There is a term in linguistics called the generic masculine. It refers to the use of the male form of a word to also refer to the neuter with the feminine seen as a special form. For an example: the term actress vs actor, compared to the term doctor which is unisex. Doctress or doctrix isn't used. Many have described this kind of thing as a feminist issue where women are seen as not a standard person or fully competent to be given the masculine title, but I'd argue there is also a men's issue in there.

Being male isn't seen as a positive attribute, but rather a negative one. Being a man means competing against other men and being a predator towards women as the prize in this miopic world view. This mindset might seem to make sense if you think about sexual relations as a result from gametes being high supply, low demand from men and high demand, low supply from women, naturally leading to female harems with the most dominant male, and rest of the males being extraneous, but that's not how it has to work as can be seen in nature. While gorillas often showcase this behavior, bonobos seem to be much more egalitarian in terms of sexual relations. Scientists theorize this has to do with bonobos living in a food rich environment while other apes are in more scarce environments.

Slut shaming women, dominating facist men, and social, political, and theocratic higherarchy all come from this scarcity, winner-take-all, classist mindset. Men's issues are trampled on because many women see these patriarchal men above them ignoring that most men don't have that kind of power at least in the economic realm. Capitalism is just an economic harem where the 1% of men get all the wealth and the 99% of men left get stuck doing back-breaking labor, dying in wars, shunned as neets, or homeless. It suck for women because they end up getting stuck with mundane jobs as society wants them not to be at risk, but also not in dominant positions. So you end up with men who want to be alphas, women who don't want to lose their current social position, hoping to reach the level of domination as the men up top. Then you have men who are considered low value, and below them you have women and men who are seen as defective to society due to racist, ableist, or any other exclusionary social out-grouping.

Jokes about men's bodies are often seen as punching up. 'Men are gross, why are they in positions of power again?' jokes are fairly common which is often why men are turned off by surface level misandrist feminists who view all men benefiting from the patriarchy despite it being much the opposite.

In fact, a lot of boys grew up in matriarchal single mother households where the dominant figure was their mother. She would chastise her sons for not meeting social expectations to maintain her own position in the social hierarchy which is already fairly low. Boys can't be feminine in any way, they have to be alpha, strong, and domineering because that is the path for boys to gain social status. While women have woren pants for a while now, if a boy wears a skirt, he's considered a femboy, a crossdresser, and a social deviant. Combine that with growing up in high school which is often hyper competitive and a social pressure cooker and it's no wonder that young boys fall for the right's manosphere culture. Heck, when I was a young boy, I fell down the right wing pipeline. It took me a while to realize that egalitarian systems like Mutualism help benefit everyone and allowed me to actually be a person rather than aspire to some stereotype of gendered traits.

I want to define what it is to be a man instead of being defined as a man. I don't want to be valued less for being a man and being even less for not living up to what society expects from men. Even as infants boys are expected to sacrifice parts of their genitals which started as ritual scarification to show that boys were willing to sacrifice even their bodies for the tribe. Most schools required boys to swim naked even after chlorination was a solved issue and before that girls had to wear suits because society, or more specifically mothers, viewed a girl's body as valuable and more valuable hidden, and boys undeserving of modesty and unmanly if they desired it. Women and children first, men are disposable.

This is the same reason as to why top freedom for women at least in the US hasn't really taken off as other women see this as a threat to their own value. Heck, this the reason why nudism isn't more wide spread: women's bodies are seen as valuable and revealing them lower's their value and men are seen as disgusting and perverted. A big caveat to this is that this is generally a result of puritanical thinking which is more common in the US, but not as much in Europe. Europe tends to have more egalitarian views on gender equality, nudity, and other social problems which I'd argue is due to their better social safety nets and higher secularism. A lot of social attitudes have been changing recently, especially among young generations, which I'm glad for, but that is also probably why we also see manosphere crap as those in power seek to maintain their social hierarchy by devaluing other men.

TLDR: Puritanist, Capitalist, and Authoritarian systems mainly in the United States create artificial scarcity and competition along gendered lines just like they do between classes and racial groups. This leads to society viewing the average man as generic and in low demand which is why so many young boys who don't have the power that often comes from age and wealth heading down the right. This perpetually devalues boys while women seek to increase their value in this system either through conservative modesty and purity culture or through direct action like in some feminist movements. Equality of sex comes from reducing scarcity and pushing for more egalitarian systems. A lot of this is currently changing for the better especially with Gen Z which gives me hope.

Sorry for the long ramble. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic.

Edit: Formatting and typos