Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Adolf Hitler

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism of an antifeminist argument does not automatically make the critic a feminist

message: 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 [citation needed]. 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)
replies: text: Those seem like reasonable edits to make. Be bold and make them yourself! Catamorphism 05:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some points of potential interest. 

message: "Antifeminism refers to hostility towards women, or towards the advocacy of women's rights.[1] In the former sense it is synonymous with misogyny or male chauvinism, while in the later it may refer to a hostility to some or all feminist positions."
C'mon, people. USE YOUR HEADS! Edit this out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! (talk • contribs).
: How is it POV? It's a bland restatement of the dictionary definition. What do you think it should say? And what sources to you have to back that up? VoluntarySlave 06:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see why you have posted this. That is rather biased towards antifeminists.I don't see how antifeminism refers to hostility towards  women-- surely, that'd just be plain old sexism? Antifeminism, as far as I am aware, refers to the act of trying to prevent Feminism from going too far, thereby, creating equality in society. I am not sure how exactly that means antifeminists are hostile to women, however. Unconscious 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a major problem with OED and other 'npov' academic sources - they define antifeminism as either synonymous to misogyny or as "against equality"... Which of course illustrates the "feminist censorship" point of antifeminists very well... But what are you going to do if "definitions" are controlled by feminists and they always have something 'npov' sort of to refer to in order to discredit whoever they don't like... Sad state of affairs really...Lost Angel 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it possible to find another page that defines the word? I feel as if the definition of antifeminism is well, antiantifeminism, or discrimination to those who believe in equality, by means of stopping feminism. I've checked a few sources, and to put it blunty, it's the biggest crock of garbage I've ever read. It's like looking up about Pepsi written by the Coca Cola Company, claiming they've been stealing all their secrets. It all seems quite biased and untrue. Unconscious 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as feminist censorship may be exercised (see any academic source) - an unbiased definition may not be found. Open sources surly have it: , but they are not valid sources for wikipedia.Lost Angel 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blatant NPOV Violation" 

message: 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.232.111.114 (talk • contribs).
: i am afraid that it is very difficult to discern your line of argument here. Sounds like you are objecting to something you heard in class or on campus? Actio 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia's 
neutral point of view policy. Catamorphism 22:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we remove or replace that misleading opening photo about women's sufferage.  I know no one today who is arguing that we should take away womens' sufferance.  We should use representative photos that show what genuine 'antifeminists' use today instead.  Fearmongering has no place here.
sufferage & sufferance = suffrage, ie voting rights? Actio 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree most strongly that Anti-Feminism must be defined by seperating those who support male dominance and those who oppose feminism as a movement because of the negative effect on how men are treated in our society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.65.106.204 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree most strongly with the previous statement, there are large differences between the two beliefs and they should not share the same page Ben 1220 07:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  They should make a distinction between old antifeminism and contemporary antifeminism 

message: Saw this tadbit had a citation tag
"teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are all higher among children of fatherless homes [citation needed]." 
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)
thread_title: Fatherless citation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Masculism references 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The whole article is of a very poor quality i really think it doesn't meet wikipedia standards , is non compliant should be re started for scracth. Laguna117 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute

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

text: 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)
thread_title: "Neoconservative"

message: There are many prominent anti-feminists publishing today. However, our two sources given long block quotes under principles are little-known bloggers. Can these be replaced by somebody like Rush Limbaugh, Gertrude Himmelfarb, or anyone who has name-recognition outside of their blog-rolls?
DanB†DanD 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of block-quotes?

message: I just reverted a large number of edits. The purpose of these edits appeared to be to remove information rather than to add to or improve the article. No indication was given that the information removed was incorrect, nor were sources cited to indicate the information was incorrect. It is not a good idea to remove the work of others without replacing it with better work, or providing reasons why the material removed is factually incorrect. Piecemeal deletions like this add up to article blanking over time. This is a form of vandalism that is difficultr to detect in its early stages, and can be difficult to deal with if the deletions are mixed up with bona-fide contributions. I am sure DanB made the deletions in good faith, but the end result of the individual deletions was little different to the kind of vandalism where someone block deletes information that does not fit their own point of view. I would suggest DanB discusses intent to blank information before actually deleting large chunks of information in future. It is usually better to add (well referenced) balancing information than to delete existing information provided by others. --Dave 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I went overboard with the broom. I'll keep the quotes until I find more notable replacements, but that list of "types" has got to go - it's hopelessly OR/POV. DanB†DanD 18:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate Editing 

