As an aside, Twitter's new-ish mute feature solves that problem. If someone you don't like is being retweeted by someone that you do, you can mute the person being retweeted without affecting the other content from the person you follow.

The article itself mentions disliking engaging with moderate voices as an attempt to silence more strident voices, and I get where that's coming from, but some of the people with more strident voices are hate-filled hypocrites.

I see no harm in promoting the thoughtful stuff (like this article) and ignoring the angry noise.

For the record (Twitter was a poor medium for explaining this) I also have no beef with you - I just unfollowed because practically, seeing Shanley's tweets in my feed just makes my life less good by rubbing in my face that such people exist and have influence in the world. I can't do anything about the fact that people choose to follow anger, hatred and fear - but I can at least opt out of seeing those followers across my path.

The mute feature isn't quite enough for this, since naturally people who follow Shanley will tend to retweet other related topics that have the same tenor. So unfortunately the best thing for my blood pressure is to simply unfollow people who have joined this movement.

Which is all a big shame, because I am a fervent believer in equality (gender or otherwise), and am just as violently opposed to people who discriminate against or insult women just because they're women as Shanley is. However, I am equally hostile to people who discriminate against or insult men just because they're men.

How is this article extreme?

To clarify: it seems to me that you're using the term "ultra-feminist" to belittle and to trample the points being made.

How about judging this article by what it says?