Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.129.49.65 (talk) at 22:39, 20 November 2006 (→"Neoconservative"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Adolf Hitler

We must bid Auf Wiedersehen to Hitler as it is impossible to call him a specific opponent of feminist ideology, Frau Steinem's completely undocumented opinion notwithstanding. He simply held views on women which where very common in his era. If he stays, then every significant historical figure from the birth of Christ to WWI should be added as well. JE1977 06:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't this article be at Antifeminism? AnAn 09:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Sarge Baldy 01:59, 6 March 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)

The neutrailty of feminism? Feminism is about women, period, and is biased in everything it writes, says, advocates and does. Normally this bias is expressed as simple misandry, although it is often hidden in postmodernistic rhetoric. Here are a few feminist slogans.

If they can send one man to the moon why can't they send em all?

The best man for the job is a woman.

Neutrality? It's not to be found and where present is seen as sexism against women and attacked.

Heh, Cute quotes there, I have a page full of ones that are worse right hereRhythmic01 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

"For instance violent bullies often bring up violent bullies."

This doesn't make sense in the context of "social ills faced by children without fathers can also be the result of the father's decisions." All this "bullying" stuff added by Lolympics Lonympics just sounds bizarre. And Adolf Hitler??? johndburger 03:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It makes as much sense as this...

Many anti feminist groups are just attention seeking bullies who want to put forward deliberately offensive viewpoints to hurt the feelings of decent people.

If feminists get to write the anti-feminist article, perhaps anti-feminists should write the feminist article?

64.172.115.2 17:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

This doesn't really have anything to do with whether you're a feminist or an anti-feminist. Feminists and anti-feminists alike may edit any article they please, as long as they conform with the WP:NPOV policy and other Misplaced Pages policies. As a feminist and someone who believes in the important of Misplaced Pages presenting a neutral point of view, I removed this text. You could have done the same yourself. Catamorphism 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, feminism is not neutrality, and it never was.

Secondly, I'm still kinda new to this and still learning how editing works on Wiki. I'm one step past observer but am not sure I want to edit articles yet. Perhaps soon.

Thanks for removing the text. But if you don't see it as something a feminist would say about anti-feminism and not something which describes anti-feminism or the reasons behind it, there's not much I can say. Do feminists call women "whiners"? Not that I've ever seen. Feminists do spend an inordinate amount of time and effert calling any man with issues a whiner, I know this from direct experience. Feminism is clearly not about equal treatment, as feminism itself does not treat men and women equally.

64.172.115.2 22:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

All of the "bullies" material was added by the same user, Lonympics (look at the history of the page to see who added what). So, you're right, both quotes make the same sense, i.e., none. As for who gets to write the articles, the answer is, everyone does. If you're suggesting that a feminist is unable to write a neutral article on anti-feminism, I'd have to disagree. Everyone has a POV, but it needn't show up in the article. —01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that a feminist is unable to write a neutral article on anti-feminism, I'd have to disagree.

I'd say that there is an inherent bias that makes objectivity implausable, at best. Feminism has claimed the victim high ground (and made it pay), so even admitting that men are victims (usually of policies crafted with or by feminism) would be giving up the bias feminism has built against men in the name of political favoritism.

There are many examples, look at the Duluth model, or the Violence Against Women Act, penned by feminism.

If I get the time, I may start adding to the article, there's no shortage of material.

67.170.245.1 13:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

If you identify as being an antifeminist, you're not exactly proving with your comments that antifeminists are somehow more objective, either (though there's no need to be objective on talk pages, you're not exactly taking the moral high ground here.) Catamorphism 20:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you then claim that feminism did not pen the Violence Against Women Act?

Of the evicence I listed above, which do you factually dispute?

67.170.245.1 13:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Rich

Feminism doesn't "pen acts". Feminism is a movement; people pen acts, not movements. And no, even if the Duluth model or VAWA are flawed, it doesn't follow that feminists are biased against men or that feminists can't be objective; those are absurd claims. Catamorphism 20:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The VAWA was penned by N.O.W. The Duluth model defines the abuser as a man and the victim as a woman. Being a feminist I probably cannot explain to you the problem.

And why do you make everything into deductive logic? If I say flowers are pretty and lions eat meat, the second statement does not follow from the first. But this is sophistry as the second statement is not dependant on the first, nor was it ever claimed to be. The absurd thing is your claim that anything has to follow to be true.

