[Fortuna]

Mainstream feminism isn't that far off from tumblr feminism, actually. We're starting to see all kinds of non-normal groups using it as a platform to try and gain validity.

I remember I was at a friend's house once and he texted me saying he was coming home with a girl. My first thought was that he had met someone to get it on with, since that's usually how things work. But then my friend came in, and there, standing next to him, was a person who was as male as can be. He had a semi-full beard, a massive pot belly with a tuft of chest hair sticking out of his shirt, and a deep voice. I said "oh hey" in the stoniest of faces, and my friend then referred to his new friend as Natalie, or something like that. Then he said to me, "We're gonna play some Xbox. She wants to play the new Mass Effect".

This is the world we live in.

[Vindictus]

ITT: Cishet white males discuss feminism.

[Pete Svarrior]

>het

I am offended, and that makes you wrong.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

Both the strength and weakness of feminism is the anger within it. On one hand, that gives it the energy and drive to force change, on the other hand, it can sometimes generate more heat than light and will tend to amplify unreasonable voices.

Also, it must be noted that the mainstream media will always prefer to give a platform to the most provocative, strident and blustering voices whilst the reasonable majority go relatively unknown.

As it happens, I identify with feminism because there are problems with society which are predicated on women or femininity in general being considered 'lesser' than masculine traits (For instance, there are plenty of parents who are proud to say that their daughter doesn't care for pink and dolls and prefers playing with monster trucks and action-figures, but there are far fewer parents who would be happy with their son combing the hair of his Barbie doll.)

[JRowe]

Agreed, but if you're going to demand it of me, you should be ready to provide the same.

How is askign you to prove that women do kill men out of hatred for men askign you to prove a negative? At all?

Ah, so you're asking specifically about cases like Elliot Rodger. Okay, I readily have one to your multitude (two). I'll call that close enough to even. Here are a couple more which didn't happen over "personal grievances", too...

I assumed you could pay attention to context. I apologize. I also thought you were aware that misogyny existed. Apparently not. Saddam gave further examples, anyway: the poin tis just that hatred of women is actually a motive, while hatred of men?
You gave two examples, and I have no idea whatsoever how any compare. The thrid is entitlement, but no reason to see hatred of men, and the first two are exactly personal grievances, so...

Sorry, that's not what you're doing. You're responding with "Oh, yeah, of course, heh heh, feminism has that too..." whenever an issue that doesn't fit within the (academic) definition of "feminism" is brought up to you.

What, exactly, do you think feminism is? You seem to be of the opinion that it's something other than wanting men and women to be treated and viewed with equal value.

Right, except I'm complaining about the only types of feminism which do stand a chance at having some impact. Political and academic - the two most authoritarian and warped types. Didn't you say something about paying attention to context just now?

Except, note that you're specifying "Stand a chance." Are you paying attention to context? If it was a given that it was going to make a huge change, you wouldn't need to specify that.

Feminism is the same as literally every movement that has ever occurred. The loudest, angriest people are those you hear the most. The initial reaction is dislike because it goes against what you're assumed is/should be the norm. It does ot immediately have any ability to make a series impact no matter how widely it's heard. Each wave starts off with anger because seriously, if people are facing oppression, they have no need or desire to be gentle with dealing with it.
The only way it could be authoritarian would be if it had enough of a substantial influence to actively limit certain actions. Instead, what we get is complaints after something major takes place, often with little overall effect. To be authoritarian, it actually needs to have power: and what you're referring to as mainstream feminism typically does not have that, especially not compared to its opposite.

[Pete Svarrior]

How is askign you to prove that women do kill men out of hatred for men askign you to prove a negative? At all?

Well, gee, mister, let's have a look-see.

I said "they're not isolated incidents". You said "prove it". Where, oh where is the negative? Hmm.

Also, I don't understand why you insist so hard on shifting the goalpost towards killing men out of misandry. It's almost as if you thought it can't manifest itself in other ways (encouraging others to fabricate rape statistics, systematically fighting the establishment of male domestic abuse victim shelters, vocally advocating for men to have harsher jail sentences than women, or assaults which don't quite lead to death). You seem to assume that the only options here are "women harm men exactly in the same way!" or "we can assume women are just joking about harming men, since that would never happen!", entirely ignoring the fact that the reality will actually be somewhere in a spectrum between the two.

