Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:35, 13 June 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Antifeminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

It is requested that an image or photograph of Antifeminism be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about antifeminism, feminism, antifeminists or feminists. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about antifeminism, feminism, antifeminists or feminists at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This entire article needs a rewrite

I find it utterly absurd to read an article about anti-feminism - as described by feminists! That's like asking beliebers to summarize critique of Justin Bieber. Who cares how a feminist author defines anti-feminism? That is as biased as you could possibly get, and completely irrelevant for establishing some sort of definition.

And it shows: The entire form of this article is nonsense. Anti-feminism is no more an ideology than atheism is a religion, that much is clear from the word itself. Yet this article tries to jumble everything from opposition towards women's suffrage to humanism into some single crazy ideology, which to my knowledge nobody subscribes to.

And why are the only notable "anti-feminists" mentioned here feminists? Where is Karen Straughan, the most notable anti-feminist of today, viewed by more than a million people, and invited to conferences everywhere? Where is Julie Borowski, who is so frequently quoted in the libertarian debate? Where are all the female celebreties who have objected against feminism? Even people who are often mistaken for being feminists, such as Erykah Badu.

This entire article - as it stands - is a sham, and makes me embarrassed of being a Wikipedian. Somebody fix it! 129.240.223.43 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As a previous donator, it's articles like this that make me regret it (and I certainly won't be donating in the future). Considering Misplaced Pages is supposed to be unbiased, it does a very poor job on practically any article related to feminism due to feminists tenacity to spread their propaganda. While I'd be willing to accept an article being biased for a few months, I'd expect it to be cleaned up eventually, considering the argument of the bias of this article has been going on for 3 years now - I find it unlikely that the feminist bias in Misplaced Pages will allow this article to ever represent facts (or at least the views of ACTUAL anti-feminists). Using Michael Kimmel as a line one item for a definition what Anti-feminists are (He is a DEVOUT feminist) is the most absurd thing I have ever heard, but it is allowed to continue because of the feminist bias, and any attempt to change it is met with immediate reverts by biased editors. This is Misplaced Pages's shame. 146.199.122.44 (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Everywhere you look on Misplaced Pages there is some sociology student who owns his or her pet article and won't let anyone add any knowledge by constantly reverting it with a WP:CABAL while explaining it by mumbo-jumbo. Seriously, people should just go and edit their PhD instead of reverting someone else's edit. Isn't this what feminism opposes? Powerlessness etc?--Cubancigar11 (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this page is one of the least impartial I have seen on Misplaced Pages. Cacra (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty bizarre indeed. I really don't understand how anyone could ignore the massive elephant in the room, and maintain that this is an unbiased article. "Opposition and resisters have proclaimed their hatred for the alteration of gender roles. These people have worked diligently since then to slow down the crusade by creating their own: antifeminism. ", ehm seriously?Didaev (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Opposition to female suffrage in lead

I recently made a good change to the lead by placing the opposition to female suffrage in some historical context and earlier in the lead than it was (and now is again) which is right at the end. The editor who reverted my edit claimed that it was unsourced, but as the fact is already sourced (to Maddux) in the body of the article this wasn't really necessary. Besides that editor could easily have sourced it himself. I suggest that my edit be restored. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that should be there, but where were you suggesting it go? The lead as it is now talks about some of the beliefs of anti feminists and then the suffrage bit is listed... - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"One historic goal of antifeminists was opposition to women's suffrage."

