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.
Or piece of chicken breast. Every single one, at the government’s expense. And you’re handwaving away concerns like “is this really necessary?” and “cost”.
@breadmold
Except you’re mischaracterizing people’s positions. No one has a problem with paternity testing. The thing that we all took exception to in Ms Greta Lode’s post was the idea that it should be mandatory.
So you want them subsidized? If you remove the mandatory element that Joe’s going on about then sure, if someone wants a paternity test I see no reason why they can’t get one done. Nobody can control how your significant other, her family, and so on will take it, though. But from a legal perspective? Sure, it’s up to you.
And on the (really bad btw – seriously, if it was your intention to put women’s backs up then good job, otherwise you might want to rethink things) Schrodinger’s Rapist analogy, what you’re forgetting/not realizing is that most of the filtering that post talked about is done at a level where the person being assessed won’t even realize that they are being sized up for potential threat. So its really more the equivalent of doing your due diligence before you get involved with someone and trying to figure out if they have a pattern of being dishonest, deceptive, and so on.
Okay, fair enough. In that case, I apologize if I got other people’s opinions wrong.
The thing I didn’t like was when people instantly labelled her as MRA, as if agreeing that a mandatory paternity test is necessary is akin to being a women-hating bigot like the MRA freaks. I don’t agree that it’s mandatory, but I can see where she’s coming from.
So, to continue the analogy, a paternity test would be more like informing your potential date that you were going to need his name and social security number so you could run a criminal background check. Not something that most women would do because a. wow that seems a bit much and b. pretty much guaranteed to offend.
@Cassandra – I did not intend to compare, nor make it into an analogy. All I’m saying is that paternity fraud is a harm that COULD happen (albeit rarely, but it could happen), and the man should take precaution and look for patterns for dishonestly, deception, etc. just as much as the woman should do the same in case the guy may be a potential rapist.
I’m sorry if other people took it the wrong way, but let me tell you – by no means am I trying to trivialize rape by saying that. I still think rape is one of the worst crimes and I think rape culture is definitely rampant in this society. All I’m saying is that both the man and the woman should have the right to be suspicious of any wrongdoing that their partner could do. I could have easily compared paternity fraud with being suspicious that your SO might poison your waterbottle with cyanide.
Sure, everyone should be a little wary of people when they first meet them and take steps to protect themselves until they’re more sure of the other person’s character.
Gotta say, though, if you’re suspicious that your partner might poison you? That’s less “don’t have kids with this person” and more “call the cops”. Notice how you keep comparing paternity fraud to stuff that should prompt an immediate arrest if it were to happen, on account of grievous bodily harm? This is why people aren’t reacting well to what you’re saying.
Okay, I understand, but again, either way both party members should have the right to be suspicious at their partner’s wrongdoing.
But you raise an interesting point though – is paternity fraud (assuming that it REALLY is fraud) really that much more benign than any other forms of crimes? I mean, you’re basically forced to be a parent of a child that was not yours for 18+ years, that you did not choose to conceive. Imagine if someone sends a foreign child into your house and extorts you into caring for that child for 18+ years against your will.
I’m certainly not saying that all women do that, but the question is, what are you going to do about it if she does fraud you? And even if I become the victim of fraud, it’s not just the woman that is to blame; the biological father who ran away from his own child is also to blame.
Is it more benign than rape or, you know, murder? Um, yes. Yes it is.
There are not a lot of crimes less benign than poisoning your significant other, so this is not a difficult bar to slide under. And you are beginning to strain my credulity more than a little.
It’s not a matter of being less bad. It’s a matter of paternity fraud being blown out of proportion (a lot of MRAs would have us believe half of fathers are raising children not their own) and used to dismiss challenges faced by women.
And now I wonder if Lucretia Borgia has been brought back to life and this guy was dating her. Seriously, poisoning?
Yes it’s more benign, but is it MUCH more benign? Most people equate it akin to something as benign as stealing some of your bank account money, but realistically, 18+ years of your life being forced to be a father of a child that isn’t yours is freaking a lot.
Either way, you’re right, I shouldn’t have compared. Comparing it is very silly I agree. Harm is harm, and all harms are bad.
Oh, if we’re comparing it to rape and murder, yes, yes it is less bad. It’s fraud and it’s emotionally abusive and traumatic, I’m sure, but it’s not murder.
@Cassandra – that was just an example I made. I never said anywhere in my post that my wife would poison me one day.
You know what, let’s drop all this comparison BS. You’re right – rape cannot be compared with paternity fraud, and murder cannot be compared with paternity fraud. There, I admitted it – happy? Either way, it’s still a harm one way or another, and everybody have the right to be suspicious.
And I dislike the MRA’s as much as you do. So please, let’s give each other hugs and understand that I’m on your same side :).
“(a lot of MRAs would have us believe half of fathers are raising children not their own)”
Yes, and the fact that the MRA’s fail to realize that the MAIN reason why paternity fraud exists is because of men that refuse to take responsibility with their own biological children.
