Bio
I am a woman raised in a feminist society who has realized the great harm feminism has done to each and every one of us. When I think of the loss, I a...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism, Or One Feminist's Impressions

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 24
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

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 addressing:  

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

  • 24
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
hecticmom 5 pts

I hesitate to even respond and know I shouldn't - but I simply can't help myself.

Just some follow up personal experiences.  I actually am a feminist - know lots of feminists, and for everyone I deal with we're actually quite normal. 

I'm happily married, and I have no intention of either divorcing and/or taking all of my husbands money.  (However, we make approximately the same salary so, he would be just as likely to take my money I suppose.)  I have no plans for a divorce - but he's a really good guy and I would definately want him to spend time with the kids.

We live in CA and here it's a state where both parents get custody in the case of a divorce.  Period.  I actually have a friend who is in a very bad and emotionally abusive marriage but will not leave her husband because she doesn't want him to get unsupervised time with their daughter.  Currently, she can keep her daughter away from him.

All feminists are not evil man-hating witches.  Some of us just want equal pay for equal work.  A harassment free workplace.  And choices - like the right to vote (which is still very new.  African American's were able to vote before women were.  Without feminists you would not have the ability to vote in this next election. ) The right to work outside the home.  The right to be in charge of our own bodies. 

hecticmomundone ( http://hecticmomundone.com )

Jill Miller Zimon 6 pts

I've not taken a position on your issues so there isn't anything to assert from my end.

Again - good luck achieving whatever goal it is you've tried to achieve.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Vote for Jill Your Favorite Female Blogger! ( http://action.wvwv.org/favorite_blogger )

Denise 23 pts moderator

Men are actually welcome to become members and blog at BlogHer.com. We've had a few of them give it a run from time to time. So please, if you know of any men who'd like to give it a go - invite them.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

KellyMac 5 pts

If I came here to provoke, Jill, you would be provoked. As it stands, I have provided cites to back up my assertions. As it stands, you have provided nothing.

I am taking action based on my beliefs, including posting here at blogher. I can't help but wonder every time I visit this site, though, what would happen if there were a site open only to men for blogging? Wouldn't that be sexist?

Jill Miller Zimon 6 pts

"KellyMac" didn't come here looking for someone to counter her argument and I'm not here to do that. She came here to provoke. I remain unprovoked and unpersuaded. I critiqued her evidence as stale and irrelevant. That's my opinion of the material she provided which she obviously buys into it.

As I said, if it works for her, best of luck. I hope she takes action based on her beliefs.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Vote for Jill Your Favorite Female Blogger! ( http://action.wvwv.org/favorite_blogger )

tainoarawak 5 pts

...is called a cop-out. The very nature of what she is doing is debate and open-mindedness. She called you up on your request with credible sources. She is willing to see your evidence, but you won't do what you asked her to do.

What you are saying to her applies to you not her--this is called projection. Copping out and projection when you want to shut down someone who disagrees with you in spite of sound argument and evidence. That is quite revealing.

Hope that works for you. 

Yvette Perry 5 pts

KellyMac, I share some people's confusion about what the point is of your post. I sense from the post and your subsequent comments that there are some personal experiences driving your argument. With all respect, maybe your points would have been clearer had you based your post on these instead of on the article you came across.

Having said that, if what you are saying is that there is a disconnect between femisism as a means of analyzing social phenomena and some family phenomena feminists choose (and do not choose) to tackle, then I agree with you. I think there is more than enough within feminism to examine custody arrangements, spousal/child support awards, and wider economic issues as they may negatively (perhaps inadvertantly) impact men.

I can't think of anyone off hand, but I am sure there must be some feminist scholars who have done just this. Surely it could be a bigger topic in feminist scholarship, especially in the analyses of working and lower income families.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast ( http://blog.lib.umn.edu/perry032/impossible/ )

lilmommythatcould 5 pts

Mothers are the primary care-givers in the home.  On a day to day basis they provide the basic needs for their children and when that is the case it goes without saying they would be the ones to have custody. 

