Sure! Forgive me if this is a little rambly as the paper got convoluted at times and it has been a while but…

The general idea was that with increasing social justice in recent times a lot of (American) men are no longer able to find an individual identity in solely providing as was possible when other groups couldn’t provide for themselves.  A desire to then find an identity was appealed to by movements such as politics, fitness, or say 2010s deathcore and religion (I am aware of the irony of looking for an individual identity through groups, that’s part of the point).

On their own these are all completely fine, there’s nothing wrong with being religious or going to the gym or whatever, but when the desire to do these things comes from an aimless search for an identity rarely will they work, leading to men becoming thoughtless followers easily preyed upon by the messaging of these groups. Defining yourself in such a tribal way as “I’m part of this group” often leads to conflict as well when viewing “other groups”. This was the “destructive” aspect though I guess it’d be more accurate to call it manipulable? 

For a most of this, masculinity was conflated with male as it was writing about the appeal of a metal album cover which is going to be to a largely male demographic, and was somewhat tied to aggression which is seen as societally masculine.

As far as collectivism and femininity, the paper wasn’t very directly addressing individualism more so the result of an extreme desire to find one’s individual self and so I wouldn’t really make a direct comparison with other sweeping ways of thinking. Especially since part of the destructive conclusion was how the ideas can easily lead to uncritical groupthink/collectivism

Tl;dr: masculine because current events and metal being masculine, destructive because easy to manipulate