Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rape as a response to feminism

I'm seeing some anti-feminists and male rights activists say that rape is an appropriate response to successful feminism. Eivind Berge and his supporters come to mind. Should that be mentioned? --76.20.29.191 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Randygeorge (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edit reverted

I just reverted an edit that I found quite problematic. The most glaring issue is that, despite being over 1,000 characters on a fairly controversial topic, there wasn't a single source, let alone a reliable one. The second biggest issue is with the POV. This is not an exclusively Christian concept, even if it might be traditionally Christian (keep in mind, that needs a source too). While religion should totally be mentioned in the article, it should definitely not be limited to one religion or be in the lead. The third issue is with the "recommended sources". These "sources" are neither reliable or unbiased and can't be included (nor should we be "recommending" such one-sided sources). Essentially it's just a list of POV-pushing external links. Per WP:ELNO, forums are not allowed so one of them is automatically out. The other three links are to organizations that have their own articles, which is where those links go, not here. This article is about antifeminism, not antifeminist organizations. This article needs to be unbaised and it's not too far off the mark right now. Let's try to keep working toward making it even less' biased than it already is. Thanks. --132 04:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the "sources" used for the antifeminist stances are not just unreliable, they are ridiculous. I understand that antifeminists and men and fathers' rights groups want to spread the word and all, but get a grip. I suggest we remove all sources that are unreliable. Randygeorge (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. --132 00:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
So are we going to start removing all these unreliable sources and the external links? Randygeorge (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of section "Antifeminism and abortion"

I removed this section:

In general, feminists believe that opposition to legal access to abortion can be accurately described as a form of antifeminism. They interpret an attack on access as an attack on them, and also thus on women themselves as well. This trend has existed for decades, though second wave feminism and third wave feminism.[1]

However, a significant minority of feminists exist who decry the association. They argue that opposition to abortion is a complementary cause to modern feminism.[1]

Historically, some first wave feminists did not consider being anti-abortion as inherently synonymous as anti-feminism. For example, Susan B. Anthony wrote in 1869:

I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder, earnestly as I desire its suppression... We must reach the root of the evil, and destroy it... the husband’s belief, and upon which he acts... thinks, or cares nothing, for the possible result of his gratification. If it be that an immortal being, with all its needs, physical, mental, and moral, shall come into the world to sin, to suffer, to die, because of his few moments of pleasure, what cares he?[2]

I would like to give several reasons for this:

  • One opinion piece is presented as an established majority view, (e.g., "In general, feminists believe that opposition to legal...")
  • The source [1] does not confirm the claims that "feminists believe that opposition to legal access to abortion can be accurately described as a form of antifeminism" or that "They interpret an attack on access as an attack on them, and also thus on women themselves as well." This is pure original research. The source doesn't even mention the term "antifeminism" or "antifeminist." The source states that "the very notion of pro-life feminism is an affront to the vociferous leaders of America's abortion-rights lobby and the aging ranks of its feminist establishment" but this doesn't mean that feminists see pro-life feminism as antifeminism. Again, this is pure original research.
  • The source doesn't once equate pro-life feminism with antifeminism.
  • The second part about Susan B. Anthony is another clear case of original research and synthesis of source. The source doesn't state that "some first wave feminists did not consider being anti-abortion as inherently synonymous as anti-feminism" and doesn't argue that Susan B. Anthony is an example for this.

This section doesn't have one single sentence which is supported by the sources and used to promote one editor's original research and theories. Randygeorge (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Redefinition of article

I have undone the lead-in and introductory sentence change for this article by RandyGeorge who had changed it to "Antifeminism is the activity indicative or the belief in the superiority of men over women"

With some nonsense reference. There is a difference between verifiability and reliability. What's more you should not just redefine the core definition of an entire well-established article without seeking consensus on the talk page. It is one thing to be bold it's quite another to deface articles with fringe theories. Please discuss radical changes to articles on the talk pages before making them.--Cybermud (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The 'nonsence references' are basically dictionary definitions of antifeminism. You have basically just restored unsouced claims and removed reliable sources. Please don't do this again. I will revert you edit unless you can up with a reason why dictionary definitions are "fringe theories." Randygeorge (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The opening statement 'Antifeminism is the activity indicative or the belief in the superiority of men over women' is sexist nonsense. If anyone is moderating this, it should be modified to the neutral 'Antifeminism is opposition to feminism'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacht Dance (talk • contribs) 14:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that an encyclopedia should not quote dictionaries for descriptions of subjects. This blog post does a good job of describing the issue:

http://theangryblackwoman.com/2008/12/29/tuntu-10/

If adding dictionary definitions is desired please stop doing it in the articles lead-in which is an introduction to the article not a place for verbatim quotations of dictionaries. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). While dictionary definitions can inform what the article should contain quoting them verbatim in the article is a bit redundant unless it is for purposes of demonstrating that the articles subject has been defined differently over time or by different groups--Cybermud (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead-in for this article has now been changed over a dozen times since July where it was previously

Antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms.

In the narrow sense, the term antifeminism connotates individuals, organizations, or ideologies that criticise or reject feminism of the modern industrial countries of the West, claiming that the use of the feminist ideology in its praxis did more damage than good. These critics primarily refer to radical feminism, which antifeminists accuse of encouraging misandry and female sexism.

For these reasons, the term antifeminism has started to signify feminists, of feminism for straying into extremism.

It remained as the above since Feb. '10 where it was changed from simply "Antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms." It remained this simple statement for over two years (I stopped going back any further than that.) I think this final definition is the least controversial and am going to put it back for the time being. Please discuss on this talk page what, if anything, it should be changed to from there and build some consensus amongst editors before changing it again.--Cybermud (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in extreme agreement with Cybermud on this issue. The previous incarnation was the most neutral, while still remaining descriptive, and without being redundant. --132 20:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The opposition to feminism is one definition of antifeminism. The other is belief in the superiority of men over women as any dictionary will tell you. Either way, the claims remain unsourced since Feb 10 and must be removed aggressively. Randygeorge (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia and the article's lead-in is an introduction to the encyclopedic article. Allow me to relink this article for you again for additional clarification on the differences[[2]] and this article on WP lead-ins Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)--Cybermud (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you on the limitations of dictionaries - but note that the broader meaning of antifeminism (as opposition to equality of the sexes) is also used by Kimmel in his encyclopedia article, which is a good source for a general overview of the topic, and it seems to be an accurate summary of the position given in the quotes from Gottfried and Kalb in the "Antifeminist stances" section, too; so I don't think it's unreasonable to mention this broader meaning in the lede. On a slightly different matter, I think the previous longer lede is better than the single-sentence definition, although the previous one is a bit clunky, and the claim about "radical feminists" is unsourced. How about something like:
Antifeminism is opposition to equality of the sexes, or more specifically to feminism in some or all of its forms. Antifeminism includes a number of individuals, organizations, and ideologies that criticise or reject feminist positions, or argue that sexual equality and feminism have had harmful consequences, either for society in general, or for men specifically.
I think this is a pretty fair summary of the material in the body of the article. VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that definition either. Specifically the statement "oppostion to equality of the sexes" is not accurate. Feminism has long since moved past advocating for purely equality issues. The definition and issues addressed by feminism have evolved just as the movement has evolved across first, second and third wave feminism (eg gay/lesbian rights, reproductive rights, VAWA etc are not equality of the sexes issues.)) It stands to reason that antifeminism would evolve in parallel with it. What's more even historically the usage of the word hasn't been primariy the promotion of men's superiority or the oppostion to equality. Phyllis Schlafly, one of the earlier so-called antifeminists campaigned to protect what she called female privelege to avoid women needing to register in the draft or work outside the home to qualify for Social Security benefits, amongst other benefits -- things she said feminists would destroy by enacting an Equal Rights Amendment.

