I may now have a somewhat better understanding of the origins of the term “Feminazi” (regardless of the extent to which the word “genuine” reasonably describes the presently described case). Without wanting to debate the appropriateness of eugenics as an appropriate approach (or not) to achieving desirable objectives with regard to an overall reduction in unwanted attentions, particularly including those sexual in nature, the following interrogation-oriented logic can be cited:
If you fail to submit completely to any founded and/or unfounded interrogation, then any suffering occurring as a result is the fault of your own obstinance, because any suffering such as may occur could have been evaded by simply answering any/all questions about any/all subjects to start with.
For example, if any women accuses any man of any impropriety whatsoever, a failure to submit to a thorough interrogation regarding any/all potential previous improprieties is evidence that any suffering during interrogation is the fault of the unwilling interrogee.
Presumably, the number of maybe-Stalins who would have much use for those who can be persuaded to deploy such rationale in the process of effectively seeking means of extortion, or otherwise coercion or power over (especially psychological), is not low these days.
It can also be noted that unwanted sexual attention as a means to achieve a reduction in unwanted sexual attention seems particularly oxymoronic, which would tend to suggest that stated and actual objectives are likely to be highly divergent. However, it is possible that some such “Feminazi” could be motivated by third parties with more generic psychological dominance, control, coercion, extortion and/or blackmail-oriented objectives, which could help to explain the patently illogical aspect of unwanted attention (e.g., toward third parties unrelated to any previous experience of a perpetrator) as a means to reduce unwanted attention.