A core component of feminist ideology, in the books I've read and of the popular speakers I've seen on twitter - and elsewhere - is the idea of equity. Equality in the traditional sense strives to mean everyone has an equal chance at something, whereas equity demands an equal outcome regardless between any arbitrary selection of people. I fundamentally do not agree with equity, see short stories like Harrison Bergeron, because no two people are truly born equal in any given thing. It contradicts science, as well, as cross-culturally on average men and women have slightly different personalities and interests. Not only do people differ, but genders will differ, and so far all I've seen are "feminists" decrying this as innate sexism. As if reality is sexist.

It is very frequently the case that feminists will, also, ignore the plights and inequalities men face as a nebulous other known as "patriarchy" instead of admitting systemic inequalities exist independently. They took a loose concept in early anthropology, one that is wholly inaccurate to describe cultures and blind to any nuance, and robbed it of context to broadly describe humanity as a whole. I can no more concede to "patriarchy" as valid than I will "equity" as the ultimate ideal of society. Instead, I subscribe to classical liberalism and utilitarianism. Everyone ought to be given as best as possible an equal chance at what they are best suited for, and as best as possible the utility of each person ought to be allowed to be gathered to the best of their ability or interest. Beyond that, for persons of little ability, they ought to be cared for by a society, for they would've hardly wished to be born in such a low condition of their own volition. This idea, to me, is about fairness. "Equity" isn't about fairness, it's about hobbling the best to make the worst feel better.