This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2003 discussion

Taw changed the wording from 'followers' to 'listeners' suggesting that everyone who listens to Rush uses the word. That's certainly not accurate. I listen to him sometimes, but I don't agree with him. And I don't use that word.

--Jimbo Wales

The end result is that this article remains completely biased. Its obvious that the author of this definition is a FemiNazi herself, and realises the value of hijacking the definition of a word, getting there first as it were, in order to have the power over peoples understanding of the term. You can see them really stretching when they write that the idea of females having the power in society is "highly controversial". Why is it controversial? It is entirely true, there is a Holocaust far, Far beyond anything Adolf Hitlers regime instigated, happening today, especially in the UK. There is nothing but evidence for this in the world we live in today. Third Wave is an appropriate name for it - Third Reich was the last term people with such Nazi ideas used.

The article states: "It is not meant to suggest that radical feminists actually share the same beliefs as the German Nazis, as the National Socialist German Labor Party actually opposed feminism."

While this reasoning is sound, we see no evidence that Limbaugh does indeed make this argument. As is, it is an argument of the "It is not so because it cannot be so" type, i.e. "Limbaugh is of course aware of the horrible crimes of the nazis, how could he not?", the implication being that Limbaugh would not deliberately use a term like "feminazi" to invoke images of murderous gestapo troops, some of them no doubt inspired by sado-masochistic pornography consumed by his conservative right-thinking audience.

Present evidence that Rush Limbaugh has indeed clearly separated "feminazis" from real nazis in the article, or I will remove this sentence.

You, of course, have evidence that "his conservative right-thinking audience" consumes (I assume that's the word you would have used had you been paying attention) "sado-masochistic pornography"?

No, that's just my pet theory, that's why I don't include it in the article, smart man. -- Eloq.

I'm sure he does intend to "invoke images" of murderous gestapo troops -- but it's still pretty clear that he isn't saying that the sort of feminists he's talking about actually adhere to the specific beliefs of the National Socialists. To suggest otherwise seems very odd to me. --Jimbo Wales

The point is, we don't know to which extent Limbaugh wants this analogy to apply unless we have an actual quote on the matter.

Well, in any event, I like the way you edited to satisfy all parties. :-) Do you listen to Limbaugh? He may be a big fat idiot, as the comedian says, but he's not stupid. If you asked him "Do you mean that feminists support the same ideas as the Nazis?" it's pretty obvious that he'd laugh at you. :-)

I suppose I can (re)settle this (or at least try :-) since I found an actual quote from Limbaugh, in print, no less (he has also spoken at length about the term on his show using the same basic definition). Other than missing his definition, the article didn't really need many changes, I just touched it up a bit and I hope everyone continues to be satisfied. Since Rush Limbaugh is the main person using the term, I think it is probably a good idea to at least include his definition. There is also a much longer explanation in one of his books (quoted a few places online if you care to read it), but I don't think it would really add much to the quote I selected (it all comes down to the same definition). --Daniel Quinlan

I think that

He found a striking play on words, feminist + nazi = feminazi, which is simultaneously memorable, sardonic and ad hominem.
He is comparing feminists to nazis, wrongly perhaps, for enforcing political correctness.
The terms big, fat idiot and feminazis balance each other rather well.

Ed Poor

See also : Rush Limbaugh

It's sad... there seems to be no sweet, nice, feminine, loyal, sincere women in america any longer. They have all been taken by the femminist tide. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.68.64 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2003

Okay, I'll go through each of my changes since my last set of changes provoked such a rapid response (I liked many of the changes, actually).

"mocks" -> "refer to": mocks is POV; I don't use the term, but I think some of the people who use it are quite serious about it.
removed "this definition is disingenuous" and "epithet" to "term": whatever, I'll leave in the factual statement that he uses the term otherwise, but whether or not he's using the term outside of his definition would require additional sourcing.
"epithet" -> "term": strive for more neutral language
removed "as when he bristles at the fact that there are Women's Studies departments at almost all universities but no Men's Studies department.": I don't think this really adds to the article, especially not the bristles comment which is as loaded as the feminazi term.
"His listeners" to "Others": Jimbo Wales already covered this. I too, am a listener, but I do not use the term.
removed "like all name-calling" and "intentionally": also POV

I hope this adequately explains my revisions to the changes made after my last set of changes. --Daniel Quinlan 09:09 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I especially agree with the change to "others", because this term is also used by people who have no connection to Limbaugh and do not listen to his show. I think perhaps some more explanation of common (i.e. non-Limbaugh-related) usage might be helpful. In particular, it seems to be most often used to refer to "militant" feminists, using the 'nazi' portion of the name to drawn an analogy with fascism in general, rather than the Nazi party per se (which is what the "ironic" comment seems to be assuming). Or at least that's what I've surmised from general usage; I've heard this term a lot, and wasn't even aware it was related to Limbaugh, so I think it should be explained in the wider context. --Delirium 09:12 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A whitewash of what is a term of abuse, by adopting the pretense that it is a term of analysis. But not worth fighting over. -- Someone else 09:28 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The term is already noted as a term of abuse. See "pejorative" in the first sentence and also the entire last paragraph. --Daniel Quinlan 09:36 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Delirium, I think your explanation is dead-on and helps explain the "Other" usage much better than what has been previously in the article. Therefore, I merged much of what you said into the article. Going with our impressions (I had to use a "seems" in there) in this article is perhaps a bit risky, but I believe the result is good. Thanks. --Daniel Quinlan 09:36 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the current form is reasonable. It's certainly a term of abuse, but I do think it's motivated at least some of the time by a reactionary reaction (can I say that?) to more extreme militant feminism, especially in its caricatured form as man-hating. I've even heard people who describe themselves as feminist explain that they're "not a feminazi", so presumably these people (being feminists themselves) are intending to dissociate themselves from some undesirable extreme wing of feminism (whether real or imagined), which is different from Limbaugh's purpose, which seems to have been just to attack feminism. The distinction of "reasonable feminist" vs. "feminazi" is the one I've heard most often. --Delirium 09:40 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Reverted to last version by Dysprosia, but agree with Someone else that this article is just an excuse for abuse masquerading as analysis. It's unworthy of Wikipedia, but what can you do? To fight for/maintain a reasonable version (which would IMO amount to a wiktionary definition) would probably be a lifetime task for someone without a day job. :-( Bishonen 14:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== From the Book

The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 193

"I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. Tom Hazlett, a good friend who is an esteemed and highly regarded professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, coined the term to describe any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion. There are 1.5 million abortions a year..."

p. 296

"Feminazi: Widely misunderstood by most to simply mean 'feminist.' Not so, boobala [sic]. A Feminazi is a feminist to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur. There are fewer than twenty-five known Feminazis in the United States ... "

It's very clear that the portmanteau coined by Hazlett is different from the primary usage of Limbaugh. It's also clear that the nazi reference is to mass murder, not Hazlett's reference to authoritarianism.

Downchuck 05:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree somewhat, but...

Would it be so biased to simply indicate that:

the precise origins of the term are disputed, ...
that it was indeed made popular (meaning "more common in usage," not necessarily "favorable") by Mr. Limbaugh (who states that it was coined by Mr. Hazlett), ...
and that the term has different meanings/connotations to different people, which may be more or less extreme according to context and the speaker's beliefs?

(by the way, if anybody can find usage pre-dating Hazlett, please cite and post it)

Why the edit war? Why the deletion of whole paragraphs based on personal views?

Equating abortion to holocaust may be offensive to many (even myself as a holocaust is never "medically necessary") but... has it not been established that some people do use the term "feminazi" to imply just that? As long as the article does not state that there is one true interpretation, it is not biased.

Furthermore, I've noticed that other users have been deleting the link to Godwin's Law, stating that it does not apply here. Is it because invoking it might imply that Rush Limbaugh lost the debate? Leave it in please. Don't delete it to save Rush's credibility (which I feel is beyond repair anyway). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I see no real relationship between the term "Feminazi" and Godwin's Law. I could understand setting a link if Feminazi was a term of Netiquette, but it is not. At best it is a descriptive term and at worst a slur, so there isn't really a common category. It seems a bit off-topic to me, no matter whether it would apply in this case or not.