" And how many men don't fight because they don't have the resources ..."

My father, after my parents divorced 25 years ago, worked at a pizza place.  He could of easily said he didn't have the resources, financial etc.  The resources were there for him, 25 years ago he found them.  He didn't have an easy time at it, my mom wasn't that nice. He did what he had to...no excuses. 

KellyMac 5 pts

I admit I threw that blaming the victim thing in there because I let my irritation get to me, and I have heard it so much.

Children really are the biggest losers in divorce, except in those rare cases when their safety is ensured by it, and even then they've come from a bad thing.

My parents didn't divorce until I was 35, and I'm still married, so custody isn't an issue that has affected my personal life. I can only base my opinions on what I observe.

Your father is one of the lucky ones, and your mother is maybe a decent person who didn't fight him too hard. I'm sincere when I say I'm glad it worked out for you.

I have a different perspective than maybe most members of this site. I've spent a lot of time talking to men about this stuff, and I admit I'm biased.

I swear I'm not trying to troll. 

Just think about something.  How often do you hear about a mother fighting for custody, or even being in a position where she has to? And how many men don't fight because they don't have the resources and they know the deck is stacked against them?

I know there are bad men, and they shouldn't have access to their kids or their ex'es or anyone else, for that matter. I just think justice should be blind, and from what I've seen, it really isn't. 

lilmommythatcould 5 pts

I have lived it- I try not to get personal but my parents are divorced- soul custody did go to my mom but my dad fought.  He went back to court- the courts saw his desire for more visits and was given it.  I have experieced also men who refuse to go to the courts are willing to except their fate, willing to sit playing victim, their unwillingness is their own downfall.  If a father show an interest more then likely he will be given more time.  I refuse to accept the fact that you want woman to stop playing victim but you are more then willing to allow men to play victim.  In the end the only victim in your tragedy is the childre of divorce-

KellyMac 5 pts

The court of public opinion is not on their side. Think for a minute what it would be like to be prevented from seeing your children. Wouldn't it feel like you were dying inside?

You're blaming the victim here. 

KellyMac 5 pts

at your reply. But I notice that you didn't dispute any of it. Would you care to correct me with some more up-to-date cites?

lilmommythatcould 5 pts

Yes it is sad that alot of horrible things happen in fatherless homes- but did it ever cross your anti-feminist ideology that the father plays some part of a role in a fatherless home. I can spin your information and say "shame on the fathers for giving up not being there for there kids."  You might question those dads, did they try hard to maintain a relationship- did they go back to court to win more time with their children?  It is all how you spin it- try spinning the other way you might be suprised!

Jill Miller Zimon 6 pts

Sorry - I can't help it - but the most recent info is at least 15 years old? :)

The TIME article is from 2004 but it's about the UK and the Findllaw link doesn't seem to go to an article. 

Some of the other data have no links. 

Still, it's useful to see where you're getting your information and to know that you find this persausive. Interesting. Thanks.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Vote for Jill Your Favorite Female Blogger! ( http://action.wvwv.org/favorite_blogger )

KellyMac 5 pts

Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901040927-699330-1,00.html):

In most European countries, the law is supposed to be gender neutral and custody can be awarded to either parent, depending on the best interests of the children. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, the mother gets custody — and activists claim that discriminates against fathers. Even in Germany, where joint custody is the legal norm, 85% of children of divorced or separated parents live with the mother. In France, the percentage is the same. In Italy, mothers get custody in 90% of cases; in Britain, the figure is 93%. Many divorcing fathers don't seek custody. But activists say the state should not presume that. And if a mother decides to relocate with the children, they say, the father has no recourse.

Divorce Lawyer Source (http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/html/custody/...

