Talk:Antifeminism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Proposal for a more neutral lead

Antifeminism is broadly defined as opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism. It encompasses a wide variety of movements, ideas and attitudes that oppose feminism, which have attracted both men and women. As the focus of feminism has varied across time and cultures, the meaning of anitfeminism has too. For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the opposition to women's suffrage would be antifeminist. Many modern day critics of feminism maintain that the feminists theories of patriarchy and disadvantages suffered by women in todays society are incorrect or exaggerated, or that feminism as a movement encourages misandry and seeks to harm or oppress men.

It contains mostly the same information. I'm only leaving out this one:

Antifeminism may be motivated by general hostility towards women's rights,

because it's clearly another attempt at poisoning the well. At this point, we're still describing what antifeminism is, and so it's no place to insinuate that those adhering to it are actually motivated by something like an irrational hostility. Didaev (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

References

• Oppose - Material is reliably sourced. The suggested change gives equal validity to antifeminist claims, which is not the same thing as neutrality. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see in what way I'm giving more or less validity to anyone's claims than the previous version, it contains mostly the same information. And since you seem to disagree with this one being more neutral: Can you be a bit more specific, and explain which part isn't neutral?Didaev (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of the problems I have with the current version

Article review

Lead "Antifeminism is an ideology that is broadly defined as an opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism." Obviously, it's not an ideology, at best it's a trait an ideology can have. If we'd take Michael Flood's definition for example, then many different ideologies, which aren't even remotely similar, can be called antifeminist, and many would probably disagree with feminism on very different issues. "The meaning of antifeminism has varied across time and cultures and it has attracted both men and women." Obviously, the definition of antifeminism hasn't changed, it has always been "opposition to feminism". The fact that in practice, the attitudes which would make someone antifeminist have changed, is of course a direct result of the fact that feminism itself has changed. There's no reason to assume that people have changed their opinion, and that those who, for example, opposed women's suffrage are similar to those who think that these days, women aren't oppressed any more. By treating antifeminism as a single whole, it's trying to disqualify all criticism, through guilt by association. "Antifeminism may be motivated by general hostility towards women's rights" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive "the belief that feminist theories of patriarchy and disadvantages suffered by women in society are incorrect or exaggerated,[2][3] or that feminism as a movement encourages misandry and seeks to harm or oppress men." Seems fine to me. This seems to reflect the POV many critics of feminism do have. Note that at this point, we're not discussing what's true, only what antifeminists *believe*. "For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s it resisted women's suffrage.[4][5]" So far it has been treating antifeminism as a coherent whole, and so the fact this one is used as an example insinuates that this is a belief typical of this group as a whole. This is clearly not the case, and the author of the original lead obviously knew very well that most people would find this belief very objectionable, and so it was clearly an attempt at poisoning the well. It did leave it in my lead, but I made it clear that opposition to women's suffrage is antifeminist, not that opposition to women's suffrage is at all typical of those opposing feminism. Didaev (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Definition "Feminist sociologist Michael Flood ... and equitable arrangements (see timeline of women's rights (other than voting) and timeline of women's suffrage)." I think this is a very fair definition. The part about suffrages doesn't belong here though. "Michael Kimmel, a feminist ... perhaps also divinely sanctioned."[1]" This paragraph is very weird. It certainly shouldn't be under "definition", and frankly, I think it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. It seems like he's mostly just raging against his own ideal imaginary enemy, only to affirm his own stance. If I'd have to take it seriously, then I would assume that this part is his definition: "the opposition to women's equality.", and that the rest consists of conclusions he as arrived at through research. Now his definition is much narrower than Michael Flood's definition. Michael Flood's definition does include those which are for women's equality, but disagree with the feminist assessment that women currently are oppressed, while according to Michael Kimmels definition, those wouldn't qualify as antifeminists. Now I'm pretty sure that in practice, this would be by far the largest subgroup, and so the two definitions are very incompatible. This would be a pretty big problem for the rest of the article. But honestly, even his definition already seems a bit passive aggressive to me: What, you don't agree with my edifice? You mean, you don't think women should be equal to men? "Canadian sociologists, Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri, write that antifeminist thought has primarily taken the form of an extreme version masculinism, " More ad hominem. It's insinuating motivated reasoning: Antifeminist thought is something (probably pathological) which was already there, and that it needed to take form to sound like a genuine stance. It's a weird way of phrasing it anyway. Instead it should just state that there are antifeminists who believe that... "in which, "men are in crisis because of the feminization of society".