>>530429454
"Intellectual posturing" is precisely what you did by wrongly using a Latin expression and invoking such figures as Greek goddesses while disregarding any current cultural context because you're so deep in your larp. I meant to call out your pompousness, and I see you're doubling down on it with purple prose this time. And while we are both guilty of this, you are spending considerably more energy on attacking my style, perceived motives and intelligence.
My point was simple: we aren't Greeks (descended from a different synoecism) and our feminine ideal stems from a different tradition. Anything else you might have derived from my post ("the intellectual history of the entirety of western civilisation") isn't real.
The existence of gender roles is neither demeaning for women, nor emasculating for men. You are shifting the burden of proof when it is up to you to prove that:
>male protective instinct as a primary desideratum necessarily implies female inability/inferiority
>valuing protection reduces a partner to incapability and inferiority
>seeking parity is inherently more valuable than dynamics involving complementary roles (which just seems to me like value preference on your part)
