Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Proposal for a more neutral lead

Antifeminism is broadly defined as opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism. It encompasses a wide variety of movements, ideas and attitudes that oppose feminism, which have attracted both men and women. As the focus of feminism has varied across time and cultures, the meaning of anitfeminism has too. For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the opposition to women's suffrage would be antifeminist. Many modern day critics of feminism maintain that the feminists theories of patriarchy and disadvantages suffered by women in todays society are incorrect or exaggerated, or that feminism as a movement encourages misandry and seeks to harm or oppress men.

It contains mostly the same information. I'm only leaving out this one:

Antifeminism may be motivated by general hostility towards women's rights,

because it's clearly another attempt at poisoning the well. At this point, we're still describing what antifeminism is, and so it's no place to insinuate that those adhering to it are actually motivated by something like an irrational hostility. Didaev (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

References

• Oppose - Material is reliably sourced. The suggested change gives equal validity to antifeminist claims, which is not the same thing as neutrality. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see in what way I'm giving more or less validity to anyone's claims than the previous version, it contains mostly the same information. And since you seem to disagree with this one being more neutral: Can you be a bit more specific, and explain which part isn't neutral?Didaev (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of the problems I have with the current version

Article review

Lead "Antifeminism is an ideology that is broadly defined as an opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism." Obviously, it's not an ideology, at best it's a trait an ideology can have. If we'd take Michael Flood's definition for example, then many different ideologies, which aren't even remotely similar, can be called antifeminist, and many would probably disagree with feminism on very different issues. "The meaning of antifeminism has varied across time and cultures and it has attracted both men and women." Obviously, the definition of antifeminism hasn't changed, it has always been "opposition to feminism". The fact that in practice, the attitudes which would make someone antifeminist have changed, is of course a direct result of the fact that feminism itself has changed. There's no reason to assume that people have changed their opinion, and that those who, for example, opposed women's suffrage are similar to those who think that these days, women aren't oppressed any more. By treating antifeminism as a single whole, it's trying to disqualify all criticism, through guilt by association. "Antifeminism may be motivated by general hostility towards women's rights" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive "the belief that feminist theories of patriarchy and disadvantages suffered by women in society are incorrect or exaggerated,[2][3] or that feminism as a movement encourages misandry and seeks to harm or oppress men." Seems fine to me. This seems to reflect the POV many critics of feminism do have. Note that at this point, we're not discussing what's true, only what antifeminists *believe*. "For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s it resisted women's suffrage.[4][5]" So far it has been treating antifeminism as a coherent whole, and so the fact this one is used as an example insinuates that this is a belief typical of this group as a whole. This is clearly not the case, and the author of the original lead obviously knew very well that most people would find this belief very objectionable, and so it was clearly an attempt at poisoning the well. It did leave it in my lead, but I made it clear that opposition to women's suffrage is antifeminist, not that opposition to women's suffrage is at all typical of those opposing feminism. Didaev (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Definition "Feminist sociologist Michael Flood ... and equitable arrangements (see timeline of women's rights (other than voting) and timeline of women's suffrage)." I think this is a very fair definition. The part about suffrages doesn't belong here though. "Michael Kimmel, a feminist ... perhaps also divinely sanctioned."[1]" This paragraph is very weird. It certainly shouldn't be under "definition", and frankly, I think it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. It seems like he's mostly just raging against his own ideal imaginary enemy, only to affirm his own stance. If I'd have to take it seriously, then I would assume that this part is his definition: "the opposition to women's equality.", and that the rest consists of conclusions he as arrived at through research. Now his definition is much narrower than Michael Flood's definition. Michael Flood's definition does include those which are for women's equality, but disagree with the feminist assessment that women currently are oppressed, while according to Michael Kimmels definition, those wouldn't qualify as antifeminists. Now I'm pretty sure that in practice, this would be by far the largest subgroup, and so the two definitions are very incompatible. This would be a pretty big problem for the rest of the article. But honestly, even his definition already seems a bit passive aggressive to me: What, you don't agree with my edifice? You mean, you don't think women should be equal to men? "Canadian sociologists, Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri, write that antifeminist thought has primarily taken the form of an extreme version masculinism, " More ad hominem. It's insinuating motivated reasoning: Antifeminist thought is something (probably pathological) which was already there, and that it needed to take form to sound like a genuine stance. It's a weird way of phrasing it anyway. Instead it should just state that there are antifeminists who believe that... "in which, "men are in crisis because of the feminization of society".[6] However, in the same article, they also note that, "little research has been done on antifeminism whether from the perspective of the sociology of social movements or even of women's studies," indicating that an understanding of what the full range of antifeminist ideology consists of is incomplete." Seems ok, some examples might be needed. I don't think it belongs in the definition section though. "Antifeminist" is also...the state of feminism.[10]" I don't think this belongs in the definition either. "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.[11]" I think it should be made clear that even though the definition hasn't changed, what it meant in practice has changed. Besides that, I think it's fine, and would fit the definition section.Didaev (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC) History 19th century "In the 19th century, the centerpiece of antifeminism was opposition to women's suffrage.[5]" Again, it's talking about it as if it's a single beast, which roars it's many different heads. There was opposition to women's suffrage, and it was this opposition which made it antifeminist, not the other way around. "Opposition and resisters have proclaimed their hatred for the alteration of gender roles." proclaimed their hatred? Honestly? "These people have worked diligently since then to slow down the crusade by creating their own: antifeminism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion "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.[23] Other antifeminists[dubious – discuss] opposed women's entry into the labor force, or their right to join unions, to sit on juries, or to obtain birth control and control of their sexuality.[1]" Should remain in there. " However, like any movement, antifeminism did not officially become recognized until its first observable action toward its goal in 1951." If it's true that, indeed, there was one big conspiracy against feminism, then you should state this flat out before making these suggestions: Describe honestly what their aims were, and what the proof of it is. Only after that would it be ok to refer to this conspiracy in this way.Didaev (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Masculinism "After the ERA was rejected, antifeminism grew a branch: masculinism." Again this "antifeminism" beast, which keeps on trying new lines of attack. If it's true that the things which happened with ERA somehow helped the appearance of masculinism, then give proof for that. Otherwise, keep the two separate. " Once feminists began suggesting ideologies like homosexual marriage, single mother households, and ultimately opposing the root purpose of antifeminism, it created a division of antifeminism that feels the “masculine identity has been spurned”." Again, you're insinuating that there's a root purpose. If this is the case, then it should be stated openly, and it should be explained what it's like. "[6] Consisting of mostly white men, it is debated whether masculinism is a social movement or a scapegoat to the people who made them have to fight for the roles in life that they feel are due onto them.[6]" I'm extremely allergic to this kind of narcissistic haughty contempt. It's the exact same thing as claiming that the only reason why women become feminists is that they're too ugly to find a man. I'm really baffled by how much you all manage to delude yourself, and fail to see the blatantly obvious misandry of much of today feminism. But in any case, it's ad hominem, so shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Didaev (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia merely summarizes published mainstream academic sources. We do not use original research or interpretation of sources. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. If you are here to advocate what you believe is the truth about feminism, antifeminism, or any topic, you have come to the wrong place. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I wasn't at all advocating any point of view, it was totally about the article itself (too much ad hominem, inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims). If I would be advocating my own beliefs, then I'd have to argue against things which could in principle be true, but contradict my own world view. I really don't think I did any of that.

Clearly, I'm not the only one who thinks this article is biased. I'm just trying to start an honest and constructive debate about it.Didaev (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you trying to argue with the article, without citing additional sources nor demonstrating that the text does not adequately reflect the sources cited. Did you read what I wrote?

