Feminism discussion

[Rend Keaven]

What were your thoughts on Emma Watson's speech on gender equality in universities and sexual violence at the UN this week?

Personally I can see what she's going for, but the fact that she didn't really say any statistics or evidence on this and how see said some people people believe that sexual violence is not actual violence...umm, who says that? I mean they both have violence in their name.

Granted, the stuff the Sun newspaper said about her was stupid as there was no real criticism and just some idiot journalist wanting to be the next Milo Yiannopoulos.

Also, first time posting in this topic, I'm all in equal rights but I think we have insane groups like new wave feminists and BLM that take things too far and try to twist society and the media into their backwards utopia.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Rend Keaven

[Snowy_One]

My viewpoint is very simple. Modern feminism is ****ing bull excrement.

We can talk about how there is, or is not, a wage gap but so long as feminists remain either wealthy upper-class women who look like they have spent more time drinking in Starbucks than serving in Starbucks or women who get by coasting on foodstamps and seem shocked at the notion of work while screeching about how the patriarchy is keeping them down, no meaningful dialogue can come.

We can talk about if the number of rapes on college campuses is a real epidemic or discredited non-sense but when people go around proclaiming that someone should be considered absolutely guilty of a charge of rape made by a woman and you're sexist for even wanting to hear things like 'evidence', especially when said claims not only turn out to be false but women then go out of their way to avoid reporting rapes made by minority groups for fear of 'racism', nothing meaningful will come.

We can talk about microaggressions, but if you're response is to claim someone is 'mansplaining' to you and is, therefore, being sexist and then having to retreat into a safe-space full of pictures of puppies and cookies, because he interrupted you to remind you that Janeway was the captain on Voyager and not TNG, than no meaningful dialogue can come.

We can talk about sexism in video games, but so long as you gladly sit down and proclaim that a video game is sexist because the girl boasts revealing clothes in the form of a belly-button revealing top, only to then claim Jade from Beyond Good and Evil is an ideal feminist figure despite wearing a belly-button revealing top, than no meaningful discussion can come.

We can talk about slutshaming, if it's real or not, and how to address it if so, but so long as you keep on going out to lamblast attractive women and accusing men of being sexist for liking attractive women before accusing them of being sexist, claiming any woman who looks traditionally attractive is submitting to the patriarchy, then going out and wearing very revealing clothes and getting mad at men for not being attracted to you, no meaningful discussion can come.

We can talk about if it's okay that 'thin and fit' being the ideal for women to adhire to is a good thing or bad thing, especially since that's actually pretty complicated if you know your history, but so long as you try to change thin and fit women in media to fat and chubby simply to suit your own ego no meaningful discussion can come.

We can talk about if cultural appropriation is a thing, but so long as you're willing to claim things like barbecue are cultural appropriation and that effectively everything done by white people is cultural appropriation while thinking Spanish originated in Mexico (instead of, you know, SPAIN), than you're just an idiot and no meaningful dialogue can even be in ten-thousand miles of you.

The list goes on.

My view of third-wave feminists is this. Entitled, well-off, people with skin so thin that the notion that someone might disagree sends them into existential nightmares who gladly pedal their own, internal, dialogue about how the world is independent of how the world actually is than gleefully shove it down other peoples throats and if you DARE dispute their claim that, say, women have never been on American currency while holding a Susan B. Anthony coin in front of you, you're an automatic racist/sexist/whatever. Because you disagreed with them.

When it came time for Gamergate I was a neutral. I believed journalists should be held to a code of ethics, not give in to bribes, try to be transparent in their reviews, and so-forth. I believed that there might be a problem with how women are shown in games as well. Because I disagreed with Anita and considered her claims b******* I and believed that change should happen through people making games with strong female characters as opposed to cutting out characters feminists disagreed with (strong or otherwise) and forcing companies to make female leads was thrown onto the GG side.

I find it funny that, of my 10 favorite video game characters, Yuna, Terra Brandford, Monica Raybrandt, Milia Maxwell, Samus, Jaina Proudmoore, Mint, and Xianghua are all female with Robin able to be either gender, yet I am sexist against women in video games.

[Res]

What were your thoughts on Emma Watson's speech on gender equality in universities and sexual violence at the UN this week?

I've been trying to find a transcript of it, but haven't been successful.

My viewpoint is very simple. Modern feminism is ****ing bull excrement.

We ...

