Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 8

This article should be titled “antifeminism according to feminists”
This article is atrocious. It’s a perfect example of one of the main criticisms of feminism: it drowns out all other voices. The article reads like a feminist-doctored version spun to make antifeminism seem as horrible as feminists imagine it to be (I suppose understandably given the name and how they tend to react to challenge). As an actual antifeminist the article seems to me so slanted as to be nearly vertical. It should be completely rewritten up to Wikipedia’s (somewhat) normal standards of flat, objective explanation.

Maybe there should be a separate page about antifeminism as it is actually viewed by antifeminists, possibly connected by a disambiguation page?

Destrypants (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC) I also noticed that this article is indeed about antifeminism as feminists see it. Impartiality isn't this article's strong suit, otherwise the feminist view about antifeminism would be featured only in a section, instead of being the entire article. ► [ Sampayu ] 08:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Have either of you found any reliable sources for antifeminists' views of themselves? Newimpartial (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Karen Straughan and Professor Janice Fiamengo are the, if not two of the, top antifeminist scholars, probably in the world if I had to guess. Karen is frankly better: much more theoretical, deeper analysis, more anthropological, natural history perspective, etc. Janice is also very, very good, very precise, specific, well documented antifeminism with copious examples. Destrypants (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be very happy to go looking for sound bites from them or any other serious antifeminists if I thought those might be worked into the article for the sake of balancing it out a bit. Please let me know if you are or know of an editor with the skills and clout to accomplish this. Destrypants (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the challenge is in establishing that inclusion is DUE. The existence of interviews or YouTube or Podcast links does not by itself create grounds for inclusion. But if there is news coverage (or better yet, academic analysis) of the views of Honey Badgers, et al., then their perspectives can absolutely be included here. It looks as though Fiamengo has a book publication that might be relevant, so if that received some reviews it would be easy to justify inclusion of relevant material here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Also thank you Sampayu. Wikipedia has become deeply politicized in this domain. The feminism stuff is pretty bad too, pretty much straight propaganda, very far from third party (every single line reads exactly like it IS feminism not a description OF feminism: all premises taken for gospel, this-is-just-how-reality-works kinda vibe, as if Mormons got to write their own article unopposed — I look at feminism as a phenomenon, not as Truth: the normal Wikipedia standard for belief systems).

And the antifeminism article is just the same problem squared: feminism is True, feminist precepts are a given, seeing the world as being as we say it is is a basic precondition of sanity, and here our obligatory webpage describing some nutball phenomenon called “antifeminism.”

I’ve got to give them props for having gotten out ahead of it. They clearly got to write the article unopposed. And it’s not like the vibe I get from feminism is that they want you to even know about the *existence* of antifeminism. So to be forced to tell you about it so that they get to spin it is quite interesting, exactly what I suspect happened.

I’m sure it’s not linked on the feminism page or if it is it’s buried deep, and what good would it do anyway since it’s so well written!

Like you said it should predominately be a neutral, uncritical explanation of anti-feminist views AS VIEWS, the same it would do with any other philosophical or political position, with the feminist take on anti-feminism relegated to a criticism section. Destrypants (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So Newimpartial if I were to find some stuff in print with some real, established history to it that might help? There is a book I know to be of high quality that is more than a century old called The Fraud of Feminism by E Belford Bax(sp?). Hard to imagine it hasn’t been reviewed in a hundred plus years.

So are you saying that if say Chomsky writes a book copiously documenting some phenomenon, but it’s studiously ignored in the main stream media and not reviewed in the United States, that’ll be grounds for exclusion on Wikipedia?

Is there a discussion page where we can think about how to improve this state of affairs?

How is Wikipedia supposed to avoid falling down an Orwellian rabbit hole when they constantly require the main stream to acknowledge something who’s very core might be that it criticizes the main stream?

