Hey, Eeyore. I didn't get to respond to this point of yours below, and I forgot which post it was in, but I remember what I basically wanted to respond to: your points on the feminist's intended destruction of Western civilization and its traditions. A few things:

1. It's my observation that the extremist Left doesn't so much want to destroy the status quo but to re-purpose it in their own image. They want traditional power structures intact, but with different demographics in charge and different scapegoats to oppress despite a general oppression of anyone who didn't have at least a six figure income. Otherwise, it would be more or less business as usual. It's true that some on the "woke" Left support social democratic programs, but they want them openly geared towards certain demographics as "reparative justice" for past injustice, thus somewhat changing the face of the labor class members who enjoy low tier nominal privileges. This still would not elevate the majority of them into the top tiers of the power structure. No black or woman banker under that "new" regime would want the majority of blacks and women to have even a fraction of what they had. They simply want more black and female faces in the top position and among its main group of upper level executive management class that were both no larger than the current versions. Also, the majority of right-wing fundamentalist Christians replaced by fundamentalist Muslims and a much larger group of fundamentalist atheists to uphold the secular manifestations of political dogma.

2. I think both Western civilization and the concept of tradition are both mixed bags. Both have provided benefits for everyone that I think should be maintained--albeit some in more democratic forms than currently exist, perhaps--while other aspects need to go, IMO. There are some traditions that do not work for everyone and are maintained to needlessly preserve power for some at the expense of others, and some aspects of Western civilization that most definitely need to evolve beyond their current forms into something that works for everyone. For example, I do not agree we should feel obliged to preserve the current vaunted nuclear family unit as the ideal version of the family that is expected to exist for eternity. I think we need to see how that plays out once we achieve a better society that does work for everyone (in whatever form everyone here may argue it should take) and see if the nuclear family stands the test of time; or if it eventually gets replaced by a new and arguably better family form which we may not quite be able to conceive of today; or if it ultimately turns out that there is no single "normative" family form in such a society but a variety of choices depending on the individual.