I see many posts here that call out feminists and their various misdeeds, but I want to make the argument that that's both misidentifying the core structural issue and also counterproductive to creating change. For context, I'm a male lurker here who doesn't identify as a feminist but am a feminist sympathizer, although I've been banned from feminist subreddits and a certain allied "but for men" subreddit for being an MRA/misogynist incel/etc.

Gender roles exist, and as currently constructed they hurt people, particularly (though not exclusively) people who deviate from those roles, male or female. For example, one major aspect is the hyper-agency/hypo-agency dichotomy: there's this idea that men are the actors in society, and women exist in the background to support men. Historically this has been used to justify the idea that men are disposable and deserve whatever bad things happen to them, along with restricting women from political and economic roles.

The currently dominant strain of thought in feminism has molded itself around this, except reversing the moral polarity of agency and passivity, in a evil Spock universe kind of way: it attributes evil and oppression to men and goodness and victimization to women. This is frustrating and something I reject, and we should criticize it when we see it.

When we criticize it, though, I often see people attributing that model, implicitly or explicitly, to feminism. But that false dichotomy has nothing to do with feminism itself: non-feminists are no more likely to look out for men or call for egalitarian structural improvements for men than feminists are. Feminists mostly borrow the hyperagency model because it's an effective way to achieve their political ends in the context of existing gender roles. Most popular ideologies, though, see men as unworthy of individual empathy or group political action. And anecdotally, when I talk to real-life feminists, they are nearly always more likely to take critiques of gender expectations on men more seriously than any other mainstream ideological group. That's not to say that they always or usually do--they don't--but they usually pass the (tragically) low bar of better than the average.

But when we call out feminists in particular and identify feminism as the structure that's maintaining the damaging roles and expectations men are held to in society, it drives away potential allies. To build empathy, one thing that makes me angry is when a feminist rants about e.g. MRAs as if they were the power brokers who created a world that's so broken. It's not hard to see how rants about feminism would turn them off just as much.

Rhetoric matters. It's probably not realistic to expect feminists to broadly care about men's issues, and sometimes we will come into genuine conflict with them: we shouldn't shy away from pushing against them when we do. But in the more common case when it's just a matter of them parroting broader male gender expectations or misandry, it's more productive to call out the social bias. That avoids an us-vs-them dynamic that just leads to resentment and alienates those who identify as feminists but would be open to our arguments.