Ideological feminism, as I was exposed to it in the Ivy League during the 1970s and 80s, was premised on the principle that there should be no presumptive social division of labor between the sexes. Everybody was to have every legitimate opportunity for self-definition and self-fulfillment open to them. E.g., if a woman wanted to be a corporate lawyer, or a man a househusband, that was fine and should be facilitated; and women were not to dress and carry on in such a way as to encourage men to treat them as "sex objects." A lot indeed has changed. To a much greater extent than was thought possible forty years ago, equality of opportunity has been achieved, leading to some corresponding change in results and status. But that has not quite added up to either equality of result or equality of social treatment; the "glass ceiling" is still intact in many sectors, even as many young women now seem to think think themselves empowered by dressing and carrying on like "ho's." People of both sexes seem to recoil instinctively from the prospect of equality of result and status—which is why the once-vaunted Equal Rights Amendment is dead and buried.
That in turn, I suspect, is because people know that equality of result and social treatment, as distinct from moral equality, is almost impossible to achieve and probably wouldn't work if it were. The Neanderthals had little or no social division of labor between the sexes. Remember what happened to them?