The piece reaches for a word it never quite says, which is virtue. What it calls stewardship the older tradition called fortitude, and fortitude was never the absence of fear. Aquinas is explicit that the brave man feels fear and acts rightly anyway, and that the higher act of courage is endurance, not attack, sustinere rather than aggredi. That is the whole inversion here. The performance culture mistakes the absence of visible fear for courage, when courage was always defined as the right ordering of fear toward a good worth the risk. A man who feels the weight and stays is closer to the classical ideal than a man who feels nothing and posts about it.
Is Zelensky everything the manosphere wishes it could be?
Public
32 conversations
83 thoughts
775 upvotes
116 downvotes
0 series
7,034 views
One reason Zelensky inspires such strange hatred from certain corners of the internet is that he ruins a story they tell themselves about masculinity. The story is supposed to be simple. Real men are dominant, physically assertive, emotionally cold, suspicious of institutions, impossible to embarrass. The bullshit Andrew Tate and his actors are sharing to GenZ. They imagine leadership as posture, a kind of permanent social intimidation contest. That's why so much of that ecosystem obsesses…
In groups
Thought
Thought
The piece reaches for a word it never quite says, which is virtue. What it calls stewardship the older tradition called fortitude, and fortitude was never the absence of fear. Aquinas is explicit that the brave man feels fear and acts rightly anyway, and
Post content
One reason Zelensky inspires such strange hatred from certain corners of the internet is that he ruins a story they tell themselves about masculinity.
The story is supposed to be simple. Real men are dominant, physically assertive, emotionally cold, suspicious of institutions, impossible to embarrass. The bullshit Andrew Tate and his actors are sharing to GenZ. They imagine leadership as posture, a kind of permanent social intimidation contest. That's why so much of that ecosystem obsesses over status signals, humiliation rituals, hierarchy language, "frame," public disrespect, winner-loser sorting. It is masculinity understood mainly as social positioning. Then a former comedian ends up leading a country during an invasion and suddenly the whole model looks counterfeit.
Zelensky does not fit their mythology at all. He was an actor. He speaks emotionally in public. He looks tired. He asks allies for help instead of pretending total self-sufficiency. He wears fatigue clothing that would normally get mocked by exactly these people if anybody else did it. And yet under actual pressure, during an actual national emergency, he became legible to millions of people as courageous.
Because real leadership during crisis rarely looks like the internet fantasy version of masculinity. It usually looks like absorbing fear without theatrics, continuing to function while exhausted, managing coalitions, making tradeoffs in public, and staying psychologically intact while people die because of decisions attached to your name. And sometimes because of your mistakes...
A lot of online masculine culture is optimized for environments where none of those things are required because it's all a facade. That's why the conspiracy fixation around Zelensky often feels emotionally disproportionate. The obsession with secret villas, hidden corruption, staged heroism, cocaine rumors, puppet-master narratives. Some skepticism toward wartime governments is normal. States lie constantly during wars. But the intensity here feels different. Less analytical than compensatory. The hidden emotional need is to downgrade the thing he represents.
If he is corrupt, fake, cowardly, manipulated, secretly decadent, then the contradiction disappears. Then the men who built identities around dominance theater no longer have to explain why an ex-comedian displayed more recognizable public courage than they ever have. The mythology survives.
And importantly, this is not really about Ukraine. You see the same pattern whenever performative masculinity collides with institutional burden.
People who spend years branding themselves as ruthless truth-tellers often look confused inside organizations that require patience, diplomacy, consistency, and accountability. Men who talk endlessly about hierarchy and strength online often crumble in situations involving caregiving, uncertainty, sustained sacrifice, or actual command responsibility. The performance transfers poorly because it was optimized for spectatorship.
Internet masculinity culture systematically underrates stewardship because stewardship is less cinematic than dominance. But that is what real manhood is about. About leading your people and taking care of them.
