True Equality Information Center Releases Paternity Fraud Disincentive Legislative Report

Paternity Establishment can only be made via genetic testing.

Now that the technology involved is mature, and available at reasonable cost, it's time to amend the way in which we establish and de-establish paternity. It's understandable that the laws are slow to adapt to new technological advances, but this is long overdue.

The idea that a man can be made to pay for a child that is not his (no woman was ever forced through fraud to pay for a child that was not hers, meaning that this practice is necessarily sexist) is reprehensible and criminal, and needs to stop. Women have equal or better access to education and employment. Since they are competent adults according to our laws, women can support themselves and pay for their own decisions to engage in extramarital sex. Forcing men to pay for the choices of women is sexist to both men and women because it suggests that women are incompetent, which is just as sexist as the idea that a man is responsible for the actions and decisions of any woman in his life. Why then do feminists oppose any attempt to enact laws dealing effectively with paternity fraud, when it would reduce the sexism experienced by both men and women?

If women have the only choices in childbearing, they should have the only responsibilities. Safe, effective birth control needs to be made as freely available to men as it is to women, and we need to establish a mechanism to make paternity just as voluntary as maternity without endangering anyone in the family. If a woman decides to carry a child to term against the man's wishes, and he has no interest in being a father, it should be the woman's sole responsibility to pay for her choices. Again, women have at least equal access to employment and education. If they're competent enough to make such choices, they're competent enough to pay for them. In addition to the blatant sexism involved in denying men choices in paternity, it is grossly sexist to women to suggest that they are incompetent to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions, but feminists fiercely oppose these changes as well.

If they're your kids, you should have equal rights AND equal responsibilities to parent them and to pay for them. Not more. Not less. And no man should EVER have to pay for someone else's children, especially if he's the victim of fraud. The right to de-establish paternity at any time during the duration of a child support order, and to pursue civil action to collect amounts paid due to provable paternity fraud need to be encoded in law immediately. Women have the option to abandon their children at any time through legal means, generally without ongoing financial responsibility. Denying men equal rights is sexist, as is the idea that women require special protections to function as well as a man in society. Therefore, I would expect feminists who claim to be interested in equality to support such a change, but they are inevitably opposed to allowing men any rights similar to those enjoyed by women when it comes to matters of parenthood. Why do feminists support sexism?

As for the sexist notion that a man is somehow an indentured servant of any woman or child he ever spends any time with, it's time for the misandric, exploitive notion of men as chattel slaves and sole breadwinners to end. In addition to being a grotesque violation of men's rights and the constitutional prohibitions on slavery and peonage, this is an affront to women as well. This idea is predicated on the assumption that women and the children they bear are helpless and dependent upon men alone for their survival, and that a woman could not possibly support herself or her children, i.e. the incompetence of women. Women are competent adults, and they are perfectly capable of paying their own way and protecting themselves. Why aren't feminists screaming for the same changes, if they are so interested in eradicating sexism, and achieving real equality?

Sexism hurts both sexes. Feminists not only practice sexism, they seek to enforce it through laws, and oppose any attempts to eradicate it. Sexism is based on hate. Feminism is based on sexism. It therefore follows that feminism is a movement based on hate, and should be accorded the same respect one might give a movement based on racism.

"Why then do feminists oppose any attempt to enact laws dealing effectively with paternity fraud, when it would reduce the sexism experienced by both men and women?"

For the same reason that feminists oppose any other legislation which would yield true equality: they are pushing an ideology, they do not want equality but "equity"..supposedly to reddress past wrongs and "level the playing field". Their mentality is "full speed ahead, too bad if we run over a few women in the process"

-ax

When men have 99.99% control over their sperm, you will see feminism collapse within a decade.

Feminism has never been about gender equality; rather, it has been a con-game about disempowering men.

When men can no longer be held hostage for unwanted child support, gender politics will for the first time in forty years be on a level playing field.

I predict the divorce rate will drop dramatically, once shot-gun marriages are no longer the norm for female predators.

