Talk:Feminazi/Archive 2

Warnings: Ownership 2009
I have warned User:Soxwon and User:IronAngelAlice about their apparent ownership of this article at level 2. I'd like to take this opportunity to suggest that they draft an appropriate Expert, Third Opinion or RFC Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point I've lost interest. Soxwon (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How is the word used?
Soxwon, it seems that the crux of the argument we are having is the use of the word. You seem to think that the word is used only for "militant" feminists - and this is Rush Limbaughs contention. However, we have shown that Limbaugh actually uses the word (basically) for anyone who is pro-choice or anyone who is a feminist. The references I point to show a that the word in popular culture is routinely used to refer to any feminist. Can we discuss this before starting another edit war?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to settle this once and for all. For the opening, your own source (dictionary) uses militant or extremist! The second source in not available (and quite vague), and the third is not explicit as to whether the feminazis in question are considered militant or not. Your sweeping claim is POV. As for the rest, nowhere does the source use "intolerant of conservative values. That is an example of WP:SYN. Soxwon (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources for feminazi as extreme, militant feminism: ,, (“Feminazi,” the militant feminist), . Soxwon (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) The dictionary is not *my* source. But more importantly,  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Wikipedia gives context.
 * (2) I'm happy to compromise and take out "intolerant of conservative values." That phrase isn't even in the current version. Straw Man. (It was in the current version. I was just not paying attention to that part.)
 * (3) The .pdf's you just posted go to my point, not yours, though none of them are reliable sources.
 * The "M A K I N G W A V E S" article (which I don't even think is a reliable source states, "In the 1990s, the media hijacked the word “feminist” so that it came to represent militant, radical feminism, i.e. the Rush Limbaugh “FemiNazi” (Pozner,2003). “Feminist” has since become an insult, a derogatory term used to keep women in the roles patriarchy has defined for them."
 * The Mitchell.doc is also not a reliable source, and it references the Urban Dictionary (definitely not a reliable source): "Women in managerial and leadership positions have also been termed ‘militant or radical feminists’ (Place, 1982) and to the extreme, a ‘feminazi’ - any woman who insists on carrying out a gender war against men, or treats males in a similar way that the Nazi’s did Jews (www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feminazi)."
 * The generalsemantics.org pdf says, "Pula points out that Sommers never resorts to a Rush Limbaugh "Feminazis" style of name-calling" - it mentions nothing about the usage of "feminazi." Were you just trying to send me on a wild goose chase? --IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles are supposed to have dictionary definitions per What Wikipedia is not (first point). Moreover, the Merriam–Webster Dictionary is more neutral and more reliable than most of the sources which are currently used in the article, some of which do not support (and some even oppose) the claims they are supposed to be supporting. The reference to Katha Pollitt's interview, for example, which I removed stating that it failed verification and was restored with no clear explanation. And is there a quotation on the page saying Limbaugh was a DJ? It does really not seem relevant to the topic. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We definitely should include the Merriam-Webster definition, and we do. But we also give the article context per the What Wikipedia is not direction to "provide other types of information about that topic..." The sentence about Katha Pollitt has been removed because I mistakenly thought Limbaugh was referring to Pollitt as a "feminazi." However the reference to the RushLimbaugh.com page remains because Limbaugh claims to have coined the word "Feminazi" in that reference. The article definitely needs cleaned up because of all the quick editing from the past couple of weeks.  Some of the references I've posted make the case that the term "feminazi" is politically charged, and implies the dictionary definition does not entirely capture the context with which it is used by political entertainers such as Limbaugh, and the context it is used in popular culture to describe women in general (women who are pro-choice, liberal feminists, lesbians, etc.).  In other words, the sources make the case that the term is truly pejorative (as it says in the Merriam-Webster definition) and is meant to belittle  rather than describe "militant" characteristics.  So, it really boils down to a question of weight.
 * I'm going to step away for a few days as this debate is really, when it comes down to it, not worth my time. Ha! And I should probably procrastinate elsewhere. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion (revoked)
[elided request template]Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved Editors section
As an involved editor (at the level of page maintenance rather than content), I don't really understand the dispute. If one sentence options about article direction could be added to guide Third Party Editors in unravelling this dispute, that would be great.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, this is no longer no necessary, as the conflict has been resolved. Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we can take off the Unbalanced tag? Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've removed the tags. If you see a reason for a new tag, please start a new section and detail what help you need from other editors. As it is I think the article quotes its sources well. Something to keep in mind with pejorative terms; WP:Terrorist demonstratesw what exactly aan article needs to include these sort of words and yet nopt taint the NPOV of the article. Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

added more info
Not sure how well this will be recieved but I dug up some old articles and included them in the page. The reason I thought they might help is because they demonstrate that the word had been used elsewhere by other people than Rush. Sorry for the shoddy citations, please wikify them appropriately. :) Thanks and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Difference
Maybe we can use this

