I have to say I think you’re doing a disservice to feminism here.

This article offended me. I’ve made a number of highlighted responses to this article. Here’s a summary.

Women don’t exist in a vacuum. Their behaviour is inextricably linked with their sexuality and the signalling they engage in to attract the interest of others.

The steps that (heterosexual) women make to attract men are naturally tailored to men’s tastes. These are far from uniform, although there are noticeable trends.

This isn’t a sign of mysoginist oppression. In this aspect of behaviour, men are no different. A woman might denigrate others who wear lipstick in order to differentiate themselves and signal something about their character. She might do so simply as an expression of her values.

A man might denigrate others as being chauvinistic. He might do so to differentiate himself and to signal something about his character. He might do so simply as an expression of his values.

Tailoring one’s behaviour towards appealing to the kind of person one wishes to connect with is not mysoginistic. Men have the power to attract (heterosexual) women, and their preferences might therefore affect the behavioural tendencies of women who are subject to that attraction.

That power is not mysoginistic. That’s because it doesn’t simply work one way. It works both ways. Women have the power to attract (heterosexual) men, and their preferences might therefore affect the behavioural tendencies of men who are subject to that attraction.

The point I’m trying to make is that we all possess influential power over others in a variety of different forms through the exercise and expression of our personal preferences. When that principle applies to men with regard to women, it doesn’t automatically mean that mysoginy is taking place.

You might resent the fact that men have the kind of power I describe over (heterosexual) women, but it’s not correct to label it mysoginy. It comes from the compelling power of sexual attraction, not from systematic and unfair subjugation. It applies both ways. As well as being subject to this influential power, women exercise it over (heterosexual) men in a reciprocal fashion.

When reciprocation occurs, what you’re describing cannot reasonably be described as mysoginy.

What you seem to be yearning for is freedom from the power of women’s sexuality to compel their behaviour, but that is never, ever going to happen. The human race is a sexual species. The influence of the preferences expressed by the objects of our sexual desire will never be eliminated, because we are all subject to our own sexuality.

It’s totally unreasonable to claim the power to exclude from feminism anyone who disagrees with you, especially when the case you’re making makes so little sense.

I’m with you when it comes to accepting others for who they are, but perhaps you might acknowledge that you’re being hypocritical in this regard. People have sexual preferences, and you should respect their right to them, even if you personally dislike the influential power they may by extension have upon the behaviour of others.

It’s not up to you to denigrate others for their personal preferences, or their values as they apply to those personal preferences. Othering people for disagreeing with you violates the philosophical foundations upon which feminism rests.