Troll, cute.

Because obviously anyone trying to address these issues from and intersectional perspective outside of a narrow gynocentric framework is obviously a troll.

Lets try this. First, addressing your point, nearly every pre-feminist progressive group recognized that in an oppressive system some person or group had a vested interest in perpetuating the oppression. The first thing communists/socialists decided was that the emancipation of the working class could only be achieved by the working class itself. That those with a vested interest in exploiting workers could not be expected to stop exploring workers simply because they where asked. The same was true of abolitionists, hence W.L. Garrison's statement "With reasonable men i will reason, with humane men i shall pleade, with tyrants i shall give no quarter, nor spend arguments where they will surely be wasted." I make no contention that rape culture exists and exploits women, but if this is the case then someone benefits from rape culture, and that group will be utterly indifferent to any attempts to persuade them to stop raping.

This is why #notallmen occurred, and what feminists have (again) managed to totally miss. #Notallmen is not a statement of solidarity or an excuse, men are telling you you are preaching to the choir, that those men who would listen to calls to cease rape would not have considered raping in the first place, and those men who would rape could not care less what you or anyone else thinks of that. The type of male who thinks rape is a viable norm is "alpha centric", earnestly believing that they are "superior" to other males and thus would not pay the slightest attention to the opinions of their "inferiors" (other males as well as women). Is this not what the homicidal loon in California said himself?

More broadly, I am rapidly becoming horrified with the complete failure of the modern left to concretely address issues of all forms because of its fixation that everything must be related to women. In 1965 the per employee output of the united states was $11,481 (719 billion in gdp, 62.6 million full time equivalent workers), Men's (median) where paid $6,598, women's median $3,816, meaning men where paid $0.57 for every dollar they produced and women where paid $0.33 per dollar output, on average. In 2008 we had a per employee output of $112,802, with median male pay at $47,779, for $0.42 per dollar output, and womyn's median pay at $36,688, or (Wait for it) $0.33! This has been hailed as a triumph of feminism.

Before you obviously attempt charging me with derailing, consider for a moment. You assert men are expressing feelings of "Entitlement", and this i concede fully. Why should men, having lost 21 trillion dollars in unpaid wages, not feel entitled to something in return? Particularly since this loss resulted in no meaningful gains for womyn? Why would a group of people who has seen their ability to secure first tier Maslow's needs destroyed to no concrete purpose not be expected to direct ire, even wrath at those celebrating its destruction? Why would this not invariably lead to a culture of hatred towards womyn? If a culture of misogyny exists, it stems from two equally important beginnings, neither of which as addressed in this video...

1) a group (likely not large) of males who concretely benefit from degrading women and could not care less what others think of that.

and

2) A group (probably quite large) of men outraged over the destruction of their ability to feed, cloth, and house themselves and its celebration as a victory by womyns groups.

I do not have the most infinitesimal shred of objection to women (or even womyn) receiving $0.60 for every dollar they produce, and the second source can be easily addressed by guaranteeing to all men and women a wage equal to $0.60 per dollar output. But if the first group exists, then no amount of admonishment, public or private, will deter them, any more then "The Liberator" deterred slave owners or "Iskra" deterred the Czar of Russia.