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.
Joe: Misandry is not a thing. And no one here cares what you think.
But it is cute that Joe’s trying to hand-wave away the utter gullibility of the MRM. Face it dude, they’re lolcows.
Shadow, in general circumcision makes the glans (head) far less sensitive because the outer layer of skin cells dies, leaving it with skin that matches the rest of the external body skin. That said, I imagine the chafing between cutting and keratinization ( I think that’s the word) probably sucks, but I have no memory of that.
I agree that anti-circ arguments often lead to body-shaming, but I’m not sure it’s avoidable because one of the best anti-circ arguments is the inferiority of cut penises compared to uncut.
That said, whilr I’d rather not be circumsiced, I’m not that upset that I was. Sex with a cut penis is fine and my biggest sex-related bio problem (ejaculatory anhedonia) is almost certainly not related.
THANK YOU Ms. Getta Lode. I appreciate your viewpoint so much that I can’t believe that people here are so quick to attack you and label you as an MRA.
I’m not an MRA, but a little bit about my opinion on paternity tests – in an ideal world, paternity tests are not necessary. The reason why they exist IS because there are cases where a man unknowingly becomes the father of a child that isn’t his. Why? Because there are wives/GF’s that can trick a guy into becoming a father against his will. You may consider what I said as misogynistic, but would it be misanthropic if I were to say that people steal? Would it be misandrist when I say that men cheat on their wives? Men can be bad, but so can women.
Here’s where my opinion differs from the MRA’s – paternity fraud is partly caused by women (where she deceives the BF/husband), but is mostly caused by men. Why? Because for every men that is forced to be a father of a child that isn’t his, there is also another man (the biological father) who ran away from his biological child. So assuming that the wife did cheat on him and got pregnant, why didn’t the extramarital lover/fuck buddy took responsibility with the child? If the family/child support laws were stricter, and men who run away from their biological child receives a penalty, then would paternity fraud be much of a problem? So, in a way, paternity testing is not a “men’s rights” issue at all, because if the fraud victim has been tested negative for the paternity test, then he is freed from taking responsibility for a child that isn’t his, but the biological father, having proved that he’s the real father, has no way out of this, and is forced to be the father of the child. I know the latter part is something that the MRA’s does not want to hear.
My opinion is this – paternity tests should not be mandatory, but it should be easily accessible, and should not be expensive. What if the man suspects that the child is not his, especially when considering that paternity fraud exists? I’m using the same line of reasoning as the “Schrodinger’s Rapist” model here (which, by the way, I fully agree with). A woman has the right to suspect that the man she first dates with may be a potential rapist, just as much as a man has the right to suspect that his GF’s newborn child may not be his. I’m not going to get into a gender olympics here to say which one is worse, but if a woman has the right to be paranoid, so should men. Of course, this is not to say that paternity fraud is a woman’s issue (it isn’t).
Also, hrovitnir – your “sociopath” comment disgusted me. What the hell is wrong with you? So people who are angry at the fact that they have been lied to is automatically a sociopath? I don’t know if you are a male or not, but if you raise a child for 10 years, and you hear the bad news that your lover has been cheating behind your back and the child is actually not yours, what would you do? What would an average person do? Be honest please.
I’ll tell you what I’ll do – I will still love the child, but I will sue the biological father the amount of money that I spent so far with the child, including those that I will spend in the future. And I will file for a divorce, keep the child to myself, and force both of them to pay support to the child. But that’s just me. If another man has been the victim of fraud and found out the real truth, then he has the right to leave, because paternity fraud is essentially forcing someone’s life to be in burden for several years.
Speaking of which, feminism is about gender equality, correct? So if it’s possible to deceive a father into paying a child that isn’t his but impossible to deceive a mother into paying a child that isn’t hers, due to how the childbirth process works, doesn’t this double standard bother you? So in a way, paternity test (although not a men’s right issue) helps to compensate for the inequality, almost like how women’s only hours helps to compensate for the gender differences in gym accessibility.
That is… icky (trying to rate someone’s penis based on whether it’s been circumcized)
I mean, shouldn’t “unnecesary body modification violates bodily autonomy” be enough?
/though I will admit I’m pretty uneducated in this issue, and kind of don’t have a stake because i am penis-less
“I agree that anti-circ arguments often lead to body-shaming, but I’m not sure it’s avoidable because one of the best anti-circ arguments is the inferiority of cut penises compared to uncut”
I’d say that the simple argument that:
Absolutely no-one male or female should have body modification / mutilation practised on them – until they are competent as consenting adults, who may or may not choose it.
^That should be enough to have circumcision of any kind banned, on any and all babies – regardless of sex.
The only exception being emergency medical procedures – e.g. serious infection not responding to antibiotics.
No need to body shame anyone.
Euh ma gherd. Me and Fade agree on something. 0.0
Hey, I’m just as weirded out by this as you are.
Heavens, Joe said something sensible!
