One of the ideas put forward by feminists is "toxic masculinity". I hold that this does exist, but that its overused and generalized to apply to all masculinity. Feminists essentially take the worst aspects of masculinity, often men who are sick, and use these examples to try to make all men feel bad about being masculine.

What I've observed is that most examples of "toxic masculinity" come from low socio-economic backgrounds. Families of immigrants and the African-American community are frequent examples.

They show examples of men who were told to "man up" at the most basic signs of emotion. Instead of being shown how to deal with emotion and channel it to be a better man, as boys these poor kids were taught to hate a part of themselves. They grew insecure, and the culture around them taught them that violence was the only way to reclaim their manhood. Nowhere in this schema does personal achievement, personal improvement, intelligence, or justice come into a man's ego. That's because, as a poor person, these boys are not surrounded by that. So the only way they have of satisfying their ego is to essentially become brutes. The best example of this I can think of (and you can look it up on youtube) is a pretty emotional story Bill Burr tells about the way his Dad treated him as a kid.

These, however, are not the norm. Among immigrant populations, many men look at the broader culture and realize that personal achievement and hard work is the best path for them. This was my father, a man who went hungry some nights as a kid and is now a successful accountant who owns three properties. This is generally not the case for as many poor African Americans (though some resilient men definitely make it out), who instead can be channeled into gang culture, which is even more destructive than the typical working class/poor masculine norm. These varied, brutish forms of masculinity are devised to protect the egos and, more importantly, the social and physical welbeing of poor men and their families. How else can they act when they don't have things such as money, job skills, or class to fall back on. I can understand why these masculine ways are necessary for those men, but I also think that they are not successful in the long term. Self-discipline, hard work, personal achievement, personal improvement, and successful father hood are much better ways to be masculine.

So you have this image of "toxic masculinity", which is a fraction of the poorer classes. While it often protects these people from being eaten up the culture around them, but also perpetuate the men's poverty with mentalities that prevent them from improving (such as making fun of guys for reading, not matter what it is). Feminists see this image, however, and take it as the "real" or "true" version of masculinity. They see every successful businessman or lawyer as "secretly" one of these self-destructive working class guys. They use these bad examples of masculinity to generalize and make men feel bad about being men. This becomes a dirty secret, because to talk about class differences in any way that makes the poor look like anything other than noble victims brands you a bigot. Fuck realism!

But really, its feminists who are the bigots. They're being the real class discriminators by vilifying poor men's survival mechanisms. Then they're being bigots by broadening this to apply to all mankind. The scary thing is that so many men believe them. All they do, though, is create a new kind of anxious insecurity about masculinity. Instead of constantly being worried you're not a "real man", you're worried that you are. These both make us weak unsuccessful failures. The real struggle is to discern the voices that try to instill these insecurities in us, turn them off, and find the voices that help us cultivate a successful masculinity.