Jay DeVoy is an attorney focusing on First Amendment issues and regular contributor to the award-winning law blog The Legal Satyricon. The full version of this article, Because who cares of it’s your kid? was first published by The Legal Satyricon on November 1, 2010.
Troubling news from Britain, America’s canary in the coal mine and a target of immense reverence from college students who lived there – in a nice part of town, with other Americans – while studying abroad. From a Spectator article picked up by Roissy, arguing for the complete end of DNA paternity testing:
At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves. (source.)
First and foremost, let’s put the shoe on the other foot: Aren’t feminists constantly calling for tort consequences against men who make minor verbal misrepresentations to get laid? Certain women seek to denude men of their tools for getting what they want while keeping their own. Also, it seems imbalanced for feminists to deride men for using verbal and physical tactics to make themselves more appealing - “game,” writ large – while 1) they do the same thing with makeup and dating guides like The Rules, and 2) the “one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers” has consequences much farther reaching than a woman waking up one morning, rolling over and realizing she was – by her own consent – pwned by some dude who made a good showing the night before, but she does not otherwise find attractive.
The way McDonagh describes her venomous opposition to paternity testing in the article reveals much about those who would take it away: It’s not about equality, or even fairness, but about power. Through science, men have empowered themselves to determine whether they are the parents of the children borne by their lovers, spouses, or complete strangers alleging paternity. A particularly shrill segment of society wants to end that for no reason than consolidating power for themselves – ultimately in the form of child support expropriated from men by the state – and by using shame to do so.
Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter?
Yes. Only in this sick, broken world, sliding into a new dark age with hollow politically correct platitudes serving as truth, could the author ask this question deadpan. Many parents lovingly adopt or raise children who are not their own, but this ignores McDonagh’s broader question of “does [paternity] matter?” Legally, and for the cuckold who believes the child is his, and raises it under those circumstances – rather than as an adoptive parent or step parent – it absolutely matters.
If DNA testing ever was to be banned in the United States, it would raise an interesting constitutional question. Matters of birth and abortion are generally covered by a broadly defined right of privacy that governs martial relationships and reproduction. First established in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), then expanded to cover abortion by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and sex inLawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Under Roe‘s progeny, a woman has broad rights over her pregnancy and ability to take it to term, but states may require DNA tests after birth to confirm or deny paternity. If this practice is banned, it may create a question of whether child support payments would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property. When paying judgments or taxes, the government takes steps to ensure that the right person is paying the judgment. Even now, the government has stepped in to halt a foreclosure process that cannot produce the notes of delinquent mortgage holders — despite many of them rightly being subject to foreclosure. Whether the government can take property from a putative father based on a woman’s say-so, and without using testing that was previously available, would be an important but dangerously uncertain question.
Among my age group, the ideas of marriage and children are met with a blend of derision and fear. Men, women and children didn’t change; the legal and social atmosphere did — and neither gender seems particularly happy about it. A couple’s higher earning spouse lives in fear of divorce, particularly in no-fault divorce states. The costs associated with divorce and child support contribute to men being unwilling to marry. Based on the concern over men’s hesitation to marry, it seems that women don’t envy the prospect of endlessly dating and potentially missing out on the brass ring of marriage, either.
Removing the protection of DNA paternity testing will only agitate existing tension and mistrust between the genders, which neither of them seems to have particularly wanted. Nobody wants to be divorced, or live constantly on guard to the prospect of his or her partner being constantly solicited – or soliciting others – in pursuit of the elusive “something better” that we’ve been told is waiting for us. Few men or women will ever need DNA paternity testing, but eliminating its existence likely will create paranoia and distrust between men and women that otherwise would not have existed. It will only serve to make degrading gender relations worse and, in the end, hurt everyone.
{ 84 comments… read them below or add one }
Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter?
Lets mix up all children at birth, then hand them out to mothers randomly
Then lets see who thinks it matters.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
166 
8
As good as this article is, in its attempt to decry radical feminisms most odious of wishes yet, to ban parternity testing, in cases where the putative father demands it, it misses the by far larger target of excoriation and condemnation it could have aimed at, in considering this whole mess of the gender wars of power one-up-manship.
The article misses to condemn and excoriate the other most nasty and menacing body of power grabbers that themselves seek to unmandatedly empower themselves via the creation, fomentation, perpetuation and administration of disharmony and conflict between the genders off which it feeds, excuses and justifies itself. That is, the emmense and ubiquitous body of chauvenist MALES in public and official authority whom have grown rich, fat and well connected on the suffering and violation of their fellow mans rights.
Chauvenist males in public and official authority, enjoy unnaccountable power and overwhelming domince by numbers, of all public institutions and have been the most advantaged group of exploiters and plunderers of their fellow man, where the question of “who benefits” comes to be asked of the femaleist gendersist culture all men are made to suffer under.
So that whenever one stops to consider the most radical of radical gender feminist proposals being considered for addoption next against men, the first target of opposition must be aimed to exterminate by elimination that body of males embedded amongst the general male poppulation, that themselves encourage, support, finance, suborne, propose, suggest, enforce and agree with femaleism and genderism in all its forms.
Hot debate. What do you think?
40 
39
I think that’s all we needed to see. This statement is sexist in the extreme,and it’s obvious that the author regards men as appliances,or the question “Does it really matter?” with the implication (As long as the female is happy,no,it doesn’t) would never have been asked.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
79 
1
“he costs associated with divorce and child support contribute to (link)men being unwilling to marry(/link).”
What a disgusting link, the usual endless feminist delirium: men do not want to commit, men want a slave, men pretend sex, men do not want to change to accommodate women, etc.
The first line starts: “let us exam the male mind, when male mind seems a contradiction”. Why did you linked such BS? Were you not able to find another resource?
About the rest of the article, similar to what we are reading too much often, marriage and children.
Men are not attracted anymore to marriage because there are not anymore valuable females, women do not need to marry because the government is their husband. Period.
Less and less men want children, the world is too bad for such thinking. Women want children only to manipulate men.
DNA tests and stuff are for those already inside the trap, it is too late for them to go back; we can discuss about Constitution and rights, but we all know very well it is only appearance, and it is only a last small resort: women and government do not think in terms of rights and laws (specially those of men).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
11
I have thrown a ton of TNT…
at the whiteknighting, chivalrous GOP….
Read it here :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/11/why-republicans-will-not-shrink-government.html
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
4
Don’t delude yourself with this idea of “certain women” wanting to deny men the right to paternity test. It’s the consensus view among feminists, it’s just that some are loud about it, while others are quiet in their hypocrisy.
