I had that explained to me as being the result of that Galen was the medical theorist of the day. Anybody educated in the ancient world knew Galen's theories well and if you could write you were well educated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
According to Galen humanity only had one gender. Man was created in God's image and was perfect. Women were the result of something going wrong during the pregnancy. They were all imperfect men. Which explains why anything masculine was seen as good. And everything feminine was seen as worse. So the more masculine a woman the "better" she was. So statues of women showed women with small tits. Amazingly enough they associated big penises with being feminine. So statues of men had small penises. Because that was seen as more masculine. This is why women's bodies should be hidden. Because they are inherently flawed and perverted. This is why women shouldn't speak in public, because they're inherently less intelligent and vulnerable to corruption.
Christianity came into existence at the peak of "Galenism". If you re-read the Bible after knowing Galen's theories it's all pretty obvious. I did. It's impossible to ignore or try to explain it away. It's right in there in the text.
Here's a more in depth description of how Galen thought about gender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sex_and_two-sex_theories
I can also recommend Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, and Lost Christianities. He explains it in those books as well. That's where I first heard of it.
A common underlying gender narrative for most of human history (as recorded, which for various reasons tends to mean as recorded by men) seems to involve the supposed inferiority of women. On the other hand, there seem to be exceptions, and in some ways, for some things, women were worshipped and valued above men. The whole thing seems incredibly complicated. I'm sure Galen's ideas played a part in conceptions of sex and gender. I'm not sure what his exact influence on Christianity was, but I bet that's complicated too. But it's not as if Galen invented the idea that women were inferior to men. For Christians, for example, that was already ingrained in the ancient, holy texts, the OT.
The modern situation, at least in 'western', developed societies, is pretty novel, somewhat uncharted territory, for both sexes and all genders. It seems to be the result of multiple causes, including women, in large numbers, demanding and organising for more equality, changes in the workplace and at home (including technologies that lessen 'natural' distinctions between the sexes) and of course reliable contraception. And I'm sure there are others that I can't think of. And such changes have been very rapid by historical standards. Flux rather than stability seems to be the prevailing situation.
If we think of male superiority as having been a longlasting, 'traditional', mainstream narrative, then I think it's fair to say that the counter-narrative is much more common nowadays. Your Swedish broadcaster may not have been right that toxic masculinity is a new version of Christian original sin (because that applied to women too), but he might not have been all wrong if he had said that even masculinity (let alone the toxic variety) is often considered as something at least akin to an original sin, for a man, a male original sin if you like. Masculinity, although it is seen as having both admirable and unsavoury aspects, is I think at least under greater suspicion these days, as if it were a risk factor for toxicity all of itself. Which it arguably is, unfortunately. For instance, it's hardly by accident that 90% of prison inmates are men. Were we to generalise, I think we might have to agree that we men deserve our bad reputation, to some extent at least. That some of the mud sticks to non-toxic (and/or 'beta') men, or whatever, and that they are irritated by that, is not surprising. Imo, it's even valid, up to a point, and as a response to certain suggestions and ideas (most notably from radical feminism). And even non-radical feminism is arguably at least a somewhat divisive paradigm.
But there I go again getting into feminism, when toxic masculinity is a separate issue, or at least could and should also be discussed separately, from a non-feminist perspective, because the feminist take on it is only one of many. If we only focus on critiquing or dismissing certain feminist ideas on it, we risk missing the fact that it's still a thing and still there.