Post: #1

Link to subreddit discussion:
http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/...atherhood/

Direct link to NY Times Magazine article from 2009 on paternity fraud:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazi...ity-t.html

Side note: ever since I started posting on RVF, I have this new habit where I'll be reading an article until I get to a line that is a dead-giveaway that the author is a female whose opinion I don't respect very much (and, in most cases, I just immediately close the article).

I read this entire article, but the line that made me scroll up to confirm that it was written by a women was:
"WHY IS IT THAT we imbue genetic relationships with a potency that borders on magic?"

Sigh

Post: #2

Just saying, you should summarize what they said or at least copy some quotes

retards Wrote:retard: It certainly is. This is a case where the mother's word is good enough for the court system while the man's word would never have been good enough. The mother says "Mike is the father" and if he says "I'm not the father" what could have been done? Nothing. His name would have went on the birth certificate and he would have been forced to pay child support. That's how the law works in it's current form.

notsoretard: retard: "The mother says "Mike is the father" and if he says "I'm not the father" what could have been done? Nothing. His name would have went on the birth certificate"

What are you talking about!??!?! In that case, they'd take a DNA test. It isn't "he said vs she said" in regards to whose name goes on the birth certificate. It's either "they both say or the DNA test says."


retard: As far as I know a woman can name anybody on the birth certificate. A DNA test is not required to do this. It happens all the time. A matter of fact, there are plenty of times a man isn't even present at the birth and his name is added to BC.

notsoretard: Yes, that is as far as I know too, but the man named has every right in the world to be informed of that and to request a DNA test if he denies it's true.

retard: If this is true, and the man an request a paternity test to absolve himself of responsibility, then I stand corrected. The way it currently is in these situation is the way it should be.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/...od/ci5uwpl

The misandry in the thread is horrifying but not surprising. What surprises me is how they think that what currently happens, despite the fact that many countries do things differently, is right, not what their ideology says. I mean is it fucking fate or magic that whatever happens now is right but what happened in the past was wrong?

Its like assuming the age/time you are in is right. Id appreciate if someone told me what term it is(I think its something bias)

Edit: to clarify, retard is following this bias "The way it currently is in these situation is the way it should be" even more than their feminist/misandrist ideology "The mother's word is good enough for the court system while the man's word would never have been good enough".

Post: #3

I read the whole article. They constantly compare men who were deceived into believing they were raising their own kin for years, with adoptive parents who raise a child, and say "Well if adoptive parents can love a kid, then love knows no genetic borders." But adoptive parents know they're raising a kid that isn't theirs. These men were lied to, cheated on, wasted years and spent thousands raising a kid that isn't their own, time and money that could have been spent pursuing their own kid. No one gives a fuck about these poor dudes.

Post: #4

If I read it right, it said women can put the father's name down on the birth certificate. I remember reading something where someone said you could tell them not to put the name on. Once it is on you are more committed. If I ever have kids I would hold off until I had a DNA test.

Post: #5

In some states you have only a very small window of opportunity to challenge paternity. I think around one year.

For a true horror story, read about Sharon Irons and Richard Phillips. Both doctors, they had a relationship where she only gave him oral sex, no vaginal intercourse.

Well, Sharon saved the ejaculate in her cheek, then spit it into a test tube and later used it to impregnate herself. Apparently this wasn't a one off thing, but a regular occurrence. Two years later, she sued for child support and was awarded $800 a month.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/hea...5oQVChtoUM

Post: #6

(06-12-2014 02:18 PM)bacan Wrote:  "WHY IS IT THAT we imbue genetic relationships with a potency that borders on magic?"

Sorry, I wont even click on it after reading that.

Post: #7

That is bullshit it should be impossible to sue for child support in situations like that.

Post: #8

Quote:“We’re penalized for trusting our wives or girlfriends!” Smith seethed to me.

Thats your first mistake right there.

Quote:“It all could have been avoided from the beginning if she’d just told the truth,” Mike said of his former wife after the decision was handed down, “if she hadn’t led us to believe we were father and daughter, if she had just told me after she got pregnant that it might not be my kid.”

"Mama's baby, daddy's maybe"- My Grandfather

Post: #9

Well, they are ridiculous, but it is to be expected. Feminism makes no sense as a logical system or as something that promotes justice- but that isnt the point, since logic and justice are male concepts.

Feminism is better understood as an excuse to benefit women at the expense of men in any and all cases. Women support it because they feel aggrieved, men support it as a forlorn hope of getting a scrap of pussy.

Post: #10

   

Ha

Post: #11

(06-12-2014 02:18 PM)bacan Wrote:  I read this entire article, but the line that made me scroll up to confirm that it was written by a women was:
"WHY IS IT THAT we imbue genetic relationships with a potency that borders on magic?"

Sigh

LoL. Perhaps because genetic relationships are fundamentally the WHOLE POINT of existence, as living, reproducing beings?

This is just naked deception on the part of feminists. Women know damn well the gravity of paternity fraud, and the ineffable importance of genetic relationships to children--have you ever seen how most stepmothers treat their husbands' previous children? At least stepmothers had the luxury of making an informed choice whether to take on their new husband and his ready-made family, while victims of paternity fraud are, by definition, defrauded.

Post: #12

This seems so simple, if we are going to legally force some man to financially support a child then FORCE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER. What is so fucking confusing about that? Only liberal dipshits would be so conflicted about who should be paying for a child. The only issue should be whether or not the cuckolded guy has a legal right to visit the real father's kid.

Also, I don't think any man should have a legal obligation to support any child necessarily - not as long as women can abort children without consent of fathers. NO SAY? NO PAY.

Post: #13

(06-13-2014 06:19 PM)Hopson Wrote:  This seems so simple, if we are going to legally force some man to financially support a child then FORCE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER. What is so fucking confusing about that? Only liberal dipshits would be so conflicted about who should be paying for a child. The only issue should be whether or not the cuckolded guy has a legal right to visit the real father's kid.

Also, I don't think any man should have a legal obligation to support any child necessarily - not as long as women can abort children without consent of fathers. NO SAY? NO PAY.

I'm actually of the opinion that men who are victim of paternity fraud should sue the mother and the bio father for fraud and emotional damages.

Post: #14

Seems perfectly logical to sue a couple of frauds but you are forgetting the rules of this society - women can do damn near anything and get away with it.