I am not familiar with Kimmel's work but Randygeorge's constant pushing of him is leaving a bad impression with me of him (fairly or unfairly.) In any case he is clearly a pro-feminist author and it makes as much sense for feminists to define what antifeminists are as it does for people who self identify as antifeminists to define what feminism is.

Perhaps a tact similiar to what currently exists in the masculism article can be used (which Randygeorge is also edit-warring against.) Specifically it says:

Masculism can be defined in two mutually contradictory ways. The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law.[3][4] Alternately, it is defined as the belief in the superiority of men or of masculine things and ideas.[5][6] In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism.[7]

The term masculinism was coined as the counterpart of feminism in the early 20th century.[citation needed] The shortened form masculism appears in the 1980s.[citation needed] The masculist political movement originated with E. Belfort Bax's 1913 The Fraud of Feminism.[8] The term masculism itself gained currency in the late 20th century, particularly in the 1990s as advocated by authors such as Warren Farrell and Jack Kammer, in the context of changing gender roles in society.[4]

--Cybermud (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with Voluntary's version without the "equality of the sexes" thing as that's not particularly accurate. The rest of it seems fine though and I do agree that some fleshing out from a single sentence would be appropriate. --132 21:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree--Cybermud (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
"I would like to go with Voluntary's version without the "equality of the sexes" thing" and her comes "as that's not particularly accurate." This is just too much. Voluntary slave provided an OED definition and we should go with that definition. Cybermud, when will Sugar-Baby-Love show up here? Randygeorge (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You rang? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


I have to admit, this made me LOL. --132 22:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You must understand, as a promoter of the The Truth George has accused me of being a sockpuppet of SBL's for agreeing with him. [3] If you're not careful with how often you agree with me you too will be my sockpuppet (and by extension, SBL's)--Cybermud (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Meh, it's happened before on other articles with other editors, specifically Kitchen Nightmares with User:Roman888 accusing myself and about three others of sockpuppetry when we didn't agree with him. Turns out, he had a history of socking and got blocked indefinitely for doing so. --132 16:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So... why does George want me here again? I would like to note the fact that at no point have I ever stated that I disagree with George's idea that 'Antifeminism is belief in the superiority of men over women'. Nor have I expressed agreement with him. I don't know what exactly he or she is trying to get at here... Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This was LOL of circumstances, not a LOL of judgement. --132 04:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, I was thinking about why I think it's important to have the "equality of the sexes" part in the lede; long story short, I've changed my mind. I no longer think we explicitly need to mention "equality of the sexes" in the intro, although I think it would be good to continue to include the citations from Kimmel and Flood in the body of the article (perhaps trimmed, and placed alongside the self-descriptions of antifeminists in the "Antifeminist stances" section) in order to show that there are various different interpretations of what counts as "opposition to feminism".VoluntarySlave (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although equality is generally not a formal tenet of third-wave feminism, having already long been legally achieved (if not practically and substantively), insofar as equality is a real modern goal of feminism saying that antifeminism is the opposition of feminism would encompass the idea that it opposes equality as well (likewise saying antifeminism is promoting homophobia is equally problematic as it pigeonholes an entire range of beliefs) Including those quotes in the body of the article has never been a subject of debate (I certainly have no problem with it) and is completely different from broadly defining all antifeminism as "promoting the superiority of men" or being "against the equality of women."

I think that's about as close to consensus as we're likely to get on this w/ 4 out of 5 editors agreeing.--Cybermud (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think so too. I would suggest we wait to request unprotection until things with George on the various noticeboards gets settled or the protection automatically lifts, whichever comes first. I think he's too fired up right now to remove protection on an article he was responsible for getting protected in the first place. --132 16:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm stricly mainting neutrality here about what the lead should say.
But I must make the note that there is no chance whatsoever that the other editors will ever get George to give up. He or she appears to have a policy of picking off users he or she disagrees with one by one through false noticeboard allegations (first with me, then with Cybermud, and then I guess everyone else here is next), until he or she is the only one left standing. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Given that the discussion has lost its steam, and the Sept 5th expiry date is long past, I'm now unprotecting this article at the request of User:Aronoel. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute

An easy resolution to the definition problem

As an uninvolved editor who found out about this from a noticeboard, I was surprised that almost everyone has done so much arguing and avoided the obvious solution implied by WP:V and WP:NPOV.

We start by filling this out:

  • Current definition in lead: Antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms.. Reliable sources which back this definition: <insert here>.
  • Alternative definitions:
...

Now, without attacking each other, arguing about your personal opinions about what the definition should be, etc. -- let's just focus on what the reliable sources say about how this term is defined, and work from there. This is how WP:V and WP:NPOV recommend we do it. They do not recommend getting together and voting on whatever definition suits us, without sources to back it up.

