Talk:Femosphere

Post-AfD Cleanup Proposal

Disruptive discussion – archived for readability

Given the AfD outcome (“Keep, without prejudice toward a rewrite to address NPOV and other content issues”), I am proposing a structured cleanup process grounded in core Wikipedia content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Specifically: 1. Lead section – Rephrase editorial framing such as “(broadly misandrist) spaces” using attributed, neutral language per WP:NPOV and WP:V. 2. “Radicalisation narratives” section - Either remove or rewrite based only on verifiable, secondary sources. No source currently outlines the four themes as a cohesive framework, which raises concerns under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. 3. Source quality – Replace or contextualize sources that are primary, self-published, or non-independent (e.g., Reddit, YouTube, YouTubers). 4. Attribution and tone – Clarify all ideological claims and critiques using “According to [source]” language to meet neutrality and attribution standards. I’ll begin cleanup in small increments, starting with sourcing and attribution issues. Feedback and collaboration welcome. — HairlessPolarBear (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC) Just noting for transparency: my final AfD comment before the close was collapsed by one editor, then uncollapsed, and later re-collapsed by another editor, who described it as AI-generated and inappropriate. For the record, it was written by me and intended to clarify unresolved sourcing and structural concerns in the article. I understand the length and directness may have shaped how it was received. I'm sharing this so others reviewing the AfD can see the full context as cleanup discussions move forward. - HairlessPolarBear (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC) Update: Per the above proposal, I’ve removed the “Femosphere radicalisation narratives” section. The section was based on original synthesis and lacked reliable secondary sources that defined the claimed themes as a unified framework. If strong sourcing emerges in the future, happy to revisit. I’ll next review the lead section for tone, attribution, and neutrality. Feedback welcome. — HairlessPolarBear (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Review of “Radicalisation Narratives” Section – Step-by-Step as Requested Thanks, FULBERT, for the reply and suggestions. Per your request, I’m happy to begin a step-by-step review of the “Radicalisation narratives” section with an eye toward alignment with WP:SYNTH, WP:V, and WP:OR. To clarify, my original concern is not with including discussion of ideological content, but rather with how this section currently synthesizes disparate claims into a single unsourced framework labeled “radicalisation narratives.” Again, none of the cited sources for this section explicitly group the listed bullet points as part of a unified radicalization process. The only source in the Femosphere article that uses this term explicitly is the 2024 Guardian piece (Reference 1), which contradicts the Femosphere article's claims: "There’s no evidence to say that the femosphere is radicalising its members in the same way as the manosphere, which has seen members committing shocking acts of real-world violence and fuelling populist political movements. But there are reasons to be wary." This reflects a general concern and a call for more research, but not a verified or sourced framework for what constitutes “radicalization narratives or themes” within the femosphere specifically. Academic sources cited in the Radicalization Narratives section of the article do not define the bullet points in this section as components of radicalization. I'll start a citation-by-citation review of this section in a new subsection shortly. Open to collaboration from all as we work toward policy-aligned improvements. — HairlessPolarBear (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Step-by-Step Review: “Radicalisation narratives” Section (Bullets 1–2) Thanks again, FULBERT, for the suggestion to work through this section carefully. Below are the first two bullet point reviews from the “Radicalisation narratives” list, with attention to WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. More to follow. Bullet Point 1: “A rejection of liberal feminism, asserting that it has failed to deliver a world consistent with feminists' aspirations.” [5] Cited source: Lewis, Sophie (2025). Enemy Feminisms. Haymarket Books. [5] Assessment: This book is not publicly accessible, and the article provides no quotation, paraphrase, or page number. The claim is not attributed in-text to Lewis, nor is there evidence connecting it to “radicalisation narratives.” Policy note: Per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, challenged material must be explicitly verifiable. Without a clear, accessible source supporting the claim, especially its framing as part of radicalization, this bullet does not meet verification standards. Recommendation: Remove or rewrite the bullet with proper attribution and a verifiable source, if one becomes available. Bullet Point 2: “The application of the special pleading fallacy to the true equivalence between misandry and misogyny, in an effort to assuage internal concerns about extremism and to deflect external criticisms.” [9][10] Cited sources: Victoria Smith (2018, The Independent) [9] and Tris Hedges (2024, Feminist Review) [10] Assessment: • [9] critiques the false equivalence between misogyny and misandry but does not mention “special pleading,” fallacies, or radicalization. • [10] explores rhetorical patterns in misandry discourse but does not use fallacy language or frame the issue as a response to extremism. Policy note: This bullet introduces analytical language not present in the sources and synthesizes disparate points into an unsupported interpretation—raising WP:SYNTH and WP:OR concerns. Recommendation: Remove or reframe the bullet based on direct attribution to reliable secondary sources. Happy to collaborate further if stronger sourcing emerges. I’ll follow up with Bullet Points 3 and 4 next. — HairlessPolarBear (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Repeated vanadlism of article

