I agree with most of the OP, except...
I just want to point out my sentence here: This may be true for the radical feminist, but the true feminist only wishes for women to gain access to the same rights as men have.
I am not advocating that extremist feminism is feminism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
While I'm not going to claim to have statistical numbers, or that this statement isn't somewhat subjective, a massive portion of 'feminism' is clearly just gender-war power struggle type stuff, and has nothing to do with equality. It's no less extreme than the male sexism they claim to hate so much. For the ones a tier below that, they aren't really so much concerned with equality as just power, for example absurd laws that protect females over males, or general social biases that perform the same function without being officially implemented.
Somewhere below that you have the sane people with reasonable expectations on complicated issues, not essentially fighting for the right to be completely abusive towards any male they deal with and be socially and legally protected from the consequences, while continuing to get all the pro-female biases involved in things like divorces, custody battles, informal social interaction, etc.
The point of all this being that it seems somewhat intellectually dishonest to try and sweep the majority of what is actually practiced and referred to as 'feminism' under the rug while glorifying a small subset of them. (edit: Majority might be assuming too much. It's not like I'm heavily involved with feminism and qualified to say. You see the same sort of parallels in civil rights, animal rights, environmentalism, abortion stuff, etc. To try and moderate my previous statements.)
bamf said:
The oppressors are in a position of power over the oppressed, and the theory states that the only way for the oppression to end and for there to be true equality is if the oppressed actively resist the oppressors and overtake them. If "equality" is handed down from the oppressors it is not true equality, because the oppressors have essentially deemed the oppressed as worthy of gaining the equality, thus perpetuating the power imbalance.
The problem here (I think) is that it tends to lead to the pendulum swinging too far the other direction. If you think I'm at least somewhat correct about my above statements, you have to see where things will probably continue in this direction for a while, then there will eventually be a reactionary movement in the opposite direction, until things are more similar to the state of gender relations in the 50s, and the cycle will repeat. Maybe it'll eventually level out, but I tend to think equilibrium is a hard to achieve thing since people naturally struggle to have power over one another, hence asymmetrical power structures are favored in society over equality, and in the end many people (men and women alike) don't want equality, they either want to be the controller or the controlled, as each position can be favorable to them in some way. In human relationships, equality seems to make for a very unstable equilibrium.
Not that I wholly disagree with the sentiment. If you want fairness you generally have to fight for it, because most people won't just give it to you.