Sunday, July 31, 2011

DNA tests not so futile

How's this for a misleading start to a newspaper article:

MEN who owe their former lovers child support are taking DNA tests - financed by taxpayers - in a futile bid to avoid paying for their own children's upbringing.

Each year, dozens of Victorian dads demand DNA tests courtesy of Legal Aid, expecting to prove they owe their ex-spouses nothing - only to find they do.

Victorian parents are owed $4 million in maintenance by their former partners, according to the federal Child Support Agency.

That makes it sound as if the men seeking DNA tests are just trying to get out of supporting their own children. But later in the article the truth is revealed:

Figures supplied to the Herald Sun show that last year, 51 men asked for Victoria Legal Aid to conduct DNA tests after they were told to pay up.

A majority, 32, were proved to be dads and therefore financially liable.

So 37% of the men were shown not to be the father of the child that the woman was seeking 20 years of payment for. I would have thought the statistic fully justifies men who are uncertain of the parentage of a child getting it checked out. I think too we need to be harder on women seeking to deceive men in this way - it is a very low act.

Here's something else of concern. In Victoria men currently only get 28 days to to seek a test:

Melbourne lawyer Simon Bacon, partner with Manby & Scott Lawyers, said most men who challenged paternity with a DNA test were found to be correct, and more would do so if the law gave them more than a month to initiate proceedings after receiving child support orders.

"I would like to see the 28-day period expunged because it's an extraordinarily short period of time in the context of matrimonial breakdown," Mr Bacon said.

"The man is very much on the back foot if he wants to convince the court to issue proceedings out of time."

Why does there have to be such a short period of time? A deception at 28 days is still a deception later on.

17 comments:

  1. ""Why does there have to be such a short period of time?""

    So lying women are protected from the consequences of their actions.

    Why else?

    ""I would have thought the statistic fully justifies men who are uncertain of the parentage of a child getting it checked out.""

    And a possible reason for this is the authors name is "Carly" and not "John"

    She wrote the Maria Korp murder book. Quite well known.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have heard that 1 in 6 or so babies born to American mothers that the man with the woman is not the biologal father. Ouch.

    GLPiggy talked about a man discussing that he is possibly the father but doesn't want to reveal it to the husband of the woman he had a fling with. The links are below:

    --> http://glpiggy.net/2011/07/14/schwyzer-soze/

    --> http://glpiggy.net/2011/07/19/hugo-schwyzers-self-love-photographic-evidence/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Elizabeth Smith
    I have heard that 1 in 6 or so babies born to American mothers that the man with the woman is not the biologal father. Ouch.

    Ouch? No, no, no, Elizabeth, this is where you shriek NAWALT! NAWALT! as loudly as you can. Both feminists and tradcons alike are always quick to point out that Not All Women Are Like That when such an ugly, deceitful, disgusting fact is once again unveiled.

    Now, I've read anything from 1 in 6 to 1 in 10, depending on various sources. There could be a variety of reasons for that.

    It could be that improved DNA testing is revealing more cuckolding cases, cases that were always there but unproven in the past.

    Or it could be that the number of women cuckolding men is increasing--since there is no legal, social, or moral sanction on such women, what would hold women back? Oh, I know -- their superiour morals...

    And James is spot on. The reason for a short period to demand a paternity test is to protect lying women. I'm sure it was sold as "protecting the children", as such things usually are.

    Mandatory paternity testing at birth should be required. But it won't be, because that would reveal too much ugly truth about women -- both feminists and White Knights would fight that to the bitter end.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous Reader,

    But obviously it's true in this case that "not all women are like that". The tests did not reveal that 100% of women deceived their husbands, even in cases in which the husband suspected deceit.

    Anyway, this is one area of sexual relationships in which modern technology has come to men's aid. It's possible for men to find out about paternity through DNA testing. The issue for men in Victoria is that they get such a short period of time to have such testing done.

    I posted this item because it seemed to me that 37% was such a high figure that it fully justified the lawyer Simon Bacon appealing for a longer time for men to apply for DNA tests.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Again? Here's a link to summarize what has already been discussed: http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/05/revealing-political-profiles.html

    Anonymous Reader I'm not going to have another flame war with you. Another men's rights activist rant it seems? In case you haven't noticed I'm actually leaning towards parternity testing. It's needed to shine some light on both immoral men and women. Don't alienate people with your flawed beliefs in "Victorian ideals and you're just like a feminist!" mantra.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mark Richardson
    But obviously it's true in this case that "not all women are like that". The tests did not reveal that 100% of women deceived their husbands, even in cases in which the husband suspected deceit.

    I can read and understand simple sentences, Mark Richardson, and I'm aware of the difference between 10% and 100%. What you are displaying ignorance of is the tired, worn out defense that tradcons and feminists share whenever evil behavior by women is once again reported: rather than acknowledge the evil, the focus is shifted to NAWALT. This is clearly and intentionally done to minimize the facts about women, and to once again restore women to their rightful, superiour, position on the wonder pedestal of Womanhood.


    Anyway, this is one area of sexual relationships in which modern technology has come to men's aid. It's possible for men to find out about paternity through DNA testing.

    Yes, you may recall I've pointed this out to you a time or three before?

