Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 2

graphics
It'd be nice to add some visuals here. I suggest adding, but it probably is copyrighted. Any opinions? Any suggestions? Lost Angel 14:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I suggest you do some research on the most common (AND CREDIBLE!) kinds of people who are genuinely anti-feminist and then show a visual that represents them well. Who are the people in the visuals above? What are their positions on what kinds of feminism?128.111.95.237 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You see, I speak the language of the article - people protesting against feminism in public are sufficiently anti-feminist. After all it is simply an illustration of an antifeminist event. I suggest you reply to the point after considering things carefully - city demonstration is a credible thing. Here is another source on it: http://rus.delfi.lv/news/press/vesti/article.php?id=8835582 and here is an article about their leader: http://www.subbota.com/2005/09/22/ne001.html?r=9& - she is a fitness instructor and an antifeminist.
 * Another thing is "genuinely" anti-feminist people - how do you suggest we test for that? Take urine samples? But anyway - if you have a better image - by all means do suggest.
 * P.S. regarding feminist censorship - entertain yourself - try to find pictures associated with word "antifeminism" on google - it has this search image option - see if you can find even one. :)Lost Angel 11:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a hard science background. All I was asking is that we know the positions of the people who the visuals depict.  Those positions are the only genuine way we have to know who is or isn't 'antifeminist' ONCE, THAT IS, WE HAVE SOME SORT OF NPOV, SINGLE-SPEAK, NON-OXYMORONIC DEFINITION for the term.  Again please don't take this personally.  All I asked for is some verification about what is actually being shown in the photo to prevent possible misrepresentation.  Personally, I could care less about visuals but were we to include them here, I do insist that they fairly represent whatever 'antifeminist' turns out to be IN A NPOV take on the topic.  By the term 'credible' I was refering to a CREDIBLE definition of the term rather than taking cheap shots at your photo.  Again I am disgusted with the inane and in-credible IDEAS on this page rather than you or your content specifically.  I intend no personal bad faith so please offer none in return. 128.111.95.237 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for misunderstanding and my impolite reaction resulting from it. I tried to trace copyright over the picture itself, but found it difficult to achieve - followed through links and it ended up pointing at original source, which, however, did not contain the image. So I suppose the image can be inserted safely since no copyright seems to be detectable and it is unsigned,- I wanted to ask for permission.Lost Angel 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

pov tag on feminism article
I believe the feminism article also needs a pov tag but I don't have time to make the case there. Would someone else add it there if you find a tag here to be inconsistent. The issue for me is the usual double speak definitions, censoring of critical points of view and other misreprentations.128.111.95.237 04:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to POV tag the feminism article, go and do it, and discuss it in the feminism talk page. This is not the place to discuss it. Currently it appears that you are using the anti-feminism talk page as a place to find like-minded people to agree with your assertion on the feminism page, and that is not the role of wikipedia talk. 81.205.195.3 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * be specific about censoring and removing criticism. Removing tag for now. You are the only person in disagreement and that is not a valid number.Lost Angel 11:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been very specific about the POV issues on this article! The entire discussion page is also loaded with unresolved POV discussions.  I am going to put the POV tag back here for those reasons.  You may refer to any discussions above that mention POV to know what my concerns are.  In time, I will also POV tag the feminism page as well because it suffers from shameless double-speak definitions are used in our definitions of antifeminism to make this page pov as well.  I insist that you offer me the courtesy of deciding when to pull this POV which I well gladly do after we have some sort of consensus here.  I am far from alone on these basic POV issues and even if I were alone I have a right to POV tag this article as long as I have stated sourced POV concerns here (which I repeatedly have).  Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff-Sommers, Nathanson and Young and a host of others have made similar accusations about today's 'gender'-focused feminists so this is a credible POV concern.  If you have a problem with this I ask that you bring in administrators to assist us before starting needless edit wars.  I have no personal bone to pick with you.  I am willing to abide by fair-minded standards here as we sort throught our various POV's about this controversial topic.  My issue here is that some ideological feminists are using feminism, this article and other related articles as propaganda pieces for totalitarian forms of doublespeak feminism.  I insist that we find some way to consense on NPOV content so that is impossible here.  That is the reason for the POV tag I placed back on this article.128.111.95.237 01:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think administration's intervention is required - by all means do summon it. I do not think so, therefore I will not summon them. As long as POV tag remains equally used in the related articles - I'm fine with having it here. I have a problem with your persistent attempts at turning this article into description of various feminist fractions, while in itself a useful information, it already has a devoted section in this article. Second problem is defining antifeminism as opposition to equality. This is pretty much the same as defining opposition to fascism as opposition to national unity and patriotism. Quite clearly (as seen from antifeminist quotes in the article itself), most antifeminists in fact are neither chauvinist, nor anti-equality. Considering encyclopaedia should aim at describing the actual anti-feminists and not 'anti-feminists through feminist perspective', it is best to not impose upon the definition. But I hope we can work it out.Lost Angel 02:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no need for admin as long as we discuss things to consensus and as long as you leave my pov tag alone until we find consensus on the POV issues I have (and you have) here. I will be glad to pop a pov tag onto the feminism article when I have time but that is a much bigger and much uglier bag of worms so I ask that you allow me to tackle things at my own pace.  Now could we begin dealing with the definitional issues one by one with specifics so we can consense on things without getting confused or pissed off at each other?


