When a man lies about another man, it is often really a way to lie about himself by contrast. If he declares, "I am intelligent" or "I am more intelligent than Jim is" he may be called upon to back that up; if he says, "Jim is stupid", then it will be Jim who is questioned. It is implied that the other man is smarter because he cast himself in the role of Jim's critic. This offers no proof of intelligence and that is the point: to state a position without having to back up the assertions. If a person agrees with him that Jim is stupid, they both can be in collusion and feel superior, for they have found a scapegoat in Jim and merit is never a part of the eqaution in situations like these.
We find this a lot with the statements of feminists; they will accuse men of every evil imaginable and by doing so, claim a moral high ground by doing no more than pointing an accusing finger at others. When feminists accuse men of being immoral, it is a good way to take the spotlight off of their dating drug dealers and having multiple abortions. Their criticism is largely a pre-emptive move against any criticism they may encounter themselves. Feminists have appointed themselves watchdog over men and thus have implied authority. If men question feminism, they have to go against an authoritarian structure that is largely false.
If I point out a defect in you, I have not really proved anything about my own ability, but I have claimed an authoritarian position by default. While you begin to state a defense, you forget that my argument was based on presupposition to begin with.
The problem feminists have is that if they begin to look at the world more realistically, without the male bogeyman, they may have to look at themselves a little more honestly. If it turns out the dragon was an illusion, claims of being the dragonslayer and the rewards that come with it go out the window.
