Let me take a shot here. You’re running into a problem which is, to an extent, uniquely American. Long story for another time.
The individual is viewing “feminism” not as an integrated social philosophy (based as you say on Marxism) but as a checklist of political priorities that one can pick and choose from much like they choose food from a Chinese buffet. So, in his/her mind, they can pick a few items off that buffet without eating everything.
This is very common thinking in the US. Consider the number of Catholics who polling shows believe in divorce, birth control, and legal abortion. These are fundamental, nonnegotiable beliefs of the Catholic Church which, if you pull out, the entire theology starts to unravel. But Americans don’t see it that way, partly because of ignorance of Catholic theology, but partly because this “decomposition” way of thinking is kind of ingrained in us from Grade 1. We don’t think holistically very well.
Consider the reaction of an Orthodox priest if one of the adherents said to him “I love the Church, but could we get rid of those icons, please? After all, they’re just decoration.” But an American who is not used to artwork in churches might very well think that.
For example. feminists want equal pay for equal work; pretty much everyone does. So, the individual wants to pick out a few of the generally accepted feminist OUTCOMES without accepting the part that integrates those outcomes into the entire social philosophy. The problem is that they’re then demanding to use the term “feminist” to describe themselves, and trying to create arbitrary subgroups (“radical feminist” vs “not radical feminist”) in order to find a comfortable seat on the train.
But the train is still going to Marxist heaven.
If I take any decent laundry list of feminist social demands, there are some I agree with. Doesn’t mean I’m a feminist. Just means that there are certain policy desires we have in common.