Why is Feminism much worse than Cancer nowadays that is caused by women which keeps most men single?

[Lyfe]

So what about kids?
You don't want them?
Or what?

I did at one point and time and if my circumstances and the circumstances of todays world were different than I would still be eager to.

 

[Cintra]

I did at one point and time and if my circumstances and the circumstances of todays world were different than I would still be eager to.

So...
Some of the circumstances preventing you have kids is feminism?
The way women are, the way relationships are now?

 

[Lyfe]

So...
Some of the circumstances preventing you have kids is feminism?
The way women are, the way relationships are now?

Mainly how volatile and evil the world is today. I dont want to bring a kid into this. The way marriages and relationships end up nowadays is part of it. Its easy to be optimistic until you become a statistic.

 

[Cintra]

Mainly how volatile and evil the world is today. I dont want to bring a kid into this. The way marriages and relationships end up nowadays is part of it. Its easy to be optimistic until you become a statistic.

Well, good luck whatever you choose.
Hope you find the right person for you.

 

[Drifter]

I already explained that to you lol. With feminism, higher education, and career oriented lifestyles on the rise women have only become more unhealthy mentally and physically. And yes men too, I don't think the culture is healthy for either. You can believe there is no connection (I don't attribute any one factor to explaining anti depressant use and health problems but I consider the lifestyles of many women as a contributing factor.) But at the bare minimum you would think all this "freedom" increasing for women would have those numbers dropping.

Are you really going to pretend that you didn’t proclaim feminism to be the reason for women being more depressed and overweight in America? And when you were asked whether or not your article made any correlation between those social trends and the lifestyle choices of the women involved, you didn’t respond. Just like when someone else pointed out that the article you linked used a clickbait title and that the actual stats weren’t even supporting the point you were making. Jess even linked another article about how women were leaving their jobs in droves during the COVID crisis to take care of their families. You dont understand very much about people, especially women, do you?

I'm a big statistics person, so when someone is a radical feminist I know what opinions they likely hold. Someone could be an exception (and yes trans is one area where feminists don't always align but I you're likely all for lesbians and gay marriage lol) but most radical feminists aren't going to have a very conservative world view because tradition and traditional gender roles are part of that view. And in the link I provided in by the Hungarian Family Minister she outlines the connection pretty well between a lack of family values and things like immigration. I've made this point numerous times in this thread but it always goes over your simple minded head, issues are connected. You're a fool if you don't think big capitalist interests put serious backing into feminist movements to get more women more focused on helping them get richer.

You might wanna take a refresher course then. It’s a sign of a weak argument if you have to rely on assuming someone else’s beliefs and use that assumption as some kind of insult. Again, you’re blinded by the FAKE political dichotomy. I take issues on as they present themselves without adhering to a political label. And if you backread all of the replies to this thread, the issues me and the other women who agreed with me brought up were based on the treatment of women. I never mentioned anything regarding how I feel about the damn industrial complex. None of us advocated for destroying family values either, you troglodyte. If you think believing women should have a choice and that women are able to be fulfilled by things other than traditional family and married life is somehow liberal or threatening to the nuclear family, then that just implies you think women are programmed to be broodmares that should have kids despite what they may want for themselves. Pubescent teens can procreate, there’s more that goes into childrearing and producing healthy families than just popping them out. There's also fulfilling, positive lives you can build helping others and being productive that dont revolve around breeding. The fact that you think the only alternative is hedonism shows how narrow your mind actually is. That being said, it’s virtually impossible to support a family with the multiple kids you think people should be having on a single salary unless the breadwinner is really making bank. Most women who want families HAVE to work (just as they have always worked in some capacity or other before they were confined to the domestic sphere), that’s the point you seem to be missing. Regardless of whether feminism as a movement was co-opted or a trojan horse from the start, there were plenty enough problems for women that pushed them into aligning themselves with the movement. THAT is the point I kept on making. If women’s predominant contributions were not belittled, feminism would never have been able to stand on its legs. But that seems to go over your head. You don’t even take into account the other factors contributing to a lower birth rate. It might be that women are just sick of infantile, little men like you who mask their fears of inadequacy with a staggering superiority complex. It seems like the mere thought of having a nuanced discussion could give you an aneurism.

