Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 1

Adolf Hitler
We must bid Auf Wiedersehen to Hitler as it is impossible to call him a specific opponent of feminist ideology, Frau Steinem's completely undocumented opinion notwithstanding. He simply held views on women which where very common in his era. If he stays, then every significant historical figure from the birth of Christ to WWI should be added as well. JE1977 06:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Article name
Shouldn't this article be at Antifeminism?  An An  09:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sarge Baldy 01:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd how feminist minded wiki users have objected to the neutrality of this article, but not to the neutrality of feminism - could it be a simple case of blatant bias? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karlmathews (talk • contribs).


 * The neutrailty of feminism? Feminism is about women, period, and is biased in everything it writes, says, advocates and does. Normally this bias is expressed as simple misandry, although it is often hidden in postmodernistic rhetoric. Here are a few feminist slogans.


 * If they can send one man to the moon why can't they send em all?


 * The best man for the job is a woman.


 * Neutrality? It's not to be found and where present is seen as sexism against women and attacked.
 * Heh, Cute quotes there, I have a page full of ones that are worse right hereRhythmic01 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of an antifeminist argument does not automatically make the critic a feminist
Just as John Winthrop's opposition to Anabaptism on its anti-intellectual groundings didn't make John Winthrop an intellectual. Longshot14 17:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some points of potential interest.
Article needs some major meat IMHO.

I encourage editing some lines.

"Anti-feminist groups particularly point to the dramatic increase in the divorce rate and breakdown of the family since the rise of feminism, and note that crime statistics, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are all higher among children of fatherless homes [citation needed]. Their critics point out that correlation does not imply causation, that anti-feminist groups fail to consider social factors besides feminism, that social ills faced by children without fathers can also be the result of the father's decisions, and that feminism is not to blame for role models and gender roles that predate it.”

I'd argue that "critics point out..." should be changed to "critics argue...". There are strong statements of fact here that fail to account for potential responses of the antifeminists, particularly the claim about them FAILING to consider social factors. They may very well have taken them into account, but this article, as it is, will leave you in the dark.

"Antifeminists are fond of reports that conclude the Violence Against Women Act hurts men and does little to help women. (Let the Violence Against Women Act Expire Charlotte Allen)"

Again, while referring to the VAWA may be common among antifeminists, it is somewhat suspect to say that they are "fond of" such reports. After all, this research is believed to prove injustice, and while pointing out injustice may be a blast, this section could equally well be interpreted to say that antifeminists like to know that the VAWA supposedly hurts men.

So, it should read more like this; "Antifeminists often point to/have pointed to..." or so, if they indeed discuss that, in such depth. --Thomi 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Those seem like reasonable edits to make. Be bold and make them yourself! Catamorphism 05:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned those is to make it easier for others to spot inaccuracies and/or controversial presentations. --Thomi 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Blatant NPOV Violation"
"Antifeminism refers to hostility towards women, or towards the advocacy of women's rights.[1] In the former sense it is synonymous with misogyny or male chauvinism, while in the later it may refer to a hostility to some or all feminist positions." C'mon, people. USE YOUR HEADS! Edit this out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! (talk • contribs).


 * How is it POV? It's a bland restatement of the dictionary definition. What do you think it should say? And what sources to you have to back that up? VoluntarySlave 06:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see why you have posted this. That is rather biased towards antifeminists.I don't see how antifeminism refers to hostility towards women-- surely, that'd just be plain old sexism? Antifeminism, as far as I am aware, refers to the act of trying to prevent Feminism from going too far, thereby, creating equality in society. I am not sure how exactly that means antifeminists are hostile to women, however. Unconscious 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is actually a major problem with OED and other 'npov' academic sources - they define antifeminism as either synonymous to misogyny or as "against equality"... Which of course illustrates the "feminist censorship" point of antifeminists very well... But what are you going to do if "definitions" are controlled by feminists and they always have something 'npov' sort of to refer to in order to discredit whoever they don't like... Sad state of affairs really...Lost Angel 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to find another page that defines the word? I feel as if the definition of antifeminism is well, antiantifeminism, or discrimination to those who believe in equality, by means of stopping feminism. I've checked a few sources, and to put it blunty, it's the biggest crock of garbage I've ever read. It's like looking up about Pepsi written by the Coca Cola Company, claiming they've been stealing all their secrets. It all seems quite biased and untrue. Unconscious 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as feminist censorship may be exercised (see any academic source) - an unbiased definition may not be found. Open sources surly have it:, but they are not valid sources for wikipedia.Lost Angel 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"For instance violent bullies often bring up violent bullies."
This doesn't make sense in the context of "social ills faced by children without fathers can also be the result of the father's decisions." All this "bullying" stuff added by Lolympics Lonympics just sounds bizarre. And Adolf Hitler??? johndburger 03:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It makes as much sense as this...


 * Many anti feminist groups are just attention seeking bullies who want to put forward deliberately offensive viewpoints to hurt the feelings of decent people.


 * If feminists get to write the anti-feminist article, perhaps anti-feminists should write the feminist article?
 * 64.172.115.2 17:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Rich


 * This doesn't really have anything to do with whether you're a feminist or an anti-feminist. Feminists and anti-feminists alike may edit any article they please, as long as they conform with the WP:NPOV policy and other Wikipedia policies. As a feminist and someone who believes in the important of Wikipedia presenting a neutral point of view, I removed this text. You could have done the same yourself. Catamorphism 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, feminism is not neutrality, and it never was.


 * Secondly, I'm still kinda new to this and still learning how editing works on Wiki. I'm one step past observer but am not sure I want to edit articles yet. Perhaps soon.


 * Thanks for removing the text. But if you don't see it as something a feminist would say about anti-feminism and not something which describes anti-feminism or the reasons behind it, there's not much I can say. Do feminists call women "whiners"? Not that I've ever seen. Feminists do spend an inordinate amount of time and effert calling any man with issues a whiner, I know this from direct experience. Feminism is clearly not about equal treatment, as feminism itself does not treat men and women equally.


 * 64.172.115.2 22:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

All of the "bullies" material was added by the same user, Lonympics (look at the history of the page to see who added what). So, you're right, both quotes make the same sense, i.e., none. As for who gets to write the articles, the answer is, everyone does. If you're suggesting that a feminist is unable to write a neutral article on anti-feminism, I'd have to disagree. Everyone has a POV, but it needn't show up in the article. —01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're suggesting that a feminist is unable to write a neutral article on anti-feminism, I'd have to disagree.


 * I'd say that there is an inherent bias that makes objectivity implausable, at best. Feminism has claimed the victim high ground (and made it pay), so even admitting that men are victims (usually of policies crafted with or by feminism) would be giving up the bias feminism has built against men in the name of political favoritism.


 * There are many examples, look at the Duluth model, or the Violence Against Women Act, penned by feminism.


 * If I get the time, I may start adding to the article, there's no shortage of material.


 * 67.170.245.1 13:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Rich


 * If you identify as being an antifeminist, you're not exactly proving with your comments that antifeminists are somehow more objective, either (though there's no need to be objective on talk pages, you're not exactly taking the moral high ground here.) Catamorphism 20:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you then claim that feminism did not pen the Violence Against Women Act?


 * Of the evicence I listed above, which do you factually dispute?


 * 67.170.245.1 13:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Rich


 * Feminism doesn't "pen acts". Feminism is a movement; people pen acts, not movements. And no, even if the Duluth model or VAWA are flawed, it doesn't follow that feminists are biased against men or that feminists can't be objective; those are absurd claims. Catamorphism 20:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The VAWA was penned by N.O.W. The Duluth model defines the abuser as a man and the victim as a woman. Being a feminist I probably cannot explain to you the problem.


 * And why do you make everything into deductive logic? If I say flowers are pretty and lions eat meat, the second statement does not follow from the first. But this is sophistry as the second statement is not dependant on the first, nor was it ever claimed to be. The absurd thing is your claim that anything has to follow to be true.


 * As for feminist objectivity, perhaps you can show me some. Feminism has a built-in bias that cannot be eliminated. It's about women, and only women, it's sexist from the get-go and always will be. Feminism is sexism. This is not hyperbole, it's a simple fact.


 * Hell, during the Take Your Daughter To Work Day debates, I saw that not only do feminist moms know nothing about how well their sons are doing, they don't want to know anything.


 * 64.172.115.2 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Rich


 * I'm not really interested in debating this in this forum. If you'd like to work on the article, you're still welcome to do so. The talk page really should focus on discussions that are necessary for improving the article. Catamorphism 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny you didn't seem to mind debating him in this forum before he completly shut you down eh? Rhythmic01 04:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

They should make a distinction between old antifeminism and contemporary antifeminism
Contemporary anti-feminism is very different from the way it was back in the 50's. But since Adolf Hitler is listed as a anti-feminist, it pretty much destroys the credibility of contemporary antifeminism, because no distinction is made.

I'm a feminist in that I'm pro women's suffrage and all that good stuff, but I'm antifeminist in that it seems that instead of blanket equality, it's politically correct to be misandronous (prejudiced against men). I mean I'm here at UCLA and there are tons of anti-spousal/relationship abuse but it's all targeted towards men, how men can stop it. To be able to say that since the majority of relationship abuse cases are commited by men, this kind of advertisement can be done would be like saying that since the majority of people in prison are black, we can start printing literature on how to fix black people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.232.111.114 (talk • contribs).


 * i am afraid that it is very difficult to discern your line of argument here. Sounds like you are objecting to something you heard in class or on campus? Actio 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)actio


 * Feel free to improve the article in any way you see fit, so long as you include reputable sources to support what you say, and so long as you are willing to edit in accordable with Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|

neutral point of view policy]]. Catamorphism 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest we remove or replace that misleading opening photo about women's sufferage. I know no one today who is arguing that we should take away womens' sufferance.  We should use representative photos that show what genuine 'antifeminists' use today instead.  Fearmongering has no place here.

sufferage & sufferance = suffrage, ie voting rights? Actio 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)actio


 * I agree most strongly that Anti-Feminism must be defined by seperating those who support male dominance and those who oppose feminism as a movement because of the negative effect on how men are treated in our society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.65.106.204 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I agree most strongly with the previous statement, there are large differences between the two beliefs and they should not share the same page Ben 1220 07:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fatherless citation
Saw this tadbit had a citation tag "teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are all higher among children of fatherless homes [citation needed]." Here are some links. Are these good enough? http://fatherfamilylink.gse.upenn.edu/org/nccp/portrait.htm http://www.wfu.edu/~nielsen/divorceddad.pdf Not sure if these count as original research or not. Rhythmic01 05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Masculism references
I have removed comparisons of masculism to anti-feminism. They are two completely different things. masculists are concerned with men's issues, which might include criticism of feminist ideas, but all movements should accept criticism without labelling the critics in such a manner. I'm sure there are many anti-feminists who are also masculists, but that doesn't make them the same thing or even similar. There are many feminists who criticize masculism, or are even anti-masculists, but one does not necessarily follow from the other. The connection is spurious.

To an extent, I think the comparison is a straw man - an attempt to discredit masculism by associating it with anti-feminism. I think it would be better to see the positive aspects of masculism and criticize the negatives, rather than making such a blanket umbrella statement. 24.68.180.163 04:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute
Is this article still considered not to be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)? If so, perhaps people might like to discuss precisely which parts of the article need to be improved here. If there is no further need for it I will remove the NPOV dispute tag in one week. --Dave 03:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since no-one has objected to the NPOV tag being removed during the past 7 days I will assume there is no longer a dispute about the WP:NPOV status of the article and remove the tag. --Dave 08:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole article is of a very poor quality i really think it doesn't meet wikipedia standards, is non compliant should be re started for scracth. Laguna117 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to serve no purpose other than to list cavils against feminism. strictly speaking, unless one takes on antifeminism as a campaign (some do), it is best seen as reactive (or file under misogyny!) i should think such an article should simply be a subsection under an article entitled Feminism, which there is no effort to define here. And I agree that it is of very poor qualty. Question: what about Camille Paglia or Christina Hoff Sommers qualifies them to be classed as feminists, apart from their own self-labeling? Much of simple antifeminism--especially from a religious basis, but not only--claims to be profeminist or prowoman, but from a presumption of essential inequality. The label feminist for the two women mentioned seems merely opportunistic, but since the article makes no effort to provide first principles, how could we judge?

I see no neutrality here. Actio 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)actio

"Neoconservative"
The label 'neoconservative' is applied to some of the critics of feminism on the article, such as Hoff-Sommers and Fox-Genovese. Is this label appropriate to describe them? Christina HS is a member at the Independent Women's Forum, which is a conservative and explicitely anti-feminist think tank, but Genovese is a member at the Women's Freedom Network, which is a libertarian-leaning "moderate feminist" group. If Genovese doesn't define herself as antifeminist or neoconservative, this latter label should be dropped in her case. I believe we shouldn't call one a 'neoconservative' because he/she opposes left-wing feminism until we get to know his/her other political views (sorry for the bad English).201.50.170.20 10:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I moved it to another section, out of Neoconservative.NeoApsara 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, neoconservative is a specific conservative ideology, and while Sommers may be conservative there is no indication that I'm aware of that she's a neo. Harvestdancer 16:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservatism deals with global affairs, not women's issues. The implication that all opponents of feminism or radical feminism support neoconservative ideology regarding global affairs is untrue, as many despise neoconservatism as much as they do feminism.Shield2 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

point of view check (definitions/weasel words/reasoning)
One of the ugliest tactics that ideological feminists use to silence their enemies is character assassination, libelous labeling and personal attacks. This entire article is one such attempt. There is no distinction between people who are critical of SOME (shameless) feminist ideologies versus those who are critical of ALL feminism. We need to make a distinction between ideas (which can and should be questioned) and the people who do the questioning here. In addition the term 'anti-feminist' in one I have never seen in print so I wonder who coined it and who is propagating it.

Another red flag for me is the very definition 'anti-feminist' which is far from clear here. Who (the inane ideological wing of the Sisterhood I imagine) decides who is an Anti-feminist here. Who are the sources for these perjorative characterizations and definitions or do wiki editors decide who is or isn't 'Anti-feminist' here. Shameless personal labeling shows how afraid ideological feminists are of having their ideas tested. Such mean-spirited attempts to silence potential opponents is typical of Stalinist states, not democratic encyclopedias. Many women who call themselves feminists have leveled devastating criticisms of ideological feminism while being supporters of feminism in general. I notice that these women (Hoff-Summers, Paglia and Fillion etc) are being purged from the feminism page despite well-reasoned arguments against the worst of radical feminisms excesses. Are these women also 'anti-feminists'? Does some feminist goddess in the sky decide who is good and who is bad or are there some reasonable criteria here?

For those who think I am imagining things here, please glance at the content I pulled in from Women's Studies

Karen Lerhman criticizes the state of women's studies as summarized below. She quotes Patai and Koertge who say that the feminism espoused in the vast majority of women's studies departments "bids to be a totalizing scheme resting on a grand theory, one that is as all-inclusive as Marxism, as assured of it's ability to unmask hidden meanings as Freudian psychology, and as fervent in its condemnation of apostates as evangelical fundamentalism..." Lerhman goes on to say that feminist writers "by squelching all internal dissent" have "allowed hyperbolic rhetoric, false statistics, politicized scholarship, reverse sexism, and general silliness free reign".


 * Orthodoxy and ideological policing
 * Ostracization and/or termination of female dissidents
 * Exclusion of male authors from course syllabi and scholarly papers
 * Politicized scholarship and "thinly disguised indoctrination"
 * Faculty appointments based on political rather than professional qualifications
 * Questionable methodologies, statistics, and conclusions
 * Advocacy diguised as research
 * "Womb-like" classroom atmospheres where expressing unpopular opinions or asking unpopular questions is suppressed and where critical thinking is discouraged
 * "Unremitting emphasis on women as oppressed victims"

(anonymous editor for good reason!)


