.”
I reject that. It’s not all about the kid. The kid was just recently made, but honesty and integrity have been ideals since before he came along.
We shouldn’t compare this to adoption or a set of grandparents response to adoption for the very simple reason that those grandparents were aware of the situation. Thus, if they provided inheritance to that adopted grandchild they did it with full knowledge that the kid isn’t theirs biologically. In her advice, Prudence tacitly understands that the grandparents are more likely to pull back their offer to put the kid in their will if they know that he isn’t their biological grandchild. Also, the fact that they were lied to might not sit well either.
@PA,
and please do share. What exactly would you tell the child when he asks to see his grandparents at Christmas?
jz, the woman’s lied plenty before; surely she’ll think up something. better than lying to defraud those people though.
@CR, agree that the devil is in the details. How strong is the existing bond?
jz, i did not say that the devil is in the details. the devil is in that woman and emily yoffe. the kid will probably inherit a bit of extra devil himself at being the son of a harpy and the inheritor of fraud.
;Is it about the money? Because if there was no money, would you still tell them? My point is older people often crave grandchildren or time spent with little ones, but there is no easy way to have that relationship except through kin in our society. Adults who try and cultivate those relationships are often viewed as creepy, esp. men, even though through history older people and little children have often been companions. They have no other children, and there will be no other grandchildren.
I think, yes, it’s more likely they’ll reject the child if she tells them. I don’t care about the money. I think the child and the grandparents are better off if they have each other in their lives. I don’t know how long it will last, though, as the mother is a flake, and it’s work to maintain in-law relationships after your spouse is gone.
Another question is: did the husband want them to know? If not, that was his choice.
female apologist clucked evilly:
“your core principal is: truth uber alles ?”
if you drop this as your core principle, all sorts of evil becomes justifiable.
“This trumps a child’s family bonds?”
you presume a family bond exists. it does not, it’s a fakery. a fraud resting on one of the worst lies imaginable.
“What exactly would you tell the child when he asks to see his grandparents at Christmas?”
“i’m a lying whore, son.” hth.
If I were the mother of that child, I’d forgive myself and move forward. If the bond was strong, I’d prioritize the bond over the truth. If the relationship was nascent and tenuous, I’d tell the grandparents.
Fuck all this ‘do it for the children!’ handwringing. Do it for the children, and when they turn 18 they can go fuck themselves, so this only remains “moral” if the grandparents die while he’s still a minor, otherwise he’s a con artist and should do time. This theft and fraud might be justified if there was actual risk of this kid starving to death on the streets, and the largess of these grandparents was literally the difference between life and death. What’s being advocated right here though is just hypocrisy and greed though.
The family bonds the grandparents have with their actual family trumps this mother’s greed in defrauding an old couple to take part in an inheritance they might not get if the truth was known. If these are my kin, my inheritance is diminished because some bastard and his whore mother lied to my family.
What’s good “for the the children” isn’t the sole motivating factor in making any and every decision. Just because something is done for a child doesn’t make it moral. From my vantage almost every thing done “for the children” is in fact bad because it’s 100% a rallying cry to justify things that are immoral and evil because you will always find people willing to engage in wrongdoing because the beneficiary is allegedly a child.
Next time there is a snatch and grab riot, remember, its’ being done for the children (especially as the primary rioters are likely to be “children”). Smashing in a storefront and snatching some expensive trainers, video games and flat screen TVs is totally justified so long as the recipient of those stolen goods is under the age of 18.
This kid isn’t going to be homeless.
He isn’t going to be wearing rags.
He isn’t going to be malnourished.
Even if the grandparents want nothing to do with him.
If there was an argument from need there might be a case.
He doesn’t need that inheritance. His mother just wants it.
The idea that there is literally nothing you can’t justify if the beneficiary is a child is completely fucked. There is literally nothing you can justify just because the beneficiary is a child.
For me, it’s not about what is best “for the kid.” He has (I assume) two other grandparents, which is all I ever had, and if the mother remarries, he may have step-grandparents. It’s also not about the money. Like I said, I think neither he nor the mother is entitled to it, and given the economy and the way older people blow through money, there probably won’t be much of it anyway.
I feel bad for the grandparents who would lose their only grandchild. But chances are, if the mother is this conflicted now, she will gradually pull away from them over time rather than feel guilty, and the relationship will weaken.
Ah, it’s all crap.