First, we simply fill out the list above (this might be a good place to start). Then we can start discussing how to best represent what these sources say in the text of the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not voting it's building a consensus. Something George is never willing to do in his advocacy of the The Truth. I'm really not trying to be hostile here (despite your prior accusations to the contrary), but did you actually read the discussion? George's so-called "definition" (which is a misnomer for the articles lead-in and WP style guide on it is the real authoritative source) is not incompatible with the one that is being presented (as I referred to in my last comment.) There's nothing and no one preventing George from including content in the body of the article but the POV pushing "definition" (ie lead-in) she wants is quite inconsistent with the body of the article as the article is not presenting a series of arguments (nor a history of a series) against women's equality or in favor of men's superiority--Cybermud (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That's nice, but it is exactly what I was trying to avoid when I said without attacking each other ... let's just focus on what the reliable sources say about how this term is defined above. Do you have any sources to support the current definition? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That's being passive aggressive and nonconstructive. I repeat, have you read the discussion you've come to opine on? Again with projecting "hostility" and "attacks." Do you frequently have feelings that "they're all out to get you?" I also repeat (5th times a charm?) we are not trying to define anything. Seeking a "definition" is only George's misrepresentation of the discussion. We are debating the article's lead-in. Please familiarize yourself with the difference by reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) (also linked twice in the previously referred to discussion.)--Cybermud (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
While you're familiarizing yourself with the context here, please note that the body of the article actually contains an explicit "Definitions" section.--Cybermud (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually here's an easy place to use your easy solution, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antifeminism--Cybermud (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid everyone is out to get me. Right now I think they're ... Oh wait, I think you forgot to provide sources to back the definition in the lead.
While you're looking for them, maybe you could explain to me how "Antifeminism is (definition of term)" is not a definition. As you've said, I'm obviously very confused and missing some context. Since you're so intelligent and helpful, maybe you could explain that to me, and provide whatever context I'm missing. So, let me make sure I got this clear: We're not trying to define anything -- we're just trying to write a definition in the lead. My puny brain just can't break away from the notion that writing a definition in the lead seems terribly similar to trying to define something. Maybe it's just that I'm out of touch, and am using boring old standard definitions of terms like "define". How do you define "define"? What exactly are we doing when we are explaining what the term anti-feminism means in the lead?
Anyhow, while you're trying to explain how writing a definition in the lead is not defining something, could you also gather some sources to support whatever definition you end up coming up with? Thanks. Oh and by the way, I'm done responding here as well. I'll try to comprehend whatever you manage to come up with as far as an explanation of your "definition that doesn't define anything", but I won't waste your time responding to it, because I'm sure you won't learn anything from the likes of me. So after you answer me this, you can just dedicate the rest of your time to finding reliable sources to back any claims in this article. I hope you have a wonderful day/night. Best wishes and warm regards. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Again you seem to want to invent quotations, use contextomy and project bad intentions on editors. Where did you get "definition that doesn't define anything?" It certainly wasn't from me. Don't just not waste my time, don't waste the time of the all the other editors working on this article in good faith by editorializing on a topic you don't seem to know or care about. Why would I bother catering to your laundry list of questions (rhetorical and otherwise) for someone who is "done responding here?" Especially when you didn't bother to address any of the points I raised. Anyway, peace out homie. Keep fighting the power.--Cybermud (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with OP's criticism/suggestion. Quoting a feminist on what antifeminism is would be like asking a hardcore conservative what the definition of a "liberal" is. There's no way it's not going to be biased. This is evidenced in the fact that right from the get go, it accuses antifeminists of being opposed to equality, rather than being opposed to (one or more forms of) feminism (feminism, which in its current form arguably does not necessarily advocate equality). Antifeminism should be primarily portrayed by antifeminists, just as feminism should be primarily portrayed by feminists. Criticisms against antifeminism should be reserved for a "Criticisms" section. --talk Enoch777 (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request/ Edward Clarke's book 'Sex in Education'

The date this book was published needed to be changed by someone with editing privileges to this page.. The book was actually written in 1873, NOT 1973 like the article currently states. -thanks http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED233959&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED233959 (a link for confirmation of first publishing date)--Chanceska (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Feminism is a pejorative.

Anti-feminism as a word is a pejorative used by some Feminist thinkers to label those who do not agree with them. We do not call Republicans "Anti-Democrats" or Democrats "Anti-Republicans". It is a pejorative used to silence opponents and debate.

An MRA is a Men Rights Group, ie a group dedicated to the Rights of Men as a gender. Their activity may involve strong opposition to ideas from some feminist schools of thought. This does not make them anymore worthy of being categorised as an Anti-Feminist group than the Democrats do as an "Anti-Republican" group.

Until we have pages on Anti-Democratism, Anti-Socialism, Anti-Liberalism, Anti-Mens Rights, Anti-Republicanism or Anti-Conservatism then I don't see why a page on Anti-Feminism of this form is appropriate. It is a pejorative political slogan. A page describing its usage is appropriate as in the page, say, for Feminazi.

This page is agenda driven and in my view should be removed. Zimbazumba (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of ourse Democrats are anti-Republican, thi is why when the Republicans run a candidae for national office the Democrats run a candidate to oppose the Republican. What is wrong with opposing Republicans? Are you saying all Democrats should agree agree with the Republicans who run against them, or should agree with the Republican platform? Why do you oppose some people disagreeing with others? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
We do indeed have pages that are anti-things. See Criticism of Judaism, Anti-Judaism, and Anti-Semitism as examples. I personally consider those three ideologies I just mentioned as repugnant to the extreme, but they're there. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Anti-feminism does have a place in the discussion, though I was thinking more about the anti-feminism seen after the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920. The anti-suffragists of that time, transitioned their arguments into ones that espoused anti-feminism (anti-feminism being the label for people within the US who were against various reforms being considered at that time - Maternity Act and Child Labor Laws for example).U21980 (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Along these lines, lets be cognizant about how the term anti-feminism has evolved. It certainly doesn't mean the same thing today, as it did 90 years ago. So for this reason, I think there is a definite need for the page, for at least historical purposes. U21980 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with U21980. There is a need for the page, because it gives a historical over-view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TyrS (talk • contribs) 08:06, 30 May 2011
Thank you for that comment TyrS. Well I was looking the page over recently, and I was wondering if it would be possible to expand the section of what anti-feminism consists of. I noticed that there were a bunch of diverse views being presented in one section and I think if we were to separate these different shades of anti-feminism into different sections, it would help improve the page. What do you guys think?U21980 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that would be good, as long as the separation reflects how people discuss antifeminism in reliable sources (for example, if the reliable sources actually say equality antifeminism is one thing and patriarchy antifeminism is another thing), otherwise it might be a POV fork. --Aronoel (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide view?

I'm interested in expanding this article in order "to present a worldwide view of the subject." Does anyone have any suggestions? --Aronoel (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting thought, when speaking about topics like suffragism, a worldwide view has been used. Were there any specific ideas you had in mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by U21980 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking for more non-Western antifeminist writers, most here seem to be from the US and Europe. --Aronoel (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't think that would be an issue, though my sense about this page is that it is dealing with anti-feminism from a Western perspective, so we would probably have to create a different section for the material, but I don't see how that would be a problem. I am really interested in this material, so I was wondering if there were any non-Western writers you had found?U21980 (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't really found that many. Save Indian Family is one non-Western source, though. It would probably be easier to find more if someone could look in non-English sources. --Aronoel (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

3rd sentence from top

I'm moving the 3rd sentence (which is fairly problematic even without citations) here for now, because the two citations don't support the very broad and sweeping claims made in the sentence at all.

