~ archived since 2018 ~

When Success Becomes Identity: Achievement-Driven Masculinity and Burnout

HardlyManly

March 8, 2026

23 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://manhelpingmen.com/life-goals/when-success-becomes-identity-achievement-driven-masculinity-and-burnout/

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	When Success Becomes Identity: Achievement-Driven Masculinity and Burnout
Author	HardlyManly
Upvotes	23
Comments	16
Date	March 8, 2026 2:02 AM UTC (4 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1rns7uw/when_success_becomes_identity_achievementdriven/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/when-success-becomes-identity-achievement-driven.1574959 https://theredarchive.com/post/1574959

Comments

[–]smeltaway 5 points6 points7 points 5 months ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]HardlyManly[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So, I've been reading the paper you linked to (thank you for the info!) and in the gender category, they are quick to point out that the studies disagree with each other massively. The heterogeneity stat (I²) comes in at 94.81%, which is basically as high as it gets = it means some studies found discrimination against women, some against men, and some found no difference at all. When individual studies are that inconsistent, the average tells you very little.

What the paper actually shows is that it's heavily context-dependent: male-dominated fields tended to favor male applicants, female-dominated fields tended to favor female applicants. Employers in some sectors preferred men, others preferred women. This wouldn't be close to enough to ascertain a broad claim such as X are systematically advantaged over Y at every turn.

[–]smeltaway 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I think thats a fair assessment for the current paper, though I would point out that despite the heterogeneity, bias in favor women is statistically significant past the 99% confidence level.

Also, I don't have a link to it at the moment, but there's a fairly clear trend over the last 50 years or so which has seen bias decrease against women in all fields where it was present and increase against men. As of 2020 (the latest data I have), the overall bias stood at around 12% for gender neutral fields and was trending so that now it should be close to 15% today.

Generally speaking, my impression is bias against men in tech is high (~40%), its modest (~12-15%) in gender-neutral jobs, and high in female-typical work (around 30%). There is bias against women in a lot of male blue-collar professions, though I don't know the size.

This, in turn couples with bias in education. Studies are sparse, but suggest around 40% of deficits are due to harsher teacher responses to infractions when committed by boys.

This says little on promotion also. I don't have stats, I've never seen a study on it, only what I've seen first hand in STEM.

Edit: I haven't read this, but it is a meta-analysis that discusses trends in hiring discrimination and, I suspect, is probably within the ballpark for the figures I mentioned above https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597823000560#f0015

[–]HardlyManly[S] -1 points0 points1 point 5 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Those are interesting points, and I agree that the literature on gender bias in hiring and education has become much more nuanced over the last couple of decades. The trends you mention (decreasing bias against women in some domains and emerging biases against men in others) are being discussed more openly in recent meta-analyses.

That said, my article isn’t really making a claim about hiring discrimination levels or labor-market bias.

The focus is narrower: how many men regulate their sense of worth through achievement and external feedback, and how that pattern can lead to burnout or emotional instability when performance temporarily drops.

Structural factors like hiring bias, education systems, or status competition can certainly influence how men experience pressure around achievement. But the psychological mechanism I’m describing tends to appear across very different contexts, including environments where men are advantaged, disadvantaged, or neutral in terms of opportunity.

I see that clearly when I get corpos or STEM workers talking about being unable to sleep cause they can't stop thinking about work, or how they overthink every little thing, or how it's bene months since the last time they went tot he gym/hanged out with friends/went ona date cause they are so busy, or how they can't seem to muster the coruage to take a stand against dickish colleagues nad/or bosses, and more. You get the idea. Clearly something's happening to that person's psychology that triggers such a strong survival response when it comes to work.

[–]smeltaway 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It seems to me you are shifting the topic here. There's one thread on this already. This one is about the broader impact on men, and it still seems that what you are saying is: "its too hard for men, you need to de-center it from your identity to be happy." You can respond to that by removing the blockers that make it hard / stressful and reduce the probability of including others in your life or you can shift identity so you're basing identity off things that are easier.

Pushing for men to shift identity when we face significant blockers that make success harder (and thus more anxiety provoking) and connection with others harder seems like the wrong answer to me. We should be building so these things are more accessible to men, not pushing men to adjust to an environment where it is taken from us.

[–]HardlyManly[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]smeltaway 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HardlyManly[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not trying to redirect or dismiss what you’re saying. I’m drawing a distinction between two different levels of the discussion.

One level is structural: the barriers men face in areas like work, relationships, and social expectations. Those are real conversations and they matter.

The level I’m addressing in the article is psychological regulation: what happens internally when a person’s entire sense of worth becomes dependent on constant achievement feedback.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Improving external conditions for men is important. At the same time, many of the men I work with clinically are highly capable and ambitious, but still end up trapped in cycles of burnout or anxiety because achievement became the only way they learned to stabilize their sense of self.

The argument isn’t that men should stop striving or lower their standards.

It’s that ambition works better when it isn’t carrying the entire burden of identity.

If someone disagrees with that, that’s completely fair, but it isn’t an argument for subordinating men. It’s an attempt to describe a pattern I see repeatedly in clinical work and corporate environments.

