Response to Buzzfeed's attack on MRA: As the attacks step up, so will I

[–]SarcastiCock 21 points22 points23 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gryphoneer 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]saoran 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gryphoneer 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

You are bending over backwards trying to spin his response into something else with your bullshit comment. Fuck you for that.

His response informs:
- the mother refused to allow a paternity test.
- she is as allegedly unfit as he was allegedly unfit. Since she told her side he gets to tell his.
- as an adult his daughter gave mutual reasons for distance. That is her choice.
- he did not address his son because the son did not address him, we do not know about either side. It is left private.
- refusing child support is related to the mother's keeping him in the dark about paternity. That is certainly an issue of fairness that society needs to address before you can spin any of your bullshit about abandoning.

I see you trolling like an ignorant piece of shit in denial against clear evidence below: we are done here now. GTFO.

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fia_bui 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]babno 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A person claiming to be in favor of father's rights and insisting that the court doesn't recognize same, who abandoned his own children and did not pursue any possible court remedies to obtain custody, is not a good spokesperson. It is painfully obvious that Paul Elam is invested in wrongfully claiming fathers lack any rights as a basis for justifying his own failures in regards to his own children. Which is sadly not all that uncommon with MRA's. "I wouldn't have won anyway" is a really shitty reason to justify not trying. A reason that Paul Elam pushes onto unsuspecting fathers who want rights with their children again and again. "Yes, it's the court system that is the problem." And you know that how? Oh right, by not bothering to use it and abandoning your own children to get out of paying child support. Yeah, great spokesperson there. Not.

[–]saoran 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QueenSpicy 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

Bonnie and her brother both revealed to me on meeting them that the woman I was married to was the same woman they had experienced growing up. Chronic drinking, drugs, a series of short term, often volatile relationships in which both Bonnie and her brother were abused. The abuse was at the hands of her mother and some number of her mother’s boyfriends.

I have no idea if this is true. However, let's assume that it is true. When "brave women" give children up for adoption, they don't knowingly just ditch them with a parent like this. Even newborns anonymously dropped off are protected by CPS and the courts, with extensive screening procedures for adoptive parents. The fact that Paul Elam was willing to ditch his children with a mother he now claims was grossly unfit says a tremendous amount about him. None of it good.

I will not equate abortion and adoption, so I won't respond to that.

[–]Grailums 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

LOL. What evidence is there that Paul Elam was ever in an abusive relationship? Did he file anything in court that said that? Does he have any police reports? Any evidence of visible injuries? Surely we should hold Paul Elam to the same standards he has for allegedly abused women. Regardless, since when is that a reason to abandon two of his own children? Since when is that a reason to abandon obtaining court ordered DNA tests to confirm paternity? "Oh gosh, I think my wife might have been cheating", is never an excuse to abandon your own (possible) children. "It was just too difficult for me to be with this awful person, so I ditched my kids and let her raise them" is so cowardly and disgusting as to be beneath contempt.

There is no possible way to equate the duties owed to an aborted fetus with the duties owed to a living child. Ever. Period. End of story. Once a child is born everything changes.

[–]Grailums 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Thank you, Karissa, for showing exactly WHY men need a voice out there.

Abuse is abuse. You cannot redefine abuse to fit your narrative. Any male or female in an abusive relationship has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to leave it. We are only cracking the surface of female on male domestic violence and with any luck studies will continue to go into the very understudied situation.

Furthermore a quick google search of "court ordered paternity tests" says absolutely NOTHING about obtaining one for the mother, but puts it all on the father. For instance you have this website: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/paternity-test-laws.html which specifically states through a link, which can be found here: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/fathers-rights---contesting-paternity.html that even IF the man in the marriage is found out NOT TO BE THE FATHER through a paternity test he can still legally be held as the father and EVEN MORE SO if he does not get a paternity test after a certain time period after the child is born he CANNOT EVEN GET ONE.

So I don't want to fucking hear it. I have shown you fucking proof and refuted your god damn claims. If women have every legal right to give up her child to adoption, or abort it, and men do not have ANY RIGHTS AT ALL to abandon his take as being a father, ESPECIALLY WHEN DNA TESTS PROVE IT BUT HE CAN STILL BE HELD LEGALLY AS THE FATHER something is fucking wrong.