You are the only person in this thread who thinks this article is biased. If you are appealing to posters in other threads, consensus is not determined by passers by who do not bother to learn our policies and guidelines, who do not know what mainstream professional sources say (and have no sources of their own), or who wish to have the article reflect their understanding of the subject instead of what mainstream professional sources say -- consensus is determined by sources and policies and guidelines. You have only presented your personal interpretation of the article to argue that the article is not neutral, instead of presenting sources that show that the article somehow reflects a minority view (which would require at least as many sources as what you're trying to counter). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, and I really don't see how it applies to my writing. Could you give me an specific example of where I'm breaking those rules?

It's simply not true that it's impossible to say something about an article, without touching sources. Certainly an article shouldn't contain ad hominem attacks. I think it's a reasonable assumption that published mainstream academic sources don't contain these kinds of attacks, and so the fact that this article does contain them must mean that it didn't just copy them from these sources. Now in principle, it's of course possible that these weren't ad hominem attacks, and that I just misunderstood something, but in that case, you could give a counter argument.

Besides that, there were just so many insinuations, and my point against those was that I thought that it should be mentioned in a more honest way:. For example, instead of insinuating that there's a big conspiracy, start by stating that this conspiracy exists, or likely exists, and then refer to it later on.Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, we're the only two in it so far. Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to use this as a way to force my point of view onto anyone, I only said it to suggest that it might be a good idea for you to honestly consider it, and don't dismiss it too quickly because I seemingly wasn't following your pedantic rules. You are of course right that the fact that many people believe something to be true doesn't make it true, but it does in general mean that it's more likely to be true, and so if you need some way of deciding whether something is probably worth your limited time and mental energy, then the fact that many people seem to agree on this is a pretty good argument.Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to be able to find a published mainstream academic sources, which proves that the wikipedia article on antifeminism is not neutral.

But it's obvious that you haven't read and understood what I wrote, because it doesn't even anything to do with the facts, it's purely about the article.Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No reason to change the article text unless new reliable sources are shown to be challenging some conclusion made by other reliable sources. It would be especially helpful for editors arguing here to show that a great many observers agree about some aspect. This article should convey the mainstream opinion very clearly, then merely touch upon minor opinions if they are prominent enough. Binksternet (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Didaev, Wikipedia summarizes sources. The article currently summarizes sources. You have not cited a single source. You have merely given your own unsourced arguments about the article. You have made some unsubstantiated claims about the sources, but in ways that indicate that you haven't actually bothered to check them.

And if we're going to assess your unsourced arguments (not that they would affect article content), they completely misunderstand the article and what an ad hominem attack is. For example, you said that:

"Canadian sociologists, Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri, write that antifeminist thought has primarily taken the form of an extreme version masculinism"

...Is somehow an ad hominem. Blais and Dupuis-Déri aren't attacked. It merely states that antifeminists like to present themselves as extreme masculinists. That is not a statement about masculinists in themselves, so you can't claim that it's an attack on them. No one is attacked in that sentence, and your claim of ad hominem is a faulty argument from fallacy. Ad hominem does not mean "I don't like this sentence," it means that the sentence intentionally insults somebody.

"Antifeminists are a bunch of cowardly, obese, fedora-wearing, neckbearded who are upset that can't get laid because they're assholes and so fantasize about being powerful men somehow oppressed by feminists" would be an ad hominem, POV, and generally inappropriate for the article.

"Antifeminists like to present themselves as extreme masculinists" is not ad hominem. To claim that it is ad hominem or insinuates further claims shows some POV issues on your end, not the article's.

"Some authors speculate that antifeminists might not be an organized movement but are just a loose collection of mostly white men who feel that they are not given enough respect" is not ad hominem. Lots of ideologies have a similar set up among adherents. Again, to claim that it insinuates further claims shows POV issues on your end, not the article's.

Until you have any sources to cite, there is no reason for this discussion to continue. To put this as plainly as possible, no one is going to listen to you until you find a bunch of books that are relevant to this article, and tell us their names, authors, and the page numbers that contain something relevant to this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"It merely states that antifeminists like to present themselves as extreme masculinists."

The whole article is rife with inflammatory and suggestive language, and there are many parts which are undeniably ad hominem. Now I did a google search for this phrase, and you seem to be right, it's quite a common one, with a meaning which is different from what I thought it to be. This is a very normal mistake though. The whole article was filled with these kinds of insinuations, and so it's only normal that when there's something which is slightly ambiguous, you'll prime for an interpretation similar to the rest of the article. So I made a mistake with this one, but it's not such a far fetched one. A very common ad hominem argument after all is to suggest that someone's claims are merely the manifestation of an irrational underlying sentiment. The fact that I made a mistake here doesn't discredit my other criticism.

"Some authors speculate that antifeminists might not be an organized movement but are just a loose collection of mostly white men who feel that they are not given enough respect"

It all depends of course. Obviously, if there are men who claim that they don't get enough respect, then stating that these men exist, and what their stance is, isn't ad hominem. A claim which may seem a bit similar, but is much more ad hominem is: "..a scapegoat to the people who made them have to fight for the roles in life that they feel are due onto them.". It insinuates that they feel entitlement to more than others, and that their discontent is merely because they don't like what equality feels like. Since they know that they can't state flat out that they're for inequality, they'll come up with a narrative around it, which instead says that they in fact are disadvantaged, to legitimize their sentiment.

Granted, it depends a bit on the context to what extent this would be ad hominem. If it's used to disqualify someone's opinions by claiming that it's merely a manifestation of an irrational sentiment, then it's ad hominem. On the other hand, motivated reasoning does of course happen, and if there's indeed proof that this is the case, then it should certainly be mentioned, but only after an honest description of their POV (or what they claim their point of view is) is made, and only after an honest counter argument is given. Only then should it be ok to speculate why these people came to believe these things in the first place.

I really don't think you're in a position to tell me to shut up. I've already explained why sources weren't relevant to the argument I was making. The fact that you keep complaining about then just shows that you don't understand the purpose of them anyway, and that to you it's just some sort of ritual. I also think that if you'd stop focusing so much on these rituals, and instead start being intellectually honest, you'd see how ridiculous this article really is, and that it really has no place on Wikipedia.Didaev (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:CITE, one of the site's cornerstones. We do not care what readers believe, because this is not a forum for each editor's opinions. We only care about summarizing sources, as is demonstrated by WP:CITE. If you have actually read anything on the topic, then you would have some sort of sources. If you do not have any sources, then you are not informed on the topic and there is no reason for anyone but you to care what you think. It's that simple, and it's not just true for this site but for academia as well -- if you try to send a paper to an academic journal or present a doctoral thesis that does not show that you have read whatever is available on the subject, you will be dismissed and ignored. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I've already explained why this is totally irrelevant to what I wrote, but anyway, if you need it, I can try to elaborate on it, to make it understandable for you. I do expect you to honestly consider it though, because it's really annoying to argue with a broken record. Are you willing to do that? Didaev (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are not willing to work on Wikipedia's terms, you are welcome to spend your time elsewhere. No one cares about your opinions, only what sources say. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As I only just write: IT DOESN'T APPLY TO WHAT I WROTE. That means that I do recognize the rules, I just disagree with you that what I wrote goes against that rule. Can I please ask you to come off your high horse. It's ok of you don't understand something, but be open minded. Just quit trying to twist things in these weird ways so that it seems that you are somehow on top in this situation...Didaev (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It very much does apply. If you wish to make any changes to an article, you must either bring in a source that supports new information, provide multiple sources showing that a single source is wrong, or demonstrate that the material in the article does not reflect the source cited. Those are the options. You have instead tried to argue your personal feelings about the sourced material in the article, often indicating that you had not actually checked with the source cited. Saying that that does not apply to what you wrote does not make it so.

