A strawman argument, which no one is actually saying:
> Second: Consequently, people from these less settled societies are better fighters and more militarily capable than their settled or wealthier neighboring societies.
> Third: That, consequently the poorer, harder people will inevitably overrun and subjugate the richer, more prosperous communities around them.
I prefer real history to science fiction, myself. The 30s were indisputably hard times, but they produced the people who won WW II and went to the moon.
I'm not sure that follows at all. The people who were growing up in the 30s were much too young to be decision-makers during WWII (which itself started in the 30s, not the 40s, though Americans don't realize that because they entered the war late). They were barely able, if at all, to even fight in WWII. The people who caused WWII probably came of age around or before WWI. Hitler, for instance, was a low-level soldier during WWI. He wasn't a product of the 30s.
That sounds nice but is there a case when 'strong men' created good times? The example that I see people gravitate toward here is how soldiers coming back from WW2 in the US 'created' a society of unprecedented prosperity. But this of course ignores almost every single external factor that precipitated this prosperity, ignores that the prosperity was for a minority of people (both in the US and /especially/ globally), and the fact that war does not in fact make people stronger but tends to break them down. Ask your nearest vet.
This just sounds like a factoid upholding an antiquated ideal of masculinity.
Why is everyone here so worried about masculinity?
The "strong men" in that quote are those with strong will. Physical strength is secondary. The weak men are those with weak will. A successful enterprise, be it a company or an entire nation, always has a few of strong willed founders, with a vision and ability to inspire others. It creates prosperity for members of that enterprise. And every time such enterprises wither and die in the hands of weak willed risk-averse mediocrity.
The comment you replied to didn't say that masculinity is an antiquated idea. It said that an ideal of masculinity is antiquated; that is, one particular ideal of masculinity, not the idea in its entirety. You may disagree with that too, which is fine, but it's a different thing than you responded to. Different people see themselves in different ideals of masculinity.
"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times." ― G. Michael Hopf