Given the article includes a roundabout "not all men" in it I think it's not really a good example. Also that is says the campaign is asking to "“take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls” but says nothing about problems affecting men and boys" - well funny thing that, that a campaign about women's issues would be about women's issues and not men's. I mean who'd have thought that something about women wouldn't include men? Good thing there isn't a trope about how men are always trying to wedge themselves into everything, or that they complain when everything is not catered to them or it'd be really ironic. There is? Weird.
The fact that somehow violence against women, both domestic and sexual, is considered a women's issue rather than a men's issue speaks volumes about how much men care about these things. That even the slightest failure is regarded as "this movement will never succeed" says so much about how people are just looking for any excuse to tear it down. It also talks about imbalance in custody, despite the fact that since changes to the laws the article derides men win custody overwhelmingly in the instances they seek it, they just don't seek it very often.
The fact that almost any MRA is more concerned with attacking, silencing and abusing women rather than actually creating a movement to look at issues that solely affect men is what the article should be criticising. Not that someone gave a speech all about how men shouldn't be afraid of feminism because they won't be worse off, that they can feel safe standing up against the horrendous imbalance of violence that looms over half the population because at the end of the day they're also helping themselves. Why ask "why aren't women fixing men's problems too?" when there's enough of a struggle to hang on to what has been gained when you could ask "why are men insisting that everything has to benefit them to be worthwhile?"