Given various sorts of bias, that isn't how things work, unless you pack into the word "really wanted" the idea of "not being human".
People have been trying for decades to create a society with equality of opportunity, which is the easiest thing to aim for because you still get to make judgments about better and worse, and not give up what seems like your hard work for what seems like other people's laziness. It's very difficult, mostly because it's so hard for people to see past their own biases.
For example, you take a video of a woman presuming an entitlement that she doesn't have, and do you say, "Look, the cops understand: she doesn't have any entitlement. The law--and standards of police behavior--apply to her just as much as everyone else."?
No--you focus on the woman's (atrocious) perspective instead. And you use this as evidence for a more general perspective like the woman's.
But why? Someone else could watch the very same video and say, "See, there are a few racist morons left, but people in positions of authority have no patience with that nonsense. We've basically hit racial equality already."
The differences in perspective like this make the "just want it" idea of yours extremely implausible. Wanting something doesn't give you a universal perspective from which you can judge impartially. You're still you, and they're still them. It's extremely likely, given that most everyone has a self-biased perspective, and if they feel like they belong to a community, a community-biased perspective, that if equality were reached, different people would perceive it as unequal against them, and if different people are in power and are responsible for enacting "equality" that it would actually end up unequal in their favor (to the extent that it would feel equal to them, given their bias).
If you want to go past that to equity (i.e. you say that opportunity isn't enough, e.g. because there are systematic differences in being able to take advantage of certain opportunities), it gets even harder.
If you underestimate the difficulty, you're liable to ascribe malevolence in places it's not deserved. For instance, it would be completely unreasonable for me to think you a horrible person because you are not singlehandedly solving the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. However, if you were Demeter, goddess of agriculture, and you weren't using your powers to make the earth explode in bountiful productivity for people trying to escape war and violence, then it would be reasonable of me to be critical of you. What do you have against innocent Yemenis trying to escape brutal fighting, so that you'd condemn them to starve?
As the goddess Demeter, if you wanted to end starvation in Yemen, you could (presumably) do it overnight. I don't hold it against you that you haven't, however, because I don't believe you to be Demeter. Similarly, the people who you charge with not wanting to solve it overnight aren't likely to be able to do it.