If you were to start a debate about this at a feminist website, there is, for example, absolutely zero support for terminating child support obligations in the case of cuckoldry. There is zero support for mandatory paternity testing.
Instead, there is all sorts of shrieking about how men shouldn’t care if the child is really theirs. They trot out unverifiable anecdotal tales of men who stuck around to care for their wife’s cuckold-babies. And just like the original article, they toss in examples from fictional literature as if they were based on real life.
The most reasonable ones try to deny that the cuckoldry is based on hypergamy, but instead is based on “mistakes” made by the mother, and not on cold-hearted deception.
But they don’t hvae to seek an end to DNA paternity testing. They have other tools at their disposal. As said before, women can count on shame to stop men from demanding paternity tests before signing a birth certificate as the father. And once a man signs a certificate at the hospital, he is the father for child support purposes whether the child is his or not. Hell, even my ex-girlfriend, a pretty conservative anti-feminist, was dead-against men DNA testing their children.
If a man is married to a woman, and finds out the kids aren’t his, and divorces her, he still owes support.
If a man was not married to a woman, but merely dutifuly paid child support to a child that wasn’t his, he cannot sue for recovery of the child support payments.
So, in effect, why would the feminists agitate to ban paternity testing? From their perspective, they get most of what they want anyways.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
1
as I said before, idiocy reigns supreme.
I have dozens of links, but I decided to post one for now. then you tell me
http://www.henrymakow.com/henry_its_not_just_the.html
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
7
OKay, I was going to say, god help you, if and when Palin or Clinton get elected as president.
Then again prideful a**holes and harlots deserve what they get.
Like or Dislike:
9 
9
Let’s not forget, these are the women raising our children. The children are listening. They take this in and their dafault thoughts of men are guided by these women.
What do you think a female child learns when she hears her mom go on about this? Kids are maleable but not stupid.
What do you think the male children are learning?
Feminists think about these things. They plan generations ahead. I have heard many feminist women tell me “watch out for generation y, they will be a nightmare for men”.
What do you guys think?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
4
I am going to say this once. Not that it would make any difference.
Your two party system is flawed. You need to create two other parties. One for Independent and the other. Not to mention you’ll have to fight for them, back them up. Ride the waves of discontentment.
The current independent party is a farce. Just like the democratic party and republican party. They are saturated with feminists and douche bags.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
3
here’s my thought on this. Feminism should have been destroyed before society got badly festered.
I said this many times. Feminism is a plague. A vile weed that had been growing out of control. We, I mean you need to cut it out of the society. Throw those filthy weeds in to the pyre.
Women don’t create, they tear down and destroy.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
5
“…likely will create paranoia and distrust between men and women that otherwise would not have existed.”
Oh that ship has sailed. Men are just now catching up en masse.
What this slippery slope leads to is that if a man cohabitates with a woman who has children, they will be deemed his and he’ll be responsible for child support. It’s an extension of common law marriage. (Kids = $$$)
It doesn’t matter whether you’re the father or not. Give her your money or be a dead beat dad; a fugitive from JUSTICE! Because “it’s for the children”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
3
I think the social engineering will strike back , so basically, it will be more nightmare for them, than for us.
The way of arrogance leads to hell…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
0
And they accuse men of having a low opinion of women? All the complexities of human existence, all the multiple layers of femininity, all their power over men and the ability to get men to fall so deeply in love with them that those men will sacrifice their very lives for the women they love – none of that means a damn thing. The “one thing women have going for them” is the ability to lie to, to hoodwink, their “husbands and lovers” into supporting and investing in another man’s child(ren).
I wonder if women will ever get tired of allowing other women to portray them in this way? Is she right? Is the only thing women have going for them the ability to stick it to the men they are able to fool into loving them? And then laugh at those men for being so stupid as to be foolable into loving them? Whenever I hear a woman whining about the lack of love and “RO-mance” in her life, I want to point her to statements like this and say to them “Well, at least, if this feminist gets her way, you will still have the ‘power’ to have the last laugh on that fool who was so foolish as to try to love or even marry you.”
Sure makes me want to go out and drop 3 months salary on diamond ring and $32,000 so she can play Bridezilla for a day. not.
Wow. Just wow.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
66 
0
I was thinking of dropping f bomb.
In regards to women and effeminate men, nothing is sacred to them. They have this urge to destroy everything.
Marriage was struck down. Including common law marriage. Now its paternity test.
the same old routines.
In ancient times a union between a man and a woman was sacred.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
8
Feminsts and the leeches in the sexism industry have been crying about “choice” for decades. And now they want to remove men’s right to choose to not pay the bills for someone else’s bastard??? This is absurd, and clearly unconstitutional.
ps: The feminists call it “women’s right to choose” because they don’t have the courage of their convictions to say “I’m pro abortion.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
2
One thing I have always found to be laughable is that those same women (and mangina’s) who are so against mandatory paternity testing at birth, and despise the fact that in some states men have up to 2 years to discover the deception and escape without having to pay child support, are also the ones who are all for making men who deny paternity of some woman’s child have to undergo DNA test to prove that they are the father, and force them to pay. Not surprisingly, they are also utter hypocrites in that while they claim it is some horrible injustice to two man that men are given two years “grace” to find out that they are not the father, they still wish their to be not statue of limitation as to when a man can be prove to be the father, and back-support collected form him.
I recall the not too long past example of the woman claiming that Keanu Reeves was the father of her four (now) adult children, seeking to collect a huge award of previously unpaid child support. I’d imagine that most women would have agreed that if it had been proven that Reeves was the father, then the woman would have had the right to collect that back-support. But, just ask those same women if a man is found to have been paying support for children that weren’t his (and the mother knew full well they weren’t), if he should be reimbursed?
My bet is that rather than assess such a question rationally, and without a gender bias, they’d simply launch off into tone of those typical “it’s for the children! What about the children?” meltdowns.
There was the case a year or two back out of England in which a man sought to sue his ex-wife for having raised another man’s child (a wealthy man, at that). The comments section was full of women posters trying to shame him with BS along the lines of “If he love the girl and cared about her, he wouldn’t care about the money”; to which I’s have to ask, how, exactly, does seeking reimbursement from the mother in any way have to effect the relationship he’d had with the child.
The guy was roundly scolded by women for failing in his “duty” to that child, when, IIRC, the girl, upon learning that her real daddy was “loaded”, had all but dumped the man who’d raised her in order to “build a relationship” with her new-found bio-daddy.
Of course, most of those women didn’t seem to comprehend the ironic hypocrisy of that either.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
52 
2
I’m going to say the same thing that I’ve said in Roissy’s when that article got discussed:
I would gladly run that woman’s skull with a truck.
