Take a second look at the OP and then at what you posted, Braioch. Specifically where I mentioned the Anglo-centric racism of First and Second Wave Feminism.
Then take a look at the dates of many of your entries, like the working against male abuse shelters, and how that falls, specifically, against the Radical Feminists of the Second Wave, another item I spoke about.
Much of the rest of what you've got that doesn't fall under the auspices of the things already mentioned is examples of twisting context or removing it altogether. Let's touch on the Five Rights Feminists don't want men to have.
Number 1: Control over when women have children.
... really? That's... really. That's what they opened the article with? That men should determine when women carry another being inside of their body for almost a year and deal with the pains attendant to that activity? Sure... Let's talk about that one.
Artificial Uteruses. Something feminists have been pushing for for a long time, right alongside Uterine Transplant techniques. Why? Initially so that trans women like myself can bear children of our own (Thanks to the skin-cell technique, something lauded by feminists as an amazing and positive breakthrough). Though say, couldn't a Man take some of his skin cells, turn them into Ovum, and then use an artificial uterus to have a child without anyone interfering with his reproductive rights?
I mean... That's one way to look at it. But the website itself is advocating for forcing women to carry men's children whether they want to carry them or not and that is just a fucked up situation. Or is it arguing that men should be the ones who decide to terminate a pregnancy? I can't imagine that's what it's about since that portion is preceded by complaints about women having the birth control pill.
But then, guys have a huge variety of condoms to choose from at every gas station, bathroom, and supermarket in the States while women have to go get a prescription for their BC, so that can't be it... right?
Number 2: The right to have rape taken seriously.
Mmmhmm... right. That's... hmm. Well there's Steubenville and every other situation we've seen in the news where someone, or a group of someones, rapes a woman and she's harassed, attacked, denied, and generally treated like shit. Sometimes disowned by her family, often mistreated by cops, doctors, lawyers, and more. And invariably questioned on how she got herself raped... but let's touch on the whole male-rape issue since that's what this is about.
Toxic masculinity makes a joke of male rape. Feminists fight against toxic masculinity. That includes helping men who have been raped get taken seriously. Of course this doesn't include situations where "But men get raped, too!" is thrown about to try and derail and recenter a discussion of rape of women and the social implications around it...
Number 3: The Right to have Mental Issues taken seriously.
This one is patently false. This is another aspect of toxic masculinity (No crying. Bottle it up. Never talk about your emotions.) that feminists have been fighting for decades. How bad is number 4 going to be, exactly?
Number 4: The right to NOT be assumed natural caregivers
Wh.. wait what? Okay. Hang on. I had to reread it. Alright so. It posits that feminists are against the idea that men can take care of their (the feminist's) children and that feminist organizations are against automatic joint custody and parenting... Well... Both of those are surely to some degree true but also ignore the wider context. Yes. Most feminists don't hire a male babysitter, I imagine (I also imagine it's hard to get an accurate estimate on how many do or don't). And yes, feminists are against automatic joint custody of children.
The first part is because while feminists WANT a society where men can be assumed to be equal caregivers to children we do not live in a society that supports that conclusion, currently. And thanks to the toxic masculinity behind the previous two points it leaves very few men in the child care industry. That's less a shunning of dude and more of a hiring "Person who is available for the job". Of course if you follow the link you'll find what the article is ACTUALLY talking about is hiring mexicans to take care of their children. Because racism. Certainly not because of economic factors and a corrupt capitalist society, nope!
The second part. Yes. Automatic Joint Custody of children is a TERRIBLE idea. You have to understand that the whole "Bias against men in court" thing is a myth and has been forever. The bias against men when it comes to custody of children happens BEFORE court. 70% of divorcing couples decide to give full custody of the child to the mother because of social expectations of a mother's superiority to care for the children. Of the remaining 30% of divorce cases that go to court with custody on the line men get either full or joint custody 85% of the time, even in case of abusive parenting and domestic violence.
The fact is that even in a society where parents are considered equally capable of taking care of their kids rather than the assumption that women are the better caretaker by default there are going to be a wide variety of situations where one person's job or life requires more investment of time and energy than the other person's does, and joint custody in those cases will not be the right answer for the child's wellbeing. Defaulting to joint custody is a bad idea, and cases should be handled on the merits and tribulations of the individuals involved. Not some external mandate.
Number 5: Genital Mutilation.
Okay. Wow. Yeah. No. First things first: Circumcision is not NEARLY the same as vaginal mutilation in intent, method, or result. These two things are not comparable.
That is -why- feminists don't talk about it as an equivalent idea. Because it isn't. That's like saying a stab wound is exactly as bad as twelve stab wounds. Don't compare the two, you only undermine your position by doing so.
That said: Circumcision is something that should probably be held off on until the child is old enough to choose for themself.
I'm noticing a pattern in the links you've provided, though. Basically all of them are opinion pieces and blog posts written by diehard anti-feminists, more than a few of whom delve into outright misogyny in their attacks of the feminist movement.
One you listed in particular caught my eye, though: http://social.dol.gov/blog/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/
In which the Department of Labor busts the myths of the pay gap based on gender... including the myth that it doesn't exist, doesn't affect women in specialized fields, that it exists because women take more flexible hours to take time off for kids, and that the gap will go away on it's own... Essentially it states, flatly, that the pay gap is real and even if it may be inflated by some metrics it's not going away and it affects women of all social strata.
I think I'll just leave most of the other points, though, with all their value or lack thereof determined by other readers. I do encourage everyone to read through the links, though. They do tell interesting stories.
As far as the pissing story goes... I really don't know what to make of it. Though it -should- be noted, again, that Sweden's popular feminists are Second Wave Radfems. Which, again, touches on items already covered as to why feminism itself is represented so poorly in the media.