I hope you're relatively attractive because you're personality is very grating and unpleasant. It's fine to be average intelligence (most people are that's the way distributions work,) but it becomes an issue with people like you who have an over inflated ego and think they're actually smart and insightful. Imagine having to be the guy who has to listen your mundane talking points you heard in college over and over again, having to nod along and pretend it's interesting.

Oh no, please don’t say that. What am I going to do if some random, faceless, asshat on the internet finds my personality grating after a few exchanges? I’m sorry I couldn’t be as compliant and “pleasant” as the blow-up doll you keep stuffed in your basement for emergencies but I’m trying.

 

[justjess]

To make things clear: I never said I was okay with women denying children time and relationships with their fathers unless there was abuse or neglect of some sort. Not sure where this assertion is coming from when my only comment on the matter was that the reason women are predominantly granted primary physical custody is because of sexist notions that women are made for child rearing and considerations of the child’s need for stability (one home, one school) during the school year. I took my son to visit his father every single weekend for twelve years in prison for chrissakes. Whether we were getting along or not because I feel it’s so important children have a relationship with both parents. Some posters are really good at just pulling shit out their ass and hoping it sticks because they know most people don’t even read.

 

[Lyfe]

You asserted that men who didnt pay child support were deadbeats and scumbags and were completely unwilling to condemn the act of a mother separating her kids from their father as equally despicable and deserving of harsh criticism. I will ask you though assuming that now maybe you have it in you to be civil and fair. If men are scumbags for not paying child support then what are mothers who divorce and separate their kids from their fathers for reasons other than abuse and/or cheating? If men are scumbags for not paying child support then is it fair to say that women who would do what was previously mentioned are also terrible human beings? Lets also not pretend that a mother allowing their kids to see their father once a week after a divorce is anything less than separating them, because its not.

 

[justjess]

You asserted that men who didnt pay child support were deadbeats and scumbags and were completely unwilling to condemn the act of a mother separating her kids from their father as equally despicable and deserving of harsh criticism. I will ask you though assuming that now maybe you have it in you to be civil and fair. If men are scumbags for not paying child support then what are mothers who divorce and separate their kids from their fathers for reasons other than abuse and/or cheating? If men are scumbags for not paying child support then is it fair to say that women who would do what was previously mentioned are also terrible human beings? Lets also not pretend that a mother allowing their kids to see their father once a week after a divorce is anything less than separating them, because its not.

Men who make children and don’t help in supporting those children ARE deadbeat scumbags. Sorry, not sorry.

the only comment I made in response to your insistence that women are stealing children from their innocent fathers was that the way custody is dealt with in court is sexist, it’s due to sexist beliefs about “women’s roles” and that the reason primary physical custody is granted to one parent is to provide stability in living arrangements during the school year. I also pointed out that you have failed to condemn fathers who just never show up even for their visitation. No where did I say it’s perfectly cool to deny a child a relationship with their father. You can go back through every post I’ve ever made in over ten years and you won’t find anything even remotely resembling what your accusing me of saying because I never said it and I don’t believe it.

again, you should retake English 101 because it seems you have issues with comprehension.

As someone who’s worked in family court and custody situations - again - the court decides visitation and priority is given to the CHILD to keep them in one place for the school week to mantain stability. This has nothing to do with the parents, it’s about the child’s needs. Rich people who can afford to live next door to eachother tend to have way more fluid custody situations. Even when it’s mom has the kid all week and dad has weekends you see dad getting more frequent and consistant time during holidays and vacations (especially the summer) to make up for it.

I have zero respect for any parent who spites their own children to get back at a former partner for whatever they feel they did to wrong them. Children aren’t pawns and shouldn’t be used as such.

