Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 7

Article criticizing feminist victimhood mentality
Just parking this here in case we decide to add it to article. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And this one criticizing feminism's take on modern marriage. This one was written by a man.  I believe someone here said earlier that we had too much criticism in this article written by women, which I found to be incredibly sexist. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another written by a man. Cla68 (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Two more:  . Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of these are usable as sources. This article isn't meant to be a comprehensive list of everything any anti-feminist has ever said; it's meant to give a broad, encyclopedic coverage of what it is.  Throwing in every article that attacks feminism would lead to an article that would be mostly incoherent; if a particular view or idea represents a major strain of antifeminist thought, then we should be able to find a better source for it than an editorial (ideally, a source specifically asserting that such-and-such a view is core to some anti-feminist movement rather than just the opinion of one person.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's not that difficult. We simply list the antifeminist commentary from reliable sources on the talk page, as I'm doing here, then add a paragraph using those sources which summarizes their recurrent themes.  If you look at the articles I listed, all of which are from reliable sources, at least two recurrent themes are readily apparent.  I'll add something to the article when I get around to it. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Otro. Interesting that there has been this sudden spate of antifeminist columns out there in major media sources. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Otro and otro and otro. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nah, it's not that difficult. We simply list the antifeminist commentary from reliable sources on the talk page, as I'm doing here, then add a paragraph using those sources which summarizes their recurrent themes."
 * That's called synthesis and it's a form of original research. Surely, there are some books and articles out there that actually discuss anti-feminism. At the very least, we shouldn't be using sources like college newspaper op-eds and tabloids (The Daily Mail). Those are scraping the bottom of the barrel for reliable sources. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not synthesis if you attribute the opinions. You'll see after I draft it.  I don't know for sure why all these anti-feminist op-eds are suddenly appearing all over Western media.  I suspect it's just one of the cyclical things that happens with modern socio-economic politics. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Otro. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, summarizing a bunch of op-eds definitely gives WP:UNDUE weight to those op-eds. Given the amount that's been written on the subject, if you want to summarize anti-feminist coverage the appropriate place to go is to look up academic journals writing about anti-feminism, rather than to try and collect a bunch of WP:PRIMARY sources and then do your own personal synthesis on them to parse out some meaning.  None of the sources you're linking here are really useful, and your offer to summarize them in your own words isn't a workable option -- you need to find secondary sources commenting on them so we can rely on that for interpretation and to establish which views are important. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please wait until you see how I write it up before pre-emptively repudiating it. I've been editing since early 2006 and I know how to add information from sources like this without wrongful synthesis.  The important thing about these op-eds is that they succinctly address the current concerns with feminism from its critics.  As a feminist myself, I'm personally concerned about the level of vitriol that feminism is currently receiving in the press, but recognize our responsibility to document it in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Marion Cotillard disses feminism. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspective. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cla, can you maybe collect these links in your userspace or something instead of listing them here? Unless you have a specific revision to propose I don't think collecting links like this is helpful, or an appropriate use of the talk page. I'll join the others, btw, in saying that I really don't think any of these links can or should be used in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This talk page isn't a dumping ground for sources criticizing feminism. Please collect them in your userspace. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * actually... the link for "Criticism of Feminism" leads to this article (antifeminism)... so between this article and the article on feminism, a decision will have to be made as to where to include the criticism part (or to make it a new article). 104.247.228.124 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another good one. Why should these be collected in my user space?  The purpose of article talk pages is exactly for stuff like this, collecting sources to improve the article.  There has been a landslide of antifeminist articles and editorials over the last month or so which should really help improve this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . This one's really good as it covers a variety of issues that the author (a woman) has with modern feminism. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Op-ed by Carrie Lukas. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another. Cla68 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * These aren't really ideal sources for the article; opinion-pieces like those would just be WP:PRIMARY sources by antifeminists. We're not supposed to write articles like these by analyzing primary sources and doing our own summary; we're supposed to go to secondary sources and rely on their analysis.  (That's also how, for instance, we know whether a particular commentator is significant in the context of the larger subject, which I think would be a major problem with using any of these -- you're giving WP:UNDUE weight to what seems like a totally random selection of commentators.)  You should be looking for people who are writing about antifeminism as a topic, not primary writings by antifeminists.  --Aquillion (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is a joke, not a funny one either:
This article has clearly been doctored by a bias party in favour of feminism and clearly has a nuance which seeks to demonise the opposition of feminism. I have noticed this as an increasing trend across Wikipedia with the advent of the WikiProject Feminism. The article has been doctored to an extent that the entire piece would have to be re-written and protected to actually fix the issues, as for now, changing a part of it causes unbalance and immediate rescinding of the edit by various 'white knights'.

So, my friends, how do we fix this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.44.42 (talk • contribs)
 * Before I call the glue factory, what do you propose that hasn't already been discussed to death? Also, I'm a purple knight... white is so passe.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism has been around since 2008, so its existence is not a new development by Wiki standards. I do not know what the anonymous means about its "advent". Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose, as feminists have colluded as a group against wikipedia, that any known feminists be banned from writing on it. They are not contributing at this point, they are replacing objectivism with subjectivism. Frankly, it is sickening.Thisisashan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this...the "feminism" article also has a criticism section.....that criticizes antifeminism! There is a huge bias problem here.  I went to the talk page but at the top it basically says "It's fine, don't change anything".  I thought the whole point of editing Wikipedia was to make a difference....I suppose not.TJD2 (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate?
Is there a reason that Gamergate is not mentioned in the 21st century section? It seems a rather large oversight. InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably because it would be as biased as the article itself. I'm kind of glad it didn't mention GG because feminists would claim it's about sexism against journalists when really it's about ethics. TJD2 (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Biased removal of edits
I edited this article to properly represent anti-feminists in the controversy over the Equal Rights Amendment. The article as it stands now is a hit piece against antifeminists and is incredibly biased and obvious in its attempt to paint antifeminists as misogynists. Here is what my edit looked like:

