Talk:Antifeminism - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gladamas (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 8 March 2021 (→Revert: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:55, 8 March 2021 by Gladamas (talk | contribs) (→Revert: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

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

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

	Feminism portal 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

	Society portal 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

	Religion portal 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

	Law portal 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

	Conservatism portal 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

	History portal 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 article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jfunsten, Nkshepard (article contribs).

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.

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 WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Dilbaggg (talk) 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“). Destrypants (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view. This article is about antifeminism, not mens' rights - there are separate articles for that. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 16:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Reverted removal of sourced content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for this article to contain offensive content. Stop reverting the edit please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.224.140 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored just because you find something offensive. If there is a better reason to remove the content feel free to discuss. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This article should be titled “antifeminism according to feminists”

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.

Maybe there should be a separate page about antifeminism as it is actually viewed by antifeminists, possibly connected by a disambiguation page?

Destrypants (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

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.►Sampayu 08:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Have either of you found any reliable sources for antifeminists' views of themselves? Newimpartial (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Karen Straughan and Professor Janice Fiamengo are the, if not two of the, top antifeminist scholars, probably in the world if I had to guess. Karen is frankly better: much more theoretical, deeper analysis, more anthropological, natural history perspective, etc. Janice is also very, very good, very precise, specific, well documented antifeminism with copious examples. Destrypants (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be very happy to go looking for sound bites from them or any other serious antifeminists if I thought those might be worked into the article for the sake of balancing it out a bit. Please let me know if you are or know of an editor with the skills and clout to accomplish this. Destrypants (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the challenge is in establishing that inclusion is DUE. The existence of interviews or YouTube or Podcast links does not by itself create grounds for inclusion. But if there is news coverage (or better yet, academic analysis) of the views of Honey Badgers, et al., then their perspectives can absolutely be included here. It looks as though Fiamengo has a book publication that might be relevant, so if that received some reviews it would be easy to justify inclusion of relevant material here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Also thank you Sampayu. Misplaced Pages has become deeply politicized in this domain. The feminism stuff is pretty bad too, pretty much straight propaganda, very far from third party (every single line reads exactly like it IS feminism not a description OF feminism: all premises taken for gospel, this-is-just-how-reality-works kinda vibe, as if Mormons got to write their own article unopposed — I look at feminism as a phenomenon, not as Truth: the normal Misplaced Pages standard for belief systems).

And the antifeminism article is just the same problem squared: feminism is True, feminist precepts are a given, seeing the world as being as we say it is is a basic precondition of sanity, and here our obligatory webpage describing some nutball phenomenon called “antifeminism.”

I’ve got to give them props for having gotten out ahead of it. They clearly got to write the article unopposed. And it’s not like the vibe I get from feminism is that they want you to even know about the *existence* of antifeminism. So to be forced to tell you about it so that they get to spin it is quite interesting, exactly what I suspect happened.

I’m sure it’s not linked on the feminism page or if it is it’s buried deep, and what good would it do anyway since it’s so well written!

Like you said it should predominately be a neutral, uncritical explanation of anti-feminist views AS VIEWS, the same it would do with any other philosophical or political position, with the feminist take on anti-feminism relegated to a criticism section. Destrypants (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So Newimpartial if I were to find some stuff in print with some real, established history to it that might help? There is a book I know to be of high quality that is more than a century old called The Fraud of Feminism by E Belford Bax(sp?). Hard to imagine it hasn’t been reviewed in a hundred plus years.

So are you saying that if say Chomsky writes a book copiously documenting some phenomenon, but it’s studiously ignored in the main stream media and not reviewed in the United States, that’ll be grounds for exclusion on Misplaced Pages?

Is there a discussion page where we can think about how to improve this state of affairs?

How is Misplaced Pages supposed to avoid falling down an Orwellian rabbit hole when they constantly require the main stream to acknowledge something who’s very core might be that it criticizes the main stream?

Then all everyone has to do to avoid being criticized is ignore you. Kind of goes back to kindergarten you know? Destrypants (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, WP relies on recent reliable sources, so publications from the last century are not generally relevant or helpful. And reliable sources do not have to be mainstream sources; for example, academic sources are generally reliable and may represent more diverse views than large media outlets. As far as the inclusion of views like Chomsky's, what actually happens is that the question is discussed case by case on individual Talk pages, without any obvious point for central discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Censorship is another reason why nowadays I rarely contribute to Misplaced Pages. The mentioned WP:FORUM policy is about not taking discussions into the article, but this is not the article: this is the article's talk page, i.e. the correct place where we're supposed to share our (e.g. diverging) ideas and opinions about the subject of the article.►Sampayu 22:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG, talk page discussions are supposed to offer concrete proposals to improve the relevant articles. The suggestion, that Misplaced Pages article text that fails to challenge rights-based arguments for abortion access is somehow a POV problem, does not offer any concrete suggestions nor is there a reasonable possibility that any ensuing discussion would improve this article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial, you may take a look at several non-empty talk pages and then count how many of them feature absolutely no personal POV. A good start is this one.►Sampayu 23:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Where did I say that discussion about POV, or even based on POV, was not allowed? What I said was that discussion needs to be related to potential improvements to the article, which unrelated rants about abortion rights are not. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial This is an actual rant. On the other hand, my "rant" was not an actual rant: it was just an illustration/example about how a controversial topic such as "abortion" allows different viewpoints yet it's not rare to find only one of them in an article.