 * Hi. Discussion of the article within the article is unencyclopedic. Use the talk page, or just make the changes you want yourself.


 * I added content not discussion which was more 'enclyclopedic' than the unsourced weasel worded opinions already there. However I will also be glad to discuss this here.  I can also see why you wouldn't want a discussion on the article itself.


 * Also, if you feel that the article has a pro-feminist POV, that is indeed a problem that needs correcting. However, the solution is not to inject your own anti-feminist POV - that simply compounds the problem. Please do your best to use neutral, encyclopedic language. Thanks!


 * My issue is not that this article is pro-feminist. To be pro-feminist is fine.  What I hate are weasel worded whines that label people (anti-feminist) perjoratively with no credible criteria.  I like many feminist ideas.  However, I hate cunning Stalinist stunts to silence opposing views as shown by many feminist writers about other feminists (I refer you to Hoff-Summers, Fillion, Paglia, Lerhman and many other reasonable women who call themselves feminists).  This article implies that ALL people who criticize feminist ideas are 'anti-feminist' by definition.  This is perjorative, mean-spirited and just silly.


 * Dan B † Dan D 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the NPOV tag from the article because it is essentially unchanged since the last time a NPOV tag was removed. I am willing to discuss the article though. I notice you use the words "despite well-reasoned arguments against the worst of radical feminisms excesses" above. Wikipedia is not a place for well reasoned arguments, it is a place for externally referenced factual descriptions. If we know of a POV, we are asked to include it, without commenting on whether we personally believe it to be persuasive or not. NPOV does not mean that points of view are not included, it means that if a POV is included it is written in a neutral tone. If you feel a particular aspect or attribute of anti-feminism is missing from the article, include it, citing references. If you feel something in the article is not factually correct, put a marker on it and delete the material if no-one cites a reference within a reasonable time. Finally, the comments in your criticism apply to feminism rather than anti-feminism. The tactics of feminists are not really that relevant to anti-feminists, who oppose feminism rather than feminists. This distinction is often missed. --Dave 23:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the POV tag back because this whole article is full of weasel worded, unsourced POV to silence opponents of some forms of femimism who have other POV's be they feminists or self-proclaimed anti-feminists. There is no clear definition of 'anti-feminism' at all here.I agree about your need for externally referenced factual descriptions and sources.  However all encyclopedias by their very nature include (hopefully sound) reasoning in their explanations. I see a lot of ridiculous rhetoric in this article that is far from clear from whatever POV. My criticisms refer to TACTICS that some feminists use to silence dissent be it here or anywhere in related articles.  To call all people who criticize certain aspects of feminism 'anti-feminist' is an ugly form of personal assassination.  I want to be sure this article is somewhat clean with these distinctions.  (anonymous)


 * Mr/Mrs/Ms anonymous, scattering Fact tags throughout the article like shotgun pellets borders on blatant vandalism. I intend to revert the changes. I suggest you put 1 or two such tags in the article and wait several days to see if anyone responds with a cite, then take further action. Also, the wholesale changes you are making introduce a tremendous amount of unreferenced POV. Unless you intend providing references for this opinion you can expect large scale editing of your work. --Dave 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am no vandal. I hope you will be openminded enough to note that this article has very very few direct references to anti-feminism in the literature.  (I found very few recent references on a quick search of Amazon as well so I suspect a lot of this content is original research and I can  well see all the other unsourced weasel-worded claims)  My intent here was to demand some semblance of sourced NPOV.  But I hear your point.  I will go back through and better 'target' the 'shotgun pellets' as you call them. However I take issue with your characterization of 'wholesale changes'.  I added one short paragraph, rearranged the order of one section and deleted the Noeconservative label.  Other than that I left the original content intact. The only new statements I added are sourced from content that is clearly shown in the article.  Now if you want me to find statements from Hoff-Sommers or others alluding to personal attacks from their feminist 'sisters' I will be glad to.  However clearly there is baseless 'anti-feminist' name-calling going on here that does not belong (uncalled) in a NPOV encyclopedia.  Therefore, before do begin wholesale reversions I ask that you at least discuss specifics first to prevent edit wars.  I will listen carefully to your concerns as long as you listen carefully to mine.(anonymous)


 * Actually I'll be very pleased to see someone provide hard information for this article rather than simply complaining about its current state. I will be particularly pleased if the content has a more international outlook. I look forward to seeing your work. If you want to discuss anything before making a change, I have this page, and the article on my watchlist and I'd be happy to help. --Dave 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will be glad to work with you. Where would you like to begin?  (As background, I suggest a glance at The Lipstick Proviso: Women, Sex and Power in the Real World.  Lerhman (who is probably being bashed as an 'antifeminist' too) has a scary chapter on the Sisterhood and it's Stalinist methods and she mentions several sources as well).  (anonymous)


 * I came back with a quick and dirty summary of the so-called 'antifeminist' sources already linked here in Types. I would say some of these people actually do hate all 'feminisms' and that to call them anti-feminist is accurate.  However, please note the obvious contradictions (a so-called 'anti-feminist' is a feminist) in Whistleblower content. (anonymous)

It looks to me like your new content is so far pretty much POV original research. It is your conclusion that "antifeminist" is used as a slur, and as a wikipedia editor, it's not your place to draw such a conclusion - or any conclusion.

I agree that the article needs a lot of work. But what it needs is more reliable, externally sourced info, not more opinions!

Dan B † Dan D 01:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The content about Hoff-Sommers was here long before I added this quite obvious content. If you want me to go get her books and show you what she says about these personal attacks I will be glad to.  However the logic is obvious here (name-calling is name calling.)  This whole article is full of original research. I added just three statements using sources in the article.  However I agree totally with your statement about more information and less opinion which is what I did this POV check for in the first place.  I see no rigorous research sources on anti-feminism here so if any editor has some please so note.  NPOV begins with clear definitions and clear principles which can be understood by all. (anonymous)

POV check: Criticism of an antifeminist argument does not automatically make the critic an anti-feminist
Just as John Winthrop's opposition to Anabaptism on its anti-intellectual groundings didn't make John Winthrop an intellectual. Longshot14 17:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I pulled this down from above. I suspect some feminists would rather attack people than their ideas.  To build an article that calls anyone who disgrees with ANY aspect of feminist orthodoxy an 'anti-feminist' is a fine way to silence opponents and distract potential followers from examining the ideology itself.  To me, one can argue with an someone else without resorting to the dirty tricks that politicians so often use to smear their opponents.
 * Therefore, we need to focus on truly 'antifeminist' ideology here (like 'women are less than equal human beings' or whatever) rather than black-balling well-meaning feminist (or masculinist) dissenters who are critics of orthodox feminist idealogies. One should be able to test feminist idealogies and methods without automatically being branded an 'anti-feminist'.  There is a huge difference between dissenting and and being 'antifeminist'. I believe we need to be very careful to make this distinction here.  Genuine criticisms of feminist ideology belong in the feminism page not here.
 * In addition the silly idea pushed by many feminist idealogues that there is JUST ONE form of feminism (gender-ginning, victim saint, woman as superior to man) is clearly false. There is no single feminist theory.  There is no single 'like, like, like' form of feminism.  In fact probably the majority of American women subscribe to much more moderate ideas like equity, accountability and human rights (minus reverse sexism).  To use totalistic tactics that perjoratively represent all feminists as ONE is to dis-count, demean and silence the many other diverse ideas that make up feminism.  (anonymous)

Antifeminists oppose "equality under the law"?
I think DMoss's recent change to the first paragraph is problematic. Many feminists proudly claim far more sweeping goals for the movement than simple legal parity - feminism has important cultural elements as well. And the article presently has "equity feminists" being called antifeminists in certain quarters.

I can't access the link DMoss sourced his change to as it's a "members only" site. But I'm concerned that a "Women's Studies Encyclopedia" would likely have its own version of feminism to set forth in preference to others. Wikipedia should not do this.

I have cut the link but am copying it below for discussion.

cite book | title=Women's Studies Encyclopedia| url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/unisouthernqld/Doc?id=10017897&ppg=106| last=Tierney| first=Helen| date=1999| pages=94| publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated| location=Westport, CT, USA


 * If you look closely at the reference you will see it is a book reference, not merely a web reference. The URL is only included for completeness. If someone is really keen to check the reference it is possible to locate the book in a library, and look on page 94. I suggest you put the reference back until you have done that. --Dave 10:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts I've re-instated my referenced contribution as the material it replaces is unreferenced. I reject the POV that the Womens Studies Encyclopedia is not a suitable place to find information about Antifeminism. The author of the work, Dr. Helen M. Tierney, was formerly chair of the History Department at the University of Wisconsin. The work, and hence the reference, is peer reviewed at the highest level. I see no reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. --Dave 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. So, we now have the odd situation that antifeminism is defined as opposition to equality under the law in the first paragraph - yet in the body of the article, feminists who confine their aims to equality under the law (equity feminists) are described as anti-feminist! This makes no sense.


 * I'm sure that Helen Tierney is a good, scholarly source. I'm just not sure that she's a good concept-defining source. Feminism exists on a very broad spectrum. A single feminist's definition is likely to represent only a point along that spectrum. And indeed basic knowledge of the subject tells us that Tierney's definition is much narrower than the one used by many feminists - and by their opponents. - Dan B † Dan D  19:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not surprising that more radical feminists would regard less radical feminists as antifeminist. Our task here is not to sort out feminism, but to accurately and completely describe antifeminism. The editor of a scholarly encyclopedia is likely to be the best concept defining source available. Had Tierney written a mere book on gender politics you may have been able to criticise her position, but a 3 volume encyclopedia with two editions that is highly regarded by academia is a major achievement.


 * Well, at the moment, by accepting Helen Tierney's definition, this article (in its first paragraph) takes the point of view that opposition to feminism is not antifeminism when what is opposed is a form of feminism whose aims extend beyond equality under the law.


 * It also takes the point of view that "more radical feminists" who call equity feminists antifeminists are mistaken in so doing.


 * I don't wish to argue either for or against either of those points of view.


 * But I don't think they represent any kind of academic consensus, and I don't think its Wikipedia's place to set them up as fact. Essentially by using Tierney's definition we are taking sides with the equity feminists against the gender feminists. That's not appropriate for Wikipedia.


 * Again, I am sure Helen Tierney is well-respected. Many scholars with non-consensus points of view are well-respected. Dan B † Dan D  06:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I begin to wonder if you may have different views on Tierney's credibility if she had been male. --Dave 22:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For my part, I begin to wonder if you are recovering-bulimic ex-child-star Tracey Gold. Are you? Dan B † Dan D  06:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

POV CHECK: Types of antifeminists (from linked sources on article)
I have cut the list of "types of feminists," which made the vague claim to be "from linked sources" without saying which sources it was from or including links. Assuming that the individual characterizations really can be sourced, it is still OR to collect them into a roster of "types." I reproduce the list below in case the editor wants to rework it into a better-sourced, less POV form:

Types of antifeminists (from linked sources) *Men who see feminism as a "fraud". *Successful women who hold the perception they are unacknowledged by certain feminists due to differing ideology. *Non-feminist women who consider feminist ideology anti-male or misandric. *Women who feel feminism fails to represent them as women or who see feminism as a "social disaster" for women. ''*People such as Christina Hoff-Sommers who call themselves 'equity' feminists.  *People (feminists and non-feminists alike) who disagree with what they consider radical feminist gender ideology.'' *Fathers who believe that feminists, or feminism, is responsible for what they consider unfair treatment regarding their children. *Traditionalists and religionists who take a conservative view of male-female sex-roles.

This content was sourced from links in this article that others added before me. NOTE THERE ARE ALMOST NO SOUND ACADEMIC REFERENCES ON THIS PERJORATIVE POLICITICALLY LOADED TERM SO 'TYPES' BEGIN TO CLARIFY WHO IS CALLING WHO ANTI-FEMINIST FOR WHAT REASONS HERE. I summarized these types simply to show the basis for calling someone 'anti-feminist' and to highlight the absurdities of the definition...eg an anti-feminist feminist is a contradiction in terms as an anti-Republican Republican would be. Imagine baby Bush calling John McCain an anti-Republican because he opposes the adminstration's torture policies. That is how absurd and baseless some feminist name-calling is. We need to clean up this article's definition. I will cite these sources and reinsert types because there was no POV here other than those stated in the linked sources so that other editors have a basis upon which to define anti-feminism.


 * As I said before, I don't think links to sources will completely solve the problem. I think the list itself is OR/POV - collecting various independent descriptions into a classification system original to you. Dan B † Dan D  20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Look this whole article is based on a double-speak definition and full of unsourced weasel worded characterizations. I simply tried to make distinctions between the various types of so-called 'anti-feminists' already sourced in the links.  I figured that would shed some light on who is being accused of being 'antifeminist' and for what reasons.  We have to have some clear idea what anti-feminism means otherwise we just have an article here that is a cunning, covert and vicious propaganda piece for those who hate credible criticisms of modern feminism (as opposed to showing those GENUINE anti-feminists who hate all forms of female equality).  If there are no sound sourced criteria to call someone 'antifeminist' I for one will get my broom out and clean up this article.  If you have a better idea than this list to make clear who is who here then please discuss it but please don't just cut content you don't like for POV reasons. (drop in editor)

Notability of block-quotes?
There are many prominent anti-feminists publishing today. However, our two sources given long block quotes under principles are little-known bloggers. Can these be replaced by somebody like Rush Limbaugh, Gertrude Himmelfarb, or anyone who has name-recognition outside of their blog-rolls? Dan B † Dan D 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate Editing
I just reverted a large number of edits. The purpose of these edits appeared to be to remove information rather than to add to or improve the article. No indication was given that the information removed was incorrect, nor were sources cited to indicate the information was incorrect. It is not a good idea to remove the work of others without replacing it with better work, or providing reasons why the material removed is factually incorrect. Piecemeal deletions like this add up to article blanking over time. This is a form of vandalism that is difficultr to detect in its early stages, and can be difficult to deal with if the deletions are mixed up with bona-fide contributions. I am sure DanB made the deletions in good faith, but the end result of the individual deletions was little different to the kind of vandalism where someone block deletes information that does not fit their own point of view. I would suggest DanB discusses intent to blank information before actually deleting large chunks of information in future. It is usually better to add (well referenced) balancing information than to delete existing information provided by others. --Dave 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose I went overboard with the broom. I'll keep the quotes until I find more notable replacements, but that list of "types" has got to go - it's hopelessly OR/POV. Dan B † Dan D  18:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Helen Tierney in definitional paragraph
I think I see part of the reason for the trouble. Although Tierney's encyclopedia was revised in 1999, the entry "antifeminist movements" is based on no source more recent than 1986 -- and its subjects are confined to a paragraph on American anti-suffrage and an extensive discussion of the campaign against America's ERA amendment in the seventies. Although historically interesting, this has very little to do with antifeminism today, which is almost entirely cultural, not legal.

The article also refers only to the United States -- US suffrage and the US equal rights amendment.

I really don't see it as a useful source for a broad consideration of antifeminism as an idea, although it would be an excellent basis for specific information on the defeat of ERA.

Dan B † Dan D 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be happy for you to source a more up to date definition that is peer reviewed to the extent of the definition in Tierney. 20 years is not particularly long in the evolution of a word that has its roots in the turn of last century. Any marked difference in definition in a decade or two is likely to be transitory and more a reflection of contemporary politics than a genuine change. The concentration on neoconservative views in the article is an example, in another 20 years people may wonder what a neoconservative view is, but antifeminism is likely to be alive and well. It is also difficult to seperate historical antifeminism from US politics as this is where the movement developed. Our challenge is to seek out and document antifeminism in other countries, not to complain about the work others have already done in the article. --Dave 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave no offense but I believe we must first define the term clearly with clear distinctions between those who hate all forms of female equality versus those who hate some feminist ideologies. To be critical of false feminist ideologies, fraudulent feminist scholarship or totalitarian tactics in 'good' feminism is far from being anti-feminist.  Before you go a hunting please show us the kind of stuff you are hunting for in 'other countries' (drop in editor)

POV CHECK: Definition of Antifeminism
I pulled in the following dictionary definitions of antifeminism. It is one thing to use the correct definition but quite another to use 'antifeminist' perjoratively so 'good' feminists can perjoratively label so-called 'bad' feminist dissenters. I am going to clean up the definition section and make these distinctions here.

To use post-modern feminist definitions for antifeminism is POV. Many diverse authors (both femininist, masculinist and other) have noted the fraudulent and totalitarian nature of MODERN feminist scholarship. Therefore I insist that we use commonly available dictionaries to define these terms to eliminate POV and to make proper distinctions between fair characterizations and totalitarian doublespeak. Someone who hates female equality is indeed antifeminist. However someone who hates fraud or bombast in establishment feminism is far from 'antifeminist'. We need to show these distinctions here...otherwise this article will become just another propaganda piece for those feminists who feminist Phyllis Chessler (The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom, Phyllis Chesler, 2006, ISBN 1-4039-6898-5) bravely calls "cowardly herd animals and grim totalitarian thinkers". (drop in editor)

There seems to be a strong POV concern about the definition of anti-feminism. I am concerned about a double-speak definition that for example calls dissident feminists 'antifeminist' just because they are critical of certain aspects of modern ideological feminism. This tactic is commonly found in totalitarian tyrannies planetwide. Therefore, I will not stand for this article being used as a propaganda piece for ideological feminists to attack credible opponents of their ideologies using personal slander. I welcome legitimate discussions about the definition and POV in this article. Please be specific, constructive and goal oriented so we can prevent needless edit wars. I have been bold as per wiki policy in cleaning up the definition. However, I am willing to listen to reasonable concerns about POV here and to consense on NPOV. (drop in editor)


 * I'm at a loss ... why do you think that these additions represent "dictionary definitions"? Dan B † Dan D  20:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because they are taken almost verbatim from the sourced online Dictionaries'definitions I linked in the article. (drop in editor)


 * Defining anti-feminism as merely anti-equality with respect to women seems very limited. Previous versions of this article discussed various aspects of being anti the feminist movement.  This seems quite possible without necessarily being against equality.  Frankly, I find the article to be more propaganda now than before, especially with its pseudo-authoritarian reference in the first paragraph to what appears to be a minor publication.  —johndburger 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition is limited for good reason...a distinct and limited definition is what prevents radical gender feminist 'politicians' from using this article as a covert, cunning and vicious propaganda piece by expanding the definition (ad infinitum) to falsely include anyone seen as politically incorrect. One can oppose the modern (gender) feminist movement AND support women and womens liberation as so many feminist whistleblowers have shown us without being 'antifeminist'.  (I refer you to Wendy McElroys Sexual Correctness: The Gender Feminist Attack on Women for a better take on this than I offered here.) If you find reputable GENERAL dictionaries that expand this definition please discuss them first and then be bold as I was.


 * In any case, we don't get to define a definition anyway we please. That is what we have dictionaries for...to have a single standard that everyone can use so that no one can use definitions for political purposes or whatever.  The definitions used in this article before I pulled in dictionary definitions were absurd, abstract and weasely forms of POV double speak.  Double-speak definition is the norm in totalitarian tyrannies but not in clean wiki entries.  Good (dictionary) definitions tend to clear up a lot of confusion and establish clear distinctions.  That is my intent here.


 * As for your claims about 'propaganda' and 'authoritarian' references please be specific so I can understand your concerns. I am willing to listen but please spare me cheap shots.  What exactly do you have a problem with and why?  (drop in editor)


 * Yup. Dan B † Dan D  03:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Yup' indeed!? Two plus two aren't equal to five no matter how many 'yups' there are.  Please use reason and common sense here rather than cheap shots.  Trying to gang bang me with mere 'yups' is no fair.  I will be glad to listen to reasonable alternatives but we don't get to change the definition just because of our POV opinions about anti-feminism.  (drop in editor)

POV Check: Definition
Definition content at issue:


 * Antifeminism refers to disbelief regarding the economic, political, and or social equality of females as a sex . Sometimes antifemimism is also used to refer to a belief in male superiority and as such is synomymous with male chauvinism.  The opposite of antifeminism is antimasculinism (as shown in Dead Man Walking: Masculinity’s Troubling Persistence, Brendan O'Sullivan, BITCHfest 2006) or female chauvinism.

Can I suggest those who disagree over the definition of antifeminism do so in the body of the article, not in the intro paragraph. The intro needs to be a short sharp definition only as it is often captured by on-line serch engines or used in abbreviated versions of Wikipedia. I'd also point out that an academic Womens Studies Encyclopedia is no more or less biased than a dictionary. Given that it is a specialist encyclopedia it is more likely to give a reliable definition than a more general work. --Dave 09:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC) s
 * I cannot concur with this suggestion. Many other articles have had hard fought battles over definition because the definition defines the scope of the entire article, creates distinctions between what is and what is not part of the article, and brings clarity to the entire article.  Radical feminists have been accused of absurdly expanding definitions and using double-speak definitions for POV political purposes (such as calling all forms of heterosexual sexual intercourse 'rape' without distinction).  This article is one such attempt where anyone who is seen as politically incorrect by a particular group of feminists can be defined that way perjoratively and without accepted basis. Wikipedia is not a front to be used by any group to attack their legitimate opponents. That is why  I brought in general dictionaries definitions of these terms.  As for a women's studies dictionary definition of the term please spare me...that is about as unreliable and POV as one can get.  I refer you to the sources on Women's studies for a whole host of credible criticisms of biased scholarship within most women's studies programs.  I insist on using genuine and commonly accepted and credible dictionaries to define 'antifeminism' rather than a brand new discipline that has been accused (by many feminists and others) of being a (fraudulent) front for ideological feminism.  If you have better commonly accepted dictionary definitions please bring them in.  Otherwise, please do not use a particular groups definition(s) to push their POV or to assist a particular group to slander it's enemies.  (drop in editor)

this comment in itself is an outrageous set of unsupported assertions. 'Radical feminists [NAME ONE OR TWO] have been accused [BY WHOM?] of absurdly expanding definitions and using double-speak definitions [DEFINE] for POV political purposes (such as calling all forms of heterosexual sexual intercourse 'rape' without distinction). This article is one such attempt [SLIPPERY SLOPE REASONING] where anyone who is seen as politically incorrect by a particular group of feminists [SUCH AS?] can be defined that way perjoratively and without accepted basis' [ACCEPTED ON WHAT BASIS?]67.100.107.232actio

POV Check: Intro content
Content at issue:

The label 'antifeminist' is sometimes used perjoratively to punish feminist whistleblowers, feminist dissenters and other critics of the feminist movement itself. For example, Christina Hoff-Sommers describes herself as a feminist but has been labeled an 'antifeminist' by other feminists because of her controversial claims about modern feminism. Misandry researchers Nathanson and Young note that until very recently the "few feminists who dared to speak out against misandry were usually declared enemies of feminism, or even enemies of women, and thus effectively silenced." Clearly, mere criticism of modern feminist viewpoints does not necessarily make one an 'antifeminist'.


 * “The label 'antifeminist' is sometimes used perjoratively to punish feminist whistleblowers, feminist dissenters and other critics of the feminist movement itself.”


 * This whole statement, as well as labels within the statement, is POV and lacking in citations.


 * Then add a fact check template and ask for citations.


 * No. Fact-checking is hardly the issue for much of it. Take “whistleblowers”; that is first-hand POV akin to saying, “so-and-so celebrity is beautiful and deserves a Nobel Prize“. Citing an argument that individuals are “whistleblowers” would belong in its appropriate paragraph, not the intro.


 * I'll note that there are almost no citations in this whole article. Please stick to a single standard here.  (drop in editor)


 * Regardless of your opinion, as it stood there were tags at the top of the page. Altering the introduction to include more verbiage lacking in citations - when there are already paragraphs appropriate for the content - is unnecessary.


 * "Misandry researchers Nathanson and Young state that until very recently the "few feminists who dared to speak out against misandry were usually declared enemies of feminism, or even enemies of women, and thus effectively silenced."


 * 'Nathanson and Young” are referred to as if they are an entity. If anything, this should go in one of the paragraphs below. Hopefully it won’t end up as sloppy and reading like a book description of the one they wrote like the misandry page.


 * Fine. I'm not here to win points on style. I welcome your style wisdom.  However, to use extremely sloppy doublespeak definitions (substance) to make perjorative attacks against credible enemies of (false or untested) feminist ideologies precedes style in my opinion.  Totalitarian tactics belong no-where in wikipedia.  (drop in editor)


 * This isn't about "winning", it is about the article remianing encyclopediac. The article does not exist to be a soapbox. There is a whole section discussing the use of the term “antifeminist” in the article.


 * "Clearly, mere criticism of modern feminist viewpoints does not necessarily make one an 'antifeminist'."


 * This whole statement presumes the above is fact, and it isn’t, and is of itself also POV.NeoApsara 02:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NO it is mere REASONING that all articles use to explain things. If someone calls herself a 'feminist' and someone else calls that very same person an 'antifeminist', we have a contradiction in terms.  This would be like Bush calling McCain an "anti-republican' just because McCain fights for some of the original ideals of his party against Bush's double-speak about say torture.  This is exactly why we cannot use radical feminist definitions of so-called 'anti-feminism'.  Radical feminists rarely play fair with language. To see politically correct progressives stoop to the same ugly tactics right-wing 'born agains' president's use is dissapointing and disgusting to me.(drop in editor)


 * The issue is discussed in a paragraph below within the article. NeoApsara 06:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan
Can anyone find the clip of him answering questions from the audience following a speech in 2000 after he joined the Reform Party? What the media did not report on, was that he either retracted or modified the controversial statement about Western capitalism and said his sister was upset with him for this statement. He does not retract his antifeminism or his view that women should generally accept traditional roles, but he admitted the statement was excessive. Someone asked him a question about a statement he made regarding the Holocaust as well as a question about that statement. Buchanan said he can only answer one question from each audience member, and told the man to choose one. The man simply replied, "Women," to which Pat Buchanan groaned and said "I wish you'd asked me the other one" followed by laughter from the audience before giving his answer. Does anyone else remember that? 07:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Check: using 'antifeminism' doublespeak definitions for slandering people
Content at issue:


 * The label 'antifeminist' is sometimes used perjoratively to punish feminist whistleblowers, feminist dissenters and other critics of the feminist movement itself. For example, Christina Hoff-Sommers  describes herself as a feminist but has been labeled an 'antifeminist' by other feminists because of her controversial claims about modern feminism. Misandry researchers Nathanson and Young note that until very recently the "few feminists who dared to speak out against misandry were usually declared enemies of feminism, or even enemies of women, and thus effectively silenced." Clearly, mere criticism of modern feminist viewpoints does not necessarily make one an 'antifeminist'.

Listed below is how covert, cunning and perjorative radical feminists 'play' with the definition of feminism and antifeminism to attack credible critics. I insist on reasonable, commonly accepted definitions here so this article becomes no wiki-weapon for radical feminist ideologues to use to mind-murder their critics. I insist on distinctions between genuine antifeminists and false antifeminists along with some sort of explanation of this ugly totalitarian tactic of labeling credible critics 'antifeminist'. Otherwise, I insist that we limit this article to a study of genuine antifeminism and genuine anti-feminists.

1)Take perfectly reasonable and commonly defined definitions of feminism and antifeminism.

2)Expand the definitions of feminism to absurd extremes so all false, fraudulent, untested or mean-spirited misandric 'feminisms' are included as equal forms of feminism. Then expand the definition of antifeminism to mirror so-called modern definitions of feminism .  Make no distinctions between feminism as science, as politics or as philosophy.  Make no distinctions between forms of feminism in logical opposition to each other (eg gender-ginning versus equality forms of feminism).  Do all this within an incestuous context of 'gender' studies with gynocentric reverse-sexist 'peer' review.  Call these parochial, irresponsible, and totalistic definitions the new 'official' definitions of feminism and antifeminism.

3)Use these new 'official' definitions to attack credible critics (be they feminist, non-feminist or other) of all 'official' forms of so-called 'feminism' without regard to reason and without resorting to civil dialogue. Resists all calls for responsible definitions so that critics of modern feminisms can be attacked PERSONALLY rather than PROFESSIONALLY.  Use 'antifeminism' as label to silence, slander, and stonewall all those who fail to toe the 'Party Line' so that the so-called establishment feminist Sisterhood can appear intact within it's cocoon of inane ideological cant.

I am going to wait a week or two for other responses here. I will address NeoSpora's issues above and cite the content. Then unless other editors have constructive reasons why I should pull this content I am going to reinsert it in shortened form. I welcome suggestions about style and placement. I placed this content-at-issue at the top of the article because it speaks directly to the definition and prevents perjorative use of the term 'antifeminist' in the entire article. (drop in editor)


 * Well, the problem is very basic. It's not the place of a wikipedia editor to judge the use of this term as "genuine" or "false" or "doublespeak" or "slanderous" -- except by reference to the judgments of notable, reliable third-party sources. That's the essence of the NPOV policy. Dan B † Dan D  04:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah I will be judging genuine or false up against the common dictionary definitions and I invite you to too. They are reliable third party sources in a highly politicized article.  (drop in editor) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.95.210 (talk • contribs).


 * FYI, the word is spelled pejorative.  —johndburger 03:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks (drop in editor) 209.129.49.65 04:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparing sample definitions from other related articles
Content at issue:


 * Antifeminism refers to disbelief regarding the economic, political, and or social equality of females as a sex . Sometimes antifemimism is also used to refer to a belief in male superiority and as such is synomymous with male chauvinism.  The opposite of antifeminism is antimasculinism (as shown in Dead Man Walking: Masculinity’s Troubling Persistence, Brendan O'Sullivan, Bitchfest 2006) or female chauvinism.


 * Misogyny (/mɪ.ˈsɑ.ʤə.ni/) is hatred or strong prejudice against women. The word comes from the Greek words μίσος (misos, "hatred") + γυνη (gunê, "woman"). Compared with anti-woman sexism or misandry (hatred or fear of, or strong prejudice against men), misogyny is viewed in feminist theory as a political ideology [citation needed] - similar to racism or anti-Semitism - that justifies and maintains the subordination of women by men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.95.210 (talk • contribs).


 * Misandry (IPA [mɪ.ˈsæn.dri]) is the hatred of males as sex . The word comes from misos (Greek μίσος, "hatred") + andras (Greek ἀνδρας, "man"). Although misandry is sometimes confused with misanthropy, the terms are not interchangeable, since the latter refers to the hatred of humanity. An idea related to misandry is androphobia, the fear of men (male humans), but not necessarily the hatred of them


 * Online dictionary definitions of antifeminist
 * 
 * 

Please note the usual radical feminist definition 'creep' in misogyny where some uncited reference to some unstated theory is being used to expand the common dictionary definition for unstated reasons. This is a cunning, covert and all-to-common tactic to rape language for radical feminist political purposes as has been done with the common gynocentric usage of the term 'gender'. Misandry researchers Nathonson and Young note that this is a favorite (and totalitarian) tactic ideological feminists use to take power without having to be accountable. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Check: Free speech and academic freedom on Wikipedia?
Phyllis Chessler in The Death of Feminism (Chapter 1: The "Good" Feminist) makes the following statements about totalitarian thought control in elite academic and media circles. I added these excerpts here because I see this article as a POV attempt to slander feminist whistleblowers, dissidents and other non-feminists critical of some aspects of modern feminist ideologies or scholarship. In my opinion, we either need to clean this article up or show how false forms of labeling people "antifeminist" are used for pejorative political slandering here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Does she (an unnamed lifelong democratic feminist in New York mentioned in the preceding paragraph) believe that engaging in dialogue with the designated "enemy" somehow constitutes traitorous behavior? If so, and I suspect this is the case, I must ask: Is she only afraid of the Republicans--who have not abolished her First Amendment right to speak out as feminist and who have not rescinded the Fourth Amendment against improper search and seizure--or is she afraid of the media and the academic elite who view civil conversation with anyone who opposes them as a high crime?"


