masculinity is a scam conversation.

[Boris97921234]

Disclaimer: a lot of these are generated by AIs, though i mostly agree with it.

In many ways, our modern culture struggles badly to talk about **healthy masculinity** — or even define it clearly.

Here's a rough sketch of the landscape:

Old models of masculinity (stoic, dominant, provider, protector) are often criticized now as "toxic" or outdated — but no strong new model has fully replaced them.

Many male role models, like sports stars, actors, or even politicians, are constantly in scandal, controversy, or personal chaos — which erodes trust and admiration.

Men’s spaces (where masculine traits could be healthily expressed and refined) — like fraternities, sports teams, armies — have often been tainted by real abuse or hazing scandals, so they get painted as automatically "bad."

Women (and society at large) often struggle to articulate what a healthy masculine role model even looks like. Sometimes they describe it in bits ("kind," "strong," "protective," "vulnerable," "leader," "emotional intelligence") — but these traits can seem contradictory, and without a lived example, it feels vague.

Media portrayals swing wildly — sometimes glorifying the macho jerk, sometimes the soft, neutered nice guy — neither of which most men actually aspire to.

A lot of guys today are just winging it.

In truth, one thing that is missing from the discussion is class, or wealth. i think the manosphere mentioned it, or even some mainstream media, if you are in the top 1% or the ruling class or whatever, life has never been better. you have endless supplies of high quality attractive women. whereas if you are anything other than the ruling class, you are kind of screwed no matter what u do.

For wealthy, powerful men (top 1% or even top 0.1%), life is incredible — they get status, access to the most attractive women, respect, freedom, options. They can be "bad boys," "good guys," "nerdy," "alpha," "emotional" — whatever — and still win.

For the average guy, it's way tougher. Even if you do “everything right” — be emotionally available, work hard, stay fit, be kind, be respectful — you still often get overlooked because you simply don’t have the resources or status that the top guys do.

The Brutal Truth

A high-status man’s "toxic" traits (arrogance, selfishness) are often excused or even admired.

A low-status man’s "good" traits (loyalty, hard work) are often ignored or mocked.

The system isn’t just unfair — it’s self-reinforcing. Wealthy men gain more opportunities to grow; ordinary men get stuck in cycles of invisibility.

 

The Two Tiers of Modern Masculinity

Tier 1: High-Status Men (Top 10-20%)

(Wealthy, elite-educated, physically attractive, or socially dominant men)

Dating Life:

Women compete for them (even passively, via dating apps/social media).

Can be "flawed" (aloof, emotionally unavailable, even rude) and still succeed.

Options = power — they can afford to be picky, take risks, or delay commitment.

Social & Professional Life:

Mistakes are forgiven; failures are "learning experiences."

Seen as naturally authoritative — their opinions carry weight by default.

Networking and mentorship come easily (other powerful men invest in them).

 

Tier 2: Ordinary Men (Bottom 80%)

(Middle-class, working-class, or struggling men)

Dating Life:

Must "play the game perfectly" (be emotionally intelligent, fit, funny, ambitious) just to get considered.

One mistake (awkwardness, neediness, financial instability) can disqualify them instantly.

Online dating is brutal — often invisible unless they stand out extremely.

Social & Professional Life:

Mistakes are career-enders; failures are seen as personal flaws.

Authority is earned through grind (if at all).

Fewer mentors, fewer second chances.

 

Trapped in contradictions:

"Be vulnerable, but not weak."

"Be ambitious, but not entitled."

"Be confident, but don’t intimidate."

Key Insight:
For these men, masculinity is a minefield — society tells them to be "better," but the goalposts keep moving.

Is There a Way Out?

For ordinary men, the path isn’t about "fixing masculinity" — it’s about strategic adaptation:

Master a high-value skill (tech, trades, sales) to climb economically.

 

[Nilsi]

Your AI is hitting something real here - but it goes even deeper.

Sex at Dawn - Ryan and Jethá - got some of it right: early human groups were more or less egalitarian, less locked into the hierarchies we see now. But the real rupture wasn’t just culture - it was surplus. Marx already saw it: once you have agriculture, property, capital - you get real asymmetries. Not just in wealth, but in status, in mating, in everything that matters.

The sexual revolution tried to roll some of that back - break up rigid ownership, give people freedom again. You can see the echoes of that optimism in Reich, Marcuse, and the early Freudo-Marxists - the idea that if you just liberated desire, the old authoritarian structures would collapse. But they underestimated how capitalism could capture liberated desires even faster than it captured labor.

The revolution didn’t touch the material structure underneath. And by trying to “free” sexuality without dismantling the economic base, it actually unraveled the few structures that had kept the worst dynamics more or less in check - monogamy, the burden of childbearing, fidelity, basic long-term pair bonding.

Lyotard already saw it coming: liberation doesn’t stop the machine - it feeds it. Desire gets re-coded, re-marketed, turned into endless circulation. Nick Land just pushed it to the logical conclusion: capitalism doesn’t repress desire - it is desire, stripped of any pretense, accelerating toward total abstraction.

You can adapt - you can build skills, increase your value, move differently - and you can win if you play it tight. But the deeper structure isn’t going anywhere. The genie is out of the bottle. The machine isn’t stopping - it’s accelerating.