Who is this 'we'? To be honest I'm not sure where to begin with any of your post, since most of the points are inconsistent and don't describe any feminists I know.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Res

[Moblin Major General]

Who is this 'we'? To be honest I'm not sure where to begin with any of your post, since most of the points are inconsistent and don't describe any feminists I know.

People who are not Third Wavers. She's saying that they take the moral high ground every time and try to paint even the neutrals as being against them, and sometimes, that makes people want to take such an extreme stance out of fear, which is wrong. The Third Wave try to simplify complex situations by trying to make decent people into monsters, almost like the very people that they would claim night and day they oppose. This alt-left branch of such a wonderful movement could actually cause it to go in reverse, especially in regards to how women might feel about themselves.

[Res]

Third wave feminism as in the definition of third wave feminism we discussed previously (which, if you go by wikipedia, aims to be inclusive of all races, disabilities and includes non-binary people), or as in White Feminism, which is absolutely a problem that no one in this thread has disagreed with? The two are often conflated with one another.

There's just a lot of confused ideas; for example, slut-shamers aren't lambasting attractive women - that's kind of one of the points they make. Describing feminists as "either wealthy upper-class women who look like they have spent more time drinking in Starbucks than serving in Starbucks or women who get by coasting on foodstamps and seem shocked at the notion of work while screeching about how the patriarchy is keeping them down" is inaccurate, simplistic and offensive. The problem with the way rape cases are handled isn't that evidence is required, but in how the victims are handled (plus how the evidence isn't even processed much of the time, as is evident by the huge backlog of rape kits). Etc.

[Tryhard]

The problem with the way rape cases are handled isn't that evidence is required, but in how the victims are handled

In what way? The justice system is innocent until proven guilty for a reason, and the defense attorney's job is to do everything in their power to assure that their client is proved innocent. It's safe to assume that they should be scrutinised just the same as any other crime, for good reason.

[Res]

In what way? The justice system is innocent until proven guilty for a reason, and the defense attorney's job is to do everything in their power to assure that their client is proved innocent. It's safe to assume that they should be scrutinised just the same as any other crime, for good reason.

Have you read the letter the Stanford rape victim wrote? It's super long, so to quote the relevant bits:

Instead of taking time to heal, I was taking time to recall the night in excruciating detail, in order to prepare for the attorney’s questions that would be invasive, aggressive, and designed to steer me off course, to contradict myself, my sister, phrased in ways to manipulate my answers. Instead of his attorney saying, Did you notice any abrasions? He said, You didn’t notice any abrasions, right? This was a game of strategy, as if I could be tricked out of my own worth. The sexual assault had been so clear, but instead, here I was at the trial, answering questions like:

How old are you? How much do you weigh? What did you eat that day? Well what did you have for dinner? Who made dinner? Did you drink with dinner? No, not even water? When did you drink? How much did you drink? What container did you drink out of? Who gave you the drink? How much do you usually drink? Who dropped you off at this party? At what time? But where exactly? What were you wearing? Why were you going to this party? What’ d you do when you got there? Are you sure you did that? But what time did you do that? What does this text mean? Who were you texting? When did you urinate? Where did you urinate? With whom did you urinate outside? Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring. Did you drink in college? You said you were a party animal? How many times did you black out? Did you party at frats? Are you serious with your boyfriend? Are you sexually active with him? When did you start dating? Would you ever cheat? Do you have a history of cheating? What do you mean when you said you wanted to reward him? Do you remember what time you woke up? Were you wearing your cardigan? What color was your cardigan? Do you remember any more from that night? No? Okay, well, we’ll let Brock fill it in.

How much of the questioning was necessary, especially when witnesses were present?

I would think there'd be alternates ways of handling crimes of a more intimate nature. Maybe there aren't; but I then think you can't point to the low numbers of convicted rapists and claim that, as a result, the higher numbers of rapes as reported on anonymous surveys aren't real.

[Tryhard]

You can call the tactics of defense attorneys slimy and reprehensible, and I don't disagree with that, but it is necessary. If anything, the judge should be responsible for negating irrelevant questions.

Rape is a difficult crime to prove. Usually, it comes down to one person's word against another, and that can often be inconclusive. It's regrettable, but that's the nature of it.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

Have you read the letter the Stanford rape victim wrote? It's super long, so to quote the relevant bits:

How much of the questioning was necessary, especially when witnesses were present?