As for feminist objectivity, perhaps you can show me some. Feminism has a built-in bias that cannot be eliminated. It's about women, and only women, it's sexist from the get-go and always will be. Feminism is sexism. This is not hyperbole, it's a simple fact.

Hell, during the Take Your Daughter To Work Day debates, I saw that not only do feminist moms know nothing about how well their sons are doing, they don't want to know anything.

64.172.115.2 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Rich

I'm not really interested in debating this in this forum. If you'd like to work on the article, you're still welcome to do so. The talk page really should focus on discussions that are necessary for improving the article. Catamorphism 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny you didn't seem to mind debating him in this forum before he completly shut you down eh? Rhythmic01 04:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

They should make a distinction between old antifeminism and contemporary antifeminism

Contemporary anti-feminism is very different from the way it was back in the 50's. But since Adolf Hitler is listed as a anti-feminist, it pretty much destroys the credibility of contemporary antifeminism, because no distinction is made.

I'm a feminist in that I'm pro women's suffrage and all that good stuff, but I'm antifeminist in that it seems that instead of blanket equality, it's politically correct to be misandronous (prejudiced against men). I mean I'm here at UCLA and there are tons of anti-spousal/relationship abuse but it's all targeted towards men, how men can stop it. To be able to say that since the majority of relationship abuse cases are commited by men, this kind of advertisement can be done would be like saying that since the majority of people in prison are black, we can start printing literature on how to fix black people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.111.114 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to improve the article in any way you see fit, so long as you include reputable sources to support what you say, and so long as you are willing to edit in accordable with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. Catamorphism 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fatherless citation

Saw this tadbit had a citation tag "teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are all higher among children of fatherless homes ." Here are some links. Are these good enough? http://fatherfamilylink.gse.upenn.edu/org/nccp/portrait.htm http://www.wfu.edu/~nielsen/divorceddad.pdf Not sure if these count as original research or not. Rhythmic01 05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Masculism references

I have removed comparisons of masculism to anti-feminism. They are two completely different things. masculists are concerned with men's issues, which might include criticism of feminist ideas, but all movements should accept criticism without labelling the critics in such a manner. I'm sure there are many anti-feminists who are also masculists, but that doesn't make them the same thing or even similar. There are many feminists who criticize masculism, or are even anti-masculists, but one does not necessarily follow from the other. The connection is spurious.

To an extent, I think the comparison is a straw man - an attempt to discredit masculism by associating it with anti-feminism. I think it would be better to see the positive aspects of masculism and criticize the negatives, rather than making such a blanket umbrella statement. 24.68.180.163 04:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Is this article still considered not to be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)? If so, perhaps people might like to discuss precisely which parts of the article need to be improved here. If there is no further need for it I will remove the NPOV dispute tag in one week. --Dave 03:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no-one has objected to the NPOV tag being removed during the past 7 days I will assume there is no longer a dispute about the WP:NPOV status of the article and remove the tag. --Dave 08:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Neoconservative"

The label 'neoconservative' is applied to some of the critics of feminism on the article, such as Hoff-Sommers and Fox-Genovese. Is this label appropriate to describe them? Christina HS is a member at the Independent Women's Forum, which is a conservative and explicitely anti-feminist think tank, but Genovese is a member at the Women's Freedom Network, which is a libertarian-leaning "moderate feminist" group. If Genovese doesn't define herself as antifeminist or neoconservative, this latter label should be dropped in her case. I believe we shouldn't call one a 'neoconservative' because he/she opposes left-wing feminism until we get to know his/her other political views (sorry for the bad English).201.50.170.20 10:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I moved it to another section, out of Neoconservative.NeoApsara 00:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, neoconservative is a specific conservative ideology, and while Sommers may be conservative there is no indication that I'm aware of that she's a neo. Harvestdancer 16:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

point of view check

One of the ugliest tactics that ideological feminists use to silence their enemies is character assassination and personal attacks. This entire article is one such attempt. There is no distinction between people who are critical of some feminists ideologies versus those who are critical of all feminism. We need to make a distinction between ideas (which can and should be questioned) and the people who do the questioning here.

Another red flag for me is the very definition 'anti-feminist' which is far from clear here. Who (the shameless ideological wing of the Sisterhood I imagine) decides who is an Anti-feminist here. Where are the sources for these perjorative characterizations and definitions.