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.
I see your point.
What Fade said. I reeeeeeeeeeally don’t like mandatory anything. The fact that some women respond to being asked with “how COULD you?!” is a similar issue to men asking because they assume women are liars. Ie: both societal issues that would be best solved by NOT propagating both ideas with a bizarre law.
I also find it incredibly weird because while I can appreciate lots of people want genetic children, if I was in a relationship with someone who had a child they wanted to raise with me and I was prepared to be a parent I would LOVE that child because they are my child. If it turns out they cheated, well that sucks – if doesn’t change my relationship with the child! I don’t see children as just financial burdens.
And people who find out belatedly that they’re not the biological parents and sue for compensation gross me out because do you not love your child? They are still your fucking child, you sociopath. Your problem is with your ex/partner, and trying to get refunded for your purchase of a child is disgusting.
Unless I’m severely misinformed, the paternity test will only determine whether or not someone IS the father, it doesn’t determine WHO the father is. So, at best, a child will know that it won’t inherit the propensity for heart disease from someone who thought they were the father, it doesn’t really do much in telling the child of any medical history belonging to it’s actual father.
A paternity test isn’t going to tell you squat about medical history. It won’t tell you where to look if the father isn’t the father.
IIRC, the tests are not all that cheap to administer. We went over this ad nauseum in a Br_n thread, he was arguing for this very same thing.
You’re in very “good” MRA company with this one.
Ninja’d by Shadow!
hellkell, I really hope you’re not insinuating I’m an MRA. I was thinking at this from a different angle, and having said my piece I’m done. Insults not necessary.
No, she’s saying that you agree with something MRAs are passionate about, and it’s probably worth thinking (ie: worrying) about that.
No one’s saying paternity tests are evil – just that mandatory testing is fucked up, and comes from a viewpoint that women lie about it a lot. I’m sure a lot of straight dudes would be super uncomfortable with HAVING to do this shit too.
Ms Getta Lode, if you trot out MRA talking points, you will get the side-eye from people (plural).
::waves::
Hi, hrovitnir, good to see you!
“I’m sure a lot of straight dudes would be super uncomfortable with HAVING to do this shit too.”
Exactly. I would think plenty of men would be horrified.
This is the core of it: It’s medically unnecessary, it costs money, and, in most cases, neither party wants it. It doesn’t make sense on any level.
Or should anyone be able to mandate that other people get medically unnecessary procedures because it falls in line with their ideology?
Ms Geta Lode: I’m not saying you’re an MRA, but this is one of their hobbyhorses, so I’m gonna give major side-eye to it.
False paternity is one of those things that’s not really an issue, because it doesn’t happen all that often.
Okay. I also don’t think babies should be circumsized. Whew. That’s all the MR-agreeing baggage I’ve got. Here’s my kitty. I love you guys.
http://i.imgur.com/QgpM67z.jpg
Hi Kitteh! I have been lurking but keep being too slow off the mark to feel like I have anything to contribute. 🙂
+1 what everyone else said. I am generally opposed to forcing anyone to do anything without a really good reason anyway. Which sounds like a common opinion but talk to almost anyone for long enough and they’ll expound on SOMETHING they want to force [some other group they disapprove of] to do. 😛
Re: circumcision (if anyone wants to get in this) is there really a reason for it? I mean, I don’t think MRAs are the only ones who think it’s a skeevy idea…
“Hi Kitteh! I have been lurking but keep being too slow off the mark to feel like I have anything to contribute.”
Heheh I don’t let that stop me too often! 😛
I can think of an “I’d force X to” example – I’d force millionaires and billionaires to pay tax! (If only.)
I’m not seeing how paternity tests help with medical history. If they confirm that the person who you assumed was probably the father was, well, you already have access to his medical history. If they confirm that he’s not the father, now you don’t know who the father is, and you still don’t know the appropriate medical history.
It’s a red herring so obvious that I’m surprised anyone falls for it.
BAH uni internet is being so slow. 🙁 Try again:
Haha, well I don’t like male circumcision either but that’s kind of the opposite – opposing overriding bodily autonomy based on pseudoscience rather than supporting overriding individual choices based on pseudologic. 😛
There’s a miscellany of real or purported small medical benefits, but not really, no.
But if we’re working from the assumption that one group’s ideological views are sufficient reason alone to mandate a procedure, then they’d have to be required.
lol Kitteh. This place is such a black hole for time. 😛
NB: People tend to be sensitive here Ms Getta Lode because we/they have to deal with MRAs constantly, probably most often in their fake caring/neutral mode. So claims like “I’m not an MRA but-” tend to get short shrift; if you don’t turn into a defensive goit it’s all good. 😀
P.P.S. Cats are always appreciated. 😀
Male circumcision is so not the black and white debate MRAs paint it as though. Lots of circumcised men vocally support it – and as a person that does not have a penis I don’t feel I get to negate their feelings.
I strongly feel that surgically altering the body of an infant for any reason but that they are going to be in pain/not going to be able to function is WRONG, but considering most circumcisions go smoothly and result in a pretty neutral effect for the boy it’s a bit fuzzier than cutting out a child’s clitoris and/or sewing her labia mostly-closed.
The female circumcision involving trimming the clitoral hood only is equivalent to male circumcision but MRAs like to act like all FGM = male circumcision and it makes it impossible to have a real conversation, as fucking usual. Idiots.
hrovitnir, just what I was going to say, ‘cept you said it better! MRAs would never grasp that the real comparison with full FGM would be cutting the penis off – more than that, given the massive health problems and pain that procedure causes.
Given the MRA mindset, I’m slightly surprised at least one of them hasn’t said FGM is a good idea.
Yeah, part of the reason I’m reluctant to really get behind some of the anti-circumcision arguments is that they often veer into body shaming of men who are circumcised. There has to be a way of making the argument that circumcision should in general stop happening without talking about how inferior circumcised penises are.
(On behalf of the men I’ve known and loved who have been circumcised that tends to make me punchy.)
When my oldest was born the doctor told me that he had an extra little bit of pinna (ear) that could be removed when he was older and able to tolerate the anesthetic. Then they went ahead and circumcised him without so much as a by your leave. It was not until later that I wondered how in the world they though it was ok to chop one bit without anesthesia and not another.
It was a long time ago and I was very young, but still, I can’t help wondering WTF?
Googling and speed reading the original here, it seems that North (in Jezebel) is arguing against McDonagh (in the Times, the Times online is a subscriber service, so I’ve not read that) … North presents her POV that she doesn’t think paternity testing is a big deal, per se.
http://jezebel.com/5349395/are-paternity-tests-anti+feminist
It seems it’s McDonagh / the Times who is advocating for deception, not North ? Jezebel.
It’s not terribly surprising that some people were taken in by the fake Jezebel tho’, Jezebel has previous for misandry:
http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have
@hellkell
*sneak five*
Re: circumcision
I tend to follow the lead of those who are circumcised because I don’t come from a culture that practices it, so I’m not really in the right place to judge it’s value. OTOH, (TMI to follow), I have a really sensitive head, but not to a point where it’s medically abnormal. My life would be hell if I had been circumcised, and I can’t help but think that there’ll be circumcised guys who deal with that, and I dislike the fact that circumcision is done so early that those kinds of problems aren’t taken into account for the individual. There’s the bodily autonomy issue too, but most circumcised people I know aren’t bothered by it, so I feel weird describing it as a violation when they don’t.