Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Edward H. Clarke

Unnotable person, unrelated book (written before feminism), shoudl be removed.

Also the massively undue Kimmel thing should be reduced to 1 sentence or 2 at most. --Niemti (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Clarke book does seem to be used as an example of antifeminism in other sources when I googled it. But it does predate the coining of feminism itself. As for Kimmel, he is a leading expert on MRA and antifeminism. I am not opposed to reducing size of the paragraphs, but as a leading expert 1 or 2 sentences is too little. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a very strange definition - oppose "women's entry into the public sphere, the re-organization of the private sphere, women's control of their bodies, and women's rights generally."? I guess it makes the Taliban such an "antifeminist" organization, despite never talking about feminism and generally not even knowing feminism exists? While (let's say) these girls oppose "women's entry into the public sphere, the re-organization of the private sphere, women's control of their bodies, and women's rights generally" just because they are against the feminist movement? If it was at least "or" instead of "and" at the end, it would be a little less of an attack - but now an it seems these girls areopposing "women's rights generally", that is (citing Wikipedia) they are against their rights "to hold public office; to work; to fair wages or equal pay;" etc.?? --Niemti (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

1873 does not predate feminism... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, atleast continuity is claimed but we don't know in which modern feminist camp early suffrage activist would sit in, or if they would at all (in comparision you'd have to be careful about the connection between today's libertarians and 19th century classical liberals). Not to just chit-chat WP:FORUM-like, but we have to be careful when combining some sources to not to synthethize two things 150 years apart the wrong way in an article, unless the sources explicitly compare them. --Pudeo' 19:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese Dictionaries pin the first use of the term around 1890s. That's what I'm referring to. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

History isn't all etymology. Movements for women's equality and for female education specifically predated this document. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Good point. I think if we source it with a book/article that uses it as an example of resistance to the women's movements of the 19th century then it would be very appropriate to include here. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is just a super-quick Google, but it looks like Eliza Bisbee Duffey wrote a response to it the following year, and it's also mentioned in this recent secondary source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is intersting to note that this supposed "19th century feminist" from the (unourced, orphan) article Eliza Bisbee Duffey was against abortion according to Wikipedia - just like some of the supposed "antifeminist organizations" of today, while the article also implies the antifeminist necesserily are "and against women's rights in general". Isn't all confusing and contradictory? Antifeminism should be (like the super short lead says) an opposition to feminist movement, while opposition to women's education (and somtimes also "and women's rights in general") is something completely different (and this actually includes the Taliban and many of other Islamists). Also there is this - Like most feminists of her time, she also opposed firmly abortion as a crime. - did she/they even consider themselves feminists, or is it some retrospective label by the others (like this "Jesus was a communist")? --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Depth

Hello, I came here looking for some Criticisms of Feminism, or more precisely for arguments, terminology and scholars who write on the subject.

If I were to read this article with no prior knowledge, I would assume that the only way one could be anti-feminist, is if one was a traditionalist, nostalgic for times when men were deemed superior. There are liberal arguments against modern feminism that exist, and none of it is reflected in this article. Just thought I'd mention that this article is pretty simplistic and nigh useless as a redirection of 'Criticisms of Feminism'.

Thank you to whoever created the Further Reading section though. I think there may be one or two of those sources that are not utterly biased towards so-called 'family values'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.51.191 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Definition

"Antifeminism" is viewed by some as a loaded word because antifeminism is widely seen as an attempt to undermine legitimate concerns of women's rights and propagate misogynistic ideology." is still unsourced, shall we comment it out? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment it out. I can't find any decent source for the statement. Only found tumblr and and article on avoiceformen that's just a page setting up a youtube video and mocking rape victims. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight given to essay

In the 20th Century History subsection way too much copy is devoted to a somewhat overstated summation (by an annonymous editor) of an essay by feminist historian Landon Storrs. I plan to pare it down quite signicantly. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

I've reverted TRIGGERWARNING as he removed the lead. It may have repeated 1 word twice but it explains the whole page, if you have opposition you can re-write or expand, but don't remove. No reason behind removing the book reference was provided. It is a well known book about the antifeminism of modern as well as middle age society. You can draw a lots of idea from it. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is how a lead should look like like: WP:LEAD - you should actually read (it in its entirety). As for my tag, on a second thought it's just a pretty bad article (inclduing for the reasons the anon pointed out in the section above) and so probably shouldn't be summarized - yet.

And the book isn't an example "antifeminist literature" as you (falsely) classified it, placing it on the very top of the list - in fact it's anti-antifeminist literature. http://www.amazon.com/Anti-feminism-Academy-Veve-Clark/dp/0415910714 And "antifeminism of middle age society" is an oxymoron, because there was no feminism of middle age society (because such movement didn't exist).

Btw, the list of (real) antifeminist literature contains a link to Fascinating Womanhood. Fascinating Womanhood#Fascinating Womanhood movement should be probably added to the movements. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Referring to a guideline without talking about the correct note is certainly misuse of it. Certainly you have no idea about writing a lead or understanding of any references.