message: Can anyone find the clip of him answering questions from the audience following a speech in 2000 after he joined the Reform Party?  What the media did not report on, was that he either retracted or modified the controversial statement about Western capitalism and said his sister was upset with him for this statement.  He does not retract his antifeminism or his view that women should generally accept traditional roles, but he admitted the statement was excessive.  Someone asked him a question about a statement he made regarding the Holocaust as well as a question about that statement.  Buchanan said he can only answer one question from each audience member, and told the man to choose one.  The man simply replied, "Women," to which Pat Buchanan groaned and said "I wish you'd asked me the other one" followed by laughter from the audience before giving his answer.  Does anyone else remember that? 07:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pat Buchanan

message: Content at issue:
:Antifeminism refers to disbelief regarding the economic, political, and or social equality of females as a sex .  Sometimes antifemimism is also used to refer to a belief in male superiority and as such is synomymous with male chauvinism.  The opposite of antifeminism is antimasculinism (as shown in Dead Man Walking: Masculinity’s Troubling Persistence, Brendan O'Sullivan, Bitchfest 2006) or female chauvinism.
::Misogyny (/mɪ.ˈsɑ.ʤə.ni/) is hatred or strong prejudice against women. The word comes from the Greek words μίσος (misos, "hatred") + γυνη (gunê, "woman"). Compared with anti-woman sexism or misandry (hatred or fear of, or strong prejudice against men), misogyny is viewed in feminist theory as a political ideology [citation needed] - similar to racism or anti-Semitism - that justifies and maintains the subordination of women by men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.95.210 (talk • contribs).
::Misandry (IPA [mɪ.ˈsæn.dri]) is the hatred of males as sex . The word comes from misos (Greek μίσος, "hatred") + andras (Greek ἀνδρας, "man"). Although misandry is sometimes confused with misanthropy, the terms are not interchangeable, since the latter refers to the hatred of humanity. An idea related to misandry is androphobia, the fear of men (male humans), but not necessarily the hatred of them
::Online dictionary definitions of antifeminist
:::*
:::*
Please note the usual radical feminist definition 'creep' in misogyny where some uncited reference to some unstated theory is being used to expand the common dictionary definition for unstated reasons.  This is a cunning,
covert and all-to-common tactic to rape language for radical feminist political purposes as has been done with the common gynocentric usage of the term 'gender'.  Misandry researchers Nathonson and Young note that this is a favorite (and totalitarian) tactic ideological feminists use to take power without having to be accountable.  (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparing sample definitions from other related articles

message: Using the common dictionary definition of antifeminism, unless he or she disbelieves female equality or is a male chauvinist:
*no non-feminist is an antifeminist
** agreed
*no feminist whistleblower, dissident or other feminist critic is an antifeminist-for instance individualist feminist Wendy McElroy is no antifeminist just because she 'deconstructs' radical feminist rape pretensions as in The Politics of Rape
** with correction - no feminist (whatever her/his practice) is antifeminist - term misuse.
*no conservative is an antifeminist
** might well be if actively speaking against feminism.
*no researcher of feminist falsehoods, fraud or other politically correct feminist flim-flams is an antifeminist
** correct, unless he/she identifies him/herself as antifeminist.
*no misandry researcher is antifeminist
** correct under same condition as above.
*no researcher of feminist scholarship (see Women's studies) is an antifeminist-Micheal Ghiglerie is no antifeminist just because he utterly destroys gender-feminist 'theories' about the causes of sexual assault using scientific methods in The Dark Side Of Man.
** if he states that he is against ideology, besides denouncing it in his research, he is antifeminist.
*no masculinist is an antifeminist
** might well be, but doesn't have to.
*no editor here (such as me for example!) who insists on distinct distinctions to prevent double-speak slandering definitions is an antifeminist.
** unrelated Lost Angel 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Check: Who is an 'antifeminist', hate speech or free speech?

message: Below is how feminist Phyllis Chessler describes the Orwellian left-wing manipulation of language for political purposes in The Death of Feminism (2006).  When we use false 'antifeminist' labels in this article (as shown above) to unfairly slander people or their ideas we are indulging in left-wing totalitarian hate speech.  To stoop to the ugly level of politicians who use personal attacks to duck the issues demeans wikipedia. Therefore, I insist that we eschew politically motivated double speak definitions of the term and use common NPOV dictionary definitions instead.  I also insist that we show the difference between obvious POV lies and NPOV truths here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Check: Using false 'antifeminist' labels for slander: hate speech or free speech?

