That's very generous of you, but it's awfully naive.

I respect Robert's intentions. I have a huge deal of respect for his good intentions. I kinda wish it worked the way it seems that he thinks it does, so that intentions and following through on them was enough.

But I also am cognizant of the paving material for the road to hell.

Suppose that Robert got his bar.

(1) Given how tribal antagonism works, some of the men who wander into Robert's bar and get thrown out in an emotionally hurtful excluded-from-the-tribe way are less reachable by you, because you don't offer the revenge for mistreatment that a further-right tribe would. Robert's strategy actively undermines yours. Maybe yours is good enough, and maybe enough men can embrace the traditional masculinity approach of letting it roll off their back, so that the undermining isn't critical. But it is, to some extent, actively damaging to your goals.

(2) Given how cognitive blind spots tend to develop in echo-chambers, Robert's bar would be actively harmful to the ability of people in it to understand how to interact with the world. For instance, he endorses language that provides no checks on the spread of inaccurate and bigoted views of men. In-groups tend to excuse immoral behavior, too, so those views are more likely to get translated into action in his bar.

I'm not pulling any punches here because he says tough love is what works (for him).

It is because Robert doesn't get a closed bar--it's conducted here in the open, and the "wrong" people keep wandering in, saying the darnedest things, many of which are dumb but some of which are really important--that I think his attempts at his approach may end up net positive instead of net negative.