Is There Anything Good About Men?

Hindu culture was not going anywhere, it desperately needed an injection of rationality and a forced demonstration of good government. India is on a very good path now and it owes most of that to the British. The British used raw force to reform Indian culture away from degenerate, irrational religious fatalism toward a progressive, modern approach to life.

Anyway Indian culture today is unrecognizable compared to pre-British India. The most important part of culture is the approach to law, property, government, and individual rights, and these are the fruits of the British Empire in India. Underestimating these crucial factors is very easy now that you are reaping their benefits. India today would look like Somalia if it wasn't for the Empire.

In 19th century India the British really did reform the savages. They ended wife burning, vigilante decapitations, cannibalism, among other savage but accepted cultural norms. They significantly curtailed the systematic corruption, clarified property rights, introduced representative government, paved the way for social mobility, and are really solely responsible for the slow turning away from pernicious Hindu mysticism -- which is the bane of civilization. Hindu mysticism is really the most damaging kind of irrational religiosity on Earth and causes tremendous suffering and poverty.

The Brits were surprisingly generous given their global hegemony. It is easy to argue that the American Empire is more exploitative and uncaring with respect to their colonies: and the American Empire is less powerful today thanks to the liberalizing influence of the British who themselves foresaw independence for every colony, often before the colonies did. The positive effects of Rhodesian foreign policy should not be underestimated.

It's popular to hate Empires but there really is nothing romantic about cannibalism, institutionalized irrationality, rigid caste systems and all the other savage cultural features of many parts of the world before the age of sail. For all the faults of the British, we often forget just how good England and her colonies had life in comparison to the alternatives.

In order to keep the discussion clear, I went with the precise definition of the word rather than a colloquial one.

> Somehow we know women are "supposed to" demote the rest of their aspirations and nurture a child all the way to adulthood because they breastfeed a child until it's 2

By saying this, you are implying that raising kids is not a worthy aspiration for women. It is a most worthy aspiration not only for women, but also for men. No matter that I, as a man, may make breakthrough scientific discoveries, become a billionaire and donate it all to charities, or something else that makes a big impact; my biggest aspiration and the biggest legacy I leave to the world will still be my children.

> but a father can pursue his dreams because he need not be around after depositing a sperm donation.

A father plays just an important a role as the mother in raising kids. Since a woman's body is more involved in nurturing a child, the father provides for her and the children. And yes, this means a big sacrifice on the part of the father. But it is something that millions of fathers make willingly and lovingly, one that I will too. For example, I could say I don't want to have kids, a family, etc, and just put my whole life into business, make a lot of money, and spend the rest of my life traveling and vacationing. But if I want to have a family and raise kids, I can't do that. My family would need my money and my time.

> There is such a thing as a sustainable society that never reaches it's full potential...

You have a point there, and I don't have any hard evidence backing up my statement that a society cannot survive sustainably if its women are subjugated. But I'm not saying this blindly either - we do have solid evidence of the kind of detrimental effects a broken household can have on children, and I extrapolate this to a society and I just don't see it functioning sustainably if the whole society behaves like a broken household.

> Most parents want their children to be successful. This does not imply that the children should exist as proxies for them

I think most parents want their children to be successful and they also consider their children to be proxies for them. It's how we continue our culture, our societies, and the human race in general.

This is not true for most of other animals.

My point is this: overcoming instinct is possible because of the way our brain is organized (this however requires some training, as we actually do in order to survive into adulthood) and because it is a positive trait.

The fact that this is not more prevalent indicates that perhaps overcoming instinct is not really that positive (the limbic system with its feelings and hunches probably helps detect cheating in a more straightforward and efficient way than deep thinking about it).

OH WAIT!

You only said 'women had 50 on average. That's a lot. Clearly they have sex drive.'

No one is debating whether they have sex drive. The article stated they had lower RELATIVE drive. You cannot refute this point with only statistics about women. Your facts are meaningless without the counterpoint male statistics from the Masuo.

I apologize for my slight snarkyness, but you are blatantly ignoring key truths about the article in an attempt to argue your point. Especially as that has already been pointed out to you and you continued to ignore it, I am somewhat irked.