"Woman are equal to men" - Feminist

"Woman are equal to men, and all men are rapist" - Feminazi

86.83.228.117 (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not, since any assertion in the article would need to be verifiable. Good luck finding a reliable source for that assertion. It seems that the originators of the term intended it to refer toward attitudes on abortion, anyway. --Danger (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While this is the way that I, too, tend to think of the terms, we should also beware that very large proportions of (at least) the US and Swedish self-proclaimed "feminists" are in fact feminazis in that definition. It may be better to think in terms of equi-feminists and gender-feminist, with the former being the true feminists and the latter the feminazis. (Obviously, these terms are not quite synonymous, because the meaning of feminazi can vary considerably depending on context and speaker.)188.100.195.242 (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bizarre and unsourced assertion, and certainly one that I would reject as being false to the situation on the ground in the U.S. (can't speak for Sweden) among actual (as opposed to caricature) feminists such as myself, my wife, my daughter, etc. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh??
The opening line says Limbaugh uses the term to refer to feminists... but in reality, its only extreme ones. u should really put the word "some" in there to be correct. also, he never uses it just to refer to pro lifers, i dunno where you guys got that from but they apparently dont actually listen to the show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.39.173.42 (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "The feminazis gathered in Washington on Sunday, about a half-million of them it says here..." Kaldari (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the dictionary says it refers to "an extreme or militant feminist". --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There was already an extensive discussion over this and I still feel extremist should be added. Soxwon (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "In practice, Limbaugh uses the word to refer to anyone who is pro-choice.[12]" Whether or not the assertion is true, I don't see supporting information at the stated source.  --LM  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.32.178 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A question
Why is more of this article dedicated to Rush Limbaugh than to the definition of "Feminazi". In fact, Limbaugh(22X) is mentioned more often than "Feminazi"(10X) is. I went to Limbaugh's page thinking that maybe "Feminazi" would get more press there, but no. Only mentioned three times. I think Wikipedia has to get its editors straight on what their job is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.85.201 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a problem, particularly since it seems to not be able to decide if it's a term disparaging all feminists (which it isn't) or its most extreme flavors (which it applies more to). In my experience, it's applied normally to gender feminists, who have done things like advocate forcing women into the workforce because some women were deciding raising children was more rewarding for them, and the article ought to be adjusted to reflect what it's supposed to be about more, and the meaning of the term. 174.98.43.150 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC).

Far Right?
I don't think so. I am a member of the Tea Party, a Libertarian and I assure you that I am not anti-feminist. To me this just sounds like an attempt to imply that conservatives are anti-feminists. 71.31.60.236 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims
The reference following the last 2 sentences of the page does not support the assertion made. Also it reads like a political speech. Zimbazumba (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor has been BLOCKED from further editing.Cgingold (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A huge misinformation
"Hitler came to power against the strong feminist movement in Germany, padlocked the family planning clinics, and declared abortion a crime against the state" That aint true, Hitler was second european leader (after Lenin) to LEGALIZE abortion. This article lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.238.180.235 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you've been lied to. Hitler outlawed contraception and abortion for the people he wanted to reproduce, and encouraged, even forced abortion on those he considered "inferior"; it is that latter which the "pro-life" movement mischaracterizes as "legalizing abortion." Under Hitler, choosing abortion, if you were of good Aryan bloodlines, became "sabotage"; a crime punishable by hard labor for the woman and a possible death penalty for the abortionist. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum
In the Criticism section, the article made the following claim: "The term feminazi functions as a pejorative because it associates or compares feminists with Nazis, which makes the term an example of reductio ad Hitlerum." The claim appears to be original research with no references to support it. Moreover, it is also inaccurate. According to the linked article, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of association fallacy. For example, saying that because Nazi Germany had animal welfare laws, and the RSPCA supports animal welfare, the RSPCA must be Nazi. No such association is mentioned in this article. The opposite is found: "According to Steinem, 'Hitler came to power against the strong feminist movement in Germany, padlocked the family planning clinics, and declared abortion a crime against the state—all views that more closely resemble Rush Limbaugh’s.'" The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a feminazi as "an extreme or militant feminist". I looked through some of the other source material in the article, and I was not able to find any suggestion that feminazi implies association with the former National Socialist Party, any more than grammar Nazi does. This makes the unsourced reductio ad Hitlerum claim rather irrelevant. Therefore I have removed it. If you oppose this, please state why, and please provide sources, as well. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling somebody a Nazi associates them with the Nazis; it's as simple as that. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not, because not all comparisons to Nazis are examples of the reductio; it's as simple as that. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please add the sources for your claims to the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Joshua - When I removed your tags from the article a couple of days ago, it was because it was immediately obvious to me -- as a professional writer and copy-editor -- that there was no reason for them, plain and simple. It really left me scratching my head, wondering how it was possible for somebody to fail to see or comprehend the very clear linkage between the concepts involved. It never occurred to me that there was a running battle going on over this, so I didn't bother to look at the talk page. Having now read your explanation, I can only say that it is at once willfully obtuse and stunningly Tendentious. And having looked over the edit history, I see that several editors have each, independently removed your tags -- all for the same reason. You are the only editor who insists on pursuing this pointless battle. If you choose to persist, please be advised that you run the risk of being considered a Disruptive Editor. It's really time to move on, so we can all resume our efforts to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I deleted the line. It has no source. Find a source if you want the line in there. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, personally, the section is stronger against this term without the wishy-washy unsourced explanation of the obvious. Show, don't tell, as we say. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, Cgingold. First of all, I apologize for the lateness of my reply. I have had exams over the past few months, so I did not have the time to check for and reply to comments on this thread. Now, let's address the points that you have raised.
 * "it was immediately obvious to me -- as a professional writer and copy-editor -- that there was no reason for [the tags]"
 * I am glad that you are using your professional experience and skills to help Wikipedia, but while Wikipedia does not have an official policy on credentials, it is generally accepted that you cannot use them to overrule Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, especially not the core content policies.
 * "Having now read your explanation, I can only say that it is at once willfully obtuse and stunningly Tendentious. [...] You are the only editor who insists on pursuing this pointless battle. If you choose to persist, please be advised that you run the risk of being considered a Disruptive Editor."
 * How ironic it is, that you linked to WP:REHASH. The section immediately above the one that you linked to reads, "the policy on original research expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources". I am confident that the removal of unsourced, unverifiable synthesis does not constitute disruptive editing, but thanks for your advice.
 * "I see that several editors have each, independently removed your tags"
 * Policy says that Wikipedia is not a democracy; articles must follow the standards set by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, which are decided through consensus. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, original research or synthesis, you may raise the issue on the discussion pages of the respective policy documents. The editors who removed the tags did not provide a good explanation for their actions. I stated here how my revisions were in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Orange Mike's response is, unfortunately, not in line with Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and original research. It only states why Orange Mike considers the claim to be true, not how it is verifiable without original research. This is disappointing, since Orange Mike is an administrator and has been editing Wikipedia since 2004, yet seems not to understand two of Wikipedia's core content policies. Unless a reliable source has explicitly made the claim in question, it should not be on Wikipedia. The IP editor's claim that the source in the lead explains the origin of the term was rather irrelevant, since it did not address the concerns I had raised here. As I stated in the first comment, before I had removed the offending text, I had checked the sources, and failed to find any support for the claim.


