Sometimes, I see on the internet men advising that men must be self-sufficient to be considered a man. I don't see this as a necessarily virtuous or optimal goal for civilization. I can understand a homesteader being self-sufficient, but does he not still buy some supplies to work the farm, or is the expectation that he makes his own tools and everything else he uses? The Soviets called those who were self-sufficient kulaks and had many of them killed. So, doesn't one have to be not just self-sufficient but also participate in broader society, or at least prevent oneself from being dragged to the gulags by having a strong network?
Is a thief self-sufficient because there will always be people to rob from? Is a government official self-sufficient because there will always be people to tax? Is a banker self-sufficient because checking accounts are almost necessary with how payments are structured in the modern era? Is a mobster self-sufficient because he has people to extort?
Cultivating a society that values virtue is the best masculine attitude in my opinion because large groups can be turned against those who are self-sufficient and will kill those who are all alone.
This is the advice thread that I am referring to for what that is worth (https://nitter.net/MasculineSage/status/1560589430729183232#m):
I’ve always said that man’s biggest desire is independence while women desire subjugation. The truly “independent” male image is someone capable of doing everything and needing no one. This is of course is a desire, not a reality, but it is why men have gone through such pains to explore every corner of the earth, it is why Mars is the next frontier in sight, and it is entirely a unique trait to men. The problem is that at any point more people are needed to create the structures to maintain these desires. One man did not build the Santa Maria, nor will one man make the ability to terraform mars.