So we all know how tough it is to argue for men's rights or men's issues in the face of SJWs shouting "patriarchy!"

Yet many of these same SJWs will fight for:

  1. Gay men (e.g., right to be a Boy Scout leader)
  2. Black men (e.g., right to not get shot by police)
  3. Transvestite men, men who want a sex change
  4. Conscientious-objector soldiers

I. Trojan Horse Strategy -- Could issues surrounding these groups be used as a foothold to bring to light men's issues, generally? (Note: I'm not trying to diminish the needs of the aforementioned groups, but rather point out their connection with the larger group of men.)

For example, if the topic turned to gay men being raped could that be a foothold to talk about men being raped by other men, and from there, men being raped by women? Or from black men being shot/imprisoned to men being shot/imprisoned? Or transvestite men who want to express their sexuality, to men who want to express their sexuality?

Or would this be futile, as feminists would quickly create a "firewall" to prevent the issue from being generalized to all men?

II. Piecemeal Strategy -- A related, but alternate approach would be to advocate for one subgroup at a time, until you've covered the majority of men and boys. For example, focusing on the problems of Black men, gay men, illegal-immigrant men, Muslim men, men who were women, atheist fathers, fathers of gay sons, boys who get beat up, etc. Any other topic ideas?

Or would the politically acceptable subgroups never amount to more than half of all men?

What other pros and cons do you see from either of these approaches?