 * I suggest that editors read and understand Wikipedia's core policies before making potentially controversial revisions. Happy editing! --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO Joshua's analysis at the beginning of this section is perfectly correct. Reductio ad Hilterum is a totally different concept. The word Nazi in "feminazi" simply implies "aggressive intolerant extremist". In fact it's comparable to the older term "bolshie", which derives from Bolshevik . "Femibolshi" would mean much the same thing. In neither case is there any specific comparison to the actual policies or practices of the relevant political parties, beyond their reputation for dictatorial behaviour and extremism. There are many comparable terms (e.g fashion fascist; health nazi; body nazi or body fascist etc etc etc) The "reductio" is a logical fallacy, which is comparable to the ad hominem fallacy. This is a semi-comic derogatory label, not a fallacious comparison within an argument, to suggest otherwise might be described as, well, stunningly obtuse. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I deleted this again. The answer to all the concerns is: get a source. No source, no appearance. Otherwise it would be WP:OR. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The sky is blue" does not need a source. Per You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Jim1138 (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but this is not comparable because it's spurious. Paul B (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A small sampling of comparisons Rush Limbaugh has made: When Rush calls feminists "feminazis", I think he intends to really, truly compare them to Nazis. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama "sending out his brownshirts"
 * "the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany"
 * "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate."
 * "The Obama health care logo is damn close to a Nazi swastika logo."
 * on Harry Reid: ""The Nazis Used To Accuse The Jews Of Poisoning The Wells"
 * on Obama campaign documentary: "Goebbels Would Have Not Allowed This One Out"
 * It does not matter what we as Wikipedia editors think. We do need a source for this. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He may well do, but that is not always how the term is used. And even if it were it would not make it a Reductio, because the Reductio requires a specific comparison of policies, opinions or whatever which are irrelevant to the moral judgement made. If Rush, say, thinks promoting widespread abortion is mass murder, and that therefore Nazis and feminists are on a moral par, then it is not an example of the Reductio. You don't have to agree with the argument to accept that it is not an example of the fallacy that Strauss had in mind. Paul B (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Orange Mike raised this at the NPOV board. Not A SINGLE non-involved editor has agreed with him: Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Useful sources

