That won't end feminism as long as the basic need for it is still there. And - internet spats in tiny subcultures completely aside - the need is still there.
If one takes people's stated goals at face value, then for the most part we all do want the same thing - equality. But feminism is not simply wanting equality. Ultimately the differences arise over methodology, what issues are affecting people and how to analyse those issues. As I have said, (my) antifeminism is not out of a desire for inequality but it is also motivated by equality.
Now, to some extent I'm happy to debate those differences in methodology etc out. I get the feeling however the other side of the aisle from me does not see things the same way, and that is what motivates a lot of my harshest criticism of them.
(This debate is not simply limited to gaming, btw. As I pointed out in my review of the original Guardian piece, these sorts of spats are occuring in multiple arenas. Different hobbies - different sectors too, if you think about these debates occuring increasingly within academia, for example.)
The thing is that these are not the big issues in feminism.
They worry about them enough to earn the comparison with moral panic.
The rest is relatively small fry; maybe relevant and much commented-on because it's all part of the same social context, but if mansplaining and manspreading were the worst issues we had to deal with then I doubt anyone would be having this kind of conversation.
I am wondering why there is so much discussion of them at all when those much bigger issues exist. (And yes, GG is no better in that regard, but then I've never claimed it to be)
I think - a bit like GG, really - when talking about feminism it's worth noting that it's a very diverse movement and that one feminist is writing or talking about one thing doesn't characterise the movement as a whole (or make the movement as a whole hypocritical).
Most of the things I've stated haven't been just one feminist's opinion, and much like with AGG, it is the journalists and influential people within the movement that are driving these ideas.
Ultimately, I don't really care too much if I am generalising feminism as a movement. The problem was never the generalising in and of itself. It is the generalising with a view to using that generalisation to justify restricting the expression of their critics that is the problem. I have no desire to stop feminists talking. It is by letting feminists talk that feminism as it currently exists will end. It is therefore of no consequence that I don't personally care to resolve the various nuances of feminism. Enough of it is problematic, it is typically fundamentally quite wrong from a conceptual point of view, I don't affiliate with it, and I choose to oppose it, and that is enough for me.
As I said, I don't expect people to like me, GG, the MRM, antifeminism, or whatever I personally affiliate with and/or choose to defend. What I do expect is for critical voices, including mine, to be allowed to speak, at the very least in a similar fashion to how my opponents do. When feminist generalisations of their critics are being used to silence, that's a much bigger problem than someone generalising feminism but with no intention of trying to shut them up.
I am under no obligation to refrain from generalisation of political views I don't like, but I respect their fundamental right to exist.
