Do anti-feminists romanticize the pre-feminist world?

Absolutely! So many people, not just anti-feminists, just love to talk as if the "good old days" were always so good and people were so morally better and that families stuck together no matter what. Like in that song "Grandpa" by the Judds with the lyrics:

Did lovers really fall in love to stay

Stand beside each other come what may

was a promise really something people kept,

Not just something they would say

Did families really bow their heads to pray

Did daddies really never go away

Whoa oh Grandpa,

Tell me 'bout the good old days.

Well, anyone who studies history would know that's not true. There were dysfunctional families, estrangements, abandonments, separations even back in ancient and Biblical times. Only difference between then and now is people talk more openly about such things than back in the day.

The Colonial era alone had its share of problems with families splitting off. They didn't get divorced but in many places bigamy was rampant! Wives who were not happy in their marriages sometimes did leave (with or without another man). Hence the reason why many men of that time would put notices in the newspaper claiming they were not responsible for the runaway wife's debts.

There were a number of marriages that broke up during and just after both the Civil War and WWII. Those women were referred to as "grass widows."

i'm against the draft in all components. i think of if there is ever a conflict "properly worth" combating, people will enlist all on their very own. No prompting from the authorities. I even have considered the argument made by using the two military men and girls people that female squaddies are no longer able to attaining a similar actual accepted as their male opposite numbers. by using enlisting women people for front-line accountability we could be sacrificing "high quality" and army effectiveness, just to assuage public opinion. Edit: to respond to your question, the easy reasoning is that if feminist pick to be equivalent in all components of society, they could as properly be equivalent in each and every of the risky factors as properly.

I remember the pre-feminist world as very agreeable. There is no doubt that the modern world is pretty dreary. I had a very agreeable childhood in the late 50s/60s, when my mother and most of her friends were housewives, and they didn't seem to be frazzled and exhuasted from 'juggling' but instead had plenty of time to enjoy their own interests, do housework etc, at their leisure, go out with the children etc, without having to fret over jobs. And none of them were the slightest bit downtrodden , oppressed, or anything else.

Watch Anchorman :D

It depends which wave of feminism you're talking about. An unequal society is always a bad thing. The modern society is completely slanted against men, while the old society was completely slanted against women.

Yep they sure do, I'm not interested in going back to gender segregated jobs, racial segregation, no birth control, illegal abortions, no right to equal pay, rape and battering with no consequences (not that there are many now), no gay or lesbian rights of any kind, no sexual harassment laws, no family leave of any kind, no anti-pregnancy discrimination laws of any kind, practically no girls sports programs, no financial credit available for women, and no jury rights for women. That's what it was like when I was in grade school and junior high and most of high school. It was truly horrible to be a woman, of color, or gay or lesbian.

I romanticize the post feminist world. When feminists have all gotten it out of there system and go back to being women. And maybe even an acknowledgement that they went overboard but I ain't holding my breath on that.

No. There's a balance that needs to happen. I don't mind a world where some men choose to be housewives and women choose to work. I don't mind some women choosing to be housewives and men choosing to work.

Feminism isn't interested in that balance, it's interested in passing more anti-male laws that make men guilty until proven innocent and assume all men beat women.

They're interest in 'equal pay' which is not equal pay, it's equal result because men on average work more and take less time off. Funny thing is, childless women often make more than men because they WORK MORE.

Last time I checked it was equal opportunity not equal result.

I can't speak for "anti-feminists," if there actually is anyone who calls themselves that, but I romanticize the world in the early 1990's when there actually was equality, right before the rise of the Communist, sissy PC movement, which was then swiftly followed by male oppression by the female supremacy movement that took the name of feminism.

I do, I grew up in an era that had a majority of traditional women and families.

Now a normal family with 2 parents and a mom / wife that has any domestic skills at all are a rarity.

Some of us REMEMBER the pre-feminist world. And it was a much better world than this feminist, degenerate world. The patriarchy made demands of both men and women; women saw only the demands that inconvenienced them. But in return, patriarchal discipline protected both men and women from the consequences of excessive license.