Open Access Articles- Top Results for Antifeminism


For the Japanese band, see Anti Feminism.

Antifeminism is an ideology that is broadly defined as an opposition to feminism or some aspect of feminism. The meaning of antifeminism has varied across time and cultures and it has attracted both men and women. Antifeminism may be motivated by general hostility towards women's rights,[1] the belief that feminist theories of patriarchy and disadvantages suffered by women in society are incorrect or exaggerated,[2][3] or that feminism as a movement encourages misandry and seeks to harm or oppress men. For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s it resisted women's suffrage.[4][5]


Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology denies at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism:[2] 1. That social arrangements among men and women are neither natural nor divinely determined (see sociology of gender). 2. That social arrangements among men and women favor men (see patriarchy), and, 3. That there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements (see timeline of women's rights (other than voting) and timeline of women's suffrage).

Michael Kimmel, a feminist men's studies scholar, defines antifeminism as, "the opposition to women's equality." He says that antifeminists oppose "women's entry into the public sphere, the re-organization of the private sphere, women's control of their bodies, and women's rights generally." Kimmel further writes that antifeminist argumentation relies on, "religious and cultural norms", while, sometimes, proponents of antifeminism advance their cause as a means of, "'saving' masculinity from pollution and invasion." He argues that antifeminists consider the, "traditional gender division of labor as natural and inevitable, perhaps also divinely sanctioned."[1]

Canadian sociologists, Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri, write that antifeminist thought has primarily taken the form of an extreme version masculinism, in which, "men are in crisis because of the feminization of society".[6] However, in the same article, they also note that, "little research has been done on antifeminism whether from the perspective of the sociology of social movements or even of women's studies," indicating that an understanding of what the full range of antifeminist ideology consists of is incomplete.

"Antifeminist" is also used to describe female authors, some of whom define themselves as feminists, based on their opposition to some or all elements of feminist movements. Other feminists label writers such as Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Katie Roiphe and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese with this term[7][8] because of their positions regarding oppression and lines of thought within feminism.[9] Daphne Patai and Noreta Koertge argue that by labeling these women antifeminists, the intention is to silence them and prevent any debate on the state of feminism.[10]

The meaning of antifeminism has varied across time and cultures and the antifeminist ideology attracts both men and women. Some women, for example the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League campaigned against women's suffrage. Emma Goldman, for example, was widely considered antifeminist during her fight against suffragism in the US. Decades later, however, she was heralded as a founder of anarcha-feminism.[11]

Antifeminist stances

Some antifeminists have argued that feminism has resulted in changes to society's previous norms relating to sexuality, which they see as detrimental to traditional values or conservative religious beliefs.[12][13][14] For example, the ubiquity of casual sex and the decline of marriage are mentioned as negative consequences of feminism.[15][16] Many of these traditionalists oppose women's entry into the workforce, political office, and the voting process, as well as the lessening of male authority in families.[17] Antifeminists argue that a change of women's roles is a destructive force that endangers the family, or is contrary to religious morals. For example, Paul Gottfried maintains that the change of women's roles "has been a social disaster that continues to take its toll on the family" and contributed to a "descent by increasingly disconnected individuals into social chaos".[18]

Some antifeminists view feminism as a denial of innate differences between the genders, and an attempt to reprogram people against their biological tendencies.[19] Antifeminists also frequently argue that feminism, despite espousing equality, ignores rights issues unique to males. Some believe that the feminist movement has achieved its aims and now seeks higher status for women than for men via special rights and exemptions.[20][21][22]


American antisuffragists in the early 20th century

19th century

In the 19th century, the centerpiece of antifeminism was opposition to women's suffrage.[5] Opposition and resisters have proclaimed their hatred for the alteration of gender roles. These people have worked diligently since then to slow down the crusade by creating their own: antifeminism. Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy.[23] Other antifeminists[dubious ] opposed women's entry into the labor force, or their right to join unions, to sit on juries, or to obtain birth control and control of their sexuality.[1] However, like any movement, antifeminism did not officially become recognized until its first observable action toward its goal in 1951.