Also, once again, I ask to give your experiences in my study:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/29/an-academical-pseudo-study-or-the-real-world-women-in-the-workplace/
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
8
I suspect there will be govt buy-in at some point if only because it’ll mean more child support claims, although it’ll also require no CS negation in cases of divorce.
For example, say Guy A and his wife has a child, but turns out the kid isn’t Guy A’s. He files for child support against the biological father, Guy B. So we have Guy A paying CS to the ex-wife, but being reimbursed by Guy B. It’s double the fun for state govts who get money for CS collections.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Zed: “I wonder if women will ever get tired of allowing other women to portray them in this way? Is she right?”
Bring Ms. McDonagh to me: I will personally box her up (live, of course! – air holes provided in box) and fedex her to Saudi Arabia. Feel better now?
I support DNA testing at every birth; it’s a simple, painless procedure that establishes beyond any doubt the parentage of each child. Perhaps in order to SPEARHEAD a national DNA Test Campaign, the rationale should be “it’s to provide important information on the medical history of the child’s ancestral line” rather than “I don’t trust the filthy whore!” If it’s for the well being of the child (Think of the children!), well, who can argue with that?
Americans love to portray themselves as caring deeply about their children (hah!); they also seemingly love security, labeling, identifying. Take this approach to DNA testing and you could have a victory!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
4
Who cares who the father is?
Who cares if all men just fuck and chuck?
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
16
If you really loved us, you would hunt her down yourself.
I don’t need to do all the hard work hunting her down and handing her over for you to box up, all I have to do is listen to her and believe what she says. It is you that she is hurting, not me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
I sometimes tease my wife about the paternity of our children, e.g. that they look like the mailman. “If you’re not sure, you should get DNA testing,” she says. “I know I have only slept with one person since we met.” The women most worried about paternity testing, of course, are those with something to hide.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
4
Feminists think about these things. They plan generations ahead. I have heard many feminist women tell me “watch out for generation y, they will be a nightmare for men”.
Yes they do, well said. Radical feminism – the basis and instinct of all feminism – is based upon this sophisticated, long-term thinking approach. (Radical) feminism is about progressively eliminating all male power – oops, “the patriarchy”. Eliminating anything which could possibly lead to male power in any and all forms.
There’s nothing wrong with this approach per se – it’s necessary. What wrong is the group exercising this approach – feminist females – and that they are allowed free reign to do so. In the absence of masculinist men adopting a long term revolutionary radical mindset (to empower men and keep females in check), feminist females will instead adopt that approach. Life is zero sum; the battle of the sexes is real. (Christian/Enlightenment liberal philosophy about the possibility of universal equality and liberty is bunk.)
Likewise there’s nothing wrong with “social engineering” – the negative connotion it has among men’s rights types is unfounded.
Those feminist women who indicated Generation Y as being a nightmare for men are correct. Things have hit a tipping point in our culture by that time. Children from that generation onwards have been raised on nothing but feminism. By the time of Generation Y, feminists have taken over academia, media and the law, they control public discourse. Feminism by the time of Generation Y is more than a revolutionary movement; it is the culture itself. It is Western culture.
(Note that this phenomenon of feminism taking over the culture is exclusive to regions based on Liberal Democratic Capitalism.)
“I said this many times. Feminism is a plague. A vile weed that had been growing out of control. We, I mean you need to cut it out of the society. Throw those filthy weeds in to the pyre.”
If you want to stop feminism you have to critique and deconstruct it properly. You have to prevent it from happening again.
If you want to stop feminism you have to stop the things that enable feminism – Enlightenment liberalism, democracy, capitalism, the free market, Christianity, the alpha-beta-gamma principle (runt males [beta and gamma] forming power-in-numbers coalitions to oust the intelligent most able [alpha] males. The beta runts then become the “alphas” and in turn are ousted by new batch of even runtier beta and gamma males. This snowballs multi-generationally.). You have to stop dysgenics. If the male mass are made gits by dygenics then the ascendancy of females (i.e. feminism) is an inevitability.
One could say you have to stop civilization itself (the parameterization of the games of life, the hamstringing of men by arbitrary “laws” – which could be pro-male but historically [in civilization] have not been).
Most don’t want to accept this reality and rather cling to these ideologies/movements as the solution when they are actually the cause of feminism.
So the question does arise; do you really want to stop feminism (addressed to the men’s movement in general)? Do you really want to take anti-feminism to its logical conclusion; no matter what sacred cows you have to cull (e.g. “all men are created equal”, the free market, etc.) in order to stop feminism. Or are you happy with expressing an anti-feminist sentiment; but when you reach anti-capitalist ideas, say, you will stop.
Is it enough to rant against feminism, while not being prepared to work towards a proper understanding, a proper plan of action?
Perhaps engaging in a false appropriation of the causes of feminism while you are at it – e.g. blaming it on “socialists” and “communists” and “statist anti-capitalists”. Claiming the KGB funded Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine from Moscow (when the USSR had no feminist movement/culture/consciousness to speak of) – when actually it’s true that feminism is born of the Western system and the CIA funded it in the 1960s.
This may be fine to occupy some time, and the formation of a sub-culture sharing this belief system will probably be a feel-good phenomenon for those involved. But it doesn’t actually lead to an understanding, and won’t actually change anything.
An unfortunate consequence of this sub-culture is the fostering and co-opting of it by neo-cons who do not care for either men or masculinism but rather are militant feminists (working out how to preserve/spread the Western capitalist feminist system whatever the bloody consequences, eventually achieving global hegemony). They will seek to exploit this sub-culture’s useful-idiot anti-communist/socialist (and corresponding pro-capitalist) tendencies.
The neo-cons in this case are opportunistic Machiavellians, simply conducting politics-as-usual; coalition building. The MRAs have internalized the “communists, anti-capitalists caused feminism” hypothesis and will not question it. They are ideal useful-idiots, not even aware of what’s going on here vis a vis neo-con co-opters.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
26
With respect to some of the comments, particularly Keyster’s and zed’s, perhaps I’m still too young at 25 to have the proper perspective on these things. I’ve been relatively fortunate in life and feel like my end of the bargain is to help others and society, which includes rearing and raising well-behaved, thoughtful children who hopefully aren’t so feminized that they deny reality. Every single study on the topic shows that children raised in a traditional family fare better than children from divorced homes, and both do much better than children raised without their fathers ever being in their lives, so I consider marriage to be a prerequisite.