 

[Lyfe]

Men who make children and don’t help in supporting those children ARE deadbeat scumbags. Sorry, not sorry.

the only comment I made in response to your insistence that women are stealing children from their innocent fathers was that the way custody is dealt with in court is sexist, it’s due to sexist beliefs about “women’s roles” and that the reason primary physical custody is granted to one parent is to provide stability in living arrangements during the school year. I also pointed out that you have failed to condemn fathers who just never show up even for their visitation. No where did I say it’s perfectly cool to deny a child a relationship with their father. You can go back through every post I’ve ever made in over ten years and you won’t find anything even remotely resembling what your accusing me of saying because I never said it and I don’t believe it.

again, you should retake English 101 because it seems you have issues with comprehension.

I do condemn fathers who never show up to see their children. They are terrible human beings. In that entire paragraph though you never answered my question...

If men are scumbags for not paying child support then what are mothers who divorce and separate their kids from their fathers for reasons other than abuse and/or cheating? If men are scumbags for not paying child support then is it fair to say that women who would do what was previously mentioned are also terrible human beings?

 

[justjess]

I do condemn fathers who never show up to see their children. They are terrible human beings. In that entire paragraph though you never answered my question...

If men are scumbags for not paying child support then what are mothers who divorce and separate their kids from their fathers for reasons other than abuse and/or cheating? If men are scumbags for not paying child support then is it fair to say that women who would do what was previously mentioned are also terrible human beings?

Your defining separating a child from their father as what exactly?

 

[Lyfe]

Your defining separating a child from their father as what exactly?

Divorce that leads to matters of custody.

 

[weskrongden]

Are you really going to pretend that you didn’t proclaim feminism to be the reason for women being more depressed and overweight in America? And when you were asked whether or not your article made any correlation between those social trends and the lifestyle choices of the women involved, you didn’t respond. Just like when someone else pointed out that the article you linked used a clickbait title and that the actual stats weren’t even supporting the point you were making. Jess even linked another article about how women were leaving their jobs in droves during the COVID crisis to take care of their families. You dont understand very much about people, especially women, do you?

That's great, I applaud women who put their families above their careers. I do wonder how many there are considering the putrid birthrate we have. A bunch of older women doing that, a lot of younger women don't even have kids who need their attention. The things I post about are up to interpretation, I acknowledge that. I don't say it's definitive proof that feminism contributes to women being unhealthy physically and mentally. It is my opinion that it does. And I also believe that average 50s housewife was happier than the average woman today.

You might wanna take a refresher course then. It’s a sign of a weak argument if you have to rely on assuming someone else’s beliefs and use that assumption as some kind of insult. Again, you’re blinded by the FAKE political dichotomy. I take issues on as they present themselves without adhering to a political label.

The issues I discussed were directly related to feminism and core to why I oppose it, that's why I brought them up. If you can't expand your mind to see connections then it's going to be difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you. You can't just put feminism in a box and not see how it affects other issues. Let's look at a quote from the Hungarian Family Minister again.

“Rejecting family values and promoting immigration go hand in hand,” she said. “If family, childbearing, and common heritage have no value, then illegal immigrants do not pose any risk and mass immigration is just a matter of numbers required on the labor market.”

That's such a smart point. Let me make it super simple for you. Feminism means lower birth rates which means a declining population. Countries don't typically want a declining population and business interests certainly don't, so that means mass immigration becomes necessary. That's how those issues are related. A typical feminist would argue that there is no inherent value to a native birth versus an immigrant because they place little to no value of heritage or tradition or culture. They care primarily about selfish indulgences instead of something bigger than themselves

And if you backread all of the replies to this thread, the issues me and the other women who agreed with me brought up were based on the treatment of women. I never mentioned anything regarding how I feel about the damn industrial complex. None of us advocated for destroying family values either, you troglodyte. If you think believing women should have a choice and that women are able to be fulfilled by things other than traditional family and married life is somehow liberal or threatening to the nuclear family, then that just implies you think women are programmed to be broodmares that should have kids despite what they may want for themselves. Pubescent teens can procreate, there’s more that goes into childrearing and producing healthy families than just popping them out. There's also fulfilling, positive lives you can build helping others and being productive that dont revolve around breeding. The fact that you think the only alternative is hedonism shows how narrow your mind actually is.