The Equal Rights Amendment is a perennially proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would grant equal rights and opportunities to every citizen of the United States, regardless of his or her sex. By 1972, the amendment was supported by both major parties and was immensely popular; but though it made it through Congress, it was defeated when it failed to get the vote of thirty-eight legislatures by 1982.[28]

Antifeminists argue that there has been a lot of historical revisionism when it comes to the failure of the ERA. For instance, Jerome Himmelstein hypothesized that housewives opposed the ERA because they were content with being “economically dependent on their husbands”[29] and did not like the idea of working for a living. Those housewives’ high-income husbands opposed the amendment because they would gain the least with it being passed. In fact, those men had the most to lose since the ratification of the ERA would mean more competition for their privileged jobs and possibly a lowered self-esteem.[28]

Feminists claim that another method that the antifeminists used was getting the votes of politicians, who had the largest impact on the destiny of the ERA. Feminists argue that the support of antifeminism from conservatives and the constant “conservative reactions to liberal social politics” were the reasons for the ERA's failure. Like the New Deal attacks, the attack on the ERA has been dismissed as a “right-wing backlash”.[28]

However, when actually asked why they opposed the ERA, antifeminists, both right- and left-wing, like Phyllis Schlafly, who was pinnacle in beating the ERA, have much more nuanced reasons for their opposition to the ERA than misogyny or mere ideological tribalism. First, the full text of the ERA:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. [30]

According to Schlafly's own organization, Eagle Forum, there were several reasons for her and other antifeminists' opposition to the ERA.[31]

-The rejection of the Wiggins Amendment, which meant that women would be subject to selective service should the ERA have passed due to the fact that the ERA promised absolute equality under the law. Considering that the controversy over the ERA reached its peak during the Vietnam War Era, opponents of the ERA refused to see their daughters be drafted for military service as their sons had been. [31]

-"ERA would take away the traditional benefits in the law for wives, widows and mothers. ERA would make unconstitutional the laws, which then existed in every state, that impose on a husband the obligation to support his wife." [31]

-In reference to the second section of the ERA, opponents stated it gave too much power to the federal government. "ERA would give enormous power to the Federal courts to decide the definitions of the words in ERA, "sex" and "equality of rights." It is irresponsible to leave it to the courts to decide such sensitive, emotional and important issues as whether or not the language applies to abortion or homosexual rights."[31]

-"ERA would force all schools and colleges, and all the programs and athletics they conduct, to be fully coeducational and sex-integrated. ERA would make unconstitutional all the current exceptions in Title IX which allow for single-sex schools and colleges and for separate treatment of the sexes for certain activities. ERA would mean the end of single-sex colleges. ERA would force the sex integration of fraternities, sororities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Boys State and Girls State conducted by the American Legion, and mother-daughter and father-son school events." [31]

-"ERA would put abortion rights into the U.S. Constitution, and make abortion funding a new constitutional right. Roe v. Wade in 1973 legalized abortion, but the fight to make abortion funding a constitutional right was lost in Harris v. McRae in 1980. The abortionists then looked to ERA to force taxpayer funding. The American Civil Liberties Union filed briefs in abortion cases in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut arguing that, since abortion is a medical procedure performed only on women, it is "sex discrimination" within the meaning of the state's ERA to deny tax funding for abortions. In the most recent decision, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled on April 19, 1986 that the state ERA requires abortion funding. Those who oppose tax funding of abortions demand that ERA be amended to prevent this effect, but ERA advocates want ERA only so long as it includes abortion funding." [31]

In short, the opposition to the ERA was fueled by concerns of government overreach and fear of women being treated equally to men and thereby losing privileges such as exemption from the draft, not misogyny.

I would like to know why my edit was removed. I copied this edit and sent it to my email since I figured wikipedia had a feminist bias. Stop painting antifeminists as misogynists, because there are millions of women against feminism, myself included. Are you suggesting I hate myself?

Source for the real reasons the ERA was opposed. http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html

Shame on you, wikipedia.--Dianapena4205 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The current version doesn't mention (or even, as far as I can tell, imply) that misogyny was a major reason for opposition to the EPA; instead, it says that conservative politics were a primary factor, which is basically what you say above, though at much longer length. In general I feel that this degree of detailed coverage for the views of the Eagle Forum would be WP:UNDUE; but the fact that much of the opposition to the ERA was driven by opposition to abortion is probably worth mentioning.  My recollection is that it's more complicated than the Eagle Forum implies, though, since that was when anti-abortion rallying first started to become central to conservatism -- Schlafly was one of the founding figures behind the current tenet of opposition to abortion as a central conservative position in America, more than anyone else; and the ERA fight was one of the first cases where it became the unifying plank between religious, political, and cultural conservatives.  I agree that the current ERA section isn't great, but I don't feel that the problem is bias specifically so much as an over-reliance on a few sources (you identified Himmelstein as an antifeminist in your edit -- I'm not sure that's accurate, but either way, we devote an entire paragraph to his views.)  And I don't think dropping such a huge block of text on the views of the Eagle Forum in there, cited directly to them or to the text of the ERA, is the solution; we should find secondary sources that discuss the ERA fight in the context of the history of antifeminism instead.  --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I also have a problem with your conclusion: "In short, the opposition to the ERA was fueled by concerns of government overreach and fear of women being treated equally to men and thereby losing privileges such as exemption from the draft, not misogyny." This isn't supported by sources so I can only conclude that it is your own interpretation, not a summary statement from a source. Wikipedia isn't the right forum for editors to draw their own conclusions about a complex social situation which would be more appropriate for a blog piece, an essay or editorial. Liz  Read! Talk! 01:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Yes, this article is biased. But thankfully not as hard as the German Wikipedia (where a group of feminists controll everything, sadly). Everything about masculism, antifeminism, mens's rights movement is described as misogynists, trying to oppress women, while feminism is the light, the only true 'religion' against 'patriarchy' and the cruel men. Sadly, the German Wikipedia is biased very much. I would just like to thank you, because you make Wikipedia great. --Momo Monitor (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , when you type your four tildes for the signature, it also gives you a time. Check it: it says 2016. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is this supposed to mean Drmies?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing this fairly rampant on wikipedia, and this will result in the wiki being seen as overly biased against men. Frankly, as is, any topic that ever comes up and relates to feminism is either a hit piece against anything that disagrees with their narrative, (as this article is), or completely subjectively flawed. I find it ethically questionably that feminists be allowed to write on an anti-feminist wiki, much as anyone would if there were pentagrams and goat sacrifices all over the Christianity wiki. Someone needs to put a stop to this.Thisisashan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realize this is not supposed to be a feminist, anti-feminist, or Christian wiki, right? We are supposed to cover every subject in a dispassionate way, though just about every Wikipedian has strong personal beliefs in particular subjects.

