Jump to content

Talk:Antifeminism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Men's rights movement

[edit]

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 Men's rights movement, but it currently isn't. It'd be easy enough to cover - just a little bit summarizing Men's_rights_movement#Antifeminism, 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? -- Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that sounds like a good idea. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism infobox

[edit]

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)[reply]

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 [[Pro-feminism]] EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

[edit]

@Johnnybgood999: creating a list of authors who have "gained notoriety" for criticizing feminism necessitates independent, published sources saying as much. The cited sources here are all primary sources for the authors' opinions, making the addition unduly weighted if not improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Johnnybgood999 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]