Category Archives: Paternity

Playing Russian Roulette with men’s lives: 96% of women are liars

An excerpt from 96% of women are liars, honest.

“Modern women just can’t stop lying, but they do it to stop hurting other people’s feelings. It could be argued that these little white lies simply make the world go round a little more smoothly. But to tell a man a baby is his when it’s not, or to deliberately get pregnant when your partner doesn’t want a baby, is playing Russian roulette with other people’s lives.”

96% of women are liars, honest, The Scotsman, Friday 25th July 2014
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/96-of-women-are-liars-honest-1-565123

This informal and provocatively titled survey is hot on the heels of a conversation in the comments section on One example of why I favour mandatory paternity testing at birth. I will be the first to raise my hand to the fact that this is an informal survey, and not a feat of great scholarship, yet, this is a claim that I’ve heard all of my life, confessed to by women: women will in fact lie to men about who the father of a child is for no reason other than it is convenient, and there are little to no consequences for them to do so. The risk of being caught is minimal, and even when caught, the odds are stacked in their favour.

In a recent conversation with another MRA that was making the claim that women are all of one way, that they universally share certain negative character traits, I had responded:

I am saying that the behaviours that you are attributing to women, are in fact human behaviour when certain conditions exist to permit them to flourish. We have built a society whereby men are considered disposable and women are considered precious, which is what has allowed some women to behave poorly, unchecked. Have you ever imagined what the world would be like if only 5% of creatures were born male? Who would be sought after? Protected? Provided for? Do you think the rules would be different? Who would have the choice of relationships? Who would be more choosy and who would be more careful?

The kind of generally abusive behaviour that many women engage in is not due to their body, but in large part because we men indiscriminately throw ourselves at women, and we have failed to set boundaries.

Power without accountability usually creates selfish monsters. This does not excuse either men or women from developing their own character, but you can’t put it all on them, or on all of them. There is only one thing that we can control in this world: ourselves.

What we can do about it is to be the ones that set the rules and boundaries of our own lives. When we all show that we can just walk away before things get bad, the game will change.

One of the reasons that I support mandatory paternity testing is to provide the man with the the facts necessary to make an informed, and rational decision. Mandatory paternity testing can provide the information to solidify a relationship as much as to give the man the freedom to make his own choices.

When building a fence, not only is it necessary to know where the boundaries are, it is important to know if the fence is needed at all.

 

Tagged ,

One example of why I favour mandatory paternity testing at birth

Blood Test of Love

In a live chat, Prudie counsels a woman whose husband won’t feel affection for their child without proof he’s the dad.

A married couple of two years.
The woman announces that she is pregnant.
The husband and alleged father asks for a paternity test “for his peace of mind.”
The woman refuses to do the test (at least until the birth of the child/ren), and is considering destroying the marriage and becoming a single mother.

Prudence’s advice?
The husband is a “cold, hostile, accusatory lunatic” and “has no excuse” and is experiencing “a bizarre personality change.” The wife needs to tell him to get counselling to overcome his “derangement.” Now!

À vos commandes, mon Capitaine!

The husband made it clear that he didn’t have peace of mind, an issue that could be easily resolved with a simple post-natal paternity test. The woman hints that it is possible that he is not the father, or at the very least that she is willing to lie about it.

This is what misandry looks like.

Tagged , , ,

Are you going to keep the child?

Mothers have the choice to opt-in or out of parenthood, this is her primary reproductive right. The question is usually put as “Are you going to keep the child?”

I believe the men should be routinely asked the same question.

Tagged , , ,

Proving Who’s the Daddy: Men Don’t Get a Fair Shake in Paternity Cases

Paternity fraud has many negative effects on men, women, children and society at large. But women have no legal duty to disclose. Should every child get DNA tested at birth? I claim that it should be mandatory, and state-sponsored. Carnell Smith, once owner and operator of a paternity testing service makes some points that I agree with.

Tagged , ,

RE: Why mandatory DNA testing may not be a good idea

An MRA and my frequent meme-muse,  has posted the following article: Why mandatory DNA testing may not be a good idea. In it, Lucian offers a number of counter-argument to my argument that paternity testing should be mandatory at birth, some of them took me by surprise, a good number of them made me think.

I recommend reading the article first, then this reply. I welcome your thoughts, especially if you’re a woman.

