I have an answer for this...

'Men' don't expect men to fix men's issues. 'Men' don't expect women to either.

When we talk about support for men. We are talking generally, the empathy gap applies to men and women. It exists not as a function of women against men but as societal prejudices against men. Just because we don't expect men to fix our problems, doesn't mean we expect women to. This is an inaccurate assessment of our position (at least as far as I can see). The men at the top care very little for the men who are struggling, the men who this sub represent are not represented by men in power. Men are afforded more status and respect but what people get wrong is that only men in positions of power are afforded that respect. Low status men are treated with disdain, or (perhaps more accurately) like they don't even exist.

Let's talk about toxic masculinity. The Oxford definition:

a set of attitudes and ways of behaving stereotypically associated with or expected of men, regarded as having a negative impact on men and on society as a whole.

I want to make it clear that I wholeheartedly believe this exists, but for the framing of it. I am going to instead refer to it as Internalised Misandry from here on out. The assumption behind Internalised Misandry is that it is the cause of issues with men rather than a symptom of them. Rather than man having Internalised Misandry due to the way society treats him, it is Internalised Misandry that shapes society. Here is the assumption of agency.

The idea that men have issues because they don't show emotion is a popular one, but men who do show emotion, who talk about what is important with them, find that doing so has negative reactions. Showing emotion, whilst noble, is also a detriment to men and serves as a hindrance. This isn't men or women driving these negative attitudes, but societal and most probably evolutionary conditions.

A typical example of "positive" masculinity is Aragorn from LOTR. Aragorn is a great character (don't get me wrong). He's strong, he's brave, kind, reserved, defends others and is of high status. To expect men to emulate him is a form of Internalised Misandry. If only because, not every man is strong or of high status. If Aragorn were to be 'weak' or of low status or who was deeply in need of help, would he be seen as an example of positive masculinity? His ability to support others, is an example of a gendered expectation. Is this not, in itself a form of toxic masculinity, just in new packaging. Men who are struggling can't emulate Aragorn, even if they are kind. They can't support themselves let alone offer that kind of support to others.

The problem is trying to define masculinity along paradigms of what is toxic or positive. Unrealistic expectations are harmful either way.

There are men who do seek help. There are men who try to be vulnerable. We often define male issues as issues with men. Whether the expectation is men need to be the rock and provider, men need to "man up" or men need to show emotion and vulnerability; it is still an attempt to define what men should be. Rather than listen to men and their issues, our response (as a society) is to try and build men a certain way. By 'changing' masculinity. Both men and women do this.

Men of 'high-status' are assumed to be the same as men of 'low-satus'. They are not, and the 'positive' examples seem to be based around men who are. These mixed messages are unhelpful for the majority of men and are still based around hyperagency. A man who is struggling and in pain, can not build a refuge for themselves. Nor can one man who is in a good place (who agrees with providing more support for men) help all other men who need it (not to mention the social barriers to doing so - a lot of people have detrimental ideas as to how to fix men's issues). I saw a post from someone who tried to teach their son how to be aware of their feelings and how to deal with them in a healthy way, and lamented the fact that they became an incel. My question to this is, were their feelings explored as how they pertain to them and their experiences or were they explored in such a way to control and define the person in question?

None of these attempts to define how masculinity should be are particularly helpful in my estimate. I would go so far as to say that we shouldn't have collective nouns for behaviour at all.

This bias and lack of empathy against men, creates a negative feedback loop where both men and women are more likely to define internal factors as the issue for men (men themselves) and external factors as the issue for women (men again).

Anyway, I've gone on enough but the point is, we don't expect women or men to fix these issues. There are only a handful of men who advocate for men's rights and even less women. We only want people to recognise that there may be an empathy gap (almost undeniable at this point) and that this might be skewing our perceptions on equality. That not all issues faced by men are of their own doing (which doesn't mean they're of women's doing either, this point can't be stressed enough. There doesn't always have to be someone to blame). That systemic issues can and do affect men, just like any other group.

This is men talking about their feelings, not as defined by masculinity but as their own individual experiences. I do not think we are asking men or women to fix anything. Rather I think what we want most of all right now, is for people in general to listen. That's all.

Just listen.