[wwalser]

I felt this was well covered in the OP.

> Many feel that the very qualities that used to define them — their strength, aggression and competitiveness — are no longer wanted or needed…

Makes the point but is subtle enough to avoid using hyperbole.

[taneq]

It's not the same point.

I didn't say that "many feel that" those qualities are no longer wanted or needed, I said that in modern 'western' civilisation they are explicitly disparaged.

And I wasn't saying that those qualities "used to define [males]", I was saying that they are inherent qualities of a male human, and that trying to redefine the social interpretation of masculinity is not going to change that.

[wwalser]

I think the reason that I feel that the authors points is the same as yours but better made is that the author's doesn't lean so heavily on hyperbole.

> I said that in modern 'western' civilisation they are explicitly disparaged.

In parts, sure. In other parts. Not at all.

Anyone who feels that disparagement of traditionally (or genetically) masculine qualities is a universal in the west spends too much time in the wrong filter bubbles. Go watch some sports ball.

Please understand that I don't think it's a bad point either. I'm not disagreeing with the point. I'm saying your can have you point and make it more charitably, carefully and accurately.

[_bfhp]

Why not explicitly define strength, aggression and competitiveness as measurable quantities and provide reproduced studies proving males would be stronger in these qualities even without socialization in childhood, rather than leave people guessing?