I would think there'd be alternates ways of handling crimes of a more intimate nature. Maybe there aren't; but I then think you can't point to the low numbers of convicted rapists and claim that, as a result, the higher numbers of rapes as reported on anonymous surveys aren't real.

I won't deny that the Turner case was handled terribly. Or that I believe that the punishment for rape is lower than what I think it should be (I'm for capital punishment for rape).

But it doesn't change the fact that the system has to be innocent until proven guilty. Without giving me an example, I can't tell if you want it to switch or not.

[Res]

Right, I agree. I don't really know what a solution would be, or if one could even exist. I'm more in favor of providing assistance to victims (moral support, counseling) than in trying to raise the number of convicted rapists.

[Life]

Right, I agree. I don't really know what a solution would be, or if one could even exist. I'm more in favor of providing assistance to victims (moral support, counseling) than in trying to raise the number of convicted rapists.

That is absolutely acceptable in my opinion.

[Rezzy]

I won't deny that the Turner case was handled terribly. Or that I believe that the punishment for rape is lower than what I think it should be (I'm for capital punishment for rape).

But it doesn't change the fact that the system has to be innocent until proven guilty. Without giving me an example, I can't tell if you want it to switch or not.

Rape is a terrible crime, but why do you support capital punishment there? I honestly don't think it should be done for anything in the modern world, especially in an area that has had so many false convictions and releases.

[eclipse]

People who are not Third Wavers. She's saying that they take the moral high ground every time and try to paint even the neutrals as being against them, and sometimes, that makes people want to take such an extreme stance out of fear, which is wrong. The Third Wave try to simplify complex situations by trying to make decent people into monsters, almost like the very people that they would claim night and day they oppose. This alt-left branch of such a wonderful movement could actually cause it to go in reverse, especially in regards to how women might feel about themselves.

Oh, so you mean the exact same tactics Snowy used in his post? Guess what, a lot of groups are guilty of that. It's easy to label people. It's also extremely lazy, because it dismisses who they are as a person, in favor of what they represent.

You can call the tactics of defense attorneys slimy and reprehensible, and I don't disagree with that, but it is necessary. If anything, the judge should be responsible for negating irrelevant questions.

Rape is a difficult crime to prove. Usually, it comes down to one person's word against another, and that can often be inconclusive. It's regrettable, but that's the nature of it.

In most cases, yes. In THAT ONE CASE, it was a lot more clear-cut, because there were witnesses. I strongly suggest reading that letter. It's long, somewhat graphic, and quite disturbing.

[Snowy_One]

Oh, so you mean the exact same tactics Snowy used in his post? Guess what, a lot of groups are guilty of that. It's easy to label people. It's also extremely lazy, because it dismisses who they are as a person, in favor of what they represent

There is a big difference actually. My target is defined and I do not hold a grudge against those who legitimately seek equality and even those whom have been suckered in by such an argument yet hold a desire for true good in their hearts and deeds. My foe is not those whom would seek to do good but, rather, those whom sit upon ivory towers of morality, resort to shouting down dissent, harassment, threats, and whom seek to use intimidation to change things to suit their utopian image. Those who cannot live without the label 'victim' and whom cannot see anything but oppression.

That is what the third wave feminist is in a nutshell. A victim of no one who needs someone to victimize them and, finding none, they make one up. Does the pay gap exist or not? It does not matter. If it does it is proof that the patriarchy is keeping women down regardless of the reason why. The fact that it exists is its own proof in their eyes. If it does not exist than it's because the patriarchy is hiding it, forcing women into low-paying jobs, punishing them for having children, and so-forth. From there they will target whatever they can, from footwear to the thermostat, and claim it is the patriarchy, because without it, they are nothing.

Describing feminists as "either wealthy upper-class women who look like they have spent more time drinking in Starbucks than serving in Starbucks or women who get by coasting on foodstamps and seem shocked at the notion of work while screeching about how the patriarchy is keeping them down" is inaccurate, simplistic and offensive.

You have overlooked one flaw. The fact that, quite frankly, I don't give a damn about being offensive. The simple truth is that third wave feminists are often well-off women in expensive colleges running on daddy's wallet, receiving large amounts of sponsorship from people to do things such as put out video series that they never completely, getting invites from major companies and the like for making games that both deserve a 0/10 rating and that are, frankly, a bit insulting to people struggling with depression (just take your meds, attend counciling, and get outgoing at every situation and you'll be okay? It's not only not that easy by a LOOOONGSHOT! If it was my depression issues would have been cured years ago.) or women whom have large amounts of kids while remaining unwed living in relatively poor places and whom forsake responsibility in favor of the belief that their problems are caused 'by the man'.

