It seems to be more about gender, and gender roles. There's a really big question here that I find interesting as a hacker: how much of what we call gender is biologically constructed, and how much is socially constructed? Obviously, say, having a penis is a direct function of biology, but what about something like girls' supposed preference for pink? This is almost certainly a social construct, and one that only arose in the early twentieth century [0]. And yet dressing little girls in pink has certainly influenced generations of us - do you know many guys who would be comfortable using a pink wallet?
The big question becomes important when we look at an issue like girls being the minority in engineering/technology/business leadership/etc: how much of this is due to some inherent biology, and how much is due to a lack of role models or social expectation for young girls to show interest in these areas?
[0]: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2831/was-pink-origi...
Really. I'm not even talking about the self-labeled "radfems"—the ones who say that no heterosexual sex is truly consensual. Though those monsters clearly exist, too.
Hackers don't know foolish it is to give in to third-wave-feminist bullying. They have no idea what they're getting themselves into.
My remarks aren't commentary on this particular contemporary dance; I'm simply responding to the labeling of feminism an equality movement.