That has got to be one of the biggest prevarications of the feminist movement. I don't buy the idea that "feminism" = "equality." As has been written, "If something has a direct benefit to an individual or a class of people, and a theoretical, abstract, or amorphous benefit to everybody else, realize that the proponent's intentions are to benefit the former, not the latter, no matter what bullshit they try to feed you."
When presented with evidence of an injustice by women against men, self-identified feminists inevitably counter-argue that feminism is not monolithic. Their argument? Evidence of injustice against men, benefitting women either, cannot be attributed to feminists, or that the particular feminist involved does not represent all feminists. To argue that feminism is so diverse an ideology that it cannot be confronted leaves the word so vague and ambiguous as to be devoid of any real meaning.
Let's get some concepts straight here. If there is a situation that pits men's interests against women's interests, feminists predominately argue for the women's side of an issue. Even when the equities are so obviously on the men's side, they come down on the side of the woman. If you want to see blatant examples of this, research the issues surrounding paternity missattribution. Feminists will do some pretty impressive intellectual gymnastics to justify an obviously unjust result. So, to argue that feminism helps men, one has to believe that men are helped when their interests are overlooked or trampled.
Let's propose a theory. The theory is that, when formulating an argument about the substance of an issue, self-identified feminists predominately assert conclusions that follow the following formulas:
If it appears in a particular fact pattern that there is conflict between a man and a woman that involves children, and the circumstances are such that the equities are indisputably on the side of the man, then the following formula will usually foretell the conclusion of a self-identified feminist:
(Where ">" = the equities as perceived by a self-identified feminist commentator.)
To test out this hypothesis, the argument invariably needs to have certain elements. The commentator needs to be a self-identified feminist. The interests of a woman, or a group of women, must conflict with the interests of a man, or a group of men. The interest that is at issue must be viewed as having a theoretical impact greater than just the parties involved. That is to say, by way of example, say Karen Owen publishes a deeply offensive "fuck list," and thereby sets up a conflict; Karen Owen v. 13 athletes' privacy rights, the conclusion must be viewed as having an abstract or theoretical application greater than Karen or the athletes.
Unfortunately, the formulas above don't have application to a great number of men v. women arguments, because when the facts are so bad for one side, the commentator often does not argue about the issue itself, but rather argues tangential issues that the writer would rather address, confirming their ideology.
Let's present an example. Here is an article in "the f word" entitled "16-year-old girl convicted following 'false rape allegation.'" What do we know from the article? We know a 16 year old girl was convicted of perverting the course of justice. We know that the girl in question was consistently inconsistent with the facts surrounding her allegation, and that her behaviour after the alleged rape was inconsistent with the charge itself. But, Laura Woodhouse is "rather alarmed" by the piece. She presents two arguments, (1) boy v. girl, (2) judge(man) v. girl. In both of her arguments, she comes down on the side of the girl. She argues that the boy may have raped the girl, despite the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident, and despite the conviction itself. She also argues that the judge should not have convicted her because he could not know whether the girl consented, unless he was actually in the room. Of course, that argument would go over like a lead zeppelin if it was proffered by a man stating that a judge should not convict a man for raping a woman, because the judge wasn't in the room to see if consent was given. Silly.
What is my conclusion? If the formulas presented give reliable truth claims about present and future commentaries, then I propose that feminist commentators are not interested in equity, but rather their arguments are based on emotion and favor those with whom they identify, and those similarly situated to them.
If anyone wants to test the theory, please do and let me know your results.