I really dig this article and I agree with it on many levels, including the idea that online feminism exists in stark contrast to the way many feminists conduct themselves in the real world. It's interesting to me too that Smith brings up the jargon of online feminism and very rightly identifies it as a divisive device used to browbeat those that they are "offended" and "outraged" by. If there's one thing that Western society needs less of, it's outrage. If there's one thing it needs more of, it's action.

I think that chivalry gets an unfair rap. It's out of context. In its day, it was yes, patronizing, but those were patronizing times. It was also a way of showing respect for women, albeit through a very different lens than the way many would view the world today. Furthermore, the age of chivalry was very much one in which lofty ideals ruled, in part because few if any adhered to the ideals. They were something to aspire to.

I dislike the idea of total gender neutrality, personally. I'm not saying that I think that men's and women's or even transgendered people's roles should be strictly defined, but I don't see what is wrong with identifying as a man or as a woman or whatever. I also find it ridiculous that there are people out there who would want individuals to conform to their terminology without asking, as Smith mentions in regard to "cis." I think gender neutrality has its place, but to ask for total gender neutrality in society at large seems unworkable and unnecessary.