I assumed you could pay attention to context. I apologize. I also thought you were aware that misogyny existed. Apparently not. Saddam gave further examples, anyway: the poin tis just that hatred of women is actually a motive, while hatred of men?

I'm not exactly sure how you can conclude that. Most of the cases I presented don't have a motive stated, and you seem to automatically file them under "personal grievances". It's poor form, to say the least.

What, exactly, do you think feminism is? You seem to be of the opinion that it's something other than wanting men and women to be treated and viewed with equal value.

The academic definition of feminism usually goes along the lines of "The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."[1]

Except, note that you're specifying "Stand a chance." Are you paying attention to context? If it was a given that it was going to make a huge change, you wouldn't need to specify that.

...what? I can't even guess what you're trying to say here. Who the fuck are you to determine which words I would and wouldn't use depending on the current situation? Anyway, what a silly claim to make. Feminism is already making a huge change. That's what started this discussion. Did you even read the thread that prompted me to start this one? ("w0w I assumed you can pay attention to context!").

Here are a few examples of recent changes that feminism caused which are authoritarian in nature:

• Compulsory gender quotas
• Gender-specific (female-only) internships in STEM fields
• The wonderful divide between female domestic abuse hotlines and male domestic abuse hotlines. Example:
  

Feminism is the same as literally every movement that has ever occurred. The loudest, angriest people are those you hear the most. The initial reaction is dislike because it goes against what you're assumed is/should be the norm.

"Initial reaction". Hoo boy, your assumptions are showing. I won't let you drag this discussion down to ad hominems.

It does ot immediately have any ability to make a series impact no matter how widely it's heard.

Right, I guess we'll just ignore facts and current events. That's one way to do it.

Each wave starts off with anger because seriously, if people are facing oppression, they have no need or desire to be gentle with dealing with it.

Please substantiate the claim that women are "facing oppression". Before you do so, please define "oppression".

The only way it could be authoritarian would be if it had enough of a substantial influence to actively limit certain actions. Instead, what we get is complaints after something major takes place, often with little overall effect. To be authoritarian, it actually needs to have power: and what you're referring to as mainstream feminism typically does not have that, especially not compared to its opposite.

Authoritarian views do not require you to currently be the authority. It's just a question of where you stand on the obedience vs freedom spectrum, and mainstream feminists sure as heck are not advocating for personal freedoms. You'd think you'd at least look up the word before trying to argue the subject.

As it happens, I identify with feminism because there are problems with society which are predicated on women or femininity in general being considered 'lesser' than masculine traits (For instance, there are plenty of parents who are proud to say that their daughter doesn't care for pink and dolls and prefers playing with monster trucks and action-figures, but there are far fewer parents who would be happy with their son combing the hair of his Barbie doll.)

Would you say that these problems are "greater" than those which discriminate against men or masculinity? For example, the stereotypical expectations of boys in school leading to their overall worse performance? [2]

Personally, I don't think we need to make these comparisons at all. We need to address issues where and when they appear. Because of that, I can't identify with a one-sided movement.

[Saddam Hussein]

The problems facing men and boys are largely the after-effects of the treatment of women and femininity in society.  Men wouldn't have the problems they currently do seeking help for things like rape or domestic violence if not for the overall cultural assumption that women are weak and incapable, and that men are inherently stronger and dominant over them in every way.  It's not a "one-sided movement," just one that goes to the root of the problem.

[garygreen]

I also just don't think that a smattering of opinion columns from a narrowly restrained set of sources is very convincing evidence that the idea you say is endemic is indeed endemic.  It's just some opinion articles produced by firms that have a negative incentive to write about people being reasonable.  "Reasonable Feminist Holds Exceedingly Reasonable Beliefs" just isn't ever going to be written by a news outlet.