Then all everyone has to do to avoid being criticized is ignore you. Kind of goes back to kindergarten you know? Destrypants (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, WP relies on recent reliable sources, so publications from the last century are not generally relevant or helpful. And reliable sources do not have to be mainstream sources; for example, academic sources are generally reliable and may represent more diverse views than large media outlets. As far as the inclusion of views like Chomsky's, what actually happens is that the question is discussed case by case on individual Talk pages, without any obvious point for central discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Censorship is another reason why nowadays I rarely contribute to Wikipedia. The mentioned WP:FORUM policy is about not taking discussions into the article, but this is not the article: this is the article's talk page, i.e. the correct place where we're supposed to share our (e.g. diverging) ideas and opinions about the subject of the article. ► [ Sampayu ] 22:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TPG, talk page discussions are supposed to offer concrete proposals to improve the relevant articles. The suggestion, that Wikipedia article text that fails to challenge rights-based arguments for abortion access is somehow a POV problem, does not offer any concrete suggestions nor is there a reasonable possibility that any ensuing discussion would improve this article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Newimpartial, you may take a look at several non-empty talk pages and then count how many of them feature absolutely no personal POV. A good start is this one. ► [ Sampayu ] 23:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that discussion about POV, or even based on POV, was not allowed? What I said was that discussion needs to be related to potential improvements to the article, which unrelated rants about abortion rights are not. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial This is an actual rant. On the other hand, my "rant" was not an actual rant: it was just an illustration/example about how a controversial topic such as "abortion" allows different viewpoints yet it's not rare to find only one of them in an article.

If you pay very close attention to what I actually wrote, you'll realize that I neither stated that abortion is a right nor did I state that abortion is not a right: I just stated that the article's text was modified in order to induce readers to conclude that abortion being a (e.g. civil) right is an absolute indisputable truth, because, in the article's text, this presumed "absolute truth" is used as a premise before the subsequent statements were made. And this a serious problem, because an actually debateable truth is being presented as an undebateable/indisputable/unquestionable one. Anyway: I was not specific nor clear about my personal opinion, I just commented the topic's ("abortion") flexibility around such controversy. I mentioned the difference between the mother's DNA and the developing baby's DNA just to illustrate an example of argument that relativizes that presumed absolut truth. If you read the article's intro, it's stated in there that antifeminists often oppose the right to abortion: this type of construction transforms abortion is a right in a premise (an universally accepted truth) even though in reality the antifeminists do not oppose the right to abortion: they oppose abortion, and they do it precisely because they don't think that abortion is a right. Antifeminists would not oppose to abortion if they believed that abortion is a right. This is just logical reasoning.

Yet, somehow you "saw" my comment as a rant. Why? Make a sincere self-analysis and hopefully you will realize that your reaction was driven by how you felt when you read my text. And this is the case most of the time when people edit articles here: they find it hard to dissociate themselves from their emotional selves and be rational while editting. ► [ Sampayu ] 00:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * To humor this for a second, you state this, If you read the article's intro, it's stated in there that antifeminists often oppose the right to abortion: this type of construction transforms abortion is a right in a premise (an universally accepted truth) even though in reality the antifeminists do not oppose the right to abortion: they oppose abortion, and they do it precisely because they don't think that abortion is a right. That isn't what we mean (in English) when we say that someone opposes such and such a right - we mean that someone denies that such a right exists (or that it should exist). When we say that someone "opposes Trans rights", for example, we mean that someone denies that those principles claimed as the rights of trans people are valid rights claims. None of these formulations presupposes that such a right exists much less that it is an absolute indisputable truth, nor does it imply any particular ontology or metaphysics about what rights "are" or on what basis rights claims are made. It is this bizarre construal of the text that you performed as though it assumed absolute indisputable truth of rights claims that I, for one, view as an off-topic rant, since I can see no way that any conceivable discussion of this will produce improvements to this article, though I suppose by the end of the process you might be able to understand English-language style and the nuances thereof a bit better. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial I had separated some sources to cite in the article about some of the antifeminist view against abortion (e.g. [1] and [2] ), but I'm under the impression that the article's best served if supported by sources in English instead of in Portuguese and Italian.

I'm aware that right is an ambiguous word because of both its legal and popular use: here in Brazil, the Portuguese word direito (i.e. right) also assumes different meanings depending on context. If I e.g. state that I have the direito to be heard, it's not a legal (i.e. an absolute, objective) right, but still I'm socially entitled to it due to e.g. how I feel about it, the local customs and other socially constructed values that support my claim that my voice must be heard (it's a subjective right). On the other hand, I do have the direito to return any product that I buy online (the seller has to pay my shipping cost), up to 7 days after I receive the product in my residence, and I don't need to offer any explanation for such decision, because such legal (objective, absolute) right is written in law (Brazil's Consumer Protection Code). It's called direito de desistência (i.e. "the right to withdraw"). This was put in law because when we shop online, we're unable to examine/inspect, manipulate and test the product before we buy it, and we may therefore be negatively surprised by the actual product when it arrives.

