Revision as of 15:45, 25 February 2021 editSampayu (talk | contribs)220 edits →This article should be titled “antifeminism according to feminists”Tag: Reverted← Previous edit |
Revision as of 15:58, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 8) (botNext edit → |
(98 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
⚫ |
{{controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
⚫ |
{{Not a forum|antifeminism, feminism, antifeminists or feminists}} |
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|class=|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Michigan/Conservatives_and_Feminists_(Fall_2016) | assignments = ], ] }} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
⚫ |
{{Not a forum|antifeminism, feminism, antifeminists or feminists}} |
|
⚫ |
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
| archive = Talk:Antifeminism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Talk:Antifeminism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 7 |
|
| counter = 8 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
Line 22: |
Line 22: |
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
|
| {{cite book |editor1-last=Ging |editor1-first=Debbie |editor2-last=Siapera |editor2-first=Eugenia |title=Gender Hate Online: Understanding the New Anti-Feminism |date=2019 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-319-96226-9 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-96226-9 |url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-3-319-96226-9 |url-access=registration |via=]}} |
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=O’Donnell |first1=Jessica |title=Gamergate and Anti-Feminism in the Digital Age |date=2022 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-031-14057-0 |pages=109–138 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_4 |chapter=The Militaristic Discourse of Anti-feminism |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_4 |chapter-format=PDF |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}} |
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Ribieras |first1=Amélie |editor1-last=Carian |editor1-first=Emily K. |editor2-last=DiBranco |editor2-first=Alex |editor3-last=Ebin |editor3-first=Chelsea |title=Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right |series=Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right |date=2022 <!--|edition=1st--> |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |pages=67–93 |doi=10.4324/9781003164722 |chapter='I Want to Thank My Husband Fred for Letting Me Come Here,' or Phyllis Schlafly's Opportunistic Defense of Gender Hierarchy}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Excessive United States perspective == |
|
== Biased to womens rights,totally neglecting mens 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 ] and ]. ] (]) 12:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your efforts to bring this page closer to Misplaced Pages‘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/User_talk:EvergreenFir (scroll down to “reversion of anti-feminism page“). ] (]) 06:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Revert == |
|
|
|
|
|
Reverted an edit which added poorly sourced content, and one which removed a reliable source. –] (] ⋅ ]) 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 Misplaced Pages. The content of Misplaced Pages 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Revert == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just removed several references to US antifeminism for UNDUE. Looking through this article, I think it definitely skews to a US-centric perspective, although feminism is a global issue. <span style="color:#ef5224">]</span> (]) 12:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
Reverted removal of sourced content. –] (] ⋅ ]) 20:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Men's rights movement == |
|
There is no need for this article to contain offensive content. Stop reverting the edit please. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been inserted and removed and re-inserted in the lead; it probably ''should'' be covered in the article body, if only in a summary-style section linking to ], but it currently isn't. It'd be easy enough to cover - just a little bit summarizing ], with a toplink to that article. But where should it be placed in this article's structure? As a top-level subsection? Or does it fit into one of the existing subsections? -- ] (]) 21:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
== This article should be titled “antifeminism according to feminists” == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The men's rights movement was placed in the 21st century section so it is in the body, although I'm also not sure exactly where it should go because it originated in the 20th century. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 22:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
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 Misplaced Pages’s (somewhat) normal standards of flat, objective explanation. |
|
|
|
::Well, we could always move it to the 20th century. If we did that we might add a sentence about how it started in the 70's as a generally pro-feminist men's liberation movement and then split into pro- and anti-feminist strands (which is covered in the history section of its own article.) --] (]) 03:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yep that sounds like a good idea. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Feminism infobox == |
|
Maybe there should be a separate page about antifeminism as it is actually viewed by antifeminists, possibly connected by a disambiguation page? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the feminism infobox in this article, in the sub-section "Opposition to feminism", I believe the "Pro-feminism" and "Protofeminism" do not belong there. Those are clearly pro feminist topics and not about opposition to the movement. I would edit it myself, but wanted to check first here if I'm missing something. I also don't know how to edit the infobox! It somehow appears fully empty for me. ] (]) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 07:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}} 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.<font color=#21A9EB>►</font><span class="plainlinks"></span> 08:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I believe that "Opposition to feminism" is bolded not because it is a section header but because it redirects to Antifeminism. Compare to the infobox on <nowiki>]</nowiki> ] ] 17:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
: Have either of you found any reliable sources for antifeminists' views of themselves? ] (]) 13:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, in my case there's a bunch of reasons why I don't edit this article. Some of them are: |
|
|
::* I'm not an active Misplaced Pages editor anymore. I mean: I still contribute, but only occasionally. This however does not prevent me from noticing bias in articles. |
|
|
::* I'm brazilian, thus my most known antifeminist sources are written in portuguese. Anyway, I a realiable and very reputable source (it's a book that is probably the most important antifeminist one in today's Brazil). But it's written in portuguese and I didn't see much utility in citing it along the article's text of the english Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
::* If there's one thing that I learned through the years (I joined Misplaced Pages in 2008) is that, at the end of the day, no article is neutral, and the POV (point of view) that prevails in the articles is the one that is prevalent among ''wikipedians''. Neutrality around here is just theoretical, not a practical reality. Thus, because (active) ''wikipedians'' seem to be ] and ], if e.g. I edit the article to make it more "neutral", someone's going to edit it again in order to make it look more "feminist" (and such "feminist" modification will not be supported by any reliable and verifiable source). An example: did not cite any source and it applied a modification in the text that induces the reader to believe that abortion is a civil right (it makes it look as an accepted/indisputable truth that abortion is a right), even though this is highly debateable (e.g. the human being under development in the mother's womb has his/her own human and civil rights, and such individual is indeed not part of the mother's body because his/her DNA is not the same of the mother's). But because I am a minority of thinking here, I decided not to waste my time and energy in this type of "cycle" of edition wars. This, however, does not prevent me from noticing the bias.<font color=#21A9EB>►</font><span class="plainlinks"></span> 15:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
I've just removed several references to US antifeminism for UNDUE. Looking through this article, I think it definitely skews to a US-centric perspective, although feminism is a global issue. BrigadierG (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
In the feminism infobox in this article, in the sub-section "Opposition to feminism", I believe the "Pro-feminism" and "Protofeminism" do not belong there. Those are clearly pro feminist topics and not about opposition to the movement. I would edit it myself, but wanted to check first here if I'm missing something. I also don't know how to edit the infobox! It somehow appears fully empty for me. DuxCoverture (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)