 * I am not turning this article into a description of various factions. That is false, misleading and unfair as anyone can see from the last definition I offered above.  What I am saying is that there are many kinds of credible antifeminists that match the NPOV dictionary definition above but for a status quo gang of ideological gender-focused feminists to slander other FEMINISTS with totalitarian doublespeak definitions is pejorative, unreasonable and oxymoronic. This article is no propaganda page for ideological gender-feminists to use to attack credible feminist critics.  We need definitions that are NPOV, that make sense and that are complete as well as reasonable but Feminism's definition...a bloated, misleading, all-things-to-all-people definition is no genuine NPOV definition on which to base this article.  It leads us into absurd circles.  Somehow I need you to work with me to find a NPOV definition that makes sense. 128.111.95.237 02:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

this is a terrible article in in a POV sense it uses that quote to attack anti-feminism, and puts in no anti-femminist theory in the article. The quote itself is a seriously flawed argument due to its ad hominem (attacking your opponent rather thanthe content of their arguement) nature and is not worth putting in the article because of this. the author of this article quite clearly had an adenda that was NPOV. dramatically improve it or delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.148.213 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 217.42.148.213 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition and Intro POV issues
My last attempt at a credible, NPOV and inclusive opening:


 * 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.

For the moment, I am going to stay away from edits to the top of the article until I better understand LostAngel's and other editor's concerns. My concerns as always are totalitarian, doublespeak and unreasonable definitions that are pejorative and oxymoronic here. I ask you to state specific issues you all might have with the article's opening statements so we can arrive at some sort of consensus here. (note I pulled down LostAngel's specifics from the POV section above to make this less cumbersome. I ask all editors to respond at the bottom so we can find everything easily. thanks) 128.111.95.237 02:41, 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)

Questions about specific concerns:
 * What are the full range of specific ideological groups other than those I included (noecons and so-called 'antifeminist' feminist critics) who are considered antifeminist in the sources? I intended no such limitations.  I know that men and women are called antifeminists but I am unfamiliar with other groups not mentioned in the opening I offered.  Before we discuss inclusion we need to know who is included here.

