M'kay so you want a direct example of how anti-feminists a) hate men and b) believe the only role women should have in society is as bait for men? Matthew Yglesias has the goods.  Emphasis mine.

This put me in mind of Monica Potts’ review of Kay Hymowitz:

“Before [today], the fact is that primarily, a 20-year-old woman would have been a wife and a mother,” author Kay Hymowitz told the crowd of about 100 at the Manhattan Institute in New York City. Men would have been mowing lawns and changing the oil in their family sedans instead of playing video games and watching television.

Hymowitz’s argument, essentially, is that not only has feminism opened up new doors of opportunity to women, but it’s helped contribute to the growth of a society in which young men are less crushed down with family and household obligations and are spending more time enjoying themselves. Except she means this as a bad thing! In both cases the conservative conceit seems to be that a decline in human suffering is a bad thing because it leads to a corresponding decline in admirable anti-suffering effort. John Holbo memorably dubbed this Donner Party Conservatism.

Source: Matthew Yglesias

Got that?  Conservatives just fucking hate it when women have political and social autonomy, that they're approaching economic parity, that thanks to contraceptives, Plan B, and abortion they can have children when they want to and still have sex when they don't, and most importantly, that women can have men in their lives because they want men in their lives and not because they'll starve if they don't offer their asses to someone who'll support and "protect" them.

And why do conservatives hate women with social, economic, reproductive, and sexual autonomy?

Because with all that freedom they're not obliged to drag men down into early marriage, into greater responsibility, into ground down death-of-a-salesman lifespans.  Which means that men too have new freedom.

And before anyone goes all work-ethic angst-y about men "slacking off" I just want to point out that the ex anti baseline was... men working twice as hard as necessary in order to support an able-bodied partner who was effectively forbidden to work at all! In other words men are only "slacking off" relative to the Willie Lomans of conservative findom fetishists.  Fuck them!

Anyway, I think that really nicely illustrates how

• Men benefit not only indirectly but directly from feminism
• How conservatism views women primarily as bait to use to dominate and control men
• How neither women or men are intended to benefit from the system of patriarchy
• Why men ought to have as vested an interest in the outcome of feminism as women do
• Why men should direct their ire not at feminism but the fucking assholes who want to use women to control men.

And finally,

• How it's patriarchy rather than feminism that genuinely, truly, madly, and deeply hates and fears men.

I mean seriously! What decent person... what person with any hint of integrity or honor... what person in his or her right mind thinks the real reason women should be kept barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove is to keep men's noses chained to the grindstone?!?!?

Oh, and it's not just Hymowitz who blames women for men's happiness.  Yglesias begins his post with news that the American Enterprise Institute just hosted a whole fucking conference on the insufficient misery suffered by millions of American men and women.

Fuck them and the horse they rode up on!

Via Amanda Marcotte, who's own post excoriating the Right's viscious assault on men's happiness and freedom is called The War on Joy.

Update: But see also Echidne who catches conservative British cabinet minister David Willets being a little more honest: all those feminists are making upward mobility more difficult for men.