Oh wow, troglodyte... Did that insult I've seen floating around twitter thousands of times give you a dopamine rush or make you feel intelligent? Of course hedonism is the reason women don't want to get married and have kids in 95% of cases. If they're becoming a nun or something then I'll give them a pass. Most don't want to make any sacrifices or be responsible for anything other than their own whims and desires. From a societal perspective, it is not healthy to have a birthrate of 1.54 or 1.8 or whatever shit number the x Western country has. Stop being so damn selfish. And just going by birth and marriage rates, of course feminism and modern attitudes of women are threatening to the nuclear family.

That being said, it’s virtually impossible to support a family with the multiple kids you think people should be having on a single salary unless the breadwinner is really making bank. Most women who want families HAVE to work (just as they have always worked in some capacity or other before they were confined to the domestic sphere), that’s the point you seem to be missing. Regardless of whether feminism as a movement was co-opted or a trojan horse from the start, there were plenty enough problems for women that pushed them into aligning themselves with the movement. THAT is the point I kept on making. If women’s predominant contributions were not belittled, feminism would never have been able to stand on its legs. But that seems to go over your head. You don’t even take into account the other factors contributing to a lower birth rate. It might be that women are just sick of infantile, little men like you who mask their fears of inadequacy with a staggering superiority complex. It seems like the mere thought of having a nuanced discussion could give you an aneurism.

I don't disagree with some of that. I do agree that it's virtually impossible to support a family with multiple kids on one salary. If women en masse decided to leave the labor force or stick to part time work then it would be a lot more feasible. There were problems but it was still better than the situation today. Everyone thinks all this freedom sounds so good. I love all the freedom people have to choose unhealthy foods and lifestyles! I love an obesity rate of 42%. And now I'm not saying that's because of feminism. I'm making the point that freedom sounds so good, but restrictions are actually positive and healthy in many cases. Feeling obligated to get married at a relatively young age and then have children is a positive thing even if it's "restrictive." I can agree that women's contributions and role in society were perhaps belittled and underappreciated. But the current state is such a massive overreaction and overcorrection to that problem. I wouldn't say feminism is the only factor contributing to lower birth rates, nothing is ever that simple. There are economic factors for sure. I would argue feminism is the top factor and I think even you would agree it's a major factor.

Oh no, please don’t say that. What am I going to do if some random, faceless, asshat on the internet finds my personality grating after a few exchanges? I’m sorry I couldn’t be as compliant and “pleasant” as the blow-up doll you keep stuffed in your basement for emergencies but I’m trying.

Aggressive, abrasive, brazen... these are not desirable feminine qualities. Most men aren't looking to partner up with some brash woman in a pantsuit who don't take no crap from men, trying to be men themselves.

 

[Drifter]

That's great, I applaud women who put their families above their careers. I do wonder how many there are considering the putrid birthrate we have. A bunch of older women doing that, a lot of younger women don't even have kids who need their attention. The things I post about are up to interpretation, I acknowledge that. I don't say it's definitive proof that feminism contributes to women being unhealthy physically and mentally. It is my opinion that it does. And I also believe that average 50s housewife was happier than the average woman today.

But not men right? Because it's ok for men to be corporate slaves and to not be present for the vast majority of their children's upbringing. Dad's presence isn't that necessary unless people are trying to slam single mothers for not doing a good job of raising their own children. You only acknowledge that and loosen your claims when it's pointed out to you what a far stretch you were making. It's cute that you're trying to backtrack now but your original post is still in this thread. And what do you base that on? Were you a 50s housewife? Are you a woman today? Literally, what are you basing that on?

The issues I discussed were directly related to feminism and core to why I oppose it, that's why I brought them up. If you can't expand your mind to see connections then it's going to be difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you. You can't just put feminism in a box and not see how it affects other issues. Let's look at a quote from the Hungarian Family Minister again.

“Rejecting family values and promoting immigration go hand in hand,” she said. “If family, childbearing, and common heritage have no value, then illegal immigrants do not pose any risk and mass immigration is just a matter of numbers required on the labor market.”

