Not 'negative articles', he said 'most articles

Yes, the articles were negative in their views.

Again not an, most. That is dishonest and disingenuous. Either 'you're' looking specifically for feminist articles negative towards men, or 'you're' being dishonest.

At this point you're (2nd person, singular) either stupid or spectacularly dishonest. You keep referencing most, so apparently he needed to cite, with links, 50.1% of all articles by feminists or you'd bring your same criticism. Guess what, "most" could be true and he could only cite a single article. They are not mutually exclusive. (I've never accepted or rejected the most claim). Maybe the majority actually are negative, maybe he's only read three articles by feminists and at least two were negative, maybe he only reads negative articles, and yet you still attack most. Rather dishonest.

Caitlin Moran even wrote a damn novel on issues and challenges facing straight, white, able-bodied men that need to be solved.

Umm...and? One person wrote a novel? A novel isn't an article and one isn't most! Obviously OP is right because you didn't even give links to most articles. See how easy it is to be a dishonest interlocutor and not meet people where they're at?

If feminist PR sucks, you're reading right-wing articles/twitter posts/apparently reddit posts according to another post of theirs.

That actually doesn't follow at all. Feminist PR could suck and none of those things be true. Mainstream media, like "most" media, likes to present items that will drive clicks and viewership. People with preposterous views have an easier time getting traction because their comments will drive interaction. So the majority of feminists could be levelheaded and pragmatic, but the minority with outlandish takes on issues will likely get more press attention.