If personal anecdotes matter to cut through the falsehoods, then you should include the personal anecdotes from women. Well, I've bad news for you, #metoo are anecdotes from women who resonate with many women because they are common. All the feminist stories that you hate are also personal anecdotes.

If I had to use the same method, I can also tell you that from my male relatives perspective, many would claim something similar. But from the female relatives, the story changes and that "protection" is not as efficient as they claim. For example, from my maternal grandparent perspective "he provided for the family". Objetively speaking, my grandma, his wife, had several flats for rent that provided more income than my grandfather wage. Yet, for some reason, it wasn't considered that she provided for the family and, of course, she did all the house chores and deferred to him.

Men aren't blamed, but they aren't excused no longer. They aren't blamed for falling short (although here we can discuss a lot, since many men fall short because their own pride), they are blamed for things they do. For example: when they blame a raped woman saying she is responsible for being alone/what she wears/did, then they are part of the problem. If they look the other way when a man rapes because that man is a relative/friend and "they couldn't possibly believe he did it 2 (so they discount all the evidence that says that he did), then they are part of the problem. Those are actions, not falling short. If your solution to a rape is to marry the raped woman to the rapist, then that is not falling short, is adding insult to the injury. I could go on.

Now, you mention women killing their children. Well, if I apply "personal anecdotes here", then I've never seen it. Not family, not friends, not even aquaintances. So if you want to change criteria, tell me, but the double standard shows. And since you mention murdered children, you might want to also look into the ones killed by their fathers. Because in my country it is something abusive men do when the women divorce. Since they can't hurt her directly, they hurt the children.

As for women "harashing their husbands" you might want to be more specific about what you call harashment. After all, some men who didn't pay pension for their children consider that their ex asking for that money harash them. And some married men consider that women asking for money to buy groceries are greedy and harash them.

You talk about "selective interpretation", but I've notice that you apply different criteria when looking into male violence (anecdote), or female violence (data although without links), and you directly ignore that men like Amartya Sen have also said that women care more for the family.

Feminsit also want to be the best they can be. It just happens that they have noticed that under patriarchy they are expected to be far less than they can be. To pretend to be dumb as to not hurt men's pride. To stay home so the men won't feel emasculated. To not develop too many skills, so the men can feel needed...

Having good parents or grandparents won't change that patriarchy was a system meant to benefit older men over women and younger men. Unsurprisingly, the women who know first hand how it is to live under patriarchy, are the most vocal feminist. And they tell plenty of anecdotes that I suppose you prefer to ignore, because even if I see you in the comments of those stories, you always claim that "it is not like that". Well, it is for those women.

And when my paternal grandfather chosed to give more money to my younger brother, he wasn't protecting me. Sure, his "reasoning" was that a boyfriend should pay for me. I told him that that was prostitution. Because it is. Yeah, I get it, it was his way to presure me to find a boyfriend. What it meant in practice was that I was left with less just for being a woman, since I didn't wanted to date someone so they pay for dates (and I wanted books, not going to restaurants, anyway). My brother on the other hand, spend his money in videogames without issue. That is patriarchy "protection" from my perspective. A fuck up system where I'm expected to defer to a man (boyfriend) so he pays something I didn't wanted anyway (going to a restaurant) and still be denied what I wanted (books).

And whenever I listen to other women's stories they are similar. So another anecdote from India.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/delhi-women-self-defense-india-rape/

If acording you men protect women, why exactly is this needed? Because I'm sure that those women relatives would say that they protect them. And your personal anecdota, what are your relatives doing to protect women from rape. Do they patrol? Do they haunt rapist? Or the answer is to not let women walk alone and tell them to stay home? If it is the latter, then that "protection" is basically taking away women's freedom. Not only is innefective (falling short), it also hurts women in the process.

The reason most women don't like patriarchy is not because they read feminist books or blogs, it is because they experience patriarchy and don't like it. After all, if their personal experience didn't match, they won't care about what feminists say.

So again, read Amartya Sen on microcredits. Then read the part about why he said that it worked better if you give credits to women instead of men. An economy novel price, not a western feminist. What was that about selective interpretation? Because it very much seems to me that whenever I point out examples of how your theory doesn't hold, you just ignore the point and change to another "anecdote" about how evil are women adnnd feminist...