Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Antifeminism outside US

How come there are only 3 countries mentioned? Australia, New Zeland and UK are English-speaking Western countries and do not represent antifeminism in the world. What about Asia, Middle East, Africa, Russia and Eastern Europe, South America? --24.203.221.17 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Save Indian Family movement is a massive anti-feminist movement in India. It talks about denial of men's legal rights and civil rights when men accused in dowry harassment cases. Also, all Indian Mother-in-Law protection Forum is anti-feminist organisation, which blames older women being discriminated by feminism in India. Newageindian (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

List not cited

I noticed that the list that lists "antifeminists" is not very well cited. If it is not cited promptly the shouldn't those links be taken down??? I think they should. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Antifeminism and religion

It seems that a significant part of antifeminism is related to religion, and this should maybe be explored within the article. For instance, opposition to abortion, non-traditional gender roles, polymorphous gender theory, divorce and sex outside marriage are all positions typically advocated by religious institutions, while on the contrary, these positions are commonly defended by modern feminists. ADM (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that prolife views aren't always tied in with religious ones...it's certainly a big factor, but the two aren't always connected.04:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)ChicagoMel (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

'Anti feminist' views aren't necessarily problematic and are certainly not 'issues'.Issue does n't mean problem in English,though it seems to in the American version of the language, but that's not my main point. My main point is that no ideology is above criticism.

Some aspects of feminism are reasonable and some aren't.Equal rights for all,irrespective of sex [not'gender' which properly applies only to nouns, never to persons] is an admirable cause, whereas bias against men just because they're men is childish. It's not necessary to discriminate against men. or against women who like men, in order to be in favour of sexual equality.I take it that achieving and maintaining sexual equality is the defining aim of feminism,and that any other aim it has is at best a diversion from this.

The current attempt to 'degender' language is n't going to abolish inequality between the sexes, because it's based on the belief that there's something demeaning about being identified as female. It would be more consistent with the promotion of female equality to emphasise the femaleness of female persons through the gender of nouns, whenever possible. There's nothing special about being male, and there's nothing demeaning about being female. Fiddling with language, even if done democratically and with general consent, isn't going to get rid of ignorance and its product prejudice. Neither is it going to transform meanness of spirit into warmth and respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.192.189 (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, can you refer me to which parts of the article your comments specifically discuss, and what changes you suggest on that basis? Otherwise it seems as though you are using the talk page as a forum. Thank you! 81.205.195.3 (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Newcomers view

I'm a newcomer to this article and subject. The article as it stands today gives some useful clues, it is true. I am not surprised to see the state of contention in it's rewrite. However, it is a useful start as it is, don't forget. It may be one of the worst cases under revision, but it's alo important.

It seems that feminists want to rewrite it (forgive me if I am wrong). For example:

'Antifeminism refers to disbelief in or opposition to the economic, political and social equality of females as a sex': This simply cannot be true. More like: disbelief in or opposition to, core feminist beliefs and teachings in general, or to any number of them.

The page concludes with rebuttals to antifemminist views. I don't think it should, because it gives the impression that there is no answer to these. Better to leave them out and let the reader use their own intelligence and investigative powers, as they wish. A statement regarding counter arguments might just mention the names and references of some. Expansion of the femminist core beliefs that are opposed by antifemminists appears necessary.

The counter-argument of femminist Michael Flood, which tackles issues of outcomes for children of one-parent and two-parent families. Particularly: " he uses studies to argue that it is the quality of parenting and the child's relationship with the parents that plays the main role. That children are negatively influenced by the situations in families characterized by violence, psychological problems, substance abuse, or economic insecurity and that it is the couples where such situations are frequent that are more likely to get divorced." He seemed to forget that most western , if not all, families are affected by femminism, and that marriages ending in divorces preceeded by problems would be too, therefore. In other words, the increased divorce rate and preceeding problems are negatively influenced by women holding femminist views in general, which exacerbate problems prior to divorce, and hence what he calls, the quality of parenting. In short, arguments within marriage are not served well in outcome by femminism, due to inequalities and power threats. HIs counter-argument does not stand in the narrow form, and cannot account for the increase in divorce coupled with outcome.Jakbop (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Jakbop May 10th 2009

severe underlying bias

the following statement: "Antifeminist comments periodically appear in U.S. political punditry. For example, in a 1983 syndicated column, Pat Buchanan wrote,

"Rail as they will about discrimination, women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."

should be omitted. The quote does not represent a view attributable to antifeminists, but to sexists. The insinuation that antifeminism is equivalent to sexism is not only absurd, but highly offensive as well. 71.225.220.120 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, user at 71.225.220.120. I have removed the quotation because there was no source indicating that it represents mainstream anti-feminist views. After all, there is not a single Valerie Solanas quotation in the feminism article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

