There was talk upthread of young men in the US joining churches, as a sign of radicalisation. As a church member myself I have seen no evidence of this, and in the US the churches are declining. I have also read that while the US conservatives who supported George W Bush in the 2000s attended church, Trumpites do not: it is just identitarianism.
It also got me thinking. Public morals in the UK when, when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, were loosely based on a kind of legacy Christianity. Incidentally, my experience of Christianity as a young man was that the oafish bullying I endured at school by other boys wasn't tolerated in the churches, and being a man who wasn't stereotypically very manly was absolutely fine. So I stayed there.
By the 2000s, that had morphed into a live-and-let-live liberalism, and now it's morphing again into a set of ethics that are very concerned about categorising people and identifying advantage and disadvantage in the abstract, and reassessing every part of society, including its collective memory, on that basis. Front and centre is that men are advantaged over women. @RamblingEclectic said we should "follow the evidence and stop pushing this lens at the individual level." I agree with that, but I think that is unfortunately precisely what the concept requires, ie, every man has benefitted from male privilege just by being male.
Some men have absolutely cashed in on male privilege and been highly advantaged by it. Others, with a hard life and bad luck might have benefitted from male privilege but find that counts for very little against their other disadvantages. And yet others might actually not have benefitted from male privilege at all despite being male: it's hardly beyond comprehension that male privilege doesn't get distributed evenly, but the theory has nothing meaningful to say about that.
Another point. Something that is still seen as stereotypically 'manly' is doing one's best, hanging in there, and invididual effort. I'm not saying women don't also subscribe to that, only that it is seen as a traditional male virtue as well. But a paternalistic system of ethics that redistributes merit from groups perceived to be advantaged to those that aren't is completely contrary to this. It gets worse: if disadvantaged groups are identified by outcomes, then the fact that white boys aren't given extra assistance in school looks very selective. The whole system is full of inconsistency and contradictions, and so I don't think anyone should be surprised that a whole lot of men don't want a bar of it, which leads to my final point: as this system is now the establishment view, it's hardly surprising that lots of men will support whoever rails against 'wokeism'.
As for men who are capable of being bullshitted: well, they've always been around. In the past they read the Sun and looked at Page 3. Now they are getting weapons-grade bullshit from the Internet, but they're scarely the only ones. It's just a bad situation all round.