Categories
a voice for men antifeminism doxing dozens of upvotes drama evil women gullibility misogyny MRA reddit straw feminists TROOOLLLL!!

Gullible Men’s Rights Redditors fooled by fake Jezebel article arguing that paternity fraud is “one way to break the rule of fathers.”

Some people are easily fooled.
Some people are easily fooled.

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:

blueoak9

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

856 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarciLannister
MarciLannister
7 years ago

Bionicmommy:
Definitely way too soon for 90’s rock to be lumped in with my mom’s stuff! Not only is it totally different music, but it makes me feel old…waaahhh!

Arctic Ape
Arctic Ape
7 years ago

Bionicmommy:

Holy crap, that gives me flashbacks to certain agricultural science student parties. I wasn’t nearly drunk enough to watch it.

MordsithJ
MordsithJ
7 years ago

A good compromise is to be a stripper with a farm theme.

I’d rather have a farm with a stripping theme.

As for 90’s music, when I think “classic rock” I think of music so good it never goes out of style (‘good’ being subjective, of course), so fine with me if they play it along with 60’s 70’s 80’s stuff. I still won’t listen to any of it, because I’ve found Greta Christina’s case against nostalgia to be very useful advice.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Eh. I’m not sold on the GC piece. Listen to/read/watch what makes you happy.

Her point is every bit as bad as the “cranks” she’s railing against.

Briznecko
Briznecko
7 years ago

Yeah, Greta Christina’s case against nostalgia rubs me the wrong way. I get where she is coming from – I’m one of those “cranks” who perfer to listen/read/watch stuff from the past (Sir Briz revels in the few times I’ll watch a movie in color). However I don’t constantly whine about the low quality of contemporary entertainment – I even make a point to go out of my way to consume new music and movies so I can keep up with current pop culture trends. This is where she falls flat – yes “cranks” shouldn’t complain about the good ‘ol days*, but dealing with that phenomina shouldn’t be to just quit listening to/reading/watching that stuff altogether.

Also, this:

But time has a tendency to filter out the crap. We don’t listen to the mediocre 18th century operas; we don’t read the mediocre 19th century novels; we don’t watch the mediocre silent movies. We listen to Mozart, read Jane Austen, watch Buster Keaton. We listen to Janis Joplin and The Who. “To Sir With Love”? Not so much.

…ignores how history tends to erase ALOT of people. The “good stuff” doesn’t naturally flow to the top, instead it is filtered to highlight mostly strait white men, and the occasional strait woman. This leaves a very unbalanced perception of history. Take for example the Baroque Italian artist Artemisia Genileschi – she wasn’t discovered and recognized as an artist until feminist scholoars in the 1970s discovered most of the famous paitings attributed to her father were actually created by her.

Briznecko
Briznecko
7 years ago

Whoops, forgot address the *

*Believe me, I’ve encountered plenty of these types in the classic film world. They’re arguable more tedious than the trolls we have here.

pecunium
7 years ago

the GC piece leaves me cold. It’s got a nugget of truth in it (you shouldn’t let yourself be mired in the past), but it’s buried in a tone of self-righteous superiority (right down to listing “crap” from the seventies, and praising, “great music” which is terribly prosaic in it’s selection).

But the real problem with it is that the overall message My rule is this: I don’t let myself just listen to music that was recorded when I was in college and my early twenties (or earlier).

So… Nat King Cole, right out. The Beatles, enh. She shoots her argument in the foot when she cites Ted Sturgeon:

turgeon’s Law states, quite simply, that 90% of everything is crap. Romantic comedies, symphonies, science fiction novels, porn videos, dress designs, epic poems, comic books, popular music… 90% of all of it is crap.

Pride and prejudiceBut time has a tendency to filter out the crap.

So 90 percent of that, “hip, with it,” modern music is… crap. And 90 percent of the music of my, “youth” was crap. But I know what I like. I know what I tell Pandora to skip/give a down thumb to. But of the stuff I listen to from the past, I’m listening to what I like, which is fine(because there is no objective standard, and the “bubble reputation” can blind in both directions. Salieri was a pretty good composer, so was Frederick the Great… “too many notes” is a base calumny).

Do I refuse to listen to modern music? No. But the more recent stuff I tend to let other people filter for me. Not only is 90 percent of it crap, but it’s music of a style I don’t much care for (just as I don’t care much for the Romantics in the genre known as “Classical”). I don’t see why I need to listen to stuff I don’t care for much, to get to the little gems which are decent; and the rare gems which are brilliant.