The simple truth is that... women are not discriminated against anywhere near as much as they seem to think they are or in the ways that they claim. Especially when these feminists will then turn around and cover up actual rapes and sexual harassment in order to protect racial minorities and immigrants (looking at you Germany).

The problem with the way rape cases are handled isn't that evidence is required, but in how the victims are handled (plus how the evidence isn't even processed much of the time, as is evident by the huge backlog of rape kits). Etc.

And, pray-tell, how do you handle a man whose career and life have been ruined by a woman who has cried rape when there was none? How do you handle a woman who is a 'victim' only in the sense that she gave consent only to decide she hated the guy after? What of a man 'raping her with his eyes'? What of a woman who devolves into hysteria the moment that someone suggests she's lying?

The word 'victim' here is wrong as it assumes that the woman has been wronged and is only having trouble proving that she has been when, the truth is, that it simply isn't so. Have you ever seen the episode of South Park where Cartman fakes having Tortes syndrome so he can say whatever he wants without repercussions and people don't question for a moment if he even has it because they can't imagine why someone would want to fake it? Think about it for a second.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Snowy_One

[peener weener]

[snip]

[snip]

do you argue exclusively against ridiculous hyperbolic strawmen?

when you got called out for that bullshit you said "oh that's not who i'm talking about, i'm talking about [further strawing]" too

it'd be a little funny, if it wasn't first kind of aggravating

[Time the Crestfallen]

But it doesn't change the fact that the system has to be innocent until proven guilty. Without giving me an example, I can't tell if you want it to switch or not.

I feel like this would be a lot easier if the names of accused rapists weren't put on the news. As soon as the name of an accused rapist hits the internet, then it becomes far too easy for mob/witch-hunter mentality to take effect. By all means, let the names of people convicted be made public, but I feel like it should only be done once they are convicted, as opposed to as soon as accusations are leveled.

You have overlooked one flaw. The fact that, quite frankly, I don't give a damn about being offensive.

<snip>

The simple truth is that... women are not discriminated against anywhere near as much as they seem to think they are or in the ways that they claim. Especially when these feminists will then turn around and cover up actual rapes and sexual harassment in order to protect racial minorities and immigrants (looking at you Germany).

[Life]

Rape is a terrible crime, but why do you support capital punishment there? I honestly don't think it should be done for anything in the modern world, especially in an area that has had so many false convictions and releases.

First of all, I have no respect for anyone who forces themselves sexually onto another person. I don't think that person can be rehabilitated because by doing so once, it shows the level of respect they have for another human being, which is to say none. To me, there's no crime worse than that and I am absolutely for the death penalty for rapists.

Next. The system needs to stay the same in general if we were to institute capital punishment for rape. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Also, regarding Snowy's strawman, it might be offensive... but it doesn't make it wrong.

Let's go with this. I am opposed to feminism in the way that Huffington Post portrays it. Pretty sure that it's referred to as Third Wave Feminism.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Also, regarding Snowy's strawman, it might be offensive... but it doesn't make it wrong.

Strawmanning as an argument is inherently wrong. If the only points one can make are against hypothetical caricatures of the worst a group has to offer, all that indicates is the absence of any worthwhile argument.

[Snowy_One]

Strawmanning as an argument is inherently wrong. If the only points one can make are against hypothetical caricatures of the worst a group has to offer, all that indicates is the absence of any worthwhile argument.

The thing is, what I'm talking about is not a strawman. Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, that girl who falsely accused several other students of raping her a short while ago and, when her claims got disproven, claimed it was patriarchal interference? All real. The new years rape attacks in Germany, especially being covered up to discourage racism and hate against immigrants, along with multiple similar things happening across Europe. All real.

Everything I have said holds truth. I not only see some of these people on a regular basis when I go to work, but if you desire proof... well...