Mid 20th century

The first documented act of antifeminism can be found with the same novel that sparked the second Red Scare in 1951 when two journalists published Washington Confidential. It claimed that Communist leaders used their men and women to recruit a variety of minorities in the nation’s capital, such as females, colored males, and homosexual males. The vast popularity of the book caused such a buzz that the Civil Service Commission had to create a “publicity campaign to improve the image of federal employees”[24] in hopes to save their federal employees from losing their jobs. This ploy failed once the journalists linked feminism to communism in their novel and ultimately reinforced antifeminism by implying that defending the “white, Christian, heterosexual, patriarchal family”[25] was the only way to oppose communism.

Once the second Red Scare was in action, conservatives used their new influence on media to maintain race and gender hierarchies by associating anyone who ignored those hierarchies as spies. Several government officials that were women and/or colored lost their jobs as a result. This antifeminist popularity went on throughout the New Deal and the Truman administration, so the conservatives could be praised for attacking said political events.

Late 20th Century

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment, an amendment that grants equal rights and opportunities to every citizen of the United States, regardless of his/her demographics, (specifically sex). This motion was supported by both major parties and was immensely popular, yet it was defeated when it failed to get the vote of thirty-eight legislatures in 1982.[26] The campaigning, voting, and political influence to get the ERA an opposing majority is a blatant presentation of the spread of antifeminism and its impact on society.

From Val Burris’ “Who Opposed the ERA? An Analysis of the Social Bases of Antifeminism,” certain demographics made the majority of the opposition of the ERA. Those demographics include housewives, citizens in rural areas, and high-income Caucasian males. At this point, it is obvious that the demographics of antifeminists have shifted. However, similar to any movement, antifeminism is a heterogeneous movement with each member having his/her own agenda. The housewives are hypothesized to have opposed the ERA because they are content with being “economically dependent on their husbands”[27] and did not like the idea of working for a living. Those housewives’ high-income husbands opposed the amendment because they would gain the least with it being passed. In fact, those men had the most to lose since the ratification of the ERA would mean more competition for their privileged jobs and possibly a lowered self-esteem.[28] The rural-residing citizens are the best example of antifeminism in media. The large impact that the second Red Scare had most likely reached even the farms and small towns with little contact to urban society. Because of their separation from the outside world and their strong religious faith, opposing the ERA seemed like the most intelligent idea to them, regardless of the opportunities being lost as a result.

Another method that the antifeminists used was getting the votes of politicians, who had the largest impact on the destiny of the ERA. Because of the support of antifeminism from conservatives and the constant “conservative reactions to liberal social politics,” like the New Deal attacks, the ERA appears to be no more than a “right-wing backlash”.[29] This backlash linked antifeminism to a broader ideology of marriage, gender roles, and even male and female restrooms. This engulfment created a new tactic for the antifeminists: the proposal that feminism destroys families.

The antifeminists had a lot of proof behind this new proposal. Amongst the demographics of the people who supported the ERA were middle- to upper-class Caucasian women with some level of education.[30] All of these women were either married or divorced. Based on the charts from Burris’ article, some feminists and antifeminists resided in the same household. Even in feminist bell hooks’ novel, Feminism is for Everybody, the “strongest patriarchal voice” in her life was her mother’s.[31] The chances that there were no arguments at the hooks’ household are slim.

Antifeminists maintained this proposal wholeheartedly. This new motive was driven by the “beliefs about the family and personal morality”[32] and not so much for the mere social status. Their methods grew to actions like, “insults proffered in emails or on the telephone, systematic denigration of feminism in the media, Internet disclosure of confidential information (e.g. addresses) on resources for battered women”[6] and more.


After the ERA was rejected, antifeminism grew a branch: masculinism. Once feminists began suggesting ideologies like homosexual marriage, single mother households, and ultimately opposing the root purpose of antifeminism, it created a division of antifeminism that feels the “masculine identity has been spurned”.[6] Consisting of mostly white men, it is debated whether masculinism is a social movement or a scapegoat to the people who made them have to fight for the roles in life that they feel are due onto them.[6] Regardless, masculinism does follow the typical pattern of social movements and focuses its purpose towards the rights of men and fathers.

