> I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified.

> I've been specific. even in the last post, I say I re-iterate that I don't believe there is singular feminism, and here you are using 'feminism' unqualified. Respond to the things I've said above, maybe quote them, and I can respond; you keep asking me to respond to your own summaries. Because the author of the post doesn't specify! She talks about teaching her child about feminism, and you assume that is somehow bad. > I've said why I think it is wrong. No, you have not. You talked around it disputing definitions. Again, you are claiming you've been specific, but you are not. Yes, obviously feminism, like most things, means different things to different people - that doesn't somehow make rejecting it generally (which is the only way you have even hinted at the artcile not being a hit piece, even if you later refute the idea) reasonable. > No, I've explained. misrepresentation, and focus are different. That article is misleading, it misrepresents the article it is talking about - that's not focus.