It's true that suffrage was one of the main sticking points of anti-feminism. I'm all for a well-composed sentence saying so, highlighting the importance. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the problem isn't that it's there, it's that we don't identify other causes espoused by antifeminists. If people can add and source more, that would be great. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

People seem to be missing the point of my request above. Placing opposition to female suffrage at the end of the lead as an "historic goal of antifeminism" is less than ideal. Even in a brief lead there should be some sense of chronology and opposition to female suffrage in the West (as the focus of this article seems to be the advanced industrial nations) was antifeminism's centerpiece back when suffrage was feminism's centerpiece. That was during the First Wave Feminism of the 19th and early 20th century. Thus the fact should appear earlier in the lead and specifically be tied to that time period. It shouldn't be a tag line at the end. Also, why say "historic" which is ambivalent in this context (Does it merely mean important in history or ongoing through history; it can mean either or both?). 131.109.225.24 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this seems reasonable to me. You could register as an editor and make the change yourself, but I'll give it a try. KatieHepPal (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It should not be in the lead at all. It does not belong there. Galestar (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is that? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

For the very reason you want it in there: It's there only to poison the well. It's like mentioning in the lead of the article about feminism that an example of a belief some feminists have is that all men should be castrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.11.109 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Galestar. An Anti-suffragism article already exists 80.111.246.210 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Alexis Christian

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Anti-suffragism

Criticism of Feminism

Why does Criticism of Feminism not warrant its own article or even subheading on the Feminism page? Everything from Socialism to Democracy have their own separate criticism pages. But not Feminism. Why not?

Is antifeminism not a criticism of feminism? Meşteşugarul - U 09:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The non-NPOV of the editors of this page have made this article more a "criticism of critics of feminism" than a "criticisms of feminism" page. Galestar (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the article attempting to illustrate? Is it trying to accurately represent the ideas and concepts of those who identify as anti-feminists? Is the article trying to represent a group of ideas and concepts feminists believe are anti-feminism? This question has to be resolved first, and then a coherent entry can be structured. At present is seems to constructed of, almost entirely, claims by feminists about critiques of feminism. The referencing, against almost entirely, seems to be constituted of just where these feminism oriented accusations were just first published. I think it would be helpful if the variable, feminism in this case, was just replaced with any other socio-political philosophy. For example, would there be an anti-capitalism, or anti-libertarian, or anti-communitarian entry on Misplaced Pages? If the answer is no, then that argument form holds here also. Unfortunately, there's a bit of a pattern on Misplaced Pages regarding this general subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.117.176 (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead edits again

Galestar is trying to https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Antifeminism&curid=3354802&diff=651874207&oldid=651873973 add] something about misandry to lead, despite being reverted a few times, failing to WP:BRD, and against WP:LEAD. To translate, the lead summarizes the article. It's not the place to stick factoids and refs are to be avoided. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

When I deleted an example with a source, you reverted. When I add my own you revert and state that examples and sources don't belong there. You are obviously not playing by the same rulebook that you expect everyone else to adhere to. Galestar (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

On the substance of the competing examples I would argue that mine more accurately reflects the rest of the article.

It also does not serve the article to have its lede dominated by a 100-year old example. Galestar (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion! If you look at the talk page archives, you'll see where the suffrage example was discussed. You'll also see the WP:CONSENSUS that was gained for the lead in general. Your account is old, so I'm not going to assume you don't know the rules. It's UNDUE to stick a not-widely-held idea in the lead, even if it's sourced. Go stick it in the body of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a widely-held thought among antifeminists. Being antisuffrage is not widely held, and happened before first-wave feminism was even feminism. It is quite the reach to claim that this antisuffrage example is a summary of the article. I say go stick your example in the article. Galestar (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's already in there. Which is why it's in the lead. ;) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I will place my content in both places then. Galestar (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

aaand done. Galestar (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The material you added to the lead is redundant with the last sentence of the existing lead, so I've removed it. Kaldari (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing the History of Anti-Feminism Section

That whole section needs to be redone. I'm thinking of having the history of Antifeminism be the same as the progression of Antifeminism and only move to a different time period when the motives have changed or when the antifeminists changed their tactics. Here's my proposed order:

