A distinction needs to be drawn between the eternal masculine and feminine archetypes and the localized, culturally conditioned expression of each.
This image for example, Louis XIV of France. One of the most assertive men in history but what would we say today if someone dressed like this walked down the street?
It is obvious to me that apparel has nothing to do with masculinity except insofar as it accords with the prevailing, culturally-conditioned standards.
What is not cultural but universal are traits inherent in masculinity: discrimination, rationality and assertiveness or femininity: receptivity, emotionality and inclusiveness. (these lists are not complete but rather illustrative)
Now before anyone goes off half-cocked about stereotypes lets note that a whole and healthy individual has a balance of both.
Male traits only would result in a cold-calculating monstrosity and female traits only would result in a doormat.
Each individual has some amount of both and properly relating to these archetypes is essential for a person to be socially and psychologically functional.
The West's inbalance began long ago and reached a zenith in Vicotorianism and the end of the 18th century. We have been swinging wildly back and forth ever since (Enantadroamia: (GR) - running the other way). We now have a hyper-feminized society, including the Church.
I do think this has alot to do with the lack of vocations - when there are few masculine priests (60%-70% of the Catholic priesthood is likely homosexual) then teenage boys who are discovering their masculinity will want nothing to do with them.
Unfortunately our society does not teach people to be healthy masculine and healthy feminine, in our rush to repair the distortions of the recent past we have tried to say there is no distinction at all. This is very unhealthy.