Talk:Antifeminism

Lead edits again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully yours,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of Antifeminism by feminists

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

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

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

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

Nature of the bias in this article

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

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

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

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

Try Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That social arrangements among men and women favor men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The change I made "per talk page"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• or just "or"

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

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

Article criticizing feminist victimhood mentality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That will be a continuing problem because of the term itself. It started as an obscure, rarely used term to describe what Binksternet actually noted, 'reactionary types'. It was used to denote a lack of a philosophical position: it was an umbrella term for general reactions. It wasn't until the third wave that it started to be used more widely, and as a derogatory term, in an attempt to silence critics. It was in fact a common attack levied against analytic feminists who crafted particularly critical and probing critiques of much of third wave feminism. If Wiki wants sources from antifeminists, they're going to have to settle for sources that aren't peer reviewed journals because by a very wide margin, the term is still considered a derogatory one in academia. If Wiki wants peer reviewed journal articles, of course they're going to be largely by feminist thinkers with very particular views: the majority of us do not use the term, at all. It's akin to asking for peer reviewed journal articles from climate scientists who denounce global warming. Of course this will be a problem. :P Maxxx12345 (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Contribution Unfairly Removed

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

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

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

My contribution was supported by facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Criticism of Feminism" leads here

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

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

Where are the criticisms?

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

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

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

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

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

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