Time will do that for me.

I also think the argument that we like the “oldies” because we long to racapture who were were is glib, and facile. She marries it to a reactionary slamming of those who don’t, “keep up with the times”.

This modern world does not suck. Like Jonathan Richman from another song, I’m in love with the modern world. I love literary graphic novels, and slow-core, and feminism, and the atheist blogosphere, and queer contra dancing, and readily available legal pornography, and organic produce delivered to my door, and same-sex marriage, and email, and “The Office,” and being openly bisexual without fear.

I agree. And implying that liking Jackson Browne,and the Eagles, and the Hollies, and Hank Williams,and Fats Domino, and The Beatles, and the Doors, and The Loving Spoonful, and Barry Macguire (who is still touring), and the Kingston Trio, and… means that I’m not in tune with all that, is offensive.

I get that there is a message of, “don’t let the past choke out the present,” but that’s buried pretty deep in the overarching tone of, “I’m better than people who listen to ‘old’ music.”

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
7 years ago

Bionicmommy:
Definitely way too soon for 90’s rock to be lumped in with my mom’s stuff! Not only is it totally different music, but it makes me feel old…waaahhh!

Yeah, I’ve heard them play Beck, Stone Temple Pilots, Pearl Jam, and Smashing Pumpkins on the classic rock station. Don’t get me wrong. I really like all these bands and the whole grunge rock of the 90’s, but I don’t think enough time has passed yet for it be called “classic”. I figure at least 30 years has to pass before it can be called “classic”, and yes, I just pulled that number out of my ass.

I am probably guilty of the nostalgia GC wrote about. I got too lazy to care or keep up with music past the year 2000. I don’t go around ranting about how “music nowadays is crap, and everything from my teenage years was better!” I also don’t want to embarrass my kids by trying to keep up with what’s new. My dad wore a Nine Inch Nails shirt in the 90’s, though, and people thought it was bad ass to see a middle aged engineer wearing something like that. They didn’t know that to him, nine inch nails is probably some kind of carpentry term and Trent Reznor is probably some guy in Congress.

Oh, and a teenager recently informed me and my cousins that the phrase “had a blast” is an “old person saying”. Oh, and she said that grunge and alternative music were “scary” and “too edgy”. Too edgy? That’s a thing? Kids nowadays.

@Arctic Ape,

Nobody parties like ag students, except for maybe the accounting majors.

re: sexy farms and stripping on a farm

There is a god awful song called “Brown Chicken Brown Cow” by Trace Adkins, and it has that sexy farm theme. If you ever have 3 minutes of your life you want to waste, then watch that video. Actually, don’t do it, because the song is atrocious but you’ll still get it caught in your head afterwards.

MordsithJ
MordsithJ
7 years ago

I was thinking more of Spinal Tap’s “Working on a Sex Farm.”

GC’s advice is useful to people like me who have a hard time staying in the here and now. I can see how it would be redundant to people who don’t have that problem.

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
7 years ago

GC did kind of come across as a bit of a music snob in her rant against music snobs. I listen to a lot of stuff that other people hate, like Garth Brooks, Celine Dion, Chicago, and the Wallflowers. If it sounds good to me, I’ll listen to it, and not worry what genre it is from or what year it was produced.

Freemage (@Freemage69)

I think people are really misreading GC’s piece, here.

A pertinent quote (emphasis mine):

You know what? If what you truly love is old- time bluegrass or ’60s psychedelia? That’s cool. It might behoove you to check out some modern music anyway — there are contemporary musicians doing some interesting interpretations of bluegrass and psychedelia — but life is too short to listen to music that you hate. There are wonderful things from the past, and by all means, we should be enjoying them and preserving them and keeping them alive.

So maybe her specific examples didn’t work for you, but that’s a different situation.

And the folks who are saying, “I don’t complain about modern music”? Um… I’d just suggest that Greta wasn’t writing about you, then. She was writing about people who DO say that everything in the modern era is garbage, and none of it’s as good as the stuff in their time. And it’s a comment I hear a LOT. It’s almost like the pop-culture equivalent of anti-progressive movements, though it’s obviously less harmful.

