Image by Jonathan Petersson
Imagine a feminist utopia. A world where women are equal to men, and there is equal gender representation everywhere, yet nobody focuses on gender at all. A world where women and men are treated equally, but man and woman doesn’t exist. What is this? A genderless world, but a world with an equal divide of men and women? Doesn’t that sound a little… contradictory?
When questioning the end goal for intersectional feminism, many claim it is “equality” of the sexes. Others state that there is no end goal, as feminism is constantly evolving. Many hope for a gender-blind world, while paradoxically still placing too much focus on men vs. women in order to do this.
The problem? Feminists do not wish for an end goal. For all the many different variations—intersectionalists, TERFs and the like—they are all alike in the fact they do not wish for true equality of the sexes. This is why the goal posts for feminism keep changing, why for every giant leap for women, feminists buckle down and claim it is “not enough”.
How can one wish for a genderless society, for example, if all the focus is placed on how far behind men women are, despite evidence to the contrary? Even if women are completely equal to men in every way, the goalposts will keep being shifted, very specifically, and it doesn’t matter how much we cater to these feminists, it will never be enough. A truly genderless society could exist, and feminists would complain that a man-clone having an extra strand of hair than a woman-clone would be “proof” of patriarchal toxic masculinity.
Feminists continue this banal goalpost shifting by critiquing anything that fits outside of their narrow view of the world. This is done by infantilizing all women while claiming women are stronger than the men with fragile masculinity. They do this by claiming to be all for supporting women, minorities and the LGBT, but harassing any members of said groups for disagreeing with the feminist narrative.
There will never be “true equality” as feminists see it because they are constantly shifting the goalposts so far, they’re basically in the Andromeda Galaxy at this point. You can’t win.
The reason for this? Most feminists have no other discernible skills other than feminist critique. Many are only skilled in useless Gender Studies topics like Queer Theory or Feminist Discussions in Pop Culture, which have no practical purpose in the real world other than for complaining and more complaining. If “true equality” is reached, these Gender Studies professors, feminist critics and analyzers would have no purpose in the real world.
They were never taught by their mentors and cult leaders how to actually get to the root of the problem, only to scratch at the surface. This is why so many feminist “thinkers” are so obsessed with having a dialog or conversation. Through the post-modernist method of teaching, this is all they know. Anyone who’s ever done an essay half-assed would understand the concept: you just write the essay with bullshit and buzzwords, and ace it with almost perfect grades, despite never having more than a cursory knowledge of what you wrote about. This is feminism in a nutshell.
What would happen to feminists like Anita Sarkeesian, Jessica Valenti, Clementine Ford, Lindy West, Alison Bechdel, bell hooks and Gloria Steinem if feminism reached its true end goal: of the political, social and economic equality of the sexes? You might say they would become “Gender Historians”, teaching feminism in a historical context at university and online. However, this is not as profitable as the current model.
Feminism is profitable.
As long as feminism is a profitable endeavor, why wish for true gender equality? The true end goal of feminism is actually a world where feminists are free to critique everyone and everything to their heart’s content. Maybe intersectionalists should start claiming this instead of pretending to wish for a “true equality” that they clearly don’t want.