One of my friends in the MRM suggested, after extensive reading and observation, that it's as important that we attack traditionalist men and their gynocentric conditoning, as it is that we attack feminism.

Currently I'm inclined to agree. In my experience, there are 2 main types of male feminist white knights:

i) White knight cucks. These are the spineless, over-apologetic young guys who got thrown into the fold. They often get sucked in due to being of a more effeminate nature by design or socialisation. Surprise surprise, they rarely get laid.

ii) Old-school white knights. These are actually quite established men, could be rich or happily married. They hold what from a distance look like 'progressive' and 'feminist' views on women, but in reality are just about female hypo-agency. They have no such concessions for men, and typically enforce male hyper-agency on men not conforming to gynocentrism ruthlessly. It's unclear whether this is just one big act to garner female approval or whether it's actually an ethical code which has been ingrained into them at a young age and is near impossible to change now.

I actually think that ii) are more dangerous, because whereas the cucks are just pathetic for the most part, the older, more established guys are actually powerful and influential. Unlike the cucks who tend to just articulate terrible appeals to emotion and victimhood, the older WKs are kinda classy and put up a nasty fight. I know for a fact that, say, if my friend's dad was a feminist, I'd be more intimidated than if some random classmate had just become one.

Thoughts?