Are anti-feminist predictions similar to 'end of the world' conspiracies?

[EleanorB]

It seems to me that anti-feminists have been warning of the 'dangers' of women's rights for a long time.

In every era that there have been campaigns for women's rights, there have been those who thought the ideas wicked, evil, improper, and that they would surely lead to the destruction of society and civilisation as we know it.

But much like the hysteria over the 'pneumonia' causing properties of v-necked tops when they first appeared, are anti-feminist 'prophecies' repeatedly, and embarrassingly failing to come true?

Women still get love men.
They still get married.
They still have children.
They have not suffered any major noticable womb afflictions from being educated.
People still form and live in families.
Men are still free to roam the streets and in fact, have more human rights than they've ever had before.

So, is it embarrassing to anti-feminists that the much-anticipated day of judgement continually keeps failing to occur?

How do they feel about the historically absurd predictions of their anti-feminist ancestors, and how does that make them feel about the similar predictions of the modern anti-feminist movement?

And what will anti-feminists do if it once again turns out, that the end of the world is not nigh?

 

[Unregistered]

Hi Eleanor,

Your claims about "anti-feminist" predictions fall into a couple of categories:

- The straw men. You claim that anti-feminists were very concerned about "womb afflictions", but that's just not true. Some pro-life people exaggerate or make up dangers of contraception, abortion, and late marriage, but they are not the same people as anti-feminists. MRAs, conservatives, and libertarians would say that any negative effects of women's choices on their own bodies are their own problems. Nobody said that being educated would hurt women's wombs. That's retarded. Of course, when you make up a straw man, the goal is to make your opponent look foolish.

- The factually inaccurate. You say that men and women still get married, but you ignore the fact that the marriage rate has fallen fully 50% since 1970. Conservatives correctly predicted that the welfare state and child support would increase the number of single mothers, since moms are no longer dependent on their husbands. Reducing dependence is all well and good for women and their freedom, but it means that children are growing up fatherless and men are denied a hand in raising their children (although they still pay child support). Your claims about women still having children, the expansion of men's rights, and the formation of families, are similarly inaccurate. You ignore the decreasing birth rate, the soaring divorce rate, and the reduction of men's legal rights (such as the right to face his accuser (not under rape shield laws), the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty (not under VAWA), the right to equality under the law (not in our family courts), and the privilege to work with children as teachers, coaches, scoutmasters, nurses, day-care workers, father-helpers, and more (not in the current climate of anti-male fear, stoked by both feminists and the patriarchy)).

How about we look at some feminist predictions? Mainstream feminism says that domestic violence is caused by men's urge to contol and dominate women, and has nothing to do with situational problems or women's violence. This theory is used in policing and corrections. So, how's that working out for you? Domestic violence hasn't significantly decreased, because the theory is incorrect. Likewise, since police and the courts use the feminist theory that women are victims and men are aggressors, about 30% of lesbian and gay couples suffer from domestic violence without help from the community, because the standard (prejudiced) method of deciding who the victim and aggressor are isn't applicable. And, of course, the theory that men are bad and women are good fails to protect children. Most child abuse is committed by women, but the legal system ignores her victims because it doesn't fit the feminist narrative.

Another feminist prediction regards pornography. In the 1970s, feminists represented porn as "hate literature", akin to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They said that porn led to murder, rape, assault, and oppression, and that if porn wasn't banned, women would be condemned to a hellish dystopia. Now let's look at the reality: in the 21st century, pornography has been called the "wallpaper of our lives". Anyone with a computer or a mobile phone is literally seconds away from free hardcore material. Advertising and entertainment are sexualized. A majority of men use pornography regularly, and about one woman in three enjoys pornography at least occasionally. However, despite this enormous expansion in porn, rape and violence against women is lower than it's ever been, while women's wages, opportunities, and freedoms are greater than they've ever been. There are more female role models, and women in power, than ever before. The feminist theories about porn, which were mainstream during the second wave (unlike your straw-man characterization of anti-feminists) were wrong.