I don’t think I’m the only person who feels this way, especially within my age group. The statistics are not in my favor, and I’m sure that I’ll rethink this position as I see friends and acquaintances get ruined by the family court system. Maybe I’ll come to embrace the nihilist worldview espoused by people like Roissy and Ferdinand Bardamu; I have no quarrel with it if it works for them. As I still have some optimism left in me and think we can have pockets of excellence even as broader society declines, I haven’t reached that point yet. But it’s entirely plausible that I will, which is disappointing from a forward looking legacy-conscious perspective.
If you think about it carefully, what comes out of this is simply that fatherhood has become entirely irrelevant. A man has to pay to raise the child no matter who the biological “father” is.
Therefore, doesn’t it strike you as reasonable that men should really have vasectomies and do away with children entirely?
Isn’t this really the true agenda: reduction of population?
I can assure you that if I was of reproductive age (no longer the case for me) I would obtain a vasectomy, regardless of the cost.
Having children is no longer worth it in Western countries because it has become a very dangerous, sometimes deadly, activity.
Take it one step further and imagine that men just stop reproducing… And now tell me how on earth could the government extort funds from men?
There is no way out of hell in the West. Western civilization has become deadly for men.
I would suggest to single men to seek happiness elsewhere: let the West crumble. The world is vast and can accomodate “refugees” from the West.
In all honestly, I believe that men no longer have a future here: they should abandon ship and move on to other places or make sure they don’t reproduce.
And we should really stop being concerned about the well-being of women: that has become irrelevant as well. Men must now think of themselves first and foremost. Screw society!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
4
If I could play Devil’s Advocate, hasn’t anyone noticed the growing number of women who simply do this by proxy? They marry a man, have his children, divorce him, retain custody, then start ‘shopping’ on internet dating sites saying “Proud Single Mother Seeking Stable Man…”
The child support keeps rolling in, and she’s free to get a good rogering from whoever she wants.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
0
This half-sentence tells us all we need to know.
‘Having the last laugh’ over the people they supposedly love is apparently the most important thing for women.
The author admits that it’s all a great joke to trick a man into thinking someone else’s kids are his.
A married couple is not a team, in this person’s view, they must compete to stab each other in the back.
The author is an absolutely disgusting human being – if she is even worthy of membership in the human race. I have doubts.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
61 
0
And, right there, is the name of the game. I have heard many times the old saw that “life is a marathon, not a sprint.” The only way to “win” is to out survive the “losers.”
Wasting all our energy on “work on what has been spoiled” trying to “rehabilitate” it, to “change” it back into what we want it to be, wastes our energy which could be used to create those “pockets of excellence” you mention.
Only a very tiny percentage of people who have ever lived had any real impact on the world beyond their own small circle of direct influence. However, the collective effect of all those small circles adds up to a much larger phenomenon than any empire built entirely on the egos of the empire builders.
While arguing about strategy is far and away the favorite pastime of those who choose to label themselves “MRAs” (their 2nd favorite pastime being to argue about anything else they can possibly find to argue about) the only possible solution is a re-unification and re-balancing of yin and yang.
When women get tired of being forced to be men, maybe they will choose of their own volition to become women again. Until they do, there is naught that men can do to control the situation toward their desired outcomes.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
3
All that matters is that you approach life informed and with eyes wide open. A degree of cynicism can be healthy; too much effects your well-being. There are still good men with good women raising strong families, but this is becoming more the exception with each generation. Anyone who chooses to be exceptional still can be. It’s finding a woman with a like mind that’s more of a challenge than ever before. You’re more likely to find her in rural areas, not big cities.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
“It was ungallant for Law to demand a paternity test.”
Ungallant. In other words, she expects Law to abide by the rules of chivalry. And call sherself a feminst, I am sure.
So tell me again what difference there is between her feminism and plain old traditionalism?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
0
TFH November 2, 2010 at 06:50
“I have thrown a ton of TNT at the whiteknighting, chivalrous GOP”.
TFH.
Please list the judges or magistrates you are putting on trial for crimes committed against fathers.
I am putting on trial, under common law jurisdiction:
Louise Henderson: Australian Federal Court Magistrate.
David Dunkley: Australian Federal Court Magistrate.
Judge Griffin: Irish Family Court Judge.
I claim that if I am successful taking all the property of ONE of these people it will do more good than 10,000 such articles because every man who has ever had a crime committed against him by an FC judge/magistrate in a common law land will actually be able to get remedy by precident.
So? TFH? Please get back to me when you are really prepared to make a difference. ok? Both parties and all your courts are servants of their masters. And that’s NOT you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
11
Last week I sent McDonaugh’s article to a feminist I used to date years ago. She wrote back “Women don’t lie about who the father was.” This is the kind of mentality we’re dealing with.
On nightmare Generation Y women: I am Gen Y and I can confirm my female counterparts are nightmares. Easy to lay, though, if you’re into that sort of thing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
0
I have to say that there’s a difference between capitalism and corporatism. Also, do you people have a better idea than the free market capitalism? Like what, for example? The Latin American drug-fueled fantasy fueled by oil sold to the US? Islam, the religion of “peace”, tribal warfare and harems?
Anti-libertarians are right when they say that is all-Goverment or none. The only way to roll back a Govermental juggernaut is to refuse it’s influence in all aspects of our lives. Defending your own home by using guns, more small business owners, less white-collar workers. That’s something that most people won’t do.
There’s never going to be a perfect political ideology that won’t create classes of people with all the benefits and people with none. Get over it. Capitalism at least gives a chance to everybody to generate wealth. That’s more than what can be told of the other alternatives.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
They have really gotten brazen lately, haven’t they? It’s all so surreal and weird – it really shows where their minds are and how twisted they are, when they’ll go to such lengths to protect their own potential/desire to screw around in secret. Lamentable for sure.
These people are truly mentally ill – not in the sense that they need “help” or “therapy” or that it provides an excuse – but in the sense of their extreme self-delusion and its resultant despicable hatred of truth and justice.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
1
“If I listened long enough to you
I´d find a way to believe that it´s all true
Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried
Still I look to find a reason to believe“
- Tim Hardin, 1965 – most well known version by Rod Stewart (ironically)
The theme song of manginas, betas, and White Knights everywhere.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
0
There are important reasons for mandatory DNA testing that have nothing to do with child support.
A child has a right to know his true father so that he will know his family’s full medical history.
A child has a right to know his true father so that he will be able to find a genetic match if he needs an organ or a bone marrow transplant.
Knowing the truth about your paternity can literally be a matter of life or death.
A child has a right to know his true father so that he will be able to avoid dating his female relatives. If you never knew your father, how can you determine whether or not that cute girl is your half-sister? How will she know that you are her half-brother?
The novel “Moll Flanders” describes a woman who discovers that her husband is her brother only after she had had children with him. This will not happen in the real world if mandatory DNA testing is required.