message: Content in question:
Literature critical of feminism (a false title)
* Alan J. Barron, The Death of Eve: Women, Liberation, Disintegration (1986) 
* Alan Carlson, The Family in America: Searching for Social Harmony in the Industrial Age (2003) 
* Alan Carlson, Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social Crisis (1991) 
* Gilbert K. Chesterton, Brave New Family (1990)  
* Thomas Ellis, The Rantings of a Single Male (2005) 
* Thomas Fleming, The Politics of Human Nature (1988) 
* Maggie Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love (1996) 
* George Gilder, Men and Marriage (1992) 
* Steven Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy (1977)  
* Steven Goldberg, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (1993)  
* F. Carolyn Graglia, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism (1998) 
* Richard T. Hise, The War Against Men (2004) 
* Domestic Violence: The 12 Things You Aren't Supposed to Know; Thomas P. James, Aventine Press, 2003,  
* Who Stole Feminism Christina Hoff Summers
* The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men; Christina Hoff Sommers, Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, 2001; 
* Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist Mistake (2005)  
* Linda Kelly, Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse:   How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State (2003)
* The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability, Laura Kipnis, 2006
* The Lipstick Proviso: Women, Sex & Power in the Real World; Karen Lehrman, 1997, 
* Myron Magnet, Modern Sex: Liberation and Its Discontents (2001)  
* Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006) 
* Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001) 
* Kate O'Beirne, Women Who Make the World Worse (2005) 
* John Piper and Wayne A. Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1991) 
* Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies; Daphne Patai and Noreta Koertge, 1995, 
* Mary Pride, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality (1985) 
* Erin Pizzey, Prone to Violence (Hamlyn, 1982; )
* Phyllis Schlafly, Feminist Fantasies (2003)  
* Phyllis Schlafly, The Power of the Positive Woman (1977)  
* Howard Schwartz, The Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness (2003)  
* Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males (2000)  
* Esther Vilar, The Manipulated Man (1972) 
* Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism is Not the Story of My Life (1996)  (
* Philip Gordon Wylie, A Generation of Vipers (1942) 
* Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us (2000) 
* Midge Decter, The New Chastity and Other Arguments Against Women's Liberation (1974) 
* Gertrude Himmelfarb, The De-moralization Of Society (1996) 
* Harvey C. Mansfield, Manliness (2006) 
* Diane Medved and Dan Quayle,  The American Family: Discovering the Values That Make Us Strong (1997) 
* Christina Hoff-Sommers, The War Against Boys (2001) 
* Christina Hoff-Sommers, Who Stole Feminism? (1995) 
I pulled the following section from the article because very few of these authors appear to deal with  genuine antifeminism as far as the common definition is concerned (please see discussions above)  To use this article to hide and slander all credible critics of feminist falsehood, fraud, or ideology is disengenous.  This article is for genuine antifeminists not for feminist whistleblowers, feminist dissents, non-feminists and other non-antifeminists.  If there are genuine antifeminist sources (please see dictionary definition) in this list please pull them back into the Further reading section as genuine sources.  Otherwise please refrain from using false sources for antifeminism content.
(drop in editor) 128.111.95.110 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it back after review of the definition in the article itself. Criticising feminism goes into antifeminist category, although authors of such literature are not necessarily antifeminists (in whichever sense one would like to use that word).Lost Angel 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Check: false characterizations of so-called antifeminist literature

message: The so called 'references' used for this article seemed to be merely article links from some partisan feminist sources  These references are hardly NPOV.  They are also far from rigorous sources upon which to build a genuinely NPOV article.  
I pulled in Amazon for some NPOV sources.  Please notice that some of these sources contain highly partisan rants that are far from NPOV and make arguments that have been repeatedly lampooned by other more moderate feminists (about so-called 'antifeminist' "intellectual harrassment" for instance.)  If highly partisan feminists define modern antifeminism using their own definitions we might mention them and their definitions here but to imagine that they (people with huge conflicts of interest and blatant biases) get to decide on the common dictionary definition is absurd.  (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Check: References

