I think it's pretty accurate if you take it as talking about a subset of feminism.
Same as a subset of Christianity, and a very vocal, institutional, and noticable one, was the one oppressing people in the past.
"The establishment is christian" would be as accurate as "The establishment is feminist."
As would be "Christianity oppresses people." and "Feminism oppresses people." But not all of Christianity, and not all of feminism.
This is pretty much why there has been an upswing in atheist anti-feminists in my opinion. They noticed similar argument patterns, similar evidence patterns, from some vocal and influential types of feminist, as they see creationists and such use, as well as the attempts by those types to foster an atmosphere of intimidation and oppression of men. (And in some cases, trans folks.)
I think other feminists have the unenviable position of being pro-evolution pro-LGBT Christians.
Which is one reason, by the way, I think that this type of tone policing is self-defeating. Imagine if those christians kept getting flustered and shutting down conversations when people said christianity is a problem for gays and science class rooms. Their protests of "We're not all like that." would have quickly become dubious. The way they managed to maintain credibility was saying "NACALT but I agree gay rights is a good idea and evolution happens", and by broadly siding with those opposed to the other type of christian as allies instead of demanding those people side with THEM as allies.
That's a bit of a critique of the mentality i've noticed from some non-sexist feminists on this. I've also, as it happens, seen some agree with that assessment and start identifying as MRA/Feminist and such, or mra-supportive.