I think that our two authors here, Crews and Theroux, are arguing different shades of the same side of the story. Crews is responding to what he's observed in masculine culture and all that he's been a part of through a career in Hollywood and in professional sports and though while Theroux seems to be responding to the same issue, his article seems to want to victimize men a whole lot more. Crews is calling to action, distancing himself from the macho brand of alpha-male culture and telling men that these things are no longer acceptable. Theroux seems to whine about how indoctrinated our young men have become and how otherwise innocent boys are shaped into this complex mess of social stature and personality disorders. Both believe that there is something deep-seated and very corrupt with the way young men are being raised (and in Theroux's case, he believes a similar thing of young women) but to me, Crews takes a much more productive stance towards the issues. Crews's whole motivation behind writing and publishing a book of this nature is that he believes that there is too much silence surrounding the issue- that this deplorable macho culture has reached a cult-like state, with no one daring to question the traditions or let “the other side” in on the secret. Crews equates silence to acceptance in this matter, and claims that he wanted no part accepting such a disgusting societal trend. Theroux, on the other hand, doesn't seem to want to accomplish anything with his article, but rather give his take on things from the perspective of a male writer, an occupation which in the 50's was thought to be part of a woman's field. Theroux doesn't actually so much claim that men are in the wrong, but rather that they are victims of a society that taught them to want to dominate, to control women, and to champion masculinity above all. He believes these expectations and norms have turned many men to beasts and placed the outsiders under all the pressure to become beasts. Theroux's article certainly strives to paint men as victims and doesn't particularly lobby for social change in any way (though it's obviously implied that he is unhappy with the way that things are), but that does not mean that his article isn't important in the scope of things. There are many valid points to consider and lots of information which can be helpful in striving for a society that stresses gender norms less and reaches a point of true social equity among all genders.