As a starting disclaimer, I will point out that antis are by no means limited to the SJWs ("social justice warriors," ironically designated), i.e., the extremist autocratic bigots posing as "feminists" and the "progressive left". It is so popular to be an anti, or at least to be solidly against and willfully ignorant of anything to do with MAPs and a nuanced view of youth sexuality and agency, that being derisive of them has become a trendy form of virtue signaling across the breadth of the political spectrum. This includes the true libertarian left and the Libertarians themselves, who often make disparaging comments about MAPs and in favor of the "need" to "protect" youths from sexual knowledge/expression/imagery/experiences (especially involving adults!)despite they're finding alignment with authoritarian legislation to be a bitter pill to swallow. Well, sometimes one must do what one has to do to keep a job and maintain a reputation among the masses, right?
My point here, however, is how similar in terms of worldview, emotional stability, and behavior the antis and the SJWs often are. This is not the case for all on each side, and we both know that any SJW who is not also a MAP would want to lynch me on the spot for even beginning to compare them to an icky "petafile" (whom the #MeToo movement loathes on the same scale as male white cis-gendered heterosexuals). My point here is that many of both (again, not all in either case) seem to be peas cut from the same psychological pod, using similar rationalizations and arguments to call for essentially the same type of world order. To wit, both seem to share these 10 characteristics:
1. A call for authoritarian rules and laws that are based on a great mistrust for their fellow human being. The idea that strong state intrusions into our lives coincides with the greater good, and that a security state is a "necessary evil" even if they sympathize with calls for freedom. Freedom is a nice pipe dream which they mournfully contend doesn't work, so "people have to come before principles".
2. Misandry is good, and in no way ethically comparable to misogyny. Their mistrust of the human species should be officially writ into law and social policy, with men - particularly heterosexual men - blatantly disenfranchised on the assumption that they are inherently predatory and more disposed to commit malicious acts than other groups of people. This, we are told, has nothing to do with any form of bigotry, but is simply "reality."
3. Evidence of malfeasance on the part of women or younger people is ignored, dismissed, rationalized, or we are told it cannot be judged in the same manner as similar acts committed by men. Women and youths are morally superior, by default if nothing else. If they often act exactly as bad as men do in positions of power, well, that's only because men make them do it. In other words, they are not held responsible for their negative actions while men always are.
4. Due process is a serious problem that needs to be downplayed or stricken from the law - at least when it comes to men. There should be no level of difficulty to find good evidence for any accusations, at least when they are made against men.
5. Women and youths (underagers in particular) are to have a strange hybrid of despotic power and lack of agency. On the former hand, they should have the power to destroy the lives of men and adults (but still particularly men) with a simple accusation, to "err on the side of caution" (but actually, to ensure the likelihood that men are punished or hurt for daring to have a relationship with them that the consensus does not approve of). On the latter hand, their sexual choices and even various other life choices should be firmly controlled by various state and social agencies to make sure they are only making decisions that a consensus body approves of; this is to discourage them from saying "yes" when the consensus insists they say "no" to something.
6. The status quo and its modern institutions are to be preserved at all costs, with its various power imbalances either preserved (against children within the nuclear family unit) or inverted (in terms of granting a degree of control to women rather than seeking an egalitarian framework).
7. Rights are to be defined as a lack of choices, rather than freedom to make certain decisions.
8. Information and societal narratives are to be controlled and carefully disseminated by consensus agencies that are in charge of the media. Those who violate the spoken line are to receive harsh punitive measures ranging from being subjected to a harassing online lynch mob (everything from harsh name-calling to doxxing to death threats), fired from their jobs, having their own media platforms de-monetized or canceled, various forms of censorship, all the way to law enforcement investigation and possible imprisonment.
9. Everyone is to be profiled according to gender, race, and age, and certain assumptions about everyone based solely upon the above are to be made and adhered to against all evidence. What you are always defines your place within the promoted hierarchy, never what you do or how you conduct yourself while doing it.
10. They are guided by emotions, not by reason, logical deduction, or observation of readily available evidence.