Moving away from music, I’ve seen, for instance, fantasy/sci-fi fans who insist that today’s stuff can’t hold a candle to the older classics. Well, most of it can’t. Twilight, as an easy target, is crap, on almost any metric you care to name. But the whole point of Sturgeon’s Law is that most of the stuff that was written back then couldn’t hold a candle to Fahrenheit 451 or anything penned by Asimov, either–and yet, they frequently sold just as well as those books. It took time to weed out the garbage.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Thebionicmommy: 21 years seems to be the number radio has pulled out of it’s ass as far as when it considers things classic.

katz
7 years ago

That blog post is really, really scattered. She moves from “listen to contemporary music” to “don’t listen to classic music” to “I guess it’s OK to just listen to classic music if that’s what you like, but just don’t wank about how everything was better when you were a kid.” Most of her points are in support of the third one, so she’s really just saying “The way to not be a crank is…to not be a crank.”

And she leaves out the important case of music that’s actually before your time and thus has no inherent nostalgia value. The Who isn’t my favorite band because they were popular when I was a kid; I didn’t even discover them until college. They were just as new to me then as The Postal Service.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Right, Katz, she doesn’t seem to realize that discovery works both ways.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Dude, music from my high school days means Backstreet Boys and Nsync. No way in hell is that better than everything produced now.

But it doesn’t belong on classic rock stations or grocery store selections either…maybe we can just forget that it ever happened?

My biggest issue with current music is it seems like none of the good stuff really gets the publicizity that radio play gives, say, Beiber. Shall I state my love for Emilie Autumn again? No? How about some Abney Park?

Fuck, my mother knows the words to enough songs by both of them to ask me what the title to [thing she has stuck in her head] is. That’s only, oh, 30~ years past her teen days. I should try some Cruxshadows out on her…because now I’m giving y’all a sampling!

This is my anti-troll brain bleach btw —

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Katz — like how White Rabbit only has nostalgia value to me because I first heard it while it was, um, relevant.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Argenti:

Dude, music from my high school days means Backstreet Boys and Nsync. No way in hell is that better than everything produced now.

But it doesn’t belong on classic rock stations or grocery store selections either…maybe we can just forget that it ever happened?

I don’t care how many drugs a classic rock program director did, BSB & Nsynch would NEVER show up on that format.

As to why it shows up on grocery store channels… well, they are going for the lowest common denominator, and have an incredible demographic range they have to consider.

Fibinachi
Fibinachi
7 years ago

.

But the whole point of Sturgeon’s Law is that most of the stuff that was written back then couldn’t hold a candle to Fahrenheit 451 or anything penned by Asimov, either–and yet, they frequently sold just as well as those books. It took time to weed out the garbage.

Elitists will do what elitists will do
this is the one thing I think will always be true
They’ll boo and they’ll hiss and they’ll say it’s amiss
that this book or that book is getting attention in the ‘bizz
and the patient lines outside the store
Will always be full of people screaming for more
and those people, down back, will wager it’s a bore
that nothing today holds a candle to what was produced old yore
therefore:

It behoves to remember: that the human race
is not a degenerate waste of space
you’ll find that most of creation
at any one time is far from sublime
and it’ll take quite a bit to figure out the hit

… so maybe just like what you like.

(QFT)

BabyLawyer
BabyLawyer
7 years ago

I realize I’m a little late to the party here, but after perusing the thread I’d just like to point out to Joe (who by the way, deserves an Academy Award nomination for his dramatic performance) that the nefarious Secret Kangaroo Family Court decisions that would award custody to an abusive mother are often handed down by a judge (often male) who overwhelmingly presumes that mothers are responsible for child-rearing, and this often works against the women as well. In divorce/custody proceedings, mothers who work outside the home have their dedication as parents called into question, just as men who are primary caretakers rather than “providers” have their motives questioned. When I took family law, we saw cases where working mothers lost custody to a crappy dad because the judge wagged his finger at a mother not giving 100% of her time to her children.

Surprise…gender roles being policed on both sides of the coin.

pecunium
7 years ago

or anything penned by Asimov,

See, I happen to think a lot of Asimov’s fiction is part of the crap side of the equation.

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
7 years ago

Asimov did come up with the Three Laws of Robotics, though. In my opinion, that makes him one of the most important thinkers for the 21st century.

Kittehserf
7 years ago

How about GC minds her own business on people’s musical tastes? I don’t like the sound of music I hear now, simple as that. I have a range of music I like, be it medieval through early Baroque, 60s and 70s stuff, or things like George Winston or Loreena McKennit or Irish and Scottish music. So boo bloody hoo, none of it fits her “listen to stuff being produced now” dictum.

But I can’t recall reading anything of GC’s that didn’t rub me the wrong way, so nothing new there!

