It's unfortunate that there is so much truth in this, though some of it sounds exaggerated. Yes, women have a tend-and-befriend strategy, and yes, it serves them to be seen as morally enlightened victims, but I hope you are making efforts to understand the natures of both women and men charitably, to accept what cannot be helped rather than stewing in resentment over all of it. By all means be bitter about feminist hypocrisy, about the lie that emotional vulnerability is a viable mating strategy in the long run. But it can be hard to look at the dirty side of humanity—the fundamental amorality behind our instinctive motives—and not develop severe prejudice against everyone in a group just because of something you know about that group's overall natural propensities.
Women typically PRETEND to be victims and vulnerable. They aren't, but they make sure they pretend they are, and even encourage each other to see themselves that way to make the pretense all the more real...
Ah yes, female taqiyya. I don't know how much of it is natural and how much is exacerbated by feminist threat narratives, but I do know about how this sort of thing operates. Since I'm a homo, women readily disclose their taqiyya to me all the time. The true nature of the "sisterhood" is the same as that of a mafia: you cover for each other's lies and work against each other's enemies without question. It is justified on the grounds that "nothing else will get those creeps to leave us alone!" It's also rather like how pheromones released from a bee sting work when the "threat" is within the vicinity of the hive.
Whether two women who are total strangers claim to be with each other or a woman attacks a man who's "creeping you out" and gets a crowd to turn against him by crying sexual assault, it's the same principle—one which extends into feminist rhetoric about rape culture, "victim blaming", "victim doubting", the nonexistence of "perfect victims", etc. I cannot think of anything in any "bro code" that is analogous to this pervasive code of the "sisterhood".
Why do we say we believe in evolution, and then erroneously think men got brute strength to try to pass on their genes, while women got nothing?
Why do we say we believe in evolution and then pretend that women and men evolved independently of each other's needs and selection criteria? In almost all other sexual species we have no problem identifying female choice as the primary driver of sexual selection, yet we deny that our species' morally perfect females can have anything to do with "toxic masculinity". To pretend "toxic masculinity" has never done anything for women is to insist that human evolution was somehow, miraculously, exclusively male-driven.
I really wish I could say you're telling me something that I didn't already know, or even something totally unacceptable that's probably motivated by being rightfully rejected by too many women. But I'm not that naive. I don't think I could grow up with three straight older brothers and be that naive. I couldn't have as many female friends as I do and think that there's no more than a grain of truth in your mini-exposé.