The aforementioned “revolution” is neither unnamed nor only a year-old. This is the 3rd or 4th women-led, populist (see: collective alarmist, of people from all genders) movement in the past century, and arguably the most unfortunate of the lot for its dedication to attention through victimhood and generalization, while keeping its hypocrisy under wraps. (I’m looking at you Rose McGowan, who worked with Victor Salva and called him “an incredibly sweet and gentle man” after he had been convicted of pedophilia on a previous production set; I’m looking at you Mia Farrow, who has spent over 3 decades emotionally damaging her children and unsuccessfully trying to ruin a man’s career with pedophilia accusations at moments most publicly beneficial, but has no problem being close friends with Roman Polanski — after your accusations towards Allen, gleefully bringing your children around your brother, John, for years; but said nothing in 2014 when he was sentenced to 10 years in prison for molesting two underage boys. Pitiful stuff.)
Weinstein indeed committed grotesque acts and abused others through his power. Is it really too much to ask that people examine his case and appreciate the victims in contextual isolation instead of debasing the significance of the events with an entanglement of political and moral cues? (In this article’s case, those cues are inexplicably and simultaneously self-satisfying and self-deprecating.)
The brouhaha tone and desperate need for arbitrary validation bleeding through each sentence in your article results in a more reactionary piece than those written by the very group you proclaim as problematic, and in turn they will likely finish reading your words feeling (ironically) validated themselves. You unintentionally give those people merit by  writing about a heinous scandal of abuse and making yourself the centerpiece; and  making sure to carve out a spot to attack them in your writing — painfully serving no other purpose than taking another strident step away from productive, cooperative reflection, and towards the divisive intolerance and off-base malice that you are attempting to eradicate.
I have read hundreds of articles (thousands of comments) over the past month written by men that exude your article’s sentiments. You’re handing out flyers for a party that has been going on for weeks, to people in the main room of the house it’s taking place in. You can’t even deflect and say you’re speaking towards men “in Hollywood”, because you’ve so tightly sewn yourself (and thus, the rest of the otherwise pedestrian male population) into your call to arms. But most importantly is the willful, astoundingly prideful repetition of this sentiment — why are you so readily satisfied to publish writing that can be found a thousand-times over right now on any publication’s comment section or Reddit thread? What does it nurture other than a desire to belong and have your words seen, especially when the circle your words belong to is just giving you imaginary high-fives as they reply “same here, man”?
The real daring idea would be to engage the idea of “women vs men speaking out” in a manner that contextualizes it in reality, using social media as a resource to show how quantifying a disparity between the two is practically nonexistent — possibly ending with at least some leaf of insightful perspective that exposes this particular “women are alone right now, it’s our turn to man up!” as either self-defeating, lacking self-awareness, unconsciously asserting false discrepancies, self-hating, philosophically incoherent, or all of the above. What would be even more daring, perhaps, is if you chose to not write about one of the most trending (see: “heavily capitalized upon”) and currently torn-to-shreds media circuses at all, but rather some other, more critically healthy subject entirely.
Food for thought, I guess.