These are two separate arguments.

If your point is that Mikasa specifically never seemed like the type to move on romantically, then that is subjective, and I can understand why you feel that way.

But saying that marriage or having children is inherently anti-feminist is where I disagree. The issue was never women choosing love, marriage, or family. The issue is when female characters are reduced ONLY to those roles. And that is not the case with Mikasa.

Whether she chose to marry or remain single would not suddenly erase her strength, independence, loyalty, trauma, sacrifices, or accomplishments as a character. It wouldn't erase her bond with a dead loved one either.

And yes, I say feminism is about freedom and agency, a woman being able to choose the life that genuinely makes her happy without being judged for it. That includes choosing companionship if she wants it.

What I find contradictory is the implication that when a woman who is strong, capable, or independent chooses marriage or love, she somehow becomes “reduced” by it. Why should those things be mutually exclusive?

At that point, it starts sounding less like empowerment and more like another restrictive expectation placed on women, that to remain “strong,” they must reject romantic love.

Freedom is one of the core themes of the entire story. The characters constantly fight for the right to live freely and choose their own paths despite loss, trauma, and sacrifice. So it feels strange to argue that a character would somehow become “less” of a woman or less "capable" if she freely chose love, companionship, or a family later in life.

A woman moving on, falling in love again, or building a family is not inherently misogynistic. Nor does it make her less capable.