Sunday, July 24, 2005

Another Urban Myth Smearing Mothers Exposed as Product of Fathers Rights Groups Sprewing Bile

Well once again we see another lie exposed which had been spread about mothers by fathers/mens rights advocates. The 30% figure associated with paternity fraud has been used for years by men trying to paint a large number of women as either loose women who didn’t know who their child’s father was or as simple sponges trying to ‘father shop’ for the highest income man available to increase her child support.

It was another version of the ‘welfare queen’ slur of the Reagan era but this time expanded to include ALL women, not just public assistance recipients.

Of course this has been extremely detrimental, not just to the reputation of women in general, but to the self-esteem of mothers in particular who felt we were always on the defensive to justify every mother’s conduct. Everywhere from the halls of Congress to The Jerry Springer show this lie was accepted as a truth and womens’ reputations suffered because of it. Not to mention that I’m sure many state’s public policies and family court Judges’ vicious custody rulings against mothers emanated from believing this myth.

Thus, I’m happy to see that this horrific lie put out by men, probably trying to discredit most mothers' honesty, has finally been exposed for what it really is: just another URBAN MYTH.




"Paternity Fraud an Urban Myth: study
June 29, 2005 - 6:19PM

Alienated fathers' rights groups and the paternity testing industry are responsible for urban myths about paternity fraud, a university study has found.

Professor of Sociology at Melbourne's Swinburne University of Technology, Michael Gilding, said figures suggesting that up to 30 per cent of paternity tests showed that the nominated father was not the parent of the child in question were based on unreliable sources or studies.

He said the correct figure was closer to one per cent.

"What I found was that there were a couple of offhand statements which have been repeated so often they've been accepted as fact and when you actually look at the evidence, it's really weak," Professor Gilding said.

"In a way the evidence we have to work with is indirect but I've used every bit of public information I could find in the world for the last 30 years," he said.

"I thought for medical textbooks to be saying 10 per cent and for labs to be saying 20 per cent, there must be a pretty good basis. But there wasn't."

"On the whole in western societies I think it's somewhere between one per cent and three per cent and I think in Australia it's around one per cent."

Co-director of the Men's Rights Agency, Sue Price, said Professor Gilding's claims were "rubbish".

She said an American study of 44 blood bank testing clinics worldwide gave a figure of 28 per cent.

She gave further examples of a 1972 test in England, which she said found 30 per cent of husbands could not have been the fathers of their children and a 1997 test which revealed paternal discrepancies of up to 20 to 30 per cent.

"These are cited studies, I don't think you can just dismiss these," she said.

"I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever to prove that there is only three to four per cent from these figures. You have to look at these early tests that have been done."

A spokeswoman for Genetic Technologies Limited, a group which conducts DNA paternity tests in Australia, said their figures showed a 10 to 20 per cent exclusion rate of tested fathers.

However she said the sample of people they test is a skewed group.

"That means it's not within the general community, it's because there is suspicion or doubt over who might be the child's father," said Sue Lang of Genetic Technologies.

"So we're not talking general population, we're talking members of the population who already suspect that the parentage is in doubt."

Professor Gilding said in Australia, only 0.025 per cent of the population was tested for paternity each year and that public interest in it had grown since federal government frontbencher Tony Abbott was tested earlier this year.

"It's a much more exciting headline to say one in three kids are products of paternity fraud whereas me saying one in 100 is a pretty boring headline," he said.

© 2005
AAP"

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, this hardly disproves the "30%" figure. The good, peer-reviewed studies cited by Sue Price are more reliable than the one single study mentioned here that hasn't even been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Another problem here is that this not an epidemiological study, which is the appropriate method for studying these sorts of population dynamics.

Granted, the people who show up for genetic testing are a self-selected sample, but that doesn't mean that the 20% figure quoted by the testing lab is false; all it means that of people getting tested, the rate is 20-30%.

Let's face it, women lie about paternity - no ifs, ands or buts about it. Certainly not all women do this, but a significant number do. IMO in this modern day and age, genetic testing should be mandatory and conducted at the time of birth for each child. That way there would be no question about paternity, no opportunity for the emotional blackmail of men with charges of "you don't trust me," etc.

If you're so certain that only a miniscule number of women lie about paternity, you should be able to support this. This type of testing is inexpensive and could be easily done at birth along with other routine blood tests.

NYMOM said...

No. Since the article clearly stated that Sue Price's studies were studies with self-selected participants engaging in her study; thus is was a SLOPS study. Clearly of no use except as propaganda used to incite hate against mothers.

