Krellin, because I care more about you actually changing than I do about some vendetta I want to say in response to this that if you prefer to save face by simply cleaning up your act with more posts like this and cutting the vitriol, without actually announcing as much or apologizing, go for it. Just please do it consistently so I can back off of you.
About the content of your post: I agree with the article pretty much completely. Patriarchy is constraining and harmful to both genders. If a woman is oppressed because she is never taken seriously in positions of power, a man is typecast as a violent, dangerous force of nature when he's angry.
You will find that for every negative gender stereotype there is in fact an often equally damaging complimentary gender stereotype for the other gender. One is clearly in the dominant role (men), but each is equally harmful and constraining. It is never helpful to forget about men in a discussion of gender. This reminded me of a great lecture by a male feminist ally:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue.html
I'm just surprised krellin that you chose not to mock the author's use of the term "men of color", though this was perhaps wise, since the utility of the phrase is obvious in the context of an article like the one you linked.
So it should not surprise us the gender and race intersect to cast black men as violent, passionate animals. Just as white women see an intersection of their race and gender creating an idea that they are pure, and fragile. Whereas black women are cast as simply stupid or crass, rather than violently dangerous or innocently incapable.
Intersectionality, for all the flak it has taken, was a huge step forward in understanding the broader phenomenon that is oppression.