the only socially appropriate response at the moment is to be shouted at and pilloried for existing
I'm going to assume that you're speaking from your conversational experience here, which is rough. I have no idea what your part has been in the social discussion of male sexual violence, but this is definitely not the only "socially appropriate response at the moment", and I'll say that from my experience - which I know first-hand - rather than assuming yours.
In discussions with friends and a lot of strangers, harassment is not the intent - especially considering the subject matter. There are a lot of angry women (and men) out there, but being shouted at for having a male's stance on the issues has not been my experience, and it's definitely not been the "only socially appropriate response" - in fact, it's often the least socially appropriate response in the thread or dialogue.
If you're referring to the alleged perps as being "shouted at and pilloried for existing", then I think you've got to clarify what you mean by "existing". If your intent's literal, then you probably agree with the OP more than you think.
This article has a lot of truth. Drawing on the two quotes you placed in the link's description is a mischaracterization in my opinion. The real meat of the OP is that there is a disturbingly brutal connection between male sexual violence and male sexuality that doesn't seem to be bounded by the man's ideologies - which is true by example a, b, &c., &c., y, z.
That's the discussion I was hoping to see here. Up next, Marche wanted to check how we talk about the brutality, which you skipped right up to, but possessive anger about soft dicks is tangentially what the author was concerned about, and they're both conversations.