-George Gilder (born 1939, in New York City) is an American writer, techno-utopian intellectual and co-founder of the Discovery Institute. -Caitlin Flanagan is an American writer and social critic. She is a former staff writer for The New Yorker and a contributing editor and book reviewer at The Atlantic Monthly. -Ernest Belfort Bax (July 23, 1854 - November 26, 1926) was a British socialist journalist and philosopher, associated with the Social Democratic Federation (SDF). -Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961)[1] is an American conservative columnist and political commentator, and a best-selling author. She frequently appears on television, radio and as a speaker at public and private events.[2] -Henry Makow, Ph.D., (born November 12, 1949 in Zürich, Switzerland) is a Jewish-Canadian conservative writer, the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the author of A Long Way to go for a Date, the story of his courtship and marriage to a young Filipina. -Mary Pride (born 1955) is an American author and magazine producer on homeschooling and Christian topics. She is best known for her homeschooling works, but has also written on women’s roles, computer technology in education, parental rights, and new age thought from a conservative evangelical perspective. Phyllis Schlafly (born on August 15, 1924, in St. Louis, Missouri) is an American conservative political activist known for her best-selling 1964 book A Choice, Not An Echo and her opposition to feminism (see antifeminism) in general and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in particular. -Mary Augusta Ward (née Arnold; June 11, 1851 – March 26, 1920), was a British novelist who wrote under her married name as Mrs. Humphry Ward. -Otto Weininger (April 3, 1880 – October 4, 1903) was an Austrian philosopher. In 1903, he published the book Geschlecht und Charakter (Sex and Character) which gained popularity after Weininger's suicide at the age of 23. Today, the book is often dismissed as sexist, homophobic and anti-Semitic, especially by those in the academic community[1]; however, it continues to be held up as a great work of lasting genius and spiritual wisdom by others, most notably the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. [2] -Philip Gordon Wylie (May 12, 1902 – October 25, 1971) was a U.S. author. -- now what does this list of people tell me. 1 - there are no feminists there (thus my point about very limited relevance of feminist use). 2 - although conservatives are evidently numerous, neither are they all neo-conservatives, nor are they the exclusive majority. Thus my perception of the term as describing opposition to negative feminist practice (or practice perceived as coming from feminists, if you will, though this is a wordplay) as the key point. Second group I see there is religious people (same applies to women against feminism organisation - see links). Third and the major group is simply a bunch of writers, journalists, academic figures of no specific affiliation (at least not one obvious to me). Thus my point that linking antifemnism to some specific ideological group is not right, since the term is rather describing an inhomogeneous group of individuals as much, if not far more so than the 2 ideological groups you name. What do you think? 85.179.125.238 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest we go step by step and build up definition from the point of who the antifeminists are and what they think, which groups do they belong to. Let us look through the individuals linked to anti-feminism mentioned in the article and see where they come from:


 * Comprehensive coverage of the term includes comprehensive coverage of current controversial and unreasonable usages. I remember no accusations of 'antifeminism' in any other piece in Bitchfest 2006 so I suspect the really 'dangerous' so-called antifeminists today come from within feminism.  Now I could be wrong, but I haven't heard too much about traditionist women who hate gender-feminist ideology being attacked as antifeminists.  What about misandry researchers or say scientists who use so-called 'antifeminist' biological theories?  What is THE comprehensive picture here that shows all forms of antifeminism and where are NPOV sources for that take?


 * Reasonable and unreasonable usage is a misuse of term - there can be correct or incorrect use, however, providing the term itself is defined with strong bias in supposedly npov sources (see = to chauvinism, against equality), best is to arrive at a term definition that includes all uses without getting too much into detail (which exactly feminists use it to oppose which exactly other feminists on which grounds is not necessary from my perspective for this specific article - it should be in feminism article). I suggest you list very briefly and specifically here in talk section the uses and misuses of this term so we could craft a definition form them. I will add mine to your list. I think we should suspend for the moment the dictionary version - it is very biased.85.179.125.238 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition on the feminism article uses the same kind of definitional doublespeak that this article indulges in. This means we are defining a new term 'antifeminism' with a definition that suffers from the very ills I am concerned about here. I ask that we use NPOV dictionary definitions here to prevent this article becoming another feminist or 'antifeminist' propaganda page.  (The rest of my issues with feminism have little to do with this article directly so please take no offense there.)  Do you have a problem with the dictionary definition I used above?  If so, what other better NPOV definitions do you offer as possible solutions to your concerns?  If not, why do we have to haggle about using feminism to define antifeminism here?


