> I wouldn’t point entirely at the PhDs, though. There were some real issues that were called out (inability to communicate, over reliance on anger as an emotional outlet, etc), but the identity could have stayed largely intact.

To be clear, I referencing the PhDs that are more concerned with getting you addicted to things, the STEMy ones I guess, not the ones talking about gender and the like, the humanities ones in that dichotomy. But still, great point here.

> The killing blows were from segments of men who doubled down on the most negative aspects of masculinity, and made the rest of the men flee from that image of masculinity to avoid any association. I would rather drop masculinity from my self-perception than be associated with Andrew Tate or Logan Paul or whoever else.

Not knowing those guys personally and looking from the outside in, I'd say that those two are really just broken people with traumatic childhoods and father figures. I won't get too in the weeds there, but their success comes from pain. And to be very clear, they are shitheads that actively choose to make the world worse - they deserve no excuses, the condemn themselves - but they do deserve explanation.

To me, their fame and fortune is a 'right place, right time' phenomenon. Without the systems of addiction and anger that social media creates, we would never had heard of them. The place to set blame is not on the 'influencer' but on the system that created him. Tate is responsible for himself and is damned by his own hand, but Zuck is man (and his ilk) who intentionally created the conditions for Tate to grow.

> I don’t think I know any men that have “modern masculinity” (whatever that would mean) as part of their core identity. They’re either clinging onto a Chuck Norris kind of masculinity, or just don’t have a strong gender component of their self-identity. They’re not feminine, they just don’t do anything to be “manly”. Being “manly” matters to them about as much as whether they’re a Coke or Pepsi person.

Yeah, I don't know what 'modern masculinity' would mean either. It is quite fractured these days. Perhaps that is intentional or a side effect of the 'algorithm'. I'm very much still a novice at 'men's studies', but what I have learned is that being 'a man' is something that males must pursue actively. Unlike with women and menarche, males must continuously prove their manhood (there are very few cultures that do not do this). Man is an active verb, so the saying goes.