It is very easy to say something to further antagonize "opposing party" but let's try to build bridges. Can you propose some stance that is not betrayal of your own base, but can be acceptable by at least part of the opponents?

I'll try to propose a few basic ideas, would you agree with them?

comparing privileges is wrong. There is no objective way to compare who has it worse. We don't need to emphasize that our side has it worse than other even if we subjectively think so. Otherwise it leads to comparing apples to kilometers. IMHO concept of "privilege" is harmful, divisive and counterproductive. We should avoid as it makes us even more hostile and further from understanding. Particularly this means we need to get rid of "males are privileged gender" or "men have it worse in everything from legal to dating". Just no reason to compare who has it worse.

Not Patriarchy but Post-Patriarchy. Legal limitations and policies that actively prevented women from career and political influence are long gone. Gone not so long ago, thus social inertia keeps some mindset from older era. Some people refuse the changes and cling to the memories of idealized past. Meanwhile reality of young men is drastically different, insisting that they are living in Patriarchy and are privileged is like spitting in their face. Post-Patriarchy concept is not as repulsive, as saying that we're are dealing with the lasting damage caused by something that is not here already.

Reproductive coercion is wrong. Women's body autonomy is a part of the problem. I think, we can mostly agree on supporting women's rights for abortion, but there is a caveat. Women and feminists who dismiss/victim blame baby-trapped men use exactly same argumentation as prolifers who are against rights of women. "If you don't want kid, you had to use rubber, now it is your fault". Double standards are very irritating.

Perceived wage gap is mostly due to maternity penalty. The fact that men earn more is often erroneously used to claim that employers pay men more for same work and same amount of work. This leads to justifying discrimination, which is not solving the root cause of the problem and causing backlash. There are real root causes:

  • Mothers sacrifice careers more than fathers
  • Women and men work in different fields and in different conditions - and this is often a voluntary choice (in education, work balance, health risks for high compensation etc)

We need to address real root causes while dramatic cries about men being paid more for same job are not helpful and only reduce credibility of the feminism. One of the good directions to go is equal sharing of maternity/paternity leave like in Sweden.

There should be no gendered laws and policies. Draft by gender. Different retirement ages. Different punishment for similar crimes (this applies to so called gender violence, LIVG in Spain, VAWA). It can so happen that due to reality in the field law will be more often applied against one gender But the letter of the law must be gender-neutral. Only feasible exception I see is for something related to aspect of giving birth. There are actually gendered laws against women in some countries that are restricting employment of women in dangerous professions. This is also sexism while presumably benevolent dressed like caring about health of women.

Misandry and Misogyny first of all people who claim that Misandry hurts feelings, while Misogyny kills are conflating motivation and action. Both Misandry and Misogyny are mindsets. They don't directly harm others. They make people harm others, condone and justify discrimination. It is all like conflating hate and hate crimes. Both misandry and misogyny are motivating/justifying bad behavior. Last but not least - they feed each other. Misandry is an important contributor to misogyny of the young men.

For feminist women: could you agree with this or some subset of the poitns above?

Can you formulate your basis in a way that might be acceptable to men?