That's such a smart point. Let me make it super simple for you. Feminism means lower birth rates which means a declining population. Countries don't typically want a declining population and business interests certainly don't, so that means mass immigration becomes necessary. That's how those issues are related. A typical feminist would argue that there is no inherent value to a native birth versus an immigrant because they place little to no value of heritage or tradition or culture. They care primarily about selfish indulgences instead of something bigger than themselves

Okay, let me make it super simple for you. Your problem isn't with feminism because you have yet to prove that feminism is the primary corrosive force behind family values being diminished. That's a popular red pill point but it doesn't hold up and you even say later in your reply that feminism isn't the only factor contributing to lower birth rates. A "typical feminist" (not the type promoted on social media as the face of the movement so people with no desire to actually have proper conversation can strawman them and not bother looking at actual arguments) would not place a bigger inherent value of any kind of birth over another. You claim they're selfish when your only concern is regarding the white American demographic and forcing people to have kids. Feminism is bigger than that, women's issues are bigger than that. Both genders are marrying later or not at all. Women getting pregnant and assuming the primary caregiver role even just for the first few years of their kids' lives does not occur in a vacuum. You really think there are hordes and hordes of well-established men just looking to settle down and get married by the time they're 25? Do you think women wanting an established career is selfish but forcing them to be financially dependent on someone else who could at any point take their protection away is not? And they're supposed to find these magical men while in their early 20s? There are so many flaws to your argument and I'd be more hurt by your steady stream of insults to my intelligence if you yourself had the intellectual capacity to realize any of that.

Oh wow, troglodyte... Did that insult I've seen floating around twitter thousands of times give you a dopamine rush or make you feel intelligent?

Does telling internet strangers your opinion on their desirability make you feel important? I don't even have Twitter, but nice try.

Of course hedonism is the reason women don't want to get married and have kids in 95% of cases. If they're becoming a nun or something then I'll give them a pass. Most don't want to make any sacrifices or be responsible for anything other than their own whims and desires. From a societal perspective, it is not healthy to have a birthrate of 1.54 or 1.8 or whatever shit number the x Western country has. Stop being so damn selfish. And just going by birth and marriage rates, of course feminism and modern attitudes of women are threatening to the nuclear family.

How? No one gives a shit whether weskrongden approves of their life choices or not. You're really not that important bud. But it is clear that you don't know many women if you genuinely believe that to be the case. Never mind that you're probably the sort to browbeat a woman who finds herself in a bad relationship because she "should've chosen better". The general state of marriage and cultural attitudes towards dating has changed for the worse and if you're going to blame feminism, then blame MGTOW as well, blame the PUAs who teach men to "pump and dump" and only settle down when they're in their upper 30s. They're the ones leaving all these older single women without sperm deposits and bank accounts, since you think relationships are that reductive. The important thing is just upping the birth rate right? Both parents being emotionally mature and financially stable doesn't matter.

I don't disagree with some of that. I do agree that it's virtually impossible to support a family with multiple kids on one salary. If women en masse decided to leave the labor force or stick to part time work then it would be a lot more feasible. There were problems but it was still better than the situation today. Everyone thinks all this freedom sounds so good. I love all the freedom people have to choose unhealthy foods and lifestyles! I love an obesity rate of 42%. And now I'm not saying that's because of feminism. I'm making the point that freedom sounds so good, but restrictions are actually positive and healthy in many cases. Feeling obligated to get married at a relatively young age and then have children is a positive thing even if it's "restrictive." I can agree that women's contributions and role in society were perhaps belittled and underappreciated. But the current state is such a massive overreaction and overcorrection to that problem. I wouldn't say feminism is the only factor contributing to lower birth rates, nothing is ever that simple. There are economic factors for sure. I would argue feminism is the top factor and I think even you would agree it's a major factor.

That's a nice fantasy but that'll never actually happen. Was unhealthy lifestyle choices banned in the 50s? Lol dude what point are you even making? You're just rattling off BS at this point hoping something comes out sounding halfway intelligent. It's not about getting married and having children young being restrictive. Look at some of the countries where the foreigners you hate come from and see how well many of their restrictions work for their women. Even in the US, read up on stories of people who've ended up abusing or even killing their kids because they didn't want them. Or the number of (white) kids in the foster care system. People are having kids but they're not always taking care of them. I know you probably won't care but try and muster up some kernel of empathy. What makes you think the 50s were a picture perfect era and everyone (men, women and children) were happier? You're blinded by a nostalgia you didn't even experience.

