Hate to say Ixtili, but fixated1 is right. It's a bad faith argument that feminism is bad because of some bad actors, or people you consider to be bad. The goal of feminism, by and far, is human rights. It started as equal rights for women, but it's expanded considerably to intersectionality, transgender issues, race, class, what have you. Petty squabbles online about "feminists" and "SJWs" are just distractions, certainly not helped by strawman troll blogs that muddy up the waters even further. And there are plenty of younger generation activists online taking it to the streets, to protests. Risking their necks for issues like, idk, more recently, right to abortion. Internet can sometimes be the best (or only) way to organize.
What's more, some of the phenomenon of criticizing "sexualized" female figures (Escher Girls, redesigned fantasy armour, etc.) that gained traction on Tumblr has its basis on sex negative radical feminism. Radfems have made it clear they've infiltrated these spaces as a psyop,
here's a Tumblr post detailing crypto-TERF behaviour. Also, while people may get a big head of "improving" the horny drawings, it's inconsequential. Annoying, sure, but it's moreso something I just ignore. Cheesecakey, sexy depictions of women are fine. As are less sexualized depictions of women. Both of these can coexist. When people with different tastes in fiction don't write each other off and treat one another with respect, well, it would be great, but we don't live in a perfect world. Social media is built in a way where drama thrives. Interactions that are resolved amicably aren't exciting, drama is. Anonymity is only one factor in this, Facebook has people using their own names and has them acting like total fucksticks regardless. Twitter and what its algorithms prioritize is a huge reason why petty "discourse" gets more attention than someone's art piece they poured hours into.
On feminism again, there are self-identified feminists whose values are diametrically opposed to my own, and it's not really my place to judge who is a "true" feminist since the "no true scotsman" argument isn't helpful when there's self-proclaimed feminists who argue that sex work is always coerced and all porn exploits women (certainly, the porn industry at large has its issues, but independent amateur porn producers aren't and shouldn't be the problem), that transgender people are either gender traitors or sexual predators or both; and then there's also self-proclaimed feminists who are sex positive, want to decriminalize sex work and see transgender people as people and not monsters. So when you got a younger generation growing up in an environment where you're fed conflicting information (especially in this era of heavy disinformation campaigns and legitimate sources of information being paywalled), it's not easy to tell what is true and what isn't. In any case, you're not obligated to identify with a label you feel no connection to. I know I've shed most labels I used to refer to myself. People may apply them to me, with or without my consent, but otherwise, I'm just me. I'm not interested in online conflicts. (yes, I realize this makes my post very ironic.)
All in all, what I'm really concerned about, again, is how people in power are turning the internet into a sexless, boring space for the lowest common denominator, hostile to people, friendly only to advertisers, and we (i.e. our personal data) is the product being sold. Differences in opinion over drawings feel so quaint in comparison. Web 1.0 is never coming back, but I guess the return of a more decentralized internet may be necessary. Maybe I should make a Neocities site for my vore stuff. Who knows.