Disruptive discussion – archived for readability

This article has been repeatedly vandalised by a single, rogue editor (@HairlessPolarBear) who created a single-use account with the sole purpose of disrupting any attempt to create an encyclopaedic article documenting the femosphere. They began by nominating, in bad faith, the article for deletion. Numerous editors joined the subsequent discussion and they unanimously rejected the rogue editor's assertions. I also provided a comprehensive rebuttal. The vote to keep the article was unanimous. Not satisfied with that result, they are now attempting to vandalise the article via the talk page, using exactly the same (AI-written) arguments that have already been comprehensively and robustly refuted; and by deleting entire sections of the article. One could be forgiven for thinking that, given the editor's fanaticism on the subject and extreme, militant behaviour, they have a vested interest in disrupting the article. As such, I discourage engagement with this editor. I have already given them a final warning for vandalism. I would appreciate admin help here, too, per WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:BLUDGEON, Wikipedia:DEADHORSE, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Wikipedia:Vandalism (among others). I remain keen to collaborate with any editors wishing to make good-faith improvements to the article (as I have already done throughout the AfD process) - but vandalism is contrary to Wikipedia's culture and ethos and will not be permitted. Daft Elephant (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC) I don't see it as being vandalism, so much as wall-of-text, repetition, and lack of consensus. But if they continue to re-post the same stuff on this talk, that will have to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Tryptofish, it was more that they deleted an entire section of the article, along with its references, based solely on their personal dislike of it (superficially supported by a wall of AI-written text). This, along with their bad-faith usage of the AfD process, is unequivocally vandalism. I have spoken to them on their Talk page and have given them a final warning. I have also drawn a line under their disruptive behaviour and have been clear that I expect them to cease all attempts to erase/distort the article and to disrupt the Talk page. Wikipedia guidelines are clear on this point: editors with conflicts of interest should not make edits to the affected articles; nor should they disrupt/attempt to disrupt the associated discussions. Daft Elephant (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC) Daft Elephant, I have the impression that you are a new editor (by the way, welcome to Wikipedia). But there are some things I need to explain to you. First, the convention here is that when a discussion is collapsed, that means that it has been closed, and no further comments are to be made in that section, so it's strange for you to have replied to me here. I've seen the warning you left at the other editor's talk page, and if this were to go to further dispute resolution (which I hope it doesn't) most experienced editors will see the severity of that warning as you engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. You are simply incorrect in the way you are using the terms "vandalism" and "conflict of interest". Wikipedia uses those terms in specific ways, that differ from their dictionary definitions. No matter how many times you keep trying to tell me that I am wrong, making bad edits is not necessarily vandalism. And a conflict of interest involves materially benefiting in some way from edits, not from having an opinion that differs from yours. Please stop resisting me on this, and take my advice seriously. Yes, the other editor is behaving in an annoying way. It annoys me too. But if you are going to continue contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope that you do, you will have to get used to people who are annoying. We can deal with these things. The AfD resulted in keep. The section blanking was reverted. Life goes on. I've been editing here since 2007, and I know how things work. If you keep treating someone who annoys you with the kind of hyperbole you keep using here, other editors will turn against you. Please listen to me, and don't let that happen. Now, let's drop this. Entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Expansion of article

This article is short and would benefit from expansion. I have ensured that the foundation (i.e. the existing text) is highly robust and well-researched, but I would welcome here discussions from other editors on how the article could be expanded. The topic is rather vast.

The subject is, of course, controversial, and the article has already been the subject of repeated vandalism. Accordingly, I would politely ask that any contributions are made in good faith and in keeping with Wikipedia's ethos of notability, neutrality, and objectivity.

Thanks! Daft Elephant (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Daft Elephant, it should go without saying that articles are always subject to expansion, and that edits should be made in good faith and according to policies and guidelines. But edits that do not improve an article are not automatically defined as vandalism. I've enclosed the talk section just above into the previous collapsed section, because this talk page should not be for arguments between you and the other editor. I strongly urge both of you to drop the dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "Radicalisation narratives" section remain in the Femosphere article in its current form?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Rationale: Closing this RfC as the nominator, per community input and admin action at WP:ANI - the RfC may have been out of process, so although helpful feedback was received, the discussion is now moot and the RfC has been withdrawn. Thank you to all who participated.

HairlessPolarBear (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Does the current "Radicalisation narratives" section in the *Femosphere* article comply with core Wikipedia content policies - specifically, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, and WP:OR?

• This discussion follows the AfD outcome (‘Keep, without prejudice toward a rewrite to address NPOV and other content issues’).

The section groups several claims (e.g., rejection of liberal feminism, invocation of fallacies, mimicry of manosphere logic) into what appears to be an established “radicalisation narrative” or “pipeline.”

However:

1. Some sources do not use the term “femosphere” at all (e.g., referring instead to “womanosphere”), which may raise WP:SYNTH concerns if they’re synthesized to support the same point.
2. Several claims appear in Wikipedia’s voice without clear attribution to secondary sources, which may affect WP:NPOV and WP:V compliance.
3. None of the cited sources define or support the grouping of these ideas together under any "radicalisation narrative" or "pipeline," raising concerns under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. One source (The Guardian, 2024) states that "there's no evidence to say that the femosphere is radicalizing its members in the same way as the manosphere," which appears to contradict the framing of the section.

Editors are invited to weigh in on how best to bring the section into alignment with policy.

Potential options might include (but are not limited to):

• Option A: Keep as is
• Option B: Revise for clearer attribution, sourcing, or scope
• Option C: Remove section until stronger sourcing is available

HairlessPolarBear (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Revise through the normal editing process. I'm already at this page, as opposed to coming here from the RfC listing, and I find the framing of the RfC question somewhat flawed, in that it's not really neutral, and seems to attempt to present a question of whether to keep as is, without ever changing anything, or to completely blank a section, which is something the RfC proposer already tried and was reverted. There's nothing wrong with improving sourcing and attribution, and that strikes me as something that should be done through normal editing, as opposed to being some sort of dispute that needs resolution. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: Thanks for weighing in.

  Just to clarify: I’ve made several prior attempts to resolve this through talk page discussion (including a step-by-step sourcing review), but there was little engagement.

  I started the RfC to get broader input because there’s been strong disagreement over whether revision is even needed. I’m open to working through normal editing; I’ve been trying to encourage that, but progress stalled.