I take a massive issue with you considering my set of sources to be narrowly restrained. I deliberately provided a cross-section of sources from all sides of the discussion and several countries. I deliberately chose to not restrict myself to either opinion pieces or news stories. It baffles me that you'd suggest that TIME, the Guardian, and the Telegraph have a "negative incentive to write about people being reasonable", given that them writing about people being reasonable and having level-headed discussions about things is the majority of their opinion pieces altogether. I don't really know what else I could say. Given our past discussions, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not doing this out of dishonesty, but I must say that I'm baffled.

lol how magnanimous of you.¹  This is simply an instance of brevity intersecting poor word choice.  I think your set of articles is narrowly restrained because it's a tiny and non-random sample of the population of feminist thought.  There is not very much diversity of source material.  26% of the links in the OP come the Guardian alone.  The rest are also news/opinion sources.  You don't consider academic works, literature, public policy research and writing, art, polling data, etc.  I'm sure you would agree that the population of feminist thought extends far beyond TIME's readership.

Using TIME as an example, I did a search of their opinion pieces for the term "feminism."  Sorted by relevance, here are a bunch of headlines that come up:

Sorry, Camille Paglia: Feminism Is the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Men
Flawless: 5 Lessons in Modern Feminism From Beyoncé
Viewpoint: Pro-Life and Feminism Aren’t Mutually Exclusive
It’s a Man’s World, and It Always Will Be
How Feminism Begat Intensive Mothering
Let’s Face It: Michelle Obama Is a Feminist Cop Out

All of the opinion pieces definitely have the quality of generating interest through forceful opinions on controversial topics, not meek thoughts on topics of general agreement.  That's what I mean about sample bias/selection bias/constrained sources.  I don't think a handful of opinion pieces represents an adequate sample of the population of feminist thought (or people who call themselves feminists).

But the biggest selection bias is in the literal selection of articles.  Looking at the TIME search of "feminism," I'm seeing lots of opinion pieces that take the view that feminism is authoritarian/unnecessary/whathaveyou.  The OP is, literally, a list of opinion pieces that support your argument culled from a larger list of opinion pieces with many that don't.

Another good example of this is the first link in the OP about white emojis.  You have to take at face value that she's being completely genuine and not just trying to advocate an intentionally controversial position because that gets more readers.  She doesn't have to be making it up, just sensationalizing it.  For instance, maybe she is of the totally reasonable opinion that if more white people voluntarily chose to represent themselves with black emoji, then it would be beneficial to their overall outlook on whatever blah blah.  Nothing authoritarian about that.  But which do you think is more likely to draw readers to an opinion piece in a news magazine: "Let's Get Rid of White Emojis," or...literally anything else?

Is the underlying argument of the OP closer to "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted," or "Feminism is inherently authoritarian and should rejected entirely"?

I specifically used the term "mainstream feminism" to avoid this doubt. There exist some feminists who are pretty cool. They're currently not in the mainstream. As such, the underlying argument is "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted, are not resisted, and they're currently the dominant faction within the 'progressive' movement".

Whether or not it's mainstream is what's at issue.  I'm still not seeing good evidence that what you're describing is the mainstream opinion among people who call themselves feminists.  You've established beyond a doubt that such radicals exist, but not that their ideology is dominant.

I also take issue with your use of the word 'authoritarian.'  Most of the opinion pieces you posted describe private actors and private actions.  Only a couple of them are even about matters of public policy.  Emma Watson tweeting things you think are annoying isn't authoritarianism.

¹Ok for real you do the exact same thing all the time.  I'll give you an example from the OP: the article from Thought Catalog is obviously satire.  Like really really obviously satire.  It's actually making fun of Bahar Mustafa.  And yet you chose to use it as an example as a genuine belief.  Why?  Because you are.....intellectually dishonest?!?!?!?! *gasp*.  No.  It's probably just that it's really terrible satire, and it would be easy to think that it was genuine if you just read the headline/nut graph and moved on.

[Rushy]

Mainstream feminism isn't that far off from tumblr feminism, actually. We're starting to see all kinds of non-normal groups using it as a platform to try and gain validity.

