Your question regarding the masculine seems to correspond with notions I have had about two of your other posts: Misogyny and Feminine care. Men, whether particularly masculine or not so much,
have felt the pressures and pinch of the feminist movement and other pro- women forces. On the hand of fairness and equal treatment, this is viewed as a good thing. On another hand, it can be considered erosive: the rise of Donald J. Trump to the office of the Presidency is a prime example.

Disaffected males disproportionately supported and support Mr. Trump. He has vowed revenge for his defeat in the election and these men are gleefully backing that. This is demonstrative. And, I think
unhelpful. It encourages further erosion of democracy, in the sense of encouraging a revenge whch has no valid referrent: He lost the contest, fair and square. His insistence that it was rigged is , itself, a sham. But, obviously, brawny, masculline men may choose to feel differently and act on the feeling.
To use a part of my mantra, they are NOT ready to try harder, think better and cut the crap.

Reasonable people can disagree. Of course...

Critical Theory never was philosophy, and none of its current extrapolations are, either. They are anti-white racial animus gleefully of value only to over-socialised, post-religious faithists for whom the radical left offers the means to rebel against their own personality flaws.

It does not matter to them that their arguments are circular, their certainties self-proving, their justifications hypocritical self-deceptions. It does not matter that equality does not and cannot exist in Nature, and therefore in humanity, and that cause is a total waste of everybody’s time. It does not matter that there is no Marx Factor whirring away inside the human brain, cross-checking with flawless efficiency over the mountains and deserts and oceans to make quite sure that no one with white skin has evolved a difference above the neck or below the belt from someone with black or brown or yellow skin. It does not matter that being a man or a woman is not a personal choice because, y’know, you can’t choose your chromosomes. It does not matter that reproductively whole men and women, in whom the future of humanity is vested, are not equal to the reproductively disabled “letter people”. None of it matters because it’s religion. It’s all just a desperate, pathetically immature faith-rebellion in the maximally damaging cause of a relativistic universe voided of all annoyingly “white” and “masculine” absolutes like reality, facts, truth and, especially, inheritance. Would that these strange political animals had all been practising Christians after all. Then the most they could have done to save themselves would have been to go and prey in church every Sunday.

No. I do not understand. I have suggested readings for insight into this and other questions. Susan Jacoby and Steven Pinker are two of my favorites There are dozens others. I don't contend these public intellectuals are 100% right, only that they offer valuable perspectives. I figure I still have a lot to learn. Life is just too short. We just do the best we can, with what we've got and what we know...
Warmest Regards.

Sex and gender are two different things. Though we scientifically understand next to nothing about sexual orientation, we know something about gender and much more about sex. Most of us don't question our sex or gender, especially men, comfortable with their maleness and masculinity. Why should they? They are 'Real Men On Top' as Robin's forthcoming book is titled.

Here's why. There is no state or country where men outlive women. Being male kills men. Men are victims of crime at much higher rates than women as well. Men commit homicides nearly nine times as often as women. The stats go on and on.

There are biological reasons for this disparity, but social norms that don't support males through adulthood bring much pain and harm. That may seem odd to say men need support when they are the criminals and lottery winners with respect to wages and opportunity. Nevertheless, it is perhaps true. That men rarely are open and honest about their lives is further fodder for change.

The absolute best solution for the ills of masculinity is equal rights for women. Once we correct that wrong, we can genuinely share the childcare and parenting that perforce humanizes.

Women and men are more alike than they are different despite the broad differences in masculinity and femininity. Cognitively there is far more variation within the sexes than between them. SARS 2 may have reversed course on women in the workplace. Hopefully, we can right that ship. Male lives depend on it.

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/what-makes-man

Hmm... I'm not sure I liked this show. Yet, just when I get heated Robin would say something reasonable. Overall I think there is too much here I disagree with to let this go without comment.

I don't see a clear path - which is what I ask of any professional philosopher. Clarity and direction... hmm. I'm not getting it here. Let me re-listen and write in a comment on this show, then come back and post it here.

I don't think this is going to be an easy edit. Robin is wrong on the science, the immutability of masculinity and femininity, and historical trajectory. This isn't going to be fun but maybe I am just not hearing this right.

Sometimes, in my case anyway, something emerges from some remembered text read in past years. I have mentioned Julian Jaynes before. He was not as well known as some, but his idea of bicameral mind still nags at my consciousness, or fires a neuron when I am pondering some other problem. Masculinity. That has been a point of aggravation since I was a very young man. I wonder if being unable to make up one's mind part of the dilemma? It vaguely occurs to me that men's ideas about themselves are all over the chart. They are acutely aware of their public image and want to cast themselves in what they believe to be the best possible light. Much of this belief rests in peerage: with whom and where they feel at ease, 'comfortable in their skin'. This is not, of itself, indication of intelligence of dimness. They just want to have somewhere to hang their hat. Or hunt turkeys.

Like Jaynes' bicameral man, they do not really make up their own minds: they choose a template where there is most comfort and allow their attitude and behavior to be molded by the chosen herd.
Philosophy of psychology? I think so. Others must decide for themselves. Turkeys are difficult prey.
If you are playing by the rules.

It has been awhile since we were here. Fortunes are won and lost. I learned from what Jaynes wrote and now know more about those short comings. Dennett? He is not teflon coated either, but I likewise learned from him---I hope so, anyway. Transgender issues, now more relevant that a mere couple of years ago, seem to subsume masculinity as a topic of importance The gender discussion, in itself, is unsettled and unsettling. No one can decide whether it is relevant, or no. AI; LLMs; Transhumanism and more, vie for our attention and/or support. I still know what I think. Others know what they believe, based on Interests, motives and preferences. There will always be a gap between what we think; know; and, believe.. And that, friend Smith, is just the point.
Warmest.
Neuman.