[6] However, in the same article, they also note that, "little research has been done on antifeminism whether from the perspective of the sociology of social movements or even of women's studies," indicating that an understanding of what the full range of antifeminist ideology consists of is incomplete." Seems ok, some examples might be needed. I don't think it belongs in the definition section though. "Antifeminist" is also...the state of feminism.[10]" I don't think this belongs in the definition either. "The meaning of antifeminism has varied across time and cultures and the antifeminist ideology attracts both men and women. Some women, for example the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League campaigned against women's suffrage. Emma Goldman, for example, was widely considered antifeminist during her fight against suffragism in the US. Decades later, however, she was heralded as a founder of anarcha-feminism.[11]" I think it should be made clear that even though the definition hasn't changed, what it meant in practice has changed. Besides that, I think it's fine, and would fit the definition section.Didaev (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC) History 19th century "In the 19th century, the centerpiece of antifeminism was opposition to women's suffrage.[5]" Again, it's talking about it as if it's a single beast, which roars it's many different heads. There was opposition to women's suffrage, and it was this opposition which made it antifeminist, not the other way around. "Opposition and resisters have proclaimed their hatred for the alteration of gender roles." proclaimed their hatred? Honestly? "These people have worked diligently since then to slow down the crusade by creating their own: antifeminism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion "Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy.[23] Other antifeminists[dubious – discuss] opposed women's entry into the labor force, or their right to join unions, to sit on juries, or to obtain birth control and control of their sexuality.[1]" Should remain in there. " However, like any movement, antifeminism did not officially become recognized until its first observable action toward its goal in 1951." If it's true that, indeed, there was one big conspiracy against feminism, then you should state this flat out before making these suggestions: Describe honestly what their aims were, and what the proof of it is. Only after that would it be ok to refer to this conspiracy in this way.Didaev (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Masculinism "After the ERA was rejected, antifeminism grew a branch: masculinism." Again this "antifeminism" beast, which keeps on trying new lines of attack. If it's true that the things which happened with ERA somehow helped the appearance of masculinism, then give proof for that. Otherwise, keep the two separate. " Once feminists began suggesting ideologies like homosexual marriage, single mother households, and ultimately opposing the root purpose of antifeminism, it created a division of antifeminism that feels the “masculine identity has been spurned”." Again, you're insinuating that there's a root purpose. If this is the case, then it should be stated openly, and it should be explained what it's like. "[6] Consisting of mostly white men, it is debated whether masculinism is a social movement or a scapegoat to the people who made them have to fight for the roles in life that they feel are due onto them.[6]" I'm extremely allergic to this kind of narcissistic haughty contempt. It's the exact same thing as claiming that the only reason why women become feminists is that they're too ugly to find a man. I'm really baffled by how much you all manage to delude yourself, and fail to see the blatantly obvious misandry of much of today feminism. But in any case, it's ad hominem, so shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Didaev (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia merely summarizes published mainstream academic sources. We do not use original research or interpretation of sources. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. If you are here to advocate what you believe is the truth about feminism, antifeminism, or any topic, you have come to the wrong place. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I wasn't at all advocating any point of view, it was totally about the article itself (too much ad hominem, inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims). If I would be advocating my own beliefs, then I'd have to argue against things which could in principle be true, but contradict my own world view. I really don't think I did any of that.

Clearly, I'm not the only one who thinks this article is biased. I'm just trying to start an honest and constructive debate about it.Didaev (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you trying to argue with the article, without citing additional sources nor demonstrating that the text does not adequately reflect the sources cited. Did you read what I wrote?

