PART 1: INTRODUCTION.

Note I don't think this is a tin foil hat conspiracy theory. I think we can find some facts and historic events of Feminists hostile reaction to male advocate groups, that prove my post right here.

I only have a few examples here.

Erin Pizzey, who founded the first women’s shelter, was harassed by feminists for pointing out that women can also be violent.

Warren Farrell, former NOW board member, was ostracized after shifting focus to boys' and men's issues.

Men’s groups like CAFÉ (Canada) or J4MB (UK) have been protested or even de-platformed despite being peaceful, because they challenged feminist orthodoxy.

It's really simple. For starters feminists automatically view any movement for men as something that is taking away the victimhood spotlight/championship from women.

But it's also a little bit more deeper than that though.

Let's do some math here.

Rigid male gender roles = Root cause of most men’s issues, Women benefit from those roles (security, sacrifice, priority in certain situations) ➡ Feminism sees men’s liberation as a threat to those benefits = Therefore, feminism resists any men’s movement that operates independently

I already explain this a little bit in this post here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/csdzZxqszd

PART 2: MOTTE VS BAILEY FALLACY.

Before we get into this post main point. I must explain the motte and bailey game feminists love to play when it comes to men issues.

When male advocacy gains traction, feminists often respond with the Motte and Bailey fallacy:.

Motte: “Feminism helps men too.”

Bailey: “Men created the patriarchy, so they should fix their own problems.”

Of course we all know this is BS lip service. Because their actions shows they don't give a fuck about men's issues. But you have to read in-between the lines though. They do this motte as a way to kill any momentum for men's rights group. By saying "Woah Woah wait, why do men need a movement, when Feminism is for men".

The second that momentum for a men rights group dies down. They will be quick to go back to the bailey. By going mask off, by saying men issues aren't their problems, saying that men shouldn't rely on women or Feminists to save them. They do this because they have already accomplish their goal. Which was to kill any momentum.

This rhetorical switch is used to discredit and delegitimize any independent men’s movement that doesn’t operate under the feminist umbrella.

And the ultimate fear?

That men break free of traditional roles, roles that simultaneously harm men and benefit women, will erode long-standing gender privileges. That’s why any men’s rights group not wholly co-opted by feminist framing is seen as dangerous.

In short: Feminist hostility to male advocacy isn't about stopping hate, it's about preserving a system where sacrifice and disposability are expected of men, and support and protection are expected for women.

Feminists only tolerate men's groups like Men libs (I.E. one of the "good ones), if they adopt their lens—blaming men and centering patriarchy. That’s not real support, just conditional approval. The hostility isn’t because men’s movements turn misogynistic or red-pill. it’s because they challenge the status quo that benefits women. The red-pill fear is just a boogeyman used to shut them down.

PART 3: THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE THEIR PRIVILEGES.

Privileges feminists are afraid women will lose, if any men's movenent get rid of men issues.

1.Custody Bias, men marginalized, told courts favor caregivers, not gender.

2.DV Support Male victims ignored. Men less likely to face lethal abuse.

3.Dating Norms for men, pressured to pursue/pay Women face more risk, and do more in relationships/marriages.

4.SA Male victims overlooked. Female victimhood is systemic.

5.Safety from Men seen as disposable protectors, Feminist say men should stop male violence, and not complain about helping women.

6.Chivalry, men trapped in old roles “It’s just considered kindness” or “equity” by Feminists.

Pattern: Every attempt to address male struggles ends with: “It’s still men’s fault” or “You’re taking away from women”

So any men’s group that challenges this dual-benefit structure? 👉 Gets labeled “toxic,” “misogynist,” or “threatening.”

IN CONCLUSION.

It's all about Cakism. It's the "I want to have my cake and I want to eat it too" mentality. That's the point of this post, and the point of the other two posts in the links too.