Please welcome Golden Eagle Owl to the sheddingoftheego.
I would like to bring to your attention a recent news article from Portugal titled: “Homens têm de assumir filhos contra a sua vontade, decide Constitucional” (Men have to acknowledge children against their will, Constitutional Court decides), and provide some commentary on the issue. This decision is related to a case where a man from Cascais claimed that the imposed fatherhood that he faced was in direct contradiction to the Portuguese Constitution. That being said I will be presenting a translation of parts of the article, those will be the portions in italic.
The Constitutional Court considers that forcing men to acknowledge paternity of children born against their will does not violate the fundamental law (that it is unconstitutional to discriminate based on gender). In a recent decision, the judges claim that the differentiated treatment of father and mother, in regards to the decision to carry on a pregnancy, is justified.
“A man that had no possibility to participate in that decision is not free from the duty to acknowledge paternity of the child that has been born”, establish the magistrates (…)
The question is in whether it is, or isn’t, discrimination between the sexes, something that the Constitution forbids, to make men recognize unwanted paternities though DNA testing, while women can decide on their own if they will abort on the first ten weeks of pregnancy.
So let’s get the really obvious question out of the way. Yes! Yes it is discrimination based on gender. On one hand the courts have given complete control to the woman, whether they want to abort, or keep the baby, on the other hand they have reduced the man to a mere spectator of his own life, and of the potential life of his offspring, liable to become a cash dispensing machine on the whim of a woman for a period of eighteen years or even more.
In order to be absolutely fair, this would have to be handled in one of two ways. Either the woman would not be able to abort a child without consent of the man, while the man could not escape fatherhood, basically binding both parties to what would be considered the “paramount interest of the child”, or, in the same way that a woman is free to reject becoming a mother without accounting for the will of the father, a man should be able to reject paternity of a baby he did not want, disregarding what the women might want. As an individualist, I lean towards the second option, a scenario where basically if there is a Yes and a No, the No prevails.
Back to the article:
The forced father from the Cascais case claimed that imposing paternity was in violation of parts of the Constitution, namely the one that establishes that “nobody can be privileged, benefited, harmed or deprived of any right or exempted from any duty based on their gender”. And reminded that the abortion law lays the decision solely on the woman, disregarding the father, so by the same standard a man would have the right to not acknowledge a child.
“The will of the man is not accounted for by the courts in the cases where he wishes that the child is born and the woman doesn’t”, he pointed, following with a question: “After the birth isn’t the same argument applicable for the man?” He reminded of another decision made by the very same Constitutional Court that stated, that “the right for someone to know their biological parents does not have an absolute value, and had be compatible with other rights, such as the right for privacy”. The same man defended that it should be assured the right for a biological father the reject paternity “as part of the unrestrained development of his personality, and the respect for his private and family life”. And defended that “the right of the child to be legally bound to the father was incompatible with his freedom to want to become a father or not”.
These arguments did not persuade the Ministério Público (that’s like the equivalent to the American District/State Attorney’s Office), that insisted on the acknowledgement of fatherhood. And the judges of the Constitutional Court agreed, for understanding that a comparison between that the right of a woman to self-determination as present in the option to abort, and the right for a man to choose if he wants to become a father makes no sense. (…)
Excuse me for a couple of minutes while I scrape the bits of brain and skull out of my walls.
There it is my fellow MGTOW, a public admission that the courts have double standards when it comes to men and women, not just in U.S. or Canada, but pretty much everywhere around the globe. In this case the very same institution that regulates and enforces the rights present in that central document of our republic on any judicial or political decisions, has overtly ignored it in the service of gynocentrism.
Now, I have an idea on how the court may have reached that conclusion. Take into consideration the part where it stated that “nobody can be exempted from any duty based on their gender”, and it’s easy to then assume that the court still bears a quite traditionalist perspective on the role of men regarding parenthood, seeing them as the provider that the child cannot be deprived of. One has to keep in mind that Portugal is a country that bears a larger weight of traditionalism, when compared to other European countries, due to a pronounced catholic background coupled with a conservative dictatorship that lasted until the mid-70’s, and while there has been progress in society, the fact is that the law usually doesn’t keep up with the change in societies and the evolution of technology, and this seems to be the case pretty much everywhere. Take the recent example of gay marriage being made legal, well after it ceased to be a social taboo.
So you see, the “good ol’ traditionalism” that some men still chase, as if it is some magical entity of goodness and justice, is in this case the responsible for shackling any man who is unfortunate enough to have his sperm jacked, his condom punctured, or to be lied to by the woman regarding the pill, into a situation where he becomes the protector and provider for the family group.
As a finishing note, I would like to address the risks and potential consequences of rulings such as these. This leaves men in a situation where they feel like they cannot rely on the courts and on the basic laws that claim to guarantee equality. This leaves men trapped, cornered like an animal waiting for the coup de grace, and not every man going through a situation such as this is acquainted with MGTOW and the knowledge on the reality of man/woman relations. Without this knowledge or a network of support, a man would then feel alone in an impossible battle and would either break down mentally, or lash out in anger, leading him to take stupid and extreme measures to get out of that corner, possibly resulting in suicide, murder, or murder/suicide. It’s in preventing these drastic actions where MGTOW and the MRM can play a crucial role, by showing men that someone cares, that they are not alone in their struggle, and most importantly by informing them, awakening them, telling them what’s the deal, so that they can learn to spot the signs of danger in the horizon, and avoid becoming trapped in irreversible conditions