Equality is a male idea, a male concept. As a concept, it's actually a good idea and some kinds of material equality are simply necessary to prevent a situation where you have millions of beggars and starvelings who are willing to work for a dollar an hour and who hence bring down the wages of other workers. After all, capital either wants to go to misery ("outsourcing") and/or import misery ("Refugees welcome!") in order to drive down wages, drive up rents and make strikes impossible. In that regard, equality is a bitter materialist necessity.
Sadly, most kinds of anthropological and historical optimism were proven to be wrong. Contrary to what Marx and Engels seem to suggest in the Communist Manifesto, oppressed classes have usually no chance to overcome the systemic disadvantage they have compared to the ruling classes that oppresses and exploits them. This was arguably their only major mistake: this historical and anthropological optimism. Lenin made some first corrections with introducing this idea of an "avantgarde" to bring class consciousness to a working class that, by itself, doesn't develop class consciousness.
Another mistake was this anthropological optimism in regards to women. It seems to me that one of the reasons why men made this mistake was because men are more comfortable with the idea of equality than women. Women are so obsessed with status, women despise all low-status men and see the majority of men as nonsexual beings at best, only wanting to mate with a minority of high-status men. Also, the only thing women love more than men fighting each other is the idea of men fighting each other OVER THEM. (If you want an interesting read check out Historian Martin van Creveld writing about the role of women in war, how women love the idea of war and the male warrior, etc.)
Tradcucks always say that women are socialists or something. Bullshit. Women are perfectly fine with turning society into an anarcho-libertarian area of struggle where the weak perish and the top men get all the resources and the women. Women pretend to be these SJW for virtue signaling and for hiding their true colors. Women are fascists painted in red. Like Hitler, who used the color "red" instead of the fascist colors brown and black, who took Communist songs and let new fascist lyrics write for them, who put the "socialism" even into the name of his party. Fascists painted in red. This is what women are. "Every woman adores a fascist, the boot in her face, the brute, brute heart of a brute like you." (Sylvia Plath)
I always believe that it's wrong to talk about "third-wave feminism" or "post-modern feminism", implying that previous kinds of feminism were any better. I mean, Christina Hoff Sommers most famous book poses a question: Who Stole Feminism? And the answer to that question is, NOBODY. Lesbianic sociopaths, radical man-haters, nasty whores and freaks did not "steal" feminism; they were in control of the Women's "Liberation" movement right from its very inception. This idea to "re-define" feminism for whatever purposes is bullshit. Our proper goal is to utterly oppose feminism, and to destroy it from the face of the earth as an ideology of devils. And I increasingly believe that it's not even right to talk about "feminism", but that the problem isn't so much feminism but WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
Women are opposed to equality because they want to be slaves for a minority of high-status men and shame the rest of men for daring to have sexual and romantic desires at all. There are more men who would be fine with women, say, earning more than them than women. There are more men who would be fine with a partner who is taller than them than there are women. Women are not made for equality. A society does not work where women have equal rights: they just use it to make some pre-civilized mating pattern of apes reappear among humans.