We’ll focus on one particular idea that floated around the conference—the proposal that DNA testing (or paternity tests) should be mandatory at birth. According to the proponents of this trade-off, this measure would tackle paternity fraud in an efficient manner and would bring the truth as a standard in the relationships of the parents. The truth part is indisputable, but is it really that efficient? And even if it is, at what cost does this efficiency come? Is there a better trade-off between the status quo and the trade-off proposed at the conference?

I’m not sure the argument of efficiency comes in, but the question of cost is one that is worth addressing. It’s easy to overlook if one is not a hospital administrator.

1. Unnecessary cost

Whenever we talk about a service that is to be made mandatory by public policy, we ought to ask ourselves two questions: What is the cost? and Who pays it?

Yes, fair enough, and to be honest, I had not considered it. Then again, do you consider the cost of trash collectors or bridge repairs? It’s worth considering, but I have two issues with making this central to an argument.

The first is that taxes are collected into what is basically a slush fund and such funds are then distributed in what seems to be some discretionary manner. Have you ever received an itemized tax receipt that lists where every penny of your personal tax payment was spent? Probably not. We can know these numbers, but they are usually in aggregates. Perhaps this would be a good thing to demand of one’s government.

My other counter-argument is that regardless of one’s political stance, governments and tax systems are a defacto reality, and as above, not only are the funds collected first in slush fund and then distributed, but the general notion in how tax moneys are distributed is that everyone, at least in theory pays for a bit of everything. While I’m not a big fan of taxes, if we want to enjoy the benefits from a system that we have no choice but to work with, these services must be funded. This could lead to a whole other series of arguments as to the functioning of government, but this is beyond the scope of this one issue.

The real question is whether the price/benefit relationship makes it worthwhile for the population as a whole.

And who is going to pay for the mandatory procedure? If we’re going to have the state pay for it, at a rate of 250€/father and child tested, the UK government, for instance, is in big trouble since Britain is going through a baby boom at this point, with 813,000 births recorded in 2012[4], which would mean over 203 million euros on this issue alone. Would British taxpayers be willing to fund that?

I don’t think it’s relevant to ask if a population wishes to pay for X service. How many people would be willing to pay for tax collectors? Or the police that give fines? I’m willing to bet the number is low, yet, they do nonetheless.

Some media outlets are crying that the state spends too much now on paternity tests, although the actual amount is around 500,000€ per year[5]. Even for Germany, the country with the lowest birthrate in Europe, such an effort would still mean over 165 million euros[6] to cover their over 660,000 births yearly.

Again, there will always be complaints, regardless of the service. Nobody wants to pay a cent more in taxes, this is human nature.

In a period when the governments are running out of money, it’s highly unlikely that such a cost could be set on the governments of Europe.

I don’t think this is an issue at all. What are external wars costing our respective countries? The government simply doesn’t care. Like all large maintenance organizations, it’s in the business of collecting money.

If we don’t put the burden of paying on the state, then we have to put it on the parents somehow.

/me nods. If we don’t put the burden on the state. I’ve seen no strong case against that yet.

Considering that in Germany, for instance, 250€ represents more than a quarter of many Germans’ net income, can we seriously expect single-earner families to spend that much money on information that they might not need?

250€ represents more than a quarter of many Germans’ net income. Over what time period? A week, a month, a year? It seems evident to me that none are going to pay for a paternity test every week. At most, one per year, per new birth. More likely, 2-3 times per lifetime, based on the average family rate. Consider all of the tax deductions that one receives, more specifically, that the mother receives with the birth of each child. Whose paying for that? What if the price of the test were simply deducted from these additional funds she receives. Same for a man, should he receive any.

The situation is even worse in countries like Czech Republic, where the gross minimum wage is beneath 330€ per month[7]—which means that the net income is even lower than that. The point is that even in affluent areas of Europe, this would still be a significant cost imposed on all individuals who choose to become parents and in less affluent areas, it might prove to be a disaster.

This seems a bit like catastrophising. I imagine at the scale of populations, that this would be nothing but a boom for labs, government run, or private, and that would bring the cost down.

2. Is the information really so relevant?

For tricked fathers, there is no doubt that the information really is more than relevant. But does this justify an imposition of a cost upon all parents?

I think so. In fact, the information in aggregate can serve much more than a one-by-one case. One can not only keep better health and genetic records, but accurate statistics upon which policy can be formed.

The data on rates of paternity fraud is scarce and unreliable to say the least. But there is one thing that everyone agrees on: paternity fraud accounts for a minority of births.