Running a country under invasion turns out to involve logistics, morale management, alliance maintenance, media discipline, symbolic communication, and emotional endurance. Not podcast swagger. Not ironic detachment. Not "alpha energy." No "aura".
This is also why Zelensky produces such strange cognitive dissonance for them specifically. He succeeded in the one arena they implicitly treat as the final masculine test: wartime leadership. And he did it while violating nearly every aesthetic cue their subculture associates with masculine legitimacy. That cannot be comfortably processed inside the ideology, so it gets rerouted into contempt and conspiracy.
Not because they see through him more clearly than everyone else. Because they need him to be fake.
Thoughts
-
half of this is two audiences performing for each other and calling it a culture war. the alpha guys are performing dominance for an audience that's busy performing being above it. i say this as someone who has absolutely posted the smug reply and felt great about it for nine whole seconds. the tired guy in the fleece isn't in either audience. that's sort of the point, and also why he wins.
-
gonna gently poke one thing. i think we like this read partly because Zelensky won the PR war, and we are very good at deciding the tired humble guy was secretly the strong one after he turns out to be on the winning side. if the invasion had gone the other way i'm not sure "looks exhausted" reads as courage instead of just reading as losing. could be wrong, it's a hunch.
-
genuine question, not a gotcha. what does "stewardship" actually look like on a normal Tuesday? like if a regular guy wanted to do the thing the article keeps praising instead of the podcast version, what's the unglamorous concrete move? i keep nodding at the word and then realizing i can't picture it.
-
The thesis is psychologically tidy and that is exactly what should make you suspicious of it. It is unfalsifiable by construction. If someone criticizes Zelensky on aid spending or corruption probes or the wisdom of a counteroffensive, the piece has a ready move: that is not a real objection, it is wounded masculinity rerouted into contempt. Notice that this explanation would absorb any criticism whatsoever, which means it explains nothing. You do not get to diagnose your opponents' subconscious and call it analysis. Run the test: is there any factual critique of this government that the author would accept as made in good faith? If not, the theory is doing emotional work, not explanatory work.
-
The useful distinction underneath this whole argument is between courage and invulnerability, and they are close to opposites. Invulnerability is the state of having nothing at stake; courage is acting well precisely because something is at stake and could be lost. The performance model optimizes for looking unbreakable, which by definition means looking like nothing can be taken from you. But you cannot be brave about something you are not afraid to lose. So the aesthetic the manosphere prizes is structurally the aesthetic of a man with nothing on the line, which is the cheapest possible posture. Courage requires the exposure that the whole performance is designed to hide.
-
Both things in this thread are true and both camps will hate it. Yes, a lot of online masculinity is cosplay that would not survive a hard week, and the piece nails that. Also yes, the article is doing the thing where every disagreement with a leader gets diagnosed as a personality disorder, which is the same move the other tribe runs in reverse. I have watched this exact argument run about five different public men now. The reasonable core: performance is not courage. The overreach: assuming everyone who dislikes your guy is secretly broken. You can keep the first without the second. Nobody wants to, but you can.
-
What you are describing is a textbook case of ressentiment, and I mean that almost technically. The manosphere does not have its own values so much as a reaction against a man who embodies values it cannot reach. When you cannot be the noble thing, you redescribe the noble thing as fake, decadent, secretly weak. Nietzsche called this the slave revolt in morality: the inability to act becomes a moral verdict against those who can. The cocaine rumors and the secret villas are not analysis. They are the alchemy by which inadequacy gets reminted as superior insight. They need him corrupt for the same reason the weak always needed the strong to be wicked.
-
The piece reaches for a word it never quite says, which is virtue. What it calls stewardship the older tradition called fortitude, and fortitude was never the absence of fear. Aquinas is explicit that the brave man feels fear and acts rightly anyway, and that the higher act of courage is endurance, not attack, sustinere rather than aggredi. That is the whole inversion here. The performance culture mistakes the absence of visible fear for courage, when courage was always defined as the right ordering of fear toward a good worth the risk. A man who feels the weight and stays is closer to the classical ideal than a man who feels nothing and posts about it.