 * "It is crucial to note that our government has not criminalized free speech nor have dissidents been jailed for saying whatever they please. In my opinion, the chilling of free speech has been unilaterally imposed by those who claim to act on its' behalf."


 * "What sort of group or person refuses to recognize the existence of and refuses to even talk to, no less hire, someone with whom they disagree? What sort of group or person persistently slanders and demonizes those with whom they happen to disagree on key political issues?  What sort of group or person demands uniform party-line thinking--and is powerful enough to coerce people into "hiding" their potentially dissident views, sometimes even from themselves"?


 * "Surely I must be talking about the power of the former Soviet state or Nazi Germany, Maoist China, or any one of the many Islamic dictatorships; or I must be describing Republican or conservative thinking. Alas, I am not."


 * "Today totalitarian thinking is also flourishing among media and academic elites. Oddly enough, such totalitarian thinking and its consequent thought control  are flying high under the banners of "free speech" and "political correctness".  Dare to question these elites' rights to expose or challenge them, and you'll quickly be attacked as representing a new and more dreadfull form of "McCarthyism" and "witch hunting".


 * We don't "need to show" anything. The article is not a platform for anyone's thoughts on political correctness, unless it has directly to do with the topic at hand—feel free to edit that article, though.  Also, please assume good faith—accusing your fellow editors of slander is inappropriate.  —johndburger 01:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where doublespeak slander is being used in an article to pejoratively slander others it does indeed need to be called and I will call and take a stand against it here. I am not accusing any other editors here of this.  I am saying that this kind of totalitarian tyranny has become status quo in this and many other articles related to these loaded POV topics.  I mean no personal offense to you or any other editor here.  I assume good faith about all editors until I see totalitarian tactics used to silence politically incorrect points of view.  I assume you are acting in good faith from a particular POV as am I. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you (whoever 'we' is here) don't want to "show" false forms of antifeminist slandering then please keep this article limited to genuine forms of antifeminism/antifeminists. I see a whole list of pejorative 'antifeminist' sources (see Literature critical of feminism) attached this article that, IMO,  belong in the feminism article as credible criticisms of feminism.  To call most of these authors 'antifeminist' is false, fraudulent, and absurd.  (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct in wanting to keep the article limited to describing anti-feminism—my point is that the purpose of the article is not to "show" anything. You are in danger of appearing highly non-NPOV if you imply, as above, that "we" need to show something about academic freedom on Wikipedia in this article.  Further, your continual assertion that the term "anti-feminism" is pejorative and slanderous is terribly POV.
 * I agree the purpose of the article is not to "show" anything. A good NPOV article uses NPOV sources to create some sort of credible content.  When I began to edit here, this article was nothing short of incredible with covert, cunning and radical feminist POV throughout.  You cannot have it both ways here.  Either we use credible sources and stick to commonly accepted definitions or we build an article full of narrow partisan propaganda pandering to particular radical feminist POV that is politically correct now.  I brought that "academic freedom" discussion into this discussion page merely for discussion so that you and other editors would see what people who hope to stifle dissent have done elsewhere in the hope that we ALL do better here as we build this article.  As for my assertion that the term "antifeminism" is 'pejorative' and 'slanderous' when used falsely to attack other feminists (who do indeed believe strongly in female equality) that is FACT.  At least a dozen prominent, independent, FEMINIST authors have made similar claims about the totalitarian tactics that some radical feminists use against whistleblowers, dissidents, womens studies students and others.  Therefore, I am being far from POV here to have concerns about the possibility of the same tactics being used here by editors 'friendly' to the views of radical female-superiority feminism...I am merely being realistic.  I raise these concerns so that 'good faith' editors know what I (and what we all) are up against as we try to build a NPOV article within a highly loaded and quite covert, cunning and care-less context. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.217 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I still contend that "anti-feminism" need not be defined as narrowly as you have—it can easily be understood to additionally mean "against the Feminist movement". —johndburger 04:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense but as much as I would sometimes like to be able to define topics to support my personal contentions, I have to acknowledge that that is what we have dictionaries for...to provide commonly accepted NPOV definitions. I defined "antifeminism" using commonly accepted dictionary definitions to prevent POV double-speak definitions of the term.  If you have genuinely NPOV dictionaries with other definitions I am always willing to reconsider but please spare us so called 'NPOV' definitions from highly politicized disciplines like Women's studies which have huge conflicts of interest (vis a vis antifeminism) and a bad academic reputation to boot. My intent here is to clean this article up so it cannot be used as a dumping pit for any valid criticism of female-superiority feminism or used as an article within which to take cunning, covert, and politically motivated cheap shots as credible critics of modern so-called 'feminisms' that have strayed far from a focus on female-male equality and have become platforms for rampant female superiority rants and mean-spirited misandry.

(drop in editor) 128.111.95.217 07:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Check: Who is an 'antifeminist', hate speech or free speech?
Using the common dictionary definition of antifeminism, unless he or she disbelieves female equality or is a male chauvinist:
 * no non-feminist is an antifeminist
 * agreed
 * no feminist whistleblower, dissident or other feminist critic is an antifeminist-for instance individualist feminist Wendy McElroy is no antifeminist just because she 'deconstructs' radical feminist rape pretensions as in The Politics of Rape
 * with correction - no feminist (whatever her/his practice) is antifeminist - term misuse.
 * no conservative is an antifeminist
 * might well be if actively speaking against feminism.
 * no researcher of feminist falsehoods, fraud or other politically correct feminist flim-flams is an antifeminist
 * correct, unless he/she identifies him/herself as antifeminist.
 * no misandry researcher is antifeminist
 * correct under same condition as above.
 * no researcher of feminist scholarship (see Women's studies) is an antifeminist-Micheal Ghiglerie is no antifeminist just because he utterly destroys gender-feminist 'theories' about the causes of sexual assault using scientific methods in The Dark Side Of Man.
 * if he states that he is against ideology, besides denouncing it in his research, he is antifeminist.
 * no masculinist is an antifeminist
 * might well be, but doesn't have to.
 * no editor here (such as me for example!) who insists on distinct distinctions to prevent double-speak slandering definitions is an antifeminist.
 * unrelated Lost Angel 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A genuine antifeminist might be (we need NPOV sources here!):
 * a fundamentalist Muslim adherent (male or female) (as shown in Chesslers The Death of Feminism 2006)
 * might be simply religious conservative. needs to me quoted speaking against feminism excplicitly.
 * a fundamentalist Hindu as shown in the feature film Water (2005 film)
 * might be simply religious conservative. needs to me quoted speaking against feminism excplicitly. Haven't seen the film, though.
 * a fundamentalist Christian who believes male superiority/female inferiority is ordained by his or her god.
 * might be simply religious conservative. needs to me quoted speaking against feminism excplicitly.Lost Angel 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * a person who believes women have no right to equality as human beings.
 * I disagree here strongly. This would be a chauvinist. Antifeminists might be for equality, but not for the kind of 'equality' some or all movements of feminism suggest (for example, against quotas, positive discrimination and other such things).
 * philosophers such as Neitche (sp)
 * rather yes.
 * secular male chauvinists.
 * yes.
 * others to numerous to name.
 * they should be named Lost Angel 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article needs to show genuine antifeminists rather than straw-men or straw-women that some superiority-feminists use to slander their enemies. Chessler makes this point well in The Death of Feminism (Chapter 2: Women and the Crisis of Independent Thinking) and she has many 'sisters' and 'brothers' who have made similar assertions about ideological feminisms. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe we need to review what we see as 'feminism' that antifeminists are critical of (meaning for most antifeminists feminism includes radical forms, which they object to, despite that there might be forms of feminism they don't object to). I believe equating male chauvinism with antifeminism is a misconception placed in supposed npov dictionaries by feminist censors.Lost Angel 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

POV Check: Using false 'antifeminist' labels for slander: hate speech or free speech?
Below is how feminist Phyllis Chessler describes the Orwellian left-wing manipulation of language for political purposes in The Death of Feminism (2006). When we use false 'antifeminist' labels in this article (as shown above) to unfairly slander people or their ideas we are indulging in left-wing totalitarian hate speech. To stoop to the ugly level of politicians who use personal attacks to duck the issues demeans wikipedia. Therefore, I insist that we eschew politically motivated double speak definitions of the term and use common NPOV dictionary definitions instead. I also insist that we show the difference between obvious POV lies and NPOV truths here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"In my opinion, American campuses have indeed bred a new and diabolical McCarthyism. Academics now presume that they have the right to teach brazen lies and engage in hate speech, which they expect to be protected in the name of "free speech" or academic freedom.  Worse, when academics try to teach a non or anti-left wing view of any subject, they will be accused (by the new McCarthyites) of leading a McCarthyit witch-hunt against the left wing totalitarian suppression of free speech".

"As I continually intone: Orwell himself would weep at such extreme linguistic distortions." (emphasis this editor's)

"Free speech and academic freedom are very important. However, professors are also supposed to teach the difference between a truth and a lie.  The earth is round, not flat; Darwin was right about evolution; communism failed; women are oppressed, and men are too.  Many professors have abdicated this responsibility.  Professors must be allowed to hold their own political or intellectual point of view; however they should also teach students that more than one point of view exists.  Professors should also allow students to make up their own minds without being publicly shamed or academically punished."

POV Check: false characterizations of so-called antifeminist literature
Content in question:

Literature critical of feminism (a false title)
 * Alan J. Barron, The Death of Eve: Women, Liberation, Disintegration (1986) ISBN 0-949667-36-6
 * Alan Carlson, The Family in America: Searching for Social Harmony in the Industrial Age (2003) ISBN 0-7658-0536-7
 * Alan Carlson, Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social Crisis (1991) ISBN 1-56000-555-6
 * Gilbert K. Chesterton, Brave New Family (1990) ISBN 0-89870-314-X
 * Thomas Ellis, The Rantings of a Single Male (2005) ISBN 0-9762613-1-6
 * Thomas Fleming, The Politics of Human Nature (1988) ISBN 1-56000-693-5
 * Maggie Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love (1996) ISBN 0-89526-464-1
 * George Gilder, Men and Marriage (1992) ISBN 0-88289-444-7
 * Steven Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy (1977) ISBN 0-8126-9237-3
 * Steven Goldberg, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (1993) ISBN 0-8126-9237-3
 * F. Carolyn Graglia, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism (1998) ISBN 0-9653208-6-3
 * Richard T. Hise, The War Against Men (2004) ISBN 1-930859-61-9
 * Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know; Thomas P. James, Aventine Press, 2003, ISBN 1-59330-122-7
 * Who Stole Feminism Christina Hoff Summers
 * The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men; Christina Hoff Sommers, Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, 2001; ISBN 0-684-84957-7
 * Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist Mistake (2005) ISBN 1-58134-570-4
 * Linda Kelly, Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse:  How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State (2003)
 * The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability, Laura Kipnis, 2006
 * The Lipstick Proviso: Women, Sex & Power in the Real World; Karen Lehrman, 1997, ISBN 0-385-47481-4
 * Myron Magnet, Modern Sex: Liberation and Its Discontents (2001) ISBN 1-56663-384-2
 * Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006) ISBN 0-7735-2862-8
 * Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001) ISBN 0-7735-2272-7
 * Kate O'Beirne, Women Who Make the World Worse (2005) ISBN 1-59523-009-2
 * John Piper and Wayne A. Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1991) ISBN 0-89107-586-0
 * Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies; Daphne Patai and Noreta Koertge, 1995, ISBN 0-465-09827-4
 * Mary Pride, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality (1985) ISBN 0-89107-345-0
 * Erin Pizzey, Prone to Violence (Hamlyn, 1982; ISBN 0-600-20551-7)
 * Phyllis Schlafly, Feminist Fantasies (2003) ISBN 1-890626-46-5
 * Phyllis Schlafly, The Power of the Positive Woman (1977) ISBN 0-87000-373-9
 * Howard Schwartz, The Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness (2003) ISBN 0-7658-0537-5
 * Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males (2000) ISBN 0-312-26311-2
 * Esther Vilar, The Manipulated Man (1972) ISBN 0-9530964-2-4
 * Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism is Not the Story of My Life (1996) ISBN 0-385-46790-7 (
 * Philip Gordon Wylie, A Generation of Vipers (1942) ISBN 1-56478-146-1
 * Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us (2000) ISBN 0-684-85959-9
 * Midge Decter, The New Chastity and Other Arguments Against Women's Liberation (1974) ISBN 0-399-50307-2
 * Gertrude Himmelfarb, The De-moralization Of Society (1996) ISBN 0-679-76490-9
 * Harvey C. Mansfield, Manliness (2006) ISBN 0-300-10664-5
 * Diane Medved and Dan Quayle, The American Family: Discovering the Values That Make Us Strong (1997) ISBN 0-06-092810-7
 * Christina Hoff-Sommers, The War Against Boys (2001) ISBN 0-684-84957-7
 * Christina Hoff-Sommers, Who Stole Feminism? (1995) ISBN 0-684-80156-6

I pulled the following section from the article because very few of these authors appear to deal with genuine antifeminism as far as the common definition is concerned (please see discussions above)  To use this article to hide and slander all credible critics of feminist falsehood, fraud, or ideology is disengenous. This article is for genuine antifeminists not for feminist whistleblowers, feminist dissents, non-feminists and other non-antifeminists. If there are genuine antifeminist sources (please see dictionary definition) in this list please pull them back into the Further reading section as genuine sources. Otherwise please refrain from using false sources for antifeminism content. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.110 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Put it back after review of the definition in the article itself. Criticising feminism goes into antifeminist category, although authors of such literature are not necessarily antifeminists (in whichever sense one would like to use that word).Lost Angel 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

POV Check: References
The so called 'references' used for this article seemed to be merely article links from some partisan feminist sources These references are hardly NPOV. They are also far from rigorous sources upon which to build a genuinely NPOV article.

I pulled in Amazon for some NPOV sources. Please notice that some of these sources contain highly partisan rants that are far from NPOV and make arguments that have been repeatedly lampooned by other more moderate feminists (about so-called 'antifeminist' "intellectual harrassment" for instance.) If highly partisan feminists define modern antifeminism using their own definitions we might mention them and their definitions here but to imagine that they (people with huge conflicts of interest and blatant biases) get to decide on the common dictionary definition is absurd. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazon sources

Does ANYONE know any decent NPOV references upon which to source this article that use some sort of balanced analysis!? (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 04:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (drop in editor)

POV Check Who defines 'antifeminism'?
Content at issue:


 * Who defines anti-feminism today
 * Historically, the label 'antifeminist' was a term applied to people opposed to classical feminism...that is people opposed to female equality in general which at that time meant the same thing as being opposed to 'feminism'. However, more recently, feminism has morphed into many forms of often conflicting 'feminisms' up to and including female-superiority 'feminisms'.  Therefore, the clear logical connection between opposing female equality and opposing today's forms of feminism is no longer true.  Today, one can be critical of feminism, believe strongly in female (and male) equality and yet be falsely labeled an 'antifeminist' because others consciously and/or unconsciously refuse to make distinctions between female equality and other feminist ideologies which have nothing directly to do with female equality.


 * Some people such as religious fundamentalists believe in female inferiority and male superiority as foundations for their faith. These people rarely define themselves as 'antifeminist' because, for them, feminism has no meaning.  Others, both feminist and non-feminist alike, label them as 'antifeminist' because they clearly match the definition.


 * On the other hand, proud antifeminists who understand but disagree with female equality often label themselves as 'anti-feminists'. These people are also usually labeled 'antifeminist' by others as well because they so clearly fit the definition of the term.  In this case, the persons self-identification coincides with others definition of him or her as 'antifeminist'.