1. Mid Twentieth Century: Antifeminism during the Second red Scare

  a.	The Washington Confidential post in 1951
    i.	How the government jobs for women increased and decreased afterwards
  b.	What politicians did to calm the storm
    i.	Used fear of communism to get people on their side
    ii.Feminazi
  c.	Initial motives of antifeminism and how people define feminism because of these motives

2. Late Twentieth Century: ERA campaigning

  a.	New Tactic: It’s Social injustice to those who wanted to change the hierarchy
  b.	Right-wing conservatives banded with powerful politicians to make the majority of the opposing vote
  c.	Demographics shifted here because feminism got more widespread and educated some people out
  d.	Why people who would benefit from the act still opposed it

3. Late Twentieth Century: After ERA

  a.	How antifeminists degraded feminism through media
  b.	New tactic: Feminism tears families apart
    i.	Masculinism
    ii.What the new demographics are and why such demographics are involved
    iii.Bell hooks’ mother is in this era. She can be an example

4. Anti Feminism today

  a.	“Women Against Feminism”
    i.	Demographics are “ignorant” people who misunderstand feminism or follow its bad stereotypes
    ii.Motives have become more about that there is no inequality so there shouldn’t be feminism

NYCCgirl1 (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)NYCCgirl1

Regarding recent unsourced changes

@Hmlewis 728:: Your edits are being removed because they are unsourced (we require sources for new info) original research (which we don't take). I've explained on your talk page how to identify and cite reliable sources, which you would need plenty of for your addition to avoid it just being just as much a strawman argument as you accuse feminists of making. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for the lead

Could we have some examples of antifeminism that is more recent? The current time is the late 20th / early 21th century. If anti-suffrage is still relevant that would imply that the antifeminists were either extremely stubborn or extremely inactive in the last 200 years. An example could be the rejection of compulsatory women ratios in management or public office.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we could use more examples. At least in the United States, opposition to antidiscrimination laws such as the ERA is a big one, and we can certainly think of more. I'm not sure how much "compulsatory women ratios" is a big organizing principle. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought about that, but cited/reliable sources are hard to find... there are articles on women ratios in management but no opinions are presented, and Wiki won't allow us to make our own. NYCCgirl1 (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Antifeminism by feminists

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

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

Nature of the bias in this article

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

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

Proposal for a more neutral lead

Antifeminism is broadly defined as opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism. It encompasses a wide variety of movements, ideas and attitudes that oppose feminism, which have attracted both men and women. As the focus of feminism has varied across time and cultures, the meaning of anitfeminism has too. For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the opposition to women's suffrage would be antifeminist. Many modern day critics of feminism maintain that the feminists theories of patriarchy and disadvantages suffered by women in todays society are incorrect or exaggerated, or that feminism as a movement encourages misandry and seeks to harm or oppress men.

It contains mostly the same information. I'm only leaving out this one:

Antifeminism may be motivated by general hostility towards women's rights,

because it's clearly another attempt at poisoning the well. At this point, we're still describing what antifeminism is, and so it's no place to insinuate that those adhering to it are actually motivated by something like an irrational hostility. Didaev (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Kimmel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Oppose - Material is reliably sourced. The suggested change gives equal validity to antifeminist claims, which is not the same thing as neutrality. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see in what way I'm giving more or less validity to anyone's claims than the previous version, it contains mostly the same information. And since you seem to disagree with this one being more neutral: Can you be a bit more specific, and explain which part isn't neutral?Didaev (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of the problems I have with the current version

Misplaced Pages merely summarizes published mainstream academic sources. We do not use original research or interpretation of sources. Misplaced Pages does not consider itself a reliable source. If you are here to advocate what you believe is the truth about feminism, antifeminism, or any topic, you have come to the wrong place. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I wasn't at all advocating any point of view, it was totally about the article itself (too much ad hominem, inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims). If I would be advocating my own beliefs, then I'd have to argue against things which could in principle be true, but contradict my own world view. I really don't think I did any of that.

