> shaming girls for having visible bodies and prioritizing the education of boys over girls, rather than teaching boys to pay attention and not objectify girls.
... implies that boys specifically do not pay attention to girls, and instead objectify them.
> in an industry that continues to raise up and pat the most historically powerful and privileged amongst us — white men — on the back
... constructs white men as a group who is generously risen up and patted on the back
> Instead of being recognized for the complex, multi-dimensional individuals we are — a privilege white men are afforded at birth
... constructs white men as collectively understood as complex and multidimensional.
These all strike me as somewhat accurate, to a degree. However I somewhat agree with your OP that this kind of essentialism, when used to fight sexism is counterproductive.
I would prefer we try to stop essentializing altogether. We don't need to say "men are X" in order say "I would like to make sure women are afforded opportunity Y". I think there's a path here where we can talk about the specific behaviors we want to discourage, without constructing those behaviors as typical of men.
Not because they are atypical of men, but because we are trying to construct men who are not doing those behaviors, and we need a definition of manhood that works for those men too. Unless the plan is for men to disavow manhood entirely, but I don't see a lot of feminists advocating for that yet.