Newsweek writes about men this issue, in a cover story by two young male writers, Andrew Romano and Tony Dokoupil, both of whom are very good. Their thesis is that hewing to traditional male roles is holding men back in the modern era, and the time is now for men to boldly go into a more evolved – maybe even more womanish! – version of “manhood.” I don’t disagree that there is more opportunity where restraints are relaxed and diversity is encouraged – duh. But I challenge the framing of the issue: That men are in crisis, on the decline, and “going off the rails.” In fact, the framing of the male-female ratio as being more ‘dangerous’ to men as it equalizes or, in some (very limited) situations, inverts, is not only wildly skewed but also completely fails to appreciate, consider and include the full context – i.e. how gender parity might actually be better for all concerned. Actually, it doesn’t completely fail to appreciate, consider and include – there are a few nods to that reality, buried deep in the article and in one glaring case, at the end of the second-last paragraph. There was also no – absolutely no! – reference to or inclusion of gay men (and/or women) in this piece.

Here’s the thing: A headline on TechCrunch reading: “Women in Tech: Look Around the World and Stop Complaining” is meant to be inflammatory. I get it. I certainly would not have clicked on just the URL: http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/14/how-did-i-get-more-bullish-on-chinese-innovation-than-kai-fu-lee. No offense to Kai Fu Lee, but that’s not sexy, controversial, muscle-flexy, bird-flippy. HEY YOU UNGRATEFUL WOMEN, STOP [...]