"feminazi"

[Rapidfire]

This stupid internet trend defines feminists????

Huh?

Okay so I've been itching to talk about this. Whenever I say that I'm a feminist the first thing that anyone says is "you're not one of those feminazis, are you?" 

Um, excuse me, but does anyone realize how offensive this is??? Honestly this is absolutely repulsive. 

No, I am not a feminazi because: 

1. I refuse to be a part of a word that's so hate written that it's started to define feminism as a whole. 

2. I believe in equality, NO MATTER WHAT GENDER, SEX, RACE, RELIGION, OR WHATEVERTHEFUCKYOUARE, I will personally fight for anyone who has been mistreated because of things they can not control. 

 

But let's dig into what "feminazism" really means. That word we've all been guilty of using at some point, was created to make people who are fighting for the right thing feel bad. Yes, maybe some of them don't understand the meaning of feminism, or what it truly is but spreading a hate word like this so casually is beyond the point of repulsive.

It's like saying "You speak English so well." to a foreigner, or "Oh do your parents have papers" to someone of Hispanic, or Latino descent. 

There is nothing nice about it because even if I'm fighting for justice like decent human rights for everyone, I'll still be asked a trivial insult.

I mean what should I say "Oh yeah, I'm totally a feminazi because some radical idiots don't understand what they're saying." 

It's sickening. 

And the worst part is that I've been called that because I talk about issues, NOT because of my standpoints but simply because I talk about them. 

Why should "Are you a feminist?" even be a question? 

If you care about people, and want more then just decent human rights for everyone then you're a feminist. 

You can NOT be a feminist if you are:
Racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, against freedom of religion,etc. 

 

Discuss, and let's not make this an argument. I realize that people have very different views on feminism, but if anything just throw the word "feminazi" out of your vocabulary. It's not cool 

[Agro]

It's gonna be an argument Rapid. You forgot what forum you're on.

[Tentacruel]

I'd like to point out that it was Rush Limbaugh who came up with the term, so there's that.  

 

Beyond that, I'm not touching this topic.  It is going to end poorly. 

[-Griffin]

Eh, personally I think that the word feminist isn't a very good one. Egalitarian is a broader scope, but better encompasses its best values and I've never really seen it have negative connotations. Sure, it sucks when a term like feminist is poached and ruined by people with dumb agendas, but sometimes you have to accept that it's happened and there is very little to gain by 'getting the term back'. Move on, use a term that encompasses what you mean and doesn't start an argument on word choice. 

[Slinky]

Can't be a feminist if you're homophobic huh?

 

Get out.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

So my only thoughts on the matter of feminazis are.

Feminazis are bad, and only serve to make things worse for everyone.

There's no reason to assume someone is one unless they've made it blatant.

If they did make it blatant, ignore them.

 

Also there is nothing wrong in complimenting someone who is foreign on their English if English is not their first language.

[Maeriberii Haan]

Just dropping in here to remind everyone here to keep things civil.

 

The moment thread went out of hand, it'll immediately get locked, and warns will be distributed if necessary.

 

Also Dyson, knock it off.

[Tentacruel]

Also there is nothing wrong in complimenting someone who is foreign on their English if English is not their first language.

Because I have a passing interest in preventing this from turning into a full-fledged shitstorm, I will bring up that OP was probably referring to the more cliche dumb-white-girl "your English is so good."  That is, saying it to a complete stranger as soon as they open their mouth and saying it patronizingly. 

 

Legitimately complimenting someone is fine.  (For instance if they outright say they are learning English or whatever)

[goddamnit names are a pain]

 

You can NOT be a feminist if you are:
Racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, against freedom of religion,etc. 

 

This statement is incredibly inaccurate. A feminist is a person who supports feminism. Feminism is equality/equal treatment for men and women in terms of everything. That is literally it. Someone can be a homophobe/etc and still be a feminist. 

I would argue that Dyson did nothing worth being directly warned like that, considering the nature of the statement he was making a comment on.

 

Literal, perfect equality is impossible. But statistical "this person gets paid this" or "this person can have this job" etc is attainable, though.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

This statement is incredibly inaccurate. A feminist is a person who supports feminism. Feminism is equality/equal treatment for men and women in terms of everything. That is literally it. Someone can be a homophobe/etc and still be a feminist. 

