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 think it's a misnomer: what they actually mean is self-reliant. Nobody is expecting you to actually live in isolation from society- especially within society. Like others have said, it's about learning to stand on your own 2 feet without emotionally burdening others; you should be their support and not the other way around.
Women are immediately turned off by a man that appears emotional or vulnerable. Men thus need to cultivate a level of confidence that they can weather various storms and tribulations and get back up even if they fall down. Might be part of how and why we evolved to handle emotional distress differently.
Self-sufficiency is probably the shortest path to self-reliance, but men should be able to coordinate or at least cooperate in a group. Masculinity in a group comes from efficient decision making and proper utilisation of skills. I think this makes meritocracy a masculine feature of hierarchy, whereas feminine hierarchies are more likely to be topped by emotional manipulators.