No.

And I got banned from Lemmygrad for saying that,
but I’ll try iterating it again here hoping I won’t be this time around.
Reasons ordered from strongest to weakest.

1. Gender exclusiveness is in the name.

I don’t like any movement that has some form of exclusiviness in their name
other than nationality when they are indigenous to the land or ideology of the likeminded.
Any movement that has sex, age, sexual orientation,
but especially race in their name, immediately raises suspicions in me.
My country used to have a 50+ political party and while I don’t think the general public
thought of them as anything other than that ‘lovely little grandma and grandpa party’,
my first thoughts went to banning the party for age discrimination.

The only thing I think that sets apart the feminist movement from other supremacist movements
is that I believe that humans have taken an evolutionary path that has resulted with fewer women
with dominant and mean personalities and
while I think current technology/economics would allow such thing to happen if
it were to run for several more generations, near future technology/economics won’t.

And that makes this movement much less dangerous than
other supremacist movement that is far quicker to cheer on genocide.

2. Not agreeing with things feminists have said about themselves

Most of all, all the “If it weren’t for us…” statements.

I fail to see how it was not inventions that changed society as a whole in most cases.
Household chores used to be a full time job.
Paper, ink and education was something only the rich could afford,
so forget about voting, including for men.
War has gotten more and more mechanic and even robotic,
so the draft has gotten rare as well.
Bank accounts stopped being a rich people only thing as well.

Other statement like “the Feminist movement is about equality between women and men.”
to which I say
“Sure sure, and the Trump movement is about equality between Trumps and non-Trumps. That’s why we needed more Trumps in leadership positions.”

3. I consider there to be an imbalance demographic imbalance between the sexes,
   and I consider this to be an issue on the relationship market,
   and myself as a (perpless) victim of it, so it hits me personally.
   I also consider this to be something that dropped power into women’s hands
   and I don’t think leaders of the feminist movement would want to happily give up on that

This is the more controversial one that gets me banned.
Due to new technology, demographics skew towards more men
of adult age, so not counting the elderly or children.
For every ethnic group that would mean advantages for that group,
but when the demographic group is about the sexes,
the less there are of you, the more power you have.

If I were the only male, I’d be king of the world,
heterosexual women at my feet, protected and wanted by even the most powerful presidents.
I could exploit it to the fullest and powerful women could and would block other
women from ever coming near to me, physically or through manipulation.

This shortage gives women the power to exploit men.
And since it’s a semi-permanent power, there’s little anyone can do to mitigate the issue,
apart from society inventing new technologies that will balance or skew the scale to the other side,
which could happen in ten years or so.

“The universe doesn’t entitle you to a girlfriend”
Then I would say that that IS a true statement,
but then I also am not entitled to an income,
a car, a house, food, water, electricity and other basic necessities,
but I do think that I am entitled to live in a society
that prioritizes to have these necessities in abundance supply.

I don’t like these kind of statements that turn the political into the personal.
It’s similar to the “You’re on your own kid. Just get a job. Improve yourself” statements when someone loses their income and house.

“Women are not stock. They are human beings. Stop comparing our bodies to objects.”
I say that employees and employers are also human beings.
There’s a demand and supply of that too and yet again
I’d like to say that I’m entitled to live in a society
where unemployment is down to 0%,
so employers with jobs would be in full supply.
And if I’m the only male on the planet,
I would have no qualms saying that there’s a shortage of supply in men.
There’s an abundance of supply of men right now.
Just because women want relationships, and thus there being a demand for men,
does not mean that I think men or women are objects or livestock.

“It’s not the quantity of women that’s the issue, it’s the quality of men”
I find that hard to believe since both men and women are each other’s counterparts,
made from the same DNA cloth who evolved by procreating with each other.
So an insult to one sex in terms of quality can only be an insult to the other.
Unless you want to go the uhm… “other route”
you know the “What do you mean Karen when you say that there’s more low-quality men these days?”
But I’ll be disagreeing with racists on such statements or conclusions on such statements as well.

Quantity however is something that used to be balanced by nature,
where boys and men died more often from the plague, cholera and other diseases.
Most of us don’t live in that kind of society anymore.
We have tamed the animal kingdom down to the virus and bacteria
and now men are in a significant abundance.

4. Issue #3 makes me doubt the authenticity of people supporting feminism.

I’ve seen the fat acceptance or body positivity movement implode almost overnight the moment Ozempic got popular.
Apparently, people weren’t all that positive about their bodies the moment they could easily lose weight.
And I’m expecting to see the same with feminism once technologies that boost up the number of adult women becomes popular.