  Happy to hear any thoughts on constructive next steps.

  HairlessPolarBear (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option B: Revise for clearer attribution, sourcing, or scope. Specifically:
  1. This is not a concern because femosphere (or femisphere, femmesphere, femmeosphere, etc.) and womanosphere (or womenosphere, wymynosphere, etc.) – think I've also seen gynosphere – are synonymous. We don't have any evidence of a divergence in meaning, and even if there were one somewhere, it would be extremely neologistic and confined to a very narrow audience. An attempt to content-fork them into separate articles would simply result in a re-merger. If there's concrete sourcing of a distinction evolving, then just separate them into sections and with clear wording.
  2. Remove any "claims [that] appear in Wikipedia’s voice without clear attribution to secondary sources", without prejudice to keeping/restoring them if sourcing is provided. We don't have to have an RfC to do this; it's what WP:V policy expects.
  3. Replace the bogus and PoV-pushing section heading "Radicalisation narratives", perhaps with "Criticisms". Remove any similar claims of a "pipeline", i.e. a stepwise process or system, absent high-quality sourcing regarding such an effect. Include the sourced claim that radicalization (at least comparable to the manosphere sort) isn't occurring, but also include claims to the contrary if they are sourceable. It's our encyclopedist job to reflect what the sources are telling us, not to defend a particular interpretation.
     • Both "invocation of fallacies" and "mimicry of manosphere logic" seem very plausible to me (from what I've seen of such content, not from digging around for sources about the subject).
     • However, "invocation of fallacies" is poor, ambiguous wording. To debate people, what that means is citation to the defintion of a fallacy, as a criticism of someone else's argument, but what someone's trying to make it mean here is reliance on fallacious arguments, so just say that (if there's a source for it). "Manosphere logic" is also poor wording, since if it's fallacious then it isn't logic; "manosphere reasoning" has the same problem. "Manosphere rhetoric" is probably a better characterization, though maybe "manosphere thinking" would do (or maybe not, since what we can read is the rhetoric, not the minds producing it).
     • The "rejection of liberal feminism" I'm more skeptical of. I think this may be dog-whistling for TERFism, which is often characterized as illiberal feminism by its opponents (which then leads into arguments about liberalism versus progressivism and conflicting definitions of both terms). TERF views can be found in womanosphere/femisphere venues, but is not primarily found in them from what I can tell and is also not the bulk of the material in them, so any connection would seem too tenuous to be encyclopedic, unless there's genuinely reliable sources (not my-activism-versus-your-activism punditry) indicating that there's a sea change in this regard.

        — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Thanks for your thoughtful breakdown; it's really helpful framing. I just wanted to clarify one point that might have been unclear in the article itself:

  Bullet 2 currently reads:

  “The application of the special pleading fallacy to the true equivalence between misandry and misogyny, in an effort to assuage internal concerns about extremism and to deflect external criticisms.”

  Cited sources: [9] Victoria Smith (The Independent, 2018) and [10] Tris Hedges (Feminist Review, 2024)

  This bullet suggests that denying the equivalence between misandry and misogyny by way of special pleading, is itself a radicalization theme. However, neither source uses the term “special pleading,” refers to fallacies, or invokes radicalization. In fact, both argue against the idea that misandry and misogyny are equivalent. So the section appears to interpret the sources' arguments as fallacious. That’s why I flagged this as a possible WP:SYNTH issue.

  Additionally, the phrase “to assuage internal concerns about extremism” isn’t supported by either source, and seems to infer motivations or implications not explicitly stated, which may raise WP:SOURCEINTERPRETATION and WP:OR concerns.

  Happy to revise directly based on this, and on your broader suggestion to remove or reframe unverified analytical language like radicalisation narrative and pipeline.

  HairlessPolarBear (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  If your description of that particular material is correct (I have a blindingly painful toothache until I can get to the dentist, so am not in good shape to review the source material closely), then I agree it's a rather bad case of WP:SYNTH, that actually distorts the meaning/intent of the sources (and I would say it should not be difficult to find strong arguments about misandry and misogyny being non-equivalent, given the relative power imbalance of men in multiple ways that affect most aspects of life). Even if the sources were not being bent out of shape on this one, for an editor to make the argument that the sources themselves are fallacious is obviously WP:OR. But the femisphere, like all groupthink memefarms, is full of various sorts of fallacy. Dunno if anyone's written reliable-source material about this, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Really appreciate the clarity, and totally understand about the tooth pain. Hope you're able to get relief soon. I’ll start working on a revision that addresses the OR and synthesis issues flagged here.

  HairlessPolarBear (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. It was mostly all synth - specifically the material I removed was trying to synthesize two different movements (the 'trad-wife' adjacent right-wing movement and the 'femcel' adjacent centrist / left wing movement) as if they were just two manifestations of the same phenomenon. None of the cited sources were making this claim. Instead we had a collection of sources about trad-wives and a collection of sources about femcels and an article claiming that one stands for the other. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Simonm223, please actually read and understand this subject before editing. You could, at the very minimum, read the sources - doing so will show you that 'trad-wives' and 'femcels' are both part of the 'femosphere', as explained in numerous sources. Daft Elephant (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I did read the sources you cited. All of them except for one book that I couldn't readily find online. That's why I know you're engaging in pervasive WP:SYNTH here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  You deleted multiple sections that were very-well supported by the sources.

  As an inexperienced editor, I'm finding it very difficult to restore them.

  Whilst you clearly have an axe to grind, I'd be grateful if you could restore the article to the version before you began with this.

