Talk:Women Against Feminism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2018 and 3 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Purplecow77, Bcarte21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

I did a news search on this after it was linked as 'see also' in the YesAllWomen article to find out more about it. It seems the RS are mostly criticizing this hashtag. Here's just a few, but there are lots more:

http://time.com/3018760/womenagainstfeminism-is-happening-now/

“Most of the posts include some reiteration of the central misunderstanding about feminism, that a core belief of feminism involves hating men.”

http://www.independent.ie/life/why-would-anyone-be-against-feminism-30472283.html

“You know a thing is officially a thing when it gets its own hashtag, and now Women Against Feminism is a full-blown thing. It's mystifying really, because being anti-feminism is like being pro-apartheid, or a big fan of social injustice, but no one would think it's cute to hold up a sign saying that.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-martin/women-against-feminism-misses-the-point_b_5635909.html

“Ignorance is not bliss, which is elaborately displayed in the Women Against Feminism campaign. Apparently if you ever refer to yourself as a feminist then you must be a man-hating lesbian that never wants to wear a dress or heels”

Seems WP:DUE would require us to report this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That is called article expansion, and you're welcome to do so. It's what makes WP tick when editors jump in and add text to an article. I noticed that there were 2-3 articles supporting the campaign, and about five articles criticizing it. Instead of trying to summarize all seven opinions, I just made the sentence saying that some have supported and some have criticized. If you want to expand that sentence, you are welcome to do so. Please remember that NPOV requires us to write the article as if WP's voice wasn't taking a side. Cla68 (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Parody campaign with cats

I notice the entire section "Parody campaign with cats" has been deleted with comment "did you seriously just add this?". Is this being deleted on grounds of I just don't like it. The parody campaign has been covered by lots of RS so should be included in accordance with WP:DUE. I also notice select content from the Daily Dot which supports one point of view was deleted while content that supports the opposing POV was maintained. Restoring deleted content to avoid WP:CHERRYPICK.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because it is not an encyclopedic benefit to mention, and should be left out based on editorial grounds. Not everything which has a source should be in this Wikipedia article, and trying to justify that a parody campaign should be included is ridiculous. In this exact comparison, would you oblige that I add #YesAllCats as a parody campaign in the YesAllWomen article? In addition, it's WP:BRD, not BRRD. You made a bold edit to add the content, and I contested, now get consensus on talk. Tutelary (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The deletion appeared to violate WP:DUE and WP:CHERRYPICK. With regards to your questions, if a #YesAllCats campaign received a comparable proportion of coverage in reliable sources covering the topic of #YesAllWomen, then yes, I'd support it's inclusion on same groups (WP:DUE). Also, it seems the section has clear encyclopedic benefit as RS commentators are commenting that the parody campaign reinforces the alienation the women in the main campaign feel regarding modern feminism as illustrated by the quote from The Washington Post commentator " "Mocking Women Against Feminism validates their argument that they don’t belong in the (feminist) movement and affirms their belief that feminism has no space for them."--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to invite you to know the difference between cherry picking and editorial consensus. It is not cherry picking to omit some parts of the article that may be verifiable but may not be suitable for encyclopedic effect. For example, is it relevant on a certain movie that the director was really pleasant to the people working there? Not really, especially in the movie's article. I'm asking you to use the same judgement for this own content, and also in relation to WP:BALASPS. I'd also like to request that you revert your own edit in relation to WP:BRD. You made the bold edit to add the content, I reverted it, now you get consensus. You don't get to automatically put it back in. Tutelary (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the cats parody section. It gives both sides of the story and is well-sourced. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why mention cats at all in this article? This just shows how you idiot Wikipedia editors are dumbing down this issue. Why not mention every parody campaign that every large movement has? What does cats have to do with anything at all? This sort of crap is the cancer that's killing Wikipedia's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.79.144 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Janet Bloomfield

Maybe not the best reference to state that it wasn't started by men's rights activists as she writes frequently for A Voice for Men and spoke at their recent conference, as well as being their social media director (check her LinkedIn). Here is a source on this from her own mouth: [1] --94.175.85.144 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless the other source states that she is contributor to A Voice for Men in the context of this topic (Women Against Feminism), then it arguably violates WP:SYN to include it. However, I personally don't care as long as it's sourced. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can provide other sources if necessary --94.175.85.144 (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Template message

As someone who has just come to this page, I don't see how this entry is unencyclopaedic or reads like an opinion piece. It looks quite balanced to me, since it includes lots of criticisms of this campaign. It is also thoroughly referenced. I don't personally see the need for the template at the head of the article. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in "explanatory theories"

The more successful a feminist movement is in challenging the authority of male-dominated groups, the more these groups will organize a countermovement.

What is meant with "successful [...] in challenging the authority"? How is this measured? Ybllaw (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)