I would argue that Dyson did nothing worth being directly warned like that, considering the nature of the statement he was making a comment on.

 

Literal, perfect equality is impossible. But statistical "this person gets paid this" or "this person can have this job" etc is attainable, though.

Except the whole point of the OP is that feminism is for supporting equality for all.

Dyson's comment was very close to spam, and quite rude.

And it doesn't matter if it's impossible it still should be worked towards. Every bit counts.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

Except the whole point of the OP is that feminism is for supporting equality for all.

Dyson's comment was very close to spam, and quite rude.

And it doesn't matter if it's impossible it still should be worked towards. Every bit counts.

But that's not what feminism is.

This is the LITERAL definition of it. 

"the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

Not "freedom and equality for all" or anything like that. 

 

Working towards something that literally cannot be achieved is a waste. To each their own. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

But that's not what feminism is.

This is the LITERAL definition of it. 

"the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

Not "freedom and equality for all" or anything like that. 

 

Working towards something that literally cannot be achieved is a waste. To each their own. 

You get too hung up on "literal definitions". The context is important, and going off just the literal definition kinda ignores the whole point of this thread.

 

No, it's not a waste at all. Because as you work towards it, you are making fixes. If no one tried to work towards perfect equality then many changes would never have been made.

Another example is writing. You can't make a perfect story but you can work towards one.

 

But there's no point in saying any more seeing as you're stuck in your own view on things, so Imma gonna try and not keep responding after this.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

You get too hung up on "literal definitions". The context is important, and going off just the literal definition kinda ignores the whole point of this thread.

 

I hear the bottom half loud and clear, but I wanted to comment of this.

If not going by the literal definition, and something that the OP/other people want to agree on, what's stopping me from saying a feminist IS someone who does radical thing X and getting others to agree with me?

This is why I think literal definitions are important. People come up with new definitions constantly, especially ones that stray from the original meaning of the word. 

 

Gah, also wanted to say this…

We can (easily, even)achieve physical/job/political whatever kind of equality you call it, but I do not think we can make every human think/treat others equally.

That's the equality that I think is impossible. 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Can't be a feminist if you're homophobic huh?

 

I hadn't considered the two as being mutually exclusive myself, but the argument could certainly be made from a feminist perspective that men have no more of a right to be with women through the merit of being men than women do through the merit of being women. That being said, would the ground not still be level if neither sex had the right to be with others of their own sex? I'm certainly pro-gay rights myself and this is just theoretical speculation, but I can't think of a reason why a feminist by definition couldn't also be homophobic. The same goes for feminists who might also be racist, transphobic, and/or antireligious, as they all involve factors outside of sexual equality in of itself.

 

Semantics aside, I do appreciate the spirit of what Rapidfire is saying in that sex, sexual orientation, race, and religion are no reason to withhold rights from people who'd otherwise be granted them, basic human rights or otherwise.    

 

Feminazis are bad, and only serve to make things worse for everyone.

There's no reason to assume someone is one unless they've made it blatant.

If they did make it blatant, ignore them.

 

I haven't met or heard of anyone proclaiming themselves as such. I wouldn't doubt that you could find instances of people doing so by Googling "I'm a feminazi", but I'm sure you know as well as I do how conducive the internet is to contrarians, jokers, and provocateurs. But I digress, it's a derogatory slur involving a comparison so blatantly outrageous that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Most of the time I hear the word it's people remarking on how repulsive it is. It's a desperate piece of rhetoric that I would think far more people would cringe at or ridicule than indulge.

[OMEGAcat]

This statement is incredibly inaccurate. A feminist is a person who supports feminism. Feminism is equality/equal treatment for men and women in terms of everything. That is literally it. Someone can be a homophobe/etc and still be a feminist. 

I would argue that Dyson did nothing worth being directly warned like that, considering the nature of the statement he was making a comment on.

 

Literal, perfect equality is impossible. But statistical "this person gets paid this" or "this person can have this job" etc is attainable, though.

 

There are many different schools of feminism. The school I adhere to (and from the sounds of it OP does as well), is intersectional feminism which seeks to apply the theory and values of feminism in a way that intersects with other oppressions (ie racial, sexual, gender). For example, intersectional feminism condemns Susan B. Anthony and the majority of the (white) suffragettes because they were raging racists that actively used fearmongering of black men gaining the right to vote as leverage for obtaining their own rights. Another example of feminism that intersectional feminism condemns is TERF because it excludes trans women from their feminism.

