Pulling out a couple of  comments for reply from Marie's statement:
On 11/30/2014 1:46 AM, Marie Earley wrote:
In particular this comment:
"...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, repeatedly, there is some question as to exactly which women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
**There definitely are all sorts of feminists. But what happened here was that Eric Corbett defined what is an isn't an acceptable level of feminism and then various of his women friends who may or may not identify as feminists would pop up during GGTF and even more during Arbitration to complain about the horrible radical feminists at GGTF.  I have yet to see these horrible radical feminist quotes. Off hand I know there were a couple rather radical proposals by males; my joke about the "systemic bias card" (which is evidence against me in Arbitration!); and angry reactions by a number of males and females who protested the sexist badgering and rejection of opinions of those who supported the project. So Eric, who has been helpful to some women, had lots of women supporters jumping up to poison the well.  I'm sure some women who have lower key approaches than others of us were genuinely upset by some womens strong reactions; but maybe their definitions of proper female behavior are way too narrow.

It was quite disappointing when I realized that one editor who identified as female (though not on her user pages) and kept boasting about being a feminist, put down other women she disagreed with and badgered us to make alliance with her on articles she wanted to change.  Much later I discovered that early in 2014 she was joking with Eric on his talk page about his not having been naughty enough and causing controversy lately!!  She got all the controversy she wanted at GGTF!!!  (I put that in evidence.) 

...These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/ (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
**As a libertarian I don't want to see it illegal (unless it portrays violence forced on women or men). As a feminist I think it's quite often a sick addiction and higher consciousness humans would have little use for it.  But that's the bottom line issue at Wikipedia: too many male editors motivated by base emotions and addictions, angry at women for competing with them on wikipedia or not fulfilling their emotional and sexual needs in the real world, and thus engaging in personal attacks, harassment and "gang banger" behavior.  Maybe it is only a few hundred like that, out of thousands of male editors, but that's enough to make Wikipedia an incredibly hostile environment for most women, males, mature people, professionals, etc.