I've said before that this is an unintended consequence of the successes of feminism.
No, I don't mean that in a "feminists are trying to sabotage men" kind of neckbeardy way. I mean that actions, even well intended, often have unforeseen consequences.
For better or worse, traditional gender roles had a purpose and they were rather effective. I say this because, if you want to get a man to work and sacrifice for productivity, you need to give him an effective purpose and motive. There was a time when that was because he had to provide for his wife and children. When gender roles have diminished, there's a lot less drive compelling men to work tough jobs to provide for a family they might not necessarily have.
Compounding that is the expanded labor pool by women increasingly participating, which, I suspect, reduces the value of employees. That is, when you have potentially twice as many employee options for employers after the other half of the population enters the workforce, employers have less motive to keep wages and benefits decent.
On top of that, there is virtually no socially conscious movement to get boys and men involved. No social movement to improve boys' completetion of high school or participation in secondary school. And, perhaps worse, when men do speak up on the struggles boys and young men have regarding education, they are met with a combination of mockery, hostility, and dismissal by social activists. It's more difficult to gather social support for the issues uniquely effecting men and boys than girls. Men are expected to take responsibility for themselves and their outcomes in a way that makes it difficult to rally as a group.
Not that men tend to be inclined to think of themselves as a cohesive social group in the first place.
I'm sure there's more to it, but that's my limited observation.
TL,DR: Social changes over the decades have left men with unique challenges and we haven't had an effective social movement to address those yet.
I agree with everything you said, except that feminism is indeed trying to sabatoge men. It's not "neckbeard" to look at reality, and say "ah." Some female managers deliberately hire women in spite of men, because they think men are lazy.
Feminism created the man's dependence on wives, gfs, and single mothers in the first place.
Eh...in some ways, perhaps so.
There is certainly a degree of hostility and pushback from feminists when people try to discuss men's issues outside of feminism's narrow, usually classist framework.
If I recall, in the US, there is exactly one men's domestic abuse shelter and it's in Arkansas. Compared to the many shelters for women. And, wouldn't you know it, we can find a feminist article written to lambast it as a waste of resources. Even if men do make up a notable percentage of domestic violence victims, giving them even one shelter in the entire nation is too much ground to give because women are the victims more often.
Other occurrences are things like trying to shut down or otherwise disrupte discussions of men's issues through humiliation and intimidation. Especially when they happen on a university campus, where protesters can gather to accuse people of being all kinds of horrible things. Or they can pull fire alarms.
You can look at people like film maker Cassie Jaye who recently disavowed her feminism because of how other feminists treated her and her work after she made a documentary that involved having a real discussion with MRAs. You can see how progressive feminists are turning on YouTuber Laci Greene.
I don't know if I'd say feminists actively sabotage men's issues, but there is a degree of hostility from them more than I'd like to see. ---