I was going off of the proposed idea that feminism is sexist because the name implies it by concentrating on one group: Women. MRAs would be, according to that particular idea, sexist as well. If they are sexist (meaning the members individually or the groups direction as a whole) was not what I was trying to argue.

But to the argument you made: You say feminism is complaining about having no rights, then you name a lot of rights that men and women both have. By this standards, men and women both have enough rights. I am fairly certain that you just worded you argument in an easy to pick at way, so let me rephrase it: The rights feminism has fought for are now no longer denied to women. As such, feminism has lost its reason to exist, seeing that all goals have been achieved. (Please let me know if that is not what you‘d say because otherwise I‘m strawmaning here). That would be an argument that I can‘t flat out refuse, but wouldn‘t agree with 100%. Yes, a lot of women‘s issues have been solved, a lot has been achieved. This arguably took the momentum away from the movement as a whole because finding new goals has split the movement up. Some want to change societies views on women, some want better political representation, some want more rights, some want better pay, and much more. Many choose what they believe in and go for those goals, while almost everyone going for at least one of those goals calls themselves a feminist, which then gives the group a very weird dynamic of moving in different directions at once while not being united on anything.

I think you are (hopefully unintentionally) strawmaning the feminist cause (which is easy to do with all these crazy tumblr-warriors and such out there). Many feminists don‘t „whine that women have no rights“, many want to change actual problems women face, like less pay, social pressure to conform to a certain stereotype*, or underrepresentation in politics and business leaderships.

*Please not that I intentionally didn‘t mention the wage-gap, because that is, as we all should know by now, a falsely used statistic. What I mean is the overall trend that women simply earn less, very plausibly coming from women taking time off for their family, which could be considered unfair because men are generally not expected to take time off when they become fathers, nor might there be a medical need for it. Women on the other hand are expected to take time off and might need to take time off, should something go wrong. A pregnancy is also very stressful both mentally and physically, so taking some time to heal should be as normal as not going into work the day after a kidney transplant. If that is fair and in what way women are responsible for their choice to become pregnant with many men also wanting to become father having a role in that too is a debate for another time, unless you‘d like to debate it now.

**This social pressure is also set on men, they are expected to conform a certain way as well. This can be best seen in the shaming of male masturbation toys vs the celebration of female toys. But it‘s easiest to see the pressure set on them while ignoring the other side. Which is why some feminists argue that women have such pressure and ignore men, and some MRAs argue and ignore women. Who has the larger pressure put on them also depends on the individual and how well their view of self conforms with a socially accepted view of self, so I think arguing who is pressured more is very hard and kind of pointless. Instead of fighting to equal the pressure out, how about we just try to get rid of the pressure on both sexes, so we can all be who we want to be.

I think it‘s important to hear both sides. Some parts of society are still very chauvinistic. (warning for anecdotal evidence here, take with a grain of salt): I grew up with a boy in my class who was set on becoming the head of the firm his father was leading at the time. He wasn‘t too bright and had anger issues as early as 6yo. He had a big sister though, she was smart and polite, but could be stern too. An ideal head of the company. Now why wasn‘t she set to inherit? Because she was a girl. The men doing business with that company were a lot of builders and workers, who at the time (though not so long ago) wouldn‘t have taken her seriously. Had she been a guy, no problem. Of course this is anecdotal, but a good example of where sexism might still apply while no laws were technically broken. Yes, all the issues you mentioned in your last paragraph are very important and too often overlooked. Just look at Johnny Depp or now even more recently Cardi B. Did that start a industrywide campaign of men coming forward? #shetoo or something like that (in the sense that „she too is a perpetrator“)? No! People coming to the defense of Cardi and people ignoring Depp‘s issue after harshly condemning him before. This is disgusting and needs to change. But as long as we keep fighting for who get‘s to decide what‘s an issue: Men‘s or women‘s rights, we will get less done.

Also one last point to think about: When we dismiss the „wage gap“ because it‘s just women choosing less lucrative fields, then shouldn‘t we ignore women going into college more often because it‘s men choosing to not go or to apply for fields with smaller capacities? If we say that the men are denied despite wanting to study a certain field, what about the women being denied despite wanting to to work a certain field? Both are issues, or both aren‘t. I know that different factors lead to the two problems, but ignoring one of the issues on any of those grounds also opens up the way to ignore the other issue, if you want to be consistent in your logic.

Edit: I was curious and looked at your post history (not to find anything on you, but to see what kind of things you post to better know who I‘m talking to, feel free to go through my history too), and I was intrigued by your post about going into a feminist subreddit that rebranded itself to signal caring about men‘s issues, although you were pretty quickly banned. This is a trend I‘ve seen on many feminist subs and other platforms, and even non-feminist subs (I‘m banned from the confessions sub for commenting on another sub, but whatever). I like that you tried to step out of your bubble and confront yourself with people who think differently. What I can say that worked for me (especially right now): The comment I made that you replied to got another reply that quickly turned into a debate. I‘m a pretty defensive person and will defend my views. I‘m here because I mainly agree with this sub, but that debate pushed me to for once debate against someone whom I‘d normally agree with. Not that I was arguing him on something I secretly believed, but we started arguing about small things that we viewed differently and it developed from there (at least that‘s how I perceived it, you can read it yourself and he probably also felt differently). The way this debate pushed me to argue the other side and see some validity in it really helped me get out of my bubble by informing myself on some of the issues that I personally don‘t face. Maybe that will help you, if you so want, to challenge your own views: Go to subs that agree with you (as I could see mgtow and antifeminism, but maybe also something like mensrights or antisjw) and try and find a view expressed that you disagree with. Doesn‘t have to be a huge disagreement, could just be on a one-line comment, like the one we are at now. Then debate, if the other person is up for it. But what I‘m doing here is helping myself do exactly that while also driving yourself deeper into your bubble, so I guess that makes me something, but I don‘t know what. Not that there‘s anything inherently wrong with bubbles by the way, everyone has one, just don‘t let it become and echochamber by only looking for your own views validated. But I have to agree that in general, the feminist subs are exactly as much echochambers filled with insufferable treatment of differing views.