There really seams to be two kind of "feminists": The first claim it's all about equality and the second which is some weird, kind of reverse sexist, ideology. But they are not distributed equally. The latter seams to be what actually defines feminism, is very vocal and is the one that comes up whenever you hear about feminism, while the former seams to only come up when you start to argue against the latter kind.
I also don't get what the former kind is getting from calling themself feminists, when they really only seam to promote common sense.
> The latter seams to be what actually defines feminism, is very vocal and is the one that comes up whenever you hear about feminism, while the former seams to only come up when you start to argue against the latter kind.
This linguistic game is basically the core defining feature of progressivism as practiced: one can hold a term in linguistic ambiguity and choose, post-hoc, whichever one is most convenient for them to assume at the time (which may be a completely different definition from the one they operated under yesterday).
This way you can have your cake and eat it too by advancing radical feminist ideology at the bailey before retreating to the motte of what you call common sense.
Yes, let's use blanket statements to justify our preconceived notions. I'm not sure what the conclusion you're trying to push here -- feminism is about women having rights. Including the right to complain.
But didn't you just do exactly that by calling the parent's thoughts preconceived notions?
Edit: parent changed his/her comment after I posted my criticism. Originally it was much shorter and only wrote that the parent's comments are preconceived notions. No context, no nothing.