Edited yesterday at 12:38 PM by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

31 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Your AI is hitting something real here - but it goes even deeper.

Sex at Dawn - Ryan and Jethá - got some of it right: early human groups were more or less egalitarian, less locked into the hierarchies we see now. But the real rupture wasn’t just culture - it was surplus. Marx already saw it: once you have agriculture, property, capital - you get real asymmetries. Not just in wealth, but in status, in mating, in everything that matters.

The sexual revolution tried to roll some of that back - break up rigid ownership, give people freedom again. You can see the echoes of that optimism in Reich, Marcuse, and the early Freudo-Marxists - the idea that if you just liberated desire, the old authoritarian structures would collapse. But they underestimated how capitalism could capture liberated desires even faster than it captured labor.

The revolution didn’t touch the material structure underneath. And by trying to “free” sexuality without dismantling the economic base, it actually unraveled the few structures that had kept the worst dynamics more or less in check - monogamy, the burden of childbearing, fidelity, basic long-term pair bonding.

Lyotard already saw it coming: liberation doesn’t stop the machine - it feeds it. Desire gets re-coded, re-marketed, turned into endless circulation. Nick Land just pushed it to the logical conclusion: capitalism doesn’t repress desire - it is desire, stripped of any pretense, accelerating toward total abstraction.

You can adapt - you can build skills, increase your value, move differently - and you can win if you play it tight. But the deeper structure isn’t going anywhere. The genie is out of the bottle. The machine isn’t stopping - it’s accelerating.

But there’s also another path - if you’re sharp enough to see it.

You don’t have to funnel desire back into the old symbolic structures - power, sex, money, status. You can let it move freely - productive, nomadic, untethered - the way Deleuze mapped it: a will to power without justification, pure intensities chasing their own unfolding. You’re not escaping the game - you’re just refusing to play it on its terms.

But let’s be real: that path is just as brutal, just as selective. There’s no mass redemption here. Whether you play to win in the old economy or ride the fractures into something freer, it’s still a minority move - still a Redpill.

Edited yesterday at 12:50 PM by Nilsi

[Basman]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

 Now, under late capitalism, sexual dynamics follow the same brutal winner-takes-all logic as capital. A tiny elite captures a ridiculous share of attention, options, and access - and for everyone else, the margin for error keeps shrinking.

You can adapt - you can build skills, increase your value, move differently - and you can win if you’re sharp about it. But the deeper structure isn’t going anywhere. The genie is out of the bottle.

How does that work exactly? You can't horde relationships in a bank account like you can do with money. There's no way half of the human population is exclusively dating men who are rich and tall, which is probably only about 1-3% of the male population, or at least rare.

Women just tend to date older, which is not new. The older you get, the more the relationship discrepancy between men and women equalizes (to about 30-40% being single) (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/). 

[Boris97921234]

5 hours ago, Nilsi said:

But there’s also another path - if you’re sharp enough to see it.

You don’t have to funnel desire back into the old symbolic structures - power, sex, money, status. You can let it move freely - productive, nomadic, untethered - the way Deleuze mapped it: a will to power without justification, pure intensities chasing their own unfolding. You’re not escaping the game - you’re just refusing to play it on its terms.

But let’s be real: that path is just as brutal, just as selective. There’s no mass redemption here. Whether you play to win in the old economy or ride the fractures into something freer, it’s still a minority move - still a Redpill.

Thank you for adding your thoughts to the discussion buddy! I really appreciate it.

[Boris97921234]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

How does that work exactly? You can't horde relationships in a bank account like you can do with money. There's no way half of the human population is exclusively dating men who are rich and tall, which is probably only about 1-3% of the male population, or at least rare.

Women just tend to date older, which is not new. The older you get, the more the relationship discrepancy between men and women equalizes (to about 30-40% being single) (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/08/for-valentines-day-5-facts-about-single-americans/). 

I think the core of our discussion is really about how dating and masculinity function within a capitalist system. The asymmetry in demand is huge, because heterosexual men in general prefer multiple, young and attractive partners, whereas women are more inclined to settle for one stable provider. Plus most girls are just not cream of the crop, high quality, attractive women. From personal experience, age plays only a minor role compare to things like status and wealth. If you have great charisma or personality or humor, thats a huge bonus as well, of course. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Boris97921234

[Basman]

7 minutes ago, Boris97921234 said:

I think the core of our discussion is really about how dating and masculinity function within a capitalist system. The asymmetry in demand is huge... 

...From personal experience, age plays only a minor role compare to things like status and wealth. If you have great charisma or personality or humor, thats a huge bonus as well, of course. 

Well yeah, women are talent scouts. The asymmetry is that there are more guys looking to mate with attractive women than there are available women.

The major difference between now and then is that women are no longer dependent on getting married in order to survive. Less women are going enter relationships or stick with them like they used to given it is no longer a necessity.

Probably a skill issue, but that is a good thing. The advantage that men have over women is that men can do more to improve themselves. An ugly women has way less options. Plenty of ugly dudes get hot chicks.

I find that this theorizing about how useless and powerless you as guys are is the male equivalent of how neurotic women fantasize about how everyone hates them. Go on a feminist subreddit and it is all complaining about how everyone is out to get them.