Clearly, I'm not the only one who thinks this article is biased. I'm just trying to start an honest and constructive debate about it.Didaev (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you trying to argue with the article, without citing additional sources nor demonstrating that the text does not adequately reflect the sources cited. Did you read what I wrote?

You are the only person in this thread who thinks this article is biased. If you are appealing to posters in other threads, consensus is not determined by passers by who do not bother to learn our policies and guidelines, who do not know what mainstream professional sources say (and have no sources of their own), or who wish to have the article reflect their understanding of the subject instead of what mainstream professional sources say -- consensus is determined by sources and policies and guidelines. You have only presented your personal interpretation of the article to argue that the article is not neutral, instead of presenting sources that show that the article somehow reflects a minority view (which would require at least as many sources as what you're trying to counter). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, and I really don't see how it applies to my writing. Could you give me an specific example of where I'm breaking those rules?

It's simply not true that it's impossible to say something about an article, without touching sources. Certainly an article shouldn't contain ad hominem attacks. I think it's a reasonable assumption that published mainstream academic sources don't contain these kinds of attacks, and so the fact that this article does contain them must mean that it didn't just copy them from these sources. Now in principle, it's of course possible that these weren't ad hominem attacks, and that I just misunderstood something, but in that case, you could give a counter argument.

Besides that, there were just so many insinuations, and my point against those was that I thought that it should be mentioned in a more honest way:. For example, instead of insinuating that there's a big conspiracy, start by stating that this conspiracy exists, or likely exists, and then refer to it later on.Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, we're the only two in it so far. Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to use this as a way to force my point of view onto anyone, I only said it to suggest that it might be a good idea for you to honestly consider it, and don't dismiss it too quickly because I seemingly wasn't following your pedantic rules. You are of course right that the fact that many people believe something to be true doesn't make it true, but it does in general mean that it's more likely to be true, and so if you need some way of deciding whether something is probably worth your limited time and mental energy, then the fact that many people seem to agree on this is a pretty good argument.Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to be able to find a published mainstream academic sources, which proves that the wikipedia article on antifeminism is not neutral.

But it's obvious that you haven't read and understood what I wrote, because it doesn't even anything to do with the facts, it's purely about the article.Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No reason to change the article text unless new reliable sources are shown to be challenging some conclusion made by other reliable sources. It would be especially helpful for editors arguing here to show that a great many observers agree about some aspect. This article should convey the mainstream opinion very clearly, then merely touch upon minor opinions if they are prominent enough. Binksternet (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Didaev, Misplaced Pages summarizes sources. The article currently summarizes sources. You have not cited a single source. You have merely given your own unsourced arguments about the article. You have made some unsubstantiated claims about the sources, but in ways that indicate that you haven't actually bothered to check them.

And if we're going to assess your unsourced arguments (not that they would affect article content), they completely misunderstand the article and what an ad hominem attack is. For example, you said that:

"Canadian sociologists, Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri, write that antifeminist thought has primarily taken the form of an extreme version masculinism"

...Is somehow an ad hominem. Blais and Dupuis-Déri aren't attacked. It merely states that antifeminists like to present themselves as extreme masculinists. That is not a statement about masculinists in themselves, so you can't claim that it's an attack on them. No one is attacked in that sentence, and your claim of ad hominem is a faulty argument from fallacy. Ad hominem does not mean "I don't like this sentence," it means that the sentence intentionally insults somebody.

"Antifeminists are a bunch of cowardly, obese, fedora-wearing, neckbearded who are upset that can't get laid because they're assholes and so fantasize about being powerful men somehow oppressed by feminists" would be an ad hominem, POV, and generally inappropriate for the article.

"Antifeminists like to present themselves as extreme masculinists" is not ad hominem. To claim that it is ad hominem or insinuates further claims shows some POV issues on your end, not the article's.