"Modern antifeminists see themselves as advocates of male rights and sexual equality, criticising feminist ideology and practice as damaging in a modern western society where gender equality has already been achieved.[9][10]"

The first citation is an opinion piece in which (a) the writer does not identify herself as an antifeminist and (b) is not attacking feminism in general; the second is an article about the "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" children's clothing line furore/issue, which has very little direct application to the claims of the sentence. -- TyrS  chatties  14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The second citation is showing how feminism damages equality by creating disrespect for the male population; the first citation demonstrates that there are flaws in the feminist ideology. Considering that this article tirelessly comments on the opinions of people who have never once identified themselves as "antifeminist", to claim that this citation is irrelevant on the same grounds is to apply an unacceptable double standard. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dantai,
I agree with you that the article needs more work in general to try to give a completely balanced picture of something of which it's difficult to give a balanced picture, for a range of reasons.
However, no matter what the subject of the article is, citations always need to clearly and directly support the claims of the sentence to which they are appended.
The first citation is (as I previously pointed out) an opinion piece (not a scholarly article or other such reliable source) so can't really be said to "demonstrate" much of anything except the writer's opinion. I also disagree with you that that piece is making the kind of sweeping antifeminist statements that you are inferring from the article. In fact, it sounds to me rather as if the writer may be identifying herself as a feminist ("Feminists should be the last people doing this. We should be seeking to shatter all stereotypes..."). It really is not straightforwardly an expression of antifeminism at all and the writer certainly does not identify herself as an antifeminist.
If you reread the second citation, it is about a conflict over some t-shirt graphics created by Todd Goldman, who clearly has very little, if anything at all, to do with feminism. According to his own account, the graphics were simply something he found amusing, and not a political or 'feminist' statement. The fact that Glenn Sacks reacted to the graphics in the way he did does not make the graphic an act of 'feminism'. (This is all rather reminiscent, to me anyway, of the myth of 'feminist' bra-burning. There seem to be similar kinds of popular misperceptions around these types of things.)
As far as your statement about the article lacking self-professed anti-feminist opinion, I can see at least 6 antifeminist individuals and their opinions/activities mentioned (Pranav S. Atit, Ulf Andersson, Glenns Sacks, Paul Gottfried, Jim Kalb, Phyllis Schlafly, Babette Francis). (And even if there was a total absence of mention of antifeminists - which would be absurd, I agree, in an article on antifeminism - it would certainly not serve the article, or wikpiedia in general, to for us to leave citations that do not support the contentious statements attached to them in articles on any subject.)
Perhaps we could get away with adding back: "Many modern antifeminists in western societies see themselves as advocates of male rights and sexual equality, criticising current feminist ideology and practice" with a 'citation needed' tag? And if you find something that clearly supports this of course you can add that as a citation. (The part of the sentence about gender equality having been achieved is so contentious that it would need to be a direct quote, also it is later contradicted in our article by the following:
"Pranav S. Atit, writing for the online news magazine, Global Politician...:
...feminists have failed to achieve their objective and have deviated from it...") -- TyrS  chatties  15:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disparaging Definitions

Quoting feminist definitions of antifeminism is absurd, as any feminist would want to exaggerate antifeminist claims in order to refute it. The two feminist definitions shown are simply a straw man fallacy that feminists use to misrepresent the egalitarian views of true antifeminism, the principle of which is opposition to the feminist movement, which in modern terms means opposition to third wave feminism. Holding feminist definitions as superior to antifeminist definitions of antifeminism runs counter to wikipedia's goal of avoiding bias and maintaining neutrality; it would be as unfair and prejudice as using the Conservative definition of a Liberal or the Talibian's definition of the USA. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dantai, a few comments on your latest edits:
  • "antifeminists observe that modern third wave feminism promotes sexism against the male population". This sentence is expressing a POV opinion as if it were a fact. Perhaps you could say "Some antifeminists claim that..."
  • "While many historical antifeminist movements have sometimes been sexist". Too many weasel words here. Either remove "many" or "sometimes".
  • "opposition to female suffrage in modern society would be considered misogyny by current standards". You mean by "Western standards". In many parts of Africa and the Middle East female suffrage is actively opposed by antifeminists and much of the culture at large. These views are not necessarily seen as misogynistic in those cultures.
  • "...this article will deal only with self-styled antifeminists". Wikipedia articles should not include self-references.
  • "...this article will deal only with self-styled antifeminists". Article scope is defined by policy, there's no reason to invent a separate scope criteria for this article. In most cases the WP:BLP policy will limit the article to self-styled antifeminists anyway, so this caveat is unnecessary.
  • "...in order to refute antifeminist views via a straw man fallacy..." This is original research and should be removed.
  • "The fathers' rights movement is an example of one form of antifeminism movement..." This seems like a pretty sweeping conflation. Some father's rights activists do no consider themselves antifeminist.[4] I think this should at least have a convincing citation if you want to keep it.
Kaldari (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"true antifeminism ... which in modern terms means opposition to third wave feminism"
Dantai, you'd need to provide something to back up this definition.
"While many historical antifeminist movements have sometimes been sexist." That's just bad writing. -- TyrS  chatties  05:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is filled with a patently ridiculous amount of feminist bias, and editors are suppressing antifeminist commentary on the subject under the false guise of "neutrality". This article is anything but neutral. These feminist editors are taking the views of a minority of antifeminists and passing them off as the majority by showing little or no reference to the opinions of modern antifeminists. Modern antifeminists define antifeminism as egalitarianism as a response to the hatred and misandry of radical feminism, yet this view is being suppressed in favour of feminist critique. Rather than riddle the entire article with derogatory pro-feminist opinions on the matter, our need for neutrality dictates we shun this approach in favour of one that more accurately reflects the topic at hand, instead of what we have at the moment, which is just a long piece of pro-feminist propaganda interspersed with what little attempts at neutrality these editors will allow. In effect, this entire article propagates a Straw Man Fallacy and then endeavours to refute it. As feminism is a 1960s term, and antifeminism is a response to the self-styled feminist movement -- not the women's suffrage movement, or anything that came before -- it is misleading to identify antifeminism with opposition to women's rights while ignoring the modern definition. As modern feminism is a movement against patriarchy in a modern western world that has more gender neutrality than any civilisation in history, it is wrong to assume that modern antifeminism is anything but an opposition to the modern movement. To pass it off as "opposition to women's rights" is misleading because that would not be opposition to the modern feminist movement; to make such a claim is to go further than antifeminism and enter the realm of sexism and misogyny. This article needs to stop criticising antifeminism on this false premise and start actually seeking to identify a proper understanding of the subject. Any criticism, rather than lacing the entire article, should be addressed under a "Criticism" subheading. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are defining the topic with non-scholarly definitions, such as the one you re-added here against three editors. Ulf Andersson, an activist in Sweden, is not a scholar. Please a scholarly source to define the topic rather than your gut feelings or the newspaper reports of activists. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
He is not just some lone activist, he is the founder of a prominent Fathers' Rights organisation and a notable member of the world's leading antifeminist forum. The fact that he has not published a book on the subject cannot negate the fact that his position puts considerable weight behind his definition. Again, you are hiding behind false "interpretations" of neutrality and notability to selectively silence antifeminists from commenting on the definition of their very own cause. That is as far from neutrality as one could get; it is the very definition of bias. And there ar a number of very good examples of this within the article: where a reference to Father's Rights movements was removed because "many father's rights activists reject the antifeminist label", there are countless references to opinion that are definitively not antifeminist -- but very sexist -- all throughout the article. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I did not say Andersson was a lone activist, I said that he was not a scholar. His definition of antifeminism does not have the authority of the definitions that come from scholars. Ignoring your personal attacks against my neutrality, I must point out that at WP:RS, it says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." To get the best, most encyclopedic material out in front of the reader, the way forward is to use scholarly works which define antifeminism. Here are some:
These should provide some better ideas regarding the definition of antifeminism. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Dantai makes an excellent point that the male perspective is underrepresented, whch is supported by WP:UNDUE. Lionel (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, a very large number of the people cited are men. If you mean the anti-feminist perspective, say so. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what sex is quoted. What matters is that scholarly sources are used as the backbone of this topic, used to define its parameters. The non-scholarly sources can then be used to flesh it out. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Binksternet, for linking those sources. With so many scholarly sources defining antifeminism, the definition section of this article shouldn't be a problem. Also, didn't the current sources used fail verification? I don't think they should have been added back. --Aronoel (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome. I don't think any editor should be using news and magazine reports to write this article until the scholarly sources are digested and their best conclusions brought here to create the backbone of definition. Too much of the article is about modern anger rather than a neutral telling of the various arguments and positions. Per WP:NPOV, the article's tone should be impartial. At any rate, the article as it is now being written by Dantai Amakiir using pop sources is fated to be rewritten with scholarly sources holding an impartial tone, so the effort expended on news reports will be a wasted one. I suggest that the most efficient way forward is to commit first to reading the mass of scholarship and relaying their findings. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
In light of the amount of scholarly sources listed above, I tend to agree with Binksternet, though I'd also advise caution in our reading of these sources, in order to allow us to digest what the article say with an open mind. It's hard to be neutral towards this subject if starts reading with an eye to try and prove their point.U21980 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead In