HOW does the Law apply in this case anyway? If you read stuff like the "SCUM manifesto" the comparison to other militaristic and racist ideologies appears quite valid, you could just as well call it "Femiracism" oder "Femifascism". --TheOtherStephan 00:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh's abortion holocaust rationalization sounds quite post facto like all his rationalizations explaining why he is not a racist fascist boor

First usage of the term

Someones added the claim that the term predates Hazlett's usage. Is there a source or an example for this?--198.93.113.49 18:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If no one has a source or reference showing that the term was widely used in the '70s I'm going to take that line out.--198.93.113.49 13:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The earliest citation in the OED is 1990. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:49, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the claim in the article that term goes back to the '70s. What exactly does the OED say?--198.93.113.49 17:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do remember the term used in the late 80s by teens. I am not sure, but think the term might have been used in the comic strip Bloom County by Berkeley Breathed. Hazlett may get credit for coining the term through Rush's book, but I am willing to put a lot of money down that says he did not create the term.Anapuna 06:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's law, Hitler, Nazis

Godwin's law relates to the eventuality of a comparison between an interlocutor on an online discussion forum, and Hitler or the Nazi party. It's not logical that feminazis/feminists are proponents of a holocaust similar to the jewish holocaust in the 30's 40's in Germany, and then remove Godwin's law. Anyway, I think that Godwin's law is appropriate because it brings up the flippancy with which comparisons with nazis are made (its also a pleasant article to read). It certainly not inappropriate "because feminazis aren't nazis" (User:Esther adler who wrote this explaination went on to insert a direct comparison between hitler and abortion into the article) - they are being directly comapred with nazis (hence the "nazi" on the end of "fem"!) so Godwin's law is appropos. An An 23:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think putting Godwin's under "see also" is somewhat appropriate. The "see also" section doesn't have to be directly related to the article. It can also have similar terms, or terms that it might be confused with. Someone unfamiliar with the term Feminazi might also be unfamiliar with Godwin's Law. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 04:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Question from Europe

In an article so rich in labels, shouldn't it be made clearer that for ex. Limbaugh is considered a true Neo-Nazi in much of Europe? And why this "american conservative" label? Shouldn't it just say neo-fascist ?

Judging from the versions of this article in other languages it seems, going by uncertain translation, that it's primarily a North American English term. The German version I think specifically deems it as some odd Americanism. I'm not sure getting into what the term or Limbaugh means in Europe is necessary unless this term is used in Europe, but has a different meaning. Likewise I'm not sure it'd be necessary to explain every British or French political term in terms tailored for an American audience. At the same time I'm not sure why this article exists at all.--T. Anthony 04:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have proof he is a Neo-Nazi? the guy he calls Mr. Snerdly is black. What do you mean neo-fascist? He makes quite clear that he believes in a small govenment and low taxes, and is against government abuses. Now if you are willing to provide evidence that neo-fascist believe in small governments and low taxes and more freedom to indivisuals.... You sound like "Heaven forbid anyone disagree with me they are wrong and should be denounced." I hope I'm wrong. SRodgers--65.24.77.104 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ludicrous term?

I wonder just a bit whether a term of abuse so absurd even deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Anyone who thinks the Nazis were feminists should hie himself down to the public library and spend another 15 minutes thumbing through Mein Kampf. The Nazis were very strongly in favor of the Man Is Boss, Woman's Whole Duty Is The Three Big Ks set of family values.

There is a curious book by a woman from the nineteenth century called "Mizora." In it an all-female "utopia" exists in the center of the Earth. They reproduce through parthenogenesis, practice eugenics, and all of them are blonde "Aryan" types. This is the closest thing to a real "feminazism" I know of. (Even though it was written decades before the Nazis) Although there might be a very small element of white-supremacist women who advocate some form of feminism.

Oddly I have heard a small number of liberals, usually men who nevertheless hate Limbaugh and "right-wingers", use the word "feminazi" to describe a small group of extremely radical Radical feminists. People like Valerie Solanas, Luce Irigaray, Mary Daly, Separatist feminism, W.I.T.C.H. (organisation), and maybe a couple other extreme people. Although in most cases I think "misandry" would cover that. I'm not sure why this is an article in its own right rather then a mention in misandry.--T. Anthony 13:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The term labeled here as "ludicrous" is not so "ludicrous" after all, for noöne ever declared here that nazis were feminists at all... if they did, they would have to be pretty unfamiliar with the nazi ideals. I myself have never listened to this Rush guy, but I have heard the term feminazi before. Most other people who use the term, including myself, believe that a feminazi shares ONE characteristic with the nazis and ONE ONLY: hatred (and of course, its counterpart: intolerance). A feminazi is, in my point of view, a woman (feminist or not) who has an extreme and irrational hate for men. And for what, exactly? Being who they are? Or are feminazis trying to "get back" at men for their reign of dominance over women since the dawn of time?

I have no problems with normal feminists, who only want equal rights, but for those women who establish an unreasonable hatred for men, I shall call feminazi. It is indeed a term that fits, so no, I do not think it is "ludicrous" at all. In fact, it is very deserving of an article in Wikipedia.

HOWEVER, I must state here and now, to avoid confusion, that I strongly disagree with Rush's point of view concerning women's similarity to nazis in regards to abortion rights. My personal extent of the term only refers to "man-hating women," and not pro-choice activists.

Popularisation

The term was popularised by Maddox from one of his articles at Maddox.xmission.com.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.45.201 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2005

^^ That's rubbish, just an advert for a website. I heard the term "Feminazi" long before I ever heard of Maddox. How did his obscure website "popularise" a term?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.160.165 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2007

legitimate feminism

I wouldn't use the term legitimate feminism as this implies some sort of bias. For instance, what exactly is legitimate feminism?

It's meant to convey feminism as it actually exists, rather than feminism as it is distorted in the minds and mouths of Rush Limbaugh and his legion of misogynists. - Zotz 01:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

From my experience (ie take this with a grain of salt)there is a lot of disagreement amongst feminists. As such feminism as it actually exists and legitimate feminism both seem to be naïve. I, though somewhat of a feminist myself have used the term in place of misadrot (I did not know the later term at the time) to describe those who put the radical in radical feminist. Personally I believe this should be placed under misandrot

Female superiority

In the most recent edit: "Most commonly the term is used by critics to describe leaders in the feminist movement who publicly write or speak about their ideas -- or more specifically those who espouse ideas regarding inherent female superiority. The reason the term equates them with Nazis, the critics say, is because the Nazis, like radical feminists, were not interested in equality, but rather in superiority. Since some feminist leaders argue that women are inherently superior to men, the connection is obvious to these critics; those feminist leaders who express such ideas are not interested in equality, but rather in superiority." it would be good if somebody could specify some examples of feminist leaders who advocate female superiority. Catamorphism 21:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin are nices examples of the "Feminazi"-Archetype, albeit not quite contemporary. Should they be included? --TheOtherStephan 00:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

To me, you can't dismiss "feminazi" lightly as a rejection of all feminists, until you get an idea of some of the bigoted bombast associated with it and feminists draw the distinction as well. So I stuck in, "A number of feminists who may reject the slur still distinguish themselves[2] from misandrist excesses associated with "feminazi" -- they posit a neutral term "gender feminism," for intolerant denunciations such as Dworkin's "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."[3]"Mare Nostrum 08:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Loneranger4justice has added a long laundry list of statements to the article, about which I have communicated with him a bit on our talk pages. My concerns are outlined here, his are outlined here and here. I still maintain that there are way too many unsourced, highly-POV statements in his edits, and that there's a lot of off-topic stuff that doesn't add to the understanding of the term, but I want to avoid 3RR and also to address his concern that the article did not adequately cite certain viewpoints. Below, I've tried to condense his laundry list into a more succinct, less POV paragraph, and I was hoping for some feedback.

Some men's rights and father's rights advocates use the term feminazi to describe radical feminist views of men and gender, arguing that radical feminism, like Nazism, establishes a two-class society in which a privileged group may target and discriminate against another group based on immutable traits (in the former case, gender, and in the latter, religion, heritage or other inherent characteristics). In the extreme formulation, feminazis are seen by some as women who persecute men or who desire their elimination from the public discourse and any involvement into public affairs. The term is often used as a derogatory term for feminist.

Note: I did not include Loneranger4justice's references to Kathleen Blee's book or the WKKK. While there are parallels, the KKK and Nazis are separate entities, with different goals, tactics, and structures, and there was no explanation in Loneranger's edits as to why similarities to the KKK were relevant to this particular article.

Also, my paragraph should still be sourced and have examples, but I'm probably not the best person to obtain those sources. - Tapir Terrific 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Teriffic Tapir has deleted edits that include the mainstream use of the word Feminazi by father's rights and men's rights groups. Feminazi is a common phrase with specific meanings used in many chat rooms, bulliten boards and other communications by men's and father's rights. The most commonly used form of this phrase should be included in the wickipedia definitions, so I have included them in again. The fundamental gist of the phrase 'feminazi' is not only derogatory, as most feminists will contend, but it is the use of nazi style tactics to advocate and advance feminist style agendas, so in a sense the efforts by Terrific Tapir and others to exclude definitions, citations and examples that do not advocate thier own view of feminism, is in itself a form of feminazism.

Reverted back to prior article criticisms/Father's right's view of FemiNAZI. WARNING: this page is being repeatedly vandalized or revised to an exclusive feminist/feminazi POV. FemiNAZI's: Do not change these criticisms, just because it is contrary to your propaganda. That is the purpose of 'criticisms' sections in wikipedia articles.

