Men's Awareness

In an article called Anti-Feminist Beliefs & Criticism from an on-line publication called The Feminist eZine, Suzanne MacNevin attempts to refute the idea that feminists are to blame for declining marriage rates in America. Here, her entire article will be broken down by each paragraph and analyzed for misstatements, inconsistencies and bashing.

From the article: "There is a growing plethora of anti-feminist websites out there and there is noticeable trends amongst the topics discussed amongst such websites."

The first correction is this: "is" should be "are". Secondly, expect more and more websites on this subject as people wake up and become less influenced by femi-pop culture.

From the article: "One of the leading criticisms is that feminists are out to get pregnant and get alimony/child support payments from their deadbeat dads/husbands."

This is called forced paternity and it happens. The writer attempts to make it sound ridiculous that western women would ever want to have children for selfish reasons or financial gain.

From the article: "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."

It would be silly to believe that the on-line men's movement's stance on child support is based on deadbeat dads posing as women. Many of the men who become MRA's are disenfranchised divorced fathers who have lost their families and large portions of their income. Without complaining about having to take financial responsibility, many males who post on these sites simply find it unfair that a woman can snap her fingers, divorce, keep the kids then drain a man financially and call him irresponsible if he does not pay. The penalty; jail. It is easy for Suzanne to make the statements she does as women do not face jail time for being financially lazy and committing extortion. This is not a concept she has been taught. She instead expects a man to pay for her choices. What else is new?

From the article: "The web sites 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."

Let us pick apart these statements. Women will use sex and pregnancy to do more than snare a man's wallet. The family law system which works solely in women's interests has lead to this sense of entitlement, but women use sex as a commodity for other gains, too. Since men are sex hungry animals, it is only sensible and fashionable when a woman dangles the prospect of sex over a man's head to get him to pay for meals and movies. Withholding sex is also used as a punishment by dominant girlfriends and wives.

Marriage may not be a trap originally designed specifically to enslave men, but it has become close to that considering the legal system offers husbands and fathers no reproductive or parental rights except to pay or go to jail. This system is open to exploitation from particularly greedy women. Domestic abuse laws in the U.S. do not protect men equally, making it simple for a wife to falsely accuse her husband of hitting her as leverage during arguments. Once he has been arrested and has a criminal record, this can be used in divorce court to influence a judge to award full custody along with regular child support payments.

Divorced women do not take their ex-husbands for every penny. However, this wealthy business owner who was always financially responsible during his marriage and as a parent but now has to pay 75% of his income to his ex-wife. he was shocked when she filed for divorce and was still in love with her. He was barred from his house, which contains his home office. Without access to his work, his business took a downturn. Not every penny was taken, but most of the pennies were. Let us say 75 cents to the dollar. This makes up for the wage gap, though, doesn't it?

Many women have made men pay child support for kids they did not father. It has become so common there is now a buzz term for it, paternity fraud. The part that makes it simple is that DNA tests are not required to prove paternity, and courts are too politically correct to accept that a woman might have slept around and lied about who is the father. This is not yet considered a crime in America as they are not brought up on criminal fraud charges. Here is a transcript of Judge Judy on Larry King Live discussing the issue. This anecdote from The Best of Craigslist is a first-hand account of a man who successfully thwarted his cheating pregnant girlfriend's attempt to lie and say the child is his. When he told her he was aware of the scam and requested a DNA test, she of course accused him of not taking responsibility.

Feminists don't necessarily use divorce to take away a man's children and his money, because many of them are lesbians. The rest have been taught that they have so many rights men basically have none. Suzanne makes it sounds like we deserve none, being the inadequate cheating deadbeats that we are.

Women falsely accuse men of more than cheating. There are also false accusations of rape and domestic violence.

Bachelorism is not the only way to fight feminism. More web sites are helpful, too.

From the article: "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."

Most MRA's are not so ignorant to begin sentences with "All women...". Life is more complicated than that. Feminist influence on the family law system has lead to standards which are inherently anti-male in nature. Men's rights as parents and their feelings are not taken into account. This influence has lead to women, such the writer, to view men as sex machines with no feelings. The gold-diggers are here and about, spread on top of western culture like fine swiss cheese, the holes representing the population of women who are serious about relationships and parenthood.

From the article: "Perhaps for some men this might be good advice".

Funny. Not.

From the article: "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)."

Is this society honestly more conditioned by the disease of bachelorism than the dogma of feminism? Inflammatory and stereotypical remarks about men will not land her a husband any time soon. Would not be a surprise if she is currently not married?

From the article: "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."

Indeed, men who do not want to get married are idiots, not the other way around. In reality, if men do not want to get married, they do not have to. If men wish not to donate their sperm, that is also their right. It is not flawed logic. Distorted logic would be one gender paying for the other's choices and then saying if they don't then they need to become "converts to equality". There is nothing equal about men having zero choice and being the ones who are more financially responsible (there are after all legal consequences) at the same time.

From the article: "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."

To play devil's advocate, we will assume every single one of these statements is true because unmarried males have no feelings except for the ones in their pants. With that fact of life, it should be assumed there is a huge lack of standards to go along with the overblown sex drive. In mentioning sleeping around with no discernment and having orgies, she forgot that men are rapists, too. Furthermore, never being hitched really does mean not having to "worry about raising children" or "financially supporting children and/or wife." After all, it isn't like there are under appreciated dads who do that all the time whom single men take clues from. With that taken into consideration, the last three items in the list are not part of a "happy swinging guy on a wild ride full of orgies" stereotype that alienates men after they finally realize how they are viewed as useless. They are factual pieces of wisdom about what jerks they truly are.

