Many men are very very lonely, isolated and self loathing.
Things have moved on and the world has changed. Men are still operating on the basis of it being the same as it was. They are pissed off about that. If you were in charge, and felt entitled To take everything you wanted, wouldn't you be angry too? Who are these women telling me I have to treat them as humans? Respect their feelings? Wash my pants? 30 years ago if you were my wife, I could have forced you to do as I wanted with literally no recourse or consequence. It's a big change and they are pissed off. Who are men now? What is their role in society? It's not hunt the dinner, or protect the clan, so what is it? What is their role and purpose? It's a hard question to answer, now. Hence the crisis in identity being played out.
I agree strongly with both of these statements. I personally believe the current issues are linked to anemoia, a false nostalgia for something that either never happened or that the individual never personally experienced.
Hence incels, traditionalists, reactionaries, religious leaders, etc all harking back to a time when men were allotted a woman as carer, lover and helpmate. We all seem to recognise that as something which happened but there is no evidence it did. Men have had to compete for women's affections since dragon-slaying, love poetry and war were a thing. Even historical rural farmer man, who was largely understood to have been allotted the girl next door, would have had to compete with his peers for the attentions of the best looking girl and might have had to settle for less (and been bitter about it). That said, I think those societies may have been less toxic for men, as the overcrowding wasn't an issue and neither was the endless novelty and relative anonymity of being in a city full of other women to gawp at and desire (and buy, I'm assuming prostitution was more prevalent the larger the settlement). A similar problem occurs with online porn, which is free, endless and varied. Multiple studies have been done on the effects of endless sexual novelty on men who masturbate compulsively to porn online. There is a men's movement to resist it (nofap) as it is recognised to be detrimental, most especially in terms of relating to actual women and successfully gaining and maintaining a relationship with one.
Men truly consider themselves to be more spiritual than women, and can point to all their achievements as proof of intellectual superiority also. One incel wrote posts that made me very uncomfortable, as he pointed out women's ingratitude towards the "invisible" and "beta" men who had built her house, installed its services, built her car, invented and built her TV, created this, created that, toiled for this, sacrificed for that, etc. The love poetry, literature and music written by men for women or about women suggests that many can and do feel deep and complex admiration and love for women (although that is realistically limited to the artists and authors themselves, playing a few songs on your car's radio doesn't make you a romantic). However I do believe there is sacrifice involved in being a man, and it isn't all hedonism at women's expense.
Women, on the other hand, have never needed men's emotional input as much as men have craved theirs, because they have social structures that allow for emotional expression outside the relationship. Many men would prefer the 1950s where women stayed in their world and got their social input from other women (housewives chatting over the fence) and men stayed in theirs (men only pubs) which probably made relationships less challenging as there wasn't so much pressure on a partner to be all things (friend, lover, confidante, etc). I do think male suicide rates are linked to the abolition of male only environments, although this is obviously just one factor, and plenty of those environments were terribly toxic and restrictive.
On this note, men seem vulnerable after divorce or the death of their wife and tend to fall apart as they have nobody to rely on or talk to. Other men avoid them in these situations as if the "failure" will rub off on them, whereas women support each other, generally speaking. Women end up ruined financially (the trend for divorce payouts is a recent one) but have generally got a support network. Likewise women cope with incapacitated men worse. Women do not find emotionally incontinent men attractive. Women on the pill prefer sensitive men with prettier features, ovulating women not on birth control prefer ultra masculine brutes with more pronounced manly features. I've seen women laugh at men for being emotional or crying. Incels and MRAs are convinced women are more likely to leave a disabled man than vice versa but I can't find anything to support it. It makes sense in my head, because while men are put off by women becoming unattractive, women seem to be put off by men losing their abilities and agency. None of this is nice to think about and it makes me uncomfortable. I like to challenge my thinking by reading some crazy stuff, so I might just have been influenced by it.
How does this relate to anger? I think it's the fairness aspect. Both sexes suspect the grass is greener for the other. In an inability to relate to the opposite sex both sexes fail to challenge their suspicions. I also think there's an awful lot of truth in the dehumanisation argument, that men treat us as inferior but subconsciously feel guilty for doing so, and so double down on dehumanising. That explains to me the hugely higher rates of violence towards women in the societies where they are most controlled. This long post might read as pro-men (I've just previewed it before posting) but it isn't; I just wanted to explore some ideas I had on the subject and am happy to be proven wrong about any or all of it. I haven't done much feminist reading so apologies if this is basic stuff.