Talk:Feminism

New and Confused. Intro includes argumentation?????

It's my first visit to this page, so forgive me if I say anything redundant. As a 45 y/o woman 41 y/o feminist and activist, I never felt the need to visit the page to learn. But over the course of this year, it's come to my attention that (and correct me if I'm wrong) that for years feminism has been coopted by the LGBT movement (personally I have issues with the term LGBT because as a bi I've never heard of any stiffling of rights for bis, but that's just me). I'm all for equal rights for all, but in my book that's neither here or there when I question myself on feminism. So when I read the opening paragraph and see the last line stating that "some argue" that feminism is not about women but about gender freedom for all, I have to stop and scream WTF???????

I realise there are a lot of intellectuals here who've done a lot of reading on the matter and have plenty of "sources" to argue either way. But my understanding of wikipedia is that it's not here to represent "all" opinions, but the concensus view, the definition of least surprise for a majority of readers.

As it stands, the intro reads like it was written by 10 hands having an argument. It's unreadable and ridiculous. But heck, who knows, maybe I'm not a feminist after all?? Who'd a thunk after so many years of fighting religious and patriarchal subjugation??--Tallard (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, i think the article needs to have more about abortion, as it seems to be the biggest litimus test many are holding out to define whether or not a person is accepted as a feminist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.154.199 (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your mistake is to think that introductions or articles should provide a "consensus view." That is simply not the case. NPOV demands we include all significant views. This article does a decent job doing just that. The sentence you refer to is accurate. So your problem seems to be that you find it a "surprise." Well, don't we come to books and articles hoping to be surprised, hoping we will learn something new? Otherwise, why bother reading anything? The lead says "some people" hold this view. And you seem to think that if "some people" hold that view, people who hold other views are not feminists. How strange. To think that all people must think alike. I did not know feminists are battling it out to decide which one definition of feminism will over-rule all other definitions. In the meantime, at Wikipedia, we try to provide majority and minority views without taking any side or insisting that one view is the truth or that our article can tell any feminist what to believe or what not to believe. Wikipedia is just not about that. If you are looking for some ministry of propaganda, you came to the wrong place. You seem to want to make an argument, argue that your view is the only view. We make no arguments, we just describe the different views. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

69.149.154.199, the problem is that your personal views can't be included in the article. --Aronoel (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased POV

"Nazi Germany and the contemporary fascist states illustrate the disastrous consequences for society of a state ideology that, in glorifying traditional images of women, becomes anti-feminist"

Who is to say that these consequences are objectively disastrous? Sounds like pro-feminist bias to me. --123.3.186.252 (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, consensus on Wikipedia is that fascism has disastrous consequences by any objective standards (even those of Objectivists). You are unlikely to overturn that consensus. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Spain was a Fascist state for decades under Franco. Many still there would dispute the statement "fascism has disastrous consequences" whether you agree with them or not. It could be argued that Hitlers actions were the result of megalomania and not Fascism. 142.13.22.241 (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea that fascism was not a disaster for Spain and Portugal sounds like pretty much a fringe viewpoint to which we are not obliged to pander. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a fringe viewpoint. I recall Franko came highly on a poll of greatest leaders (or something). (No, I'm not going to put in the effort necessary to find the poll.) The above quote, however, OBVIOUSLY demonstrates a pro-feminist bias.BBrown 16:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfbbrown (talk • contribs)

Men's reactions

Regardless of your views of MRA's Michael Floods opinions on them are massive POV

"..and anti-feminist men's rights activists who "have ridden the wave of right-wing backlashes against “political correctness” and efforts at social justice"

Either this is reworded else I will remove it. Also this section has excessive emphasis on male feminist "scholars" ie Flood, Kimmel etc. They are self declared feminists not a reaction to it. Zimbazumba (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course Flood's views are his "point of view." Wikipedia articles must have a neutral point of view, but we do not expect our sources to have a neutral point of view. In fact, we accomplish NPOV by providing all significant views. In other words, we provide multiple points of view. If we removed Flood, we would be violating NPOV. Now, if you think there are significant views that are not yet represented in the article, just tell us what views and whose they are, and how significant are they? NPOV requires us to distinguish between mainstream, majority, minority and fringe views. But even minority views should be included, as long as they are not given undue weight. Also, Flood's view is clearly identified as his viw, and not as "the truth." We aren't here to debate the truth, we are here to present an account of all significant views, even one's we do not agree with. Have you even read our policy?Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That statement is presented as a statement of reasonable truth supported by references, ie that " anti-feminist men's rights activists who "have ridden the wave of right-wing backlashes against “political correctness” and efforts at social justice " to a large degree is correct with 2 objective references that most would agree with to support that assertion. That's the way references work. If you wish them them work the way you suggest then I could flood this article with anything I pleased. There is no indication in the main text that that statement is a POV. Further more the referenced 'Paper' is a polemic opinion piece with vast swathes of text that have no substantiation, including the quoted phrase in this Wiki entry. I claim this reference does not pass Wiki guidelines. I understand the concept of balance, this is abuse of that idea. Zimbazumba (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

How about toning down the rhetoric Zimbazumba? People's opinion about what constitues scholarship is not what this project relies upon - we have a policies for that WP:RS and WP:DUE. And the section does not assert these opinions as fact but as reactions by men. There are two references that you're contesting. One is published in a academic collection (and you can see how well cited that essay is by using google scholar [1]) the other is published by an academic webiste (XYonline) and by an expert in the field (Flood). So, on what grounds (ie what part of WP:V) are you contesting either source? Please explain so we can understand--Cailil ^talk 15:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Firsltly he "two" references are in fact to the same work. I don't think I am being picky here concerning its content, read it. Secondly XYonline is basically a blog/forum not an "academic website" (new word to me). Thirdly being an "expert" does not give you license to have patently absurd writings given credence. I understand the the idea of balance and am not averse to contrary opinions being added, including those of Flood. Atm I feel these opinions are being given undue prominence in this section. My sense is that if I was to add venomous counter opinions with similar prominence to other sections on this page from MRA writers, (some of who have qualifications and academic credentials exceeding those of Flood), there would be uproar. I am genuinely trying to achieve balance here, work with me. I will propose a rewording of this section. 142.13.22.241 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This section is a farce. Flood and Kimmel are as much radical feminists as they are men (I believe "mangina" is the label most frequently given to them by men who are not pro-feminist), which is completely beside the point that the section itself is junk. "Reaction from men?" How on earth can anyone even begin to summarize the reactions of about half the world? Reactions from masculists, mens or fathers rights activists, the men's rights movement maybe, but "reactions from men?" That's just ridiculous. Men are not an identity group that plays Identity politics, they have no spokesperson, no matter how much some groups would like to pigeon-hole all men as having some universal opinion or pre-dispositions. There is no WP:RS that can meet the threshold necessary to speak to men's overall reaction to feminism. Building upon the already ridiculous premise of the section, since it only quotes Kimmel and Flood shouldn't it be merged with the "Pro-feminism" section? Or do pro-feminists also get to speak to "men's reactions" as well? How about a "Women's reaction" section? Or are we trying to pretend that feminism is the true voice for all women, or all women are feminists (or at least should be so we'll exclude the ones who aren't?)-Cybermud (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Masculists, mens or fathers rights activists, the men's rights movement probably deserve teir own articles, and their views of feminism should be explained in those articles. There is no particular reason why men's rights activists cannot also be feminists. "Men who are not pro-feminist" seems like an awfully wordy way to say "anti-feminists" (if you mean men who are indifferent to feminism then obviously their views are not relevant here). For clear acounts of why some masculinists or men's rights activists are anti-fminist, pray tell which sources you would propose we use? Remember, this page is for talk about how to improve the article. Can you specify the significant views you wish to include and provide the reliable sources in which they are expressed? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? If so you have completely missed my point. Having a "Men's reaction" section presumes that anything remotely resembling a complete and inclusive discussion of men's reaction to feminism is possible. I think this section should removed in its entirety for the sexist nonsense that it is. And, in keeping with the ridiculous premise of the section, I say that in my role as speaking for all men. I listed other groups of men, because you can, in theory distill the opinions of individual groups of men. To put it in terms that may be more clear to you, what if I created a section in the father's rights article called "Feminist views on fatherhood." Certainly many would object because there is not a single coherent feminist stance on fathers given the diversity of feminist beliefs. How much worse would it be if I created a section entitled "Women's reaction to fatherhood?" It's idiocy.--Cybermud (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify further, feminists are not necessarily women, and men's and father's rights activists are not necessarily men. How's about we create a section about "Senior Citizen's reaction?" Some very significant advances to feminist causes have been made by men, likewise for men's rights issues. If the "Men's reaction" section became a hundred pages long it would still be a sexist attempt to limit and pigeon-hole men.--Cybermud (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? If so you have completely missed my point. This page is for discussing improvements to the article only. My point is that the place to start is by identifying significant views from reliable sources. If you cannot do that, you are not doing anything to improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're confused or making a poor attempt at humor. Which part of my comments are not intended to improve the article and what does your point have to do with my point? A question, whose lack of an answer, brings me back to my original question and statement. Are you responding to me? Are you sure you're commenting in the section you intended to?--Cybermud (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem very confused. The article never suggests all men have th same response to feminism; in fact it explicitly says there are many views, and it provides verifiable sources. BNow you hve taken up considerable space here spouting your personal views. Sorry, we editors never put our own views in the article. NPOV requires us to provide all significant views from verifiable sources. Do you think one of the sources cited is misrepresented? if so, please be specific. Do you think significant views from reliable sources exist that are not yet in the article? By all means tell us which views from which sources. That would be most welcome! Unless you do either of these things you are not in any way helping to improve the article, you are just using this page as your personal blog. Please do not. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow.. you really seem to have a talent for taking a whole lot of space to say a whole lot of nothing. At no point have you even remotely gone anywhere near the point I was making. Specifically, that this section is inappropriate. Perhaps this edit, tied to improving the article, will clarify my point for you?--Cybermud (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Btw.. common internet, and WP, practice is to indent your post below the one you are responding to. Should help clarify who you're responding to in cases where where what you referring to is ambiguous ;) --Cybermud (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I support changing the title of this section or breaking it up into different subsections. This topic would be improved by being more specific about exactly whose reaction it is discussing, such as masculists or male feminists. --Aronoel (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing the name of the section could be a positive step forward - but we shouldn't delete informaive content with reliable sources just because we don't lik the namof a section.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think that makes sense. --Aronoel (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Historically, some men have engaged with feminism.": It doesn't say which way they've engaged; that's what the subsequent sentences address. How do you disagree with that statement?

"Others [among men] have lobbied and campaigned against feminism.": If you're asking us to source this, it feels like you're asking us to source that two plus two equals four. If you're saying that the word others means all, please advise what dictionary you're using. If neither of these is your issue regarding this sentence, please specify what the issue is. Meanwhile, I am shortening that sentence and perhaps that's a solution. Feminism, historically and today, has been largely a movement by women; some men agreed and some did not. The majority did not. Of those who did not, many actively worked against it. The reports are legion.