Reverted back to prior article that includes criticisms/Father's right's view of FemiNAZI. This article page is being repeatedly vandalized or revised to an exclusive feminist/feminazi POV to excule 'criticisms' contrary to feminazi propaganda. There are dozens of pages devoted to 'feminism' in various forms. I recommend this page be monitored for vandalism, and editing to advance radical feminist POV. Loneranger4justice 8 Oct 06

I think that it is vital that this term stay around. While feminism was absolutely necessary back in the days when women's suffrage was a big concern, the feminist movement (as a whole) has moved from a push for equal rights to one (a.k.a. "gender feminism") that promotes superiority of female agendas.Why even debate whether or not this term is neutral, gender feminism isn't. I think it is important that this term be remembered and used if any nation is to push for equality between the sexes. It lets the population know that sexism isn't just a fault expressed by men. In summary, keep the term.

Mens Rights Insert

This is blatant propaganda by the mens rights network which is trying to link an offensive, abusive term for feminists to organisations such as the KKK and other racist groups.

Feminazi is a WORD - it is not and never has been an organisation which lynched or killed men, or indeed anybody.

Giving this lonerangerforjustice cretin a platform for his ridiculous and unsubstantiated opinions is nothing short of shameful and Wikipedia is failing in its neutrality.

As someone else has written - an addendum on the end of the Wiki misandry entry would suffice.

Wikipedia is a laughing stock trumpeting its neutrality whilst simultaneously allowing the personal opinions of one man who claims to represent "mens rights" this sort of exposure.

Its an exercise in futilty and a failed resource.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamete (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 October 2006

calm down dear, that ironing won't do itself...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.38.170 (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2006

Neutrality Banner

added because of biased inserts from user "loneranger4justice"

his edits and bold formatting to highlight mens rights issues on this and the domestic violence and numerous other pages (take a look at any of his contributions) show he is not a neutral contributor but has an agenda which he is exercising through wikipedia

Gamete 12:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are dozens of pages devoted to promoting, explaining, advocating, 'feminism' in various forms. It is apparent from edits on this page and any POV that is not strictly pro-feminist is deleted or criticized by pro-feminist editors. The purpose of 'criticims' sections is to offer a forum for differing viewpoints. Yhat is why article reverts to earlier comments that were blatantly deleted simpoly because they do not conform to the editor's biased POV. Loneranger4justice 8 Jul 07.

WKKK Kathleen M Blee insert

This insert from loneranger4justice was deleted by Terrific Tapir giving succinct reasons but has been added again by loneranger4justice ignoring the remarks made by terrific tapir that the WKKK has little relevance, if any, to this webpage

lonernager4justice gives an extremely biased account of his personal interpretation of this webpage using unsubstantiated hyperbole. Kathleen M Blee does not in fact mention the word feminazi anywhere in her book on the Klan.

In fact if one wanted a fair analysis of her data one would not have to look very far : the way in which she has manipulated her data to prove her bias is just as disturbing as that written by loneranger4justice. Most of her interviewees were over 70 years old relating incidents which happened when they were children. One of her "anonymous informants" was a 70 year old woman who was relating her memories from when she was a 5 to 7 year old child. Blee repeatedly refers to her as an active participant in the Klan. That Blee can distort data and recollection to fit her viewpoint completely rubbishes her credibility as a reputable source. Blees book does not have any relevance here and should be deleted. Gamete 12:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Gamete is deleting all 'criticisms' of her POV of feminism, which in itself is an example of feminazism. Restored the Father's rights view/criticisms & other deletions by Gamete who is manipulating wikipedia to show her exclusive POV. Gamete is welcome to express relevant views in this or related articles, but should not be allowed to delete valid criticisms just because they do not conform to her POV. Loneranger4justice 10 Oct 06

POV/ Neutral Inserts

Deleted POV entry regarding "feminaziism" (no such movement therefore whole paragraph and therefore argument is invalid) Anyone reading can plainly see the agenda which loneranger4justice has (the user name alone is a pointer) Using Wikipedia as his personal vendetta area (see any of his previous contributions which include using bold fomatting on mens rights issues and moving mens rights references and links to the front of all sections on domestic violence and other pages)shows his total lack of neutrality. As well as this, loneranger4justice assumes I am a)female and b]a feminist. Both wrong. I have no axe to grind with him. I suggest he stops looking for reasons to prevent my deletion of his POV and starts accepting that Wiki is nuetral and not his personal mens rights space. For those reasons entry is reverted to neutral paragraph written by tapir terrific.

Gamete 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to prior version that includes fundamental analysis and contemporary view of feminazi/feminazism. Gamete and others are inserting thier own POV by deleting references that are critical of radical feminism as depicted by feminazi. Gamete's main argument seems to be that NAZI or KKK can not be mentioned in this article, because there is no such 'group' as feminazi's. NAZI's and KKK were racists and demogogues, that villified and discriminated against other racial groups just as feminazi's are gynocentric demogogues that discriminate against men. The analogy and comparisons are valid, especially Blee's analysis which directly links the WKKK agendas and use of sexual imagry that converged into radical feminism. Wikipedia should not be used to advance only one POV.

Loneranger4justice 17 Oct 06

article reads just fine

It seems some are offended by the word, but that's inconsequential. People are offended by lots of words, but the words still appear in the dictionary and other language reference materials.

I believe the article does quite well in its explanation of the word and its origins, and I see no reason whatsoever for the article to be called 'biased'.

I second this notion. it is probably the smartest comment about this article yet.Anapuna 05:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. There's nothing in the article that shouldn't be there. Fans of Rush Limbaugh might complain, but the article only quotes what he says he believes. SteveRamone 21:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Advancement of a Particular POV

"Wikipedia should not be used to advance only one POV" so writes "loneranger4justice" who is on a mission to elevate his particular POV in all the articles he edits or contributes to - although what he contributes can only be seen as an extremely biased attempt at advancing his own particluar brand of "victim" ideology where he believes men are the helpless victims of aggressive women which he calls "feminazis" He has a persecution complex worthy of Hitler [ironically]. He created this page [yes he created it - tells you something right] precisely to demonise women in a way previoulsy unseen out of an uninformed pseudo-intellectual drive to satisfy his own sense of persecution and irrational hate. He uses other wiki articles namely the Domestic violence page to further his own POV by bold highlighting of anything relating to victimisation of men and pushes any ref to mens "rights" to the top of links. Using Wiki to advance his own POV is right. Ironicaly again he hasnt the intelligence to hold back from being so blatant about it and screaming "victim". Reverted to terrific tapirs version. I really cant be bothered to explain it all again to you loneranger- go back and read tapirs reasoning. Gamete 10:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a really pov version. Damn! Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 10:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very simple - feminsts originally wanted equality, Nazis believed in genocide - elimination of an entire 'group' of people. Put them together and you arrive at 'feminazi' = extreme feminists who want to eliminate an entire 'group' of people - ie men.

In the UK we have two Government ministers - Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt - who co-wrote a book (with Anna Coote) questioning whether men have any role in 21st century Britain - I would argue that this could be equated to Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' - where he laid out his plans for a future Germany, and at the time nobody believed he would go through with it. Is this the same for Hewitt and Harman? PS Men can be feminazis as well - Although it seems an absurd hypocricy (like turkeys voting for Christmas?), in the UK we have many anti-male men - Gordon Brown as Chancellor in his Budget speech of March 2003 announced -'I believe that 100% of the benefits and tax credits associated with having children should go to the main carer, normally the mother' -Why? Except to deny all fathers any right to state support, (unless the mother consents)! Anti-male. PS - It may well be that gender selection in pregnancy is part of their plan, just like the nazis selective abortion as indicated above. Unfortunately, I believe the similarities are extremely strong.

Term

fem nazi, fem-nazi, femnazi(whatever, never heard of it with an "i" in it)def. slang term equivalant to or used in place of the term 'man hating dyke'.

the term has nothing to do with abortions, WOW, womens lib or any movements.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anapuna (talk • contribs) 06:01, 23 November 2006

Feminazis vs. Real Nazis

I'm sorry, but all references to the fact that feminists (radical or otherwise) are at odds with the German Nazi party miss the mark, of course the Nazis weren't feminists supporters, nor was any government in the 1930's, don't see how Nazi Germany was dramatically different in this regard, thus calling this fact "ironic" is, well "ironic"...66.72.215.225 22:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Salonas

Deleted link to Solanas, as the claim she "personifies feminazism by advocating genderocide" both predisposes that, instead of being a pejorative term, it was an actual movement that could be personified, and assumes the SCUM MANIFESTO was intended to be taken literally rather than, as Solanas claims, a literary device. I'm not touching whether it was or not, but the fact that its author claims this should suggest that a neutral link shouldn't claim otherwise as fact. Lindleyle 04:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Why is the neutrality of this article disputed? It seems pretty fair.