Last time I had checked that Routledge publishes high quality of books. So disregarding it as "anti - antifeminist" is a clear bias. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

References? It wasn't a reference, it's a further reading section (WP:FURTHER). The whole point is the book IS NOT antifeminist, it's very pro-feminist, but you inserted it as a number one position in the category "Antifeminist literature". Geez. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If it had to be used as reference you will probably disregard because you don't have the correct idea about references. If it is 'pro feminist', it your opinion. The book is published and written by reliable sources of the subject and comes under our guidelines. That is the main concern. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh FFS: [http://www.amazon.com/Anti-feminism-Academy-Veve-Clark/dp/0415910714 Book Description: Contending that the anti-feminist backlash in the academy is part of the broader "politically correct" rhetoric, this collection of writers, academics and activists is a much-needed response to the assault on feminist thinkers and critics in the academy today. Review: ...Antifeminism in the Academy not only provides a careful look at the backlash against the success of Women's Studies and the progress of women in academia, but also suggests effective responses. –NWSA Journal] < not my opinion. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

TW is absolutely right here. It's a useful reference, it is not an example of antifeminist literature. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Let's leave the book alone, it wasn't used as reference but only added to further reading. It should be added to further reading or not, it hasn't been explained till now.

Trigger, but what about the lead? One liner is probably not enough, at least when it was asked to expand the lead, and you have removed tag without making any improvement. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I changed my mind and the lead should be written only to summarize the article once it's much more complete and properly written. About which I agree with what the anon user wrote in the section above. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I haven't seen any proposal from you, so I can't tell what you are trying to say. Which section you are talking about, can you link or name it? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole content is a stub. I guess the article should be rewritten and expanded in a way similar to either feminism, or the other "anti" articles (anti-communism, anti-fascism, anti-capitalism, etc). Probably moved to anti-feminism, too - per norm. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have issue if it exceeds 300 characters. You may want to prepare one. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what 300 characters you talk about, and the section is #Depth. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You named 3 articles, 2 of them exceeded 250 characters, but anti-communist has larger lead. It is because 250 characters are more common. If you are to prepare a lead that would exceed 300 characters, I wouldn't have issue. That's what I said. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything about any characters, I said let's wait until the article is better before summarizing it. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

comment Relying on a dictionary definition to describe antifeminism is weak. The Dictionary definition should be removed. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Ecole Polytechnique massacre

I have added the following in the history section. The perpetrator of the ecole polytechnique killings openly described himself as an antifeminist.

In 1989, antifeminism was heavily discussed in Canada following the École Polytechnique massacre. The perpetrator targeted female students, killing 14 female students. Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that was representative of wider societal violence against women. The Government of Canada and criminal justice officials feared that extensive public discussion about the killings could lead to further antifeminist violence. As a result, a public inquiry was not held, the perpetrator's suicide letter was not officially released and the resulting police investigation was not made public.

References

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

With that amount of sources, I'm not sure what the problem is with including it. Tutelary (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It got caught up in a revert of other stuff since a number of edits were made in quick succession. I think it may be useful to include, sure (although we should make sure that we're adequately reflecting the balance of all sources on the subject). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent vandalism in lead

Opening this section in hopes the IP editors will come talk about their recent edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for article change

Requesting addition of Anti-suffragism to the See also section. There is some discussion of Suffrage but no link to this article despite its considerable overlap --94.175.85.144 (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Any contention?