message: Content at issue:
:Who defines anti-feminism today
:Historically, the label 'antifeminist' was a term applied to people opposed to classical feminism...that is people opposed to female equality in general which at that time meant the same thing as being opposed to 'feminism'.  However, more recently, feminism has morphed into many forms of often conflicting 'feminisms' up to and including female-superiority 'feminisms'.  Therefore, the clear logical connection between opposing female equality and opposing today's forms of feminism is no longer true.  Today, one can be critical of feminism, believe strongly in female (and male) equality and yet be falsely labeled an 'antifeminist' because others consciously and/or unconsciously refuse to make distinctions between female equality and other feminist ideologies which have nothing directly to do with female equality.
:Some people such as religious fundamentalists believe in female inferiority and male superiority as foundations for their faith.  These people rarely define themselves as 'antifeminist' because, for them, feminism has no meaning.  Others, both feminist and non-feminist alike, label them as 'antifeminist' because they clearly match the definition.
:On the other hand, proud antifeminists who understand but disagree with female equality often label themselves as 'anti-feminists'.  These people are also usually labeled 'antifeminist' by others as well because they so clearly fit the definition of the term.  In this case, the persons self-identification coincides with others definition of him or her as 'antifeminist'.
:However, in odd but not unusual cases, people call themselves 'feminists' only to be labeled 'anti-feminist' by other feminists.  For instance, feminist whistleblower Christina Hoff Sommers rejects the term "antifeminist", calls herself a feminist and believes strongly in female equality but has been called an 'antifeminist' by many of her so-called 'sisters' within mainstream feminist circles.
:Non-feminists, scientific researchers, and others, who support female equality, are often labeled 'antifeminist' by today's feminists when their views are at odds with one or more aspect of status quo feminism regardless of the content of their claims.  Some radical feminists have even gone so far as to claim any criticism of any aspect of feminism is by (their) definition 'antifeminist'.  
:In extreme cases, any form of challenge to totalistic feminist ideology is called "intellectual harrassment" and the label 'antifeminist' is used to target people who would otherwise be seen as merely exercising their right to free speech.  In less extreme cases, anyone (female or male) whose religion, politics, or personal values differ from radical feminist proscriptions is labeled 'antifeminist' by definition.  People associated with anyone labeled 'antifeminist' can also be labeled 'antifeminist' by radical feminist partisans regardless of their viewpoints about female equality.  
:“Historically, the label 'antifeminist' was a term applied to people opposed to classical feminism...that is people opposed to female equality in general which at that time meant the same thing as being opposed to 'feminism'.“ 
This is completely unsourced.
:"However, more recently, feminism has morphed into many forms of often conflicting 'feminisms' up to and including female-superiority 'feminisms'."  
Where is the source? When exactly is “recently”? Based on what?
:"Therefore, the clear logical connection between opposing female equality and opposing today's forms of feminism is no longer true."  
POV, unsourced, and nonspecific. First of all what are “today’s forms of feminism”? Who decides? How are they different from yesterday’s or yesteryear’s or whatever if the opposite?
:"Today, one can be critical" 
As opposed to yesterday when “one” would have no valid points? You need to establish that.
:“of today's feminisms, believe strongly in female (and male) equality and yet be falsely labeled an 'antifeminist' because others often fail to make distinctions between female equality and other feminist ideologies which have nothing directly to do with female equality.”
Where is the source and who are these people?
:“Some people such as religious fundamentalists believe in female inferiority and male superiority as foundations for their faith. These people rarely define themselves as 'antifeminist' because, for them, feminism has no meaning.  Others, both feminist and non-feminist alike, label them as 'antifeminist' because they clearly match the definition.
:Other people label themselves as 'anti-feminists'.  These people are also usually labeled 'antifeminist' by others as well because they oppose female equality.  In this case, the persons self-identification coincides with others definition of him or her as 'antifeminist'.  Usually these people share a belief in female inferiority and male superiority which fits the definition of the term.”
Not only is this sloppy, unsubstantiated, and nearly nonsensical, but who decided that just because somebody calls themselves an antifeminist means they actually are? 
:“However, in odd but not unusual cases, people call themselves 'feminists' only to be labeled 'anti-feminist' by other feminists.  For instance, feminist whistleblower Christina Hoff Sommers rejects the term "antifeminist", calls herself a feminist and believes strongly in female equality but has been called an 'antifeminist' by many of her so-called 'sisters' within mainstream feminist circles.”
This is redundant and POV. Firstly, again, the view of Hoff Sommers as a “whistleblower” is completely subjective; if you have something significant where she is referred to as one then use it. Second, what is “mainstream feminism”? Do you have a source? Who decided? This looks weasel’y and POV because you have to work your logic backwards to conclude therefore anything that says Hoff Sommers is antifeminist = “mainstream feminism”. If you’re arguing it is POV and false to claim Hoff Sommers is antifeminist “because other feminists disagree with her”, you cannot turn around and call unnamed feminists who refer to her as “antifeminist” the “mainstream feminism” simply because you disagree with them.
:“Non-feminists, scientific researchers, and others, who support female equality, are often labeled 'antifeminist' by today's feminists when their views are at odds with one or more aspect of status quo feminism regardless of the content of their claims.”  
Such as when…? And, what, as opposed to yesterday’s feminists? What did they say?
:“Some radical feminists have even gone so far as to claim any criticism of any aspect of feminism is by (their) definition 'antifeminist'. “ 
Like…?
:“In extreme cases, any form of challenge to totalistic feminist ideology is called "intellectual harrassment" and the label 'antifeminist' is used to target people who would otherwise be seen as merely exercising their right to free speech.”  
Is there an example? Also, you’re conflating different issues: if you’re going to argue somebody claims “intellectual harrassment”, you have to counter it in kind; making into a free-speech issue shows POV.
:“In less extreme cases, anyone (female or male) whose religion, politics, or personal values differ from radical feminist proscriptions is labeled 'antifeminist' by definition.  People associated with anyone labeled 'antifeminist' can also be labeled 'antifeminist' by radical feminist partisans regardless of their viewpoints about female equality.”
This is getting redundant, yet you’ve still to source anything.
:I added (as yet unsourced) content to reflect many sources I have read on this topic.  I deleted circular cat-fights about who believes in what kind of feminism because these are feminism not antifeminism topics.  
“Cat-fight”? Nice. It is a genuine disagreement and lack of meeting of the minds when it comes to motivation and beliefs. It is sourced (or linked) and to-the-point about differing view-points, or at least explanations, on the “different kind of feminist” VS “anti-feminist” definition (however small, or at times non-existent, it may be) and therefore relevant to the topic.
:I tried to make distinctions here in as NPOV as possible so we can see how the label 'antifeminism' is used to define people with and without their consent.  (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 05:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Check Who defines 'antifeminism'?

