Mens issues aren't addressed adequately, but articles like this will not help anyone take the movement seriously.

He makes an absolute comparison between western women and women in states that all would agree are dealing with overt, state-sponsored oppression. The handful of examples he gives are oppression. They are not the sum-total list of all possible forms of oppression. By setting up this list, he attempts to invalidate the whole protest

He makes vague claims about what possible reasons they could have for protesting and then cherry picks a paragraph from one article with a few specific reasons and then some nice vague reasons possible for protesting. This is a nice Straw Man that he sets up here where he can misunderstand and attack these reasons for wanting to protest.

Taxes on hygeine products are an issue when the country has policies in place like HSA and FSA's that people can set aside tax-free dollars for medical expenses. I personally use mine for allergy medications, shots, eye doctor visits and the dentist. Those medications and doctor's visits seriously affect my health and overall comfort. And yet those policies do not cover tampons, pads, and other products associated with every mature woman's menstral cycle. That's pretty bullshit that something that majorly affects the majority of women isn't covered. By the way, if you have a prescription, you can spend FSA money on your Viagra.

But the author here glosses over the principle with a monthly monetary value and then tries to say that asking for this is bad in principle as a gender specific law. He then compares this to men being forced to sign up for the SSA. I think the SSA signup being gendered and tied to so many important federal things is wrong and I support the elimination of the requirement or expanding it to both genders. But let's look at the actual effect it has: there hasn't been a draft in over 40 years. So any man born after 1955 hasn't had to deal with a draft. But nearly every woman born since then has had dozens of mentral cycles to deal with. Not being able to use FSA dollars on those products for women is an issue and the author's treatment of the issue is lazy.

The author next completely misses the point, my guess is on purpose, about Paid Maternity Leave. He cites the FMLA program's 12 weeks as proof of paid maternity leave in the US. His claim is again, made in the most lazy manner possible. Why? If you go to the FMLA wiki page, you'll see that it's not an explicit maternity program. It's a general 12 weeks per year, unpaid, that anyone can take, if they qualify for the program. The point of the program is to give you that time and protect it by not allowing your employer to fire you for medical reasons. It's not a gender specific giveaway to women. Yes, it is an unpaid block of time that can be used for giving birth, so it technically checks the box against the protestor issue of unpaid maternity but the law isn't a specific women's law. He misrepresents the issue.

The whole point of protesting over the lack of paid parental leave, and I personally fully support paid leave for both parents, is that the US is woefully inadequate in addressing this issue compared to nearly all other western, wealthy nations. If you follow the wikipedia link he gives, it talks about maternity leave in the US. The 4th sentence says that the US gives 12 weeks of leave for mothers under FMLA. The very next sentence, however, shows exactly the point that anyone ever makes about the state of leave here in the US:

This policy is distinct to other industrialized countries for its relative scarcity of benefits, in terms of the short length of protected maternity leave and not offering some form of wage compensation for the leave of absence

And even in the FMLA article, a nice table comparing the lack of benefits in the US is shown in the article section under controversy. The table shows how other countries all have paid maternity leave, with several also covering fathers as well.

Several of the claims that the author addresses I lean towards his opinion. Walking alone at night isn't something I'd call safe for many people, especially depending on where you live. Objectification is an issue, but not remotely on the level of health issues. And 100%, I agree that the plight of men as victims of domestic violence is criminally ignored here, and most places honestly. Women are not the sole victims of violence in the US, far from it. And I don't support the notion of systemic oppression of women in the west as compared to elsewhere.

And at the end, he tells women that they need to be more inclusive of men's issues and campaign for equality and not privilege over men. Sure, that makes sense if you buy into the rest of his claims where he's trying to show that women don't have any problems here and have nothing to complain about. Then, yeah, any complaining is for special things, not equal things. But he failed to support his major points that women are perfectly fine. So he comes off sounding like the feminists who say "why make a men's group? just support women's groups because we're already fighting for equality".

This isn't a zero sum game, and women and men like the author who try to turn it into one just set everyone else up for conflict. Women having issues with some things does not mean that men can't have issues about the some of the same things and also about other, different things.