To me changing the lead back to 'Antifeminism is the opposition to all or some parts of Feminism.' That's the only change I would make, and I'm gauging responses so there is not an edit war. Tutelary (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I like the currently form. What exactly do you want to change it to? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Antifeminism is the opposition to all or some parts of Feminism. Where did the current definition even come from and what is its source where it came from? Tutelary (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a good definition to me. Considering how much factionalism there is within the feminist movement, that definition would mean that most feminists are also antifeminists (since they are opposed to "some parts" of the feminist movement). I do think, however, that "a term for" could be removed from the opening sentence without changing its meaning. Kaldari (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We're actually not here to make up definitions, but to examine sources and build an encompassing lead based on that. For instance, Oxford uses Opposed to feminism as that. But who changed the lead to say an 'idealogy' because I cannot find sources to support this. Tutelary (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The change was made July 15 by WikiCAWcaw in this edit. The support for "ideology" appears to come from the Michael Flood section. A quick search does show "ideology" is sometimes used in reference to antifeminism (1, 2). That said, I am against going back to the one sentence lead. Per WP:LEAD, we need more. Note, "a term for" seems to be a more neutral way of saying refers. I've seen an admin use however. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Those seem to be more discussing anti feminist idealogies than the word itself. I am simply proposing that instead of using the definition already in the article, we change it back to the longstanding version of 'Opposition to feminism' and keep the rest of the stuff in. Tutelary (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Wikipedia articles (unlike Wiktionary) are supposed to be about ideas, not words. We should be describing antifeminism, not "the term" antifeminism. It seems like every contentious article on Wikipedia falls into this trap of becoming a dictionary article instead of an encyclopedia article :P Kaldari (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari - Take out the "term for" then. I don't have much problem with that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Feminism is not a gender, it's an ideology, so Wikipedia can't state being antifeminist is anti-woman, especially since the majority of women are NOT Feminists (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/may/1/liberated-72-percent-americans-say-theyre-not-femi/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html). It's also not NPV to state antifeminists are of a particular gender. Just check out the #womenagainstfeminism tag on Twitter. 198.84.184.52 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR. We're citing a dictionary that most anti-feminists are men. We also have RS that say anti-feminism is anti-woman. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The lone citation link doesn't work. 198.84.184.52 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It works, it's just behind a paywall. It has been verified (mentioned somewhere on the talk page already). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why can't you use one of the many freely available online dictionaries? People won't be able to use your link 198.84.184.52 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see an argument for using another source that doesn't proceed from a desire to change the content and then find a source somewhere that supports the change, rather than the belief that another source would be better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The only other readily available definition of antifeminism is The Free Dictionary which defines it as "Characterized by ideas or behavior reflecting a disbelief in the economic, political, and social equality of the sexes." That does not seem better than the current one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Then we'll have to go with that since that link works and is what people can actually access. 198.84.184.52 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, here's a couple that back up the original wording of "Antifeminism is the opposition to all or some parts of Feminism." : http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/antifeminism, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antifeminism 198.84.184.52 (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, you still haven't addressed the fact that Feminism isn't a gender, it's an ideology, and that the majority of women aren't Feminists (citations provided), therefore it doesn't represent the majority of women, so opposing the Feminist ideology can't be considered anti-woman. 198.84.184.52 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I already address that second thing as WP:OR. We go by what sources say, not contributors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

And the way it's written now IS original research and violates WP:OR. The original wording is complient with WP:OR, "Antifeminism is the opposition to all or some parts of Feminism." 198.84.184.52 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You confuse WP:OR with WP:LEAD. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've already written before, OED is a descriptive dictionary which means they define the word how its observed use was.

Let's quote it from OED: "1924 G. B. Shaw Saint Joan Pref. p. x, If a historian is an Anti-Feminist, and does not believe women to be capable of genius in the traditional masculine departments, he will never make anything of Joan, whose genius was turned to practical account mainly in soldiering and politics.    1930 C. S. Lewis Let. 10 June (1966) 141 His taking—what one expects to find mentioned only in anti-feminists—the Lilithian desire to be admired.    1936 H. Nicolson Let. 2 Dec. (1966) 281 How I loathe and detest women.‥ I am feeling very anti-feminist tonight. I loathe women. The only thing that will make them behave decently is to give them complete equality and no privileges.    1970 R. Barber Knight & Chivalry ii. viii. 131 Jean‥is on the side of the clerks, when he is not being openly antifeminist.    1982 N.Y. Times Mag. 5 Sept. 46 Many points were valid and even antifeminists have seen the hopelessness of arguing against them."

Apparently it's a pretty old definition, earliest mention from George Bernard Shaw from 1924 and was likely used as a softer variant of misogyny. It doesn't mean it's the common use of the word. It should stay in the article, but probably not as a primary definition. The primary definition for being opposed to women is misogyny. --Pudeo' 01:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You're twisting yourself in knots here. It's a descriptive dictionary of usage, but we can't use it because it doesn't illustrate the "common use of the word"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"primary definition for being opposed to women is misogyny" But Feminism is an ideology, NOT a gender. The majority of women are NOT Feminists (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/may/1/liberated-72-percent-americans-say-theyre-not-femi/ and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html). 198.84.184.52 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting the Dictionary Definition

The Oxford English Dictionary defines an antifeminist as "one opposed to women or to feminism; a person (usually a man) who is hostile to sexual equality or to the advocacy of women's rights."

The use of the dictionary definition claiming that people who are antifeminist are "usually men" is not NPOV. I have deleted it.

• 1. It is cherry picking.
• 2. It gives undue weight to the claim that it is "usually men" who are antifeminist. This claim is not substantiated in the article.
• 3. As demonstrated above the dictionary definition is rooted in a bygone era

Justifications:

• - Anti-suffragism
• - Women Against Feminism
• - Who Needs Feminism
• - Timeline of antifeminism in the United States - Numerous female antifeminists.
• - Links from IP above about journalistic discussion of women who are anti-feminist

I've deleted the (only) reference to the dictionary definition. The lead section obviously needs to be expanded. I would welcome further discussion about this.

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted as a bold edit. No consensus to change as seen above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a good essay for you to read is WP:DRNC. To limit ourselves to dictionary definitions is archaic and not needed and is a symptom of a bureaucracy which matters more on rules rather than actuality. I endorse its removal. Our definition does not meet to match up with formal online dictionaries'. Tutelary (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, as I clearly said, I reverted it as a bold edit. Frankly I think the definition is apt. The main reason people revert is because it says "usually a man" (which is true). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the empirical evidence for "usually a man?" It seems to me that the dictionary definition goes beyond what a dictionary should do. A dictionary should not make statements of fact without supporting evidence. Imagine if the dictionary definition of "anti-masculinist" included: usually a woman. That inappropriately goes beyond the actual definition of the term. Memills (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Go re-read WP:RS. Also, to answer your question, Toller, Suter, and Trautman (2004), Nelson et al. (1997) in Sex Roles, and Burn, Aboud, and Moyles (2000) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Toller, Suter, and Trautman (2004) surveyed "118 (40.3%) male and 175 (59.7%) female students" -- er, not too representative of a sample. Further, they do not report frequency or percentage data of the male and female students who self-identified as "feminist" (or "anti-feminist").

