His point of view comes from a man who fits into the Patriarchal Society. What about the numerous men who don’t fit that mold?
What about them? A “traditional gender role” does not necessarily imply a lack of tolerance for those who don’t fit it. There’s nothing wrong in establishing an ideal; what’s wrong socially ostracizing those who don’t fit it.
What about the bullying they receive from women in their lives who embrace patriarchal ideas and thus expect them to be something they are not?
Well, “to hell with those women” comes to mind. Part of adulthood is not being overly disturbed by the intolerance of idiots.
When we make the argument that men should suppress their emotions, what happens to them when they are victimized by other, stronger men?
Not seeing where you’re going, here. What does “victimize” mean in this context? Specifically what those “other stronger men” are doing significantly determines the response.
We’ve told them they can’t express emotions and we’ve told them they must lead and protect and when they fail at both, then what?
There’s somebody for everybody, fortunately. Big country.
I refer to the demasculization as perceived because it’s really time to re-examine our ideas of male and female to begin with.
Well, it strikes me that you are very very concerned with solving problems that have no solution, other than allow change to happy naturally and organically over generations.