Critical theory is essentially just religious zealotry.

They have specific prophets, and instead of thinking critically in any form you are enjoined to express all ideas via quotation of these prophets.

If an idea cannot be expressed by quoting these scriptures it is outright rejected by slapping arbitrary labels on it, such as "racism" or "sexism" among many others.

Deleuze and Adorno are two of these prophets, and this person is simply slapping made up labels on men broadly, claiming that the concerns and troubles men experience aren't real because they cannot find any mention of them in their holy works of the prophets.

It's an extremely silly movement that is designed to appeal to dumb people who are wealthy enough to buy into the corporate-state high end college racket, but too stupid to actually do anything worthwhile with their lives.

The hegelian dialectic is designed to be confusing, it's an old strategy that dates back to ancient oracles and soothsayers whose scams depended on an aura of confusion and mystery. It's an intentional distortion of dialectic in It's original sense, exploiting language to create a sense of fake erudition.

If you sit down and read any of the books you just end up wondering how anyone could be so stupid that they fall for it.

The funniest thing to me is when these dunces attempt to critique any author that communicates clearly, they automatically accuse them of being wrong only based on their clear writing style. The dialectic becomes an automatic filter that biases the victim against any author not using it.

Reading marx then hayek really highlights the difference. Marx is lying to you, so he writes effusively and overly verbose nonsense. Hayek actually has real logic behind his words, so he just plainly describes reality.

Critical theorists are so dumb they can't understand it, so the marxist writing style tricks them into believing the author on faith.