Roles, and Burn, Aboud, and Moyles (2000) used a similarly small, non-representative sample of university students. They do report percentages, but they don't support the contention:

"I agree with most of the objectives of the feminist movement, but do not consider myself a feminist" Females: 36.2 Males: 31.7

"I agree with some of the objectives of the feminist movement" Females 32.2 Males 30.5

They stated: "Only 29 of 174 females (16.6%) and only 3 of the 82 males (3.7%) checked one of the three options with a self-described feminist label."

The great majority of both males and females in this study did not self-identify as "feminists." Memills (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There isn't much research on antifeminism, but those cites show that non-feminists and anti-feminists are more often men. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• @ACanadianToker: I would've removed the tag once again, but I thought of asking you.. Have you got better lead? I know that the current lead is not good at all, copying a definition from oxford is certainly not too good. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The current lead's neutrality is non existent. The dictionary def. is a cherry picked source that puts forward an sexist claim that is not supported by Academia, not supported by journalism, not supported by other articles and not even supported by this article itself. I have a few different ideas for what a lead could include, but would prefer to focus on reaching consensus on this discussion first. What are your thoughts on my bold, @OccultZone:? A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@ACanadianToker: Again I don't think that there was any need of this lead at all! Look at this [1]. A user removed it, but now he's blocked for 1 month as he was edit warring on this page. Since your next edit may violate 3 revert rule, I would like to ask, do you want the current definition to be removed or restore the previous lead[2] ? Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone, I would like to focus on achieving consensus on the deletion of the contentious dictionary definiton. I do not want to engage in a side discussion about restoring previous edits. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I will probably wait till tomorrow. Well, no one else opposed the previous lead so there is a chance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Found a good book on anti-feminism. Skimming it now re: lead, but if someone with more time who actually is interested in this topic want to read it, here's the info: Faludi, Susan (1991). Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. Crown Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-517-57698-8. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:, at first blush it appears as if that book would be very useful in expanding the 20th century section - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

BOLD August 26

Antifeminism is an ideology that is broadly defined as an opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism. The meaning of antifeminism has varied across time and cultures and the antifeminist ideology attracts both men and women. Some women, for example the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League campaigned against women's suffrage. Emma Goldman, for example, was widely considered antifeminist during her fight against suffragism in the US. Decades later, however, she was heralded as a founder of anarcha-feminism. Sometimes antifeminism can lead to violence such as the self described anti-feminist killings at the École Polytechnique massacre.

Antifeminists are often critical of modern feminism claiming that "[t]here is a hard core of misandry and victim-culture in modern feminism that is deeply disturbing." Some self described feminist authors critical of some aspects of Feminism are labelled antifeminist in order to silence their dissent. Contemporary antifeminism has been reflected in social media campaigns such as Women Against Feminism and Who Needs Feminism.

I tried to make the lead reflective of the broader topics discussed in the article. I am only seeking to remove the POV loaded dictionary definition, keep in mind there is still a lead expansion tag. I don't own this, I expect it to change and welcome others' input. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I readded the tags until there is clear consensus - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It can be removed now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes to lede

I'm curious as to why the lede was redesigned in this way. Shouldn't it be more reflective of other anti-civil rights movement such as LGBT rights opposition? And no mention at all of anti-suffragism? This isn't a recent thing, people have opposed women's rights for centuries --94.175.85.144 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree the lead needs to be expanded to reflect the body of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We would need to have sources connecting anti suffrage to antifeminism, lest we engage in original research. Tutelary (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That's very easy to do with a very cursory search. I agree that we can elaborate on some of the goals antifeminist movements have/have had (and suggested as much in my edit summary). Opposition to suffrage, the ERA (in the United States), education, whatnot. Not that the article itself is a fantastic layout of these issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you joking? The feminism movement existed during suffragism, so it is opposition to a specific kind of feminism. Here are some modern day antifeminist websites who also oppose suffrage: dead link] dead link] [3] [4] [5]. Interesting to see you yet again Tutelary, undermining the point you made on the men's rights movement page about original research. I guess this doesn't support your POV though --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally support this version [6] but I am unable to revert to it due to the IP blocker. It covers the violence associated with antifeminism and its roots in antisuffragism, as well as the modern day versions and the reasoning behind it --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Revert lede to this version: [7] per talk page comments above, it gives due weight to both positions concerning antifeminism, covers the subject across the history of feminism rather than just contemporary antifeminism, and contains links to important articles on the subject --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That version would need a fair amount of revision to comport with WP:LEAD. We need to summarize the article better. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well some aspects of it should be considered. There is no mention whatsoever of Suffrage now --94.175.85.144 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the lede to [8] More or less. See Talk:Antifeminism#Lead_as_of_September_1- A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead as of September 1

I've reverted the lead to [9]. While far from perfect I think it resolves several of the issues we've been discussing. The main difference between this edit and [10] is that its been reogranized. Also I included some of the wording that was there since [11].