Absolutely. The term itself is controversial, but the article seems to cover it well. SteveRamone 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is challenged by a handful of men who want to say that the term is useful as a way of attacking feminists they perceive to be misandrists, because supposedly such women "really" want to kill all the men, so they're just like Nazis. --Orange Mike 03:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What people are saying is that the term is not defined correctly in the article. Trying to properly define something does not necessarily mean that you agree with it. --RogueMountie (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

deleted links

How can editor delete links on the basis that sources are not provided? this is nonsense, the link is the source. Is this site 'patroled' by feminazi's who delete criticisms within moments of posting? please montitor this site for feminazi POV vandalism. restored links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneranger4justice (talk • contribs)

The issue is WP:EL. Defend the link as compliant with policies and guidelines, and I'll reconsider, but the absurd personal attack and violation of WP:CIV has me skeptical. -- THF 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This deltion based on WP:EL is absurd. The link is well known blog that DIRECTLY addresses the topic = feminism & nazism. it is apparent that the deletion is a POV violation - the editor critic does not want the men's rights viewpoint shown. please escalate this revision.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneranger4justice (talk • contribs)

Did you read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided? Particularly #11 and #13? Please assume good faith and be civil. And please sign your talk page comments. -- THF 04:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Angry Harry Blog link may be the definitive work on this topic. It has been on the web for over 4 years, & Angry Harry is a well known men's right's & father's rights advocate with dozens of articles on various topics. It is not appropriate to dilute this page with only feminist POV, especially when the topic regards a phrase that is critical of feminist POV and tactics. the link does not violate any issue in WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - please monitor this site for feminist/feminazi pov vandalism - deletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loneranger4justice (talk • contribs) 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Edit 04/26/2007

I deleted this section at the bottom of the page, it made no sense when viewed with the rest of the article and added nothing.

The most outspoken Feminazi known to the Western World is a young, outgoing, and very stubborn woman named Nicole Reigelman. She is a member :of the left wing socialist party in America and is outspoken on socioeconomic rights for the commom man. What is most interesting about the :story of Nicole Reigleman has do do with her logical and political digression. There was a time when she was touched by logic and reason, :but she fell victim to the academic elite groups that effect many of us in our educational society today. Nicole went from being a young :optimistic intellectual to a more mature pessimistic left wing "feminazi". She despises men with a passion only truly understood by her :friend Michael Pontrelli.

Feel free to re-add it if you really think it shouldn't of been deleted. Rs148004 15:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph

It seems to me that the opening paragraph to this article sets an unnecessary combative tone and is factually inadequate. Consider:

"Feminazi... is an invective neologism...". Feminazi is often used simply as a descriptive term. It can be quite neutral and doesn't need to be invective. I have not infrequently heard the term used in a compassionate context. Also, it may be a neologism, so is "feminism", and I do not see the point of mentioning this here unless the intent is to subtly disparage the use of the term.

"... used predominantly in the United States and Canada...". Is that true? Is there research which substantiates that? I have heard the term used widely outside North America.

... political rhetoric..." Yes, political rhetoric sometimes. But the term is also used, in my experience, simply as a descriptive term for a form of extremism which is found occasionally amongst some women who identify with the feminist movement. Geronimo20 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit by Loneranger4justice

User Loneranger4justice has inserted this paragraph:

For decades father's rights advocates have complained about the fundamental injustice by family courts and laws such as VAWA which discriminate against men much like Jim Crow Laws discriminated against blacks and NAZI racial purity laws discriminated against blacks. The term Feminazi is now used to label those feminist radicals that advocate discrimination against men. Men's rights advocates such as Angry Harry and Fathers for Life analyze the similarities between feminism and nazism, as a key element explaining the current discriminiation of men in the family court, and the destruction of the traditional family.

Does anyone think there's anything worth saving in this? The preceding sentence says all that needs to be said, and in less POV language, in my opinion. Ratatosk Jones 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored this, and it is important to include because many of the 'pro-feminist/radical feminist'POV editors try to dismiss the term feminazi as a mere slur, with no real meaning. Including links and expanding this spur to show that there is a sincere analysis of feminism v. nazism more correctly establishes the contemporary definition and use of the term, as not merely a slur, but a discriptor of current gender politics and discrimination. Please do not delete these edits simply because they do not accord with your POV, there are many dozens of webpages dedicated to various forms of feminism, it is not necessary to delete all edits which do not strictly conform to feminist adgendas or propaganda. Loneranger4justice 15-Jul-2007

Limbaugh's intentions

Feminazi is an incredibly powerful term that has become part of the zeitgeist. Let's be intellectually honest and acknowledge that the term is meant to discredit pro-choice activism. Limbaugh has used the term to apply to members of the National Organization of Women (500,000 members), the Feminist majority Foundation and the National Center for Women and Policing. He also used it to refer to the half-million women who marched for choice in Washington. (reference: http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240002) and (http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170006)

Even when Limbaugh first used the term "feminazi," he meant for it to apply to pro-choice feminists. Here is the first quote (of many) where Limbaugh uses the term: "I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. The term describes any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion." (His book is filled with references to "feminiazi's btw.) If it weren't for this broad assertion, that pro-choice feminists (that is most feminists) are "feminazi's", we wouldn't be having this discussion today. --IronAngelAlice 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

More instances where Limbaugh used the term "feminazi" to refer to main-stream feminist organizations: http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2007/03/hillary_watch_d.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601060006
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705230007

More resources: http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Rush_Limbaugh_Abortion.htm --IronAngelAlice 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I added that quote myself. Read what it says. His colleague "coined the term to describe any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism." He then goes on to describe how he often likes to use the term. The first paragraph of this article needs to represent this broader intent without narrowing it too far (like your insistence on making it apply to "pro-choice feminists" only). The rest of the article covers, to some extent, the different ways different groups have used the term, some which are vastly different from Limbaugh or the original coinage, drawing various comparisons with Nazism for their own purposes.

The statistical information you have added is irrelevant to the first paragraph. I cannot revert you again today, because I don't want to break the three-revert rule, but you need to undo your last three edits, and then if you want to clarify some specifics on how different people have used the word or who has been a target, do it further down in the article. It could use some attention and reorganization. -- Thisis0 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thisis0, I will agree with you that listing the organizations to the first paragraph is too specific. But I cannot agree with you that using the term "militant" feminist is in any way neutral. It is clear through the references above that Limbaugh, who popularized the term, meant for it to refer to pro-choice feminists. Last, if you could refrain from relling me what to do, I would appreciate it and look forward to your next post. --IronAngelAlice 20:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to avoid the etymological fallacy. Limbaugh doesn't own the term, which has escaped into the memescape and gone feral. I hope my current edit addresses both your concerns. --Orange Mike 20:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Orange Mike, my last edit got mixed in to your edit. I did not mean to change your edit in any way. (Please see your talk page). To answer your question, unfortunately my concerns have not been addressed. I think it is appropriate (because of the nature of the term) to acknowledge it was popularized by Limbaugh who originally used it to attack pro-choice feminists. There is enough room in that first section to also list that it has been used in the zeitgeist to refer to "feminists who are intolerant of opposing views" if it is clear that this is a derogatory term used to silence people.--IronAngelAlice 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

With the above in mind, I'd like to propose the first paragraph say the following:

Feminazi (also spelled femi-Nazi or femme-nazi) is an invective, derogatory neologism used predominantly in the United States and Canada by political conservatives to characterize feminists. The term was popularized by Rush Limbaugh who originally used the term to refer to pro-choice feminists. The term has since been used by conservatives to refer to feminists they perceive as being intolerant of conservative views.[1][2][3] The word itself is a portmanteau of the nouns feminist and Nazi. The term does not relate to the National Socialist Women's Organization or any other organization of women who served Nazi Germany.

--IronAngelAlice 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your other edits put it into historical context; but the lede needs to address how the term is used now, not where it came from. Your proposed lede is still unbalanced: putting Limbaugh and his initial targets into the lede places disproportionate emphasis on its origins; what matters is how the term is used as a bludgeon in present-day discourse. Our task as editors, ever mindful of NPOV, is to clarify and inform, not to rebut. --Orange Mike 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then we simply leave out Limbaugh:

Feminazi (also spelled femi-Nazi or femme-nazi) is an invective, derogatory neologism used predominantly in the United States and Canada by political conservatives to characterize feminists. The term was originally used to refer to pro-choice feminists. The term is currently used to refer to feminists whom conservatives believe are intolerant of conservative views.[1][2][3] The word itself is a portmanteau of the nouns feminist and Nazi. The term does not relate to the National Socialist Women's Organization or any other organization of women who served Nazi Germany.

