Why is the language of feminism so complicated while antifeminism's is so simple?

because academic studies tend to use words to describe complex concepts? not that any of the examples cited are particularly complex, those are all rather basic beginner words that anybody would learn in the first hour of anti-oppression study and don't require much explanation as most people intuitively know what they mean.

What's so hard to understand? "Patriarchy", "intersectionality" and "privilege" have to be in the vocabulary of an anti-feminist as well, or (s)he wouldn't know what to be against, since those words exist in popular feminist theory and anti-feminists are against it.

Because it is heavily based on theory and deals in abstract intellectual concepts rather than reality. It's similar to how philosophy and theology have their own unique terms which are unfamiliar to the mainstream public (eg. transubstantiation, foundationalism, indeterminism, etc.).

Other dogmatic groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, and the Church of Scientology, developed their own obscure terminology as a means of describing and interpreting reality according to their own world views.

You can bend it however you want to bend it.

This question is just... LOL.

I can also say feminism is --"men are bad and women are awesome" you can bend it however

Obviously antifeminist think feminist are bad what part of ANTI-feminism is so hard to understand.

What's so complicated about 'patriarchy', 'intersectionality', and 'privilege'?

These terms are even used broadly in feminist doctrine.

If I want you to give me all your money and all I can do is talk to you, then I can either convince you with the justice of my cause (which is how they started with suffragism) or I can confuse you.

You use progressively more and more complex explanations to justify more and more dastardly notions of female privilege.

You've got to confuse the opposition if you're going to justify things like making paternity testing illegal for the father, trying to justify continuing funding female empowerment programs in education with women having such a current advantage, getting rid of prisons for women, etc.

But after awhile, it never-the-less becomes clear: The emporer has no clothes.

Feminists need the patriarchy to justify their own existence.

Am I saying that women have it great everywhere? Of course not.

Am I saying that we should stop fighting for women's rights in, say, the Middle East? Of course not.

Am I saying that feminists are making it up as they go along, teaching it as "fact" to children and then using it as methodology to justify their own oppression in the West?

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam27.htm

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-5.htm#pgfId-1548446

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1215464/...

http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-5.htm#pgfId-1548446

http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html

http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2013/04/21/the-war-on-m...

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape....

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/02/feminists-...

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/w...

http://tundratabloids.com/2013/03/nordic-taxpayer-...

Because feminism is marxism in gender's clothing.

Anti feminism is simply a rebuttal against feminism. If there was no radical unfair feminism there would be no anti-feminism.

Tell me about it .. took me a long time getting my head around it when doing Sociology at college.

Maybe they are less educated?

Just kidding

I don't know, they might do it on purpose

Because guys are all bad people. They are not as kind or intelligent as women. Men are all sexist pig woman-haters, especially men who get turned on by women doing topless jumping jacks. They are the worst. What kind of sicko gets aroused by mammokinesia? I'll tell you: a disgusting male pig misogynist devil worshipper who deserves to have his penis tied in a knot. THAT'S who.