 * However, in odd but not unusual cases, people call themselves 'feminists' only to be labeled 'anti-feminist' by other feminists. For instance, feminist whistleblower Christina Hoff Sommers rejects the term "antifeminist", calls herself a feminist and believes strongly in female equality but has been called an 'antifeminist' by many of her so-called 'sisters' within mainstream feminist circles.


 * Non-feminists, scientific researchers, and others, who support female equality, are often labeled 'antifeminist' by today's feminists when their views are at odds with one or more aspect of status quo feminism regardless of the content of their claims. Some radical feminists have even gone so far as to claim any criticism of any aspect of feminism is by (their) definition 'antifeminist'.


 * In extreme cases, any form of challenge to totalistic feminist ideology is called "intellectual harrassment" and the label 'antifeminist' is used to target people who would otherwise be seen as merely exercising their right to free speech. In less extreme cases, anyone (female or male) whose religion, politics, or personal values differ from radical feminist proscriptions is labeled 'antifeminist' by definition.  People associated with anyone labeled 'antifeminist' can also be labeled 'antifeminist' by radical feminist partisans regardless of their viewpoints about female equality.


 * “Historically, the label 'antifeminist' was a term applied to people opposed to classical feminism...that is people opposed to female equality in general which at that time meant the same thing as being opposed to 'feminism'.“

This is completely unsourced.


 * "However, more recently, feminism has morphed into many forms of often conflicting 'feminisms' up to and including female-superiority 'feminisms'."

Where is the source? When exactly is “recently”? Based on what?


 * "Therefore, the clear logical connection between opposing female equality and opposing today's forms of feminism is no longer true."

POV, unsourced, and nonspecific. First of all what are “today’s forms of feminism”? Who decides? How are they different from yesterday’s or yesteryear’s or whatever if the opposite?


 * "Today, one can be critical"

As opposed to yesterday when “one” would have no valid points? You need to establish that.


 * “of today's feminisms, believe strongly in female (and male) equality and yet be falsely labeled an 'antifeminist' because others often fail to make distinctions between female equality and other feminist ideologies which have nothing directly to do with female equality.”

Where is the source and who are these people?


 * “Some people such as religious fundamentalists believe in female inferiority and male superiority as foundations for their faith. These people rarely define themselves as 'antifeminist' because, for them, feminism has no meaning. Others, both feminist and non-feminist alike, label them as 'antifeminist' because they clearly match the definition.


 * Other people label themselves as 'anti-feminists'. These people are also usually labeled 'antifeminist' by others as well because they oppose female equality.  In this case, the persons self-identification coincides with others definition of him or her as 'antifeminist'.  Usually these people share a belief in female inferiority and male superiority which fits the definition of the term.”

Not only is this sloppy, unsubstantiated, and nearly nonsensical, but who decided that just because somebody calls themselves an antifeminist means they actually are?


 * “However, in odd but not unusual cases, people call themselves 'feminists' only to be labeled 'anti-feminist' by other feminists. For instance, feminist whistleblower Christina Hoff Sommers rejects the term "antifeminist", calls herself a feminist and believes strongly in female equality but has been called an 'antifeminist' by many of her so-called 'sisters' within mainstream feminist circles.”

This is redundant and POV. Firstly, again, the view of Hoff Sommers as a “whistleblower” is completely subjective; if you have something significant where she is referred to as one then use it. Second, what is “mainstream feminism”? Do you have a source? Who decided? This looks weasel’y and POV because you have to work your logic backwards to conclude therefore anything that says Hoff Sommers is antifeminist = “mainstream feminism”. If you’re arguing it is POV and false to claim Hoff Sommers is antifeminist “because other feminists disagree with her”, you cannot turn around and call unnamed feminists who refer to her as “antifeminist” the “mainstream feminism” simply because you disagree with them.


 * “Non-feminists, scientific researchers, and others, who support female equality, are often labeled 'antifeminist' by today's feminists when their views are at odds with one or more aspect of status quo feminism regardless of the content of their claims.”

Such as when…? And, what, as opposed to yesterday’s feminists? What did they say?


 * “Some radical feminists have even gone so far as to claim any criticism of any aspect of feminism is by (their) definition 'antifeminist'. “

Like…?


 * “In extreme cases, any form of challenge to totalistic feminist ideology is called "intellectual harrassment" and the label 'antifeminist' is used to target people who would otherwise be seen as merely exercising their right to free speech.”

Is there an example? Also, you’re conflating different issues: if you’re going to argue somebody claims “intellectual harrassment”, you have to counter it in kind; making into a free-speech issue shows POV.


 * “In less extreme cases, anyone (female or male) whose religion, politics, or personal values differ from radical feminist proscriptions is labeled 'antifeminist' by definition. People associated with anyone labeled 'antifeminist' can also be labeled 'antifeminist' by radical feminist partisans regardless of their viewpoints about female equality.”

This is getting redundant, yet you’ve still to source anything.


 * I added (as yet unsourced) content to reflect many sources I have read on this topic. I deleted circular cat-fights about who believes in what kind of feminism because these are feminism not antifeminism topics.

“Cat-fight”? Nice. It is a genuine disagreement and lack of meeting of the minds when it comes to motivation and beliefs. It is sourced (or linked) and to-the-point about differing view-points, or at least explanations, on the “different kind of feminist” VS “anti-feminist” definition (however small, or at times non-existent, it may be) and therefore relevant to the topic.


 * I tried to make distinctions here in as NPOV as possible so we can see how the label 'antifeminism' is used to define people with and without their consent. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 05:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You should certainly take your own avice then. Also, the article is not there to leverage a quest to rescue people's good names or something. The "different kind of feminist VS. antifeminist" is a small part that need a small entry.NeoApsara 04:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Check Dr. Laura: Conservative or 'antifeminist?
One the ugliest totalitarian tactics that gender-ginning "patriarchal oppression" feminists use against politically incorrect feminists, non-feminists, and others critical of establishment feminist flim-flams is to expand definitions to absurd extremes so they (the politically-correct victim-saints) can slander people who show how hyprocritical they are. Politically incorrect Conservatives who believe in female equality are often called 'antifeminists' just because they are Conservatives. When they go on to criticize establishment feminist abuses of feminism, they are slandered with vengeance as Dr. Laura claims in the following piece from her column in the Santa Barbara News Press (11/19/06)...(a paper ironically run by a rich and totalitarian female tyrant who has fired all her good people because they insisted on editorial firewalls). If Dr. Laura is telling the truth here, establishment feminists fit the definition of "antifeminism" because they refuse to recognize and acknowledge (politically incorrect) women who have become equal to men. I am no fan of Dr Laura but she seems to have a point here. Therefore, I insist that we use care when labeling people or their positions 'antifeminist' in this article.(Drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Washington Times (11/16/06) published a letter which dared to question the essence of feminists...and my name came up:


 * "It seems funny that a movement that supposedly seeks to promote women is reluctant to even acknowledge a large number of them. While middle school girls can recite brief biographies of Geraldine Ferraro, Madeline Albright, and Janet Reno, the feminist establishment maintains a strict silence on the achievements of non-liberal women.  This deliberate oversight prompted conservative radio host Dr. Laura Scheslsinger to ask: 'What's a girl gotta do to be a feminist role model?'"


 * "Here it is: I am the only woman in history to this day who has won the Marconi Award (the Oscar for radio) for syndicated talk show host. I'd been broadcasting from Los Angeles for two decades by this time...and the LA Times didn't even mention it.  However, if you wish to read an infinite thread of mean, mostly very personal attacks on me--just Google my name....

Definitionism
The current combination of 'Characterized by ideas or behavior reflecting a disbelief in the economic, political, and social equality of the sexes' and 'activity indicative of belief in the superiority of men over women' seems to not adequately sum up either, plus disagrees with the further elaboration of the topic in the article. Even though the online dictionary definitions include 'reflecting' and 'indicative' for protection, the definition does not reflect antifeminism, since it mixes up what is actually being anti-ed. There is a difference, for example, between the abstract core values of feminism (equality of the sexes), and the effects of feminism: one could certainly be pro the former and anti the latter. Yes, the concreteness of any claim regarding the latter is always debateable, and any of us might agree or disagree regarding any particular statement made on that topic, but an article on antifeminism needs to include this variance in its definition, unless it is only concerned with portraying it as pejorative. Jgda 00:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph has been completely replaced a couple of times in the past month. I agree that the present version is not very good. You may want to use the version of the article from earlier this fall as a starting point instead. Dan B † Dan D  01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I too am unhappy with the current very narrow definition, a point I've tried to make several times on this page. One can be pro-equality, but anti-Feminism, the movement.  I think the page needs to reflect such critics. —johndburger 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And now we have the wiki-game: something petty much everyone knows can't be said because an adequate enough scrap of source material can't be found. Real encyclopedia's actually don't have to deal with this ridiculous notion, which I suppose is part of the reason why they are genuine encyclopedias. Jgda 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting article. You see I would class myself as anti-feminist but I am totally FOR the equality of females in every way. I view feminism in this day and age as wanting to go further and gain equality where it is an advantage to women and not where it would be a disadvantage. I know there are many guys who think feminists want more than equality now, what do we call ourselves? Lol. Cls14 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Considerable Changes Made
I've just made fairly substantial changes to the article. Here's the reasoning:

Definition: added a second paragraph on the use of the term to mean "opposed to feminism". Briefly discussed the complexities of this definition, which are directly tied to the complex definition of the term "feminism" (cf. Feminism and the many related articles).

History of antifeminism: There was nothing in this section at all, so I've thrown together an intro and a few examples for each of the areas of life mentioned in the original definition of antifeminist (economic, political, social. also religious.) I trust these examples are well known enough and expressed in such a way as to be NONPOV, but critical feedback is welcome.

Antifeminism Today: There was a confused section on "Who defines feminism" which I've essentially removed. A few words did make their way into the second paragraph on the definition, but essentially this paragraph was saying that there are problems with a reactionary use of the term, when that use wasn't given initially.

Then there was material which I simply cut. To be specific, there were some uncited objections to the term antifeminist which didn't make it at all clear whether they were the objections of a self-declared antifeminist or someone unwillingly labelled as such. Bolted onto that was an uncited assertion about what some feminists allegedly say about some non-feminist women (the relevance of this to "Who defines antifeminism?" wasn't at all clear). Then a paragraph about an author who doesn't see herself as antifeminist, and a response by another woman who also doesn't use the term. (Perhaps the term was used in their respective works, but that was also not made clear). I can't think of many objections to these cuts, but if you have them, let me know.

Finally, I added a few words regarding one of the quotes to suggest the definition of antifeminism that the author was using.

That's it. Comments welcome.

One more thing. There are a lot of tags on this page. Are they all to be kept? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FoolsWar (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC).


 * 'This usage is problematic because feminism itself is an excedingly diverse movement which has no single, central philosophy. As such, a person defining themselves as antifeminist in this sense is defining themselves only as in opposition to their own understanding of feminism. Conversly, a person who applies this label, in this sense, to another is falling victim to the same misunderstanding of the diversity of feminism.'
 * I removed the 'purely reactionary' qualification as, at best, unnecessary; at worst POV. The op-ed regarding feminist diversity (femi-versity?) and, therefore, the problem with opposing feminism, is POV and (in my POV) rather absurd. If people can get away with calling themselves 'feminist' - if the term and concept actually exists and is used by people meaningfully - then the term 'anti-feminst' can likewise be used. Certainly when somebody says they are a feminist they are not saying that they support every single statement on feminsim made by anyone else who calls themselves a feminist (a logical impossibility): likewise regarding antifeminists. Jgda 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, in that "purely" was too strong, and could arguably carry POV connotations. I'd assert, however, that excluding the remainder, and particularly the notion that an "anti-x" definition is reactionary, is unwise. Any school of thought that identifies itself as "anti-x" is dependent on the definition of "x". (Essentially all schools of thought that define themselves in this way have to deal with this issue. (cf. anti-capitalism, anti-environmentalism, anti-theist, etc.)). This does not contradict your statement that the term "anti-feminist" can be used, it only illustrates that the reactionary usage is dependent on the definition of "feminist". Where multiple definitions of the base term exist, the anti- group will always face the clouding of its own identifier. To exclude this problem implies a universality to the reactionary definition that such a term can almost never carry. Put simply, you're not dealing with complementary antomymns here.

Perhaps you'd prefer something like: This usage is subjective because multiple definitions of feminism are in use. As such, a person defining themselves as antifeminist in this reactionary sense is only defining themselves as in opposition to their own understanding, or definition, of feminism.

Either way, I'll leave this material off the page until you, and others, have an opportunity for comment. Nonetheless, I strongly advocate the reintroduction of the term "reactionary" (or an appropriate synonym) for the reasons outlined above. FoolsWar 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the measured response. 'Reactionary', I would still argue, as a word carries more in its meaning than purely 'in reaction to' and I have only ever heard the word used in a pejorative sense (Thesaurus.com lists such synonyms as: Tory, counter-revolutionary, die-hard, fogyish, obscurantist, old-line, orthodox, philistine, regressive, retrogressive, right, rightist, rigid, standpat, traditionalistic). 'Reactionary' has a highly politically-charged common usage (at least in academia), otherwise you could say that any of the leftist revolutions were 'reactionary' since they were in reaction to the oppression of the working class etc. and get some very strange looks from politics majors. The first definition on Dictionary.com, for example: 'of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.' Antifeminsts tend, for example, to see themselves (whether we agree with them or not) as trying to enact social change, not oppose it: there are social problems that exist right now that were caused (intentionally or not) by feminism that need to be changed.


 * I see what you are saying re. anti-ness, and many atheist thinkers have attempted to avoid this trap. I would alter, for above reasons, your piece above to: 'This usage is subjective because multiple definitions of feminism are in use. As such, a person defining themselves as antifeminist in this sense is defining themselves as in opposition to their understanding, or definition, of feminism.' Although, one could write a similar thing about a person who claims to be a feminist: 'This usage is subjective because multiple definitions of feminism are in use. As such, a person defining themselves as feminist is defining themselves in support of their understanding, or definition, of feminism.' so I don't know how useful it is as a statement, other than to throw doubt on the person's ability to make the claim. Jgda 06:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why feminists are allowed to define our movement? Antifeminists disagree with the premise upon which feminism is based; that women in the past and today have been under oppression from men. We believe that only by focusing on women's difficulties and men's benefits in society, and ignoring men's difficulties and women's benefits in society has this false belief been viewed as an undeniable 'fact'. We are not against women, we are not against women's equality, in fact many of us are women. We do not want women to lose the vote, we do not want women to stop working, we do not want to take away education and health care for women. We simply do not believe that feminism has a valid solution for problems, in fact we believe that feminism has caused many of the problems we face today. We also do not believe that feminism stands for men or their many issues they face, in fact they tend to stand in direct opposition to men getting help in situations such as domestic violence and father's rights. The idea that one must be pro-feminist to be pro-woman is just one of the many untruths feminism promotes that antifeminists do not believe.


 * While I agree with you, the definition given comes from the dictionary. There is definitely a difference between how this word is used as a self-application and how it is used to apply to an other (which seems to rarely happen anyway: misogyny being more popular), and the dictionary only seems to provide a meaning for the latter. Under the rules of this game here at wiki - both official and otherwise - to define the former meaning you would need a published source that cannot be accused of bias. Good luck: MI IV. Jgda 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think an example of people opposed to feminism calling themselves "anti-feminist" would be a reasonable source for that use of the term. The only problem might be in showing that the source was representative, and not just a fringe use of the term; so books published by respected publishers, or articles in scholarly journals (or magazines with reasonably wide circulation), would be good, but references to web-pages would be more problematic.VoluntarySlave 06:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

POV Check second paragraph
I added the content in the second paragraph because some other editor moved ALL of the critical references on feminism over here as being 'antifeminist'. This includes dozens of authors both feminist and non-feminist who are critical of status quo 'oppression' feminisms but otherwise support equality feminism. I ask again who decides who is 'antifeminist' here...to throw around pejorative labels that wreck peoples careers on an encyclopedia is libelous.