 * These are really weak examples. The latter is just an opinion piece written by someone with zero knowledge of the topic ("Propaganda minister Goebbels publicly stated that the Aryan race was a “myth” he had made up, but that this was okay as long as the myth made Germany strong." what utter ignorant rubbish. Goebbels did not make up the idea idea of the Aryan race. It had existed as a concept for nearly a century before him). The fact that journalists write idiotic pieces containing basic errors of history and logic is sad, but it should not be a guide to what we include. Still, you can attribute it if you are that desperate to keep this silliness. Both articles are really about "Godwin's law", anyway, which is a different issue. Chivers says that Godwin's law is "closely related" to the Reductio, which in some ways it is, but it remains different. Both of these are frivolous opinion pieces written by hacks with no discernable expertise in Nazism, Feminism, logic or linguistics. A genuinely sophisticated analysis of the semantic reach of the term by a real linguist can be found here (coincidentally discussing usages on Wikipedia) Paul B (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These are really weak examples. The latter is just an opinion piece written by someone with zero knowledge of the topic ("Propaganda minister Goebbels publicly stated that the Aryan race was a “myth” he had made up, but that this was okay as long as the myth made Germany strong." what utter ignorant rubbish. Goebbels did not make up the idea idea of the Aryan race. It had existed as a concept for nearly a century before him). The fact that journalists write idiotic pieces containing basic errors of history and logic is sad, but it should not be a guide to what we include. Still, you can attribute it if you are that desperate to keep this silliness. Both articles are really about "Godwin's law", anyway, which is a different issue. Chivers says that Godwin's law is "closely related" to the Reductio, which in some ways it is, but it remains different. Both of these are frivolous opinion pieces written by hacks with no discernable expertise in Nazism, Feminism, logic or linguistics. A genuinely sophisticated analysis of the semantic reach of the term by a real linguist can be found here (coincidentally discussing usages on Wikipedia) Paul B (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These are really weak examples. The latter is just an opinion piece written by someone with zero knowledge of the topic ("Propaganda minister Goebbels publicly stated that the Aryan race was a “myth” he had made up, but that this was okay as long as the myth made Germany strong." what utter ignorant rubbish. Goebbels did not make up the idea idea of the Aryan race. It had existed as a concept for nearly a century before him). The fact that journalists write idiotic pieces containing basic errors of history and logic is sad, but it should not be a guide to what we include. Still, you can attribute it if you are that desperate to keep this silliness. Both articles are really about "Godwin's law", anyway, which is a different issue. Chivers says that Godwin's law is "closely related" to the Reductio, which in some ways it is, but it remains different. Both of these are frivolous opinion pieces written by hacks with no discernable expertise in Nazism, Feminism, logic or linguistics. A genuinely sophisticated analysis of the semantic reach of the term by a real linguist can be found here (coincidentally discussing usages on Wikipedia) Paul B (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Etymology Attribution
First time I heard this word was the 1981 single "This Is Radio Clash" by The Clash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.50.73.2 (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I can't hear it or see it . Paul B (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Etymology
Removed reference to Thomas Hazlett being a adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and inserted reference to his position at the time the statement was made. Although Thomas Hazlett did author a couple of papers for the Cato Institute it was not concurrent with the writing of Rush's book. They (Hazlett/Limbaugh) would have known each other by the proximity of Davis CA and Sacramento CA where each worked in the 80's. I do have a policy question here. This section on "Feminazi" and the sub section on "Feminazi" in the main Rush Limbaugh article gave different references as to the status of professor Hazlett. So the question is; should a status reference of an individual be current or contemporaneous? I made this article agree with Hazlett's occupation at the time the term "Feminazi" was coined and the main Rush Limbaugh article shows a reference to Hazlett's 2013 position at George Mason University. They didn't agree before I edited this and they still don't ...MisterHOP (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC) One more thing; the footnote to the Cato Institute which I removed was a dead end link.MisterHOP (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would definitely say that we should use the status of a person at the time they are referenced, not at the time the article is written. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Humor
Rush Limbaugh says that Liberals have no humor. He uses the term to both make a point and to be funny about it. He spoke today and used the term concerning an NFL incident and said the olde Feminazis are bent out of shape because the young 'babes' "Don't get it." I'll include his quote as it becomes available on his website. He has not given up using the term (for humor and reporting news.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, he says he knows how to 'tweek' the Left, and enjoys doing it. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you need to be a subscriber to read the following: July 29, 2014 “The feminazis, the feminazis are fried! They're really worked up over the Ray Rice suspension, the Baltimore Ravens. The commissioner of the NFL sent a guy out to try to explain what happened. He ended up throwing gasoline on the fire, made it worse. I watched a couple of women on CNN this morning just livid. These were elderly feminazis. By the way, that's another thing. There's another story that I have in the Stack here, and we've been talking about this, this fascinating demographic stuff. Young women, millennial women rejecting militant feminism, rejecting feminazi-ism, and they've even got a hashtag: "We're not feminists" or some such thing. And the elderly feminazis are livid. They're ticked off. They don't think the young babes get it. The young babes think that the old feminazis are really not even about women, they're just liberals, which is true. They're just activists.” http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/07/29/drive_by_media_outrage_over_ray_rice_creates_backlash_against_liberal_social_engineering_through_sports
 * Rush calls them "two aging dinosaur Jurassic Park feminazis" who want the sports broadcaster fired and the NFL player to get more than a two game suspension for the NFL player who gave his fiance (who still stands by her man and loves him) an uppercut after she spit upon him in the elevator. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC) PS:  If you want to know more, just ask me.

Selectively misquoting the reference
This is what the article says:

The term is used pejoratively to attack feminists who have been successful or who are perceived as extreme. http://books.google.com/books?id=TZs-PBVD_p8C&pg=PA177

And this is what the reference says:

..."he (Rush Limbaugh) is attacking women who have been most successful in the fight against rape"

I reverted this, because a) It doesn't match, and b) This is an example of the use of the word as used by one person, and interpreted by another.

