There seems to be 2 parts to the author's premise in this article: 1) There is historical evidence that a "crisis of masculinity" is a recurring cyclical chara

There seems to be 2 parts to the author's premise in this article: 1) There is historical evidence that a "crisis of masculinity" is a recurring cyclical charade using poorly defined criteria and that masculinity falls into a bucket of, "I know it when I see it." 2) In order to prevent this cycle from repeating and from masculinity being weaponized as damaging propaganda we need more researchers focusing on defining masculinity in every conceivable context in order to develop deep and meaningful frameworks to measure and confirm or refute this kind of manipulative propaganda. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with these two premises, just trying to provide a summary and see if I understand their point...