But go ahead, try and talk your way out of this one. I'll appreciate not seeing a response from you because you have been BEAT in this debate.

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Any male or female in an abusive relationship has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to leave it.

Sure. Just not a right to abandon their own children.

Furthermore a quick google search

Stop trying to re-write history. Paul Elam was not using google in the very early 1980's. He ditched his own two kids because he didn't want to pay child support. He could have had DNA tests through the court. He could have privately obtained DNA tests either before or after his marriage ended. You know, if he ever actually bothered to see his own children.

Regardless it is all a moot point, since Paul Elam is playing coy, but not denying that these are his kids. He is obviously concerned that if he flat out denies it, some pictures of him and the kids will show up on the internet that make his paternity very very clear.

I'll appreciate not seeing a response from you because you have been BEAT in this debate.

You decided that all by yourself by randomly and without any proof claiming Elam was a victim and so anything he did was acceptable, (oh, the irony!), then going off on a tangent that had zero to do with Elam's decision to abandon his children? Have fun with that.

[–]Grailums 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Are you fucking dense or a millennial? Back in the 1980's and back in the 2015's it was IMPOSSIBLE for men to get custody of children and I have fucking SHOWN YOU THE GOD DAMN LINKS THAT YOU CONVENIENTLY FUCKING IGNORED which shows how impossible it is for a man to get a fucking court ordered paternity test.

You're just another god damn idiotic excuse for a human being who looks at facts, cries "MISOGYNY!" and shows no fucking thought processes what-so-ever. You're justifying a woman sleeping around on a man that the man should have to stick around when he has no fucking idea if those kids are his or not.

You just want men to be slaves to women. That is fucking clear. You continue to fucking squawk like an idiotic parrot even after I showed you CLEAR FUCKING PROOF that men obtaining a court ordered paternity test is VERY FUCKING DIFFICULT.

I didn't decide randomly that you are wrong. You're ignoring clear fucking evidence and attacking the character and not the argument. Go back to Buzzfeed.

[–]Karissa36 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Grailums2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Karissa361 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tempthrowanon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That man, exactly. One man is being unfairly saddled with an unfair burden, and it's news. If it were happening every day, why would it be news?

Wives getting restraining orders against their husbands is not the norm in the three months after they give birth, so I don't see how it's relevant to the average man being able to surreptitiously carry out a home paternity test. Are you saying that the average father already has the deal with the dissolution of his relationship with the mother in the first three months of his child's life? Because that does not seem like something you can support with statistics.

I'm not sure what "answer" you're looking for from me. Statistically, only 1/3 of fathers who undergo paternity testing are correct in their assumptions of paternity fraud. I stand by my assertion that the average new father has ample time in 90 days to surreptitiously carry out a home paternity test.

[–]Grailums 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And I am telling you statistics do not matter to the individual. You are saying Elam should have played drug store detective in a situation where he was allegedly being abused and therefore probably was not in the right frame of mind.

Let me ask you: Have you ever been abused by a significant other? They don't lie when they say you feel trapped. Especially one that you love. As I told Karissa I was in an abusive relationship and the child wasn't even mind because I met the woman after she had her kid.

Don't think for a god damn moment there aren't times where I wished I could have taken that little girl away but I knew there was no legal recourse because NO ONE BELIEVES WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF FUCKING VIOLENCE.

That's the thing you can't get through your skull...you believe an abused man should "suck it up" and be a father. I'm sure women were being told to "do her duty" far back in the 1930's where marital rape was still seen as legal.

[–]birdiefellows -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So basically you are just contradicting yourself one end and up the other aren't you?

CPS does nothing. It's a sham of an agency and anyone who has dealt with them can tell you how shitty they are and how fucking stupid they treat cases. Do you think, with how pervasive our society blames men for abuse (even though 40% of all child abuse cases are caused by a single mother) do you really think back in the 80's CPS would have batted a fucking eyelash?

GROW UP.

