This week Rachel Sklar ripped apart Newsweek's cover story (itself a less-satisfying echo of Hanna R0sin's Atlantic cover-story here) on how the traditional male species is endangered:

[N]owhere in the article does the term “gay” or “homosexual” appear. This article conceives of men, maleness, and “the New Macho” as an entirely heterosexual thing. That, too, is wildly irresponsible.

Tracy Clark-Flory lobbed a different criticism:

Their argument is essentially that we need to encourage men to take active caretaking roles at home and at work. This means putting more emphasis on the importance of fatherhood and recasting so-called nurturing professions so that they no longer seem the sole domain of women. Another way of saying all that? Men need feminism.

Jezebel's Anna North weighed in:

And while Romano and Dokoupil do seem to care about such important issues as child care and the division of household labor, in some ways their piece echoes more softly what backlash pieces shout: that men need to find a way to get back on top. 
Newsweek author Andrew Romano responded:
By pointing out that men have suffered 72 percent of all job losses during the Great Recession, that men are performing worse than women at every level of school, that the vast majority of new jobs over the next 10 years or so will come in fields that currently employ far more women than men, and that men aren’t doing nearly as much housework or childrearing as womenand then going on to provide specific policy prescriptions to help men fulfill their potential in these areas we aren’t bemoaning the fact that men and women are now equal and longing for a return to male superiority. We are trying to identify ways that men can hold up their end of a changing bargain.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to