See the "N" word for further reference. --IronAngelAlice 20:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that those who use this term use it to refer to particularly radical or militant feminists, and not just to any and all feminists. That is why this term exists -- as a brand for the most radical and miliant. -- Thisis0 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As IronAngel has documented, the term is also thrown at such groups as the Feminist Majority Foundation, a group which is generally considered the moderate-to-conservative element of the feminist movement in the U.S. It's hard to think of a feminist organization to their right; so if they are "particularly radical or militant feminists," then who are the non-radicals? --Orange Mike 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent editting over POV material

1. "Extreme" is largely in the eye of the beholder here. In the case of abortion this view although bluntly stated is not extreme as it is a view held by a majority of the population even those ones that think abortion is needed in some cases. The majority view it to be "manslaughter" even if they do not take an explict side. Calling it a holocaust then is indeed a rather blunt way to put it but it is not inconsistent with the mainstream view.

2. Men's groups do not simply go out and call people feminazi's unprovoked. Feminazi would not have existed if it were not for misandrist attitudes directed toward men.

3. Pro-life individuals do not explicity oppose reproductive rights they just don't think people should use them to violate fetal rights. Reproductive freedom/rights are alot wider than birth control and are not exclusively confined to abortion. Many other ways to practice reproductive freedom are available including birth control, abstinence, adoption, and raising children. Pro-life groups have been known to support and even encourage a number of these choices so saying that they are opposed to reproductive rights or freedoms in general is not only painting them with a broad brush but in many cases actually incorrect.

4. Some of the other material is more debateable as such I've editted it out to make it potentially less biased.

Rdjohnson 23:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)rdjohnson

Please find a cite from a reputable published source to back your views or please stop inserting highly POV, biased, fringe WP:OR text.--Cberlet 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What is "fringe" about them? A pro-life individuals oppose abortion because they view it as murder. Ergo if you have a whole bunch of abortions it would be seen by them as a "holocaust" although this is an extremely blunt way of putting it. They furthermore don't oppose reproductive rights in general just in the case of abortion because they view it to be morally wrong and a violation of other rights. And what makes a men's group extreme for complaining about misandry from fringe feminists? So does the very fact that they are complaining make them "extreme?" If so what would be an appropriate way for them to voice their concerns?

If nothing else the use of the word "extreme" deserves to be removed as it is inherently subjective. Extreme to whom? Also I intend to remove the false material in there suggesting that members of the pro-life community oppose reproductive freedom/rights in general because as I have demonstrated before it is not true.

I'll leave the rest unchanged for now, but please refrain from reverting it without at first providing justification.

Thank You. Rdjohnson 22:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)rdjohnson

For some extreme pro-life conservatives, the term equates support of reproductive freedom with opposition to fetal rights, and advocacy of pro-choice legislation with promotion of a holocaust. Unless a source can be provided for this, it must be taken out. Pro-lifers are not extreme [1] [2] and they are not all "conservative"-- see Harry_Reid#Abortion_and_the_Supreme_Court, Tim Kaine, Nat Hentoff, Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, and Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. Use of the term "reproductive freedom" is every little bit as biased and poltically framed as "Feminazi". Many vegitarians have compared factory farming to the holocaust; does this have to be mentioned every time vegitarians are mentioned? Revolutionaryluddite 04:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Context

Some men's rights and father's rights groups have used the term to refer to feminists they believe are persecuting men. These men's groups argue that feminism establishes a two-class society in which a privileged group, women, target and discriminate against another group, men. ^[1] This argument presupposes that women currently have more rights than men, a highly controversial claim. ^[2]

This is POV for a number of reasons. First, the source cited compares 'feminists' to ideological socialists or national socialists based on tacticts, methodology, and beliefs; they think that feminism presupposes a black-and-white society with good people all one side and bad people on another side, with no gray. They do not 'claim'- which is an extremely biased word in and of itself- that women have more rights than men. If their argument "presupposes that women" have more rights, I don't understand why. Whether or not "This argument presupposes that women currently have more rights than men" or whether or not it is "a highly controversial claim" is entirely a matter of personal opinion. If this personal opinion is stated in the article, it has to attributed specifically to a source. My edit says:

Some men's rights and father's rights groups use the term to refer to feminists they believe persecute men and harm traditional nuclear families. These men's groups argue that feminism establishes a us-verses-them society in which a select group, women, targets and discriminates against another group, men. These men's groups also compare what they believe are the ideological motivations and methodologies of feminism to National Socialism and Communism. ^[3] Social activist organizations such as Human Rights Watch state that those arguements presuppose that women currently have more rights than men, which the social activist groups state is untrue. ^[4] The term 'feminazi' has also been used in reference to what father's rights groups argue are biased child custody rulings against fathers.^[5]Revolutionaryluddite 01:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

*Giggle* So, now we are going to start using rules for this page? If we started using the rule that does not allow blogs entries to to be references, there would be no "Context" section. All of the following would have to be deleted:

The term "feminazi" has developed various connotations. In colloquial usage, "Feminazi" has been used as a derogatory way to refer to a lesbian, regardless of whether or not the lesbian identifies herself as a feminist. [12] Some men's rights and father's rights groups use the term to refer to feminists they believe persecute men and harm traditional nuclear families. These men's groups argue that feminism establishes an us-verses-them society in which a select group, women, targets and discriminates against another group, men. These men's groups also compare what they believe are the ideological motivations and methodologies of feminism to National Socialism and Communism.[13] The term 'feminazi' has also been used in reference to what father's rights groups argue are biased child custody rulings against fathers.[14]

--IronAngelAlice 06:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So, now we are going to start using rules for this page? What on earth are you talking about? Look, the statement "These arguments presuppose that women and feminists currently have more rights and power than men, a highly controversial claim" is entirely a matter of personal opinion. It should not be treated as objective truth. Revolutionaryluddite 16:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Human rights watch didn't make the argument - please read the article. If we are using blogs to source men's rights arguments, then we can list a rational response If Human rights watch did not make the arguement that it's "a highly controversial claim", then the sentence must be removed from the article enitrely because it has no source. I've removed it. Also, as far as "rational response" goes, whether or not you or I think that the men's rights group's arguements are wrong does not matter. Revolutionaryluddite 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"The men in men's rights groups are typically in their forties and fifties, often divorced or separated, and nearly always heterosexual. In both general men's rights groups and fathers' rights groups, participants often are very angry, bitter and hurting (with good reason, they would say), and they often have gone through deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles... 'Anti-feminist' is... a useful description for nearly all these groups. When I interviewed the American activist Victor Lewis, he called them 'status-quo' or 'pro-sexist men's movements'..."[15] Flood also argues that "Some fathers' rights groups send misogynist messages, use strategies such as harassment, stalking and intimidation, and strive to chip away at programs and services for women and children. They deny the extent of domestic violence and offer sympathy to the perpetrators." Giving this one person's opinion an entire paragraph is certainly undue weight. If this paragraph is going to be in this article, it must have counterpoints. See the articles Misandry and antifeminism. Revolutionaryluddite 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous. Why don't you begin by deleting all the references that cite blogs. --Justine4all 17:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Those would be references 13, 14 and a couple of others. Which, as IAA pointed out is most of the first part of the "context" paragraph.) I'll help you get started. --Justine4all 17:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. It's okay. I give up editing this article, okay? I give up. Revolutionaryluddite 22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You can put whatever you want into it. Revolutionaryluddite 22:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should not have been sarcastic. However, what I've deleted is appropriate considering blogs are not valid sources.--Justine4all 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I give up. Revolutionaryluddite 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We're all responsible adults here, aren't we? What's the point of all your personal attacks? Revolutionaryluddite 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks. Just bad attempts at humor for which I apologized. --Justine4all 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Needs NPOV

I doubt any serious person won't see the article as a simple-minded Hillary style attack on mean old "conservatives" backed by the untenable POV that there's no such thing as an intolerate man-hating feminist with strong political action oriented views (whether action preferred is legal or not) who supports extreme policies against men, and against free democratic societies. No matter how strong leftist feminists and people currently fighting for the Democratic Party just now generally feel about the use of the term, there are feminists out there with a Nazi-like character. They are referred to as feminazis, and have been since before Rush Limbaugh first used the term. Rogerfgay 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have valid cites for the term prior to the guy Rush credits with coining the term, then add them (but fix your spelling and grammar first). As to "free democratic societies": I thought Rush was in the "America is a republic, not a democracy" camp? We sure heard it often enough during the 2000 coup. --Orange Mike 16:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But that is beside the point. The article is not about Rush Limbaugh. The subject is feminazi. The POV of the article is clearly partisan. Its purpose is clearly to lock into an argument against conservatives, Rush Limbauch in particular. Obviously this is being done at a time when Democrats are running a campaign against him. This article has therefore been written as part of a poltical campaign agenda. The POV is not neutral. It is obvious that the intent of writing the article here is not to provide an accurate view of the subject. 83.251.254.172 08:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article dates back to October of 2001, that's rather a bizarre notion!--Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Intro