[–]HardlyManly[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]smeltaway 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Thats literally what testosterone does. It drives and regulates behavior in response to status. Men who have unstable (and low or moderate) status are driven to increase it, men with low, stable status often act more meek, men with high status are often more generous or dominant (again situation-specific).

There are a fair number of studies on this but I'll leave a few here to help anyone who reads this:

Exogenous testosterone increases status-seeking in men with unstable status https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31884320/
Another testosterone study shows the dominance / meekness split https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05603-7
In 33 non-industrial societies status is tied to mating and reproductive success https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5047206/

In essence, you are trying to "help" men out of what our biology drives us toward. I don't see this being a positive long-term approach.

[–]HardlyManly[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Hey! Thanks for reading.

That’s an interesting point, and you’re right that testosterone plays an important role in status-related behavior.

A lot of the research you mention shows that testosterone modulates how men respond to status contexts, especially unstable ones. In competitive or uncertain hierarchies, testosterone tends to increase status-seeking behavior, risk-taking, and dominance-related strategies.

None of that contradicts the point of the article.

The distinction I’m making is between status motivation and identity regulation.

Status motivation is biologically normal. We humans are hierarchical primates, and us men in particular tend to be more sensitive to status competition. Testosterone clearly plays a role there.

But when self-worth becomes entirely dependent on external status feedback, the system becomes psychologically fragile.

That’s where you see patterns like:

burnout
compulsive overwork
inability to disengage
anxiety when performance temporarily drops

In other words, the issue isn’t that men pursue status.

The issue is when status becomes the only mechanism regulating self-worth.

Interestingly, some of the same testosterone research you mention actually supports this nuance. Testosterone responses are highly context-dependent. In stable high-status positions, testosterone can promote generosity, leadership, and long-term strategic thinking (not just competitive escalation.)

So the goal isn’t to eliminate status motivation.

It’s to move from status-as-survival to status-as-expression.

Men who are internally stable don’t stop competing or achieving. They usually become more strategic, more sustainable, and less reactive in how they pursue those goals.

[–]smeltaway 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I hear what you are saying on the surface both here and in the post, but do strongly dislike it because I am not confident it is fully honest. I may be wrong, but here is how it comes across to me:

It seems you are saying is "what you need is unconditional positive regard"...oh and also you need to de-center this as part of your identity.

If I remember psych 101 correctly, the equivalent of unconditional positive regard (different terms used) is supposed to come from one's mother in the original literature, and this is the core for creating a secure attachment style.

However, most adult relationships are functionally conditional. You can shift what they are based on, but not make them wholly unconditional.

Consequently, it sounds like this is a sleight of hand to promise something that is functionally impossible and add in the only piece that is possible: re-centering identity on something that does not involve status pursuit but is grounded in something easier to achieve.

Meanwhile, we continue to center status pursuit for women and make it easier for them to achieve.

Consequently, the "active" parts of the view I see here are repeating a progressive line: de-center status, you're a man and its too challenging for men to really do well and get status. Go with something easier that makes you happy and ignore that part of you that wants to strive and grow and succeed.

(Edit: Implicitly, since I see this as the cultural message) Meanwhile, support women in doing what you shouldn't be doing, its good for them.

[–]HardlyManly[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate the thoughtful critique. I think the disagreement may come from how the argument is being interpreted.

I’m not suggesting that adult life offers unconditional positive regard in the same way early attachment ideally does (which is actually based on parental figures and not the mother alone). You’re right that most adult relationships (workplaces, partnerships, communities) involve conditions, expectations, and reciprocity.

The point I’m making is different. It’s about how self-worth is internally regulated.

Many high-performing men end up organizing their identity around external status feedback: promotions, recognition, income, reputation, etc. When those signals are strong, they feel stable. When they temporarily slow down, anxiety or burnout can spike.

That’s not because status pursuit is bad, status motivation is a normal human drive, and in men it’s particularly strong.

The problem appears when status becomes the only stabilizing mechanism for self-worth.

In that situation, achievement stops being expression and becomes psychological survival. That’s where you start to see patterns like compulsive overwork, inability to disengage, or a sense that success never actually feels satisfying.

To give a similar example, going to the gym is also something that resonates with our testosterone. An increase to it ahs been linked to weightlifting, ina study I read some time ago. No one would tell you that going to the gym is bad.

However, if you spend 6 horus everyday at the gym, if you can't sleep because youa re anxious you may not finish your routine tomorrow, if you internally crumbe when you miss the gym for 3 days, if youa re constantly tired and getting injured because youa ren't letting your muscles rest, then you must slow down and regulate that activity, to maybe 2 hours a day.

That's not me telling you to stop training or to look for easier alternatives, it's me seeing how it's fucking you up and going "yo dude you gotta be more balanced."

So the goal isn’t to “de-center ambition” or tell men not to strive. It’s to make ambition less fragile.

Men who are internally stable don’t usually stop pursuing status, responsibility, or achievement. In many cases they become more strategic and sustainable in how they pursue it, because their entire identity isn’t at stake every time performance fluctuates.

In other words, the argument isn’t: “don’t strive.”

It’s: don’t make your existence depend entirely on the outcome of striving.

That distinction is where the clinical work tends to happen.

[–]smeltaway 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HardlyManly[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]smeltaway 0 points1 point2 points 4 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link