@hellkell – dictionary.com
“mis·an·dry
[mis-an-dree] Show IPA
noun
hatred of males.
Compare misogyny.
Origin:
1945–50; mis-2 + -andry (as in polyandry), on the model of misogyny
Related forms
mis·an·drist, noun”
Also, scroll back up and read that Jezebel article on boyfriend beating, and all the gleeful comments celebrating the violence they did, it’s a perfect example of misandry, right there in black and white.
Jezebel edited that article to make it more palatable, the original was even worse. Even so, I’m surprised they left it up. I’m glad they did tho’ – it makes all the denial of domestic violence against men that much weaker.
And it looks like we’re done with our tiny agreeing on things moment.
ZOMG I CAN QUOTE THE DICTIONARY, TOO!!!!
This totally constitutes a point!eleventy!
And if you think Redditors are gullible lolcows???
Tumblr feminism.
Oh the stupid. It burns.
Curse you, blockquote monster. Trying again.
Exactly. Especially if the person is quite insistent that they’re happy as is, telling them that they ought to feel violated and like their cock is inferior doesn’t sit right with me. Why give someone a complex that they didn’t already have? I’m not seeing how this adds to the sum of human happiness.
Here’s the thing. Lots of guys have worries about their cocks already, right? This is a fairly common problem? OK, given that, how is saying “btw your cock is inferior, just so you know, and if my saying that hurts your feelings, oh well, it’s for the good of the cause” going to improve the situation?
Just because it’s a difficult argument to make doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to figure out a way to make it in a way that minimizes collateral damage, imo.
Shadow: re your TMI: One of the things about circumcision is that sensitivity changes; the lack of prepuce causes a bit of toughening of the glans.
You would probably have been fine.
Funny story. (it hinges on my being circumcised). As a child I didn’t have a clear idea of what circumcision was. I had a child’s understanding, had never seen an uncircumcised penis, etc, so I didn’t know what a foreskin was.
I therefore assumed I was uncircumcised (I wasn’t jewish, and it seemed obvious to me that no one had cut the end of my dick off).
In middle school I had gym. There were people who weren’t circumcised; they were a minority. So there was this wrinkled bit of skin, and no visible glans.
So I assumed they were circumcised, and that was the scar tissue.
Re: circumcision
A quick side note from research my fiance shared with me after doing a research project on circumcision for a human sexuality class. He was circumcised as a child and was curious about whether being uncircumcised was better. He wasn’t biased either way from the outset but did conclude that he was happy with being circumcised and might’ve gotten it done if he hadn’t been…you can call me a liar for claiming there are pro-circ men, I’m just stating his opinion before word-dumping his research:
Circumcision is medically useful in a lot of situations (many extremely anti-circ MRAs will argue against it being a viable option in cases like severe phimosis, which is kind of cruel in a way) and has very slight health benefits. To argue that it takes away any sensitivity at all is not at all supported by reliable research, both studies that use sensors to measure the amount of nerve activity in the penis and studies that survey simply on sexual satisfaction. The only research that says it does was an informal survey performed by a doctor with questions that sounded pretty leading to me. It does lead to a slight callousing effect, of course, but there’s absolutely no evidence that said callousing affects *overall* sensitivity. It just feels different.
And to say that infant circumcision is anywhere near comparable to rape or FGM in terms of trauma – like many extreme anti-circ MRAs do regularly – is absolutely ludicrous. Research on FGM shows that it very obviously damages the vagina and reduces sensitivity by an insane amount, and I don’t even need to explain why rape is different. It can be traumatic in some ways to realize that your body was changed without your permission, but FGM and rape are different period.
However:
That all being said…I completely agree that it should be 100% an adult male’s choice unless some kind of unimaginable medical emergency requires the immediate removal of the foreskin (not that such a case necessarily exists). I’d think most feminists would agree with this and I’m not sure why MRAs think we wouldn’t. Infant circumcision is a violation of body choice and feminists are obviously very for preserving that right.
I just disagree that it’s never ever medically useful, like certain pockets of MRAs will argue, and think it should at least remain available as a choice for men who want to have it done, unlike those who think it should be banned period. Science is basically neutral on voluntary circumcision, much like it is on body piercings performed by trained professionals.
“And if you think Redditors are gullible lolcows???
Tumblr feminism.
Oh the stupid. It burns.”
Wow! That was brilliant! Maybe Joey is really Stephen Hawking with a really unimaginative handle!
On the origins of the word “misandry”. I think opheliamonarch linked to this page a few threads ago, and it’s worth seeing again (emphases mine).
Source: http://www.adonismirror.com/10152006_leader_misandry_and_misanthropy.htm
I’ll start with the comment directed at me and work from there. 😀
I take back the “sociopath” part only because using mental illness as an insult is a bad thing. I do not take back my statement that if someone finds out their child is not biologically theirs and their reaction is to want a refund on all the money they spend on their child, they are severely lacking in empathy.
