This just in: Men’s Rights Activists are some of the most gullible nincompoops in the history of ever.
The latest evidence of this? The regulars on the Men’s Rights subreddit were fooled by an obviously fake “screenshot” of an article from Jezebel that had been altered to make it look like a Jezebel staff writer thinks that paternity fraud is justifiable as a way to fight patriarchy.
No, seriously, the Reddit MRAs actually thought that Anna North of Jezebel had written that “the ability to lie about your children’s parentage is one way to break the rule of fathers.”
Here’s the “screenshot.” And here’s the original thread, which has been deleted from the Men’s Rights subreddit but which is still up, just not reachable from the subreddit.
The irony in many of the comments is off the charts. “It’s Jezebel, of course they think this way,” writes Riesea. “Wow,” says actorsspace. “If Jezebel had a sense of humor, I would suspect them of trolling.”
Blueoak9 — what happened to the original eight? — is stunned that even the evil feminists would sink so low:
There are, of course, a few teensy clues that North’s supposed quote about “break[ing] the rule of fathers” is a big fat fake (as are some of the others in that “screenshot”).
One is that nobody at Jezebel writes or thinks like that.
And second, there’s the tiny fact THAT THE REAL ARTICLE IS UP ON JEZEBEL AND IT DOESN’T SAY ANY OF THAT SHIT AND ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GO READ IT FOR FUCK’S SAKE IT’S RIGHT HERE.
In fact, Anna North, the author of the Jezebel article, makes an argument that’s the exact opposite of the one attributed to her in the “screenshot.” Challenging a writer in the London Times who had argued that “the ability to pass a child off on a man was a potent female weapon,” North countered that such a stance was not only morally questionable but also pretty antifeminist:
I’d rather “make male claims to omnipotence absurd” by, say, being economically and politically equal to men — not by making them raise babies that aren’t theirs.
Now, you might wonder why exactly the Men’s Rights crowd on Reddit was reading a screenshot of a Jezebel article and not an actual Jezebel article. Well, that’s because the Men’s Rights subreddit has banned all direct links to Jezebel and other Gawker media sites because the MRAs are still mad about that Violentacrez thing.
Yes, the subreddit that links in its sidebar to a site — A Voice for Men — that not only has offered thousand dollar bounties for the personal information of its feminist enemies but that also carries an open call to firebomb courthouses and police stations in its “activism section” is still pig-biting mad about Gawker’s “doxing” of the man who helped to ruin the lives of countless teenage girls by founding and protecting Reddit’s Jailbait subreddit and dozens of other noxious subreddits.
And so someone was able to use this fact to exploit MRA ignorance and paranoia about feminism and make the inhabitants of the Men’s Rights subreddit look like fools.
Again.
Or some MRA with zero ethics wanted to make feminists look bad and failed utterly. I think this is less likely, but with MRAs, anything is possible.
When you’re done reading the original discussion of the fake article on the Men’s Rights subreddit, you can read the discussion there about how they were trolled. Including the comments from this person who thinks that “even if it’s a troll… so what? It’s still presenting an opinion that many a feminist has held.” Straw feminism is REAL! And this person (with dozens of upvotes) who thinks they should just ban all links to all feminist blogs because, hey, what’s the point in knowing anything at all about something you talk about constantly?
EDIT: Thanks to the AgainstMensRights subreddit, I was able to find the link to the original banned post, and so I’ve put the link (and some comments from the discussion) into the post above.
So many chew toys here today, and me on vacation. I’m waiting for a bus, and have to say this thread has been entertaining to read. Hi to the non-trolls!
Wow. Moldy went off the hinges pretty damn quickly, there.
Moldy–here’s the key problem. “Schroedinger’s Rapist” (your core comparison) and all of the other comparisons you’ve made since then, are based on FUTURE BEHAVIOR. That is, they deal with an unknown entity who may or may not be trustworthy. They deal with the right of women to decide for themselves when they should and should not trust a man sufficiently to be in a position with them where rape is possible.
Your complaint, however, deals with an accusation of prior misbehavior. This is a very different scenario. If you haven’t already decided that your spouse/S.O. is trustworthy enough to believe their claim to your paternity, what the hell were you doing getting into bed with them in the first place? (Note: I’m not saying it’s your fault if you sleep with someone who is deceiving you; I’m saying it’s your fault if you sleep with someone whom you still believe is willing to deceive you; it’s a subtle distinction, but a significant one. Schroedinger’s Rapist is the reason for a woman choosing to NOT make herself more vulnerable than she’s comfortable with, not a reason to blame her if she misjudges the man’s intent.)
