> If you refuse to resign, refuse to apologize, and refuse to listen, they just go pound their fists uselessly, and you can get on with your life. Or, you can

> If you refuse to resign, refuse to apologize, and refuse to listen, they just go pound their fists uselessly, and you can get on with your life. Or, you can get fired. You don't have to look far for examples of this happening. I don't support radical feminism, but I'm also not ready to martyr myself over it if that can be avoided. Losing your job and social standing does nobody any good. > > for men to control the public discourse and women be trivialized? That's not what I want. I want actual equality. > Strawman, and you know it. You literally said: > > feminism isn't one set of ideas, but a diverse set of ideas > Irrelevant. What matters is the people who have social currency and power today, and they're the toxic variety of feminist. You literally said that all the feminists who are not the feminists you're railing against are irrelevant. If that's a strawman, it's a strawman that you said, and I can only respond to what you say. > Today's feminist errors in assuming that unequal outcome implies unequal treatment. That's the part where feminism diverges from reality. "Today's feminist" as you claim, a single entity, does not exist. > It's not useful to suggest that I must either support feminism (whatever you say it means) or support male superiority. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is equally not useful to suggest that women either give up the title and role of feminism or support female superiority.