 * I quite obviously do have a problem with the dictionary definition, though not a personal one of course. The reason being that feminism from my perspective is by no means limited to and is in practice defined as "economic, political and social equality of females as a sex". For example combating female role as a housewife is one of the things feminism is known for, while in itself such role is seen as oppressive precisely because of the paradigm of feminist perspective. As you understand, having a career is as much an effort and takes at times more time from things people enjoy. Therefore, I think feminism is not really an equality movement. Even on this small example (I have lots of them, but that'll take us away form discussed topic). Antifeminists often oppose not the strive for equality or consider women unequal, but rather, for example consider that a man and a woman should receive equal payment based on how much they work and how effective they are, rather than be equal in terms of how they are represented in the offices, or that pay should be equal based on sex and not "output". Which makes antifeminists precisely in favour of equality. However, I agree that antifeminists are different too, therefore, once again, I suggest building definition from scrap here in talk and then inserting it.85.179.125.238 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition in[ttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antifeminism] is specific, uses no doublespeak and appears to be fairly complete. The synonym clearly shows that chauvinism reference.  These credible and NPOV sources may not be the last word but surely they are the best we have so far for this insular term.  Do you have any better NPOV sources for a comprehensive definition that we can use to add to this.  (please note that anything from Women's Studies is likely to be highly pov because Women's Studies has been roundly criticized as an academic 'discipline' widely perverted for political activism.)


 * Dictionaries are written/approved by the very same people in academia, who, as you point out, have perverted the meaning of feminism and antifeminism too. I simply don't find them npov, for reasons I've brought up already. Therefore, I suggest we indicate what they think, but not stick to it as the main definition. Problem with definition of feminism is that it excludes its practice and all the negative things coming out of it, replacing it with very vague "equality" label, a label seen as positive by most people. We should not have antifeminism definition follow same misguiding steps, methinks85.179.125.238 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was careful not to make the usages of 'antifeminist' exclusive to feminists. This was a good faith attempt to contextualize a term that I rarely see outside of feminist pubs.  I ask you to suggest better ways to do this before you do wholesale reverts so that we can stay good faith.
 * As I said - let us see who uses it and how and build the term from there. I've never been to feminist pubs, been studying with feminists (though thank god not women studies), but I've not heard the term used by them at all (when I brought up the term masculism - they yelled it is about male bigotry - so naturally I had no desire to waste my time discussing anything with them further). I've heard it used by random online folk first of all, then saw a couple of books and articles by what I can best identify as disjoint individuals. I've seen it used by hardcore religious people. And lastly I saw a bunch of pro-men/antifeminist sites with layout that hurts my eyes. 85.179.125.238 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. 85.179.125.238 is actually me - Lost Angel 17:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I glad to here that you have no personal issues and that you are willing to try for consensus. I am very unsatified with the definition we are using now but I will wait to work with you before I try to edit again.  As far as ideological POV, I am glad you are no ideologue and I like others to push back because it makes a better article.  My basic issue is the one that Al Gore raises in his Assault on Reason.  As long as we use reason and facts to sort things out I am likely to have no ideological issues with anyone.  My issue with ideological or gender feminists is that they have been getting away with massive rapes of rhetoric, statistics and factual representation to push their dangerous and idiotic ideological agendas on the rest of us.  That is what I DO take personally because I care about whether we live in a totalitarian matriarchy or a free-speech democracy. 128.111.95.237 03:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * well, my principle is - whatever doesn't hurt others you can do - feminism does hurt others in practice. It might be not the "idealized" equality feminism that some people take all of feminism for, but it is still feminism for an outsider like myself, opposition to which I can understand as I don't want to live in a society where I am disadvantaged (due to my sex) for whatever reason other than my own deeds, which (some form of) feminism in practice is not the only threat for, but is one of nevertheless - a very real one.85.179.125.238 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to try to sort through and restate your points below to make sure I understand them. However, since you consider NPOV dictionaries to be "biased" I am not sure how far we can consense on NPOV definitions.  I may have to spell out my POV concerns again and to keep the POV tag on the article until they are resolved in time.  If there are ways to come to consensus between your POV's and mine please suggest some.  You might also offer a single-sentence definition YOU like for feminism so that I can see how YOU see feminism.  That way we might be able to begin to work on a consensus defininition.


