OK to sum up (although I'm sure you know already, and I'm not being sarcastic with this)
1) Patriarchy Hurts Men Too
I guess2) What men call misandry is actually the back-lash of patriarchy, e.g. 'man up'-patriarchy defined what man is, who meets its criteria and who doesn't
If you say so, not really thought about it3) Only men can dismantle patriarchy, since that social structure was created by men for men
Disagree both men and women can change how we view eachother and treat eachother4) As with any ideology, the most radical are the most vocal and militant. So, the public only see the extremist, radical feminist views and think 'yep that's feminism'. Plus that tends to be more entertaining, regardless of what is more socially just or balanced/accurate
True5) The most radical feminists (misandrists, who I dislike, and I imagine most feminists have reservations to them) basically reject patriarchy's constraints on woman, while either ignoring or even supporting (for unknown reasons I can only deem to be vested interests) its constraints on men
Try not to pay attention to radical crap to be honest but sounds abot right for radicals6)
Some women who are not self-identified as feminist still gain from its privileges while half-supporting patriarchy (the part which oppresses men). I believe this accounts for the majority of young women in my peer group, who grew up in a new wave of feminism, the 90s 'Girl Power' movement preceding popular radical feminism
Like what?7) Men
cannot dismantle patriarchy at the present moment in time because too many men support it-they see it as a threat to their masculinity, their very identity to challenge it-as do too many women, as demonstrated above
No idea not a man, so don't know how men feel8) Men who are against patriarchy, who have been abandoned by it or lost out because they couldn't reach its expectations of masculinity, are afraid to reject it. This is because they will lose the support of their fellow man, and (so it seems due to the popular views of feminism created by the rad-fems) feminism is against them. Out of the fire and into the frying pan, patriarchy is the lesser of two evils to these men
Again no idea9) Rad-fems cannot be reasoned with through men, because in rad-fem's eyes men are the enemy and de facto supporters of patriarchy. Only the argument of fellow women (and ideally fellow women feminists) can hold weight in a rad-fem's eyes
Not sure, radicals probably won't listen to anyone10) But in a moderate feminist's eyes
patriarchy is the true enemy, and a man against patriarchy (i.e. a male feminist) can be an ally. Therefore, mod-fems can be reasoned with through men
I guess, but why do mod-fems need to be reasoned with?11) If men
can trust the mod-fems-and realise that Patriarchy Hurts Men Too-feminism will gain more male feminists
This is true12) Through gaining the support of the mod-fems, the rad-fems can be either reasoned with and moderated, or balanced in the public sphere by mod-fems; not silenced since free speech, but perhaps this will help popular views to change
No matter the cause there will always be radicals 13) By changing the popular view of what feminism is, all feminists have a better chance of dismantling patriarchy and breaking the cycle!
Would be easier if the term feminism was just done away with to be honest and those who actually support equally rights and freedoms should adopt the term egalitarian. I think the word feminism is too far gone, it has to much hate against it.That is really as succinct as I can make it. It's an elaborate hypothesis, I don't now whether you feel it is even remotely plausible.