You are the only person in this thread who thinks this article is biased. If you are appealing to posters in other threads, consensus is not determined by passers by who do not bother to learn our policies and guidelines, who do not know what mainstream professional sources say (and have no sources of their own), or who wish to have the article reflect their understanding of the subject instead of what mainstream professional sources say -- consensus is determined by sources and policies and guidelines. You have only presented your personal interpretation of the article to argue that the article is not neutral, instead of presenting sources that show that the article somehow reflects a minority view (which would require at least as many sources as what you're trying to counter). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, and I really don't see how it applies to my writing. Could you give me an specific example of where I'm breaking those rules?

It's simply not true that it's impossible to say something about an article, without touching sources. Certainly an article shouldn't contain ad hominem attacks. I think it's a reasonable assumption that published mainstream academic sources don't contain these kinds of attacks, and so the fact that this article does contain them must mean that it didn't just copy them from these sources. Now in principle, it's of course possible that these weren't ad hominem attacks, and that I just misunderstood something, but in that case, you could give a counter argument.

Besides that, there were just so many insinuations, and my point against those was that I thought that it should be mentioned in a more honest way:. For example, instead of insinuating that there's a big conspiracy, start by stating that this conspiracy exists, or likely exists, and then refer to it later on.Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, we're the only two in it so far. Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to use this as a way to force my point of view onto anyone, I only said it to suggest that it might be a good idea for you to honestly consider it, and don't dismiss it too quickly because I seemingly wasn't following your pedantic rules. You are of course right that the fact that many people believe something to be true doesn't make it true, but it does in general mean that it's more likely to be true, and so if you need some way of deciding whether something is probably worth your limited time and mental energy, then the fact that many people seem to agree on this is a pretty good argument.Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to be able to find a published mainstream academic sources, which proves that the wikipedia article on antifeminism is not neutral.

But it's obvious that you haven't read and understood what I wrote, because it doesn't even anything to do with the facts, it's purely about the article.Didaev (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No reason to change the article text unless new reliable sources are shown to be challenging some conclusion made by other reliable sources. It would be especially helpful for editors arguing here to show that a great many observers agree about some aspect. This article should convey the mainstream opinion very clearly, then merely touch upon minor opinions if they are prominent enough. Binksternet (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Didaev, Wikipedia summarizes sources. The article currently summarizes sources. You have not cited a single source. You have merely given your own unsourced arguments about the article. You have made some unsubstantiated claims about the sources, but in ways that indicate that you haven't actually bothered to check them.

And if we're going to assess your unsourced arguments (not that they would affect article content), they completely misunderstand the article and what an ad hominem attack is. For example, you said that:

"Canadian sociologists, Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri, write that antifeminist thought has primarily taken the form of an extreme version masculinism"

...Is somehow an ad hominem. Blais and Dupuis-Déri aren't attacked. It merely states that antifeminists like to present themselves as extreme masculinists. That is not a statement about masculinists in themselves, so you can't claim that it's an attack on them. No one is attacked in that sentence, and your claim of ad hominem is a faulty argument from fallacy. Ad hominem does not mean "I don't like this sentence," it means that the sentence intentionally insults somebody.

"Antifeminists are a bunch of cowardly, obese, fedora-wearing, neckbearded who are upset that can't get laid because they're assholes and so fantasize about being powerful men somehow oppressed by feminists" would be an ad hominem, POV, and generally inappropriate for the article.

"Antifeminists like to present themselves as extreme masculinists" is not ad hominem. To claim that it is ad hominem or insinuates further claims shows some POV issues on your end, not the article's.

"Some authors speculate that antifeminists might not be an organized movement but are just a loose collection of mostly white men who feel that they are not given enough respect" is not ad hominem. Lots of ideologies have a similar set up among adherents. Again, to claim that it insinuates further claims shows POV issues on your end, not the article's.

Until you have any sources to cite, there is no reason for this discussion to continue. To put this as plainly as possible, no one is going to listen to you until you find a bunch of books that are relevant to this article, and tell us their names, authors, and the page numbers that contain something relevant to this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"It merely states that antifeminists like to present themselves as extreme masculinists."