Zambelo ; talk 08:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well spoken; thanks. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Feminazis don't criticize in 2015?
The originator of the term questions the lack of their political activation when it comes to Muslim Islamic-refugees who are women. He is using political satire to support his point. Headline-1: Quick Hits Page QUOTE: "Where is the concern for any Muslim woman, by the way, from the usual feminazi groups in this country?" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing
 * http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/11/18/quick_hits_page

Playboy
I vaguely recall Playboy calling second-wave feminists "their natural enemies" in the late '70s or early '80s; while "Feminazi" may not have been used, the graphic of feminists as Brownshirts was certainly used, if memory serves. Meme territory, but there you have it. kencf0618 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Non sequitur
I'm removing the last paragraph of the etymology and use section b/c it's a non sequitur constituting WP:SYNTH or WP:OR (one or the other or both). None of the cited sources mention the term feminazi, let alone make the connection between these statements and feminazis. Here's what it said: "Other political commentators have also made comparisons between militant feminism and totalitarian ideologies. In 1994, Camille Paglia described some feminist groups as "Stalinist" for engaging in what she describes as censorship and quashing of dissent.[17][18] In 1983, a year before Limbaugh debuted as a political talk-show host, anarchist Bob Black wrote an essay called "Feminism as Fascism".[19]" PermStrump (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that this paragraph belongs into the article...just not into the section it was in. I think there needs to be a new section that features that paragraph. I can't think of a fitting name though - anyone else? --Fixuture (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs more information.
I feel like this article needs to draw more attention to the fact that this term is used heavily on the internet when it comes to attacking feminists. Also it seems like many if not all of the sources come from feminist leaning sources, it may be good, if possible to see what some "anti-feminist" sources have to say about this subject.

Mapearce1 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Limbaugh
The article seems to be mostly about Rush Limbaugh at present, who is almost unknown outside the US (or viewed with derision). The 'feminazi' term is used much more widely than that, usually to describe a feminist who makes unreasonable and/or misandric statements. --Ef80 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with this statement. I came to the Feminazi page as a reader and I've never even heard of Rush Limbaugh. In other words, the focus on Limbaugh constitutes "undue weight" and "worldview" violations. Really, he only deserves one sentence in this article.Newzild (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One's personal lack of knowledge isn't a reason to divorce a term from its well-known origins. Ongepotchket (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Feminazis are completely different from Feminists.
I believe that this Wiki page has Feminazis mixed up with Feminists.

Here is the difference:

- A feminist is (most likely) a woman who is pro-equality (wants equal treatment for all genders). We love powerful people like this!!

- A feminazi is someone who just hates men but hide under the lie that they are feminists and that they are wanting equality, when they are really just causing trouble and seem to be filling the world and internet with such a large and heart-breaking amount of hatred. This awful hate may stem from a past relationship, or just one man who may have said the wrong thing to a woman.

You wouldn't let a man verbally abuse a woman or even physically abuse a woman. Why let a feminazi do this to a man? Why would you want anyone to hurt someone, no matter the gender.

This was written by a man, which in a way makes it irrelevant.

ColeMate (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

2017 Women's March
While this is certainly topical, not having a reliable, secondary source commenting specifically on this instance of the word makes it hard to tell whether it belongs in this article, so I've removed it for now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition
If a term is used by and large by a particular group of people, doesn’t it make sense to define it by saying what those people mean when they use it. This is bad practice, it is nessesary to express what is meant by the term by those who use it and also offer counter perspectives instead of straw-manning the term by defining it historically and not including modern usage and defining it solely from the perspective of those whom it is intended to critique. Euvtahnus (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable, published, secondary sources offering a perspective not covered in the article, feel free to suggest them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And that does not mean that the exisiting sourced definitions should be removed. Meters (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a definition should form a better context for how it is used in real life, what basic context it might be placed in, or what level of abstraction we use it: A feminazi is a pejorative for a certain type of feminist who makes radical statements or other behaviors that may be violent or controversial due to an irrational belief that women's rights or privileges have been violated. The term pairs feminism with the Nazi party of Germany. A feminist is a person who believes that women should have equal rights and opportunities as men. The Nazi party, in this context, was a movement that used warfare and ethnic cleansing and was convicted by a world tribunal for crimes against humanity. The term Feminazi has a strong emotional appeal that is oftentimes related to a given individual or collective and based on hypothetical expressions rather than assertions of fact. 173.22.5.136 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "an irrational belief?" Carptrash (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That was a useless comment, obfuscating the valid suggestion that we talk about the users of the term. A useful comment would be a suggestion of a source, or a suggestion of how to summarize multiple sources, with links to the sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggested fixes
I apologize if I am overlooking something here that others more involved on this topic are more aware of. However, this topic as it stands seems to have many issues with it that affect both its readability and sense of purpose. Here is my proposed edit as well as some suggestion and things I can't add myself but feel they should be added once more information on the topics can be obtained.

"According to The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang, feminazi refers (pejoratively) to "a committed feminist or a strong- willed woman". The term is a portmanteau of the nouns feminist and Nazi. Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh popularized the term among his listeners. In his 1992 book The Way Things Ought to Be, Limbaugh wrote that feminazi refers to "radical feminists" whose goal is "to see that there are as many abortions as possible". However, he credited Thomas Hazlett, professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, with first coining the term."

