THE NARRATIVE:

This one of those situations where the feminist narrative on men constantly changes whenever it's convenient.

Whenever men talk about men issues. Feminists are quick to say men issues are cause by other men, not women. Men are the ones who created the patriarchy. Most of men problems are cause by other men. Because men hate each other.

But whenever the topic of equality comes up. All of a sudden men don't view women as human beings. And all of a sudden there is this strong bond or brotherhood between men. And men secretly have this gay emotional attraction to their bros (sneaky homophobic insult here). This makes men so misogynistic, to the point men are willing to defend rapists, abusers, and even their worst enemies for this brotherhood.

See how the narrative changes from men not caring about each other because they created the patriarchy. To men having a strong brotherhood, where they don't view women as humans. The equality or treating women like humans thing is just a false flag or red herring. Do not get tricked by this false flag. The true motive is to make sure women get special treatment or chivalry from men. It's basically the motte and bailey fallacy.

The motte and bailey fallacy is a rhetorical tactic where one defends a controversial position (the bailey) but retreats to a more defensible position (the motte) when challenged.

In the case with feminists. They defend the controversial position of putting women on a pedestal and treating women like queens. But when challenge, retreat to the more defensible position. Which is just treat women like normal human beings or equals in this case.

Off topic: THE "ALL MEN vs NOT ALL MEN" paradox.

And also this constant changing the narrative is similar to something I called the "all men vs not all men" paradox.

Where feminists have no problem viewing men as individuals when it comes to all the great achievements men have done for society. Building Skyscrapers, building bridges, working dangerous jobs, and fighting wars. Feminists would usually ironically use the phrase "not all men". By saying men can't take credit for the work of other men. Because they don't build things, work dangerous jobs, or fight in wars. And joke about how most men work soft office jobs and don't know to fix cars.

But than the same feminists would hold men accountable for the actions of rapists, abusers, and creeps. Because all men are complicit. Because men created the patriarchy. The patarichy being something a few powerful men created decades ago. Even though the patarichy was created by limitations cause by nature and not ideology. Thousands of years ago where there was no modern technology. But that's a story for another day though.

But the trick here is to only view men as individuals when it comes to good men. And only view men as a collective when it comes to bad men.

BACK TO THE CURRENT NARRATIVE.

In this case the trick is to view men asa bunch of heartless people who don't care about each other, as a way to downplay any concern for men issues. But then spin in a way where men all of a sudden have this super love for each other. This love for each other make men not see women as humans or equals.

In short, men are being accused of not caring about each other and simultaneously being accused of protecting each other to the detriment of women.

And again.

Controversial Bailey: “Treat women like queens,” "Believe all women," or "Protect women no matter what."

Defensible Motte: “Just treat women equally.”

In conclusion.

They love their schrodinger's narratives. Because it's extremely convenient.