Talk:Antifeminism

Definition of Antifeminism by feminists

Why is Antifeminism being defined by what feminist authors and thinkers are saying? That doesn't make any sense. I am going to edit this section and get the actual definition from anti feminists. Imagine Anti-racism article saying 'Prominent racist and KKK author says antiracism is baloney'. This is what right now this article sounds like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubancigar11 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Feminist scholars are a very highly respected source of information. Scholars in general are what we look for when a topic is difficult to define. There's no problem with referencing feminist scholars who are in fact the ones who study antifeminism the most. Basically, the only scholars of antifeminism are feminist scholars. So your concern is unfounded. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your argument. Antifeminism should be defined by those who claim themselves to be antifeminists. (ie womenagainstfeminism). Feminists are the critics of anitifeminism, therefore their views on antifeminism should be secondary views. As in any debate, the proposition always speak first.

also, "antifeminists" like Christina Hoff Summers are respected scholar themselves too and gave their reasons for why they oppose (current form of) feminism. why isn't their views or quotes being used here? 104.247.228.124 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with the OP. Having feminists define anti-feminism is not objective research since it is a counter movement/ideology/belief and would likely be better suited for a criticisms section; it would be like asking Tony Perkins to define homosexuality... you are just not going to get an unbiased assessment. Such instances should be removed or moved to their own section. 2602:306:B856:4600:49B:1BBE:E36F:1EDF (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I do not believe that the definition from the feminist scholar is the one that an antifeminist would use to identify themselves as (we should use a definition generally accepted by the group, since it's the groups right to define their ideology). It doesn't matter how feminism defines antifeminism (in this part of the article). Feminists can make their own definition for their arguments, be letting it be true in their premise, which can be useful for describing some antifeminists or an alternative definition more convenient for their argument. But we need to look at how antifeminists define themselves, and then we can see how others define or view them. Letting someone from another view define antifeminists (and that someones definition is not generally accepted by the group), when there are probably sources of antifeminists defining themselves out there, give people an inaccurate understanding of what the group is. Otherwise, the definition can end up setting up something not quite the same as how they usually identify themselves, possibly creating a straw man. So I guess the problem is trying to find a "reasonably accepted definition by antifeminists". Side note, further down the article, I do not believe most modern antifeminists identify themselves as Michael Kimmel has stated. I believe that most modern antifeminists aren't opposed to womens equality, if you'd ask them. Usually the argument by antifeminists is that feminists are going beyond equality, or just unjustly blaming people. 129.97.131.0 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we (antifeminists) should define our ideology ourself. I've read the German Wikipedia, where the antifeminism article was written by a feminist lobby on Wikipedia. Well, they stated that antifeminism was about hating women, and wishing men to rule over women. Well, no. Yes, I'm an antifeminist, but I am female too. And no, I don't wanna have less rights than men. But I don't wanna more rights because I'm female, and I actually love men (most of you are friendzones thou). Enough about me: I think we shouldn't use the feminist sources, since they are biased, and the antifeminists should tell what they are for. The feminist articles could be used later in the article, to show what feminists think about antifeminism. Like we could write in the feminist article, what antifeminists in scholarly articles think about them. --Momo Monitor (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And no, I don't wanna have less rights than men. But I don't wanna more rights because I'm female But that's actually a core tenet of feminism tho? In addition to that, modern feminism also critiques heteronormativity and cisnormativity, which is what actually many antifeminists have problems with -- their ideal is that "females should be encouraged to be as feminine as possible and males should be encouraged to be as masculine as possible". Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am the poster from 129.97.131.0. I'm not anti-feminist, nor really feminist (in that I participate in either of the movements). I do listen to various prospectives though, and come to my own conclusions. Just to add some things on, I don't believe we need to remove the views of feminists. However, what I do believe is that most anti-feminists would define themselves and their actions very differently than what feminists define them as, especially as presented on the article. The real reason why this is a problem is that, even as academics, I believe (whether intentional or not) that it starts to become a strawmans argument. For example, academics claim that anti-feminists are people who want to repress women's rights, where as I believe most anti-feminists would say they oppose feminists themselves, because of irrational claims / emotionally charged actions, gynocentrism, or whatever else. The problem is that the arguments that are presented by anti-feminists are simply not represented, but replaced with claims that make them look bad (again, in general, not as a pretence to an argument). I should also mention that some anti-feminists also DO support the suppression of womens rights (not unlike feminists who support suppression of mens rights), and even in a more historical context (which I believe can be included on the article) anti-feminism could have been defined as people who support the suppression of womens rights. However, I do not beleive that in general, modern anti-feminists support the suppression of womens rights. Now then, the more important question: Where can we get some reasonable sources as to what anti-feminists would generally define themselves as? Is there any academics who clearly state or argue the anti-feminist viewpoint? 129.97.124.194 (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Your point of view is interesting but it does nothing to shift this article. Topic experts define a topic. The topic experts here are scholars who study the issues of antifeminism. This article already has plenty of these. It doesn't need more of them. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree Binksternet. This article so far is poorly structured so, adding more opinions by experts on antifeminism would only help until it gets better organized. IP, feel free to add more to the article if you like. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cla68 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nature of the bias in this article

