Asklemmy

What's different to me is it's feminism not femalism, in that feminine doesn't tend to mean women specifically. I would actually argue it's mostly used as a modifier of explicit non-women, and is, in a roundabout way, directly about men and anything unassociated with women as well.

As if to say "this isn't about women, it's about the opposition to non-manliness that exists in the world".

Like a white person is not black, but a man can be feminine. That's not to say black issues aren't pertinent to white people in a similar way (if one of us is not free, none are free, nonblack people demeaned for cultural blackness, etc), but it's an identity that can be wholely intrinsic to a man.

Oh, and another point you bring up I think is interesting is the distinction between holding the belief and directly or strongly acting on it, and should we consider a believer or passive actor as non-ideological? I think that comes down to a No True Scotsman sort of mindset.

Kind of rambling and pedantic, but I like to think about the little details.

Edit: Actually, the more I think about it, the more it kind of is the same as BLM, and I think even just holding the belief is important.