It is necessary that the lead in thoroughly introduces the subject. The shorter lead in does not explain the subject enough and therefore allows the feminist bias throughout the article to subsume all other points of view; this prevents neutrality. Instead, the lead-in that I have written introduces the topic with a greater degree of clarity and introduces some aspect of neutrality that currently the article is lacking. Perhaps it is not perfect, but in that case it needs to be reworked, not deleted. Also, feministpants has for some reason deleted the external links. Originally, the external link consisted only of a feminist rebuttal to an antifeminist paper; this is clearly a bias. Therefore, for the sake of balance, I tracked down the original paper that the feminist paper was rebutting, therefore introducing a more balanced perspective. Feministpants's solution to this seems to be to delete both links. It seems that anything that does not cater to her bias should not be included in this article. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the article contents. The current lead section brings up white supremacist concerns but there is no such text in the article body. On the other hand, the article body discusses opposition to women suffrage but the lead makes no mention.
Typically when editors point to the lead section as a problem, the article body is the real problem. I believe that to be the case for us here. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
DA, unless you're actually trying to go for bingo on a card of prohibited user behaviors (edit warring, personal attacks, etc.) I advise you to cut it out. In the meantime, you could work on improving your content editing - adding things that don't talk about antifeminism is OR, sources must be cited only for statements they contain, and personal blogs are pretty much never RS. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I propose that we move the contended lead-in material to the definition section, to ensure that it is made VERY CLEAR that the definition of antifeminism is greatly contended (as evidenced by the constant edit-warring in this article), and then present the various definitions FROM BOTH SIDES. This would be the only fair and unbiased solution: to point out that the no one, agreed upon definition exists and then present them all with equal merit. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you should look in reliable sources for evidence that the definition is contended, not the editing history of this page. The final definition should also be based on reliable sources. --Aronoel (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA, I removed a personal attack against Aronoel made by Dantai Amakiir, and a lengthy rant unhelpful to improving the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably the most helpful thing anyone's said so far. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Should feminists get an equal say throughout the entire page of what "antifeminism" is, as antifeminists do? Or, rather, should feminist criticisms of antifeminism be kept to a "criticisms" section, as is the case with other articles? User:Enoch777 Enoch777 (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
We use reliable sources, and many of those are written by feminist men and women. There is no requirement that a Wikipedia article must restrict itself to only friendly sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This is true, and there's definitely a place for them in the article, but this points to much larger problems in objectivity. The term "antifeminist" seems to largely be a feminist construct, to try to label those who are against feminist activities as people who are -against equality for women-, which isn't necessarily true. Whether the feminist activities being opposed support equality for women or support special privileges for women is debatable. Because there are many, many individuals who are opposed to "third wave feminism" (feminists trying to obtain special privileges for women after equality has been achieved), modern antifeminism does not imply believing in gender inequality. This is underrepresented in the article, with one line stating "Antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms.", and then the next twelve lines are feminist definitions, describing "sexism" rather than antifeminism. This just leads to the entire article feeling like a "straw man" argument, where antifeminism is misrepresented by feminists (with an over-emphasis on feminist sources) in order to be easily refuted. Enoch777 Enoch777 (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Equality hasn't been achieved, not by a long shot. Your concept of third wave feminism is not supported by mainstream viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
In America, you are correct, equality hasn't been achieved. Women benefit from many subtle and not so subtle advantages over men in American society, while retaining the rights to do everything that men are able to do. There is a disporportionate amount of male work related deaths (male jobs tend to be more hazardous compared to those given to females), fitness test requirements are often less demanding for women even though they get paid as much as men, the vast majority of incarcerated and homeless people are men, men are required to perform more dangerous jobs in the military compared to women (4000 male deaths vs. 100 female deaths from Operation Iraqi Freedom), females are often given lighter sentences in court for the same crimes compared to males, often suffer no repercussions for making false rape accusations (which happens anywhere from 20-60% of the time according to more thorough case studies), and I could probably write another three paragraphs as to the many ways men are often mistreated by the legal system in cases of child support and custody.
These are definitely not mainstream viewpoints. These are viewpoints supported by multiple, thorough statistic reports. But none of that is my point. My point is, if the article should reflect the most mainstream (and unfactual) view of antifeminism, then the page should be a long winded opinion piece by various feminist writers about how antifeminists are woman-hating bigots.
Which, is pretty much what the page looks like right now.
EDIT: Also, from Michael Kimmel's wikipedia page: "While Kimmel is a prominent author in the academic subfield of men's studies[5], his work has also been critiqued for being "anti-male" or an example of "misandry." Sociologist Anthony Synnott characterized Kimmel's work in Men's Lives and Manhood in America as "particularly misandric" and "dehumanizing" for using a long list of villains as examples of men without a single positive historical image.[6]" Why is this person being quoted as to what antifeminism is, outside of a "criticisms" section? talk 21:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I get it... a Troll. Buh-bye. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
What part of what I said could be construed as trolling? Am I wrong about the points I brought up about the page? If so, what are they? talk Enoch777 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How About A Seventh Definition, Before You Go?

