Schwarzenegger’s fruitful dalliance with a “household staffer” some ten years ago is just coming to light, and it looks as though his marriage is done for. According to the LA Times, the “staffer” (apparently now a euphemism for concubine) was still sticking by her story that her then-husband fathered the child as of Monday. When confronted with Schwarzenegger’s admission of paternity, she declined to comment.

The LA Times has unhelpfully and unnecessarily refrained from naming the staffer in question “to protect [her] privacy.” Why an adulteress deserves such protection is a good question; it takes two to tango after all.

This particular staffer was probably only one out of many women Schwarzenegger slept with over the years. She likely was fully aware that he could get her pregnant, and despite being married went along with the sex anyway, possibly as a calculated move. According to a source, Schwarzenegger provided her with cash “from the beginning,” and kept her employed until he stepped down as governor.

Now, the question is who spilled the beans? Was it the then-husband? Did he grow suspicious and test for paternity? If so, it would be very interesting to see whether the staffer was collecting child support from both Schwarzenegger AND her ex-husband. Wouldn’t surprise me, but it’s probably just as likely that the man was paid off — not to do so would be quite a risk to take for a politician. Of course, the staffer would have held all the cards, so that decision would have been up to her.

These kinds of cases demonstrate how sticky things have become since the traditional concept of legitimacy was essentially abandoned some time ago. For unmarried women and adulteresses this has been a blessing, but for wives and adulterous men it is often a serious problem. The solution, of course, is paternity testing at birth, which will obviate both the old and interim systems.

Ordinarily, I sympathize with women who have been betrayed by their husbands. Elizabeth Edwards comes to mind, as does the wife of that pathetic SC governor Mark Sanford. However, Maria Shriver is a committed feminist who has celebrated the victory of women over men, writing A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything, a typical triumphalist feminist screed.

Here’s an excerpt from her conclusion:

As we move into this phase we’re calling a woman’s nation, women can turn their pivotal role as wage-earners, as consumers, as bosses, as opinion-shapers, as co-equal partners in whatever we do into a potent force for change. Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table — at the head of the table.

You see, the irony in all this is that Shriver probably really believed she was in charge and in control. Perhaps she acted that way. And what did it take to bring her down off her high horse? Why, just another woman. Probably a younger, prettier one. This is feminists’ achilles heel — there’s always a woman willing to leverage her sexuality to shove an aging feminist out of the way and claim the resources of the man supporting her. And paradoxically, feminists have given young women carte blanche to do so. I am increasingly entertaining the notion that feminism will begin to die as soon as the youngest feminist cohort begins to age out of the sexual marketplace. This should be all but accomplished within about ten years, as the last of the women born before 1980 hit 40.