In my case I meant my most outspoken feminist friend - i.e. someone who does not hide it and folds feminism into her outlook on life and her everyday actions.

Also please note that at no point have I said "all feminism is good and right all the time", I think much of the hysterical stuff on the net is counterproductive (at best) and some of it is downright hostile to all men.

--edit-- But I think that there is 'good' feminism in abundance as well, whereas I don't think that this exists very much in the MRA space.

Nothing can be good if it chooses to go by the same label as a lot of bad.

"Good" feminists provide cover for "bad" feminists. Thus, all feminists are bad.

So there's no good cake because bad cake exists?

I'm not quite buying that.

Cake doesn't choose to call itself cake. Feminists choose to call themselves feminists, and thereby associate themselves with bad feminists.

But let's not quibble here---most feminists are collectivists advocating for what they perceive as their in-group at the expense of others. There are very few self-professed feminists who would be good, were it merely not for the label.

Also, the reason you can't understand is probably because you are trying not to. Turning my point into something about cake is probably not an honest attempt to understand my point, but is probably a dishonest attempt to dismiss it.

No, it was not an honest attempt to understand your point, it was an attempt to ridicule your facile, ridiculous non-point.

I'd love to see your study on what most feminists advocate, it would make fascinating reading, what was your methodology?

> No, it was not an honest attempt to understand your point, it was an attempt to ridicule your facile, ridiculous non-point.

This shows that you put people's whims over the truth. You'd rather influence by intimidation than by referencing reality and using reason. I don't think this kind of behavior should be tolerated by this community.

> I'd love to see your study on what most feminists advocate, it would make fascinating reading, what was your methodology?

This is the other side of the same coin. You hold that nothing is true without some sort of research study, knowing full well that such studies are too concretely empirical to be used to draw reliable conclusions (which is why they often appear to disagree with one another). That leaves nothing but whims and intimidation.