"Some authors speculate that antifeminists might not be an organized movement but are just a loose collection of mostly white men who feel that they are not given enough respect" is not ad hominem. Lots of ideologies have a similar set up among adherents. Again, to claim that it insinuates further claims shows POV issues on your end, not the article's.

Until you have any sources to cite, there is no reason for this discussion to continue. To put this as plainly as possible, no one is going to listen to you until you find a bunch of books that are relevant to this article, and tell us their names, authors, and the page numbers that contain something relevant to this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"It merely states that antifeminists like to present themselves as extreme masculinists."

The whole article is rife with inflammatory and suggestive language, and there are many parts which are undeniably ad hominem. Now I did a google search for this phrase, and you seem to be right, it's quite a common one, with a meaning which is different from what I thought it to be. This is a very normal mistake though. The whole article was filled with these kinds of insinuations, and so it's only normal that when there's something which is slightly ambiguous, you'll prime for an interpretation similar to the rest of the article. So I made a mistake with this one, but it's not such a far fetched one. A very common ad hominem argument after all is to suggest that someone's claims are merely the manifestation of an irrational underlying sentiment. The fact that I made a mistake here doesn't discredit my other criticism.

"Some authors speculate that antifeminists might not be an organized movement but are just a loose collection of mostly white men who feel that they are not given enough respect"

It all depends of course. Obviously, if there are men who claim that they don't get enough respect, then stating that these men exist, and what their stance is, isn't ad hominem. A claim which may seem a bit similar, but is much more ad hominem is: "..a scapegoat to the people who made them have to fight for the roles in life that they feel are due onto them.". It insinuates that they feel entitlement to more than others, and that their discontent is merely because they don't like what equality feels like. Since they know that they can't state flat out that they're for inequality, they'll come up with a narrative around it, which instead says that they in fact are disadvantaged, to legitimize their sentiment.

Granted, it depends a bit on the context to what extent this would be ad hominem. If it's used to disqualify someone's opinions by claiming that it's merely a manifestation of an irrational sentiment, then it's ad hominem. On the other hand, motivated reasoning does of course happen, and if there's indeed proof that this is the case, then it should certainly be mentioned, but only after an honest description of their POV (or what they claim their point of view is) is made, and only after an honest counter argument is given. Only then should it be ok to speculate why these people came to believe these things in the first place.

I really don't think you're in a position to tell me to shut up. I've already explained why sources weren't relevant to the argument I was making. The fact that you keep complaining about then just shows that you don't understand the purpose of them anyway, and that to you it's just some sort of ritual. I also think that if you'd stop focusing so much on these rituals, and instead start being intellectually honest, you'd see how ridiculous this article really is, and that it really has no place on Misplaced Pages.Didaev (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:CITE, one of the site's cornerstones. We do not care what readers believe, because this is not a forum for each editor's opinions. We only care about summarizing sources, as is demonstrated by WP:CITE. If you have actually read anything on the topic, then you would have some sort of sources. If you do not have any sources, then you are not informed on the topic and there is no reason for anyone but you to care what you think. It's that simple, and it's not just true for this site but for academia as well -- if you try to send a paper to an academic journal or present a doctoral thesis that does not show that you have read whatever is available on the subject, you will be dismissed and ignored. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I've already explained why this is totally irrelevant to what I wrote, but anyway, if you need it, I can try to elaborate on it, to make it understandable for you. I do expect you to honestly consider it though, because it's really annoying to argue with a broken record. Are you willing to do that? Didaev (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are not willing to work on Misplaced Pages's terms, you are welcome to spend your time elsewhere. No one cares about your opinions, only what sources say. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As I only just write: IT DOESN'T APPLY TO WHAT I WROTE. That means that I do recognize the rules, I just disagree with you that what I wrote goes against that rule. Can I please ask you to come off your high horse. It's ok of you don't understand something, but be open minded. Just quit trying to twist things in these weird ways so that it seems that you are somehow on top in this situation...Didaev (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It very much does apply. If you wish to make any changes to an article, you must either bring in a source that supports new information, provide multiple sources showing that a single source is wrong, or demonstrate that the material in the article does not reflect the source cited. Those are the options. You have instead tried to argue your personal feelings about the sourced material in the article, often indicating that you had not actually checked with the source cited. Saying that that does not apply to what you wrote does not make it so.