Aggressive, abrasive, brazen... these are not desirable feminine qualities. Most men aren't looking to partner up with some brash woman in a pantsuit who don't take no crap from men, trying to be men themselves.

Good thing I'm not attracted to men whose testosterone levels drop whenever a woman makes a counterargument on an internet forum lol.

 

[AD HOC]

Wimmin.

You can't live with 'em........



and you can't kill 'em




JOKE

 

[justjess]

That's great, I applaud women who put their families above their careers. I do wonder how many there are considering the putrid birthrate we have. A bunch of older women doing that, a lot of younger women don't even have kids who need their attention. The things I post about are up to interpretation, I acknowledge that. I don't say it's definitive proof that feminism contributes to women being unhealthy physically and mentally. It is my opinion that it does. And I also believe that average 50s housewife was happier than the average woman today.



The issues I discussed were directly related to feminism and core to why I oppose it, that's why I brought them up. If you can't expand your mind to see connections then it's going to be difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you. You can't just put feminism in a box and not see how it affects other issues. Let's look at a quote from the Hungarian Family Minister again.

“Rejecting family values and promoting immigration go hand in hand,” she said. “If family, childbearing, and common heritage have no value, then illegal immigrants do not pose any risk and mass immigration is just a matter of numbers required on the labor market.”

That's such a smart point. Let me make it super simple for you. Feminism means lower birth rates which means a declining population. Countries don't typically want a declining population and business interests certainly don't, so that means mass immigration becomes necessary. That's how those issues are related. A typical feminist would argue that there is no inherent value to a native birth versus an immigrant because they place little to no value of heritage or tradition or culture. They care primarily about selfish indulgences instead of something bigger than themselves



Oh wow, troglodyte... Did that insult I've seen floating around twitter thousands of times give you a dopamine rush or make you feel intelligent? Of course hedonism is the reason women don't want to get married and have kids in 95% of cases. If they're becoming a nun or something then I'll give them a pass. Most don't want to make any sacrifices or be responsible for anything other than their own whims and desires. From a societal perspective, it is not healthy to have a birthrate of 1.54 or 1.8 or whatever shit number the x Western country has. Stop being so damn selfish. And just going by birth and marriage rates, of course feminism and modern attitudes of women are threatening to the nuclear family.



I don't disagree with some of that. I do agree that it's virtually impossible to support a family with multiple kids on one salary. If women en masse decided to leave the labor force or stick to part time work then it would be a lot more feasible. There were problems but it was still better than the situation today. Everyone thinks all this freedom sounds so good. I love all the freedom people have to choose unhealthy foods and lifestyles! I love an obesity rate of 42%. And now I'm not saying that's because of feminism. I'm making the point that freedom sounds so good, but restrictions are actually positive and healthy in many cases. Feeling obligated to get married at a relatively young age and then have children is a positive thing even if it's "restrictive." I can agree that women's contributions and role in society were perhaps belittled and underappreciated. But the current state is such a massive overreaction and overcorrection to that problem. I wouldn't say feminism is the only factor contributing to lower birth rates, nothing is ever that simple. There are economic factors for sure. I would argue feminism is the top factor and I think even you would agree it's a major factor.



Aggressive, abrasive, brazen... these are not desirable feminine qualities. Most men aren't looking to partner up with some brash woman in a pantsuit who don't take no crap from men, trying to be men themselves.

If you look at what Hungary actually did instead of what the woman you quoted said... to increase the birth rate and support families they introduced family friendly economic policies. For both women who stay home, and women who work. The birth rate isn’t falling because of feminism - its falling because the economy is shit. It isn’t just women who are pulling back, it’s both genders. The number of housewives isn’t falling because of feminism, again, it’s falling because of the shitty economy. We live in one of the least family friendly western countries in the world. This could easily be remedied but no one gives a shit

 

[justjess]

Divorce that leads to matters of custody.

