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):
A mild amount of self-sufficiency is a good thing for a guy, we can't be women who are dependent on others for leading and guiding them to literally everything. If you can't grocery shop, cook "put in the microwave for 5 minutes" meals, or you're young and can't learn anything from youtube videos life is going to be impossible for you.
But every time someone starts this narrative, in the next step they push it to an extreme and make everything pathological. The people who succeed the most are absolutely not independent, they form groups. It's like the basis for our society - for better or worse.
Being relatively independent is more of a "competent but not at the top" position.