I was thinking, some of the MRA debates of the last few years show how if anything, it's us who follow the "women can and should do what men do" belief far more than feminism. To associate us or try and depict as old fashion "women belong in the kitchen" types is the opposite of true- if anything, what we say is how unequal it is to expect men to earn all the money and pay for everything. Housework does not compare to the actual earning of a living- if only one person earns an income, that person is responsible for all the food, the house, the cars, the gas, the healthcare, etc. Doing housework is not equal to this, if you live somewhere for free, eat for free, drive a car someone else paid for you, and live on someone else's work, doing basic housework does not equalize that scenario. Now, it may be different when it comes to caring for young children, but not when it's a childless couple. If anything, an MRA think's women should work and earn an income- two incomes are much better than one.

It's feminists who imply women are weaker by saying things like women need extra help in times of disaster or famine, even to the point not givine food to men at all. And take military service- feminists would say it's a feminist idea to think women can be in the military, and a misogynistic idea to think women are too weak for the military. But then why is it feminists who protested gender neutral conscription in Norway? They are making the argument that conscription is more of a "man's duty"- ok, so what does that mean, and how does it contract with your self described feminist beliefs?

Same might be said for domestic violence laws- feminists call for gender specific laws like the Duluth Model, and even teach that women can't be perpetrators of domestic abuse, and men can't be victims- what is the implication of that? How could feminists be implying anything other than women being the weaker gender with that?

You'll notice that all of those things are the opposite of what MRAs say, and to me that's very telling.