This article is clearly biased towards feminism and appears to have been majorly edited by one. If someone has the time to complete a major edit of this article, including replacing one of the definitions from feminists by someone from this movement and add one more that is also from an antifeminist, that would be much appreciated. Biasfixer (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Go read WP:NPOV. Articles reflect what sources reflect. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the article wrongly interpret what the scholars have said. the issue is the article did not reflect what the antifeminists have said of themselves. various ppl and entities have been accused of antifeminism or self-proclaim themselves to be. their views and their quotes have not been included in this article. and that itself is bias.

it does not matter whether if what these antifeminists said is "right" or "wrong", it only matters that the person or entity in question actually said those words. 104.247.228.124 (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is that definitions of "antifeminism" much like "feminism" can be subjective. Modern Feminists identify with the Suffragist movement as a forerunner to their own. However, this does not by extension link, for example Pro-Life groups who disagree with prevailing feminist views on abortion choice, to those who were opposed to women's suffrage. This is a tricky article with politically loaded terms, but it doesn't seem to attempt NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.132.166 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2016 (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)

Article criticizing feminist victimhood mentality

[1] Just parking this here in case we decide to add it to article. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And this one criticizing feminism's take on modern marriage. This one was written by a man. I believe someone here said earlier that we had too much criticism in this article written by women, which I found to be incredibly sexist. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Another written by a man. Cla68 (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Two more: [2] [3]. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of these are usable as sources. This article isn't meant to be a comprehensive list of everything any anti-feminist has ever said; it's meant to give a broad, encyclopedic coverage of what it is. Throwing in every article that attacks feminism would lead to an article that would be mostly incoherent; if a particular view or idea represents a major strain of antifeminist thought, then we should be able to find a better source for it than an editorial (ideally, a source specifically asserting that such-and-such a view is core to some anti-feminist movement rather than just the opinion of one person.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it's not that difficult. We simply list the antifeminist commentary from reliable sources on the talk page, as I'm doing here, then add a paragraph using those sources which summarizes their recurrent themes. If you look at the articles I listed, all of which are from reliable sources, at least two recurrent themes are readily apparent. I'll add something to the article when I get around to it. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Otro. Interesting that there has been this sudden spate of antifeminist columns out there in major media sources. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Otro and otro and otro. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Nah, it's not that difficult. We simply list the antifeminist commentary from reliable sources on the talk page, as I'm doing here, then add a paragraph using those sources which summarizes their recurrent themes."

