This comment was posted recently on Reddit and evoked an interesting discussion. Here’s what I said as part of that.
It all depends on what you mean by equality. If you mean equality of opportunity: that every person has an inalienable right to be treated the same as any other and not be inhibited in their aspiration to achieve their highest potential, then I believe no right-minded person would, or could, disagree.
If, however, you mean equality as having the same number of women on corporate boards as men, or in the workplace, such as equal numbers of women as men as engineers for example, then that sort of equality makes you a feminist.
You are espousing a political cause that is intent on placing women in a position they would not otherwise be.
The reason why fewer women become company directors, or engineers, is to do with their preferences because they are women, and their work-life balance decisions, say when they want to have children and don’t want a full-time, high-powered career, but feminism declares this to be a ‘problem’, blames men for having brought it about, and claims ‘equality’.
Then, if you mean equality as women being entitled to the privileges they do not deserve in their own right, but only because they are human beings who happen to have been born with a vagina; if you believe that women are entitled to equality of the sort that takes away men’s rights to their equality of opportunity, then that makes you at least a supporter of feminism, however unintentionally.
For those reasons, I really question the proposition that you can pick out bits of feminism and not others. To accept any of these things, other than the first definition, makes you at least a feminist sympathiser, possibly a fellow-traveller, and by virtue of that, a supporter of a socially divisive ideology, whose intent is far from the liberal Enlightenment aims of true equality of opportunity.