I think there's a lot of POV in the introduction to this article. I removed "pejorative" from the initial discription of the word; it was superfluous considering derogatory links back to it. I also think that saying the word is used "prodominately by conservatives" is not an objective discription of the term, as it can be and is used by other groups of people to refer to feminists who are perceived as radicals. I think that this word should be treated like any other perjorative term, regardless of its origin or connotation. --Grammar Vigilante 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pejorative and derogatory are not synonyms; of the two, the more important here is pejorative. I've restored the original wording. - Nunh-huh 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are. From the entry for pejorative: "The adjective pejorative is synonymous with derogatory, derisive, and dyslogistic." Considering the two words mean the same thing and link to the same place, and taking into account most other articles on abusive words use the word "derogatory" in their primary description, and taking into account the fact that derogatory's only other meaning (according to Answers.com) is "Tending to detract or diminish", while pejorative's other meaning, as an adjective, is "Tending to make or become worse" (again according to Answers), and considering the word "feminazi" does not in any way make its subject worse, I am restoring my edit. Grammar Vigilante 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not. One can say derogatory things about an entity without being unfair, while "pejorative" carries the connotation of intentional belittling or disparagement. You'd be better off consulting a dictionary than a website. The term "feminazi" is specifically a term of disparagement, so back it goes. Obtain a consensus for removal of this long-standing language on this talk page prior to future changes if you want them to persist. - Nunh-huh 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Grammar's made a pretty solid case here for the removal of that one word, although I support the rest of the reversal of his latest edit. I suggest we leave it alone and concentrate on making the article better in general. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the better (past) openings was "Feminazi is a term of contempt used by right-wing commentators to demean extreme feminists, whom they assert have an irrational hatred of men". That pretty much says it all (well, maybe there's a missing "disingenuously"); the rest of the effluvia that's been hung on this article is mainly there, I think, to justify having an article for something that at most merits a spot in a glossary on Limbaugh's page. I think the best way to improve the article is deletion. What do you think? - Nunh-huh 01:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The term is widely used; we need to establish its origin and context. The fact is that it's used every day, and seems vividly evocative to certain elements on the right. There is no sense in pretending that if we ignore it it will go away. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't propose it be ignored, but rather be given exactly the amount of attention it deserves. There's really nothing interesting to say about it, as I think this article illustrates. - Nunh-huh 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think either perjorative or derogatory should be deleted, as one or the other is undeniably extraneous, but I'll let it go for now. I still think that the intro is bias in defining the word in context of conservatives generally. I think stating that it is a disparaging term coined by conservatives to refer to such and such would be better wording. As it is it seems to imply that the term has a well defined political connotation used exclusively by members of the right. Most desparaging terms are fluid and don't have a specific, well defined meaning that is used by one social group exclusively. I don't think feminazi is an exception. Grammar Vigilante 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with losing "derogatory", which is subsumed by "pejorative". However, I wonder where Grammar Vigilante has ever heard the term "feminazi" used by the left.... - Nunh-huh 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard it used by "the left", but I've heard it used in an apolitical context, usually in reference to feminists who overemphasize political correctness. Grammar Vigilante 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard to imagine. Who was using it in such a manner. Nonetheless, and accepting that there may be exceptions, it is a word used almost exclusively at present by Limbaugh and his ilk. - Nunh-huh 05:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Maddox used the word in such a way on his page about feminism, though this may not be the best example considering his satirical style. His is the only on that comes to mind at the moment, however.

If there are no objections to getting rid of derogatory, I'm going to remove it tomorrow.--Grammar Vigilante (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was referring to serious application of the word to someone and really meaning it. And preferably by someone who counts. I think it's fair to say that the epithet is a creature of the right. - Nunh-huh 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It was just an example of another an apolitical use of the term. There are others, I just don't remember any specifically. While I don't debate the inherent ties to right-wing politics, the lack of a dictionary definition, the popular usage of the term, as well as the inherent ridiculousness of the word itself make it hard to relate to an one political affiliation exclusively. But the main problem with the wording of the article's intro is that it doesn't specify the context of the political usage. It says feminazi refers to feminists who are preceived as intolerant of conservative views, which implies the word refers to any feminist who opposes any form of conservativism. I think it should be limited to conservative views on gender roles or something along those lines. The word would be used to refer to a feminist who was campaigning against fiscal conservatism or the War in Iraq unless there was some clear tie between these views and his/her views on gender equality. Grammar Vigilante (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The fallacy is to believe the word has a meaning other than "a woman who has annoyed a conservative with regard to gender issues". It's simply a term of abuse; it tells us much about the utterer, and nothing about the target. - Nunh-huh 04:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

By your definition of a term of aduse, it would not refer to a woman at all. If nothing can be derived from the context and use of a term except the mentality of the utterer, then this word could only mean "an entity that has annoyed a conservative with regards to gender issues" without specifying any objective qualities of the entity. I'm not entirely sure that an individual can be annoyed with regards to something, as annoyance is something independent of context. It would be better to say "an entity's views on gender issues is annoying to a conservative." However, this statement would either be incorrect by virtue of the abusive term describing its object or would require views to be an intrinsic property of all entities. Since "entity" in this context can be anything at all, living or inanimate, and because the statement bestows consciousness onto whatever the entity is, then, by your reasoning, everything, including inanimate objects, is conscious.

The philosophical implications of this supposition are irrelevant for discussion here. The point I'm trying to make is that your assessment of abusive words is incorrect. A noun, regardless of whether it is abusive or not, always describes its subject more than anything else. Claims to the contrary have been the subject of volumes of philosophical works, but in an every day context those are irrelevant. Grammar Vigilante (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your belief, wrong as it is - as usage demonstrates ;). - Nunh-huh 06:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I've substantiated my "beliefs" in a clear, logical, and constuctive way, I'd stay you need a little more than "usage demonstates" and an emoticon to support your claim that I'm wrong. Grammar Vigilante (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing speaks for itself. Your "substantiation" is simply a restatement of your position, with a bit of handwaving about philosophy. - Nunh-huh 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your assertions are meaningless. I debunked your argument by reducing it to its ultimate, illogical end; you have done nothing to support your claims further than making the empty assertion that "it speaks for itself." If you are going to say that I am wrong, then you had best support you claim with more than "it's self-evident." I have no position in this other than a desire to make this article an objective, dispassionate, grammatically correct analysis of a neologism. Its abusive nature does not make it any less of a word nor any less worthy of analysis. Grammar Vigilante (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that you think your assertions are better than mine, and you're certainly entitled to your opinions, and your admirably healthy sense of amour-propre. I don't even mind it when you misrepresent my statements here, as at this point we don't seem to be talking about anything related to the article anyway. - Nunh-huh 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made no claims that my assertions are "better" than yours. I've backed up my statements with logic and reduced yours to its ultimate, absured end in a clear manner. Conversely, you have maintained that I am wrong without giving a real rebuttal to my argument. I have not misrepresented anything you have said beyond what can be reasonably extrapolated from the context, and if I have you are more that welcome to point out such misinterpretations in a constructive fashion. You have chosen empty patronization over constructive, focused debate and that has derailed this discussion. In the future, a mature, open discourse, without so much amour-propre, would be far more conducive to the proper revision of this article. POV remains in the opening paragraph by portraying the word with a purely political connotation. Grammar Vigilante (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, you are not necessarily the best judge of the effectiveness of your argumentation. Believe it or not, when someone says you have misrepresented their position, you probably have. And finally, the word is primarily used politically; you've been asked to come up with examples in which it was not used politically, and the examples have not been forthcoming. - Nunh-huh 01:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you are the only one disputing the effectiveness of my argumentation and you have yet to give a real reason why it is ineffective (i.e. citing specific flaws, providing a reductio ad absurdum, etc.), the dispute is moot. Believe it or not, you are not necessarily the best judge of the effectiveness of my argumentation either, and the burden of proof falls on you after I've made my claims to make the case against them. That's how an intelligent debates function. I've invited you to tell me how I've misrepresented your position, but you have not. Believe it or not, someone can claim you have misrepresented their position to negate further debate on the issue. And finally, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that the word is used apolitically; the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is used in a political context. Can you give an example of a conservative politician using the word? Anyone besides a few talk radio hosts? Until you provide examples of the word as a legitimate political term, I'm not compelled to provide any examples to the contrary beyond the one I have already submitted.--Grammar Vigilante (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also the only one paying any attention to your argumentation, and no, if you have changes you want to make it's up to you to achieve some kind of consensus here for them. Which you haven't. - Nunh-huh 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have changes I want to make. I was pointing out that there are changes that need to be made, nothing more. And then you attacked me. Based on your responses to me, I'd say you are trying to negate legitimate discussion of a word you find distasteful, of course I wouldn't accuse you of such a thing out of respect for you as a fellow Wikipedian. You have had no such qualms, considering your generally patronizing tone and that tongue in cheek remark about my "healthy amour-propre." I find this very unprofessional and a bit disturbing if your behavior is to speak for a majority of Wikipedia's editors. Grammar Vigilante (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have no changes you want to make, then the discussion is duly noted as moot. None of us, by the way, are professional Wikipedia editors. - Nunh-huh 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I had no desire to edit this article beyond that one word in the beginning because of my lack of experience and/or laziness, but the edits need to be done and if I have to do them, so be it. See below for a more detailed description and do try to exercise professional detactment and limit yourself to constructive criticisim.Grammar Vigilante (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As it is the article's introduction reads:

Feminazi (also spelled femi-Nazi or femme-nazi) is a pejorative term used predominantly in the United States and Canada by political conservatives to characterize and belittle feminists whom conservatives perceive to be intolerant of conservative views.[1][2][3][4] The word itself is a portmanteau of the nouns feminist and Nazi. The on-line version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term as used in a "usually disparaging" manner, to describe "an extreme or militant feminist".[5] The term does not relate to the National Socialist Women's Organization or any other organization of women who served Nazi Germany.

