Sure. The article is mostly a bunch of cloudy clickbait buttwaffle. It brings up a few instances of anti-male prejudice and disparagement that we all agree are bad, complains about a few other things that it’s misrepresenting as anti-male when they’re actually not, dumps in a heaping truckload of vague generalizations, and claims that the whole thing adds up to the sweeping assertion that “Feminists Treat Men Badly”.
If one of my freshman students turned in a paper that was so poorly argued, they’d be lucky to scrape by with a C.
Here are some of the floating non-attributions that the article author invokes to support her sweeping generalizations: “a lot of feminist rhetoric today”, “the fixation on men behaving badly”, “This tendency has reached a troubling new peak”, “the current cycle of misandry”, “Feminist commentary routinely puts the nastiest possible spin on male behavior and motives”, “casual low-level male-bashing is a constant white noise”, etc.
Does the author have any actual data or studies backing up these broad assertions? Nope, all she’s got is a few anecdotes about stuff that bothers her on the Internet, some of which she isn’t even representing accurately. (For example, her accusation that a pro-singlehood article by Laurie Penny is comparable to misogynist “Men Going Their Own Way” bitterness in “manosphere” conversations completely overlooks the fact that Penny makes the point that she’s not currently single, and is not dismissing the existence of good men or the rewards of good relationships: she’s just discussing ways in which a traditionally sexist culture places disproportionate relationship burdens on women.)
In short, as LHOD said: penny-ante bullshit.
Mind you, this is not in any way to argue that specific instances of misandry or male-bashing shouldn’t be called out. If the author had titled her article “Some Instances of Self-Identified Feminists Saying Things That Are Derogatory to Men”, and devoted the article to describing and explaining the problems with those specific instances, I doubt anybody here would be disagreeing with that.
But sprinkling a few such instances over a big bowl of unsupported qualifiers like “a lot”, “many”, “constant”, “generally”, “routinely”, and then trying to claim that it all implies that “Feminists Treat Men Badly”? Cloudy clickbait buttwaffle.
No I’m not. I think it’s a tremendously worthy discussion, whether folks who engage in this sort of silly snipery are allies or impediments to justice, and I’ll continue having the conversation. Nice try at silencing me, though! 