I now have three unread issues of Newsweek on my kitchen table. Terrible, I know. But the cover of the latest issue, the one I just got from the mailbox, has intrigued me enough to read it right away. It shows the picture of the back of a man who is holding a child, with the bold words "MAN UP!" and a subtitle of "The Traditional Male Is an Endangered Species. It's Time to Rethink Masculinity."
My initial reaction was "Aw, crap, am I gonna have to rip on Newsweek?" I've heard the "traditional male endangered species" argument before, and it's usually from sexist, homophobic folks who are misinformed (either intentionally or not) about the definition of feminism.
Perhaps the traditional male is an endangered species. That's probably a good thing. For everyone.
You're probably not surprised to hear that I'm not a fan of gender-categorizing. Being a man (or woman) should mean whatever you want it to, traditional or not.
I'm curious to see this article's definition of a "traditional man."
Going to read the article with as much of an objective view as possible....... Perhaps the cover is misleading?
Considering the 'traditional' male seems to caricatured as uncultured, mysogynistic, homophobic, slightly dumb (and oddly, proud of it), condescending and xenophobic.. I don't see this as a huge loss.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to reading your thoughts. There's no doubt in my mind that a bit less testosterone in this world would be a good thing.
ReplyDeletekeep us posted on your findings!!!!!
ReplyDelete@Yandie,
ReplyDeleteLol...talk about being the very thing you are railing against.