 * I see all definitions deviating with reality as POV - them being academia approved is not always a security for objectivity. So we keep POV tag in any case. My one line definition of feminism would be something like "Feminism - an ideology (historically rooted in socialism) with a vast following of social, political and economic groups and individuals of various degrees of radicalism (from zero to extreme), claiming equality (sometimes explicitly female equality) as its core principle, which is, however, very diversely interpreted and practised by its various followers." Something like this. If we define feminism as equality movement, we would have to exclude most, if not all actual feminists from it. My definition allows for considering both the "good" and the "bad" guys, as well as not providing secure "shelter" to the radicals, saying they're also doing it for equality. This is a common practice for any ideology/religion definition. Look up socialism - both definition and categorisation provide a much better idea about the diversity of its ideas and practice without defining it as something like "an ideology based on the principles of fair treatment of the working class and just distribution of political/economical power". Not all socialists are the same, but they all socialists. Not all muslims are terrorists, but they're all muslims. Not all feminists are radicals, but they're all feminists... Just think it over and you'll see where the POV with official definition is.Lost Angel 19:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that one cunning, covert and ugly trick the feminista's on the feminist page tried was to dump all credible critics of feminism onto this page (see long list of references in discussions above) That is absurd unless those critics are indeed antifeminists. We cannot have it both ways here which is my whole issue with doublespeak definitions. 128.111.95.45 00:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you see that's the problem with ideological articles - you have a bunch of radicals ready to stay up day and night doing rv/edits. You see antifeminism is not a bad word, people who are not feminists, criticising feminism are, well "anti-" (against it) feminists. It is precisely a misuse of the term, when feminists call each other that way, because they disagree on something, because they're in the same ideological unit. Compare it to Christianity for example - Christians who disagree with one another are not antichristians, however, atheists are, same as people of other religions opposing Christianity.Lost Angel 19:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I suggest you register a nickname with wikipedia - more convenient comparing to ip in many ways. I'm also willing to discuss current edits via skype or whatever chat system to sort things out without blowing this out of proportion here.Lost Angel 20:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Outsider's view here, I dont know anything about this topic, but clicked it hoping to find out. I learned almost nothing. The description seems propagandized and that quote it so long, dull and biased, it does little to enlighten anyone-SF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.243.117 (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Last Sentence of Lead
The last sentence in the article lead reads " Moreover, feminists themselves use it as a pejorative term internally to label opposition, sharing different view of feminism," and I am not sure what this is saying exactly. My first impulse was the change "view" to "views", but this still doesn't correct the problem. It seems the comma doesn't belong, or if it does, the following fragment must be reformed to restate "pejorative term internally used to label opposition." Even if the comma is to be removed, the following fragment must be reworded. For now, I am just going to change "view" to "views" and hope that the author will come back and do the rest.66.188.76.130 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)mrathel
 * It is basically there to point to the Sommers case and following an earlier discussion on the feminist use of the term.Lost Angel 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

