I agree but I think it's important to point out that your average schmuck doesn't get into the weeds of feminist theory and will think feminism = women's legal equality (in the sense that the law should be blind to whether someone is a woman or not in most situations as it's irrelevant to whether or not someone is fit to vote, own property, etc.) I don't think this argument entails that there are no differences between men and women. Rather the law should merely treat both the same for most practical purposes with very few exceptions.

Feminism I don't believe promotes an idea of equality though many claim that. Most feminist theory I've read very much likes to point out the inherent differences and lack of equality between men and women and may be better described as female supremacist theory. Which is essentially just the opposite of male chauvinist attitudes. You see this in attitudes like "wouldn't things be better if women ran the world there would be less wars etc" which is a laughably naive and extremely sexist take on the world.

Of course it's definitely right to point out the rediculousness of hardline feminist arguments and the double standards as well as sexist stawman archetypes it is based on. But most discussions I've had with self described feminists it becomes clear to me they aren't at all aware of the hardline insane side of the feminist sphere and are all just very girl power yeah go girl naive types who believe the narrative arguments, but are not the truly hateful insane misandrists that drive the direction of feminist theory.

A prime example of this is discussions around the so called wage gap. Almost everyone agrees that all things being equal, a woman and a man working the same job should be paid the same. And all things bring equal this is largely the case. The problem is a mild feminist hears "I don't believe the wage gap is a problem," as "I believe women should be paid less than men" which is a mis-conception which is completely forgivable as the propoganda is designed to induce exactly that response. Rather it's important to point out that the wage gap is a very large scale macroeconomic view of the entire economy and it reflects the long term choices of women throughout their careers rather than the actual take home salaries of women at any specific job. And naturally if we count women who choose to focus on leaving their careers to raise children in the same statistical group as the men who by and large do not then this is the natural and expected state, and there isn't anything else to be done, we could argue that women are unfairly impacted by the rigors of childbirth as they have to carry and birth the child and it's significantly easier for them to nurse the child as well compared to men, and I'd agree with you in that women are uniquely impacted by that. However it's less a societal issue and more an issue you'll need to take up with God. I think it's wholly fair for a woman to forgo starting a family if she wishes, or for the man to be the stay at home parent if he wishes, there is nothing inherently wrong with either of these things. But the problem with the feminist movement comes down to a condemnation of women who choose domestic lifestyles rather than a recognition or that as what is by and large one of the greatest contributions to society and one of the most important jobs imaginable. They choose to belittle those who don't choose a lifestyle the same as theirs rather than merely advocating for the choice. A choice that has existed in our society for a good while now practically eliminating the need for activism. Indeed men and women are by and large on the same page when it comes to not only women's rights but men's rights as well. It's really only the least content in our societies that are active in the radical iterations of activism. If your life is miserable it's far more compelling to listen to the prophet who says the world sucks and should change to better fit you rather than the one who says you suck and should change to better fit the world though both have their issues of extreme conformists vs pariahs. The middle of path of accepting the world as it is and accepting the fact that you don't need to change yourself for the benefit of others but neither do you have a need to he happy as the world and therefore others won't change to benefit you.