And it would be pretty much impossible to acknowledge that the sources are reliable and that the article adequately summarizes their salient points while simultaneously claiming that the article is crafted in such a way as to insinuate ad hominem attacks that only you can see for some reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"It very much does apply"

No, it doesn't and I've already explained why. You on the other hand keep repeating the same thing over and over again. You're going to either have to argue why my point is invalid, or if you don't understand it, ask some directed questions. I have to assume (WP:GF), which means that I have to assume you're open for an honest discussion. I expect you to do the same. It's difficult though, because what you're doing seems more like WP:GAME: All you seem to do is try to bully people who try to be constructive into silence. The article in it's current from has no place on Misplaced Pages, and it's clear that on some level you realize this. Now I could have started an edit war, or started clamoring for sources, but I didn't, I turned to the talk page, to start an honest discussion, in the hope that this could be worked out in a constructive manner.

"If you wish to make any changes to an article, you must either bring in a source that supports new information, provide multiple sources showing that a single source is wrong, or demonstrate that the material in the article does not reflect the source cited."

Those are not the only reasons. For example, there is WP:POVFORM. If an article isn't of neutral form, it's perfectly fine to change it, in such a way that the content remains the same, but the form becomes more neutral.

And the criticism I had totally falls under these. Most of it was criticism of the form, other parts indeed showed that it couldn't reflect the sources.

But still, I haven't even touched the article yet, it's all in the talk page, and so at this point, It's not about being right, but about working together with a community, which has the common goal of creating an accurately sourced article. Good faith on your part also means that if I point something out, which is obviously true, but for which I didn't provide a source, then an honest reaction on your side would be to just say that you realize I'm right, but that I might want to find an explicit source for it before it goes live. Since scientists aren't idiots, there probably is going to be plenty of literature to be found to support it.

For example: One of the few claims which touched information I made was that the vast majority of people who would be antifeminists according to Flood's definition wouldn't be according to Kimmel's definition. I think that this is a good example of such a situation. It's impossible to deny that this is the case, but it's not a priori true, and so you could ask for a source. What you can not do in good faith however, is to dismiss my whole argument just because I didn't (yet) provide a source for this claim.

"You have instead tried to argue your personal feelings about the sourced material in the article, often indicating that you had not actually checked with the source cited"

There are a few places where I interjected some personal feelings. You can just ignore those. It wasn't the gist of what I wrote.

"Saying that that does not apply to what you wrote does not make it so."

Yeah ok. I actually gave an explanation. You on the other hand are the one who keeps repeating the same thing, even after I've explained why you're wrong. (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Didaev: there's not much point in criticizing the article (or people who defend it) unless you're going to offer some constructive changes. Please focus on suggesting ways to make the article better rather than just pointing out what you think is wrong, or taking issue with other's talk page comments. This isn't a discussion forum and we're not really here to argue/debate. What changes specifically would you like to see made? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He offered a rewrite of the lead at the beginning of this discussion section. Kaldari (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Which was not based on sources, gave equal validity to antifeminist claims, and removed material from a reliable source that he didn't care for. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Thanks, don't know how I missed that! Didaev, my apologies! Fyddlestix (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

My two cents on the proposed revision: I think the first two sentences of the proposed version are ok, but I disagree with the removal of "may be motivated by general hostility towards women's rights" and the accompanying footnote. Multiple sources characterize antifeminism/ists as hostile to women's rights, so I don't see any reason for removing that. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Then at least I think it should be changed to "is characterized by", not "motivated by". There are indeed quite a few sources which talk about hostility towards women's rights, but usually it's used as a synonym for antifeminism, not as something which somehow motivates it (and of course, hostility towards women's right is by definition antifeminist, so it's just saying that antifeminism is motivated by antifeminism, which doesn't really mean anything). I don't have Kimmel's book, so I can't verify what he wrote, but I doubt this is what he really meant.