I remember I was at a friend's house once and he texted me saying he was coming home with a girl. My first thought was that he had met someone to get it on with, since that's usually how things work. But then my friend came in, and there, standing next to him, was a person who was as male as can be. He had a semi-full beard, a massive pot belly with a tuft of chest hair sticking out of his shirt, and a deep voice. I said "oh hey" in the stoniest of faces, and my friend then referred to his new friend as Natalie, or something like that. Then he said to me, "We're gonna play some Xbox. She wants to play the new Mass Effect".

This is the world we live in.

Sorry to break this to you, but your friend is a homosexual with some type of severe brain injury.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

Would you say that these problems are "greater" than those which discriminate against men or masculinity? For example, the stereotypical expectations of boys in school leading to their overall worse performance? [2

That's precisely what I'm talking about. We teach boys that showing emotion is un-manly, that asking for help is 'weak,' that if they're facing problems they should just 'man up,' that if you're physically weak in any area then you "[throw/kick/punch/drive/whatever] like a girl." We applaud girls who go into traditionally masculine roles, but we mock and deride men who go into traditionally female roles. This expectation on men to be masculine results in violence, substance abuse, and suicide when they can't live up to these ideals.

Part of feminism is about saying that there's nothing weak about being a woman, that femininity isn't lesser than masculinity. A feminist movement that lets women into work accepts stay-at-home dads and house-husbands, it accepts women who "wear the trousers in a relationship."

[Pete Svarrior]

lol how magnanimous of you.¹

Okay. I guess that's that for giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're obviously not interested in that.

¹Ok for real you do the exact same thing all the time.  I'll give you an example from the OP: the article from Thought Catalog is obviously satire.  Like really really obviously satire.  It's actually making fun of Bahar Mustafa.  And yet you chose to use it as an example as a genuine belief.  Why?  Because you are.....intellectually dishonest?!?!?!?! *gasp*.  No.  It's probably just that it's really terrible satire, and it would be easy to think that it was genuine if you just read the headline/nut graph and moved on.

The Thought Catalog article is indeed satirical, but that doesn't make it less relevant in any way. It illustrates the point I'm trying to make rather well. You seem to grill me for restricting my set of examples too strongly while simultaneously advocating that I restrict it more. Could you please choose one façade to hide behind and stick to it?

This is simply an instance of brevity intersecting poor word choice. I think your set of articles is narrowly restrained because it's a tiny and non-random sample of the population of feminist thought.

Of course it's non-random. As specified previously, I'm targeting a specific sub-group of feminists. If you think it's 2small4u, I can happily keep posting links.

There is not very much diversity of source material.  26% of the links in the OP come the Guardian alone.

And most of them come from independent contributors who don't have a long-standing connection with the Guardian. Your point? How does the choice of platform affect the validity and diversity of their claims?

Also, part of the reason I chose the Guardian as one of my more prominent examples is because it's a feminist source. I thought it would be better to take the mainstream feminists' word for what mainstream feminism is instead of linking you to a bunch of Daily Mail articles. I'm happy to diversify it even more if that's what you're after.

The rest are also news/opinion sources. You don't consider academic works, literature, public policy research and writing, art, polling data, etc.

Yes, I don't consider things which are out of scope for this discussion. If you'd like to bring them in, please, provide examples. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but shouting in my ear about how I'm terrible and wrong won't do that. Show me the evidence you'd like me to see. Show, don't tell.

I'm sure you would agree that the population of feminist thought extends far beyond TIME's readership.

Yes, hence my continuous insistence on differentiating between mainstream feminism (or your Tea Party) and feminism as a whole (or libertarians as a whole). No matter how hard you try to ignore it, I'll keep correcting you on that.

Using TIME as an example, I did a search of their opinion pieces for the term "feminism."  Sorted by relevance, here are a bunch of headlines that come up:

Sorry, Camille Paglia: Feminism Is the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Men
Flawless: 5 Lessons in Modern Feminism From Beyoncé
Viewpoint: Pro-Life and Feminism Aren’t Mutually Exclusive
It’s a Man’s World, and It Always Will Be
How Feminism Begat Intensive Mothering
Let’s Face It: Michelle Obama Is a Feminist Cop Out

Yes, it's a very diverse set of opinions about one subject. I'd count that as an asset rather than a negative factor. From my view, a platform that's willing to discuss all points of view is far superior to an echo chamber.

