Most people tend to agree on this abstract notion of "equality" between people of different genders, races, etc., but they run into problems when it comes to interpreting whether or how this abstract idea is achieved in concrete experience. This is true of all deliberation on moral or ethical issues...people agree on the abstract value, but very rarely agree on concrete application of that value, or on interpretations of that value in concrete experience. Therefore I don't see this as being a sign of anything other than that you live in a democratized Western nation.
As to the patriarchy issue...this has been formulated in a number of different ways. In recent scholarship the use of the term has been largely relinquished (because it tends to conjure the image of a room full of men consciously and deliberately coming up with ways to oppress women), but the concept that it stands for remains. That is, it represents the view that there are systemic forces (whether they be related to language as a constitutive force, to political-economic forces, i.e., capitalism, or to a lot of other underlying forces or combinations thereof) that limit the possibilities of subjectivity or agency of women. So though I tend to hesitate saying this, I think that a rejection of the fact that inequality exists between men and women (and transgender or pangender folk), which is the corrollary of denying that there is systemic oppression along gender lines, is pretty much inconsistent with any type of feminism.
I think your characterization of yourself as "post-feminist" is accurate. I think I can say with confidence that feminism nowadays is pretty uniformly intent on demonstrating that we are as a society very far from achieving equality in terms of gender, and therefore very far from having the ability to refer to ourselves as post-feminist.