recent vandalism rv

 * "in most cases" - examples of women-hating well-known antifeminist activists/writers/public figures are needed to remove this.\
 * "The very term antifeminism is not widely known and used, similarly to misandry. Moreover, feminists themselves use it as a pejorative term internally to label opposition, sharing different views of feminism." - Evidence added, see talk section before vandalizing things that may seem excessive.
 * "pointing out a number of such cases." - not liking something is not a good reason to remove it. Following this phrase the cases are referenced, there are many more of course, but no need to overload the article.
 * "This is an encyclopedia, not a soap-box." - I am against personal attacks, which prevents me from commenting on this one.
 * "also point out tremendous pressure" - they actually point out something feminists declare publicly - see radical feminism, socialist feminism, see new quote, see quote below. The edit you made is the same as "antifeminists claim that grass is green", followed by a photo of green grass. Else simply bring in quotes of feminists, who support traditional role of a housewife. Will solve the issue.Lost Angel 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

alleged Simone de Beauvoir quote
The article includes this quote, which a footnote attributes to Simone de Beauvoir: "No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

Does anyone have a citation for when she said this? If so, I think it belongs in Wikiquote. Pha telegrapher (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

'Team Man' paragraph
I'm from the UK, and I've never heard of them. A google search turns up nothing. Do these people actually exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.72.69 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why this link?
How Not to Criticize Feminist Epistemology

This page is not a philosophy entry- how is this link appropriate? OckRaz (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Identity Politics
Could opponents of feminism who see this as one front of a larger opposition to identity politics in general be listed and written about? This might give more intellectual heft to anti-feminism rather than just associating it with the anti-ERA people and misogyny.

OckRaz (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
There seems to be a lot of discussion on this talk page, but I don't see anyone addressing the main problem: this article is terrible. It really doesn't provide much information, it's barely coherent, and its main purpose seems to be to provoke debate between two opposing viewpoints. There is very little text, and the majority of the article is composed of quotes and a long list of literature. For someone looking for information, the only thing this article provides is a sense that this is a controversial topic for some reason. This needs serious cleanup work, and possibly a complete rewrite. Anyone else feel this way? By the way, it's polite to sign your posts. Jermor (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mess
I cannot believe what a mess this article is in. Of all the articles I've seen on Wikipedia which have been mutilated by ideologists, this has to be the sorriest.

I assume that some feminist editors can't tolerate any opposition to their dogma that antifeminism equates to sexism/misogyny/male patriarchy etc. Above all they don't want to see a "counter-article" to feminism such as Islamophobia is to New Anti-Semitism.

Degrading the quality of the form of Wikipedia articles, even if you can't agree on their content, alienates the neutral public and creates the suspicion of censorship. This only piques the curiosity of neutral observers and inspires them to go and research the topic for themselves. The intelligent amongst them, having seen the censorship of an open forum by academic cliques, seek out radical and non-mainstream sources of information. They'll typically find it to be radically right-wing or biased. So by censorship, feminists discredit and demote their own arguments.

Here's my humble plan. The content can fall under the following headings;

1 Opposition/resistance/reaction to the feminist movement, in its historical context, ie. in the 19th and 20th centuries touching on discussion about the kinds and degrees of antifeminism. Differences between modern reactionary thought in general and antifeminism. Some socialists were also anti-feminist. Marx kept wife barefoot and pregnant. Also the point raised against identity politics in general made above.

2 Historical antifeminism. Examples of how societies in the pre-modern era reacted to proto-feminist demands and movements.

3 Implicit antifeminism in major belief systems. Aspects in which the major world religions, philosophies and ideologies are incompatible with or explicitly against feminism. Could mention anything from Christianity to Nazism. Link into examples of how representatives of said belief systems responded to the feminist challenge.

