In one sense, isn’t it weak men who are part of the ultimate problem?
Absolutely. And it is also true that weak men really are screwing feminism up. But the reason we are tempted to frame the problem that way is the very cowardice you are referring to. Confronting the rebellion is terrifying.
The system says that the best way to advance in it is to be a sycophant to women and feminism as a whole. For example, consider the politicians, both left and right. They both kneel before Feminists. Are these weak men? In a sense, many are. They know the situation, what is right, and what is needed to get ahead. They cynically head down the get ahead path, rather than the right path.
In order to not be weak, one needs to blaze his own path doing what he believes to be right. This may involve some compromises, but fundamentally he does the right thing. Invariably, he will not advance as much as he might have if he had sucked up to Feminism, but at least he look himself in the mirror.
As for weak men screwing up Feminism; it is said that Feminism was just a society wide shit test. Probably women expected men at some point to say, “enough is enough”. It doesn’t look like this is happening. So weak men are allowing Feminism to gradually destroy society, to rob women of manly men that could be husbands, etc. So, is it really just weak men’s fault; did they just became weak all of sudden, in a vacuum? Considering the situation more closely, did the early Feminists have a spot in mind where a stable system to their liking could be found; just the right place to stop the cancer upon society that Feminism is?