It's only a problem if you decide that her feedback about your property is important to you.
I don't know, you can still take their input and consider it important, but just ignore it because it goes against what you want to do with your things. I think it's a bit heavy handed to say it shouldn't be important. I'd still ask my wife out of courtesy and to get her perspective if I was going to do something drastic, she might have some useful insight. If she flat out said no or didn't have any useful input such as, "why just one? Two horns would be louder.", I'd likely take her protest into consideration, but would do what I wanted anyway.
I'm also married (only the one time over 8 years to a women I've known for a total of 15). The dynamics of anyone's relationship is really their own business and if it's working for them no one should judge.
We keep our finances separate and divided the bills up more or less evenly so whatever is left over is our individual spending money. I bought myself a car, outside of the regular bills, almost 10 years ago and I let her use it. She's only complained to me once because she wanted to take it to her parents place for the weekend, which would have left me stranded on a weekend where I had a ton of things to do. She told me I could take the metro bus around town, which I wasn't particularly happy with, and a little angry she even made the suggestion. It would have required two days to do an afternoon's running around. Not to mention the difficulty of transporting things, including lumber, or having to run out on the spot if I was missing something. There was some discussion about it that got heated and nearly ended with her losing all driving privileges. We "compromised" and she got a two-way bus ticket so she could go to her parents and I'd have the car. The compromise was I'd let her keep using the car if I didn't need it.
Every now and then I remind her the car is getting up in age and we'll have to get another one. I've been saving knowing it's coming and don't need her help to pay for it, but I give her the option so she'd have more of a say in how it's used. She's happy enough with the arrangement and knows unless she pitches in for it there's no expectation she'll just get to take off with it whenever she likes. I know it sounds like a harsh arrangement or that I don't respect my wife, but that's not the case. We get along great, real couples know marriage is a team effort, but that doesn't mean you have to let your spouse call all the plays all the time and you shouldn't just let them walk all over you. She gets to win her share of the battles too.
most women I've been with would rather take your shitty stuff for free than have to buy their own.
This part I agree with, but it's not exclusive to women. Friends do it too, mine (including my father) are quite happy to come over and drink my shitty beer without even offering to pay for another kit or bring any with them. But I'm compensated with the company and entertainment, which is really the same thing with marriage, except there's sex too.
Except that, the whole point of it is that there isn't a conspiracy at all
Which is exactly what a conspiracy theorists would say.
What she is saying is that simply noticing and pointing stuff out isn't helpful and is actually just annoying. You have to transcend that and see it as a bunch of systems all interacting. So it's less about individuals or individual examples, and more about the systems that produce them.
That's why she does videos that cover the history of video games and how tropes came to exist, and how game mechanics evolved to perpetuate them. In fact her whole point, and the reason why many game developers love her, is that often it's just these cultural tropes that are the problem and you can make your game better by avoiding them. It's not that some evil misogynist sat in front of his computer, rubbing his hands in glee as he designed another Ms. Male Character trope to keep the women down, it's just that they are a thing, part of a system.
Some people refer this this type of claim as "conspiracy theory"
In fact her whole point, and the reason why many game developers love her
"love" is an interesting word to used instead of "fear". Devs that do speak out against here are often attacked, smeared, shamed and blacklisted.
I know far more game devs that despise or ignore her, or won't comment her for fear of being attacked, than those that "love" her. Also "some devs", would have been accurate, "many" is intentionally misleading. You can't even get "many' slashdotters to agree with you, but you can speak for game devs now?
Unfortunately many contemporary discourses in and around feminism tend to emphasize a form of hyper individualism which is informed by the neoliberal worldview. More and more, I hear variations on this idea that anything that any woman personally chooses to do is a feminist act, this attitude is often referred to as ‘choice feminism’. Choice feminism posits that each individual woman determines what is empowering for herself, which might sound good on the surface but this concept risks obscuring the bigger picture and larger, fundamental goals of the movement by focusing on individual women with a very narrow, individual notion of empowerment. It erases the reality that some choices that women make have an enormous negative impact on other women’s lives.
So basically, women shouldn't make choices for their own benefit, they should make choices that only "benefit" women as a collective. Benefit here being entirely dependent who is making that decision, which in this case is "feminist" or Anita specifically. So tell me. What's the purpose of "equality" if you're "equality" is entirely dependent on making choices someone else decides you can make based on what's good for them? She basically wants women to cast of the chains of "patriarchy" and voluntarily lock themselves up with the chains of "feminism"
And I'm not putting "feminist" and "feminism" in quotes because I disagree with it, I'm putting it in quotes because I disagree with people who are clearly using a well intended ideology for their own personal gain.
God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean. -- Albert Einstein