Areas of improvement that come to mind (aside from wording) is an expansion of the violence and contemporary antifeminist descriptions [which would coincide with needed respective expansions in the article].

Antifeminism is an ideology that is broadly defined as an opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism. The meaning of antifeminism has varied across time and cultures and it has attracted both men and women. Antifeminism may include beliefs such as general hostility towards women's rights, the belief that feminist theories of patriarchy and disadvantages suffered by women in society are incorrect or exaggerated, or that feminism as a movement encourages misandry and seeks to harm or oppress men.

Women, for example the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League campaigned against feminism and women's suffrage. Emma Goldman, for example, was widely considered antifeminist during her fight against suffragism in the US. Some mainstream-feminists label critical authors as anti-feminist in order to silence their dissent.

Contemporary antifeminism has been reflected in social media campaigns such as Women Against Feminism, Who Needs Feminism, among others. A common theme in these social media campaigns is that there is a hard core of misandry and victim-culture in modern feminism that is deeply disturbing."

Antifeminism can sometimes lead to political violence such as the self described anti-feminist killings at the École Polytechnique massacre.

I would like to hear others' thoughts,

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Any interest in addressing the reasons I gave for removing those paragraphs? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, would you mind reiterating why you removed them for clarity's sake?

Okay, half the problem with the lead is a problem with the article itself. There's far too heavy of a focus on women antifeminists, despite that they have been a power minority in the movement/ideology. How have we come this far and now mentioned MRAs? Frankly I'd say revert the lead, add to the article, and re-do the lead. (Curious what this page looked like a year ago). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that several items in the lead have UNDUE weight. The sentence about Emma Goldman is not only undue, but downright misleading. Emma Goldman was never "widely" considered antifeminist. She opposed voting in general (for men and women) and declared the suffrage movement a distraction from revolutionary class struggle. In the exact same essays she clearly argues that men and women should be considered equals: "I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed." Kaldari (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, I'd appreciate your input. I can't seem to find it here. As for the Emma Goldman bit it is unclear I agree. That being said she was an anti-suffragette and that clearly places her in opposition to some of the political goals of early feminism. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out that the focus on women antifeminists was vastly undue and that the attention to eg. Women Against Feminism social-media campaigns was undue and recentist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving the information about Emma Goldman in the article, but I definitely don't think it's appropriate for the lead. Whether or not she was an "antifeminist" is debatable, but she definitely wasn't a typical example of one. Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

UNDUE tag - WAY too much weight given to women antifeminsts

I have added UNDUE to the list of issues. The article focuses way too heavily on women's involvement in the movement/ideology but doesn't even mention modern antifeminists (esp. vis-a-vis MRAs). List of specific undue areas:

• Antifeminism#Definition has two of its five paragraphs dedicating to listing women labeled as antifeminists. The last paragraph in particular fails to mention any male-lead anti-suffrage groups despite them being the majority.
• The 19th century section can be greatly expanded regarding anti-suffrage antifeminism.
• Antifeminism#21st century focuses solely on women's role in antifeminism.
• Antifeminism#Organizations names a woman as the founder of one of three groups mentioned, and another group is by women as well. There are certainly more groups than this.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, not completely. The Manipulated Man, arguably the most famous antifeminist polemic, was written by a woman, and I don't see it mentioned in the article. This article, like most Wikipedia articles, gives a dreadfully incomplete coverage of the topic. All aspects of it need to be expanded. Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, if you have RS linking MRA with antifeminists please put it into the lead or/and the article proper. I agree with you, the antisuffragism, and the 21st century both need to be expanded. The article generally needs to be expanded, and that includes the organizations sections as well. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Post Scriptum. I'm going to work on integrating some information from men's rights movement, male privilege, and MRA pages over the weekend. 00:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)

• How timely, Kate Millett's sister just wrote a polemic in FrontPage Magazine, saying that "Marxist feminists ruined lives". Add it to this article? Cla68 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • More primary sources = one of the last thing this article needs, and FrontPage is a particularly ludicrous choice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The sister of one of the most prominent 2nd wave feminists gives her view, and it's ludicrous? Wow, just wow. Anyway, the problem here, IMO, is that when women criticize feminism, the media gives it more attention, Ms Millett and Women Against Feminism being two examples. The media mainly ignores male anti-feminists, like men's rights activists. So, I think the reason this article has so many examples of female anti-feminists is because they are more sources for that perspective. Cla68 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Uh, notability is not inherited. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Did you read the article? Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, why? It's a primary document by a non-notable person in a blatantly poor source; why would you think it might be saved on content? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove Michael Kimmel as main source

