MOD NOTE: Please note the following part of the forum rules:
The initial OP posted below covers it well enough: the premise of this thread is that men's issues exist. Don't bother posting if you don't believe there is such a thing.
Here's hoping this isn't considered too redundant. I've noticed that our existing threads about sexism tend to get bogged down in Oppression Olympics or else wildly derailed, so I thought I'd make a thread specifically to talk about discrimination issues that disproportionately affect men.
No Oppression Olympics here, okay? No saying "But that's not important because women suffer X which is worse!" And no discussing these issues purely in terms of how much better women have it. Okay? If the discussion cannot meaningfully proceed without making a comparison to male and female treatment, that's fine, but on the whole I want this thread to be about how men are harmed by society and how we can fix it. Issues like:
- The male-only draft (in countries that have one)
- Circumcision
- Cavalier attitudes toward men's pain and sickness, AKA "Walk it off!"
- The Success Myth, which defines a man's desirability by his material success. Also The Myth of Men Not Being Hot, which denies that men can be sexually attractive as male beings.
- Sexual abuse of men.
- Family law.
- General attitudes that men are dangerous or untrustworthy.
I could go on making the list, but I think you get the idea.
Despite what you might have heard about feminists not caring about men, it's not true. I care about men. Patriarchy sucks for them as much as it sucks for women, in a lot of ways. So I'm putting my keyboard where my mouth is and making a thread for us to all care about men.
Also? If you're male and think of something as a men's issue, by golly that makes it a men's issue fit for inclusion in this thread. I might disagree with you as to the solution, but as a woman I'm not going to tell you you have no right to be concerned about it. No "womansplaining" here.
Edited by nombretomado on Dec 15th 2019 at 5:19:34 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It would depend on how it was phrased. I think it could be phrased in a way that wouldn't make most people freak out.
@DG: See?
I don't mind a paternity test being made more readily available when both parties consent and wish it... but...
And, heck... chimerism, people: even mothers have had false negatives when they've turned out to be germ-line chimeras. <shrugs> Granted, it's not common... but, chimerism is rising in the general population thanks to IVF.
edited 5th Oct '12 8:12:57 AM by Euodiachloris
Both parties? Who's the second party? I don't think the child is capable of consenting at the relevant point in time.
The parents. 
Usually, it takes two to tango, you know.
It takes two people to make a baby.
I mean except in cases of like cloning or parthenogenesis.
Like wow did we really just forget that women are required to make babies?
edited 5th Oct '12 8:14:47 AM by ohsointocats
@Euo: I'd imagine that IVF wouldn't raise paternity disputes.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
IVF babies grow up... that's my point. The precise number of chimeric indididuals within the IVF population has yet to be determined... and might vary on when they were conceived: the older kids might well have a higher incidence.
And, guess what? Some of them are in their 30s right now.
edited 5th Oct '12 8:17:31 AM by Euodiachloris
But it only takes one to be a father and fatherhood is the question here. The mother should not come into it. In any case even now a mother can't prevent a paternity test. If she refuses to get one he can refuse to take parental responsibility (you'd have a rather good idea why she'd try to prevent a test) which means she'd need a test to prove he's the father.
How common is chimeraism? and how easy is it to test for?
edited 5th Oct '12 8:17:50 AM by Kzickas
But in cases of chimerism in parents, wouldn't they still be able to test and see which one of the chromosomes made it through?
edited 5th Oct '12 8:17:32 AM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
It's not always obvious that chimerism has occurred unless you do extensive tests. Heck, even if you check for multiple blood-types within individuals as an initial screen, that's far more common than once was thought, even in a base-line population. <shrugs>
And, the mechanics behind that are still being investigated. <shrugs again>
edited 5th Oct '12 8:20:35 AM by Euodiachloris
Is chimerism even common enough to be a relevant concern in this?
You'd think that they'd test for that stuff when it comes to paternity/maternity testing though, after the Lydia Fairchild hoorah.
edited 5th Oct '12 8:20:03 AM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
It's not really known how common it is, Zeal. Until relatively recently, it wasn't even thought possible in humans. <shrugs>
edited 5th Oct '12 8:21:45 AM by Euodiachloris
Let's see.
In cases where a man would be tricked into thinking a kid is his when it isn't with the possibility of paternity testing now means that these men would not really have any reason to suspect that a child isn't theirs until much later.