This world is filled with injustice and you're blaming a man for not having ANY legal recourse while the woman was pregnant to do anything. He could pay 1,200 and put it all behind him or he could be locked in 18 years of hell and paying tens of thousands to an abusive woman who has all the rights in the world while he has none.

I had to leave a child with a known abuser...by the logic of Karissa and you I'm a scumbag. So on behalf of all men who have been abused by women and have had no choice but to stay with the woman, and try and shield the children from abuse, or left because the abuse was too high: FUCK YOU.

[–]Frobenioid 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Karissa36 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Karissa36 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dude, you don't know it was 1981. It could have been 1985. There are no dates referenced in either article, except 1980's, so I just randomly picked 1981 for prior discussion.

Those were court precedent until 1983, when the Texas legislature finally stepped in to rectify the situation and allow husbands' motions for blood tests to establish their non-paternity,

Wow, that looks amazingly like the motion Elam filed challenging paternity, which was referenced in the Buzzfeed article. Which strongly suggests it was filed after 1983, since there wouldn't have been any point before that. The motion he dropped and backed out of for a lousy $1,200. Since knowing if your children are actually your children is so much less important than not paying child support and abandoning them. /sarcasm

Regardless, you just keep spinning your wheel here like a deranged hamster. Elam does not deny these are his children! You might want to, but he does not deny it. So why don't you just deal with that?

(Nice job on the research though. Thanks for proving my point.)

[–]birdiefellows 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MSalvo__ 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

Gutter-level "journalism" by Buzzfeed. Surprise surprise -- ex wives often lie about their ex-husbands, and vice versa, while denying or grossly downplaying their own transgressions. The fact that Paul's ex refused to get a paternity test pretty much says it all.

Anyway, the whole thing is just typical attack the messenger garbage. I'm not even really a fan of Elam and he certainly isn't the "leader of the men's rights movement," whatever that's supposed to mean. But he shouldn't lose any sleep over this. Ultimately this is a distraction. Feminists are unable to debate us on the issues, so they resort to personal attacks and shaming language.

There is an unintentionally hilarious paragraph in the buzzfeed piece, which actually highlights the need for the MRM. It reads:

"He preaches the gospel that men’s failures and disappointments are not due to personal shortcomings or lapsed responsibility, but rather institutionalized feminism and a family court system rigged against dutiful fathers, as well as a world gripped by “misandry,” or the hatred of men."

The overriding principle of modern feminism is that women should not be be held accountable for their actions because they are victims of the patriarchy. In contrast, MRA's tend to emphasize personal responsibility and agency (including -- gasp! -- female agency!) while also drawing attention to structural injustices that need to be corrected. It's not either/or. I have never heard an MRA advocate the abolition of male prisons because men are "victims of the matriarchy." Yet feminists are currently lobbying to have female prisons eliminated. If they were arguing that prisons should be eliminated period -- both male and female -- then that would at least be a philosophically consistent position. But that's not what they do. Men have all the agency and responsibility, women supposedly have none.

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do you really think alimony, child-support, and the family courts were fair to men back in the 1980's when today they are abysmally biased towards women?

Hey, I should know! I was raised by a single mother and never got to hear my father's side of the story. He apparently "signed away his rights" just like any other and while I love my mother I can clearly see, especially in my early years, that she was batshit crazy. She's been a lot better in the last ten years but emotionally abusive doesn't even sum up the fact that I felt more like a burden than a child for most of my early years.

For all I know he wanted full custody and they didn't give it to him. I don't know because I can't get the truth about it.

So basically your entire argument boils down to this: Paul Elam only paid 1,200 dollars to an abusive woman instead of paying for 18 years of misery and hate and only seeing his kids 2 times a month.

To shorten that further: You're pissed because a woman didn't get more money than you think she was owed.

Fuck you.

[–]Karissa361 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I love the way that you have just randomly decided she was abusive. Her children didn't say that. Paul Elam didn't say that. Way to go on making up a false narrative.

Also if there is any abusive person on the face of the planet, Paul Elam is a likely candidate. Duh, consider his personality. It's not some big surprise none of his marriages worked out.

