Aristotle said that it is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal. All things are unequal to one another beyond the atomic level, therefore, to attempt to make anything equal to something else is an absurdity. The same applies in aggregate: no two people together weigh the exact same amount as two other people together.

Many defend egalitarianism by adding a little asterisk to it by defining it in terms of "equality of opportunity". Opportunity is a subjective thing; it cannot be measured, so egalitarians attempt to measure it in terms of income, longevity, educational attainment, &c. They argue that differences in the results imply differences in opportunity because they proceed from the faulty premise that all are equal.

This pertains to mens' rights in two ways. First, feminists and their ilk aggregate men and women and compare outcomes. They then use this to argue for oppression, affirmative action, quotas, &c. and for the most part, men fall for this. Second, when proponents of mens' interests argue from egalitarianism, they are inviting counter-arguments from feminists similar to that of the second paragraph.

The solution to to the above is the recognition that life is not fair, so suck it up buttercups, and look out for the interests of #1 instead of #2-#7.0E9.

Furthermore, arguing, debating, &c is a diversion: nothing was ever gained by asking nicely, except maybe from stupid white male pantywaists (ever notice that this is not really a problem among other peoples?). Instead of being 'open minded' which in practice means allowing others to tell one one's business, tell them what you are going to do, and then do it; never negotiate. Actions matter, words do not. If one must do both, speak only after one has acted to make sure one's priorities are in place.