Thought about this some more. I have one son. If I was the grandmother in this instance, I would not want to know. If I were told, then I’d have to decide between my loyalty for my son, who is dead and can no longer be hurt by the cuckoldry and *chose* to put his name on the birth certificate and to not tell me, and having a relationship with this boy. If fate is listening here, I’d like to make it clear that I want grandchildren.
“If I was the grandmother in this instance, I would not want to know”
And you and your husband would be living your whole lives with your whore daughter-in-law on some level laughing at you behind your back. You can still have a relationship with your fraudulent-paternity grandson if you want to.
PA’s bang-on here.
The woman committed what amounted to a major, devastating social crime, and the impact of this crime is echoing down the generations.
Now its about to inflict itself on the grandparents, whose son is dead. WHo knows what the son thought about all of this.
Let’s reverse this.
A man has a child with a woman. However, he’s married to someone else. The woman disappears (dies, leaves, whatever). His wife is pregnant and is giving birth at the same time. There’s an accident and her baby dies, so the man, unbeknownst to his wife, replaces her (dead) baby with the baby from the other woman.
Okay, the contingencies of women having the wombs required all that. But let’s imagine.
Now, fast forward. All this time, the wife and her parents thought they had a baby girl. It’s not at all genetically related to them. Same scenario as above.
Is it justified to keep it a secret from the grandparents? Do they need to know?
How about the wife? What if she knew, and accepted it, because she wanted to be a mom? Or what if she didn’t?
Let’s see if the reaction is even slightly different.
My suspicion is that our culture devalues paternity to the point of demanding that men ignore it.
i hope we have some second-string hamsters lying around somewhere. this first squad is exhausted.
“I don’t see any reason to deprive your child of a potential inheritance.”
Translation: “I don’t see any reason not to commit fraud against the parents of the husband I cheated on and conned into being a father to my bastard offspring.”
Women don’t even know they’re just operating on self-interest mode. *They* know they’re the mother; why should anyone else need to worry? I mean, it’s no big deal, right?
Try women who get babies switched in the delivery room. See, years later, how happy they are with the hospital. There’s a record level of anger directed then. But that’s understandable, right, because, …
Wait, same issue: Cheated out of your own offspring.
Next issue if mandatory paternity testing. You can hang every hypocritical woman with this issue. The moment you discuss it, women can b=feel the absolute power of choosing the daddy for their baby dripping away. It’s a loss of freedom, no matter how balancing it is. All talk of equality quickly disappears.
But wait! That’s not good for me!
female apologist cuntified:
“If I were the mother of that child, I’d forgive myself and move forward.”
how convenient!
“If the bond was strong,”
there is more in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your “strong bonds”.
“I’d prioritize the bond over the truth.”
of course you would. and i can’t imagine a scenario operating in this context under which you would deem the bond a weak one subservient to the truth and the respect and dignity of your child. or: female evolutionary prerogative über alles.
“If the relationship was nascent and tenuous, I’d tell the grandparents.”
“if the rape victim was a slut, i’d drop the case.”
You can still have a relationship with your fraudulent-paternity grandson if you want to.
I’ll take it. As an adoptive parent, I don’t worship the blood tie, and I don’t care what happens to my money after my husband and I are dead (except I don’t want the gov’t to have it).
There are instances in which I’d probably want to be told. If this was my 10th grandchild and I lived three states over and would have no real personal relationship with him – tell me. Whatever.
I have no problem with mandatory paternity testing, and I think what Hugo Schwyzer did to the other man (and esp. how he justified it to himself) was disgusting.
Emily Yoffe is as blue as the blue pill gets, and her comment section is basically a blue-pill circle jerk. Many have tried over the years to convince her, and them, that men deserve to know if a child is not biologically his, to no avail. This extension of tgat to the nan’s family is just being consistent with what they’ve said many times before.
They’re hopeless, I basically just stopped reading DP entirely. Bad for a red pill man’s blood pressure.
Er … *that … *man’s.
Incredibly disgusting and immoral.
the rationalizations of grerp and jz – both women i’ve respected in the past – is more distressing to me than the actual article itself. if it’s no biggie then why not just let the grandparents decide for themselves? explain to them the situation and see how they react. anything else is a lie and everything after that rests on a house of cards. grerp says that hugo schwyzer’s argument was dishonest and she doesn’t approve. this is exactly the same thing. the woman did tell her husband, but she is lying to his parents and she will benefit either financially or in some other way (babysitting or providing TLC that the kid otherwise wouldn’t have.)
speculation here: being dishonest in this way will harm the child in the long run. the mother will develop a resentment *towards the kid* for her own misdeed. she will carry guilt and take it out on him.