The most scary numbers say that 30% of children have a different father than the one listed on the birth certificate, whilst the most conservative numbers go for one child in every classroom.

No, we can’t agree on that. We aren’t interested in “the most scary numbers” (Ugh!), we’re interested in the best numbers we can find, and you’ve made the case that we don’t know, and that it could be as high as 1 in 3, or as low as 1 in 30. Across a million people, we are still talking about thousands of men being bilked for false child support payments, having their lives turned upside down legally, financially and emotionally.

What would you be willing to do to bring justice for 1000 men? What would you do to prevent 1000 cases of any fraud, a crime, against anyone? This is much cheaper than any police investigation. Now multiply this for each million in a population.

In other words, in the majority of cases, or dare I say, in the overwhelming majority of the cases, mothers and fathers get along with each other and are generally truthful. This is a fact observable no matter who you’re talking to—even the most hardcore radical feminists acknowledge this, albeit grudgingly, since they tend to resent this reality.

And in the majority of cases, there is no tax evasion, no murder, theft, fraud or drunken driving.  Shall we defund preventative measures against these because we guess that the majority of people behave well?

Having acknowledged this reality, is it really efficient to put everyone through the hassle just to get an accurate statistic?

No, you have made a claim and accepted it as a reality, but you haven’t made a case that convinces me.

3. Difficulties in implementation

Since we’re talking about a compulsory procedure, this means that there needs to be a way to enforce it. And with that comes a huge list of problems.

Yes. Another way of stating this is that any task has a series of steps to take and trade-offs to make. We do this when we shop for groceries, or choose a new government service to implement. That you call them “a problem” doesn’t mean that they are in fact problems.

A significant number of births don’t take place in state hospitals in Europe. A third of Dutch women give birth at home[8], and whilst some countries, like Hungary for instance, tried to make home births illegal, the European Court of Human Rights struck down and insisted upon the unalienable right to give birth at home[9]. Since these births occur at home, these are the parents least likely to be willing to abide by this mandatory procedure.

And how would it be enforced? Using the carrot or the stick? If it were state-funded, a carrot would be possible, but that would add to the already high and unbearable cost mentioned earlier. Also, it would turn out to be another monument of inefficiency since the state has proven time and time again how ineffective it can be when it comes to processing applications for pretty much anything.

Births at home are fairly uncommon in Canada, so this one took me by surprise. Interesting catch. To the point: these parents might be the least likely to be wiling to abide by the procedure, but they do in fact register the child’s birth with the government anyway, don’t they? The kid is going to need some sort of id to go to school, get a driver’s licence, etc? They are willing to take these steps, and I’m going to hazard that they probably do, universally. What if such ID were contingent on the child getting all the tests, shots and procedures, including one extra test, the paternity test? This seems like an evident solution to me.

If it were paid by the parents, the stick seems more appropriate. But how far should the stick go? A fine? And how big should that fine be? Not to mention that most civil fines like these can be relatively easy to avoid in most European countries and in a perfectly legal way.

Also, if the law is too tough (e.g., involving the local versions of Child Protective Services), families would rightfully protest the mandate for being way too intrusive.

See above. I think you’re creating problems where they don’t naturally need to be accepted.

 

4. Denial of choice

There are such cases when the father listed on the birth certificate knows he isn’t the father yet assumes paternity anyway for whatever reasons. I know of such a case when the biological father died in some NATO war. And it’s a certainty that such cases exist all over the world.

And? How is this relevant or a denial of choice? You are arguing for a parent’s right to remain ignorant of the truth. I suppose they do have that right. That there are statistical exceptions does not make a good argument for trashing a solution that can

a. Give the parents accurate information;
b. Give the government accurate information;
c. Give the child a step up in terms of knowing what medical conditions it might expect;
d. Give the parents and the child a solid sense of who their relations are;
e. Prevent the defrauding of men and of government (read: the tax-payer)

Now, I would never advise in good conscience any man to do such a thing, especially not in Europe or North America, but, on the other hand, responsible adults ought to have the right to make that choice, especially if it suits the needs of the child as well.

And which of the child’s need does ignorance of the facts serve? This argument surprises me, coming from an evidence and fact based thinker such as yourself.

If this mandate were implemented, these men would then be put through the long and excruciating process of adoption, which, thanks to the countless moratoria put in place by the European Union, can take years for no reason whatsoever other than inefficient bureaucracy (if you pardon my pleonasm).

Hypothetically, but not obligatorily. And there’s more to the world than just Europe.

