Sorry for the long post and not-so-good English, but in the past months I've been reading several conversations about male issues and their relations to modern feminism and I tried to collect, synthesize and organize some of the ideas that are floating around. I perceived that maybe we need to develop a framework that could help establish a rational and academic critique to the untouchable modern feminism.

Some of this ideas are:

Modern feminism doesn't represent in the practice what rethoric tries to impose as its meaning: Feminism is not the search for equality, feminism is a gendered ideology that search for, in the best case scenario, equality on issues that affect women, but not for issues that affect men. 

Real search for equality needs a unified society and divisive gendered ideologies like feminism doesn't create this kind of society. 

Real equality needs a new undestanding of morality based on humanizing the other. Feminism dehumanizes males through the 'masculinity' proxy embedded in its foundational ideological fantasies like 'patriarchy', 'hegemonic masculinity' and many others. This in addition to the direct dehumanization practiced by openly misandrist feminists.

Dehumanizing through proxies or strawmans is an efficient rethoric way to avoid criticism for inciting hate, after all you are bashing an abstraction. But there are always real persons behind that abstractions and that persons happen to be in is vast majority males.

Academics, media, corporations and governments that fund modern feminists are the main actors supporting this ongoing dehumanization process. 

Propaganda fueled by this groups is trying to impose an agenda on what masculinity should be and what 'acceptable' masculine behavior is. Feminism is out of its place of speech when trying to define what masculinity should be.

Because of this, feminism is also fueling an small and loud group of 'male feminists' (that sometimes doesn't even publicly present themselves as feminists) that are publicized as 'representative male voices', who in reality represent the best interests of feminism not of men. This are the first groups we need to engage with, and show to the common fellows (leaders doesn't tend to be open) how they are being manipulated. 

In the end, the idea is not to create another gendered ideology, but to bypass the archaic 'us vs them' logic by having an open position of non-gendered analysis of social issues that could benefit any individual affected by them.

There are issues that, in numbers, affect more women and others that affect more men. Feminism tries to position issues that affect women as more 'morally significant' through emotional narratives and sometimes using numbers acquired through methodologies designed to support their views. We need revert the tribal moral rethorics. The biggest challenges of the future will require massive collaboration of society, and segregated moral tribes doesn't lead to a unified collaborative society. 

What do you think? Have I captured correctly some of the dynamics we see on daily basis being commented in the spaces we discuss?

Just quoting Chomsky as a final though, is easy to acknowledge that modern feminism is doing exactly what he described in Language and Mind (1968):

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.... That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."