Here we launch the 21st century Masculinist movement . . . in SANDS OPEN FORUM Forum

0 Points

Add Reply New Topic

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Here we launch the 21st century Masculinist movement . . .

Author

Comment

the toma

Here we launch the 21st century Masculinist movement . . .

Lead

[-]

01/10/10 4:38 AM

Humpty-Dumpty was pushed!
Remove this ad

As promised, sorta. First issue: babies. Somewhere between 3% and 10% of all children are raised by 'fathers' who have no idea that their 'children' are not their own. That number has dropped only very slightly over the last 30 years.

If I had a child, it would be by far the most important thing that ever happened to me. It'd be the most important challenge I'd ever undertaken. If I found out, later, that the child wasn't even mine, I would be absolutely, hopelessly crushed. Destroyed. I'd have no idea what to do next, none. My life would be . . . beaten to a pulp. And I would become the most hateful, cynical human on the planet.

No more. It's time we straightened this out.

Every baby and 'father' get automatic DNA tests, and the mother is legally barred from ever knowing the results. No paternity exists without genetic proof or tacit acceptance. A 'father' can opt out, if he wants. All children are eligible, on demand, for paternity tests in the first year. After that first year, 'fathers' become fathers, legally.

Discuss...

Reply Quote

Dreamy5

#1

[-]

01/10/10 6:30 AM

LMAO!

Reply Quote

the toma

#2

[-]

01/10/10 2:57 PM

Every adult should have the right to know that their child is their own flesh and blood. This is the way the world will go, it's only a matter of time.

I'm surprised by your defeatism, Dreamy. I imagine if it were the other way around, you'd be the first to advocate something that would assure mothers are actually raising their own.

Reply Quote

nickythegay

#3

[-]

01/10/10 3:07 PM

well, if mothers keep an eye on the baby after the birth they can rest assured they are raising their own. Anyway, what does it matter as long as a child has a Father and a Father has a child?
If you ARE raising a child you didn't father, you are guaranteed of raising a child with a better genetic makeup than you could have given it, considering you were the less fit of the selected

Reply Quote

Dreamy5

#4

[-]

01/10/10 4:19 PM

Hi, Bruv.

Thanks for the giggles, Toma. Of course, everyone knows that any child a woman raises is "her own."

Reply Quote

nickythegay

#5

[-]

01/11/10 1:30 AM

Hi dreamy. Bruv doesn't use trolls much anymore, this is one of mine

Reply Quote

the toma

#6

[-]

01/11/10 4:38 AM

Of course, everyone knows that any child a woman raises is "her own."

What? WHAT? Oh crap--you're right! Women know they're related to their children--that's why this won't be an issue!! "Good" quotes "incidentally!"! Millions of men have spent half of their lives raising kids they're unrelated to, and that's hilarious! Losers! LMFAO!!1!!1!!! Stupid Babies!

Reply Quote

Dreamy5

#7

[-]

01/11/10 5:07 AM

And THAT's why women question if men can actually be feminist.

Reply Quote

the toma

#8

[-]

01/11/10 11:32 PM

And that's a non sequitur.

Reply Quote

Roofa Mitsu Faraferu

#9

[-]

01/12/10 1:00 AM

I dunno. I think it's better the way it is. I think fatherhood has less to do with being genetically related than it does with emotional investment. I've seen situations where the genetic father has little or no interest in his child and devotes his life to his own pursuits. And then other cases where - essentially a stranger comes along, tucks the kid under his wing and assumes the fatherhood role without a hitch.

I think with paternity tests, a common outcome (if mom was slutty) would be that both or all possible fathers would head for the hills leaving the kid without a dad.

Also, on the back end. It might cause more abortions. If women know there is a chance that bf or hubby might not be the dad, they might "opt out" in the very beginning. Having said that, I suppose it could have a behavioral effect and cause women to, you know, take less dick for fear of subsequent humiliation but I'm guessing a test like that isn't fresh on anyone's mind after Jello shots and a crafty bartender.

Interesting question though.

Reply Quote

Dreamy5

#10

[-]

01/12/10 6:00 AM

Humpty-Dumpty was pushed!
Remove this ad

Not a non sequitur. The point is we don't "speak the same language" or communicate effectively.

Reply Quote

the toma

#11

[-]

01/14/10 1:27 AM

No, you made the point that some threads, and people, are beneath you. I have no idea why people stalk you.

Roofa, you did a pretty good job of putting up society's frankly horribly flawed view of the situation.

I dunno. I think it's better the way it is. I think fatherhood has less to do with being genetically related than it does with emotional investment.

