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.
Also, First Joe, you seem to be avoiding the question:
Does the government have the right to overrule the need for consent in medical procedures, a right based on the fundamental human rights in most constitutional documents, or not?
I think the one thing I’ve learned about libertarians is that they’re startlingly inconsistent in their views. They just see government as a tool to benefit straight white men, is all.
Citizenship requests for a child born out of country is one of the main reasons people do paternity tests.
“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?”
Errr, you can’t test Mr. I Dunno Who The Daddy Is.
Of course, whoever the mother names as father on the birth certificate gets the DNA test.
” What about in the cases of rape or incest? (Whichever gender is the one assaulted; the question remains the same.)”
Then the test is doubly necessary. Think about it.
Imagine not only being cuckolded, but being cuckolded by your RAPIST.
Fucking hell on fire.
“What if the assumed father, for religious or other reasons, specifically DOESN’T want a paternity test?”
Mandatory. Even if the assumed father chooses to remain ignorant of the result of the test (yes, it’s your right to choose ignorance), the CHILD has the RIGHT to have a record of who their bio-parent is (and isn’t) – it’s important emotionally to a lot of kids, and it’s important medically for all kids.
All DNA samples to be destroyed after the paternity test result has been recorded (privacy).
Religious reasons? The only religion I can think would have a problem with a cheek swab or a hair sample are Wiccans, and even then I think if the sample was returned to them so they could burn or bury it after I think they’d be ok with it.
I’m generally not down with people’s superstitions trumping:
A father’s right to informed choice.
A kid’s right to know who their bio-father is or isn’t.
Re: Libertarianism – my support for mandatory testing is within the context of the unfree society that we actually live in. Not a utopia of freedom. In such a utopia there would be no-one to force men into supporting any child, men would grant their support freely as a gift – or not, as they chose.
As pretty much everyone in the world loves the hell out of the coercive measures that exist to force men to support the kids that are alleged to be theirs, it is essential to balance that with the 100% certainty that those kids are actually theirs. Unfree societies must balance their restrictions.
Alright, math time! Since I kinda remember doing this same thing a while back for another troll who demanded mandatory testing for all newborns.
A paternity test from an accredited library costs between $400 and $2,000, but apparently a properly conducted test should cost no more than $550. Joe probably wants the best possible test to avoid error, so 550 it is.
According to the internet, the number of births in the US in 2012 were very roughly around 4 million.
Thus, the cost of mandatory paternity testing in 2012 would have been around 2.2 billion dollars.
So Joe, is it worth 2.2 billion dollars a year in extra health-care costs to implement this policy?
And, by the way, even if testing were mandatory, the tests would still allow errors. A 99.99% accuracy means 40,000 may be wrong even with the test.
@kirbywarp
Yeah, violating basic bioethics, spending billions, and telling 40,000 couples a year (falsely) that their marriage is a lie, doesn’t seem to promote men’s rights.
So Joe, still avoiding the question, if parents refuse to allow a doctor to test their child, what happens then? Do basic parental rights get violated?
What if they refuse to bring their child to the clinic? Will police come and forcibly escort their child?
@Ugh:
If you couple the money with Argenti’s estimates of how many tests should come back positive, you can calculate how much money is wasted compared to the current system, where voluntarily asking of a paternity tests (when there’s actually a reason to) comes back with 30% false claims rather than 2%. Sadly, I can’t be arsed to do the math.
But it should be rather obvious: A blanket test of everyone comes back with around 2% false claims. Testing voluntarily comes back with 30%. Thus, the current system is much more efficient tests-wise at catching false claims.
Nice goal post shifting. Either it’s all about men being certain apart their children or it’s about bring the missus to court. Make your mind up.
I may have reasoned that incorrectly, actually… hrm…
Eh, whatever. It would still be a huge expenditure of money. There would have to be a huge provable benefit to offset that.
@titanblue:
Joe is assuming that women are purposefully hiding their non-paternity-ness, so obviously in those jurisdictions the mothers would refuse to do the test. Because… for some reason, mothers want to have fathers raise children that are someone elses.
Wait… Why the fuck would a mother do that on purpose?
“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.”
Blahblahblah – more man-shaming bullshit, and Red Herrings.
The Mandatory test is to be done at BIRTH, which avoids the exact situation you hypothesise ever arising.
If the DNA test was at birth and it came up negative, there would be no relationship between you and him.
He would just be a guy who was nothing to do with you.
If he chose to adopt you he’d become your father.
If he didn’t choose that, maybe your mother would’ve sought out your bio-father and you’ve had a relationship with him instead. Meanwhile your not-dad would’ve gone on to live his own life. There is NOTHING “asshole” about choosing not to raise a newborn who is nothing to do with you.
Get this straight:
– As things stand now, your mother’s husband is legally forced to support you (assuming you are still underage of majority) REGARDLESS of his DNA relationship to you or his feelings about it. That is COERCED by the state. He has no choice in that matter.
– Under mandatory testing AT BIRTH – if he was unrelated to you, he would’ve had a CHOICE to make at birth as to whether or not to adopt you (if your mother was ok with that).