 

So I guess technically you *can* be a homophobic feminist, but it's not unlike saying you are an animal rights activist if you are a part of PETA, for me.

 

As for the rest of this topic, I direct y'all to this kate beaton comic. "Feminazi" (other than the disgusting way of arguing for better treatment of women is being compared to actual Nazis like take a moment and parse that and realize how fucked that is) is basically just a way to dismiss women/respectability politics

[BehindTheMask]

If we are all equal, then would you defend my right to say "I believe that Tuesday follows Monday", "All bachelors are unmarried" and "I think women dont deserve equal rights?"

 

Just because you dont like what people are saying doesn't mean they don't have the same rights of free speech you do. You can disagree with what their message is, but they still have the right to say it. For me, I think that people who spread misinformation about (picking a "random" topic here) Islam are reprehensible, but I still hold their right to say it.

 

Your tags are "just read" and "be educated", like your view point is the only worthwhile view point. That by allowing discussion is forbidden because if we disagree we go against "equality" and "feminism."

 

I do not label myself a feminist or an egalitarianism, because labels only put up barriers between people and ideas. I'd much rather openly discuss the issues in a constructive, free thinking conversation.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, nor am i making any other statements to the validity of any other possible arguments. I found it peculiar how you rationalized your view points.

[goddamnit names are a pain]

If we are all equal, then would you defend my right to say "I believe that Tuesday follows Monday", "All bachelors are unmarried" and "I think women dont deserve equal rights?"

 

Just because you dont like what people are saying doesn't mean they don't have the same rights of free speech you do. You can disagree with what their message is, but they still have the right to say it. For me, I think that people who spread misinformation about (picking a "random" topic here) Islam are reprehensible, but I still hold their right to say it.

 

Your tags are "just read" and "be educated", like your view point is the only worthwhile view point. That by allowing discussion is forbidden because if we disagree we go against "equality" and "feminism."

 

I do not label myself a feminist or an egalitarianism, because labels only put up barriers between people and ideas. I'd much rather openly discuss the issues in a constructive, free thinking conversation.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, nor am i making any other statements to the validity of any other possible arguments. I found it peculiar how you rationalized your view points.

I just had to say that…damn, I liked this post. Kudos to you for thinking on a level like this and voicing it. 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

If we are all equal, then would you defend my right to say "I believe that Tuesday follows Monday", "All bachelors are unmarried" and "I think women dont deserve equal rights?"

 

"If we are all equal", then how could we not be equal? Either your words would be powerless, in which case your freedom of expression would be in vain, or your words would hold power and we would not be equal. Equality inherently involves the concession of certain freedoms that would compromise others' freedoms thus rendering them unequal. Eventually one has to pick a side.

 

 

Just because you dont like what people are saying doesn't mean they don't have the same rights of free speech you do. You can disagree with what their message is, but they still have the right to say it. For me, I think that people who spread misinformation about (picking a "random" topic here) Islam are reprehensible, but I still hold their right to say it.

 

Your tags are "just read" and "be educated", like your view point is the only worthwhile view point. That by allowing discussion is forbidden because if we disagree we go against "equality" and "feminism."

 

The term "feminazi" as used in the context that Rapidfire is taking issue with certainly goes against equality and feminism, with or without scare quotes. I hold that truth to be self-evident. Although I do totally agree with you about misinformation (or dare I say disinformation) that certain free speakers employ to compromise the freedoms of Muslims. 

 

I do not label myself a feminist or an egalitarianism, because labels only put up barriers between people and ideas.

 

They can also facilitate the flow of ideas between people. Besides, assumptions are a prerequisite to living as well as inevitable, so if you don't label yourself then you can count on others to do so for you. If you're not a feminist and egalitarian, then what are you?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

If we are all equal, then would you defend my right to say "I believe that Tuesday follows Monday", "All bachelors are unmarried" and "I think women dont deserve equal rights?"

