Revision as of 23:08, 12 October 2023 editDestrylevigriffith (talk | contribs)179 edits →Debiasing feminism and antifeminism articles: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic← Previous edit |
Latest 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) (bot |
(37 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) |
Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Not a forum|antifeminism, feminism, antifeminists or feminists}} |
|
{{Not a forum|antifeminism, feminism, antifeminists or feminists}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|class=|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
Line 22: |
Line 23: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Refideas |
|
{{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, Switzerland |isbn=978-3-319-96226-9 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-96226-9}} |
|
| {{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 |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=Abingdon, England |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |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}} |
|
| {{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 == |
|
== In the mid and late 20th century antifeminists often opposed the right to abortion == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Are they really antifeminists in general, sounds more like Christian groups and I think most reliable sources would back that up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Men's rights movement == |
|
Antifeminists were more opposed to things like no-fault divorce, child-support, false accusations, family courts, depiction of men in the media, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Pretty strange those things aren't mentioned in the introduction, huh? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: None of this offers any justification for your ] behaviour. Don't do that. ] (]) 18:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
== Do you think the definition is correct? == |
|
|
|
::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 == |
|
''Antifeminism, also spelled anti-feminism, is opposition to some or all forms of feminism.'' Sounds like feminists are antifeminists because, e.g. TERFs are in opposition to TIFs, radical and marxist feminists are in opposition to liberal feminists.--] (]) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (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. ] (]) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{ping|Reprarina}} I think a major difference between antifeminists and those feminists you mentioned is that antifeminists do '''NOT''' consider themselves feminists. What do you say to this, {{ping|Roxy the dog}}? ] (]) 23:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::So, it's the non-feminist opposition to some or all forms of feminism? sounds more correct... ] (]) 23:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::I say, "Why ask me?" - ] ] 00:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, the current definition of antifeminism in the lead is misleading IMO. The fact is that by that definition, various different factions/branches of feminism would be antifeminist under the current definition in the lead which makes no sense. Radical feminist and sex-positive feminists appose each other, same with Radical and liberal feminists, TERFs and TIFS (as you said) and so forth. What the central issue here is that there is a lack of agreement of what qualifies as feminism and thus what qualifies as anti-feminism. Whether rejecting some forms of feminism is antifeminist is dependent on what you believe is a "true feminist" and what is not. This of course if the ] in play. Thus whether people who endorse some forms or tenants of feminists but not others are antifeminists is debatable and WP should not take sides in that debate. Maybe we should rewrite the lead to say something like "Antifeminism, also spelled anti-feminism, is the opposition to feminism as a whole or just, as some would argue, to certain forms of feminism.". Then we should then, in the main body of the article, better describe the debate between different feminist strains/branches as to what qualifies as antifeminist since I don't believe a consensus currently exists as to the proper definition, even within feminism itself. --] (]) 01:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's tricky, like so many things, like defining what a Christian is. |
|
|
::** |
|
|
::Some defacto antifeminists like Christina Hoff Summers still label themselves "feminist", some pretty hardline antifeminists like myself think of themselves more as "postfeminists" or "equalists" (or my fave "egalitarian") and feel that we are being a More True Scottsman than normal feminists by taking the ideals of feminism in a way we see as more literally (like trying to get equality in family courts, being equally concerned with men's welfare vis-à-vis suicide and imprisonment, etc.). |
|
|
::** |
|
|
::And and then some characters like Warren Farrell who are correctly perceived as being de facto very prominent antifeminists still describe feminism in a very positive light, albeit with massive caveats, and are very reluctant to describe THEMSELVES as "anti-feminist." ] (]) 22:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think a more literal and neutral definition would read something like: |
|
|
:** |
|
|
:Political, ideological, or philosophical opposition to feminism or feminist policy. ] (]) 22:43, 12 October 2023 (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) |
|
== lower college entrance rates of young men == |
|
|
|
|
|
in the 2nd paragraph, that text links to literacy page. It shouldnt, as thats not what is meant in the context. There are many reasons why theres a gender imbalance in college admissions, but literacy isnt one. ] (]) 21:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Debiasing feminism and antifeminism articles == |
|
|
|
|
|
Neither is anywhere near ], with the anti- article most noticeably biased (even here in the talk discussion the primary thrust seems to be toward finding what the ''feminist'' conception and consensus of what an anti-feminist is, which is the very definition of partiality. It has always reminded me of like if you let the FBI be the primary source material for the article describing what antifa is, if you wrote the Palestinian article only according to Zionist scholarship, if you let the anti-feminists be the primary source material for the feminism article, etc., etc.) |
|
|
|
|
|
WP:NEUTRAL POV suggests describing the ''phenomenon'' of feminism, and not just from the feminist point of view (their self definition should be upweighted since they do represent the majority of academic opinion and therefore can be allowed more leniency in their own self definition in their article, but their own POV of themselves should not be exclusively represented in an encyclopedia article about their group and it's philosophy. Just as, for instance, the Mormonism article does not reflect Mormon than points of view, except when they are ''noted'' as Mormon POV, wow the article does allow some respectful self definition on the part of Mormons as to what Mormonism is, it does not allow the entire article to EXCLUSIVELY describe the Mormon point of view of what a Mormon is — and this would hold for any other example of a Misplaced Pages article on any other movement, ideology, or philosophy). |
|
|
|
|
|
And then of course the anti-Feminism article should not all be from the feminist point of view (and our own self-definitions should be downweighted as we are in a minority of scholarly opinion, but not entirely excluded: of course you let the Mormons have SOME say in what a "Mormon" is). |
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately, my proposition for discussion is simply that: both articles should describe the phenomena from a more neutral, more anthropological point of view. |
|
|
|
|
|
That is IF they are to be up to Misplaced Pages's stated standards of not taking sides in ideological and/or philosophical debates. ] (]) 23:08, 12 October 2023 (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)