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.
Um, what would be a better motivation for sleeping with someone other than “she likes it.” Liking it is kinda the point of sex.
LOL. Look at it try to get nasty. -3/10
This meltdown is gonna be awesome. Anyone want some popcorn?
I will admit, I did not understand this
Re: becoming assholes.
Well, women have to become “Baby killers” or assholes if we get an abortion or give a kid up for adoption. Sometimes, society sucks and you look bad.
I do not know what “they would not want to have someone else influence it” means. It sounds controlling, and skeevy. Like, they would want to be able to be in complete control of their biological kid, but if it wasn’t theirs they’d hate it?
I hope I misunderstood you, because that is really creepy
@howardbann1ster
The worst way to hate women is your paternalist attitude, you know, “tolerating” like a Great Lord the shit women say.
Me, I’m just frank and I say what I think without being considerate of “women’s feelings”, that doesn’t make me a woman-hater.
“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.”
Huh? So if a married woman cheats on her husband, then she’s now a single woman? Are you trying to say that women are too stupid to understand that extramarital affairs is wrong?
You just want to ridicule women at any opportunity. MRA minions like you Hellkell are so transparent.
It just makes you an even bigger asshole, Brz.
I think it’s hilarious how Catwoman/breadmold realizes that it’s an insult to call people MRAs, then still spouts MRA talking points obviously gleaned from MRA websites.
Yo, when your movement is so messed up that it can be used as a perjorative, it’s time to leave that movement.
Was it the one that another troll posted last week, or a different gif of a man kicking a woman?
breadmold: calm down, sweetie. You’re getting all confused.
moldy: 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.
Punished…. interesting word there.
Which is in keeping with the idea that you want revenge.
And what’s wrong with people sleeping with random guys because they like it?
What’s misogynistic in saying women shouldn’t be presumed immoral for doing it?
catwoman: not really.
Not really? Let me quote you.
And as for breeders I hate them in all genders.
Now, you will argue that this is limited to just those who tell you to have kids. But when the rubber meets the road, you use that same condemnation to other childfree people who support the right of other people to have children.
So, by your actions (now, and in the past) you just hate anyone who doesn’t hate children as much as you do.
Haha interesting how “women” apparently now means “women in non-open marriages” in breadmold’s world.
Ugh, I know, right? The fool just said “women” is his original spew.
You don’t have some moral imperative to externalize all the sexist shit you believe. Feel free to keep that to yourself.
@hellkell
Maybe there’s some distinction between “women” and “strumpets” in his vernacular that hasn’t become clear?
BRZ: so non-woman hating, he puts women’s feelings in quotes
This tired shit again: 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.
“Whah! The Manboobzers were so mean to me when I said women were lying sluts who lie that now I shall go become an MRA dude! That”ll show them!!!!!!
If that’s really the case then your “feminism” was pretty weak shit. I begin to think you didn’t suffer as much as you claimed when you were watching Warrell.
” i will admit, I did not understand this
Re: becoming assholes.
Well, women have to become “Baby killers” or assholes if we get an abortion or give a kid up for adoption. Sometimes, society sucks and you look bad. ”
sure.only when a woman aborts there is no kid. if a man walks away it is still there.
“I do not know what “they would not want to have someone else influence it” means. It sounds controlling, and skeevy. Like, they would want to be able to be in complete control of their biological kid, but if it wasn’t theirs they’d hate it?
I hope I misunderstood you, because that is really creepy””
When you raise a kid you influence it. It is not about some creepy control. You pass your values and your views, the idea that I would for example leave a kid with someone who believes in god is not against animal abuse or is racist for example would not be something what i would want.
when it is your kid it was you who did it, so you feel you are responsible for who it will become. you don’t just want to randomly leave it to someone who can create another asshole of society. if its not your kid, it doesn’t feel like such responsibility because you were not the one who got him here in the first place. it is not about “hating” if its not theirs. parents sure love their non biological kids. it is about the decision one makes when on finds out there is a potential kid. there is not “love” there yet for the kid. one just will be more likely to agree to change one’s life (for the worst, if one never wanted a kid) if one actually feels responsible for it being conceived
Yeah, clearly these goofballs were raring to support women’s rights until they came here.
Hellkell: “breadmold: calm down, sweetie. You’re getting all confused.”
Ah yes, “sweetie”. Because it’s so okay for random strangers to call people that they don’t know as “sweetie”, am I correct? How do you feel if an old man calls a young girl he doesn’t know a “sweetie”. Then you would be proud of it wouldn’t you?
Misogynist!
If we’re looking at the very narrow situation of a man being told by a woman he trusts that they are pregnant with his child (while intentionally lying to him), then they are likely to end up at the very least paying child support. Personally, I think if you have a child then you need to grow the fuck up and be there for them regardless of how you feel about parenthood (and assuming the child is being raised by the other parent, I’m not trying to cast aspersions on putting children up for adoption). So, in that very specific type of situation the man is being fucked over. But, as has been re-iterated over and over, this is a problem for the individual men involved, but is nowhere close to being widespread enough to be considered a societal problem.
hellkell: I’ll have to catch up on the meltdown later, I have to go to work. Means I need to take the cloak out too, since it’s raining like all fuck here.
“If that’s really the case then your “feminism” was pretty weak shit. I begin to think you didn’t suffer as much as you claimed when you were watching Warrell.”
Actually I was primarily insulted at how Farrell made some offensive remarks about men (because he spreads patriarchy, which oppresses both of us), but I highly doubt you would give 9 shits because nobody has ever loved you enough to make you care about people that isn’t yourself.
pecunium, i don’t really care about this, if you want to think i hate everyone with a child, you are more than welcome to think so
“Haha interesting how “women” apparently now means “women in non-open marriages” in breadmold’s world.”
considering that conversation was about men who were made believe by their partners that the kid is theirs it is kind of obvious that those women are not “single”?
@pecunium
Oh what an extreme form of paper abortion : men being able to renounce parental rights if they hadn’t implicitly agreed on being the presumable fathers by contracting a marriage or a civil union with the woman.
Because, you know, renouncing parental rights as you please is something only women should be allowed to do. I don’t even advocate men being able to renounce parental rights as they please, I just think that it would be a good idea to settle that the only place where men are forced to be the legal parents is in the context of a marriage or a civil union.
But, hey, feminists won’t agree with that, because feminists never had been about logic or justice (or even against patriarchy) but all about using every means to favor women over men, so if it can be good for men: it’s bad.
Recognition of biological fatherhood if it’s good for the woman, negation of biological fatherhood if it’s good for the woman.
Hypocrites.