I do not think that people should be forced to stay married if they don’t love eachother because of joint custody. That’s not what I would qualify as “stealing a mans children from him”

kids do better in happy divorced households then miserable married ones. Plenty of research to support that.

if a woman keeps her kids away from their father to spite him then yeah, that’s a problem. But not every case of divorce or even most qualifies as that type of situation.

 

[lightseeker]

The general state of marriage and cultural attitudes towards dating has changed for the worse and if you're going to blame feminism, then blame MGTOW as well, blame the PUAs who teach men to "pump and dump" and only settle down when they're in their upper 30s.

this is a good point. Men say that they should lead and then blame women for the problems in their societies and don’t acknowledge how they’re started and perpetuated by men and blaming women for them is a really weak thing to do.

 

[lightseeker]

Men back then-
fought oppressive regimes
family oriented
strong principles

men today-
watch porn
amoral and nihilistic
“why did women do this?!”

 

[Lyfe]

I do not think that people should be forced to stay married if they don’t love eachother because of joint custody. That’s not what I would qualify as “stealing a mans children from him”

kids do better in happy divorced households then miserable married ones. Plenty of research to support that.

if a woman keeps her kids away from their father to spite him then yeah, that’s a problem. But not every case of divorce or even most qualifies as that type of situation.

I see you found a way to evade the question again. What about statistics on children with parents who divorce? Statistics on children without a proper and healthy relationship with their father? I do not consider any circumstance where a child only has limited ability to be with and see their father as healthy and proper. The question I asked was in situations where abuse and cheating wasnt present. Those are the circumstances that usually make up for those truly miserable marriages that do the most harm to children, but in a marriage that two adults agree to and make vows and these things dont happen then they have an obligation to their children to set aside their differences and they can. Failure to do so is still selfishness and reflection of poor character. I also mentioned abuse and abuse is more than just physical. I consider mental and emotional abuse as well, or basically any situation where immediate threat of harm is being posed to anyone within the household. In these situations where there is no abuse or immediate threat of harm to the children its likely they would be more damaged from a divorce than they would be with two parents who remain together despite the two not getting along.

For instance, a 2017 study found that children living in intact, nuclear families are about half as likely as children in step, blended, or one-parent families to have a mental disorder or need psychological help.4

In fact, studies show that the psychological effects and emotional strain of divorce even linger into adulthood. For instance, researchers at the University of Toronto found that men from families that divorced during their childhood were more than three times as likely to consider suicide than men whose parents never divorced.5

Likewise, adult children of divorce also may be vulnerable to drug and alcohol use in adolescence, have fears about commitment and divorce, and have negative memories of the legal system that forced custody and visitation.

What Research Tells Us About the Effect of Divorce on Children

Statistics about children of divorce reveal the serious impact it can have even when it's the right choice for the family. Learn what research reveals.

www.verywellfamily.com

Now I will agree and say that separation is justified in any situation where children or the wife are in danger and at risk of psychological, emotional, and physical abuse. However you cant just by default project misery unto every household and marriage where these things aren't present or equate living with someone you don't get along with as misery for everyone in the house(including the kids). You cant just excuse parents and not be willing to assert things about the character of both parents. You cant just say men are scumbags without rightfully calling out the character of the wife who would take their kids from their father when there was no immediate risk of psychological and physical harm.

So I will ask once again...

If men are scumbags for not paying child support then what are mothers who divorce and separate their kids from their fathers for reasons other than abuse and/or cheating? If men are scumbags for not paying child support then is it fair to say that women who would do what was previously mentioned are also terrible human beings?

 

[weskrongden]

Anyone ever seen Mrs. America? I enjoyed the show and found in entertaining despite its obvious biases. Phyllis Schlafly was the main character and she was combatting these second wave 60s/70s feminists. Who were these prominent, leading feminists? Betty Freidan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisolm, and Brenda Feigen. With the exception of Chisolm, who was black, I'll give you one guess as to what these feminist leaders all have in common. Doing the same subversive game they always play. The average intelligence sheep gobble down their propaganda falling right into their trap as usual. The two primarily goals of feminism have about destroying the traditional nuclear family and helping big capital make more money.