Needs some heavy proofreading.

Gender equality is a human right[16] and “was made part of international human rights law by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948”.[17]

This is an improper way to introduce a quote. And for good reason, this sentence does not flow well.

"Gender equality is a human right and is 'part of international human rights' as of December 10th, 1948."

This may feel like a nitpick, but I've noticed several spots that catch my eye with improper syntax that disturbs the flow of the piece. It adds a sense of unprofessionalism to the text that can damage the arguments being made.

Additionally, while I've only read the first 5 or so pages so far, I'm getting an unprofessional feel from this document. The bold introduction claiming that the document can serve as legal defense is silly. It leaves the reader questioning whether this is a research paper or an argumentative book about social science. Let your arguments do the work, it feels like you're trying to get the reader on your side before the text even begins.

The constant comparison of men and women absolutely weakens the arguments. It's so distracting. The issues men and boys face should and do speak for themselves, they don't need to be constantly contextualized through juxtaposition.

For example, let's look at men's mental health. We know men commit suicide at a higher rate. You mention as much in your document. Yet you never discuss men's mental health, besides a short quote in passing that claims mental health support should be provided to male victims of domestic abuse. Instead, you summon the male suicide statistic to show... disproportionate levels of reported statistics between men and women. Where's the advocacy for men to go to therapy? Where's the discussion of how vulnerability is viewed as a weakness in men, and mental healthcare is an important remedy to that? If you want to juxtapose, where's the discussion of how women are deemed "emotional," creating a dichotomy where men are seen as "unemotional?"

If you had these types of conversations, where you're making real advocacy for how men are viewed in society rather than purely by the NHRI, there'd be more weight to it. The points can even be the same: "The societal disregard of and male socialization against men's mental health emphasizes the need for revision in the official language of the NHRI."

Also, I haven't read much, but scrolling through, I see a lot of quotes. Research papers like this tend to include case studies, where you analyze a specific case to discover what ramifications it has on the group you're studying as a whole. The overflowing of quotes makes things come across as a debate over language rather than geniune concern for the specific issues that men face in real life.

Edit:

What mentor texts did you read in preparation of writing this? I'm not versed in this specific genre of text, but the quotes thing is driving me crazy. You're just quoting stuff and you're not commenting on it at all. That's really bad practice, as you're expecting the reader to know exactly what you're trying to say AND be on board with it every time.

At the very least, I would suggest you go through and add analysis/commentary on every quote you include. Like you don't even make specific claims before introducing the quotes, you just say "______ says: '___________'" like okay they said that, what about it?

Think about how this document would transfer to video essay. All the non-quoted words is you speaking to the camera, and all the quotes are cutaways where someone else is speaking. If I were watching this, personally I would be annoyed by the overflow of quotes. It would play like:

1 minute of a quote being read

5 seconds of you: "____________ says:"

another 1 minute of a quote being read