What I'm hearing certain anti-feminists say is this?

well if confronted by that, i would ask for charts, graphs or census' to support that information. if it can't be supported, it's merely a theory, even a theory has to have some kind of reasoning behind it...then it'd just be an opinion.

it is when they start babbling on about the "facts" that you can start getting them where it hurts.

shoots man look at the middle east islamic extremists. i mean, if that is utopia than i'm sticking to...the anti-utopia? btw, no offense to the peace loving islam brothers/sisters.

if they starts babbling about how crime rates were low back in the day when men were in control. ask them to bust out the census for the dark ages...

one time i got into this heated argument with this cynical bastard who thinks that christians are the boogeyman. he started listing all these problems and associating them with christianity. i would imagine anti-feminists would do the same. so refute their notion by saying "well if we are the source of every problem, then we must also be the source of every good as well." if that doesn't work and they continue to list more problems associate with women that are mere speculation than find something more fundamental and point those problems at that to reveal how stupid their logic is. lets say "money." "money is the root of all evil. everyone that has money do evil things. those with money have power, more power comes more ability to do harm. brother will kill brother for money." tie everything they say to money. they WILL get fed up, especially if they can't see the analogy.

edit: wait wait wait...he's linking the problems with single parent household...to women?! dood if you can somehow get a statement from the men's perspective on why he's not around, I BET YOU that it's because he just wanted to get laid. man, i don't even need a chart for that one. maybe one reason why women are mostly the single parents is because they have a VAGINA. thats where babies come from. thus comes to my point...sexual urges is the root of all evil. and you DO know that black people contribute most of those stats right? so what youre gonna blame black people too? or blame the crime rates on the rights given to black people? i know what youre gonna say "don't put words in my mouth." well think OUTSIDE of the bun then. there are SOOOO many different possible reasons behind why this and that is bad. don't make me bust out my juvenile delinquency book and list them all. my favorite one is the conflict theory, where those with power establish laws to maintain power. so lets attack the rich people! rich people want to stay rich, just so happends that money and power go hand and hand most of the time. hey! mostly white people are rich. lets attack the white people too! rich-white people! they establish laws to keep the poor from getting rich, btw, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer in america, just so you know, and they have police men to uphold these laws so poor people are stuck with bad jobs, hardly enough to support their family. and what do you gotta do to survive? STEAL. yup, just like robin hood. man how hard is it to steal for yourself as well as your kids and spouse? shoot, time to dig! boy grows up without a father, only mother figure whose stress out of her mind and thus has no time to be nice all the time. boy gets fed up with mom and have a negative view on women, grows up and repeats the cycle. and it all started with money.

edit: *ok i guess i'm gotta bust my book out. juvenile delinquency 7th edition. clemens bartollas. pearsons education, inc. copyright 2006.*

http://www.amazon.com/Juvenile-Delinquency-7th-Cle...

pg. 230 "later studies, however, questioned the relationship between broken homes and delinquency. F.I. Nye's highly respected study of the family and research by R.A. Dentler and L.J. Monroe found no significant direct relationship between delinquency and family composition. Lawrence Rosen recalculated statistical relationships for eleven different studies of broken homes and male delinquency conducted between 1932 and 1968 and discovered that virtually all the studies yielded only weak positive relationships between broken homes and delinquency. Both Patricia Van Voorhis and collegues and Margaret Farnworth found that the effects of the broken home on most forms of delinquency were negligible. James Q. Wilson and R.J. Herrnstein, in reviewing the research of delinqency and single-parent homes, concluded that findings had been inconclusive, insistent, and ambiguous.

pg 231 "Ross L. Matsueda and Karen Heimer's study revealed that broken homes have a larger impact on delinquency among African Americans than on other racial groups...Joseph F. Rankin aslo reported that, except for running away and truancy, the relationship between broken homes and delinquency is negligible. But Marven D. Free Jr. concluded that the connection between broken homes and delinquency is more evident for status offenses, such as incorrigibility, truancy, and running away, than it is for more serious offenses."

*OH WOW! CURFEW! shaking in my boots. BIG offense. ofcourse other studies in this book oppose this view as well. the whole book is filled with studies that contradict one another.*

pg 80 "Sheldon Gluecks and Eleanor T. Glueck's physique and delinquency was the result of comprehensive research into persistent delinquency. They studied the causes of delinquency thorugh a comparison of 500 persistent delinquents and 500 non delinquents. Their comparison indicated marked and significant differences in the somatotypes of the two groups. 60.1% of the delinquents were mesomorphic (bony, muscular, athletic) as compared to 30.7% of the nondelinquents. 'among the delinquents, mesomophy is far and away the most dominant component,' they found, 'with ectomorphic (tall, thin, fragile), endomorphic (soft, round, fat), and balanced types about equally represented but in relatively minor strength."

