I don't see any way not to extrapolate it that way, since the concept of "real man" is inseparable from an attack on men who don't conform to the author's perceived requirements of "manliness", as somehow not being "real" men, or defectively masculine. I.e. not just old-fashioned language, but old-fashioned ideas better left buried.

You are wrong. You can read a few posts without preconceptions to see why. I'm not going to pollute the thread with this tangent any more.

edit: http://artofmanliness.com/faq/

"1. What makes you experts on manliness?

We’ve never said we’re experts. In fact, the idea that there’s such a thing as an “expert in manliness” is sort of silly. We’re just two people who are passionate about helping men become better men. We want to provide an alternative men’s magazine for men who are tired of the crap that’s put out for men by most media outlets. We see our role as researchers and writers who try to dig up the best information out there and make that info available to readers. I’m learning right along with everyone else."

http://artofmanliness.com/2010/05/16/what-is-manliness/

I did take a look around and taking a trial run on my RSS subscription reader, but as far as research goes, i still think many articles are just plain opinions.