Their reality is they have a child, and we’re going to assume they love their child, who loves them back. They cannot get that time back. They cannot get that money back. By loudly demanding compensation all they’re really doing is communicating to their child that if they’d known they weren’t their biological father, they wouldn’t have been there for them. Ie: they are hurting them out of pride.
I am in no way denying how much that would hurt and fuck with your head, but Christ, get some priorities. Be upset in your own time, don’t make everyone around you feel worse to feel revenged.
What would I do? I would cut off communication to the greatest extent possible considering we have a child with the mother. I would have an age-appropriate conversation with my child about how I love them, and they’re welcome to find their biological father if they like but it doesn’t change anything between us.
What would most people do? Scream and yell and trample on the feelings of their children because that’s what most people do anyway. This is why I would like parenting to be less of a default life plan.
My 14yo brother currently lives with me and my partner 1/2 the week, and I hope full time when he’s old enough because his life has been so fucking hard for him with his parents (my mother, his father) hurting him in their need to hurt one another. I would like to get my 12yo sister out too but her issues are different and I may not be able to. I offered to let my step-sister live with me when she was 13 because she was being torn on all sides by selfish adults hurting each other – her father (my mother’s partner) and her mother (my father’s partner).
I have fucking OPINIONS on this subject because I have zero fucking time for this bullshit. I was the child in the middle and damned if I’m not going to do everything in my power to help those kids (I’m 28). Even when it hurts me. Because I care more about those kids than my own pride, as any parent damn well should. So don’t even fucking TRY and get my credentials.
And there’s the money quote. The child has no voice here, it’s all about you. Well guess what? FUCK OFF.
Attack? Try “disagree and be suspicious she’s in good faith because MRAs routinely come here and pretend to be reasonable for about 5 seconds.”
Let’s just bold this for clarity: no one is saying paternity tests shouldn’t exist, or that requesting one is bad. What we are saying is that making it mandatory is (a) fucked up just on principal, because autonomy is good, and (b) makes no sense unless you think that it happens a statistically significant amount of the time, which is doesn’t.
See this to me shows your overly simplistic and gender role-entrenched view of the entire thing. Life is complicated! Some women may have sex with lots of people behind their partner’s back and lie about it to their partner. Pretty revolting behaviour but if the guy is happy to be a parent, he still gains a relationship with his daughter or son and the child gains a father. Not all’s well that ends well, but not something that can be fixed with money.
Some women might fall in love with someone else but not be willing or able to leave their partners and go back to them pregnant without telling them. Not OK but life is fucking complicated.
Some women might get drunk at a party and be raped without knowing it, and raise the child thinking it’s her partners. Because LIFE IS FUCKING COMPLICATED.
I don’t blame “men” or “women” because neither is a monolith. Bad things happen, we deal with them as they come. What I would *like* is a picture of relationships that are between two people that like each other and communicate, and are honest, and work through their problems. But that’s a pipe dream, isn’t it?
*Posting this when angry, hopefully won’t regret it.
P.S. Note that since Ms Getta Lode has not devolved into spouting misogynist drivel, she is currently getting the benefit of the doubt. You, well, I don’t care if you’re an MRA, you’re a self-absorbed twat and not worth the time I just spent on you.
Don’t you just love the way the assumption is that the woman and the other man cheated and that they conspired to have the first bloke tricked into raising the child? Imagine the biological father in Joe’s scenario, being sued for the upkeep of a child he may not have known existed. But then Joe’s talking as if this is all some sort of property battle and the money he’s spent is the most important thing ever and he bought that kid and he was cheated and he still gets to keep it even though he has no biological connection with it and that’s the most important thing in the world or else why is he chasing this money in the first place …
It must really suck to be as paranoid and convinced that other people are out to hurt you as Joe is. I’m not sure how h got that way, but it sure does seem to be fucking up his life now. I think it’s why he can never stay on topic even when you can see that he knows that there is a more important topic that he really ought to be focusing on. He always gets distracted and dissolves into ragefeelingsdump.
Sorry, breadmold’s comment, not Joe’s. It sounded like the sort of thing Joe would say.
Breadmold, sideeyeing someone because they’re bringing up MRA talking points is not saying “You’re an MRA.” It says, as was mentioned already, that it’s worth thinking about the statement when it is one of their hobbyhorses.
“A woman has the right to suspect that the man she first dates with may be a potential rapist, just as much as a man has the right to suspect that his GF’s newborn child may not be his. I’m not going to get into a gender olympics here to say which one is worse, but if a woman has the right to be paranoid, so should men. Of course, this is not to say that paternity fraud is a woman’s issue (it isn’t).”
That’s a fucking offensive comparison. “I might be in danger of rape or murder” compares with “this child may not be mine”? You even have to ask which is worse? In what universe?
Oh dear, I fear that his time here may be short and painful.