Am I the only one who finds it strange that some feminists dehumanize men, but at the same time they personify the "Patriarchy?" "The Patriarchy says," and, "The Patriarchy thinks," and, "The Patriarchy believes." I was unaware that an unproven sociology theory had so much agency.

I’ve never really thought about that - but if I had to make an impromptu reasoning right this minute, I’d say that the dehumanization and demonization (demonstrating agency and malevolent intent) are both necessary to facilitate hate.

I’d say that both men and ‘The Patriarchy’ get a share of each treatment. The Patriarchy needs to be humanized rather than dehumanized in some cases, so it is seen as more than ‘just a social construct to be overthrown’ (i.e. it’s re-enforced by white men), but also needs to be given agency so you know you should hate it.

Men are dehumanized sure, but still given agency as misogynists, rapists, abusers and oppressors, etc.

Compared to the Jews pre-WWII they were dehumanized as animals, etc. - but also given agency as rich (economic power in the culture) pedophiles (this gives agency as well as dehumanizes), who were powerful enough to betray the Germans in WWI and result in their loss (according to the propaganda).

So yeah I’d say to lead an effective hate campaign you probably need to demonstrate:

It’s morally fine (or even righteous) to hate the enemy. You have a reason to hate said enemy.

In feminism’s case,

Misandry doesn’t exist, and men don’t feel oppression like we do. (it’s ok to hate them) Men support the patriarchy which is the reason for our oppression. (you have a reason)

But yeah this is all pretty impromptu so I’d have to do more research to make sure this is all accurate.