Ok, I'm reading it point-by-point.
He says feminists get it wrong because they only look at who's on top, not the fact that more men than women are in prison/homeless/etc (so more men are on the bottom too). The flaw in his argument is he seems to think that the feminist argument that men (I would say patriarchy) oppress women is incompatible with the argument that men also oppress other men. It's not, and there's no reason it should be. Furthermore, the fact more men are homeless/in prison also suggests that there are fewer subordinate but socially acceptable roles for men. Therefore, if there is a pyramid of social roles, men compete for the top spots but do not fit into the subordinate-but-contributing roles in the middle. As a result, society needs women in a subordinate position, but not men.
He says many men die in battle. He ignores the huge and awful number of women who still die in childbirth. This is incredibly crass. Childbirth is necessary to our continued existence as a species; someone has yet to prove that war is.
He assumes IQ is a totally fair an unbiased way of assessing intelligence. He is incorrect. The way that women fit into the not-brilliant-but-not awful category is comparable to his first point above.
He talks about education and attainment in tests, which are socially conditioned issues. He then makes a false comparison of these ressults (which reflect differnces between men and women) to facts of biology (which reflect differences between people of difference races). This is , well., a false comparison.
He claims workaholics are mostly men. Yes, I'm sure they are, because women who work ridiculously long hours doing childcare plus jobs aren't well-documented, are they? Oh, no, wait, they are. They're just not valued.
Sorry, at this point I stopped reading because it became clear to me he is an idiot.