*as you can see, kids that eat more and exersize less, are less likely to cause trouble.*

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

The prevalence of imprisonment in 2001 was higher for black males 16.6%, white males 2.6%

Lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for blacks 18.6%, whites 3.4%

Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 5.9% of white males.

More than 6 in 10 persons in local jails in 2002 were racial or ethnic minorities, unchanged from 1996.

An estimated 40% were black; 19%, Hispanic, 1% American Indian; 1% Asian; and 3% of more than one race/ethnicity.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-statistics/africa...

African Americans are 1.6 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Latino whites

*so therefore, there is obvious correlation between diabetes and incarceration. it would have been more dramatic if i could find statistics on their favorite food or something but this is the best i can do.*

edit: http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

Percentage of parents who had never married in 1998: Males: 35%

Females: 42%

(in 2000)

Total single fathers who are divorced: 913,000

Total single fathers never married: 693,000

Total single fathers raising one child: 1,300,000

Total single fathers raising four or more children: 55,000

Total single mothers who are divorced: 3.392 million

Total single mothers never married: 4.181 million

Total single mothers raising one child: 5.239 million

Total single mothers raising four or more children: 475,000

*there's a loophole. he found that problems in youth has to deal with single parents. and since divorces = single parents. thus since females file for divorce more, women are the problem. but what about this big chunk of parents that had sex and not fall into the statistics of marriage, and thus divorce.*

Percentage of smokers who had been divorced in 1997: 49%

Percentage of nonsmokers who had been divorced in 1997: 32%

*I KNEW IT! smoking = divorced = problems = 0 utopia*

http://www.quitsmokinghub.com/smoking_statistics.s...

Caucasians - 26% of all Caucasian men smoke while 22% of all Caucasian women smoke

Black or African Americans - 29% of all Black men smoke while 21% of Black women smoke

*one can clearly see the parallel relationship between the percentage based on race that smokes to the percentage based on race that are incarceration prone. thus, therefore, evidence suggests that there is a relationship between smoking and jail?*

Woah everyone!!!! Yikes! This whole discussion has devolved to a point where it is not even remotely addressing the subject at hand!

Firstly, I don't believe that the position you offered is held by validly anti-feminist individuals. They are ridiculous statements and views, and sound more like the rantings of a troll than an anti-feminist. Even the term 'anti-feminist' is positioning people to be antagonistic toward one another, rather than simply holding opposing views. I suppose I am considered an 'anti-feminist' female because I do not hold or support the views of the movement as it exists today...but that certainly does not mean that I am anti-female or think of feminists in a thoroughly negative light.

The trolls are getting the better of you on this one. As always, they are labelling women's bad choices and behavior as 'feminism'. True, women in the workplace was a result of the feminist movement....and more often than not, when a working wife and mother left the marriage it was for an individual that they met while 'out there' in the working world....but that is not to say that their marriage failure should be blamed on feminism. No more so than the invention of the car should be blamed for a child killed by a drunk driver.

While it is true that the feminist movement is partly responsible for the explosion in the divorce rate in the 70's, they didn't start it. It began rising a considerable amount of time before the movement began.

Of all the broken homes in my city (and there are quite a lot), there is no evidence that any of the mothers involved are feminists, or know anything substantial about feminism. Those families grow up with absenteeism, poverty, alcoholism, parental crime, and even prostitution. A single mother who has all of this on her shoulders, as well as a low-paying, no-benefits job (which she is most likely to have in this scenario), cannot play the the-evil-feminists-did-it card. Besides which, it is more likely that the husband just packed up and skipped town.

When a single mother can adequately support herself and her children, however, there is a greater chance that they will become productive and independent citizens of the world. Maybe it isn't as great as it would be with two happy parents, but it's a start.

Yes, that's what some of them are saying - "Just give me ultimate control and the world will be perfect." We've seen that play out in history a few times.... how many times has it succeeded?

You'd think that someone so concerned with imposing his morality on others would have already enacted a simple solution to the crime problem. Instead, he plays the victim card and blames "unfair" custody laws on feminism and sits back helplessly as his son is arrested for the fourth time.