21st century

File:Feminazi STOP!.jpg
A protest against an International Women's Day march in Warsaw, Poland in 2010

Contemporary issues surrounding antifeminism include concerns of fairness in matters of family law, regarding things like child custody, paternity liability, and child support payment. Concerns of sex or gender inequality in the criminal justice system, such as fairness in sentencing for like crimes.[33]

BBC and Time, among others, have covered the 2014 social media trend "Women Against Feminism". These antifeminists say that feminism demonizes men (misandry) and that women are not oppressed in 21st century Western countries.[3][34][35][36][37][38]

The Guardian and Jezebel has also reported on an increasing number of women and female celebrities rejecting feminism and instead subscribing to humanism.[39][40] Several women who identify as being humanist and anti-feminist have argued in an article for the Guardian that feminism is a discriminatory ideology and continues to portray women as victims.[39] This article was written in response to Australian Labor senator, Penny Wong's speech on the 11th of April at the Annual Jessie Street Luncheon where she defended feminism, stating, "Feminism is not an extreme term – it is a mainstream movement that has transformed modern Australia for the better."[41]

However, in retaliation to the social media trend, modern day feminists also began to upload similar pictures to websites such as Twitter and Tumblr in response. Most used the same hashtag, "womenagainstfeminism", but instead made satirical and bluntly parodic comments.[42] In November 2014, Time magazine included "feminist" on its annual list of proposed banished words. After initially receiving the majority of votes (51%), a Time editor apologized for including the word in the poll and removed it from the results.[43][44]


File:STOP ERA.gif
Symbol used for signs and buttons by ERA opponents

Founded in the U.S. by Phyllis Schlafly in 1972, Stop ERA, now known as "Eagle Forum", lobbied successfully to block the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S.[45] It was also Schlafly who forged links between Stop ERA and other conservative organizations, as well as single-issue groups against abortion, pornography, gun control, and unions. By integrating Stop ERA with the thus-dubbed "new right" she was able to leverage a wider range of technological, organizational and political resources, successfully targeting pro-feminist candidates for defeat.[45]

In India, the Save Indian Family Foundation is an antifeminist organization[46] opposed to a number of laws that they claimed to have been used against men.[47] REAL Women of Canada was unsuccessful when it came to preventing decriminalisation of abortion in Canada and same-sex marriage in Canada.[citation needed]

Stigmatizing Feminism

Feminism has grown an over-hanging stigma throughout its evolution. Feminist English Professor at Scripps College Jacqueline Wernimont analyzes the stigma of a daily feminist in the section “The Technosocial Scene and Visible Feminism” in her article “Whence Feminism? Assessing Feminist Interventions in Digital Literary Archives.” As said by Wernimont, “’feminism’ has become worse than an irrelevance, a new ‘national dirty word’: a term that is meaningful as a warning sign” [48](21). She uses this new interpretation of feminism, as a male hating movement, to argue how feminism has become marginalized by society for its progressive social and political desires to change the disparity between sexes and between races, ages, and classes, as well. With most publication agencies banning printing feminist stories and preventing strong emergence of feminist scholarship, authors are forced to suppress their beliefs they hold to be self-evident. In response, feminist authors, instead of barking against the publication agencies, find methods to side-step the editing filter.[48]

Wernimont describes two methods to smoke screen the concepts of feminism within publications in order to have the possibility of printing and for “appropriating the successes of feminist work for a more general, and more palatable, liberatory[sic] agenda” [48](21).To reach a further audience, authors have removed every instance of the word “feminism” and its relatives so all ideology is inherently implied yet not directly explained. Further along those lines, authors, some practicing this technique for years now, weave the principles of feminism into their scholarship as a fundamental foundation of thinking. If the mindset to create the publication is feminist, then the mindset of the reader will change to feminist.[48] This type of cloak and dagger feminism was coined “Implicit Feminism” by Danielle Giffort, a Sociology Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago in her article “SHOW OR TELL? Feminist Dilemmas and Implicit Feminism at Girls' Rock Camp.” Implicit Feminism is the “strategy practiced by feminist activists within organizations that are operating in an anti- and post-feminist environment in which they conceal feminist identities and ideas while emphasizing the more socially acceptable angles of their efforts” [49](569). Implicit Feminism is the effect of a stigmatized association with traditional feminism. Those who practice feminism in this reserved manner are less concerned with the definition of feminism than maintaining an incognito yet practicing feminist identity. Teaching Implicit Feminism is in and of itself implicit. Rather than explaining a mode of thought known as feminism, taking the principles of feminism as a foundation of thought and teaching cultural necessities such as intelligence, independence, and self-reliance through the feminist lens accomplishes the transfer of feminist ideology without explicitly labeling it with the stigmatized brand of feminist. The risk of Implicit Feminism is in its inherent nature to stay hidden, even to those who are taught it unwittingly, so the inherent value of feminism can become distorted within the perceived culture of society. The greatest topic sacrificed by Implicit Feminism is the history of feminism, and without the history, one cannot understand why the principles being taught hold so much weight, personally and politically. Giffort concluded that “people can ‘do’ feminism without identifying or interpreting what they are doing as feminist and still challenge cultural ideas surrounding gender and other socially oppressive institutions”[49](585), yet still waffled at the idea of explicit teachings of feminism because while it allows for greater grasp of the whole feminist ideology, it also exposes the individual to cultural stigmas.[49] The stigma of feminism has forced an adaption in feminism, creating an implicit and inherent group culture; however, the catalyst of the stigma is not a straight forward answer.

