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.
Keep fucking that chicken, Joe.
“No, it’s not bullshit. It would be just as terrible for the wife to find out her husband had a baby with another woman. Then, some of their family money would have to go to child support for his new baby. So yes, some of her hard earned money would be going to a child that is not hers. ”
No. Bollocks. She can divorce him and never pay a penny towards that child, which is not related to her.
A cuckolded man cannot do that. He will still be persued for child-support on pain of imprisonment even if later he proves through DNA testing that the kid is not his. The courts will enforce the outdated presumption of fatherhood on him.
^It is THIS socio-legal context that makes mandatory testing at birth ESSENTIAL.
RE: Joe
What I’m not understanding is that people can GET paternity tests. From, like, Walmart. Why do they need to be mandatory if guys can literally just go and buy one whenever they wish?
Also, uh. What happens with child pregnancies? Or incest? Or rape? Those times when the bio father has NO interest or capability of raising the child, do you? Would the paternity tests be regardless of whether the assumed father wants them or not? What if there isn’t one?
I really do want to know, I’m having trouble understanding.
Um yeah, that’s why paternity tests already exist. However, mandatory paternity tests would be a violation of pretty much the most basic parental rights, because parents have the right to NOT have unnecessary medical procedures done to their children.
Nope. Deciding to parent a child leads to a lifetime of love and effort. Many men choose not to parent their biological children. Other men choose to parent their non-biological parent. Men are not hardwired to only love children who are seen as an “investment” (how fucked up is that worldview?) in their genetic potential. Do you really think that a loving father, learning that his child wasn’t really his, would be like “Wow, I wish I’d never been in this child’s life, what a waste of time?” Again, misandric as all hell.
First, the hilarious points.
“Take your genealogy fetish somewhere else; you’re accomplishing nothing here.”
Nawh, genealogy fan here, reporting to say that he’d be questioning how a 65 year log woman supposedly gave birth then questioning the parentage. (Yes I’m serious, no I haven’t sorted out an answer)
And I think Catwoman and Breadmold may’ve been using two different computers. One wired to “their” own Ethernet, one wirelessly connected to a neighbor’s network. Potentially two computers in the same house depending how the ISP assigns IPs.
LBT — I think wireless hotspots connect to the nearest tower and would thus change IP when you move them. You might get a fixed IP though, ask your provider about that. Fixed IPs usually have a surcharge, but they’re probably available and depending why you’re asking may or may not be worth it.
I don’t think manboobz’s mod filter works by IP, just email, as I had no trouble while in Boston (or NY, or Starbucks, etc)
@Ugh – “and also somehow is preventing men who do stay in their children’s lives from having any ability to ask their child to get a cheek swab.”
Duh. Plenty of jurisdictions require the mother’s permission for a paternity test to be admissable in court.
Paternity tests existing are okay.
Mandatory testing is not.
Jeez, what is it with MRAs and wanting to force everyone to live like they do?
If you think your wife is cheating on you, isn’t the relationship already torpedoed? How does saying, “Hey, in case you cheated on me can we get paternity tests?” going to torpedo it any more
Which part of “when there is enough doubt for people to do a paternity test” does not equal “all men” do you not understand?
breathtaking…
yeah, um women can get cheated on, too.
QF fin T. The thing that I dont get is how these guys are acting like the “accidently raising a kid and treating them like a human being” is the bad part, not the “was cheated on”
It is not a crime. therefore, fuck off
But we don’t think that it shouldn’t be availabe. Just that it shouldn’t be FORCED.
How did you even get that idea into your trolly little head?
Joe’s a libertarian? WTF does he want this for, then? Shouldn’t he at least be consistent in his horrible views?
Just like… a man can divorce his wife and not pay a penny towards their kid?
And if you’re thinking that he paid money during the relationship, how do you know that the cheated on wife’s husband didn’t skim off family funds for his illegimate child?
“While all of this is terrible, it doesn’t change the fact that the new baby is not to blame for zir parents’ being lying cheaters, and the baby would still deserve time, love, and care from them.”
Yes, the baby is entitled to care from it’s bio-parents, not from some unrelated bloke who has been cuckolded into living a LIE!
