I'd ask what she means, as well. I do think malehood (made up word) is having a bit of a confidence crisis due to the loosening of constrained roles. For the majority of people, growing up into a stereotype is easier than the other options ... especially when your template happens to afford privilege. When feminism loosened the constraints on women, that destabilised the male template somewhat. This process is still ongoing (in fits and starts nowadays, but still) and, in some ways, is tougher for men.
Women were given a whole bunch of messages: You don't have to serve your husband if you don't want to; your work is worth as much as a man's work; you can ignore the killjoys and go out by yourself if you want to, even get drunk; you can divorce; you don't have to get married; you can buy your own home without a man; you haven't got to be a virgin, you can have sex when you like and not get pregnant .. etc. Big fucking changes.
All good for women. And, rationally, good for men because it's not that nice to feel you have to support a family, a football team and a cricket team, are obliged to fight when challenged, must wear restrictive clothing, aren't allowed to act silly sometimes, mustn't seem interested in your appearance ... etc. BUT the liberation of men wasn't explicitly stated, explained or sold to them. They were still being given the old templates. So, yes, it is confusing and could have been handled better.
If she's not talking so much about the subtler impact of feminism on a changing society, then she's most likely repeating reactionary crap based on losses of the male privileges which robbed women of autonomy. That's more of a poor diddums, they'll cope somehow 
Do ask her! And post back 