So by normalizing paternity testing on a majority of children we are normalizing the idea that a woman could have had sex with someone who was not a committed partner across the population for very little benefit. That... does not seem healthy for society.
Eh, the idea that someone in a partnership is sleeping around is already prevalent in society. I don't see the harm there.
Then again, I also don't see the harm in having multiple sexual partners, so long as everyone's informed.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Yeah I don't see the harm in having multiple partners as long as everyone involved is ok with it and protection and blah blah blah.
I mean it would make sense in like divorce cases that are because of adultery or whatever.
But in this case we are holding women up to a standard we are not holding men up to.
edited 5th Oct '12 8:29:06 AM by ohsointocats
How so? Assuming the guy is cheating is practically a cultural meme.
How do you figure?
EDIT: Ninja Girlfriend
edited 5th Oct '12 8:30:13 AM by KingZeal
Assuming a guy is cheating is a cultural theme? That's new to me.
Well in this case the responsibility of not cheating is falling squarely on the woman. Note we have not said anything about the man she must have inevitably been cheating with to form babby and have said nothing about the "other" man who does test positive. Everything is landing squarely on the woman's shoulders despite, as has been repeated again and again, it takes two to tango.
antic disposition
@Kzickas: There are certainly better and worse ways to state the results of a screening test, but people will inevitably freak out. Consider the case of newborn screening. Even when it's explained that the test is preliminary and not diagnostic (while not undermining its significance entirely), that there will be other tests and that the first one puts the baby's risk of having PKU to 1 in 100 rather than 1 in 10000...parents still only hear "the test said my baby has a horrible disease!" In isolation, a 1 in 100 chance sounds tiny. It won't be in context. Would you, for example, accept a woman not telling a man the baby might not be his if there's a 1 in 100 chance it isn't?
If there were a cheap paternity test which fulfils all the screening criteria, I'd happily support its adoption. Make it part of the normal newborn screen which can be refused if the parents want to. But we must evaluate any screening test properly, and that requires hard numbers and research, not emotive appeals.
edited 5th Oct '12 8:37:14 AM by Yuanchosaan
"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj
Because it's pretty obvious that the baby had to come from somewhere? Really, this is about getting men out of owing child support to kids they didn't sire. It's not "blaming the woman", it's "making sure the man isn't being punished for something he didn't do".
I thought it was assumed that if a man turned out to be the not-father, then she'd seek child support from the real father next.
Also, what rock have you been under? There's tons of stuff that have plotlines revolving around "Woman finds out her husband has been cheating".
Agreed. However, I don't think that such a vetting process for the tests is going to happen until there's more demand for it.
edited 5th Oct '12 8:36:40 AM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
If the cheating husband get's another woman pregnant he risks her naming him as the father. Also women are safe to keep cheating as long as they use birth control.
Nemesis
Zeal, you're so focussed on the harm done to men who aren't actually the fathers that you're discounting what mandatory paternity testing would do to everyone else. The person with the most pain doesn't automatically win the argument, here — a smaller amount of pain to a lot more people can override that.
I'd support the easy and affordable access for anyone that wants it. I'd change the law so that it was easier to do it — paternity testing shouldn't require the mother's permission if the putative father has doubts, in my view.
And, unfair or not, I suspect it's not in society's best interests to go digging for problems when nobody's complaining. It's expensive, disruptive, and sows seeds of distrust. I don't want to feed the all women are lying, cheating whores side of the mens' rights movement any more than I have to, thanks.
A brighter future for a darker age.
Well, that's not entirely accurate either. Any person runs the risk of getting caught at cheating, regardless of whether or not they practice safe sex.
edited 5th Oct '12 8:38:01 AM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Again, how many dad's are going to wait calmly to dish out more money on top of what they have to confirm a positive identity? The men who are capable of this won't want the tests to begin with.
How do you know?
How do you know how a father is going to handle the situation? If you have anecdotal evidence or statistical evidence, by all means share. But other than that, your personal guesswork is meaningless.
A
A state issued DNA test takes 3 to 6 months to come back. So that's 3-6 months of anxiety for that family. Again, those that are completely confident won't need the test to begin with.
It's not worth it. For those who want it we already have it available in different forms. There is no need to "normalize" paternity tests.
I'm backing up DG on this one. "It's hard" does not equate to "nobody should ever want to and it's not worth pursuing".
As for the three to six months of anguish, I'd like to, again, see some sort of anecdotal or statistical information that demonstrates how it's better than misattributed paternity.