Talk:Antifeminism

See Also

I removed "Straw Feminism" from the list of terms to look up. It redirects to the article for the straw man fallacy. This creates the implication that anti-feminism is rooted in the utilization of this fallacy. Obvious to anyone who identifies as an anti-feminist, that is clearly ridiculous.

Definition of Antifeminism by feminists

Why is Antifeminism being defined by what feminist authors and thinkers are saying? That doesn't make any sense. I am going to edit this section and get the actual definition from anti feminists. Imagine Anti-racism article saying 'Prominent racist and KKK author says antiracism is baloney'. This is what right now this article sounds like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubancigar11 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Feminist scholars are a very highly respected source of information. Scholars in general are what we look for when a topic is difficult to define. There's no problem with referencing feminist scholars who are in fact the ones who study antifeminism the most. Basically, the only scholars of antifeminism are feminist scholars. So your concern is unfounded. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your reply is false; it rests on a false premise. Scholars are not neutral regardless of field; gender studies is much more ideological than other fields. It's "scholarship" in the way that, say, Lamarckian evolution scholars are "scholars" of evolution and should define what opposition to Lamarckian evolution means. You can find similarly inane scholarship in support of alternative medicine. Just because it's in an academic journal like Hypatia or whatever doesn't mean it's neutral and equally as good of a source of information as scholars from other disciplines. Since gender studies is ideological, if anything it's the opposite. 70.121.172.235 (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If you have other scholars from other fields to recommend, please suggest them. Simply criticizing the existing sources without offering alternatives isn't going to change anything. Kaldari (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kaldari: How about the scholars who are listed in the article but who's viewpoints are not elaborated on? (Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Katie Roiphe and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese)  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your argument. Antifeminism should be defined by those who claim themselves to be antifeminists. (ie womenagainstfeminism). Feminists are the critics of anitifeminism, therefore their views on antifeminism should be secondary views. As in any debate, the proposition always speak first.

also, "antifeminists" like Christina Hoff Summers are respected scholar themselves too and gave their reasons for why they oppose (current form of) feminism. why isn't their views or quotes being used here? 104.247.228.124 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with the OP. Having feminists define anti-feminism is not objective research since it is a counter movement/ideology/belief and would likely be better suited for a criticisms section; it would be like asking Tony Perkins to define homosexuality... you are just not going to get an unbiased assessment. Such instances should be removed or moved to their own section. 2602:306:B856:4600:49B:1BBE:E36F:1EDF (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I do not believe that the definition from the feminist scholar is the one that an antifeminist would use to identify themselves as (we should use a definition generally accepted by the group, since it's the groups right to define their ideology). It doesn't matter how feminism defines antifeminism (in this part of the article). Feminists can make their own definition for their arguments, be letting it be true in their premise, which can be useful for describing some antifeminists or an alternative definition more convenient for their argument. But we need to look at how antifeminists define themselves, and then we can see how others define or view them. Letting someone from another view define antifeminists (and that someones definition is not generally accepted by the group), when there are probably sources of antifeminists defining themselves out there, give people an inaccurate understanding of what the group is. Otherwise, the definition can end up setting up something not quite the same as how they usually identify themselves, possibly creating a straw man. So I guess the problem is trying to find a "reasonably accepted definition by antifeminists". Side note, further down the article, I do not believe most modern antifeminists identify themselves as Michael Kimmel has stated. I believe that most modern antifeminists aren't opposed to womens equality, if you'd ask them. Usually the argument by antifeminists is that feminists are going beyond equality, or just unjustly blaming people. 129.97.131.0 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we (antifeminists) should define our ideology ourself. I've read the German Wikipedia, where the antifeminism article was written by a feminist lobby on Wikipedia. Well, they stated that antifeminism was about hating women, and wishing men to rule over women. Well, no. Yes, I'm an antifeminist, but I am female too. And no, I don't wanna have less rights than men. But I don't wanna more rights because I'm female, and I actually love men (most of you are friendzones thou). Enough about me: I think we shouldn't use the feminist sources, since they are biased, and the antifeminists should tell what they are for. The feminist articles could be used later in the article, to show what feminists think about antifeminism. Like we could write in the feminist article, what antifeminists in scholarly articles think about them. --Momo Monitor (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

