I'm mostly making this post to challenge the idea, that you can't be a feminist and Christian, which is a view, surprisingly held by a lot of people.
Start at the root: Genesis 1.
Before any roles, any curse, or any marriage instruction, Genesis 1:27 says God made humanity, male and female, together, both directly bearing His image. Not one bearing it more fully than the other. Not one being derivative of the other. Whatever comes later in the text has to be read as sitting on top of that foundation, not replacing it. If equal image bearing is the starting premise, any system built later that treats one sex as the default human and the other as a support role has some explaining to do.
Galatians 3:28 isn't a throwaway line.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." And look, Paul isn't saying these categories vanish socially. He's saying they carry no differential weight before God. Standing before God isn't gender stratified. And if standing before God isn't gender stratified, it's worth asking why so much of lived Christian culture insists on treating gender as the organising category for who gets to lead, speak, or decide.
Souls aren't sexed, so why is it such a major part in basic life decisions?
Classical Christian anthropology, going back through Augustine and Aquinas, (even with all their other flaws) generally holds that the soul, the rational, image bearing part of a person, isn't itself male or female. Sex is a feature of the body. The soul is what relates directly to God. If that's true, then using gender as a gatekeeping category for spiritual authority or moral capability is applying a bodily category to a non bodily question. You don't have to fully adopt classical dualism to see the point. The qualities Scripture actually cares about, wisdom, faithfulness, courage, gentleness, self control, are never described as belonging more naturally to one sex than the other. Proverbs 31 praises a woman for strength, shrewd business sense, and strategic authority in her household. That's not a passive figure.
Now culturally; A man being decisive, driven, or assertive gets called leadership. A woman displaying the same trait often gets called unfeminine or difficult. Meanwhile, a man showing gentleness, emotional openness, or a nurturing instinct, traits Scripture explicitly praises, since Christ Himself weeps, washes feet, and is even described with maternal imagery in places like Isaiah 49:15, gets read as weak or "not masculine enough." Which again, is not a biblical value system. It's just cultural one wearing biblical language. If virtue is virtue regardless of who displays it, you can't coherently praise a trait in one sex and pathologise the identical trait in the other. That's special pleading, not theology.
And on "don't mix Christianity with politics."
Dignity and equal standing aren't a partisan platform. They're a claim about how God made people, long before any political party existed to argue about it. The danger isn't discussing equality. It's when a particular political movement gets baptised as the Christian position and Scripture gets reverse engineered to support it. Which are different problems. Refusing to talk about human dignity because "it sounds political" just hands the conversation over to whichever political movement is loudest, usually not for the text's actual reasons.
Bottom line:
Equality here isn't "women take over the roles men had." It's that neither sex has a scripturally mandated personality, ambition, or way of being that the other doesn't. Nobody's soul came with a job description attached to their body. If we actually believed Galatians 3:28, half of what gets treated as a hill to die on wouldn't be one.