I went out with a girl for a while who was in to all the hyper-liberal feminist takes and it was incredibly frustrating. (Even though we were aligned politically on many things) People of that mindset think anything men do is an aggression and I understand the reasoning and agree with analysis of society through that lens in a technical sense... but in practice it's stifling and sometimes embarrassing when acting in earnest to have these quite innocent faults pointed out to you as if you were a beneficiary of the patriarchy and this was a subconscious attempt to oppress women - especially when socioeconomic circumstances are equal.

The reactionary in your tells you to turn in to the skid as a defense mechanism and It's easy to understand why those who're in the most disadvantaged positions do so under this pressure - when they probably wouldn't have otherwise. It comes across as commidifying hardship to create a competitive advantage, people pick up on that, and I'm certain that the people who take up these aggressive positions know they're doing that but think the ends justify the means and hope their aggression carries them through. Sometimes it does.

It's hard to discern what to do your self because evolutionary behaviors are both competative and cooporative and you can't know for certain if that person is vying for an advantage or trying to create a more equitable outcome for both of you. What has happened for certain is your attempts to understand each other and gain trust are alienated when these aggressive routes are pursued.

There should be no reason to believe trust between two people should exist spontaneously but claiming as such will have you dismissed as -insert bad word for bad person - making these aggressive plays effective at demoralising your character.

But this is overextension and needs reinforcement to become a superficial truth. So either you avoid the accusation, you avoid the reinforcement, or you launch your own counter offensive at them creating a stalemate. The latter is what conservatives do. But the question is what we socialists do.

I'm totally open to discussing the ideas liberals put forward, but it's clear that all it does is flank the class conflict and I'm compelled to just dismiss it as a distraction and not bother. Men have to deal with men, awful terrible evil men of all kinds, we have to fight them and it becomes part of our nature to have these defenses and offenses. It's an internal conflict to either have to rid our selves of these qualities to create an equality of small equity or to maintain the inequality for the hopes of a greater equity at some point.

This is just a part of the synthesis between liberals and conservatives who've evolved to occupy these spaces trying to maneuver in a way they can attack each other. . Always trying to gain ground with ridiculous social warfare never able to make a finishing move because they're intrinsically trying to counteract each other instead of focusing on the actual goal of the game.

That's why focus on class conflict should be primary. This is the same mindset of the wealthy. I'm starting to believe that retreating from these traps laid by liberals and conservatives might be the best course of action, but the human cost could be too great.

If I put it in real terms would Trans comrades accept a retreat in these issues in order to focus on class antagonism? I'd say probably not, because we're in no way organised enough to really mount an offensive, reinforcing the pockets of conflict where we are winning is likely unsustainable, but always necessary.

It would almost be convenient for socialists to allow conservatives to overextend as this would rally liberals against them, but this would all mean violence against trans people (again I'm just using this as metaphor for other political actions - not actually suggesting this).

We have the answer to these questions anyway, but this has just been my thoughts the last hour or so and I though it worth baring for your own analysis.