I was responding to the above commenter's assertion "there is such a thing as Toxic Masculinity" -- which he claimed arose from the mythopoetic men's movement, and I was also suggesting that, despite this seemingly sympathetic origin, "Toxic Masculinity" is ... essentially what gender feminists use as a cudgel to gain advantage, to characterize the ills of the world as "caused by men" or maleness, and to convert every tragedy that happens in the world into a piece of evidence for some grand theory on the innate malevolence of men.
My experience of Robert Bly is mainly through listening to his lectures, so you may simply understand him better than me -- which, if I've mischaracterized him, I certainly apologize. However, I wish I could get more out of his talks. They seem obscurantist to me. Maybe that's inevitable, when talking about mythic subjects, but I love Jordan Peterson, for instance. I do agree 100% with Bly in the need for male mentoring. But I'm not sure he understands what initiation really means, or at least understands how it actually works. Reaching back into ancient rites and rituals, and "wild" traditions, may do something, but it isn't initiation. Initiation isn't about getting in touch with grief or pain or vulnerability. It's the moment when our motivation to look out for society simply overwhelms our motivation to look out for ourself. (I'm not saying it can't fluctuate or that one simply forgets one's ambitions. But this is how it starts.) Frustratingly, due to today's complexity and the atomization and specialization of people's careers and lives, initiation is just tough to bring about.
What I respond to more than Bly is the writing of Joe Campbell and also Carl Jung.
It might be inaccurate for me to call Bly a progressive and a feminist, but I do think he's essentially a hippy, so that's kind of where I pluck that from. I shouldn't make such a lazy assertion, though -- even though I think I'm right. I don't think a person does visiting professorships at NYU and other places if one's politics are incompatible. (Though, again, that may be flawed thinking.)
What's interesting, given the following linked piece written way back in 1990 by a sympathetic woman ...
http://homestar.org/bryannan/men.html
... in analyzing an interview of Bly by the wonderful Bill Moyers, is that what was then called "The Men's Movement" seemed much more acceptable, broadly speaking. Inevitably, there was a viscerally negative reaction from (for instance) the president of the National Organization of Women. But "Iron John" was a No. 1 New York Times bestseller. Men-only retreats were evidently popping up everywhere.
Now, the idea of men-only retreats seems not only forbidden to actually do but forbidden to even vocally consider. And I think that's basically tragic. Because it suggests not just that men are much less able to have meaningful gatherings, they're virtually unable to give voice to thoughts about these things. Unless they have a very stable and amenable crowd of family and friends.
... As for "Toxic Masculinity," which I see that you too seem happy to use, I would really urge you to try out Joe Campbell's term for what you're describing. What you're describing he called "defective initiation." It seems more accurate and more helpful. He talks about the meaning and purpose of initiation in "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" as well as "The Joseph Campbell Companion." He would never have used such a blunt, manipulative, and hateful phrase like "toxic masculinity!"