LogFAQs > #973252154

I had a genuine response to the deleted topic and I want to share it damn it.

Men are on average certainly less "traditionally masculine" by previous standards.

I would say it's been downwardly sloping since the Baby Boomers with the greatest indicator being a sharp rise in quality of life. So despite the general weaponizing of the term "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times", there is certainly truth within that statement.

Simply put, the easier a person's life is the softer they are going to be. Which I don't think is a bad thing since basically every living thing prefers an easier life. It just becomes a little scary when you live in a world where adversity hides around every corner. The term "It's better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war" ringing true when the idea of one's village, state, nation or world is potentially at stake.

I would consider myself soft in many regards and seek to change that. The goal of being a warrior gardener that can either protect life or help it flourish.

What are your thoughts? Should we fear a societal collapse and our general inability to weather it? Should not only men, but women seek to be more traditionally tough in regards to our ability to withstand potential wars, famines, and other such disasters that have existed as long as humans have?