As for the shortcomings or supposed shortcomings of Wikipedia and its methods, see Criticism of Wikipedia. One of them is "Gender bias and sexism", but the wiki regularly gets accused of being biased against women, not for them. "Wikipedia has a longstanding controversy concerning gender bias and sexism. Gender bias on Wikipedia refers to the finding that between 84 and 91 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, which allegedly leads to systemic bias. Wikipedia has been criticized by some journalists and academics for lacking not only women contributors but also extensive and in-depth encyclopedic attention to many topics regarding gender. Sue Gardner, the former executive director of the foundation, said that increasing diversity was about making the encyclopedia "as good as it could be". Factors the article cited as possibly discouraging women from editing included the "obsessive fact-loving realm", associations with the "hard-driving hacker crowd", and the necessity to be "open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists. In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation set a goal of increasing the proportion of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015. In August 2013, Gardner conceded defeat: "I didn't solve it. We didn't solve it. The Wikimedia Foundation didn't solve it. The solution won't come from the Wikimedia Foundation." In August 2014, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales acknowledged in a BBC interview the failure of Wikipedia to fix the gender gap and announced the Wikimedia Foundation's plans for "doubling down" on the issue. Wales said the Foundation would be open to more outreach and more software changes."

If you think there is some systemic bias in a number of articles, which frankly can be true in whole areas of topics, you can try bringing them to the attention of WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It deals or attempts to deal with several problematic areas, such as the lack of worldwide perspective, ignoring significant viewpoints, and recentism. Dimadick (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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


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


 * Your reply is false; it rests on a false premise. Scholars are not neutral regardless of field; gender studies is much more ideological than other fields. It's "scholarship" in the way that, say, Lamarckian evolution scholars are "scholars" of evolution and should define what opposition to Lamarckian evolution means. You can find similarly inane scholarship in support of alternative medicine. Just because it's in an academic journal like Hypatia or whatever doesn't mean it's neutral and equally as good of a source of information as scholars from other disciplines. Since gender studies is ideological, if anything it's the opposite. 70.121.172.235 (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have other scholars from other fields to recommend, please suggest them. Simply criticizing the existing sources without offering alternatives isn't going to change anything. Kaldari (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about the scholars who are listed in the article but who's viewpoints are not elaborated on? (Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Katie Roiphe and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese)  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I have to agree with the OP. Having feminists define anti-feminism is not objective research since it is a counter movement/ideology/belief and would likely be better suited for a criticisms section; it would be like asking Tony Perkins to define homosexuality... you are just not going to get an unbiased assessment. Such instances should be removed or moved to their own section. 2602:306:B856:4600:49B:1BBE:E36F:1EDF (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I do not believe that the definition from the feminist scholar is the one that an antifeminist would use to identify themselves as (we should use a definition generally accepted by the group, since it's the groups right to define their ideology). It doesn't matter how feminism defines antifeminism (in this part of the article). Feminists can make their own definition for their arguments, be letting it be true in their premise, which can be useful for describing some antifeminists or an alternative definition more convenient for their argument. But we need to look at how antifeminists define themselves, and then we can see how others define or view them. Letting someone from another view define antifeminists (and that someones definition is not generally accepted by the group), when there are probably sources of antifeminists defining themselves out there, give people an inaccurate understanding of what the group is. Otherwise, the definition can end up setting up something not quite the same as how they usually identify themselves, possibly creating a straw man. So I guess the problem is trying to find a "reasonably accepted definition by antifeminists". Side note, further down the article, I do not believe most modern antifeminists identify themselves as Michael Kimmel has stated. I believe that most modern antifeminists aren't opposed to womens equality, if you'd ask them. Usually the argument by antifeminists is that feminists are going beyond equality, or just unjustly blaming people. 129.97.131.0 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we (antifeminists) should define our ideology ourself. I've read the German Wikipedia, where the antifeminism article was written by a feminist lobby on Wikipedia. Well, they stated that antifeminism was about hating women, and wishing men to rule over women. Well, no. Yes, I'm an antifeminist, but I am female too. And no, I don't wanna have less rights than men. But I don't wanna more rights because I'm female, and I actually love men (most of you are friendzones thou). Enough about me: I think we shouldn't use the feminist sources, since they are biased, and the antifeminists should tell what they are for. The feminist articles could be used later in the article, to show what feminists think about antifeminism. Like we could write in the feminist article, what antifeminists in scholarly articles think about them. --Momo Monitor (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And no, I don't wanna have less rights than men. But I don't wanna more rights because I'm female But that's actually a core tenet of feminism tho? In addition to that, modern feminism also critiques heteronormativity and cisnormativity, which is what actually many antifeminists have problems with -- their ideal is that "females should be encouraged to be as feminine as possible and males should be encouraged to be as masculine as possible". Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am the poster from 129.97.131.0. I'm not anti-feminist, nor really feminist (in that I participate in either of the movements). I do listen to various prospectives though, and come to my own conclusions. Just to add some things on, I don't believe we need to remove the views of feminists. However, what I do believe is that most anti-feminists would define themselves and their actions very differently than what feminists define them as, especially as presented on the article. The real reason why this is a problem is that, even as academics, I believe (whether intentional or not) that it starts to become a strawmans argument. For example, academics claim that anti-feminists are people who want to repress women's rights, where as I believe most anti-feminists would say they oppose feminists themselves, because of irrational claims / emotionally charged actions, gynocentrism, or whatever else. The problem is that the arguments that are presented by anti-feminists are simply not represented, but replaced with claims that make them look bad (again, in general, not as a pretence to an argument). I should also mention that some anti-feminists also DO support the suppression of womens rights (not unlike feminists who support suppression of mens rights), and even in a more historical context (which I believe can be included on the article) anti-feminism could have been defined as people who support the suppression of womens rights. However, I do not beleive that in general, modern anti-feminists support the suppression of womens rights. Now then, the more important question: Where can we get some reasonable sources as to what anti-feminists would generally define themselves as? Is there any academics who clearly state or argue the anti-feminist viewpoint? 129.97.124.194 (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point of view is interesting but it does nothing to shift this article. Topic experts define a topic. The topic experts here are scholars who study the issues of antifeminism. This article already has plenty of these. It doesn't need more of them. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is circular, anti-intellectual, and wrong. All that's required to be a "topic expert" is (1) a following, (2) an organization to back your journal, and (3) some kind of greenlight from a university administration to fund your department. This doesn't mean you've actually published knowledge, or that anything you've said is true or neutral or non-ideological. To see why what you've said is fundamentally wrong, picture some eccentric billionaire who could create fields this way merely by backing journals and departments and justifying whatever ideology he or she so chooses. This has been done to inflate Ayn Rand's scholarly notability in the past. In fact, some religious schools have attempted to say god definitively exists precisely through this method. People here should not be taking you seriously; really, they should be working to minimize whatever influence you have. 70.121.172.235 (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree Binksternet. This article so far is poorly structured so, adding more opinions by experts on antifeminism would only help until it gets better organized.  IP, feel free to add more to the article if you like.  This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cla68 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but the concept of using feminist sources to describe a group that opposes them is the same as allowing anti-feminists sources on the feminism page. If this is the case, why were the anti-feminists sources removed from the feminism page? This is a double standard. Frankly, something needs to be done about the feminist wikipedia authors as I am constantly finding wikipedia pages that are being plagued by anecdotal basis, with source from feminist authors and activists. This is one place, more than any other, that we do not need to see this. Or we can all start writing about atheism on each religion page. Anti's DO NOT belong with the affirmative, otherwise we might as well condense everything to one page of affirmative and negatives, and then wiki will explode with arguments.Thisisashan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * Agreed. The problem is that definitions of "antifeminism" much like "feminism" can be subjective. Modern Feminists identify with the Suffragist movement as a forerunner to their own. However, this does not by extension link, for example Pro-Life groups who disagree with prevailing feminist views on abortion choice, to those who were opposed to women's suffrage. This is a tricky article with politically loaded terms, but it doesn't seem to attempt NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.132.166 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually this is quite incorrect, as anti-feminists seldom care which form of 'feminism' someone claims to be. An anti-feminist is most frequently someone who opposes the ideology as a whole, with their eyes focused solely on the groups who commit change, the major feminist players.  NOW and other feminist organizations.  The fact that 'feminism' is subjective is irrelevant, and in fact that is something that any anti-feminist will bring up himself, as it is a proof to many of the problems that plague the feminist community.  The average 'feminist', they define is separate and subjective, however the groups actually making change in the western world have very inline motives.  STEM field myth, violence against women myth, the wage gap myth, manspreading, etc.  These are constants, you hear them from every 'feminist', and are the basis behind anti-feminists.  Again, feminists have no place commenting in this article.  It is nonsensical and only serves to put a negative bias and spin on the subject.  Much like letting a group of Satanists comment heavily on the Christianity page.Thisisashan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Banning feminists from the subject matter is against policy. Per Ownership of content: "All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization which is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say."


