It definitely is more nuanced and more levels to this problem. I was raised under the same system and got some bad results. But I didn't blame anybody or hold resentment in my heart. I made a choice to want better for myself and changed my own parameters to adjust to the new dating climate. These guys say they're a man and they're supposed to lead but aren't actually leading anything. They're still choosing to play under those same roles and rules. We have a choice in everything we do in life. A lot of people are happy being unhappy because they refuse to do the actual work to change their circumstances.
this is an over simplification.
The issue is Female Gender Roles have been adjusted for the Modern Day, Men are still operating in a Gender Role defined from pre 1960s, the same women who know their roles are updated are still raising these men and holding these men to this dated standard. Then you pair in the Modern Economic model does not support this outdated Gender Contract for Men, and you are shocked at the type of men it produces?
Like I said the folks are lecturing from an ivory tower and then shocked when the peasants revolt
I think the huge issue is the nature of competition between men and women in the current hypercompetitive society. In the past, I would agree most chauvinism was from people who resented answering to a woman or competing against her on the same job etc. but I don't think Gen Z really has a problem with women bosses and co-workers at the core.
The problem is in the past when men competed primarily against each other, women were left at the sidelines but when men won, they generally elevated their women with them (at least as much as that society would tolerate). Now that men
and women compete, some irresponsible voices from feminism/social media talk about gender competition as some sort of zero sum game, and women--not just Black women--do not see it as their role to elevate men in a similar way if they win as men used to elevate their women. In fact, they are told it is ok to shame them or berate them for not reaching a certain standard.
So if the man loses, and in our hypercompetitive world many men will lose, he has no outlet or salvation--and since women are more educated he doesn't even have as many female peers to console himself with--but society still looks down on him for his failure while not seeing any mutual bond or responsibility between women and men so he loses both personally and socially.
This is my big issue with modern feminism. Not that women shouldn't be educated as well, or make as much, or hold the highest leadership positions in the land, or not be protected from domestic violence, or have to temper their aspirations to have a family. My problem is women are taught that not only should it not be just a man's world but the men are your competition or even your adversary.
The issue is if you elevate women without the reciprocal responsibilities men had towards women in the past (and yes, there were responsibilities to their women from traditional men) you are basically setting up women to be isolated and embittered and later even easy targets for demagogues as most men receive no dividends from their success.
People trying to balkanize society whether MRA or extreme feminism don't realize that losers will destabilize their ideal world. The fact is though, men are more prone to use violence and agitation if they are left out so there is a bigger risk in their disenfranchisement.