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55280

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/06/cologne-police-reveal-cover-new-years-eve-rape-attacks-ordered-government/

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2016/august/easy-meat-britains-muslim-rape-gang-cover-up

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve/

There are a lot more from where this comes from.

when you got called out for that bullshit you said "oh that's not who i'm talking about, i'm talking about [further strawing]" too

Because you not only didn't 'call me out' beyond saying what I was saying was a strawman. The person posting a strawman is the woman who claims to be an authority on games while at the same time having said stuff like this:

If you didn't watch it, Anita Sarkeesian, the woman behind 'Tropes vs. Women' and one of the foremost 'Third Wave Feminists' and a heavy critic of games whom has been on a heavy assault against their sexism outright said in 2010 'I am not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this.' This is ignoring the infamous 'Gamers are Dead' articles along with follow up stuff those people got as well as support from places like Google ( http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/24/google-ideas-assembles-the-usual-suspects-to-help-combat-online-abuse/ ).

Simply put, everything I have said is true and, in no way, a strawman.

it'd be a little funny, if it wasn't first kind of aggravating

Dawww... Love you too.

[Time the Crestfallen]

The thing is, what I'm talking about is not a strawman.

Is that so?

There is a big difference actually. My target is defined and I do not hold a grudge against those who legitimately seek equality and even those whom have been suckered in by such an argument yet hold a desire for true good in their hearts and deeds. My foe is not those whom would seek to do good but, rather, those whom sit upon ivory towers of morality, resort to shouting down dissent, harassment, threats, and whom seek to use intimidation to change things to suit their utopian image. Those who cannot live without the label 'victim' and whom cannot see anything but oppression.

That is what the third wave feminist is in a nutshell. A victim of no one who needs someone to victimize them and, finding none, they make one up. Does the pay gap exist or not? It does not matter. If it does it is proof that the patriarchy is keeping women down regardless of the reason why. The fact that it exists is its own proof in their eyes. If it does not exist than it's because the patriarchy is hiding it, forcing women into low-paying jobs, punishing them for having children, and so-forth. From there they will target whatever they can, from footwear to the thermostat, and claim it is the patriarchy, because without it, they are nothing.

You have overlooked one flaw. The fact that, quite frankly, I don't give a damn about being offensive. The simple truth is that third wave feminists are often well-off women in expensive colleges running on daddy's wallet, receiving large amounts of sponsorship from people to do things such as put out video series that they never completely, getting invites from major companies and the like for making games that both deserve a 0/10 rating and that are, frankly, a bit insulting to people struggling with depression (just take your meds, attend counciling, and get outgoing at every situation and you'll be okay? It's not only not that easy by a LOOOONGSHOT! If it was my depression issues would have been cured years ago.) or women whom have large amounts of kids while remaining unwed living in relatively poor places and whom forsake responsibility in favor of the belief that their problems are caused 'by the man'.

The simple truth is that... women are not discriminated against anywhere near as much as they seem to think they are or in the ways that they claim. Especially when these feminists will then turn around and cover up actual rapes and sexual harassment in order to protect racial minorities and immigrants (looking at you Germany).

If it's not strawmanning, then perhaps you could enlighten me on what exactly this is. Because if this is just a criticism of a few individuals, it's a very wordy and broad one.

Edited September 28, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Snowy_One]

If it's not strawmanning, then perhaps you could enlighten me on what exactly this is.

I, quite literally, just linked things like how people were going around and covering up rape cases. Do you want me to link Big Red as a prime example? Actually, why bother?

Here you go. A feminist resorting to heckling, screeching, shouting down opposition, and so-forth. One of the most famous cases to be certain but far from the only one. Don't believe me about the thermostat?

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/is-your-thermostat-sexist

I can keep going, but I hope you've gotten the point by now. I am not showing strawmen. I am seeing stuff like this video (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT!

)

And this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/protein-world-is-back-with-a-new-body-shaming-ad---and-its-more/

Thought I was kidding about the shoes?

http://www.todayonline.com/world/europe/it-sexist-talk-about-uk-pm-theresa-mays-shoes

Now, there is a far more well known incident in which a girl was denied dinosaur trainers shoes because they were 'for boys', but I'm not 100% certain where I stand on that one yet. The obvious answer is to say she should be allowed to wear what she wants, but after seeing women in my workplace get away with wearing pink flower-patterns, comfortable sneakers, even crocs one day, while I have to wear all-black shoes that fit within company guidelines, I'm a bit sensitive on the issue, as were my feet until after my first paycheck when I could afford cushioned in-soles to reduce the pain.

