I could only get through the first third. But the researcher was reporting that young men in culturally liberal and developed nations are more sexist than women their age, while older generations everywhere are not.

She speculates this is because the young men haven’t gained the status indicators of financial stability, housing, and an attractive wife (sic) that they see the older men had gained back when houses were plenty and women were forced to be with men for financial and cultural reasons. So the perceived reduced status, financial strain of modern times, and women’s rejections generates resentment and drives them online (where only the more extreme voices are generating content) and reinforces that resentment.

I think the women have valid complaints, plus there’s just the general difficulty of finding a good partner. But both of those together mean a greater rate of rejection (about one third of young men are unpartnered) than the men see compared to the older generation.

Evans: I think it depends on how we phrase it. So, in terms of, yes, young men are much more likely to say, Yes, women could work, they can go out to clubs, they can do whatever they like, they can be totally free, and young men will support and vote for female leaders. So in terms of support for recognizing women’s capabilities, absolutely, younger generations tend to be much more gender equal, and that holds across the board. The only exceptions are places like North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia where there’s no difference between young men and their grandfathers. But in culturally liberal economically developed countries in the West and East, young men are more supportive.

Evans: One is that men care about status. Everyone cares about status. Big examples of status goods include getting a great place at university, being able to afford a nice house, and also having a beautiful girlfriend. Those three things—good education because that matters for signaling for credentials; good place to live; and a pretty, pretty wife or girlfriend—those are your three status goods. Each of those three things has become much, much harder to get. So if we look, as university enrollment rises, as it has, it becomes much harder to get to the top, to get to the Ivy League, right? So only a small percentage of people will get to the top, but those getting to the Ivy League is so important for future networks. Meanwhile, those who don’t even have bachelor’s degrees will really struggle to get higher wages. So one is that men are struggling to get those top university places, which are important for jobs. Then on top of that, housing has become much more expensive. And the gap between wages and house prices has massively increased. Especially if you don’t have inherited wealth. So for the guy whose parents were not rich, it becomes so much harder to get onto the property ladder. So it’s especially hard for these young men to get status. Now, a third and really important factor is that it’s become harder to get girlfriends. So as societies become more culturally liberal, open minded, and tolerant, women are no longer shamed, derided, and ostracized for being single without a boyfriend. … But as women are not facing that pressure and that ostracism, they can become financially independent. Women’s wages are approximating men’s. They can inherit parental wealth and buy their own property. So that means that women don’t necessarily need a man. So demand for male partners has plummeted because of that economic development and cultural liberalization. As a result, Pew data tells us that 39 percent of adult American men are currently unpartnered.

Demsas: So basically you have these three buckets here that you’re talking about. You’re saying that you see this divergence with young men in particular because young men, I guess, are concerned with status in a particular way, and that the economic circumstances of our moment in time here in the U.S. have made it more difficult because of home prices, because of diverging outcomes for people with a college degree versus those without. And then finally that because of women’s increased opportunities that they’re able to actually reject men that they feel like don’t give them either economic security or the love or respect. And in previous generations, they would have had to make do because they weren’t afforded that freedom in society.

Evans: In fact, they’re guys with emotions who—and nobody wants to be ghosted, to be rejected, to feel unwanted. So if men go on these dating apps and they’re not getting any likes, and even if they speak to her when she doesn’t have the time of day, it just bruises and grates at your ego, your sense of worth. And so then, men may turn to podcasts or YouTube, and if you look at that manosphere, if you look at what people are talking about, it’s often dating. And so they’re often saying, Oh, women have become so greedy. They’re so materialistic. We see this vilification of women. So that kind of filter bubble, once you self-select into it, you become surrounded by this sense of righteous resentment and, oh, you know, It’s not your fault for lack of studying in schools, it’s women are getting all this positive discrimination. Women are getting all these benefits, you know, every, all these companies are hiring women because they feel they have to, because that’s woke nowadays. So if you hear all that kind of angry discourse, and the same goes in South Korea where I was earlier this year. There is a sexist, discriminatory law which mandates that men have to go into military conscription. And that’s terrible, it’s very abusive, it’s hierarchical, it’s unpleasant, lots of men commit suicide, and that is now increasingly used as a way of signaling that life is very unfair for men. And so men are facing a tough time, and then social media, which they’re self selecting into, can reinforce the legitimacy of that.

The article doesn't provide hard numbers to nail down on a wall and quote. However, I'll do my best to summarize and interpret.

So, in terms of, yes, young men are much more likely to say, "Yes, women could work, they can go out to clubs, they can do whatever they like, they can be totally free", and young men will support and vote for female leaders. So in terms of support for recognizing women’s capabilities, absolutely, younger generations tend to be much more gender equal, and that holds across the board.

The only exceptions are places like North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia where there’s no difference between young men and their grandfathers. But in culturally liberal economically developed countries in the West and East, young men are more supportive. But, sorry, I should have been more clear, they do express this hostile sexism, so this sense of resentment that women’s rights are coming at men's expense. But that’s not all men, right? And so it’s only a small fraction of young men. You know, many young men are very, very progressive and they’ll vote for Hillary Clinton, et cetera.

/.../

Women’s wages are approximating men’s. They can inherit parental wealth and buy their own property. So that means that women don’t necessarily need a man. So demand for male partners has plummeted because of that economic development and cultural liberalization. As a result, Pew data tells us that 39 percent of adult American men are currently unpartnered.

My interpretation:

• a) political support for gender equality is high, and probably is record high
• b) individual bitterness due to poor inter-gender relations is high, and could be record high

Typically, those processes have different outputs:

• typically, the output of A (theoretic support) is in the political realm
• typically, the output of B (bitterness) is in the individual realm.

To have the output of B enter the political realm, one needs a politician to translate bitterness into reactionary politics that aims to harm women's rights. To bring a boring example: an ultra-conservative opposed to the right of aborting a pregnancy.

Once the translation has been provided, the next question comes: are young men easier to co-opt into radical political movements? And the answer is undeniably "yes". Men are considerably less inhibited by risk, for reasons that are probably both social (how one is raised) and biological.

If a radical movement presents the perspective of considerable risk, but considerable gain, you'll typically find young men involved. So, some political offshoots of a situation where the state of affairs makes people discontent - both offshoots in revolutionary and reactionary directions (think of anarchists and neofascists) - you'll find young men heavily involved there (and often quite willing to beat the heck out of each other).