Now I guess more specifically, what's meant by it, is that many antifeminists (who are by definition at least somewhat hostile towards feminism), don't so much have a few things they happen to disagree on with feminists, but instead are hostile towards the idea of women gaining more rights at all, and so fight against it, whatever it is feminists come up with. Stating that this is the case of course also implies that their justifications are of little value, and so can just be ignored.

It would be fine to mention this in the lead (if research supports it), but then I think it should really go last in the enumeration (ie. start with what they claim to be against, then say that they're probably motivated by something else). I really think this order is important, and that it would actually "benefit" the feminist side. Imagine that you don't yet know anything about antifeminism, and came to this article to learn about it. Then, if the article starts by telling you that their opinions are irrelevant, and that you should basically ignore everything they say, you'd feel offended, because it feels like someone's trying to manipulate you. Certainly you'd take everything which comes after it with a grain of salt. If on the other hand, it's up front about everything, then people will be much more likely to assume the whole article is honest. Didaev (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think that the article was honest if it said that antifeminists have very little credibility. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote from Kimmel: "Antifeminists oppose women's entry into the public sphere, the reorganization of the private sphere, women's control of their bodies, and women's rights generally." Not promoting antifeminism is not the same as promoting against it. The article is upfront that antifeminism is opposed to women's rights, by all sourced definitions, which is all Misplaced Pages cares about. The article doesn't actually say their opinions are irrelevant (again, you're reading your perspective into the article instead of just reading the article as written), it just says what their opinions are. If someone reads the article's sourced summary of antifeminist views and their conscience tries to lead them to conclude that antifeminist opinions are irrelevant, that's their decision. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So given the two options "is sometimes characterized by" and "may be motivated by", which one do you prefer, and why?Didaev (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Nouns and adjectives aren't the same

"Antifeminism is an ideology" means something completely different than "an antifeminist ideology". It's pretty basic stuff...Didaev (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What is it then if not an ideology? Feminism is an ideology, should wouldn't opposition to it be as well? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A trait of an ideology (or movement). If an ideology is a set of beliefs about how the world should be, then you can't define it only in terms of what it disagrees with, simply because you'd end up with way too many contradictory beliefs grouped together, which only agree with each other on the fact that they disagree with feminism.

Take the difference between on the one hand the extreme conservatives who "oppose women's entry into the workforce, political office, and the voting process, as well as the lessening of male authority in families", and on the other hand the women of the "Women Against Feminism" movement. I'm pretty sure that most of these women will have views much closer to the views of the average feminist. They probably just disagree with feminists on the extent to which women are still disadvantaged these days. They certainly wouldn't want to give up their voting rights. You really can't say that these two groups have similar ideologies.Didaev (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Didaev, you're not going to convince anyone with what you're "pretty sure" about, or your personal assessment of who "probably" has similar ideologies. Misplaced Pages is constructed on the basis of what reliable sources say, not on the basis of its editors' subjective opinions. There are plenty of sources out there which refer to antifeminism as an ideology. Whether you agree with that treatment of the concept or not is immaterial unless you can cite some equally reliable sources to back up your views. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Didaev, you are headed for a block for disruption. You keep arguing your personal viewpoint despite being told repeatedly that Misplaced Pages summarizes WP:Reliable sources rather than editors putting their own slant on the topic. In the future, if you do not WP:CITE a reliable source when making a suggestion, then your personal views will be removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requested images of society
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• C-Class Feminism articles
• Mid-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• C-Class Anthropology articles
• Mid-importance Anthropology articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics