I came across this article the other day, and it struck me as a good example of the disconnect between feminist ideology and the reality of life in the Western world. I know such examples are everywhere, but this one managed to cram so many (deliberate) misconceptions into one article, I thought it would be convenient to address them all at once. Call me lazy…

The article is called “Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism”, and it was written by one Suzanne MacNevin in January 2008. The title implies a bit broader scope than it covers, but still it hits on quite a few beliefs, or should I say, feminist interpretations of the beliefs of anti-feminists, and as such is worth picking apart:

Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism

By Suzanne MacNevin - January 2008.

There is a growing plethora of anti-feminist websites out there and there is noticable trends amongst the topics discussed amongst such websites. One of the leading criticisms is that feminists are out to get pregnant and get alimony/child support payments from their deadbeat dads/husbands.

I don’t think it’s that they’re out to get pregnant, it’s that they have nothing to lose and much to gain financially by filing for divorce when they get tired of their husbands. I’m not sure why you’re labeling the men as “deadbeat dads” when you you haven’t gotten to the divorce part yet, but your bias is clearly showing.

Which leads me to one conclusion: The primary driving force behind such websites are “Deadbeat Dads” who sometimes write under the guise of a female name.

I can see how someone with your attitude could be led to such a conclusion, but it’s hardly the only possible one. It isn’t even a very likely one. By the way, I’m not a Deadbeat Dad writing under the guise of a female name. I’m a woman who uses her powers of observation and an open mind to see what’s going on around me. I don’t write because I’m disgruntled about a child support arrangement; I write because I can’t stand injustice or double standards, both of which are rampant against men, and especially fathers, in Western society.

The websites typically include statements like the following:

“Women will use sex and pregnancy to snare a man’s wallet.”

“Marriage is a trap designed to enslave men.”

“Divorced women take their ex-husbands for every penny.”

“Women make men pay child alimony for children they didn’t even father.”

“Feminists use divorce to take away a man’s children and his money.”

“Women falsely accuse men of cheating and then take their bank accounts.”

“Bachelorism is the only way to fight feminism.”

You get the general idea. Basically these are men who are complaining about spousal/child support and divorce settlements. The last statement about bachelorism is essential to the “anti-feminist philosophy” that all women are money-grubbers and that you mustn’t commit to a relationship because she will wipe out your bank account. Perhaps for some men this might be good advice. Seriously. If the men in question actually believe these kind of bullshit statements there isn’t a lot we women can do to change their minds. They have essentially become brainwashed by the philosophy of bachelorism and thus can’t commit to a relationship (and likewise would probably make horrible parents and adulterous husbands).

Every one of those statements is based on fact. They don’t say “all women”, or “every woman”, they say “woman”. It’s like when you say “Deatbeat Dads” when referring to divorced fathers. I’m sure you don’t mean every divorced father is a deadbeat, right? Or do you?

Unfortunately, Suzanne, you don’t get the general idea. What you see as fathers refusing to take responsibility and spreading misogyny while they’re at it, is in fact men who have been through the wringer warning men who haven’t. The sad thing is that men still innately love women, and that’s why we have an epidemic of men living in poverty and unable to see their children. Because the warnings are not heeded. They’re not “brainwashed by the philosophy of bachelorism”; they’re learning some self-preservation skills.

So why bother trying to change their opinion? Well, one can hope, but if they aren’t smart enough to figure out the flawed logic of bachelorism they are much more likely to be proponents of it than possible converts to equality.

So far, Suzanne, I haven’t seen any proof of flawed logic on their part. Calling the statements “bullshit”, and slamming men who don’t want to be victims as “horrible parents and adulterous husbands” is pure opinion on your part. Your logic isn’t even flawed; it just hasn’t been evidenced to this point.

After all bachelorism does offer a lot of tantalizing prospects for men:

• No need to commit to a relationship.

• No need to marry.

• He can sleep with many different women.

• He can have group sex.

• He doesn’t have to worry about raising children

• He doesn’t have to worry about financially supporting children and/or wife

.• More free time due to complete lack of family responsibilities.

• Able to travel more with less responsibilities.

