>I don't know what's generating the misogyny or miso-Islamism sentiments from which he's recoiling That should be 'perceived' misogyny and 'perceived' miso-isl

>I don't know what's generating the misogyny or miso-Islamism sentiments from which he's recoiling That should be 'perceived' misogyny and 'perceived' miso-islamism. The author hasn't presented compelling evidence to suggest either. And it should be noted in quoting the author here: >For them, feminism is an unscientific discipline (but how could it be otherwise?), as nonsensical as astrology or Roman Catholicism, and as ripe and essential for debunking. They're okay with women's lib, within reason; but now it's gone too far, and the firm hand of reason must rein it in. Reason, weirdly enough, never seems to disrupt their own grip on power. It's always on the side of the patriarchy. To the sketpic community, "the patriarchy" needs to be proven. That is the crux of third wave feminism and probably where the the skeptic community and the feminist community butt heads. For instance, one cannot say "it is impossible to be sexists towards men" and use your only point of proof as "the patriarchy" and hope to be taken seriously by the skeptic community. That statement, just as "there is a god", needs proof. Perhaps the author takes issue with the need for proof? I don't know, just spitballing.