@pecunium – yeah, the little I’ve read of Asimov left me cold, too. Dry-as-dust boys’ toys stuff was how it came across.

MordsithJ
MordsithJ
7 years ago

*shrug* All I can say is, it works for me. I think nostalgia is a lot like gambling; harmless pastime for some, dangerous addiction for others. I’m in the latter category.

And I’ve come to hate classic rock stations for ruining the music of my childhood and adolescence, burying pleasant memories under endless repetition until it’s completely meaningless. That, and there seems to be some kind of law that every time it rains in Los Angeles, the classic rock stations must play Riders on the Storm. Either that or Gimme Shelter, but the Doors were an L.A. band.

I still have my old music collection, of course, but now I only listen to older stuff when I specifically want to, I don’t keep it playing as background noise. That’s what the new stuff is for.

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
7 years ago

That, and there seems to be some kind of law that every time it rains in Los Angeles, the classic rock stations must play Riders on the Storm. Either that or Gimme Shelter, but the Doors were an L.A. band.

They don’t play either of those songs around here anymore. Any song related to storms don’t get played very often, like Carrie Underwood’s “Blown Away” or “Won’t let go” by Rascal Flatts. It’s become taboo, which sucks in my opinion, because I think music is a good way to deal with the past.

pecunium
7 years ago

bionicmommy: Asimov did come up with the Three Laws of Robotics, though. In my opinion, that makes him one of the most important thinkers for the 21st century.

For all that those stories are readable, the Laws are impossible. They can’t work.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

[cue “Friendly” AI debate]

Yeah, the shit (and it is shit) that came out when I was in HS has no place on any “classic rock” station. I guess the grocery store almost makes sense, I keep forgetting that the current “market to new parents” generation is my generation. (Which is weird in a completely different sense.)

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
7 years ago

For all that those stories are readable, the Laws are impossible. They can’t work.

They do have some flaws, that’s true. But at least they’re a starting point for the challenge of how to program artificial intelligence to serve humanity and not have it backfire.

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
7 years ago

But the worst is when the radio stations play a song and they have to censor every other word. Don’t bother playing Buckcherry songs if you have to make every word into a beep. I either want to hear it the way it was made or not at all.

M Dubz
M Dubz
7 years ago

@Argenti- DON’T YOU DARE HATE ON *N SYNC! (I kid, I kid)

Seriously though, I think that there’s a certain time in our lives, when our emotions are really high, and we will always have an absurd attachment to that music even if we recognize that the music is of dubious quality. Like, I love love love the Spice Girls, but it’s mostly because it brings back great memories of my childhood (especially preparing for school musicals) in a really visceral way.

katz
7 years ago

For all that those stories are readable, the Laws are impossible. They can’t work.

Especially since, when attempting to write interesting situations involving the Laws, he comes up with stuff like “2 = 3 for extremely large values of 2 and extremely small values of 3.” Dude, who wrote your algorithm?

MordsithJ
MordsithJ
7 years ago

I don’t have the info handy, but I believe there have been studies showing that we never achieve the same emotional openness that we had in our teens and early twenties, which is why people tend to bond so heavily with their own generation’s music. I’ll see if I can dig up the article.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

See, I would also put Asimov in the “mostly crap” category, which is why although I agree with the 90% of everything is crap theory, I don’t think that what survives is necessarily representative of what was the best stuff in any given genre.

Basically I think the Christina piece fails because of a combination of smugness (ie assuming that since her taste is of course better than anyone else’s she must be right about what’s listened to for nostalgia rather than because people genuinely love it) and failing to take into account the fact that a lot of people fixate on old stuff that was either before or after their high school/college years. Like, I love the first wave of punk bands, and while I was alive when most of them were active, I was also about 5 years old, so I didn’t discover most of those bands till much later – no nostalgia to be had because no memories of listening to that stuff while it was popular.

I can see how for someone who does what she’s talking about it might be an interesting piece, but writing as if that’s the norm makes her sound just as cranky and unreasonable as the people she’s complaining about.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

Also, relevant side note! Just because I don’t like Asimov doesn’t mean that his work shouldn’t have survived, or that other people didn’t read him. Taste is subjective.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

Shouldn’t, not didn’t. Allergies are fucking with my brain.

Kittehserf
7 years ago

“failing to take into account the fact that a lot of people fixate on old stuff that was either before or after their high school/college years.”