I don't know because I can't get the truth about it.

Sure you can. Request a copy of the court records. They are on microfilm sitting in a court basement somewhere, and will include all pleadings and motions filed, along with all court orders.

...never got to hear my father's side of the story. He apparently "signed away his rights" just like any other

Yes, apparently he did. You never got to hear your father's side of the story because he never stuck around to tell you the story. Process that. At least some of the story is in a courthouse basement. Don't ask for the records unless you really want to know, because it is highly unlikely that he really wanted a child. It's a lovely fantasy to think that the court system prevented him from being a parent, which he passionately wanted to do. The truth might be much more ugly.

We can only hope that any truth you discover is better than the truth that poor Bonnie discovered. "My father never once gave a shit about me" is kind of hard to handle.

[–]birdiefellows1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My parents did, in the interest of full disclosure, but since we got the same story about it from both of them, I've always believed it. They had a really high-conflict divorce in 2007 in PA, which is a pretty egalitarian state, as far as family courts go. Both of their lawyers told them that unless they had tangible proof that the other one had abused us kids, going for more than 50/50 would make them look petty and vindictive to a judge, really not what they like to see.

I know some states, like SC, aren't gender-neutral, but I don't think that's representative of the whole country. Whenever I engage with someone on here about custody, they send me a ton of blog posts and old data, but I've never seen a statistic from this century that disproves the idea that most custody disputes are settled out of court and agreed to by both parties.

[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, thank you. But I really don't think either one of my parents were lying about their experiences with family court.

That's why I don't really follow what you're trying to say. Can you show me where you read that the spouse initiating a divorce can recover legal fees from the other spouse? Because that's not legally sound, at all. And why are you defending people who don't even care enough to push for custody? I don't think someone who sees a custody battle as "a waste of money" has any business being a custodial parent.

I am also interested to see which states permit "emergency child support", because in the US, child support cannot be collected until a court order is enforced, and things like "back child support" do not actually exist. Are you in Canada? Because here in the US, the spouse that initiates a divorce does not automatically get some kind of lump sum payment. Most US states are community property, 50/50, so I can't see how there could be a trend of wives initiating divorces and paying for them from a source of income that the husband couldn't equally access. I know that some people pull dirty separation tricks like pulling all of the money out of the joint account, but those people are always fucked when they get before a judge, because that's the kind of underhanded bullshit that judges don't play with.

[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Wow, you really have no idea, do you.

Take a look at temporary orders, ex parte hearings, and google "Can i make my ex husband pay for my divorce?" attorneys fees for your state for more information.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/temporary-orders-family-court-29642.html

http://www.momsdivorce.com/frequently-asked-questions-moms-facing-divorce

And why are you defending people who don't even care enough to push for custody?

Are you not listening? Fighting is irrelevant, unless your case is favorable. Go ask a few divorce attorneys if it makes sense for a man to fight for custody. I did.

and things like "back child support" do not actually exist.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as CS arrearages? If so, you're absolutely wrong, almost to the point of being delusional. But I would definitely like to see your source that indicates this about child support. Please share.

I know that some people pull dirty separation tricks like pulling all of the money out of the joint account, but those people are always fucked when they get before a judge,

Heh, ok. I'll be sure to tell this to my ex. I'm sure I'll be getting that money back that she walked away with. Any day now...

[–]birdiefellows1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you trying to say that someone can collect CS from a time before there was a standing court order? Because that does not make any legal sense. You can't be forced to pay money from before an order was issued against you.

And may I ask what state it was that you got this information? If it was South Carolina or Florida, then my apologies. There are absolutely some states with family court language that is not gender-neutral.

I guess my stance is this: I lived in a state with gender-neutral family court laws, where there had to be an overwhelmingly compelling reason for a judge to award anything other than 50/50 (this was after the cash for kids scandal, so the judiciary was pretty tense). When I worked in the service industry, I had TONS of male co-workers who constantly complained about having to pay CS. But then, when asked about it, they would immediately admit that they had never even asked for custody, and that they wouldn't want 50/50 anyway, because "she's better with them" or "custody doesn't fit into my work schedule". And now, living in a totally different state, I still hear that a lot. A lot of people who don't want to pay for someone else to take care of their kid, but don't want to do it themselves, either.

