Feminism has basically been co opted into a kind of psuedo liberal, privileged, socially acceptable because it calls itself feminism, form of misandry.

Has it? Or is this just what people opposed to actual feminism claim feminism is all about?

There is a feminist subgroup here on lemmy and it does not look anything like this post.

I don't think we're quite as similar as you might think because I do take issue with the semantic framing made here. If it contains any form of gender discrimination, it's NOT feminism, full stop. I don't think the rise of casual discrimination against men is something done consciously, but rather a poor interpretation and extrapolation of female rage. Rather than a deliberate sabotage of feminist philosophy, this is just another example of people having no fucking clue what they're talking about in any field of philosophy, and a further illustration of the great divide between pop-philosophy and where actual academic philosophy stands today. I deliberately used the example of the term "mansplaining", since this is a term that absolutely did not come from feminist philosophy and illustrates how pop-philosophy completely misses the point. It's stupid team-sport bullshit that doesn't belong in philosophy of social justice.

There are far fewer legitimate believers in the anti-men movement than it appears, especially on the internet. The problem, hence my rant, lies in the rhetorical drift of platformed "feminism" of the democratic party in America. As someone else was quite apt to point out, it's another corrupted offering of capitalism. To "empower" women to be "girl-bosses", "queens", and "ackshually gurls rool da wurld". It's the system trying to pit us against one another yet again via some kinda 'gender competition'. My frustration is in the very real effect this rhetorical bullshit has made on younger generations of men pivoting hard to the right and some into the arms of the "manosphere". Liberals once again aiding fascists.

And what is honestly my biggest contention with your take; we're not cooked. That's silly. All this bullshit? This too shall pass. Legitimate feminism continues to gain ground and put in the hard work. Many men's liberation movements are beginning to find they actually have fundamentally mutual goals with feminists and are joining the fight. The dipshit ruling class is getting dumber, lazier, and more complacent than ever. More people are joining the fight, and boy has the media been quiet about just how big, angry, and unified the people have gotten. I don't rage about this shit because it's losing us the fight, I rage because a better future has never looked so clear and worth fighting for.

I think most of my sarcasm didn't translate well here. I should know better, this being the internet/text and all. I'll try to be more clear about my stance because I don't think we fundamentally disagree, but I suspect there may be a point or two we may want to make more granular.

As a response to your first paragraph(sorry, on mobile), yes, I legitimately have met many people irl who use this rhetoric, though, as you point out, it's not an epidemic, nor do I think there are many "true believers", so-to-speak, as much as it's casual, unthinking discrimination. Admittedly, they skew young and college age and will typically correct course if explicitly addressed. Those that double down are usually the youngest and/or self-described assholes.

As for the patriarchy, yeah, that's the primary problem. My point is to primarily focus on the system(the patriarchy) as the problem, rather than people (men). After all, many women will perpetuate and even sometimes benefit from the patriarchy. Hence my contention with the term "mansplaining", as I attempted to point out this takes the focus away from the problem of the optics of women's competence and focuses on men specifically looking down on women. It's a crude and unhelpful pop-philosophy term that admittedly was deliberately used precisely because it's an emotionally defended term of pop-feminist philosophy and is a good illustration of the gulf between pop-philosophy and where actual academic philosophy stands. The problem isn't that a man is doubting someone else as the term would imply, but that a woman is seen as incapable of competence. The goal of women's liberation is co-opted by pointing the finger at men. I think the nefarious reason this term is so sticky is because it is indeed rooted in real life examples of the most common optical occurrence of perpetuating doubt about women's competence. And as the primary point of my rant illustrates, liberal rhetoric has crept into blaming/attacking men at the expense of the goal of gender liberation.

Now, I should be very clear about what my focus on the system rather than the people is/isn't doing; focus on the patriarchy as the problem rather than on men as the problem will indeed still call out the actions of men more often. However, what this primarily accomplishes as a direct criticism of pop-philosophy is separate the action from the actor to more accurately describe why the action is wrong as opposed to who is doing the wrong. Rather than trying to root out problematic groups of people, now we more accurately root out problematic behavior amongst all of us. Pop-philosophy would rather you just lazily say "ugh, men, amirite?"

The allegory of man vs bear in the woods isn't lost on me. I think my sarcasm got a bit too thick in the characterization of liberals missing the point with it. I think it's a great illustration of demonstrating reality that even when recognizing the problem is indeed patriarchy and not men, women would still be wise to pick the bear over the random man in the woods due to how the patriarchy manifests itself in social power dynamics. Most men probably are relatively safe, but the unsafe men pose enough of a risk that it's impossible to ignore. This is definitely a perspective all men should do their best to come to understand about the very real experiences of women. However, my point in bringing this particular allegory up was to show the unhinged nature of the careless use of inaccurate language by liberals and pop-philosophy in saying it's all men when confronted by those who didn't understand the point. In looking at my post, I see now that it was very unclear I moved on from the allegory completely at the end of that sentence.

My point at the end there was to illustrate how dumb the rhetoric of attacking men is when considering the assumed premise of the rhetoric is pro-feminist = anti-men. Now everyone is miserable in discrimination because of their gender and women's liberation dies in great irony. When in reality feminism does indeed include men's liberation from patriarchy. While men are the primary beneficiaries of patriarchy, they also face discrimination because of patriarchy as well, obviously to a much lesser degree than women.

So, to sum up my rant: the anti-men rhetoric becoming casually included in pop-philosophy is problematic because:

1. It is fundamentally anti-feminist to be anti-men.
2. Being anti-men once again distracts from the actual goal of gender liberation.
3. Pushes away men who would otherwise be allies and even personally benefit from feminism.

And to reiterate the points you brought up that I do agree warrant emphasis that I originally failed to mention:

1. This isn't an epidemic, nor are there really that many "true believers" in anti-men rhetoric. Loud online assholes are usually the larger offending demographic.
2. While I have indeed heard this rhetoric unironically irl fairly often, the perpetrators were usually young, immature, and not usually full of conviction. I suspect most have/will grow out of it.
3. Much of this rhetoric comes from Hollywood, the democratic party, and online trolls. I think naming these sources speaks enough about how much of this problem is real versus manufactured.
4. And, admittedly, I think this is probably the point to come after me about: the problem is more manifest in how the rhetoric is currently creeping into casual conversation and unspoken premises rather than an actual intentional belief system. The problem is more rhetorical drift than ideological.