According to Jerome L. Himmelstein, a Sociology Professor at Amherst College, in his article “The Social Basis of Antifeminism: Religious Networks and Culture,” the stigma is a manifestation of antifeminism, which means it could have a grand multitude of rooting and stemming reasons of existing; however, two prevailing theories can explain where antifeminism originates. The first theory, proposed by Himmelstein, is the political opposition in the abortion and Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) debates, groups who consist primarily of individuals of lower socioeconomic status, rural, and older constituencies. The political view is labeled as conservative. Although these characteristics may perpetuate through anti-abortion and anti-ERA advocates, it is not a blanket definition and deserves to avoid stereotyping.[50]

The second theory proposes that women in the antifeminist group perpetuate the “insecure housewife scenario,” in which women are to depend on men for fiscal support. The theorized opposition is a group of married, low education, low personal income women; however in numerous studies, no direct class can be differentiate between characters of feminism and antifeminism.[50]

So both theories cannot create clear cut, polarized socio-economic groups who dignify the pro-feminists and antifeminist. What cleanly unifies the opposition group is religion. Individuals unaffiliated with any religion, along with Jewish groups, are most likely to support feminist views, while groups involved with Christianity, especially Catholics, are most likely to oppose feminist views. Christian beliefs stress strict lives for women. The Christian doctrine includes regulating women’s sexuality and gender role in the family and in the world. So with evidence from various studies, Himmelstein concludes the feminist stigma stems from religious views that have prevailed for nearly two millennia.[50] Analyzing core human nature, Audre Lorde tries to answer why a doctrine like religion would have one group hate another in her excerpt “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference” in her collection Sister Outsider.

Audre Lorde defines the driving force of group separation not as simple personal difference but as “our refusal to recognize those differences, and to examine the distortions which result from our misnaming them and their effects upon human behavior and expectation” [51](115). According to Lorde, a patriarchal system at the core of society is held in place simply by belief that superficial differences make one superior to another, that one faith is greater than another. The system cannot be defeated from outside the system because a superficial difference cannot be changed thus the system never changes. The patriarchal, oppressive system ensures an oppressed group, so here is the source of feminist stigma.[51] An oppressive system that encourages disparity and aided by religion chooses Feminism, a social political movement to end this system, as a group to oppress out of fear which results in the societal stigma of calling oneself a “feminist.”

See also

Further reading

Literature about antifeminism

  • Nielsen, Kim E. (2001). Un-American womanhood : antiradicalism, antifeminism, and the first Red Scare. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. ISBN 978-0814250808. 
  • Redefining the New Woman, 1920-1963 (Antifeminism in America: A Collection of Readings from the Literature of the Opponents to U.S. Feminism, 1848 to the Present), Howard-Zophy
  • Faludi, Susan (1991). Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. Crown Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-517-57698-8. 
  • Kampwirth, Karen. 2006. "Resisting the Feminist Threat: Antifeminist Politics in Post-Sandinista Nicaragua" NWSA Journal. Vol. 18, No 2. (Summer). pp. 73–100.
  • Kampwirth, Karen. 2003. "Arnoldo Alemán Takes on the NGOs: Antifeminism and the New Populism in Nicaragua" Latin American Politics and Society. Vol. 45. No. 2. (Summer) 2003. pp. 133–158.
  • Kampwirth, Karen. 1998. "Feminism, Antifeminism, and Electoral Politics in Post-War Nicaragua and El Salvador" Political Science Quarterly Vol. 113, No. 2. (Summer) pp. 259–279.
  • Cynthia D. Kinnard, Antifeminism in American Thought: An Annotated Bibliography (Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1986, ISBN 0-8161-8122-5)
  • Kipnis, Laura, The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability (Pantheon, 2006).
  • Mansbridge, Jane: Why We Lost the ERA, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1986
  • Nielsen, Kim E. Un-American Womanhood: Antiradicalism, Antifeminism, and the First Red Scare
  • Schreiber, Ronnee (2008). Righting Feminism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-533181-3. 
  • Swanson, G. Antifeminism in America: A Historical Reader (2000) ISBN 0-8153-3437-0

