"Feminism is beneficial for men because it destroys the patriarchy" is probably something we have heard at least once, but how true is it really? In the current era, "patriarchy" has been thrown around as a catch-all word, a scapegoat, a word that has lost it's original meaning. Originally, patriarchy is simply defined as

a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. [source]

Today however, it could mean anything. The term patriarchy has been used as a synonym for things like oppression of women, traditional gender roles, male supremacy, sexism, asking for proof and get this, the bro code. For the sake of this post, I'll define it as oppression of women, because it seems to be the most common use of the word by feminist. This is where the motte-and-bailey fallacy comes in.

First of all, what is motte-and-bailey fallacy? To quote Wikipedia on this (yes I know not the most reliable, but I'm feeling kinda lazy)

The motte-and-bailey fallacy is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend and one much more controversial.

Basically, feminism often used the motte-and-bailey fallacy to defend the theory of patriarchy. Patriarchy exist!(More controversial) because men are in position more than women(easy to prove) and traditional gender roles(easy to prove). Now why does this matter? Because when arguments like these are used, it makes it harder for people to separate traditional gender norms/roles apart from patriarchy. However, while those words are similar, they also have significant differences. Patriarchy often implies that **men** are the active oppressor, while traditional gender norms/roles implies that both genders are bounded by what society deems is acceptable for their gender to do. It implies shared responsibility and similar public opinion. However, this concept is also unpopular with many feminist.

This is where I theorize it went wrong. At a certain point, feminism could have gone two ways. Define what they are fighting against as "traditional gender norms/roles" which bound both men and women, and where women are equally as responsible. Under this definition, feminism would have been more inclusive. Maybe it wouldn't even be feminism at all, but movements like equalitarianism. The movement would have seen both men and women liberated from gender norms. There are certain evidence to back this up. For example, abortion is often blamed on the patriarchy or men, despite men and women having similar opinions on this subject.

Or, define it as "patriarchy" which implies you are fighting the oppressive men. Under this definition, conservatives mindset isn't the problem, men are. Responsibility of these issues aren't shared, but caused by men. Sadly, it seems feminism has choose the latter to define what they are fighting against. Because of this, while women are liberated from their gender norms, men are still stuck in place. Gay men are less accepted than women, while women can wear suits or masculine clothing and express themselves through fashion or make up whether they are feminine or masculine, men are stuck to what society deems acceptable. Not only are men left behind and have their problems ignored, but they are demonized as well. The mindset that men are the oppressor has been used to justify or deny the existence of misandry. This mindset also prevents men from advocating about their problem. Men who talk about male SA victims are told to "stop derailing" (sometimes justified, sometimes not), and those who aren't derailing any conversations are often told "by other men".

While there may and probably are other factor at play, I think how feminism choose to define its enemy is the most influential factor over what it has become today, and a huge reason why men's movements are forced to criticize feminism. Because feminism is actively harmful to men.