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, if he was just paying child support and not being part of the kids life, I guess, though child support is still there for the child. Who would pay? The biological dad?
If they were married, living together, he was raising the kid like they were in a good relationship, no. I mean, it’s not like they’d be just paying stuff like with child support. It’d be very complicated to figure out who owes what, and also the relationship with the kid. Does that suddenly count for nothing if it’s not blood related? Would you rather have money over that?”
why not the biological dad?
and sentimental bs doesn’t work for me. he was lied to and robbed by it. he may be only person it happened to in whole north america in 1 month but he should get everything back.
Like, literally next door, possibly one house over.
“Catwoman, then why do your IPs show you as posting from locations basically next door to one another?”
because for North America 11 km is “almost like next door to each other”
Okay, so here’s the thing. “He should get everything back”? He was lied and robbed and forced into having a relationship with a child? He wanted kids, but now that it’s not his biological kid this is robbery?
That sounds. Fucked. Up.
It sounds like he thinks kids are things, and that he put his money into a thing and now that it doesn’t “belong” to him, he wants his money back.
like, there’s no love here? What kind of parent would only think about kids in terms of money?
I’m not very good at expressing my thoughts, but this is… weirding me out.
….TORONTO?
Everyone can afford 121 sq. km estates in Toronto, don’t you know. They’re practically giving land away.
yes toronto. Yonge/Sheppard here yo!
@Fade
“Okay, so here’s the thing. “He should get everything back”? He was lied and robbed and forced into having a relationship with a child? He wanted kids, but now that it’s not his biological kid this is robbery?
That sounds. Fucked. Up.
It sounds like he thinks kids are things, and that he put his money into a thing and now that it doesn’t “belong” to him, he wants his money back.
like, there’s no love here? What kind of parent would only think about kids in terms of money?
I’m not very good at expressing my thoughts, but this is… weirding me out.”
No, he gave money to a person. the mother of the child who said it is his. no need to be sentimental about kids., why is lying to someone and take away their money alright if children are involved?
and no, he didn’t “want kids”, he ended up with one.
“like, there’s no love here? What kind of parent would only think about kids in terms of money?”
The people who were involved with the fraud?
Good job singling out men by the way, without paying any attention to the other side of the issue. And never mind the fact that lying is worse than feeling angry that you’ve been lied to.
@Fade
It is fucked up. This whole “loving children is only worthwhile if they pay me back by carrying my genes” is, well, probably a fair example of everything wrong with the world.
Also, LOL, thanks David.
Really Ugh, so for how many children are you paying right now that are not related to you?
damn those horrible people who are not happy about having money be taken away from them by lies. they should think about chiiiiiildren!
because for North America 11 km is “almost like next door to each other”
BAHAHAHA.
RE: Fade
It ain’t just you. I mean, I’ve experienced how vicious parents can get if they consider you ‘not theirs.’ (And I biologically AM their child! They freaked out over me EXISTING in the first place!) These guys have been impressive for their sheer amount of disinterest in children’s welfare.
I mean, I’m hauling a couple younger siblings because our parents wanted nothing to do with them. Sure, sometimes it sucks, but most of the time, I keep my head out of my ass and realize I need to take care of them because the people assigned the job won’t do it.
I kind of feel that this dude should choose which account he wants to use and then ban the other one.
Uh, no, Catwoman. The IP tracer I used traced your IP to a specfic location on a specific city block in Toronto.
The IP tracer traced breadmold’s location to another location on that very same block, only a house or two away. Literally a few yards away.
I would post links, except that this would reveal your location — or at least an ISP exchange or whatever very near your location.
You’re banned, and it will take a really genius level explanation from you to get yourself unbanned.
Do I know for sure that you’re breadmold? No. Maybe you’re not the same person. Seems unlikely, but maybe you’re just best friends whohappen to live next door. But even if that’s the case, you’re lying to me about that now, and breadmold has offered no explanation, and that’s enough to get you “both” banned.
It’s 11 km. We are NOT next door neighbours.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *is dead from stoopid*
Pull the other one, toots.
RE: Catwoman
they should think about chiiiiiildren!
Uh, yes, actually. I’m taking care of my younger siblings. Am I thrilled that I got shoved into loco parentis because our parents wanted nothing to do with it? Of course. But damn right I should think about them! Our parents sure aren’t! WHO ELSE IS SUPPOSED TO THINK OF THEM?
Thanks, David.
11kms is next door at Yonge and Sheppard?!!!! Da fuq? 11kms might be next door in Stouffville. but you’re gonna try and pull that at Yonge & Sheppard?!!
RE: hellkell
I know, right? I mean, I was raised in Texas, which is infamous for people having gigantic houses and plots of land, but still, not 11km!
Also, hey, can someone explain how an IP address works? I’m curious and feel kinda dumb; is it linked to a specific internet connection or what? If you have a hot spot and it travels around the country with you, do you show up as having the same IP or different?
I thought MRAs couldn’t get more pathetic than The First Joe.
Never have I been so wrong.
LBT: I don’t know, I’m relatively ignorant of IP.
I know what you mean about TX, I’m down here now and the amount of room is ridonkulous once you get out of the city.
I still don’t understand why they want everyone to get a paternity test when only some people want it. So if someone with a uterus is wondering if they are pregnant, does that mean everyone else has to have one, too? That makes about as much sense. How about mandatory blood glucose screenings while we’re at it? After all, if one person needs it, everyone does.
There is no distance between cats and bread.
And by have to have one too, I mean a pregnancy test. If one person with a uterus takes a pregnancy test, then everyone else has to take it, too.