As I don't want to unfairly remove others hard work, I'll wait for a go-ahead to implement these changes myself if it is okay for me to do such a massive edit. I don't have the powers to move this article but if that becomes the consensus from what I've written I would also personally advocate for it from the state this article is in currently.
 * the first paragraph is enough to address the origin and the extra comments don't really add much to this idea, except for the small part at the end of the second sentence that states that Rush Limbaugh calls his listeners "dittoheads", which isn't expanded on any further and doesn't add any relevant information.
 * the first part of the second paragraph is relatively awkward as it starts with "In 1992, Limbaugh wrote" despite it referencing from the book Limbaugh was stated to have written in the previous paragraph of the article. On top of this, the second part of the second paragraph discusses Gloria Steinem seemingly responding to Limbaugh's definition of "feminazi" as if she was directly being referenced as a "feminazi". However, all we are led to believe so far in the article is that Steinem is a "women's rights activist" and that Limbaugh is discussing specifically the concept of "radical feminists whose goal is to see that there are as many abortions as possible". I and most reading this article are not necessarily knowledgeable of the history between Steinem and Limbaugh and thus this may be better suited for its own section entirely(Perhaps even replacing the "Cultural Impact" section I discuss below). Both parts considered, I think editing the first part of this second paragraph into the first paragraph would be much more concise.
 * the third and fourth paragraph appear worthy of removal since they either discuss things discussed earlier in the article are simply express that Limbaugh's definition isn't true, is a bullying tactic to silence women, and is "propaganda". all of these accusations are simply stated without any context to how they apply to the particular definition being discussed and don't add much to the point of this article of demonstrating what a feminazi is. With added context, perhaps some of these can be salvaged for a new section of this article, but for now, they seem to distract more than they help.
 * The "Cultural Impact" section suffers from the same problem paragraph 3 and 4 do. They simply state accusations and opinions of Limbaugh's definition without any context to what is being said. The only part that seems to fit here is the start of the last paragraph where Steinem's suggested boycott is mentioned, this certainly can be used for a new section if more information is provided on the boycott, it's outcome, etc.
 * Overall, I've noticed that most of my suggestion are essentially an encyclopedic version of how Wiktionary defines this same term. This, I feel, means that if this is to be purposeful as a Wikipedia article it should expand beyond the wikitionary-provided origin and definition of the word. Particularly, discussing the more modern usage of the word. Most of this article focuses on Limbaugh because he was the first to popularize it but as I've personally heard of the term it exists in a far larger circle. Who are these other groups and how are these other groups using this term? Answering these question would surely add to discussing the term rather than defining and generally criticizing it.
 * Another option could be moving this Limbaugh-centered article to the "Views" section of Rush Limbaugh's Wikipedia article. In fact, the point that Limbaugh popularized the term "feminazi" is the main point in the "Feminism" section of the "Views" section of his Wikipedia article. simply moving and rewriting this information there could very much add to the breadth of his article and wikitionary could simply pick up the slack for defining the wider use of this term I speculated.

JohnWerewright1 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note: since feminazi is a term employed by Limbaugh and others to slander women, the "point" of this article is to show the history, usage, and cultural impact of the term itself, not to demonstrate what a feminazi "is". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

10 June 2018
This page is “protected” which is absolute non-sense. If this is to be open to peer review, this lock should be removed. Limbaugh would agree. Ehriddle (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was protected due to persistent vandalism. See history. Jim1138 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Womanpower logo.svg

21 June 2019
Modern feminists believe that visual image of women in media or art that induce sexual desire, it`s a very bad. This philosophy is same as ultraconservative moral advocated by far-right. How about that? Is this radical? Perfect Mask (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * please read What Wikipedia is not. We don't publish original research, and is not a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard
There's currently a discussion about this article at WP:NPOV/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Sangdeboeuf - User:Rolling Phantom is correct, it should be radical feminists. But he should drop "overly" and drop the cite.  The line as phrased is stating what Limbaugh popularized, which is later stated to be for "radical feminists".  (That would also seem the common understanding for a portmanteau ending '-nazi'.)   The line in the lead is then summarizing the article content and per WP:LEAD should not be marked with a cite -- particularly not one different from what the body is using.   The term also seems applied to all feminists by far right individuals, and that POV should be stated but should not be portrayed as the only or main usage.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we have multiple published, secondary sources saying "feminists" full stop (not "radical feminists"), Please provide equivalent sources that say otherwise. I'm not sure why this comment was posted here rather than at the NPOV noticeboard, where the discussion is still active. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 16:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC))
 * "Radical" in this sense is the subjective "I think it goes too far," not a specific strain of feminist thought. As such, it's a value judgment and needs to either be omitted or framed as such. Saying it refers to "radical feminists" without heavily qualifying the use of that term seems misleading (the gist of what I just wrote at NPOVN). It's possible there's something to add beyond just saying "feminists" in the lead, but I'm not sure how to word that. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Radical" in this sense is the subjective "I think it goes too far," not a specific strain of feminist thought. As such, it's a value judgment and needs to either be omitted or framed as such. Saying it refers to "radical feminists" without heavily qualifying the use of that term seems misleading (the gist of what I just wrote at NPOVN). It's possible there's something to add beyond just saying "feminists" in the lead, but I'm not sure how to word that. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition
Every dictionary I could find has defined a "feminazi" as a radical feminist. Even Rush Limbaugh himself, who this article credits from creating the word, defines a femenazi as radical. Only one source says otherwise. And I don't think WP:NOTDIC is applicable here. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The "one source" who disagrees is published by Oxford University Press, a highly respected academic publisher. Therefore we should give its views more weight than the majority of the above websites, and certainly more weight than Rush Limbaugh. That he popularized the term does not make him the authority on its meaning or usage. Multiple sources cited in the article actually disagree that the term is used only for "radical" feminists, which is a highly charged and misleading term in any case. WP:NOTDICT says we consider more than dictionary definitions when writing about words. Otherwise we'd be nothing but a meta-dictionary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that you were somewhat overeager in trimming my sources. For instance, you removed lexico.com, which is the online Oxford dictionary. I was not at all selective about the definitions that I chose. I just pulled up as many online dictionaries as I could, and I did not encounter any that failed to define feminazi as an extreme, militant, or radical feminist. I am amazed that even one dictionary failed to include these qualifiers in it's definition, even if it is just an obscure publication from 2006 that is not available online (Oxford's mainstream dictionary gives a different definition).
 * Those who use the word are quite clear about what they mean: It refers to extreme, radical, or militant feminists. The in-article sources that apply feminazi to all feminists are all feminist sources. It appears that they are re-defining the word in order to strawman their opposition. This is a common reaction to an insult. While one obscure dictionary defines feminazi to apply to all feminists, the consensus of reliable sources on lexology, and all sources by those who use the word against others make it clear that the a feminazi is an extreme feminist. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are now two Oxford sources (Lexico.com and the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang) that define a feminazi as radical or militant, and both are more recent than the 2006 source that you cited. I think it is fair to say that this source has been subsumed by more recent and reliable ones, or at very least that it is given undue weight as cited under "Origin and usage". Therefore I have removed it from that section. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This refbomb looks to include nothing but online dictionaries, including a crowdsourced dictionary that gives, as the example sentence, the user-submitted: "I'm living proof that not all women get paid less than men. Bottom line: feminazis, stop your bitching." That's not great source evaluation there. Furthermore, this is a subject that has been discussed in better quality sources than online dictionaries. As we are here to explain a concept rather than to define a term, we should be looking primarily at what other sources say. That's not to say there's no place for a dictionary, but that it's not the ideal.
 * I've rolled back these major changes to the lead for now, pending discussion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Changes August 2019
why did you remove well-sourced information and multiple quality references in favor of Dictionary.com and Media Matters for America? Neither of these is a particularly high-quality source. You removed the entire "Origin and usage" section as well as as several reliably-sourced categories. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