And I'm sorry that you somehow ended up in a situation where your ex-wife was able to take more than 50% of your marital assets. When my parents divorced, my dad did just that (withdrew all of the money from all of the accounts, leaving my mom and us kids penniless for a long time), and the judge he and my mom went up against ruled against him on a lot of things because of it. However, he still did not have to pay child support from a period of time before the judge levied a court order against him, because that's not how the legal system works. We had to beg for money from relatives during that time period. I'm not trying to get you to dox yourself, or anything, but I'm genuinely curious what state this happened to you in, if you don't mind mentioning.

[–]Peter_Principle_1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you trying to say that someone can collect CS from a time before there was a standing court order? Because that does not make any legal sense. You can't be forced to pay money from before an order was issued against you.

That I don't know about, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true(looks like it is at least in texas). However, that's not usually what people are talking about when they're talking about "back child support". They usually mean money owed, i.e. arrearages. Those obviously exist, since CS debt cannot be discharged.

A lot of people who don't want to pay for someone else to take care of their kid, but don't want to do it themselves, either.

Makes me wonder how carefully these women checked with the fathers before they decided to have a child. It also makes me wonder how many would have still gone ahead with their plans if there wasn't an excellent chance for this guaranteed income to be supplied to them.

[–]birdiefellows1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

http://www.cmlaw1.com/retroactive-child-support-pennsylvania/

http://www.vladimerlaw.com/Practice-Areas/Child-Support.shtml

Here are some sources to support my statement that retroactive child support does not exist in my state. However, after additional research I have found that it DOES exist in some hyper-conservative states that adhere strongly to traditional gender roles, like Texas, for example. So, it looks like we're both right. It exists in some states (up to four years), but it doesn't in others.

I'm not trying to be combative here. I guess we're just coming from totally opposite sides of the issue. You've obviously gone through a shitty, shitty divorce. My siblings and I grew up in poverty, watching one parent work 90 hour weeks while the other lived in luxury and worked under the table to avoid paying a dime for us. I just don't think that someone should be able to bring a child into the world, raise it for a few years, then turn around and say, "nah, I'm out. I don't want to pay for your food/shelter anymore. Sorry".

Seriously though, ARE you from one of those hyper-conservative traditionalist states?

[–]Grailums1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Abuse =/= physical all the time. My ex was very emotionally abusive and abuse IS ABUSE. She would beat me sometimes as well. Good thing the child wasn't mine or else you'd be telling me I better give her 100% of my paycheck and let her stab me in the throat!

Whether the truth was ugly or not he stuck around for 2 years at least, that's all I know. I don't blame my father for leaving. I'm an adult and I realize that blaming all my problems in life on other people is a shitty thing to do. Would life be a bit easier? Sure. Would I be a bit less socially awkward? Perhaps, who knows, but I'm happy with my life and if my mother was abusive towards him I certainly would not add to that abuse.

Here's the skinny though: Bonnie was never told "My father never once gave a shit about me", it was more like "Sorry but your mother was a whore/slut fucking plenty of other guys than me".

But you're right, the truth IS hard to handle. You can't even handle it when it has nothing to do with you.

[–]birdiefellows 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Someone brought up the topic of fathering children and abandoning them, and then you compared that to making a false rape report, for some reason. Can you explain why you think the two are similar?

I mean, you're calling her, the ex-wife, abusive. Even if those children aren't his, he still knowingly left vulnerable children in the hands of someone he felt had abused him terribly, and apparently never looked back. That's why I think he's a bad face for a movement so concerned with father's rights. I wasn't trying to diminish the difficulty that some fathers have gaining custody at all, just saying that I think those men will have a hard time being swayed to the MRM by a man who admits to leaving very small children with a known abuser and not even bothering to call CPS or attempt in any way to have those children removed from their abusive mother.