There is no more quicker, more effective way to generate 'emotional investment' than through paternity. Period. This is the way we're built. The alternative is to force a man, any man, to be emotionally 'invested' by trapping them, legally? Don't be silly. That's an expression of utter distrust and disrespect towards men. 'We're so scared you won't want the child we'd prefer that you never knew.' It's a system that's proudly set up for deception and failure.

Frankly, it doesn't say much in favor of kids, either, when they're not important enough to know who their real dads really are. Every day, 'kids' find out anyway when they're 20, or 40, or 60 after they end up at the doctor's office for some genetic malady that somehow wasn't transmitted through their 'parents', like Huntington's Chorea, or early onset Alzheimer's, breast or colon cancer. They should've known they were at risk for the disease and been allowed to make life decisions before they got ill. And, of course, they're also destroyed by the paternity news. And then they're off to confront their mothers and to try to figure out who their real fathers are because every single human being wants to know. That alone should settle the argument forever.

I've seen situations where the genetic father has little or no interest in his child and devotes his life to his own pursuits. And then other cases where - essentially a stranger comes along, tucks the kid under his wing and assumes the fatherhood role without a hitch.

Some men are better than others, some are more motivated towards fatherhood, of course. This will always be the case. But what's your point? This has got absolutely nothing to do with the question. Any man that would love to accept alleged paternity is absolutely welcome to do so with the 'opt out.' Those men clearly don't particularly care, so what does it matter? Knowing who your child is still has no downside, no negative consequences. Unless you're saying that these good Samaritans will get pissed if they find out the truth, and then you're back to square one: it really matters to men who their children are.

I think with paternity tests, a common outcome (if mom was slutty) would be that both or all possible fathers would head for the hills leaving the kid without a dad.

First of all, there are already court-ordered paternity tests for such situations. Once a woman finds out that the alleged father is the wrong one, she can petition the other potential fathers to be compelled to take the test in order to establish paternity--at least the courts find it important enough in that case. What you're arguing here is that men actually be barred from ever knowing. Thanks for setting the legal system back a century or so.

Also, on the back end. It might cause more abortions. If women know there is a chance that bf or hubby might not be the dad, they might "opt out" in the very beginning. Having said that, I suppose it could have a behavioral effect and cause women to, you know, take less dick for fear of subsequent humiliation but I'm guessing a test like that isn't fresh on anyone's mind after Jello shots and a crafty bartender.

There you go. It makes for a far better world when who the father is is finally important enough to society and to children that it will be established in all cases. There will be an even deeper direct connection between the act and the making of the child, and everybody's choices will improve. Everybody benefits.

Reply Quote

nickythegay

#12

[-]

01/14/10 2:33 AM

It's a very limited view to assert that there are no negative consequences. There would certainly be consequences for the child who is able to understand that their 'Fathers' love is conditional.

Reply Quote

the toma

#13

[-]

01/14/10 4:18 AM

You're making my argument, thanks.

You determine paternity at birth, and then the risk of future negative consequences drops dramatically. If you don't, you risk the scenario above. To damn men for being shocked when they find out later is just pathetic. It's dumb to expect us to be utility father-machines in service to society.

Occasionally, babies get switched in the nursery at the hospital. When moms find out that they've been raising babies that aren't theirs, they're upset, and lawsuits fly, and the police get involved, and people get fired, and people go to jail.

Reply Quote

Roofa Mitsu Faraferu

#14

[-]

01/14/10 5:21 AM

You determine paternity at birth, and then the risk of future negative consequences drops dramatically. If you don't, you risk the scenario above. To damn men for being shocked when they find out later is just pathetic. It's dumb to expect us to be utility father-machines in service to society.

Dude. We're all expected to be utility father-machines in service to society. Even if your the real father.

And, I don't think there is much of a curve on the shock to time axis. In other words, it wouldn't get more horrible the longer you waited to break the news to dad. It might seem that way in a cheesy daytime drama narrative but it's going to be very bad news at any point along that timeline. So perhaps a state mandated kick in the nuts at just the wrong moment could possibly be more trouble than a dude tricked into fatherhood.

If RMF II was someone else's kid. I wouldn't want to know now. I wouldn't want to know later and I wouldn't have wanted to know in the beginning either.

The point is, we already have the right to find out if we want. I just noticed the "opt out" clause for dads but isn't that kinda what were doing already? You know, choosing not to check the dna?

Incidentally, I think you can check DNA before the kid is born. Like 4 months in or so. So if baby isn't Toma's do you abort? Leave the premises? NtheG is right...consequences your way too.

Reply Quote

Dreamy5

#15

[-]

01/14/10 6:00 AM

Sorry you feel that way, Toma.

Reply Quote

Dreamy5

For Toma

#16

[-]

01/14/10 6:28 AM

OK, Toma, I'll bite.