I’m more disgusted by that second letter in the Yoffe column about father and son watching porn together. That’s really bizarre.
Sorry, I’m all for mens’ rights and stuff but the adoptive cuckold father of the “love child” kid wanted the grandparents to believe the lie too, right?
No way that I would go against his wishes after death and tell the grandparents the real truth.
Camlost,
Keep reading, there is one even worse than that.
camlost,
yoffe makes the argument based upon the potential inheritance the kid stands to gain. and the woman who wrote the letter makes it clear that the grandparents didn’t start talking about their will until after their son had died. so this is about a financial shakedown. you’re basically making the argument that because one person lied (the son) that another person should lie too. and this has absolutely nothing to do with “men’s rights”. this isn’t about the father; it’s about the grandparents being lied to and the rationalizations that women and white knights will develop to support their dishonesty.
There is nothing in the letter to indicate that this is the couple’s only grandchild. He is the only child of their deceased son. I think I would still tell the grandparents the truth. I would also tell my son the truth when he is old enough to understand. He can judge me all he wants, I’m still his mother, he can’t change that.
“the rationalizations of grerp and jz – both women i’ve respected in the past – is more distressing to me than the actual article itself.”
what you are witnessing is the full, demented monstrosity of the female id stripped of its polite convention and released from bondage to roam free on the plains of stone cold self-interest. when you attempt to place moral or legal boundaries around ancient evolutionarily-designed sexual prerogatives — such as the genetic prerogative by women to cuckold beta males with alpha male sperm and continue to receive material and emotional resources from said deceived beta male and his family — you free the female id and unmuzzle its toothy maw to wreak bloody carnage on logic, reason, rationality and simple concepts of fairness, benevolence and common sense.
The Hippocuntic Oath: First, do no harm to my eggs’ prime directive.
“full, demented monstrosity of the female id”
In the early years of your blog, mandatory paternity testing came up, and a number of reasonably non-feminist female commenters like Clio did the hamster-twist in opposing it.
“Keep reading, there is one even worse than that.”
The father – grown son porn session is way too wierd if they were getting off on it. Still a bit weird but not terrible if they watched it for laughs.
The dad-vibrator letter is troll fakery (unless I’m grossly underestimating ‘enlightened SWPL’ parenthood methods.)
Fine, tell them if you think that that is the only just way. But in this situation (1 son, 1 grandchild), as the grandmother I wouldn’t want to know. Then I have to live with the fact that she’s a whore and the bio father is who knows what and my son was betrayed when he was ill and dying and there’s nothing left of him in this world now. And, yeah, maybe that gives me an inkling of what to expect from her, but it still casts a huge shadow over this kid I want to love and puts a real kink into my relationship with the mother.
I can’t see how knowing improves anything for me in this situation. I cut my ties with her, and now I have nothing but this horrible, sordid story to keep in my thoughts and memories of my son.
With Schwyzer he very possibly left another man holding the bag for a child he made and saddled him with a more promiscuous woman than he knew. He is legally , financially, and morally responsible for that child and the law will hold him to that. As a grandparent, I’m not legally, financially, or morally responsible for that grandchild. If the mother bails and keeps me from seeing the child, I can cut both of them from the will without notice.
You can say it’s only fair to tell them. Fine. All I’m saying is I wouldn’t want to know. If saying that makes me a hamster, well, whatever. There are lots of things that I don’t want to know about people, and unfortunately they are revealed to me on a fairly regular basis.
Speaking of The Chateau’s early days, my one regret is having been too indulgent of DA. His schtick was pretty much Obsidian minus the testosterone.
saying you wouldn’t want to know is like me saying that if someone shot up a crowded theater i would definitely risk my life to say someone. it’s pointless speculation. so at this juncture we shouldn’t even speak in hypotheticals. we should speak in truths. what should each party do? what is right, and what is wrong? and let’s also be clear: if someone really does not want to know, if they want to buy into a lie just for the sake of their own mental comfort, then they are weak. they are not something we should strive to be, and they are not something we should tell other people that it’s OK to be.