The whole article is rife with inflammatory and suggestive language, and there are many parts which are undeniably ad hominem. Now I did a google search for this phrase, and you seem to be right, it's quite a common one, with a meaning which is different from what I thought it to be. This is a very normal mistake though. The whole article was filled with these kinds of insinuations, and so it's only normal that when there's something which is slightly ambiguous, you'll prime for an interpretation similar to the rest of the article. So I made a mistake with this one, but it's not such a far fetched one. A very common ad hominem argument after all is to suggest that someone's claims are merely the manifestation of an irrational underlying sentiment. The fact that I made a mistake here doesn't discredit my other criticism.

"Some authors speculate that antifeminists might not be an organized movement but are just a loose collection of mostly white men who feel that they are not given enough respect"

It all depends of course. Obviously, if there are men who claim that they don't get enough respect, then stating that these men exist, and what their stance is, isn't ad hominem. A claim which may seem a bit similar, but is much more ad hominem is: "..a scapegoat to the people who made them have to fight for the roles in life that they feel are due onto them.". It insinuates that they feel entitlement to more than others, and that their discontent is merely because they don't like what equality feels like. Since they know that they can't state flat out that they're for inequality, they'll come up with a narrative around it, which instead says that they in fact are disadvantaged, to legitimize their sentiment.

Granted, it depends a bit on the context to what extent this would be ad hominem. If it's used to disqualify someone's opinions by claiming that it's merely a manifestation of an irrational sentiment, then it's ad hominem. On the other hand, motivated reasoning does of course happen, and if there's indeed proof that this is the case, then it should certainly be mentioned, but only after an honest description of their POV (or what they claim their point of view is) is made, and only after an honest counter argument is given. Only then should it be ok to speculate why these people came to believe these things in the first place.

I really don't think you're in a position to tell me to shut up. I've already explained why sources weren't relevant to the argument I was making. The fact that you keep complaining about then just shows that you don't understand the purpose of them anyway, and that to you it's just some sort of ritual. I also think that if you'd stop focusing so much on these rituals, and instead start being intellectually honest, you'd see how ridiculous this article really is, and that it really has no place on Wikipedia.Didaev (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:CITE, one of the site's cornerstones. We do not care what readers believe, because this is not a forum for each editor's opinions. We only care about summarizing sources, as is demonstrated by WP:CITE. If you have actually read anything on the topic, then you would have some sort of sources. If you do not have any sources, then you are not informed on the topic and there is no reason for anyone but you to care what you think. It's that simple, and it's not just true for this site but for academia as well -- if you try to send a paper to an academic journal or present a doctoral thesis that does not show that you have read whatever is available on the subject, you will be dismissed and ignored. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I've already explained why this is totally irrelevant to what I wrote, but anyway, if you need it, I can try to elaborate on it, to make it understandable for you. I do expect you to honestly consider it though, because it's really annoying to argue with a broken record. Are you willing to do that? Didaev (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are not willing to work on Wikipedia's terms, you are welcome to spend your time elsewhere. No one cares about your opinions, only what sources say. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As I only just write: IT DOESN'T APPLY TO WHAT I WROTE. That means that I do recognize the rules, I just disagree with you that what I wrote goes against that rule. Can I please ask you to come off your high horse. It's ok of you don't understand something, but be open minded. Just quit trying to twist things in these weird ways so that it seems that you are somehow on top in this situation...Didaev (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It very much does apply. If you wish to make any changes to an article, you must either bring in a source that supports new information, provide multiple sources showing that a single source is wrong, or demonstrate that the material in the article does not reflect the source cited. Those are the options. You have instead tried to argue your personal feelings about the sourced material in the article, often indicating that you had not actually checked with the source cited. Saying that that does not apply to what you wrote does not make it so.