The only way that I know that "Men" is sexist is in historical linguistics, going back to proto-Indo-European and probably its antecedents. If we remove every word that fails that test we'd be hard-pressed to write anything on any subject, at least in English, German, Iranian, Dutch, Russian, Sanskrit, and Spanish, among others. That's not the degree of sexism we can linguistically afford to avoid at this time. Words like nongeneric man, woman, boy, girl, male, and female are still to be used, including in articles on feminism, so long as we do so with reasonable care. I don't recall ever seeing a proposal for a nonsexist replacement word for man used specifically; mehn was proposed only for 'profeminist men', not 'all men', and, anyway, it hasn't caught on and isn't likely to anytime soon. In this case, the word "Men" correctly described the content of the text that was so titled. I don't think we should say "Adult people whose gender has become unmentionable and who aren't women within a paradigm of there being only two genders" as a title.

"Groups" is too vague. Critiques of feminism by women are already covered. The specific passage is about men's reactions, so we don't need to speak only of genderless groups.

Removing the link to Men and feminism seems to be an invitation to expand this section to the point that it will overwhelm the feminism article, and that's not how criticisms should be handled. Critiques should be a minor part of an article, because when there's so much to say that an entire article is needed, then an entire article should be written, and if one already has been, then it should be linked to.

I skimmed the paragraph in the source code and I don't think you made a change not mentioned above. I left the later change you made, rearranging a sentence.

I have not looked into the XYonline and Xlibris issues.

Nick Levinson (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Alot of valid concerns to respond to there and I only have a few moments (will come back to it though.) For starters, Mills and Bentham did not "engage" feminism. Feminism did not exist in any way at that time and certainly not in a formal form that could be "engaged." I know that feminists like to position themselves as the modern day incarnation of every person and event throughout recorded history that addressed a gender inequity that was prejudicial to women, but just because someone historically spoke to disadvantages faced by women in any given area throughout history did not make them a feminist or show them to be having a dialog with feminism. Additionally, "Some" (as in "some men") is an exceedingly weasely word choice. Pro-women is NOT necessarily equal to feminism (or even friendly to it). I will expand upon that at length if it is unclear.--Cybermud (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, why are you referring to the reaction section as a "criticism section"? If it is a criticism section I'm failing to really see any besides criticism of the critics and particularly "men" who have, with "some" exceptions, apparently, opposed feminism universally by implication. Whole thing smacks of a patriarchal conspiracy theory that paints all men as oppressors, which is not unfair given the general zeitgeist of the modern and postmodern movement that the article is about which continuously posits exactly that, but it's a fallacious poisoning of the wells to presume that its ever been established that men have, as a group, opposed feminism. Groups of men, certainly, and these can be identified by name, but not "men" in general. Society always resists change and tradition has its own inertia,but, I repeat, men, are not an identity group and never have been (neither are women.) How about the reactions of the "Tall persons" to feminism?

By the way, where is the "critiques of feminism by women" covered? I'm completely failing to see it.

Aside from the fact that i'm not at all trying to play the linguistic word games that feminism loves ("herstory," "ovulars," "womyn" etc,) as much as your tangent on the topic was interesting, you are creating a completely fallacious dichotomy between my objection to the presumptuous, and sexist, claim that the opinions and reactions of men, as a group, can be encapsulated, and referring to "the gender that can no longer be named." I repeat, men are not card-holders of some identity group (or patriarchal club.) You can identify groups of men very easily without lumping them all into the massively over-broad category of "men" or failing to identify them as men at all. The middle ground between those two extremes is infinite.--Cybermud (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is quite simple. Do you have reliable sources that categorizes men's reactions to feminism in a different way to the article Cybermud?--Cailil ^talk 00:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud, I think this may ease your efforts at researching the subject and conceptualizing where to find sources.

Mary Wollstonecraft is accepted as a feminist and her A Vindication of the Rights of Woman came out in 1792, 74 years before John Stuart Mill's women's petition. Jeremy Bentham, his concern with the assignment of inferiority to women arising in the year Mary Wollstonecraft was born, is thus earlier than both, but I don't know of any claim that feminism was invented only after his concern and before she finished her book. I don't know enough about his work to judge it, but if he was functionally profeminist, he was profeminist, even if the word didn't exist yet. The word feminism probably didn't exist in English during the lifetimes of these three, but words are often not invented until someone finds a need for a word. While a chemist may plan to invent a chemical and assign a name even before inventing anything, for other phenomena the order may be the opposite. For example, it's common for a norm to have no recognized contrast, and without a contrast the norm itself doesn't need a name until the contrast becomes unavoidable and itself requires a name, so that the norm also needs a name. An example of that is that computer scientists spoke of logic until fuzzy logic was developed, at which point they needed a term for the nonfuzzy variety, which then became known as crisp logic. To have said crisp logic earlier would have seemed ridiculously redundant when logic was always supposed to be precise. But fuzzy logic has a definite role in software and so we have the word crisp logic to distinguish the other kind. Feminism as a word was invented long after the phenomenon it names. Native Americans or American Indians are so named although they refer to a people and a time preceding the naming of this nation by people of European descent.

Engagement could occur when a woman sought to participate in an activity previously performed only by men, such as a remunerative occupation, and a man objected on the ground of genderal difference or when a woman sought equality and a man objected on the ground that gender made equality impossible or undesirable. Women did not have to join a collective feminist action; while success may have required collectivity, the existence of feminism did not. Likewise, men did not have to respond only formally or only to a formal expression of feminism. Informality was permissible on both sides and could permit plenty of efficacy, especially to the degree formality wasn't available (consider the distribution of literacy).

I suggest that, just as laws criminalizing conduct are strong indicators of what problems lawmakers perceived before enactment, historic laws that authorized men to beat women up but not the other way around are strong indicators that lawmakers perceived that men should have that authorization but women shouldn't, even if there's no document today that directly reveals the problem then attributed to women.

I agree that not every address to women's inequity was feminist or profeminist. Rape was often the subject of outrage by men for reasons not necessarily feminist, and the reasoning was often antifeminist. And I agree that being pro-woman is not necessarily feminist or profeminist. But some addresses were feminist or profeminist, and were no less likely so simply for occurring centuries ago.

I didn't exactly refer to the reaction section as a criticism section in this topic, but it partly functions as one, because reactions include criticisms and support. (I'm discussing here based on a November revision at Feminism because I haven't had time to review all of the latest edits.) Antifeminism, by women and men, is inherently a criticism of feminism, and antifeminism is discussed. There is also the subsection Criticisms by Women of Colour, with Lower Incomes, or Not Western. It gives what it is titled.

The article doesn't say that all men opposed feminism. Of course, identifying groups is helpful, but even referring to masculists has the problem that most modern U.S. men who oppose feminism do not claim to be masculists; they see no need for a group identification like that and are happy to just refer to themselves as men, people, or individuals with concerns. Functionally, they're masculists, but that means that functionally most male opponents can be grouped as masculists. But if we write simply that masculists opposed feminism then readers will presume that we mean some group so tiny it doesn't even have a listing in a phone book. There was a National Organization for Men that seemed mainly concerned with divorce and I think was largely run by one divorce lawyer who did occasional media interviews; without checking, I doubt it ever had more than a few hundred members at a time or more than one office.

Among men who opposed feminism are those who ignored women's demands, requests, or expressed hopes for any kind of feminist-like equality. Even if the men didn't take explicit exception to what women wished for, but chose to ignore it and thereby maintain an existing imbalance, they acted in opposition. If we're walking with a child who demands ice cream and we willfully and silently ignore that, we are, even without words, opposing the demand for ice cream. An alternative to that is to treat the desire as hilarious. That, too, can be opposition. When it is, such men can be included as opponents of feminism.

When people differ on the focus of feminism, e.g., employment rights vs. reproductive rights, often someone identifies as feminist on one issue while opposing an applicant on the other. In that case, we determine what feminism is and then judge whether the given opposition is antifeminist or not.

Men are an identity group in two senses: explicit and implicit. When a man encourages me to do something because it's what all men do (never mind that not all men do), he's engaging in group identification and encouraging me to act on the basis of an implied group identification. Some people announce an identity group and then try to recruit people to see themselves as members, in which case probably not everyone who qualifies will join, but in other cases people communicate, function, and bond as an identity group and then a few of them announce a name for that identity, in which case probably not everyone will agree on the naming even if they do functionally implicitly agree on having interests in common. I'm profeminist but most people I pass on the street don't know that, but one look at me and most people will identify me as a man and, in my experience, will ascribe values to me in agreement with my gender and will interact with me accordingly if at all. A mugger may be more likely to attack a woman than a man because of the mugger's assumptions about how members of each gender will respond, and the assumptions will generally be approximately correct.

Tallness actually is an issue. Despite your comment, I think you recognize that what is relevant to feminism is more about gender and less about height. At any rate, adults who are short have objected to societal preferences going to people who are tall for matters where that may be irrelevant. I don't know whether women are likelier than men to be very short (i.e., not just a few inches shorter); if they are, then feminism is directly implicatable in their response; if not, then feminism can intersect, as in many cases of multiple-ground discrimination. An example of the relevance of height was when women sued for access to jobs as railroad conductors and a railroad protested that the controls were high up and therefore required taller people for safe operation, thus favoring men, who tend to average a little more height than do women. The women won and the railroad arranged for a new control design.

Feminist words such as herstory have achieved very little usage even among feminists. They have achieved enough to make their way into some authoritative dictionaries of general English, but a very small percentage of feminist books routinely use words like womyn. I have argued for using some of them and have used them occasionally, but if anyone feels overwhelmed by the quantity of their usage they should try counting up actual instances as a proportion of all the literature they read. I doubt most readers of feminism would find that proportion exceeding one tenth of one per cent.

Nick Levinson (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC) (Corrections, a few, all minor: 07:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

Cailil, I'm not sure how I've been unclear. I'm saying such a reliable source for the views of men, as a group, on feminism does not exist. I don't have the sources and neither do you. It's presumptions to assume that the beliefs of all men (likewise for all women), as a group, on anything can be surmised or summarized. If you understood my point you would not ask me to provide a reliable source for the very thing I'm claiming does not exist. Men are about half of the world's human population. They exist in every country, society, culture and ethnicity throughout all of human history. No attempt to summarize their views on anything can ever hope to be half-way inclusive.--Cybermud (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Cybermud, on both counts. I undestand your point very well. You don't have source then that's your problem. This page is for source-based discussion not opinions and not assumptions. There are ample sources on Men and the variety of men's reactions to feminism (from supportive to resistant, including on Men's Rights organizations, and both in a contemporary frame as well as a historical one) that meet the appropriate criteria for wikipedia. 23 are used in the article (ref 108-131) and I can pull a further 6 off a library shelf with ease. Base any future somments on any talk-page on sources and stop using wikipedia as a soapbox or a forum. We just don't discuss subjects on these pages we simply discuss sources and how to use them to improve articles. Period--Cailil ^talk 14:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Both counts of what? That you've missed my point and that sources don't exist? My question, in regards to all your books and references, is precisely which men? All of them? British men.... Wealthy, white, Christian British men? I will be more amenable to the way you want to present these sources and books of yours when Wikipedia provides a template "Globalize/Men" like they do for articles that are US centric (although I will still disagree and you have still missed my point.) In response to your admonishments, let me be very clear to you. I am not using WP as a soapbox. My discussions are tied directly to the article and its improvement. I see no problem in my usage of talk pages and I intend NO change in behavior. Make and do with that what you will.--Cybermud (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This article hasn't had a "men's reactions" section for two days now. --Aronoel (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I support your change to the section names. I hope they are not reverted.--Cybermud (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, Great! --Aronoel (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I very much respect your views and appreciate you taking the time to share them. Your points on the universal concept of "being a (real) man," and, by implication, associated concepts such as rites of manhood and the like is compelling. Certainly every society in history has such ideas about the appropriate roles for men and women. The problem is that, what exactly those roles and ideas constitute is completely relative to the society from which it originated. That is to say, while every society has them they only apply to groups of men, not to all men and, by your own admission, there are variations within individual societies and men who will refuse to ascribe to them.