Anyway, I referred to right as a short for legal right or civil right (as e.g. mentioned in the US Code, Title 42, Chapter 21 a.k.a. "Civil Rights"), which in such case is absolute in the sense that law is mandatory to all individuals in that specific society (USA). Another example is the prohibition of partial-birth abortions, which is absolute in the sense that it applies to everyone because it's put in law (it's an objective use of the concept instead of the subjective one that you mentioned). I however couldn't tell that the text in antifeminism was referring to right as just something that someone e.g. believes to deserve, claims that should be allowed to perform etc. Maybe the word prerrogative or entitlement could be used instead, I don't know.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, yes, you're right: none of this promotes any sort of improvement to the article. Maybe if I happen to read a reliable antifeminist source in English (which I intend to do, but not today), then yes. ► [ Sampayu ] 09:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Men's rights
As in the reasoning section, only words of feminists and pro feminists had been taken into account,totally neglecting the voice of men's right activists, their reason for voicing against feminism. I have added some concepts that sees antifeminsm from men's right activists like divorce laws favoring women, women domestically abusing men seen as a lower crime,while complying with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts to bring this page closer to Wikipedia‘s normal standards of objectivity in representation of philosophical ideas. I think he might find this conversation/debate/exchange of mine with another editor interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvergreenFir (scroll down to “reversion of anti-feminism page“). Destrypants (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. This article is about antifeminism, not mens' rights - there are separate articles for that. –Gladamas (talk &middot; contribs) 16:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert
Reverted removal of sourced content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for this article to contain offensive content. Stop reverting the edit please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.224.140 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored just because you find something offensive. If there is a better reason to remove the content feel free to discuss. –Gladamas (talk &middot; contribs) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jfunsten, Nkshepard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

One editor's opinion
This article reads like a hit-piece which seeks to criticize and invalidate views and perspectives the author does not agree with.

Feminism is chiefly a left-wing ideology that is disputed and contested by almost all conservative thinkers, and by large portions of the non white, English speaking world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squiggly666 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming to the Talk page. You are wrong btw, it isn't a hit piece, and it isn't a left wing ideology. You need to have pretty strong sources to say something like that. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you thanking me? Who are you? And feminism forms the core of most left-wing thought, and is widely disputed by both conservatives and Christians alike. Squiggly666 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm Roxy the dog, it says so at the end of all my comments on talk pages like this >>>>>> -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 17:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

In the mid and late 20th century antifeminists often opposed the right to abortion
Are they really antifeminists in general, sounds more like Christian groups and I think most reliable sources would back that up.

Antifeminists were more opposed to things like no-fault divorce, child-support, false accusations, family courts, depiction of men in the media, etc.

Pretty strange those things aren't mentioned in the introduction, huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squiggly666 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this offers any justification for your WP:EW behaviour. Don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Debiasing feminism and antifeminism articles
Neither is anywhere near WP:5P2, with the anti- article most noticeably biased (even here in the talk discussion the primary thrust seems to be toward finding what the feminist conception and consensus of what an anti-feminist is, which is the very definition of partiality. It has always reminded me of like if you let the FBI be the primary source material for the article describing what antifa is, if you wrote the Palestinian article only according to Zionist scholarship, if you let the anti-feminists be the primary source material for the feminism article, etc., etc.)

WP:NEUTRAL POV suggests describing the phenomenon of feminism, and not just from the feminist point of view. Their self-definition should be upweighted since they do represent the majority of academic opinion and therefore can be allowed more leniency toward "unbiased" self definition in the wiki article describing themselves, but their own POV of themselves and their worldviews and assertions should not be exclusively represented in an encyclopedia article about their group and it's philosophy. Just as, for instance, the Mormonism article does not reflect Mormon-only points of view, except when they are noted as Mormon POV — while their wiki article does allow some respectful self-definition on the part of Mormons as to what Mormonism is, it does not allow the entire article to EXCLUSIVELY describe the Mormon point of view of what a Mormon is — and this would hold for any other example of a Wikipedia article on any other movement, belief system, ideology, or philosophy.

And then of course the antifeminism article should not all be from the feminist point of view (while our own self-definitions should be downweighted as we are in a minority of scholarly opinion, they should not be entirely excluded: of course you let the Mormons have SOME say in what a "Mormon" is).

Ultimately, my proposition for discussion is simply that: both articles should describe the phenomena from a more neutral, more anthropological point of view.