If you pay very close attention to what I actually wrote, you'll realize that I neither stated that abortion is a right nor did I state that abortion is not a right: I just stated that the article's text was modified in order to induce readers to conclude that abortion being a (e.g. civil) right is an absolute indisputable truth, because, in the article's text, this presumed "absolute truth" is used as a premise before the subsequent statements were made. And this a serious problem, because an actually debateable truth is being presented as an undebateable/indisputable/unquestionable one. Anyway: I was not specific nor clear about my personal opinion, I just commented the topic's ("abortion") flexibility around such controversy. I mentioned the difference between the mother's DNA and the developing baby's DNA just to illustrate an example of argument that relativizes that presumed absolut truth. If you read the article's intro, it's stated in there that antifeminists often oppose the right to abortion: this type of construction transforms abortion is a right in a premise (an universally accepted truth) even though in reality the antifeminists do not oppose the right to abortion: they oppose abortion, and they do it precisely because they don't think that abortion is a right. Antifeminists would not oppose to abortion if they believed that abortion is a right. This is just logical reasoning.

Yet, somehow you "saw" my comment as a rant. Why? Make a sincere self-analysis and hopefully you will realize that your reaction was driven by how you felt when you read my text. And this is the case most of the time when people edit articles here: they find it hard to dissociate themselves from their emotional selves and be rational while editting.►Sampayu 00:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

To humor this for a second, you state this, If you read the article's intro, it's stated in there that antifeminists often oppose the right to abortion: this type of construction transforms abortion is a right in a premise (an universally accepted truth) even though in reality the antifeminists do not oppose the right to abortion: they oppose abortion, and they do it precisely because they don't think that abortion is a right. That isn't what we mean (in English) when we say that someone opposes such and such a right - we mean that someone denies that such a right exists (or that it should exist). When we say that someone "opposes Trans rights", for example, we mean that someone denies that those principles claimed as the rights of trans people are valid rights claims. None of these formulations presupposes that such a right exists much less that it is an absolute indisputable truth, nor does it imply any particular ontology or metaphysics about what rights "are" or on what basis rights claims are made. It is this bizarre construal of the text that you performed as though it assumed absolute indisputable truth of rights claims that I, for one, view as an off-topic rant, since I can see no way that any conceivable discussion of this will produce improvements to this article, though I suppose by the end of the process you might be able to understand English-language style and the nuances thereof a bit better. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial I had separated some sources to cite in the article about some of the antifeminist view against abortion (e.g. Eugenia Roccella; Lucetta Scaraffia. Contro il cristianesimo. L'ONU e l'Unione Europea come nuova ideologia (in Italian). p. 50. ISBN 978-8838485053. and Ana Caroline Campagnolo. Feminismo: Perversão e Subversão (in Brazilian Portuguese). pp. 139–156. ISBN 9788595070547.), but I'm under the impression that the article's best served if supported by sources in English instead of in Portuguese and Italian.

I'm aware that right is an ambiguous word because of both its legal and popular use: here in Brazil, the Portuguese word direito (i.e. right) also assumes different meanings depending on context. If I e.g. state that I have the direito to be heard, it's not a legal (i.e. an absolute, objective) right, but still I'm socially entitled to it due to e.g. how I feel about it, the local customs and other socially constructed values that support my claim that my voice must be heard (it's a subjective right). On the other hand, I do have the direito to return any product that I buy online (the seller has to pay my shipping cost), up to 7 days after I receive the product in my residence, and I don't need to offer any explanation for such decision, because such legal (objective, absolute) right is written in law (Brazil's Consumer Protection Code). It's called direito de desistência (i.e. "the right to withdraw"). This was put in law because when we shop online, we're unable to examine/inspect, manipulate and test the product before we buy it, and we may therefore be negatively surprised by the actual product when it arrives.

Anyway, I referred to right as a short for legal right or civil right (as e.g. mentioned in the US Code, Title 42, Chapter 21 a.k.a. "Civil Rights"), which in such case is absolute in the sense that law is mandatory to all individuals in that specific society (USA). Another example is the prohibition of partial-birth abortions, which is absolute in the sense that it applies to everyone because it's put in law (it's an objective use of the concept instead of the subjective one that you mentioned). I however couldn't tell that the text in antifeminism was referring to right as just something that someone e.g. believes to deserve, claims that should be allowed to perform etc. Maybe the word prerrogative or entitlement could be used instead, I don't know.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, yes, you're right: none of this promotes any sort of improvement to the article. Maybe if I happen to read a reliable antifeminist source in English (which I intend to do, but not today), then yes.►Sampayu 09:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Categories: