Not always, but often, ironically enough, the more masculine men, or at least average "ball cap" types of men, tend to be more empathetic and approachable to MRA issues (involving parental rights, courts, etc.) but also social issues, and when it comes to preferential treatment of women or "disposibility" of men, they acknowledge these things exist even if they are Fundamentally Conservative and literally agree with it being how it should be.

It is the less masculine men, IE. "soyboys", effete, often gay/bi or trans, who seem to not empathize with men's issues AT ALL (despite being the exact people who should feel the most effected by them). You'd think logically, naturally, these type of men who refuse to fit the "gender roles" would be some of the biggest type of male rights activists for people bringing up social/legal inequality males face (in the same way often Feminist women do), but the inverse is true.

As an example, if you brought up the fact there is no fat acceptance movement for men and it's geared entirely towards body positivity for women, and said that in front of the men described in the first paragraph, they will often laugh and makes jokes about it being true (even though they would think the fat acceptance would be ridiculous for men too).

The men in the second paragraph either will become hostile or basically not even address or acknowledge what you said in any way (and funnily enough more often indeed the exact type of people who agree with the message of "All women are beautiful no matter shape and size, etc.)

With women on the other hand the behavior here actually sorta makes more sense in that women who are masculine, or lesbian, unattractive, completely unfeminine and nontraditional, tend to be on the more radically Feminist spectrum. There is something of a logic to it actually. It doesn't seem to work this way for men. If women behaved like men did here the most non-traditional, non-feminine and ugliest women would be the most pro-male and pro-masculine, and pro-traditional gender roles, etc.

I'm not even sure if I'm explaining my observations coherently but I have seen it well enough times to bring it up and this is the best way I can explain it. Does anybody know what I'm sorta talking about here