It's offtopic, and unsurprising that you'd think so, but a woman walking alone is actually less likely to be mugged. Men are the target of violence and attack more often than women (unless you limit the type of attack to sexual assault outside of prisons.) The problematic presumption is that an attacker will always strike the most vulnerable but we are not a society of wolves. An elderly woman is, statistically speaking, least likely to be attacked (conversely though she is also least likely to be able to defend herself in the event of an attack. These two facts are interdependent.)

You are right, tallness, or more accurately lack thereof, was a poor example of my point.

Actually. I also do object to calling Mary Wollstonecraft a feminist. She advocated for social change on behalf of women, certainly, but feminism did not exist then. I would not object to her being called one of the philosophical founders for what would become feminism, or even that her views are consistent with many apsects of modern feminist theory, but that's besides the point. I could easily pick a flavor of feminism for myself such as equity feminism or sex-positive feminism, but I choose to reject the label of feminism altogether. Conversely, self-avowed feminist Daphe Patai has made the opposite choice even though a very substantial body of her work could easily be called anti-feminist and, fallaciously, would almost certainly be called misogynistic if a man were to say it. Indeed there is probably nothing I believe that is inconsistent with some strand of feminism, but that doesn't make me a feminist and, honestly, I'd take offense if I were called one (absolutely no disrepect intended in your identifying yourself as a pro-feminist.) Feminism is a very loaded word with a lot of heavy baggage. Going into the details of precisely why I feel that would likely derail this discussion entirely and is irrelevant to my point, in that, Mills, Bentham and Wollstonecraft were not feminists. It's certainly possible that, were these individuals alive today, they would look at feminism holistically and identify themselves with it as well. Or not. And there's no way for us to know.

At the risk of digressing too far I think the issue here stems from your acceptance of a universal patriarchal oppression of women that many, including myself, do not share. I'm not saying that societies were not generally patriarchal, they were. I'm saying that the point of the patriarchy was not the subjugation of women (but rather the survival and foundation of functioning societies and families.) Society oppressed and used both sexes in different ways and for different purposes. I will grant you that women were often treated as property, but men were also often treated as less than property. Men were often treated as slaves to property. Society divided up gender roles for survival based on what was needed in that society. One of the great flaws of feminism, IMHO, is its exclusive focus on the oppression of women and their placing the blame for that oppression on the, ostensibly malevolent, shoulders of men. To take a historic example relevant to yours on laws, while there were laws that permitted men to beat their wives, laws also held men responsible for the crimes and debts of their wives (including sending them to debtors prison and death.)

Another area where I where I would disagree with you is in your repeating the oft-cited feminist call for equality. Exceptional cases aside, mainstream feminism never discusses or addresses inequity's that benefit women and/or are detrimental to men and boys (indeed they generally deny they exist.) The political genius of feminism in appealling to women has been it's calling for an expansion of rights without, generally speaking, a comensurate call for an expansion in responsibilities (aka, "having it all.") Feminism has rarely (if ever) called on women to register for the draft or demanded to be included in it nor do they ask women to take on careers they like less to support the family more or to marry down economically (some notable exceptions aside.)

I have no doubt that, if you think about it, even you will back away from your claim that men who did not support feminism were, inherently opposing it. Atheism is not a religion (ie not believing is not "just another belief" that amounts to another religion.) George W. Bush gave a famous speach saying, in essence, "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" which exhibits a similar rational. The world is not black and white and indifference or failing to take a stand, while morally reprehensible in some cases, is not equal to opposition. One does not rock the boat without paying a personal price. If an individual choses not to pay that price it's not necessarily because she is in opposition to the boat flipping over.--Cybermud (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Should add. I absolutely agree and understand your point on the creation of new words. But, are you saying that need for the word feminism did not exist at the time of Mills and Bentham because such a word was not needed? If, in fact, feminism is synonymous with a movement for the human rights of women, how can such a word not have been needed over the course of thousands of years of female oppression? By virtue of our agreement as to the origin of language, either it necessarily existed or was not needed. Granted that there is obviously some delay between the need for a word and its invention, but surely something as fundamental as the human rights for a universally oppressed sex would have a name before the 18th century. Slavery has certainly always had a name. Plato talked about the rights of slaves and women in relation to the social order. Why not a word for feminism dating back to ancient Greece? Feminism has many meanings, implication and purposes. It is an ideology, civil rights and political movement and world-view with many adherent disagreeing, often diametrically, with each other on the "right" feminism. In this sense feminism is not unlike a religion. If there were a religion that predated the birth of Christ which held identical beliefs to Christianity would it be accurate to call them Christians the way you are calling Bentham, Mills and Wollencraft feminists? --Cybermud (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud, this is not a soapbox. As Cailil and I have pointed out, you need to provide reliable sources for any views you present that are significant enough to include in the article. You have been arguing, debating, with us for some time now. But this is not a chat-room. The opinions of eictors do not count. Do not try to change my mind, because what is on my mind does not go into the article. What goes into the article (including material you tried to delete) comes from reliable sources. Has anyone in print made th arguments you keep expressing? By all means provide us with sources and we can incorporate them into the article. Otherwise, you sem to be inerested only in original research. No one cares whether you (or Nick or I) think Mills or Wollstonecraft or Plato were or were not feminists. All that matters is whether a significant view from a reliable source says so. You do not like the ones we have been using. Big deal - they meet Wikipedia's standards. But we would all be willing to add other sources, expressing other views, that you think are under- or mis-represented ... if only you would proide us with your citations. Still waiting. Still waiting. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you really asking me to source a statement that says the biological fact that a human has a penis is not significantly indicative of their reaction to an ideological movement? The burden of proof for extraordinary claims lies with the claims maker, but you are not only not sourcing this exceptional claim yourself, you are presuming it's been successfully made and asking me to counter it. I see no sources here, nor do I frankly expect to see any, which speak to the ideological implications of a penis. Exhorting me to provide sources to counter an unsourced extraordinary claim is ignorant or disingenuous at best.--Cybermud (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes,you are making the extraordinary claim that humans with penises will have no reactions to or thourhgts concerning feminism. This truly is an amazing claim. If you want to keep pushing it, provide a citation. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you really not see the distinction between my objection to generalizing the views of some men as the views of men, and saying that men have no reaction at all? ...because the depths of that false dichotomy are breathtaking. Men, as a group, have no summarizable or readily discernible reaction. Groups of men and individual men certainly do. If you have a source that talks about the reaction of white, wealthy, middle-aged, Christians in 20th century Britain please include it. Just don't' call it the "reaction of men."--Cybermud (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I reread the article and cannot find anything that says "this is how all men think." Moreover, I cannot find anyoplace that says "Men" or even "this man" thinks this way "for the biological reason that he has a penis," as you claim (as opposed to, because this is his subject position, or social status, which seem more obvious readings in this case). Where does it say men think this way for biological reasons? That is what you are arguing aainst, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see how you might be confused, but you see this section of the talk page we are in, called "Men's reactions" was started to address problems with the section on "Men's reactions" in the article. It has since been changed. Perhaps you weren't involved with this debate when it began which makes your confusion as to its source genuine and understandable rather than disingenuous and made in bad faith. I'm glad you now understand the point I'm making and the issue it was made in response to.--Cybermud (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now I see how you were confused. The title of the section was Men's reactions, not "all men's reactions." I am glad you admit this now. So now you understand that it nowhere said "All men." It never claimed to provide the reaction of all men, or reactions shared by all men. Also, as you admit, it never said men believe this for biological reasons. Since now you understand, I guess you can go away in good faith. Best,

Slrubenstein | Talk 13:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's unsurprising that the admin admonishing me here is, once again, silent about argumentative idiocracy that panders to a particular POV, but the section is no longer titled "Men's reactions." If you actually read what I've been saying and stop trying to get in some snarky last comment and "win" the problems with that section title, and the reason it, and it contents, have been changed should be clear. Now I'm done with this discussion. Feel free to get the last word in and feel superior.--Cybermud (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti feminism

This section contains mostly a list of people who self describe and are described by many as Equity Feminists, (see Wiki entry for Equity and gender feminism). This section should be moved to the main section under the heading Equity Feminism. Equity feminism whether you agree with it or not is a significant school of feminism, dating back to Fawcett, Bentham and Wollstonecraft. Otherwise do we not not have a POV fork? 142.13.22.241 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Further more is not the term "Anti feminism" a pejorative? Do such groups self identify as such as their primary reason for existence? We don't refer to Republicans as "anti-Democrats" or Democrats as "anti-Republicans"? Zimbazumba (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To be against something is hardly pejorative. In order to comply with NPOV, we must represent multiple views, ncluding opposing views. Ar eyou saying no one is opposed to feminism? If anyone is opposed to feminism, they are by definition anti-feminism. maybe as you suggest they do not exist, but if they do, surely their views should be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious, have you actually read that entry? Are you suggesting its NPOV? There is a strong suggestion through undue prominence of the stated opinion that that list of women are against women's equality. I'd like to see someone try arguing that with Camille Paglia or many others on that list. Undue prominence is also being given to this opinion through the very existence of the section. I think this section is agenda driven and an attack by one feminist group on another. The meaning of a word is primary defined by its context not its dictionary definition, again as I said before we do not refer to Republicans as "anti-Democrats". There is no such section at Republican_Party_(United_States) although I bet I could find a raft people who held that opinion or worse. And I repeat do we not have a POV fork because of Equity and gender feminism? The people on this list ARE feminists, ie equity feminists, but not to the liking of some. I'd appreciate these points being addressed. Zimbazumba (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am serious. Now, let's try to pinpoint why exactly ou asked me this qustion.