 * If you actually want to make proper changes in the perspective of the article find reliable sources which support your view. See: Identifying reliable sources for the expected requirements for sources used. The article on Christianity already includes a section on "Criticism and apologetics" which includes both criticisms and apologia. It is far from perfect (two millennia of criticisms covered in an extremely short way), but it is sourced. Dimadick (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, please move all the feminist arguments to criticism, and clean up the page to reflect the actual viewpoints of anti-feminists. Ownership of content is clearly non-applicable, as no one has claimed ownership. Merely, it is in fact intellectually dishonest to have this entire article written by feminists.  You cite the Christianity entry as an example, yet it is CLEAR that the Christianity wiki is not written by a Satanist who has denounced Jesus and loves to murder people, isn't it?  So by similar standards, the article should be written by those who hold this viewpoint, and not by those who wish to counter it.  This wiki entry is absolutely dripping with biased opinions and hearsay, for instance "[...]For example, anti-feminists in the late 1800s and early 1900s[...]".  Which is a time period where feminism wasn't established enough to have counter culture.  Absolutely no one in the late 1800's identified as an anti-feminist.  If you can find one, please by all means demonstrate to us all they existed.  Google, Britannica, Webster, and Continental all seem to indicate that anti-feminism didn't surface into the mid 1900's.