  I'm very happy to have a reasonable discsussion about editing and improving the article - but you lot have descended on it like a gang of bullies and have butchered it to the point that I now don't know how to fix it. Daft Elephant (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  All you have to do is say what sources say, and not start with what you want to say with sources being appended as color commentary.

  I won't even go that far—engage with a single specific critique (of the kind you're ostensibly craving from others). Explain why any one of their concerns are unfounded, by pointing to the specific material in your sources verifying your specific claims that they might've missed. Why haven't you even come close to doing this yet? Remsense ‥ 论 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, I'm happy to have a discussion about improving the article - but you will note that the editor who started this RfC process is the same editor who has been unequivocal that they intend to delete the whole article, either in sum or piece-by-piece.

  You will note that they are the ONLY editor to have created a dicsussion so far.

  I made the decision not to engage with them further and that was the correct decision.

  You will note that nobody else has attempted to start a discussion about the articel yet you accuse me of being unable to engage with said discussions.

  Why don't you try it and see how it goes?

  FYI, yes, I'm new to Wikipedia and, as a scientist, perhaps the customs are new to me.

  But I'm trying my best!

  I'd appreciate a cessation in the bullying. Thanks. Daft Elephant (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, I'm happy to have a discussion about improving the article

  I see no evidence for this yet. Stop saying it as if I'll suddenly forget every possible tactic attempted to hide and stifle any criticisms of the article content until too many people were paying attention. Engage with the good faith critiques that have already been iterated and reiterated to you if this is true. Remsense ‥ 论 17:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  "I see no evidence for this yet".

  ...Becuse nobody has attempted it.

  I suggest that you either stop the bullying and engage in good faith, or walk away from this article entirely.

  I have been clear that, if anyone (excluding fanatics who have stated unequivocally that they want to delete the whole article because it doesn't align with their agenda) wants to have a good-faith discussion, they can do so by creating a new section on the Talk page.

  I've explained this multiple times and I see no evidence of you attempting that.

  Enjoying the bullying too much? How sad for you. Daft Elephant (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Specific reasons were given for each removal/tagging by each editor that did so on the article. Address a single one with an actual dialogue or demonstration, not just the obtuse Restoring content - supported by references. Remsense ‥ 论 17:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator re-opening) I'll be blunt. @Daft Elephant: your closure was beyond the pale given even one third-party editor was engaging constructively, never mind several, and your citation of site policy attempting to cover your ass was transparently disingenuous. You weren't being bludgeoned, and you surely know that. Nothing about your candor regarding this article has been acceptable, and if it continues unabated any admin paying attention will go for a block sooner rather than later. Remsense ‥ 论 13:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Remsense, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with this article's history, and with @HairlessPolarBear's fanatical attempts to delete it (either in full, as with their bad-faith usage of the AfD process, or, as now, piece-by-piece).

  Regarding your obscene comments about removing the RfC tag, this discussion has already been had (see the AfD discussion and Talk page) and was concluded.

  I have been unequivocal before, and shall state here again: I am keen to expand/revise this article based on constructive, good-faith dialogue. What I shall not do is sit back and allow the article to be dismantled by a fanatic who created a single-use account with the sole purpose of doing so.

  I shall be reverting your re-opening of this discussion and I expect it to stay that way. Daft Elephant (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  You say that, but given I had to go and tag up the article after confirming outstanding issues brought up in the constructive dialogue that's already been attempted, I don't quite believe it until I see it. If you think the RfC is frivolous, what you should actually do is let others come in and agree with you, and it would close either through third-party intervention or naturally. If you unilaterally re-close an RfC opened about an article you're displaying clear ownership privilege on, which multiple third party editors are engaging with, instead then it's not clear at all to me what justification you have for that other than you feel entitled to boss around others on this talk page and shut down any mode of discussion you don't personally lead or have control of. Remsense ‥ 论 14:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  For justification, see the fact that the discussion has already been had and concluded, and the bad-faith nomination for deletion by an "editor" who created a single-use account with the sole purpose of deleting the article - either all in one go, or piece-by-piece.

  Closing a discussion due to bludgeoning and harassment is not ownership privilege; it is taking a reasonable step to prevent the article being deleted by a fanatic.

  I've literally written above a request for good-faith discussions on how the article can be improved. It is interesting how you've managed to ignore 99% of this article's history in order to bang your particular drum...

  Now, I am absolutely exhausted from trying to defend this article against vandalism. Let's leave this here. Daft Elephant (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  It's interesting you ignored at least one bullet point raising a very clearly stated issue with the article, making every excuse and ad hominem accusation possible other than engaging directly with it. In effect, your actions here (e.g. collapsing, unilaterally closing) have served to reduce visibility of any plausible critiques there may have been so far, and I trust that you were aware that was the case. I would be happy to see you turn that position on its head and I invite you to do so going forward. Remsense ‥ 论 14:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Daft Elephant you are not the master of this talk page. Start acting like it. Remsense ‥ 论 14:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Remsense please stop your harassment and abuse. It's not constructive and it's getting very tiring. Daft Elephant (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  You're not being bludgeoned or harassed, you're hiding any "good faith criticism" that conveniently escapes your extremely arbitrary bounds. Step off if you actually care one whit about "good faith criticism" as claimed, thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 14:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option C Section appears to be WP:SYNTH, until a source draws connections like this clearly we should not. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Void if removed (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RfC Most of these sources don't even contain the word "femosphere" and they appear to be about rather disparate movements. This looks like a clear example of WP:SYNTH. However, another note, this whole RfC appears to be an extended exercise in WP:POINT and may serve as a stalling tactic against obviously needed improvement. I would suggest a procedural close followed by the deletion of the section and a complete restructuring based on sources that actually discuss the topic would be best. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Simonm223 and would support a procedural close for the reasons they outlined. Nemov (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stubbed the article

