The good/bad is a feature in the definition of redeeming. Consider the definition or redeeming more carefully. It's also tied to the idea of opposites.

Male attributes are generally not perceived as being opposite of each other, they are perceived as generally being opposite of the feminine.

Further, if some male attributes are "good" and some are "bad" then how can we argue that masculinity needs to be regarded in a positive light. When part odnitnis inherently "bad"? How's that supposed to work?

You just nullified Simon's whole article with that one.

I'd love to give you a slap on the back for that because his thinking is supremacist in function when it comes down to it, but your thinking here is flawed to. It makes nonsense where the rubber meets the road.

If some masculine traits are "bad", why are they so valued? How can any man call himself a "good" man then, when being g seen as a worthy man requires you to demonstrate proficiency in attributes that are "bad"?

Make this make sense.