message: The current combination of 'Characterized by ideas or behavior reflecting a disbelief in the economic, political, and social equality of the sexes' and 'activity indicative of belief in the superiority of men over women' seems to not adequately sum up either, plus disagrees with the further elaboration of the topic in the article. Even though the online dictionary definitions include 'reflecting' and 'indicative' for protection, the definition does not reflect antifeminism, since it mixes up what is actually being anti-ed. There is a difference, for example, between the abstract core values of feminism (equality of the sexes), and the effects of feminism: one could certainly be pro the former and anti the latter. Yes, the concreteness of any claim regarding the latter is always debateable, and any of us might agree or disagree regarding any particular statement made on that topic, but an article on antifeminism needs to include this variance in its definition, unless it is only concerned with portraying it as pejorative. Jgda 00:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph has been completely replaced a couple of times in the past month. I agree that the present version is not very good. You may want to use the version of the article from earlier this fall as a starting point instead. DanB†DanD 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am unhappy with the current very narrow definition, a point I've tried to make several times on this page.  One can be pro-equality, but anti-Feminism, the movement.  I think the page needs to reflect such critics. —johndburger 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now we have the wiki-game: something petty much everyone knows can't be said because an adequate enough scrap of source material can't be found. Real encyclopedia's actually don't have to deal with this ridiculous notion, which I suppose is part of the reason why they are genuine encyclopedias. Jgda 08:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting article. You see I would class myself as anti-feminist but I am totally FOR the equality of females in every way. I view feminism in this day and age as wanting to go further and gain equality where it is an advantage to women and not where it would be a disadvantage. I know there are many guys who think feminists want more than equality now, what do we call ourselves? Lol. Cls14 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitionism 