 

Just because you dont like what people are saying doesn't mean they don't have the same rights of free speech you do. You can disagree with what their message is, but they still have the right to say it. For me, I think that people who spread misinformation about (picking a "random" topic here) Islam are reprehensible, but I still hold their right to say it.

 

Your tags are "just read" and "be educated", like your view point is the only worthwhile view point. That by allowing discussion is forbidden because if we disagree we go against "equality" and "feminism."

 

I do not label myself a feminist or an egalitarianism, because labels only put up barriers between people and ideas. I'd much rather openly discuss the issues in a constructive, free thinking conversation.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, nor am i making any other statements to the validity of any other possible arguments. I found it peculiar how you rationalized your view points.

To be honest I get what you're saying. But it feels more of a...pointless nit-pick than a good point. You know what the idea is that they are trying to get across, and even agree with it. So all of this just seemed like one big "Hey I want to bring up a unnecessary point". At least that's how it feels.

 

The tags were more put there out of annoyance at the continued misunderstanding of the equal rights stuff, from what I can tell. And obviously someone will present their opinion in a way to say they think it's the best one. Because no one would hold an opinion they didn't think was best. If that makes any kind of sense.

 

And I actually do disagree that everyone is allowed to say whatever they want. Freedom of Speech is good, but there's a point where it's not. (Which is why it's illegal to yell "fire" in a public place if there's no fire). Spreading misinformation is one of those things. Racism and sexism is another. If it only serves to be harmful I am perfectly okay with not allowing it. (There are of course circumstances where this isn't the case.)

 

Oh another thing. Labels aren't bad. They don't make you unable to listen to other view points. The only purpose of a label is to explain an idea without having to go into detail every time. Just because someone gives themselves a certain label does not mean they have to follow it exactly. For instance a Democrat can agree with certain Republican views and still be a Democrat.

[BehindTheMask]

 

"If we are all equal", then how could we not be equal? Either your words would be powerless, in which case your freedom of expression would be in vain, or your words would hold power and we would not be equal. Equality inherently involves the concession of certain freedoms that would compromise others' freedoms thus rendering them unequal. Eventually one has to pick a side.

 

 

 

The term "feminazi" as used in the context that Rapidfire is taking issue at certainly goes against equality and feminism, with or without scare quotes. I hold that truth to be self-evident. Although I do totally agree with you about misinformation (or dare I say disinformation) that certain free speakers employ to compromise the freedoms of Muslims. 

 

 

 

I do not label myself a feminist or an egalitarianism, because labels only put up barriers between people and ideas.

 

They can also facilitate the flow of ideas between people. Besides, assumptions are a prerequisite to living as well as inevitable, so if you don't label yourself then you can count on others to do so for you. If you're not a feminist and egalitarian, then what are you?

 

 

Point A: My asking the OP those questions was to raise awareness that you can find someone "evil" but you should still be aware, and should defend, their rights as you would be aware of, and defend, the rights of your like-minded peers. I do agree with you, that equal-ness eventually ends. That, although we are all granted the same protections, rights, etc, our individual pursuits of happiness are not equal.

 

Point B: My original point was that the anti-feminist group(hereto referred as group A) labels "feminazis"(who are feminists)hereto referred as group F), as...well...evil people(hence the nazi symbolism), and Group F labels Group A as "bigots" or whatever they do(im not entirely sure). When both groups decide that name calling and bickering is more important that discussion of ideas, that is something I have trouble with.

 

Point C: Referring back to point B, labels can only get you so far. We need to openly discuss and explore different ideas. To answer your question "then what are you" my answer is simple - I am a collection of my own ideas, thoughts, emotions etc. I share similar ideas of feminism and egalitarianism, but to be honest, im not 100% versed in all their dogmas and belief systems to label myself, not that I would anyway.

 

To be honest I get what you're saying. But it feels more of a...pointless nit-pick than a good point. You know what the idea is that they are trying to get across, and even agree with it. So all of this just seemed like one big "Hey I want to bring up a unnecessary point". At least that's how it feels.

 

The tags were more put there out of annoyance at the continued misunderstanding of the equal rights stuff, from what I can tell. And obviously someone will present their opinion in a way to say they think it's the best one. Because no one would hold an opinion they didn't think was best. If that makes any kind of sense.

