According to Thomas Hobbes, life before social contracts and norms was a state of nature, where individuals acted only in their own interests. He described life in such a state of nature as "solitary, nasty, brutish, and short."

Social contract theory states that parts of the individual's freedom to indisciminately pursue self-interest has been passed to a governing body in exchange for protection and social stability.

If many people today are unaware of these theories, could it explain why there is such confusion about masculinity and attraction?

If human nature is fundamentally selfish, it would make strategic sense to form alliances with those whose traits allow them to thrive or at least survive in such a state, and avoid or exploit those who would be a liability.

Thriving in a state of nature would require specific physical, mental, and emotional characteristics; however, as the social contract has evolved and societies have moved further away from a state of nature, conscious understanding of these traits has degraded to a vague notion of "masculinity" meaning stoic, muscular, and tough.

The traits that are commonly thought of as masculine make sense when rooted in a state of nature, and the missing component in modern discourse is that becoming masculine means developing the emotional, intellectual, and physical traits required to assert oneself if an established social contract was suddenly obsolete.

What do you think?

Edit: following the political philosophy theme, does it make sense to you to interpret "feminine" traits as soft power, and "masculine" traits as hard power?