And it would be pretty much impossible to acknowledge that the sources are reliable and that the article adequately summarizes their salient points while simultaneously claiming that the article is crafted in such a way as to insinuate ad hominem attacks that only you can see for some reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"It very much does apply"

No, it doesn't and I've already explained why. You on the other hand keep repeating the same thing over and over again. You're going to either have to argue why my point is invalid, or if you don't understand it, ask some directed questions. I have to assume (WP:GF), which means that I have to assume you're open for an honest discussion. I expect you to do the same. It's difficult though, because what you're doing seems more like WP:GAME: All you seem to do is try to bully people who try to be constructive into silence. The article in it's current from has no place on Wikipedia, and it's clear that on some level you realize this. Now I could have started an edit war, or started clamoring for sources, but I didn't, I turned to the talk page, to start an honest discussion, in the hope that this could be worked out in a constructive manner.

"If you wish to make any changes to an article, you must either bring in a source that supports new information, provide multiple sources showing that a single source is wrong, or demonstrate that the material in the article does not reflect the source cited."

Those are not the only reasons. For example, there is WP:POVFORM. If an article isn't of neutral form, it's perfectly fine to change it, in such a way that the content remains the same, but the form becomes more neutral.

And the criticism I had totally falls under these. Most of it was criticism of the form, other parts indeed showed that it couldn't reflect the sources.

But still, I haven't even touched the article yet, it's all in the talk page, and so at this point, It's not about being right, but about working together with a community, which has the common goal of creating an accurately sourced article. Good faith on your part also means that if I point something out, which is obviously true, but for which I didn't provide a source, then an honest reaction on your side would be to just say that you realize I'm right, but that I might want to find an explicit source for it before it goes live. Since scientists aren't idiots, there probably is going to be plenty of literature to be found to support it.

For example: One of the few claims which touched information I made was that the vast majority of people who would be antifeminists according to Flood's definition wouldn't be according to Kimmel's definition. I think that this is a good example of such a situation. It's impossible to deny that this is the case, but it's not a priori true, and so you could ask for a source. What you can not do in good faith however, is to dismiss my whole argument just because I didn't (yet) provide a source for this claim.

"You have instead tried to argue your personal feelings about the sourced material in the article, often indicating that you had not actually checked with the source cited"

There are a few places where I interjected some personal feelings. You can just ignore those. It wasn't the gist of what I wrote.

"Saying that that does not apply to what you wrote does not make it so."

Yeah ok. I actually gave an explanation. You on the other hand are the one who keeps repeating the same thing, even after I've explained why you're wrong. (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Didaev: there's not much point in criticizing the article (or people who defend it) unless you're going to offer some constructive changes. Please focus on suggesting ways to make the article better rather than just pointing out what you think is wrong, or taking issue with other's talk page comments. This isn't a discussion forum and we're not really here to argue/debate. What changes specifically would you like to see made? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He offered a rewrite of the lead at the beginning of this discussion section. Kaldari (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Which was not based on sources, gave equal validity to antifeminist claims, and removed material from a reliable source that he didn't care for. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Thanks, don't know how I missed that! Didaev, my apologies! Fyddlestix (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

My two cents on the proposed revision: I think the first two sentences of the proposed version are ok, but I disagree with the removal of "may be motivated by general hostility towards women's rights" and the accompanying footnote. Multiple sources characterize antifeminism/ists as hostile to women's rights, so I don't see any reason for removing that. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Then at least I think it should be changed to "is characterized by", not "motivated by". There are indeed quite a few sources which talk about hostility towards women's rights, but usually it's used as a synonym for antifeminism, not as something which somehow motivates it (and of course, hostility towards women's right is by definition antifeminist, so it's just saying that antifeminism is motivated by antifeminism, which doesn't really mean anything). I don't have Kimmel's book, so I can't verify what he wrote, but I doubt this is what he really meant.

Now I guess more specifically, what's meant by it, is that many antifeminists (who are by definition at least somewhat hostile towards feminism), don't so much have a few things they happen to disagree on with feminists, but instead are hostile towards the idea of women gaining more rights at all, and so fight against it, whatever it is feminists come up with. Stating that this is the case of course also implies that their justifications are of little value, and so can just be ignored.

It would be fine to mention this in the lead (if research supports it), but then I think it should really go last in the enumeration (ie. start with what they claim to be against, then say that they're probably motivated by something else). I really think this order is important, and that it would actually "benefit" the feminist side. Imagine that you don't yet know anything about antifeminism, and came to this article to learn about it. Then, if the article starts by telling you that their opinions are irrelevant, and that you should basically ignore everything they say, you'd feel offended, because it feels like someone's trying to manipulate you. Certainly you'd take everything which comes after it with a grain of salt. If on the other hand, it's up front about everything, then people will be much more likely to assume the whole article is honest. Didaev (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think that the article was honest if it said that antifeminists have very little credibility. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote from Kimmel: "Antifeminists oppose women's entry into the public sphere, the reorganization of the private sphere, women's control of their bodies, and women's rights generally." Not promoting antifeminism is not the same as promoting against it. The article is upfront that antifeminism is opposed to women's rights, by all sourced definitions, which is all Wikipedia cares about. The article doesn't actually say their opinions are irrelevant (again, you're reading your perspective into the article instead of just reading the article as written), it just says what their opinions are. If someone reads the article's sourced summary of antifeminist views and their conscience tries to lead them to conclude that antifeminist opinions are irrelevant, that's their decision. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So given the two options "is sometimes characterized by" and "may be motivated by", which one do you prefer, and why?Didaev (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This entire article needs a rewrite

I find it utterly absurd to read an article about anti-feminism - as described by feminists! That's like asking beliebers to summarize critique of Justin Bieber. Who cares how a feminist author defines anti-feminism? That is as biased as you could possibly get, and completely irrelevant for establishing some sort of definition.

And it shows: The entire form of this article is nonsense. Anti-feminism is no more an ideology than atheism is a religion, that much is clear from the word itself. Yet this article tries to jumble everything from opposition towards women's suffrage to humanism into some single crazy ideology, which to my knowledge nobody subscribes to.

And why are the only notable "anti-feminists" mentioned here feminists? Where is Karen Straughan, the most notable anti-feminist of today, viewed by more than a million people, and invited to conferences everywhere? Where is Julie Borowski, who is so frequently quoted in the libertarian debate? Where are all the female celebreties who have objected against feminism? Even people who are often mistaken for being feminists, such as Erykah Badu.

This entire article - as it stands - is a sham, and makes me embarrassed of being a Wikipedian. Somebody fix it! 129.240.223.43 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As a previous donator, it's articles like this that make me regret it (and I certainly won't be donating in the future). Considering Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, it does a very poor job on practically any article related to feminism due to feminists tenacity to spread their propaganda. While I'd be willing to accept an article being biased for a few months, I'd expect it to be cleaned up eventually, considering the argument of the bias of this article has been going on for 3 years now - I find it unlikely that the feminist bias in Wikipedia will allow this article to ever represent facts (or at least the views of ACTUAL anti-feminists). Using Michael Kimmel as a line one item for a definition what Anti-feminists are (He is a DEVOUT feminist) is the most absurd thing I have ever heard, but it is allowed to continue because of the feminist bias, and any attempt to change it is met with immediate reverts by biased editors. This is Wikipedia's shame. 146.199.122.44 (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Everywhere you look on Wikipedia there is some sociology student who owns his or her pet article and won't let anyone add any knowledge by constantly reverting it with a WP:CABAL while explaining it by mumbo-jumbo. Seriously, people should just go and edit their PhD instead of reverting someone else's edit. Isn't this what feminism opposes? Powerlessness etc?--Cubancigar11 (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear, I came to this talk page to point out the absurdity of using feminist definitions for "anti-feminism," and I saw with pleasure that you had already made the point admirably! Kerry (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this page is one of the least impartial I have seen on Wikipedia. Cacra (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty bizarre indeed. I really don't understand how anyone could ignore the massive elephant in the room, and maintain that this is an unbiased article. "Opposition and resisters have proclaimed their hatred for the alteration of gender roles. These people have worked diligently since then to slow down the crusade by creating their own: antifeminism. ", ehm seriously?Didaev (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Nouns and adjectives aren't the same

"Antifeminism is an ideology" means something completely different than "an antifeminist ideology". It's pretty basic stuff...Didaev (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What is it then if not an ideology? Feminism is an ideology, should wouldn't opposition to it be as well? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A trait of an ideology (or movement). If an ideology is a set of beliefs about how the world should be, then you can't define it only in terms of what it disagrees with, simply because you'd end up with way too many contradictory beliefs grouped together, which only agree with each other on the fact that they disagree with feminism.

