This would be a good idea. That thread could put together all the MRA arguments by Farrel and others.
The problem with the Men's Rights Movement, with some (but not many) exceptions, is that they are not doing any of the actual work to help men and boys. As far as I can tell, they demand that feminism is supposed to do that work (or demand that feminism must entirely end). It's the idea of the female sex as the global psychological support and mothering sex.
The MRA arguments are not used to fix the problems but to keep the status quo or to retreat to higher levels of patriarchy by stating that the system isn't that great for some men or boys, either, so the existing system is just fine, even if it hurts women and girls.
For instance, the argument made on this thread earlier that women just want the good bits men have and not the bad bits (greater homelessness, higher suicide rates, being more likely to be victims of other men).
But the system IS what causes all these things, and some call patriarchy. Women can't alter that system on their own. Men must do some of the work.
Male violence is what mostly kills men (and women), and the causes of that and ways to alter it should be a focus for the MRAs.
Boys dropping out of school at greater rates (especially in minorities) has much to do with masculinity sub-cultures (something is beneath men if women can do it well, too, say) and, to some extent, with the fact that jobs available to those without formal education are still somewhat better for men than for women, so women and girls have a greater incentive to stay in school.
The MRAs should go and talk to boys in schools and create organisations which encourage boys to read and study and come off computer games and consider a wider range of possible future jobs than those traditionally labeled male.
Others should do that work, too, but it's not something feminism alone should be lumbered with, given its minute resources and, on global level, enormous problems it already grapples with to protect girls and women.
So what troubles me with this angle in the debate is that it seems to be used to argue against any changes which would make the world better for girls and women by suggesting that all this is a zero-sum game. Which it doesn't have to be:
That encouraging greater participation in parenting for men might, in fact, increase the likelihood that fewer marriages will fail and so increase the likelihood that men keep more of the social ties which give some protection against depression and suicidal ideation etc should be something MRAs might want to consider.
Many of the problems they mention men suffer from are caused by patriarchal norms, and fighting those would help men, too. For example, the hierarchical nature of extreme patriarchy (as it exists in Afghanistan, say) strips all women and girls of power, but also strips many men of power also, while greatly benefiting the small number on top.
Having rigid sex-based divisions in economic roles can ultimately harm men, too, because when child custody is contested in divorce it is likely to go to the parent who did the hands-on child-care. If women are expected to do that, men are more likely to lose custody (though in US cases that go to court this doesn't seem to be the case as outcomes are fairly even).