Joe: maybe dial the drama down to 5 or so? Right now you’ve got it cranked to 11, and it is hilarious.
Come on, Joe, dammit, get back here, I’m actually asking you about your ideas right now! Ask Eurosabra in the other thread, I am actually honest-to-god interested. Would these mandatory paternity tests be required only if there was an assumed father? What about in the cases of rape or incest? (Whichever gender is the one assaulted; the question remains the same.) What if the assumed father, for religious or other reasons, specifically DOESN’T want a paternity test?
I’m kind of confused where you’re coming from, and I do honestly want to understand.
“yeah, um women can get cheated on, too.”
Duh, but that NEVER results in them raising a child they’ve been told is their own.
THAT is the betrayal I’m talking about – that’s MUCH worse than cheating.
Cheating = this is the end of this relationship (if cheating is a deal breaker for you) now let’s move on.
Cuckolding = stealing your love, time, effort and money, turning your entire life into a lie, for decades.
Right now? It seems to me that it’s been cranked to 16 ever since I first saw his comments.
Actually, all jurisdictions require that medical procedures of any kind can only be performed on children with the consent of their appropriate parent or guardian. Sometimes that’s the mother.
So, what? Are we going to overturn one of the most basic principles in bioethics, that of consent of a person or their parents, in favor of this ridiculousness?
“Just like… a man can divorce his wife and not pay a penny towards their kid?”
Bwahahahaha! Sure, if he wants to spend the rest of life in jail.
Contempt of court. The Assholes in Charge take a dim view of that.
That you even brought this up is just laughable.
Goddammit, Joe’s not going to answer me, is he?
I need sun-dried tomatoes to assuage my aggro.
First Joe:
100% opposed to government involvement in everything.
Oh, except for the rights of medical consent, which absolutely should be violated by the government at all costs.
Aaliyah: 16, 11. Whatever the number it is such a shitfit he’s been having.
Yeah, if you stop loving your kid based on the fact that they dont have your genes, you never really loved them at all.
And you’re not father material.
If my dad figured out my mom cheated on him and said “well, it was nice knowing you, but you’re not biologically ‘mine’ so this relationship is over”, he would be the biggest asshole outside the MRM and white supremecist groups.
@Joe,
Well, seeing as about 30% of divorced fathers pay no child support, and virtually none of them are in jail, it sure looks like you’re full of shit.
Ugh: seriously. I know and know of plenty of men who’ve never paid a dime in support, and they’re still walking among us.
If they’re not biologically related to him… I don’t think so.
You’re right. His “Bwhahahahaha”s and DRAMATIC CAPITALIZATION are certainly becoming more and more prevalent. At least he’s putting up a great show.
@Ugh
Don’t you know that bad things are only bad when they happen to a man?
/unnecessary sarcasm tag
Second, math.
I can only find numbers on sent-to-lab paternity tests, because the at home kits aren’t legally admissible, but want ratio do y’all want to guess that they occur at? Three times as many done at home?
US stats, rounding up, say 4,000,000 million babies born a year. And ~220,000 lab paternity tests, if we assume that three times that occur at home, that gives us ~880,000, fuck, let’s just round to 900,000, that should be more than enough. Looks like 30% is the hi end (big surprise) with other sources saying as low as 1%, we’ll use 30%.
900,000 / 4,000,000 = 0.225 // 22.5% of births have a paternity test (at fucking most)
220,000 / 4,000,000 = 0.055 // 5.5% of births have a legally admissible paternity test
30% of 22.5% is 6.75%
30% of 5.5% is 1.65%
So then, in the US, under 2% of births result in a legally admissible claim of false paternity. Another ~3% (remembering that I’m guessing at the ratio here) have a home test determine false paternity.
Also, that’s using 30%, the absolute highest found rate of false paternity. In practice, it’s rather doubtful that more than 5% of births result in a men who is not the father, and doesn’t know that, raising the child. Also, no accounting was made for single parents // cases where no father was listed. So yeah, I’m reasonably confident that less than 5% of fathers are raising a kid that isn’t theirs, without knowing it.