• To be against something is hardly pejorative. Do you disagree?
• In order to comply with NPOV, we must represent multiple views, ncluding opposing views. Do you disagree?
• Are you saying no one is opposed to feminism?
• Maybe as you suggest they do not exist, but if they do, surely their views should be included. Do you disagree? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Patai talks a lot about the ideological policing in women's studies courses (ie the "right" feminism.) Suppose it's not all that surprising that she is only mentioned in the section in anti-feminism despite always identifying herself as a feminist. I also take serious issue with the statement that "Antifeminism is the opposition to women's equality." This is a complete straw man. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the critiques of women's studies and feminism is NOT opposition to women's equality. It's pretty shameful that WP makes such a silly claim in an article as prominent and important as this one... yet, somehow, completely unsurprising.--Cybermud (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud—then let us fix it. —Zujine|talk 04:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100% with 142.13.22.241 and Zimbazumba. If these people were anti-feminists then they wouldn't identify themselves as equity feminists and the "anti" term is in some cases the complete reverse of reality. Equity feminists are typically far more committed to the original goals and dictionary definition of feminism than anyone else. The only type of feminism they are "anti" is the gender feminist man hating variety.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The section also defines anti-feminism as "opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms." Also the section includes criticism of the labeling of those people as anti-feminists. So it's hard for me to understand what the issue is with this section. --Aronoel (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is that they aren't anti-feminists at all. Most feminists would meet the definition of being opposed to "some" forms of feminism or other and the fact is that equity feminisms views are far more in keeping with any dictionary definition of feminism than most other people. It's a breach of Wikipedia's POV polices to smear people in this way, not to mention totally inaccurate.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't claim that they are anti-feminists, it just says, "Writers such as Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese have been labeled "anti-feminists" by feminists.[154][155] Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge argue that in this way the term "anti-feminist" is used to silence academic debate about feminism." If anything, I think this is a little bit too generous to these writers, implying that they've been treated unfairly without presenting much of the other side. It's definitely not smearing since it is a fact that they have been called anti-feminists by other writers, and the article is already highly critical of that "label." But of course, I'm interested in any specific re-wording ideas you have for this section, and any specific sources you want to draw on. It might be helpful to add that some of them have identified themselves as feminists, for example. --Aronoel (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple really. Those writers are not anti-feminists and it is a smear. If they are to be mentioned in this aritcle it should not be under a huge great heading suggesting they are anti-feminists, they do not belong there. One could quote all manner of smears and insults about numerous feminists calling them idiots or whatever without actually stating such a thing as a fact. The correct term is "equity-feminist", this is what many of them identify as and a section on this is much needed anyway.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Equity feminism itself is a term that was largely coined by Christina Hoff Sommers, who is also frequently called "anti-feminist" or viewed as part of the "backlash." My only real issue with this section, in terms of its current structure, is that it says "anti-feminism" is "the opposition to women's equality" or "opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms." These two definitions, which are placed one immediately after the other, are rather contradictory, with the former just being a pejorative way of calling any opposition to feminist theory misogynist and sexist. One of feminisms many strokes of rhetorical genius (besides calling anyone "antifeminist" sexist via nebulous definitions of "equality") is the way it responds to any criticism of itself by saying that "there are many flavors of feminism" (therefore your criticisms are invalid as you are only criticizing radical/gender/postmodern/etc feminism.)--Cybermud (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if we can change this though, because both definitions are used for the word antifeminism (as the sources show).--Aronoel (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's almost impossible to change it since both definitions are pretty popular. Better to clarify who uses which definition or qualify the two statements with some prose that indicates to the reader that the two definitions are conflict. Like saying "Antifeminism is variously defined as a sexist opposition to women's equality[147][148] or, conversely, the opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms.[149]"--Cybermud (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

crap in lead about men's lib

I removed the following statement in the lead:

Some people argue that gender, like sex, are social constructions that harm all people; feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women.

With the edit summary:

remove statement from lead about feminists being concerned w/ men's lib totally unsupported by article's body per [[WP:MOS (lead)])

And was reverted and advised to discuss "major" changes to the lead in talk (hence this section) by an edit summarized by:

Undo Cybermud - material is about social construction of gender not men's liberation - please discuss major changes to the lede first)

For starters, "some" is a prototypical weasel word. Are these "some people" even feminists? More important than bad weasely language though is the fact, as stated in the summary, nothing in the article body supports feminism being concerned with men's liberation or being of benefit to men in any fashion. The above being more than sufficient to remove this poor sentence it should also be pointed out, in response to the reverting edit summary, there is also a sentence in the lede about the social construction of gender. Specifically:

Feminist theory emerged from these feminist movements[5][6] and includes general theories and theories about the origins of inequality, and, in some cases, about the social construction of sex and gender, in a variety of disciplines.

Which is not to mention the fact that the article doesn't even touch on feminisms's theories on the social construction of gender and sex differences and it's thus inappropriate for the lead altogether as well. In any case, I will now be bold and remove the independent clause "feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women."--Cybermud (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud your personal opinion about the value of material/sources (ie "crap in the lead") in the article is irrelevant and inappropriate use of this talk page once again (see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG). Your comment above also misrepresents the events - there is a substantial difference between your two edits[2][3]. The first removes a source and a substantive point of the lede paragraphs - the second does not. Hence I only reverted the first.
You are also substantially incorrect in your assertion that the article doesn't deal with social construction (see Feminism#Movements_and_ideologies for Post-modern feminism and Feminism#Feminist_science_fiction). This is a significant point about feminism and was discussed for inclusion in the lede 3 times in the last 2 years. It needs to be borne in mind that this is a parent article using 'summary style' and some of the more nuanced points about specific aspects of the subject have been spunn off into sub-articles and thus are merely mentioned here--Cailil ^talk 01:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe yours and my definitions of crap vary. In my case, I meant crap, as in a euphemism for unattributed, unsourced, and not contained in the body of the article content. You seemed to have interpreted it as "I just don't like it." I'll chalk up your varying interpretation to cultural differences rather than bad faith though. I am fully aware of feminism's fixation on the social construction of gender. It is a point which often illustrates how far they go to try to retrofit reality and science to meet ideology (surely the fact that the top 100 marathon runners in the world are men is the result of social conditioning and the patriarchal oppression of women and girls in sports.) My point was not that feminism has not made the claim of social construction being absolute, but that it was already mentioned in the lede and not in the body. Perhaps I was mistaken in that though, but I have not gone back to check the body since my main issue was with the claim of men's lib rather than the claims of absolute social construction made by feminists, which, for me reflects a deficiency in the body more than the lead.--Cybermud (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I support leaving the current version of the lead as it is. I would support removing the sentence if the information were not addressed in the article body at all. However, it all seems to be included within "Movements and idelogies". For example, as Cailil pointed out, the article has at least two sentences, "Postmodern feminists argue that sex and gender are socially constructed" and "They serve to highlight the socially constructed nature of gender roles" which should be an acceptable basis for the general statements in the lead about social construction. Also, there is information about concerns about men's equality within feminism: "Some feminists have argued that men's issues are an important part of feminism, as men's equality is necessary for women's equality.[47][48][49] These feminists point to legal and social imbalances in regard to father's rights, male rape and spousal battery, negative social expectations for men, and a narrow definition of "masculinity."" Also, it is true that there are sub-articles that include more information to back up the lead's statements. So there doesn't seem to be justification for removing parts of the lead in the current article. However, I don't think it could hurt to bring some more information into this article to further back up the lead's statements. --Aronoel (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The much more significant gestalt of modern feminism and feminists has not been to address inequities that negatively impact men but to claim that they don't exist or that the opposite is true. The overwhelming majority of feminist oriented scholarship claims that women are discriminated against in favor of men in child custody disputes and issues related to "father's rights" (a concept they often put in quotes.) Male rape is something they almost universally ignore and domestic violence against men is something they frequently deny exists or downplay massively. If you want to claimthat feminism has supported men's rights, that's fine, and I agree with you, but it's WP:Undue if you do not also include information about their constant denigration of men as violent rapists and pedophiles by their very nature as well, which is where the more significant thrust of the modern and postmodern movements have focused.--Cybermud (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, if there is sourced material you have that you feel is neglected per wp:undue, definitely post it so we can discuss it. In the meantime it seems that the lead issues are resolved since there is currently sourced material backing up the lead sentences. --Aronoel (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There is always more that can be added to the body of an article - which is why we use hypertext to link to related articles. But this is the main article on feminism, the first one most readers will go to, and it is important to represent all significant forms of feminism - which includes the ones Mud has singled out. She is on some campaign to purge the article of all mention of men. This ia s POV crusade that will find no traction here. The introduction is pretty good for a complex topic, and we certainly should keep these brief mentions of important trends. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you really calling men's liberation an "important trend" of feminism? LOL... Is today April 1st? Such nonsense wouldn't merit a reply from me if you'd stop pretending it's a basis to revert my edits... And yet somehow your behavior continues to escape the notice of this pages' resident administrator...--Cybermud (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just one more of the many admins who watch this article and this talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't perceive "feminism being concerned with men's liberation or being of benefit to men in any fashion", Mud, that says more about your powers of observation than anything else. I'm proud to consider myself a feminist, as I have since I helped found an NOW chapter back in the mid-1970s. I happen to be the father of a young woman; but if I had a son, I certainly am glad that the feminist movement would be out there enabling him to be the best young man that he could be. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Cailil will never call you out on it unless you disagree with his obvious POV, your personal opinion on my powers of observation are as appropriate here as the price of tea in China (see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG). In any case you have misconstrued my statement which was directed at the body of the article not at the entire history of what is variously referred to as feminism. Much of which has obvious benefits for all people: men, women and children -- while much of it is also, thinly veiled or blatant, misandry, hatred and polemically one-sided diatribes that serve to divide the sexes to the detriment of men, women and children. If you do not see that, well, this is not a forum--Cybermud (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point about WP:NOTFORUM; I apologize for breaching it. Clearly we disagree about the balance in this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud, do the sourced sentences about men's issues I mentioned in my previous comment resolve your issue "with the claim of men's lib" and justify retaining the sentence in the lead? --Aronoel (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat. They address my objection on the grounds that the statement in the lead is unsupported in the body but, as I said above, it's WP:Undue to discuss feminisms "good will toward men" if you will, without discussing it's much more significant vilification of men. Almost anything can be, and has been, called an aspect of feminism if it's said by a woman who calls herself a feminist. Thusly, it is accurate to say that feminism has been sympathetic to the ways in which traditional gender roles made men disposable slaves. But simply stating that feminism is concerned with men's lib, without calling attention to statements like "all men are rapists" is massively WP:Undue and, as much as I'd like to see such statements in this article, I don't have the time fight with editors and admins tooth and nail for every single such statement and would, thusly, prefer to simply avoid pretending that feminism has been overly concerned with men's lib altogether as a compromise between accuracy and the entrenched POV that exists in relation to this topic on WP.--Cybermud (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud is soapboxing. This is not a soapbox. Cybermud, if you feel so passionaely about this, go start a blog. 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud, please follow talk page guidelines, specifically regarding indentation in responding to others. Putting your later entry above another person's entry is not conducive to comprehension or flow.

• Help:Using talk pages#Indentation
• Wikipedia:Talk page layout
• Wikipedia:Indentation

Regarding the lead section, I do not believe your version is the most accurate or neutral. I agree with Cailil and Aronoel regarding content. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud, when you wrote that you felt that the statement "all men are rapists" should be included in this article, were you talking about Andrea Dworkin's views? --Aronoel (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I share some of Cybermud's concerns, though would perhaps preferthe more difficult solution he identifies. This article seems to focus almost exclusively on equity feminism whilst mostly ignoring gender feminism. Plenty of feminists are committed to equal rights but others certainly are not and I think it's important to cover both types of feminist ideologies. Also whilst "all men are rapist" type statements are important to cover, surely a more significant issue is indirect (and sometimes unintended) harm casued to men by feminists via seeking so many special privileges for women.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you should post which specific sources you feel are neglected in this article so that we can discuss their inclusion on a case by case basis and any wp:undue issues. --Aronoel (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Shake, you are begging the question by presuming ahead of time that "harm casued to men by feminists via seeking so many special privileges for women" 1) exists and 2) is a major issue. Most feminists have spent their time trying to get us guys to share the special privileges (as well as the duties) traditionally reserved to us alone. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not true at all Mike. All movements contain good and bad, and there are undoubtedly a significant number of very sexist feminists out there not to mention many more misguided ones who think discrimination against men is of use. lets take Sweden as an example give that it's topical: The Swedish feminist political party had a man-tax in its manifesto [4]. That same article also mentions Swedish feminists reprinting parts of the SCUM manifesto and stating "Men are animals" (note it's not minor figures coming out with the ideas - the views are those of party leaders, those running the government domestic violence network etc). As Julian Assange stated this week "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism".[5] You need to bear in mind that your POV and personal experiences of feminism don't apply universally.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for posting some specific sources. Please see this article about the SCUM excerpts and the "men are animals" statement, they seem to have been taken out of context and misrepresented the party's official views. [6] Should Julian Assange's criticism of Sweden be included here under "reactions"? I'm not sure, it seems to be one defensive comment in an interview. I don't know how significant it is compared to the other criticims already included under "reactions."

