Feminism's Funding Crisis: Debate on Public Subsidies

Feminism and Its Expiration Date

Current feminism will not fall due to social reaction, but because of a lack of funding. This is the thesis running through an economic analysis that has been open for three years in a subforum and which is resurfacing now with a concrete forecast: at most, one generation remains. The argument is not sarracena, but accounting-based. The movement, its defenders argue, is not an end in itself but a means of social engineering that disappears when the source paying for it dries up. And that source, in Spain, is public money.

The historical comparison underpinning the analysis is explicit: the Jacobins of 1789 and the Bolsheviks of 1917 were also not ends, but instruments of dissolution. They destroyed themselves through their own excesses, and then a new order arrived to put things right. Revolutions, they say, always devour their children. Feminism, in this reading, is the penultimate on the list.

Public Money as the Only Source of Life

The most repeated consensus in the analysis is that feminism is sustained by public budgets. One formulation summarizes the idea: the movement's life expectancy lasts as long as public money does. Another specifies it further: it will end when funding stops, that is, when the printing press halts. The practical conclusion is that there is no need to convince anyone; it is enough to stop paying.

From this arises a second derivative, more uncomfortable. If the movement lives off subsidies, its survival depends not on whether new generations embrace it, but on whether the administrative structure supporting it holds. And that structure, they point out, has its own incentives: it maintains a network of organizations, consultancies, and programs that do not extinguish on their own.

Why Compare Feminism to Jacobins and Bolsheviks?

Because the central thesis is that social engineering projects are transient and self-destructive. The premise is that these movements do not seek to perpetuate themselves, but to serve as elements of dissolution of a society, and that once that function is fulfilled, they unravel among themselves due to their excesses. Afterwards, a new order begins another cycle. The most serious objection to this thesis appears quickly: Bolshevism was not a transitory means, it was an end in itself. If that is true, the analogy breaks down and the one-generation forecast loses its basis.

The Variant That Changes Everything: Transhumanism and Sarracin

The analysis introduces two factors that would alter the cycle. The first is transhumanism, which would not represent a change of cycle but the end of history, with its corresponding apocalyptic weight. The second is demographic: the Sarracinization of Southern Europe and the return to identitarianism in the North. In none of these variables, it is argued, does feminism have a place, as it can only grow in decaying societies that still retain some solidity from the past. The forecast is blunt: game over.

Some go further and argue that the next generation will be more restrictive towards women than Sarracin itself. Others counter that the percentage of young people radicalizing in that direction is not enough to perpetuate itself, just as hippies left no successors.

Will Feminism Survive as a Sect or Disappear Entirely?

Here lies the sustancia ilegal in the forecast. Part of the analysis does not believe in disappearance, but in degradation: it will survive as a destructive sect, without the same social support, but it will remain. For it to die, it would be necessary to show society what it really is, for new generations to set it aside, and years of re-education with political will. That, they admit, is difficult to achieve.

The skeptical response is that society does not have two generations of margin. There are more pressing problems, real problems, that will explode much earlier than all this social engineering. The most aggressive forecast places the curtain call in 2030. Another denies it outright: the end of feminism will not be seen even by grandchildren.

The Entry Point: Other People's Children

The transmission mechanism that causes the most discomfort is the school system. Criticism focuses on the fact that new generations receive the framework at school, not at home, and that parents do not always choose the center. The response from the other side is that children hear things at school that go in one ear and out the other. The middle ground: family weighs more than the classroom, but the classroom is not neutral.

The Host and the Parasite

The most repeated metaphor is biological. Feminism kills the host, that is, the society that houses it. And therefore, it is argued, it needs to import young people from outside so as not to die of old age. The counter-figure is that the movement has changed parasites: previously it parasitized men, now it parasitizes the nanny state, believing that it will thus be freer, without suspecting that the State only wants it to exploit it and discard it afterwards.

---

The forecast with reservations is this: if feminism lives off public budgets, its horizon is measured in budgets, not in generations. And there, no one dares to put a date. Some speak of one generation, others of ten years, others say that not even grandchildren will see it. The only coincidence is that the clock is not stopped by social reaction, but by an accounting entry.