The problem with C+= and feminism

Please note the following things before i get started:
0. English isn't my native language.
1. I do not want to poke fun at any gender or group.
2. tl;dr: Read it, it's important.

Short recap for those who don't know what C+= is

Arielle Schlesinger published an article stating that she is researching
how a programming language built on feminist logic could look like. [0]

4chan then decided to make fun of this idea by doing a parody, namely
C+=. [1]

This caused a shitstorm leading to the parody beeing banned from GitHub,
Bitbucket and Google Code [2,3,4], because people complained that is was
offensive towards women.

Curious on what feminist logic would look like I decided to have a
conversation with feminists about this topic, which I did.
I learned about the keywords "feminist critique of logic" and decided to
research that topic.
I found an article explaining that idea which i will try to quickly
summarize and quote from now. [5]

>Andrea Nye, Professor of Philosophy University of Wisconsin-Whitewater,
>attempts to undermine "logic" as a patriarchal contraption of
>oppression, concluding that "Logic in its final perfection is insane."

Nye then goes of on a rambling on how logic is a tool of supression and
how she struggled in a logic course in university.

>When confronted with the example, "Jones ate fish with ice cream and
>died", Nye, who had come to philosophy from literature, finds her mind
>wandering off into speculation about why Jones ate such a bizarre dish
>and why death was the consequence.

>She argues that given its historical development from the time of the
>Greeks, logic as we know it today, is not only alienated from women but
>also has been and continues to be a weapon of oppression.

Further down she claims that National Socialism was just a master-logic
Hitler worked out (!). I'm not even kidding.

>Nye's feminist reading of the history of logic ends with these words:
>"Logic in its final perfection is insane."

And this is where I had to stop reading. Because I couldn't decide if
this was just satire too. But since she wrote a whole book on it, I will
have to take it serious for now.

I do not want to forbid her to think about this and have these theories.
But I guess most people will have given up trying to follow her train of
thought when she Godwin's law's and blames World War II on logic.

I will now jump to a different story where I talked with a feminist
software engineer on freenode yesterday. I promised her not to publish
the conversation and she's is not online at the point of this writing so
I can't ask her if I publish the log anonymized. I will this summarize
it from mind and hope i got everything right she said.
I asked her what she thinks about the C+= project. She responded that
she thinks the article by Ari Schlesinger is and art project or lunacy.
And 4chan is mocking it because many people are in CompSci and know
that. She also told me that she thinks the problem isn't the parody,
but people not knowing if it's satire or not. And that people need
better education on what Feminism actually is so they can realize this
is satire.

I will now quote a short anonymized conversation snipped from public IRC

> <a> If the people in comp sci had to code what they come up with,
>     they'd have much more modest dreams.
> <b> Maybe. But would that be better?
> <a> More practical.
> [...]
> <a> I think a subtext as to why they're mocking is that
>     "women aren't practical"

And this is the point where I think it gets really interesting. Because
from reading the parody I don't think that is what the parody was trying
to say. It was just poking fun at the idea of a feminist programming
language.
This is also where exact terminology gets really important.
Because: Feminist != Women.

I will now openly and completely disagree with the ideas by Andrea Nye.
_I_ think everything she's written there is complete bullshit. That's
my personal opinion and I'm allowed to have it.
I'm also allowed to parody or satirize it, and I hope most of you still
agree with me here.
In fact making a parody of it is pretty much the only way to critisize
it. Because how do you argue with someone who detest's logic?

Unfortunately there's a sterotype that women are all touchy and feely
and suck at logic. I obviously don't think that's true.
But that is exactly what Andrea Nye is reeinforcing with her philisophic
research about how patriarchic logic is. Read the full article under [5]
it's exactly the sterotype that she is reinforcing under the flag of
feminism.

But this raises a huge problem. She created a construct of _logic_ that
allows her to discard any argument she doesn't like and at the same time
whenever someones tries to poke fun at her idea she can just claim
sexism.

It's a construct that you can not critisize. Because the other side can
always claim sexism. Again, please note, I want to critisize Andrea
Nye's _work_. Not her or women in general.
I'm actually fairly certain most women disagree with Andrea Nye too. I
don't know but I will assume that for now.
I hope most feminists do so too. I'm not an expert on feminism, and I
don't claim to be one. We all want gender equality (or comparability as
I was thought yesterday). But presenting borderline insane theories and
disallowing any criticism on them doesn't help here. It hurts.

My personal hope is that most of the feminists disagree with Nye's work
because otherwise I cannot take Feminism seriously anymore.
And again: Feminism != Gender equality.

I hope that this is just a very minor, very vocal subgroup within
feminism that has a bit extremistic views.
But please, don't help them shutting things down on the internet that
criticize extremistic views, because that group has managed that any
critisicm can be labeled as sexism.
It's hurts your cause and doesn't help it.

If by any chance you do share what I regard as extremestic views. That's
okay too. You're allowed to have that opinion. But when other feminists
tell me that the problem is that people have a false idea of feminism,
maybe don't publish these ideas under the flag of feminism.
Publish them as an idea of yours or find a new label.
There is no formal definition of feminism, and everybody that claims
something stupid under it's name just hurts it.

No one takes feminism seriously if they have to associate it with
World War II beeing the fault of logic.

[0] http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesinger/2013/11/26/re-feminism-and-programming-languages
[1] https://gitorious.org/c-plus-equality/c-plus-equality/
[2] https://github.com/FeministSoftwareFoundation/C-plus-Equality
[3] https://bitbucket.org/FeministSoftwareFoundation/c-plus-equality
[4] https://code.google.com/p/c-plus-equality/
[5] http://ncfm.org/2013/12/news/uncategorized/the-feminist-critique-repudiation-of-logic/