Because women asking to be treated as humans is so unfair to men that suddenly face the horrifying fate of... having to cook their own food. Or share domestic task and not being served upon. Or not controlling their wife's inheritance or other properties. Or their permission not being needed for women to work or opening a bank account.

Somehow I think the comparison with literal genocide and torture doesn't quite work. And it is fair to repeat that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco and Pol Pot, all agree with you on their dislike of feminism and forcing women to submit to their husbands.

What you call "pushed back" is not being "pushed forward" by putting women down.

So whose future is the one who is being killed? Not the one for men who are able to work side by side with women. Maybe the one for the men who need a woman giving up on everything to support him. But then again, the cost of pushing forward that men is to put down all the women who would be the ones whose future is killed.

What you are doing here is implicitly saying that women's future is worthless so is not such a big deal if it's lost so we can keep those men's future.

Maybe, the thing here is that many women value their own future so instead of giving it up to support men, they fight for themselves. Sure, they would still support some men, but it would be the ones who also support them.

And support women doesn't mean "be the breadwinner", means supporting in pursuing their dreams, even if those dreams are things like having a career. Or maybe even becoming someone very, very successful which mean that they won't prioritize the domestic chores since they have other priorities. Most women doesn't dream with sorting laundry or cleaning toilets, just saying.