The page is outrages and why is Michael Kimmel used as main source to describe Anti-feminism, it can be compared to the Republican party was allowed to describing the Democratic party. Kimmel is a male feminist, the information is biased and borderline slander. It should be a real antifeminist, who was used as main source, while Kimmel could referred to as the opponent etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.242.192.18 (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't, Kimmel is a sociologist and teaches at a distinguished University, he also runs a men's issues journal called Men and Masculinities. Would you rather have somebody who hasn't written on or studied sociology in any way gave their opinion on the subject? Wikipedia prefers academic sources --94.175.85.144 (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest 94.175.85.144 asks a professor of fundamentalist islam in Iran to provide a thorough definition of judaism. Sounds like a great idea. It's all good as long as he has a university title, right? 129.240.223.43 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"19th century .... other antifemnists" (again)

I say let's rid of all of this (the whole section), because there were NO antifeminists before there was feminism. Only those specificially declaring themselves as antifeminists, or as critics of / being opposed to feminism, should count. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever gives you the impression that the 19th century predated feminism?? Feminism didn't start in the 1960s! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There are attempts to retro-actively label people and ideas and groups and movements of the past as "feminist". Like the article suffragette having feminism/feminist only in... the infobox and categories. But when you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women%27s_suffrage or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suffragists it's not in the categories "feminism" / "feminists". And rightly so. A feminist should be someone who declares themselves "a feminist". Just like an "anti-feminist" should be one who declares to be against "feminism" (and this ranges from this Canadian psycho mass killer to these women on tumblr and everything in between). Otherwise one can apply anything, such as for example Taliban treatment of women (or just Sharia in general). Which of course is absurd, but so is extending "feminism" to for example Joan "of Arc" (not really), a mentally ill Catholic fanatic who was used as a poster-girl and then abandoned to death by literal patriarchy but who is incredibly regarded as a feminist by some. Btw I just found out there's an article postfeminism. From a quick glance I thought that I don't need feminism trend might be maybe better represented there, but the media coverage qualify them as "anti-feminists" (or "new anti-feminist") and never use "post" anything.[12][13][14] One things is sure, this also is reaction to "feminism" (as in the movement and the people declaring themselves as such) and to nothing else. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Feminism DID start in the 60s. Maybe 50s, but that's streching it. Even Simone de Beauvoir, who pretty much wrote the book on what feminism is, hesitated until 1972 before she would apply the word feminist to herself. The suffragettes didn't call themselves feminists. They were later dubbed "first wave feminists" by the feminists of the 60s, who were the actual first feminists. This "proto-feminism"-stuff is nonsense. I train taekwondo, and it reminds me of how the koreans try to make the claim that taekwondo is thousands of years old (by making references to other martial arts) - while the truth is taekwondo emerged as a mixture between karate, korean kicking styles and competition sparring after WW2. 129.240.223.43 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That was second-wave feminism. First wave was at the turn of the century. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. The "second wave feminists" invented the concept of "first wave feminism". The so called "first wave feminists" called themselves "suffragettes", and were part of a larger struggle for democracy, fighting to extend the right to vote.129.240.223.43 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, we frequently use words whose coinage postdates the thing they describe (such as "America"). That's just how history works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And that's modern times too, btw. Like with STOP ERA thing, it appears to be just a conservative movement - the article Equal Rights Amendment does not mention "antifeminism/t" "anti-feminism/t" anywhere (but mentions "anti-ERA feminists with ties to labor"). OK, Phyllis Schlafly was not linked in the article, and from her article it appears she is indeed an anti-feminist. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Or not the whole section. Just Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy. and "other" from "other antifeminists" (if the book cited then actually says so, because I didn't check). Not only this example is absurdly stupid, it also simply predates the term feminism (which is like discussing "antifascism" from the times before fascism was defined). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Timeline of antifeminism in the United States should also be either completely rewritten or deleted. It randomly mixes so many random things, including anti-abortion movement (there pro-life feminists, are they "anti-feminist feminists"?) etc. A complete mess. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletion of that paragraph per WP:BRD. Have you seen the discussion above #Edward H. Clarke?

How is this of any importance and not an incredibly stupid opinion of nobody important (no Wikipedia article) and also not WP:FRINGE? I don't know if all these people at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Critics_of_feminism are categorized properly (and does their "criticism" translate into "antifeminism"), but they're all notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. (It does appear to be pretty random. It actually lacks even this Canadian mass killer of women who actually professed he wanted to murder feminists (even as he shot just some random women instead), but there's a killer of a man in whose article the word "feminism"/"feminist" appears only once as part of this category.) --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you could benefit from reading Feminism#History. Like Roscelese said, feminism didn't start in the 1960s (or antifeminism). Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything about "1960s"?? And the Wikipedia article section you've linked to me says: "The words "feminism" and "feminist" first appeared in France and the Netherlands in 1872,[15] Great Britain in the 1890s". The book, besides being an incredibly idiotic fringe theory from 19th century (cited only to the theory itself, written by nobody important), could not be "antifeminist", because there was no "feminism" in the UK in 1873 when it was published (but really it's juts WP:UNDUE promotion of WP:FRINGE with no WP:RS to discuss it in any way). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that a secondary source would be useful, the continued assertion that no movements for women's equality existed before the coinage of the term "feminism" is nonsense. I suppose the continent of America also emerged from the oceans in 1507. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@SNAAAKE: It is not actually fringe and BRD applies when you are about to make new change, not when you are removing the reliable content for no real reason. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.. Oh, his idiotic book is absolutely NOT reliable content, as you can observe seeing that in almost 150 years since then the women's brains didn't "grow heavy" and their wombs didn't "atrophy". --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that Salvidrim! has locked the article for a week to cut off the edit war, and Snake/Niemti has been blocked for a month for 3RR violation as part of a long-term pattern of abuse. If you wish the block level to be changed, talk to Salvidrim!.--PresN 22:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

