Came across this study and was wondering about people's thoughts. I'm not going to go through all of it, but there are w couple of points I wanted to talk about.

Further in line with our argument, young men who perceive institutions in their regions to be unfair react more strongly to this perceived competition and express more sexism, as they are more likely to consider this competition to be unfair1. Finally, young men residing in regions that record recent increases in unemployment will express more sexism due to the increased competition in the labor market, which they may perceive to be further aggravated by increasing women's labor force participation

We have evidence that boys receiving lower grades for the same work, so I would like to know why they think this level of unfairness is only perceived.

We do not find that the level of threat perception of advances in women's rights among young men depends on the context of “actual” fairness. Rather, it is the individual-level perception that matters most for our findings.

It finds that boys who are in poverty are more likely to see the system as being unfair against them. They don't ever give it much credit that the system could actually be unfair. With more social support for girls, with different social drives to get women in stem and also a lack of social drive to get men into fields which they are under represented in. Could it be that the system is actually unfair (particularly) against boys who are already struggling? After reading the boy crisis and multiple studies, this paper doesn't ask whether the perceptions could be true. Considering research contributed by this sub does support such assertions.

Finally, this is how the paper defines sexism:

According to Manne (2017, 79), “sexism should be understood primarily as the ‘justificatory’ branch of a patriarchal order, which consists in ideology that has the overall function of rationalizing and justifying patriarchal social relations”, where the patriarchal order is characterized by women being “positioned as subordinate in relation to some man or men... ... It is based on the perception that gender equality is already established and further anti-discrimination laws or measures to promote women would result in special favors toward women.

So, if someone has the above perception, it is automatically assumed that they think women should be dominated. I don't know, the perception could just be based on actual unfair treatment. Asking questions such as this to define sexist attitudes:

Advancing women's and girls' rights has gone too far because it threatens men's and boys' opportunities

So just from a brief read through, it looks to me like this paper has defined sexism via a biased description. Applied it wholesale to anyone who sees modern institutions as unfair and rather than question that unfairness, just saying that this is perceived because men want to dominate women. It couldn't be that young men are being unfairly treated by modern (toxic and regressive) ideals of equality but rather it is just perception. Forgetting the fact that older generations of men would have grown up in a world before the rise of modern patriarchy theory in institutions.

This is only going to get worse if people keep ignoring the conditions these boys are actually being raised in. I think that if you want the trend of younger men going toward the right to continue, this is the exact kind of narrative they should keep pushing. These boys need support, not vilification.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?