By David Futrelle
Manosphere men are obsessed with the idea that women are naturally unfaithful, willing and eager to cheat on their husbands or boyfriends with any alpha male that happens to glance in their direction — a female proclivity these guys like to call “hypergamy,” a highfalutin word borrowed from anthropology and radically redefined to give their altogether unscientific, and thoroughly misogynistic, assumption the patina of SCIENCE.
For these guys, the worst-case scenario, hypergamy-wise, would be to discover that their partner not only cheated on them, but got pregnant in the process — and decided to pass off the resulting child as theirs. These guys see paternity fraud — which they assume is rampant — as not just a breach of trust, but as the ultimate form of cuckolding and a violation of what they see as their God-given right to pass their genes on to the next generation.
A post on Roosh V’s now-dormant Return of King’s site, summing up the view of many in the manosphere, claimed that “paternity fraud is worse than rape.”
But some go even further — with one commenter I recently ran across declaring paternity fraud to be a kind of murder.
“Paternity Fraud is Evolutionary Rape & Murder, Emotional Abuse and Financial Fraud,” wrote an angry Redditor calling himself MixedMartialArtsGuy in an open letter to Mr. Dr. Jordan Peterson urging him to stop advocating for marriage.
“[T]here is little to no recourse for men in the law,” MMAGuy continued.
This [is] why no man with any self respect or Red Pill knowledge gets married in 2019 onwards and any man with kids needs to get paternity tests – 1/3 kids tested have the wrong father.
The one-third claim gets pulled out pretty much any time manosphere men start talking about paternity fraud. But it turns out to be, well, utter garbage, like pretty much everything else these guys say. If these guys bother to give a source for this claim, they generally refer back to a New York Times piece on paternity testing. But the NYT piece itself offers no source for this number.
Several years back, sociologist Michael Gilding made an effort to track down the source of this “stubborn figure,” ultimately discovering that it came from “the published transcript of a symposium on the ethics of artificial insemination that was held nearly forty years ago, in 1972.” The numbers originated in a never-published study of patients in one English town. And we don’t even know how the study was conducted; as Gilding notes, neither the “precise tests [nor the] population sample were [ever] identified.”
So what’s the real number? Gilding, writing in 2011, looked at 2008 date from US and Australian paternity testing labs and found a “non-paternity rate” of roughly 25%.
“The problem with these figures is obvious,” he adds.
The participants are not a random sample of the population. On the contrary, they are a group of people who have doubts about the paternity of a child or children. The main thing we can say on the basis of these figures is that about three-quarters of people who have some reason to doubt paternity will find that their doubts are unfounded.
So what is the actual percentage? We don’t know. Gilding reports that recent — or recent-ish — published studies range from 0.78% — (from a 1994 Swiss study) to 11.8% (from a 1999 Mexican study). He notes that “the best North American study, published in 2009, proposes a rate between 1 and 3 per cent.”
But don’t expect to convince MMAGuy of this. When I poked around online trying to see if anyone else agreed with his “paternity fraud is murder” stance, I ran across an almost identically worded comment from someone with a suspiciously similar name under a video on “paternity fraud and the modern cuckold” by our old friend nemesis Paul Elam. (I think it’s safe to assume that MMAGuy and MMAFather are the same guy.)
In these even-less-hinged comments, the artist now calling himself MMAfather seemed to suggest that paternity fraud was not only equivalent to murder; it could also possibly justify murder.
You may wonder how exactly someone gets to the point at which they think the mass murder of divorced women and family court judges is somehow a sensible plan for political change.
In the case of MMAGuy/MMAFather, it’s clear that at least part of the reason is that he spends a great deal immersed in the manosphere — reading posts and comments, making posts and comments, watching videos, even reading the occasional book or two.
In fact, we know exactly which videos he’s watched and what books he’s read — because he has spelled this out explicitly not only by dropping comments on a Paul Elam video but by posting links to the works of other manosphere-associated ideologues he follows.
