To add on to what others have replied, there is a "men's rights" movement called "men's liberation," which embraces feminism and its critique of patriarchy, focusing on how that system has hurt men, but not vilifying women in the process.
It's not unfounded, but MRAs are purely reactionary; they're the mirror twin of their enemies. They replace the "patriarchy" with the "gynocracy" and call it a day. I prefer authentic harmony between femininity and masculinity, but neither of these movements serves this purpose at all (some will object that they do, but both view their opposite as inherently poisonous--within feminism men can only be "good" by "betraying masculinity", and vice versa).
Because if your goal is to advance liberal feminism, you can help achieve that by "discouraging" opposition to it, leaving your slide to dominate the conversation. That discouragement often takes the form of various ways of increasing the personal cost for an individual to express an opposing opinion (e.g. through boycotts, vilification, harassment, marginalization, etc). As a tactic, it works, at least in the short to medium term (and it feels good, too).
This article is pretty interesting and related: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/opinion/gay-marriage-boyc.... tl;dr: Gay marriage activists succeeded in part by personally targeting wealthy gay marriage opponents, causing them to avoid making donations to opponent organizations, leading to funding disparities that helped the advocates prevail.
It may or may not be an accurate description of this group (I haven't heard of “men’s liberation”, or if I did I’ve forgotten, and it would be atypical of what generally falls under the “men’s rights” banner), but the described position (accepting the feminist critique of patriarchy but focussing within that on how patriarchy hurts and limits men and addressing those issues) is a perfectly coherent position; while feminism doesn't view the impact of patriarchy as symmetric on sex/gender, it certainly does identify it as harmful and limiting to men as well as women.
Also, what makes this interesting is that there is almost no such thing as a problem with existing gender roles that solely affects men. For example, the obstacles blocking men from parenting children within society are inextricably intertwined with the feminist, women-centric idea that parenting should not fall entirely on women, but it is basically impossible to address the former without outright rejecting feminism even though they are a direct obstacle to those feminists' goals. Usually it just ends up in blaming the men for failing to overcome obstacles that the people involved can't even realise exist and are probably quietly perpetuating in their own lives.
Are you saying that there is fact multiple kind of feminism, or multiple ways to defend feminism, and one of them block -or rather challenge - the other? If this is the case, i agree.
I'll go with my experience. My father demanded shared right every year for seven years. He had to go to a tribunal where my mother lived, probably de most conservative county in France (only royalist one at least). For seven year, he was told "no", and was even told to stop taking the judge's time. The eighth year, the law changed and the case was instructed at his place of living, a very liberal county (liberal as the americans understand the term). He got the shared rights.
Now, its only one case, outside the US so probably the culture is different. But i think there is a reason why the mens liberation movement exist, and i do think it is necessary to have different point of view on feminism, inside the feminist movement. Internal iscourse is necessary for a movement to grow with the rest of society.
This is complete bullshit.
Not to say that you can’t find this way of thinking; it certainly exists and gets disproportionate play from anti-feminists to whom it is convenient, but it hardly exhausts, or even typifies, feminist thought.
A few years back, I was friends with several very feminist people [1] who expressed exactly that thought in about as many words. In other cases, they were very much of the belief that group-members should be followed as advocates for their own group. The big glaring exception was men, and they didn't grasp the contradiction or their blind spot.
[1] It was a mixed group who's strongest ideological commitment was to feminism and related ideologies. The men definitely put the women's perspectives above their own.