| Revision as of 05:49, 28 March 2006 editCatamorphism (talk | contribs)5,215 edits →Some points of potential interest.: be bold← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:11, 28 March 2006 edit undoThomi (talk | contribs)49 edits →Some points of potential interest.Next edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| : Those seem like reasonable edits to make. ] and make them yourself! ] 05:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | : Those seem like reasonable edits to make. ] and make them yourself! ] 05:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| The reason I mentioned those is to make it easier for others to spot inaccuracies and/or controversial presentations. --] 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:11, 28 March 2006
Article name
Shouldn't this article be at Antifeminism? AnAn 09:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Odd how feminist minded wiki users have objected to the neutrality of this article, but not to the neutrality of feminism - could it be a simple case of blatant bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlmathews (talk • contribs)
Criticism of an antifeminist argument does not automatically make the critic a feminist
Just as John Winthrop's opposition to Anabaptism on its anti-intellectual groundings didn't make John Winthrop an intellectual. Longshot14 17:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Some points of potential interest.
Article needs some major meat IMHO.
I encourage editing some lines.
"Anti-feminist groups particularly point to the dramatic increase in the divorce rate and breakdown of the family since the rise of feminism, and note that crime statistics, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are all higher among children of fatherless homes . Their critics point out that correlation does not imply causation, that anti-feminist groups fail to consider social factors besides feminism, that social ills faced by children without fathers can also be the result of the father's decisions, and that feminism is not to blame for role models and gender roles that predate it.”
I'd argue that "critics point out..." should be changed to "critics argue...". There are strong statements of fact here that fail to account for potential responses of the antifeminists, particularly the claim about them FAILING to consider social factors. They may very well have taken them into account, but this article, as it is, will leave you in the dark.
"Antifeminists are fond of reports that conclude the Violence Against Women Act hurts men and does little to help women. (Let the Violence Against Women Act Expire Charlotte Allen)"
Again, while referring to the VAWA may be common among antifeminists, it is somewhat suspect to say that they are "fond of" such reports. After all, this research is believed to prove injustice, and while pointing out injustice may be a blast, this section could equally well be interpreted to say that antifeminists like to know that the VAWA supposedly hurts men.
So, it should read more like this; "Antifeminists often point to/have pointed to..." or so, if they indeed discuss that, in such depth. --Thomi 21:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Those seem like reasonable edits to make. Be bold and make them yourself! Catamorphism 05:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned those is to make it easier for others to spot inaccuracies and/or controversial presentations. --Thomi 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)