You're blatantly ignoring the fact that those humans who are of a different gender, or different skin color, or different sexual orientation for that matter, have been denied rights based on those differences despite the fact that they are of the same species as those that do have those rights.

Well, unless humanists believe that women aren't people, and therefore aren't entitled to those intrinsic human rights, then no, humanists aren't feminists.

Do you believe women are people/human?

Let me rephrase that, "you don't believe women have the right to social, political, and economic equality to men?"

So you think some people are more human than others?

Apologies, autocorrect on mobile.

Well, do you believe women should have social, economic, and political equality to men?

I'm sure he was a complete gentleman and never degraded her in the eight month span since you didn't get a blow-by-blow visual depiction of every single act of his.

Tell you you're a feminist.

I was just using your definitions, unless you don't think women count as people/human beings.

Oh right, because it's outside your realm of experience, and therefore does not matter to you.

Except her first encounter with Kilgrave…

That's actually one of the things third wave feminism addresses. And advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of social, economic, political equality to men is a more thorough version of, "equality between men and women." I mean, how do you define feminism?

Do you deny such a thing exists? I mean, the article is about a common occurrence with misogynistic underpinnings. An act thought to be innocuous, exaggerated by the show to represent…

Well, if it's women being equal to men, then it would also men being equal to women. Now, exclusion of LGBT and race is an issue within feminism, but, according tothe definitions, as sad as it is the implication one can be feminist without being a humanist or egalitarian, it is impossible for a humanist or egalitarian…

By presenting them to me as things mutually exclusive to each other, you're implying that feminism is not compatible with egalitarianism or humanism. The definition s you've given me do not support this.

Cause if we're talking the whole "Smile" angle, it may not be validated by your experience, but it certainly is validate in my experience, which of course, invalidates your experience. Or something. Since we can't have empathy or relate to things outside of our own particular points of view.

Because your *modern misogyny" isn't exactly used in the article, save for how something like "smile" is used as a shorthand for misogyny rather than seeing krysten ritter pose in a schoolgirl costume with naked ladies in the background?

No, your definitions fail to outline how the three terms are different, save for the fact Feminism implies that there is some kind of inequality already in place.

"Antiquated misogyny"?