Then rewrite them and I'll rewrite my responses. Seriously, I want you pinned down for believing in some particular statements, as opposed to the general vibe of feminism =/= equality. I don't care if its statements as I wrote them or as you write them. So go ahead.
I don't think this is likely to be productive, but I'm wiling to play the game and see where we go.
Conclusion: Feminists are women who are interested in being better than men, not equality.
I disagree as it is phrased. Yes, certainly there are individual feminists who are interested in being better than men. And some feminists who just want their lives to be better. But overall your statement appears to be an attempt to trick me into some sort of 100% application fallacy. No, it's not that simple.
Yes, I would agree that on the whole the movement of feminism is not about promoting equality. It's about promoting women.
I don't understand why this is such a point of contention.
Proposition 1: Feminists don't want women to have low paying and dangerous jobs.
Non sequitur: This does not logically lead to the idea that feminists want to be better than men. That would require demonstrating they advocate for men to have these jobs, which they don't. They'd probably prefer nobody had to do those jobs. Said another way, reluctance to take a shitty job does not imply superiority over the group that takes that job: nobody wants shitty jobs.
Counter-example: Feminists often advocate for women in active military service which is dangerous and often far from lucrative.
It's plausible that this proposition might generally be true, but it's somewhat missing the point. The following quote of yours is more accurate:
If you asked feminists if they would be fine with women working in coal mines as a result of feminism, they'd say yes. If asked if they wanted women to work in coal mines they'd say no. Because nobody wants to be in those death traps.
It's not that "feminists want women to not have low paying dangerous jobs." I'm sure that in most cases if feminist A believed that woman B genuinely
wanted a low-paying and dangerous job, she'd generally approve. However, in most cases in woman B had the low paying and/or dangerous job because it was expected of her or it was the best she could do, I suspect feminist A would disapprove.
However, if man C had that same low-paying and/or dangerous job because it was expected of him or the best he could do, regardless of the personal feelings or preferences of feminist A, the movement of feminism itself is not about opposing him being stuck with it.
Which I would think is obvious.
But to be more clear...
If (person of unstated gender) has a low-paying and/or dangerous job he/she/it doesn't want but it's either expected or the best he/she/it can do...feminism as an institution is not about helping or improving the life of that person of unstated gender.
But....
If you replace "person of unstated gender" with "woman" then it
is about improving her lot in life.
Which again, I would think would be fairly obvious, and I don't understand why this is such a point of contention. The goal of feminism is to promote women, not to promote equality. It might happen to promote equality in cases where women are at a disadvantage. But the goal isn't equality. It's promoting women.
Proposition 2: Feminists have not actively worked to improve male life expectancy.
Counter-examples: Princess Diana was a feminists, and viewed part of this position as helping expand people's social definitions of the AIDs epidemic, helping men (who were disproportionately effected by the disease) seek treatment. The National Organization for Women spearheaded a campaign to expand the definition of hate-crimes, which helped the gay community greatly. Lovisa Stannow, noted feminist, worked in a campaign to stop prison rape; which effects men. All of these have had huge public effects.
Just because an individual who is a member of a group engages in an activity, does not mean that that activity is representative of the goals of the group. For example, I am a member of the bay12 community. I enjoy skiing. This does not mean that the bay12 community enjoys skiing or that skiing is an identifying characteristic of bay12.
It is possible that individual feminists have engaged in activities that have benfitted group of which men are a part. It's possible that individual feminists have engaged in activities that have directly benefitted men. That doesn't make it what feminism is about. Nor does it mean that the overall "goal" of feminism is equality.
Proposition 3: Feminists have not redirected funds from their own efforts to help men.
Non sequitur: This does not imply they think they are superior, or that they do not value equality. Redirecting funds is rarely a platform of any group, regardless of their goals.
Counter-examples: See AIDs example in Prop. 2. This demonstrates they have helped with men's health issues, though it does not address redirecting funds.
Of the three proposotions, this is the one that I'd most agree with. It's possible there might be isolated examples of this thing happening, but on the whole it's certainly something they probably haven't done much. But...
I don't expect that feminists should "redirect funds from their own efforts to help men." It's probable that they haven't done so to any significant degree, but I agree that the interpretation you appear to be attempting to apply does not support the conclusion above that I also don't agree with.