Also, I would like to point out that Radical Feminism is already covered in this article, along with many other significant feminist movements. I think it's unnecessary to cover every individual feminist and his or her controversial views in this article, since it is supposed to be general. --Aronoel (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be useful to summarise notable individuals who advocate discrimination against men but that's not the point I'm making. I've provided examples of misandry by feminist political parties where sexist policies are a agreed and key part of their manifesto. This isn't just an isolated individual but a whole feminist organisation advocating sexism. Similarly the link you provided proves that those same feminists giving positive reviews of the SCUM manifesto. If everyone just laughed if off then it wouldn't be notable material, but the fact that prominent feminists still support such hateful material today. You've actually provided plenty more examples of sexism by feminist in that piece, note the shelter worker stating "it's difficult to be part of an organisation which is so strident, anti-men and aggressive", so many thanks for that. Also I'm not suggesting quoting Assange, just showing the most topical example of prominent people highlighting sexism by feminists. It's true that many feminists support equality but others clearly do not and such a fact is not represented effectively in the article. It also contradicts the lead regarding feminists being concerned with men's liberation--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but ROKS's views, as a Radical Feminist organization, seem to fit with what's already described under Radical Feminism. Also it doesn't contradict the lead because the lead says "some feminists..." which is accurate, as many feminists do support men's issues.

And I don't mean to get off topic, but ROKS responded to the original unedited documentary (which is what the shelter worker is commenting on btw) with "Are you trying to say that just because we have this article in our magazine that the whole organisation agrees with that statement? It's a description based on a book." and "Time after time Rubar asked: It says in your magazine that men are animals. Is that what ROKS thinks? Time after time I replied: No, we don't think so. But if you've been the victim of repeated sexual assaults by men, I can understand why you might think that. Rubar chose not to include these answers in her programme." So it doesn't appear that they are actually endorsing any of the anti-men statements in SCUM.

It would obviously be stupid of me to claim that no feminist has ever said anything misandrous, but I don't think that automatically makes it notable here. If it were the case, it would be easy to balance out with all the pro-men comments that I could find that feminists have ever said, and I don't think that would lead to a very good article. My suspicion is that if we were to do a survey, the pro-men comments would be the majority. But that's my own analysis, I think we should stick to significant and major views and criticisms we find in published sources. --Aronoel (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read the lead? It doesn't say "some feminists" at all. That would be a huge improvement and 100% accurate but it certainly isn't anything like what's there at present. Perhaps we actually agree that a change is needed?--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it says "Some people." Should it be "Some feminists"? Maybe other editors can comment. --Aronoel (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Though it diverges from the point of this talk section the whole article should have an NPOV tag on it. It's almost impossible to imagine a more favorable article on feminism existing. There is no real critical response, reaction or commentary in the entire thing and the sources for such are legion (Hoffman-Sommers, Warren Farrell, Camille Paglia, Paul Nathanson, Mary Kassian, Carrie Lukas, Phyllis Schiafly, etc, etc) The whole thing reads more like a tribute to feminism more than a balanced article on it. Pick your poison: victimology, heterophobia, anti-science, anti-family, misandry, ideological policing, histrionics, historical revisionism, researched guided by ideology, anti-religion, marxist leanings, anti-privacy, presumption of male guilt, sympathy to female rapists/murderers/abusers/pedophiles -- aside from a couple wishy washy passages about womanist critics none of it is touched on at all, not even the significant criticism of feminism by self-identified feminists. Given the difficulty and drama I've experienced (being told to start a blog, stop soapboxing, "won't be tolerated," etc) in even trying to make the most minor and trivial of changes (to clarify that "men" as a group have no broadly discernible/distillable reaction or that feminism has not focused on men's lib) it's unsurprising to me that such would be the result of this article.--Cybermud (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with adding a lot of these people. One question, what do you call criticism of feminism by feminists? There are a lot of debates within feminism, so I'm not sure what the difference is. --Aronoel (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with most of the points though not necessarily the anti-religion one. It's an increasing trend for feminists to collaborate with religious groups in order to push for censorship. Similarly a lot of feminists tend to be fairly silent in terms of criticising Islamic oppression of women (yes they mention the countries involved etc and the regimes but won't necessarily reference the religious ideology behind it). Also the automatic sympathy for female murders is an excellent point but maybe better to expand it to the wider pattern of sympathy for all female criminals. For example in the UK a common feminist campaign is to call for the closure of women's prisoners and to place men in the facilities instead. Can people also please read the section above this as that is unresolved and related to these points.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK I've added the tag as it is clearly needed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Found a seemingly very old version of this article on wordiq.com.[7] Unfortunately the sources aren't visible, and whilst some of the article is nonsense, there's good material in sections 6 and 7 which has since been removed.[8] For example there's the much need criticism of the inherent gender bias in using the term "feminist" itself and the piece also contains a mention of the difficult relationship between branches of feminism and transgender people.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The lack of sources is a problem. --Aronoel (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's based on an old version of this so they should be available somewhere in the history. Seems to be from around 2005 or so. Certainly interesting to see that this article once was quite balanced.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's more balanced now. I guess the appearance of balance can be subjective. --Aronoel (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: the root post of this thread: before feminism, in the main, men were solely responsible for the financial welfare of their families. Now, women regularly contribute to this. This is a benefit to men and "liberating". Before feminism, men were responsible for defending their country. Now, women are in the armed forces. This is a benefit to men since it liberates them from the sole duty of warfare. Before feminism and for much of human history, a man who had daughters found himself in the unfortunate situation not only of having more mouths to feed but suddenly saddled with debts that would mature when his daughters reached the age of majority and married. Not to mention the fact that his daughters couldn't, except in rare cases, help him with his business or start businesses or go into professions of their own and increase his family's wealth. This is no longer true, and that is a benefit to men and "liberating". Before feminism, I think it's fair to generalize that men were expected to have little direct involvement in their children's lives, certainly not in caring, nurturing, playing with them, etc. As a father, it's particularly apparent to me that the change feminism wrought in this area is a benefit to men and "liberating". I don't know how these issues should/could be incorporated into the article. I just offer them as a balance against the idea that the deleted assertion was "crap". 69.3.114.4 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not a chat-room, and no one should use this page for "soap-boxing" - for any side of an issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The crap in the lead about men's lib points to this highly polished postmodern turd of a source [9] which fails to substantiate the claim that is sourced to it (and I'd like the 30 minutes of my life back that it took to wade through such fashionable nonsense to make that determination. It's no surprise that the author of this source was in 1998, awarded by Denis Dutton's journal Philosophy and Literature with its First Prize in its "Bad Writing Competition," which claims to "celebrate bad writing from the most stylistically lamentable passages found in scholarly books and articles."--Cybermud (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but if it doesn't support that sentence in the lead, maybe we should just remove the reference. The lead doesn't need to have sources anyway when the points are discussed in the article body. --Aronoel (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it supports the sentence. Mud is just soapboxing. Talk pages are not for soapboxing. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed the source does support the point just as SLR points out. (see pages 4-12 of Bodies that Matter)
Cybermud once more your personal opinion about the quality of material/sources is irrelevant and inappropriate use of this talk page. Please stop making disruptive edits and comments on wikipedia--Cailil ^talk 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No Cailil it does not support it. Please stop being a disengenius douche every time I make a comment. I said the source does not support that "feminism thus seeks to liberate men." Please also stop trying to wikilawyer with inapplicable policies and explain how it does. There's no soapboxing here just a couple of admins that are unwilling to discuss the issues with people that disagree with them and spout policy in bad faith with anyone they disagree with. Now, if you'd be so kind, I linked to the full first chapter of the book above (ie 36 pages) where do you read anything in there about liberation of men or women Cailil and SLR? Please get lost or work to build consensus with other editors or I will refer this matter to admins that actually care about a good article and following policies rather than wikilawyering their pet articles and POV pushing.--Cybermud (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that Judith Butler likely supports the sentence (I read Bodies That Matter about 13 years ago), but if her book doesn't, probably bell hooks (in Feminism Is For Everybody), Susan Faludi (in Stiffed), and Betty Friedan (not explicitly in The Feminine Mystique but in later works), among others, do, at least for the second part of the sentence and likely usually on the ground of sexism, not men per se, being the oppressive force. If sexism is the oppressive force, it is a very small step to see gender as the oppressive force.

I looked at the khup.com page and, at first glance, 51 links were too many to wade through. A more specific citation would help, but it looks like other editors have already done that book-wise and I don't have to (thank you).

Generally, challenges to sources should be made when the result would change what it supports. Challenges can legitimately be for many reasons, but if what a source purports to support isn't likely to have to change as a result, the challenge is usually not quite as important.

Nick Levinson (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Butler would generally agree with the statement is of very little relevance. Challenging inline sources is important regardless of whether or not it changes what you are calling the "content." Sources, in particular inline ones, are an important and integral part of the content. Many come to WP specifically for the sources, because they don't trust the prose that it is ostensibly derived from. Saying, essentially, that the sources don't really matter if the content is accurate makes such a view of WP entirely understandable (the fact that I disagree with the accuracy notwithstanding.) I have no doubt that other sources can be found to support that claim, just as there are mountains of sources that counter it, neither of which is relevant to the point that the included citation does not support it.--Cybermud (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is, of course, important, exactly because, as you say, some readers rely heavily on them. I'm just more likely to take the time to challenge a citation if, upon the challenge's being successful, the statement for which it is offered in support would therefore change. Otherwise, it usually isn't worth my time. If a book's p. 3 does not support the statement but p. 5 would, that should be challenged by editing the citation to p. 5, because leaving it at p. 3 would mean changing the supported statement to conform to the cite but editing to p. 5 does not. In this case, I think I would have looked for a page range providing the support or another book doing so, assuming I had doubted the cite, considering that the substance of the sentence has been said by quite a few sources. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick, Mud is here just to bait people and to try to draw them into a debate; she doesn't care about our NPOV policy, she wants to argue over what she thinks is right and wrong. I think at this point we should just stop feeding the troll. But you are actually doing just what one is supposed to do on talk pages, i.e. discuss how to improve the article, when you mention bell hooks (in Feminism Is For Everybody), Susan Faludi (in Stiffed), and Betty Friedan (not explicitly in The Feminine Mystique but in later works). My question for you - because i know you have researched this material carefully - is, do you think the body of the article does justice to these views? If not perhaps you can develop the coverage that the body of the article provides to these views? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look soon. Besides being a bit tired and fading at the moment, I just began a deletion review of an article that I created and edited but that was deleted, and I suspect that'll take a little time each day for a while. And I don't have the books, being reliant on libraries. But I'll look. And Cybermud is male (unless that's in error, but I think he's said so elsewhere, too). Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 11:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