All of the opinion pieces definitely have the quality of generating interest through forceful opinions on controversial topics, not meek thoughts on topics of general agreement.  That's what I mean about sample bias/selection bias/constrained sources.

Could you name some examples of those "meek thoughts or topics of general agreement"?

I don't think a handful of opinion pieces represents an adequate sample of the population of feminist thought (or people who call themselves feminists).

Mainstream feminists - those with an actual impact on the political debate. But okay, if this is not an adequate sample, then what is? Again, show me the evidence you'd like me to see, don't just whine about it.

But the biggest selection bias is in the literal selection of articles.  Looking at the TIME search of "feminism," I'm seeing lots of opinion pieces that take the view that feminism is authoritarian/unnecessary/whathaveyou.  The OP is, literally, a list of opinion pieces that support your argument culled from a larger list of opinion pieces with many that don't.

Right, it seems that you misunderstood my intent. These opinion pieces aren't about feminism. They're opinion pieces by feminists about what should be done. They're not authoritarian because they said "we're (not) authoritarian", but because they directly and explicitly propose or engage in actions which are authoritarian.

Articles where feminists talk about how feminism is great are not particularly relevant to this discussion. What actually matters here is their actions, not words. What they advocate for and what they do is what will ultimately determine how outsiders see them.

Another good example of this is the first link in the OP about white emojis.  You have to take at face value that she's being completely genuine and not just trying to advocate an intentionally controversial position because that gets more readers.  She doesn't have to be making it up, just sensationalizing it.  For instance, maybe she is of the totally reasonable opinion that if more white people voluntarily chose to represent themselves with black emoji, then it would be beneficial to their overall outlook on whatever blah blah.  Nothing authoritarian about that.  But which do you think is more likely to draw readers to an opinion piece in a news magazine: "Let's Get Rid of White Emojis," or...literally anything else?

I agree that modern media have a lot of problems of their own. Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to believe that they're suddenly not serious about this when they were serious about things like: giving money to women in academia because they're women, offering preferential entry requirements to women willing to enter academia, or institutionalising the relevance of one's genitals when being elected to positions. With that precedent in place: yes, it's possible that everything they wrote is just hilarious banter and/or a provocation. It's just very unlikely when you consider reality.

Whether or not it's mainstream is what's at issue.  I'm still not seeing good evidence that what you're describing is the mainstream opinion among people who call themselves feminists.  You've established beyond a doubt that such radicals exist, but not that their ideology is dominant.

Okay, that's fine. If you have a counter-argument, please present it. I asked multiple times now to be shown this "other" feminism. I'm really eager to see it, because if it does exist, I might get involved again. If you think expecting to be able to see this "other" feminism is an unfair expectation, could you please explain why that is? How can I believe in something if I can't experience it?

I also take issue with your use of the word 'authoritarian.'  Most of the opinion pieces you posted describe private actors and private actions.  Only a couple of them are even about matters of public policy.

That's entirely irrelevant. A person can express left-wing or right-wing views without discussing public policy. A person can also express libertarian or authoritarian views without discussing public policy.

Emma Watson tweeting things you think are annoying isn't authoritarianism.

I didn't know the United Nations is now Twitter. But yes, her expressing authoritarian views on Twitter (I don't know if she did - you seem to be of the opinion that she did) would imply that she holds authoritarian views. Either that or she's part of your "literally everyone is joking!" dream.

[Pete Svarrior]

That's precisely what I'm talking about. We teach boys that showing emotion is un-manly, that asking for help is 'weak,' that if they're facing problems they should just 'man up,' that if you're physically weak in any area then you "[throw/kick/punch/drive/whatever] like a girl." We applaud girls who go into traditionally masculine roles, but we mock and deride men who go into traditionally female roles. This expectation on men to be masculine results in violence, substance abuse, and suicide when they can't live up to these ideals.

