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.
oh, moldy, you are so far out of your breadbox right now.
@Catwoman
Okay, maybe because i care less about genetics than you, I am really not understanding how you’d feel cheated out of “influencing” your kid or your relationship with the kid if it wasn’t genetically related to you
Also, women can give kids up for adoption, too.
I gotta say, it’s a bit unusual to see three MRAs going into full-on incoherent mode at the same time. Quite a spectacle.
Dude, I don’t know if English isn’t a language you’re strong in or what, but you are really shit at putting your ideas forward. I follow what you’re trying to say only because I a) have a lot of experience with interpreting poor English b) give people way more assumption of good faith than their action show they deserve. So you have no right to get huffy about people reading your words and coming to the conclusions they come to, because it’s your poor writing, not their reading comprehension that’s at fault.
Don’t worry, my consideration for “men’s fellings” when they stand against logic isn’t bigger.
Doesn’t care about the women Farrell advocates raping.
Claims we can’t care about other people.
Catwoman:
Actually, one of the big MRA talking-points is women who get pregnant by an Alpha Cock and then claim a Beta Sucker is the father in order to get him to marry her–so at the time they are not, in fact, married.
The ‘issue’ being discussed is false attributions of paternity; marriage may or may not be part of the deal.
This Catwoman isn’t very good, perhaps it’s the Halle Berry version?
“I gotta say, it’s a bit unusual to see three MRAs going into full-on incoherent mode at the same time. Quite a spectacle.”
Yes, because people who agree that men are regular human beings who don’t like to be the victim of fraud is automatically an MRA.
Are you trying to make the MRA audience larger or something, so that they can successfully squash the feminist community? Is that your idea to weaken feminism groups?
You know that shotgun weddings don’t actually happen, right? About half of children are raised by single mothers, and paying no child support is more common than paying full child support.
You already played the “You’re playing right into their hands” card dude
”
@Catwoman
Okay, maybe because i care less about genetics than you, I am really not understanding how you’d feel cheated out of “influencing” your kid or your relationship with the kid if it wasn’t genetically related to you
Also, women can give kids up for adoption, too.
”
I don’t care about genetics. This why I will have no children.
The point is that if you feel responsible for the fact that this kid was conceived you are more likely to ruin your life. not because it is your family tree, but because there is one extra person there because of you, and you want to at least make sure its not going to be another scumbag.
I don’t understand how you don’t get that. If its not his kid he has less burden thinking of going away because he knows that someone else was responsible to make it.
I am not sure what you try to prove by the last comment.
@breadmold
Yeah, because the one thing feminists need is a bunch of dudes who read Warren Farrell advocating for date rape and child abuse, and think “Hey, that’s unfair to MEN!”
I knew it!!!! He really IS a superhero!!
@Fade
I think Catwoman is referring more to the idea that if you bring a child into this world, you have a responsibility to do your best to make sure they grow up to be a good person.
“Doesn’t care about the women Farrell advocates raping.”
Yes, even though I said on the other thread that I was 100% AGAINST Farrell’s date rape idea.
Reading, it’s what words are for. 🙂 Or maybe you’re trying to convey the idea that feminists cannot read?
Breadmold: stop pretending you’re anything but an MRA. Why bring up all their points if you’re not?
French Affectation: If men have to affirm parental rights, then they have the “paper abortion” by default. The woman still has to actually, you know, give the kid up for adoption.
And that’s the difference. When a woman gives up her parental rights she has to see to it the child is placed with other people. She has to look after its welfare. The dude, he just walks away.
And he does, unless the state ends up with a direct interest she has to chase him down.If the state does get involved, it’s not to give money to the child, it’s to recoup money they spent because he didn’t. Once the child is no longer the recipient of state aid, they stop caring. So she still has to chase him down.
So his ability to “walk away” is pretty high. Her’s ain’t.
I must praise your present use of English. It’s better than Moldy, and he’s never claimed it isn’t his native language.
@breadmold
And yet, you said right here that “Actually I was primarily insulted at how Farrell made some offensive remarks about men.”
You read about date rape, and you were PRIMARILY insulted at his remarks about men?
Pecunium: send the rain here, we can always use it. Have a good day at work.
@breadmold
It’s amazing how MRAs seem to be on this campaign against the very concept that words mean things.
“@breadmold
Yeah, because the one thing feminists need is a bunch of dudes who read Warren Farrell advocating for date rape and child abuse, and think “Hey, that’s unfair to MEN!””
Yes… because it labels all men as barbaric sex beasts. Which, surprisingly, is feminism related!
But never mind that. I would say you’re blinded by your own utter stupidity, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here by saying that you’re probably just another MRA minion attempting to shame the entire feminist community.
Okay, so is your basic option there is no solution?
I mean, it seems like you are freaking out around unwanted kids: you can’t give them for adoption, you can’t let them be raised by their mom and pay child support, so you have to raise them yourself but if they turn out to be non-genetically related you’re going to sue the pants off the mom, genetic father, and then try to “claim the kid for yourself”
or was that moldy on the last one?
Anyway, my point is it seems like you’ve worked yourself into a corner where there is no winning option.
Um yeah, but it also labels women as property, which is kind of the bigger injustice, don’t you think?
“Are you trying to play into my fantasy world? Is that what you’re doing, making feminists look like they look in my fantasy world? Because in my brain, that’s what you’re doing! You feminists are just like in my fantasy world in my brain!”
We don’t agree with Breadmold, so we’re MRA minions, while he’s what? Boss feminist? So much laughage.