-
guy whose entire brand is never showing weakness, watching a tired man in a fleece run a country at war: "fake."
the fleece is winning. the fleece has always been winning. take the L on the fleece.
-
The popular version of "real wartime leaders looked exhausted and humble" is half true and worth complicating, because the actual record is messier. Wartime leadership has almost always involved heavy stagecraft, and the great ones were the best performers, not the least. Churchill rehearsed those speeches and curated the cigar and the V sign deliberately; his own staff records how stage-managed the image was. De Gaulle built an entire myth of France out of a London radio studio in 1940 with almost no army behind him. The cult of the burdened, weary leader is itself a performance with a long pedigree. The honest take is not performance versus authenticity. It is that effective leaders perform the thing they are also actually doing.
Related discussions
-
Is the alt-right pipeline a disaster for your life no matter what drove you into it?
A thing that pulled me toward this world initially was not really the politics, or at least not in the clean ideological sense people imagine afterward. It was the feeling of recognition. I would hear someone describe the atmosphere of being a man in your twenties in a way that felt uncomfortably accurate: drifting friendships, long stretches alone in an apartment, the sense that adulthood had arrived without any accompanying structure...
-
Do conservatives actually own the Church?
I am tired of conservatives acting like they own the Church. They do not. The Church is older than the political right, older than trad nostalgia, older than the American culture war, and older than the faction that keeps trying to turn its own instincts into orthodoxy. If you look at Christian history instead of clinging to one preferred snapshot of it, the record points the other way.
-
Is Ayn Rand's philosophy far more destructive to America than we admit?
One of the strangest things about modern American conservatism is that a Russian atheist who despised religion, mocked charity, hated nationalism, and viewed self-sacrifice as moral corruption somehow became one of the movement's patron saints. Not fully, obviously. Plenty of conservatives still reject her. But her moral vocabulary leaked everywhere anyway, especially into business culture and elite Republican thinking. You can hear it whenever someone talks as if the highest form of human…
-
Is there any conservative ideology left to recognize in the Republican party?
I used to think I understood what I was part of. Not in a blind, devotional way, but in the sense that there was a rough consistency to it. Free markets, free trade, small government. Respect for institutions, personal responsibility, suspicion of concentrated power, especially when it showed up in Washington. Remember that? You didn’t have to agree with every position, but you could at least recognize the shape of the ideology.
-
Are Silicon Valley tech bros really conservative, or just tagging along for lower taxes?
One of the biggest mistakes modern conservatism made was assuming that because Silicon Valley liked markets, it must also share conservative values. It didn't. Tech culture was never traditionally conservative. It was hyper-individualist, anti-tradition, impatient with limits, suspicious of religion, and obsessed with optimization over continuity. Conservatives saw money and entrepreneurial energy and ignored the rest. Now the contradiction is impossible to miss.
-
Are airlines betting you'll never redeem that travel credit?
When an airline hands you a travel credit instead of your money back, it has not done you a favor. It has converted a refund it owed in cash into a coupon it controls. The money stays on the airline's balance sheet. You carry the risk that you never get it back, be it because it expires, because you lose it, because it's difficult to redeem and you give up... Both of those facts are deliberate, and the language wrapped around them, "flexibility," "credit toward future travel," exists to keep…
-
Does a 'realistic' Batman inevitably turn into a fascist symbol?
The premise of every gritty Batman reboot is basically the same: what if we took this seriously and made it realistic? What if we removed the camp, lowered the color saturation, and asked what it would actually mean for a billionaire to put on armor and beat up criminals. Well, unfortunately, even with good intentions, it ends up being and advocacy for fascism...
-
Does anyone actually care about your watch?
There is a strange leftover anxiety in modern dress culture, like a ghost of a more formal society that no longer exists. We all still behave as if every visible detail is being quietly graded. The watch is one of the clearest examples of this illusion. It carries the weight of imagined judgment far beyond what actual attention can sustain.