Take the difference between on the one hand the extreme conservatives who "oppose women's entry into the workforce, political office, and the voting process, as well as the lessening of male authority in families", and on the other hand the women of the "Women Against Feminism" movement. I'm pretty sure that most of these women will have views much closer to the views of the average feminist. They probably just disagree with feminists on the extent to which women are still disadvantaged these days. They certainly wouldn't want to give up their voting rights. You really can't say that these two groups have similar ideologies.Didaev (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Didaev, you're not going to convince anyone with what you're "pretty sure" about, or your personal assessment of who "probably" has similar ideologies. Wikipedia is constructed on the basis of what reliable sources say, not on the basis of its editors' subjective opinions. There are plenty of sources out there which refer to antifeminism as an ideology. Whether you agree with that treatment of the concept or not is immaterial unless you can cite some equally reliable sources to back up your views. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a photo tumblr rises to the level of a "movement". Movements do actual activism. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Didaev, you are headed for a block for disruption. You keep arguing your personal viewpoint despite being told repeatedly that Wikipedia summarizes WP:Reliable sources rather than editors putting their own slant on the topic. In the future, if you do not WP:CITE a reliable source when making a suggestion, then your personal views will be removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then explain me how I should do it instead. You all keep accusing me of arguing my personal viewpoints, but I simply don't see it. I've also explained why, but that doesn't seem to register, and instad you just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Now I can't stop doing something if I'm not doing it. I'm willing to accept that I'm not doing things the right way though, but then you are going to have to show me what to do instead, not what not to do.

I know that you believe that the current article doesn't have any problems, and that I should refrain from modify it, but at least in principle, it's possible I was right. This means that there must be some way in which I could address this, without breaking the rules. Without that, a project like Wikipedia wouldn't be possible.

Now let's look at what actually happened:

• I removed the phrase "antifeminism is an ideology", because this wasn't supported by any of the sources.
• EvergreenFir reverted my change, pointing me to the definition section which contained the phrase "an antifeminist ideology".
• I asked EvergreenFir to explain their revert, and tried to explain that the phrase "an antifeminist ideology" doesn't imply "antifeminism is an ideology", and so that the fact that there are sources which contain the phrase "antifeminist ideology" doesn't mean that "antifeminism is an ideology" is supported by sources. Note that I'm not discussing antifeminism here, I'm discussing how to accurately reflect the sources.
• EvergreenFir asked me what antifeminism was, if it weren't an ideology.
• I answered their question. Now I guess that this is what you interpret to be my personal viewpoint, but I'm actually the one who agrees with the sources here. I guess I should have told EvergreenFir that it doesn't matter what it is, and that Wikipedia summerizes sources, but I think it's just more polite to answer their question.
• You accuse me of advocating my own views, and threaten to block me.

I have the idea that it was perfectly reasonable wat I did, but obviously you disagree with it. But either way, can you imagine a hypothetical case, similar to this one, and where I'm right, and then advise me what to do.Didaev (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The comment you're replying to already told you what to do and how to approach this - produce some reliable sources that back up your point of view. You can insist that you're right until you're blue in the face - but it won't do you any good, because what matters here are what reliable sources say. In all your posts on this page, I haven't seen you cite a single one yet. That's why people are reacting negatively. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, it's hard to extend AGF at the moment given that WP has been besieged for months from GGers, MRM editors, etc. on any feminist related articles but... I looked at a lot of the sources in the article and the sources in Fyddlestix link. There is no shortage of the phrase Antifeminist Ideology. The thing is almost none agree on the core traits of said ideology and often discuss varying ideologies that would be considered antifeminist. I think it would be in keeping with the current sources, and the rest of the article actually, to have the opening sentence be something more along the lines of "Antifeminism encompasses a spectrum of ideologies that are broadly defined as being in opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism." And, Didaev, you really need to listen the advice that has been given repeatedly above. Walls of text will get you nowhere. Suggest an actual discreet change and that change has to be somehow based on the existing sources in the article or a new one you bring yourself. And the change has to have consensus. If there is consensus against your suggestion no amount of TLDR is going to help. You'll find all the editors above quite reasonable if you do things the right way. Capeo (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

After more thought I don't think spectrum is the right word. It implies a range so broad completely opposing views could fall within it when the point of the sentence is, despite varying on the particulars, all these ideologies would be categorized as antifeminist. Maybe instead of "a spectrum of" it could just say "varying". Capeo (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree, and for the record I had already said that I was more than happy to accept the first couple of sentences of Diadev's proposed revision (which would drop the "ideology" aspect altogether). In my reply above, I was simply trying to impress upon them the importance of citing some sources, rather than specifically defending the "ideology" angle. Diadev has made a lot of posts on this page that are very subjective & abstract in nature - I had hoped that we might refocus the conversation and make it less subjective if we could focus on some specific sources, but instead it's spilled over to AN/I. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, AN/I is what brought the article to my attention. Honestly I wasn't all that familiar with the term hence I wanted to check out the article. Pretty much everything described in the article I probably would have labeled Patriarchal. Going through the sources though I quickly learned the term has a long history of use in the relevant academic circles. I personally have no issue with the word ideology simply because pretty much every source describes them as such. I also think it's simpler than saying movements, ideas and attitudes as ideology covers the same ground with a better economy of words. Capeo (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead edits again

Galestar is trying to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifeminism&curid=3354802&diff=651874207&oldid=651873973 add] something about misandry to lead, despite being reverted a few times, failing to WP:BRD, and against WP:LEAD. To translate, the lead summarizes the article. It's not the place to stick factoids and refs are to be avoided. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

When I deleted an example with a source, you reverted. When I add my own you revert and state that examples and sources don't belong there. You are obviously not playing by the same rulebook that you expect everyone else to adhere to. Galestar (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

On the substance of the competing examples I would argue that mine more accurately reflects the rest of the article.

It also does not serve the article to have its lede dominated by a 100-year old example. Galestar (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion! If you look at the talk page archives, you'll see where the suffrage example was discussed. You'll also see the WP:CONSENSUS that was gained for the lead in general. Your account is old, so I'm not going to assume you don't know the rules. It's UNDUE to stick a not-widely-held idea in the lead, even if it's sourced. Go stick it in the body of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a widely-held thought among antifeminists. Being antisuffrage is not widely held, and happened before first-wave feminism was even feminism. It is quite the reach to claim that this antisuffrage example is a summary of the article. I say go stick your example in the article. Galestar (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's already in there. Which is why it's in the lead. ;) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I will place my content in both places then. Galestar (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

aaand done. Galestar (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The material you added to the lead is redundant with the last sentence of the existing lead, so I've removed it. Kaldari (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for not checking the talk page before deleting the last sentence of the article's lead. This sentence read (and currently reads again) "For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s it resisted women's suffrage."

There are a number of problems with this sentence, IMO. A) it's redundant, as the same information appears later in the article. This one is debatable, as perhaps some feel that an immediate example of "opposition to feminism or some aspect of [it]" is important, though I don't.

B) It's confusingly misplaced. It follows a sentence that gives various possible motivations for antifeminism, but it's not an example of any of these motivations per se. Rather, it's an example of "opposition to feminism or some aspect of [it]". As such, if it is to be included in the lead paragraph, it should follow that sentence.

