On this point, may I simply observe that the "liberal progressives" that I know, either directly or as represented through the MSM, are all united in and to "LOVE" — in the perfectly abstract.
What I mean is, they "love" abstract humanity. But they cannot stand members of their own family, or particular members of their own community....
No! It is our love for humanity in the abstract that innoculates us from any charge that we have been unloving to particular persons.
Like our actual, direct neighbors, for instance.
In short, they can only love in the abstract, but not in the particular case.
To me, this is the sickness of our age....
No wonder the child is confused....
".....But the emergence of humanness is characterized by the trimorphic, intersubjective structure of Mother-Father-Baby. This can only take place because the male now has a social (not biological) role: father, husband, protector, etc. Thus, you might say that these categories are the very "essence" of civilization.
Even on a purely practical basis, a civilization that fails to produce manly men to protect it is not long for the world. But more subtly, in psychoanalytic terms, "father" is also a symbol of the Law (in its most generic and universal sense, in that reverence for the abstract Law is one of the things that lifts us above the animals).
In contrast, the mother is mercy, which is felt, not thought. Nor could it ever be reduced to granite tablets, like the Ten Commandments. Law is always masculine.
It reminds me of when Senator Feinstein was questioning Justice Roberts at the confirmation hearings. She said something to the effect that she wanted to know how he felt, not what he thought. Or more recently, think of the supremely feminized Obama saying that he wanted justices with "empathy." I think you can see why that leads directly to the unraveling of civilization at its very foundation, for it is a passive aggressive attack on masculinity. Judicial tyranny is the result. ...."