The first sentence needs to be broken up. I suggest something like "Feminazi (also spelled femi-Nazi or femme-nazi) is a pejorative term used to characterize feminists." "Belittle" is unnecessary as it is covered by perjorative already. The information about the usage and origin could be moved into another section as they make the opening sentence overly long. "The term is used primarily in North America and has strong ties to the conservative movement in the United states," or something similar could be used to establish the context of the word in the intro. The other information in the introduction would be better in a usage or definition section in the main article.

Also, I'm putting the neutrality banner back. Grammar Vigilante (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

History, Context and Users of the word

I'm adding back the following information because it is directly relevant to the context and history of the word. More importantly, it demonstrates who uses the word:

Among some men's rights and father's rights groups, the term is used to refer to women whom they believe are persecuting men, or hold misandrous beliefs. Dr. Michael Flood, a sociologist at La Trobe University's Australian Research Centre in Sex argues "Men's rights groups represent a hostile backlash to feminism... When I interviewed the American activist Victor Lewis, he called them 'status-quo' or 'pro-sexist men's movements'..."^[6] Flood also argues that "Some fathers' rights groups send misogynist messages, use strategies such as harassment, stalking and intimidation, and strive to chip away at programs and services for women and children. They deny the extent of domestic violence and offer sympathy to the perpetrators."^[7]

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about a specific term. Dr. Flood's analysis of men's rights groups makes no mention of this term nor any other rhetorical devices used by such groups, and as such, it is irrelevant here. Therefore I'm removing it again. It would be appropriate in an article on men's rights groups but not here. Grammar Vigilante (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point does not address the point that the paragraph makes, which is that Men's and Father's rights groups use the "feminazi" terminology. This is relevant to discussion of the word. I will add more references.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That information is found in the articles about the groups. It is inappropriate to keep putting in the information about such organizations in an article about something else entirely. Adding more references will not make the decision less wrong. You are on the verge of a full-blown edit war here, and you are in the wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The lengthy quote the persistent contributor wishes to add makes no mention whatsoever to the topic of this article. However, it does represent a textbook example of inappropriate POV insertion into an article via irrelevent tangents. -- Thisis0 (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I continue to believe that both of you are incorrect. It is important to understand the context in which the word is being used. The sentence furthers what men's rights organizations try to imply - that there are numerous misandrous feminists. I think it is therefore appropriate to put a disclaimer in the "Response" section--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the insert in question obviously has an agenda behined it. It is trying to discredit mens groups and i think i removed a similar if not identical quaote from feminism and it hasn't reappeard there, so i think the quote should be removed here just as permenantly 86.159.21.230 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article appears to be nothing more then a big rant about "social conservatives" thier new N-word and mens rights groups.

I think we should restore some of the older versions of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.150.233 (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not grounded in reality and is an unholy alliance between IronAngelAlice and her placating enabler Orange Mike. In its present form it is a sad example of the inability of Wikipedia to cope with solidly entrenched manipulation. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it benefits us all to refrain from red herrings, and Ad hominem, or personal attacks.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

oh deard ironangelalice i am afraid you failed to counter the arguement and resorted to an ad hominem yourself there 86.159.21.230 (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What argument? Aykantspel (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obsession with Rush Limbaugh and social conservatives

I don't agree with the definition of "femizazi" in this article at all. Feminazi is a term that is applied to the small minority of feminists who, rather than seeking gender fairness and equality, use reverse-sexism and negative male gender stereotyping in order to advance their agenda. It refers to the minority of feminists who actually hate all men, simply because of their gender. It is a term used often by liberal men and women, as well as some feminists who are against sexism in all forms. The author seems to have some sort of obsession with Rush Limbaugh, whose show I have never heard in my life. And I am definitely not a "social conservative". --RogueMountie (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC) c

If you have reliable sources to back up what you've claimed, please do present them on the talk page. Please be sure to consult:

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

i have to agree with the observations. As the author of several categories of feminism, (OXFORD UNIVERSITY 2004) i refer to the term in question as cult-feminists, which makes the logical connection to evil more evident. It is a term I coined, and I am not sure you can place it into this listing, except to understand the exact nature of this sub-category, ie brainwashing, anti-family, human sacrifice.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Response section

I looked over this again checked the cited references, and noticed a number of serious problems.

In the "Term used to minimize progress section," there needs to be a citation for at least one cultural theorist. The second sentence in the same paragraph is irrelevant an can be gotten rid of. In the thrid paragraph, I think the cited website should be explicitly referenced rather than "young feminists" in general. Also, most of the references in this part to Rush Limbaugh and men's rights groups are unnecessary and should be left out.

The "Response to men's rights groups" is entirely out of place. Of the two citations made for this section, only one mentions "feminazi" outright, and even then it's more of a passing reference. I think the entire section needs to be heavily reworked or deleted outright.

The libertarian and holocaust sections have some problems but are not as bad.--Grammar Vigilante (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, there needs to be a response from people defending the term, instead of a section devoting exclusively to attacking it. There are a gazillion more people who use the term other than Rush Limbaugh, and the term is hardly limited to "predominate use" by social conservatives. The only citations in the first paragraph helped indicate what the term meant, not how many people in certain groups use it. In fact, the one reliable source left actually gives a different definition--it's about intolerance of non-militant feminist views, not social conservative views. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you got any cites for your claims? It appears to me that (outside of social conservative circles like the Freep) the term is almost obsolete, and was never used all that widely. I've reverted your edits for the time being until we can come to some solid consensus here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

None that I care to search for at the moment, which is why I haven't added a claim like that to the article. For what it's worth, anecdotally I have heard it used by liberals and conservatives. I edited the article to remove the "predominately used by social conservatives" claim, since it wasn't cited. That would require a reliable source indicating that it was predominately used that way--either from some expert monitoring usage or some sort of statistical measure. The citations that exist only describe what the word means; they don't establish how its usage is distributed.

Furthermore, it's clear from the already made citations that the usage is specifically against "militant feminists" (that is the precise term used by the main source). Even dictionaries acknowledge that it is used against "extreme/radical/militant/whatever feminism" (which I think is also cited). There are no sources suggesting that it's used against all feminists as a whole. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cites have already been provided that it was used against middle-class boring whitebread moderates as well as militants and radicals. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Even accepting that, where are the citations establishing how common its usage is within different groups? None of them even attempted to do that. If you can't provide a citation for that, I'll just remove the claim about commonality of usage among certain group(s). Which citations establish its common usage as being against feminists as a whole, rather than just select groups? All the citations I see, including every dictionary that I've checked, *explicitly* refer to its usage against more radical feminist groups.

Upon reading further, I see that is claimed that it's used to refer to lesbians regardless of their ideology, but the only citation provided for this is one woman's article saying that she was referred to as a feminazi while giving a speech on her views at a N.O.W. summit. N.O.W. is ostensibly a feminist organization, the article was published in off our backs, a self-identified radical feminist periodical, and it's quite clear that ideology was strongly involved in her responses. It's pretty clear here that her ideology was targeted here, so this is a horrible source to use to suggest that women are called feminazis just for being lesbian.

It also seems that the vast majority of citations are limited just to Rush Limbaugh's personal usage, which is peculiar, and not exactly giving a representative view of how it's used by the rest of the populous. The citations don't even establish that he popularized the term, just that he used it a lot. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point Nathan. I've added another citation and will try to add more. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I've removed references to men's rights groups labeling feminists as "feminazis." Claiming that all or most men's rights groups use the term "feminazi" is akin to claiming that all feminists agree with Valerie Solanas. Please don't add them back until and unless you can provide sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V (specifically, not extremist or fringe sources or self-published sources) and unless you present a balanced, neutral-POV perspective.

