Anti-feminist vs. Sexist

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure "anti-feminist" isn't really a thing. In fact, I am fairly certain that the opposite of feminist is sexist. Anti-feminism is sexism.
Let's do some quick (and overgeneralized) definitions.
What is feminism?
Trick question. There are actually multiple types of feminisms. Emphasis on the S as the end. Fun fact, when you type feminisms you get the red squiggly line of death underneath it. I promise you though, it is a real word and concept. Feminisms vary by issue, but all are committed to the equity (you can say equality but that is some problematic language) of all genders/sexual orientations. Feminisms are more than just making women equal to men. Firstly, which men are we trying to be equal to? I'm assuming white, rich men because let's face it they have all the power. But are we really trying for power?
I digress.
Sexism is discrimination of a person/persons based on the sex/gender that the sexist person identifies s/he as. Homophobia discriminates based on a persons supposed sexual orientation.
I am aware that I am being really vague and round about with my wording. But that's because gender/sex identity is so much more complicated than man/woman. Same with sexual orientation. These are not things that can be put nicely into labeled boxes. They are more complex than that.
So, back to my point. What is an anti-feminist? Someone who is against feminism. Someone who is against gender equity (if not equity in general). This kind of sounds like a sexist. Ta-dah! They are the same thing!
Now, I really don't like the term anti-feminist. It's like you're trying to say "I'm not sexist but, I really think women should be heterosexual, pregnant, and in the kitchen" (being pregnant doesn't mean you're heterosexual). It also is just bad English. It's not a word. I don't care if you put anti in front of an existing word, if there is already a word for what you are trying to describe, just use it.
For example: Pinterest does not have anti-feminist undertones. It has sexist undertones. It actually has a fuck ton of sexist undertones. In fact, depending on which board or category you are browsing or even who you follow, it's just straight up sexist. But the same can be said of the world.
Put that in your juicebox and suck it.

Some gems

Here are some of my favorite moments from Harvey Mansfield's article "Some Doubts about Feminism"

"feminism should be understood originally and essentially as neo-Marxism" (p292)
"Women have always felt they were put upon, and today they seem to feel less so" (p295)
"The complementarity of the sexes is forgotten or denied, and it is replaced by 'choice'" (p296)
"But the only family is the traditional family. The one-parent family - a euphemism for a fatherless family - does not as a rule keep women as happy as the traditional family" (p296)
"The family atmosphere is now more competitive between husband and wife, and it does not appear that women are usually winners in the competition or that they gain by having to compete with their husbands" (p297)
"Feminism has left women with a choice indeed, but one between swallowing the unacceptable and further agitation toward the unattainable" (p297)
"On the contrary, it seems to me that the standard of excellence in the most prestigious positions has been lowered by the normal entrance of women" (p297)
"Feminists have come to demand equality without considering whether equality is just, and even when it is plainly unjust" (p298)
"They [feminists] try to manipulate our admiration for greatness as if their justice could even out greatness or level it down. But great merit rules justice, and is not ruled by justice" (p298)
"It is a philosophy of irresponsibility, claiming in effect that women should be as selfish as men" (p298)
"Women - or the best women - took a quiet satisfaction from their family duties that was rarely disturbed by expressions of gratitude from the husband and children they benefited" (p299)
"Feminism is about independence more than equality; or it is about equality in independence. Yet the independence consists, not in unselfish satisfaction, but in getting credit or recognition from others" (p299)
"when women have become as selfish as men, they have also become as obtuse" (p299)
"A woman does not get enough credit for taking care of her own child; so she sends him to day care and takes a job where she can be important, like a man" (p299)
"The byword of the feminist side of the abortion debate is choice, and the meaning of choice when a woman chooses abortion is almost always choice without responsibility for a previous choice to have sex" (p299
"But it hurts women when they treat human life as a matter of their convenience" (p299)
"Their responsibility takes the form of protectiveness toward women when men earn a living not just for themselves but also for their wives and families. Feminism rejects male protectiveness because it allows men to believe in their owns superiority, and it substitutes male 'support' for their wives' independence and equality" (p299-300)
"Facts suggest that many men support their wives' independence by walking out on them, leaving them to support their own independence" (p300)
"Yet that justice gives women equal access to employment and thereby the right to displace men with families to support. It denies, or obstructs, a man's responsibility to take care of his family" (300)

If you ever doubt your feminism...