And no, I don't wanna have less rights than men. But I don't wanna more rights because I'm female But that's actually a core tenet of feminism tho? In addition to that, modern feminism also critiques heteronormativity and cisnormativity, which is what actually many antifeminists have problems with -- their ideal is that "females should be encouraged to be as feminine as possible and males should be encouraged to be as masculine as possible". Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am the poster from 129.97.131.0. I'm not anti-feminist, nor really feminist (in that I participate in either of the movements). I do listen to various prospectives though, and come to my own conclusions. Just to add some things on, I don't believe we need to remove the views of feminists. However, what I do believe is that most anti-feminists would define themselves and their actions very differently than what feminists define them as, especially as presented on the article. The real reason why this is a problem is that, even as academics, I believe (whether intentional or not) that it starts to become a strawmans argument. For example, academics claim that anti-feminists are people who want to repress women's rights, where as I believe most anti-feminists would say they oppose feminists themselves, because of irrational claims / emotionally charged actions, gynocentrism, or whatever else. The problem is that the arguments that are presented by anti-feminists are simply not represented, but replaced with claims that make them look bad (again, in general, not as a pretence to an argument). I should also mention that some anti-feminists also DO support the suppression of womens rights (not unlike feminists who support suppression of mens rights), and even in a more historical context (which I believe can be included on the article) anti-feminism could have been defined as people who support the suppression of womens rights. However, I do not beleive that in general, modern anti-feminists support the suppression of womens rights. Now then, the more important question: Where can we get some reasonable sources as to what anti-feminists would generally define themselves as? Is there any academics who clearly state or argue the anti-feminist viewpoint? 129.97.124.194 (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Your point of view is interesting but it does nothing to shift this article. Topic experts define a topic. The topic experts here are scholars who study the issues of antifeminism. This article already has plenty of these. It doesn't need more of them. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Your reasoning is circular, anti-intellectual, and wrong. All that's required to be a "topic expert" is (1) a following, (2) an organization to back your journal, and (3) some kind of greenlight from a university administration to fund your department. This doesn't mean you've actually published knowledge, or that anything you've said is true or neutral or non-ideological. To see why what you've said is fundamentally wrong, picture some eccentric billionaire who could create fields this way merely by backing journals and departments and justifying whatever ideology he or she so chooses. This has been done to inflate Ayn Rand's scholarly notability in the past. In fact, some religious schools have attempted to say god definitively exists precisely through this method. People here should not be taking you seriously; really, they should be working to minimize whatever influence you have. 70.121.172.235 (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree Binksternet. This article so far is poorly structured so, adding more opinions by experts on antifeminism would only help until it gets better organized. IP, feel free to add more to the article if you like. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cla68 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but the concept of using feminist sources to describe a group that opposes them is the same as allowing anti-feminists sources on the feminism page. If this is the case, why were the anti-feminists sources removed from the feminism page? This is a double standard. Frankly, something needs to be done about the feminist wikipedia authors as I am constantly finding wikipedia pages that are being plagued by anecdotal basis, with source from feminist authors and activists. This is one place, more than any other, that we do not need to see this. Or we can all start writing about atheism on each religion page. Anti's DO NOT belong with the affirmative, otherwise we might as well condense everything to one page of affirmative and negatives, and then wiki will explode with arguments.Thisisashan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Nature of the bias in this article

This article is clearly biased towards feminism and appears to have been majorly edited by one. If someone has the time to complete a major edit of this article, including replacing one of the definitions from feminists by someone from this movement and add one more that is also from an antifeminist, that would be much appreciated. Biasfixer (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Go read WP:NPOV. Articles reflect what sources reflect. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the article wrongly interpret what the scholars have said. the issue is the article did not reflect what the antifeminists have said of themselves. various ppl and entities have been accused of antifeminism or self-proclaim themselves to be. their views and their quotes have not been included in this article. and that itself is bias.

it does not matter whether if what these antifeminists said is "right" or "wrong", it only matters that the person or entity in question actually said those words.104.247.228.124 (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is that definitions of "antifeminism" much like "feminism" can be subjective. Modern Feminists identify with the Suffragist movement as a forerunner to their own. However, this does not by extension link, for example Pro-Life groups who disagree with prevailing feminist views on abortion choice, to those who were opposed to women's suffrage. This is a tricky article with politically loaded terms, but it doesn't seem to attempt NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.132.166 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually this is quite incorrect, as anti-feminists seldom care which form of 'feminism' someone claims to be. An anti-feminist is most frequently someone who opposes the ideology as a whole, with their eyes focused solely on the groups who commit change, the major feminist players. NOW and other feminist organizations. The fact that 'feminism' is subjective is irrelevant, and in fact that is something that any anti-feminist will bring up himself, as it is a proof to many of the problems that plague the feminist community. The average 'feminist', they define is separate and subjective, however the groups actually making change in the western world have very inline motives. STEM field myth, violence against women myth, the wage gap myth, manspreading, etc. These are constants, you hear them from every 'feminist', and are the basis behind anti-feminists. Again, feminists have no place commenting in this article. It is nonsensical and only serves to put a negative bias and spin on the subject. Much like letting a group of Satanists comment heavily on the Christianity page.Thisisashan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Banning feminists from the subject matter is against policy. Per Wikipedia:Ownership of content: "All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization which is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say."