4 Feminists and the term antifeminism. Feminist views of what constitutes antifeminism, the contestation of the term and the notion of the "true feminist". Obviously touch on these issues cursorily because they belong more to feminism

5 Issues about whether the term itself is synonymous with patriarchy/sexism/male chauvanism etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.241.116 (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * despite the fact that your first two paragraphs are going against this page's policy on 'using the talk page as a forum'; I heartily agree with your 5-point suggestions. Please keep the conjecture about what feminists can and can't tolerate out of the talk page so that it can remain a place that both feminists and antifeminists can feel comfortable and open about contributing. I haven't enough knowledge to complete your five points but I hope a beginning will be made on it: it would be a significant improvement to this article, which, as you say, is a mess.81.205.195.3 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I did some updating
As an Anti-Feminist I was appalled to see the state of this article. So I decided to add a list of things that involves anti-feminism. Please don't be harsh I was writing a long article feel free to edit if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.35.208 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete re-write or reversion needed
Here's what I perceive to be wrong with it:
 * Is not about antifeminism in general, but a particular kind This article has been hijacked by christian antifeminism. All sections up until the literature section need to summarised and assimilated into a section on biblical or christian arguments within antifeminism. Consider other religions, political ideologies and so on. They should be included.
 * Biblical reference conventions ignored Bible references are not formatted correctly. "Ephesians chapter five verse twenty two" should be "Eph 5:22".  See Ephesians and other wiki articles on biblical books for proof that this is the convention on wikipedia.
 * General formatting Section names should not be the biblical verse they analyse. They should be about general topics.  Feminism has a better section structure.
 * The literature section actually seems okay and is formatted properly. I would like someone knowledgeable on the subject to look over it to make sure it's eclectic and doesn't suffer from the same tunnel vision as the rest of the article.
 * Not written for general audience. What is a "Titus Two woman"?  "Many Titus Two women know that the second most important part in the marriage after the husband is the children."  This article doesn't need mere re-arrangement, but also re-writing, as the language quality is poor.  "Ladies of the Lord" is another phrase of uncertain meaning to a general audience.
 * NPOV I know that this is hard to achieve on such an article, but the current format is written like an antifeminist information page, not a third person independent reviewer.
 * general language & grammar flaws - eg: Anti-Feminist as opposed to antifeminist.

I'm not sure if I'm a suitable candidate to rewrite this. I'm a feminist, and while I think I can write with NPOV, others would disagree. I'm also not terribly interested or knowledgeable on antifeminism (I just stumbled on this article by mistake).

I suggest a reversion, because while I can see from the talk page that people didn't like the old version, the current one is much worse. Perhaps it would be less work to revert and then clean up the old one.

The current version seemed to come about on the 7 of May. Any version before that appears to be quite different. So all May 7 edits should be reverted.

Any takers? Would you rather revert and rewrite or just rewrite? - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so it appears to have been reverted, which is the first step. I think assimilating some of the old material if it can be cited (rather than just from original research) might be worthwhile.


 * Right now the article is just about Libertarian feminists. The introduction is paltry.  Please someone fix it, or I'll go in there and do the best I can,  and hopefully my version can just be edited rather than reverted.  - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. As you say, this article needs plenty of work.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been meaning to come back to this and even had some material written up, but I haven't had much time.  61.88.244.4 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okaayyy..
Some has obviously deleted my work why I really don't know but that's okay you can see my work at Conservapedia.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Anti-Feminism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi3329 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not me, but I did suggest a reversion or editing. My reasons are above, in the section "complete re-write or reversion" needed.   Only problem is that apparently the old reverted version was just solely about Libertarian feminists...  not much better - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored much material from an earlier, better (but still not very good) incarnation of this article. To Yoshi3329 I'd merely say that what you wrote no doubt makes for a good Conservapedia article, but falls far short of Wikipedia's NPOV policies.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing
What a terrible page. One sided, biased, angry, and seemingly serving someones agenda. Reading the talk page pretty much confirms everything I was expecting. A few very passionate people have expressed their opinions as facts, then completely brick walled anyone else from disputing those psudo-"facts", or making a change to remove ideological dogma.