The article as I view it.
Seriously, has anyone tried to read this article as an article? I hadn't heard the word "antifemenism" before today, so while I can't say what is accurate and what is inaccruate, I can give you a real outsider's perspective, as I read the article:

  • Antifeminism is defined. It is established that a movement of people who are critical of feminism, but not against equal rights, and call themselves antifeminists. (By the way, we have here a [who?] label when the [who?] is clearly defined in three citations.)
  • Antifeminism is introduced as a disembodied concept (ie. not being appropriated at the time to the term antifeminism) from over a century ago. It is elaborated by what is obviously the most outlandish quote anybody could dig up on the internet.
  • Antifeminism was apparently not defined when it was defined, and has to be defined again by sources that are about a decade more recent than those previous.
  • Antifeminism is now defined as the complete opposite of what it was first defined as. This is followed by criticism that is wholly reserved, on articles but this one, for the very bottom of the page.
  • The second definition is an argument or philosophical positing, but is both extremely broad and assumes the reader is intimately familiar with feminist theory.
  • The final definition is a counter-criticism of the first definition, reflecting both the introductory and second definition but not providing a full working definition.
  • We proceed to label what antifeminists believe, which coincidentally do not fall under any of the four definitions above and establish a new, fifth definition of antifeminism that is fairly narrow in breadth.
  • Now we cut to people who have been labelled as antifeminist who do not want the label, establishing it as a pejorative and ad-hominem attack.
  • Our final section introduces us to organizations leading antifeminist causes, with an organization or possibly campaign that appears to be labeled antifeminist as the pejorative discussed above, but all the links are broken.
  • Our next organization seems to take pride in its antifeminist stance, however we find from looking into the sources that it is only ever mentioned as an organization that criticizes accusations of rape.
  • We close with an organization which now loudly proclaims itself to be against feminism (a claim that oddly enough is not mentioned in this article), although even it does not use the quote "antifeminism."

In short, antifeminism is a movement that has no supporters but a handful of apologists, which states both that women and men should have equal rights and that women should have lesser rights, includes everyone who believes social arrangements are natural and everyone who believes social arrangements are not natural, is accurately applied to political opponents as a shameful pejorative, is also accurately to be applied to oneself as a proud political position, and ... wait... did Definition #2 just define it as either of two mutually exclusive philosophical beliefs? Maybe it has something to do with the definition of the word "determined."

It seems like it would just be so much easier to say "Antifeminism is a collection of movements..." [ala the article on feminism] "...that are politically opposed to feminism." And then scrap the entire article as it now is and go on to categorize antifeminism as such:
Movement A describes itself as antifeminism. It claims...
Movement B is dedicated to opposing feminism. It claims...
Movement C is described as antifeminist because it opposes Issue D which is a feminist issue, although Movement C decries that label...
[Special Section] Criticism: Feminism describes antifeminism as E, and makes the following claims against it...

Such is the ranting of someone with way too much time on my hands. You may respond to it or not, use the ideas or (more likely) not. Either way, you get invisible kudos for reading to the end and not using incivility. Have a good night,
Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You're making a number of good points Theinactivist and I've commented out some material and reuced others. The article needs a top to bottom rewrite - I personally don't have the time but am willing to help out--Cailil talk 14:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthony M. Ludovici, Simon Sheppard, Henry Makow and Anders Behring Breivik - all of these figures espouse antifeminism

Would it be appropriate to add the views of these individuals to this article? Certainly, the article lacks any significant antifeminist authors being cited.--Nothingeverhappensever (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that these figures (with the possible exception of Makow) by and large espouse 'racism' as well, but that is completely logical given the fact that within Western societies it has consistently been observed that white females are a lot more likely to get together with non-white males, perhaps especially black males, than vice-versa.--Nothingeverhappensever (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
A portion of the article was commented out by Calil in response to my criticisms above about the lack of focus and consistency in the article (and I thank him for responding to my post, and so quickly). Until we get further information be careful who you apply the term to. If antifeminism is a notable movement then we want to feature accomplished leaders of the movement. On quick glance Ludovici may be notable to antifeminism, but be aware that his views on other subjects (such as race) are not of concern here unless they are linked by scholarly sources. Sheppard and Makow may fall under WP:FRINGE considering the terms "far right" and "conspiracy theorist" are not far behind them. Breivik is WP:NOTABLE only for his terrorist attack, and will probably never be appropriate in any other article. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 02:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:STOP ERA.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:STOP ERA.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:STOP ERA.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Should be removed

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for general discussion of the subject of articles or of wikipedia. Please provide specific examples of sections that require checking as regards core policy WP:NPOV or WP:NOR and suggestions on how to fix them within policy, rather than spurious accusations.--Cailil talk 13:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article appears to be taking a distinct feminist stance from the outset where it pupports to define anti-feminism by quoting a feminist critic. It is structured in such a way as to be making a case against it's subject matter. It also seeks to correlate anti-feminism with other far right political and religious movements and tries to characterise anti-feminism as anti-women. Posting this on wikipedia as a definitional article is an act of deception which appears to be intended to create misinformation and opposition through misrepresentation. I petition the adjudicators of this site to remove it forthwith in the interests of preserving the integrity of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.150.144 (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


I will second that move. This article is blatantly biased towards feminist ideology. It essentially just states the original opposition to women's suffrage and the opposition to the 1960s feminist wave and rambles off various critiques quoted from feminists. Delete this article and come back when some proper perspective is allowed here. There are countless quotes and sources being rejected for very biased reasons and it is a joke to wikipedia. Unless of course wikipedia is just another feminist lobby forum.

THE NEUTRALITY OF THE ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE IN QUESTION HERE... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.247.93 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of antifeminism?

(I'm a new editor. Let me know if I'm doing it wrong.) Looks like there's a lot of disagreement on how to define "antifeminism" and how to identify its adherents. Some of this definition confusion might be ameliorated by discussing the history of feminism/antifeminism. It seems to me that antifeminism is a reaction to feminism (is that stated explicitly in the article? It should be). Therefore, the definition of anti-feminism should have changed as the particular goals of feminism changed (first wave, second wave, third wave).