In one highly upvoted post on the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, for example, he strongly urges his fellow MGTOWs to read books by reactionary dating guru Rollo Tomassi and antifeminist ideologue Helen Smith; to watch videos from self-described Men;s Rights Activist and alt-right YouTube “philosopher” Stefan Molyneux as well as MGTOWs Turd Flinging Monkey and Sandman; and even Jordan Peterson, though he doesn’t like JP’s take on marriage. Oh, and he also encourages them to watch Cassie Jaye’s Red Pill documentary, a sort of love note to the Men’s Right movement that was funded in part by the very people Jaye was “reporting” on.
It’s not surprising, though it is certainly distressing, that someone who regularly dumps this much poison into their brains ends up having some pretty poisonous views. What’s even more distressing is that MMAFather’s comments about murdering divorced women and judges were evidently so uncontroversial to the other commenters on Elam’s video that not a single one of them challenged him — or, indeed, said anything at all about his outrageous views.
That’s the kind of world that Elam, Molyneux, Tomassi and the rest have created with their terrible ideas and poisonous rhetoric over the course of the last decade.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
@Scanisaurus:
And that’s why translations of the novel ought to keep its original title of Notre-Dame de Paris instead of calling it after the admittedly memorable but not main character. As Hugo said, the main character is the cathedral.
As for North American streets, what Moon Custafer said, probably plus a bit of “Everything’s bigger in America.” When it comes to the sidewalks, there’s something mean and fat-shaming to be said about them being adjusted to the average width of Americans, but they’re also more convenient in terms of letting people pass each other, etc.
The width of the streets might also have something to do with the taste for skyscrapers: wide streets means that at least a little bit of sunlight can get in.
If we’re talking about residential buildings being far apart, there’s probably a bit of “A man’s house is his castle” going on. Part of the myth of American settlement is “There’s so much free land here, you can have way more than you could have got back in Europe,” and that may still be baked into the mindset.
But mostly, it’s about cars.
Some googling lead me to this website: http://plazaperspective.com/why-are-modern-streets-so-wide/
There I the cars, yes, but streets started to get wide before that.
Apparently streets started to get wide before cars, at least according to this site I recently googled: http://plazaperspective.com/why-are-modern-streets-so-wide/
Granted, many of the things in that article also apply to Europe, so I don’t know way American streets are particularly wide.
Speaking of wide streets, weren’t the streets in Paris widened, at least in part, to make it harder for rioters and rebels from barricading the street?
@Scanisaurus
You have to remember that cities in the US are really young, compared to European cities. We get all excited here about the church of Mission Concepcion, which is one of the two or three oldest unreconstructed stone buildings in the US, built in the early 1730s. A visitor from the UK noted that, as a child, he lived in an entire neighborhood of houses at least 300 years older than that.
What that means is that even city centers here are relatively young. San Antonio is the 9th largest city in the US, yet only has about 10 buildings you could call skyscrapers. The center of the city has very narrow streets that wander around, following the paths of the old acequias (irrigation ditches originally build by the Spanish starting around 1720). Once you get out of that quite small central area, the streets get wider and some attempt at a grid system was imposed. That’s because the city was still quite small and compact until after WWII, when the population exploded. Since we had cars by then, we left room for them as we grew. San Antonio is spread out over an enormous area these days. The fact that there is no environmental barrier to the expansion helps as well.
Quite simply, we have a LOT of land available. You could put ALL of the UK into Texas and have a bit of room left over. It’s not like it is in Europe, where land available for building cities was at a premium. We were able to spread out a good bit, and we did it long before the cars were invented. Consider Washington D.C. The man who designed the city wanted grandeur. Lots and lots of grandeur. In his mind, that meant lots of space between the buildings. Much city construction, especially in the early 19th century, when the majority of our oldest cities started getting pretty big, went with that idea. Wide, spread out.