I've gone through and cut out all the obvious WP:SYNTH, citations to wikipedia, citations to random Youtube pages, and uncited claims. This left a stub. Please review edit comments before trying to restore any of that material and address the sourcing issues. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223, you deleted most of the article on a whim, and it's clear that you have zero knowledge of this subject and didn't even bother to read the sources. Please read up on this before editing. Thanks. Daft Elephant (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the stubbed version of the article. Again, reinsertion should cleave to the content of reliable sources, avoid WP:SYNTH and avoid citing sources inappropriate to Wikipedia articles (such as other Wikipedia articles.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Should be an article about a term

(Invited by the bot to a now closed RFC) The Wikipedia policies and guidelines do a weak job of dealing with this, but many times a term is created which seeks to denigrate something by giving it a new negative or pejorative name, creating a certain grouping (that did not exist without the term), or where the term inherently creates / modifies a certain view of it by being a certain "lens" through which it is viewed. IMO these articles should clearly be only about the term. Letting it be about the topic which is the target of the term is inherently very POV. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Frankly I'm rather surprised this article made it out of the AfD. That said, I think we should follow reliable sources. If there are sources about the term then sure. If the sources are only about the subject then... that's what the article will end up being about. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I became aware of this page by way of the AfD, which alarmed me when I saw a page about something I personally find off-putting. But the AfD was near-unanimous (including me) for "keep", because there is no getting around the abundance of reliable sources. Like it or not, it's a "thing". WP:NOTDICT is the policy relevant to this question. I'm kind of at the point of "a pox on both your houses", with respect to both of the new accounts that squabbled about the page until now, but I think this thing can be more than a stub. (Just don't ask me to expand it!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, it looks to me that the term was created by people who support the idea, so (despite what it sounded like to me, when I first heard it), it wasn't contrived by opponents to make something sound bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Some source digestion for rebulding a proper article

I started trying to rewrite the lead to get in a "bare gist" summary, and then that spiraled into a new lead and a new first section, "Characteristics", opening with a statement that generalizations of any sort only cover a subset of the womanosphere due to the diversity of views represented in it, and then started laying out some of more common general-consensus assements. But on a preview and re-read it was actually crappy, and my notes in looking through sources got longer and longer. It's better to just hand over the notes.

In zipping through the easily accessible of the existing sources, the following ideas seem worth integrating somehow:

• It's hard to piece together a firm point-by-point timeline. Will take poring over multiple sources.
• Also hard to get a typical age-ranges, though one gets a teens-to-30 sense as the core (corps?). Maybe some sources get into this and I missed it as I wore out.
• The terms (femosphere, womanosphere) originated in reference to online discussion forms, especially on Reddit then Discord. They have since broadened to include other forms of e-media, especially on TikTok, YouTube, and other such visual presentations, as well as dedicated websites and podcasts. Lately, the scope has expanded to include some offline media including magazines and talk shows. Silman 2025 dwells mostly on the extended-meaning material. The term femcel is actually older, but probably not by more than a couple of years.
• Our lead's claim that the Femosphere "is" misandrist isn't sustainable. That term is widely regarded as false-equivalence propagandizing by the worst sector of the men's rights voices. To the extent any of the credible writers we cite are using this term, we need to say something like "has been characterised as misandrist" or other "don't abuse WikiVoice" wording, and also be clear what they mean by it, not just link to it, since our article Misandry is all about the bullshitty (and by far primary) misogynists-psychologically-projecting use.
• Common discussion subjects/types/elements in femosphere/womanopshere forums:
  • Male priviledge
  • Misogyny (as a problem faced), including a belief that men will always be hurtful toward women
  • Misandry (as an approach to adopt, sometimes satirically sometimes in all seriousness) - but see above about use of this term on WP.
  • In particular, frequent criticism and complaint about "sexism", by which misogyny is meant, while engaging in explicit "misandry", more like mockery, distrust, anger, and sometimes hatred of males. (Hard to say without wading into the venues themselves, but I wonder whether is mostly hate of masculism/machismo/"alpha"/PUA stuff versus hate toward males as such.)
  • "Lookism" or "looksism" (discrimination, usually against women of course, on the basis of attractiveness and other elements of appearance).
  • Sharing (and echo-chamber amplification of) negative sexual, dating, marital, familial, employment and other experiences, involving men/boysa.
  • Airing of sexual frustrations (with little regard to those of men); this directly mirrors manosphere habits.
  • How to atract and control a "suitable" man for marriage or other long-term relationship, what to get out of it, what kind of men (most of them) to not consider
  • Detecting and avoiding abusive men; detecting and finding a non-abusive one somehow
  • Gender dynamics of sex and power
  • Sex-negativity of various sorts, including a feeling that it is out of reach (by femcels - see below), that it is simply a tool to be used (and most often witheld), that it's mostly a weapon wielded against women by men, or that it should be reserved for procreation (among the more conservative strain in the femosphere). A common theme of this sort is that the sexual revolution of second-wave feminism was overall a net loss for women in multiple ways. (I didn't see a source specifically say the following, but it seems to be something of a re-ignition of the feminist sex wars). Anyway, both of the Kay sources get into a lot of this, and sex-negativity (or reaction against sex-positivity and especially recreational sex as liberating/empowering versus just risky) is in several of the other sources.
  • A feeling of betrayal by mainstream liberal (second-, third-wave) feminism: they promised freedom and equality, what happened was all the employment work (for less money) on top of all the old childrearing/homemaking work. Some also bemoan the over-focus on individualism, under-valuing of community and connection, though this view doesn't seem universal.
  • A feeling of betrayal by the progressivism of fourth-wave feminism, for excessive focus on intersectionality and especially on identity politics over class politics. This one seems much more widespread, and might even be central to the formation of the womanosphere.
  • Various ideas brought in from post-feminism and reactionary feminism (in turn picking up a lot of stuff from neo-con / alt-right and related vectors). This runs through most of the source material in varying levels of detail.
  • Fairly frequent "anger, hatred, or desires for revenge", but lower violent and criminal intent/advocacy/incitement than in the manosphere, according to Evans & Langford 2024 (see below); also said in some other sources.
  • Problems in women's typical expections of men (high-earning at a time when the wage gap is narrowing, advanced degrees when the university population is skewing strongly female, political agreement when in the aggregate women are skewing left and men are not); see Dorn 2025.
  • Some individualistic subjects (e.g. self-improvement, and "winning" in relationship seeking) but sometimes communitarian ideas (moral support/community belonging, activistic group mobilization, or "challenging the patriarchy").
    • There's a palpable tension if not cognitive dissonance within this community between individualistic thinking (often economic but sometimes also emotional, quality-of-life, etc.) versus antagonism toward the individualism of (especially third-wave) feminism and what are seen as its consequences; and between the above sort of communitarianism ("sisterhood" solidarity messaging against or to exploit men) versus the broader "lefty" communitarianism (dismissed as utopian) of mainstream feminism through several generational waves, but especially recent, progressivist fourth-wave feminism. (Here I'm summarizing my impression of several sources' takes.)
    • That this all relates strongly to the societal "perfect shit storm" of manosphere/incel, populism/neo-fascism/Trumpism, accelerating wealth disparity and economic insecurity, etc., is a theme in most of the more academic sources. Definitely a product of its times. That one of the big-name "influencers" in this sector calls herself "Andrew Tate for women" is probably meaningful.
  • Frequent belief in social Darwinism and a "war between the sexes" (mirroring those views in the manosphere); "it’s a game and you try to outsmart the other gender and win" (Emiliano de Cristofaro quoted in Healy 2024 and directly comparing the womanosphere and manosphere views; de Cristofaro & Jeremy Blackburn have published research on the subject, which we're not using as a source yet, but Healy doesn't name the paper[s] by title.) The influencer-strategists mentioned below are very promotional of this viewpoint.
  • Sometimes sentiments that Kay 2024 calls "eugenicist". The material on this in her paper is short and a bit sketchy; if other sources don't back up this idea with more detail, we should probably exclude it as an outlier viewpoint and one with too little material behind it to be considered reliable.
  • Some terms that seem to mean the same thing: "heteropessimism", "heterofatalism", "heteronihilism"; I haven't found an exact definition, but it seems to mean a feeling among heterosexual womanospherians that relationship-seeking in their world is a doomed/futile/worthless, or at best cynical and transactional, exercise. This seems rather at odds with mobilizing against the patriarchy – indicating that views within these forums are more disparate that some of the less detailed and less reliable sources might sensationalize them as.
• Femcels (involuntarily celibate women). After some development, "femcel" (and variants like "femcels", "femceldom") could probably redirect to a section here, until/unless the term becomes sufficiently notable for a spinoff article. They clearly are a subset, a sector.
  • Characterized as "often-despairing, even nihilistic" (Johanssen & Kay 2024).
  • Reddit's closure of some subreddits, including r/femcels and r/truefemcels, for ToS violations, including frequent transphobic and homophobic posts. (r/truefemcels was later re-started.) The specific timeline of that might be significant.
  • Important timeline date: r/femcel, which likely coined the term, started in 2018, according to Johanssen & Kay 2024.
  • There's been very little research on femcels despite the large amount of research on incels. What has been done is apparently summarized in Evans & Langford 2024, along with their own analysis of "24,000 femcel posts"; but the full text isn't freely available (may be obtainable without cost via WP:TWL).
  • "despite some notable exceptions, they exhibited less support for aggression, violence, and crime than what has been reported about male incels" (Evans & Langford 2024).
  • Johanssen & Kay 2024 "situate femceldom within recent histories and aesthetics of" a subculture/trope/aesthetic called "sad girl", about which we have no article (or section in another article, that I know of). They related this "culture" [sic; they're confused "culture" and "subculture"] also to ironic femcelcore (see below). Incept date unclear, but its heyday was on Tumblr from 2014 to 2018 (winding down the banning of "adult" content on that platform). The gist seems to have been a decreasingly ironic devotion to female loneliness, depression, self-loathing, and dysfunction (including glorifcation of eating disorders and self-harm behaviors).
• Womanospherians (and femcels) are almost entirely heterosexual cis-women, mirroring the makeup of the manosphere and its incel corner.
• Political mixture of feminist, nominally feminist but anti-liberal-feminist, sometimes even anti-feminist and far-right viewpoints (including alt-right conspiracy theories).
  • Sometimes leans toward what could be called something like "personally capitalist" or "fatalistically capitalist", in advising that women try to use men first and foremost for financial security because the system is rigged against women and the system isn't going to change.
  • A specific claim about that last point (from Healy 2024, relying on Kay 2024) is a new brand of cynical feminism advocating that women "give up on gender equality and use men for financial gain – in the name of feminism"
  • Another specific claim (from Kay 2024 and repeated in Healy 2024) is that most femophere venues describe themselves as feminist yet feature a lot of material that leans conservative and/or contrary to gender egalitarianism.
  • A quotation relating to this (from Kay, in Healy 2024): "The logic that they adhere to is that men and women are fundamentally different." This is not found in Kay 2024, and must be Kay-interview material via Healy.
  • Explicit reframing of conservative ideas (relying on men financially, looking and acting overtly feminine) as "empowering".
  • Kay 2024 suggests specific connections (at least among the more intellectual) to reactionary feminism, and especially a branch of it called post-liberal feminism, about which WP has nearly nothing.
  • "certain ideas from left feminism seem to be getting mixed up with reactionary conservative ideas" – Kay quoted in Healy 2024, who also mentions corroborating (but possible more generalized) work by Naomi Klein, a source we don't have yet.