If you actually want to make proper changes in the perspective of the article find reliable sources which support your view. See: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for the expected requirements for sources used. The article on Christianity already includes a section on "Criticism and apologetics" which includes both criticisms and apologia. It is far from perfect (two millennia of criticisms covered in an extremely short way), but it is sourced. Dimadick (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, please move all the feminist arguments to criticism, and clean up the page to reflect the actual viewpoints of anti-feminists. Wikipedia:Ownership of content is clearly non-applicable, as no one has claimed ownership. Merely, it is in fact intellectually dishonest to have this entire article written by feminists. You cite the Christianity entry as an example, yet it is CLEAR that the Christianity wiki is not written by a Satanist who has denounced Jesus and loves to murder people, isn't it? So by similar standards, the article should be written by those who hold this viewpoint, and not by those who wish to counter it. This wiki entry is absolutely dripping with biased opinions and hearsay, for instance "[...]For example, anti-feminists in the late 1800s and early 1900s[...]". Which is a time period where feminism wasn't established enough to have counter culture. Absolutely no one in the late 1800's identified as an anti-feminist. If you can find one, please by all means demonstrate to us all they existed. Google, Britannica, Webster, and Continental all seem to indicate that anti-feminism didn't surface into the mid 1900's.

Then we move to definitions, "[...]Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues[...]". Tell me, do you see "[...]Satanist <insert name> defines Christianity as[...]" in the Christianity wiki? No, you do not, and you should not. Again, this is not claiming ownership, this is simply a matter of intellectual integrity. Feminist opinions belong in criticism section, as they are exactly that, criticism. You basically said that yourself by citing the Christianity page as a reference per modus operandi. This is like letting a Nazi define the Jewish faith. You will not get an honest portrayal of what the Jewish faith was that way.Thisisashan (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The most reliable sources on a topic come from the experts who study, analyze and write about the topic: scholars. In the case of antifeminism, the scholars who study the topic are primarily in Women's Studies or Sociology or Feminism. Wikipedia considers scholars to be the most reliable source of information, so much so that we use scholarly analysis to define the topic. Again, in the case of antifeminism it is those scholars who are in Women's Studies who define this topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, regardless of which field, the most reliable source is a primary source. This is a fundamental truth that we are all taught in grade school, which is reinforced through-out schooling. Women's studies majors do not study anti-feminism, they expressly study feminism. Feminists do not study anti-feminism, they expressly study feminism. Sociologists would be an applicable expert, given that they had actually studied anti-feminism. Sorry, but what you are claiming is similar to someone claiming that Christians are experts on Satanism. Confirmation bias tells us that what you are claiming here, is exactly the opposite of the truth. The experts on this topic, are anti-feminists. Primary sources.Thisisashan (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Thisisashan: Wikipedia specifically favors secondary, scholarly sources over primary sources. Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Kaldari is correct. WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred by Wikipedia. These sources are also given more weight if they are scholarly.

The assertion that feminists do not study antifeminism is ludicrous. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Biased removal of edits

I edited this article to properly represent anti-feminists in the controversy over the Equal Rights Amendment. The article as it stands now is a hit piece against antifeminists and is incredibly biased and obvious in its attempt to paint antifeminists as misogynists. Here is what my edit looked like:

The Equal Rights Amendment is a perennially proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would grant equal rights and opportunities to every citizen of the United States, regardless of his or her sex. By 1972, the amendment was supported by both major parties and was immensely popular; but though it made it through Congress, it was defeated when it failed to get the vote of thirty-eight legislatures by 1982.[28]

Antifeminists argue that there has been a lot of historical revisionism when it comes to the failure of the ERA. For instance, Jerome Himmelstein hypothesized that housewives opposed the ERA because they were content with being “economically dependent on their husbands”[29] and did not like the idea of working for a living. Those housewives’ high-income husbands opposed the amendment because they would gain the least with it being passed. In fact, those men had the most to lose since the ratification of the ERA would mean more competition for their privileged jobs and possibly a lowered self-esteem.[28]

