MRA's (Mens Rights Activists) are extremely critical of feminism.

[Jim Lane]

135. Pointing to genders of decision-makers doesn't resolve the question.

The MRA manifesto doesn't say we have "feminine governance" -- the charge you refute.

I don't know what they mean by "feminist governance". One plausible interpretation would be that it's instances in which the government has changed the law in ways that accord with feminist principles. An early example would be women suffrage. More recent is the legal protection of EEO (equal employment opportunity). Bear in mind that, before 1963, there was no federal prohibition on an employer stating, "We won't hire a woman for this position, regardless of her qualifications." Making that illegal was an example of feminist governance.

As the OP points out, there are certainly some men who benefit from feminist governance in this sense, such as those who want to enter a field like nursing that's stereotypically associated with women. (I would guess that, decades ago, there were employers that refused to hire men as nurses, though I don't know for sure.)

That raises the question whether the MRA's would (openly) oppose EEO legislation. It's undeniable that there are some men who are worse off because of this aspect of feminist governance -- namely, those men who would have been hired if sexist employers thought they could get away with discriminating against better-qualified women.

If one of you who's spent more time checking out these MRA sites happens to know, I'd be curious whether the MRA's expressly oppose some of the pro-equality governance measures of the last several decades -- EEO laws, Title IX, treating widows and widowers the same for purposes of Social Security benefits, opening state-run facilities like Virginia Military Institute to women, etc.