SoylentNews

The "crisis" with masculinity seems to be a Marxist dialectic. (Let me know if I'm doing this wrong. wswswswsws won't touch the subject even with a 38½" pole.) Thesis is patriarchy. Negation of the thesis is radical feminism. Gender equality lies in the negation of the negation.

For consideration there is Bly's Iron John: A Book About Men [wikipedia.org], which is the polar opposite approach to the red pillar counterrevolution implied but never directly urged by Farrell's The Myth of Male Power (iirc). Bly might give us a glimpse of what the negation of the negation is, but Iron John is mythical in nature and can only be separated from the myth's heteronormativity with some contortions.

Men must seek liberty from the straight-jacket of patriarchy. Heteronormativity is the force of patriarchy that, in the presence of radical feminism, sleepwalks into a contradiction: dependence upon that which was previously dependent on the former itself but had obtained independence. Gender relations under patriarchy assume a thoroughly co-dependent form of mutual abuse. Thus, heterosexual men must awaken from their co-dependent state and find a new mode of gender relations in which heterosexual men and women finally become independent equals.

I think that the new propaganda about "toxic masculinity" presumes to talk about masculinity, but it only in fact talks about heterosexual men who have not yet found a way of gender relations with women as independent equals instead of as mutual codependents. It does not talk about masculinity itself (viz. the gender independent of sexuality) but an outmoded means of male heterosexuality.