See, that link should be nearer the top of this thread. That's food for thought right there.
On the other hand, "The only people trying to argue "lighten up" are anti-feminists" is a nasty false generalisation -- it ignores apath-feminists (damn, that doesn't work nearly as well as 'apatheists'); those who are thinking "can't we all just get along?", with absolutely no motive to stymie feminism; those who've never done the research, who think feminism's all well-and-good, but tell themselves they're too busy worrying about other things; exactly the sort of people who would find that article insightful, and who might be pushed toward feminism by it.
I fear you risk scaring them off by lumping them in with 'anti-feminists' and its implications of misogyny, and may taint that link by association.
The trouble is that the default setting, the do-nothing, don't-care follow-the-norm setting, is anti-feminist. It's the "double standard" in dating. It's women as decoration. It's compulsory sexuality. It's misogynist porn. And, as here, it's sexist jokes. This is why feminism says we live in a patriarchy still.
I see where you're coming from, and agree wholly, when I put a feminist hat on. The thing is, when I then put an 'indiffeminist' (thanks zem) hat on, I feel like you're throwing insults, saying "Oh, you're not a feminist activist? Then you're a misogynist pig."
I think it boils down to the technical meaning in feminist theory of 'anti-feminist' (anything that holds back feminism) not really matching up with what the layperson seeing the word for the first time would take it to mean -- 'anti-feminist' intuitively sounds like it only applies to active, concious opposition to the ideals of feminism; misogyny, denial of female autonomy, Rush Limbaugh, that kinda thing. Laypeople may not think to also consider apathy that unwittingly enables the sexist status quo as part of anti-feminism.
I'm definitely not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you risk alienating your target audience by... well, to be flippant, by using big fancy words they may not understand ;)
On the other hand, "The only people trying to argue "lighten up" are anti-feminists" is a nasty false generalisation -- it ignores apath-feminists (damn, that doesn't work nearly as well as 'apatheists'); those who are thinking "can't we all just get along?", with absolutely no motive to stymie feminism; those who've never done the research, who think feminism's all well-and-good, but tell themselves they're too busy worrying about other things; exactly the sort of people who would find that article insightful, and who might be pushed toward feminism by it.
I fear you risk scaring them off by lumping them in with 'anti-feminists' and its implications of misogyny, and may taint that link by association.