And it would be pretty much impossible to acknowledge that the sources are reliable and that the article adequately summarizes their salient points while simultaneously claiming that the article is crafted in such a way as to insinuate ad hominem attacks that only you can see for some reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"It very much does apply"

No, it doesn't and I've already explained why. You on the other hand keep repeating the same thing over and over again. You're going to either have to argue why my point is invalid, or if you don't understand it, ask some directed questions. I have to assume (WP:GF), which means that I have to assume you're open for an honest discussion. I expect you to do the same. It's difficult though, because what you're doing seems more like WP:GAME: All you seem to do is try to bully people who try to be constructive into silence. The article in it's current from has no place on Wikipedia, and it's clear that on some level you realize this. Now I could have started an edit war, or started clamoring for sources, but I didn't, I turned to the talk page, to start an honest discussion, in the hope that this could be worked out in a constructive manner.

"If you wish to make any changes to an article, you must either bring in a source that supports new information, provide multiple sources showing that a single source is wrong, or demonstrate that the material in the article does not reflect the source cited."

Those are not the only reasons. For example, there is WP:POVFORM. If an article isn't of neutral form, it's perfectly fine to change it, in such a way that the content remains the same, but the form becomes more neutral.

And the criticism I had totally falls under these. Most of it was criticism of the form, other parts indeed showed that it couldn't reflect the sources.

But still, I haven't even touched the article yet, it's all in the talk page, and so at this point, It's not about being right, but about working together with a community, which has the common goal of creating an accurately sourced article. Good faith on your part also means that if I point something out, which is obviously true, but for which I didn't provide a source, then an honest reaction on your side would be to just say that you realize I'm right, but that I might want to find an explicit source for it before it goes live. Since scientists aren't idiots, there probably is going to be plenty of literature to be found to support it.

For example: One of the few claims which touched information I made was that the vast majority of people who would be antifeminists according to Flood's definition wouldn't be according to Kimmel's definition. I think that this is a good example of such a situation. It's impossible to deny that this is the case, but it's not a priori true, and so you could ask for a source. What you can not do in good faith however, is to dismiss my whole argument just because I didn't (yet) provide a source for this claim.

"You have instead tried to argue your personal feelings about the sourced material in the article, often indicating that you had not actually checked with the source cited"

There are a few places where I interjected some personal feelings. You can just ignore those. It wasn't the gist of what I wrote.

"Saying that that does not apply to what you wrote does not make it so."

Yeah ok. I actually gave an explanation. You on the other hand are the one who keeps repeating the same thing, even after I've explained why you're wrong. (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Didaev: there's not much point in criticizing the article (or people who defend it) unless you're going to offer some constructive changes. Please focus on suggesting ways to make the article better rather than just pointing out what you think is wrong, or taking issue with other's talk page comments. This isn't a discussion forum and we're not really here to argue/debate. What changes specifically would you like to see made? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He offered a rewrite of the lead at the beginning of this discussion section. Kaldari (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Which was not based on sources, gave equal validity to antifeminist claims, and removed material from a reliable source that he didn't care for. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Thanks, don't know how I missed that! Didaev, my apologies! Fyddlestix (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

My two cents on the proposed revision: I think the first two sentences of the proposed version are ok, but I disagree with the removal of "may be motivated by general hostility towards women's rights" and the accompanying footnote. Multiple sources characterize antifeminism/ists as hostile to women's rights, so I don't see any reason for removing that. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Then at least I think it should be changed to "is characterized by", not "motivated by". There are indeed quite a few sources which talk about hostility towards women's rights, but usually it's used as a synonym for antifeminism, not as something which somehow motivates it (and of course, hostility towards women's right is by definition antifeminist, so it's just saying that antifeminism is motivated by antifeminism, which doesn't really mean anything). I don't have Kimmel's book, so I can't verify what he wrote, but I doubt this is what he really meant.

Now I guess more specifically, what's meant by it, is that many antifeminists (who are by definition at least somewhat hostile towards feminism), don't so much have a few things they happen to disagree on with feminists, but instead are hostile towards the idea of women gaining more rights at all, and so fight against it, whatever it is feminists come up with. Stating that this is the case of course also implies that their justifications are of little value, and so can just be ignored.

