My comment of "the pussification of the American male" is aimed at something a little more nebulous, harder to define. Boils down to men not acting like "men". And sexual preferance, clothing choice, or chosen recreations have NOTHING to do with it...
Here is my take on it:
The real problem, insofar as there is a real problem, isn't men doing traditionally feminine things. Nothing really fundamentally important happens if I decide to cook quiche instead of chili, except that it would be silly since I don't actually like quiche. Yeah, chili manly, quiche not, but who cares?
It is more a case of more men seeming to embody
negative female stereotypes concerning weakness of character that is troublesome. More women embracing traditionally "male" virtues of strength, courage, and so forth might scare some people with small pee-pees, but is ultimately admirable... a virtue is a virtue, after all. Even in more sexist times this was accepted to an extent; Queen Elizabeth I of England comes to mind here, who practically had a modern cult of personality built on the contrast between her femininity and her power.
I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you.
On the other hand, men who adopt stereotpyically female
vices of passivity, timidity and indecision have always been universally scorned by everyone... a vice is a vice, after all. Just because women have been
unfairly painted as
all having such characteristics, does not mean that having them is good for anybody in 2005 AD, anymore than it was in 10,000 BC.