message: I added the content in the second paragraph because some other editor moved ALL of the critical references on feminism over here as being 'antifeminist'.  This includes dozens of authors both feminist and non-feminist who are critical of status quo 'oppression' feminisms but otherwise support equality feminism.   I ask again who decides who is 'antifeminist' here...to throw around pejorative labels that wreck peoples careers on an encyclopedia is libelous. 
Please either tighten up the definition in the second paragraph or delete it altogether.  Legitimate critiques of feminism belong on the feminism page rather than here unless the author is against all forms of female equality.  To rape definitions for political purposes is a common tactic totalitarian feminists use to slander their enemies.  We deserve better here.
(drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Legitimate criticism of feminism does belong here, despite the out-of-step definition being used. An antifeminist does not have to be against all things ever said or done under the banner of feminism just as a feminist does not have to be for all things ever said or done under the banner of feminism, particularly since both are logical impossibilities since this would mean contradicting yourself. It remains very important, obviously, for certain people to retain control over this word, despite its common usage being completely different to how the dictionaries still define it. This website has certain rules, so this entry will just have to remain patently inaccurate. Don't sweat it, it has no bearing or influence over the term anyway. Jgda 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some legitimate criticism does belong here.  The issue to me is one of distinction rather than one of inaccuracy.  As Patia and Koerge show feminists have raped this word by expanding the definitions to absurd extremes so that they can silence any and all critics of any or all feminist ideas with a the label anti-feminism.  This is an cunning, covert, and ugly political stunt to tar people rather than discuss their ideas.  It resembles how Jimmy Carter is being called 'anti-semitic' for saying that the Israelis do commit human rights offenses against Palestinians.   That's what I get all hot and bothered about here.  Any suggestions on how to handle this? The obvious stunt here was to call ALL authors critical of ANY aspects of feminist ideology 'anti-feminist' no matter how credible and dump them all here rather than showing them in feminism.  Neat trick.  (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Check second paragraph

message: Second Wave feminists have a terrible reputation for raping the language for their pejorative political and ideological POV pushing as in 'ALL heterosexual sex is rape', or 'gender' means 'female' and many other absurd definitions.  In Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies (Chapter 11 Policing the Academy), authors Patia and Koerge show how feminists rape the term 'anti-feminism' to make absurd claims about so-called 'antifeminist intellectual harrassment', to protect their separatist sandboxes from normal academic criticism and to silence legitimate critics of feminism (be they feminist or non-feminist).  Therefore I insist that we use NPOV dictionary definitions for our main definitions and clearly show how feminists use 'antifeminist' to slander their enemies when we show THEIR self-serving definition(s).  I also insist that we use clean distinctions between common NPOV and POV feminist definitions of 'anti-feminism' so that feminists political POV pushing is obvious here.   Just because an extreme and unrepresentative group of feminist partisans uses THEIR pejorative, self-serving and far from commonly accepted definitions for THEIR own purpose is reason enough to fall back on common dictionary definitions and to state the sources of definitions that are 'special'.  No one single group gets to impose definitions on all the rest of us and call them 'common' minus widespread useage...no matter how weak, whiny, and mean-spirited the group might be.(drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the definition of anti-feminism as a hostility to women isn't some kind of feminist POV pushing; it's one of the earliest meanings of the term, as given by the OED, probably the premier scholarly dictionary. Your addition to the article, claiming that the use of the term to mean anti-woman is an invention of "modern feminists", is false, as the OED makes clear. It makes sense for this article to concentrate on the use of the term to mean opposition to feminism, rather than hostility to women (because we already have Misogyny and Male chauvinism articles for the latter use). But to claim that the other use is "slander" is incorrect and pushes a particular antifeminist POV. VoluntarySlave 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing with the definition

message: Do we need this section? It refers to unequal treatment of women which is presumably already covered at misogyny, male chauvinism, or women's rights (or if it isn't, should be moved there. It might be useful to include a section on the arguments made by early opponents of women's rights (in the days before the word "feminism" was in wide circulation), perhaps starting with John Knox. VoluntarySlave 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antifeminism in history 