That's not what the article I linked to is talking about. This is talking about boys being told over and over again that they're dumber than girls, which eventually leads to them performing worse since they stop trying to compete.

Part of feminism is about saying that there's nothing weak about being a woman, that femininity isn't lesser than masculinity. A feminist movement that lets women into work accepts stay-at-home dads and house-husbands, it accepts women who "wear the trousers in a relationship."

That's all cool, but it has nothing to do with the boys' issue I asked about. Really, I'm quite happy about the good parts of feminism. It's great that at least some of the inequalities between genders are being looked at. It's just that it's so extremely one-sided. Your response exemplifies that well.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

That's all cool, but it has nothing to do with the boys' issue I asked about

You asked whether feminist issues were "greater" than those which discriminate against men or masculinity?"

My argument was that they're two sides o the same coin. A lot of the problems with men could be alleviated, if not solved entirely, by ditching this idea that men must always be seen to be 'strong' and hypermasculine.

As for the specific example of boys' education in that Torygraph article, it mentions that "In the first stage of the study researchers presented 238 boys and girls aged four to 10 with a range of scenarios related to behaviour or performance, such as “this child really wants to learn and do well at school”. " but we're not told what the other scenarios were (nor does it give us a means to find the study.) I'll bet my bottom dollar that some of the other scenarios were along the lines of 'this child wants to be sporty', 'this child wants to be artistic', 'this child wants to be naughty' it would be interesting to see whether those expectations also fell along traditional gender lines.

[Pete Svarrior]

My argument was that they're two sides o the same coin. A lot of the problems with men could be alleviated, if not solved entirely, by ditching this idea that men must always be seen to be 'strong' and hypermasculine.

Agreed, but that's such a small part of it.

As for the specific example of boys' education in that Torygraph article, it mentions that "In the first stage of the study researchers presented 238 boys and girls aged four to 10 with a range of scenarios related to behaviour or performance, such as “this child really wants to learn and do well at school”. " but we're not told what the other scenarios were (nor does it give us a means to find the study.) I'll bet my bottom dollar that some of the other scenarios were along the lines of 'this child wants to be sporty', 'this child wants to be artistic', 'this child wants to be naughty' it would be interesting to see whether those expectations also fell along traditional gender lines.

Instead of answering my question of whether or not the issue is "less" important, you went out of your way to do your best to dismiss it. This answers my question better than any "yes" ever could.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

Because I don't accept the premise of the question. It isn't 'more' or 'less'important, they're two facets of the same problem - gender inequality and rigid gender roles that feminism tries to tackle.

[Pete Svarrior]

Because I don't accept the premise of the question. It isn't 'more' or 'less'important, they're two facets of the same problem - gender inequality and rigid gender roles that feminism tries to tackle.

You don't accept the premise of the questions and yet you restate the premise as your actual belief right after saying that...

Are you sure you read my post before replying?

[Ghost Spaghetti]

You asked which is more important, feminist issues or those which discriminate against masculinity. I answered that I don't accept either is more important  because they're not separate issues.

If I've misunderstood your question, perhaps you'd better rephrase it because clearly I can't understand it in its current form.  I make no comment about whether that's down to your inability to communicate it effectively or my stupidity.

[rooster]

I'll add my two cents.
I don't think feminism as an idea is authoritarian.

But I do think this SJW PC movement in general is pretty authoritarian. It's all part of a larger problem where people think that the way to correct social injustices is by forcing others how to behave, think, and talk. But I also think this might just be a natural swaying effect where in order to correct past injustices, the progressives have to be extreme and vocal. I hope it evens out eventually, because all this is really doing is creating a more divisive environment.

[garygreen]

Okay. I guess that's that for giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're obviously not interested in that.

The Thought Catalog article is indeed satirical, but that doesn't make it less relevant in any way. It illustrates the point I'm trying to make rather well. You seem to grill me for restricting my set of examples too strongly while simultaneously advocating that I restrict it more. Could you please choose one façade to hide behind and stick to it?

You included the satire piece in a list with the heading, "Here are some examples of modern feminist or otherwise social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian."  That is it in fact satire seems pretty relevant since this particular piece is a satire piece mocking "social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian."  How does a piece that is intended to satirize and mock Bahar Mustafa and her ideology support your claim that Mustafa's brand of feminism is the mainstream view?