White feminism

Critics of feminism, as well as many feminists themselves, have often made the argument that feminism suffers from cultural relativism, meaning that the movement continues to be perceived as a primarily Western and primarily white bourgeois liberal movement. Regarding this view, the article should consider examining to what extent feminism has been influenced by white-dominated cultural perspectives. Some modern feminists have even been accused of outright racism, such as Margaret Sanger, who actually promoted the use of abortion to reduce the number of Blacks and other non-Whites in the United States. ADM (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to the same comment left on Talk:Feminism in this thread, if anyone is interested in discussing there. I also left a pointer there to this discussion.--Gimme danger (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

quotes

This article has in general much improved since I last read it but there is now a serious Quotefarm issue here. Also some of teh longer quotes might be unfair use (see WP:QUOTE). I'd suggest reducing the Jennifer Pozzner quote drastically as it's current weighting is undue. Other WP:NOR issues remian as do some weasel/peacock wording problems throughout - perhaps an outside copy-editor might be able to clean it up when the quotes and OR issues are resolved?--Cailil ^talk 13:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

inappropriate critique

I removed the second paragraph in the section on Anti-feminist leaders, because it is actually a collection of citations of one critic that does not belong in that section. Section should contain the views of anti-feminist leaders. It seem that critical paragraph was inserted only to slander "anti-feminist". But it actually repeats the same "arguments" developed in the section on "critique", so there is no reason to duplicate critique by smuggling it into section on anti-feminist leaders themselves (unless the primary goal was to provide that reader easier learn the "lesson" wanted them to learn). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanelo (talk • contribs) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC) --Ivanelo (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Money Makes the antifeminism go'round?

On feminist leaders: ...Do not turn down close to $200K in Right Wing grants" and wait "for the money to come rolling in."
Under critique of antifeminism: ...a group which routinely gives $10K grants to student groups to bring conservative lecturers to their campuses.. and a lot more in that vein.

So, all feminist authors work for free? How is this argument worthy of acknowledgment in any way, shape, or form? It's a blatant ad hominem attack on the antifeminist principle by attempting to claim that anyone who accepts money for writing on the topic is somehow doing so only for the money, that they aren't writing honestly on something they believe in. It's blatantly clear that both feminists AND antifeminists would be receiving money, (and I'd lay huge odds there is probably one heck of a lot more money for feminists), for speaking and writing on their chosen topics. So if someone is a sell-out, it's a lot easier to do so for feminism than antifeminism. But regardless -- Why is money for either considered relevant, unless one has evidence that the individual in question is doing so solely because of the money available, either from private utterances made public or from earlier writings with little or no funding in contrast to the 'current' paid position of the author/speaker?
The bias here is overtly blatant -- I just checked -- there is not one single mention in the article on "feminism" regarding "grants" of money from feminist or liberal organizations or think-tanks for writings on the topic, much less any suggestion that such writers are somehow dishonest or hypocritical.
Why are funding sources relevant here, if not there? These two sections pretty much need to be purged of all this ridiculous ad hominem folderol. OBloodyHell (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Why are funding sources relevant here, if not there?":::

Because nobody found a relevant, wikipedia-approved quote critiquing feminism with regards to grants for placement in 'Feminism'. Of course the quote is "biased"; she's critiquing antifeminism. It is in no way a violation of wiki guidlines, however.NeoApsara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

They have, actually. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC) current working link to the same article user Joshua Issac (talk) was attempting to refer people to Chanceska (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Entire article looks as a critique

Percentage-wise, there's more critique and reaction to the subject, than an actual explanation of the subject. The entire article is very feminist-centric.

A person comes to an encylopedia to learn an unbiased, neutral account of what something is... This article has the overall tonality of "these damn antifeminists..."

For example, there's a section (the one with the bitter quote about "right wing grants" and sarcastic explanations of "pass x, go straight to y", is about 60% critique. It takes 1 sentence to mention that there exists something... In this case it tells you that there are people who are termed "anti-feminist", but they themselves do not see themselves as anti-feminist.

And then, its followed by someone's bitter sarcastic remark on it. If anything, its comment from THESE people that should be included, the actual people whom the section is about. Their remarks about the label, and how they feel about it... Only then is a critique appropriate. Right now you're criticizing an invisible thing, a thing you never allowed to be presented.

Same thing with the michael flood thing. The anti-feminism claims are never represented, but there's a lengthy paragraph of someone bashing anti-feminists for their claims (but we NEVER got to know what their claims were in the first place!!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlekNovy (talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

--AlekNovy (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sadly this article will always be biased. There are just too many militant feminists active on wikipedia for articles like this to stay balanced. Vorpaul (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this article sucks, and Wikipedia is full of extreme gynocratic sexists. I'm not going to edit this mess however, that would get reverted within seconds. Face it: Wikipedia belongs to the very same Mafias as the "public" TV or newspapers. This article is is one of the best examples about Wikipedia failure. There are other flavors of antifeminism, but they don't get any public attention. Other bullshit on same subject: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.118.81.158 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)