Women decry that paternity testing must be outlawed “for the children”.
What could possibly be better “for the children” than removing the possibility of “accidental incest” and the potential for genetic defects in the children that might result from such a union?
If women really care about children, then they must support mandatory DNA testing at birth. If they do not, then they are implicitly accepting the possibility of accidental incest. Is THAT what we want “for the children”?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
0
“You have to stop dysgenics. If the male mass are made gits by dygenics then the ascendancy of females (i.e. feminism) is an inevitability.”
Civilization, capitalism, democracy, Christianity cause/accelerate dysgenics. Capitalism and industrialism specifically through the great resource/food plentifulness that it achieves, causes dysgenics by keeping alive runts that would otherwise not survive.
The increasing numbers of runt males under Capitalism and Christianity, accelerates the alpha-beta-gamma cycle, which accelerates the possiblity of feminism.
Pro-feminist males (and crypto pro-feminists) are runts who adopt the position they do because they know they will only survive in a feminist (female choice) environment. In a non-feminist environment they’d be marginalized or dead; just like the true alphas in a feminist environment are either marginalized or dead (not born in the first place, because of dysgenic pro-runt selection pressures).
“Likewise there’s nothing wrong with “social engineering” – the negative connotion it has among men’s rights types is unfounded.”
Again the problem is that it is hostiles (feminists) doing the social engineering, to our detriment. Social engineering is not in and of itself the problem. As said, life is zero sum; if the possibility of social engineering exists, someone will do it; if we don’t someone else will. As said also, the whole Christian/liberal ethos of liberty, equality, justice is wrong.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
Nemo, to counter anyone who says “yeah but that hardly ever happens,” there is plenty of evidence for genetic sexual attraction as well – meaning that relatives, unknown to each other, often end up having a sexual attraction to each other when meeting as adults. Why on earth would you want to risk something like that? Of course, maybe these idiots don’t think that matters either – Oprah seems to be pretty obsessed with incest, for example.
Like or Dislike:
15 
1
“You have to stop dysgenics. If the male mass are made gits by dygenics then the ascendancy of females (i.e. feminism) is an inevitability.”
Civilization, capitalism, democracy, Christianity cause/accelerate dysgenics. Capitalism and industrialism specifically through the great resource/food plentifulness that it achieves, causes dysgenics by keeping alive runts that would otherwise not survive.
The increasing numbers of runt males under Capitalism and Christianity, accelerates the alpha-beta-gamma cycle, which accelerates the possiblity of feminism.
Pro-feminist males (and crypto pro-feminists) are runts who adopt the position they do because they know they will only survive in a feminist (female choice) environment. In a non-feminist environment they’d be marginalized or dead; just like the true alphas in a feminist environment are either marginalized or dead (not born in the first place, because of dysgenic selection pressures).
“Likewise there’s nothing wrong with “social engineering” – the negative connotion it has among men’s rights types is unfounded.”
Again the problem is that it is hostiles (feminists) doing the social engineering, to our detriment. Social engineering is not in and of itself the problem. As said, life is zero sum; if the possibility of social engineering exists, someone will do it; if we don’t someone else will. As said also, the whole Christian/liberal ethos of liberty, equality, justice is wrong.
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
@ Zed
” I still have some optimism left in me and think we can have pockets of excellence even as broader society declines”
And, right there, is the name of the game …
When women get tired of being forced to be men, maybe they will choose of their own volition to become women again. Until they do, there is naught that men can do to control the situation toward their desired outcomes.”
This is a truth that I think young men need to hear. For me, someone who was born into marriage 1.0, at the cusp, what you have said is obvious but for younger men, their minds clouded with hormones and poetic delusions of romance, it is hard to fully realize.
Women did this. They did not ask men what men wanted.
Women have left marriage, men and children behind. They are not coming back. It’s like that expression “She’s just not into you”.
Maybe they never where but had to deal with men for financial reasons.
Whatever, it doesn’t matter to us here. What matters is that you understand that you cannot bring women to the table to discuss this. That boat sailed 100 years ago.
Women opted for choice *No men desired.
They still marry because there are financial benefits to them. They fall in love because their bodies secrete hormones when their horney.
But they don’t love men and have not for many generations.
So there are no pockets of excellence. And that an author of a post on this site, 25 years old, does not see that this is the case. Does not either emigrate or get a vasectomy pronto (no hibocrite, I have mine). Means we need to do more here to educate you.
Men never left women. Men never treated women badly. Men never deserted their families en masse. Men never created a society that disenfranchises women of their children then demanded money from women on threat of incarceration. Men never created laws that make women out to be sexual lepers that, once you’ve contacted one, you, as a man, on your word alone, can encarcerate a woman for decades (false and expanded rape laws).
That is said to have happened but never did.
In fact, in the last century, more men have given their lives, walked into the face of death, to protect women and children than in all of the history of the earth combined.
This is the truth. And we see how we are repaid.
But young men will still marry, how can we reach them? I fear for my son.
Yes, this is the brass ring.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
4
For Generation Y, feminism is not an idea, it’s the thought process itself.
For Generation Y, feminism is not a revolutionary movement; it is the culture itself.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
1
I’ve said it before, few things surprise me any longer, but this really did. I can’t believe they’ve actually become this brazen.
This confirms what I’ve always suspected to be true; the majority of women take a kind of savage, visceral joy in the thought of a man unwittingly raising another man’s children. It’s basically their way of raping us, and they probably see it as barely recompense enough for the fact that very occasionally a woman gets raped by a man.
I don’t think most women would actually set out to do this, but I think that the majority of them like the thought that somewhere out there are a bunch of men who have been duped into genetic oblivion by the women who claim to love them, like it ”evens out” the fact that women get raped. Each time a man rapes a woman its 1 point for team man, every time a woman cuckolds a man it’s 1 point for team woman, that is how they see it.
Of course we know women are strucurally incapable of considering things from a perspective other than their own. So they respond to their own visceral, primal horror at the thought of rape with shrill demands for the most gruesome and horrific punishments for rapists and to the visceral, primal joy at the thought of cuckoldry by trying to protect and enshrine it in law.
I view this woman in exactoy the same light as I would view a man pushing for rape to be made legal. That is, I would have no problem whatsoever [redacted] that person, and would consider it a public service to do so.
[Whatever gets said here ultimately points back to Bill as the person responsible. I have never redacted a comment before, but suggestions of any sort of illegal activities, or things which might cause problems for Bill or get this site shut down will not be tolerated. - zed]
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
7
I don’t pull to many punches here but I think advocating violence on a public web site is very foolish. This message is for your own protection.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
3
or
– Now, those are two appropriate separate post headings, as there ever was.
