Socialism

it's questioning why they have to be masculine specifically when desirable characteristics among people are largely gender neutral.

Because young men exist, and study after study has shown that positive role models who look like the group in question have an outsized effect as compared to those from a different group. It's a matter of how easily a young person can imagine themselves as that other person.

I don't mean to argue against the degenderization of stereotypical behaviors and traits, and I've had plenty of role models who run the gamut of identities. But where is the inherent value in dismissing an identifier? We come to know ourselves through the similarities and differences we observe - what is gained if we think of one as inherently toxic? How much is lost if we abdicate our responsibility and allow regressive voices to offer the only definitions?

It's perfectly fine to be a feminine man. Young men do not need a vision of positive masculinity.

This is where my beef is. It's active dismissal of people for whom "masculine" is an identifier. This is an argument that there is no space for positive masculinity in social equity. If the goal is to destigmatize people being who they are, why are we choosing to stigmatize a subset of those people?

What kind of young man fears having a female role model, except a boy irrationally terrified of appearing unmanly?

I was hit for having emotions as a child. When my grandmother died, I was terrified of showing how sad I was because it would have meant a beating. I was terrified of acknowledging my female role models, terrified of the fact that I had them. I'd have loved to have a positive male role model! One who embodied the kinds of prosocial gender neutral behaviors that would have let me know I wasn't a complete outsider.