The husband’s cuckoldry theft is only half the issue. If you’re going to get worked up about him getting duped into supporting someone else’s kid, you also have to get worked up about the biological father not paying for it. These things go both ways and they’ll never get solved in a way that leaves a child impoverished, whether by his mother’s moral reprehensibility or otherwise.
you’re basically making the argument that because one person lied (the son) that another person should lie too. and this has absolutely nothing to do with “men’s rights”. this isn’t about the father; it’s about the grandparents being lied to and the rationalizations that women and white knights will develop to support their dishonesty.
If mr. Cuckold wanted his grandparents to believe the kid was actually his, I ‘m not going over the top after he dies to tell them anything different. White knighting doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s a matter of letting Mr. Cuckold choose how he wants to handle the issue with his own parents.
Mr. Cuckold could have told his parents the truth on his own deathbed if it was that important to him.
My rational for telling the grandparents is that I want to set things straight with my son as soon as possible. The more you keep these things a secret, the worse they seem. I wouldn’t feel right asking him to be in on a deception like that. I do feel very sorry for these grandparents, especially if he is their only grandson. However, it sounds like this is also the mother’s only child, and the parent/child relationship trumps the grandparent/child relationship.
camlost,
hey man, if you want to take the low road don’t justify it that way. just take the low road and admit that you’re taking it. don’t go hiding behind skirts. mr. cuckold was on the ropes. surely he felt humiliated, and he was about to die as well. he’s in quite a different position than the wife, and he also didn’t know that the parents were going to invest in their “grandchild” in this particular way. now that investment is being discussed they have a right to know what they’re investing in. to do otherwise is some sort of fraud.
Hmmm, so if you witnessed a rape, but for some reason the victim didn’t mind (rape is the female equivalent of cuckolding), then it would be entirely moral not to report the rape, even knowing that the rapist would move on to other victims, whom you know for a fact most certainly would mind. Even if you know the very person that the rapist has identified as target, and know for a certainty that they will attempt to do so. Because that might be the only opportunity for sex that person would get?
No I’m not down with that…
LOL, if Mr. Cuckold “felt humiliated” it’s because he didn’t stand up for himself and took it in the keister so willingly and so quietly. If anyone went out like a sissy and hid behind a skirt, it was him. He shoulda told that cheating skank to hit the road, even if I was a paraplegic stump I’d have the guts to tell her wayward ass to get lost.
Don’t try to shift the blame to her for the deception.
But afterwards, I can’t blame the skankoid lady for not wanting to open up a big ass can of worms and deal with the grandparents who were lead to believe the wrong thing by his sorry and weak arse.
I agree with Camlost. It was their son who was weak.
Since we are speculating, presumably it is okay for me to buy property I know was stolen because the victim was too weak to hold onto their property. I should, under no circumstances, ever have to face any consequences for this since it ultimately isn’t my “fault”.
Camlost,
The mom can avoid telling the grandparents but she can also just cut off all contact with them. To carry on under false presumptions is wrong and not defensible. You can rationalize this all you want, but you cannot defend it. If the grandparents become concerned with the mom’s distance and they ask her what is wrong, then the obligation is on her to tell them. Otherwise, she’s a liar.
As far as shifting the blame to her for the deception *she’s asking a columnist for advice*. She knows what she is doing is wrong, but she wants to have someone rationalize for her that her hands are tied. And the entire “go girl” crowd is spinning their wheels trying to help her out. If the dead son failed that has little to do with what she should do. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and all that.
Chuck, you’ve been making really solid and mature arguments in this entire thread.
PA, thanks. occasionally it happens.
On the bright side, with the dead cuckold’s name on the birth cert, that cunt can’t [easily] sue the other guy for child support.
This kind of sin-laden scenario really brings out the “values” of the white male liberationist.
You can feel a palpable distaste for “children” on the account of their sinful mothers. You read an HBD-inspired critique of the mother (she WILL DO ANYTHING for child) followed by an irrational appeal to level this biological imperative. The male liberationists, who were once children under the power of this imperative, now show utter disgust for its power. This is evidence that their all-encompassing HDB-inspired theory of “mother” is either incomplete or flawed OR THEY ARE JUST HATERS of children (defined as innocent victims… Are white male liberals mostly victims of mother? Is there a vicious cycle here?). Now, some on here really just want genuine truth to prevail throughout, but in reality, most just want an “equaling.” The white male liberationist wants to be free from marriage and child-raising just as the white female liberationist gets to be free from her moralistic imperatives. But then both quite logically and predictably turn their distaste on wives/husbands and innocent children. De facto homos, they become.