We all know that it's only politically correct to do things that benefit women. Doing anything that benefits men is political suicide, and collective guilt is AOK when it's applied to men for transgressions which may have occurred long before their birth, even though it's strictly out of bounds when applied to anyone else. Hating men isn't just fashionable, or politically correct, it's the basis of much of our society. That's why I get such a laugh out of spoiled entitlement princesses in the women's studies courses that daddy's money paid for - the patriarchal conspiracy is so far beyond the absurd that it isn't even worth laughing at. That being said, the hatred of men isn't a "conspiracy" either, as much as feminists might like to take credit for it. Human beings are just hardwired to protect women and children, and feminists are exploiting that fact of biology to deny the facts of biology and seek privilege for themselves. In an advanced society where women need no special protection, and have far greater rights and status than any man, that hardwiring I mentioned just turns into misandry. Men are just as guilty of it as women.

But feminists aren't the only ones who can use the innate sexism of human beings to their advantage. Hence the new strategy I mentioned.

I know very well that feminists are after revenge, privilege, and equality of outcomes, not equality or justice. But we can hang them with their own rope. Like racism, sexism really does impact both sexes negatively in one way or another in every case - I was quite serious about that. But because it's socially and politically acceptable to treat men like meaningless and disposable slaves in essentially every industrialized society, if you phrase things in terms of how it impacts men, you're automatically dismissed as a sexist, greedy "backlasher" who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant. You can't question men's inferior position in society - that's political suicide - most women (and a great many men) only vote for people who pander to women's every last whim, and browbeat those who don't. BUT, if you phrase exactly the SAME issues and discussions in terms of how it impacts women, all of a sudden you're a compassionate, wonderful, progressive citizen who deserves attention.

Same issue. Same changes requested. Different phrasing. Since only women are qualified to be considered human beings in our society, the only way to get results on issues that impact us is to frame every argument in terms of the sexism against women. That gets results.

And the real beauty is that our demands will instantly become irrefutable, just because they're phrased in a way which "benefits women"! I've used this strategy myself, and it works every single time. Try it, and watch a feminist or a politician blubber in confusion until they realize that you've given them an opportunity to get back on their one track - the "men are monsters, women come first, only women matter" track, except now their train is headed for actual equality instead of feminist "equity". All we have to do is make sure our issue is phrased in a way which demonstrates a benefit to women, and suddenly what we are asking for is an issue of "fairness", instead of backwards, misogynistic, patriarchal oppression. Isn't language a wonderful tool?

Incidentally, the fact that this strategy can and does work proves my assertion about the misandric, sexist way in which men are viewed and treated in industrialized societies.

So, ax, there is a silver lining to our status as disposable slaves and the misandric sexism inherent in our societies. Since politicians cannot and do not refuse women even the most sexist privileges, perks and favors, and can never be perceived to be in favor of anything that benefits men, it follows that we must phrase our suggestions and demands of politicians and judges in terms that demonstrate the sexism towards women in an inherently anti-male practice, belief or law. It's paradoxical, but it has real potential as a strategy. As I said, I've tried it at the micro level, and now it's time to roll it out at the macro level. If a politician refuses to accept our arguments that something is sexist towards men, he's a hero. If he refuses to accept an argument that something is sexist towards women (i.e. real people), he's doomed.

Hence the wording of my comment above - phrase things in terms of how they are sexist to women, and not only can the argument not be rejected on the standard "men-are-privileged-evil-conspiratorial-violent-raping- oppressors-and-monsters-so-they-don't-deserve-anything" grounds, it will immediately result in serious consideration of our issue because it is something that impacts the only people who matter in this society - women. Just be careful when you do it not to make it sound like you're actually interested in something that benefits men in any way. Even if it benefits women to do what we're suggesting, it will immediately be rejected if it even sounds like it could have some beneficial effect on men. After all, we're all just privileged, evil, dirty potential rapists who deserve prison instead of shelters, you know ;)

Our society is disgustingly sexist and misandric, and that will probably never change because it's a function of human biology. Men will always be viewed as the disposable ones.

So it's time we got practical about this, and started hanging feminists and misandrists with their own political and linguistic "ropes". We'll probably never achieve real equality in day-to-day society, but we can certainly change the laws that govern us, and I'm convinced that this is the way to do it.