In a different thread, you declared feminism a non-issue. You are wrong. A quick google producesthis:

Women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men working similar hours earn; women working more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3% of what men in the same time category earn (Bureau of Labor Statistics, cited in Hilary M. Lips, "The Gender Wage Gap: Debunking the Rationalizations").
Furthermore, women may work longer to receive the promotions that provide access to higher pay. For example, among school principals, women have an average of 3 years longer as teachers than men do (National Center for Education Statistics, cited in the same).
Pay inequality figures are even worse for women of color. African American women earn only 72 cents and Latinas 60 cents for every dollar that men earn (AFL-CIO, "It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay").
Women typically face challenges breaking into male-dominated fields. However, they still dominate traditionally female professions, such as the following:

Industry Growth for Women's Occupations (1997-2006)
Occupation	Percent
Secretaries & Administrative Assistants	96.7
Child Care Workers	94.6
Hairdressers, Stylists, Cosmetologists	92.9
Registered Nurses	91.7
Teacher Assistants	91.5
Medical Assistants & Other Healthcare Support	90.6
Auditing Clerks	90.3
Maids & Housekeeping Services	89.2
Home Health Aides	88.3
Elementary & Middle School Teachers	80.9
Office Clerks, General	85.3
Cashiers	75.6
Supervisors, Office Managers & Admin Support	73.4
Customers Service Representatives	68.5
Accountants & Auditors	61.8

(Department of Labor, cited in Lahle Wolfe, "Job Fields Business Women Dominate")
The largest percentage of employed Asian and white women (47% and 39%, respectively) worked in management, professional, and related occupations. For both black and Hispanic women, it was sales and office occupations--33% (Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, Quick Stats 2007).
In jobs that are predominantly occupied by women such as cashiers or child care workers, women make about 95% of men's wages (DoL, cited in Karen Harper, "Sexism in the Media").
Estimates of non-fatal domestic violence against women range from 1 million to 4 million a year with nearly 1 in 3 women experiencing a physical assault from a partner in adulthood (Domestic Violence Statistics, District of Columbia Coalition Against Domestic Violence at www.dccadv.org).
Women have a 10 times greater likelihood of being victimized by an intimate than men (ibid.).
Also, 33% of all women murdered are murdered by an intimate partner. In fact the leading cause of death among pregnant women is not complications from pregnancy, but murder.(Kim Curtis, "Murder: The leading cause of death for pregnant women." Associated Press April 23, 2003)
A woman's life expectancy in the United States is 80 years, as compared to 85 in Japan, 73 in Saudi Arabia, 63 in India, 53 in Haiti, and 47 in Ethiopia (Population Reference Bureau, 2004 World Population Data Sheet, accessed on November 2, 2004, cited in Our Bodies Ourselves Health Resource Center).
In the United States, there are 11 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. In Austria, there are 4 maternal deaths; in Denmark, there are 5; in Mexico, there are 83; and in Haiti, there are 680 (Maternal Mortality in 2000, estimates developed by WHO, UNICEF, and UNFPA, accessed on November 5, 2004).

You'll notice the citations are from a range of sources. If a 30 second search gives us this, what might an actual search produce? No, feminism is not a dead issue. After dismissing feminism, you produce a thread about a Masculinist movement. The term in itself is a red flag. It is not an "equal rights movement for men." To put it another way, do you think there needs to be an equal rights movment for Euro-Americans? Maculinist is tantamount to White Supremacist. So, no, this type of topic is "beneath me."

As your lead question, you raise the issue of men being "duped" by raising children not "theirs." Genetics is not what makes parenthood. A genetic donation is trivial. Anyone who has raised a child knows that it is the emotional investment, not the genetic part that makes a father. What you are addressing in this is the relationship between the parents of the child. It has little to do with the child itself. Now, if you want to talk about why women deceived men regarding parentage of offspring, you might want to look at the statistics above. Women, being lower power than men, might be coping in the only way they can imagine. (Of course some women are simply pigs as are some men.) Level the playing field, let women have as much power as men, and then let's see what happens to the frequency of such deception.

Quoted from http://de.urbanministry.o...iscrimination-statistics

Reply Quote

nickythegay

#17

[-]

01/14/10 12:32 PM

I'm not making your argument, maybe you can?

There is an evolutionary basis for cuckoldry. The clever animal often impregnates the mate of a strong but stupid animal. This avails the offspring of both the genetic advantage of an intelligent parent, and the protection of a physically strong father figure.

Reply Quote

the toma

#18

[-]

01/16/10 4:37 AM

Dude. We're all expected to be utility father-machines in service to society. Even if your the real father.

