[vorpalhex]

HN is generally liberal, with some conservative and libertarian elements. You're confusing liberal with accepting a particular set of theories (critical theory, post-structuralist/post-modernist value structures) that primarily belong to subgroups, one I'll term as "ultra progressive".

ultra progressives tend to believe the Government is the only force who can safeguard workers. Many other forms of liberal believe that while the Government has a role to play in setting boundaries for capitalism and engaging in non-capitalist activity (welfare, public education, etc) that it does not always act in the interest of the people.

This is likely part of what you see as "HN being conservative on gender equality" (paraphrasing). Most HNers seem to hold belief in equality of opportunity (classical liberal) vs equality of outcome (ultra progressive). In other words, the debate can be seen as whether it's necessary to have 50% of a given field be women and 50% be men, or simply for there to be an absence of a gender based discrimination. (And ultra progressives would likely respond that anything can be gender based discrimination, whereas a classic liberal would be looking for intent)

(Leaving my attempts at a neutral point of view and going into my own beliefs) One of the flaws in ultra progressiveism is that it's reductionist (a person is defined as a mix of attributes such as political affiliation, gender or lack thereof, social class, etc) which encourages an "us vs them" mentality. The issue ultra progressives face is that "us" is becoming an ever shrinking circle which now excludes most of their other liberal allies.

[anoncake]

> ultra progressives tend to believe the Government is the only force who can safeguard workers.

My impression is that workers are pretty much the only disadvantaged group that ultra progressives do not care about. Apart from that, you're on point.