The real problem here is that non-custodial fathers get so angry at the court's decision, they choose to take that anger out on their ex-spouse, and in the process, the child(ren) bear much of it as well. If you grew up with limited contact with your father, and what little contact you had was all negative, I bet you'd have a good chance of becoming a criminal too.

Where is the male accountability for that?

I'm not saying the mother is blameless, I'm saying that BOTH parents are accountable for how the child turns out. The non-custodial parent needs to quit whining and accept responsibility for their interactions with their child(ren).

Haven't seen any antis say this. Care to show us some proof?

If the husband degrades her, which causes her emotional and/or psychological trauma, or beats her, then they should try working it out by seeing a marriage counselor, or a therapist. If even after seeing a counselor the husband is still abusing the woman, she should consider getting a divorce.

Kids will be more likely to turn criminals if raised by single mothers. That's not to say all single mothers are bad, of course, but we should try to incorporate the father or a fatherly figure. We have sperm banks and women can just go there instead of seeking a mate. THAT'S not good. A woman should be married and her husband deemed infertile before she can get sperm there. This would solve a few problems.

Regarding broken homes & the feminist movement - yes, feminism is to blame. Someone has to take the blame and that someone is feminism, but only partially. (Biased) Male judges are also to blame.

Feminists lobbied for women to be able to go into the workforce, which is great, but due to this, the wages have dropped and we now require a 2 person household to be economically stable. Why? Because of the Law of Supply & Demand [1]. So now, single households can't function properly. They are economically deficient. Men are also to blame. Male judges will often give sole custody to the mother -- assuming she wants it -- even if the father wants it. That's totally unfair but it's men's way of saying ''We care for women.''.

Any questions?

EDIT: Perhaps you're right Happy. Nonetheless, men are the ones doing something FOR women here. So much for mainstream feminists saying ''wimmyn are oppressed by teh patriarchee'', right? You gotta lol @ that when they're given quite a few privileges.

oh my, yes i've heard this. i know a member of "ladies against feminism" in real life (she's the minister's wife at my mom's church) and i've heard all that crap about divorce being one of the ultimate sins. apparently i'm going to hell because i divorced my abusive husband. according to them there is "NO EXCUSE" for divorce (not even being beaten & raped, of course, to them marital 'rape' does not exist).

even my mother & father being 'swingers' and ultimately divorcing is not excused. but my mom's spiritually okay, because she didn't want divorced (since she has no income without my dad) and she's still harassing him to come back (3 years later).

and they do contribute the decline of society to women working outside of the home (yes, i'm going to hell for this as well, i've been told) which is due to feminism "forcing" women out of their homes (lmfao).

There are as many different reasons for broken marriages as there are broken marriages. Singling out trivial-sounding reasons for women's escapes can cover vast areas of misunderstanding and misery. Many of the good reasons are practical - like abuse of childrem, tight-fistedness, satyriasis, psychological bullying, and infidelity that included STDs.

Of course it suits men to have a free cook-housekeeper who frequently works and pays for her own keep. Almost without exception, women say it's cheaper without men. Men are very expensive to afford out of a small income - a man can demand walking-about money equivalent to the full family housekeeping allowance! The unspoken loss for men is the loneliness. Women have no trouble living alone, though men seem lost without someone 'just sitting there'. I admit, a home in not usually much of a place without a woman in it, but to keep up willing wifework in the teeth of neglect, makes no sense. A resident home-maker needs to be appreciated more and exploited less - by all the family - children, in-laws, grandparents. If you have a good one, look after her, duty works in both directions.

i think the message is alot different all i see is how a woman doesnt need a man anymore more tend to leave their Husbands because of silly reasons "he's not the man i married anymore"

"i need my Independence" " he just doesnt turn me on anymore"

it seems to me the mainstream view is that its ok for a guy to take care of a woman and is ok to live with unless he becomes "old news" and move on to the next guy its seems to me woman have look down on this for years from men but now its perfectly ok for women of the 21 century to do it

as far as kids more kids get abused by their Step fathers than their real fathers and yes it does raise a generation of fickle and uncaring kids when we watch the animal channel do you ever see a male lion ever keep the cub of the Previous dominate male lion NO they eat them humans are smarter but still use alot of their animalistic instincts

I think the key to that is its the anti-feminests saying that. Which most likely means the "moral majority" or far right leaning people who are generaly closed minded. Its the same people that blame anything on the low morals of the country. pretty pathetic.

What a pile of poo!!

i've heard some of this crap too!

it's obviously stupid. it's basically only said by people looking for scapegoats for all of their problems.