> what does it mean to be strong? is it without weakness? or the strength to acknowledge that weakness. If you're so strong you never cry is that really strengt

> what does it mean to be strong? is it without weakness? or the strength to acknowledge that weakness. If you're so strong you never cry is that really strength? To be strong is to know that society will pull you down if you don't react with the same or more strength. I'm talking about men that don't have rich and/or protective parents, which is most of us, afaik. > being dominant sounds like a good idea but once you think about it, it seems a bit absurd. everything humans do well we do as a team. being dominant only means you can be in charge of a team and not a supporting part. There is so many roles in society still to be fulfilled. Social dynamics are this: dynamic. Someone might be in charge of one interaction but play a supporting part in another. I don't see any incongruence on this. > and lastly success. What is success? is it just money? that's hardly a good measure. is it to be happy? and if that comes at the expense of not being "strong and dominant" then what have you left? There is no need to fix the discussion around the 3 adjectives used in the article, but does it really make sense to question that men want to be successful? Not even this can be just simple acknowledged? > You're describing a fantasy, an archetype and it does you and men in general no favours by striving to be something so ephemeral. The article described. I just asked why not?