SRS follower huh? I'm the dude who started the thread in question in /r/legaladvice. Let me break this down for you....
You likely (even though this may surprise you and you may not like it) hold a few of the same ideals as me, including:
-That I believe women can face discrimination upon whether or not they can be hired for high-level jobs, or even low level jobs, and that I support affirmative action for both ethnic minorities and women.
-That I believe gender roles are bullshit and that women shouldn't be discouraged from being the breadwinner in a relationship, and that men shouldn't be discouraged from being stay-at-home dads
-That I believe a woman should have the right to abortion.
But here are a few things that I believe in that don't relate specifically to the rights of men and that you and many people like you in the same mindset might disagree with:
-I believe that people, upon reaching an age where they are mature enough to bear the burden of the near-universal disapproval from society (which is unfortunately wrongly bestowed to those who commit this act) and under the condition that they can't produce children, have the right to, as long as it's consensual, which unfortunately most incest isn't, have incestual relations with anyone of the same generation as them that they might be related to (situations like father and daughter or mother and son I don't really agree with as it probably involves some aspect of manipulation), including sex, marriage or anything else. In other words, I have no problem with a brother and sister who can't conceive a baby, are over 18 and are in a consensual relationship marrying each other and having as much sex as they want, and I since gay couples can't conceive I have no problem with gay incestual marriage either. Two twin brothers want to marry each other? Sure. Two female cousins want to marry each other? Why the fuck not?
-Humans are no more important than animals in any way other than perhaps the fact that they live longer than most animals and perhaps their higher consciousness and awareness of the fact that they are alive (due to higher intelligence) which would mean it would be more tragic for a human to die than say a really low-level intelligence fish. However, for animals that live longer than humans and are relatively aware of their own existence (I know some sea turtles live longer, but I don't know how intelligent they are, so maybe them?) it would be more tragic for them to die than for a human to do so. The only reason such high value is placed on human life is because humans instinctively protect their own kind. I believe the law should be amended to more extensively protect the rights of animals, especially those that have a high state of consciousness.
-Once the equality of animals to humans has been established, people should collectively start to be less apathetic to each other. There are ridiculous notions within our society that somehow financial success in life makes you more "significant" than those who work at a gas station their whole lives. As far as I'm concerned people who believe that can suck it. If the world finally reaches a point where the basic rights of people and also animals as well as a general good global standard of living, there should be campaigns to raise awareness for that kind of douchebaggary.
-This is one that although some feminists agree with, many would not hesitate to partake in using such a proposition as an excuse to ridicule someone: men shouldn't fucking have to be "manly", and just as there are campaigns telling girls that they shouldn't have to adhere to the unrealistic standards of beauty in hollywood, there should be campaigns denouncing men's expectations to be "tough" and "never cry". Perhaps there are more feminists who would agree with this than I am aware, but I'm pretty fucking sure that feminism criticizes the unrealistic standards of beauty for girls more than it does the expectation for men to adhere to characteristics of "traditional masculinity"
Moving on from that last point, and to elucidate on my point in general: most feminists would disagree with at least a couple points of the above. Which makes me want to point out, do you know what it means when someone is "progressive" (an ideology which I usually support)? It means that such a person holds and believes in values that reflect new ideas that don't fit in with those that most of society currently agree with. Feminism, in case you hadn't noticed, is ingrained into the politics and policies of many areas of the government, much mainstream media, and speaking against it can often get you prosecuted for hate speech. How progressive does of a movement does that description make feminism sound? Most of the ideas I listed above, however, would be almost universally disapproved of by even the most "developed" countries.
To further elaborate, your predisposition to see anyone who dares publicly speak out for the rights of men, and general knowledge about humanity and feminism's prevalence in society as a whole, make blatantly obvious the fact that you are not in fact "progressive", as you so likely believe you are, and are no more than someone who follows the latest barely-liberal trend, which in this case is a movement which although has good principles counters such with the totalitarian practices of its followers (the barely-liberal trend is feminism, the follower in question is you, just an FYI).
But by all means, continue to have a closed mind and dissent on anything that promotes change regardless of its specifics. I certainly know I can't help you.