> You didn't say "possible". stop throwing out things like "we see in studies" without being a bit more specific wrt which studies you mean. You didn't specify just that we're all biased, but specifically how we are all biased - that requires more qualification.

I'm not being specific because I'm talking about a general thing. You are the one claiming that people worrying about sexism and teaching their child about it is wrong. Introspecting on your own biases is important if we want to stop sexism and racism. Google for studies (first results: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1), there are tons. Subconscious bias is hardly a contentious point.

> The author is planning to interfere with not just how sexism is handled, but how it is interpreted also. The author has a low bar in distinguishing sexism.

"interfere" - you mean teach. That's what we do with children. You say they have a low bar - and that's just you excusing sexism you don't think 'counts' because you don't think it's important enough to care about.

> I don't
> It's the authors intended message, but not my takeaway.

Then you are misreading the article - intentionally or not - and coming away afraid from a message that is not in any way harmful to men.

> Sure, you can categorise. You just can't lean on the word to have a solid definition, e.g. "Feminism is good/bad"

So we agree then - this site that is clearly out to try and paint Feminism as bad is wrong.

> Saying this is about as meaningful as "democracy is good", for some definition of democracy - its fluffy goodspeak - not very useful unless context is supplied to define the ambiguous term.

Except it's not ambiguous, I have explained what I am talking about multiple times. You claim that most feminists deviate from that, which is exactly the fear I am talking about. Most feminists are reasonable - you and others like you just paint them as crazy by misrepresenting their points (see the article).

> Does the author believe her boy will be the victim of sexism?

Are only victims the ones that need to know about an issue? Are women the only victims of sexism? Are men who are sexist not hurt by their own sexism in some way? Are men who's loved ones are victims of sexism not hurt in some way? Your question is stupid on a number of levels. Yes, we need to teach boys about sexism.

> It's only education if its factual. If you force an opinion upon a child it's indoctrination.

Sure, and fundamental christian nutjobs would call an education in science indoctrination. You just disagree with the facts of the matter.

> No I don't, in fact I've implied the opposite in what I've written - as such please qualify this statement.

Your takeaway from that article was completely unjustified. It's clear - intentionally or not - you have, in at least one instance (which is all I can say about you personally), twisted a feminist's words in order to be outraged at what she is saying and imply it's wrong.

> doesn't sound like I'm talking about all feminism to me. In fact, if I was, it wouldn't make sense to say "this type".

Except by 'this type' you mean normal reasonable feminism as demonstrated in that article - you like to pretend it's a subset of only the extremists, but it isn't. You think it's wrong for a mother to teach her child about sexism, which is an attack on feminism in general.