Um, if I might interrupt the bunfight to continue some of the discussion . . .
Now I gotcha Tei Tetua. You're saying that because Stoltenberg identified as a gay man, his support for feminism and criticism of masculinity wouldn't be seen as "trying for cookies" from women, particularly feminists. He would have no self-interest, so could be seen as more objective in his views. I'd never thought about it that way, but perhaps you are right - that is at least that some feminists may be less cynical about his work than they might if he were straight or bisexual.
Not meaning to turn this thread into a discussion of his writings on masculinity (although that would be nicer than an argument, but hey ho,) Stoltenberg refers only infrequently to his identity as a gay man and seems to challenge the infused-with-misogyny model of masculinity with at least some features that can be found in the behaviour and attitudes of gay and bi men as well as straight men.
In that sense, he's pointing out that male privilege isn't just predicated on gaining/maintaining control over women for one's own sexual pleasure. For example, there are some gay male fashion designers who through their words and behaviour show that they have little regard for women as a class, gain considerably from their privileged position vis a vis women, but would have no interest in sexual access to women.
Having said that, if the reader of his work is a straight man who is heterosexist, and he realises the author is a gay man, that may give him the "excuse" to dismiss everything he say with a, "what would a gay man know about masculinity," jibe.
On your other point, I think probably most "heroes" we think of haven't been perfect. Gandhi was perhaps a misogynist, but early women's rights activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton was overtly racist. It's difficult to balance up the noble deeds someone performed in one sphere knowing that in other areas, they were far, far from noble.