What if the far greater attractive allure women have over men just by virtue of existing, that men don't necessarily have themselves, is already a form of soft counter-power?
In the past, it was expected that males have executive power and that would be their allure, and that's still their allure, because apparently it's the only thing women are drawn to anyway.
But now, if you have an innate allure and
some executive power, how can a man possibly rival that? You just don't see women aggressively drooling over anything vaguely broad-chested, in the same way men aggressively salivate over anything vaguely hourglass-shaped. And for a lot of men, even "hourglass-shaped" isn't a basic requirement, you don't even have to maintain your body at all to be attractive to a lot of men, you just have to be female at all.
But you don't see the female preference changing to suit environs, just like the male can, you see it continuing to chase power. You see it continuing to squat on its monopoly as a Selector rather than Selected, or, weirdly enough, you see a rate of female homosexuality increasing far more rapidly than male.
It's almost like an emergent monopoly, but bizarrely you're insinuated as some oppressor for criticizing it.
I don't think you can rightfully force
anyone's preferences to change, but the fact is that males have been more willing to adjust their preferences to be realistic than females, and are more willing to let go of the type of privilege conferred by their gender than are females. Males were partially talked into complying with the feminism thing, it wasn't all beating them into submission. So if you can encourage
men to adjust their behavior to be more equitable and they comply, then you shouldn't be shamed and called an oppressor for encouraging women to change theirs as well.
But the setup isn't even something you're allowed to criticize, because the moment you speak in these terms, a feminist who probably benefits from these trends and attacks you with ad-homs and calls you an incel terrorist; in effect, turning the same masculine expectation they claimed to subvert, as a way to silence you.
This casts the mythology of "toxic masculinity" being the product of powerful men, not powerful women, in a whole different light, as it suggests that men would be more incentivized to seek emotional support from each other
than from women, rather than using masculinity to justify in-fighting, which hurts them as a whole. In this light, male in-fighting is less self-interested and more a catering to the other gender, since it feeds into their preference for selecting against the weakest men. Males who realize this would never be content to perpetuate this cycle, as it keeps their sex in a defensive position, rather than one of equal bargaining with the other.
So the notion of masculinity as a product of selfish male ambition, rather than a defensive position the other sex forces them into as genetic Selectees, makes no sense. Males, in fact, do not necessarily want to be "masculine," they were beaten into it, which explains why females don't care to emulate it: it is in fact a strenuous standard for any person to meet, rather than an empowering privilege to express.
If this setup is grounded in asymmetry, one can't defend it while saying they want equality.