 * Then we move to definitions, "[...]Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues[...]". Tell me, do you see "[...]Satanist  defines Christianity as[...]" in the Christianity wiki?  No, you do not, and you should not.  Again, this is not claiming ownership, this is simply a matter of intellectual integrity.  Feminist opinions belong in criticism section, as they are exactly that, criticism.  You basically said that yourself by citing the Christianity page as a reference per modus operandi.  This is like letting a Nazi define the Jewish faith.  You will not get an honest portrayal of what the Jewish faith was that way.Thisisashan (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The most reliable sources on a topic come from the experts who study, analyze and write about the topic: scholars. In the case of antifeminism, the scholars who study the topic are primarily in Women's Studies or Sociology or Feminism. Wikipedia considers scholars to be the most reliable source of information, so much so that we use scholarly analysis to define the topic. Again, in the case of antifeminism it is those scholars who are in Women's Studies who define this topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, regardless of which field, the most reliable source is a primary source. This is a fundamental truth that we are all taught in grade school, which is reinforced through-out schooling.  Women's studies majors do not study anti-feminism, they expressly study feminism.  Feminists do not study anti-feminism, they expressly study feminism.  Sociologists would be an applicable expert, given that they had actually studied anti-feminism.  Sorry, but what you are claiming is similar to someone claiming that Christians are experts on Satanism.  Confirmation bias tells us that what you are claiming here, is exactly the opposite of the truth.  The experts on this topic, are anti-feminists.  Primary sources.Thisisashan (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia specifically favors secondary, scholarly sources over primary sources. Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Kaldari is correct. WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred by Wikipedia. These sources are also given more weight if they are scholarly.
 * The assertion that feminists do not study antifeminism is ludicrous. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The assertion that feminists DO study antifeminism is as sensible as the claim that Donald Trump studies Mexicans. "Fiercely oppose with rhetoric" and "study" are not synonyms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.206.160 (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I came to this page to raise the precise complaint of bias herein discussed. It is absolutely ludicrous to allow a movement to be defined by its enemies.  It is exactly the same as an article on capitalism only citing Marxist definitions of capitalism.  It is exactly the same as an article on Judaism only citing Nazi definitions of Judaism.  You would NOT allow the Democrat party to be defined only by Republican sources.  This is gross, gross bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.115.160 (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just because someone is in Gender Studies doesn't mean they have to be feminists. It means they study gender and its role in society. Antifeminism is a part of that discussion, and thus we use scholarly articles from people who study, more broadly, gender. Dvalentine (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Solution to the Bias in the Article
As is abundantly clear to anyone with a brain that this article is incredibly biased toward feminism. We can simply point out the biased portions, or we can propose actual solutions. So, as someone who is not a feminist and opposes most of the beliefs espoused by modern, third-wave feminists, I could be considered an anti-feminist. However, I am not homophobic or hateful towards any group as this article would label me. I will not hide my bias, as some media members prefer to do. I am Conservative/Libertarian in my beliefs, so for example, I believe that ideally, the government would not be involved in marriage. It would be a contract between two or more people to 'marry' their finances and possessions. But, my preferred policies on gay rights or trans-rights or whatever new term Tumblr invented ten minutes ago and expects us all to know are not important. The point is that I am no hate monger or violent. I simply believe that as a society, we have advanced to a point where we can pretty much stay out of each other's personal lives. In today's society, there is no 'patriarchy' trying to keep women down. If asked, most men would say that they don't care if women work with them. They don't have any particular hiring bias and search for the best qualified employee. This will be especially true for the up-and-coming generation because of education's recent focus on group activities. The point is, just because you don't support an outdated movement that only occasionally brings something valuable to the table, doesn't mean you are a hater. Other people who don't support feminism, please comment under this and make your opinion known. Those of you that have the time should research what actual anti-feminists believe. GeneralPotato (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't reflect editors' personal opinions]?. We reflect what [[WP:RS|reliable sources say about anti feminism.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This user really needs to look no further than the "21st century" section to see the unbiased view they are looking for. The issue is that 'antifeminism' has taken a lot of forms over the years, some of which are reasonable (in my opinion), and others of which history has condemned. Wikipedia must report on both.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Feminist academics need to be deleted from the article because they have no expertise on antifeminism
It's a repeated assertion by feminist editors here that, because they are in academia, and occasionally write on the topic, the feminist foes on academia are reliable sources.

I believe this is a sleight-of-hand by the feminist editors. Feminist/gender studies (the two are generally held to be near-synonyms) academics are experts in feminist/gender studies concepts. The feminist authors who are quoted in the article need to be removed, because they lack expertise in the subject matter.

Marxist Black Studies professors frequently attack white people and capitalism, but they are obviously not usable as reliable sources on articles about white people and capitalism because their field, by definition, is defined by its committed opposition to them. If objective truth is in conflict with opposition to white people and capitalism, then objective truth must be eliminated. Wikipedia cannot use a Black Studies academic as the principal source on white people and capitalism because he is simply not an expert on white people or capitalism. He's an expert on a belief system which is tremendously hostile to white people and capitalism, much as an Iranian professor of Theology in Tehran U is tremendously hostile to Judaism and Israel. No matter how many reams of papers our Tehran professors write about Israel and the jews, he still can't get into a Wikipedia article because he has no expertise on Judaism and Israel.

Feminist scholars are, by contrast, completely valid sources for a theoretical article called "Opposition to anti-feminist thought", just as our Tehran professor is a reliable source for an article on Antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.206.160 (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Similarly, police officers aren't experts on crime, firemen can't be trusted to know how fires start, and doctors know nothing about how to harm the human body. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's ludicrous. Are random police officers considered reliable sources by Wikipedia provided they can demonstrate their membership of a police force someplace? Of course not. Criminologists are, because criminology is not an social movement advocating for a revolution in society, but rather a good-faith attempt to understand crime and criminals.


 * Are random firefighters considered reliable sources by Wikipedia provided they can demonstrate their membership of a fire station someplace? No. You can have myriad defects in your theoretical knowledge of combustion provided you do your work correctly and the defects have to do with obscure forms of fire you'll never likely encounter on the job.
 * The experts on how fires start are chemists and pyrotechnicians. Possibly physicists too. And of course engineers.


 * The comparison is also totally invalid. Feminist academics are in no way comparable to police officers, doctors, firemen. Those people exist to fight crime, disease and fire respectively.
 * Crime, disease and fire definitely exist. Patriarchy... not so definite.


 * Your comments demonstrate the fatal flaws in the wikipedia feminist editorial campaign, and demonstrate why the wikipedia feminist editorial campaign needs to be dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.206.160 (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * PeterTheFourth's argument might work if women were discussing anti-feminism on Wikipedia on the basis of experience. Not people who's job is literally to study gender.Dvalentine (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * IP's comment "wikipedia feminist editorial campaign" goes beyond simple failure WP:AGF into tin-foil hat territory. I suppose next we're supposed to remove any academics in the field of Jewish studies from articles on anti-Semitism, or medical doctors from articles on quackery, or sociologists from articles on conspiracy theories.  Because, clearly, people whose job would require them to understand the negative effects of an idea couldn't possibly know anything about said idea.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Expansion Suggestion
I deleted the "this section needs expansion" notice from September 2014 under "19th century" because I have added to it and am continuing to add content, sufficiently solving the problem--Nkshepard (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Entry to be added, cluebot removes it
This book needs to be added to the list of antifeminist books "Cuando nos prohibieron ser mujeres ...y os persiguieron por ser hombres: Para entender cómo nos afecta la ideología de género" https://www.amazon.es/Cuando-prohibieron-mujeres-persiguieron-hombres/dp/8460896013 it isnt an unknown book, it is number 2 in "society and culture" in amazon (in spanish, I suppose) and 25 in top 100 best sellers https://www.amazon.es/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=pd_dp_ts_b_1#2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.189.192.24 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Non-notable non-English book by non-notable author. --Neil N  talk to me 13:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Authority control
I purged the page cache. If the Authority Control box is still not visible to you, we should maybe mention it at WP:VPT. Are you on mobile? See also: Help:Authority control and Authority control for examples of what should display. CIreland (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