From the article: "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."

"If" is the operative word. If the woman also works and doesn't exercise her right to stay home while her spouse works even harder and gets less time with the kids. If she does work, kids are a handful as much as they are a joy. That doesn't change because a feminist wrote an article.

From the article: "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."

Infidelity and cheating are now "personal beliefs" that bachelors have? What the writer is essentially saying, typos and all, is that any man who does not get married is somehow less of a person. This is typical feminist shame and blame game.

From the article: "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."

Why can't some who choose not to get married, have that choice respected, and not labeled "blow par"?

From the article: "But with time that can change. As men get older they will undoubtedly 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."

Feminists can blame, shame and talk as much junk as they want. The marriage rate in the U.S. has gone down 50% since 1970 and most likely will only continue to decline. Laying a guilt trip is not the way to make one feel invited into the institution of marriage. Putting the entire concept into the context of blame and punishment is off-putting. There is not one mention of what is really in it for men.

From the article: Sadly one of the fundamental beliefs of bachelorism is that women are to blame for divorce.

I disagree."

It is not women's fault, feminist influence on law and culture has caused the balance to tip in favor of women right to make choices which they are not responsible for. This enables the bad eggs to wreak havoc. It is not as simple as just holding a gender accountable. That would be too easy and men are not that simple-minded. In fact, demonization of an entire group in a marxist fashion is what so many anti-feminists are fighting against.

From the article: "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."

This is logical and unrefutable. Yet, are people really so unaware of these facts they need Suzanne to tell them? She also seems to have left out that women sometimes pressure men into marriage and pull the "you're less of a man" routine when they say no.

From the article: "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."

Women file for divorce more than men. Men flip the bill.

From the article: "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?"

It has more to do with not being the one who gives birth. If a woman becomes pregnant it is her choice if she has an abortion of keeps the child. If it is the former, her partner has to pay for it. If it is the latter, her partner has to pay for it. Why should someone pay for someone else's choice which they have no say in yet still effects the rest of their life? After an accidental pregnancy a female can just walk away from unwanted parenthood. If a man requests the same then the blame and shame begins. A mom can work or stay home, it is her choice. If she chooses to be a house mom, guess who has to work hard to support her and the offspring.

From the article: "Because they still made the choice to have sex and make a child."

So did she! She even has more choices than he does.

From the article: "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."

Yes! Because it is her choice! If she wants 100% of the choices, and the one she CHOSE to have sex with to be considered a useless sperm-donoring sex toy, she can take 100% of the financial responsibility.

From the article: "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 message is clear. Fathers are not real parents. They are only good for financially backing the spoiled stay-at-home moms of America the way she breaks it down.

From the article: "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."

The laws in any country that holds fathers more responsible than mothers need to change.

From the article: "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."

Wild oats? Is that like calling men a bunch of sluts? As if the women who slept with them were not promiscuous and also sewing their wild oats? This is another accountability double-standard. To say they do not take the issues of sex and STDs seriously enough is also strange. mensaweareness.com has an article called Comprehensive Sex Education vs. Teaching Abstinence which takes the opinion that teens in schools would be better off if they are educated about what really happens instead of being taught to abstain. Diseases and teen pregnancy are heavily included topics.

From the article: "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."

When exactly were these ancient times? Who is referring to? She should at least give a time period or reference to a particular society and not just make things up.

From the article: "The same is true today."

Compared to when exactly?

From the article: "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."

Translation: Women can have babies when they want with who they want no matter if their decision making was responsible or not. In other words, an irresponsible mom who has a kid at the wrong time deserves support from everyone.

From the article: "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?"

You tell me. You're the one who said the government should offer support. It is interesting how she uses the word "fault". A central concept to feminism is deciding what is men's fault and how they should be punished.

From the article: "How fair is that for society to end up paying for one man's sexual urges and inability to stop spreading his seed around?"

This question implies that the promiscuous women who slept with him are not accountable for their actions. If any of them become pregnant and keeps the child, he should be labeled at fault and pay for her bad decisions. The same can be said about taxpayer funded section 8 housing.

From the article: "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?"

Unfortunately, the system is not always used as a last resort like that.

From the article: "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."

To what responsibilities is she referring? They're bachelors who don't want to get married. Is it their responsibility to start a family if that is not their wish? Divorce and motherhood are women's matters, not just feminists. When it becomes their issue dads become reduced. She might be mistaken on why feminists have fingers pointed at them.

From the article: "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."

When she says society, does she mean women? They have the freedom to have sex freely with choices, rewards and a lack of accountability. The economy is already suffering for a number of reasons and a lot of divorced fathers suffer financially because of the split-up. One could say this widely reduces discretionary spending which slows corporate profits and in turn causes stocks to suffer.

From the article: "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."

Same goes for women who should not take for granted the fact that they are not punished for sex. Additionally, if no condom is used, both consenting partners are responsible for having unprotected sex.

From the article: "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."

MRA's blame feminists for the influence it has on people and how that can negatively effect the attitudes of their partners and spouses. The same thing about greed and selfishness can be said about Suzanne MacNevin who calls it sexual freedom and equality for single men to live up to her expectations of not being anti-feminists and getting engaged.