If you like cities with narrow, winding streets, visit Boston. A good snowstorm shuts the city down, since the streets are so narrow that there’s no place to plow the snow to. Of course, downtown Boston was settled in the middle of the 17th Century.
It’s funny the places you see MGTOW nonsense turn up. The other night I was checking out the Telecaster Discussion Page Reissue, a webforum for fans of the Fender Telecaster guitar. In the site’s off topic section there was a post from someone asking advice about whether he should marry or not. The first response, from a long term member, was the following:
It got 14 likes. Some of the responses weren’t MGTOW positive, but it was definitely surprising for a site that probably swings pretty heavily middle age demographic wise.
@Scanisaurus
Moon_Custafer has the short answer. The long answer involves a fair bit of minutiae about development policy, but boils down to racism.
A) most of the MGTOWs featured on here are middle aged, so I’m not sure why that part would be surprising
B) most of the musicians I know are entitled white dudes
Seen MGTOW crap on Free Republic, of all places.
Now I know miggies and righties go together like bacon and eggs, but the average age on FR is about 70.
Last I checked, it’s not possible to kill evolution*, nor can you force it to have sex with you.
*I suppose killing all life on Earth would kill the evolution of life on Earth, in a sense, but I don’t see how cheating on a partner does that. I mean, it’s not fair, but it doesn’t exactly cause mass extinction.
Okay, seriously, the “evolution” part is probably referring to the survival of an individual’s genetic lineage, but it still doesn’t make sense. Evolution is about group survival, not individuals.
@Tovius
Yup! Well, they were rebuilding Paris anyway, but while they were at it, they remembered just how often riots ended up with barricades using the cobblestones and random furniture, so they figured they’d make the streets too wide for that to be practical, while also making it easier to bring in the cavalry and/or cannons to take care of any rioters.
Nothing like mad men
Pontificating murder
On evening’s end.
Stray apostrophe in “Return of King’s” in the third paragraph.
@Jenora Feuer
That would certainly explain the news articles like these ones.
@Jenora, Katamount
Shouldn’t there be, I don’t know, some mechanism by which such a thing can be put on the agenda and a temporary injunction issued against any demolition until the matter has been decided?
@Surplus
Why yes, there should. But that would require Canadians to know that history exists, let alone that it’s important.
I just wanted to thank everyone replying to my comment,
it was all very interesting to read!
Someone needs to keep an eye on OP or at least get his ex some sort of protective service, because he seems to be revving himself up for something.
Or he’s looking for an excuse not to pay child support.
@Cat Mara
Good goddess, thank you for that!
It’s times like this that I wish I knew some authors. I wouldn’t write it myself because it’s not my story to tell (me being a cis presenting, genderqueer white dude) but I would read the shit out of a book about a woman having “one bad day” that just tore it and going bat shit on society at large
And, anyone, *PLEASE* tell me if this is already a thing. I need more new books to read
@Katamount
And meanwhile, when they’re not demolishing buildings, people are committing travesties like the one happening to the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/chateau-laurier-addition-final-site-plan-approved-1.5173652
@Surplus to Requirements, Rabid Rabbit:
Well, as I said, City Council has workarounds to that problem, involving simply not putting it on the agenda to start with. Not an optimal solution, but it works, at least when it gets used.
As for temporary injunctions… that may require provincial or federal support, since the city’s ability to pass local laws is pretty limited. And I think we can safely say that provincial support would not be happening under the current government.
I’ll always remember an argument I got into with my old landlord, who was born in England. He complained that Canadians have no deep concept of time. “They think a hundred years old is really old.” I responded that I’d grant him that if he granted that the English have no real concept of distance, as they think a hundred kilometers is really far away. He eventually just went, “That’s fair.”
@GrumpyOld SocialJusticeMangina:
You want a North American city with narrow winding streets like a European city, go for the old city of Québec City. Founded 1608.
@Jenora
That’s great, I’ll have to remember that one. I’m still amazed at the Brits who think a five-hour journey is long.