Problem is that the "feminist" label is so simplistic as to miss all nuance ala: all that is "good for women" is "feminist". Is being successful in school good

Problem is that the "feminist" label is so simplistic as to miss all nuance ala: all that is "good for women" is "feminist". Is being successful in school good? yes. Is being successful in later life good? yes. So you cannot consider the "successful school dropout". "risk taking" is the missed nuance, or "it has to get worse before it gets better"/"break a bone to set the leg" etc. Instead you have the only "feminist" path as (cherry-picked populations of) girls doing well in school and successes later in life, even if those don't necessarily/naturally correlate. If you really wanted to capture that nuance, you need the kind of discussions Jordan Peterson has wrt personality/behavioural traits and their impacts on differences in outcomes; but you can clearly see how much hostility (in the name of feminism) he receives for that. The funny thing is how he's accused of (sex/gender) essentialism, even if backed by stats/data, despite the advocated feminist alternatives being also full of essentialism (and just-so narratives), just ones seen as more culturally palatable.