I wouldn't say there's anything hateful in this post. And I respect a lot of what it promotes, such as being hard working and self-improving. However, the post [i]does[/i] come across a little bit misguided in a macho sort of way, which is where I’d disagree. For example: [i]“Manliness is more than just being a tough guy...”[/i] The above is said as though it goes without saying that toughness is essential to being "a man," without really taking the risk of revealing the full nature of one's view by elaborating. I can only assume, but given the general tone of concern for "men today" and the follow up comments made, the OP’s notion of toughness appears to be centralised around being adept with handy-man stuff and shooting a gun. If I was going to list off the things I think make someone a good person, male or female -- which I think is a much better way of articulating the point -- the aforementioned traits would probably not be the first things that would come to mind. That’s not to say those qualities are not valuable or likable, they certainly are, but there’s more to the world than hunting and camping. I'm not passing this judgement on the OP, he appears to be quite intelligent. But I am always suspicious of people who invest a lot of stock in their "manliness" because my experience has been that people who often resort to this kind of vague "be a man" type reasoning, tend to lack any real advice, and also tend to be insecure, competitive, sometimes bullies, and generally tiring to be around. And with regards to toughness, I definitely agree that it’s generally in one’s best interest to be strong at whatever one chooses to bring to the table. But there are many types of strengths; Christopher Hitchens may have been no good if you left him out in the woods on his own for all I know, but pit him up against someone in a religious or political debate, and he’d eat most people for breakfast without so much as fumbling a single word or losing his cool. Einstein was hardly the epitome of your stereotypical manly man. Nor was Jiddu Krishnamurti, and a lot of people I happen to have a great deal of respect for. The same can be said of many of the great minds whom over centuries contributed to the wonders of modern times, such as having access to vaccines that protect you from many diseases and everything else we take for granted. The only other thing I would disagree with in the OP, sorry to say, is the premise itself: the notion that a lot of men are not "men" unless they meet the OP’s criteria of manliness. If you’re an adult male, you are a certainly a man. End of discussion. Whether or not you're a good person, is the point I would make. And the extent with which your existence is valued by others comes down to a lot of things and depends on where you are and what the society values, of which there is obviously a great deal of variance, and something which is ever-evolving, which I think is a good thing because it makes for a diverse world.