@CainPrice @CainPrice I've noticed that men in homophobic cultures are more affectionate and touchy-feely. It's muslims who you'll see holding hands, hugging. Men appreciate boundaries because they allow deeper focus/less wasted energy. When you live somewhere anti male, pro gay, pro tranny, it can be difficult to tell when a guy is being friendly and warm or if he's vibing with you because he wants some dickplay. Men are at least as emotional and sensitive as women, but learning to guard your public displays will usually pay off, because displaying emotion is almost always used as an opportunity for someone to set up covert contracts. A man or woman who listens to you whine gains leverage over you: firstly, they can take advantage of your increased familiarity (it's hard to say no to a polite request from someone who just listened to you vent), and secondly, they have dirt on you which they can use for social attacks to punish you should you not comply with their wishes. Women can be stoic too, perhaps just not in as extreme situations as men can. But women have many more protections than men, and men simply learn that nothing postive comes from dramatic displays; in the best case they are ignored and they feel the cold sting of indifference, at worst they lose social status and display their vulnerabilities for their enemies. Stoicism is a practical tool, and it works great, but not matter how good you are, there is always the desire to be seen truthfully and be understood. If this drive isn't taken care of via thoroughly vetted and established friends/brothers, that's how you end up getting drunk and oversharing with a stranger or a woman, leaving you at their mercy.

It's difficult to parse what cultural changes are haphazard and which are slyly implemented by oligarch funded think tanks, but our society's destruction and devaluing of tradition seems like pretty low hanging fruit for those who wish to cripple the lower classes. Men cannot form trusted bonds without being tested and seeing if they can rely on eachother. People are too charming and good at lying, you just can't know unless you develop you own ability to employ shit tests safely AND intensely. It's hard to guage a man's trustworthiness to a satisfactory degree without potentially getting into a fight without the structure and unity which used to be offered by traditional rights of passages. Individualism is pushed just as hard and is just as destructive as opiods.

There was allegedly a time, back before things got modern, when men (at least in some cultures) were touchy-feely with each other in a non-gay way, cried about things, and were emotional and sensitive, and so on. These bonds of love between men were considered strong and manly. There was also allegedly a time when men were strong, stoic, didn't emote like women, handled their shit, only cried when it was extremely serious, and were masculine - completely different from women in the way they feel and process emotions. This individual strength was considered masculine.

The modern, libera/feminist viewpoint in 2019 is that when men act conventinoally masuline and fairly non-emotional, this is a farce. It's a fragile man pretending to be masculine by putting on a mask, when really, on the inside, he feels and emotes just like a woman. The idea is that "real men" cry, express feelings, and emote just like women and aren't afraid of beng open with their feelings, being vulnerable, etc. And any man who isn't this way and acts conventionally masculine is fragile and cowardly and probably afraid of other men calling him gay or something like that.

There is a conservative viewpoint (bordering on conspiracy-theory/paranoia among the more extreme fringes) that society feminizes men, either as a by-product of extreme liberalism or even intentionally as some kind of wicked social machination to control the world. That men are naturally conventionally masculine and more stoic/less emotional, but are fed shitty food and raised and taught nearly exculsively by women and fed liberal/feminist ideas their entire lives, to the point where they grow up wearing a modern-man mask and emoting like women.

Men are probably somewhere between the two extremes. The emotionless super-soldier and the scrawny bisexual feminist nu-male who cries if the breeze is too cold are extreme characatures. Men feel emotions, of course, and express their feelings in various ways. But we still feel them and process them differently than women do. But probably not actually in a robotic, ultra-stoic way.

Is the emotive man who's touchy-feely with other men in his tribe, that forms strong bonds of love with men and women and expresses himself emotionally without regret closer to the natural state of masculinity? Or is the individually strong, stoic, island to himself man who handles his business and processes his emotions inwardly closer to true manhood?

@OneEyeShut New-age masculinity agrees with you: Be yourself, to the max, and be 10000% authentic and committed to who you are, and that's "masculine".

Thousands of years of human history disagree with you.

Masculinity isn't some internal, self-determination thing. Masculinity is a title others bestow upon you. A boy became a man when he finally grew up and could contribute to the tribe. He'd undergo some ritual rite of passage as a sign of his entry into manhood, at which time he would then be expected to hunt, work, contribute, etc. He was no longer a boy, but a man and a part of society. And he would forever more be judged by society based on the value he contributed. If he was not useful to society, he wasn't a man. He was a boy. His very manhood depended, 100%, on the opinions others had of him and his value to others. It wasn't how committed he was to whatever personal stuff he was into. It wasn't how true to himself and how confident he was. It was his value to others.

The same is true in modern times. Your value is 100% dependent on your utility to others. You live and die by the judgments of others. Other people, not you, determine whether you have sex, have dates, get into relationships, have friends, get hired for jobs, get raises or promotions, get clients for your business - your entire life is 100% dependent on how other people judge you. And if you can't attract women, succeed at your job or at business, or otherwise contribute value -outside- of yourself, you're not a man.

If you're some expert who is completely committed to some useless topic of personal interest, like your video games or Dungeons and Dragons character, and are 100% true to yourself and authentic about it, that's not masculine. Lacking value to others and focusing on yourself is like masturbating instead of having sex.

@CainPrice Defining the masculine by what women are attracted to is incorrect if you assume that women (nowadays) are not feminine; thus they are not in their natural state, so whatever they are attracted to does not reflect the male core. If you think modern women are feminine, then what about the rising rate of childless & single women ?

If you are 10000% real about Dungeons and Dragons and become an authority (investing time & finite ressources) in the subject, it is manly because you don't take shit (TM) from anyone regarding your obsession. @CainPrice you intrinsically associate D&D with being a fat sloppy wanker... which are two different things. Sure there is correlation, but we are talking about what is manly and not who.

Also, it is hard to commit oneself fully to a specific subject, so there is a barrier to entry, which many will not pass, thus making you seem even more "extreme" or committed to your passion. Women will simply not do this (branch swinging, need for security, lack of balls)

The example you gave above refer to famous people, I would argue that the appearance of their masculinity was projected and magnified by a lot, even mystified (Read Gandhi was a pervert: medium.com/@dalitdiva/why-it-is-time-to-dump-gandhi-b59c7399fe66) , but they would be no less men had they died without any mention in any history book.

This brings up the point of appearances; just because someone appears masculine, it does not mean that they actually are. The odyssey is a good example of the masculine ideal in antiquity and it continues to be a reflection of our manly values today. Odysseus commits to his mission even after 10 fucking years of trying.

Compare this with an MMA fighter with little conviction. One day he is a fighter, the next day he skips training.

Agreed, it is a bit of an over-simplification, and I'm not Shakespeare yet. Extreme was the most common & adequate word I found to express this. Commitment might be a better word, and the amount of commitment is equal to how masculine the man is.