Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I try to discipline myself for own academic living purpuses rather than for this frivolous topic. But let me say this about that.

The Quilette article says:

As David Gilmore's cross-cultural study of men shows (1990), in the small handful of cultures without patriarchy, men live a narcissistic Peter Pan existence, putting very little into the community and leaving most of the labor to women. Such societies have not developed beyond a rudimentary level, and cannot compete with their more highly organized and structured neighbors. This is why there are so few of them.
I mentioned Marquez' novel "One Hundred Years of Solitude" here recently. It is an epic of a matriarchal family, with rather strong, bright women and quite lacking Chose Arcadios, Aurelianos. What was this family line missing for avoiding a sad fate? I would say, real men. There is not much more to ask from the women, given the Peter Pan men indeed.

If the Democratic party becomes (so to speak) matriarchal, I would feel concerned about its fortunes against the Republicans. Honestly.

The two most prominent moral philosophers of the Enlightenment were David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Hume was a great empiricist, and he followed British sentimentalists in basing morality in exhibited values, sentiments of emotional, striving living humans. Kant formulated an abstract, universal moral reality based on reason.

The modern woke progressives are clearly Kantians, with strong intellectual sentiments about justice, equality, autonomy. They have laws how humans should be, but little interest how they really are.

Imagine a dystopian world where visceral human sentiments regarding sex are quite the opposite of what  Kantian intellectuals conclude or may ever imagine. The thinking guys are fooled by smooth talk that implies that they have to follow their Kantian sentiments more earnestly, while in reality they thereby place themselves rather low for female preferences. A good deal of male boldness, domination is appreciated actually much better. Smart girls do not even know that they would not be really attracted to anyone less smart or cool than themselves. Equal or educated marriages are painfully unstable, while apparently awful patriarchal families are much smoother, have more kids. How would you want to help the progressives in this dystopian world?

It is good to remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs indeed. How should we know what self-actualization really means for humans of both genders? In the Kantian way, or in the Humean way? Hume was good with ladies in Paris salons. Kant never married.

Here is another Quilette article:

Video Games and the (Male) Meaning of Life

by das monde on Sat Jan 5th, 2019 at 09:21:37 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Oui 4
Cat 4
Andhakari 4

Display:

Occasional Series