You should read Harvey Mansfield's "Some Doubts about Feminism." It's a gem. My copy is covered with notes reading "Sexist!" and "Fuck you."  Here are my thoughts about it.

When I finished reading this piece, I was angry. After taking a few days to cool off, I know why this article upsets me. Mansfield is incredibly vague; his ambiguity creates overarching claims against women and feminists. His definition of feminism and women bothers me. Firstly, are there really two kinds of feminism and are they really defined as "moderate" and "radical?" Also, who are these women? All women? He never says who these women and feminists are. When feminist articles have some doubts about patriarchy, they are very specific about who is involved, where it happens, how it happens, etc. That is one of the reasons for the wide array of "academic varieties" of feminism. His definition of the "radical" feminist sounds like the stereotypical "femi-nazi" (thanks, Limbaugh). Does that feminist even exist? According to Mansfield, feminism is Neo-Marxist. This is a specific type of feminism. Not all feminism is Neo-Marxist. In fact, there are feminists who do not agree with Marx; yes, Engels made a contribution to feminism, but that does not mean feminism is Neo-Marxist. In regard to his claim that Freud is a "progenitor of American feminism," it takes more than a statement that women have sexual desire to make one a "feminist." Freud also made women into neurotics, encouraged (created?) the myth of the vaginal orgasm, and his psychoanalysis was used to promote rigid sex roles. Mansfield's book report about The Second Sex was wanting. He did not understand even the basic definition of de Beauvoir's transcendence. I don't think he read the book (or at least carefully) since it answers some of his lingering questions on page 293 of his article (Maybe I'll send him the new, complete translation...). If he is going to make claims about feminism as a theory and it's origins, he should at least get basic facts correct, all of which he could have easily obtained in any basic WGS/feminism/women's studies class. Or he could even buy Feminism for Dummies, I'm sure it exists. 

Mansfield over simplifies. The family, according to Mansfield, is the centerpiece of the article. When he discusses family it is the "traditional" (non-existent) family. He does not want to challenge notions of family and gender/sex roles. Why should we simply accept that "sex roles are necessary to the family?" We measure the success of a type of family in terms that are defined by patriarchal capitalism. Why are illegitimacy, single parenthood, divorce, and abortion rates signs of failing family? 

In short, he makes incorrect, broad and sweeping claims. He does not substantiate any of his arguments or define key ideas in his argument. The article is blatantly sexist and never makes an attempt to conceal that fact. 

Feminism strives to change the patriarchal society we live in. Therefore it makes no sense to gauge its success in patriarchal terms. 

It's just polite

Part of my job is to hold open doors. People come in, I open the door. People leave, I open the door. It's what I do. It's also polite for people to hold open doors for each other.
Now, as I hold open doors there are always two different reactions. The first reaction is of surprise and gratitude. Apparently, people don't hold open doors for anyone anymore, so this gesture (that I'm paid to do) surprises people.
The second reaction always, without fail pisses me off. It's when men, usually older, white men, stop and try to hold the door for me (um, dude, I'm not going anywhere, stop) or say something along the lines of "pretty girls like you shouldn't be holding open doors." For example, last night as I was headed into work I stopped to open the door for two older (white) gentlemen. I wasn't doing this because I was getting paid (I wasn't on the clock yet), but because it was polite. Rather than just go through the door, they had to stop, attempt to grab the door from me, and tell me to go ahead. They said, "No, sweetie, you go on in, it's chilly out here" with slight chuckles.
"No, sir, you go ahead, I already have the door," I replied.
"Nope, you go in, honey."
"Sir, I work here, and I'm supposed to hold this door. Go."
"So, since you work here you can't go inside?"
"No what? Fine. Whatever." and then under my breath "Fucking annoying sexist asses" The under my breath part might have been a tad loud.
What does one's genitalia have to do with whether or not they hold open a fucking door? Are you holding open the door with your dick? If you are, then yes, your genitals do determine who opens the door. But since almost everyone opens doors with their arms, your sex/gender doesn't matter.
I am not taking a swipe at your masculinity by holding a door for you. I am being polite. I am being a decent human being. Anyone can hold open doors. And anyone can go through doors regardless of who is holding them.
And as a side note, don't call strangers pet names. It's obnoxious and you don't me well enough to call me "sweetie" or "honey." In fact, most people who know me don't even call me such condescending bullshit.