message: I added this section, with some antifeminist quotes by Nietzsche and a brief explanation of his antifeminism.  Maybe someone can help me with this, with more information on Nietzsche's antifeminism and that of other philosophers.  I may add more.  One idea I have is maybe adding more to the part about Nietzsche's view that feminism is detrimental to quality motherhood, and other philosophers who shared similar views. 07:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, the bit about Spengler's views requires to be either changed significantly, or removed. While valuable as Nietsche's interpreter, he hardly contributes (in the passages provided) to the topic of antifeminism. To the contrary, his allusions to glorification of women in labour, and attempts at refuting Nietsche's points are quite feminist-like. Due to these points I will remove Spengler's points unless the antifeminist ones by him are inserted.Lost Angel 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I believe it is more suitable either in 'feminism' section (since it counter argues with Nietzsche) or in Nietsche's wiki section or even in Spengler's wiki section. Because it does not fall into antifeminism so much as it does in pro-feminism or philosophy, thus either of them should have the upper hand. However, you're mentioning that Spengler does speak against feminism, without mentioning what he does - if you could expand on that, I think it would have been very suitable, even if not a straightforward criticism. Don't get me wrong, I see you've done research into this matter, but I am not sure the findings are in the right place. Maybe you could mention that Spengler is critical of Nietsche's point of view of feminism, however, emphasis should be on where he is critical of feminism itself, since this is an 'antifeminism' article. Lost Angel 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Antifeminism in philosophy

message: . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.169.142 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link to the Hebrew version of this page, is incorrect. 

message: I am talking about stuff like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYxJ8V_0ktw Is it ok generally to put links to youtube when relevant? Lost Angel 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antifeminist video materials. Should they be added? 

message: Where is this?Jgda 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Jgda 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're welcome - best place to look for book references is actually not libraries, but amazon shop... Not advertising it (I never bought a thing there), but it helps me a lot in research in terms of bibliographic details.Lost Angel 22:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BitchFest 2006 citation

message: What is the problem here? As opposed to feminists who don't call themselves feminists? Or antifeminists who mistakenly call themselves feminists? Or are they all just feminists who also happen to be people that call themselves feminists? What is important about drawing a line between 'feminists' and 'people who call themselves feminists'? The additions just add in a whole pack of problems. I think that both stylistically and ideolgically it's better to call both sides in the battle between feminists, 'feminists', and let the reader ponder the further issues without added interference. Otherwise, we may as well change the subheading to 'Antifeminism as a debate between people who call themselves feminists'Jgda 02:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Antifeminism as a debate between people who call themselves feminists' - I'm so tempted right now... But anyhow helped myself to cleaning up the article a bit. Lost Angel 08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: people who call themselves...

message: While Pozner certainly gives good sound byte, not only is her polemic probably quoted too much at length (the critique outweighing the actual statement for some reasons...), but her material is hardly scholarly. While her public media presence is massive (kind of making many of her quoted statements about her enemies pretty ironic really...), she doesn't exist as an author on any of the academic journals I have access to (as opposed to Sommers for example...). The two references I just added in the 'citation needed' spot (10 and 11) contain a much more scholarly criticism of the women in question, albeit less amusingly histrionic. Jgda 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pozner

message: Subject at stake is usage of "uses research to argue" as opposed to "in his discussion paper argues". 
My arguments against the word "research":
- methods used belong to the source and what matters for article on antifeminism is the points made.
- points he is making in his paper are on many occasions not backed up by any research cited.
- it is a discussion paper - can anyone clarify the difference between that and a research paper?
- "research" appears to me to be misused to add extra weight to the source solely, quotes from which that suggest strong author's bias have been provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antifeminism&diff=128462843&oldid=128462141
!I will keep reversing it until I am convinced it belongs there (meaning a reasonable reply to my points) or any non feminist is convinced of it. Lost Angel 13:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Uses research to..." is just a description of what he does in the paper (the description "paper" and the title of it which you added yourself and I thought was excessive and unecessary but fine enough), just as, "uses statistics to...". I've said it time and again yet you ignore and keep making it into something you want it to be. I don't know what else to tell you.NeoApsara 19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What he does in his paper is he makes a vast number of statements, some he backs up with references, which is where your insert applies,  while others he just throws in there. This isn't scientific, where all statements should be either backed up, or defined as POV. Has his paper been peer-reviewed? Why is it "discussion paper" as opposed to a "research paper"? Once again - if there is a third person who agrees with your insert, while not a feminist - I'm all for keeping it there. Lost Angel 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much information on the sources cited belongs here. 