• Able to live the wild lifestyle of a bachelor.

This makes me the saddest of anything you’ve written so far. If you had actually had a conversation with the men you find on anti-feminist sites, with the possible exception of the radical ones, you would know that men in general would like nothing more in this world than to settle down with one woman life, raise their children, and make sure everyone is taken care of. They are operating out of self-defense.

Theoretically he also gains more financial security and less stress, although the reverse can be easily argued if the woman also works and children provide a source of happiness and stress relief.

Actually, he does gain more financial security and less stress, as if he is married and a father, he knows that in the even of divorce, the majority of which are initiated by the woman, he has a snowball’s chance in hell of gaining even equal custody, much less unlimited access to his own children. In addition, all she has to do is say, “I’m afraid of him”, and BAM instant restraining order, and he doesn’t see them at all. Even if she doesn’t do that, her word will be taken over his in court, and child support will be ordered, very often in an amount more than he can afford and also have a roof over his head. She can be the best wife and mother in the world, it doesn’t change the fact that she can play those cards at any time. Again, it’s not that men hate women. They just know what a chancy proposition it is to marry one and/or make babies.

There are after all a fair number of men out there who due to their personal beliefs do not make ideal husbands or fathers. Infidelity and cheating being a regular occurrence, plus some men may simply may not be cut out to handle to the trials and tribulations of raising a family. I would argue therefore that these “below par” men simply aren’t ready (and may never be ready) to commit to either the faithfulness or the responsibilities required of marriage and children.

Would you mind proving that? What is “a fair number”? What “personal beliefs” are you talking about? Is this more of your flawless logic?

But with time that can change. As men get older they will undoubtably notice the loneliness and feel like they are missing out on something. They won’t be able to party like they once did and will be lonely on Christmas and Valentines. Presumably time will eventually mellow these men out, hopefully within time for them to still raise a meaningful family.

Actually, men are already lonely. They know they are missing out on something. They just can’t believe, given our current culture, that that “something” is even possible. I have to agree with them that it occurs only rarely. The ones who don’t realize they’re missing out are the women who are too busy with social lives and careers to commit to loving and supporting one man, warts and all.

Sadly one of the fundamental beliefs of bachelorism is that women are to blame for divorce. I disagree.

You can disagree all you want. Women instigate the majority of divorces. Numbers don’t lie.

I think both sexes are to blame for the bad choices that led to their marriage in the first place. People rush into marriage way too easily. It is much wiser in my opinion to give the relationship time and then when they are more certain of their compatibility and ability to commit then they should consider marriage. Some of the primary causes of divorce is sexual unhappiness, infidelity, money, stress and lack of trust/communication. Those problems lead to the breakdown of the marriage and either sex can be to blame. Money is an important part of this. Men can be rather sensitive about money and paying spousal/child support to these men seems wildly unfair. Why should they have to pay for children they themselves didn’t give birth to?

This is a completely unfair, ridiculous, bigoted, and offensive statement. It has nothing at all to do with who carried the child. Did you ever stop to consider that without his sperm, there would be no child?? Did you ever stop to consider that fathers love their children, and would do anything for them? Did you ever stop to consider that it’s not the child support they object to, but the crippling amount of it? Or the fact that she’s using that money - supposedly earmarked “for the children”, to get her nails done? Or that they’re in agony because they miss their children? What about the ones whose children are turned against them by their mothers? You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for making such a statement. If you were near me, I’d wash your mouth out with soap.

Because they still made the choice to have sex and make a child. That seemingly small and insignificant act is nevertheless the life giving act of creation and gives the woman two choices: Abortion or a lifetime commitment to raise a child, including all of its financial burdens.

True. They didn’t choose to be nothing but a walking wallet. Financial burdens??? You have got to be kidding me. Trust me, hon, the single mom in the Western world will never go hungry.

If the couple in question is married it is already presumed that their marriage includes the goal of making babies and having children. The male is automatically financially responsible for the welfare of the child (and therefore also to the mother who may have to quit work or cutback her workload in order to properly take care of the child).