CWA
Today I removed the absolutely partisan sentence, "It frames itself as being for women, by women, but as a group it opposes feminist thought." To be clear, conflating opposition to "feminist thought" with being anti-women is absolutely unacceptable. If you want to say such things leave Wikipedia and go write for some partisan blog somewhere. 108.41.201.220 (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Create a "Feminist views of antifeminism" section
A lot of the article seems focused on what feminists think of antifeminism rather than what the people who self-identify with the label say it means for them. For instance, an article on atheism shouldn't deal primarily with religious views on atheism and theist explanations on the origins of atheism. It would be better to place that under "Theist views of atheism". In my view, the best way to define an ideological term is to ask the people who self-identify with the label what they believe. Of course, it's also appropriate to cover how others outside the ideology view and use the label, and what they mean when they use it, but this should be a section. So I propose moving most of it to a "Feminist views of antifeminism" or "Feminist theories on antifeminism" section. Just my 2 cents. Also, here's some links that might be useful as sources:  User908325 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article actually contains very little re: feminist views of antifeminism, since statements from feminist writers and organizations would not necessarily be as high-quality as the scholarly sources we are currently citing. We do already include some discussion of why antifeminists are antifeminist, but if you have other sources of similar quality (ie. not primary-source misogynist blogs and such), why not add them? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would avoid segregating views into "pro" and "anti" sections in this way. That often makes for a non-neutral article structure. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite a few people have complained that feminists are being quoted about feminism. What's happening here is that scholars are being quoted, that is, topic experts who have thoroughly studied the issues. It is often the case that a quoted scholar is also a feminist, but that doesn't mean we have to find quotes by antifeminists to try and achieve somebody's idea of balance. The analysis by experts stands as neutral, not in need of balancing. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The first section of the article does specifically mention "Feminist sociologist Michael Flood" and "Men's studies scholar and feminist Michael Kimmel". That may be one source of the idea that the article over-represents "feminist" views. I think the label feminist here is unnecessary and tends to muddy the waters – are Flood and Kimmel being cited because of their feminism, or because their work is regarded as good scholarship? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. A simple starting place for this is to mirror the language on their own articles. Flood is describes as an "Australian pro-feminist sociologist", while Kimmel is an "American sociologist specializing in gender studies". Removing "feminist" from Kimmel's description would be reasonable, and changing it to "pro-feminist" for Flood would help address this while also naturally introducing a link to a related term which is a plausible cause for confusion. Actually, the term pro-feminis* is already used a couple of times in the article in ambiguous ways, so this should be addressed regardless. Pro-feminism shouldn't be used to mean anti-anti-feminism. We can just call that 'feminism', right? Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the language of those biographical articles, I've started a discussion on whether labeling Flood pro-feminist in the first sentence of his biography truly reflects due weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC) (updated 06:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC))
 * I've changed the wording in Flood's biography, and removed feminist from the references to Flood and Kimmel here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording in Flood's biography, and removed feminist from the references to Flood and Kimmel here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Weight
A lot of the article seems focused on what feminists think of antifeminism rather than what the people who self-identify with the label say it means for them.

