Everything @Shivoa brought up is on point and anyone reading this thread who is in a situation similar to the OP should definitely take their advice. To address @Metalsnakezero’s origianl question though:
has me wondering why?
Let me give you a mild, personal example from my experience of taking a feminism course this past semester. The course was structured around building an understanding of feminism through an intersectional and global lens. As such, one of the first and most foundational readings we were given was Marilyn Frye’s Oppression. In this essay she details her metaphor of the bird cage, in which oppression can be best understood not simply by its minute, individual manifestations, but by the gestalt quantification and formation of these individual manifestations.
Now, this is an essay I absolutely love and would recommend to anyone today, but when I first read it I struggled with aligning to what Frye was saying. Not because of the birdcage metaphor itself, but because of how Frye was defining oppression. First, she stated that men cannot experience oppression compared to women, and then went on to describe men holding a door open for women as a manifestation of the oppression unique to women. For context: I’m a queer, white, male feminist, and I was definitely having some “Yeah, but…” moments when I initially read all this. It wasn’t until the next class where we discussed the essay and had to summarize Frye’s thesis that I realized just how “typical” I was being. While I may currently retain some (much more minor) disagreements with Frye here, I realized that I wasn’t allowing myself to adopt her point of view – I was trying to force Frye’s writing through my own.
This habit of bias is something everyone experiences, and it can be so hard to break it – especially if one isn’t actively aware of it. For me it took a lot of self-reflection and processing, but I was eventually able to see the flaws in my understanding. I had to learn how to “sit down; be humble.”
That said, it took a lot of mental work for me to drop my own ego and worldview, and allow myself to truly understand what Frye was saying from her perspective. With feminist criticism as a whole, that’s going to be the case for just about anyone who doesn’t already align with the ideology being professed. And even then, there will still be intra-ideological differences/conflicts that can be perceived as hatred/animosity to outside observers. When hegemonically masculine/masculine-adjacent ideologies are so embedded in an opposition to feminist intervention, any perceived “attack” on the things that non-feminists/“egalitarians” love will inevitably be seen as an attack on them as people. Therefore, out of animosity and self-preservation they fan the flames of inter-ideological conflict, and gang up on attacking a skewed understanding of what they perceive as “feminism” (or to use recent parlance, “Cultural Marxism”).
It’s a complicated thing. After listening to Waypoint discuss Rob’s interview with the Last Night dev, I’m somewhat curious to see what that game actually becomes. But if his game retains its weak understanding of what the creator views as unfettered feminism, then I think it’ll be safe to say that he still hasn’t learned to eschew his own biases and empathize with different worldviews.