C) It's a poor way to exemplify "Antifeminism" as a whole, being an example of a political position very different from what a modern 'antifeminist' would advocate. Further, it implies that "antifeminism" is a cohesive political movement with a continuity running from the 19th century to the present day. This seems a very dubious proposition.

Furthermore, it seems a rather negatively example to characterize antifeminism with, as it associates it with a position that would be looked upon negatively by virtually everyone nowadays. EvergreenFir, I glanced at your userpage for some context about your personal positions, and I saw this userbox that I heartily agree with: "Everyone has points of view with inherent cultural biases - recognition is the first step to achieving NPOV." In that spirit, would it be fair to say that you have a negative bias towards antifeminism and therefore might (even unconsciously) prefer wording that discredits it?

Rather than remove the sentence again exactly as I did before, this time I'll 1) move the example to the logical place in the paragraph (IMO), which I believe is a neutral change that perhaps you will agree is an improvement and 2) change the example to a modern one, which would better exemplify the associations of "antifeminism" today. If those changes are satisfactory to you, that's great. If not, would you please explain why you believe an example from over a century ago is more relevant to the lead paragraph than a modern one?

Respectfully yours,

JudahH (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

PS- I looked for the archived discussion of this that you mentioned above, EvergreenFir, but I couldn't find it. If it's relevant now, could you link to it, please?

PPS- In the spirit of compromise, I decided to add a modern example to the current one, rather than replace the old one. My edit summary summarizes the main changes I made; other changes were stylistic.JudahH (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you find something that has sourcing comparable to the sourcing of the current example. The current example cites two (of many available) sources that are high in quality and explicit about the relationship of antifeminism to anti-suffrage. Your source, by contrast, is poor, and cites a single antifeminist referring vaguely to something that may or may not be an actual feminist goal. It probably is true that opposition to anti-rape campaigns is an organizing principle of modern antifeminism, but you'd need better sources and may be able to find those if you try to describe the issue more broadly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how a news article quoting modern-day anti-feminists (i.e. people whom the term "antifeminist" has been applied to in modern times, both by others and by themselves) is a poor source for the views that modern antifeminists may hold, nor do I concede that the Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics is a higher quality source for this sort of thing per se. However, since it would be unproductive to just revert changes without trying to address your concerns, even if I don't share them, I've added another source. This one is an anthology of anti-feminist writings that was edited by a feminist and already appeared in the article's "Further Reading" section, so I hope it can be agreed that it's a legitimate source.

Respectfully yours, JudahH (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

To answer your questions, yes I have a negative view of antifeminism but at the same time I know that the history of feminism is fraught with shitty stuff too (especially to women of color, trans folks, etc). But from what I tell from the sources, one of the founding aspects of antifeminism is opposition to women's suffrage. To make a parallel, I'm very much a supporter of Planned Parenthood, but I wouldn't oppose Sanger's eugenic history being mentioned. As for the archives, it's been a while but I think I was referring to Talk:Antifeminism/Archive_5#Edward_H._Clarke, Talk:Antifeminism/Archive_4#Disparaging_Definitions, and lovingly titled Talk:Antifeminism/Archive_1#POV:_Cleaning_up_pejorative.2C_shameless_and_STUPID_totalitarian_doublespeak_in_the_definition. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest answer and also for linking to those archive topics. It seems that this is a subject that has come up again and again.

For my part, I'll be equally open: I am opposed to various social/political crusades that are waged nowadays in the name of feminism. According to the article's definition, this would presumably make me an anti-feminist. But by giving examples only of historic opposition to things that are now mainstream and opposed by virtually no one, the article gives a dated and biased view of antifeminism, suggesting that those who disagree with any aspect of feminism oppose basic equal rights for women, such as suffrage. I don't believe that's a fair characterization, and that is why I believe it's important to give other examples equal prominence.

We may not agree with each other's political views, but I hope we can find some common ground here.

Respectfully yours, JudahH (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The material about the redefinition of the word "rape" is not appropriate for the lead section, per WP:LEAD. The lead section is a summary of material found in the article body. There is nothing about rape in the article body, so nothing about rape can be in the lead section.

Furthermore, the issue of the redefinition of the word "rape" is presented by Routledge as being an issue of what feminists ought not to do, rather than an issue which is critical for antifeminists. Basically, it's off-topic, so inclusion violates WP:COATRACK. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As for your first point, fair enough. You're saying that this example should be added to the article body before it can be added to the lead. As for your second point, I believe you're misunderstanding the linked source. This was an anthology of antifeminists writing. The cited example was one of antifeminists (as categorized by the anthology) critiquing feminists for doing something that they ought not to. This is not off-topic at all—it's what makes the cited writer "antifeminist"! If you believe I'm misunderstanding the source, please clarify, by all means. JudahH (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding WP:LEAD, certainly something placed in the lead section should be a summary of that type of material placed in the article body. So you are correct in thinking that I recommend in general that material should be expanded into the article body. This expansion should be a satisfyingly full explanation of the issue. If the issue is considered important to the topic as a whole, then the issue can be summarized in the lead section. The supposed redefinition of rape is not a major issue in antifeminism, so I don't see why it should be given so much emphasis in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

a) This article could certainly be of higher quality, so in principle I agree that it would be good to have "satisfyingly full" explanations of all the issues. In practice, the writing in this article isn't on that level. That doesn't mean an issue shouldn't be mentioned at all.

b) I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming that the supposed redefinition of rape is not a major issue in antifeminism. It's one issue, among many, that some people have antifeminist views about.

c) I'm not insistent on putting this particular issue into the lead paragraph—it was just the first example I came up with. I do think it's important for the lead paragraph to be balanced: thus, either no examples (which was the original edit I made) or, if it contains a historical example that would not apply to antifeminists today (and that puts the whole ideology in a bad light, from a modern perspective), to contain a modern example as well. If you prefer a different example of modern antifeminism, that would be OK with me.

d) I've been looking for ways to compromise here. When I readd something that people have deleted, I try to alter it to address their concerns. IMHO, it's less constructive to just keep reverting changes, as you've done twice now.

I'll give you a chance to respond before editing the lead paragraph again, but in the meantime I'll restore the phrase I added to the article body, as I can't see a problem with adding a valid, sourced, example of one concern that motivates some antifeminism—not the only one, not necessarily the main one, but one. JudahH (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Try Mediation

A thread has been posted at WP:ANI concerning issues about this article. It appears that the issues here are primarily content disputes, such as what is neutral point of view, but are being complicated by strong feelings. I would suggest that formal mediation would be the best way to work past the strong points of view and improve this article. I suggest filing a Request for Mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Formal mediation is pointless here. You don't see a bunch of Wikipedians with strong feelings on subject vs a bunch of Wikipedians with strong feelings on a subject. You see a bunch of AGF wikipedians trying to improve content against off-site organized brigades of editors with particular and strong points of view that are incompatible with NPOV. I'd be shocked if in three months half the people posting here werenn't blocked Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Taking a step back: some basic questions this article should answer about the term "antifeminism"

Clearly, this has been a somewhat contentious article, and I guess I contributed to that recently. I tried to make what I thought would be a simple revision to make the lead's description of antifeminism less negative, but that led to a number of reversions and accusations of edit warring, so I'm taking a step back here. Obviously we don't all share the same political opinions, but that doesn't mean we can't find consensus on a NPOV.

IMHO, there are some basic facts about the term antifeminist that the article leaves obscure, and that's what causes the trouble. Specifically, a) Who generally uses the term antifeminist? People who identify as sharing this ideology, people who identify as opposing it? People who don't identify as either? Some combination of the above? b) What sort of "feminism" is "antifeminism" opposing? Presumably, just as the word "feminism" means different things to different people, the word "antifeminism" does the same. It's even quite possible that one person would consider someone a feminist and another would consider the same person an antifeminist.

