You're welcome for the warm reply :)
I prefer using the term "egalitarian" to "feminist" because, IMO, the former carries more weight and importance in the modern world. It includes support for the rights of everyone and is therefore potentially unifying. Utilizing it does not risk evoking the outrage that the bastardization of the term by the "third wave" misandrists have wrought, which makes its use in the modern world potentially divisive unless the user goes out of their way to clarify which definition they are using. Egalitarianism is also the logical end result of first and second wave feminism. The logical result of "third wave feminism" is the SJW phenomenon along with its anti-white male race-and-gender baiting along with other authoritarian elements of their ilk.
I categorically do not agree with the SJWs that women in the West are still seriously oppressed and marginalized in the 21st century, nor were they throughout most of the latter 20th century. First and second wave feminism pretty much succeeded in the West, and its proponents need to move on to broader forms of unity. However, the SJWs have taken up a delusional worldview where the Civil Rights movement only just recently started, and though the mission is over, they do not want to stop fighting. They are soldiers and fighters, not diplomats and are ill-suited for a world that grants them equality of civil liberties but not special entitlements that they think they should have. As soldiers, all they are conditioned to do is fight, and you can't be an effective soldier without an enemy that is perpetually on the horizon. Their ammunition is not firearms or grenades, but emotional outrage, unrestrained anger, resentment; their equivalent of ticking bombs is hyper-sensitivity and a fragile tolerance for anything they dislike hearing.
These individuals are now unfortunately identified with feminism. Prior to the late 20th century, women suffered a form of oppression that is similar to what youths of today have: an odd, often contradictory combination of great restrictions and artificial limits on their potential alongside excessive coddling and perks (e.g. their alleged inherent "innocence" and moral superiority to men or adults etc.). Back then, those perks actually made sense, as they served as compensation for the restrictions and societal barriers they had. The problem is, after they had won their freedoms by the 1970s, an ideological sub-group insisted they retain all the perks they had while oppressed with none of the responsibilities that freedom entails. Hence, they wanted to go from marginalized to entitled, and rationalized the pursuit of that with a combination of justified revenge and adopting a perpetually marginalized identity that was divorced from empirical reality.
I do not think the essence of feminism is inherently evil either, but evoking it as an ideology in and of itself is archaic. Also, I do not consider "third wave" or "radical" 'feminism' to be a legit strand of feminism, i.e., as a bona fide descendant of the genuine equality feminists of the past (as explained above). I would never refer to it as such like they do, since it gives misandry and hatred a type of validation by association that it does not deserve.
That is the same concern I have with the Marxism label. Though I adhere to the classical version as initially conceived by Marx and Engels based on the work of previous intellectuals (like Robert Owen), the hi-jacking of that term by the Leninist vanguards, an atrocious previous manifestation of the authoritarian Left, following the Russian Revolution of 1917 has caused both promoters and detractors to conflate it with Marxism. As a result, on numerous occasions when I have debated the topic, here and elsewhere, I get the Straw Man treatment by basically being accused of supporting Leninist vanguardism rather than an egalitarian economic system that is classless and stateless; the former of which has been tried and found wanting, the latter of which has not yet been attempted within the global context envisioned by Marx and Engels. That, or it's conflated with social democracy as widely practiced in Europe, so again my arguments are weighed against something that is quite different despite having terms like "socialism" and "Marxism" applied to it.
Worse yet, the term "Marxist" has been adopted by the SJWs (of course). Because of that, Libertarian and right-wing opponents of the SJWs routinely slander Marxism by referring to them as genuine Marxists or "cultural Marxists", etc. Yet since I am in such powerful opposition to SJWs, that should make it clear enough that they are not a legit "strand" of Marxism at all, but are twisting the definition for their own purposes much as they twist words like "equality" and "freedom."