"Feminism" is not initially about bringing down men. It is about bringing down other women. Women are competitive with one another, especially with men. They do all kinds of things to attract a mate, just like the animal kingdom. They wear perfume, dress up, do their hair, flirt, etc. Some women do this better than other women. The ones who are better at it get the better men. The ones who are not so good end up on sour grapes.
Look up the woman named Debrahlee Lorenzano. She was the Latin women fired from Citibank for dressing too provocatively. "Feminists" claim Lorenzano's problem was with the men, but it was really with the women. She was first targeted by the branch manager and assistant branch manager, both of whom were women. They're the ones who had a problem with Lorenzano's dress, not the men. Latin women dress this way in their home countries, while American women look like portly slobs in their spandex. The branch managers were simply and likely exhibiting the usual competitive jealousy of girls.
The short answer to your question is that women will never succeed in thwarting their fellow female competition, so they try to thwart what is attracted to that competition. They have somewhat succeeded in places like public schools by creating sissy boys. These emasculated males grow up to be ineffectual men, the exact type about which "feminist" women complain. "Feminism" creates it's own monster, but fails to realize it. This is why they end up bitter and confused.
The whole charade however, will ultimately fail because "social science" is not a science. Biology is science. "Feminists" learn a bitter lesson in trying to thwart Mother Nature.