Revision as of 19:05, 5 May 2006 edit64.172.115.2 (talk) →"For instance violent bullies often bring up violent bullies."← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:51, 3 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 8) (bot |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
==Article name== |
|
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
Shouldn't this article be at ]? ] 09:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum|antifeminism, feminism, antifeminists or feminists}} |
|
:Yes. ] 01:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
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? {{unsigned|Karlmathews}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|class=|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Antifeminism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 8 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
|
| {{cite book |editor1-last=Ging |editor1-first=Debbie |editor2-last=Siapera |editor2-first=Eugenia |title=Gender Hate Online: Understanding the New Anti-Feminism |date=2019 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-319-96226-9 |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-96226-9 |url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/10.1007/978-3-319-96226-9 |url-access=registration |via=]}} |
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=O’Donnell |first1=Jessica |title=Gamergate and Anti-Feminism in the Digital Age |date=2022 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=Cham |isbn=978-3-031-14057-0 |pages=109–138 |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_4 |chapter=The Militaristic Discourse of Anti-feminism |chapter-url=https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_4 |chapter-url-access=registration |via=]}} |
|
|
| {{cite book |last1=Ribieras |first1=Amélie |editor1-last=Carian |editor1-first=Emily K. |editor2-last=DiBranco |editor2-first=Alex |editor3-last=Ebin |editor3-first=Chelsea |title=Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right |series=Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right |date=2022 <!--|edition=1st--> |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=978-1-0005-7622-1 |pages=67–93 |doi=10.4324/9781003164722 |chapter='I Want to Thank My Husband Fred for Letting Me Come Here,' or Phyllis Schlafly's Opportunistic Defense of Gender Hierarchy}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Men's rights movement == |
|
::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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been inserted and removed and re-inserted in the lead; it probably ''should'' be covered in the article body, if only in a summary-style section linking to ], but it currently isn't. It'd be easy enough to cover - just a little bit summarizing ], with a toplink to that article. But where should it be placed in this article's structure? As a top-level subsection? Or does it fit into one of the existing subsections? -- ] (]) 21:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
::If they can send one man to the moon why can't they send em all? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The men's rights movement was placed in the 21st century section so it is in the body, although I'm also not sure exactly where it should go because it originated in the 20th century. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 22:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
::The best man for the job is a woman. |
|
|
|
::Well, we could always move it to the 20th century. If we did that we might add a sentence about how it started in the 70's as a generally pro-feminist men's liberation movement and then split into pro- and anti-feminist strands (which is covered in the history section of its own article.) --] (]) 03:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yep that sounds like a good idea. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Feminism infobox == |
|
::Neutrality? It's not to be found and where present is seen as sexism against women and attacked. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the feminism infobox in this article, in the sub-section "Opposition to feminism", I believe the "Pro-feminism" and "Protofeminism" do not belong there. Those are clearly pro feminist topics and not about opposition to the movement. I would edit it myself, but wanted to check first here if I'm missing something. I also don't know how to edit the infobox! It somehow appears fully empty for me. ] (]) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
==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. ] 17:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I believe that "Opposition to feminism" is bolded not because it is a section header but because it redirects to Antifeminism. Compare to the infobox on <nowiki>]</nowiki> ] ] 17:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Some points of potential interest. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent additions == |
|
Article needs some major meat IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{re|Johnnybgood999}} creating a list of authors who have for criticizing feminism necessitates ] saying as much. The cited sources are all ] for the authors' opinions, making the addition ] if not ]. —] (]) —] (]) 18:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
I encourage editing some lines. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Thank you very much for the suggestion. Secondary sources and third-party publications have been added, emphasizing the prominence and relevance of the authors cited (regarding antifeminism). By the way, I suggest making precise editions next time instead of completely reverting the changes, as this would significantly affect the article's quality. Best regards. ] (]) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
"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. |
|
|
--] 21:06, 27 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "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 <s>]</s> ]just sounds bizarre. And Adolf Hitler??? ] 03:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It makes as much sense as this... |
|
|
|
|
|
:<i>Many anti feminist groups are just attention seeking bullies who want to put forward deliberately offensive viewpoints to hurt the feelings of decent people.</i> |
|
|
|
|
|
:If feminists get to write the anti-feminist article, perhaps anti-feminists should write the feminist article? |
|
|
:] 17:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Rich |
|
In the feminism infobox in this article, in the sub-section "Opposition to feminism", I believe the "Pro-feminism" and "Protofeminism" do not belong there. Those are clearly pro feminist topics and not about opposition to the movement. I would edit it myself, but wanted to check first here if I'm missing something. I also don't know how to edit the infobox! It somehow appears fully empty for me. DuxCoverture (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)