 

And I actually do disagree that everyone is allowed to say whatever they want. Freedom of Speech is good, but there's a point where it's not. (Which is why it's illegal to yell "fire" in a public place if there's no fire). Spreading misinformation is one of those things. Racism and sexism is another. If it only serves to be harmful I am perfectly okay with not allowing it. (There are of course circumstances where this isn't the case.)

 

Oh another thing. Labels aren't bad. They don't make you unable to listen to other view points. The only purpose of a label is to explain an idea without having to go into detail every time. Just because someone gives themselves a certain label does not mean they have to follow it exactly. For instance a Democrat can agree with certain Republican views and still be a Democrat.

 

[spoiler=Point A]Point A: I think you missed my post by a little bit. I wasn't trying to bring up an unnecessary point. I was more so addressing OP's tone, which is crucial. If you tell someone "hey sit down and shut up, im gonna tell you how to think", im willing to bet you'd be less open to their ideas. Being able to properly communicate with people is important, so things like word usage, tone(of voice, and of text), phrasing, etc, is all important. I was trying(and re-reading it) to address how the OP phrased, framed, and sold their opinions. To someone who doesn't agree with them, this would seem more of an aggressive way to address them. [/spoiler]

 

[spoiler=Point B]Point B: While you are correct that there are limitations to Freedom of Speech, there is a difference between restricting people from saying "fire" in a movie theater, and restricting opposing view points, for example "If you are a democrat/republican, then im going to shoot you in the face." You say that "If it only serves to be harmful I am perfectly okay with not allowing it", but what are the limits?

 

Are we not allowed to think different than our neighbors? For example, smoking has many correlations with different forms of cancers. According to you, we should not allow it. Also, driving cars has many correlations with death, such as fatal automobile accidents, crashes, people being severely hurt, etc. By that logic, driving cars should also not be allowed.

 

These are vastly different then spoken words, but there is a parallel. For example, there is an ongoing debate on whether or not vaccines cause Autism. If we were to say "Vaccines cause autism, and this is a fact. Anyone who disagrees is clearly trying to CAUSE autism by vaccinating our children." This may seem like a silly argument, but therein lies your problem. How do we determine what is misinformation? What is the "truth?" This relates back to feminism, in that both parties think they are justified in making the claim that they know the truth, and the other side is wrong. We must allow a dialog between both sides to eventually agree upon a truth. But that is another, although similar, topic completely.[/spoiler]

 

Point C: To clarify, I do not 100% believe that labels are truly terrible, but people so focus on the label itself that they miss the point of the idea behind it. For example, I am a Baltimore Ravens fan. If someone said "hey, im a Pittsburgh Steelers fan" Id probably make fun of them because of the label, and not why they are a Steelers fan(even though I only jest about stuff, I dont hate any steelers fans unless they act terrible. This doesnt just apply to sports, but also to politics, religion, gamers(PC MASTERRACE vs Console, Sony vs Nintendo vs MS, etc), and a lot of aspects of life.

 

 

 

My main point of MY(emphasis to clarify im different than op) original post, is that I wanted the OP, and everyone reading this thread, to take a look at the views they hold, why they hold them, and to analyze their thought processes behind having them. Its so easy to get in the mindset of "im right, and if you disagree then you are a terrible person." Introspection is important regarding personal beliefs and defending said believes.

 

tl;dr Be wary of your views, make sure you are effectively communicating your view, and be sure to listen to the other side. You may not see eye to eye, but you can speak heart to heart.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I think the main problem lies when the "other side" is a side that's trying to cause harm to others. The "other side" of equality are people who don't want equality. Which is simply a harmful opinion. And not just harmful to a few people, but to everyone.

 

Sure you can have an opinion, but speaking out against something like equality, or fair treatment I still feel is wrong. There are certain things you just HAVE to limit when it comes to freedom of speech I think. And it's fairly clear in many cases what is spreading misinformation and hate. That's what my point is. Those instances need to be stopped.

[BehindTheMask]

I think the main problem lies when the "other side" is a side that's trying to cause harm to others. The "other side" of equality are people who don't want equality. Which is simply a harmful opinion. And not just harmful to a few people, but to everyone.

 

Sure you can have an opinion, but speaking out against something like equality, or fair treatment I still feel is wrong. There are certain things you just HAVE to limit when it comes to freedom of speech I think. And it's fairly clear in many cases what is spreading misinformation and hate. That's what my point is. Those instances need to be stopped.