PresN Open a report on WP:AN3. They violated 3RR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Apologies. I see you are an admin and took care of it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Salvidrim! Please revert page to pre-bold edit state. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the article back to the exact revision that the first revert brought it to, because that is where it should have stayed until the formation of consensus (per BRD). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Salvidrim! My brain ain't working... yes, I see you did now. Thank you kindly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename to "criticism of feminism" or similar

It is ridiculous to have a narrow title like anti-feminism when you talk about criticism of feminism. Feminism is a broad ideology with many academic and societal movements within it. Criticisms of such an ideology do not necessarily make you "anti"- it. If I criticize Leninism, I am not neccesarily an "anti-communist". People like Christina Hoff Sommers criticize some aspects of feminism while still labeling themselves as feminists. Labelling any critique of feminism as "anti-feminism" automatically ignores such people's critiques and stifles a lot of views on feminism from being included here.--MrEpsilon (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If you believe they are distinct phenomena, consider creating a new article on criticism of feminism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Be sure to find WP:RS that support you though (and good luck...) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent large revert

[15] You know, when someone takes the time to add more information to this article, it's really, really rude to revert it, unless it's a BLP violation, without talking about it first. If consensus is not to add additional information to that section, that's fine, but there's absolutely no harm in talking it over BEFORE removing the added text instead of flipping me the bird by reverting me. I don't contribute to WP so much anymore. So, when I do so and somebody deletes my effort to help improve and article, it reminds me of just how much WP sucks and the original reason why I reduced my activity here. The person who reverted me didn't even have the common courtesy to start a new section to discuss it. Good gracious, what's the matter with this hateful place? Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We've been over this before. It's undue to have so much about womenagainstfeminism. You made a WP:BOLD edit, I reverted it. Now we discuss. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh look... #UNDUE tag - WAY too much weight given to women antifeminsts above EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So, you basically stated that, in your opinion, the article is wrong and are now trying to enforce your view of it by reverting others' attempts to expand the article. You know what makes it even more frustrating is that YOU haven't even done anything to try to fix it. You just complained about the article not meeting your standards and have followed that up by reverting anyone that makes an edit that violates the standard that YOU set, without even bothering to try to fix the article yourself. Could you please point me to example of someone doing something in WP that was any more obstructive? Cla68 (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I could but I won't. You dropped the conversation about UNDUE before despite being asked questions. Now you return to try to push more for your edits. Go make a page about WomenAgainstFeminism if it's notable enough to have so much info. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014

50.27.57.137 (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Definitions by Michel Flood and other gender studies educators and or advocate of leftist political ideology counts as bias and NOT a definition of Anti-Feminist. Get legitimate sources.

A Voice for Men would be a Start.

 Not done WP:RS –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Chinweizu's Anatomy of Female Power

This is a less known book by Chinweizu Ibekwe that is clearly anti-feminist (see below). Could someone add it under the Literature section? A summary of the book, along with the PDF scanned copy, can be found here: http://therawness.com/anatomy-of-female-power-download-and-discussion-page/

Highlights from the book

• Feminism is a revolt in paradise
• Men may rule the world, but women rule the men who rule the world.
• When his penis stands up, a man’s brain takes French leave
• The brunt of the double standard is borne, not by women, but by men
• A macho is a strutting factotum with bulging biceps, stone-dry eyes, brains that are ruled by his gonads, and an ego indoctrinated to believe that he is the lord and master of the woman who rules him.
• The modern musho (the new or feminal man) is one of that breed of diffident men who have been bullied, guilt-tripped, ego-bashed and penis-twisted into pram pushing, diaper changing and breast envy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.160.146 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like a charming book... but is it notable enough to be included? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Opposition to female suffrage in lead

I recently made a good change to the lead by placing the opposition to female suffrage in some historical context and earlier in the lead than it was (and now is again) which is right at the end. The editor who reverted my edit claimed that it was unsourced, but as the fact is already sourced (to Maddux) in the body of the article this wasn't really necessary. Besides that editor could easily have sourced it himself. I suggest that my edit be restored. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that should be there, but where were you suggesting it go? The lead as it is now talks about some of the beliefs of anti feminists and then the suffrage bit is listed... - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"One historic goal of antifeminists was opposition to women's suffrage."

