When someone is talking about a particular aspect of sociology (e.g., masculinity) the terms related to that already have very distinct meanings. We know that she was referring to those because she specifically lamented that men were "losing their identity" by having those particular elements of masculinity seen as negatives (because they are). The fact that she later goes on to say things that are more reasonable and more sensible does not erase the pandering and the erroneous characterizations she made at the beginning of the essay.
What you have to say just because you are a man is irrelevant because you don't have any particular expertise in this subject matter. Being a guy doesn't grant you any special understanding - something that you demonstrated a while back when you opined that stoicism and competitiveness were natural to men (rather than the very clearly and obviously socialized in traits that they are.) Now that you've finally realized that, suddenly you're the expert? 🙄
If you want to write something about how you'd like to "reclaim" those terms, be my guest, but as of right now, they have very particular meanings that as I've already quoted to you many, many times, are considered problematic by experts - for men's mental health and happiness.
Stoicism, competitiveness, and aggression in the context of discussions of masculinity in this culture are all toxic traits that harm men. Good emotional regulation, sportsmanlike behavior, and assertiveness are not - but that's not what she said - and those are all slightly different things than those other terms.
If you don't like what I say and how I say it, don't read me. 12k other people really like what I say and how I say it and about 65% of them are men. One man just told me this yesterday:
And for the record, I didn't explain to anyone how they ought to feel. I pointed out well defined precepts of a sociological dynamic. Stop grasping at straws.