 

Let's apply your logic to my car situation.

 

If cars are causing harm to people, and they are, just look at the number of injuries, car accidents, deaths by car, then don't we need to put an end to the harm caused by cars? Anyone who wants cars to continue to be used is wrong. Its not just harmful to motorists driving, but also pedestrians as well. its harmful to everyone. Ban cars, and no one can speak about this, because they are automatically wrong. No need for discussion, this is in your best interest.

 

Clearly this seems like a ludicrous argument. Harm in and of itself is not the end all, be all, decider of what limits free speech. There is more to it than just the black and white. There needs to be a distinction. What levels are harm are acceptable, which levels are not? Is lying okay? Is there ever a time where lying can be an option? I'm not going to answer these questions, because I dont know them myself. Its up to the person reading this to decide what the answers are, and to justify their thoughts with facts and evidence.

[Tentacruel]

I think the main problem lies when the "other side" is a side that's trying to cause harm to others. The "other side" of equality are people who don't want equality. Which is simply a harmful opinion. And not just harmful to a few people, but to everyone.

 

Sure you can have an opinion, but speaking out against something like equality, or fair treatment I still feel is wrong. There are certain things you just HAVE to limit when it comes to freedom of speech I think. And it's fairly clear in many cases what is spreading misinformation and hate. That's what my point is. Those instances need to be stopped.

If you want to promote equality, don't use phrases like "the other side."  You're creating an enemy.  People who don't adopt your opinion are bad and must be stopped.  

 

Because you define feminism as the belief in universal equality and an absolute ultimate good, anyone who does not call themselves such is therefore a bigot.  

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Let's apply your logic to my car situation.

 

If cars are causing harm to people, and they are, just look at the number of injuries, car accidents, deaths by car, then don't we need to put an end to the harm caused by cars? Anyone who wants cars to continue to be used is wrong. Its not just harmful to motorists driving, but also pedestrians as well. its harmful to everyone. Ban cars, and no one can speak about this, because they are automatically wrong. No need for discussion, this is in your best interest.

 

Clearly this seems like a ludicrous argument. Harm in and of itself is not the end all, be all, decider of what limits free speech. There is more to it than just the black and white. There needs to be a distinction. What levels are harm are acceptable, which levels are not? Is lying okay? Is there ever a time where lying can be an option? I'm not going to answer these questions, because I dont know them myself. Its up to the person reading this to decide what the answers are, and to justify their thoughts with facts and evidence.

Let's not. I really dislike this argument and don't see much validity to it. Don't compare two different things to explain why the other is wrong. I see your point, but you have to take things case-by-case. Not lump them all in one pot as the same idea. You're basically saying "Oh well we'd have to look at other things too so don't bother fixing this."

Again. I won't agree ever with the idea that it's okay to be against equality, simple as that.

 

 

If you want to promote equality, don't use phrases like "the other side."  You're creating an enemy.  People who don't adopt your opinion are bad and must be stopped.  

 

Because you define feminism as the belief in universal equality and an absolute ultimate good, anyone who does not call themselves such is therefore a bigot.  

Except the fact is that they ARE against equality. And so they are obviously on a different side of the argument. And yes, if someone is against equality I think that's a bad thing. Seeing as equality between races and genders and whatnot does not cause anything bad, but being against it causes harm.

 

Nothing is so simple as "Oh equality means everyone can do whatever they want". That's not the case. Equality is everyone being treated kindly and with respect.

I can disagree with someone while doing that. However the "other side" are people who can't.

[Tentacruel]

Except the fact is that they ARE against equality. And so they are obviously on a different side of the argument. And yes, if someone is against equality I think that's a bad thing. Seeing as equality between races and genders and whatnot does not cause anything bad, but being against it causes harm.

 

Nothing is so simple as "Oh equality means everyone can do whatever they want". That's not the case. Equality is everyone being treated kindly and with respect.

I can disagree with someone while doing that. However the "other side" are people who can't.

Who is "they?"  Anyone who does not call themself a feminist, or anyone who says they do not believe in equality?   And not allowing someone free speech because they do not believe the same thing is inherently anti-equality.  Why do you get to decide who can talk and who can't?