Of course it's non-random. As specified previously, I'm targeting a specific sub-group of feminists. If you think it's 2small4u, I can happily keep posting links.

And most of them come from independent contributors who don't have a long-standing connection with the Guardian. Your point? How does the choice of platform affect the validity and diversity of their claims?

Also, part of the reason I chose the Guardian as one of my more prominent examples is because it's a feminist source. I thought it would be better to take the mainstream feminists' word for what mainstream feminism is instead of linking you to a bunch of Daily Mail articles. I'm happy to diversify it even more if that's what you're after.

Yes, I don't consider things which are out of scope for this discussion. If you'd like to bring them in, please, provide examples. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but shouting in my ear about how I'm terrible and wrong won't do that. Show me the evidence you'd like me to see. Show, don't tell.

Yes, hence my continuous insistence on differentiating between mainstream feminism (or your Tea Party) and feminism as a whole (or libertarians as a whole). No matter how hard you try to ignore it, I'll keep correcting you on that.

Mainstream feminists - those with an actual impact on the political debate. But okay, if this is not an adequate sample, then what is? Again, show me the evidence you'd like me to see, don't just whine about it.

I agree that modern media have a lot of problems of their own. Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to believe that they're suddenly not serious about this when they were serious about things like: giving money to women in academia because they're women, offering preferential entry requirements to women willing to enter academia, or institutionalising the relevance of one's genitals when being elected to positions. With that precedent in place: yes, it's possible that everything they wrote is just hilarious banter and/or a provocation. It's just very unlikely when you consider reality.

I should have been clearer and said that the population of mainstream feminist thought extends far beyond TIME's readership.  My point is that I think it extends far beyond the readership of news and opinion outlets.  News and opinion outlets don't accurately summarize the beliefs of the population of feminists who have influence or leverage over culture and public policy, like those writing literature, making laws, lobbying, creating art, publishing journals, composing songs, etc. 

As you described, you're advancing the argument that, "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted, are not resisted, and they're currently the dominant faction within the 'progressive' movement."  I'm expressing skepticism of your methodology.  I think it's important to consider a much wider diversity of sources beyond news/opinion because I think news outlets are neither especially representative of the people with political leverage who identify with the 'progressive' movement.

I didn't suggest that "everything they wrote is just hilarious banter and/or provocation."  I suggested that, in general, news outlets have a positive incentive to publish things that attract attention and readership.  To me that makes it a necessarily inaccurate representation of the opinions of even its own opinion writers.  Like all media personalities, opinions writers have a positive incentive to exaggerate their opinions, and news outlets have a positive incentive to hire people who do that naturally/well.

Yes, it's a very diverse set of opinions about one subject. I'd count that as an asset rather than a negative factor. From my view, a platform that's willing to discuss all points of view is far superior to an echo chamber.

Could you name some examples of those "meek thoughts or topics of general agreement"?

I already have: "But which do you think is more likely to draw readers to an opinion piece in a news magazine: "Let's Get Rid of White Emojis," or...literally anything else?"  An example of the 'literally anything else' could be, "Using Black Emoji Could Be Beneficial."  It just wouldn't surprise me at all that someone whose job depends on readership would express the former opinion while genuinely believing the latter.

I didn't suggest that there was anything 'negative' about the diversity of opinions published by TIME.  I was offering its diversity of opinions as a demonstration that TIME, for instance, publishes many opinions about feminism (and by feminists), and only a small number of them expresses "authoritarianism."  Only selecting the ones that do and ignoring the many counter-examples is a selection bias.

Right, it seems that you misunderstood my intent. These opinion pieces aren't about feminism. They're opinion pieces by feminists about what should be done. They're not authoritarian because they said "we're (not) authoritarian", but because they directly and explicitly propose or engage in actions which are authoritarian.  Articles where feminists talk about how feminism is great are not particularly relevant to this discussion. What actually matters here is their actions, not words. What they advocate for and what they do is what will ultimately determine how outsiders see them.

