That inequality isn't even remotely as prejudicial and barely comparable to the inequality of the gynocentric/liberal society we are under though, not only for female hypergamy being nullified but for a culture overall not bent on qualifying men's worth (or their chance of finding a partner) based on their looks (which in part is inevitable since it's intrinsic to human nature, but could be lessened). Inequality in intersexual dynamics, in this world, might be inevitable and all we can do is mitigate it, Islam being the best remedy.
Also, it wasn't/isn't widespread, one wife sufficed most men, there's a cap to the number of wives, not to mention that in the perpetual state of holy warfare islam is set under, in an islamic state, any man could buy a captured slave girl to serve as a concubine, if not already a member of the military rewarded with a part of the war spoils.
I agree that the inequality under Islam is not nearly as abhorrent and imbalanced as that of the current sexual market, but that does not necessarily imply that the Islamic framework is the optimal one; rather, it demonstrates that the current state of intersexual dynamics is completely disastrous. Sexual liberalism is unquestionably one of the worst possible frameworks, since it unleashes female nature and hypergamy — especially in our current modern society, where it is exacerbated by technological factors. That said, any system which permits polygyny, even if restricted and not widespread, is a flawed system by design, since it undermines a conceptual principle of marriage and monogamy, and sets a harmful precedent.
Is it because of the loss of sensitivity (i.e making sex or masturbation less pleasurable) or what? Not a reason to call it barbaric if so, neither necessarily anti-male, putting more importance on worldly pleasures and trivialities relating to them over anything else is more harmful than the cutting of foreskin, in my humble opinion.
It is fundamentally anti-male, for it arbitrarily aims to mutilate the genitalia of the male without any practical purpose; there is no rational explanation to justify such a practice, which is indeed barbaric, since it involves irreversible harm to a moral agent which is incapable of consenting to the procedure. There is also a possibility that circumcision leaves lasting traumatic effects on the brain, which could alter emotional and neurological behavior in later stages of life, although there are conflicting studies in regard to this specific topic — regardless, the mere possibility of such effects alone should be enough to put such a practice under great doubt. Not to mention the number of botched circumcision that occur every year, as well as the amount of deaths resulting from complications due to this elective procedure (this is all risk without necessity, which is morally unacceptable).
I don't really understand the point you are trying to make in regard to sensitivity, as yes, the sensitivity loss is quite significant: the frenulum, which is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, is typically cut or severely damaged in circumcision, and often, a significant portion of the inner skin is also removed (which is the sensitive mucous membrane). The removal of the outer skin also reduces sensitivity, since it removes a large amount of skin, structure, and specialized nerve endings, and importantly, it leads to the process of keratinization, where the inner skin develops a dry layer of protective keratin as a result of exposure to air, friction, and cloth. This is not merely about some hedonistic desire for pleasure and worldly trivialities, but about basic biological function which the foreskin is meant to serve; the argument would make sense if the desire for "pleasure" was at the expense of something else, such as causing harm, but it isn't. If we follow the line of reasoning you used, we could justify altering anyone's body parts that are not essential, and retort against their valid complaints by stating they should not focus on worldly pleasure and trivialities, since it is more harmful than the damage we inflicted upon them.
sunnah.com