Please either tighten up the definition in the second paragraph or delete it altogether. Legitimate critiques of feminism belong on the feminism page rather than here unless the author is against all forms of female equality. To rape definitions for political purposes is a common tactic totalitarian feminists use to slander their enemies. We deserve better here. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Literature critical of feminism (a false title)
 * Alan J. Barron, The Death of Eve: Women, Liberation, Disintegration (1986) ISBN 0-949667-36-6
 * Alan Carlson, The Family in America: Searching for Social Harmony in the Industrial Age (2003) ISBN 0-7658-0536-7
 * Alan Carlson, Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social Crisis (1991) ISBN 1-56000-555-6
 * Gilbert K. Chesterton, Brave New Family (1990) ISBN 0-89870-314-X
 * Thomas Ellis, The Rantings of a Single Male (2005) ISBN 0-9762613-1-6
 * Thomas Fleming, The Politics of Human Nature (1988) ISBN 1-56000-693-5
 * Maggie Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love (1996) ISBN 0-89526-464-1
 * George Gilder, Men and Marriage (1992) ISBN 0-88289-444-7
 * Steven Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy (1977) ISBN 0-8126-9237-3
 * Steven Goldberg, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (1993) ISBN 0-8126-9237-3
 * F. Carolyn Graglia, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism (1998) ISBN 0-9653208-6-3
 * Richard T. Hise, The War Against Men (2004) ISBN 1-930859-61-9
 * Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know; Thomas P. James, Aventine Press, 2003, ISBN 1-59330-122-7
 * Who Stole Feminism Christina Hoff Summers
 * The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men; Christina Hoff Sommers, Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, 2001; ISBN 0-684-84957-7
 * Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist Mistake (2005) ISBN 1-58134-570-4
 * Linda Kelly, Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse:  How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State (2003)
 * The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability, Laura Kipnis, 2006
 * The Lipstick Proviso: Women, Sex & Power in the Real World; Karen Lehrman, 1997, ISBN 0-385-47481-4
 * Myron Magnet, Modern Sex: Liberation and Its Discontents (2001) ISBN 1-56663-384-2
 * Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006) ISBN 0-7735-2862-8
 * Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001) ISBN 0-7735-2272-7
 * Kate O'Beirne, Women Who Make the World Worse (2005) ISBN 1-59523-009-2
 * John Piper and Wayne A. Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1991) ISBN 0-89107-586-0
 * Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies; Daphne Patai and Noreta Koertge, 1995, ISBN 0-465-09827-4
 * Mary Pride, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality (1985) ISBN 0-89107-345-0
 * Erin Pizzey, Prone to Violence (Hamlyn, 1982; ISBN 0-600-20551-7)
 * Phyllis Schlafly, Feminist Fantasies (2003) ISBN 1-890626-46-5
 * Phyllis Schlafly, The Power of the Positive Woman (1977) ISBN 0-87000-373-9
 * Howard Schwartz, The Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness (2003) ISBN 0-7658-0537-5
 * Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males (2000) ISBN 0-312-26311-2
 * Esther Vilar, The Manipulated Man (1972) ISBN 0-9530964-2-4
 * Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism is Not the Story of My Life (1996) ISBN 0-385-46790-7 (
 * Philip Gordon Wylie, A Generation of Vipers (1942) ISBN 1-56478-146-1
 * Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us (2000) ISBN 0-684-85959-9
 * Midge Decter, The New Chastity and Other Arguments Against Women's Liberation (1974) ISBN 0-399-50307-2
 * Gertrude Himmelfarb, The De-moralization Of Society (1996) ISBN 0-679-76490-9
 * Harvey C. Mansfield, Manliness (2006) ISBN 0-300-10664-5
 * Diane Medved and Dan Quayle, The American Family: Discovering the Values That Make Us Strong (1997) ISBN 0-06-092810-7
 * Christina Hoff-Sommers, The War Against Boys (2001) ISBN 0-684-84957-7
 * Christina Hoff-Sommers, Who Stole Feminism? (1995) ISBN 0-684-80156-6


 * Legitimate criticism of feminism does belong here, despite the out-of-step definition being used. An antifeminist does not have to be against all things ever said or done under the banner of feminism just as a feminist does not have to be for all things ever said or done under the banner of feminism, particularly since both are logical impossibilities since this would mean contradicting yourself. It remains very important, obviously, for certain people to retain control over this word, despite its common usage being completely different to how the dictionaries still define it. This website has certain rules, so this entry will just have to remain patently inaccurate. Don't sweat it, it has no bearing or influence over the term anyway. Jgda 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that some legitimate criticism does belong here. The issue to me is one of distinction rather than one of inaccuracy.  As Patia and Koerge show feminists have raped this word by expanding the definitions to absurd extremes so that they can silence any and all critics of any or all feminist ideas with a the label anti-feminism.  This is an cunning, covert, and ugly political stunt to tar people rather than discuss their ideas.  It resembles how Jimmy Carter is being called 'anti-semitic' for saying that the Israelis do commit human rights offenses against Palestinians.   That's what I get all hot and bothered about here.  Any suggestions on how to handle this? The obvious stunt here was to call ALL authors critical of ANY aspects of feminist ideology 'anti-feminist' no matter how credible and dump them all here rather than showing them in feminism.  Neat trick.  (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing with the definition
Second Wave feminists have a terrible reputation for raping the language for their pejorative political and ideological POV pushing as in 'ALL heterosexual sex is rape', or 'gender' means 'female' and many other absurd definitions. In Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies (Chapter 11 Policing the Academy), authors Patia and Koerge show how feminists rape the term 'anti-feminism' to make absurd claims about so-called 'antifeminist intellectual harrassment', to protect their separatist sandboxes from normal academic criticism and to silence legitimate critics of feminism (be they feminist or non-feminist). Therefore I insist that we use NPOV dictionary definitions for our main definitions and clearly show how feminists use 'antifeminist' to slander their enemies when we show THEIR self-serving definition(s). I also insist that we use clean distinctions between common NPOV and POV feminist definitions of 'anti-feminism' so that feminists political POV pushing is obvious here. Just because an extreme and unrepresentative group of feminist partisans uses THEIR pejorative, self-serving and far from commonly accepted definitions for THEIR own purpose is reason enough to fall back on common dictionary definitions and to state the sources of definitions that are 'special'. No one single group gets to impose definitions on all the rest of us and call them 'common' minus widespread useage...no matter how weak, whiny, and mean-spirited the group might be.(drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But the definition of anti-feminism as a hostility to women isn't some kind of feminist POV pushing; it's one of the earliest meanings of the term, as given by the OED, probably the premier scholarly dictionary. Your addition to the article, claiming that the use of the term to mean anti-woman is an invention of "modern feminists", is false, as the OED makes clear. It makes sense for this article to concentrate on the use of the term to mean opposition to feminism, rather than hostility to women (because we already have Misogyny and Male chauvinism articles for the latter use). But to claim that the other use is "slander" is incorrect and pushes a particular antifeminist POV. VoluntarySlave 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Antifeminism in history
Do we need this section? It refers to unequal treatment of women which is presumably already covered at misogyny, male chauvinism, or women's rights (or if it isn't, should be moved there. It might be useful to include a section on the arguments made by early opponents of women's rights (in the days before the word "feminism" was in wide circulation), perhaps starting with John Knox. VoluntarySlave 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion to delete. I've changed it enough to note that it is a litany of feminist claims. Yakuman 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting it since it does not refer to antifeminism, but to unequal treatment of women dating back to times when feminism itself didn't exist, for example: "The denial of leadership roles for women in some Christian denominations, for example the Roman Catholic Church, is a long-standing example of antifeminist practice." - nothing to do with anti/feminism - it predates it by far. "The rape and existing slavery of black women slaves in America was justified by the perception that, because the women were non-white they were therefore non-Christian and in turn impure." - nothing to do with anti/feminism, same applies to black male slaves. "Throughout the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period, the hereditary system of kingship meant that power was handed down patrilineally. Thus, while a woman could inherit a throne, it was not a common occurrence." - women did inherit the throne on a number of occasions with Cleopatra and Queen of England, Cathrin the Great of Russia, etc as vivid examples. Again, nothing to do with anti/feminism. "Economically, women were denied various occupations on the grounds of their sex." - no sources, vague statement, not about anti/feminism. "For example, in nineteenth century America, women were not permitted to consume alcohol in public." - not related - it is not a consequence of anti feminist views, but again unequal laws towards women (feminist or not). Dear feminists, please, limit yourself to propaganda in the section on "feminism" - there is no need to go bashing any other sections of wikipedia - we do know what you want to say, no need to stick it in everywhere. Women =/= feminists and antifeminism =/= misogyny. Lost Angel 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Antifeminism in philosophy
I added this section, with some antifeminist quotes by Nietzsche and a brief explanation of his antifeminism. Maybe someone can help me with this, with more information on Nietzsche's antifeminism and that of other philosophers. I may add more. One idea I have is maybe adding more to the part about Nietzsche's view that feminism is detrimental to quality motherhood, and other philosophers who shared similar views. 07:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, the bit about Spengler's views requires to be either changed significantly, or removed. While valuable as Nietsche's interpreter, he hardly contributes (in the passages provided) to the topic of antifeminism. To the contrary, his allusions to glorification of women in labour, and attempts at refuting Nietsche's points are quite feminist-like. Due to these points I will remove Spengler's points unless the antifeminist ones by him are inserted.Lost Angel 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The significance of that paragraph was that it provided an explanation of how Spengler continued and expanded upon the aspects of Nietzschean philosophy which fundamentally conflict with feminist ideology, without necessarily being anti-woman and sometimes even in ways that appear to be "quite feminist-like" as you put it. 06:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I believe it is more suitable either in 'feminism' section (since it counter argues with Nietzsche) or in Nietsche's wiki section or even in Spengler's wiki section. Because it does not fall into antifeminism so much as it does in pro-feminism or philosophy, thus either of them should have the upper hand. However, you're mentioning that Spengler does speak against feminism, without mentioning what he does - if you could expand on that, I think it would have been very suitable, even if not a straightforward criticism. Don't get me wrong, I see you've done research into this matter, but I am not sure the findings are in the right place. Maybe you could mention that Spengler is critical of Nietsche's point of view of feminism, however, emphasis should be on where he is critical of feminism itself, since this is an 'antifeminism' article. Lost Angel 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The link to the Hebrew version of this page, is incorrect.
. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.169.142 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Antifeminist video materials. Should they be added?
I am talking about stuff like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYxJ8V_0ktw Is it ok generally to put links to youtube when relevant? Lost Angel 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Antifeminist ideas - fatherlessness argument
Referring to other correlated factors does not refute the antifeminist's argument about correlation between problems in fatherless families and the problems themselves, - it simply points out this given correlation. And not "some" statistical data, but statistical data - links are in the article - feminists, stop trolling! Unlike feminism, anti-feminism doesn't make claims to universality - it is an opposition to feminism movement not a universal human rights and equality movement - so it makes no sense to criticize it for something it is not: not considering other social ills, harms father can cause etc. Anyway - open for discussion. See the changes for yourself. P.S. Useless to say what "opponents of antifeminism say" if they can neither be identified, nor can sources be presented, resulting in blatant POV of the editing person. Lost Angel 07:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not matter whether, in your opinion, it "refutes" anything. It is a counter-argument, or criticism, relevent to the subject. Also, yes - some. Because for the record, there are contradictory findings likely due to the complexity of situations in which families and children exist. However since I linked to counter-studies, the "some" is not necessary any longer. Your opnion on what antifeminism or feminism is does not matter with regards to the article because this is a collaborative encyclopediac site that relies on citable, reliable research that is notable and relevent to the subject at hand and not place for you, Lost Angel, to define everything on your terms. Got it?NeoApsara 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not some, since Antifeminists do not say "some" in their sources and the section you are referring to is devoted to their ideas, not yours or feminists'. The rest of your comment is a personal insult so unless you learn the basics of civilized communication (which includes not insulting the person you're talking to) do not expect a polite answer. "Got it?" No? Instead of using "relevent" remarks - you could try using relevant ones. Obviousely, spelling and grammar are not your strong sides and operating automated spellcheck software is beyond you. Furthermore (since you decided to discuss me personally, which I suggest you do in my talk page) FYI I am well aware what wikipedia is and am not imposing my own understanding - simply correcting falsities weasel words and undocumented claims coming in this case from you - I do understand that it might be irritating, but you should blame that girl in the mirror.Lost Angel 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for calling contributors who edits pages in ways which you disagree "trolling" - knock it off.NeoApsara 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The honorable contributer, whom I justly marked as trolling inserted but one word instead of "antifeminists" - "bulldykes". I understand that, as a feminist, you are unable to realize and comprehend that these words are in fact not interchangeable and such "contribution" is nothing else but trolling, but this is not something I can fix, since it is a case of your cognitive capacity.Lost Angel 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I’m just going to skip over the part with you flying off the handle a bit…
 * Not some, since Antifeminists do not say "some" in their sources and the section you are referring to is devoted to their ideas, not yours or feminists‘.


 * 1.You’re missing the point of providing an encyclopediac entry. The critique of antifeminism is not done on the terms of antifeminists or you - it is done on the terms of who provides the critique. For the critique, “some” was the accurate word because as the citations and links with studies and statistics that I would provide would demonstrate it was only “some”.


 * The honorable contributer, whom I justly marked as trolling inserted but one word instead of "antifeminists" - "bulldykes".(...)


 * 2.You made no mention of that- you simply added your “trolling“ comment in a sentence aimed at something else entirely, but I don’t have time to deal with disingenuousness so I’ll humor you.


 * Furthermore (since you decided to discuss me personally, which I suggest you do in my talk page) FYI I am well aware what wikipedia is and am not imposing my own understanding - simply correcting falsities weasel words and undocumented claims coming in this case from you


 * 3.For the record, I was in the process of gathering information to add to the article, hence the edit, but unfortunately the internet is a changing place and not everything is where it was a month ago and people, well, have lives so I cannot spend every moment of mine in front of the computer. So please try not to have such a knee-jerk, presumptuous, and hostile reaction to every edit and remember good faith. Though since you are so concerned about weasel words and lack citations and the like, I helped you out a little bit by deleting that blatantly POV and non-cited material you had at the bottom. Unless, of course, you will provide citations from significant antifeminist writers responding to the critique instead of leaving it stated as the opinion, or original research, of a lone Wikipedia editor. In which case feel free to add it back when you can do so.


 * 7.Also for the record it is much easier to distinguish, not to mention much less time-consuming, what you have written from what I have written when you use the indent function with a margin different than mine.NeoApsara


 * 1. in the section of antifeminist statements it is their voices that should speak.
 * 2. either point me to where I was in the wrong or don't accuse me falsely. Simple enough choice.
 * 3. and I took the liberty of going through it - it does not actually provide links that dispute what antifeminists claim - it instead uses the formulations to undermine the importance role of father - if this is not clear - I'll insert quotes to prove my point directly into the article. I am not doing personal research - I am merely looking at the sources you yourself have provided. It is not my intention to do research against something that I don't think is wrong to begin with - it is your intention to discredit it - you are a feminist - it is anti-feminist so quite obviously you have your reasons and I have mine. We can play this reversing game forever. Furthermore - if you were in process of finding sources - you should not have changed the article before actually finding those sources you speak of. But I'll do more editing with quotes to prove your own material justifies the edit I made. Lost Angel 11:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures plz
tldr

Statistics Correlated With Fatherlessness
I suggest that "Statistics Correlated With Fatherlessness" become a separate article, which can then be referenced by this article.