That's called synthesis and it's a form of original research. Surely, there are some books and articles out there that actually discuss anti-feminism. At the very least, we shouldn't be using sources like college newspaper op-eds and tabloids (The Daily Mail). Those are scraping the bottom of the barrel for reliable sources. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not synthesis if you attribute the opinions. You'll see after I draft it. I don't know for sure why all these anti-feminist op-eds are suddenly appearing all over Western media. I suspect it's just one of the cyclical things that happens with modern socio-economic politics. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Otro. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, summarizing a bunch of op-eds definitely gives WP:UNDUE weight to those op-eds. Given the amount that's been written on the subject, if you want to summarize anti-feminist coverage the appropriate place to go is to look up academic journals writing about anti-feminism, rather than to try and collect a bunch of WP:PRIMARY sources and then do your own personal synthesis on them to parse out some meaning. None of the sources you're linking here are really useful, and your offer to summarize them in your own words isn't a workable option -- you need to find secondary sources commenting on them so we can rely on that for interpretation and to establish which views are important. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please wait until you see how I write it up before pre-emptively repudiating it. I've been editing since early 2006 and I know how to add information from sources like this without wrongful synthesis. The important thing about these op-eds is that they succinctly address the current concerns with feminism from its critics. As a feminist myself, I'm personally concerned about the level of vitriol that feminism is currently receiving in the press, but recognize our responsibility to document it in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Marion Cotillard disses feminism. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[4] Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[5] Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cla, can you maybe collect these links in your userspace or something instead of listing them here? Unless you have a specific revision to propose I don't think collecting links like this is helpful, or an appropriate use of the talk page.

I'll join the others, btw, in saying that I really don't think any of these links can or should be used in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This talk page isn't a dumping ground for sources criticizing feminism. Please collect them in your userspace. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

actually... the link for "Criticism of Feminism" leads to this article (antifeminism)... so between this article and the article on feminism, a decision will have to be made as to where to include the criticism part (or to make it a new article). 104.247.228.124 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Another good one. Why should these be collected in my user space? The purpose of article talk pages is exactly for stuff like this, collecting sources to improve the article. There has been a landslide of antifeminist articles and editorials over the last month or so which should really help improve this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

[6]. This one's really good as it covers a variety of issues that the author (a woman) has with modern feminism. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Op-ed by Carrie Lukas. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Another. Cla68 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

These aren't really ideal sources for the article; opinion-pieces like those would just be WP:PRIMARY sources by antifeminists. We're not supposed to write articles like these by analyzing primary sources and doing our own summary; we're supposed to go to secondary sources and rely on their analysis. (That's also how, for instance, we know whether a particular commentator is significant in the context of the larger subject, which I think would be a major problem with using any of these -- you're giving WP:UNDUE weight to what seems like a totally random selection of commentators.) You should be looking for people who are writing about antifeminism as a topic, not primary writings by antifeminists. --Aquillion (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2016 (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)

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)

"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)

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)

Biased removal of edits

I edited this article to properly represent anti-feminists in the controversy over the Equal Rights Amendment. The article as it stands now is a hit piece against antifeminists and is incredibly biased and obvious in its attempt to paint antifeminists as misogynists. Here is what my edit looked like:

The Equal Rights Amendment is a perennially proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would grant equal rights and opportunities to every citizen of the United States, regardless of his or her sex. By 1972, the amendment was supported by both major parties and was immensely popular; but though it made it through Congress, it was defeated when it failed to get the vote of thirty-eight legislatures by 1982.[28]

Antifeminists argue that there has been a lot of historical revisionism when it comes to the failure of the ERA. For instance, Jerome Himmelstein hypothesized that housewives opposed the ERA because they were content with being “economically dependent on their husbands”[29] and did not like the idea of working for a living. Those housewives’ high-income husbands opposed the amendment because they would gain the least with it being passed. In fact, those men had the most to lose since the ratification of the ERA would mean more competition for their privileged jobs and possibly a lowered self-esteem.[28]

Feminists claim that another method that the antifeminists used was getting the votes of politicians, who had the largest impact on the destiny of the ERA. Feminists argue that the support of antifeminism from conservatives and the constant “conservative reactions to liberal social politics” were the reasons for the ERA's failure. Like the New Deal attacks, the attack on the ERA has been dismissed as a “right-wing backlash”.[28]

However, when actually asked why they opposed the ERA, antifeminists, both right- and left-wing, like Phyllis Schlafly, who was pinnacle in beating the ERA, have much more nuanced reasons for their opposition to the ERA than misogyny or mere ideological tribalism. First, the full text of the ERA:

   Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
   Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
   Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. [30]

According to Schlafly's own organization, Eagle Forum, there were several reasons for her and other antifeminists' opposition to the ERA.[31]

-The rejection of the Wiggins Amendment, which meant that women would be subject to selective service should the ERA have passed due to the fact that the ERA promised absolute equality under the law. Considering that the controversy over the ERA reached its peak during the Vietnam War Era, opponents of the ERA refused to see their daughters be drafted for military service as their sons had been. [31]

