This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gender studies Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Ging, Debbie; Siapera, Eugenia, eds. (2019). Gender Hate Online: Understanding the New Anti-Feminism. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96226-9. ISBN 978-3-319-96226-9 – via The Wikipedia Library. O’Donnell, Jessica (2022). "The Militaristic Discourse of Anti-feminism". Gamergate and Anti-Feminism in the Digital Age. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 109–138. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-14057-0_4. ISBN 978-3-031-14057-0 – via The Wikipedia Library. Ribieras, Amélie (2022). "'I Want to Thank My Husband Fred for Letting Me Come Here,' or Phyllis Schlafly's Opportunistic Defense of Gender Hierarchy". In Carian, Emily K.; DiBranco, Alex; Ebin, Chelsea (eds.). Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right. Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right. London: Routledge. pp. 67–93. doi:10.4324/9781003164722. ISBN 978-1-0005-7622-1.

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]

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]

@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]

Could we have some examples of reliable sources emphasizing the prominence and relevance of the authors cited (regarding antifeminism)? Most of the sources you added that I had the chance to look at (besides the blogs, podcasts, and books by the authors in question) were interviews or news articles about said authors, not about antifeminism per se. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: sources ranging from articles published in highly relevant international media (ex: 1, 2), essays and academic publications to articles from prestigious universities (ex: 1, 2, 3) and books from renowned publishers (ex) have been included. It seems that you didn’t even consult the Wikipedia articles linked to authors who have their own dedicated entries on Wikipedia, where they are explicitly recognized anti-feminists (ex: Jordan Peterson, Christina Hoff Sommers, Agustín Laje). In fact, sources cited in those articles, which obviously meet the editors' criteria, have been used in this article. Numerous Wikipedia articles have fewer citations than this one and use less reliable sources, yet no one thinks of deleting entire sections in one fell swoop.

You appear to be engaged in an edit war, and you've clearly done it on many other occasions (ex: 1, 2, 3). You merely delete entire sections of the article (essentially, those that clearly express the specific ideas of anti-feminist authors) instead of doing a thorough and rigorous review (and, why not, looking for other sources), which would be far more constructive. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

I would prefer that, from now on, you try to reach a consensus, search for and provide new sources, instead of completely deleting others' work without consultation. Best regards. Johnnybgood999 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article is not a reliable source, and how other articles are written has no bearing on this one. The article on anti-feminism is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every anti-feminist. It would help if you could show sources that actually focus on the topic of this article to support your addition. It's not anyone else's job to find other sources to support your desired addition. Rather, the onus is on you to justify your addition with reasoned discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]