But, looking at it from another angle it could also be said that all this focus on DNA shows ever more clearly that a father's biological role is so insignificant that it really doesn't matter if he's correctly identified or not. As how much of a biological link do you really have if you need a DNA test to be mailed to you informing you that you're a father.

Does a mother need that. I think not...

As most thinking people have admitted, fatherhood is a total social construct, nothing biological about it and nothing in nature to identify it either with the exception of a few penguins and a couple of Disney clown fish.

Thus perhaps we need to accept the fact that men in our society can ONLY become fathers, after the fact, by following the guidelines that their societies have mapped out. Marriage being the mode of acquiring the title of father for men; as a man is automatically designated as the father of any child born within a legal marriage.

So in essence, it goes back to what I have said before. Marriage is the vehicle by which a father's legal rights are protected. Men who chose to procreate outside of it risk having none.

The biological ties of fathers to children is simply too weak to function as the mode whereby fathers and children are legally linked.

Last point: Attempting to create an androgynous society whereby men and women are treated exactly alike in every way from motherhood to the military just does NOT work.

That's the moral of this story.

So men continue shooting themselves in the foot the more they harp on this DNA business. For the more you continue on about it, the more obvious it becomes that men are the 'weak link' in the parenthood chain.

So if I were a man, I'd probably shut up about it.

Anonymous said...

NYMOM, if you were a man you wouldn’t say such abusrd things about fatherhood.

The studies Price cited are good ones, their only limitation being that they only apply to the population under study, i.e., persons who are in doubt about paternity. On the other hand, relying on one single non peer-reviewed study conducted by - of all people - a sociology professor is ridiculous vis-a-vis providing reliable scientific evidence for anything.

To be sure, there are a significant number of cases where the man doesn’t doubt his paternity yet the mother has cuckholded him. Mandatory DNA testing would address this problem.

The biological link between a father and his children is clear and highly significant – to deny this is to deny basic biology; there can be no child without a father. The claim that women don’t need DNA testing to know who the father is probably mostly correct (except in the cases of incorrigible sluts), but the father has no such certainty, which again is why DNA testing at birth needs to be mandatory. This is especially true given the draconian levels with which society holds purported fathers responsible for their children (and indirectly, the mothers of their children).

Most intelligent “thinking people” categorically reject the absurd notion that fatherhood is a social construct.

"Thus perhaps we need to accept the fact that men in our society can ONLY become fathers, after the fact, by following the guidelines that their societies have mapped out. Marriage being the mode of acquiring the title of father for men; as a man is automatically designated as the father of any child born within a legal marriage."

"So in essence, it goes back to what I have said before. Marriage is the vehicle by which a father's legal rights are protected. Men who chose to procreate outside of it risk having none."


Then why to we compel men who sire children outside of marriage to pay mother/child support? If the father is to have no rights, then he should have no responsibilities whatsoever to the mother. And for the children, only if he chooses to do so. On the other hand, under your scenario mothers should held soley and completely responsible for all children.

And what about mothers who choose to be single? They are perpetrating nothing short of child abuse by denying their children arguably the most important thing in their lives, their father. Further, if we are to accept you model of fatherhood, then any man a mother names becomes a “father,” with or without consent, whether or not he actually is the father. Can you imagine the chaos? Wealthy men like Donald Trump would be named by thousands of women in NYC as the “father” of their children and he would have nothing to say about it. This is nothing short of boldface totalitarianism.

As far as marriage goes, because it is no longer an enforceable contract it therefore is a very risky relationship for men to enter into. Thus, we see that men increasingly are choosing not get married, and indeed, are eschewing relationships with women (at least Western women) altogether. And frankly, I don’t blame them one bit.

However, your assertion that creation of an androgynous society is well-taken. I think that is why our economy is such a mess – women are being promoted into jobs and careers that they are not as suited for as men are, e.g., science, engineering, math, business, etc. So-called “gender diversity” initiatives have watered-down the talent to such an extent that U.S. society simply can’t compete any more.

If I were a woman, I’d shut up about gender diversity and affirmative action because you’re shooting yourself in the foot. When men are unemployed an out on the streets, civil unrest won’t be far behind and women will be the first targets. Beware: We must strive to keep the men happy and successful so society will endure; ignore men and their rights and needs, and society will fall.

NYMOM said...

"Most intelligent “thinking people” categorically reject the absurd notion that fatherhood is a social construct."

This is NOT so.

But rather then argue, tell me HOW an organism can have a biologically bond to another organism with no actual physical link of any sort????

