> My point was mainly about your incorrect statement that feminist was to feminism what capitalist is to capitalism. They are not the same thing and thus any extrapolation about negative connotations is unlikely to be correct.

Ahh, apparently the post was less clear than anticipated. Here's a quote from it that evokes what I was trying to say with the link:

"I feel like every single term in social justice terminology has a totally unobjectionable and obviously important meaning – and then is actually used a completely different way."

Which is to say that I disagree with your definition of feminism in this context.

According to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_309... 80% of people should identify as feminists by your definition, yet only 20% do. This means that at least 60% of the respondents to that survey disagree with your definition of feminism. I think that I (and the gentleman who's position in this conversation I took pity on) am using roughly the same definition of feminism as the 60% of the population from that HuffPo survey.

That definition is harder to put into words, but is something along the lines of "someone who primarily sees the world through the lens of gendered power struggles." Kind of like a Marxist, only for gender rather than class.

Using this definition, likening the reputation of Feminists to that of Capitalists is not a false equivalency (Capitalists here are people who primarily see the world through the lens of economic life).

> MRA on the other hand is a new, reactionary & uncommon position. But its proponents routinely try to play this rhetorical trick.

Agreed, I was not trying to imply it was particularly common. My main point was that, in my experience, the more hardcore ends of both groups share a lot of psychological problems and cognitive errors.