Somewhere on an American college campus — perhaps several — there is a flyer advertising a meeting of the Palestinian Feminist Collective, or its ideological sibling, Feminists for a Free Palestine. Eric Utter, writing for American Thinker, calls such groups about as coherent as “Gays for Gaza” — a phrase he deploys as the definitive illustration of self-defeating identity politics.
Utter’s argument is deliberately provocative and unapologetically blunt: the label “feminist” simply does not fit with advocacy for a Palestinian state under the governance of Hamas, or any political entity that has historically treated women as second-class citizens. “They are oxymoronic,” he writes, “emphasis on moronic.”
His central claim is not merely that the pairing is ironic, but that it is logically impossible — and that the impossibility is precisely the point. Utter contends that the leftist campus activists who join such groups are not confused so much as strategically unmoored. They care “far more about denigrating, denouncing, and destroying the United States than they do about logic, reason, and reality — or even their own future,” he argues.
A movement that would ‘see to their destruction’
Utter’s sharper jab is that the very individuals aligning themselves with Palestinian causes — often described as “pseudo-Muslims and Muslim sympathizers” on campus — would be among the first to face persecution under the very regime they champion. “They align themselves with a political and nominally religious entity that would quickly see to their own destruction had it its druthers,” he writes.
This line of argument is a familiar one in conservative commentary. But Utter’s piece extends it into a broader critique of leftist language itself. He points to a litany of modern coinages — “postpartum individuals,” “chest-feeders,” “birthing persons,” and “justice-involved individuals” — as evidence that the Left is intentionally dismantling the very structure of speech and thought.
“Leftists want to destroy language and render it arbitrary, unintelligible, and moot,” Utter claims. “Because that would necessarily mean that thought and reason would also be destroyed. And, consequently, the nation.” That last turn — calling it a “(non-binary) twofer” — is classic Utter: a swipe at gender-neutral terminology folded into a broader indictment of what he sees as intellectual chaos.
Where the argument lands
It is worth noting that Utter’s piece is an opinion column published on American Thinker, a self-described conservative outlet. It was posted in early September 2026, and it reflects a specific ideological viewpoint that readers on both sides of the aisle will likely parse differently.
For those already critical of progressive campus activism, the piece lands as a confirmation of what they see as fundamental hypocrisy. For those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause or to the feminist movement’s more intersectional turn, the column will read as dismissive of a nuanced political stance — one in which supporters argue they can critique Israeli policy while advocating for Palestinian rights, including women’s rights, within the broader struggle.
Utter, however, offers no room for such nuance. His piece is short, rhetorically pointed, and ends with a satirical sign-off: “I’m late for my ‘MAGA members in support of Abdul El-Sayed rally’” — a jab suggesting that only the Left would form absurd coalitions with those who would oppress them, and that the Right would never do the same.
A familiar rhetorical pattern
The column taps into a recurring theme in conservative commentary: that the Left’s commitment to language reform is not benign linguistic evolution but a deliberate weaponization of words aimed at undermining shared meaning. When words become arbitrary, Utter argues, so does truth — and once truth is gone, so is the nation that depends on it.
Whether that slippery-slope logic holds up is a matter of debate. What is clear is that Utter sees the feminist-for-Palestine collective as a perfect demonstration of his point. In his view, these groups are not merely confused; they are proof of a deeper pathology — one that prizes ideological purity over consistency, and identity labels over reality.
The article is brief, but its message is unambiguous. For Utter, the proliferation of such groups on campuses is not an isolated oddity but a symptom of a broader intellectual collapse. And the moniker “Feminists for a Free Palestine” is, to him, the clearest evidence yet that the Left has chosen absurdity over reason.
As with most things in the culture wars of this era, the truth likely sits somewhere in between. But Utter’s rhetorical question — how can one advocate for women while championing a cause that, under certain governance, has historically repressed them — remains one that organizers of these groups will have to answer, whether or not they acknowledge the column.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/feminists-for-a-free-palestine-and-other-insanities/