The source for men's rights groups frequently use the term feminazi to stereotype the entire feminist movement doesn't even mention men's rights, is anonymous, and uses Wikipedia for a source.

The source for men's rights groups use of the word "feminazi" is also anonymous and the author makes ludicrous and unsubstantiated claims such as a very small proportion of physical violence between adults involves female perpetrators and In general, "men's rights" is an anti-feminist and sometimes misogynist (woman-hating) backlash. The author labels men's rights activists as very angry, bitter. Would an article that labeled most members of women's rights groups as very angry, bitter be allowed as a source? The author claims that men's rights groups use a simplistic "You've got it, we want it too" logic. Wasn't that what sufragettes used?

The third source is actually a linkjack from here at OhmyNews which, by its description, is certainly not a WP:RS. Furthermore, it does not even mention "feminazi." JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The deletion is necessary, but a deletion doesn't justify an NPOV. You've not made a case for NPOV.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Libertarian Response

I agree with Carolmooredc deletion of this section. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Logic behind Feminazi ?

Lead.

Potential information for site.

The relevance of the term to a part of the feminist movement, also called radical feminism, is often reflected by 'their hatred' of men, mothers and children.

The anti-male perspective is often reflected in an anti-male perspective.

The term is often related to the abortion movement, and what is called the silent hollocaust. Nazi's are given credit for the extermination of Jews...Feminazi's are given credit for pushing the killing of unborn children.

I might suggest someone have the time to find a reliable source for these observations.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Change to definition

Before I made this change, the definition of 'feminazi' was, in my opinion, too far from the refrenced definitions. The definition in the beginning of the article was: "Feminazi is a term used to negatively characterize feminists, used usually in disparaging manner." It cited 2 dictionaries (fine sources) that both define a 'feminazi' as an extreme feminist. My issue was that they do not say it is a word used to negatively characterize all feminists. On the other hand, I have heard the word feminazi used to refer to all feminists, so I included this second use of the word as well. Aykantspel (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aykantspel, thank you for being bold. The source you added for the second use does not pass the reliable sources guideline. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it (starting the section with profanities didn't exactly help it). Soxwon (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fair.Aykantspel (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

22:36, 4 July edit

Removal per WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROMOTION (not WP:PROMOTE) Undue weight upon the org's use of the terminology that amounts to advertising. Anarchangel (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

IronAngelAlice, just b/c no one happened to see the slanted version of the article, doesn't mean it should stay. Intolerant of conservative views? That's extremely biased and incorrect. Extremist is more accurate. Your other edits take out valuable context and change the meaning of events. Please stop. Soxwon (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have sourced everything, and this has been the long standing text agreed upon by several editors.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, why take intolerant of conservative values over militant or extremist? The latter seems much more in-line with the source you are citing (or better yet, those that are pro-abortion). Nowhere does it say "conservative values," that's your own WP:SYN. Soxwon (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Second, Rush himself claims he did NOT coin the phrase (your own source says so), yet you keep insisting he did. Soxwon (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, your sources are by and large mostly MMFA, which is not an indicator of WP:DUE, who cares how many women are a member of such and such organization, and all of those supposed incidents are about the SAME MARCH! Soxwon (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

PS, WP:CCC Soxwon (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The result of removing that many references is that the sentence "Limbaugh has expanded the list of people he calls feminazis since 1992." has no supporting source. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, and am not satisfied with it currently. The previous version I put in was constantly rmved: [3] (and even THAT relied heavily on MMFA). Soxwon (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by deleting quotes, and leaving cites. There should be a cite form that allows invisible quoting within citations for evidentiary and verification purposes. Also citespam makes editing wiki content difficult, which is a problem the damn code monkeys should fix. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Most citation templates include a "quote" parameter that you can use to include quotes. Kaldari (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of citations

Please do not remove citations from Slate.com, etc., or the long quotes from Limbaugh's book.

Also, I see no point in having the feminism sidebar on the page since "feminazi" has nothing to do with feminist thought or philosophy. It is a pejorative term, which by the way was discussed extensively here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminazi&oldid=201441487#The_Intro

Please do not start an edit war, Soxwon. I would like to go back to the long-standing text.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. The opening sentence, as I stated before, is your own WP:SYN and isn't supported by your source. It also wasn't coined by Rush Limbaugh, as has been stated over and over again. You are also misrepresenting sources. You stated that he called three organizations (and does it really matter how many are in one) feminazis, when he only did so b/c they held a rally for abortion. Therefore it's not an example of "much wider contexts" and stating that it is amounts to POV pushing. Now then, Slate is not a source for notability, nor is MMFA. Therefore I don't think that particular "controversy" is even worth mentioning. Finally, the amptoons link is a blog, and therefore doesn't reach the WP:RS standards. Your "long-standing concensus" argument doesn't hold water when it clearly violates wikipedia policy and even honest reporting. Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been much going back and forth on these pages, so let's take changes one-by-one.

1) The feminist organizations that he called "feminazis" are not in the opening paragraph. We'll get to that later.

2) Rush attributes the term to Hazlet, but he also claims to have coined it himself: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070708/content/01125116.guest.html and http://mediamatters.org/research/200506240002

We should simply say that Rush "popularized" the term in the first paragraph.

Because of the back-and-forth editing, we lost several citations. Here Rush claims to have popularized the term:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200506240002
here, he uses femi-nazi: http://mediamatters.org/research/200409170006, and here:http://mediamatters.org/research/200405020008

3) In the above references, you'll find that Limbaugh called the organizations that were at the Million Woman March "feminazis." Those organizations have hundreds of thousands of members (i.e. wider context); he also called the heads of women's organizations who testified against Justice Alito "Feminazis" (again, wider context). This is especially the case since Limbaugh originally stated that there are only really 25 "True" feminazis in the country.

On this point, I think we should include these citations, and include that Limbaugh was referring to the organizations that were at the "Million Woman March." The March was previously deleted by a different editor.

4) I disagree with you about Slate and MMFA. Both of those website are about notability!--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the amptoons citations can be removed. The sentence is still an introduction to the Gloria Steinem information.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're joking right? MMFA is a fringe nitpicking left-wing site (and I'm supported in this by WP:RS/N. Slate isn't much better, openly supporting liberal and democratic candidates and stances. Now then, if you're going to use exclusively for these two for sources then this article is just going to turn into a liberal sounding board and be completely POV. And even still, all the MMFA sources are talking about the same event! They're all talking about the abortion march that took place in April of 2004. You're basing your argument around fringe and giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint, this needs to stop. Soxwon (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The MMFA sources simply quote Limbaugh. It's hard to make the case that MMFA is "Fringe" and "nitpicking" when all they do is quote Limbaugh. All the MMFA sources are not talking about the same event. Please go back and read the quotes.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I did, they all seem to be the same time period and discussing the same discussions. And yes MMFA is fringe, therefore using them is an issue of undue weight and notability. Soxwon (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

According to you they are fridge? Or is there general evidence?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:RS/N they are to be used for fact-checking, but not mainstream opinion or notability, as they are partisan and fringe (and honestly, if you think they aren't fringe you need to search them on the web some...). As for them providing "broader usage of Feminazi" I'll prove they don't, [this article] links to [this one]. There are two of them and they both mention the rally. The first two are the same one and they are also both about the rally. Please stop saying they mean a "broader context." Soxwon (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So you've tried to discredit a source, and then use it to back up your claim? That's strange. Please revisit that thought. As per the "broader context" issue, that Limbaugh called the people at the March, and the organizations that were represented at the March, "feminazis" should be enough to merit a mention of a "broader context" than the original 25 feminazis Limbaugh claimed to be in existence. And if we are to be intellectually honest here, the term has been used to refer to all feminists by other conservative talk show hosts. We should cite those uses as well. Would you help do that?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I don't see where WP:RS/N backs up the claim that we cannot use MMFA in this instance.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting source: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2009/05/feminazis-and-feminists/ --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is another interesting source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Rush_Limbaugh_Abortion.htm "Given the National Organization for Women’s membership and proclivities, it’s no wonder that people now view the NOW gang as being obsessed with only two issues: abortion rights and lesbian rights.
I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. The term describes any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion." --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,686064-4,00.html --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/blogs/coopscorner/entry5253527.shtml?loc=interstitialskip (another reference that cites Limbaugh as popularizing the term)--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] "Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Feminism"

[2] Human Rights Watch

[3] "Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Feminism"

[4] Human Rights Watch

[5] "The Feminazi Campaign Against Fathers"

[6] "Men's rights groups represent a hostile backlash to feminism, but their efforts in fact are unhelpful and even harmful for men themselves. Michael Flood describes how we can respond."

[7] "Responsible Parenting and Fathers´ Rights: An Interview With Michael Flood"

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]