Many family courts still hold the belief, however, that the primary caregiver during a marriage should remain the primary caregiver after a divorce. As a result of this view on custody for fathers and mothers, moms are still awarded custody in seventy percent of all child custody cases. Joint custody for fathers and mothers is awarded about twenty percent of the time. Family law statistics show that sole custody for fathers is awarded less than ten percent of the time. Statistics from 1991 indicate that forty percent of all child custody cases allowed no custody for fathers, barring them from both visitation and access rights.

Indiana Civil Rights Council (http://www.indianacrc.org/stats-info.html ( http://www.indianacrc.org/stats-info.html ))

Children from fatherless homes account for:

63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human
Services, Bureau of the Census).

71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human
Services)

90% of all homeless and runaway children.

70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from
fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept
1988)

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source:
Center for Disease Control).

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal
Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978).

71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals
Association Report on the State of High Schools).

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source:
Rainbows for all God`s Children).

85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia
jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992). 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6,
col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the
non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish
the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton)
Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers
and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s
continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup,
Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125) Only 11% of mothers value their
husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers &
doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK
Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November
1994, p. 36)

"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more
frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of
fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family
Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)

"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with
their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann
Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)

"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact
with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial
Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50,
Winter 1984.)

"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement
on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's
efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July 1993.)

"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their
marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing,
Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)

In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J
Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of
non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the
court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the
custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation
is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support
and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all
noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with
joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%;
and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support
their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).

Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so
because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report:
GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security
Policy, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.

Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%From “Desperate Feminist Wives” (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060404_m... Marriage: Does It Have Any Historical Roots?History reveals a gendered aspect not only to marital obligations, but to marital satisfaction as well. Better access to divorce - necessary to escape unhappy and often oppressive marriages -- was among the demands made by women's rights advocates. Feminists at the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention called for easier divorce (and fewer marriages to begin with), to ease the plight of the "typical" wife, who they argued was "degraded in marriage." Women were also the primary filers of divorce petitions, which social historians tend to believe reflects their greater dissatisfaction with marriage. But there was little, if any, pressure for truly egalitarian marriage - one in which gender did not predetermine marital roles - before the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

Liz Rizzo 5 pts

I wouldn’t equate it with a disease, but do you seriously think one-parent households are optimum for children?

I absolutely believe that a one-parent household is better for a child when compared to a marriage where one or both parents would rather be out of the marriage.

It shouldn’t be that easy to just blow off a vow and a human being,
simply because you don’t “feel” in love any more, or because things get
difficult.

Um, yes, it should. That's called personal freedom. People's marriages and how they choose to behave in them are their own business.

Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

lauriewrites 6 pts

Your choices to withstand these things are your own. However, for many people they are a sentence to a life of misery, and they shouldn't feel bad for deciding to free themselves.

Physical abuse is not the only reason to end a relationship, married or not. And as a child who witnessed and was damaged by emotional and verbal abuse in my extended family, I fully support anyone who feels it's best for her and/or her children to get away from it.

Laurie  

Jill Miller Zimon 6 pts

One of the things I love about BlogHer is the diversity of opinions voiced here.  But one of the other things I love about BlogHer is that rarely is an argument made for something as serious as what you're discussing without some serious links to back up the assertions.

You make a lot of conclusory statements:

Women get custody by default

There is an epidemic of single mothers

There is an epidemic of single mothers due to feminism

And so on.

Saying radical things take chutzpah.  But supporting radical sayings with some research or stats would be a whole lot more persuasive. 

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Vote for Jill Your Favorite Female Blogger! ( http://action.wvwv.org/favorite_blogger )

KellyMac 5 pts

“You are seriously equating being a single mom with a disease or undesirable phenomenon.” 

I hadn’t thought about it that way. I wouldn’t equate it with a disease, but do you seriously think one-parent households are optimum for children? 

