You were doing well up until this part. There are no groups on earth that trivialize male victims more than feminists.
Running Erin Pizzey out of the country for saying men need domestic violence shelters too? Check.
Feminists suppressing evidence showing almost half of domestic violence is committed by women? Check.
Feminists disrupting various speeches talking about male suicide/mens issues? Check.
And don't respond by saying these people aren't real feminists. They are. How about trying to rid the movement of the bad eggs instead of defending the movement from those who take issue with the bad eggs.
Oh, and there are far more people who believe in the equality of the sexes who don't identify as feminists than than there are that do. They're either called egalitarians or don't feel the need to label themselves. Most don't wish to be associated with a toxic movement.
Philosophies are broad things, and easily reinterpreted to suit an individual's own experience. I've never denied the existence of militant feminists who abuse an ideal to fuel their rage. The threats against Erin Pizzey are unpardonable, but in choosing that example to support your argument, you've also presented an example of feminism from a positive and tempered source. You can point a spotlight on the militants who threatened Pizzey without pointing a spotlight on Pizzey as well.
You see, you and I have different definitions of feminism come to mind when we hear the word. You immediately cite a movement made up of furious militants who are fueled by hipocrisy and self righteous outrage. I refer to the broader philosophical ideal: "Feminism is the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes." Therefore, this term can be applied to someone who subscribes to this belief whether or not they claim it themselves.
I don't anticipate any possibility of our reconciling our different interpretations. I believe mine is accurate, but I entertain no hope of convincing you of that.