It has been said that feminism is ultimately about female empowerment, not gender equality. The subtle difference being that feminists aren't trying to stand on equal ground with men, but taking as much as power as they can to boost their public influence. Regardless, I think there's a much more central point to be made about feminism: it thrives on empowerment, not self-empowerment. Follow me to understand why this is such a big deal.
One of the most important political revolutions going on right now in America is the Tea Party Movement. While currently directionless, the Tea Party people spell out the danger behind government entitlement programs: they increase bureaucracy, unaccountability, spending, corruption and welfare-ism. With that in mind we need to look at which entitlement philosophies are destroying, not just America, but the whole of Western society. Feminism is one of them.
The underlying doctrine of feminism is the idea that women are suppressed by a patriarchy. For women to escape this suppression, feminists argue, the government needs to enact affirmative action-oriented policies to even out the gender competition in business, school, agencies and homes. Europe is already busy doing all of this. In Sweden the Leftist-Green coalition is suggesting even private businesses should be subject to gender-based affirmative action. Since Europe, and Scandinavia in particular, prides itself with a huge public sector, every aspect of the life of its citizens can be gender-regulated through taxatation policies. America is not far behind.
We already know feminism is born out of anarchic feminist theory, but few people recognize the danger in letting feminism become a populist phenomenon in Western society. Feminism will inevitably lead to socialism, because it's deeply rooted in an entitlement-based philosophy. Feminism assumes women as individuals are incapable of rising up against its oppressive environment to fulfill themselves. Instead it wants the government to do it for them. Just like racial-based affirmative action oddly assumes racial minorities are too incompetent to organize and create a better future for themselves, gender-based affirmative action paves way for never-ending welfare programs, specially designed for women.
In Scandinavia we are already seeing hilarious examples of what this can do. Physical requirements for fire fighting education are lowered for women. Who cares if you're strong enough to lift a burning log, you just made the work place more equal! At Swedish universities women have entered safely into certain educational fields to adjust the gender balance statistics, even if it led to men being systematically discriminated. Swedish social service is famous for never giving the father the right in justice court over guardianship. We can see that the idea of feminism being a raw female power movement is a truism, but most clearly that it's not about a group of people advancing their own interests - the government is supposed to do it for them.
This is why feminism originally spawned out of leftism, and why right-oriented political groups now desperately try to prove they are populist feminists too. Leftists would gladly support the feminist mission, because it means more entitlement programs in every sector of society-it'll keep bureaucrats busy for centuries. Rightists try to jump on the bandwagon now, because when feminism hits it home in America like it's already doing in Northern Europe, it's going to generate large portions of important voters, just like mass immigration is already doing. Wait five or ten years and every serious political candidate will have to decide whether to cut or increase entitlements for "suppressed" women in every imaginable work field. The cutters won't be popular.
The danger of more socialist programs is the problem of getting rid of them. Once they're in place, they tend to set political standards. Feminists won't be satisfied with ever-growing entitlement programs for women. We know this from experience in Sweden. They will observe how useless these programs are in terms of effects, and scream for more power, which means more spending. These entitlement programs will not only, ironically, serve to pacify and domesticate women to the point where they expect an agency to do all the work for them. They will also help to ruin our governments with increasing debt and increase friction in our cultures. People don't trust each other when large portions of them thrive on free hand outs. Men will grow grumpier, and women will feel threatened, calling for more feminism. The circle will be closed. We need to break it before that happens.