MaybeDoctor - Oops! My comments re "no excuse" were not directed at you but I can see now why it looks that way
The "adding titles" thing is interesting because I read it as a means of deliberately constructing a "status difference" between men and women, harking back to bygone "etiquette".
Between married couples, it would now be very old-fashioned for a man when talking to his wife to call her, "Mrs Jones" and for a wife to call her husband, "Mr Jones". Both would have referred to their "equals" using Title+Last Name but to the "the lower orders" by their first names, indicating a difference in status, in social standing, but not necessarily a lack of respect.
However, to deliberately "first name" someone against the grain could be done in order to indicate lack of respect. As a corollary, to "Title" someone when "undeserved" could indicate either elevation, due to respect, fear, etc. or a Uriah Heep-type sycophancy.
I read the OP situation as the Boss artificially constructing status differences by adding Titles to the men's names but not to the women's.
Another dimension, where cultural norms differ, can be familiarity vs formality. At the same time that I was in the "Martin team" I was also working elsewhere with a woman my own age who was Swiss, from Zurich so "German Swiss". We became friends and she talked to me about how difficult she found it that in England it was the norm for people to call each other by their first names, unless they were family or very old friends.
She explained this as analogous to levels of "familiarity" being one of the relationship differences signalled by the French "vous" vs "tu".
www.lawlessfrench.com/grammar/subject-pronouns-tu-vs-vous/
In the health-care setting it was expected practice when first meeting a patient to first use Title+Name, ask how they would like to be addressed, and state own name and role, eg. "Good morning, Mrs Smith, my name is (preferred method of address). I am your (Dr/physiotherapist/etc.). Is it "Mrs Smith" or do you prefer "Mary"?"
My Zurich-friend could not deal with this at all. She could not help but find it offensively over-familiar and therefore disrespectful even to ask! It was months before she felt able to ask if she could call me by my first name, after we had spent time together socially, been round to each other's flats for tea, had long heart-to-hearts, etc.
The sex-difference in the use of Titles in the OP also has a whiff of "over-familiarity" about it, ie. in addressing only the women always as "first-name-only". I've got a sort of "spidey-sense", gut-reaction sort of thing to it
Maybe a bit off-topic, the use of last-names-only (mostly an "old school" and "military" phenomenon?) is also interesting in that it usually only carries over into adult, civilian public life when men are being named. I wonder if it also relates to the old-fashioned ways that husbands and wives used to address each other though?
I never heard my mother or her friends refer to their husbands, directly or indirectly, as anything other than "Last Name", ie. in exactly the same way that the men referred to each other. The women were always referred to by their first names.
I used to think that was a carry-over from the war years, when so many men and women were in the armed forces (that sounds an old-fashioned term now too). I am wondering if it is instead a vestige of the old, mutually-reciprocated formality when husbands and wives used Title+Last Name for each other? Not something I have ever looked in to, so pure speculation.
Whatever. The Boss in the OP is using differences in manner of address to create and impose a hierarchy in which all men, whatever their official role or relative status, are elevated above all women.
Hard to imagine that any of the men affected are posting on a forum somewhere, saying that this makes them feel uncomfortable and asking for advice about how to address it . . . they have everything to gain by compliance and possibly also if they rebel, whereas the women have everything to lose, whether or not they comply or rebel.
It will usually be a woman who kicks over the traces and then some men and women will usually "support her". In quotes because hard to know whether any such action "supports her" rather than "opposes him". Their motivation might be less than pure so perhaps best to think of them being onside as "my enemy's enemy" rather than as "my friend" until they prove otherwise
The practice in the OP has to be opposed or undermined though. It is insidious, despicable and damaging. There are lots of different suggestions - I hope you find one that works for you OP greentomatos - Good luck!