Men have a history of providing leadership and/or sacrifice for the common good. Contrary to what Hillary might believe, men have suffered greatly in wars fighting for for their homelands. The essential point is that men can, should and will act collectively for what is perceived to be the common good (at least this is mostly true in the modern Western world).
Furthermore, men are taught (at least in prior times they were taught) that they need to be strong; to be able to take abuse if needed for the sake of society. It does seem odd that this principle is still enforced (culturally, mainly through shaming), even after this era’s deliberate feminization school boys. But that issue is for another time.
In the age of Feminism, more responsibilities (in marriage at least) have been foisted upon men; in conjunction with less authority to carry these responsibilities out. In addition, there has been general abuse thrust upon men by society (e.g. male bashing, abuse laws, affirmative action, free money for women but not for men). Men are supposed to take it, because that is what men do; absorb abuse for the sake of all. However many men are waking up to the fact, that it isn’t really for the sake of all.
Why do men not organize against this abuse? Once again, as men, they are supposed to take it. Furthermore, they are not allowed to organize for the sake of just themselves, they can only organize for sake of family and society. So nothing happens.
What is next?
Addendum: Dalrock has a very relevant comment as to what might be next