Michael H 34 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Agreed. The whole fatherlessness thing has got out of hand. The critique of antifeminism section is simply a critique of this position, which isn't even necessarily an intrinsically antifeminist position anyway - it's more of a Fathers Rights issue. A critique section here should run some sort of 'why modern feminism IS still needed' argument, since that is attacking the central platform of modern antifeminism. Jgda 23:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been there forever as a small point then a bulk has been added from feminists to discredit it, which eventually kept building up and finally bloated so much I made another section to stick its tail somewhere, since just cutting it out caused them to yell about blah blah bias...
 * As to what to fill up the critique section with - well, I guess feminists should come up with something, as to why they're still needed to someone with their movement... one risks running into endless propaganda loop however. Lost Angel 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point - I didn't have anything against it being there originally, and the whole correlation/caustion thing was kind of amusing in an absurd way, considering in how many other places it could be trhwon up as a quick flak filter... I'm just not sure it's a great example for this article. It would be better to have the actual aspects of feminism that antifeminists consider to be socially damaging, whether it be repairable or not, and their ideas on how such damage can be repaired. All the statisitcal support etc can be searched out through the references if a person is interested in chasing up the fine details of the argument and worry about correlation and causation. After all, this isn't the forum to prove their case, one way or the other, this is the place to document what antifeminism is, whether you are one or not. Jgda 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you followed my conversation with one of them - but that's the point I'm trying to make, but I don't think it goes through the thick of the skull... Article about antifeminism should contain the claims that antifeminists are making, links to their statistical data and articles, links to their leaders... Whether what they're saying is right or wrong, biased or unbiased does not matter for the article, aim of which is to inform the reader about antifeminism... Same for feminism article - makes no sense to put there "oh, but what they say here is wrong..." precisely, because it doesn't matter for an article about some movement...Lost Angel 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BitchFest 2006 citation
Where is this?Jgda 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Jgda 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - best place to look for book references is actually not libraries, but amazon shop... Not advertising it (I never bought a thing there), but it helps me a lot in research in terms of bibliographic details.Lost Angel 22:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

gender feminism
No matter the origin of the term or your agreement with its application, it gets plenty of hits as a phrase on a search engine. It seems to be accepted as a term with a specific meaning and body of work behind it. I linked it to its entry so that anyone who wanted to could learn more about it, so stating the obvious by writing 'deemed' is certainly a matter of editorial POV. The term itself has a defintive POV attached to it, its genesis and its usage, but then so does every other branch of feminism, for example, and even feminism itself. As long as we know the meaning or have access to the meaning, then 'deeming' is only useful as a pejorative. Jgda 02:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The term is specific to a certain, small part of the world and used by certain people who call themselves feminists to label another group of people who call themselves feminists with whom that they happen to disagree. It was coined by a single person maybe a decade ago - so yes, "deemed". No self-proclaimed feminist seems to accept that label. Sorry, if it's POV to refer to people who call themselves feminists "antifeminists" firsthand instead of attributing it to those who believe it (which it is), then it is also POV to turn around around and have it reflect Wiki's POV as if Wiki agrees with Hoff-Sommers (the person who made-up the term). You cannot have it both ways and it certainly is not encyclopediac.NeoApsara


 * The label is epithetical, I'll grant, but many labels born in the happy halls of modern social theory are. It would become not only cumbersome but also ridiculous to 'deem' them all. Since the entire point of this section is to describe a debate between two schools of thought within feminism and how it relates to the term antifeminism, I think it is most appropriate to keep the language as plain as possible, particularly meaning-charged verbs. Jgda 00:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not encyclopediac for Wiki to take the POV of Christina Hoff-Sommers and like-minded people regarding other people who do not accept that epithet just as it would not be encyclopediac to for Wiki to take the view that Hoff-Sommers and Paglia are anti-feminists simply because some people say so. It is fine that Christina Hoff-Sommers has a term for non-Capital "L" Libertarian Conservative feminists based on her opinion - and people should know it as it is relevant to the issue - but Wiki should not have that opinion. Like with "antifeminist", the POV must be attributed. In this case, to Christina Hoff-Sommers.NeoApsara 01:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I would agree with you if it was written as a direct epithet, such as 'Greer is a gender feminist'. That should be written: 'Sommers deems Greer a gender feminist'. But this is a general statement about the positiions being adopted by certain feminists that other feminists consider to cause them to be antifeminists. It does say '...relating to their position regarding...' It is already part of the text that there is 'deeming' going on (on both sides). Jgda 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet, merely saying "...regarding gender feminism" (or whatever it is) reflects upon Wiki when, really, it is Christina Hoff-Sommers. I really don't want to get into a debate on who is a feminist, is gender feminist an epithet or does it have any real meaning, who is attacking whom, or what is going on on "both sides". The POV as far as "antifeminist" is rightly attributed, as it should be, and I did my best to find something that explained the position with what I had at the time. The same should be for "gender feminist". It is the opinion of Christina Hoff-Sommers who made up the term, and some others who agree with her, regarding certain feminists with whom they disagree but do not accept the label. Bottom line: it should not reflect Wiki's POV because Wiki should not have a POV. It should be descriptive and accurate, yes, and attributing the opinion of Christina Hoff-Sommers and others to them does so.NeoApsara 17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My hunch is that the insert itself was initially there to discredit the "self-appointed" feminists to "the true" ones as well as to bring in more sand from feminist sandbox to the public. That is not to say the whole abstract is pointless and it certainly is good that the points it has are brought up by feminist women themselves, giving them a good credit. I have reversed the changes induced by the feminist editor, due to their misleading and POV nature as well as excessive redundancy. Lost Angel 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

people who call themselves...
What is the problem here? As opposed to feminists who don't call themselves feminists? Or antifeminists who mistakenly call themselves feminists? Or are they all just feminists who also happen to be people that call themselves feminists? What is important about drawing a line between 'feminists' and 'people who call themselves feminists'? The additions just add in a whole pack of problems. I think that both stylistically and ideolgically it's better to call both sides in the battle between feminists, 'feminists', and let the reader ponder the further issues without added interference. Otherwise, we may as well change the subheading to 'Antifeminism as a debate between people who call themselves feminists'Jgda 02:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Antifeminism as a debate between people who call themselves feminists' - I'm so tempted right now... But anyhow helped myself to cleaning up the article a bit. Lost Angel 08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pozner
While Pozner certainly gives good sound byte, not only is her polemic probably quoted too much at length (the critique outweighing the actual statement for some reasons...), but her material is hardly scholarly. While her public media presence is massive (kind of making many of her quoted statements about her enemies pretty ironic really...), she doesn't exist as an author on any of the academic journals I have access to (as opposed to Sommers for example...). The two references I just added in the 'citation needed' spot (10 and 11) contain a much more scholarly criticism of the women in question, albeit less amusingly histrionic. Jgda 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How much information on the sources cited belongs here.
Subject at stake is usage of "uses research to argue" as opposed to "in his discussion paper argues". My arguments against the word "research": - methods used belong to the source and what matters for article on antifeminism is the points made. - points he is making in his paper are on many occasions not backed up by any research cited. - it is a discussion paper - can anyone clarify the difference between that and a research paper? - "research" appears to me to be misused to add extra weight to the source solely, quotes from which that suggest strong author's bias have been provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifeminism&diff=128462843&oldid=128462141 !I will keep reversing it until I am convinced it belongs there (meaning a reasonable reply to my points) or any non feminist is convinced of it. Lost Angel 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Uses research to..." is just a description of what he does in the paper (the description "paper" and the title of it which you added yourself and I thought was excessive and unecessary but fine enough), just as, "uses statistics to...". I've said it time and again yet you ignore and keep making it into something you want it to be. I don't know what else to tell you.NeoApsara 19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What he does in his paper is he makes a vast number of statements, some he backs up with references, which is where your insert applies, while others he just throws in there. This isn't scientific, where all statements should be either backed up, or defined as POV. Has his paper been peer-reviewed? Why is it "discussion paper" as opposed to a "research paper"? Once again - if there is a third person who agrees with your insert, while not a feminist - I'm all for keeping it there. Lost Angel 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fatherlessness - major suggestion - need replies.
Firstly, none of the links attempting to discredit antifeminist claim that families without father on average produce more problematic children really addresses the argument. Instead the following claims are made: poor families are more often fatherless and in poor families there are more other problems (of course, because no father tends to mean less money, and less money means more problems); second claim goes that good climate in the family is most important in how kid grows up (of course, but it has nothing to do with antifeminist claim, bloody read it again and understand what it constitutes); third argument - families without father can also produce happy kids (well, of course, but they statistically do so more rarely, which is what antifeminists are referring to). No other arguments have been made and the ones made, do not target the antifeminist argument. Therefore, my suggestion is to remove them or make an article on "fatherlessness" if one does not exist yet and stick it all there, since it doesn't belong here and certainly not in such proportions. I will do so, but I need more people not affiliated with feminism (besides myself) to agree that this suggestion is the right one.Lost Angel 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to antifeminists claiming (from the article) since the rise of feminism (whatever the heck that means) more of this has happened ... and with that more of this OTHER thing has happened, hence antifeminism, the critique says that it is not fatherlessness in itself that causes these problems rather things like poverty, substance abuse, poor parenting, domestic violence, etc., so the position is flawed. You seem to want it answered and addressed on your terms, based on what YOU believe the antifeminst argument really means instead of what is stated on the page, but that is for a debate on your TalkPage. Criticism sections in articles are ALLOWED and in those sections, there will be criticism. If you want separate "fatherless" section? Suggest it. However the criticism and counter-arguments will remain, albeit less excessively (which I agree they are, though I also believe the article doesn't fairly represent and substantiate what antifeminists believe), as it is relevant to the article and compliant with Wiki Policy.NeoApsara 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. Antifeminist claims include identifying feminism as one of (for some - the main one) the key reasons for the increase in divorce rate - disputable point of course - go ahead - dispute it in the critique section. Next point - in families, where there is only mother parent worse children grow up, - factual statistically proven. What inserts debate are: what else/is more important in brining up of a kid, where are there more single mother families, can families without a father bring up happy kids - these are all different points that do not belong here, because they do not address the criticism that antifeminists are making. Antifeminists are not saying that it is fatherlessness that causes so and so, but rather that where there is fatherlessness - so and so prevails - else bloody quote them saying so - will solve the whole issue, but unless you find such quote - you're the one making things up, rather than me not seeing a black cat in a dark room, which isn't even there. Feminists whom you are quoting as well as yourself are arguing with a position that antifeminists do not hold or not quoted to hold. Whom are you arguing with? Yourselves! Anyhow I will wait for more comments from other people before making any serious changes. Lost Angel 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Supposing antifeminists were not saying fatherlessness was the cause then antifeminism as a stance because of an apparent cor/connection then the position is still flawed because it, afterall, is not being said as the cause. Supposing they are then somebody else calls out antifeminists showing that other statistics/studies show other things and that si what one should be concentrated on. When you demonstrate something with statistics, somebody else will critique that. And they did. Hence criticism. If you do not like they did so or do not think their critique gels with your interpretation of antifeminism then you can put fortht he effort to contact antifeminism's listed critics and argue with them; Wiki can display criticism of, yes, antifeminism. It doesn't have to be on your terms.NeoApsara 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just put numbers to points, so it is clearer for you.1. Criticism section should criticise (antifeminist) points mentioned with sources in the article. Not just "criticise points NeoApsara and other feminists !think! antifeminists are making". It is a common misuse of rhetorics - substitute the reasonable point you don't like with an altered point of your own and argue with it. 2. Criticism section should address the actual issues not YOUR interpretation of issues which YOU CAN'T support by quotes. If you could - just put those quotes as antifeminist points and then the critical material will apply. 3. antifeminist position is much simpler really antifeminism -> family breakdown -> resulting situation many fatherless families -> in such families children are generally worse off + statistics to back it up. I'll clean it up and make a separate "fatherlessness" article, since this rubbish is out of proportion here. Lost Angel 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, I'm all for moving the material. All that needs to be here are referenced antifeminist ideas - whether they be right or wrong - to illustrate the topic for the reader. How about this for an idea - scrap the criticisms section of both this article and feminism and put each others article as a 'see also'? Jgda 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, scraping criticism section I think is not necessary, it should be there, but filled with real counterpoints, which currently it isn't. What it is filled with is debate on parenting and fatherlessness as a part of it, so it should be moved to where it belongs. Though I clearly picture feminist trolling once that is done and can't think of a good way to prevent it. Lost Angel 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't necessary. There is no reason to alter the format of an article completely in line with Wiki policy, which having a criticism section is.NeoApsara 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But for you it is of course not necessary - since this way you have yet another section with feminist propaganda. Lost Angel 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

POV: Cleaning up pejorative, shameless and STUPID totalitarian doublespeak in the definition
Content before cleanup:

Earlier attempt at cleanup using NPOV dictionary definitions (see long discussions above):


 * Antifeminism refers to disbelief regarding the economic, political, and or social equality of females as a sex . Sometimes antifemimism is also used to refer to a belief in male superiority and as such is synomymous with male chauvinism.  The opposite of antifeminism is antimasculinism (as shown in Dead Man Walking: Masculinity’s Troubling Persistence, Brendan O'Sullivan, BITCHfest 2006) or female chauvinism.

Content before today's cleanup attempt:


 * Antifeminism refers to opposition to feminism. It refers to a range of views that either criticize feminist ideology in general or argue that it be restrained. Some critics equate certain neoconservative intellectuals' views with antifeminism, although proponents call the label unfair.

Content after today's cleanup attempt:


 * Antifeminism refers to disbelief in or opposition to the economic, political and social equality of women. Historically the term has been used to refer to people who oppose all forms of feminism.  However, current day feminist critics of modern feminism (like Camille Paglia or Christina Hoff Sommers) have been pejoratively labeled 'anti-feminist' by other feminists because they are critical of modern forms of gender-focused feminism despite their  support for fundamental forms of suffrage feminism.  The term 'anti-feminist' has a narrow usage mostly within feminist circles, is rarely found in dictionaries and as shown here makes no distinction between those who oppose all forms of feminism and those who oppose some forms of feminism but favor others. It is a term often used pejoratively to label anyone critical of any aspect of feminism for whatever reason.

To those feminista-feminists who use 'antifeminist' as term to label and slander their enemies I ask that you at LEAST define the term logically. You refuse to use any reasonable (MUCH LESS ANY STANDARD NPOV) dictionary usages outside those used inside your narrow-minded and ugly little totalitarian world. As feminists you are not entitled to define the common ENGLISH language to suit your sexist political interests or to allow your shameless sisters to engage in absolutely idiotic pissing contests about who is or isn't 'feminist' INSIDE your parochial FEMINIST world. This ugly little totalitarian trick of defining feminism to mean everything and nothing and then defining 'anti-feminism' against your NON-DEFINITION of feminism takes us back to Stalinism. Such stupid, shameless, and mean-spirited misrepresentation has no place in any encyclopedia. When will ALL feminista-feminists (as opposed to democratic feminists) grow beyond these petty, pathetic and pitiful LITTLE 'girl'-power games? You can revert away but every time I see such shameless and stupid doublespeak back in this definition I will call it, revert it and refer everyone to this discussion.

This discussion is likely to be useless to those editors who are feminista gender-feminists or their flunkies. I suspect we will continue to see the same kind of 'intellectual slut' conduct from them as we have in the past. To those diehards, all I can say is I am tired of all the MAOIST mob games you play to take perverted power...we all deserve better here.

However, should there be any editors out there who are able to consider things critically, make distinct distinctions, and contain definitions within some sort of limited scope I ask for your help in tightening and clarifying this definition/article. Just so you know that I am not smoking something I will be glad to refer you to many credible independent FEMINIST authors who call gender-feminism scholarship 'ideological', 'totalitarian', authoritarian, anti-science, 'anti-intellectual', false, fraudulent, and manipulative. What we are ALL up against here is a very cunning, covert, and ugly rape of the language, the culture and social system by a tiny minority of well-positioned, perverted, and ideological academic apparatcheks who will stoop to whatever dirty tricks needed to get their way. They say 'the personal is political' and whine ad nauseum like the babies they are. I say 'the political is personal' so I refuse to raped by radical hate-mongers in sheeps' clothing. There are many fine feminists, there are many fine masculinists and there are many fine humanists. Lets see some quality content from these people instead.

