Frankly, it makes me think the parent poster is not looking at this realistically.

What do feminists have to do with this? A typical feminist position is that our society expects dads to be cold and distant and leave parenting to the women, and that this is a bad and sexist assumption. Feminists explicitly call for men to be more involved in parenting and childcare.

It would make just as much sense if he'd blamed this problem on communists.

He's insinuating that a father that is too close to his daughter would be perceived as a pedophile by women who believe that all men are potential victimizers of women.

That perception does exist, I personally experienced it at a park less than a week ago. It is an open question who is "responsible" for it.

Yes, that attitude (that men being close to daughters is a threat) exists. But does that meme/idea come from feminists? Or from some other part of society that hates paedophiles?

I am not a fan of the term "toxic masculinity" because in the way it is invoked it usually means "all masculinity" (I don't subscribe to that model.) But, I believe that the idea that all men are irredeemable sexual beasts does come from a distorted masculinity that makes naturalistic excuses for sex crimes ("males can't control themselves".) I believe this is a factor in the fear of any man being around any child. Another factor is that pedophile are OK to hate, and where hate is left unchecked it grows and becomes increasingly irrational.

Its more appropriate to consider whether it is sourced from misanthropic ideals than anything else, since the assumption that a loving father is a paedophile is, simply, a form of hatred.

You did what, and someone did what, and you knew they were a feminist because?

People are downvoting, but I'm just asking: what was the actual behavior? Did people run after you saying pedophile? Did they follow you around the park watching? Did you feel uncomfortable?

I'm confused how someone would not want to ask those questions.

> typical

I think the issue is that it's hard to nail down what is "typical". I think you are certainly right, but there is "typical" (i.e. majority of feminists/people think this way) and there is "socially visible" (e.g. SRS/Tumblr, etc). When a person uses the SJW acronym they are definitely talking about the latter, but it's unfortunate if they conflate that with mainstream feminism: that men should be more affectionate and involved in parenting and not emotionally repressed in Western society, as opposed to the tripe that you find on the dumber parts of the web.

I don't think that's true at all. SJW has no more content than "hairy man-hater". It's just an insult that can be thrown around at any feminist without any justification.

It's not like "TERF" or "anti-sex-worker" or other disparaging terms that nonetheless have specific meaning. There's simply no pattern to who gets called a SJW, other than that they pissed off gamergaters or MRAs.

SJW is not usually thrown around at "any feminist" without justification. I think the most broadly you'll ever see it applied is toward all third-wave feminists, but even that is pretty rare. Whenever I see it used, it is directed almost exclusively at SRS/Tumblr types.

The term may be more broadly applied in GamerGate/MRA circles or whatever, but who gives a shit? Those people are assholes, and they don't represent even a significant minority of anything, to say nothing of majority. Why should anyone care what they think, or what loaded and mangled terminology they use to describe their perceived enemies? None of those idiots would last long on HN, or any of the more reasonable communities on Reddit, much less anywhere in real life, unless they kept their outrageous and wrong opinions to themselves. Which is as it should be.

My impression is that some people fighting for real social justice are in the process of owning this. I get that GamerGaters and MRAs mean it as an insult, but it sounds like using "good person" as an insult. It literally means "someone who fights for social justice". In what way is that possibly a negative thing? Using it as an insult sounds like you're unapologetically against justice, and basically admit to being a bad person.

(I'm aware that there are people who claim to be fighting for social justice but are in reality weaponizing other people's struggles as ammo in their own private feuds. This is unfortunately a thing, but the right way to handle that is to recognize that they are not really SJWs, not to accept SJW as a bad thing.)

I agree with the part about how some people may not be bothered by the label.

Still, I think the point of it is like calling someone a "morality crusader". Morality is good (if you don't mean "hating gays" by morality, mind you), but if someone called me a morality crusader, I'd get that they thought I was pompous, self-important and meddling in other people's business.