It would be fine to mention this in the lead (if research supports it), but then I think it should really go last in the enumeration (ie. start with what they claim to be against, then say that they're probably motivated by something else). I really think this order is important, and that it would actually "benefit" the feminist side. Imagine that you don't yet know anything about antifeminism, and came to this article to learn about it. Then, if the article starts by telling you that their opinions are irrelevant, and that you should basically ignore everything they say, you'd feel offended, because it feels like someone's trying to manipulate you. Certainly you'd take everything which comes after it with a grain of salt. If on the other hand, it's up front about everything, then people will be much more likely to assume the whole article is honest. Didaev (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think that the article was honest if it said that antifeminists have very little credibility. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote from Kimmel: "Antifeminists oppose women's entry into the public sphere, the reorganization of the private sphere, women's control of their bodies, and women's rights generally." Not promoting antifeminism is not the same as promoting against it. The article is upfront that antifeminism is opposed to women's rights, by all sourced definitions, which is all Wikipedia cares about. The article doesn't actually say their opinions are irrelevant (again, you're reading your perspective into the article instead of just reading the article as written), it just says what their opinions are. If someone reads the article's sourced summary of antifeminist views and their conscience tries to lead them to conclude that antifeminist opinions are irrelevant, that's their decision. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So given the two options "is sometimes characterized by" and "may be motivated by", which one do you prefer, and why?Didaev (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This entire article needs a rewrite

I find it utterly absurd to read an article about anti-feminism - as described by feminists! That's like asking beliebers to summarize critique of Justin Bieber. Who cares how a feminist author defines anti-feminism? That is as biased as you could possibly get, and completely irrelevant for establishing some sort of definition.

And it shows: The entire form of this article is nonsense. Anti-feminism is no more an ideology than atheism is a religion, that much is clear from the word itself. Yet this article tries to jumble everything from opposition towards women's suffrage to humanism into some single crazy ideology, which to my knowledge nobody subscribes to.

And why are the only notable "anti-feminists" mentioned here feminists? Where is Karen Straughan, the most notable anti-feminist of today, viewed by more than a million people, and invited to conferences everywhere? Where is Julie Borowski, who is so frequently quoted in the libertarian debate? Where are all the female celebreties who have objected against feminism? Even people who are often mistaken for being feminists, such as Erykah Badu.

This entire article - as it stands - is a sham, and makes me embarrassed of being a Wikipedian. Somebody fix it! 129.240.223.43 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As a previous donator, it's articles like this that make me regret it (and I certainly won't be donating in the future). Considering Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, it does a very poor job on practically any article related to feminism due to feminists tenacity to spread their propaganda. While I'd be willing to accept an article being biased for a few months, I'd expect it to be cleaned up eventually, considering the argument of the bias of this article has been going on for 3 years now - I find it unlikely that the feminist bias in Wikipedia will allow this article to ever represent facts (or at least the views of ACTUAL anti-feminists). Using Michael Kimmel as a line one item for a definition what Anti-feminists are (He is a DEVOUT feminist) is the most absurd thing I have ever heard, but it is allowed to continue because of the feminist bias, and any attempt to change it is met with immediate reverts by biased editors. This is Wikipedia's shame. 146.199.122.44 (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Everywhere you look on Wikipedia there is some sociology student who owns his or her pet article and won't let anyone add any knowledge by constantly reverting it with a WP:CABAL while explaining it by mumbo-jumbo. Seriously, people should just go and edit their PhD instead of reverting someone else's edit. Isn't this what feminism opposes? Powerlessness etc?--Cubancigar11 (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear, I came to this talk page to point out the absurdity of using feminist definitions for "anti-feminism," and I saw with pleasure that you had already made the point admirably! Kerry (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this page is one of the least impartial I have seen on Wikipedia. Cacra (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty bizarre indeed. I really don't understand how anyone could ignore the massive elephant in the room, and maintain that this is an unbiased article. "Opposition and resisters have proclaimed their hatred for the alteration of gender roles. These people have worked diligently since then to slow down the crusade by creating their own: antifeminism. ", ehm seriously?Didaev (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)