This is the sort of thing that I think the article should make clear. Does anyone agree with that? JudahH (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

An example of someone called both feminist and antifeminist is Christina Hoff Sommers. She identifies as feminist, and her right-wing, socially conservative supporters also call her feminist, but scores of feminist scholars describe her as antifeminist, as working against feminism, as supporting the male-dominated status quo in social hierarchy. Is this the kind of example you are interested in folding into the page? Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good example. The problem in a nutshell, I think, is that the article, and especially the lead, attempts to treat antifeminism as a single ideology or even (in the current last sentence of the lead) as if it were a single organized movement, when in reality it's a category that includes many different ideologies not necessarily held by the same people. Christina Sommers is a good example of the fact that whether a particular ideology is antifeminist can even depend on the perspective of the speaker.

So, for a start, "Antifeminism is an ideology that is broadly defined as an opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism. This opposition has taken various forms across time and cultures", I'd like to revise something like, "Antifeminism is broadly defined as ideological opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism. The specifics of such ideologies depend on on the goals or aims of feminism they oppose. This has varied across time and cultures [examples] and even from person to person [example of Sommers]."

I took a couple of days to reply because I was having trouble phrasing that well. I'm still having trouble—I think the revision to the first sentence is good, but probably the others can be worded better. But do you see what I mean about the issue I'm trying to fix?

The reason I think this is a big deal, besides accuracy for its own sake, is that I think it's a root cause of the disagreement there's been over this page. By treating antifeminism as if it were a single movement, it seems to imply things that rile people on either side. If you oppose some aspect of feminism as you see it, but you're not antisuffrage, you'll resent the implication that your ideology is essentially an extremist position a century out of date. On the other hand, if you consider yourself a feminist, you'll resent that the characterization of feminism (to which antifeminism is opposed) includes relatively extreme positions on the feminist side, when feminism to many feminists—perhaps even essential feminism as you see it—is simply about equal rights for women, no more and no less. If we make it clear that antifeminism is a broad and even somewhat subjective category, I think both problems are solved.

I believe that at least the change I suggested to the first sentence is both simple and an improvement. I also believe that the last sentence of the lead should be taken out, since as it currently stands (after all of the back and forth edits), it's not only misplaced but redundant. However, I'll wait a while for input before making an edition to the article.

JudahH (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There is already a paragraph on that (mentioning her specifically, among others) in the definition section, I think. --Aquillion (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not so sure about the suggested sentence "The specifics of such ideologies depend on on the goals or aims of feminism they oppose." It seems to me that it depends less on the goals of feminists than it does the way that feminist goals are perceived by reactionary types. There can be a disjunct between the feminist goals and the antifeminist perception. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely open to rewording the sentence, but what I would say is that the meaning of "antifeminism" depends on how feminist goals are perceived by the person who uses the word. So if we're talking about a group that labels itself antifeminist (or "against feminism" or the like) then, yes, that would be the perception of that group, and someone else might say that they're not really opposing feminism but a misperception of it. OTOH, my impression from reading about this is that the word may actually be used more by people who consider themselves feminists (like all these feminist scholars), and in that case, it's their perception of feminism that sets the context for their use of the word "antifeminists". For example, as far as I know it the original anti-suffragists didn't label themselves anti-feminist. JudahH (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That sentence does seem to imply that antifeminism is not a coherent phenomenon in itself, but is essentially the "criticism section" of feminism, which I don't think is the case. It's a movement in itself. I also don't agree with the inclusion of "varies from person to person". Any system of thought (religious, political, etc.) varies from person to person, and I don't see the point of including it here except as a subtle "see, feminazis are so extreme that they even call feminists antifeminist." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that is the point I'm anxious to make: that antifeminism, meaning ideological objection to feminism takes in too many different ideologies to be considered a coherent phenomenon. With "it varies from person to person", my intended point wasn't at all to say, "look how extreme feminazis are". I was rather trying to say, "Don't think that "anti-feminism" is so clearly defined that no matter who uses the word, they're referring to the same set of people." That's the crucial distinction I think the article should make. Even if you can make a compelling case that despite the disagreements over who is an antifeminist, antifeminism is still a single coherent ideology, I think the lack of consensus over who the ideology's adherents are is important enough that the reader should be told of it at the beginning.

I take your point about every system of thought varying in its details from person to person, but if we're talking about a single coherent system of thought, then surely the people who subscribe to it should share some kind of a consensus about what that system is, and it doesn't look to me like that's the case with anti-feminism as we're defining it. For instance, I don't see any evidence that the anti-suffragist movement developed into later movements against the ERA or other things, and certainly the goal of opposing suffrage is one that would be disavowed by most "anti-feminists" today, so it's hard for me to see those two groups as belonging to a single ideology. I'll try to think about your point a little more, though. Roscelese, how would you define a "single ideology", as opposed to multiple ideologies with a common element? JudahH (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be that the article in its current form rests too heavily on the "some aspects of it" and that that's leading us astray. I'm not sure that's indicated in the sources currently cited in #Definitions (although I don't think I have access to some of these, so I'm making assumptions based on the current write-up), and I would be interested in seeing what reliable sources you can produce which identify groups (or individuals, but preferably groups) as both feminist and anti-feminist (as opposed to "feminist, but called antifeminist" or "antifeminist, but identifies as feminist"). Do sources actually indicate that there are people who are active for women's equality but identify, or are identified as, antifeminist because they oppose individual goals or pieces of rhetoric? Or is this more of a "I support women's suffrage and letting women have jobs sometimes, so I'm a feminist, but they already have that should really stop now" kind of thing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing what reliable sources you can produce which identify groups (or individuals, but preferably groups) as both feminist and anti-feminist (as opposed to "feminist, but called antifeminist" or "antifeminist, but identifies as feminist")

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that any single source identifies any individuals or groups as both feminist and antifeminist. The point I wanted to make was that the same individual, group, or ideology might be identified as feminist by some and antifeminist by others, which is one reason that we can't objectively define antifeminism as a single ideology.

Or is this more of a "I support women's suffrage and letting women have jobs sometimes, so I'm a feminist, but they already have that should really stop now" kind of thing?

Well, this is an important point. I assume that you would call that ideology "antifeminist". I would, too, in fact—but I don't think you can reasonably call it the same ideology as anti-suffragism. To make the same point from a different angle: the article says,

Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism:

That social arrangements among men and women are neither natural nor divinely determined.

That social arrangements among men and women favor men

That there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements, such as those in the timelines of woman's suffrage and other rights.

Flood thus describes at least three basic sorts of antifeminism (not mutually exclusive), depending on which principle of feminism is rejected. It seems to me that these represent very different ideologies. Holding that the social position of women is divinely willed to be below that of men (1), for instance, is surely not the same as holding that social arrangements among men and women currently do not favor men over women (2).

For reasons like this, I think that it's misleading to characterize antifeminism as a single ideology, let alone a single "movement" (which seems to connote some sort of organized leadership). Finally, I'd note that the Wiki article on feminism opens, "Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women." If feminism refers to a range of movements and ideologies, surely the same must be true of its inverse, antifeminism. JudahH (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make here is that I think you're leaning a little too heavily on individual causes. No one's saying that modern antifeminists all oppose equal suffrage, but rather that anti-suffragism, anti-rape opposition, anti-ERA etc. are foci of the same movement, not separate movements. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the key point I disagree with you on. I think it goes well beyond the evidence to say that these different movements are all foci of the same movement, as opposed to movements that have something in common. How can someone who is pro-women's suffrage be considered a part of an anti-suffrage movement or someone who is pro-ERA be part of an anti-ERA movement?