  • To the extent the femosphere can be classified as feminist, it would seem to definitionally be part of networked feminism. It's unclear from what I've read whether any ideas from cyberfeminism or technofeminism are frequently integrated into the 'sphere. I suspect that feminist separatism (mirroring men going their own way) also appears, though my source-skimming hasn't seen it explicitly mentioned yet.
• Circa 2022 post-Reddit mainstreaming but alteration of "femcel" as a social-media trend called "femcelcore" (Johanssen & Kay 2024): "its break into the mainstream has led to it becoming less of a ‘movement’ and more of a trend and aesthetic that dominates platforms like TikTok" (Colombo 2022), including a lot of satire. "a (mis)appropriation of the femcel, transforming her into a new aesthetic category which is playfully and creatively expressed in memes, TikTok videos or Instagram posts rather than in more serious, ‘toxic’ and nihilistic terms on Reddit. However ... there are also common characteristics between the two iterations of femceldom." (Johanssen & Kay 2024)
  • Perhaps with a shift in meaning toward "avoidance of sexual/romantic relations with men" rather than "unable to get sexual/romantic relationships with men". If this is correct, then it ties more directly into the general femisphere/womanosphere subject and is less of an obscure offshoot than femcel "proper".
• Original-idea femcels migrated to Discord, other such platforms, and a short-lived dedicated forum at ThePinkPill.co (functionally operating from February to early October 2022, going by Wayback results; not to be confused for the much-longer-defunct domain ThePinkPill.com).
  • The term "pink pill" (opposite the manosphere's "red pill") has been used more broadly in a womanosphere context. But I find it also shows up with other meanings, including birth control medications, and a business-communication program aimed primarily at Black women, among other uses. ADL allegedly has an entry somewhere about this term, defined (according to Colombo 2022) as "femcels' realization that no matter how fully they embody the perceived ideals of femininity (being thin, submissive and fully made-up) they will never be attractive to men" (which honestly doesn't really make a lot of sense; definitions from within the community of usage should be sought).
  • "Red pill women" has also been used; cf. r/RedPillWomen. However, from Kay 2024 this seems to be something different: women joining the "red pill" belief system: fatalist, gender bio-essentialist, gender non-egalitarian, and genetically determinist (thus frequently tying in with racism and eugenicist ideas). "Pink pill" seems to only have some of these traits (the first two and a variant of the third), commingled with a somewhat capitalist "what can I get out of the deal?" viewpoint to the extent "pink pill" is used outside femcel circles. Kay associates these traits also with "female dating strategists"/"dark feminine influencers" a bit more latterly (and Melton 2025 associates the essentialism and long with misandry with FDS (see next entry).
• Another prominent vector has been Female Dating Strategy (FDS), a somewhat diffuse set of venues across Reddit (where it began), its own website, a podcast (presumably at that site), and other social media including Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Patreon, Discord - details not provided by the sources. Said to have published "a six-point ideology for members to subscribe to, which includes ideas such as: men should always pursue women, women should seek financial contributions from men, and the majority of men have no value." Whether this (and the larger FDS Handbook have actually had much impact within the womanosphere generally might be an open question.
  • A potentially important timeline item is February 2019, for FDS's start on Reddit.
  • FDS is not a separate topic for our purposes (unless/until it reaches WP:NOTABILITY level), being decribed by Melton 2025 as "Situated within the broader 'femosphere'".
  • FDS insiders have described it as "realist feminism" and "just about the ruthless advancement of women" (Kay 2024, who says of it: "Th[eir] selective appropriation of radical feminist ideas ... which are then accommodated within an approach of hyper-individualist strategy rather than collective liberation, has affinities with ... reactionary feminist ideas .... Indeed, there are both implicit and explicit connections between FDS and post-liberal feminist writers").
  • Kay 2024 neverless notes that this realist feminism departs from postliberal feminism in remaining pro-choice on abortion.
• Media attention toward male incels (often in light of real or fictional violence against women and girls), along with the self-styled femcel trend on TikTok, has caused an increase in media attention toward the latter and the womanosphere more broadly, provoking both dissmissive or angry responses to the attention within that circle and criticism of that e-scene from the outside.
• One source (Healy 2024) calls the femosphere "potentially dangerous online spaces". This so far seems to be the only source for the term "radicalisation", but it doesn't quite directly apply this term to this e-sector: "The manosphere ... is widely recognised as a toxic space where young men are at risk of radicalisation. Now, say researchers, women and girls are being sucked into potentially dangerous online spaces of their own: the femosphere." This very strongly implies that the "danger" is "radicalisation", even though that word is in a prior sentence.
• Same source also refers to "'toxic' women’s communities online" as the subject by the (so far unknown to us) de Cristofaro & Blackburn research. She also uses "toxic" in her article's subtitle.
• Similarly, only one source so far appears to use the term "indoctrination", toward roughly the same conclusion. That's Melton 2025 (or 2022, depending on whether one considers the submission date and the publication date; we'd cite it as 2025, but that at least the core of it dates to 2022 could be meaningful). This is another that's not available in free full text but might be gettable via WP:TWL. The salient quote: "r/FemaleDatingStrategy’s (FDS) utilizes themes of misandry and gender essentialism to indoctrinate members under the guise of community support."
• Along the same lines (i.e. in relation to the "radicalisation" section that used to exist but had obvious WP:OR problems), Dorn 2025's subtitle is "The womanosphere appears to turn women against men". However, the full text is paywalled, so I don't know if the content develops in a way that relates to any "indoctrination pipeline" or "toxic radicalization" theme.
• Healy 2024 (relying on Kay 2024) says that the femosphere features "female dating strategists" (FDist for short, to avoid confusion with the FDS above) and "dark feminine influencers" (DFI) who are the rough equivalent of male pickup-artistry instructors/pundits (but geared more toward how to land a man as a financial support source than how to get laid).
  • DFI Kanika Batra is quoted in Healy 2024, in summary as reactionary to third-wave feminism having "forced women into masculine roles". Healy also quotes an DFI going by the YouTube handle TheWizardliz, but in less detail. Both of these where heavily interviewed also in Madigan 2025. However, I would be wary of quoting them by name in our article; it's likely the one writer poached sources from the other, and unlikely that they are particularly representative of all DFIs/FDists, much less the womanosphere more broadly.
  • With enough development, terms like "dark feminine", "dark feminism", "female dating strategist", etc. could redirect to a section at this article. I strongly suspect that all this interrelated terminology (including a lot of stuff above) will be a) things people will search for, b) highly relevant to this article when it's written properly, yet c) not stand-alone notable, while prone to PoV-forking if separate articles are attempted.
• There's some popularization within this scene (at least the non-femcel sectors of it) of the self-descriptive terms "princess" and "queen" (the latter reappropriated from the gay male scene). The first (as used by Batra in Healy 2024) seems to indicate someone who should be pampered and provided for finacially and otherwise (which might be someone with a sugar-daddy, or someone who marries toward money and devoted attention; without more context its unclear what the range of the term is). The second refers to a woman who "knows her worth, is aware of her greatest potential and fulfils it, lives a full life, and only couples with an equal" (anonymous forum writer quoted in Melton 2025, and might only represent one interpretation of the term).
• Then there's the "tradwife" phenomenon, said to be "ideologically aligned with the rigid gender ideologies and white supremacism of the manosphere" (Kay 2024). It's unclear to me how closely related this is to the womanopshere. It seems like a separate topic with only a few things in common with the womanosphere in general, though maybe it is a subsector of it like femcels are. Need more sources on tradwife as the subject.
• The richest source so far that can be had for free and in full text seems to be Kay 2024; I hardly scratched the surface of it, much less all the other sources it cites.
• The runner-up is Johanssen & Kay 2024; it's quite rich in detail, but particularly focused on femcel and femcelcore.
• The Madigan 2025 piece is long but meanders a lot. It has some nuggets in it, but is mostly seems fairly derivative of earlier publications.
• The longest source by total page count is probably Lewis 2025 (an entire book). It is mentioned a bit in Healy 2024. However, it does not include the terms "femosphere", "womanosphere", or "femcel" in it, and so far I can't find anything in it directly relevant to our topic, only to various quasi-, pseudo-, or counter-feminist ones that conceptually relate to this article's subject in a very general way, as well as considerable material about the tensions/conflicts between various approaches that more credibly claim to be feminist in some sense. Not sure it will ever be usable as an inline source here, but keeping it "Further reading" for now. From what I've read of it so far, it's quite a good book though, and well-researched (it borders on academic and is not pop-culture blather, though it has a lot of analysis of pop culture).
• I didn't get through much of Silman 2025 (the one that's mostly about offline media), though did use it for improving the lead. It seems to dwell exclusively on conservative/reactionary/antifeminist voices in the 'sphere, and also uses the label to encompass women's writing that dovetails with alt-right/neocon manosphere stuff (i.e. isn't misandrist, but leans misogynist in the sense of pushing for a return to stereotypical traditionalist gender roles). But I didn't read it thoroughly, as I'm about to fall asleep on my face.

