I'm not sure that's fair. I think both the majority of MRAs and feminists are egalitarians. It's the vocal crazies that cause us to characterize entire groups. I've seen it from both sides.

In any case, as yummyfajitas points out it's an ad-hominem argument. We should discuss the argument itself rather than the merits of the man making them.

The better MRAs are more even-handed and rational than any feminists I've come across, and screw women over less too in some important regards. For instance, they actually consider female-perpetrated rape and abuse against other women to be just as wrong as any other form of rape or abuse, which is something feminists fairly consistently fail at.

I've even seen a major feminist blogger take her own experiences of abuse, conclude from them that all such abuse is caused by the abuser being male, then tell another woman who'd been abused in the same way by her mother that it was "irrational" for her to be upset by this and that she was "erasing" the blogger's own "lived experiences" by complaining about said blogger's conclusions, and bemoan how she'd been lead astray by the evil MRA community into thinking that her experiences actually mattered.

I'm confused - is he correct or incorrect? Please justify your answer without using the ad-hominem fallacy.