I mean if I have to wait for weeks to get a letter in the mail telling me I'm linked now to another biologically entity, how in the heck have I formed a bond????

In fact, I haven't.

This is all a lot of nonsense put out by men and gender neutralized feminists in order to destroy the mother/child bond that men are so jealous of and feminist so eager to discourage.



"And what about mothers who choose to be single? They are perpetrating nothing short of child abuse by denying their children arguably the most important thing in their lives, their father."

No they aren't.

Actually as more nuanced studies come out, it becomes very apparent that you are all pretty much redundant now as they call it. Or pretty useless as I say. Women making over $50,000 raise very fine kids as do MOST women no matter what they make.

You men got all those statictics taking the very low end communities in our nation and then painting ALL women with that broad brush.

Just more of your lies like the 30% paternity fraud rate and the missile gap with the Soviets, and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and so on and so forth.

More statistical lies to get your own way.



"As far as marriage goes, because it is no longer an enforceable contract it therefore is a very risky relationship for men to enter into. Thus, we see that men increasingly are choosing not get married, and indeed, are eschewing relationships with women (at least Western women) altogether. And frankly, I don’t blame them one bit."

Well I've got some more bad news for you as further into this blog I've showned through historic evidence something we all know, but never wanted to admit before. MEN have ALWAYS tried to get out of marrying.

ALWAYS.

This is nothing new and has nothing to do with how western women act. Once again we need to look to biology to explain it. Women want a 'nest' to have children in and always look for the best provider to do so. Thus full wallet in men = big antlers on stags.

Same thinking. Men want sex so they've always went along with it. Actually what really caused your marriage strike was something quite mundane. Effective birth control (including abortion) which allowed women to indiscriminate mate w/o benefit of marriage. So now men rarely if ever marry, since you know what they say "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free"...

So in some ironic sense you're right. Feminism was responsible for your marriage strike by helping ensure women had the same freedom as men do to indiscriminately have sex.

Thus none of you want to be married anymore.



"However, your assertion that creation of an androgynous society is well-taken."

Is it? Somehow I doubt you even care about it. As long as men can hog all the financial assets in the nation and now get legal recognition of children w/o having to marry. Why should you care?

It's women who are at a disadvantage now and that's why women are NOT having any children. AND ultimately that is going to have a LOT more impact on our society, then whether or not men marry.

NYMOM said...

"Beware: We must strive to keep the men happy and successful so society will endure; ignore men and their rights and needs, and society will fall."

Beware: We must strive to keep the women happy otherwise we'll have no new people replacement models when you get old and withered.

Okay.

That's what causes societies to fall, things like that.

Anonymous said...

"Beware: We must strive to keep the women happy otherwise we'll have no new people replacement models when you get old and withered."

Not true. First of all, women need men a lot more than men need women. And there will always be enough women who respect men and will have children by them (you would probably call then 'sell-outs to The Sisterhood'). But barring the cooperation of enough women, men will force women to have their children. We have the power to do this and you don't have the power to stop us.

Face it: It's a man's world, biology dictates it, and there's nothing you or any other bitter, angry woman/person can do about it.

NYMOM said...

"Not true. First of all, women need men a lot more than men need women. And there will always be enough women who respect men and will have children by them (you would probably call then 'sell-outs to The Sisterhood'). But barring the cooperation of enough women, men will force women to have their children. We have the power to do this and you don't have the power to stop us."


Perhaps, but by the time enough men figure it out, western civilization will be so far along the road to extinction that the momentum will be impossible to stop.

You're all too selfish and self-centered to focus on women's reaction to your latest men behaving badly stunts. Otherwise you would have taken action about 30 years ago when our population started going into decline as a result of all this custody crap.

Probably now is too late to reverse these trends.

So I hope you're satisfied now, jerks...

crella said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NYMOM said...

"Even male elephants will not develop properly without a father."

Well then if you are so concerned about baby elephants go adopt one, but leave our babies and their mothers alone, you idiot you.

SM777 said...

I thank God I had the sense never to marry. As a result, I have more money, sex, fun and an easier less stressful life. All because I had the sense to avoid women with feminazi shoulder chips (which is most of them in the USA). It's amazing that when I hit middle age, almost all of the women in my age group started kissing my ass on a regular basis. They probably noticed that there are fewer men than women in this age group due to the shorter life span of men in general.

It's also the time when my divorced male friends congratulated me on my wise decision to stay single.

Everytime I hear about a man getting financially raped in divorce court by the contentious shrew he married, the only thing I say is......whew!

crella said...

