I dislike this article.
I suppose I find it difficult to take an article seriously when it relies on calling its targets "assholes" as a substitute for "anti-feminists". The idea that one can apply a negative epithet to a disparate group of people with varying views that may or may not oppose feminist theory is... well it's the logic he's trying to argue against, and it sort of kills his own argument.
His points about arguing are strange. Asking for proof when arguing is generally accepted to be legitimate when people make objective claims about things. For example, "I like Shatner" is fine unsupported, but "most people like Shatner" would be a target for questioning. I get that asking for proof of everything is a bad thing when it's used as a weapon to shut down people talking about something they think is important. The only problem is, this article addresses these issues in perhaps the most ham-fisted way possible.
This is especially apparent when it comes to the point about semantics. It's common that arguments about semantics are a byword for pointless quibbling over the meaning of something everyone accepts as having a certain meaning, but anyone with any training in philosophy knows that sematic distinctions between the usage of words is very important. Couple this with his complaint that these "assholes" use "long words" to argue against feminists, it seems to be an act of wilful ignorance to fail to engage with a discussion about the meaning of words used.
I understand that it's not nice to criticise someone based on something unrelated they said before, but the idea that searching through someone's other utterances to seek a better understanding of their point of view is bad is weird to me. Sure the "saint or GTFO" mentality is bad, but I've never seen it used. In fact this is the first I'm hearing of it, and I'm sceptical. Honestly the closest thing I can relate to this is that US politicians are often criticised on their voting record, and if that's the case, why would we
not see this included in arguments?
Victim blaming or accusing people of faking it is bad, but there's a difference between corroboration and denial. Too often, I see people who don't immediately take all accusations of abuse at face value told they're accusing the complainant of lying merely because they don't accept what's being said right away. There's reasonable scepticism, and there's accusing a victim of lying. I feel like this point misses that.
#4 is funny to me. The idea that Wheaton's law doesn't apply if you're feminist enough is just pure hilarity. I'm assuming it's a joke.
#3 is more interesting generalisations about a topic
while complaining about unfair generalisations.
You can't dismiss an entire concept because one supporter is an asshole.
Unless it's, you know, anti-feminist.
#2 is another weird point, because it sort of cuts both ways as well. Why is it okay for feminists to say we can't complain about video game journalism because sexism exists, when the same logic is invalid for "assholes"?
#1 is also hilarious:
"I'm not a feminist, I'm an equalist." They're not an equalist, they're an asshole.
Nice to know that agreeing with Luke McKinney completely without deviation is the
only way to avoid being an asshole. Wishing to identify with a more gender-neutral term for progressive equality is being an asshole?
This last point is the tail end of why I don't like this article. Throughout, the author demonstrates that this kind of thinking doesn't even represent most
feminists let alone most people.