The wording does strike me as a bit fuzzy though, as a result of the finicky wording; it says "some feminists" and then makes a general claim about femenism off the back of that. I'm not certain that is accurate. Perhaps: Some feminists argue that gender is a social construction that harms all people and that feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I have had chance to review the source - and read the portions that I suppose are meant to support the statement. Unfortunately I do not think they do support what is written. I suspect the second part of the soap-boxing is WP:SYNTH and soapboxing on the part of whoever added it. Certainly there is content to support the idea that some feminists have issues with the whole of the gender construct - but nothing (so far as I can see) that then concludes that feminism liberates men as well. Can anyone point to the specific part of the text that is supposed to support this? --Errant ^(chat!) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Errant the precise paragraphs are at the top of p. 4 (the breakdown of sex and identity, the political aspect of feminism and queer studies) then p. 11 & 12. The pagesin-between exlain the history of 'sex' as a category and a construct.
There is a fuzziness in the line in the article and I think it could be better worded. Butler is not talking about the men's lib movement, she's talking about the ideas and the categories of sex and gender, but NOT just for women. Nick and SLR have pointed out that there are many other boks that make a similar point, and indeed there are feminists who have argued for a liberation of women from patriarchy etc etc. But I'd support a reword of that final clause about liberation to remove the confusion--Cailil ^talk 01:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't believe this issue is still ongoing. Trying to remove any unsourced pro-feminist (or anti-male) nonsense from this article is like herding cats. My utmost respect to anyone trying to improve this article by challenging/deleting such material.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that this criticism is unfair, considering that I've made many changes to try to address some of the issues you and Cybermud have brought up.--Aronoel (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to question your editing. I don't know the full info about how this article became so unbalanced but a quick glance at the recent history suggests it's others who are adding/restoring problematic material (even to prominent parts of the article). You're not to blame but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Given how hard it's been for me to make any edits at all here, I have no problem understanding how this article got this way. The problem very much does exist, though Aronoel very much does deserve credit for working to address it. I point out a problem, try to make an edit, get mass reverted for it, and shouted at with claims of soapboxing, misusing talk pages and POV pushing (and now have editors recommending I be blocked in ANI [10].) Meanwhile Aronoel quietly comes in and makes the edits that I've been arguing for -- somehow largely escaping the ideological policing of editors more concerned with reverting me than paying attention to what she's been doing. I would hazard to guess that the only people allowed to add critical or balancing content to this article are women who self-identify as feminists (and perhaps only then when the ideological police are distracted by other "problem" editors.)--Cybermud (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this edit? In the lede, we could replace "Some feminists argue that gender is a social construction that harms all people; feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women.^[4]" with "Some feminists argue that sexism harms all people and that feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women.^[4]" Reasoning: That "gender is a social construction" is already settled and is a point not only among feminists but also among other social scientists, so it can be removed as the predicate of "[s]ome feminists argue". "Some feminists argue that sexism harms all people": Some do. I think probably more feminists argue that oppression is due to sexism rather than being due to men, at least in the U.S. and other nations where feminism is widely (if not majoritarianly) supported by women, so there'll be adequate sources for that (nations where very few women are feminist may have a majority of local feminists seeing the problem as coming from men in particular rather than sexism in the abstract, but I'm not sure and I suspect that in such nations local feminist publications are scarce or nonexistent). That "feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women" does follow from "[s]ome feminists argue that sexism harms all people"; thus the "thus" belongs. It could be contended that only feminists would say that "feminism thus seeks to liberate men" and that others would say that "feminism thus seeks to tie men up" or some such, but this is an article about feminism, the verb "liberate" is widely used in such feminist contexts and sourceable, to view what feminism seeks for men as the constraining of men is to criticize feminism, and criticisms should be only a short part of any article (if more criticisms are warranted than would fit they might be the core of a separate article, such as on masculism). I don't have Judith Butler's book, so perhaps someone else can place the reference in the right place or places, or perhaps it can just be left at the end of the sentence. (I understand, not having read her Bodies That Matter in about 13 years, that she argues that sex is also a social construction, but, while that might be worth mentioning as a contrariness on the meaning of sex, I don't think most feminists agree with that, and so, generally, gender should be kept separate from sex.) How does the proposed sentence sound? Nick Levinson (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected "sex" to "sex" and clarified the last clause, both in the parenthetical sentence: 04:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

Cailil already did, above, his 01:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

To quote myself from a previous comment, "the much more significant gestalt of modern feminism and feminists has not been to address inequities that negatively impact men but to claim that they don't exist or that the opposite is true." It's WP:Undue to ignore this well-documented history and claim that feminism "seeks the liberation of men." Even in the sources you cite, Friedan, post-backlash Faludi, etc feminists have not sought the liberation of men, so much as they have argued that the liberation of men would be an incidental benefit to the liberation of women. The word seek implies actual action on behalf of men, rather than various pieces of rhetoric that have argued that liberating women would liberate men (which ignores the fact that feminists have generally argued for an expansion of female rights without an expansion of responsibilities.) Arguing good-will towards men is WP:Undue but, if you must persist in keeping any notion of this concept in the lead it should say something to the effect "thus eliminating traditional sex/gender roles would benefit men and women," rather than feminism seeks to liberate men (when feminists tell us they are all rapists.)--Cybermud (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I add an outside view to this discussion? (If it's relevant: I'm a man, I couldn't call myself an expert in feminism but I have studied it.) I think Nick Levinson's sentence is pretty good, but Cybermud's phrasing of it might be better. On the one hand, it is true that feminists have generally argued that sexist stereotypes and prejudices affect men as well as women, as expressed by the phrase 'patriarchy hurts men too' or this image [11]. On the other hand, the primary focus of feminism is addressing women's injustice, not men's; and feminists argue that men benefit from various unfair advantages over women, so making society fairer for women will necessarily mean making men worse off in some ways. Of course, there are lots of different feminist views, and I don't know if they can all be summed up in one sentence; but it could be something like 'some feminists argue that eliminating traditional gender roles would benefit both men and women; others say that traditional gender roles benefit men at the expense of women'.

In any case, whether feminists want to make men better off or not, what they're really concerned about is making things better for women. I think it's fair to say, as Cybermud does, that liberating men is more of a byproduct of liberating women than a main aim of feminism. However, I have to disagree with Cybermud's assertion that 'feminists tell us they are all rapists'; I'm personally not aware of any feminist who's actually said such a thing. There might be a few on the radical fringe, but it's definitely not a statement most feminists would agree with. Such inflammatory language isn't helpful here. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the best comment and suggestion yet Robofish. I think the line "some feminists argue that eliminating traditional gender roles would benefit both men and women; others say that traditional gender roles benefit men at the expense of women" is a good starting point.
I'd like to add to the discussion of that 'some' needs rethink since, Butler is a postmodern feminist, bel hooks is a Black feminist, etc etc but I'm sure there's a 2ndary source that has already made a point similar to this so we should look for that source and quote it--Cailil ^talk 02:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the essay 'Doing Gender' by West and Zimmerman might be useful - or the Book by West and Fenstermaker of the same title - both give a good, and more accessible, overview of feminism and the social construction of gender--Cailil ^talk 02:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose writing something like, "Because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism." I think that Robofish's proposed sentence is a little confusing, because those two points aren't necssarily opposed to one another; a person can believe that gender roles have benefited men at the expense of women in many ways, and still believe that eliminating gender roles would ultimately benefit both men and women. Also, regarding wp:undue, my personal impression has been that the vast majority of feminists and feminist writings take the position that feminism benefits men, and that any "anti-men" ideas are a part of a small minority of feminism, but I'm not sure where to find a source confirming or refuting this. Does anyone know of one? --Aronoel (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I take your point Aronoel but that sentence deviates a little from the idea of gender as a social construction. But I think you're spot on about the two ideas not being opposites. I think it would be best to look for secondary sources that discuss these ideas in context, like 'Doing Gender' and others, to see what they say and to then quote them where due--Cailil ^talk 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Some good points by Robofish. There are actually a few feminists supporting the "all men are rapists" idea, but it is a reasonably small number who actually come out and say it. Surely the real issue all the methods with which feminists attack and belittle men taken together rather than one extreme phrase? Some feminists might not actually say or even believe that all men are rapists, but they constantly make and imply similar points. I.e. that men are not to be trusted with children, men are violent (and women are not) and that men are always guilty (and women should always be believed). Perhaps the most high profile and successful feminist campaign or recent times is the "White Ribbon campaign". It seeks not to tackle simply domestic violence, nor even violence against women - the sole issue is "men's violence against women" - they couldn't be any more sexist if they tried and it's the antithesis of equality.