Hugs are always good, I’m just confused as to why we’re back to the question of whether or not people are allowed to be cautious in relationships, which I figured we’d settled several comments back.
(Posted by mistake on the open thread – I blame sneaky slow wordpress!)
“Imagine if someone sends a foreign child into your house and extorts you into caring for that child for 18+ years against your will.”
Irrelevant. That means the person knows from the outset and has no wish to raise the child. You’re comparing that with a situation in which the person has no knowledge that the child isn’t theirs – how else could it be “fraud”? It’d be coercion, a different matter altogether. Are you saying the person loses all the love they had (I hope) for that child when they learn they’re not related?
And the suggestion that it could in any way compare with a terrifying and potentially fatal assault is just mind-boggling.
I’m not saying that the child should lose all the love, because the child is not at fault here, but the man should have every right to sue for compensations from his wife (who committed the fraud) as well as the biological father (and possibly even getting them jail times), depending on how severe the fraud, as well as the consequences of the fraud, is. I think Shadow’s post above has said pretty much everything that I needed to say – read his post because he (or she?) nailed it on the spot.
Which is mandatory in some cases in the U.S :
“Marriage agencies are legal in almost all countries. On Jan 6, 2006, the United States Congress enacted H.R. 3402: Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005.[58] This law, also known as IMBRA, requires certain actions of some businesses prior to selling a foreign woman’s address to a US citizen or resident or otherwise facilitating contact, including:
The man must complete a questionnaire on his criminal and marital background.
The seller must obtain the man’s record from the National Sex Offenders Public Registry database.[59]
The questionnaire and record must be translated into the woman’s native language and provided to her.
The woman must certify that she agrees to permit communication.
A lifetime limit of two (2) fiancé(e) visas is imposed, with a waiver required for the approval of any subsequent fiancée visa.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail-order_bride#United_States
E.U.’s technocrats must be jealous of their American competitors for having created such a ridiculously Orwellian law before they had even thought about it…
Anyway, happy to know that you can be against the excessive judiciarisation of the relations between citizens under certain circumstances (“women’s body autonomy” in this case). One could have thought that you were Big Daddy’s cheerleaders, always advocating for more safety, more control, more laws to permit the state to address more threats (which involve more and more coping people when they use their mouths to say stuff); when you’re in fact just useful idiots.
“as well as the biological father (and possibly even getting them jail times), depending on how severe the fraud, as well as the consequences of the fraud, is.”
You are fucking kidding me. Jail time for something like that? What if the woman didn’t know who the father was, if it wasn’t one fixed relationship with an interloper? What if the father had no idea she was pregnant? Yeah, we really need to fill prisons with people because of paternity paranoia. Nothing like diverting extremely limited resources from actual crimes.
If you’re not trolling, you’re doing a damn good impression of it.
Actually, brzzzzz, those Orwellian laws are just the US gov’t setting terms those agencies must abide by if they want to rely on said gov’t to assist in granting spousal visas to their clients. US spousal visa policy is totally fucked in a lot of ways, but them giving extra scrutiny in THIS circumstance is not some grave injustice.
tl;dr Embrace the free market! None of these restrictions would apply if you picked her up your damn self in a bar in Kiev so quit being a disingenuous ass.
Yes, and that’s why I said “FRAUD” and “DEPENDING ON HOW SEVERE THE FRAUD IS”.
Are you the troll here? Obviously if the woman didn’t know who the father was, or all those other things that you mentioned, then it’s not fraud, and he and she does not deserve jail sentencing.
As much as I hate saying this, but that post above that you made totally reeks of paternity fraud apologism. If you’ve been tricked into forcing 18+ years of your life into becoming a parent that you didn’t choose to be in, then you’ll see how traumatic this form of fraud can be.
Also, I don’t think “women didn’t know who the father was”, and “father had no idea she was pregnant” are good enough excuses. You’re right that they shouldn’t be jailed, but every acts of sex WILL result in children, and people should learn to take responsibility with the children that they helped to create. If the woman KNEW she had a husband and she slept with other men, she should know that the child would be either one of theirs. Likewise, if the man decides to have sex with her without a condom, then he should follow up and ask to see whether she’s pregnant or not.
“You’re right that they shouldn’t be jailed, but every acts of sex WILL result in children, and people should learn to take responsibility with the children that they helped to create.”
So unprotected PIV is the only sex act now? Wow, what a limited notion.
“Paternity fraud apologism”? That’s a laughable term and you’re sounding more like an MRA every minute. You seem to think men are right to be paranoid about whether they fathered a child, yet complain about a man not knowing a woman is pregnant. How’s he supposed to know if she didn’t tell him and their relationship ended?
You want women jailed for this … are you going to jail men for adultery that might result in him fathering a child on some other woman instead of his wife? Maternity deprivation, or some such stupid title?
You’re talking as if women and children are men’s property.
Seriously, if this sort of thing is preying on your mind, I hope you don’t get involved with anyone. Such levels of distrust are getting into tinfoil hat territory.