I don't agree. The feminist movement was started to bring equality between the sexes. The new feminist movement is a complete perversion of that with man hating rather than equality at its core. This is why most of the level headed women in the world, who would have considered themselves as feminist in the past, have completely disassociated themselves from the term as it no longer stands for equality.
Totally agree. I've watched quite a bit of Ben Shapiro who does a lot of speaking at University campuses across the US related to these issues. He has a great way of setting 3rd wave feminists straight with plain facts. Although this BBC article is almost laughable and trivial, this kind of thinking and movement could easily get out of hand. Third-wave feminism could result in more governmental intervention/laws and dare I say it, even fascism.
What has happened to feminists is the same as what has happened to the likes of Greenpeace and PETA. The moderates and the more sensible got what they wanted/ achieved their goals and left or stopped campaigning. What's left are the crazy ones who have very extreme views on a subject.
I don't agree with your disagreements. Early feminists went as far as planting bombs - it was a bona fide terrorist ideology that only failed to kill people due to their incompetence and WW1 starting (which made a terrorist campaign at home politically counter-productive and too dangerous). If anything, misandry was more common in early feminism than it is in modern feminism. Feminism has never been, is not and never can be about "bring[ing] equality between the sexes". It's a biological group advocacy ideology. To claim that it has anything to do with sexual equality is as ludicrous as claiming that whitism is, was or can be about "equality between the races".
The division you refer to has existed since the begining of feminism. There have been feminists and there have been people who wrongly thought that feminism had anything to do with sexual equality and called themselves feminists. Every single time, the latter have been completely counter-productive because they are nothing more than useful idiots for feminism. Some of them were taking the same position you're taking now, but ~100 years ago. See, for example, "Feminism Divided" by Winifred Holtby (published in 1925), who was one of the aforementioned useful idiots who helped an ideology she didn't actually support because she failed to understand what it was and apparently really believed that it could in some unspecified way be completely changed into a movement for sexual equality despite being inherently the opposite.
What early feminism has is a lot of whitewash and plenty of time for it to set. For example, did any of you know about the feminist bombing campaign in England in the few years before WW1? Did you know that feminists of that time openly boasted about their assaults and arson attacks, publically and in writing? The bombing campaign was less publically boasted about because it wasn't politically useful to do so, but feminists of the time did acknowledge it in writing. Writing which still exists.
