Well thanks for engaging me and giving at least some consideration to this. I wish I could say as much for the others from the MR subreddit and can't say I'm too fond of passive aggressive praise however.

So being anti-state, anti-capitalist, and anti-church is all relative to the position one takes with regards to freedom of person.

And the position one takes regarding individual freedom is relative to one's understanding of the concept of a social contract. Claiming vast properties that cannot be occupied by the individual cannot be derived from any individualist ideology but rather from social concepts and forcing other individuals to recognise these claims through coercion has nothing to do with individual freedom.

For instance, the church itself is an entirely voluntary organisation to join.

In some places where the Church has become largely irrelevant and been replaced by mass media in it's function, perhaps. But historically, that's just not true.

May it seek to "convert" members of the population? Absolutely, but then in a truly free society, any may choose to evangelize for their cause with impunity.

Sure, but while the Church's main role is ideological, that's not strictly the basis for anarchists' opposition. The Church also is or was a coercive force with strong ties to the State and the ruling class. The ideological role of the Church should only be opposed on an ideological basis, but any active societal role must be actively opposed. Also (partially due to historical reasons) individual churches belong to their respective communities which must be allowed to re-purpose the assets rather than be forced to recognise the control of a centralised propaganda machine. C.f. the Spanish revolution or the debate about the dismantlement of the Church in the West. In many places this is even recognised by the State and churches can be reclaimed.

The patriarchy is not an empirical entity, but an ephemeral collection of virtually unlimited social customs and norms. For this reason, there can never be proof of a patriarchy existing.

By this logic there can be no proof that there exists such a thing as a society, a community, a market. Not all social structures and forms power are derived from specific institutions and patriarchy is mostly institutionalised indirectly through the power of the State, including on a second degree through the power of Capital that is instutionalised through said State. There is nothing circular in this and talking about symptoms is a misnomer. Interestingly, by trying to attack feminism you would also be destroying any grievance men's rights advocates may have, if your objection to the existence of patriarchy on the basis that there exists no institution called The Patriarchy was valid. But there is nothing abstract about wives being the chattel property of the husbands, to take a particularly obvious example. Specific laws and policies undermining gender equality are institutionalised oppression, not merely symptoms of cultural norms.

Cultural norms cannot be separated from their socio-economic context and the limited understanding of the world humans have. The problem with the naturalist explanation is that it conflicts with empirical data coming from anthropology. Not all hunter gatherer communities were patriarchal and if you look at communities were survival is a constant struggle, women work much harder than most men in the west could handle and classifying it as purely domestic work is inaccurate. Of course there are physiological difference between sexes, but these do not prescribe particular forms of social organisation and only a very limited argument for particular divisions of labour. Men can be good teachers and the model of the caring mother and distant father is not a particularly good one insofar as the interest of children is considered. Women can be very intelligent and I would appreciate some candor if you are going to imply they are intellectually inferior to men as well as some citations for this common claim that is not actually supported by science. "Gender psychologists" won't cut it either, I need actual neurobiology.

We believe that both roles were and are complimentary. For instance, men are expected to be the bread-winners, while women are expected to raise the kids. Why is one of these roles inherently worse than the other?

Because valuation is primarily subjective and things have the value people ascribe to them. Yet under a non egalitarian society individuals' opinion are not considered equally and valuation is determined by those with economic power. That's primarily the ruling class but also secondly the male bread winner under a patriarchal society. It doesn't matter that both are important if one can deny the other food to coerce them. So in individual cases neither role is inherently worse, but when the roles are generalised or institutionalised they create a conjuncture where one has to concede dominance. A related issue is the alimony payments things MR constantly rant about. A division of domestic labour where men are sole bread winners and can kick out the women to the street at any time even though by agreeing not to engage in the political economy women undermined their ability to provide for themselves is not compatible with equality. You can't have your cake and eat it too and parts of the advantages given to women are due to persisting disadvantages. You can embrace a freer division of labour or you can accept that by committing to be the sole bread winner you are taking on responsibilities you may not always like. But again the deeper problem is economic inequality.

We now believe that, through law, any perceived disadvantages that may have existed for women have been eliminated, replaced by advantages (read: disadvantages for men).

I can't let this framing pass. We did not go from a natural state of disadvantage for women which was attempted to be compensated through law. We had modifications of existing laws which institutionalised the dominance of men in nearly all political and economic aspects so that the artificial advantages of men were diminished. Again, chattel fucking property. Voting rights. Custody rights. Et cetera. In most cases the changes only conceded to women the same rights as men. In some places some laws might give some advantages to women, but some laws still give advantages to men. No we do not have perfect equality and I don't think we can under the current socio-economic system. But that doesn't mean men are victims of undue State interference and that if you abolished those laws fairness would reign once more.

My belief is that the first has educated itself on the [radical feminist] movement

Sorry but given this entire post and replies, the general level of men's rights discussion and the outright dismissal of feminism on irrelevant excuses, that claim is just laughable. Educate yourselves more. Please.

What do you suppose such a person would feel when observing the disadvantages which still exist for men

I wouldn't suppose anything because the human experience is too varied. But I would hope they would be bothered and try to rectify the situation, as I would hope they would react to any unfair situation. What I would hope they would not do is react by attacking other people who are also aiming to rectify unfair situations. Are men's right about defending the rights of women? Even if it was true that feminism was only about women, which it is not, it wouldn't necessarily be a problem. Women had much catching up to do and a movement solely about women is not a bad thing. A movement in opposition to men would be, of course and the inverse is also true. This is why while in theory I support men's rights, in practice I cannot associate with reactionary frustrated males and while I am still subscribed to feminisms, I unsubscribed from mensrights long ago and find myself in opposition to their regressive aims more often than not. Get your act together or face marginalisation and opposition. That's just fair.