If I can put this into perspective... if you're capable of this...  re-read this page, and pretend you have the opposite opinion (intelligent people are capable of this). Pretend that you're an anti-feminist, and see if you find this page to be full of useful facts, or purposely misleading doublespeak. Does this page educate, or indoctrinate? If you held the opposite opinion, would you look at this page as an acceptably encyclopedic (i.e. unbiased, impartial, and neutral) passage about the feminist views? If you actually held the opposite view, would you leave this page as is, or would you go in and make changes en masse? I'm not planning on making any changes, because I'll just get stonewalled, because the wiki process is broken when ideologs get involved, but remember what wikipedia is supposed to be. In my opinion, this page isn't that. Disappointing that some people would prevent other people from having their opinions. Especially disappointing that right now I'm sure many people are reading this with either a derisive sneer, or patronizing smile... "silly boy" you're thinking. Right. If thats even half-way right... you're the person I was talking to. You're biased, and incapable of writing an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia needs more oversight, which is a shame. 207.154.101.37 (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with feminism?
Perhaps this should be "Criticism of feminism" on the feminism page.

24.8.141.123 (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed on the feminism page, and I'm inclined to agree with the principle of not having 'criticism' sections. Having criticism sections implies that the main body sections in themselves do not have NPOV they should be aiming for in the first place; instead, the main body sections should include the critique of the subject matter at hand as part of the formation of the NPOV on the subject.

Further to this, if there exists a large and named body of thought that exists in opposition to the topic, it should get its own page - hence the antifeminism page. Hope that makes sense. :) 81.205.195.3 (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

More on the way!!!!
As you know I've put up a couple of facts that make up an antifeminist, but it was mysteriouly deleted, I've since then put my work on conservapedia, in the next comming of months (on conservapedia) I'll hopefully be able to add more to my antifeminist page. I'll be posting pictures, sounds bite, excerpts from books and other media that I hope you'll all enjoy. I'll cover such topics such as feminist myths, what has happen after the feminist movement (to women men and children), our views on beauty, women in the military, the joys of being a homemaker, helpmeet & mother, abortion, etc. Sorry feminists-nazis, you didn't stop me, you just fired me up, you'll gonna be sorry that you ever censored me. And thanks to the ones that stuck up for me, your kindness didn't go unnoticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.245.243 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your "facts" were not mysteriously deleted. Please read the talk page and history as there is a clear record of what happened and I've responded to you before. If you read above you will see that I listed what I felt was wrong with the article and others agreed it needed a rewrite.  You were not censored - the article was edited and rewritten to wikipedia's standards.   There is also clear documentation on wikipedia of what those standards are, and excellent guides to help you write articles here that won't be reverted or rewritten.


 * Good luck with your work on conservapedia, but please remember that the biggest problems with your article were matters of how it was written not what it was written about, so perhaps you should take criticism of writing style, format, etc on board if you want to be taken seriously. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to add that the article is in much better shape now, though still needing work, and that it shows much better NPOV. Thank you to the contributors who did this.  - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues
Antifeminism as a debate between feminists and Antifeminism among "Libertarian Feminists" need to be rewritten (with fewer and shorter quotes) for clarity and merged because they have essentially the same content. JCDenton2052 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Antifeminism is actually criticism of the anti-divorce and father's rights movements. It's perplexing because there is legitimate criticism of anti-feminism (e.g. feminism has not met all of its goals, antifeminists attack egalitarian or equity feminists in addition to radical or separatist feminists, etc). JCDenton2052 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The template should not be used with no parameters.  Please select a different template to express your concerns, or populate the  template with parameters.  If the  template remains empty then I shall replace it with ,  or another generic tag.  Thank you.  69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
I have populated the articleissues template with the neutrality tag because the article is biased. The first three references are supposed to be to anti-feminists/anti-feminism proponents, but there is no justification (i.e. third party references) for them being anti-feminist. The Antifeminism also needs references, one for every entry, so we don't label someone who is not anti-feminist as one. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)