The nonstop conflation of masculinity with physical aggression is telling (not just you but several other posters have done this), as is the phrase "feminist bullshit". Feminism, at its core, is the acceptance that women and men are equally valuable as human beings. It has nothing to do, necessarily, with any particular character attributes, nor does it define a set of same that are to be considered "masculine" and "feminine".
Radical feminism can and does include these ideas and, yes, is often batshit insane, just like the Men's Rights movement, which is its equally radical opposite. Neither of these extremes is heavily represented in either our laws or our general culture; you would be hard-pressed, for example, to find a person walking down the street who would agree with the statement that "all sex is rape" (a somewhat common rad-fem meme) or that "men should be able to waive responsibility for paternity of their children" (a men's rights idea). Similarly, public policy may often be ignorant, short-sighted and misguided, but I hardly think it reasonable to suggest that some pervasive feminist conspiracy is hell-bent on "feminizing" boys.
I don't think I need to be a brainwashed fem-bot castrato to believe that physical aggression is a negative tendency, either. I came to that conclusion all on my own the first time I got shoved off the front steps by a bigger kid at my preschool. I'm pretty sure I fell on my ass and thought some variation on the theme of "hey, that hurt and I don't like it when people hit me." As I passed through adolescence and became, myself, a large and physically imposing male adult, I learned that along with the ability to cause physical harm comes a responsibility not to do so out of aggression, nor to use my size and capacity for violence to threaten or coerce; that violence is only to be employed in the defense of self or others from aggression. No one had to indoctrinate me to bring me to this conclusion; I don't want to live in a world where aggression--either physical or implied through intimidation--is acceptable, and so I act accordingly as best I can.
None of this is to imply that I don't have a capacity for aggression, or a desire to enact violence; that I don't feel rage and hatred; that I haven't, at one time or another, been forced to exert every fiber of my mental strength to prevent doing something to someone I would later regret. The memory of the few times I have caused someone physical harm, even unintentionally, and the sickening regret I invariably feel afterward, has always been enough to remind me to keep my head when serious violence started to seem like a good idea.
I would argue that the cultivation of this kind of strength is superior to the kind of showy machismo that just perpetuates the antiquated feudal notions of "honor" and strength through war and conquest--whatever the modern equivalent, which mostly seems to be sports, punctuated by bar fights and invading countries full of brown people (at the upper end of the economic spectrum, of course, we also see such lovely pastimes as corporate capitalism and the endlessly inane machinations of the mostly-male political class). There was a time for that, and it was in the 13th century. We've got bigger problems to solve, and today's heroes are the people solving them, regardless of what equipment they were born with or whether they like to play with dolls or trucks.
As for "unlocking their true masculinity", who the fuck are you to decide how a child "should" behave, how aggressive or stereotypically masculine a given teenager "ought" to be? Did you ever stop to consider that maybe we're finally arriving, as a culture, at a place where everyone feels more comfortable behaving in the way that feels most appropriate for them? That maybe we're realizing we don't need to fit everyone in a neatly-labeled box and shun them if they defy their externally-applied labels? That maybe more men are acting in ways you consider "feminine", not because someone has made them this way, but because the people that would have them deny these tendencies, just to satisfy their longing for a neat and orderly world or to assuage their fear of the Other, are thankfully fading into irrelevance? Something to think about.
As for your allusion to the advent of modern infotainment, I fail to see how this is a gender issue. Television is an equal-opportunity stupidity machine. More and more girls and women play video games every year, as the industry begins to cater more to them instead of only targeting males age 13-30 with physically-impossible women clad in leather bikinis. Internet porn may well be a bigger problem for men than women, but this isn't due to some conspiracy; it's a simple consequence of men relying more heavily on audiovisual cues for arousal. Women, as a group, are just as addicted to their preferred form of pornography--the euphemistically-named "romance novel" genre, which perpetuates ideas about relationships and sex that are often just as ridiculous, exaggerated, fetishistic, violence-endorsing, and generally out of touch with reality as porn videos.