We also see a fair amount of sexism in feminist culture. For example the most successful feminist play by some distance is the Vagina Monologues. Not only does it support female child abusers, but almost every single sexual experience with a man in the production is a negative one and every man a bad person. The play is joined at the hip to v-day - again a major feminist event and perhaps the only rival the the White Ribbon campaign. So much modern day feminist activity/culture is linked to and rooted in hateful/radical feminism. Take back the night marches are a global feminist phenomenon and were none other than Andrea Dworkin's invention. Here in the UK all the first such marches were by what were termed "revolutionary feminists" who made it perfectly clear that men were the enemy and women should should all be lesbians (with some even abandoning their male children). I really don't' think that misandry is as an insignificant part of feminism as some here suggest. We need to perhaps differentiate between what the ideals of feminism are and what the reality can be in some cases.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How does "take back the night" make "men" the enemy? I thought it just meant women should be ale to walk the streets at night alone with the same sense of safety that most men feel. To say that some men are rapists does not mean that all men are rapists - or is that your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakehandsman wikipedia is not a forum and talk pages are NOT for eth discussion of article's subject but for the discussion of source based improvements. Have you a sourced based point to make about the current suggestion?--Cailil ^talk 21:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My points pretty much are all sourced, just click on the links and the material is in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps I haven't spelt out fully the implications of the points I've made, the issue is that a number of ideas and events organised by Dworkin are central to feminism today, she has quite a legacy and is widely respected and praised amongst feminists. Therefore all her quotes about hall heterosexual sex being rape, an "occupation of women's bodies", women who have sex being "collaborators", sex being a "violation of women's boundaries", "a means of physiologically making a woman inferior", and "the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women". These comments cannot be dismissed as those of a lunatic in this context due to the amount of influence Dworkin has had on feminism and they totally contradict the idea that such feminists even respect men nevermind actually wanting to help them.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles." Also, I would like to point out that I can find many examples of feminist writing which mention the importance of men's issues within feminism, so I think there is some evidence for this being a mainstream part of feminism. Here is a quote from Feminism is for everybody: passionate politics By Bell Hooks: "Before the contemporary feminist movement was less than 10 years old, feminist thinkers began to talk about the ways in which patriarchy was harmful to men. Without changing our fierce critique of male domination feminist politics expanded to include the recognition that patriarchy stripped men of certain rights, imposing on them a sexist masculine identity." There are many more quotes like this, but I think this one in particular is a good basis for the sentence about men's issues in the lead. --Aronoel (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Aronoel - I found the source (p68) of that quote. I think your suggested is good and should deal with the issue of men's liberation and feminism very well. We could always deal with gender as a social construct (ie Butler etc) before that in the lede. This point should be elaborated on further in the "Men_as_feminists" section and possibly Feminism and equality--Cailil ^talk 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also Wood's book Gendered lives: communication, gender, and culture and Dickinson's Community and the world: participating in social change both examine bel hook's points and are secondary sources so are worth checking--Cailil ^talk 21:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil, I'll take a look at those books and try and work on some of the subjects you mentioned expanding. --Aronoel (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.. Feminist concern for men does exist. To reiterate the same point I've made a number of times now, it is extremely undue to claim, in any way, in this article's lead that feminism has actively sought the liberation of men, to understand the way rigid gender roles limited and harmed them, or to free them from it. At it's core, this is not a question of whether a source for such a statement exists (although Butler's "Bodies That Matter" sure ain't it), I'm sure a number of sources for it do exist, they are just contradicted by a veritable mountain of sources that speak to the fact that feminism has generally ignored, or been blind, to the suffering of men. Not only have they been blind to it, but they have actively increased it by villainizing and pathologizing men, boys and masculinity. The reliable sources for misandric elements in feminism are everywhere. I'm fully willing to concede that "some feminists" have expressed concern for men's problems, but some is the prototypical weasel word and the lead of an article that is the parent to a veritable horde of other articles is no place for ambiguous and misleading language. If you insist on putting a statement in the lead that says "some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism" I must insist on including a statement that says "some feminists say all men are potential rapists." ...And don't think that I can't source that all day long.--Cybermud (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's really well explained Cybermud. Lets either keep dubious statements out of the lead section or tell the other side or the stroy too in order to maintain accuracy and balance. Also whatever one's perspective, the term "some" is to be avoided please.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there is some disagreement about what the mainstream view in feminism is of men. I don't think we are going to get anywhere by just arguing about it. The only way to resolve this is by drawing on reliable sources. I think bel hooks' characterization of the majority of feminists' views on men is very useful in this case for establishing the major views of feminism, since she is a very famous feminist herself. There are more reliable sources supporting this idea, some of which are already in other parts of the article. When looking for sources to contradict the point that you disagree with, I would recommend not looking to anti-feminist writers, since there may be a bias issue. Drawing directly on feminists' statements would be more accurate. (For example, if you wanted to determine Obama's views on a certain issue, you wouldn't use Sarah Palin's quotes about him as sources.) Also, I would not recommend looking to non-academic sources, such as random quotes from non-notable individual feminists, since these wouldn't be reliable either. I hope we can resolve this soon so we can move on to other ways to improve this article. --Aronoel (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What would constitute an "anti-feminist" source to you? The way you have framed what sources are valid for showing that feminism is misandric, or at least indifferent, to the suffering and concerns of men is unreasonable. Many definitions of anti-feminism would encompass any and every criticism of feminism or acknowledgement of the fact that is has not, despite endless platitudes and assertions to the contrary, sought genuine equality between the sexes. It is as though you are saying that, the only sources we can use to show misandry and promotion of female privilege (ie the polar opposite of men's liberation), rather than equality, are precisely those sources which do not show misandry and the promotion of female privilege (which are, by definition part of the "anti-feminist backlash.") In short, I completely disagree. Your Obama and Palin example makes sense to a degree, but it can't be extended to this topic. Leaving aside the fact that WP prefers tertiary sources to primary sources (ie WP prefers other Encyclopedias on Obama more than Obama on Obama,) feminism is a huge political and ideological movement that has spanned generations and involved countless people, cultures and ideas. Obama really can speak for what Obama thinks (and is a primary source for it.) Conversely, not even a feminist has any real ability to speak for what feminism as a whole thinks. There are just too many branches and flavors of feminism for it to lend itself to any individual source in isolation. For every feminist that says feminism is about X there is another feminist who will say it is not about X. To make this more concrete, I would maintain that both Warren Farrell and Daphne Patai are feminists and can source them both (amongst many others) to statements that feminism has been misandric and blamed men rather than viewing them as being victimized in equal, but different ways, but I can also source people calling them both "anti-feminist" authors.--Cybermud (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also to respond to SHM's quotes from Dworkin above (Try not to post in the middle of a thread, otherwise it's easy to miss): I'm not going to say that all of your arguments are necessarily wrong, but it is original synthesis to make the conclusions you did. To explain, you argued 1. that Dworkin's arguments without a doubt reflect contempt for all men 2. that Dworkin without a doubt argued that all heterosexual sex is rape (she denied this interpretation) 3. that contemporary feminism is extremely influenced by her work 4. Because of everything mentioned above, mainstream contemprary feminism involves contempt for men. Maybe this train of logic seems obvious to you, but it is still synthesis. That conclusion also goes against the evidence already available in the article. Also, about the word "some," I will try to think of a better word but I'm not sure if it's possible to make it more specific, so I think we may have to make an exception. --Aronoel (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So to sum up Aronoel's points, we should only summarise feminism by those who agree with it and say ncie things about it. The views of neutrals or critics are somehow not worthy of inclusion even if they have many of the same goals and even if they are part of the movement. I wasn't aware of this new Wikipedia policy, do we now only define the activities/agenda of a political party by asking it's public relations people and supporters too? By the way, we're not trying to establish feminism as hugely misandric here, the issue at hand is whether the misandry and harm to men's equality that is part of the feminist movement is as (or more) notable/widespread than it's attempts to achieve "men's liberation".--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying the views of critics shouldn't be included. (I've added some of those views myself!) Also, Cybermud, I think your point about the Obama analogy makes sense. Let's discuss a different analogy. Let's say you're working on the article Atheism. There are many published books arguing that atheism is a religion, is satan-worshipping, etc. Would you put it in the definition in the article that atheism is a religion, based on those sources? There is of course a place in the article for the views of critics, but you can't use those kinds of sources to identify a belief of atheism. I believe the same goes for this article. As for the feminist anti-feminists, my view is that their books arguing against feminism are problematic in the same way the anti-atheism example is. Anyway, I don't see why this is a problem. If misandry is a large part of feminism, then there should be books out there written by feminists arguing that feminism involves hating men or being anti-male. Also, I just want to point out, the sources in the article by feminists are secondary sources I think, but of course, the lines between primary/secondary/tertiary are not always very clear. --Aronoel (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I just thought of another analogy, what about trying to use a feminist book arguing that antifeminism involves hating women into the article Antifeminism? Maybe under the criticism section or identified as coming from a feminist, but definitely not in the lead as an objective fact. --Aronoel (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(WP:BLP violations removed,  Sandstein  19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)) --Shakehandsman (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakehandsman the language you use to characterized the above named writers[12] is a breach of wikipedia talk page guidelines (WP:TPG) and is also a serious breach of WP:BLP as it makes controversial, potentially damaging and unsourced claims about named living people in the talk space. See Wikipedia:BLP#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply ifd you don’t understand these rules.
You have 12 hours to remove these remarks your self and show good faith that this was a mistake. During that time I will be seeking a review of this where I deem necessary (either by another sysop or at WP:BLP/N) and will inform you of it in your talk space when I do. If after the 12 hours of this post being made you have not removed these remarks violating WP:BLP - I will and will simultaneously report it to ANI. However, be aware that another user may do this before I do.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a forum or a blog and talk pages are not for the discussion of the subject--Cailil ^talk 12:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've rejigged the phrasing so it's more accurate and added more quotes and sources. It needed pointing out exactly where these people are coming from and the points about their agenda and views are extremely important, therefore I totally reject any suggestion that it's not relevant to discuss these people in this context. Again I commend Aronoel for finding yet more problematic Wikipedia articles. TBH it would be better if the points I've made were part of the Michael Flood article then I could have just linked to that, but it seems no criticism is allowed on that page unfortunately.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Feminism developed in the U.S. in the second wave with The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan, critiquing the state of women. The response was in significant part a radicalization in which many new feminists blamed men. Betty Friedan, who probably did not much anticipate that response, responded that she was not arguing against men but against sexism and spent years battling radicals and lesbians, and she was not even close to being alone. It is also likely that the first wave was mostly about being against sexism and not against men, especially for the suffrage movement, which could not succeed unless most men agreed to vote for suffrage, and I imagine Alice Paul likely saw feminism as against sexism and not men. The second wave's growth reflected in, I gather, a Gallup/Newsweek poll reporting more than half of U.S. women self-identifying as feminist, and it's hardly likely that half of that half condemned men as perps. To report the view that feminism is primarily against sexism and not against men, while implicitly a criticism of feminism that is primarily against men as perpetrators of sexism, the best sources are those from within feminism, because that adds to the study of the major strains of thought within feminism, and thus adds to the understanding of feminism itself, while keeping a criticism section short, which it should be, by Wikipedia's design. An analogy is that a critique of feminism which seeks full participation in society where that society is capitalist arises from both socialists who see feminism as a bourgeois impediment to socialist progress and from socialist feminists who merge both movements, and in that case articles on feminism should rely on describing socialist feminism rather than adding socialist antifeminist criticism to the criticisms section and lengthening the latter. Throughout Wikipedia we generally report the views of movements and institutions primarily from within them and then from other sources when the latter uncover what is not covered from within. We do that primarily because the people who know any subject best tend to be within that subject's practice and so the experts tend to be approvers, just as if you disagree with math (such as if you believe that for 2 + 2 to equal 4 requires the grace of a deity and is not independently true) you probably don't become a mathematician. While the CEO of the Feminist Majority Foundation does not speak for all feminists, the Pope does not either. There are plenty of sources within feminism that support feminism being against sexism, including sources (often articles) critiquing feminists who are against men.

Avoiding some as a weasel word would be a challenge, and I propose that the critic of it suggest an alternative and, failing that, note that WP:WEASEL "should not be applied rigidly." This is not a case where a survey finds "20%" and we mush that into "some". But a reading of a range of feminist literature shows that the quantity is neither "all" or "none" and that "some" is often both apt and as close to precise as we'll get anytime soon.

Nick Levinson (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this makes more sense than the way I tried to explain it. --Aronoel (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, those are definitely important concerns so I think you should discuss them at Talk:Antifeminism. --Aronoel (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Aronoel, very much appreciated . It's highly commendable that you took the take the time to make such a comment.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful and well-informed comment, Nick. But I think historians distinguish between feminism as an intellectual movement - which they date to Mary Wollstonecraft and also JS Mill, and feminism as a social movement, which I think you are right begins with the founding of NOW (the National Organization for Women, not "of" women, in order to include men or course). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. No disagreement. I don't know when the earliest major feminist expounding was, of those still preserved. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Movements and Ideologies section

The section Movements and Ideologies seems disorganized to me. Also, other movements that I think should be in there, such as Islamic feminism and Jewish feminism are in the section Societal Impact. Does anyone know of a better way to organize and summarize this information? --Aronoel (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Error in Antifeminism

There is a citation error in the 'Reactions' section, 'Antifeminism' sub-section. The cited work "Sex and Education (1973)" should be corrected to "Sex and Education (1873)." Also, should it include the subtitle (i.e. Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls) as well? 72.152.250.63 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Edit: Keep on forgetting my sig

Yes, just fixed it. Thank you for pointing that out! --Aronoel (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

love and women's bad faith

I reverted the latest edit (now viewable as a past revision) because of several reasons, and I recommend that the editor rewrite and reconsider which article or articles to which to contribute this or more or less material. (It appears the editor changed their username from HkFnsNGA to PPdd about five hours after revising the Feminism article and that the difference in names is not a technical problem related to the article's provenance.)

