This is a nonsensical interpretation that's not even worth addressing. The issue is with your comprehension.
I wish I could be as dismissive as you. Alas, I don't support the sort of feminist epistemology that is opposed to rejecting things like argument, commonsense, deduction and the scientific method as too "masculine", requiring emotion and irrationality injected into it.
That's the reason I see argument (and, in a different way, science) as something valuable for its own sake, whereas you have no interest in arguing any point not in your interest, because you don't see it as valuable.
That's why I'm concerned with inconsistency, whereas you (much like many of the postmodernist philosophers, such as Zygmunt Bauman) are content being as inconsistent as you like in your views, as they are still seen as expressing your opinion.
To the world itself, war is all the actual war that the proletariat is manipulated to fight in and support today.
You somewhat miss my point: Yes, the "proletariat" still fight in wars or whatever, but my point is they are no longer resisting the bourgeoisie through any sort of violent insurrection or warfare. The age of Communist revolutions is pretty much dead and gone, especially regarding the West.
My point is not that soldiers don't fight, but that Marxists are nowadays nothing short of neckbearded fedora-wearing complainers. They aren't skilled at warfare, and would be the first to capitulate in a war.
You see, this is a great example of how you turn your internet squabbles into this massive world-encompassing conspiracy
You brought up the conspiracy, I simply said "This is why some people hold it". I never said by any means that I believe in it. In contrast, if you look at that last line, I say the equivalent of "Is there any surprise people hold it?".
yet all you can think of when we talk about manipulation is "IS IN MY WESTERN COUNTRY, SOME PEOPLE DON'T THINK I SHOULD BE THE DEFAULT ANYMORE..." a lack of perspective is definitely a defining trait of your ilk, and your post is just nothing but a complete lack of any understanding of anything outside of your own personal bubble, where the EVILS OF FEMINISM are literally the most pressing issue ever in history.
I think I made it quite clear, but apparently not clear enough: You're conflating my mentioning of "masculinity" with males. You're conflating gender identity with sex.
My point is not "There is no male-dominated patriarchy", but that "Men are socially pressured and coerced into adopting untraditional, feminine roles against their will".
Part and parcel of "Feminism" is, unsurprisingly, an opposition to masculinity and favour of femininity, unreflexively condemning masculinity for "toxic" values while being unable to assess traditional feminine gender norms for the same (beyond, of course, "We no longer want to do housework"). For long enough, Feminism struggled to adopt transgenderism into its worldview for that reason - anything that wasn't seen as feminine was seen as a betrayal (in regards to FtM individuals), and its opposite was seen as "male infiltration" (in regards to MtF individuals).