It would help matters if myths weren't constantly recirculated.
The notion of the feminisation of the workforce is a load of old tut. Working class women have always worked in huge numbers; in the 19th century, there were mills and factories with an over 95% female workforce, for example.
Women ran their own businesses. Most of medieval England's brewers were women.
Again, with divorce statistics. Though tempered by high mortality rates, marriages still broken down in the 19th century. Spouses just left and went to work in another town or city, or went back home to parents. No one had any way of tracking bigamy, for example; folk just got remarried or weren't married in the first place. Most of Whitechapel wasn't married to their other halves back in the 1890s.
And violent male behaviour? I've come across local cases in the early 1800s that made my hair curl - - hardcore home invasions with pistols pointed at children's heads.
It's nothing new. Female heads of household even had the vote prior to the Great Reform Act under Tudor and Stuart law (the removal of which was the real origin of the suffragette movement).
Once you realise this, you simply cannot argue that feminism is the cause of any kind of modern social strife. What second wave femininism in Britain was was a backlash to the restrictions put on British women during the post-war period, restrictions designed to prevent revolution from returning soldiers and restrictions that made navigating life as a female extremely difficult.
Crikey, in the medieval period, women were the lusty sex. All rapacious Eves trying to lure good Christian lads into the sins of the flesh. 😂
And even upper class married women had copious amounts of power. As chatelaines, they ran manor houses that were, pretty much, the regional businesses in the area.
Modern MRA views about feminism are just so historical illiterate. Half of what they whitter on about is just bollox.