On the other hand, why would it bother you if the article stated that antifeminism, ideological opposition to feminism, is characteristic of a number of movements/ideologies? (From your earlier words, 'or is this more of a "I support women's suffrage and letting women have jobs sometimes, so I'm a feminist, but they already have that should really stop now" kind of thing?', I'm guessing that you're afraid it would somehow be whitewashing views that you consider extreme? If so, maybe we can figure out a neutral wording that suits both of us.) JudahH (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It would "bother" me because it seems to be the perspective of an individual user (you), rather than of the sources. Again, I think you need to step back and examine whether or not the sources actually support the changes you're proposing. I don't think this conversation we're having right now is really productive, and I think that's because you're coming at the article from the perspective of "But I don't want to repeal women's suffrage" instead of "The article doesn't match the available sources." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's gotten so protracted, and I hope it hasn't been altogether unproductive, but the reason I've been engaging you for so long is that I was hoping we'd reach consensus on something in preference to making an edition that you were opposed to. I don't want to force a conversation on you, but since I'm not sure yet whether you're bowing out, I'll respond to your most recent points.

1) Of course you're right that my personal views color my attitude to this. The current statement bothers me because I have views that qualify as antifeminist by the article's definition, so the article's statements (or misstatements, as the case may be), apply to me.

2) You're also right that at least one of the sources (Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics) refers to "The antifeminism movement", just as you've said.

3) However, I feel that the article as a whole, as well as other sources quoted in the article, are not consistent with this statement. Specifically, "Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism". As I've said above, which principle is rejected makes a tremendous difference to what the described ideology is (women shouldn't be treated equally to men vs. women are treated equally to men). This seems so clear to me that it's hard for me to see how these things could be treated as a single ideology, but in case you're unwilling to concede me the point, I've also emphasized the word an, which as a matter of semantic fact implies multiple ideologies.

TL;DR In case you might be leaving this discussion, I feel I should sum up where I stand at this point: I concede you that at least one, and perhaps more sources refer to antifeminism as a single ideology or movement, and I don't have an objection to covering that position in the article, but I strongly feel that it's inconsistent with various other statements and sources quoted in the article, so I'm not satisfied with leaving it as an unqualified statement in the lead. If we can't come to a consensus on this, I will emend the lead as I've suggested. I hope this doesn't lead to a reversion war, and I'll do what I can to avoid that.

Respectfully yours, JudahH (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

PS- sorry I'm so lengthy. It's a problem I have.

The change I made "per talk page"

Since Fyddlestix remarked 'This is far from "per the talk page" - there's clearly no consensus for this there,' I should clarify that by "per talk page" I only meant "per reasoning given on talk page". As for consensus, I tried as long as I could to reach consensus with Roscelese on the Talk Page, until she eventually quit the discussion as unproductive. At that point, since in my eyes the lead as it stood misrepresented the article as a whole (particularly the section about "Definition"—although, as Roscelese pointed out, it does reflect some of the article's sources), I made a change to improve that, while trying to still accommodate Roscelese's view (our disagreement was whether over "antifeminism" is used to refer to a single ideology or a set of ideologies; the change I eventually made to the lead paragraph removed the parts that explicitly referred to a single ideology but (unlike the change I'd originally proposed) avoided explicitly referring to a set of ideologies either. I don't know what else to do, from my standpoint, but of course other editors are welcome to weigh in. JudahH (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This change of yours is okay with me. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Both versions seem unsatisfactory to me, which is why I had trouble making up my mind whether to revert or not. I'm not sure what is meant by "ideological opposition to feminism" or why that's better than "an ideology broadly defined as opposition to feminism." I hate to draw out this debate but the wording in the lede just seems awkward to me right now.

One thought I had: why can't we just dispense with the "ideology" angle altogether and define anti-feminism as "opposition to feminism?" This is the approach taken in other "anti" articles like Anti-communism and Anti-fascism, for example. It seems like we're being unnecessarily specific in the lede right now, which is tripping us up and causing pointless arguments; imo, the lede should define anti-feminism in the broadest, simplest possible terms, and then different scholars/commentators more specific definitions and views can be discussed in the body of the article. Just a thought, y'all can feel free to ignore me if you're happy with the lede as it stands. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

imo, the lede should define anti-feminism in the broadest, simplest possible terms, and then different scholars/commentators more specific definitions and views can be discussed in the body of the article.

 I certainly agree with your principle. I wouldn't particularly object to "ideology" being dispensed with, but my understanding was that other editors felt strongly that it should be included, so I stayed away from that. FWIW, the article for "feminism" describes it as a "range of movements and ideologies". To me, it seems accurate in both cases.

 I'm sorry that my revision struck you as awkward (I was trying to keep my revision minimal, but I didn't think I made the sentence any worse than the original), and of course you're free to improve the style, but the substantive issue with the original that I was trying to address was the word an. That implies that the word antifeminism refers to a single, specific ideology, which I believe is at odds with some of the definitions that the article goes on to give (e.g. Michael Flood's). At first I wanted it to refer instead to a range of ideologies, similar to the article on feminism, but Roscelese was insistent that it should be considered a single ideology (and one of the sources used by the article seemed to support that), so instead I tried to avoid bringing up the question in the lead at all, per your principle of defining it only in the broadest terms that everyone can agree on.

 In terms of style, I think it would be a slight improvement to merge the first sentence with the following one, e.g. "Antifeminism, [which can be broadly defined as*] ideological opposition to feminism, has taken various forms across time and cultures." I would probably have made my revision something like that except that changes to the lead had been contentious, so I was trying to make mine minimal. JudahH (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• or just "or"

I thought JudahH's edit here was fine as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I'm happy to see it stay as-is for now. I still think it could be worded better, and may propose a revision in the future, but I think everyone here is pretty sick of this debate for now. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"Criticism of Feminism" leads here

In the article for "Feminism" the section called Criticism of Feminism leads here. Except this article does not actually contain any criticism of feminism.

So I want to ask the mods, should this article be expanded to include Criticism of Feminism, or should Criticism of Feminism be a new article on its own? I've posed this same issue on the talk page for "Feminism"104.247.228.124 (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Contribution Unfairly Removed

I made a contribution to this article to reflect the events that happened in 2014 and 2015 in the antifemism. My contribution was made on ~Oct 13, 2015 8:00PM and it was unfairly removed by the user Fyddlestix.

I typed in my section and was editing it include all relevant references. But by the time I submitted my references (within minutes), I saw my original section removed entirely.

I feel the removal is for political reasons. As many above me have pointed out, this article is heavily biased in favour of feminism. My contribution was to provide insight into antifeminism by identifying people who call themselves anti-feminists. (ie the UK political party J4MB and Canadian professor Janice Fiamengo)

My contribution was supported by facts.

How could this article be fair or even factually relevant if you remove any mention of scholars and lawful political parties which openly call themselves antifeminist?

I want to emphasize my complaint is not against Fyddlestix personally but whoever has been moderating this article is showing a tremendous amount of bias in eliminating anything in favour of antifeminism. The article is littered with quotes from ppl against feminism included in the article, but no sight of quotes from those accused of antifeminism.

If universities campuses and TV stations find it authoritative to invite Prof. Fiamengo and J4MB for lecture or interview, why are their views not good enough for Wikipedia? 104.247.228.124 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@104.247.228.124: My apologies for removing content that you were still working on, it did not occur to me that you were planning on adding references after the fact. Normally it's best to add both new content and the sources/citations for it at the same time, otherwise you will very often find that the content gets removed as unsourced.

