I realise I am walking willingly into the snares of the toxic sisterhood by admitting this, but as a woman (and elected students' union officer) I think the new crop of male-specific support groups that are springing up across universities is actually a pretty good sign.

Groups such as the MENS society (Masculinity Exploring Networking and Support) at the University of Manchester and Oxford University's MC-O (Man Collective-Oxford) have been caught in a maelstrom of feminist outrage. Here in Manchester, the MENS society has had just about everything thrown in its way to stop it being formalised as a society, from condemnatory letters from the NUS women's officer to a squabble over the suitability of its original name.

Back in October I ran a debate piece in the University of Manchester student newspaper, on whether or not the students' union should ratify the MENS society (then just simply the Men's society). I am still receiving letters about it now.

While, undoubtedly, there must still be concerns about how genuine the welfare-based aims of the MENS society and their Oxford brethren may prove to be, it seems that a whole lot of valuable feminist energy has been directed at prohibiting groups like these – and to what end? Now the MENS society is formally established (and making national headlines to boot), it seems that all that has been achieved is a rather soured relationship between those defending women's rights and those who would tackle enduring male stereotypes. Hardly a brick in the road to true gender equality.

And frankly, the feminists are missing a trick. If you accept that the remaining gender inequalities – be they in the City, in the boardroom, in Whitehall or in the apportioning of domestic chores – are the more pernicious, institutional inequalities, then the welcoming of men's rights/welfare/support groups is not only immensely practical, but a smart PR move too.

Feminism needs to give the public a good reason to sit up and realise that there's more to it than a puffed-up sense of vegan self-righteousness. We have reached a stage where a majority of women do not associate a fight for gender equality with their daily lives. Now, when we're talking of gender inequality, it comes down to the persistent and seemingly immovable notions as to what is "male" and what is "female".

And this is where the feminists should willingly accept the help of men. The time has come and gone for games of "she who shouts loudest wins" and the ghastly rhetoric of "having it all". We need a seismic shift in how we perceive gender roles, something that cannot come from enfranchising the female of the species alone. Yet now that some young men are finally saying this very thing, feminists have refused to listen.

As Sarah McCulloch, the female treasurer of the MENS society at Manchester puts it: "It's important that everyone be included in the discussion about how to create a more equal and fair society, and I don't believe that we will achieve true equality by allowing men to tag along with the women's liberation movement – men have their own problems."

And if you're looking for a succinct example of why male and female activists need to work together, why not Google "maternity leave" and witness the ocean of bile that swims before your very eyes. Because what makes the furore kicked off by Vogue editor Alexandra Shulman's damning assertions about maternity rights notable beyond the usual observations about women being their own worst enemies, is the conspicuous absence of voices pointing out the fundamental inequality when it comes to parental leave. The fact that women are effectively legislated into assuming the role of primary carer by a lack of comprehensive paternity leave allowance is precisely the kind of issue that feminists and men's support groups should be tackling together. But that would be far too logical now, wouldn't it?