The Feminism article is a general overview of feminism and serves as an entry point to more specific articles about areas of feminism. There may or may not be an article more closely suited to the subject of the reverted content; if there is, that's a better destination. If there is not, rather than make a new article, please rewrite to make its relevance to an existing article more obvious. It appears to be making a rather specialized point, and thus relevant to a rather more specialized article. The Feminism article has a sidebar referring to more articles and near the end of the sidebar is a link to an index to even more feminism-related articles.

The tone—in the too-sketchily explained emphasis on "bad faith" and in the paragraph on love—implies a blaming of women that may not be the editor's intent (or even the intent of any of the cited authors), and, while no one is guaranteed immunity to blame under some circumstances, I'm not sure that it's the appropriate approach to this subject, and if it is appropriate then that has to be made clear. For example, something is needed between the first and second clauses of the first sentence; as it stood, there was much too big a leap between the concepts the two clauses present.

Putting a footnote within a footnote is not a good idea. You may not have intended that, in which case you should name the external link in what was note 20 (as now reverted), so it doesn't appear as just "[1]". For instance, [http://www.example.com?query#fragment Example Page Title] would display as "Example Page Title" and when clicked would take the visitor to <http://www.example.com?query#fragment>.

Citations should include page numbers. Some do; some don't. Citing pages for the specific passages on which you rely makes verification by other editors easier.

Review citations for when lacking an author, publisher, or year of publication. They generally should be supplied.

If you get a redlink, as you did here with Simone de Beauvoir's name having been misspelled, that means you set up a link that went to a nonexistent article. Proofreading is easier because of the red in the link.

Italicizing a quote is okay if it's that way in the original; say so or don't italicize ordinary text, in general (titles are an exception).

The further-information template linking to the article on bad faith should use the article title's capitalization, even though there is a redirect that supports the capitalization you provided, because going through a redirect causes a technical problem within Wikimedia's servers that we try to minimize when we can. In general, try to avoid linking through a redirect. In the body of an article, this is avoidable by piping a link, as in [[Article's real title|true name]], which would display as "true name" but when clicked would take the visitor to "Article's real title".

Multiple links to the same destination are usually unnecessary. In this case, the further-information template was redundant of the link in the first sentence (in some cases, the redundancy would have been the other way around).

The sectioning may be too stringent. Normally, a section is not limited to one or two sentences each. However, the exact sectioning you use may depend on the article to which you contribute.

This is based on a first impression and I have not explored in depth the sources cited, so I hope I have not misunderstood something vital here, but that may only emphasize the need for you to edit to better communicate what you want to add to this encyclopedia. Thank you for your interest. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thnx. Per your reasoning, content is best for Feminist theory article, where it is more fitting. Regarding "blaming", I just tried to stick to small changes in the wording from the sources (women authors for the exact wording), or de Beuvoire's loever, Sartre), so as to not be OR. I will read up on citations, per comments. PPdd (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note, PPdd, I undid you additions of "feminist theory" etc. from the top of the article. I thought they were both unnecessary and added clutter. If the subjects are synonyms then they should be merged. Either way, the words are linked in the text. I don't see the need to add the bells and whistles pointing out the distinction. Just my view. —Zujine|talk 18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I put the "further information" tag on because they are synonymous for many, but not all. I, for example, came to this article when I wanted a feminist theory article. Feminist theory is much more technical. So I put it up front as a convenience for those looking for femist theory, not realizing that this article is not about that.PPdd (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the "Antifeminist" section is obviously biased

"Antifeminism is defined as the opposition to women's equality[149][150] or, alternatively, the opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms.[151]"

The first source is an "encyclopedia" written by a NOMAS spokesperson...NOMAS, in case you were curious is a known "pro"-feminist organization, formerly known as the "National Organization for Changing Men". Essentially, you have a feminist defining opposition to feminism. This is akin to using the "conservative" definition of "liberal" (note the similarity in style to conservapedia's definition: "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons").

The second source is a yahoo dictionary entry. Yet other dictionaries define the term differently http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antifeminism . Based on etymology and as it is reflected in groups referring to themselves as "antifeminist", it literally means being against feminism...not "equality of the sexes".

If one was not opposed to women's equality, but was opposed to feminism in some way, one would be an antifeminist. If one was opposed to women's equality, but did not oppose feminism, they would not be an antifeminist...therefore the definition is incorrect.

It's obvious it was written in such a way as to immediately paint antifeminists as sexists...the bias is undeniable. It should be replaced with "Antifeminism is defined as the opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms" as A) that seems to be the accepted definition on the antifeminism page, B) it is etymologically correct, and C) wikipedia articles are supposed to remain as impartial as possible.

I would change it myself, but the page is locked.

71.23.247.6 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on the null set of people covered by this statement: "If one was opposed to women's equality, but did not oppose feminism". Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely people who oppose "women's equality", but support feminism...for example, there are female supremacists who openly support feminism. Supporting supremacy = opposing equality. Supporting feminism != opposing feminism. Therefore, the number of people who oppose women's equality but do not oppose feminism is >0. 71.23.247.6 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest in this article. As you can see from the sources, the word "antifeminism" is used to mean both "opposition to women's equality" and "the opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms". That's why both definitions are mentioned in this section. Also, the section includes criticism of the "antifeminist label." We may all individually have our own opinions on what antifeminism should mean, but the article must show all definitions and viewpoints for neutrality. --Aronoel (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact that it has been used to mean "opposition to women's equality", just like "liberal" has been used to mean "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons". I don't even take issue with this being pointed out. I take issue with its presentation as the primary definition...especially considering the main source is so obviously biased. "The opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms" is presented as the alternate, despite it being the more obvious definition and despite it being the primary definition on the antifeminism article itself (which also presents Kimmel's definition, but puts it in its proper context). 71.23.247.6 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would determine which is the "primary" definition. For now, there are more examples in the article of sources giving the first definition. The word "alternatively" is supposed to clearly separate the second definition from the first, it was decided on after an editor raised similar concerns as you. You can see that discussion earlier on the talk page.--Aronoel (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I took a look in the archives, but couldn't find this exact phrasing discussed before. I did see a previous proposal (from, I believe, july 2010) with "opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms" as the primary definition. I haven't seen these concerns raised, so I'm raising them.

This section is describing a movement, not the use of a pejorative. While antifeminism has been used to mean "opposition to women's equality", the section is not called "trends in name-calling amongst feminists"...it is called "reactions to feminism". One of those reactions was a movement which sometimes refers to itself as "antifeminist". While I don't deny that there are plenty of people within that movement who do, in fact, oppose women's equality, I contend that opposition to equality is not the unifying feature, but rather opposition to FEMINISM, as the term itself implies. I would further assert that there are many within the antifeminist movement who actually support womnen's equality (as I've illustrated in the following Venn diagram: http://i.imgur.com/X05A8.png), such as the IGAF, however that discussion would only be peripherally related to the issue here. The fact remains that this article's primary definition of "antifeminist" is biased and does not accurately describe a movement the section purports to describe. I would go so far as to say it's disinformation.

Those reasons I've outlined above, provide more than enough justification for what is ultimately a VERY minor change. However, if you just need more sources showing "opposition to feminism" as the meaning, then so be it:

• "Anti-feminism refers to the opposition to feminism." http://www.globalpolitician.com/24321-feminism-anti-feminism

•"Antifeminism is the opposition to feminism" http://www.infosources.org/what_is/Antifeminism.html

• And apparently Michael Flood asserts that antifeminism denies one or more of three general principles of feminism in: http://books.google.com/books?id=EUON2SYps-QC&pg=PA21&dq=Michael+Flood+anti-feminism&hl=en&ei=0udVTMOWL86osAbnxuXhAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false ...though I don't have access to verify, hence the lack of quotation marks (however that seems to be enough for the antifeminism page).71.23.247.6 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see that you've really put a lot of thought into this issue, and I appreciate your interest in discussion. I don't think anyone here would dispute the fact that the definition of antifeminism that you describe exists. It clearly does, and is currently reflected in the section. But there is another definition, perhaps equally or even more commonly used. At least, it is reflected in many dictionary definitions. One of the websites you linked to even says, "Anti-feminism refers to the opposition to feminism. Anti-feminism is also defined in a negative context as male-chauvinism and therefore sexism, or masculinism. It can also be said that since feminism is interested in women’s rights, anti-feminism is against women’s rights." For example, you might hear a person say, as I often do, something like, "that movie was antifeminist, because the female character was only valued for her appearance," and in this context it isn't referring to any specific movement or body of ideas, but just the concept of opposition to women's equality.

Also, the discussion I was referring to before was the one called "Anti Feminism", above, although I see the word "alternatively" was not specifically used. But I think it gives you the general idea of how this section has been changing. --Aronoel (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right, "antifeminism" is probably used as a pejorative more frequently than it is used to describe an actual movement. There are other words which are used more frequently as pejoratives, yet deviate significantly from their actual meaning...such as the terms "gay" and "nazi". Asserting that the gay movement is centrally focused on being "corny", or that the nazi movement is about being "mean", are equivalent to asserting that the antifeminist movement is all about hating women.

I believe we're finally getting to the crux of the issue here. "Antifeminist" as a term has two distinct uses. One is an insult used typically by feminists, the other is the name of a movement in opposition to feminism. The question then becomes, what is the "Reactions" section of the "Feminism" article supposed to be? Is it supposed to be a dispassionate and impartial description of the reaction of outsiders to the feminist movement? Or is it supposed to be an explanation of an insult frequently used by feminists? 71.23.247.6 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is an insult, there are no words showing a value judgment (for example, "wrong", "ignorant", "hateful", etc). And, more importantly, Princeton University's WordNet is an objective source, see this. I understand that some people feel that the first definition mischaracterizes their position, but that's why there are two different definitions included. --Aronoel (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary (3d ed. 1992) defines antifeminist, the adjective (with no separate definition for the noun or for antifeminism) as "[c]haracterized by ideas or behavior reflecting a disbelief in the economic, political, and social equality of the sexes." No other definition is offered in that dictionary. In the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, it appears undefined in a list related to anti-. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1966) doesn't list the word; the dictionary was published as the second wave of feminism was beginning or about to, and perhaps the word hadn't had much use from the first wave or before; but it's also not in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary ([4th] ed. 1993). Nick Levinson (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries should not be used for defining movements. If I looked up "pro-" then "choice" or "life" do you actually think I'd get a full and accurate description of either side? If it is NPOV to say antifemeninism alternatively may seek inequality for women it would be ridiculously POV not to say feminism alternatively seeks female supremacy in contrast (even supported by some feminist writings/writers). Furthermore antifeminism is not as well known of a movement as feminism is so dictionaries would focus more on the word than the movement if at all.Props888 (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Asmcpherson, 18 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The website for reference 110 has changed together with the ISBN of the book. All the information is contained in the following text. Can the following therefore please be substituted.

Asmcpherson (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)