Now, IF you are given reason, after the initial encounter, to believe that the child might not have been sired by you (I’m outright refusing the wording, “might not be yours”, because kids are people, not possessions), you do, in fact, have the right to insist on a test. How you would react to a confirmation of your suspicions is a personal matter that I really couldn’t give a damn about.*
Side-note on First Joe’s statistic: As noted, men can ask for a paternity test when they suspect they may not be the child’s biological father. In 30% of THOSE cases, the man has turned out to be justified–meaning that in 70% of the cases, he was wrong. Paternity tests, however, are only performed in about 10% of the total births in the U.S. So that study is totally inadequate for estimating the actual frequency of false paternity–it is very likely that in the general population, the incidence is much, much lower.
Finally, on the original suggestion of mandatory paternity testing, the immediate response that comes to mind is that in such a scenario, we would need to do a DNA test on ALL men, and maintain a file, so as to be able to instantly determine the paternity of a child at the time of birth. As noted, simply testing the claimed father leaves the problem that it only determines the negative outcome, rather than establishing the positive case.
*: Personally, my reaction (the TV in our lunch room used to air Maury Povich during my break, so I’ve unfortunately had the opportunity to consider this in-depth) would be to demand that the bio-daddy sign one of two documents–either a reasonable, income-based child-support agreement OR a quit-claim to their parental rights. But that’s just me.
*********************
On cosmetic male infant circumcision (ie, pretty much all of it as performed in the U.S.):
It’s wrong, for the whole bodily-autonomy reason. However, it’s not the parallel to FGM that most MRA’s want it to be. I’ve thought it over for awhile, and determined an accurate comparison: Douching.
Both are procedures performed for no particular good reason on the population at large, which have a legitimate application in a narrow range of cases, but a non-zero chance of a negative outcome–meaning that general application of the procedure produces problems greater than it addresses, simply because of the numbers involved.
Most men who are circumcised experience neither benefit nor difficulty; most women who douche, likewise. But there are cases where both procedures cause harm, and for that reason, their practice in a broad, general way (rather than as a direct effort to address specific medical complaints) is bad policy.
(Privilege Check: For CMIC, the benefits are negligible in a society where condoms are readily available and hygiene isn’t an issue. There is a legitimate case to be made that CMIC is justified when done for reasons of STI and UTI control in impoverished nations where these are not givens.)
And good on you, hellkell, for ruining feminism for everyone. Who knew you were so powerful! 😀
“If he wanted kids, how did he waste his money? If he didn’t want kids, what was going on where he decided to stay around (I mean, was he guilted into it… what?)
The only thing i can think is if he didn’t want gets, left and had to pay child support, and then a paternity test proved that he wasn’t the dad”
Sometimes people who don’t want kids decide to keep it if its theirs. mainly “moral reasons” i guess. i would never keep it. but it happens like with women who don’t want to abort even though they never wanted a kid. a guy would stay because he knows/thinks he produced that kid and doesn’t want to leave it alone.
and hellkitty, and kittehsurfer were attacking breadmold without even getting what he is saying just over something like this.
Hi cloudiah!
Now I really wonder who this jackass is, because the fixation is not cute.
Aw, Moldybread: I got under your skin. Dance harder!
In case no one has addressed this yet:
Uh…you do know that a woman’s fertility goes through a monthly cycle, right? And that even if the timing is optimal, conception is by no means certain? And that a majority of fertilized eggs fail to take?
You know these things, right?
I know this is somewhat peripheral to the discussion, but I hate to see such basic facts of human biology gotten so horribly wrong.
Catwoman: we get him just fine. We think he’s wrong. Learn to read.
“Your fixation on me is creepy. Did I say something to upset you?”
Creepy? Is there an MRA standing behind you asking you to “prove” that the nonsense that women pretend to act like victims just to get revenge at men exists by saying that halfassed statement you made?