A person can express left-wing or right-wing views without discussing public policy. A person can also express libertarian or authoritarian views without discussing public policy.

We definitely have a big disagreement over what authoritarianism is.  I don't think private actors can be authoritarian (towards one another, that is).  Surely they can support authoritarian action by the state, but expressing opinions about voluntary actions by private folks isn't what I understand as authoritarianism.  To keep using the emoji example, advocating a legal ban on white emoji would be an authoritarian position.  Advocating that people stop using white emoji, or even advocating that emoji makers (is that a thing?) stop making them, isn't an authoritarian position to me.  Any advocacy that people act or be or think a certain way isn't authoritarianism to me unless you're advocating the use of force against them.

I don't think libertarianism or authoritarianism make much sense outside of the context of state action.

[Pete Svarrior]

You included the satire piece in a list with the heading, "Here are some examples of modern feminist or otherwise social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian."  That is it in fact satire seems pretty relevant since this particular piece is a satire piece mocking "social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian."  How does a piece that is intended to satirize and mock Bahar Mustafa and her ideology support your claim that Mustafa's brand of feminism is the mainstream view?

Ah, I see, I accidentally put it in the wrong list. Fair enough. I'll fix that.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Only selecting the ones that do and ignoring the many counter-examples is a selection bias.

Show, don't tell. Show me those non-authoritarian opinion pieces (or whatever else you think is relevant here) by feminists. Give me links. Don't talk about how they totally exist or about how you totally already showed them to me. Just give me the links. Show. Don't tell. To clarify: I'd like to be shown and not told. I'd like to see the evidence rather than be told that it certainly exists. For the avoidance of doubt: my request here is that you show me some evidence rather than talk about how it exists.

We definitely have a big disagreement over what authoritarianism is.  I don't think private actors can be authoritarian (towards one another, that is).

Yes, we clearly do have a disagreement here. I'm going with the definition of the word as described by Oxford, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster. You're trying to use something else which is currently unspecified.

For convenience, the definitions I'm referencing are as follows:

1. Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom:
the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime

1.1 Showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others; dictatorial:
he had an authoritarian and at times belligerent manner

: expecting or requiring people to obey rules or laws
: not allowing personal freedom
: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>

demanding that people obey completely and refusing to allow them freedom to act as they wish:
an authoritarian regime/government/ruler
His manner is extremely authoritarian.

In particular, our disagreement appears to stem from the fact that you (needlessly, in my view) restrict the definition of authoritarian beliefs to require an underlying regime and/or the need for enforcement of authority. The words doesn't necessarily mean that, and any belief that others should submit to a particular group's views are generally authoritarian regardless of their power to actually realise those beliefs.

Surely they can support authoritarian action by the state, but expressing opinions about voluntary actions by private folks isn't what I understand as authoritarianism.  To keep using the emoji example, advocating a legal ban on white emoji would be an authoritarian position.  Advocating that people stop using white emoji, or even advocating that emoji makers (is that a thing?) stop making them, isn't an authoritarian position to me.  Any advocacy that people act or be or think a certain way isn't authoritarianism to me unless you're advocating the use of force against them.

I do believe you're misusing the word here, but at least now I understand why you'd disagree with my assessment.

I don't think libertarianism or authoritarianism make much sense outside of the context of state action.

Well, again, the definitions of "libertarian" from the three dictionaries I picked¹ include things like "someone who believes that people should have complete freedom of thought and action", and "a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action". It's entirely your prerogative to choose which meanings of words you'll acknowledge and/or use, but it's probably worth knowing that many will use these words differently to you.

¹ - before you accuse me of selective bias or what-not again: I picked the three dictionaries that I consider to be the most reputable. I did also have a quick glance at Collins, thefreedictionary.com and dictionary.com and found them more or less in agreement with what I'm saying, but I didn't think they're quite as worthy of bringing up at length because they're generally less used. I'm sure if you look hard enough you might find a dictionary that does disagree with me, but I failed to produce one. As such, I'm not claiming that this is proof of a consensus, but it is at the very least some fairly strong evidence.