Feminists claim that another method that the antifeminists used was getting the votes of politicians, who had the largest impact on the destiny of the ERA. Feminists argue that the support of antifeminism from conservatives and the constant “conservative reactions to liberal social politics” were the reasons for the ERA's failure. Like the New Deal attacks, the attack on the ERA has been dismissed as a “right-wing backlash”.[28]

However, when actually asked why they opposed the ERA, antifeminists, both right- and left-wing, like Phyllis Schlafly, who was pinnacle in beating the ERA, have much more nuanced reasons for their opposition to the ERA than misogyny or mere ideological tribalism. First, the full text of the ERA:

   Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
   Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
   Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. [30]

According to Schlafly's own organization, Eagle Forum, there were several reasons for her and other antifeminists' opposition to the ERA.[31]

-The rejection of the Wiggins Amendment, which meant that women would be subject to selective service should the ERA have passed due to the fact that the ERA promised absolute equality under the law. Considering that the controversy over the ERA reached its peak during the Vietnam War Era, opponents of the ERA refused to see their daughters be drafted for military service as their sons had been. [31]

-"ERA would take away the traditional benefits in the law for wives, widows and mothers. ERA would make unconstitutional the laws, which then existed in every state, that impose on a husband the obligation to support his wife." [31]

-In reference to the second section of the ERA, opponents stated it gave too much power to the federal government. "ERA would give enormous power to the Federal courts to decide the definitions of the words in ERA, "sex" and "equality of rights." It is irresponsible to leave it to the courts to decide such sensitive, emotional and important issues as whether or not the language applies to abortion or homosexual rights."[31]

-"ERA would force all schools and colleges, and all the programs and athletics they conduct, to be fully coeducational and sex-integrated. ERA would make unconstitutional all the current exceptions in Title IX which allow for single-sex schools and colleges and for separate treatment of the sexes for certain activities. ERA would mean the end of single-sex colleges. ERA would force the sex integration of fraternities, sororities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Boys State and Girls State conducted by the American Legion, and mother-daughter and father-son school events." [31]

-"ERA would put abortion rights into the U.S. Constitution, and make abortion funding a new constitutional right. Roe v. Wade in 1973 legalized abortion, but the fight to make abortion funding a constitutional right was lost in Harris v. McRae in 1980. The abortionists then looked to ERA to force taxpayer funding. The American Civil Liberties Union filed briefs in abortion cases in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut arguing that, since abortion is a medical procedure performed only on women, it is "sex discrimination" within the meaning of the state's ERA to deny tax funding for abortions. In the most recent decision, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled on April 19, 1986 that the state ERA requires abortion funding. Those who oppose tax funding of abortions demand that ERA be amended to prevent this effect, but ERA advocates want ERA only so long as it includes abortion funding." [31]

In short, the opposition to the ERA was fueled by concerns of government overreach and fear of women being treated equally to men and thereby losing privileges such as exemption from the draft, not misogyny.

I would like to know why my edit was removed. I copied this edit and sent it to my email since I figured wikipedia had a feminist bias. Stop painting antifeminists as misogynists, because there are millions of women against feminism, myself included. Are you suggesting I hate myself?

Source for the real reasons the ERA was opposed. http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html

