For whatever is worth, I don't find warrior ideal either. I associate that with someone who is source of danger and threat.

Warriors around means that you have to go home shortest route and watch whether the room is dangerous.

Athletes have good bodies, but that is about it.

As one good book a read recently says: Be dangerous but not the danger.

In think warrior ideal describes exactly that. You've got tools, skills and internal readiness to be the danger but you're not until it's necessary

Sure, but morality aside there is something to be admired in people that do dangerous, frightnening and difficult things for a living.

“Difficult” does not belong with the other two and I’m not sure we need to admire people who have to risk their lives so much as pity them. It’s unfortunate we have so many roles in society that still require that.

You would be surprised as to how many of these people would pity and politely dismiss most of richer and softer types of human that inhabit tech.

Nothing to do with rich or “softer”. There are jobs that are dangerous that pay quite well and require little physical prowess.

I think life without risk or discomfort would be very boring indeed.

I think you might have missed the point of my post.

It's laughable because it is so far from reality, not because the ideals are something to be laughed at.

I would argue that American males are closer to the warrior archetype than any other democracy. We certainly have fought more actual wars than any other advanced nation, we have the best combat athletes in the world, many of us hunt, shoot and practice warrior like skills. I am hard pressed to think of any other modern society that comes even close.