DRN notice
Note to editors. There is a discussion in the DRN noticeboard currently regarding the neutrality (and recent edits) of this article. — Srid 🍁 04:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead image
the image you added does not illustrate the topic. It's no more appropriate as a main image than would be at Abortion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * - That analogy does not hold. Adding an anti-abortion image to Abortion is obviously inappropriate. So is adding to Feminism. But that's not what happened here. This is an article on the pejorative term "feminazi" (not feminism). The image even literally includes the word "feminazi". Your stated reason is thus invalid. — Srid 🍁 14:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What does feminism have to do with anything? Yes, the image includes the word "feminazi"; so what? This image includes the word "abortion". Images should illustrate the topic. A bunch of random people opposed to so-called "feminazis" does not illustrate the concept "feminazi" itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. I brought up feminism only to illustrate (as I did above) that your analogy (using abortion) does not hold any water.
 * 2. feminazi is not a concept; nor is it a movement/ideology (like feminism) or an act (like abortion). It is a political term. And a pejorative one at that.
 * 3. Given that this article is about the political term, the image of Polish protestors (not "a bunch of random people") holding signs with the term 'feminazi' is entirely appropriate. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, ; this image illustrates both the pejorative nature (it being a protest against feminism) and the categorical nature (clear terminology in the signs) of the article.
 * — Srid 🍁 19:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. This doesn't explain anything. What does feminism have to do with the analogy to abortion?2. This makes no sense. If it's just a term, then what are the protesters protesting exactly?3. Without a published, reliable source connecting this specific group to the term/concept feminazi, it's just a picture of some "extremist nationalists" holding signs. We're not here to amplify the cause of "extremist nationalists"; see WP:FRINGE. What makes this one image significant and relevant, beyond being the first one to pop up when you search for "feminazi" at Commons? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Lede
I've added a new section titled "Modern usage" with sufficient number of sources so as to cover the article in proportion (per WP:PROPORTION) to published material. The lede now looks extremely imbalanced. In particular it starts with the descriptor "a pejorative term for feminists" when in fact there is exactly one source that backs it up, and that too by a not-so-reliable book from Gloria Steinem. One person cannot be given authority to define the lede when numerous scholarly sources cover it in much wider depth with added nuance. — Srid 🍁 02:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources back up the "pejorative term for feminists" wording: Several of the sources you added, such as I Am Not a Feminist, But...': How Feminism Became the F-Word" by Toril Moi, "Perceiving Subtle Sexism: Mapping the Social-Psychological Forces and Legal Narratives that Obscure Gender Bias" by Deborah L. Brake, and "Gender-based harassment in cyberspace. The case of Pikara magazine" by Alberto Jonay Rodríguez-Darias and Laura Aguilera-Ávila, reinforce this point as well. There is certainly room to expand the lead, but calling this a term mainly used for so-called "radical feminists" is not backed up by reliable, independent sources, whatever Limbaugh himself may say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost all of your sources are popular books, by authors who are not established experts in the subject. From my research I can confirm that the term is not exclusively applied to radical feminists; indeed as you link to some of my sources, they use it in a specific context, such as . The lede, however, paints a picture of as if the term is used towards *all* feminists, which this is not what the academic sources agree on. — Srid 🍁 15:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the scare quotes in that passage you just cited? The author is talking about popular portrayals ("the dominant story") of "women and minorities" who are labeled derogatory things like feminazi. I have no idea why you think that the sources you added are any more from "experts" than the ones already cited. Where do you see any "experts" saying that this is more than a "pejorative term for feminists"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For the onlookers, the discussion on lede is spread across multiple sections below. See the section on Blake for example. — Srid 🍁 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Deborah Brake (as in slam on the brakes) doesn't say what you think she does. I have yet to see a specific quote from any of these vaunted academic sources disputing that the term is an insult for feminists in general. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Schaffer (1998), discussed below, is another source that links "feminazis" with "feminists", full stop: —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Schaffer (1998), discussed below, is another source that links "feminazis" with "feminists", full stop: —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Schaffer (1998)
This statement is highly POV, begging the question of whether the law is being used to "threaten the livelihood" of anyone and whether the men involved are in fact "innocent". I don't have access to this source at the moment. , can you perhaps quote the specific passage you based the above statement on? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * - It is an aspect of the term's usage, and what is the problem? The article should represent all POV in proportion. See WP:PROPORTION. — Srid 🍁 14:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I got hold of a copy of this article through WP:RX; from a glance at the source, it's clear that Schaffer is talking about popular portrayals of so-called "feminazis", not real-world "actions". Here's the relevant passage, from a discussion of populist radio talk-show host John Laws (my bolding): Feminazis here is a reference to Laws' own use of the term, which Schaffer calls a "ploy" to exploit his listeners' "fear and nostalgia". Clearly "elusive media construct" is the academic phrase for "utter bullshit". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding what wikipedia is. If the truth is bullshit, Wikipedia does not care (see WP:NOTTRUTH). This article is about the term, and it should give an encyclopedic view of how the term is actually used (whether it is used by people justly or "correctly" or not is irrelevant). — Srid 🍁 15:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is you who misunderstand. I never said anything about "the truth". The "actions" you described in your addition of the material in question are not real according to the source. They do not exist. Hence there is nothing to "[attract] usage of the term". We can certainly describe how Laws and others use the term, assuming their views are not unduly weighted. But the text in question does not do that according to the source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is you who misunderstand. I never said anything about "the truth". The "actions" you described in your addition of the material in question are not real according to the source. They do not exist. Hence there is nothing to "[attract] usage of the term". We can certainly describe how Laws and others use the term, assuming their views are not unduly weighted. But the text in question does not do that according to the source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Why are you bringing Laws into this? The source does not indicate that John Laws made the sexual harassment law comment. What Laws and his callers indicated was they don't make "good mothers" (which is why I never included that in the article). — Srid 🍁 16:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Upon re-reading I can see your objection to the "specific actions" phrasing. So that part can indeed be rephrased to better describe what the source states. — Srid 🍁 16:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is the one who mentions Laws using the term feminazi, on the same page as the passage you cited: This is the context in which Schaffer is describing "feminazis" as "an elusive media construct". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC) (edited 20:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC))