'You idiot you'

Articulate as always...Of all I wrote that's all you saw fit to address.Interesting...

My point? We are mammals. You cannot ignore biological destiny.Babies need their fathers, no matter how much you deny it it will not change. Try and tell my son his father is 'unnecessary', then duck, lady.

I have saved all thread on which I have posted, you cannot skew anything I've written...I save everything. Just thought I'd let you know that your carefully crafted answers making us all look like idiots will not work.

crella said...

I doubt I will ever post here again. I value the exchange of ideas, and freedom of speech that our Constitution guarantees. This blog does not uphold those principles.

I feel sorry for you, that you feel so threatened by diverse opinions that you delete,delete,delete. Makes for an odd-looking blog...lots of deleted posts and then your posts in between calling people idiots.

I wonder how you hold actual face-to-face conversations if you have to run from anyone who does not share your views.

Good day.

NYMOM said...

"I doubt I will ever post here again. I value the exchange of ideas, and freedom of speech that our Constitution guarantees. This blog does not uphold those principles.

I feel sorry for you, that you feel so threatened by diverse opinions that you delete,delete,delete. Makes for an odd-looking blog...lots of deleted posts and then your posts in between calling people idiots."




NYMOM said: Sorry. But I find it hard to believe that you are not somehow connected with that Callum idiot as he frequently posts either just before or after you do.

Unfortunately you came at a bad time as I am having a lot of harrassment at my blog and just don't have the patience anymore to deal with it.

So when people quit putting inappropriate posts on this blog, then I'll be willing to be more patient and respond to everyone according.

Actually I was planning on locking the other posts here now just as I did on ones in the past because of what I consider harrassment.

Remember, you can be considered a troll just for constantly posting argumentative posts when you already know the position of the blog owner on various issues. The first time you came I responded, now that we know each other however, what is your purpose to keep returning here with the same arguments?

As you can see from my introductory statement I am looking for like-minded people that I can discuss various ways to address the problems faced by women in their role as mothers. I am NOT looking for someone who is the polar opposite of me and is going to be going over and over the same arguments everyday.

I will not change your mind and believe me there is NO hope of you changing mine so I guess my question is: what is the point of you posting here to argue with me all the time?

I know your position, you know mine. I accept they are different but I do NOT accept that I should be expected to spend hours with you arguing over those positions. That's not my mission. Again, it's looking for like-minded people to discuss ways to address what I consider a problem and it's my blog so basically my rules.

You should look for another place to discuss the importance of fathers in a child's life. This is a blog about mothers.

NYMOM said...

"I have saved all thread on which I have posted, you cannot skew anything I've written...I save everything. Just thought I'd let you know that your carefully crafted answers making us all look like idiots will not work."

NYMOM said: Good. I'm happy for you. You are obviously very invested in proving something that I have already admitted to you.

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ARGUING WITH SOMEONE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

Okay.

If you were new I would have replied to you since there would have existed a possibility that you did not understand my position and what this blog is about. I will always give this courtesy to a new poster. HOWEVER I went all through this already with you before, two or three times and I'm NOT doing it again.

You are an argumentative troll as per the definition which is: 1. you already know what a site is about, 2. you disagree with it so intend to show up every day or two to try to disrupt it with opinions you know will cause arguments.

Like I said, you already know what this blog is about and yet you insist upon coming here and starting up the same old arguments over and over again and I'm just NOT having it.

So bye.

NYMOM said...

"I thank God I had the sense never to marry. As a result, I have more money, sex, fun and an easier less stressful life."

Well this is true and the opinion of most men I expect.

What you leave out of it is the obligation you owe to the surrounding society that has enabled you to live this sort of life by providing you with the physical and legal infrastructure to sustain it.

Just how long do you think this infrastructure of our civilization would last (which depends upon succeeding generations to subtain it) if every man took your attitude to life?

Probably a generation or two and that's it.

But have a nice life anyway, jerk.

SM777 said...

Ooooo, name calling. That sounds like sour grapes to me.

In spite of all this, you do pose a very pertinent question. What do "I" owe society?

How about.........nothing?

Infrastructure of civilization? Not my problem.

Should I expose myself to a major financial raping via divorce court?......Nope.

I agree with you that my statements in the previous post were likely true of most men.

However, I don't wonder why. As I have heard this question before from others: Could it be the shafting that the majority of men are getting by the divorce court system via the emotional porcupines they made the mistake of marrying?

Honestly though, I am not that concerned about it since I believe that any man stupid enough to get married in Amerika or any western country is truely asking for it.

