Fair enough. My only point was that - and my position has softened considerably in the past few years - radical feminism, which is what you all are talking about, is only one strand of 'feminism'. And yes, it's obnoxious and annoying, because it's the loudest. But I think to lump all feminists in with radicals is the same as lumping all Christians in with Westboro or all Muslims in with fundamentalists. Same league, different ballpark. Or would it be the opposite? I dunno.
I approach feminism from a liberal/socialist perspective - in that I think political, social, and legal structures are inherently gendered to favour patriarchy and heteronormativity and I'm not terribly thrilled about it. Hell, when Belinda Stronach crossed the bench to join the Liberals, who wasn't calling her a whore? For a simple political move that had been done hundreds of times before. Look at the structural deficiencies in welfare and social assistance, child care, single parenthood, domestic violence - I've been watching question period religiously and I can't remember the last time issues are ever brought up as a policy platform. Coincidence? Not really. They're non-issues because they effect the private sphere of society. If you look at America, some jurisdictions have policies which charge women for rape kits. So, I mean - feminism isn't entirely useless yet. I don't like radical feminism either - mainly because I'm against basing any kind of platform on structural inequality and I think the whole idea is counter-productive. But radical feminism is just one sector - the loudest yes, but not representative of the entire group.
Tis all.