Karalora: it’s just so much harder to shit on people (mostly women) if you have all the facts, you know?
hellkell: I notice moldy is ignoring me. Lessee… (I am becoming cynical). We just lost a troll, who was trying to ride you, and getting hammered by me,and now we have someone who tried to come in all “on the side of the angels” (did a “takedown” of Warrell’s U of T presentation), and then devolved into “paternity fraud”, while attempting to maintain some feminist cred.
And he knows you use four letter words,and it bothers him.
Smells like time to do some laundry to me.
Citation needed. Assfax not acceptable.
Pecunium: it does reek of dirty socks. Too bad there’s so many to choose from who hate me.
If a troll hates you, you’re livin’ right.
Isn’t that kind of unfair to the child? I mean, “I don’t want you but I’m gonna raise you because it’s ‘morally correct'”
Also, catwoman is definitelly the same person as moldy.
This line
Cinched it
“Way to project. I’m sorry you have your knickers in a twist because women who don’t have kids get told they should want them, or are, “incomplete” without them.
But you hate on anyone who has kids. You hate on anyone who says having kids is ok. You hate on people who don’t say not having kids is ok; in the right sort of hateful way you say it.”
not really. breeders are the ones who are promoting it. others are people with kids who made a choice and see it as such. the rest are breeders because for them it is uncomprehendable not to want a kid (for either gender)
” I think the real reason you don’t use your favorite word isn’t that it would offend us (since that’s why you’re here) but that it would end up in moderation, and the effect would be diminished.”
well, duh! how did you come up with that,sherlock?
Clever you ain’t. Smart you ain’t but you do have some native guile and smidgeon of cunning.
If Breadmold darned himself some backup, that makes him one of the saddest rolls EVER.
HA! “saddest rolls.” saddest trolls, but either works.
And HellKell, you got some fucking nerves labelling women as evil, sex-hungering monsters who couldn’t cross their legs. Of course paternity fraud is wrong to the extent where it should be punished. Because if it’s not punished, or barely punished, then you’re saying that women don’t have morals to be able to live up to the fact that lying to a man is wrong, and that you think it’s normal for her to sleep with a random guy because she likes it. And that is a highly misogynistic thing to say, Hellkell.
@hellkell, I think the handle ‘breadmold’ makes ‘saddest rolls’ rather appropriate.
“Catwoman: we get him just fine. We think he’s wrong. Learn to read.”
Only you don’t, I read this thread. And I also know your comprehension skills from before.After all apparently I am someone who is a rape appologist, lol!
“”Isn’t that kind of unfair to the child? I mean, “I don’t want you but I’m gonna raise you because it’s ‘morally correct’””
What should they do? give them up? this will be considered to be unfair to the child as well. everything is unfair to the poor children
“Also, catwoman is definitelly the same person as moldy.
This line
and hellkitty, and kittehsurfer were attacking breadmold without even getting what he is saying just over something like this.
Cinched i”
how so? we already said we were friends. i got him here because i like the blogs.
“If Breadmold darned himself some backup, that makes him one of the saddest rolls EVER.”
Ah yes, so feminism is all about watching trolling contests and shaming trolls, am I right? Please tell this to the MRA’s – they’ll be so happy that there’s one more misogynist in the group.
Um, let their mom raise them? If she doesn’t want to, you can both offer them up for adoption?
If you know you never want kids, you can get a vasectomy.
Normal? As in common? Perhaps not. I don’t any figures ATM.
But there’s certainly nothing morally wrong with it, and I think it’s very strange that you assume that it is.
“Um, let their mom raise them? If she doesn’t want to, you can both offer them up for adoption?
If you know you never want kids, you can get a vasectomy.”
oh so they should be those “assholes” who take the easy way out? lol
Some people who don’t want children don’t really hate children. if it is there they would not want to have someone else influence it but be the ones raising the kid they were responsible to produce.
Read the header of this here blog, doofus.
Where in the blue fuck did I say that?
And what’s wrong with a single woman sleeping with a random dude?
You just want to punish women at any opportunity. Guys like you are so transparent.
“how so? we already said we were friends. i got him here because i like the blogs.”
It’s a pity that hellkell and kittehsurfer are spreading so much stupid and bigotry that it makes the Manboobz blog very unattractive to the viewers, thus leading to more people to side with the MRA’s as opposed to David. If I’m a “troll”, then hellkell and kittehsurfer are MRA minions who’s intent is to make the blog as abhorrent to the viewers as possible.
Fuck you Hellkell, you MRA minion!