Alright, fair point. He did use "deserve." But he used in the context of:

And I made the horrible mistake of asking this question out loud, and that was how I learned about social justice.

The larger point stands: It's impossible to have this discussion without one or the other side ctrl-f'ing for dog whistle words so that they can dismiss the entire argument out of hand without having to hear it. And the smaller point stands: with the rise of "men's rights" the discussion has become one of "sides" where it becomes necessary to flash the proper feminist credentials in order to (attempt to) inoculate the conversation against dismissal by the "side" you're attempting to communicate with. You see this:

He's attempted to sound even handed by leveling blame at feminists and at MRAs, although the fact that he equates the two is itself inflammatory.

Yet you missed this:

It would actually be pretty fun to go full internet-archaeologist on the manosphere, but a quick look confirms my impression that, although it is built from older pieces, it’s really quite young. There was a “men’s rights” movement around forever, but its early focus tended to be on divorce cases and fathers’ rights. Heartiste started publishing in 2007. The word “manosphere” was first used in late 2009. Google Trends confirms a lot of this.

He argues, in fact, that there are no such things as "classic MRA arguments" because the entire movement is too recent to assign blame to.

Which, again, is the main drive of the piece - that it's impossible to have this discussion on the internet without someone, somewhere, looking for a place to assign BLAME.

I do not think men should be entitled to sex, I do not think women should be “blamed” for men not having sex, I do not think anyone owes sex to anyone else, I do not think women are idiots who don’t know what’s good for them, I do not think anybody has the right to take it into their own hands to “correct” this unsettling trend singlehandedly.

But when you deny everything and abuse anyone who brings it up, you cede this issue to people who sometimes do think all of these things. And then you have no right to be surprised when all the most frequently offered answers are super toxic.

And here we are. This site is more civil than most, and you're arguing that it's "unhealthy for (you) to read this stuff."

Why is that?

Is that how it should be?

How did we come to the place where nobody can talk about "this stuff" without somebody pulling out the rhetorical WMD?