What were the sources that you were planning to use for this section? I am skeptical that the content you added can be supported with reliable sources that have sufficient weight to merit inclusion of the material in the article (the bit about youtube, for example, looks to be WP:OR), and that's primarily why I removed it - but it all depends on what those sources are and how they're being used. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

eh? I am not a pro at this, so I hit the save button first then went back to add references. But before I get back to redo the references and waste more ink, I want to know what are the mods view on whether the content I wanted to add is relevant to this article. because there is currently no article called "Criticism of Feminism". and these people that self-identify themselves "antifeminists" are... obviously highly critical of feminism itself. so maybe i should move the whole thing to the new article.

also, i was trying to raise a point that the current article on "antifeminism" is trying to define antifeminism from the standpoint of feminist scholars. which i find unfair because i feel that the self-described antifeminists should be able to define themselves in their own way and own words/quotes. i feel this distinction is important because antifeminism recently is gaining ground as a standalone movement, separate from MRA's. 104.247.228.124 (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Where are the criticisms?

I came across this article about a year ago whilst doing some research. I then wrote a comment pointing out the lack of NPOV, and went elsewhere to find the readily available imformation ('why do people oppose feminism?'). Since then, it has improved slightly, yet still lacks much relevant information about the actual title: Antifeminism (or the Criticisms of Feminism redirection).

If Wikipedia cannot tell me what I think is blatantly obvious about something, then there is a failing. Whether you identify most with feminism or not, it is pretty clear that many people who criticise or oppose feminism today are not proponents of traditional values or male superiority.

The tiny little section on the 21st century (i.e. Now!) starts off well, but fails to expand upon anything at all. 58.160.156.79 (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)DKS

Much of the criticism of feminism that doesn't fall under that heading (eg. black feminists' criticism of its focus on white women, or lesbian feminists' criticism of homophobia or heterosexism in the movement) is not properly describable as antifeminism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the American Spectator is going to have a cover story this week called, "The End of Feminism." I guess that counts as criticism of feminism. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of an idea ≠ ideological opposition to it. Being critical of feminism is not the same as being an antifeminist. One can be critical of certain business practices without being an anticapitalist. The same hold true here--Cailil ^talk 16:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is a feminist being quoted on his opinion of antifeminism first thing in the article without even mentioning he's a feminist?

Why is a feminist being quoted on his opinion of antifeminism first thing in the article without even mentioning he's a feminist? This is so biased you can't make this up. --91.159.202.175 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There are varying opinions on the makeup and motivation of the antifeminist movement. As long as the broad range of opinions are represented, I don't think it's wrong to have what a feminist thinks. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not wrong, but not at the top and without the defining aspect of pointing out it's from a member of the ideology being criticized by the article's ideology. --91.159.202.175 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Kimmel is not just "a feminist." He's also among the leading academic experts on this subject, and widely recognized as such. His opinions and statements on this topic noteworthy, and carry a great deal of weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never even heard of him before. Even if he's an expert he's a feminist expert. Again, it's like quoting a communist on what capitalism is right in the first few sentences on capitalism's Wikipedia article. This isn't Feminism wiki, this is Wikipedia. You have mistaken the website for something else. I haven't removed his bit. I simply added that he's a feminist. --91.159.202.175 (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP didn't remove the opinion, just moved it down a few paragraphs in the same section, which I think is ok. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I am currently editing on an IP, because I can't remember my password where I am right now. But I'll be back here on this very article later on with my real user. I just noticed the state of things on this one. If one's not doing everything oneself, nothing will ever get done. The place is in a state of disrepair without me. --91.159.202.175 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the text you're trying to dismiss as "Kimmel's opinion" is actually the generally accepted/mainstream view among academics. I've removed the attribution and added three citations to tertiary academics sources that demonstrate this. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's true that feminist sources (including gender studies academics) do appear to hold this view of anti-feminism. Antifeminists, however, appear to have a different opinion of their motivation and many of the links I posted in the section above give those opinions. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How is it the mainstream view among academics? You have done nothing to prove this. You provide the opinion of a few feminist academics and purpose that as all the academics. The very article itself provides you with antifeminist academics that see antifeminism differently. --91.159.202.175 (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:DUE. We are not obliged to give all opinions equal weight, especially when the vast majority of academics hold one view and a few outliers hold another. The additional sources I've cited are tertiary, peer-reviewed encyclopedias, published by major academic publishers: they condense and summarize what the academic literature on this subject says. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The article itself provides academics to the contrary. You have not provided proof of an academic concensus. You have provided feminist academics criticizing antifeminism, without mentioning they're feminists. It's got all the importance. I hate to repeat myself, but I'm tired. I'll go rest. --91.159.202.175 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can't accept that academic encyclopedias tend to represent the academic consensus, then there's really not much more I can say to convince you. The fact that some dissenting academics are mentioned and cited in the article does not change the fact that this is the consensus view. Anyone who takes even a cursory glance at the academic literature on this subject can see that. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just about to tuck in, but the Oxford encyclopedia bit you refer to is talking about 19th century and early 20th century antifeminism. It talks about antifeminism in the past tense, something that once was but is no longer. You neatly left all of that out. It's a nice historic footnote, but not relevant today. The header and the sentence in particular is not talking about what was, but what is. --91.159.202.175 (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Complaints like this come and go, but they don't change the article because of one basic fact: Wikipedia accepts that scholars on a topic are the definitive sources, the topmost experts. Scholars who study feminism are the ones who define the topic. It doesn't matter at all whether the scholar is also a feminist. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia accepts what we, the editors, decide it accepts, with a few exceptions like BLPs. If there is clear consensus on an article talk page that The National Enquirer is preferred over the Harvard Law Review, unless it's about a live person, then that's what happens. The IP is saying that the academic sources used refer to first and second wave feminism, not modern 3rd wave feminism. Is this true? Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not true. The articles are about antifeminism in general and deal with it in a modern context as well. Note as well that the IP does have an account, which they have been logging in and out of over at Political Correctness at the same time that they've been editing as an IP here. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES says, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." Regardless, I still haven't seen any sources about antifeminism that aren't academic feminist sources anyway. Taking opinion pieces from antifeminists and using them to generalize our own definition of antifeminism would be synthesis and original research. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That will be a continuing problem because of the term itself. It started as an obscure, rarely used term to describe what Binksternet actually noted, 'reactionary types'. It was used to denote a lack of a philosophical position: it was an umbrella term for general reactions. It wasn't until the third wave that it started to be used more widely, and as a derogatory term, in an attempt to silence critics. It was in fact a common attack levied against analytic feminists who crafted particularly critical and probing critiques of much of third wave feminism. If Wiki wants sources from antifeminists, they're going to have to settle for sources that aren't peer reviewed journals because by a very wide margin, the term is still considered a derogatory one in academia. If Wiki wants peer reviewed journal articles, of course they're going to be largely by feminist thinkers with very particular views: the majority of us do not use the term, at all. It's akin to asking for peer reviewed journal articles from climate scientists who denounce global warming. Of course this will be a problem. :P Maxxx12345 (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC) And speaking of which, I just saw an excellent example in the Women Against Feminism article: " A commentator from The Irish Independent wrote, "being anti-feminism is like being pro-apartheid, or a big fan of social injustice, but no one would think it's cute to hold up a sign saying that." A great example of why the term is used as I was describing. Just read that, wow. Maxxx12345 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

but an antifeminist does not have to have a PhD. if he/she is public regarded as antifeminist, then his/her quotes would be appropriate to include here. for example, the statements made by the political party J4MB should be admissible because they have been invited for TV appearances to speak on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.247.228.124 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, an antifeminist would be at best a WP:PRIMARY source for their own views. We could use them as a source in some situations, but it would be hard to prove WP:DUE weight; just because someone has eg. a blog or a YouTube channel and opposes feminism doesn't make what they say noteworthy enough to include here. The ideal sources would be peer-reviewed papers by historians and social scientists discussing antifeminism, its history, and so on; even if self-described antifeminists feel that the academic consensus about them is wrong or incomplete, our responsibility as an encyclopedia is still to report the consensus of such reliable sources rather than to try and supplant them with our own research from primary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)