^As to your relationship? That’s his and your choice and has nothing to do with the courts or the police.
And of course, what is £2billion and lots of rights trampled on, if it prevents one man from not realising he was cheated on? Wait a minute ….
The only valid problem Joe has raised in this whole thing is that sometimes fathers are forced to pay child-support for children even if the paternity tests come back negative. Which is more about the child needing to be raised than trying to screw the father, but whatevs.
RE: Joe
You’ll have to forgive me; as you’ve probably guessed, I don’t know that much about paternity tests. (I’m sure you’re shocked.)
Imagine not only being cuckolded, but being cuckolded by your RAPIST.
Um. I… uh. I… don’t know what to say to that.
I mean, being a male survivor of rape, my mind doesn’t go to, “My god, my partner cheated on me with my rapist!” It goes to terror for my PARTNER!
Also, uh, incest was a thing in my extended family. Mandatory paternity testing, let me tell you, would’ve been the LAST thing my grandfather wanted. I also bet it would’ve been the last thing the kid would’ve wanted to know too. (“Guess what, Cody! Your daddy is your grandpa!”)
The only religion I can think would have a problem with a cheek swab or a hair sample are Wiccans,
I was more thinking the Amish or Mennonites or such. (Guys, check me, would that be a religious reason or a cultural reason? My ignorance is showing.)
I’m generally not down with people’s superstitions trumping:
A father’s right to informed choice.
Okay, but… doesn’t that strike you as a bit backwards? Like, okay, say I’m straight and have a pregnant wife.
“Here, sir, we’re doing a paternity test.”
“Uh, no thanks, that really isn’t necessary…”
“It’s mandatory, sir. You have a right to informed choice.”
“I appreciate that. I exercise my right to CHOOSE not to have this TEST done.”
“But sir–!”
As for the kid… I can’t speak for everyone, but I don’t give a damn if my father wasn’t the guy who raised me. He wasn’t there. It might be important to some people, but there’s a reason adoption agencies seal those records. And I’m not sure how medically appropriate it is; I thought paternity tests were purely for testing fatherhood, not medical illnesses and such.
FTFY
“So Joe, is it worth 2.2 billion dollars a year in extra health-care costs to implement this policy?”
Sure. And offer the father the chance to pay for it – as contribution to the public good. Most guys would happily cough $550 to be sure whether or not they were a dad. I know I would, and I’m really poor. Some things are worth paying for.
Hell, I’d pay for two (see below) to error check. Cheap at the price.
“And, by the way, even if testing were mandatory, the tests would still allow errors. A 99.99% accuracy means 40,000 may be wrong even with the test.”
Hell, do the test twice. The odds of both tests agreeing on a false result are vanishingly small. If they disagree, run the test twice again (thanks to PCR, you only need the one sample to do all these tests).
Even 99.99% is a hell of a lot better than 70%. I’d stake my life on 99.99%. 70%? Not so much.
Joe is a fractal asshole; he’s a giant asshole made of progressively tinier assholes, and even at the teensiest possible resolution it’s still just assholes all the way. It’s kind of beautiful, like those dainty fungi that grow out of live beetles.
Really, all these cost calculations should consider the obscene legal and political fees of overturning the 10th and 14th Amendments, both of which imply basic bioethical rights.
RE: Joe
…my god. $550? That’s, like, almost three months of my living expenses, dude! Why the HELL would I think that worthwhile? Let me tell you, you are NOT speaking for all poor men there, kthx.
@titianblue –
1) The right to not have a cheek swab taken (or some hair pulled) – which right is already lost in the UK to anyone even arrested (no need for them to even be charged). A very quick, basically harmless procedure.
vs.
2) The right to know with 99.99% certainty whether or not you are a father / whether or not your father is your bio-father.
I’d say 2 was the more important right.
Republican Bill 1234: The Cuckold Bill
We propose eliminating the 10th and 14th Amendments, on account of the fact that clearly Jefferson and Lincoln were both huge white knights who just wanted men to raise a bunch of children who weren’t theirs and who were worthless investments to them.
@LBT – yeah, I can see it’s expensive. It’s something like 75% of my living expenses per month. Now compare that with the cost of: raising a child.
Just the financial cost alone dwarfs that $550.
Never mind the emotions involved, which even if raising the child were free financially, IMO justify the expenditure to be sure.
No, Constitutional rights are a little bit more important.
You can’t overturn the Constitution for a specific instance. If you want to overturn the principle of consent in bioethics, and by extension the 10th and 14th Amendments (or the Constitution Act in the UK), then say so.
But don’t pretend that somehow it’s possible to violate a Constitutional right just this once because you feel like it.
@Ugh – having a DNA test taken is pretty much the same as having your fingerprints taken. It’s not a medical procedure. They can just pull out a couple of hairs if you have an issue with having a cheek swab (people who’ve been abused may find that oral swab too invasive).
DNA samples and data to be destroyed once test +ve or -ve has been recorded.