@Dachshund (re: post:viewtopic.php?p=431354#p431354
I think your own beliefs here are actually part of the problem. You are falsely associating left-wing politics as the causal motivator. The 'left' in most of the Western world is Collective Conservativists. That is, they are preferentially right-wingers who steal the 'democratic' side of the political spectrum because they are relatively disempowered to BE the dominant force. But when or where they get such power, they BECOME the new 'right'.
The original "democratic" ideal is based upon individuals
. The money that supports their interests though lie with GROUPS. As such, those on the left who may argue with 'Marxist' claims of beliefs are more likely not well educated in the meanings. The Marxist idea, for instance, would NOT be to segregately interpret women from men outside of their literal sexual differences.
Today's extremes are due to the isolation of 'smart' tech and the power of increased world membership of all those who share similar thinking. As such, the sex and race issues are interpreted by each person's own preferences with apparently popularity believed to be shared by the most, regardless of the actual popularity shared by individuals. The trend to favor charges against the extremes that are traditionally of the 'right' are actually in sync with those extremes on the 'left' via popular GROUP affiliations with STRONG EMOTIVE factors, like your own clear disgust of the set of figures you list on the left in ignorance of those on the right who are contributing more. It is the added feature of genetic associations that are interrupting normal political associations people normally prefer but are FORCED out by exclusionary tactics by those like yourself as well as the extremes on the left. The only differences are about WHICH extremes should be preferred.
Today's 'feminism' is in sync with the same issues of 'race' now. The problems begin when someone demands forms of LAWS that reconciliate in ways that treat the fault of one classification of an issue with another. For example, a feminist today might look at the issue of the class, "poverty" by measuring the different statistics of men to women who are poor and then assign the CAUSE of the set of all women as suffering by all men rather than to deal with the actual particular problems that actually associate to those impoverished. So, using a statistic that might show more men as being official billionaires, they might be inappropriately used to 'prove' bias against women when the actual justification for the differences hides how the same 'culture' by BOTH men and women collectively contributed to the cause. For instance, do we consider the wives of these billionaire males as not relevant to the statistic simply because they might CHOOSE to stay at home in the background of their relationship? That is, both men and women contribute to the justification of men to be more likely Billionaires because they favor the qualities in men's "dominance" by their choice in being with them rather than with males who are relatively "submissive".
All the political turmoil today is directly part of this. The class of women, are more empowered to appeal in the very same ways as the traditional arrogant males who still believe that women should not have a right to abort: ....a religious, non-rational belief. They are using the tactics of the right, not the left, to fight now because they believe their hands are tied. If they don't act as crazy as the right-winger, then they will just end up being defeated. The only problem though, is that the normal individuals who didn't associate with the classifications are being forced into the definitions of the extremists. So a women who might normally be 'right-of-center' will feel obliged to join in with the women of the left because those women there are at least not going to the extremes of the right who prefer to see all women being subserviant to the male in the traditional "Patriarchal" ideals.
To me, the way you talk appears to indicate that you are against abortion, for instance, a very extreme right-wing religious ideology common to most extreme religions. How does being for legal abortion, for instance, relate to merely 'feminism' or 'left-wing' ideologies? It doesn't. I think abortion is fine. I disagree though that the men who got them pregnant should be dismissed outright because it super-empowers women when they also have another counter-belief they hold: a right to charge the male's who impregnated them to support the child should they alone CHOOSE to keep their baby. See? I'm not for either you NOR the extreme feminist who might believe they should have the only power to decide. Yet, your own view AND the extreme of the feminists demanding their own power are just competing extremes who differ only on WHO should be empowered uniquely. For you, I'm guessing by your own rhetoric, all women should not be permitted to abort.
I don't like ANY laws that favor 'culturally' defined classifications that are not logically relevant to the issue. Today's changes are religious and should not be a function of government lawmaking. I believe in EQUALITY, but not by imposing laws that define whole classes based upon cultural ideas as intrinsically related to economic ones. Your own imposition of asserting "Marxism" as related is faulty logic, even where many feminists would also embrace it. The logic of 'communism', for instance, is about equality among individual people, not classes based upon one's ethnicity. That this has and does also get falsely used historically by 'communist' countries, is only coincidental to the fact that their societies still HAVE religious believers who identify with their own 'cults' regardless. In other words, it wasn't the Marxist ideology, itself, anymore than the 'capitalist' of the West who is at fault by their definitions but to how the different styles of politics will always be most utilized in force by those affiliated strongly in certain extremes.