Oh, and if you were interested in looking like a princess but are overweight, well, feminism has you covered: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3359063/How-Disney-princesses-look-REAL-Lingerie-brand-draws-cartoon-heroines-underwear.html

'These are isolated incidents'. 'This isn't representative of the real movement'. Whatever argument you might have, I just went through on a quick scan of various points that immediately came to mind. This sort of stuff happens all the time.

Edit: Couldn't remember the woman's name at first, but you might want to look up Emma Sulkowicz when you get the chance.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Snowy_One

[Tryhard]

snowy's posts here are the kind of thing that make me apprehensive about ranting against feminism too much tbh, it kinda reminds me more of how I used to be and how a label is meaningless past the intention (I don't care what someone calls themselves if they believe in true equality). you just seem like you have an axe to grind.

I've pointed out every problem with Anita Sarkeesian (or others) has with her arguments - she honestly sucks hard at being a feminist, but I'm not going to invoke the True Scotsman fallacy and say she isn't one.

With a group that could be likened to the amorphousness of say, a religious grouping of people, it's not really surprising that you have fundamental self-proclaimed 'radfems' being outright detrimental to the cause. Picking out the most egregious of these and generalising is not an effective strategy, because I could just as easily do that for MRAs, Christians, Atheists, or anyone else, and then proceed to act indignant about their existence.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Tryhard

[Time the Crestfallen]

<snip>

So you're argument is that some feminists are shitty, and therefore all of feminism is shitty? You mustn't like very many people since, as Tryhard stated, one could do this for literally any group that has ever existed.

I get disliking the examples you listed, I find these people abhorrent and disgusting. But cherry-picking them as your examples to represent a group that, realistically, is too large and broadly-defined to be attacked or defended as a singular entity is a bit ridiculous.

[Rezzy]

First of all, I have no respect for anyone who forces themselves sexually onto another person. I don't think that person can be rehabilitated because by doing so once, it shows the level of respect they have for another human being, which is to say none. To me, there's no crime worse than that and I am absolutely for the death penalty for rapists.

Next. The system needs to stay the same in general if we were to institute capital punishment for rape. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Also, regarding Snowy's strawman, it might be offensive... but it doesn't make it wrong.

Let's go with this. I am opposed to feminism in the way that Huffington Post portrays it. Pretty sure that it's referred to as Third Wave Feminism.

Besides the obvious murder, I could think of several crimes worse than rape. Kidnapping, beinging blinded, permanent disfigurement, amputation of limbs, child abuse, etc. I don't think capital punishment is something that should be used lightly. Any time a person commits a crime against another they are showing contempt for their personhood.

[Snowy_One]

So you're argument is that some feminists are shitty, and therefore all of feminism is shitty? You mustn't like very many people since, as Tryhard stated, one could do this for literally any group that has ever existed.

I get disliking the examples you listed, I find these people abhorrent and disgusting. But cherry-picking them as your examples to represent a group that, realistically, is too large and broadly-defined to be attacked or defended as a singular entity is a bit ridiculous.

There is a huge fallacy in this statement. As I said, I see this sort of thing a lot. From women whom are claiming that they won't repay their college loans because of sexism to, effectively, any matter that exists. The fallacy comes, however, from the notion that people are either feminist or not. If you are not a feminist you hate women. There is no neutral ground far too often in this sort of discussion, and hence the fallacy.

I do not hate people who genuinely desire equality between men and women. Even if some of them espouse these sorts of views they are at least honest. The problem is that the movement has been hijacked, as it were, by the third-wave feminist. If you want equality between men and women you are a feminist... oh and that also means you need to speak up in defense of women who claim to have been raped even when it gets proven no rape ever happened, support the decision to replace Thor with a woman, believe the wage gap is real, and so-forth. What's that? You don't support one of our positions? Than you're a scummy woman-hating monstrosity whom would gladly beat their wives/have been beaten into subservience by your husband and are perfectly willing to shackle women to the kitchen once again!

This is why I gave my definition earlier. The third-wave feminist is an upper-class woman whom goes to expensive colleges on her parents dime and wastes it on things like gender studies courses and likely hasn't worked a day in her life or a lower-class woman whom often practices 0 self-control and expects others to pick up her slack. Above all else, however, they're willing to shoot to an extreme and denounce any dissenting opinion, often without addressing the opinion itself, by shouting it down and terminating all discussion while setting it up so that, if you disagree with them, you are a monster. It's the same tactic pulled with Gamergate in which being neutral gets you shoved onto one side and there is no real middle ground.