Also, if you're hanging around women who would call a man a "deadbeat loser" if he claims to be abused, you're hanging with the wrong sort of woman. I don't know anyone who would say such a thing. People are calling him a loser for bringing children into the world and abandoning them. I have nothing but sympathy for him as a survivor of domestic abuse. But I have a hard time sympathizing with someone who leaves small children with an abuser and never looks back.

[–]Grailums 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HeroicPopsicle 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]DerickBurton1 11 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

I feel so bad for Paul after reading that.

I wonder if his wife, who smoked PCP while pregnant, repeatedly cheated on him, refused to take a paternity test and demanded money to get rid of her, knows who the father really is?

[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]DerickBurton1 11 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Really? And how would they have forced the mother to submit to one?

Do you know what year it was requested in, the state and the law regarding paternity tests back then?

[–]Karissa36 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]DerickBurton1 11 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

And if the mother would have refused?

[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tempthrowanon 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Susan received full custody of both children after their divorce in February 1981. Elam was granted visitation rights every other Sunday afternoon, but only if he wasn’t “under the influence of alcohol or drugs or in the company of people under the influence of alcohol or drugs.” He was also ordered to pay child support every month as well as some previously owed child support and a variety of other debts and court fines. But he didn’t. So Susan took him to court again. Finally, he wrote a petition to the court explaining that he didn’t believe he should be held in contempt of court or pay attorneys’ fees because he didn’t think Bonnie was his

Nope, you are incorrect. Elam according to this didn't challenge the paternity of his children during the divorce. It was some vague time later, after he failed to pay child support, that his ex-wife took him back to court. THEN he decided to claim the kids were not his and ask for paternity tests. Most likely after the law changed in 1983.

Sooner or later, considering the extreme conflicts that Elam engages in, someone will just publish the court documents on the internet. Not me of course, but it's inevitable. In the meantime, there's no point in your endlessly claiming to know some alleged truth, generally dispelled by the next comment, and then leaping onto some alleged truth again. Repeat ad nauseum.

[–]o9JOhY6iPn2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually, we're both wrong. You're the lawyer-ish person slinging mud at the poor guy. How come you can't figure this out?

After reading the Buzzfeed article once again, it looks more likely that the divorce occurred in the State of Washington, not Texas. The law in Washington state was changed to allow husbands to challenge paternity in 1976, not in 1983 as it was in Texas:

... the relevant part is on page 177: http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1976pam1.pdf

7.1.b "for the purpose of declaring the nonexistence of the father and child relationship presumed under section 5 (1), (2), (3) or (4) of this 1976 amendatory act only if the action is brought within a reasonable time after obtaining knowledge of relevant facts."

So it does look like Elam might have had standing to bring an action to declare the non-existence of the father and child relationship, but only if he had brought the issue forth within short order after having reason to doubt his wife's fidelity. Or, something to that effect.

The only issue then, is if Elam and his ex wife had battled it out in court, what would have been considered a "reasonable time" based on what he did or did not know about his wife's infidelity in the months or years prior to the time he brought the action? He might expect that his ex-wife would make the case that he ought to have known about her infidelity years prior, and then his action to get a paternity test would have been blocked.

One possibility, is that Elam felt he may not have had have standing to bring the action, because his wife had told her about an issue of possible non-paternity several years prior in 1978, when she claims to have been raped. Because Washington law states that paternity may be challenged only if the action is brought within a reasonable time after obtaining knowledge of relevant facts, he may have expected that he would not be able to get a court ordered test.

But the mother was said to have been relieved when the child was white like her husband, and not black like her alleged rapist, which Elam presumably would have known. His reason for questioning paternity would apparently have less to do with the alleged rape, and more to do with other instances of alleged infidelity on the part of his wife, perhaps discovered later. But it may have felt his efforts would likely be blocked. I think that's probably a reasonable expectation of what might happen.

At any rate, it never seems to have come to that. By Elam's account, he asked her twice for paternity testing, once possibly to her directly or by some other avenue, which was refused, and a second time in a letter to her lawyer, which was also refused.

The BuzzFeed article describes what the author describes as a petition to the court thusly:

“Susan has a history of promiscuity which never, to my knowledge now, ceased during the three years that we were married,” Elam wrote in the petition. He said he would take a paternity test, but that he felt he had “paid enough for the unfaithfulness” of his ex-wife.