The article consists mainly of statements which conjecture by sociologists about the origin of Antifeminist movement rather than describing the movement which makes up only a small portion in the beginning of the article. This is likely due to the fact that there is simply more "anti-antifeminists" who have written peer reviewed articles, but a significant portion of this article lends undue credence to these citations, rather than taking an ecyclopedic descriptive approach. Ethanpet113 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We describe what reliable sources say. Also calling academic works "conjecture" is insincere at best.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it considered WP:FALSEBALANCE to use sources from anti-feminists? This seems biased to me. Xanikk999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In the same way that it's a false balance to include both "sides" of the creationism/evolution "debate", or to give equal validity to scientific papers that question man-made climate change, when the overwhelming scientific consensus is for it. We prefer sources that represent mainstream scholarship. If those sources happen to portray anti-feminism in a critical light, then it's not within NPOV to try to "balance" the picture with more favorable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that feminism and anti-feminism are political movements and not sciences. It would not be considered WP:FALSEBALANCE to give both sides of the story. It's no different than presenting sides from both conservatives and progressives on an article on freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Xanikk999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the scholarly study of antifeminism, which documents and analyzes the antifeminist stance. Scholars are our best resource, and whatever is the scholarly consensus is also the Wikipedia consensus. If there was no scholarly consensus then both sides of a debate should be represented equally. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Climate change and evolution aren't "sciences" either; they're phenomena that scientists study that happen to be subject to some public and political controversy. That doesn't mean that we should dilute the scholarly/scientific consensus on evolution with arguments from creationists. Or that we should use "neo-Confederate" sources for a historical article about the Confederacy, for example —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Climate change and evolution are topics that are defined and studied by scientists. Feminism is a political movement but it is not the same thing as sociology which gender studies is a subset of. There is a difference between the two. As a political movement it would be biased to present only sources in favor of it while ignoring sources criticizing it. It's not a fair comparison that you are trying to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Feminism is also studied by scientists and other academics. Rather than framing this as a 'pro v. con' issue, which is definitely false balance, we should strive to cover this in proportion to how it's covered by reliable sources, such as academics. If you have new sources presenting a perspective which isn't already included, bring it forth for discussion, but specifically seeking out sources which favor a critical perspective is false balance and is non-neutral for other reasons, as well. Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I see your point. Xanikk999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Antifeminism IS NOT broadly defined as opposition TO SOME forms of feminism.
The intro says "Antifeminism (also spelt anti-feminism) is broadly defined as opposition to some or all forms of feminism." except that is at least partly wrong. Since the three most popular beaches of feminism in the U.S., radical, liberal, and sex-possitiuve feminism have key beliefs that put themselves at odds with each other, but going by the above definition, they would all be considered anti-feminist, which is illogical. The reality is that the term anti-feminism really refers to two different groups of people, one that rejects feminism as a whole, and the second simply reject the label feminists/feminism while not outright rejecting feminist views as a whole. The latter reject the label feminist/feminism because they associate it largely with "extreme" form of feminism, specifically radical feminism, including separatist feminism and lesbian feminism. In short, it's incorrect to label anyone who disagrees with some forms of feminism as anti-feminsists as the intro currently does. Most if not all feminists disagree with at least one other form of feminism but yet they are not antifeminists. The intro sentence should be rewritten to reflect the fact that thew term "antifeminism" is used describe the views of people who reject feminism as a whole as well as those who do not reject feminism as a whole but merely the label "feminism". The term is also used by some feminists to label others feminists whom they believe to be "not true feminists". Here is one suggestion on how to reword the intro sentence: "Antifeminism (also spelt anti-feminism) is a term that refers to either the rejection of feminism as a whole or to those who simply reject the label feminist without disagreeing all feminist viewpoints.". basically we need to remove the implication in the opening sentence that anyone who rejects some form of feminism is "antifeminist". --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * In the future, please break lengthy comments in to paragraphs, or summarize more succinctly, if possible.
 * As Antifeminism explains, "some forms of feminism" isn't meant to imply any form of feminism can be arbitrarily opposed, it implies a specific subset of feminism. This section of the article contains multiple differing definitions of antifeminism, but none are as broad or simple as the one you are proposing, and all of them are supported by reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources discussing (for example) how actively rejecting the label of feminism isn't an antifeminist act? Grayfell (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't describe womanists as antifeminist, so I don't think that Notcharliechaplin's suggestion is a good one. But I also agree that "some forms of feminism" doesn't really tell us anything meaningful - who, or what belief, exactly, is that meant to be referring to? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

motivations paragraph
One thing that sticks out to me is the ending, 'motivations' paragraph which is not inclusive of all types of people who identify as 'anti-feminists.' There are systematic, political, social gains for some groups to keep gendered oppression in place and this could be expanded upon in much more depth. Kajolrachelle (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Rachelle

Killings
I'm not sure what you're missing. Both of those articles very clearly state that the killers were motivated by opposition to women's rights or hatred of women. Rodger went to the trouble of writing a manifesto about it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Neither mentions antifeminism or links to this article (outside the see also section of one of them, I kept the third article which did mention our subject matter in its text. We should base ourselves on whether or not the concept is mentioned, and, presumably, if antifeminism were mentioned in those articles it would be cited in those articles too. Otherwise, they shouldn't be included here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Richard here. - Scarpy (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Quote
Your quote, which is intact right now, says "Men may focus...." and the article said "suggesting some antifeminist men, at the time of the study, may have opposed feminism..." We are clearly misquoting here, the ref doesn't mention antifeminist men which is why I removed an unsourced piece of research for the second time. The quote given doesn't back up the assertion, and we need a ref that does back it up or the statement and ref need to go as the ref doesn't appear to be on topic, perhaps it would be good for man. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In context, that paper is talking about what drives men towards antifeminism. The preceding sentence is Given that feminism among women is demonstrated to be related to equality and empowerment, as feminists claim, rather than power concerns, why do so many antifeminist men see feminists as motivated by power? and it leads into Not all men resist the changes advocated by feminists, but the evidence gathered here indicates that men who value their own power and perceive themselves as having power are the men who resist feminism.  So when it discusses what "men may focus...", it is talking about the things that cause men to oppose feminism and become antifeminists.  I honestly don't see how anyone who read the full paragraph from the source could miss the fact that it's talking about anti-feminist men specifically (especially given that it's in the context of a larger paper about the motives of anti-feminists, with the 'men' there contrasting with the anti-feminist women discussed in the next paragraph.)  If you don't have access to the source (and you don't trust my interpretation or summaries), you can ask someone who does to review it. --Aquillion (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Who/weasel
can you clarify what you're looking for here? WP:WEASEL states that claims need to be attributed (they are, via the references to the studies that have these findings). Weasel words would be if we said, like, "some people believe antifeminists hold X views". –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In order to establish the validity of a claim, it must be determined, who calls these people "antifeminists" is used hence "by whom".

The specific problem is:
 * Wikipedia only accepts uncited statements such as "x is used to", when the term is ubiquitous, e.g. "Bread is used to describe a tasty carbohydrate"
 * The listed people areWP:Living, so uncited statements about their political views may be seen as misrepresentation or worse slanderous.
 * You may cite either the media labeling them as such, or their own declarations, but otherwise this looks to be WP:Original Research or WP:SynthesisEthanpet113 (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The ones you tagged were all cited though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Anderson (2015)


Parking this potential source here for any interested editors. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Incoherent
Rmved "Antifeminists share the same ideologies as feminists, but feminists group consist mostly of radical feminists." because it's incoherent. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

1997 study
Removing "In a study of 126 American students, antifeminist men were found to value their own power more than nonfeminist or feminist men did. Antifeminist women were not found to have the same difference from other women, suggesting some men may oppose feminism because they fear losing their power or sense of power in society."