Shame on you, wikipedia.--Dianapena4205 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The current version doesn't mention (or even, as far as I can tell, imply) that misogyny was a major reason for opposition to the EPA; instead, it says that conservative politics were a primary factor, which is basically what you say above, though at much longer length. In general I feel that this degree of detailed coverage for the views of the Eagle Forum would be WP:UNDUE; but the fact that much of the opposition to the ERA was driven by opposition to abortion is probably worth mentioning. My recollection is that it's more complicated than the Eagle Forum implies, though, since that was when anti-abortion rallying first started to become central to conservatism -- Schlafly was one of the founding figures behind the current tenet of opposition to abortion as a central conservative position in America, more than anyone else; and the ERA fight was one of the first cases where it became the unifying plank between religious, political, and cultural conservatives. I agree that the current ERA section isn't great, but I don't feel that the problem is bias specifically so much as an over-reliance on a few sources (you identified Himmelstein as an antifeminist in your edit -- I'm not sure that's accurate, but either way, we devote an entire paragraph to his views.) And I don't think dropping such a huge block of text on the views of the Eagle Forum in there, cited directly to them or to the text of the ERA, is the solution; we should find secondary sources that discuss the ERA fight in the context of the history of antifeminism instead. --Aquillion (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I also have a problem with your conclusion: "In short, the opposition to the ERA was fueled by concerns of government overreach and fear of women being treated equally to men and thereby losing privileges such as exemption from the draft, not misogyny." This isn't supported by sources so I can only conclude that it is your own interpretation, not a summary statement from a source. Wikipedia isn't the right forum for editors to draw their own conclusions about a complex social situation which would be more appropriate for a blog piece, an essay or editorial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, this article is biased. But thankfully not as hard as the German Wikipedia (where a group of feminists controll everything, sadly). Everything about masculism, antifeminism, mens's rights movement is described as misogynists, trying to oppress women, while feminism is the light, the only true 'religion' against 'patriarchy' and the cruel men. Sadly, the German Wikipedia is biased very much. I would just like to thank you, because you make Wikipedia great. --Momo Monitor (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Momo Monitor, when you type your four tildes for the signature, it also gives you a time. Check it: it says 2016. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• What exactly is this supposed to mean Drmies?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing this fairly rampant on wikipedia, and this will result in the wiki being seen as overly biased against men. Frankly, as is, any topic that ever comes up and relates to feminism is either a hit piece against anything that disagrees with their narrative, (as this article is), or completely subjectively flawed. I find it ethically questionably that feminists be allowed to write on an anti-feminist wiki, much as anyone would if there were pentagrams and goat sacrifices all over the Christianity wiki. Someone needs to put a stop to this.Thisisashan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realize this is not supposed to be a feminist, anti-feminist, or Christian wiki, right? We are supposed to cover every subject in a dispassionate way, though just about every Wikipedian has strong personal beliefs in particular subjects.

As for the shortcomings or supposed shortcomings of Wikipedia and its methods, see Criticism of Wikipedia. One of them is "Gender bias and sexism", but the wiki regularly gets accused of being biased against women, not for them. "Wikipedia has a longstanding controversy concerning gender bias and sexism. Gender bias on Wikipedia refers to the finding that between 84 and 91 percent of Wikipedia editors are male, which allegedly leads to systemic bias. Wikipedia has been criticized by some journalists and academics for lacking not only women contributors but also extensive and in-depth encyclopedic attention to many topics regarding gender. Sue Gardner, the former executive director of the foundation, said that increasing diversity was about making the encyclopedia "as good as it could be". Factors the article cited as possibly discouraging women from editing included the "obsessive fact-loving realm", associations with the "hard-driving hacker crowd", and the necessity to be "open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists. In 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation set a goal of increasing the proportion of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015. In August 2013, Gardner conceded defeat: "I didn't solve it. We didn't solve it. The Wikimedia Foundation didn't solve it. The solution won't come from the Wikimedia Foundation." In August 2014, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales acknowledged in a BBC interview the failure of Wikipedia to fix the gender gap and announced the Wikimedia Foundation's plans for "doubling down" on the issue. Wales said the Foundation would be open to more outreach and more software changes."

If you think there is some systemic bias in a number of articles, which frankly can be true in whole areas of topics, you can try bringing them to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It deals or attempts to deal with several problematic areas, such as the lack of worldwide perspective, ignoring significant viewpoints, and recentism. Dimadick (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is a joke, not a funny one either:

This article has clearly been doctored by a bias party in favour of feminism and clearly has a nuance which seeks to demonise the opposition of feminism. I have noticed this as an increasing trend across Wikipedia with the advent of the WikiProject Feminism. The article has been doctored to an extent that the entire piece would have to be re-written and protected to actually fix the issues, as for now, changing a part of it causes unbalance and immediate rescinding of the edit by various 'white knights'.

So, my friends, how do we fix this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.44.42 (talk • contribs)

Before I call the glue factory, what do you propose that hasn't already been discussed to death? Also, I'm a purple knight... white is so passe. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism has been around since 2008, so its existence is not a new development by Wiki standards. I do not know what the anonymous means about its "advent". Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose, as feminists have colluded as a group against wikipedia, that any known feminists be banned from writing on it. They are not contributing at this point, they are replacing objectivism with subjectivism. Frankly, it is sickening.Thisisashan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this...the "feminism" article also has a criticism section.....that criticizes antifeminism! There is a huge bias problem here. I went to the talk page but at the top it basically says "It's fine, don't change anything". I thought the whole point of editing Wikipedia was to make a difference....I suppose not.TJD2 (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate?

Is there a reason that Gamergate is not mentioned in the 21st century section? It seems a rather large oversight.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably because it would be as biased as the article itself. I'm kind of glad it didn't mention GG because feminists would claim it's about sexism against journalists when really it's about ethics. TJD2 (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)