Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The fact is that the Catholic Church put together the original definition of "Christian". By your standard given above it follows that anyone eh deviates from that standard -- which certainly would include Protestants -- are not true Christians.

Nah, defintions can change. The dicionary today is where things are defined today not who originally defined it.

Earlier in this discussion you implied that the original definition is the definitive one -- I have added the emphasis:

Also I would argue that seen as the original feminist movement was for equal rights of women and wasn't anti-men at all, the feminists who think men should all be castrated are not only being bigoted and giving real feminists a bad name, but they're completely distorting the actual definition of feminism.

You're not being consistent; now you're saying that the current definition in the dictionary is what rules the matter.

I don't see any inherent contradiction between the dictionary definition of feminism and a woman who thinks men should be castrated. A feminist can both work towards "political, social, and economic equality to men" and be a man-hater. With that being the case, I find your distinction to be ad hoc, and I stand by my assessment of you committing NTS, per your own definition.

I agree. The groups don't define it at all, the dictionary does.

No, it doesn't. People define words.

Yes, ultimately that is where the definitions come from and definitions change overtime... but a group still doesn't define the definition used. 

And yet as shown above, you're defining man-haters as not feminist based precisely upon the original sentiments of the original feminists. You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

Indeed, but unless the definition of feminism that involves essentially being pro-women's rights and equality for both sexes ever ends up being required to be dropped from the dictionary altogether, then any other definition used is irrelevant to that definition. To conflate any other definition with that definition is to commit the equivocation fallacy.

Yet you've done exactly that in this discussion.

I believe that. I know you're a very reasonable person I wouldn't think that of you

I appreciate the kind words and the civil discussion. Also, in doing some background reading for this reply, I've learnt a bit. Thanks for the impetus.