Firstly, the survey size is far too low (of less than 200 people, the margin of error is in the double digits). The survey is from 1997, so it's out of date. It's behind a paywall, so you can't even check the gender break down, and the sampling is from one particular school which you can't even see the location of. In short, there's not enough information from this source to quantify that a loss of power is one of the reasons, making this section completely incoherent. If anyone can drop some sources that are more detailed, more up to date, and not as biased, that'd be great, so we can re-write this section a bit better. HateRend (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * For convenience, this was the reference you removed:
 * You raise several points, some of which are valid, and some of which are not.
 * Reliable sources are still reliable even if they are behind a paywall (they do not even have to be online at all, per WP:SOURCEACCESS; look up FUTON bias also).
 * Why would the location of the school matter? Regardless, it is explained in the study:
 * The participants consisted of 126 Shippensburg University undergraduate students, 84 women and 42 men, with a mean age of 21.4 years. Most were European-Americans from lower, lower-middle and middle class backgrounds who were raised in conservative rural or suburban areas. Participants received extra credit in their introductory psychology classes for their involvement in the study.
 * This type of sample is standard for these kinds of studies, and it is a know problem, but since the paragraph already contextualized this as a psych study, this wouldn't be the place to address this point. Your dismissal of a study as "biased" doesn't explain how it is biased for this content, nor does it indicate why it cannot be used. Likewise, the study itself seems detailed, and just because the online summary may not be detailed enough for you personally, doesn't make it unreliable.
 * I do agree that the study is out-of-date. We also should generally avoid primary studies per WP:PRIMARY (and arguably WP:MEDRS, although that's a bit of a stretch in this case). If this study was influential, there should be some reliably sourced indication, but at a glance, I do not see it. It doesn't appear this study has been cited very many times in other works, either. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the study is out-of-date. We also should generally avoid primary studies per WP:PRIMARY (and arguably WP:MEDRS, although that's a bit of a stretch in this case). If this study was influential, there should be some reliably sourced indication, but at a glance, I do not see it. It doesn't appear this study has been cited very many times in other works, either. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, first off, thank you for redoing this section, as I've only minorly edited (without an account) wikipedia over the years. So, it's still a learning process for me. Secondly, I retract some of the parts of the points I made - after rechecking the study, it does indeed give a breakdown, and the school location.

I may also like to add that I meant that the source is being used in a biased way. Again, this is a motivation of a group of people. And this particular source, I believe was used in a biased way to promote that motivation:

A.) The sampling size is very small. It's less than 200 people, which again, has a 10% margin of error.

B.) Focuses on one school, in one area. Considering this is about a global group of people, with many different political backgrounds that aren't JUST conservative, it's kind of absurd to use a source that's so local for the specific instance of the motivation behind such a group of people. Even worse to use a source from 1997 to describe said motivations of said people.

C.) Has a gender breakdown of 2:1, which normally wouldn't matter, but since this is the motivation of a group of presumably mostly male people, talking about how anti-feminists are more afraid of losing their power then feminists, it kind of begs the question. In short, doing a study about the power dynamics of one gender and not having that gender be equally represented in the study should mean that more sources should be found to provide more of a case for that study.

It's not that I have a problem with the sentence itself. There is a kind of "no duh" logic that came with it. My problem is that with only one source, and that source being so old, and that source having so few people, and only one location it was done on, I don't think it's appropriate. Sorry for the confusion! If we can find more sources, so that the statement is more backed up, I'd really appreciate the help! Again, my apologies for this being so new! I'm still reading over all the guides and trying everything out. HateRend (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the recent addition of unsourced and poorly written commentary. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too. Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Revert
Reverted change to lede. In this sentence, we are conveying people's description of their own position, not stating in WP's voice that feminism is about hostility to men. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"identify"
Removed "identify" because it didn't make sense in the sentence. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Other feminists label writers such as Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Katie Roiphe and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese identify with this term" is ungrammatical. I don't know what else I can say about this. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Honor the editors; restructure the article
Hello editors! Reviewing this article and the talk page archive, I saw a lot of unfinished discussions about restructure requests and possible bias. For some of these points, I do certainly agree, and I think a lot of contributors and editors were not honored in their fair proposals, requests and worries. I do see how lots of discussions ended with 'provide references, as do we'-esque arguments, but let's be fair: the current references are mostly originating from progressive left wing media and scholars, and the statements in the article are placed such that all pro-antifeminism viewpoints are attacked straight away, without giving them a chance. The statements may be right, but that does not mean there is no bias in representation and variety of ideas.

I am a relatively new editor, so let me be bold and propose some changes. My observations from other, similar articles, are:
 * The lead should give a balanced idea of the antifeminism ideology. That means that it is first defined by its proponents, after which opponents give their view.
 * The article itself should contain a clear distinction between pro-antifeminism and anti-antifeminism viewpoints (see what I did there? :-D). The body sections should have clear distinctions in viewpoints, like other social-ideological related articles such as Feminism and Marxism. Most of them follow a history-viewpoints-criticism or viewpoints-history-criticism structure.

I really do believe that a nice article structure promotes an unbiased representation of viewpoints. Following these rules of thumb, possible bias-claims may be reduced, without reducing the amount of information in the article. Call it something like: let all viewpoints shine and flourish.

Now, here are some concrete proposals:
 * 1) Restructure the lead section, such that it only contains the relevant statements from the present. The women's suffrage and Equal Amandment Rights statements are absolutely true, but are historical facts, while present antifeminism has significantly different viewpoints.
 * 2) Combine sections Overview and Antifeminist stances to something like Characteristics or Antifeminist viewpoints. Let the proponents talk, and save the criticism for later (see below).
 * 3) Let the History section flourish, as it does now. Maybe review the contents for possible bias.
 * 4) Section Organizations needs some serious work on bias and framing, but could be flourishing as a stand-alone section.
 * 5) Sections Reasoning, Subversion and parts of Motivations can be combined into one section Criticism, while some of the information from these sections can be added to the newly proposed Antifeminist viewpoints section.
 * 6) While restructuring, let's also get rid of the globalize-tag by adding more diverse examples.

I hope to see a nice, constructive and civil discussion about that. Please assume good faith and honor your fellow editors, no matter what your personal opinion or taste is. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert
Reverted an edit which added poorly sourced content, and one which removed a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the edits. The content that was removed from the page is not only vulgar and sexually explicit, but also downright disgusting. That type of language is extremely offensive and certainly has no place on Wikipedia. The content of Wikipedia should not be offensive to its readers, an article such as Antifeminism does not need to contain such offensive content. Once again, please refrain from reverting the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.224.140 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)