I'm glad it's increasingly possible to discuss intersections of sexism that primarily affect men/boys without it turning into an ideological sparring match. Although it's not how I identify these days, I was raised as one, and I really needed help in K-12. I was mostly treated with anything ranging from indifference to contempt by teachers for asking or even appearing to need help.

The article correctly identifies the result of experiences like mine:

>> "Rather than external pressures, the challenge facing men is one of internal drive and direction."

But then fails to identify this. It was hard not to notice girls were treated better by a faculty made up almost entirely of women. This kind of lopsided representation leads to the exact same sorts of problems when it goes the other way. We're just not accustomed, as a culture, to recognizing it when it fails to match our well-developed heuristics for identifying sexism. Recognizing the fact that this lopsided representation is due to the undervaluing of teaching due to sexism doesn't actually help the kids it affects.

The internal drive is crushed early, and it's not easily fixed. All the lovely ideas presented by the article won't amount to anything, and don't by the presented data, when we shove kids into a room where half of them are destined to be treated as uncontrollable monsters in training at worst and future leaders who don't and shouldn't need help by dint of birth assignment at best at five years old.

Women get cut down later in the pipeline by shitty bosses, sexist work cultures, etc. Men get cut down as boys and, if they're lucky, they may find some support later in life if they're willing to conform to toxic norms.