I offer the following criteria for assessing any reasonable 'anti'-whatever definition.


 * the 'pro' whatever definition (in this case feminism) is clean, clear, and distinct so that the 'anti' makes sense. I would hope we would use clean, clear, and distinct dictionary definitions for the feminism definition to eliminate the very same kinds of totalitarian doublespeak that predomininate in that article too.


 * We use standard NPOV dictionaries to define terms for everyone rather than perverted political dictionaries from within Women's Studies or whatever.


 * We say what is and what isn't included in the term right up front so we spare our readers the kind of bogus, boring and banal content that this article and feminism is filled with.


 * We use dictionary antonyms to compare and contrast complicated definitions for clarity.


 * We use a NPOV worldview within which to show the usages of the term.

128.111.95.245 04:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We keep the definition general (eg we pull Paglia, Hoff-Sommers and the Neo-Conservs when we finish this) NPOV and non-political.
 * Please assume good faith - people who disagree with you are not necessarily women's studies POV-pushers. Indeed, if I remember the debate correctly, it was largely self-defined anti-feminists who wanted to define anti-feminism as simply opposition to feminism, as opposed to using the (older, and perhaps out-of-date) dictionary definitions you cite. Personally, I like your cleaned-up version better than the previous version, as it's based on reliable sources (i.e., dictionaries); and I'm a pro-feminist. VoluntarySlave 06:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that's more like it: I was starting to doubt the mal-process... Now the article makes no sense at all i.e. the 'definition' has very little relevence to most of the material following it (so you may also want to look up the meaning of doublespeak and maybe then irony re. the title of this discussion (preferably somewhere other than here though)). Who here is actually advocating an opposition to 'the economic, political and social equality of women'? Voluntary Slave is quite right: the 'feminista' that you seem so upset about prefer your definition and to a degree control the dictionaries - hence how they retain 'older, and perhaps out-of-date' meanings. How manifestly disfunctional - along with Conservapedia (from a different direction). Good faith all round. Jgda 09:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do assume good faith for all editors except a few 'feminista'-feminists who have a horrible history of indulging in ugly totalitarian tactics on this and on other feminist related articles. I LIKE people who disagree with me as long as they are constructive, refrain from taking personal cheap shots and engage in reason-able discussions.  The key distinction I would like you to consider is the difference between being anti-feminist versus merely being a genuine feminist critical of idiotic forms of ideological, male-bashing, female superiority/male inferiority forms of feminism.  One who supports the basic tenets of female equality cannot be called 'anti-feminist' without the term being a complete oxymoron yet that is exactly what 'feminista'-feminists do to other feminists like Paglia, Hoff-Sommers, Chessler and many other feminists who have the courage to call feminista-feminist bombast for what it is.  Ironically, the same oxymoronic name-calling occurs in gender-feminism's opposite, evolutionary psychology.  In this equally nasty and idiotic but opposing field, EVOLUTIONIST critics are called 'anti-evolutionists' by those within the EP field (please see The Universal Acid Becomes too Universal).   These shameless assaults on reason are compelling evidence that neither of these fields (ideological-feminism or psuedo-religious EP) are full of adherents acting in good faith.  The feminista-feminists cannot legitimately call 'feminista' dictionaries from a field well-known for shameless scholarship standards a 'NPOV' dictionary definition.  No one group gets to control the definition of ITSELF in democracies.  Only people like Hitler, Stalin or Mao have the power to define themselves and their flunkies free from critical thought...that is INSIDE their closed circles...are able to use oxymoronic doublespeak definitions against their enemies.  This is my major frustration here.  Al Gore's Assault on Reason applies equally well to today's Liberals as it does to usual Conservative suspects.  Please at least use some sort of reasonable definitions so that shameless and idiotic slander is less possible on Wiki. 128.111.95.237 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Going to do a clean up. This is same as saying "anti-fascists are people who oppose national unity, true racial justice, patriotism and industrial growth" (which is part of how fascists would define themselves). But now that I've checked some other ideology-instilled topics, this one looks quite relieving as it can still actually be fixed without making a zero-ground rewrite.Lost Angel 11:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to define things within your ideology, feminists. It isn't to obstruct the meaning by substituting terms with your internal feminist quarrels and meanings. Anti-feminism is certainly not to educate readers about the differences of feminism... Why do I have a feeling rev trolling is about to unleash itself?Lost Angel 11:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to The Oxford English Dictionary antifeminist is: "One opposed to women or to feminism". I think that's quite an academic dictionary. Though I hope we may agree that the part of "one opposing women" can be disregarded for wikipedia since we have another term for it and - misogynist. A useful discussion of this term and definition regarding some reasons why we can't have antifeminism = opposing equalityLost Angel 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, the issue here is calling someone who is critical of the IDEAS of certain credulous women 'antifeminist'. That is perjorative, slanderous and unreason-able name-calling which gender-feminists are infamous for indulging in.  This article is no platform for cunning, covert and inane feminista-feminist ideological and political battles...it is supposed to show what this term means. Thanks for shedding valuable light on the issue.128.111.95.237 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also like to suggest that the NPOV's dictionary definitions of feminism refer to equal 'rights' for women. As opposed to saying that women are 'equal' or the same as men in ALL aspects. I see traditional feminism as saying the same rules that apply to men as human beings also apply to women. This means that women may indeed be superior to men in some areas and inferior in others as brain research shows (poor old Sommers the victim of feminista (totalitarian tactic) fame aside!). However, traditional feminism is saying that women are entitled to the same rights as men irrespective of these inequalities and differences...or traditionally  'different-but-equal'.


 * On the other hand, gender-ginning feminista feminists are trying to pull the shameless scam of 'same-therefore-superior'. That is they, falsely believe that they can do everything as well as men can and that they can do 'female' things better than men can too.  Bottom line is that gender-ginning same in all aspects, victim-saint, super-woman bombast allows the usual totalitarian power plays that they shame the so-called 'patriachy' for.


 * Women in business are beginning to show that women are NOT as GENERALLY well-suited for extremely high stress, high risk tasks as men but that women are GENERALLY better suited for many other essential tasks than men are. To me, the task is to assess worth where worth is in-deed worth something...that is paying women well for the 'free' work they do rather than trying to force false forms of equality on men and women. In any case however, suffrage feminists have succeeded in securing universal rights as people who can show their stuff whatever that stuff is...and be treated fairly regardless of sex.  The same cannot be said about gender-ginning ideological feministas who will stoop to any lie, any falsehood and any fear-mongering to take power pejoratively.  Somehow we need to show these distinctions here or the feminista totalitarians will take us all back to the USSR.


 * Traditional feminism in it's focus on rights rather than responses also ignores the fact that no right is a free 'entitlement' in the real world. Right now, American men are dieing 98% to 2% women to fight for the rights of women and men in America (or so Baby Bush says).  Were our (mostly male soldiers) to allow the Taliban to take over the US, women's rights would be right back to the bad ole days.  However, American feminista-feminists rarely even are willing to engage in a war of WORDS with fundamentalist Muslim misandrists much less to risk their own poor, little, victim-saint ASSES fighting for women's rights in the Middle East.  Some day our male 'heroes' will wake up and demand that women earn the rights they scream so hard for in the age-old currency of 'blood and guts' or some EQUIVALENT female form that hopefully is less insane and more humane.  Until then, to handover rights to women, wholesale, minus meaningful reciprocal responses is evidence of the status quo and suicidal male proclivity to sacrifice for the usual feminine flim-flams such as 'love' and 'sex'.  Of course I would expect that someone source this case before I include IT anywhere in feminist related articles.

Issues with latest cleanup attempt:


 * Antifeminism refers to opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms. It refers to a range of views that either criticize feminist ideology and practice in general or argue that it be restrained. Some critics  equate certain neoconservative intellectuals' views with antifeminism, although proponents call the label unfair.

versus my earlier offerings:


 * Antifeminism refers to disbelief in or opposition to the economic, political and social equality of women. Historically the term has been used to refer to people who oppose all forms of feminism.  However, current day feminist critics of modern feminism (like Camille Paglia or Christina Hoff Sommers) have been pejoratively labeled 'anti-feminist' by other feminists because they are critical of modern forms of gender-focused feminism despite their  support for fundamental forms of suffrage feminism.  The term 'anti-feminist' has a narrow usage mostly within feminist circles, is rarely found in dictionaries and as shown here makes no distinction between those who oppose all forms of feminism and those who oppose some forms of feminism but favor others. It is a term often used pejoratively to label anyone critical of any aspect of feminism for whatever reason.


 * Antifeminism refers to disbelief regarding the economic, political, and or social equality of females as a sex . Sometimes antifemimism is also used to refer to a belief in male superiority and as such is synomymous with male chauvinism.  The opposite of antifeminism is antimasculinism (as shown in Dead Man Walking: Masculinity’s Troubling Persistence, Brendan O'Sullivan, BITCHfest 2006) or female chauvinism.


 * There are two credible NPOV definitions linked above. We need to create content from both dictionaries especially for such a rarely used, insular, and often pejorative term.  We need to limit the definitions scope to feminism here because one can hate women for many reasons that have absolutely nothing whatever to do with ANY form of feminism.  For instance there are female rapists who are hated by men BECAUSE THEY RAPE MEN and BOYS but this is far from being anti-feminist unless this term is so shameless that it has no meaning whatsoever.


 * Clearly we need to make a distinction between women and feminist IDEAS that women and men hold as does .  To call the hatred of women (as a whole sex..misogyny!) 'antifeminism' is idiotic and duplicative and misleading.  Clearly being anti-feminist is being against feminist IDEAS rather than merely being against women as a sex.


 * As many so-called 'anti-feminist' feminists have so clearly shown us today's female-superiority, male-bashing, gender-ginning feminism is misogynist to other WOMEN as well as being misandric to men and is logically opposed to all forms of traditional equality feminism. So to those editors who are trying to use the 'some or all' forms of feminism minus any distinctions we have the usual oxymoronic doublespeak contradictions here.


 * One instance of the idiotic babble that ideological feminists use to spread their ideological bombast (and to silence their critics) can be found in the bible of feminista-feminism: Bitchfest 2006. Entitled I Can't Believe It's Not Feminism! Or the Feminists Who Aren't (Spring 2002 Julie Craig) it shows exactly how low these shameless self-described bitches are willing to stoop to duck the issues and to slander their critics.  Note the obvious and inane use of term 'antifeminist' to denote other legitimate feminists in this article.  If we are going to define the term the way these women do then we also need to show how slanderous this double-speak definition is...otherwise this article will merely be another Bitchfest 2006 propaganda piece.

Therefore I am going to take my definitions back in subject to suggestions here. Please respond to the issues I raise before you begin reactive reverts. I will be glad to consider any reasonable issues you raise as well. Somehow we need to build a good definition so that we can build an article that makes some sort of sense. 128.111.95.237 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My latest attempt to clean up the definition/introduction is below. (Please note that misogynist, misandric, gender-ginning (ideological) feminism is about female superiority, has nothing whatsoever to do with women's rights and in it's most inhumane forms is about creating an inane female utopia where men are either missing or enslaved. Gender-ginning feminism stands in direct opposition to equality feminism.  To equate the two opposing positions as somehow denoting a single feminism is insane but that is exactly what we see on the feminism definition)


 * Antifeminism refers to disbelief in or opposition to the economic, political and social equality of females as a sex . Sometimes antifemimism is also used to refer to a belief in male superiority and as such is synomymous with male chauvinism. The opposite of antifeminism is antimasculinism (as shown in Dead Man Walking: Masculinity’s Troubling Persistence, Brendan O'Sullivan, BITCHfest 2006) or female chauvinism.


 * Historically, the term has been used to refer to people who oppose all forms of feminism. Today, it still used to denote the positions of people (like some neoconservatives) who oppose equal rights for women.  However, in present day usage, 'antifeminist' is also a term used by feminists to pejoratively label other feminists (like Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers and other feminists) who back fundamental forms of female equality but who are critical of present-day ideological feminism.  Today, the term 'anti-feminist' has a narrow usage mostly within feminist circles, is rarely found in dictionaries and is sometimes misrepresented by feminists to slander supporters of women's rights who are critical of other feminist ideologies unrelated to women's rights.

Please offer specific, reasonable, and constructive suggestions before you begin wholesale changes so we can prevent needless edit wars. I am willing to take all good faith criticisms seriously. However, please spare us all circular doublespeak definitions that are so obviously bad faith slander. Thanks 128.111.95.237 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Antifeminism refers to opposition to feminism - what feminism is - is not a part of definition of antifeminism. There are reputable people (artists, press, media, politicians, activists) considering feminism a social disease, yet we do not quote it as a definition of feminism. Look at the antifeminist quotes - they directly point out that for many antifeminists the goal is exactly equality and the "enemy" is the practice of radical feminism. Your definition excludes them,- the major part of antifeminists from being what they are. You are committing the same mistake as the feminists, who call other feminists antifeminists because they disagree on something. Furthermore, with your definition you're imposing a certain meaning of feminism, one which most antifeminists de facto do not oppose. Antifeminists largely (see their quotes), oppose inequality in the form of unfair treatment of men (and traditional women), resulting from feminist-imposed laws and practice. Your definition doesn't describe actual antifeminists - rv+edit therefore. I by all means encourage improvement, but not brainwash and POV emphasis on the term. Just because many official dictionaries are already spoilt with feminist bias - it is no good reason to get misguided in a publicly open encyclopaedia, where we do have a chance at arriving to neutral terms.
 * Your sources are not valid, since they use "antifeminism - noun - activity indicative of belief in the superiority of men over women [syn: male chauvinism]"- dictionary.com. If people oppose feminist practice of positive discrimination, women job and education quotas - they don't oppose equality - they on the contrary support equality of right to be hired for a profession basing on skill and not reducing it to tit VS penis competition.
 * We need a clean, clear, and logical definition of feminism to define 'antifeminism' against or we need to use the NPOV dictionary sources we already have here. There is no such definition on the feminism page which one big problem here.  Feminists who use 'antifeminism' in books like Bitchfest 2006 to attack other feminists use highly ideological, incomplete and misleading definitions of feminism and antifeminism to slander  critic of their parochial version of feminism as being BLANKET antifeminists.  This article is no propaganda piece for any group to use to slander another.  It is supposed to be NPOV and reasonably comprehensible to ALL readers.  I am not trying to impose anything on you here.  All I hope to do is come to some sort of consensus that includes all aspects of this term.  Would you be willing to state your issues as specific concerns so we can find some common NPOV ground? 128.111.95.237 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Specific concerns:

1 - by going in detail about the use of term antifeminism by feminists we're not only limiting it to a specific ideological group, but are also forcing the reader to get into feminist differences, rather than offering a comprehensive image of the term and its use. 2 - I do understand feminism article on wikipedia is also nowhere near perfect, but it doesn't mean information missing from there should be here. I will however refrain from editing there due to conviction that it will be reverted/reedited anyhow. 3 - Term antifeminist is not widely used, but it is not exclusive to feminist debate. I furthermore believe that there are cases of censorship reflected both in media coverage and academic definitions, which I hope can be corrected here. Though I also understand that it might result from people's lack of interest/enthusiasm, though such things are related. 4 - I've no intention to have an edit war and no personal issues with you. Neither am I following any specific ideology to argue for some specific picture.Lost Angel 02:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will do edits and then discuss them here, not the other way round, since that is what you yourself do -> I see no reason, why there should be unequal access to the article itself between the two of us. Lost Angel 11:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to take anything personally here. I am fine with one standard for editing and INTENDED NO UNEQUAL ACCESS so do anything you like but please discuss your issues with specifics so we can come to some sort of consensus.  I also ask that you refrain from using the edit histories to make discussion points that belong here.  Thanks 128.111.95.237 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)