message: Firstly, none of the links attempting to discredit antifeminist claim that families without father on average produce more problematic children really addresses the argument. Instead the following claims are made: poor families are more often fatherless and in poor families there are more other problems (of course, because no father tends to mean less money, and less money means more problems); second claim goes that good climate in the family is most important in how kid grows up (of course, but it has nothing to do with antifeminist claim, bloody read it again and understand what it constitutes); third argument - families without father can also produce happy kids (well, of course, but they statistically do so more rarely, which is what antifeminists are referring to). No other arguments have been made and the ones made, do not target the antifeminist argument. Therefore, my suggestion is to remove them or make an article on "fatherlessness" if one does not exist yet and stick it all there, since it doesn't belong here and certainly not in such proportions. I will do so, but I need more people not affiliated with feminism (besides myself) to agree that this suggestion is the right one.Lost Angel 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to antifeminists claiming (from the article) since the rise of feminism (whatever the heck that means) more of this has happened ... and with that more of this OTHER thing has happened, hence antifeminism, the critique says that it is not fatherlessness in itself that causes these problems rather things like poverty, substance abuse, poor parenting, domestic violence, etc., so the position is flawed. You seem to want it answered and addressed on your terms, based on what YOU believe the antifeminst argument really means instead of what is stated on the page, but that is for a debate on your TalkPage. Criticism sections in articles are ALLOWED and in those sections, there will be criticism. If you want separate "fatherless" section? Suggest it. However the criticism and counter-arguments will remain, albeit less excessively (which I agree they are, though I also believe the article doesn't fairly represent and substantiate what antifeminists believe), as it is relevant to the article and compliant with Wiki Policy.NeoApsara 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly. Antifeminist claims include identifying feminism as one of (for some - the main one) the key reasons for the increase in divorce rate - disputable point of course - go ahead - dispute it in the critique section. Next point - in families, where there is only mother parent worse children grow up, - factual statistically proven. What inserts debate are: what else/is more important in brining up of a kid, where are there more single mother families, can families without a father bring up happy kids - these are all different points that do not belong here, because they do not address the criticism that antifeminists are making. Antifeminists are not saying that it is fatherlessness that causes so and so, but rather that where there is fatherlessness - so and so prevails - else bloody quote them saying so - will solve the whole issue, but unless you find such quote - you're the one making things up, rather than me not seeing a black cat in a dark room, which isn't even there. Feminists whom you are quoting as well as yourself are arguing with a position that antifeminists do not hold or not quoted to hold. Whom are you arguing with? Yourselves! Anyhow I will wait for more comments from other people before making any serious changes. Lost Angel 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposing antifeminists were not saying fatherlessness was the cause then antifeminism as a stance because of an apparent cor/connection then the position is still flawed because it, afterall, is not being said as the cause. Supposing they are then somebody else calls out antifeminists showing that other statistics/studies show other things and that si what one should be concentrated on. When you demonstrate something with statistics, somebody else will critique that. And they did. Hence criticism. If you do not like they did so or do not think their critique gels with your interpretation of antifeminism then you can put fortht he effort to contact antifeminism's listed critics and argue with them; Wiki can display criticism of, yes, antifeminism. It doesn't have to be on your terms.NeoApsara 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll just put numbers to points, so it is clearer for you.1. Criticism section should criticise (antifeminist) points mentioned with sources in the article. Not just "criticise points NeoApsara and other feminists !think! antifeminists are making". It is a common misuse of rhetorics - substitute the reasonable point you don't like with an altered point of your own and argue with it. 2. Criticism section should address the actual issues not YOUR interpretation of issues which YOU CAN'T support by quotes. If you could - just put those quotes as antifeminist points and then the critical material will apply. 3. antifeminist position is much simpler really antifeminism -> family breakdown -> resulting situation many fatherless families -> in such families children are generally worse off + statistics to back it up. I'll clean it up and make a separate "fatherlessness" article, since this rubbish is out of proportion here. Lost Angel 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said above, I'm all for moving the material. All that needs to be here are referenced antifeminist ideas - whether they be right or wrong - to illustrate the topic for the reader. How about this for an idea - scrap the criticisms section of both this article and feminism and put each others article as a 'see also'? Jgda 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, scraping criticism section I think is not necessary, it should be there, but filled with real counterpoints, which currently it isn't. What it is filled with is debate on parenting and fatherlessness as a part of it, so it should be moved to where it belongs. Though I clearly picture feminist trolling once that is done and can't think of a good way to prevent it. Lost Angel 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that isn't necessary. There is no reason to alter the format of an article completely in line with Wiki policy, which having a criticism section is.NeoApsara 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But for you it is of course not necessary - since this way you have yet another section with feminist propaganda. Lost Angel 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatherlessness - major suggestion - need replies.