It's true that suffrage was one of the main sticking points of anti-feminism. I'm all for a well-composed sentence saying so, highlighting the importance. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the problem isn't that it's there, it's that we don't identify other causes espoused by antifeminists. If people can add and source more, that would be great. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

People seem to be missing the point of my request above. Placing opposition to female suffrage at the end of the lead as an "historic goal of antifeminism" is less than ideal. Even in a brief lead there should be some sense of chronology and opposition to female suffrage in the West (as the focus of this article seems to be the advanced industrial nations) was antifeminism's centerpiece back when suffrage was feminism's centerpiece. That was during the First Wave Feminism of the 19th and early 20th century. Thus the fact should appear earlier in the lead and specifically be tied to that time period. It shouldn't be a tag line at the end. Also, why say "historic" which is ambivalent in this context (Does it merely mean important in history or ongoing through history; it can mean either or both?). 131.109.225.24 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this seems reasonable to me. You could register as an editor and make the change yourself, but I'll give it a try. KatieHepPal (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It should not be in the lead at all. It does not belong there. Galestar (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is that? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

For the very reason you want it in there: It's there only to poison the well. It's like mentioning in the lead of the article about feminism that an example of a belief some feminists have is that all men should be castrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.11.109 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Galestar. An Anti-suffragism article already exists 80.111.246.210 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Alexis Christian

References

Criticism of Feminism

Why does Criticism of Feminism not warrant its own article or even subheading on the Feminism page? Everything from Socialism to Democracy have their own separate criticism pages. But not Feminism. Why not?

Is antifeminism not a criticism of feminism? Meşteşugarul - U 09:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The non-NPOV of the editors of this page have made this article more a "criticism of critics of feminism" than a "criticisms of feminism" page. Galestar (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the article attempting to illustrate? Is it trying to accurately represent the ideas and concepts of those who identify as anti-feminists? Is the article trying to represent a group of ideas and concepts feminists believe are anti-feminism? This question has to be resolved first, and then a coherent entry can be structured. At present is seems to constructed of, almost entirely, claims by feminists about critiques of feminism. The referencing, against almost entirely, seems to be constituted of just where these feminism oriented accusations were just first published. I think it would be helpful if the variable, feminism in this case, was just replaced with any other socio-political philosophy. For example, would there be an anti-capitalism, or anti-libertarian, or anti-communitarian entry on Wikipedia? If the answer is no, then that argument form holds here also. Unfortunately, there's a bit of a pattern on Wikipedia regarding this general subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.117.176 (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing the History of Anti-Feminism Section

That whole section needs to be redone. I'm thinking of having the history of Antifeminism be the same as the progression of Antifeminism and only move to a different time period when the motives have changed or when the antifeminists changed their tactics. Here's my proposed order:

1. Mid Twentieth Century: Antifeminism during the Second red Scare

  a.	The Washington Confidential post in 1951
    i.	How the government jobs for women increased and decreased afterwards
  b.	What politicians did to calm the storm
    i.	Used fear of communism to get people on their side
    ii.Feminazi
  c.	Initial motives of antifeminism and how people define feminism because of these motives

2. Late Twentieth Century: ERA campaigning

  a.	New Tactic: It’s Social injustice to those who wanted to change the hierarchy
  b.	Right-wing conservatives banded with powerful politicians to make the majority of the opposing vote
  c.	Demographics shifted here because feminism got more widespread and educated some people out
  d.	Why people who would benefit from the act still opposed it

3. Late Twentieth Century: After ERA

  a.	How antifeminists degraded feminism through media
  b.	New tactic: Feminism tears families apart
    i.	Masculinism
    ii.What the new demographics are and why such demographics are involved
    iii.Bell hooks’ mother is in this era. She can be an example

4. Anti Feminism today

  a.	“Women Against Feminism”
    i.	Demographics are “ignorant” people who misunderstand feminism or follow its bad stereotypes
    ii.Motives have become more about that there is no inequality so there shouldn’t be feminism

NYCCgirl1 (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)NYCCgirl1

Regarding recent unsourced changes

@Hmlewis 728:: Your edits are being removed because they are unsourced (we require sources for new info) original research (which we don't take). I've explained on your talk page how to identify and cite reliable sources, which you would need plenty of for your addition to avoid it just being just as much a strawman argument as you accuse feminists of making. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for the lead

Could we have some examples of antifeminism that is more recent? The current time is the late 20th / early 21th century. If anti-suffrage is still relevant that would imply that the antifeminists were either extremely stubborn or extremely inactive in the last 200 years. An example could be the rejection of compulsatory women ratios in management or public office.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we could use more examples. At least in the United States, opposition to antidiscrimination laws such as the ERA is a big one, and we can certainly think of more. I'm not sure how much "compulsatory [sic] women ratios" is a big organizing principle. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought about that, but cited/reliable sources are hard to find... there are articles on women ratios in management but no opinions are presented, and Wiki won't allow us to make our own. NYCCgirl1 (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)