Antifeminist literature


  1. ^ a b c Kimmel, Michael (2004). "Antifeminism". In Kimmel, Michael. Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. pp. 35–7. 
  2. ^ a b Flood, Michael (2007-07-18). "International encyclopedia of men and masculinities". ISBN 978-0-415-33343-6. 
  3. ^ a b Brosnan, Greg (July 24, 2014). "#BBCtrending: Meet the 'Women Against Feminism'". BBC. Retrieved July 24, 2014. 
  4. ^ Ford, Lynne E. (2009). Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics. Infobase Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 978-1-4381-1032-5. 
  5. ^ a b Maddux, Kristy. "When patriots protest: The anti-suffrage discursive transformation of 1917." Rhetoric & Public Affairs 7.3 (2004): 283-310.
  6. ^ a b c d Blais, Melissa; Francis Dupuis-Déri (19 Dec 2011). "Masculinism and the Antifeminist Countermovement". Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest 11 (1): 21–39. doi:10.1080/14742837.2012.640532. Retrieved 11 May 2013.  Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  7. ^ Judith Stacey, Is Academic Feminism an Oxymoron?, Signs, Vol. 25, No. 4, Feminisms at a Millennium. (Summer, 2000), pp. 1189–1194
  8. ^ Elizabeth Kamarck Minnich, Review: 'Feminist Attacks on Feminisms: Patriarchy's Prodigal Daughters', Feminist Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1. (Spring, 1998), pp. 159–175
  9. ^ BITCHfest: Ten Years of Cultural Criticism from the Pages of Bitch Magazine, by Margaret Cho (Foreword), Lisa Jervis (Editor), Andi Zeisler (Editor), 2006
  10. ^ Patai and Koertge, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies, (2003)
  11. ^ Marshall, Peter (1992). Demanding the impossible : a history of anarchism. London: HarperCollins. p. 409. ISBN 0-00-217855-9. 
  12. ^ Desai, Murli. The Paradigm of International Social Development: Ideologies, Development Systems and Policy Approaches. Routledge. p. 119. 
  13. ^ Robert T. Francoeur; Raymond J. Noonan. The Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. A&C black. p. 1163. 
  14. ^ Jaggar, Alison M. Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Philosophy and Society). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 75. 
  15. ^ Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist Mistake (2005) ISBN 1-58134-570-4
  16. ^ Carrie L. Lukas, The politically incorrect guide to women, sex, and feminism, Regnery Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1-59698-003-6, ISBN 978-1-59698-003-7
  17. ^ Busch, Elizabeth Kaufer. Democracy Reconsidered. Lexington. p. 242. 
  18. ^ Gottfried, Paul (2001). "The Trouble With Feminism". Archived from the original on 20 September 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-30. 
  19. ^ Leahy, Michael P. T. The Liberation Debate: Rights at Issue. Psychology Press. p. 10. 
  20. ^ Wattenberg, B (1994). "Has Feminism Gone Too Far?". MenWeb. Archived from the original on 13 October 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-30. 
  21. ^ Pizzey, Erin (1999). "How The Women's Movement Taught Women to Hate Men". Fathers for Life. Archived from the original on 26 September 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-30. 
  22. ^ Janice Shaw Crouse (2006). "What Friedan Wrought". Concerned Women for America. Retrieved 2006-09-30. 
  23. ^ Clarke, Edward H. (1873). Sex and Education. Wildside. pp. 29, 55. ISBN 978-0-8095-0170-0. 
  24. ^ Storrs, Landon. "Attacking the Washington "Femmocracy": Antifeminism in the Cold War Campaign against "Communists in Government"." Feminist Studies, 2007, 118-152.