Anyway, I'm now very tired. This is crappy as anything approaching a proper outline, but it's at least a bunch of potentially salient points that someone could work into an outline and thence into article material.

PS: There are several places in the retained material (after the "re-stubbification" following on the disputations earlier on this talk page) that are "stacked" with 3+ citations for a single statement. In two cases, I found that one of the sources cited in the stack was not valid for the statement (plus a third that wasn't in a stack but a lone ref tag), so it is likely that all of them need to be individually reviewed for applicability to what they're being cited for (and better to fix any more failures than throw on a {{failed verification}} tag).

PPS: Just to be clear, I'm in no way whatsoever attempting to exert any WP:OWNERSHIP here. I'm not laying out some kind of roadmap I will insist everyone follow, and I may well never edit this page again. I just had some time to spend, plus some toothache-induced insomnia, this seemed like an interesting and "needful" subject, and I'm reasonably good at picking out things that may be useful in tedious source material. The odds are that some other editors already have a much better edu-socio-professional background to work this article into shape and are (or would be if recruited from an appropriate wikiproject) be into do it. I'm also wary of the "mainsplaining" problem of male editors exerting excessive influence on feminism-related subjects.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish You did a helpful overview of much of the literature here, and it may prove useful for those who take this article to the next level. Healing energies for your toothache, and this contribution born out of pain and difficulty may prove salient to this article itself. FULBERT (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)