So I guess we have Elam's accounting of events, that he requested a test, and a paraphrasing from the Buzzfeed author worded in such a way that does not really distinguish between whether Elam was really requesting a paternity test, or just willing to go through with a paternity test if asked.

I have to wonder on the chosen paraphrasing in the Buzzfeed article. Because they were married, Elam's ex-wife doesn't need a paternity test to hold him as the father of the child and pay support. Elam is the one who needs the test if he is going to be certain if the kids are his, and to get himself out of this situation if the kids are not his. It's almost as if they make it out like Elam only made an offer to undergo a paternity test, but didn't really ask for one. We might speculate why Elam made only an offer of a test, or we might speculate that the paraphrasing chosen by the author really hides the fact that Elam was making a request, not an offer. We don't know which.

No matter, it seems not to have gone that way. The ex-wife's parents convinced her to just cut things off with Elam, terminate his parental rights based on mutual agreement, which is the outcome that would have resulted if Elam had gotten his test and was proved not to be the father anyways. Elam says he interpreted this to mean that his ex-wife was unsure of who the father was of one (or both?) of her two children. Maybe he assumed that she would have pursued paternity if the felt there was a reasonable chance that the children were his, but she didn't.

So what are the lessons here? Don't do drugs, don't get married to or have children with a loose person, and never let a child's mom convince you not to get a paternity test.

Fortunately, unlike Elam, we now live in an era of DNA paternity testing, were tests can be done by fathers without the mother's DNA (provided the practice hasn't been banned in your jurisdiction).

Let's teach that in sex ed in school. It can be a case study.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SuperBicycleTony 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Complete bullshit here by Elam. The ex-wife's lawyer could not have prevented Elam from getting a paternity test. The court would have definitely ordered one if he requested it.

Contrary to your opinion, yes, she could have. First off, this was 30 years ago, courts are much more open to these ideas then they were then. As well, Elam and his then wife were married - the argument is that biological paternity doesn't actually matter - and it still doesn't if you read the news.

Since they were married, there is no need for evidence to conclude that Elam is the father - he is assumed to be so. It is quite likely that a court 30 years ago would have denied his petition based on the ex-wife's lawyer saying it is unnecessary under the law that presumes fatherhood because of marriage. It literally makes no difference to the courts ruling whether it is true or not. It just muddies up the waters and costs more money and drags out the litigation.

These are the current statements, I really have no idea what the statements were 30 years ago, and neither do you.

Part of the problem Karissa36, is that you assume you know how things are, because you assume that is what they have to be to be reasonable. The world is frequently not reasonable, or rational, and all your wanting to believe it is does not make it so.

http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Paternity-Test-When-the-Mother-Refuses

Understand that, just because you file a petition for a paternity test, the court is not obligated to order the test. The judge has to determine if sufficient evidence exists, based on the petition, to order the child's mother to undergo the testing and take the child for testing.

http://www.uslegalforms.com/paternity/washington-paternity-forms.htm

Generally, if the Mother was married any time in the ten-month period before the baby is born or when the baby is born, the Husband is presumed to be the child's legal father in virtually all States.

[–]Karissa36 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

so we have no idea how it would have turned out.

Well, actually we have pretty good indications of how it would have turned out based on more recent cases covered by the media.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/detroit-man-fights-30k-child-support-bill-for-kid-that-is-not-his

So you have completely abandoned these statements:

Complete bullshit here by Elam. The ex-wife's lawyer could not have prevented Elam from getting a paternity test. The court would have definitely ordered one if he requested it.

and

Maybe it wasn't his child? Maybe?!!! What kind of sleazeball doesn't get a DNA test and find out?

Since you are now moving to "we can't know".

The rest of your statement paraphrases into:

Paul, while being drug addicted and in a toxic relationship that was falling apart was angry when dealing with his ex-wife who had cheated on him numerous times. Based on that he felt that he had adequate reason to suspect the child was not his. Since there was no other way out of paying 20 years of child support (regardless of paternity) he choose to pay a lump sum when offered that option.

