In our public consultation document we have proposals related to two forms of paternity fraud:
Where a woman leads a man to believe he’s the biological father of her child, when he’s not.
Where a woman frustrates a contraceptive method in order to become pregnant, e.g. not taking contraceptive pills, whilst telling her partner she is.
Both forms of paternity fraud are outrageous assaults on men’s interests. The first form – even when attempted unsuccessfully – has long been a criminal offence in the UK. Not one woman has ever been convicted of the crime in the UK.
Earlier today both Ray and I spoke about paternity fraud on BBC Radio WM (West Midlands). We were interviewed by Danny Kelly, standing in for Adrian Goldberg. Ray spoke earlier in the programme and didn’t have the opportunity to mention J4MB and our proposals with respect to paternity fraud, so I called into the programme and spoke later. A link to the full programme is below. It will be available for seven days, we hope to have an edited version available on our YouTube channel shortly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01qqfjw
The following sections might be of interest, they were interspersed with a small number of contributions from listeners calling into the programme:
2:58 – 4:28 – Danny’s introduction to the topic of maternity fraud.
49:24 – 54:42 – Ray Barry.
54:43 – 57:20 – Dr Nicola McCrystal, Head of DNA at Bioclinics. She managed to say, ‘In many cases women assign paternity incorrectly’ without laughing. The remark certainly made me laugh.
2:04:29 – 2:07:08 – myself. After I’d spoken about the second form of paternity fraud – women frustrating contraceptive methods – Danny Kelly made a remark of a type I’ve encountered before from male BBC radio interviewers:
‘Mike, something in your past must have driven you to this. What happened?’
Ray Barry and I spoke after the programme, and he made an interesting observation. Narratives on BBC radio programmes of this sort always focus on feelings rather than facts. Interviewers – both male and female – seem unable (or possibly unwilling?) to engage with rational arguments about assaults on men’s human rights.
Great job, Mike, and also to Ray who is fast becoming a powerful ally. I absolutely agree with your last point; it’s definitely something that I’ve noticed many times before, particularly where male presenters and the BBC are concerned! To be honest I think much of it is down to the fear factor on the side of the male presenter. He knows full well that the BBC is female friendly and that much of his audience is probably female. He also knows that men appear to tolerate far more muck flinging aimed at them from across the air waves, whereas women would no doubt flood the lines with complaints given half a chance. So the humble male presenter is subconciously programmed to protect his own interests by submissively pandering to the emotional side of female engagement whilst ignoring hard facts that he knows would stir up real whirlpools of trouble for him and his employer. In my opinion it’s most definitely that they’re ‘unwilling’ rather than ‘unable’ to venture into fact-based arguments. This is why I’ve always suggested to push out the facts fast and hard and force these presenters (in a nice way) to answer to YOU rather than be driven down their own Pointless Avenue which is a cul-de-sac of perpetual frustration.
I agree – it is frustrating when these issues are apparently to be given an airing but actually all that the programme makers want is “the poor chap was devastated” rather than addressing how it could be stopped. My view is that we need a male contraceptive pill asap – and get it into the hands of all men & boys. That will stop both types of paternity fraud, as well as turning off the tap on the hordes of single mothers and the consequent drain on the economy.
Thanks Nigel. The MHRM does indeed need to learn the art of communicating emotional messages. When it comes to rational arguments, for decades the score has been MHRM: 10, Feminism: 0. Feminists rely on the constant re-telling of demonstrably false narratives, ‘1 in 3 women…’. But the number of people who understand that feminist narratives are a shower of lies grows by the day. There’s NOTHING feminists can do to stop that reality. They’re on the wrong side of history, and the smart ones (0.1% of them) know it. So the outcome of the approaching ideological battle will come as a complete surprise to 99.9% of them. A pleasing thought…
Thanks – I constantly find people generally are shocked at the idea that men should have reproductive rights in addition to the responsibilities women give them (whether through deception, or otherwise). Indeed a very good (male) friend – a man of great intelligence – was upset at the idea of mandatory paternity tests, saying, ‘I suppose you want my twenty-something daughters and myself to undergo DNA tests now, in case my wife deceived me many years ago?’ I was speechless.
Well done both. With regard to your last point, I do think it is important to be able to relay “stories”. Men’s stories are powerful, it’s just that men are reluctant to tell their stories. Yet, as you both observe, it is the emotional that the media reach for, rather than the facts. Last night ‘Newsnight’ had a piece about sexual assault on US campuses. It was very short on facts but concentrated on a couple of women’s stories. The facts were based on a small research project in two Universities which was about a broad range of inappropriate sexual behaviour. The stories were about rape. Result: facts are that a significant number of female and male students report coersion in sexual encounters in two US Unis. The stories create the impression that young women are at a high risk of rape in all US universities. Though I wouldn’t advocate this sort of manipulation, I do think people’s stories are powerful in making a point in the media.
“Ray Barry and I spoke after the programme, and he made an interesting observation. Narratives on BBC radio programmes of this sort always focus on feelings rather than facts. Interviewers – both male and female – seem unable (or possibly unwilling?) to engage with rational arguments about assaults on men’s human rights.”
This is an excellent point, I guess the BBC are just shocked at the idea that men should have reproductive rights. Perhaps they’re so used to feminists making selfish and usually monetary related demands, that they’re surprised to see a campaigner come along and speak on an issue from which they have nothing to gain personally.