Anti-feminists (both self-identified and labeled by others) have adopted some feminist ideas over the years as those ideas become realities. For example, antifeminists of the 1950s opposed women having careers, while many of today's antifeminists are career women themselves. Therefore, an antifeminist viewpoint from 50 years ago will not be the same as one from today.Madprofessional (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to muse about the topic, referring to personal impressions. However, article improvement is best served by discussing what WP:reliable sources say. Can you find a reliable source that provides the information you are looking to add? Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename article as "Criticism of Feminism"

Is there a better title for this article? "Non-Feminism" perhaps. Here is a link (p339) to a scholarly article that uses "non-feminist" in the context I am talking about. Perhaps there are other titles like "criticism of feminism" "resistance to feminism" or "opposition to feminism" ... Peace, MPS (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. (And I think the category should probably be renamed "Antifeminism," rather than the other way around.) "Criticism of feminism," in my mind, would be a separate article, one which encompasses criticism of the feminist movement from other movements which support equal rights, eg. from black activists who criticize its white biases or trans activists criticizing cissexism in the movement, as opposed to people who simply oppose equal rights for women, which is the scope of this article. Your source seems to use "non-feminist" to mean "not purposefully feminist," rather than "against feminism." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your insightful distinctions. I feel like this has the potential of becoming a "controversial label vs history of the opposition" debate, where we will disagree as far as focusing the article on (1) "the academic neologism 'antifeminist' that some people are labeled with" versus focusing the article on (2) "the history of active and passive opposition to feminist movements." Do you see what I am saying? A whole section of the article is focused on controversy over defining the relatively new word/concept, and another section is focused on the history of opponents to feminism (organizations and individuals). If the article is to be WP:NPOV, how do we balance the treatment of this subject? Is this article about (1) what does the concept "antifeminist" mean, or is it about how terrible antifeminists are. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Part of the problem is that the article is so short when there is so much to write about - but in my mind, what would be best would be to have a history section that detailed antifeminist opposition to women's suffrage, equal pay, etc., and that also explained that with the mainstreaming of feminist ideas (in the later part of said history section) certain antifeminists have maintained that their beliefs are not about opposition to equality and so on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Antifeminism and Criticism of feminism are two separate concepts. Criticism can even include feminists who speak against feminist methods or attitudes. Certainly pro-life feminists would be counted as very critical of aspects feminism. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There are two issues here. Antifeminism is defined and clear, but the idea that someone that is critical of feminism is an adherant of antifeminism is not equatable. I could support feminism but just as easily be strongly against the tactics that some feminists use and thus critical of feminism. But that wouldn't neccessarily make me an antifeminist. It appears that this concept is being used to label some people that disagree with some of the tactics as against the rights of women in general. This is a pretty strong leap of understanding and as long as the term is clearly defined as such extreme care must be made to label people as such. Arzel (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly - to quote myself earlier, "black activists who criticize its white biases or trans activists criticizing cissexism in the movement" are certainly not to be called antifeminist on that basis. That is why this article's scope should remain the same while, if a separate article on criticism of feminism is desired, it should encompass criticism from people who do not oppose women's rights, ie. are not antifeminists and thus already covered by this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Then antifemist should not direct here since they are not directly related. Arzel (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I must be misunderstanding you. Why on earth should "antifeminist" not redirect to "antifeminism"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No way! This article contains nothing at all critical of feminism. Rather it is critical of the antifeminists. After reading rapidly through the article, I cannot remember one point any of the "antifeminists" cited gave for their stances. One obscure European said he was for equality, but he didn't define it.

Rather than renaming the article, let's finish it. Let's talk about all the reasons antifeminists like Schlafly are against feminism. How they feel that "equal rights" initiatives are harmful to women - or unfair to men. Some antifeminists may even feel they are supporters of women's rights, such as those who would like to help them keep their right to avoid being drafted into the military; or those who feel that women should get longer leaves of absence to bear children than men (lots of men and women agree on this one); etc.

Note that I'm not saying antifeminists are correct. I'm just saying we should include their points of view. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What's stopping you from adding them in a neutral and well-cited way? Other than your own difficulties with writing neutrally, I mean. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
LOL, I hardly ever have trouble writing neutrally. The key is to ensure that there is a balance of arguments on each side (when it's a two-sided controversy), and that neither side is given undue weight. That's why I created Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent years ago. When both sides feel that their own side has been described fairly, and that no advantage has been given to the other side, we get a stable, well-balanced article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Ed you bring up some good examples here which question what feminism is actually about. Ultimately, whether the priority is 'women's rights' or 'equality' comes into question. Defending privileged status for women (ability to abort conceived pregnancies, not be drafted, maternity leave, etc) falls under feminism if female-priotizing is the root, yet does not if equality-prioritizing is the root. It is the history of this which lead many to be anti-feminist for egalitarian reasons, by rejecting the claim of 'equal rights' associated with feminism (which some try to claim inherently defines it) as that is a standard frequently seen applied moreso in situations when there are rights to be gain, and not when there are rights to be lost. Ranze (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

MRA sites & New Male Studies

The MRA world is growing exponentially on the internet. They are most definitely antifeminist. They need to be included here, eg. A Voice for Men, Angry Harry, Mensactivism, The Spearhead, No Ma'am. There is also a new International Journal called New Males Studies run through the Uni of Adelaide. They are offering a degree course in 2014, this should be included. HERE. I agree with many opinions below that only referencing Michael Flood and Kimmel is not objective as they are both pro-femeinist & subjective to the discussion. This is not balanced at all. bulldogo Bulldogo (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-feminism literature

How are these being determined? Is this declared by the literature, or are WP editors making the distinction. Without any sources, the whole section should go as original research. Arzel (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who is selecting the works, but section is a mess. It starts off as alphabetical (author, title) and then it looks like people just added titles to the end with the result that some go "title, author", the whole list is not in order and there are even duplicate listings. It definitely needs to be cleaned up.
It also would be good to add some earlier, 19th and 20th century sources of antifeminism (of which, there were plenty). 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Dash presence

Currently profeminism directs to pro-feminism and anti-feminism directs to antifeminism. I am wondering if we could figure out via some kinda consensus whether or not the main article should include a dash or not?