A better trade-off: Limited mandate and more freedom

A better trade-off would be to mandate the procedure only when it comes to child support payments. It only makes sense that if you are to force a man to pay child support, you should be damn sure that you get the right man, not just any random bloke who was unfortunate to be at the wrong place at the wrong time—like the few horrible cases presented at the conference. In these cases, if the wrong man is indicated, the test should be paid by the mother (not like the case today in Britain, where the state pays if the mother indicates the wrong man), and if the correct father is indicated, the test should be paid by him.

As a transition, a post-hoc solution, this seems to be a good one. I did not think that you were arguing that a 50 year old person have a paternity test done with his 80 year old father. We are talking about children, that is, persons under the age of majority. Beyond that age, it becomes a matter of negotiation between adults.

But other than this particularly narrow situation, paternity tests should be a negative right—that is to say, the state ought not to impede a man or a woman from seeking a paternity test. This is the case in present-day Bosnia, where suspecting mothers and grandmothers are seeking paternity tests as they fear that their sons/grandsons have been duped into raising a child that is not theirs[10].

Also agreed.

In other words, any restriction on paternity tests should be abolished. It is really a shame that a country like France outright bans paternity tests, and it is also particularly dubious when some countries require “consent of the mother” for getting a paternity test, thus creating an inherent conflict of interest within the law favoring women who do commit paternity fraud. Also, the time limits for seeking a paternity test for contesting an assigned legal paternity should also be abolished. A paternity test should be admissible in court regardless of whether the child is 3 months old or 17 years old.

Again, we are in agreement.

With this trade-off, only those interested in the topic would bear the cost without burdening everyone else. Also, the choices remain in place for individuals who want to make them (see argument no. 4), the difficulties in implementation would be severely reduced, and the costs associated would also be far more affordable for most governments.

I’ve shared my counter-arguments.

Also, the law ought to reflect paternity fraud as a more serious crime than it is now. For starters, a mother guilty of paternity fraud should be mandated to pay reparations to the man defrauded.

Agreed, again.

This trade-off isn’t perfect either—that’s why it’s a trade-off and not a solution.

I find this to be a very sensible statement, one that I wish more people would adopt in light of the realities of the world.

Under this arrangement, there would still be individuals who would trick the system, but the cost for the taxpayer and for the victims is far lower than it is under the status quo in Europe and undoubtedly far-far lower than the status quo in the US.

While it certainly would be welcome reduction, it still lacks certain benefits. Additionally, I’m sure that one can think of many situations whereby clear paternity testing at birth might forestall a whole series of issues that would not be need be addressed post-facto. Consider: if the cost of a paternity test would be say 1000€ or $1000, what is the cost of the typical sequence of court cases, lawyers, fees, etc.? Which of the two is less? Which is the better deal for the parent? As for the government, we understand that court costs is an income source, so this might be one way of providing a reason to reduce taxes.

We live in an imperfect world and sometimes bad people do bad things—but the way to correct this is not by imposing an additional cost upon the majority of people who do not do bad things.

While I certainly appreciate the sentiment, I find this argument to be an appeal to emotion, rather than a practical one. The overall solution, is seems to be, based on your presentation and my limited knowledge of your political stance, is that your solution is based not so much on pragmatic trade-offs, but on an idealized sense of how the world should be, and I don’t disagree that in a perfect world, people would be better, and goverment would be a small, tight and exceedingly efficient core that runs with the highest degree of integrity, but this is not the world we live in. It is, as you say, a matter of trade-offs, based on what is, rather than what should be.

Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking article. I welcome your feedback.

Tagged , ,

Men’s Rights Press conference

I wish I could be there.

Tagged ,

The primary reason why men need effective, safe, long-term and discreet contraceptives

Paternity fraud. Watch the first 60 seconds or so. Consider that a woman is on national television asking an entertainer whether she should lie to a man to create a child, to force him into parenthood against his will. She’s literally showing her face and asking a pop entertainer as to whether she should coerce a man into parenthood. “My friends think I should trick him.” Friends. Plural. The entertainer agrees that she should. Poll the audience, almost all the women clap. Watch the man to the right and his body language. Watch Mr. Bowtie.

Now remember, apparently this woman loved a man enough to marry him. How far will she be willing to go she do when she’s ready to divorce him?

