~ archived since 2018 ~

Here's some in-your-face facts that will MGTOW you forever. Pay particular attention to the links 'Families and Marriage' and 'Global Domestic Violence'

BleauGumms

September 17, 2015

21 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

http://www.ejfi.org/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Here's some in-your-face facts that will MGTOW you forever. Pay particular attention to the links 'Families and Marriage' and 'Global Domestic Violence'
Author	BleauGumms
Upvotes	21
Comments	3
Date	September 17, 2015 1:17 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/3larzl/heres_some_inyourface_facts_that_will_mgtow_you/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/heres-some-in-your-face-facts-that-will-mgtow-you.623515 https://theredarchive.com/post/623515

Comments

[–]dfaer53 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Explored the site for a bit until I came across this gem:

Genetic testing consistently finds that 30% of the time the man tested is not the father of the child in question.

This is, at best, a half-truth.

The Wikipedia article on misattributed paternity cites studies that disprove the claim that 30% of children in the general population are illegitimate:

Gilding concluded that Dr Philipp's high figure of 30% was more in keeping with the inevitably high incidence of non-paternity in cases where disputed parentage was the reason for the paternity testing. In such cases, other sources have consistently recorded an incidence of 17% to 33% (median of 26.9%), especially among offspring born to younger parents and to unmarried couples, and among those of lower socio-economic status or from certain cultural groups.

So we only see the 30% statistic in cases where paternity is already in doubt.

A related problem is the misandric bias in the 'genetic counseling' industry against informing men if they're victims of paternity fraud:

Surveys of genetic counselors indicate that an overwhelming majority (96–98.5 percent) would not divulge misattributed paternity results to the presumed father; sixty percent would include information about misattributed paternity on an informed-consent document. Therefore, genetic-counseling custom appears to support telling the mother alone, or withholding misattributed paternity from both parties.

It boggles my mind how this policy can be justified.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

So we only see the 30% statistic in cases where paternity is already in doubt.

Yeah, the problem with any "general population" statistic on this, is that AFAIK, no one has ever done anywhere near sufficient DNA-based testing; certainly not of a randomly selected representative sub-sample of an entire population; and probably not even a full (small, short term) sampling of any specific community (say all live births in a hospital during a single month).

So there really just ISN'T any valid data on the subject. IOW the following claim:

Overall, the incidence of misattributed paternity ranges from about 1% to 2%, though it may be considerably higher in certain populations

Is really just as spurious and unreliable as the 30% claim. (As the article notes, the "blood and other markers" is nowhere near as specific as DNA; and of course even general DNA "marker" testing can only get to a certain degree of likelihood -- per example the general paternal DNA testing MAY NOT distinguish between full brothers, and if that is suspected, then very specific testing is required: basically samples from both brothers are needed.

The reality is that the actual rate probably varies all over the map from one socioeconomic group to another -- and over time within groups* -- and then of course within that group it is really specific to the behavior patterns of the women who are at the root of the issue (generally speaking unless they engaged in some "gang bang" or a series of ONS in quick succession, they already KNOW who the actual father probably is).

* There are/were doubtless certain "chaotic" historical events or even relatively broad periods of time when the rates could (and probably DID) get rather ridiculously high (possibly even higher than that 30%). I think an argument could be made that there are plenty of places/groups RIGHT NOW (think Tinder) where social & ethical attitudes towards sexual mores have so deteriorated that the rate within a specific population (especially around or 9 months after certain "events") is probably significantly higher than the "average" for the remainder of the population.

EDIT: Another aspect of that "over time" and "within groups" is that taking data from studies done in one era/society (say especially the 1950's in the US or UK) and assuming that they will be representative of another era/society -- per example say Vichy France during WWII, or post-war occupied Germany, or of course parts of the current European/Scandinavian societies, or even the US currently -- well there is really no basis for making that assumption: each of those "societies/eras" is rather substantially different (not only in terms of sexual ethics/mores and marriage rates {where the differences are obviously large}, but also in terms of other things we simply take for granted, things like population mobility, communications, general affluence vs desperation, as well as availability of contraception, abortion, etc -- each of which likely "tugs" that rate in different directions and to different degrees -- they might balance out; but they could just as easily distort the rates and be the cause of a significant & dramatic change).

Surveys of genetic counselors indicate that an overwhelming majority (96–98.5 percent) would not divulge misattributed paternity results to the presumed father; sixty percent would include information about misattributed paternity on an informed-consent document. Therefore, genetic-counseling custom appears to support telling the mother alone, or withholding misattributed paternity from both parties.

It boggles my mind how this policy can be justified.

I don't see why it should "boggle" the mind. At it's root, it is fundamentally no different than many other "policies" that grant special privileges to women, and/or specifically discriminate against men (and actually "males" because a lot of policies also include blatant discrimination against boys as well).