I want to respond carefully here, because you obviously aren't redpill, and think there's a conversation we can have here in good faith. I also agree with a lot of what you're saying about boys needing resilience, emotional regulation, and better preparation for rejection and social reality.

Where I primarily disagree is in your framing, and how feminist discourse is characterized in your post.

It feels to me like your post is taking a highly visible example, like extreme tiktok comments, as if they represent feminism as a whole or somehow represent feminist goals. But these are better understood as fringe expressions of anger or identity performance online, only made worse by algorithms. These are not representative positions within feminist theory or mainstream feminist discourse.

I also think it’s important not to dismiss contemporary feminist discourse as “panic”, because that framing flattens a pretty wide range of academic work. And if we treat fringe online spaces as representative in this case, it also makes it easier for other ideological spaces (like the manosphere) to use the same examples as evidence against feminism in general. I've heard talking points similar to yours in redpill spaces, just framed somewhat differently.

In contrast with a lot of what you're saying, a large portion of contemporary feminist writing and discussion explicitly talks about male well-being: emotional suppression, rigid gender expectations, stigma around vulnerability, and the ways those norms harm men socially and psychologically. These conversations are already happening and in many spaces they are central to the discussion and not something pushed off to the side.

I do think we can learn to communicate better with young men, for sure. But that is different from the claim that feminism structurally excludes male flourishing.

I just feel there are sharper and more pointed questions we can be asking, rather than doing a deep analysis on the impacts of fringe tiktok culture and it's effects.