-"ERA would take away the traditional benefits in the law for wives, widows and mothers. ERA would make unconstitutional the laws, which then existed in every state, that impose on a husband the obligation to support his wife." [31]

-In reference to the second section of the ERA, opponents stated it gave too much power to the federal government. "ERA would give enormous power to the Federal courts to decide the definitions of the words in ERA, "sex" and "equality of rights." It is irresponsible to leave it to the courts to decide such sensitive, emotional and important issues as whether or not the language applies to abortion or homosexual rights."[31]

-"ERA would force all schools and colleges, and all the programs and athletics they conduct, to be fully coeducational and sex-integrated. ERA would make unconstitutional all the current exceptions in Title IX which allow for single-sex schools and colleges and for separate treatment of the sexes for certain activities. ERA would mean the end of single-sex colleges. ERA would force the sex integration of fraternities, sororities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Boys State and Girls State conducted by the American Legion, and mother-daughter and father-son school events." [31]

-"ERA would put abortion rights into the U.S. Constitution, and make abortion funding a new constitutional right. Roe v. Wade in 1973 legalized abortion, but the fight to make abortion funding a constitutional right was lost in Harris v. McRae in 1980. The abortionists then looked to ERA to force taxpayer funding. The American Civil Liberties Union filed briefs in abortion cases in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut arguing that, since abortion is a medical procedure performed only on women, it is "sex discrimination" within the meaning of the state's ERA to deny tax funding for abortions. In the most recent decision, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled on April 19, 1986 that the state ERA requires abortion funding. Those who oppose tax funding of abortions demand that ERA be amended to prevent this effect, but ERA advocates want ERA only so long as it includes abortion funding." [31]

In short, the opposition to the ERA was fueled by concerns of government overreach and fear of women being treated equally to men and thereby losing privileges such as exemption from the draft, not misogyny.

I would like to know why my edit was removed. I copied this edit and sent it to my email since I figured wikipedia had a feminist bias. Stop painting antifeminists as misogynists, because there are millions of women against feminism, myself included. Are you suggesting I hate myself?

Source for the real reasons the ERA was opposed. http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html

Shame on you, wikipedia.--Dianapena4205 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The current version doesn't mention (or even, as far as I can tell, imply) that misogyny was a major reason for opposition to the EPA; instead, it says that conservative politics were a primary factor, which is basically what you say above, though at much longer length. In general I feel that this degree of detailed coverage for the views of the Eagle Forum would be WP:UNDUE; but the fact that much of the opposition to the ERA was driven by opposition to abortion is probably worth mentioning. My recollection is that it's more complicated than the Eagle Forum implies, though, since that was when anti-abortion rallying first started to become central to conservatism -- Schlafly was one of the founding figures behind the current tenet of opposition to abortion as a central conservative position in America, more than anyone else; and the ERA fight was one of the first cases where it became the unifying plank between religious, political, and cultural conservatives. I agree that the current ERA section isn't great, but I don't feel that the problem is bias specifically so much as an over-reliance on a few sources (you identified Himmelstein as an antifeminist in your edit -- I'm not sure that's accurate, but either way, we devote an entire paragraph to his views.) And I don't think dropping such a huge block of text on the views of the Eagle Forum in there, cited directly to them or to the text of the ERA, is the solution; we should find secondary sources that discuss the ERA fight in the context of the history of antifeminism instead. --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I also have a problem with your conclusion: "In short, the opposition to the ERA was fueled by concerns of government overreach and fear of women being treated equally to men and thereby losing privileges such as exemption from the draft, not misogyny." This isn't supported by sources so I can only conclude that it is your own interpretation, not a summary statement from a source. Wikipedia isn't the right forum for editors to draw their own conclusions about a complex social situation which would be more appropriate for a blog piece, an essay or editorial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, this article is biased. But thankfully not as hard as the German Wikipedia (where a group of feminists controll everything, sadly). Everything about masculism, antifeminism, mens's rights movement is described as misogynists, trying to oppress women, while feminism is the light, the only true 'religion' against 'patriarchy' and the cruel men. Sadly, the German Wikipedia is biased very much. I would just like to thank you, because you make Wikipedia great. --Momo Monitor (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)