In any case, I was using “epidemic”, as you know, in the sense bolded below: 

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) ( http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html ) ep·i·dem·ic   /ˌɛp ɪˈdɛm ɪk/ Pronunciation Key - [ep-i-dem-ik]

 –adjective   

Also, ep·i·dem·i·cal. (of a disease) affecting many persons at the same time, and spreading from person to person in a locality where the disease is not permanently prevalent.
extremely prevalent; widespread.
–noun

a temporary prevalence of a disease.
a rapid spread or increase in the occurrence of something: an epidemic of riots.

I do acknowledge that there are marriages that should just be ended, and if one parent is putting the other parent or the children in danger, it should be ended. I’m not advocating slavery, for pete’s sake.

But are you trying to tell me that all marriages, or even the majority of marriages, before feminism were unhappy? That the wives were subservient and the husbands were tyrants? That’s certainly the picture that is painted for us, but I just don’t believe it. I’m sure it happened, but it was hardly the norm.

Think about it. Haven’t you ever seen a little old couple walking in the park holding hands, or sitting in the restaurant and she’s cutting up his meat or he’s helping her to her chair? Those are acts of love and tenderness, not subservience. Just because someone told you it’s subservience doesn’t make it so.

JenInShanghai 5 pts

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

epidemic |ˌepiˈdemik|noun

a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time : a flu epidemic.• a disease occurring in such a way.• a sudden, widespread occurrence of a particular undesirable phenomenon 

You are seriously equating being a single mom with a disease or undesirable phenomenon. Wow I appreciate that you are attempting to offer a different view point here, but I just don't get it. Before Feminism we just had subserviant women in unhappy (and yes abusive) marriages raising children who would continue the cycle. 

I don't get it.... 

KellyMac 5 pts

the laws are enforced in this hemisphere, and with women getting custody almost by default, and women initiating the majority of divorces, men are stuck with seeing their kids maybe every other weekend. Hell, if she’s feeling particularly nasty, she can just say he makes her feel afraid, and he doesn’t get to see them at all, or only with supervision.

But most men still love and trust enough to take the chance, because they can’t believe a woman would do that, and they can’t believe that the deck is so stacked against them. Some are catching on, but they’re the ones who wind up with no kids to even miss!  I don’t know which is worse.

I can tell you that the only reason I’m still married is because I decided to honor my vows, even when it was the last thing in the world I wanted to do. I’ll add here that he was never physically abusive to me. But verbally? Emotionally? Financially? Hell yes. And that’s not right. But you know what? I was just as abusive to him.

It would have been so easy for me to get a restraining order, kick him out, file for divorce, and decide when he’s going to see his kids. That’s just plain scary. It shouldn’t be that easy to just blow off a vow and a human being, simply because you don’t “feel” in love any more, or because things get difficult.

I can’t believe that the huge number of divorce cases that are filed each year are because he was beating her up. I can’t even believe that the majority of them are because of that. As long as things keep going the way they are now, things are only going to get worse, and not better.

Denise 23 pts moderator

OK more than half of your points. But I have to say - this one really .... I don't follow you. At all. It's such a huge stretch that I can't even begin to make myself get close to any other point that you are attempting to make.

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.

I think you and I - we live on different planets. Because this... uh. Not in my world or the world of anyone that I know.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

lilmommythatcould 5 pts

I have a feeling you are just trying to get a rise out of people- you want women to stop playing the victim but, as you stated above, it is okay men can play the victim card!  Get real! This is not worth my time.

Jill Miller Zimon 6 pts

You aren't interested in debate nor are you open-minded. You base your opinion and conclusions on stale info.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and to be as passionate about it as they like.

I have a right to disagree and challenge.  You can respond as you prefer.

Good luck to you.  There are many more successful ways for achieving healthy environments for men women and children than the approach you take.  But you don't seem interested in anything other than your view.

Hope that works out for you. 

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Vote for Jill Your Favorite Female Blogger! ( http://action.wvwv.org/favorite_blogger )