Bingo, just what I was about to write. The music that gets me most viscerally is mid-late 60s stuff, when I was only three to six or so. I don’t have conscious memories attached to it and it certainly wasn’t played at home. I’m guessing it was still on the radio when I was old enough to listen to it for myself, in my teens, but I’ve no particular memories associated with it.

Oh, I thought of one thing GC does that doesn’t irritate me: she writes about her kitties. 🙂

Kittehserf
7 years ago

Oh, there’s a laugh. Just checked my blog for comments and there’s one in the spam queue that reads like a real messages except for the bit “you could do with some pictures to drive the message home.”

Um, what? Lacka pics on that blog? Half the posts are just pics!

::rolls eyes::

katz
7 years ago

Kitty lovers, check out my logo design for our rescue.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

Cute!

Kittehserf
7 years ago

Sweet design, katz – in the “awww” sense and in the artistic sense. It’s such a clean, clever drawing.

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

I genuinely like some of Asimov’s stuff, while a lot of it is “can read it for lazy entertainment but not actually good” and some is “terribly sexist in an offensive way”. (The latter is interesting since there’s at least one story with a feminist leaning as well, the one about the “female” robot Jane – perhaps he had lots of sexist prejudices but tended towards a more feminist way of looking at things if he explicitly thought about gender. If that’s the case, he’d hardly be the first.)

Regarding the laws he’s not completely consistent on how they work. For instance, there’s a short story where it says that the laws worked in outer space, where robots didn’t interact with more than a few people, but on Earth it became all messy, so the laws were changed to become more flexible. Like, instead of obeying anything a human says as long as it doesn’t conflict with saving lives it was obey orders from people you yourself judge to be intelligent, virtuous and so on enough to know what they’re talking about. And then two robots conversing came to the conclusion that they’d rather obey themselves, since they were both more intelligent and more virtuous than human beings.

ANYWAY, seems to me that the laws COULD work (which is not the same as saying it would be a good idea programming robots this way, just that it seems to me that it’s logically possible) if a) the laws only pertain to actions, not omissions, and b) if they’re strictly lexical. Or possibly a) is an insurmountable difficulty, since you’d have to give the robot a definition of action vs omission, and philosophers who’ve tried generally stumble on that and fall back on pure intuition.

Kittehserf
7 years ago

“And then two robots conversing came to the conclusion that they’d rather obey themselves, since they were both more intelligent and more virtuous than human beings. ”

Kinda comes down to the same question human groups ask themselves, doesn’t it – “Why on earth do Group A think they’ve the right to lord it over Groups B, C and D? WFT makes them so special?”

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

Yep, Kitten. I personally think that it would be impossible to program robots that combined human-level flexible and intelligent decision-making with perfect obedience to humans. You probably can’t have the former without the ability to start thinking independently about ethics as well, and then the question “Why ought I obey humans all the time?” will come up.

Kittehserf
7 years ago

Not to mention that creating a robot – a being, surely – like that and expecting it to be a slave or even servant would be unethical in itself.

Dvärghundspossen
7 years ago

Agreed, Kitten!

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

Random but I think I may have found what sent Joe into rant mode earlier in the week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/06/sexual-abuse-in-white-community

trtina
trtina
7 years ago

Should i keep reading. Sure, all with sperm must provide dna for global fathering database. Every man must pay for this database and for all the testing and then all the children. Etc. Or just leave the test criteria the way it is, a case by case basis. When i got pregnant with an unplanned baby i was told to get rid of it by the donor. The state insisted that i have my baby tested. You ever watched your precious baby get a needle shoved into his arm cuz some selfish spoiled irresponsible prick doesn’t want to own up to fathering a child that looks just like him? Cuz owing responsibility means everybody else sees what an asshole you really are after all the trouble you took to look so wonderful will be for nothing?

Critical Dragon1177
7 years ago

David Futrelle

By the way, I told Skepchick about this post of yours and they linked it, on their website.

http://skepchick.org/2013/05/skepchick-quickies-5-8-2/

Keep up the good work fighting these bigots.

Manifold
Manifold
7 years ago

I don’t know why you would create a sapient robot.

poltive
7 years ago

A Jezebel staff writer DID write on at least two occasions that women are frequently violent to their male significant other, and that that’s okay (even funny) because the men were probably deserving of it and beside since women are smaller it might not have hurt THAT much, etc etc.

So at least two of their writers do in fact think that way.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

This is why necromancy is forbidden: old threads should be allowed to stay dead.

How is this relevant to being fooled by a fake article? Are you trying to excuse the Reddit MRAs from fact checking?