WTF? What the hell are you talking about? There's nothing utilitarian about my 'kid'. 'He' is unique and sacred. Screw that, trying to make that argument Roofa. No way you believe that.

And, I don't think there is much of a curve on the shock to time axis. In other words, it wouldn't get more horrible the longer you waited to break the news to dad.

Bet you haven't been looking at this issue for 20 years. I started as a Genetics major back in 1984. The stories are endless.

It might seem that way in a cheesy daytime drama narrative but it's going to be very bad news at any point along that timeline. So perhaps a state mandated kick in the nuts at just the wrong moment could possibly be more trouble than a dude tricked into fatherhood.

You still can't deal with the issue as I put it? At birth. How many times do I have to say it? All paternity is determined at birth. AT BIRTH. When will this thread finally wake the fuck up? AT BIRTH. GAAAAAH.

If RMF II was someone else's kid. I wouldn't want to know now. I wouldn't want to know later and I wouldn't have wanted to know in the beginning either.

Cheers, we're different.

The point is, we already have the right to find out if we want. I just noticed the "opt out" clause for dads but isn't that kinda what were doing already? You know, choosing not to check the dna?

After they're born, yes. So this is actually a post about the cultural imperative put upon men to accept whatever child someone just says is perhaps theirs, which is insane.

Incidentally, I think you can check DNA before the kid is born. Like 4 months in or so. So if baby isn't Toma's do you abort? Leave the premises? NtheG is right...consequences your way too.

Since when do I have any say about children that aren't my own?

Reply Quote

The PD

#19

[-]

01/16/10 1:44 PM

I haven't read every word of every post here so forgive me if I am redundant, but I don't quite understand why you would be "devastated" if you found out years later that this kid wasn't your flesh and blood... anymore than someone would feel less love or pride for an adopted child. That child would see you as their dad.

Being a father and being a dad are different things. To be a father, you need to have sperm and a fertile partner. To be a dad, you have to be there for them on a regular basis. If one of my kids was not "mine" I wouldn't want to know at this point. It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference in how I feel about them or who I am to them, all it would do is cause some issues with being a legal guardian to them, which I wouldn't want to come up as an issue.

Would it be better to force a DNA test and tell someone who is a great dad and is attached to a baby that the child isn't his? What good would that do, really? And for what, a VERY small percentage of people? People that likely have bigger issues than paternity, if their wives or partners are sleeping around that much...

I think that coming at this kind of an issue as someone who doesn't have kids vs someone who does really gives you a VERY different perspective, and, frankly, I think in this case, people that DO have kids have a much clearer sense of what this would mean to a family or a person.

Edited to add something... before I see this quote written again:

You still can't deal with the issue as I put it? At birth. How many times do I have to say it? All paternity is determined at birth. AT BIRTH. When will this thread finally wake the fuck up? AT BIRTH. GAAAAAH.

By the time birth happens, there is a lot vested in the child, and you can be pretty damn attached. If you lose a child to stillbirth, does that mean you are not attached and don't love that child? no, it doesn't, you still love that child even though you never knew them alive outside the womb.... also, are paternity tests instantaneous? You would know AT BIRTH? Or would you know a few weeks or months later, when the test results come in (especially considering how overloaded the labs would be with every single freaking birth having a paternity test done (4,315,000 live births in 2007, for instance)?

Last Edited By: The PD 01/16/10 9:30 PM. Edited 1 time.

Reply Quote

Standard American

#20

[-]

01/16/10 1:56 PM

Humpty-Dumpty was pushed!
Remove this ad

The PD wrote:
I haven't read every word of every post here so forgive me if I am redundant, but I don't quite understand why you would be "devastated" if you found out years later that this kid wasn't your flesh and blood... anymore than someone would feel less love or pride for an adopted child. That child would see you as their dad.

Being a father and being a dad are different things. To be a father, you need to have sperm and a fertile partner. To be a dad, you have to be there for them on a regular basis. If one of my kids was not "mine" I wouldn't want to know at this point. It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference in how I feel about them or who I am to them, all it would do is cause some issues with being a legal guardian to them, which I wouldn't want to come up as an issue.

Would it be better to force a DNA test and tell someone who is a great dad and is attached to a baby that the child isn't his? What good would that do, really? And for what, a VERY small percentage of people? People that likely have bigger issues than paternity, if their wives or partners are sleeping around that much...

I think that coming at this kind of an issue as someone who doesn't have kids vs someone who does really gives you a VERY different perspective, and, frankly, I think in this case, people that DO have kids have a much clearer sense of what this would mean to a family or a person.

Yeah

Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Stumps and Soapboxes

Here we launch the 21st century Masculinist movement . . .

Here we launch the 21st century Masculinist movement . . .