If the child is indeed his, it was a shitty decision. If not his, it was a good decision.

You know what, let's agree with you. It was a shitty decision.

That is still pretty good odds for a decision from a young person from an abusive home who made a series of shitty decisions like being in an abusive relationship and becoming addicted to drugs.

I am glad that your life has been so easy that these things are clearly black and white for you. You have had the good fortune to have a wonderfully sheltered life and you should be very grateful for that.

(alternatively, you are under 18, which would be consistent with a ton of your writing, but you claim otherwise, so let's go with that).

The only thing left standing from your original post:

his ex-wife saw no value for his child in him having a relationship with her, and was willing to forego any child support

This is true. Now, was it because she thought he was right about paternity? Did she want to protect her child from a drug using father? (kinda hypocritical since the best option would have been to surrender the child for adoption to protect her from a drug using mother as well). Maybe, she did it because if she had to see Paul on a regular basis while sleeping with a bunch of other guys she might feel guilty over cheating on him.

Really, this doesn't say anything. If you interpret it in the best light, it is barely above the level of responsible. In the worst light, it is completely selfish and self serving. Truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

You have so little empathy for others you are either so completely sheltered so as to be like a child, or you are close to a sociopath with no ability to see anything that doesn't line up to how you want it to be. Which is it?

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

On the contrary, she does deny it. Read the article.

She makes no statement about the accusation of infidelity whatsoever in that article. The closest she comes is saying that she was relieved that her daughter was white because she was raped by a non-white.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Paul Elam makes a living out of regularly dispensing vitriol. If he wants to dish it out, and he most definitely does want to, then he better be able to take it.

As I said, if you must castigate the man for 30 year old choices made when he was a drug addict, sure, this is one where, if the kids are his, he can be held up as a failure.

Your beliefs and convictions are interesting. I am still unconvinced I am talking to a person old enough to drink legally. As I said previously, either completely sheltered or horribly naive.

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_testing#History

Bullshit again. You skipped over HLA and PCR. DNA paternity testing didn't just jump from matching blood types in the 1960's to RFLP in 1984, with nothing in between. Very accurate paternity tests were available during the relevant time period. (Not that we actually know what year in the first half of the 1980's all of this occurred. Neither the Buzzfeed article or Paul's statement gives us the actual dates. I just extrapolated back from information given to the earliest possible date.)

As I have said repeatedly, nothing prevented Paul Elam from having his children privately tested for paternity, either before or after his wife filed for divorce. Nothing except his unwillingness to do so. And sure, a man who only questions whether the two children born of his marriage are actually his when he is asked to pay child support, then happily abandons them and all DNA testing attempts, to what he claims is an unfit mother, is a piece of shit.

(As an aside, and I mean this sincerely in an attempt to be helpful, something is wrong with your reddit account. Your identical comment here showed up on my new reply comments list 11 times. You might want to contact the administrators.)

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Karissa361 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Section 6. History of article Parental testing:

The first form of any kind of parental testing was blood typing, or matching blood types between the child and alleged parent, which became available in the 1920s. Under this form of testing, the blood types of the child and parents are compared, and it can be determined whether there is any possibility of a parental link. For example, two O blood type parents can only produce a child with an O blood type, and two parents with a B blood type can produce a child with either a B or O blood type. This most often led to inconclusive results, as only 30% of the entire male population can be excluded from being the possible father under this testing. In the 1930s, a new form of blood and bodily fluid testing, serogical testing, became available, with a 40% exclusion rate.

^Interesting: ^Parent ^| ^Putative ^father ^| ^Moral ^certainty ^| ^Genetic ^testing

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]Grailums -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Grailums -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Response to Buzzfeed's attack on MRA: As the attacks step up, so will I
Author	desmay
Upvotes	90
Comments	116
Date	February 6, 2015 6:43 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2v0dqi/response_to_buzzfeeds_attack_on_mra_as_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/response-to-buzzfeeds-attack-on-mra-as-the-attacks.988692 https://theredarchive.com/post/988692

Comments