Aren’t men in power structures alienated from men in general?

The mainstream feminist theory argues that we live in patriarchal (male-dominant) society, men in power structures aren’t alienated from men in general, there is clear oppression of women by men.

But is there a good evidence that men in power structures aren’t alienated from men in general?

My point is they are. For example, do they work for the benefit of men? Do they act in men’s actual interests? Do they protect men’s human rights at all?

In my opinion – no. They don’t act in men’s actual interests.

For example, most homeless people are men. Most journalists who have been killed are male. What would do men in power structures if they weren’t alienated from men in general? I guess they would begin to discuss how to act to protect men from homelessness, to make male journalists safer at work. We don't see anything similar to it.

On the contrary. Male-dominant (in the sense that the majority of its delegates are men) UN don’t protect men from using them as cannon fodder. According to UN declarations, male conscription is okay, it’s not discrimination against them. Maybe people in power structures just view men as cannon fodder?

Misandry denialists always say that there are no misandry in our world because laws are made by men. In fact, it’s not the evidence. Laws can be made by men and be misandrous. Because “by men” doesn’t mean “for men”.

Understanding that men in power structures are alienated from men in general a big problem for a feminist theory. The idea that women should have more presentation in power structures to solve women’s issues is the idea that women in power structures wouldn’t be alienated from women in general. But this idea is idealistic.

Women in power structures also can be alienated from women in general, and it’s absolutely possible to create a society in which there are much more female senators, female deputies, female presidents, female ministers, female rich people, but there are no protection of some important women’s rights. Just like the contemporary male politics do nothing to solve a problem of male homelessness, it’s possible that the future in which there are no so much men in power structures, female politics wouldn’t solve such problems of women. It’s not unscientific to assume it.

Do mainstream feminists understand it? At least for many of them, anti-patriarchal ideology is their religion. They don’t analyze the claim that reducing of male dominance in power structures will make women’s lives happier. They just believe in it. They don’t believe women in power structures also can be alienated from women in general – and they don’t understand that men in power structures are alienated from men in general. Perhaps they think that Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin have feeling of solidarity with men in general. But it’s far from reality. They don’t have such feelings. And I think such men as Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander the Great also didn’t have them.

People who are in power structures, including men, are alienated from men in general. They view men as instruments for their goals. They view them as working mass or even as cannon fodder. Abolishment of conscription in many countries is still based not on the idea that male conscription is discrimination against men in relation to women in the right not to serve in military forces. And there are still no cultural perception of men as those who definitely must have a right never be a cannon fodder, who are equal to women in this aspect.

My point is not “we should save our goverments male dominant”. Rather I want to say that we shouldn’t view only on power structures to decide what gender lives happier. Also, we shouldn’t believe in unempirical, idealistic theory that reducing of male dominance in power structures is the key to solving all the serious gender issues.