  25. ^ Storrs, Landon. "Attacking the Washington "Femmocracy": Antifeminism in the Cold War Campaign against "Communists in Government"." Feminist Studies, 2007, 118-152.
  26. ^ Burris, Val. "Who Opposed the Era? An Analysis of the Social Bases of Antifeminism." Social Science Quarterly, 1983, 305-317.
  27. ^ Himmelstein, Jerome. "The Social Basis of Antifeminism: Religious Networks and Culture." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1986, 1-15.
  28. ^ Burris, Val. "Who Opposed the Era? An Analysis of the Social Bases of Antifeminism." Social Science Quarterly, 1983, 305-317.
  29. ^ Burris, Val. "Who Opposed the Era? An Analysis of the Social Bases of Antifeminism." Social Science Quarterly, 1983, 305-317.
  30. ^ Burris, Val. "Who Opposed the Era? An Analysis of the Social Bases of Antifeminism." Social Science Quarterly, 1983, 305-317.
  31. ^ hooks, bell. "Introduction: Come Closer To Feminism." hooks, bell. Feminism is for Everybody. Cambridge: South End Press, 2000, x.
  32. ^ Himmelstein, Jerome. "The Social Basis of Antifeminism: Religious Networks and Culture." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1986, 3.
  34. ^ Young, Cathy (July 24, 2014). "Stop Fem-Splaining: What ‘Women Against Feminism’ Gets Right". Time. Retrieved July 24, 2014. 
  35. ^ Eun Kyung Kim (2014-01-08). "Is feminism still relevant? Some women saying they don't need it - News". Retrieved 2014-08-01. 
  36. ^ Cathy Young. "Daughters of Feminism strike back". Newsday. Retrieved 2014-08-01. 
  37. ^ Sarah Boesveld. "Not all feminists: How modern feminism has become complicated, messy and sometimes alienating | National Post". Retrieved 2014-08-01. 
  38. ^ Durgin, Celina (2014-07-28). "Anti-Feminists Baffle Feminists | National Review Online". Retrieved 2014-08-01. 
  39. ^ a b Hardy, Elle; Lehmann, Claire; Jha, Trisha; Matthewson, Paula. "Am I a feminist? Four women reply (and they're not from the left)". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 August 2014. 
  40. ^ Dries, Kate. "The Many Misguided Reasons Famous Ladies Say 'I'm Not a Feminist'". Jezebel. Retrieved 14 August 2014. 
  41. ^ Taylor, Lenore. "‘Feminism is not an extreme term,’ says Penny Wong". Retrieved 14 August 2014. 
  42. ^ "#WomenAgainstFeminism goes viral as people explain why they don't need feminism anymore". Retrieved 2014-08-13. 
  43. ^ Steinmetz, Katy, "Which Word Should Be Banned in 2015?", Time, 12 November 2014
  44. ^ Rabouin, Dion, "Time Magazine Apologizes For Including 'Feminist' In 2015 Word Banishment Poll", International Business Times, 15 November 2014
  45. ^ a b Tierney, Helen (1999). Women's Studies Encyclopedia. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated. p. 95. 
  46. ^ 52 J. Legal Pluralism & Unofficial L. 49 (2006) Playing off Courts: The Negotiation of Divorce and Violence in Plural Legal Settings in Kolkata; Basu, Srimati
  47. ^ Rohit K. Dasgupta; K. Moti Gokulsing (2013). Masculinity and Its Challenges in India: Essays on Changing Perceptions. McFarland. p. 65. 
  48. ^ a b c d Wernimont, Jacqueline (2011). "Whence Feminism? Assessing Feminist Interventions in Digital Literary Archives". Digital Humanities Quarterly 7 (1). Retrieved 17 April 2015. 
  49. ^ a b c Giffort, D. M. (2011). >. "Show or Tell? Feminist Dilemmas and Implicit Feminism at Girls' Rock Camp". Gender & Society 25 (5). Retrieved 17 April 2015. 
  50. ^ a b c Himmelstein, Jerome L. (1986). "The Social Basis of Antifeminism: Religious Networks and Culture". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 25 (1). Retrieved 17 April 2015. 
  51. ^ a b Lorde, Audre (2007). Sister Oustider. 

External links