Also am wondering, how come we don't have articles for pro-masculism/promasculism or anti-masculism/antimasculism to go with masculism as we have pro/anti for feminism? Ranze (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, "pro-masculism" is kind of the way the world is right now. Check out the article on Patriarchy. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Main arguments against feminism

If you're going to assert that certain arguments are the "main arguments" against feminism, you should cite a source which says so. Otherwise, it is synthesis and original research. Some of the arguments recently listed don't have a citation at all, much less citations describing them as prominent criticisms of feminism. Kaldari (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Good points. We need a strong mainstream reference if we are to change the definition or focus of antifeminism. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The source that cites the Oxford English Dictionary definition of Antifeminism is invalid

The source that cites the Oxford English Dictionary definition of Antifeminism is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.112.127 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem with it? The OED entry linked to does indeed say what the article quotes it as saying.VoluntarySlave (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Does it? Would you please post the link for me then? It does not appear valid here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.119.25 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

When I examine the online oxford dictionary definition http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anti--feminist?q=antifeminism#anti--feminist__3 it says noting of being "opposed to women". Feminism and woman are not synonyms, and so should not be treated as such. Furthermore, the definition speaks nothing of what sex anti-feminists usually are, nor does it mention opposition to advocacy for women's rights. Kratch (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, Oxford Dictionaries Online doesn't include those features in its definition, but the longer definition in the OED does; it says exactly what the article quotes it as saying. The OED is the best researched and most respected of all English dictionaries, so it makes sense for the article to quote it, even though, sadly, its definitions are behind a paywall.VoluntarySlave (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Men's Rights Advocacy

I see Men's rights advocacy as a movement formed in response to feminism. Could they be considered anti-feminist? Are there sources discussing this? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's some stuff in Google Books, at least. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Many MRA's are anti feminist but the movement itself is concerned only with the rights of men, not bringing down feminism. Many gender equalists associate with both movements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggilicious (talk • contribs) 09:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would consider MRAs to be essentially anti-feminist as they situate their equality rhetoric squarely against that of feminism, as if to say, 'yes we don't mind being equal, but don't touch our privilege while working to empower yourself' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.36.37 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

So what's the problem with the article? Please specify so we can fix it. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by Civitrope and Roscelese

Summary of user talk pages exchanges Civitrope and Roscelese in January 2014

From Roscelese to Civatrope:

January 2014

Information icon Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

From Roscelese to Civatrope:

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC) From Roscelese to Civatrope:


From Civatrope to Roscelese:

Neutral point of view

Hi Roscelese. Thanks for posting that warning on my talk page. It got me doing some research. According to Wikipedia itself regarding Michael Flood: "He coordinates, edits and contributes to XY, a pro-feminist website ... worked as a pro-feminist educator and activist..." (Bold face mine). That certainly does sound like a neutral point of view kind of guy to put front and center at the top of the wiki page on anti-feminism. Civatrope (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • END OF SUMMARY

Civatrope (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Civatrope: Regarding your comments about Michael Flood: of course pro-feminists and feminists are going to have something to say about antifeminism. Michael Flood and Michael Kimmel in particular study antifeminism as scholars. Them being feminists or pro-feminist does not negate the fact that they have published in reliable academic sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Civatope, since you are a new user, I recommend reading up on Wikipedia policies, such as the reliable sources policy that EvergreenFir linked. These are academic sources. They're not writing as The Opposition. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

They have something to say and it is on the page, in a more appropriate place. Civatrope (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple editors disagree. Please check out WP:CONSENSUS. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe you people are starting an edit war. You have reverted me 3 times, (6 since you appear to be working together). I do not believe a small number of users not letting good faith changes stand for even a few hours counts as consensus. Maybe we should give it 24 hours and see what a real consensus looks like ? If you don't give the real reason why you are so adamant about your revisions I will feel compelled to report this entire matter, including the threatening posts to my personal talk page.Civatrope (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You were warned by 3 editors. I've already reported you to the edit warring noticeboard, as the post on your talk page alerts you to. Stop reverting edits or you will be reported for disruptive editing and vandalism. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


A recommendation for partial dispute resolution:

I would like to suggest that Roscelese return the page to the status before this edit:

22:39, 16 January 2014‎ Roscelese (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,762 bytes) (-251)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 590978705 by Binksternet: Rv: introduction of unsourced text, unwarranted demotion of good sourcing (it's not an opinion source simply because it's not *your* opinion). (TW)) (undo | thank)

or I would like Roscelese to give a detailed explanation on how the presumption of my own opinion was arrived at and claimed into the record.Civatrope (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The burden is on you to show that your proposed changes are good for the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"one opposed to women or to feminism; a person (usu. a man) who is hostile to sexual equality or to the advocacy of women's rights."[

If this isn't incredibly biased, then I don't know what is. An opposition to feminism does not necessitate an opposition to human rights for women. Just because someone doesn't agree with the methods and theory of feminism, it doesn't mean that they hate women, or somehow find them beneath them, some are women themselves. 95.109.103.15 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And disagreeing with feminism isn't the same as antifeminism. Actively opposing feminism would be. Regardless, that's a quote from a dictionary... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
So what exactly does one call the opposition to women's rights? Antiwomen'srightsism? Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Sexism? Modern sexism (huh, looks like I should make an article for that...)? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, according to the people on the talk page there, sexism applies equally to men and women and the article should not be focused on women specifically. I guess information about opposition to women's rights just shouldn't exist on Wikipedia :P Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No, just according to one user. The rest seem to agree sexism refers predominantly to effects/hatred against women. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Could we refrain from showing our obvious biases when addressing a legitimate problem of the neutrality of a definition please? Yes someone can be completely for women's rights and still be diametrically OPPOSED to feminist philosophy. The Oxford Definition's neutrality is in dispute and deserves to be recognized because it does not properly represent the individual's beliefs who happen to identify as antifeminists. Breckham101 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason other than antifeminists' personal dislike of being identified with words that make them look bad to doubt the OED's widely recognized authority? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe because many believe it to be wrong and unrepresentative of their views? You are aware that OED can be wrong right? Breckham101 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTTRUTH. We report on WP:RS, not what users think. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised people do not know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary is a descriptive one, it tells how a word is, or can be, used. That definition can be biased, it doesn't tell how the word should be used (prescription). --Pudeo' 01:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, WP:NOTTRUTH. We report on WP:RS, not what users think. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say it should be removed, just saying OED is a descriptive dictionary - a fact apparently no one else above me was aware of. The discussion about bias is irrelevant if one acknowledges that. For instance, the definition could be how feminists talk about antifeminism and define it - and as such it is notable and covered by a RS dictionary - it should be included. A bit problematic though for readers who aren't familiar with these dictionaries. --Pudeo' 13:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/colleen_carroll_campbell/2010/05/pro-life_feminism_is_the_future.html
  2. ^ Mary Krane Derr; Rachel MacNair; Linda Naranjo-Huebl (2005). Prolife Feminism: Yesterday and Today. Feminism and Nonviolence Studies Association. ISBN 1413495761.
  3. ^ "Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism." - Oxford English Dictionary
  4. ^ a b Cathy Young (July 1994). "Man Troubles: Making Sense of the Men's Movement". Reason. Mas*cu*lism, n. 1. the belief that equality between the sexes requires the recognition and redress of prejudice and discrimination against men as well as women. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ http://www.allwords.com/word-masculism.html
  6. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinist
  7. ^ Susan B. Boyd; Dorothy E. Chunn; Hester Lessard (2007). Reaction and resistance: feminism, law, and social change. UBC Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 9780774814119.
  8. ^ E. Belfort Bax, The Fraud of Feminism, at Marxists.org
  9. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/gender-women
  10. ^ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001847133_stupidboys30.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifeminism/Archive_4&oldid=1142752590"