Deconstructing postmodernist feminism through a classical Marxist analysis

I am a technologist by profession, so posting something like this may seem like effrontery to those with a humanities training. However, given the low intellectual content of postmodernist thought and its hostility to a logical analysis of its precepts, perhaps it is time for the rest of us to try to save humanities from itself.

Let us take postmodernist feminism. I am not referring to women's suffragist movement of the nineteenth century, or women's increasing involvement in the workplace and grad schools in the 60s and 70s, or even the abortion debate as such, though opinions are strongly split on that last one on the role of the father.

I am talking about the mishappen postmodernist cult that treats women as an oppressed class, talks about imaginary Patriarchy, employs visible female supremacist imagery in its public messaging while claiming to be about equality, normalizes destructive sexual practices and identities such as accepting female cheating and abuse, outright cuckolding, AFBB strategy, criminalizes paternity tests, supports recreational divorce and divorce rape, glosses over female divorce initiation rates and female inflicted domestic abuse, and hypergamy. All the while yielding to the postmodernist hierarchy of oppressed classes such as Islamists (ignoring the plight of Muslim women, and the actions of Muslim men thoughtlessly imported wholesale into countries like Germany and Sweden are examples).

Now, to the point of this post. Consider the following facts:

1. Knowledge and technological accomplishments are the bedrock of the modern economy in several Western and Eastern societies. Ranging from creative professions such as scientific and engineering research in academia and industry, to high tech manufacturing, coding etc. The people who work in this domain, once you take out explicit hiring preferences in academia (outside of some domains such as biology and to a lesser extent, chemistry, that have always attracted females), are predominantly male. Racially, they are usually Asians and Whites/Jewish, but even among other ethnic groups, they tend to be male. The reason is that these professions tend to require creative thinking and hard work that is several standard deviations above the mean, a region that is populated by men to the tune of 90-99/100 in terms of ability (just like the other extreme of dunces is). Moreover, such professions tend to be socially isolating, which further filters out women. This is a group that is composed of extremely hard working, socially isolated males of various degrees of creative ability. For want of a better term, let us call them Hard Working Nerds (HWNs).

2. Levels of compensation in the HWN group vary wildly by profession type, but they all tend to share low individual political participation (comes from an innate Socratic contempt of the political process by the more gifted and harder working). Owing to social and political disengagement, the amount of social and normative power exerted by this group is very low.

3. There is another class of males who aren't HWNs, but are engaged in the civilizationally necessary trades such as maintenance of complex systems, tradesmen, etc. These are your Mike Rowe Workmen (MRWs). They are socially more engaged and politically more active than HWNs, and are the traditional target of exploitation by feminists.

4. Postmodernist feminists are naturally hostile to HWNs, and openly contemptuous of MRWs. Reason is that individual ability and self reliance represented by both those classes is an existential threat to the architecture of class based resentment and social weaponization of mediocrity demanding parity with ability (the classic equal outcomes vs equal opportunity debate). Leveraging their near gangster status in academia (weapons of choice: safe space, "hate speech" laws), social shaming through aggregation of self styled "oppressed classes", and influence over laws, they seek to make both HWNs and MRWs subservient to them, while controlling the means of economic production. Just like capitalists reviled under classical Marxism, they have no right to controlling any of this except the self arrogated right by birth - less disposable as females.

Isn't it rather natural to see HWNs and MRWs as the modern proletariat and the postmodernist feminists as the modern bourgeoisie if one takes into account the nature of work in the modern economy and the near total control over government and means of production by the postmodernists?

MRWs understand postmodernists at a gut level and are naturally hostile to them, while HWNs spend a lot of time as BP tools who sometimes wake up from their slumber (RP). We HWNs and MRWs are nothing but cannon fodder to postmodernist feminists, just the way proletariat were to the ruling bourgeoisie classes. You see this in divorce courts, gynocentric laws, etc. Just like classic bourgeoisie, postmodernist feminism has cynically used parts of traditionalism to cement its power. Religion or Tradcon ideas about protecting females from the harsh natural world have been perverted into the feminist working definition of zero female responsibility. This gynocentrism is the new opiate of the masses.

Aside: What happened in the 2016 election was that a lot of HWNs and MRWs (aka traditional Democrats) woke up to the postmodernist power grab represented by the two party system, and chose a complete outsider. This is the stuff that feminist nightmares are made of.