That is IF they are to be up to Wikipedia's stated standards of not taking sides in ideological and/or philosophical debates. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * you describe yourself as a "pretty hardline antifeminist". Do you have any evidence that these articles are biased apart from your own personal beliefs? Note that WP:NPOV means following published, reliable sources, not users' beliefs or opinions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, but my politics do not (or should not) automatically relegate all of my observations to the status of mere opinions, or worse.
 * Assuming the best intentions here and that you really want Wikipedia to be as unbiased as possible and take as neutral point of view as can be reasonably achieved, the unfortunate reality I see is that the best evidence for the non-neutrality and biased nature of the articles are the articles themselves — and that if you can't SEE it, it's because you're coming from it.
 * Now I don't mean that as an insult, because I assume that it's an honest question: you really can't see the bias.
 * The strongest piece of evidence I believe you could see, if you were to feel so inclined, is that the antifeminism article ultimately only cites feminist sources — which are practically the definition of biased in that particular case (an obvious conflict of interest). For some of the sources, you have to do a bit of googling to discover this, but it's not difficult, and I didn't do an exhaustive search. But when I checked on sources that were not announced as likely feminist in the first place, looking up university professors on the university website etc., inevitably it was someone in their gender studies department or the like.
 * If you want to assume good faith you're just going to have to accept that there will always be red tape that can be deployed against someone like me. In the real world there is no perfect neutrality, there are no humans without bias. The Wikipedians who have the most edits under their belts will understand how to best game the system and see it their way (mostly without even consciously trying, in fact being unable to catch the process occurring within themselves: we human beings just don't see what we really don't want to see):
 * You folks will always win. You have the power to reverse edits, settle disputes, and interpret things as fitting Wikipedia policy or not as per how you see, not just Wikipedia policy, but how you perceive the things in question. Systems can always be gamed, and I don't blame Wikipedia for being imperfect in this way. This is why you must embrace the spirit of the law and not just look for ways to (selectively) utilize the letter of the law, which could be easily weaponized the opposite direction (a conservative-leaning Wikipedia would undoubtedly slant the super contentious stuff a more-or-less equal amount in the opposite direction: Rogan as more of a hero, with more flattering photographs and descriptions, and less of a villain; and anti-feminism as more of a neutral topic and feminism as something with a distinctly negative spin on it — perhaps even as slanted as the antifeminism article effectively is.
 * For me, coming from a deep internal understanding of not just the feminist position (which I took most of my life) but also the antifeminist positions, the article is so obviously biased toward the feminist conception and preferred understanding of antifeminism (and preferred public understanding of antifeminism) that it really says something if someone can't see the bias without it being proven to them (again, no offense, just describing what I see by taking you honestly, in good faith, that the bias is undetectable to you). Destrylevigriffith (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ...(cont'd)
 * That very inability to see any bias, if true, to be blunt, unfortunately for Wikipedia and the public who rely on it for impartial information, really suggests the distinct possibility that the bias is so ingrained in the overall perspective of the culture of top Wikipedia editors and administrators that it will be impossible to be pointed out or proven in any way whatsoever to your satisfaction (bureaucracies are always "correct" according to themselves from their own point of view — and it would be nothing but pure internal dogmatic fantasy for top Wikipedians to claim that Wikipedia is not in any way a bureaucracy (we do, after all, call such top-level management personnel administrators for a good reason).
 * Finally, for what it's worth, please consider that I do mean all of this in the spirit of open communication and in the context of my honest desire to see Wikipedia be its best and live up to its (very admirable) ideals. I mean that about all of the above, no matter how you choose to take it — which is at least partly up to you. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not even a little bit true that this article only cites feminist sources, but even if it were, that wouldn't necessarily make those sources unreliable. Or does the statement my politics do not (or should not) automatically relegate all of my observations to the status of mere opinions only apply to feminism? Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not users' deep internal understanding. If there are reliable sources the article doesn't cite, feel free to present them here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you type "best arguments against feminism" (or any other similar searches) into Google you will find plenty of articles making actual points genuinely (rather than points misunderstood and spun to sound objectionable). These are all articles in print and published, studies from scholarship in the lake here and there, plenty of stuff that could balance out the article and meet Wikipedia's technical standards (if they are interpreted honestly and not used to conveniently exclude all scholarship/quotes/citations that disagree with Wikipedia's preferred stance on the matter).
 * Now I don't expect you to necessarily feel motivated to go do this yourself as a trusted editor, but I sure as hell am not gonna spend hours and hours of my time doing it either if I know for a fact that it's all simply going to get reverted out of an unconscious political bias.
 * If you do that search and scan around glancing at articles, or even just their headlines, do you think that if I included any quotes from those and taught myself how to attach the sources, that any of those edits would be allowed to remain even if I just added them for balance without deleting anything else?
