It's not really about 'mens rights' it's about whether you are interested in true quality above economic output. Sure you could paint the lack of engagement in true equality in this area as a sign of one-sided gender based campaigning - but I think the original poster is saying that what's really driving a lot of this are bigger economic factors - increasing the output by getting women into the workforce etc, while pretending it's about equality.

So for example, there was a big push for equal pay in the BBC in the UK ( quite right ) - however what tended to happened in practice was the higher paid men getting the push as oppose to bringing up female salaries to match.

This is because salaries for 'talent' are negotiated by agents based on perceived rarity - if it becomes more acceptable for women to be a presenter then you have doubled supply.

And in general people the lower end of pay is based on what they need to survive - so in a societal model where only one person in a family was working, then you needed to pay them X - if both are working you can afford to halve the salary without the workers not being able to live.

It takes a while for these effects to filter through as employers are loathed to generally out and out cut existing wages - but increased supply of labour will surely impact salaries over the long term.

Note none of the above is a reason to not pursue equality - it's just you have to have your eyes open to the bigger picture in terms of who's hands does the benefit of the increased economic output end up in....