The idea behind marriage is to partner through the rest of their lives. Children are not part of the marriage equation. If they both decide they want children, then fine. If he doesn’t want them, and she does, so she lies about the birth control and conceives, why in hell should he have to pay for her choice? The law says he does have to pay, though. That’s just one more reason men have to distrust women. Congratulations.

If they are not married the legal matter varies from country to country, but the laws usually expect the male to assume some part of the financial burden. Is it fair for men to be forced to assume financial responsibility for their “wild oats”? Absolutely. Men don’t take this matter seriously enough. They think they can sleep with whomever they want without any consequences but in this world of STDs, HIV/AIDS and pregnancy that is simply not true.

True that. And in this age of sexual freedom, women face that same choice. What if he wants the child, and she doesn’t? Too bad, so sad, should have been born a woman. Do you honestly not see the double standard? And please don’t tell me how hard it is on a woman’s body to carry and birth a child. Please. That is what our bodies are made to do. If she doesn’t want it, she should give it to the dad and pay child support until the child is 18 or out of college. If she doesn’t want to get pregnant, maybe she shouldn’t have spread her legs, or forgotten to take her pills last week, eh, Suzanne?

I’m not one to point to the Bible as a source of wisdom, but there is a reason why adultery and sex before marriage is frowned upon. In ancient times if a young woman lost her virginity before marriage (or if her husband abandons her and runs off) she would end up impoverishing her parents with an extra mouth to feed. If the family was farmers they might not mind so much so long as food is plentiful and they need an extra person to help with the work. But if not that “bastard baby” could cause financial and social problems.

That’s funny. My understanding is that if she lost her virginity, he married and supported her. Is this some new feminist interpretation of the Bible?

The same is true today. We look up to women who manage to make it on their own, but it is a difficult task and well-nigh impossible without the aid of family, friends, husband and/or government support. Why should the government (and thus taxpayers) be forced to support the mother and child when it was partially the fault of the father who sired the child? How fair is that for society to end up paying for one man’s sexual urges and inability to stop spreading his seed around?

Excuse me? What happened to the miracle of pregnancy and birth giving her all the rights? How is this all of a sudden all the man’s doing? You have a shifting sense of reality. Real life doesn’t change according to your moods. If it was true 3 paragraphs ago, it’s true now. If it’s not true now, then it wasn’t true before. Your logic is seriously flawed.

And if society or the deadbeat father doesn’t pay up what is the social effect of having hundreds or thousands of women impoverished and struggling to feed and clothe these children? No, I am sorry dear bachelors. You need to own up to your responsibilities and stop blaming feminists for what is primarily a societal matter and only a feminist matter due to context of divorce and motherhood.

Divorce and modern motherhood are exactly what it IS about, Suzanne. Men don’t have a say in these matters. Only women do, legally. I grant you, there is the occasional scrupulous woman who treats her man fairly, but frankly most women in the West wouldn’t know “fair” if it bit them on the ass.

Without child and spousal support a good portion of our economy would be suffering under the weight of sexual and economic repression. In turn our society would also feel a huge limit on sexual freedom.

Spousal support? If it exists at all, it should last only a year AT THE MOST until the mother can get on her feet, and that’s only if she has no education or work experience. Better yet, let the children go to the parent best able to support them. Having breasts and ovaries does not by any means make someone a better parent. In fact, most cases of abuse and murder of one’s own children are committed by the mother. I’m sure you’ll find a way to blame a man for that one, also. As for limiting sexual freedom, you say that like it’s a bad thing. Sex is meant to be so much more than meaningless rutting. Thank you, feminism, for turning it into no more than dogs mating on the back porch.

Men should think twice about their sexual freedom and how they take it for granted. Don’t abuse it. Wear a condom if you’re not ready to have a child.

Men get this. That’s why they’re not marrying. I’m thinking maybe women could benefit from taking your advice, though.

And don’t blame feminism if your relationship or marriage goes sour. You made your decisions and you have to live with the consequences. Blaming women and being a deadbeat dad isn’t going to help anything but your own sense of selfishness.

We didn’t have an epidemic of single mothers before feminism. Coincidence? You tell me.