Global warming seems to be the cause du jour. Everyone from Leo DiCaprio to that old lady down the road has come forward to fight our precious planet's not-so-slow and painful thaw. According to Daniel Clark over at National Ledger, it's not just the ice caps that are melting. It's men's balls.

To Clark, the fight against global warming has inadvertantly become an assault on "guyhood", whatever that means. His words:

The latest point of emphasis in the global warming movement is that cattle farming endangers the planet by producing too much methane. So now, steaks and hamburgers are classified as instruments of destruction, along with large vehicles, lawn mowers, and charcoal grills. It can't be much longer before cowboy movies, cigars and hockey are held to be enemies of the earth as well.

This has got to be the most blatant assault on guyhood since ABC moved Coach to the same night as Roseanne...

Total planetary disaster and television programming schedule? Yeah, definitely comparable.

Clark's irksome article's title tries, unsuccessfully, to link the eco-friendly movement to another oft-referenced (and http://www.queerty.com/queer/mark-simpson/sporno-keeps-running-publicity-mile-20070222.php) trend: "Global Warming: Moving Towards Metrosexuals". It's nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace for a "real" man to get involved in such frivolous, feminizing matters:

...The global warming movement seeks to repress guyhood in order to perpetuate itself. If a guy is shown a picture of a sad-looking polar bear adrift on an ice floe, his first thought will be something like, "I've heard that bear steaks are tough, but maybe if you marinated them in beer, they'd turn out all right." At that point, the alarmists' emotional ploy is foiled. In a world without guy stuff, however, his vacant mind may be invaded by irrationalities like, "Who will take care of the polar bears' children?"

It seems to us that we'd rather have a man concerned about baby bears than "lawn mowers" and "grills", two of the "masculine" toys Clark cites in the essay's introduction, but that's just as us.

Clark may be interested to hear, however, that his position may have a nasty effect on his health. A study out of the University of Missouri suggests that men who consider themselves "manly" and follow socially approved gender roles have a tougher time healing than more community-minded men:

The study found that increased masculinity had some negative effects on the recovery of “manly men.” The participants who believed it was appropriate to hold in their emotions, be self-reliant and have power over women had less favorable views toward seeking psychological help. This “I can take care of myself” attitude could be detrimental to already injured men.

The researchers also found that men who had strongly believed in male dominance over women were less satisfied with their lives.

But, men who focused on their careers, success, power and competition reported better relations in their community. These same participants showed greater improvement a year after their hospitalization.

Hmmm, which type of man would you rather date? A man who holds inequality to be self-evident or one who's more concerned about the greater good?