Now that you have my answer, my question to you NYMOM is: What do you owe society? (Please, an honest answer without the standard rescue women from the bondage of dependence on men, etc. etc. type of response).

In spite of the childish name calling on your part, I do have to complement you on one thing. You had the balls to not delete my post which is something that cannot be said about the Gonzokid a lot of the time, regrettably.

Yes, thank you, I will have a nice life. After all, I'm independent, liberated and enjoying it.

NYMOM said...

"Now that you have my answer, my question to you NYMOM is: What do you owe society? (Please, an honest answer without the standard rescue women from the bondage of dependence on men, etc. etc. type of response)."

NYMOM said: I feel that everyone owes to society and I am doing my share with this site. Plus I am working with some other women to get a petition to Hillary Clinton to change the way child support is this state is handled. So I do things to help others all the time and I get thank you letters and emails all the time from women I've helped.

Unlike you who appears selfish to the bone.




"In spite of the childish name calling on your part, I do have to complement you on one thing. You had the balls to not delete my post which is something that cannot be said about the Gonzokid a lot of the time, regrettably."

NYMOM said: Well you must post in the Forum then. AND that's not his choice to delete your post, as that's not his site, he's just an administrator on it.

I actually find it to be a pretty boring site to be honest with you. When you try to control things too much, you frequently end up with a snoozer.

So in spite of some posts to the contrary I let people say a lot here, but I'm not going to let people crap all over this place so I will put a stop to it when it goes over the top.

Anonymous said...

Oh, now that's rich - NYMOM calling someone else selfish. Her work for Hillary Clinton re. child support? Selfish (NYMOM is a single mom with a couple of daughters who are single moms). Her work re. this site? Not just selfish, but narcissistic too.

Then she has the gall to write "I actually find it to be a pretty boring site to be honest with you. When you try to control things too much, you frequently end up with a snoozer."

What a joke! This blog is the epitome of control and censorship.

Sheesh, this would be hilarious satire if I didn't already know that NYMOM is actually serious about her views and comments.

NYMOM said...

I don't do work for Hillary Clinton.

Don't you read?

I am helping with a petition for others, non-custodial mothers.

It doesn't help me, my children are adults. I'm a grandmother. So how does this help me. I have ONE daughter who is a single mother and gets NOTHING from her child's father. She makes over $100,000 annually so doesn't really need it.

Actually this could HURT her you nitwit.

So no, you are wrong as usual.

NYMOM said...

"What a joke! This blog is the epitome of control and censorship.

Sheesh, this would be hilarious satire if I didn't already know that NYMOM is actually serious about her views and comments."

NYMOM said: Why waste your time coming here then, since I'm such a joke.

Find something better to do with your time.

PolishKnight said...

Disproves what?
You (and the professor) are clearly mistaken even by the authors of the article that cited him. For one thing, the professor acknowledges that his data is limited at best whereas he's going not against an "urban myth" but rather hard statistics gathered from a variety of sources.

Next, you're mistaken about "men's rights activists" making a big difference and smearing all women's reputations by bringing into doubt the paternity of children in custody cases. By definition, a judge isn't going to rule in a father's favor for custody if his opinion is impacted by a study that says the child's paternity is in doubt!!! What crack have you and this professor been smoking? (I don't mean by be nasty, but come now, this logic doesn't make any sense.)

The Jerry Springer and Montel Williams show typically has sympathy for the _woman_ who comes up demanding an unwilling father to pay support and when it's the truth, no sympathy is shown towards him whatsoever as he's told to fetch his checkbook and when he's correct, he's quickly whisked backstage with Montel promising to do whatever the mother needs (including drag in some more men in an attempt to nail them.) At no time does either Montel or Jerry actually ask the mother "Why didn't you get an abortion or just not sleep around if you didn't want to have this kind of situation?"

NYMOM said...

The point was that the study where the 30% paternity fraud figure was taken from was biased. As it was self-selected participants who already had reason to suspect they weren't the fathers.

In most cases the figures are closed to 2 or 3 percent, not 30% as men have been lying about.

PolishKnight said...

Hello again NYMOM
Except... the own article you cited showed a variety of sources, and not just "urban legends" backed up the 30 percent claim including blood banks.

It's kind of funny for you to argue that the "urban legend" was exposed when the author of the counter-study himself whose trying to address "very weak hand-waving" turns around and says he THINKS (emphasis mine) that the figures are close to 1%. Yeah, ok, I THINK he's not making a very good case.

What's interesting is that no real study has so far been done precisely because so many women's groups suspect that it's the truth and don't want to even further fan the flames.