You are confused. Men are saying they have valid claims of how the system is unfair to men, not just women. Let’s take your first trope.
You got the trope wrong. OK, maybe some idiot guy said this to you once. I don’t know what circles you spend time in, but these are not valid characterizations of what thinking men state.
Most men’s right advocate know the judges are mostly men. They don’t blame the unfairness on women. They just say custody is unfair to men and should also be addressed while we are addressing matters of gender rights. What they may blame women for is a lack of interest in men’s rights in favor of only addressing women’s rights.
Then, given a proper framing, you could dismantle the argument with data. For example, by looking at rates of cases where custody is contested. This is like what people do with the equal pay trope that women’s rights advocates like to use.
Instead, you conflate laws about sex acts and abortion, which don’t have much to do with custody issues. Really, I don’t think many would disagree with your observations. It is what we do with and about those observations that is the issue. So, I don’t see how you managed to dismantle anything.
You continue in an equally incoherent way, twisting talking points of MRAs to create a flimsy strawman you can pick apart. The article is just dripping with misandry and really not productive for anyone. I guess if there can be a few idiot men who might use these tropes, there can be a few women who feel the need to respond to them. And round and round in the circle we go.
You’re not going to get a lot of responses from men on this article because it is obvious from the get-go you posted it because you’re just picking a fight. Few men would actually see these tropes as something they would say. Men who would use these tropes probably don’t read much.
I don’t sense any desire to resolve anything here. It’s nice that reading this made some women feel good though.