 * Or can you save me the time by affirming my suspicion that anything legitimately taking the antifeminism POV will be deemed an unrecognizable/illegitimate/not scholarly enough source in the first place. For example would there ever be any way to include a quote from Karen Straughan or Janice Fiamengo or Warren Farrell — or any top thinkers in the unfeminist/antifeminist world?
 * Honest questions. I've wasted a lot of my time trying to edit articles here and anything that moves a biased article toward anything like neutrality is always immediately reverted, sometimes with obvious irrationality (as when my Rogan article edits were reverted in bulk even when some of them had nothing to do with changing the tone of the article). Destrylevigriffith (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how we write articles. Per No original research, the best practice is to "research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words", not seek out specific arguments from supposed top thinkers. That would in fact lead to undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No wonder! So you guys officially just go hunt down whatever you feel like is and can justify as the "most reliable" sources (a notoriously flexible, slippery, subjective, and problematic method for anyone familiar with real research), and then "summarize what they say," and then Oopsie! Presto chango: Wikipedia's magic slant, that y'all somehow can't see.
 * All originating from your subjective choices of the "most reliable sources".
 * Well, at least I'm starting to get a better handle on how this all came about and keeps cropping up in the first place.
 * If any Wikipedians are interested in following the story, more and more people are covering the political bias creep on Wikipedia.
 * Point of fact it would be interesting to see an article ON Wikipedia's bias (of course it would be called a "claimed" bias, such as perhaps Claim of a Liberal-Progressive Bias on Wikipedia.
 * Omg. It'd be so funny to read. Awkward!
 * So I take it it's a (convenient) given that all "reliable" sources will be, by definition, feminists and scholars sympathetic to feminism. Any unfeminists or antifeminists will be, by definition, "not reliable", and so we will never see their views reflected on any Wikipedia article — even any purporting to explain their views.
 * It's a really cute little closed loop, to be honest. I'm sure an initially totally unintended systemic problem that just kind of ran away into the current strong lefty lean.
 * Probably the lean is the evolutionary outcome of a natural self-selection bias on the part of Wikipedia's top contributors, and then the increasing self-selection of the Academy, which is going to reinforce who feels comfortable most participating in Wikipedia as it reflects only academic consensus, which is going to make top editors feel more and more comfortable doubling down on only using mainstream academic sources that juuuuuuuuuuust so happen to share most of their political views... **
 * I mean there is a small element of self-consistency here when Wikipedians claim to simply reflect the "consensus" and then only count the liberal academic scholars as true authorities when they take their census for this consensus. It's like a study in the phenomenon of the echo chamber: round and round the reinforcement goes. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is "biased" in favor of reliable, mainstream scholarship. What counts as reliable is described in detail at Reliable sources. If you wish to change those standards, then the place to do so is at the talk pages of the relevant core content policies rather than tedious rants on individual article talk pages. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is "biased" in favor of reliable, mainstream scholarship. What counts as reliable is described in detail at Reliable sources. If you wish to change those standards, then the place to do so is at the talk pages of the relevant core content policies rather than tedious rants on individual article talk pages. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think the definition is correct?
Antifeminism, also spelled anti-feminism, is opposition to some or all forms of feminism. Sounds like feminists are antifeminists because, e.g. TERFs are in opposition to TIFs, radical and marxist feminists are in opposition to liberal feminists.--Reprarina (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think a major difference between antifeminists and those feminists you mentioned is that antifeminists do NOT consider themselves feminists. What do you say to this, ? Python Drink (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, it's the non-feminist opposition to some or all forms of feminism? sounds more correct... Reprarina (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I say, "Why ask me?" - Roxy the bad tempered dog 00:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current definition of antifeminism in the lead is misleading IMO. The fact is that by that definition, various different factions/branches of feminism would be antifeminist under the current definition in the lead which makes no sense. Radical feminist and sex-positive feminists appose each other, same with Radical and liberal feminists, TERFs and TIFS (as you said) and so forth. What the central issue here is that there is a lack of agreement of what qualifies as feminism and thus what qualifies as anti-feminism. Whether rejecting some forms of feminism is antifeminist is dependent on what you believe is a "true feminist" and what is not. This of course if the No true Scotsman fallacy in play. Thus whether people who endorse some forms or tenants of feminists but not others are antifeminists is debatable and WP should not take sides in that debate. Maybe we should rewrite the lead to say something like "Antifeminism, also spelled anti-feminism, is the opposition to feminism as a whole or just, as some would argue, to certain forms of feminism.". Then we should then, in the main body of the article, better describe the debate between different feminist strains/branches as to what qualifies as antifeminist since I don't believe a consensus currently exists as to the proper definition, even within feminism itself. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)