I agree with Hawk. The article seems to stereotype men as stoic, competitive, dominant, and aggressive, and then immediately concludes that these attributes are negative. I may agree that the combination of all four attributes, left unchecked, can be a bad thing. But it is foolish to conclude that anyone, male or female, who shows competitiveness or aggressiveness in some contexts is somehow wrong. A competitive athlete who aggressively pursues goals is admirable. A warrior who is aggressive in battle is, dare I say, necessary. A business leader who fails to assert dominance in a meeting is doomed.
Frankly, the article, like so many written and published these days, oversimplifies the situation. I don't need to be spoon fed what you think is important, thank you (or is that too aggressive on my part???)