    The issue for men in Victoria is that they get such a short period of time to have such testing done.

    And the larger issue is this: that short time period is not an accident. I won't be a bit surprised to see some feminist proposing legislation in Victoria to ban paternity testing, "to protect Women" of course. And how many traditionalists would disagree, eh?

    I posted this item because it seemed to me that 37% was such a high figure that it fully justified the lawyer Simon Bacon appealing for a longer time for men to apply for DNA tests.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Elizabeth Smith
    Anonymous Reader I'm not going to have another flame war with you.

    Chuckle. You've never had a flame war with me. Ever. Nothing even close to it.

    Another men's rights activist rant it seems?

    Simply pointing out the facts. If you do not like the facts, that is not my problem. And the facts are what they are: that short period of time to demand paternity testing in Victoria isn't an accident, it didn't "just happen", it is intentional.

    In case you haven't noticed I'm actually leaning towards parternity testing. It's needed to shine some light on both immoral men and women.

    Wouldn't paternity testing interfere with your stated goals for children, though? Or have you changed your mind about cuckolding your future husband?

    Don't alienate people with your flawed beliefs in "Victorian ideals and you're just like a feminist!" mantra.

    I don't worry much about alienating people who clearly regard me as nothing more than an animal, a beast of burden.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mark Richardson
    I posted this item because it seemed to me that 37% was such a high figure that it fully justified the lawyer Simon Bacon appealing for a longer time for men to apply for DNA tests.

    I fully support your posting, and your reasoning. We must have a care with percentages on such a small sample size, to be sure, but a clear plurality of cases show that some women are, er, "confused"...or lying in their teeth, as it were.

    It would be interesting to see the response if mandatory testing was proposed in Victoria. I daresay female journalists would have a screeching fit...

    ReplyDelete
  9. A previous comment did not appear. I shall try again, and store this one in case it is not posted.


    Mark Richardson
    Anonymous Reader,
    But obviously it's true in this case that "not all women are like that". The tests did not reveal that 100% of women deceived their husbands, even in cases in which the husband suspected deceit.


    Missing the point, as you so often do. NAWALT is a standard response to any wrongdoing, any bad behavior, any evil by women, as a way to shift the focus away from any criticism of Woman. It's a tired, worn out rhetorical trick employed by feminists and White Knights alike. And more than once in discussions elsewhere, when the issue of cuckolding comes up, virtually all women will attempt to minimize the harm done via NAWALT.

    Look, the vast majority of men are not rapists, never have been. That hasn't stopped feminists from tarring men as "all rapists and that's all they are", and more importantly putting that premise into law. Whenever rape comes up, no one stands up to say "Well, NAMALT, so rape's not so bad", right?

    But any time any evil done by women is the topic, whether it is cuckolding, false rape accusations, abuse, etc. is under discussion then NAWALT is supposed to render the whole issue moot. You've surely seen this. If not, now you know.

    Anyway, this is one area of sexual relationships in which modern technology has come to men's aid.

    I'm aware of that, don't you recall me telling you of this a time or two or three?

    It's possible for men to find out about paternity through DNA testing. The issue for men in Victoria is that they get such a short period of time to have such testing done.

    And again, this interval is no accident. It is intentional, in order to make it as easy as possible for women to bear children by one man and stick another man with the cost of raising them.

    Choices for women, duties for men. That's feminism. And, er, one other "ism" as well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wouldn't paternity testing interfere with your stated goals for children, though? Or have you changed your mind about cuckolding your future husband?

    Cuckolding my future husband? Anonymous Reader you are clearly confused.

    I don't worry much about alienating people who clearly regard me as nothing more than an animal, a beast of burden.

    You're still under misunderstandings.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why does there have to be such a short period of time? A deception at 28 days is still a deception later on.

    Agreed Mark Richardson. The law should be extended to obligatory paternity testing with an period of 5-10 years.

    I think too we need to be harder on women seeking to deceive men in this way - it is a very low act.

    Indeed. There should be some form of legal punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. She wrote the Maria Korp murder book. Quite well known.

    Thanks for the info.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Elizabeth Smith
    Wouldn't paternity testing interfere with your stated goals for children, though? Or have you changed your mind about cuckolding your future husband?

    Cuckolding my future husband? Anonymous Reader you are clearly confused.

    Maybe I'm confused, but you are the one who publicly stated an intent to marry a man of one race, bear a child by him, and then become pregnant by a different man of another race, as part of your stated life goals.

    I don't worry much about alienating people who clearly regard me as nothing more than an animal, a beast of burden.

    You're still under misunderstandings.

    On the contrary, I understand the role of a man to many, many tradcons quite well: sperm donor and walking wallet. A man who is to "lead" his wife only in the ways she wishes to be led, while serving her in any way she wished to be served, for as long as she wishes it.

    I've seen it with my own eyes, Elizabeth, in "conservative" churches more than once. The contempt churchly women have for men isn't all that different from the contempt feminists have, it's just expressed differently.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ok, Richardson. I got your message: No dissent tolerated here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon reader,

    Sorry, I saw your comment and remembered I hadn't checked the spam folder for a while. Not sure why your comments got picked on.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.