Like C.R. said she just needed to hear from someone that what she was doing was ok.
The relationships between the mother/grandparents and the grandchild/grandparents are built on a lie.
in real life I would not hang out where guests call me the c*** word, and I won’t here either.
but you’d hang out with – or even be – someone who swindled two people out of their savings. words > actions in your world, i guess. the proprietor (me) didn’t call you those names, and i don’t want you or grerp to leave. but you’re taking a stand on that point of contention to detract from the other point of contention – the original point of contention.
The logic contortions of the apologists is actually stunning. I can’t help but watch. It’s like watching some wretched mime doing a spazzy act on the street outside the restaurant you’re sitting in, and you’re at the window. No matter how appalling it is, it’s just unbelievable that people can justify such repugnant behavior … and then pretend they’re being anything but theoretical accomplices to absolute moral turpitude.
Only the complete denial of the male interest in life itself can justify this behavior.
And it’s amazing to watch. Trippy, almost.
Did a jezzie just announce, apropo of nothing, that she stopped by Chuck’s party to announce that she won’t grace it with her presence because hate speech? Presumably to the effect that the readership will feel really really sorry for something? What an impotent gambit. What a cunt.
She’s clearly a sensitive soul, in a ninth-grade huffy-flounce-off way.
late to the party..
“your speculation about cheating on a sick spouse is at odds with observational research. When husbands have a long disability and are terminally ill, the rate of divorce drops below the “natural” rate. When wives are terminally ill, the rate of divorce increases over the natural rate.”
Lara never made that insinuation, secondly the paper you cite is itself kinda loopy. It shows gender-disparity in “partner abandonment” without finding out the causes of divorce and doesn’t seem to control for many things for a sample size that comes up to 60. In Canada. And this was splashed all across media, divorce lawyer blogs, or any forum with a womanly presence. It would’ve been interesting to see how the numbers would line up if the women were the main earner/had better financials besides the usual controls for age, length of marriage.
Many commenting on a nytimes article point out the same thing about divorce(besides the ‘men are pigs’ line), while reasoning that women would rather have time to themselves than look after men(not really that different from ‘men are pigs’ line)
http://discuss.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/04/8143258-cancer-kiss-off-getting-dumped-after-diagnosis?pc=25&sp=25#c58654834
while in a related paper:
“Younger age, being a male with a TBI, suffering a TBI as a result of a violent injury and having moderate injury severity predicted marital instability.”
grerp,
From the grandparents’ perspective, the only question is this: once they know the TRUTH, would they be glad to know it, or would they prefer their prior deception? Once they know that the child is not their biological grandchild, would they prefer to have a Men in Black style memory wipe? Or would it be that however distressed they are at learning this TRUTH, they are glad to know it?
We should not be comparing the grandparents’ happiness before and after hearing the TRUTH. Truth has a value of its own; it allows us to act in our best interests. We learn the truth and then we act accordingly. We may wish the truth was different, but we do not prefer to act as if the truth is different, because of course it is not different; it is what it is.
The grandparents in this case would certainly want to know the truth. The cuckolder has a moral obligation to give it to them, but given her prior history I won’t hold my breath.
I suppose the mother does have an obligation to tell the grandparents the truth. I’m sure it’s why she is writing the advice columnist – because she knows she will benefit from the deception and she has already hurt this family a great deal. However, if I were the grandmother I would still rather not know it, and I don’t care if that makes me weak. It’s a cold comfort to have the truth and no grandchild.
The logic contortions of the apologists is actually stunning. — Gorbachev
No man… The cognitive dissonance of the HBD-inspired critique is mind boggling.
If a mother “will do anything” for her child then this obviously includes cuckoldry, lying and inheritance theft. This is the price of HBD adherence. This mother is doing nothing but following HBD protocol and dudes like you want to get all moralistic about. Legally, the child is the grandchild because the non-biological “father” signed the paternity documents. This is arbitrarily cut and dry. But it is what it is until it’s changed.
HBD is like a self-fulfilling prophecy that DESIRES to see females be as ruthless as possible IN ORDER TO BE justified in their own HBD-inspired ruthlessness.
^^^ This mother is… following HBD protocol… and you want to get all moralistic about [it].