Reply #44: You're missing the point, [View All]

It seems as though you have no objection to a person being subjected to humiliating media scrutiny, as long as that person is a male. Or am I misreading your woman-as-inherent-victim tone?

I'm clearly not saying that she won't generally remember whose penis she invaginated; I'm saying that it would be irresponsible for a media-source to support accusations without better evidence than she-said/he-said. That's kind of how reporting should work.

But let's say that CNN refers to the accused as "the alleged father" and manages to interview him on-air. If he says "yes, I slept with her, but so did 64 other guys; she's a wild slut," then I suppose that you won't mind it when CNN refers to her as "the alleged wild slut." She's certainly free to confirm, deny, or discuss it.

Or suppose that he says "yes, I had sex with her because she got me drunk and erect and then mounted me against my will." Presumably CNN can refer to her as the "pregnant alleged rapist," and she's again free to confirm, deny, or discuss it.

Barring evidence of coercive male-on-female intercourse, it's offensively sexist to think of the mother-to-be as the only potential victim.

Obviously it's a crime for the actual father to abandon the mother and child. However, absent some means of confirming the identify of the father prior to the birth and beyond the mother's say-so, I'd like to hear the responsible plan by which you propose to hold these fathers accountable.