Many here are painfully aware of the outcomes of post marital child division. Feminist lobbyists with white knuckled politicians (vote seekers holding on to power) both cheerfully agree on alienating a father from his children upon divorce.They both seem to saywho cares if it’s your kid? Just pay up, you schmucks.
Evidently, they don’t care about both the father or the children by often sentensing post marital children to a world of under-develpment by separating children from the bio-father which results in sentensing many fathers to a world of profound loss and morally shallow indenturing. Furthermore, as a result theydon’t seem to care if the culture itself unravells. The evidence is there but both refuse to realize it.
Now, an inverse of care of the child occurs on one hand when a wife spawns the flesh of an extra-marital sexual union. Suddenly, the cuckolded husband to the adulterer, is vaulted to full father status by mommy and paleolithic minded over-indulged female lobbyists. One lobbied for set of values doesn’t follow another – bio father denied parenthood upon divoce but cuckolded husband appropriated full father staus. The only part that remains constant is the man being regarded as the financial support for a child or children of not his making.
“Oh-ma-gaw-ud, it shouldn’t, like, really matter, right?” That is, being a father unknowingly raising another man’s child.
To start, it matters to people who recoil at the idea of fraudulence perpetrated upon another. Only, this fraudulence is worse than someone lying about their occupational or financial status to bed down another. It’s also about breaking a union bond of trust that so many females dream about, living the lie of family unity every single day in the face of an innocent party and then expecting that innocent party to morally and financially obligate himself to support that lie.
The indignity of heaping upon a man a lop-sided verbal moral shaming and then through a ‘legally’ supportable repeated financial shaming to legally compel this man to raise another man’s child. It may be easier for those having trouble to understand this leap of moral ineptitude if we replaced the man/woman indicators with the word person(s) or better yet, reversed the sexes. What if a man did this to a female?
Off to the front lines for you feminist. Only you should be required to defend a nation you’ve lived off and envisioned as a customizing factor for your own seeming benefit. The recruitment bus should be arriving in your cloistered environment soon. Be on it if you truly believe in your own value system.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
How about this –
“Having listened long enough to you,
I learned the hard way that none of it is true.
Knowing that you lied, straight faced, while I cried,
I no longer have any reason to believe.”
- zed, the hard man, 2010
The theme song of Men Going Their Own Way everywhere.
Any budding musicians out there who want to take a crack at the first MM #1 hit?
Like or Dislike:
15 
1
I keep thinking “Feminism cannot get worse” and I keep gettoing proven wrong.
[[At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers.]]
LIES utter LIES. The ONE thing women have going for them?Really?Oh!You mean,Apart from divorce laws, Domestic Violence Laws,abortion laws, affirmative action laws?(Bet I have missed some more)
[[DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science,]]
First the personal was political, now technology is political?
[[a married television presenter who for years had been paying for the support of a child conceived, as he thought, as a result of his relationship with a writer. It seems that after meeting the child for the first time, he asked for a DNA test; it duly turned out that he was not, after all, the father. Poor child. ]]
Poor C-H-I-L-D?
[[The courtesan in Balzac who, on becoming pregnant, unhesitatingly sought, and got, maintenance from two of her men friends, can’t have been the only one. Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them.]]
Oh, this speaks volumes. women can sleep with 100 men, get pregnant, pick the richest of the lot, and he is now a Daddy. woohoo!
[[Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter? You can feel quite as much tenderness for a child you mistakenly think to be yours as for one who is]]
If a man can love any child regardless of whether it’s really his, a wife can love her husband regardless of how unfaithful he is. She can feel quite as much tenderness for a husband whom she mistakenly thinks is loyal to her.
Apart from that, imagine you’re a father. Imagine a MAN telling you the kid ain’t yours, but that’s cool, you SHOULD still love the child.
How would you react?
[[A.C. Grayling, the philosopher, has written with feeling on this question this week, ...... Noting that 4 per cent of men are, all unknowing, raising children who are not genetically theirs,..........., he ponders the impact a DNA paternity test can have: ‘The result can be shattering, leading to divorce, marital violence, mental health difficulties for all parties including the children.’ Well, yes. Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations, but at God knows what cost in misery, recrimination and guilt. ]]
ROFLMAO!leading to divorce?Just like feminism then!
“mental health difficulties”?Oh, you mean the man may feel cheated,betrayed, and a little angry?
“moral obligations?” women are using this phrase?what a lot of funny words we are hearing today!
cost in guilt?aah yes, women should NEVER feel guilty!
[[But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice. I’m not sure that many people are much happier for it.]]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t there been cases where men hav e been forced to pay for the child even when they KNOW the child isn’t theirs?
how many PEOPLE are happier for it?
MEN.MEN.MEN!Ask the MEN how we feel!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
2
What women fight for is maintaining the machinery to force men they hate to fight other men they hate and die so they can drink they’re latte’s and buy prada hand bags while the nanny raises their child.
The maintence of this machinary is all important to woman. That is why, even though we have not had conscription for 50 years, young men face serious legal consequences for not registering with selective (non-selective, NewSpeak named) service. And why despite our insolvency, we continue to build the biggest baddest military machine the world has ever seen.
I know a young man that is suffering from depression. His grandmother and I talked today about it. She is 80 years old and suggests he should be put in the military. She doesn’t think about it, it’s the first and most obvious choice of action to her.
In my opinion she see’s a defective male and see’s potential cannon fodder.
I know this grandmother is not a bad person and truly loves her grandson. But, she loves herself and way of life more. She cannot concieve of offering the coddeling females who suffer from depression get from society being given to a male.
Free housing, income, special training, perhaps never having to work. This is a travesty and waste of a male to her. Hell, a depressed woman can kill her husband and children and serve no jail time at all.
I don’t think she thinks about it, it is a natural reaction as a female presented with a defective male. Send him to war.
They dress it up as discipline that will cure them etc. when in reality, given the suicide rate in the military, it would likely end in his self inflicted death.
And this is her own flesh and blood. Someone she helped raise from a baby.
This is the kind of compassion women have for men.
So, don’t try to train females to care about males being defrauded. It is not in their DNA.
Laws are required. Before the entire legislature and supreme court are female and then, with their special way of knowing, all men will be cannon fodder.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
1
he ponders the impact a DNA paternity test can have: ‘The result can be shattering, leading to divorce, marital violence, mental health difficulties for all parties including the children.’
But it wasn’t the fact that the WIFE cheated and bore another man’s child that caused this, oh no! The intellectual dishonesty here is astounding.
Well, yes. Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations, but at God knows what cost in misery, recrimination and guilt.
