I think this is a fair question, but I would be a bit concerned if the implication here is positive masculinity includes sexual assault. I'm sure that's not what you're saying though.
one of the books he lists this year is "Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About it" by Richard Reeves. It's about exactly what you say.
... and why isn't there more classification of women as perpetrators for their bad behaviors like men? Why isn't there more "perp walking" women-as-perpetrators stories like the constant "perp walking" men as a class get? Are the sexes only unequal when it works out for the oppressed-labeled classes?
One of my rules for understanding human society is that "everything always overcorrects." We tend to overcorrect one way, then overcorrect the other way, and so on. It's a bit like if you have a spring under tension and let go of it. It does not snap back to the center. It oscillates for a while.
The steel-man argument is that men have historically dominated society and decreasing their influence is a leveling process. That is to say, when one group is dominant and another submissive, lowering the influence of the first and increasing it of the second is progress toward an equal position.
It does seem like the wave has crested on this movement for now. Most intelligent people who aren't blatantly partisan are starting to express distaste toward it, and it's becoming less of a "shunned" position to push back on it.
>men have historically dominated society and decreasing their influence is a leveling process
RICH men have hist...
RICH men in the last 150 years figured out they can use poor mens' women (Hitler, anyone?) to get wealthier and solidify power. With double the tax base and nobody but the State to raise kids, the middle class became too mired in distractions and day-to-day survival and lacked intergenerational memetic staying power to address the benefactors of modern feminism: the moneyed class. Humans create social groups to survive in nature. One of the strongest bonds is the family, much stronger than bonds to the State are. The State has an interest in reducing family bonds which might compete against the State for piety. We like to get all warm and fuzzy about social contracts and such, but the fact is the State is a human-ranch and the owners of the ranch want you productive like bees in a hive and never able to throw them off.
I digress. When it comes to merit, I strongly believe one is a fool for rejecting an otherwise ideal candidate just because he's black or not really a he. When you're making a family sure all that matters, but when running a business your goal is to make money not be the whitest most male business out there regardless of revenue! I do think UC schools deflating Asian SAT scores for social justice is as racist as inflating them.
