I see many invalid points in your post as well and to start off, your solution will not lead to equality.
For starters, we are not to be compared with feminism as if MRA's are the male equivalents of feminists. The MRM is a REACTION to the feminist movement after it has become more and more obvious what the feminist movement has been doing.
We see things as the are. When we state that men are being victimized (e.g. the draft, male genital mutilation, affirmative action, the way false accusations are dealt with and the lack of father's rights) we state facts. What feminists do, is making women victims regardless of the situation (Hilary Clinton managed to call women the greatest victims of war, because 'their men' die and they stay behind). They seek to claim victimhood as much as possible to justify their existance and paychecks. It is a difference of day and night.
Do elaborate, what is the MRM actually perpetrating? It is a hollow claim without appropriate evidence.
Basically, what you get wrong, is that you believe we are one-sided and are basically feminism's male equivalent. We seek to rectify the inequality towards men that feminists have been campaigning for in their misandrous pursuit and to bring parity to men's rights with women's rights. When that happens, our job is basically done unlike what feminists have done: creating more problems so they can 'solve' them and thus justifying their existance.
What we do, is not cause for inequality as you seem to state. Infact, if the MRM's work is finished, women benefit as well and true equality will be much closer within reach. Take for instance in regard to rape, how feminist laws, policies and media basically allow for valse accusation with impunity and in the process, diminishing the credibility or genuine victims... Feminism - 'pro-women' - persecutes men including many innocent men and hurts women which the profess to 'fight for' as well. The MRM however, seeks for this issue to be adressed and that cases are investigated properly, the media can't tar brush over a suspect's name through anonimity untill conviction and for proven false accusers to be punished appropriatly instead of being given a wrist-slap. This would not rectify injustice toward men, but also towards women as well. It's just one example. I could also start about the dwindling marriage numbers, the regression of boy's/men's academic achievments and so on, which all also negatively affect women and is brought and kept in existance by yours truly: feminism.
It is ironic, how the goals of the 'one-sided' MRM actually are more beneficial to the goal of true equality. You should get the point I am trying to convey by now. You can't compare us to feminism like you have been doing untill now. Our goals are fundamentally different. The focus is on men's rights, because those are severely lacking. Asking us to also campaign for women's rights at this time in whatever form (e.g. joining with feminists), is an absurd notion because that would diminish our voice where it is needed most; it would mean dimishing the effectiveness of our work. Women's rights already have many voices, men's rights don't.
You say we brush feminism with tar. From your words, you seem to find this unfair. I argue however, that it is not unfair at all if you consider that the lion's share of the issues that are detrimental to men, are at least in part caused by feminism as a movement. It does not matter if not every single one of you is 'not like that'. What matters is that the havoc that is being wreaked, is being done so under the banner of feminism. The moderate feminist do not, as a sufficiently significant group, oppose the actions of feminism and those are just a few reasons why the moderates do not really matter.
It is very simple. We judge feminism by it's actions and those actions are severely negative. If those who are 'not like that' are bothered so much by being associated with radical, man-hating female-supremacists, then where is that significant counter-voice? Feminist are very large in numbers, so it is not unreasonable to expect a significant counter-voice in such case. Also, why do you folks insist on sticking to a label which has come to stand symbol for bigotry? If you choose to call yourself feminist, then you should not be too surprised to be treated as such. Many people, men in particular, have been hurt enormously by feminism. Can you honestly expect of them to mind the sensitivities of the 'moderate feminists'? The way people, hurt or aware of the injustices feminisms causes, view the feminist movement is not that unfair at all, even to the moderate people. As individuals it might be slightly, but you must not forget that by defending feminism or branching feminism, you provide covers for radicals and people who support the radical actions of feminism because you paint feminism as something positive to a certain degree.
A merged movement will also not work, but rather be detrimental. It has been elaborated upon in your intro thread. Many people can rightfully not get it over their hearts to join with the very people that have antagonized/are antagonizing them directly or indirectly and rightfully so. Also, when feminists get a say in men's matters, it is seen that our message gets twisted to befit feminist interests. If for instance an study is being done to find out the reason why men shy away from marriage, the conclusion would be that the laws are skewed in women's favor at men's detriment. If such a study would include a feminst's say in the matter, then the conclusion would be something like 'men are not manning up: peter pan syndrome'. Something like this has happened/is happening, but I can't recall the exact name of the project. It's something like 'the good men's project' or something like that. It is supported by feminists and it obvious by the typical feminist message that is being conveyed: it's men's fault as ussual.
It is just like a ministry for men being created to 'adress men's issues' and telling men to suck it up and to take responsibility at every turn which goes hands in hand with the rest of the feminist-dominated politics.
Ultimately, there is no need for a merge. A merge is detrimental whilst at the same time, the MRM's work will rectify many problems that will also be beneficial towards females as well and actually works towards and opens a road to a degree of equality where we can speak of treatment towards both sexes that can be considered as 'fair'.
Do realise that this is not an attack for the sake of being hostile, but rather an attempt to provide understanding through limited elaboration (otherwise I'd still be typing much longer) and pointing out flaws in your reasoning. I kindly urge you to take some time and delve into this forum. Read the available material which includes, but is not limited to articles, studies and evidence and to look at other discussions as well, as to develop understanding of our points of view and the factual situation.