How are they morally obligated to serve a total sham? What about the moral obligations of the WIFE to not be an adulterous wretch? The guilt is already there – science didn’t cause it, her own actions did. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
2
I’ve no idea where this low 2-4% figure some of these articles cite on illegitimacy is coming from. The DNA testing results themselves show much higher. As in 25 to 33%. As in, it’s an epidemic. It’s out of control.
I also enjoy the fact that defenders of this horrible behavior and those who seem to want to outlaw DNA testing like to point at DNA testing itself as if it’s the cause of the problem of families built on lies dissolving and not the lying, cheating women who do this sort of thing. Yes, that’s right–any negative effects on a child as a result of a man using DNA testing learning that he is not the father are squarely on the shoulders of the mother for her own actions in being unfaithful and deceptive.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
0
In my opinion, There ought to be a mandatory paternity testing. That would give men basic rights against raising women’s bastards.
I do know that men don’t want to raise children who are not of their lions. Or have their own wages garnished by the state.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
4
Nothing short of a complete boycott of having children will ultimately end the Female dominance over male reproductive rights. Effectively we have none. Men have refused to stand up for themselves.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
4
And if DNA testing was mandatory, the cost would come down due to the economies of scale.
The only thing that keeps this from happening are the feminists and mangina’a that just will not have it.
It’s time for this shit to stop.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
In my opinion, There ought to be a mandatory paternity testing. That would give men basic rights against raising women’s bastards
I’d like to simply see the “Legitimacy Principle” re-instated, and also, a form of assumed father-custody. Children born outside of the confines of marriage are the property of the female, while children born in the confines of marriage belong to men.
If a woman has a child outside of marriage, there should be no way in which she can force a man to pay – unless that man is willing to “give the child his name” via marriage. (Indicating “ownership” and thus, responsibility). It’s not that he might not choose to give support to his illegitimate children – Leonardo da Vinci was an illegitimate child whose father gave him measures of support and education – including a portion of inheritance. However, it was the father’s choice, and not his obligation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
1
@ rob
Agreed. We can’t even get a simple blood test added to the existing list of blood tests babies are mandated to get at birth.
But yeah, assumed father custody and legitamacy laws would be great.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Agreed. We can’t even get a simple blood test added to the existing list of blood tests babies are mandated to get at birth.
But yeah, assumed father custody and legitamacy laws would be great. — Single Dad
To get around the opposition, I’ve been thinking it would be best to do things like rewrite the above concept as following:
———————-
I’d like to simply see Shazam, and also, a form of Unicordian. Children born outside of the confines of Abracadabra are the property of the female, while children born in the confines of Abracadabra belong to men.
If a woman has a child outside of Abracadabra, there should be no way in which she can force a man to pay – unless that man is willing to “give the child his name” via Abracadabra. (Indicating “ownership” and thus, responsibility). It’s not that he might not choose to give support to his un-Shazammed children – Leonardo da Vinci was an un-Shazammed child whose father gave him measures of support and education – including a portion of inheritance. However, it was the father’s choice, and not his obligation.
————————–
And of course, have it still mean the exact same thing in principle as I wrote before.
We should drop the words that society has negatively associated with the current language, and simply create some new words that mean the same thing, but are not negatively thought of.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
“-DOES IT REALLY MATTER?-”
..ARE SOME OF THESE MEN SERIOUSLY ASKING THIS QUESTION??REALLY??? u stupid Manginas..
how about this.. I with my charm and good looks seduce your wifes 1 by 1 and have Animalistic Sex wth them day and night while you go work for that ‘hard earned money’ of yours.. and behind your backs with the freedom being given to Women in the name of FEMINISM by the Gov,.. they will Fuck around trust me… and when shes preg having a Baby of mine, Imma walk away looking for other MILF’s while you very men believing DNA Paternity testing should be stopped, spend the rest of your lifes feeding my child while i am busy spreading my seeds…
how does that sound? shall we consider it a deal then??
I mean how stupid does one have to be?? DNA PATERNITY TESTING should be considered as every Fathers RIGHT and must be made Mandatory by any SENSIBLE GOV!!!
If most men never had a problem bringing-up a child thats not genetically his(even knowingly) …does not give a WOMAN or anybody the right to lie or hide facts from a man..
.. and the Effin’ Gov the right to ignore such a cheat and to still support such cheaters!! This is absolutely Absurd!!
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
No.
Shawn, did you read anything beyond the headline?
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
The thumbs down trolls must be out in force. This is a no shit MRM issue that should be easily handled. This needs to be e-mailed and spammed and flyered until it goes main stream. All births need to be tested for paternity. Rules need to be inplace to never have any man forced to have his labor taken to support a child that is not his under any circumstances. All cockolded men will be reimbersed by the state at the same interest rate back CS has applied to it anytime it is found out. Don’t even pay any attention to the cunt. What the cunt thinks and has to say means nothing this is between men and the state.
This article and topic are also a reason for a male birth control pill. If there is any thing men can do, control over his power to reproduce and children he cares for are key to mens liberation. Keep it simple and straight forward and everything must not involve any kind of accountability or responsibility of some stupid cunt. Any body that still thinks it is a matter of having laws changed to require any kind of responsibiliy of kind placed on a woman is a fuckin idiot.
BTW England is dead. That is one jacked up country. It is also a feminist shit hole trying to find female happyness by find new and creative ways to fuck over and emasculate men. Every day they come up with something new and women are still unhappy. I’m going to laugh when iran gives a nuke to some terorist group and they get off a nuclear attack of some kind on those dumb asses.
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
@Snark
bro, say that to the Manginas. There are still 6 out of 10 men around us who thinks otherwise. Thats whats more frustratring than the Feminism!
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Perhaps the only thing that will save the UK is that terrorists would be killing more children named Mohammed than children with any other name.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
The way it was written (or maybe the way I read it), I thought you were talking about men here.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
nope bro,.. this is our last hide-out spot. Wouldnt want nothing messed in here.
and yeah, You right. I jotted it in a wrong manner here, in anger. The only place men surviving…
maybe some like me going a lil crazy though
lol!
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
“DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance”
dna test = TRUTH.
ergo… TRUTH = an anti-feminist appliance.
Funny how they let their guards down. Especially around reproductive issues, which is at the very core of feminism and the foundation of its power. Little head thinking drops their guard.
The gals are either becoming exceedingly emboldened in a fit of machisma bravado after yrs of unwashed verbiage or they’re just getting plain sloppy.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Their response would be that THIS PARTICULAR TRUTH does not matter.
That is, it doesn’t matter to THEM.
It certainly matters to a let of men.
Ergo … men don’t matter.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Ergo … the idea that men matter is anti-feminist.