The primary reason men need effective, safe, long-term and discreet contraceptives: huge numbers of women are willing to lie and force an unwanted, life-long burden on a man to satisfy the immediate urge to have a child. What does the man think? It doesn’t matter, the law isn’t on his side. This option is available to her, and its human nature to abuse others if they can get away with it.

This is one reason why we need to support safe, effective, discreet and long-term contraceptives. Want to make the world a better place? Support The Parsemus Foundation in bringing Vasalgel to market.

I’m sometimes asked why I am a Man Going His Own Way. When conditions are such that someone that you are intimate with are pronounced enough that they will turn on you because not only are there no consequences, but that the law actually supports this kind of fraud, one can imagine that a man who wants to be in control of his own life might want to think long and hard and very carefully vet someone, and as a default, simply eschew situations in which an unscrupulous individual might gain some purchase over his life. The above is far from uncommon, and is the primary reason to go MGTOW.

Tagged ,

One solution to many woes: make sperm scarce.

The Grim Guy, Lucian Vâlsan wrote a very interesting article: A bachelor tax – not so unlikely in which he describes the Romanian circumstances in the 1980’s under Nicolae Ceaușescu. The Romanian Communist Party decided to increase the birthrate in the country – being dissatisfied with how the population recovered numerically following the World War II. One of their approaches, in addition to starving the population was to tax men over 25 that had no children. This was colloquially known as “the dick tax.”

In this context, of absurd desire of the supreme leader to increase
birthrates and to pay off national debt by quite literally starving the
population gave birth to the so-called celibacy tax of 1986.

To be honest, were this to happen in North America, I would consider this a good thing: it would be a solid legal reason to bring up issues of men’s lack of reproductive rights. You want to tax us as incitement to have children? Provide us the same sort of rights and protections that we have granted women. Were this the case, I suspect that you’d see “marriage” or at least some form of pairing up regain popularity. Something like this is a series of milestone lawsuits waiting to happen.

But for today’s environment, I’m convinced that the best means is still the pressure of withdrawing the benefits of free/cheap dick to women, the withholding of children (making great efforts to not create them, that is), of provision and of protection.”

Feminism can only exist in an environment of where sperm is freely and cheaply available, where dick is an undervalued commodity. When women control reproduction in large part due to men’s lack of decent contraception, in view of men’s drive  to enjoy normal, happy, intimacy as sexual beings and in view that laws involving reproduction work mostly in women’s favour and mostly to men’s disfavour.

Consider: if men were the gatekeepers of their reproduction, if we could control our fertility, there’d be significantly less paternity fraud, less dispossessing men of their homes and goods, less dispossessing of their future salaries designed mainly to bring in more revenue to the court. Feminists would have even less claim to the notion that men are rapists. Of course, they’d still find a way to find the withholding of dick as a form of oppression against women, by “denying” them the “right” to make babies, but honestly, one who seeks to be a victim needs very little excuse. But it would be another means to cause women to re-evaluate how men are treated.

Consider that as men, we literally give away diamonds and our future for the opportunity to give away sperm. We treat our sperm as though it were garbage, we pay to have our future hauled the dump, so to speak.

It’s time to turn the world around. Men, keep your dicks–or at least your sperm–to yourselves. Make it a scarce commodity. I can imagine no greater tool to help change the laws. The sound of thundering biological clocks would shake the foundation of the current legal and political system.

This is one reason to support the Parsemus Foundation with bringing Vasalgel to North America, then the world. Donate to The Parsemus Foundation here.

We do still have our sexual drive, however. In a world where prostitution is legal, but soliciting the service is not, we would have need some outlet. This is where porn, sex toys and sex workers can become an important player in a whole new economy.

We would probably need to create 1-3 generations of men who view their sperm as the valuable commodity that it is. We’d need to ensure that temporary sterilization become a right of passage as soon as the child is able to consent, where parents consider this as a means to protecting their boys. We would need to put an end to sperm donation.

A large part of our world’s problems are due to uncalculated and not carefully premeditated choice in reproduction. This would of course be a large scale social engineering project, but if Feminists have taught us anything, it is that our world’s societies and cultures can do a 180 in one generation. That is spinning on a dime in terms of species time-scale.

So boys: protect your sperm and treat it as a commodity more valuable than diamonds. Our seed is literally the seeds of the future. Treat it as such.

It is time for men to adapt and adopt this as the new male anthem :)

 

Tagged , , , , ,

A Feminist on Paternity Testing

Paternity can now be verified by a simple test – but that doesn’t mean it should be

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.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/

Tagged ,