Crispin (2017)
Jessa Crispin writes: "I hear the word feminazi coming from young feminists' mouths today way more often than I have ever heard it coming from the mouths of right-wing men. And they're using it in a similar way, to shame and disassociate themselves from the activists and revolutionaries."

This is an interesting observation, but it's at odds with most of the published sources we cite. Nor does Crispin elaborate on who these "young feminists" are. It would be preferable to have more thorough sourcing for this apparently important claim than a mere personal anecdote, so I've removed it for now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, "" excludes many academic sources that I added (which you later reverted) which is not at odds with Crispin. — Srid 🍁 16:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Where? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here. — Srid 🍁 16:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Where do any of those sources say anything about "young feminists" using the term feminazi? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm responding to your claim: "it's at odds with most of the published sources we cite" with the emphasize on "at odds with". The many academic sources that I added (which you later reverted) are not at odds with Crispin. Besides, the Cripsin source does have to to agree word by word with other sources; and my edit did not state it as a fact, rather prefixed it with "According to Crispin, ...". — Srid 🍁 16:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim that the term is coming out of "young feminists' mouths" is at odds with most of our sources, which link the term with a general opposition to feminism in the culture at large or by Limbaugh specifically: In what way are your sources "not at odds with" Crispin's claim? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See the section on Blake source below for just one example, which provides a more specific context to the term, which is completely in alignment of general direction (not exactness) with where Crispin is getting at. Of course it goes without saying that your active refusal to include this (among others) violates WP:BALANCE. — Srid 🍁 20:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What general direction is that? Crispin says the term is used by "young feminists" and "right-wing men" to denigrate "activists and revolutionaries"; Brake says it's part of a "dominant story" about "women and minorities". Those are not necessarily the same people at all, either using the term or being represented by it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What general direction is that? Crispin says the term is used by "young feminists" and "right-wing men" to denigrate "activists and revolutionaries"; Brake says it's part of a "dominant story" about "women and minorities". Those are not necessarily the same people at all, either using the term or being represented by it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)