Feminism directly opposes men’s interests.
Yes, it is nice when the opposition does our work for us.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
I hardly believe it surprises anyone here.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I dont think THEY think that paternity matters because the legitimacy of their ideals behind social structure doesnt involve kinship. Her statement is well keeping within her worldview.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
It’s, like, all about finding your own truth. Just like Oprah says in her church (no, really, she has a church)…. @_@
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Melanie McDonagh’s article is just a smokescreen. Feminists wont this battle four years ago.
The Conspiracy Against Cuckolds
“There appears to be a consensus among medical professionals that husbands should not be told when they are not their wife’s child’s father.”
Paternity DNA tests are useless, since the “elite” medical professionals are just lying anyway.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
The same bucket of lies that they get the “false rape accusations are rare” lie from. Feminists are unable to do anything but lie, so if they say something is “rare” you can count on it being common as dirt.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
Grey Rape, Date Rape, Guilt Rape yes Guilt Rape. When a guy Guilts a Woman into having Sex which she does and later regrets. How much more must we kiss Women’s backsides before Men grow a pair and say Hell No!!! This should come as no surprise. There are already proposals for a Man Tax. Trust me it is coming. Women are now marrying themselves having Weddings and buying Sperm to have a child. They are so self absorbed they see no consequences to their actions. Its only what they want, that matters. Everyone else can fend for themselves.
Women who think like this are unfit to have children. Men are the primary problem. They are refusing to stand up for their rights. Until Men collectively say Hell No. This garbage will not stop.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Agreed. This is so common it’s scary. The very knowledge that for every 10 fathers out there that about 3 of them aren’t fathers at all is pretty telling of the modern woman.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Great article, sad truth.
I wrote about the same topic a month ago.
“Mother’s baby. Father’s maybe.” Mandatory DNA testing at birth can instate gender equality.
I think we need to go a few steps ahead and understand, how, incredibly females are taking over the world, and men, like sheep, follow.
You are a good writer, maybe you find a better title:
Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance
Females even managed to take over the United Nations.
They change 2000 year old definitions of clearly defined words like
“rape” = consensually fondling a 15 year old
“child” = 17 year olds, or even young looking 23 year olds (in child porn)
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Women should never have been allowed to leave the kitchen. Make me a sammich.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
They will very quickly re-define father/paternity as is their post-modernist want. Of course, to them, truth is relative and as such doesn’t really mean anything, beyond themselves. Compulsory dna testing wont fix the problem as eventually they will lobby to change the definition of father to ‘social’ father, based on conduct. Notwithstanding the man’s knowledge. Its already starting to happen, where a man has to keep paying after 10yrs b/c he has acted as a father, irrespective of what he knew about the biology of it.
The basic premise, as l see it, is the state cant afford to pay all the baby-bills, so they will happily work with the femz and use them to lay off the fiscal burden of mothers to the state. Females being a large and easily maleable voting block, the state will pander to them (to a point) in order to use them. The femz will never get beyond the nanny-state department they’ve been given. Its a little corner where they can be watched and controlled, whilst using up their energy in a way that it doesnt undermine the status quo. In fact it adds to it.
Unfortunately, their little corner can be a quagmire IF you step into it. They can then push the button and get da boyz to bring down the big hammer on you. BUT only if you go their. DONT.
Go Your Own Way.
Compulsory dna testing at birth, of all parties, might get broad based support from men and that could be a very useful ruse for getting that sort of thing in via the back door. Then biology will be rationalised as irrelevant to paternity, such that paternal dna testing becomes redundant, thus state can continue passing the buck. And they get a nice database of everyone’s dna. If you think the shitsem is bad now, imagine what it could be like with a dna database underpinning a surveillance-happy world.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Also, a man can already get a dna test before signing the birth certificate. Hence compulsory testing isnt required. It would be useful for men who want the law or society to take the heat and avoid the psycho-drama blowback from the mother.
It gets back to men having become feminised and inadvertantly wanting a higher power to fix things, when the solution is already at one’s disposal.
Their sanction isn’t required. Going to them for a law, validates their authority and extends their power. Power surrendered to them.
The means already exist for men to take a stand when its time to sign. Unfortunately many a man has been figuratively castrated by the feminising ways of society. All men really need to do is take back their nuts and grow a back bone and its pretty much game over for them. They know it too, which is why they work so hard to keep ya down. Take for example the whole shaming language thing. That only works if you react to it and let it have an impact on you. Otherwise its just hot air. Sticks and stones…. Its a very basic control strategy. Men might start be becoming immune to the nonsense factor and not taking to heart any of the rubbish thrown our way. Leaving them to deal with their own mess, will very quickly cause them to change their ways.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
fmz
You are mostly right, but non mandatory testing could deny the real father his paternity rights (if such exists), the guy that could be out of the picture.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
In addition to the stymieing quote above about getting the ‘last laugh over husbands and lovers’, a quote that drips with so much contempt and hate for men that you have to wonder why these she-bitches got married or involved with men in the first place, comes this–
“But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.”
She is advocating that women should be able to choose from among the men she’s seeing the one man she feels is “best” suited (most likely on financial grounds) to be the father, regardless of whether he is or not. Now that’s a heart of ice, and a truckful of ‘ugly that goes to the bone’…simply horrible!
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
Heehee, there is always one ‘thumbs down’ to every single thing I post here…one of our female trolls I presume.
Good to know I’m p*ssing one of them off on a regular basis
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
That Feminists see no problem with Paternity Fraud and Feminist Governance has become codified into Case Law. Means Men effectively are at a disadvantage in protecting themselves from being keel hulled in a Marriage dissolution. It is a sucker’s bet. It is another reason to say No to Marriage and having children with a Feminist Woman, or in a Feminist Legal structured nation. You have no reproductive rights as a Man. You are on the hook financially for another Man’s children. A Man in Spring Texas is paying child support for three kids who are not his.
Women are destroying marriage. They should just realize Men will refuse to agree to it for this and other valid reasons.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
In all seriousness, the state probably cares the most. They need to know who the biodad is so they know who to send the bill to for arrears from the woman’s welfare payments.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Woman: We need to talk.
Man: Yeah, I have something to tell you too. Ladies first.
Woman: I’m pregnant.
Man: FUUUUU—-
vs
Woman: We need to talk.
Man: Yeah, I have something to tell you too. I lost my job.
Woman: FUUUUU—-
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
It’s time for men to make like Atlas and shrug. Never date a woman. Never marry. Never have anything to do with women unless compelled to do so by law. If compelled by law to interact with women, say as little to them as possible and spend as little time around them as necessary.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
{ 3 trackbacks }