WHY remove them? I like having them, millions of men like having them, and if they are linked with testosterone, it has additional benefits like many women find that attractive. Why remove any human feature people like to have? Just because it is dangerous? Here is a solution for that.

WHY should everybody be productive when a post-scarcity society does not require this, and some people like other things than being productive?

Why not give people the option to remove them if they want to? Why build an entire society based around the idea that men should fight each other, if not everyone wants to? I don't, for example!

OK, I repeat it third time, if it still does not come accross, I cannot do more. An affluent post-scarcity free-time society where nothing matters anymore and everything is a hobby which people largely pursue in groups of the like-minded is by definition beneficial for ALL. I have worked out the Mannfolk groups because they are the most unusual idea here, and just indicated that groups for everybody else exist. I did not flesh them out, because they are not so unusual, because it is easy to imagine e.g. art groups. The Maletopia title just reflects that one of these many kinds of groups was worked out because I wanted to divert attention to those, but I wrote quite clearly that Maletopia - the sum of these groups - is just a subset of a general Utopia for all. You can call the sum of artistic grousp Artopia and so on.

I agree that if this were one of a subset of worlds, and only the people who wanted to live here could live here, then it could exist as part of the Archipelago. But I doubt more than a small minority of currently-existing people would want to live there for extended periods of time.

Oppression is a result of competing for resources. Have you seen any notion of this? Or you think oppressing others is just some kind of a hobby, too or what really?

Status will always be a scarce resource.

It is a Maletopia not because it is only works for masculine men, to the contrary, it works for all, because there are a million other hobby groups not described in detail. However, most utopias don't work for masculine men, because usually they involve some violence-abhorring values as far as I can tell from my sci-fi reading.

Then why make your entire post about this one tiny aspect of the utopia, and neglect to mention that it is only a small part of it? And why do you assume that all men like fighting and violence? Not a single person I know likes violence, our culture is anti-violence already, and most people look down on it rightly because it causes harm by definition.

For most sports not, but for sports where it is true that they are war minus the shooting, yes, because being a warrior is a way of life, not just a hobby.

This appears to be a massive case of projection. Just as most people do not like violence, most people do not like war. And what would war without the shooting even be, anyway?

I am confused what the question means. I assume most other people just focus on their own groups and hobbies and the world as such is not based around anything. I don't think such a thing as popular culture will keep existing. Just parallel subcultures. Everybody who does not like what a subculture does can do the same thing as people today who do not like e.g. Nickelback: not pay attention to it.

Did you assume a popular culture, a generic mainstream is supposed to exist? Maybe I need to put into the article it is not, it is already getting outdated even in our current reality.

Again, if your world is just one of many subsets of a greater world, then I get your point. I fail to believe many people would want to live there, but as long as they had many options I guess it would be fine for it to be an option. But I don't believe your article should have focused on a single subset which isn't applicable to most of the existing population, when it is supposed to be a small part of a larger world.