Author John C. Wright compares today's feminism to the feminism of his youth.

The feminists of my youth made the reasonable demand that legal barriers to entry be abolished, and that woman and their work be judged on merit. Toward this end, they proposed that neither sex be granted any special privilege based on sex.

The feminists to whom I object make the opposite demand, that they be judged not on their merit, but to be granted special privileges based on sex alone.

This is the opposite of the former demand.

Moreover, the modern feminist expands her demand to include the abolition of marriage, the normalization of fornication, adultery, homosexuality and perhaps other sexual abnormalities as well, and that no discussion on any of these topics is possible, since even to entertain a contrary opinion as a hypothetical is a thoughtcrime of unforgivable severity.

The demand is literally unreasonable: it is a demand that reason never be used to examine certain thoughts decreed to be either sacrosanct or heretical.

The demand is unreasonable in a second sense: no one attempting to conform to the demand can anticipate what the demand is, because it is deliberately kept vague. The goalposts move.

The modern feminist does not want her demands met; she merely wants the sense of moral superiority that comes from making an accusation unfettered by sense or fairness. (If she wanted her demands met, her attention would be directed toward Mecca).

Mr. Wright then goes on to describe how two feminists attack his book Count to a Trillion to give an example of what he has described here. Read the whole thing as he has an excellent way of pithily describing the irrational nature and demands of the modern day feminist.