- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
With surveys reporting that an increasing number of young men are subscribing to these beliefs, the number of women finding that their partners share the misogynistic views espoused by the likes of Andrew Tate is also on the rise. Research from anti-fascism organisation Hope Not Hate, which polled about 2,000 people across the UK aged 16 to 24, discovered that 41% of young men support Tate versus just 12% of young women.
“Numbers are growing, with wives worried about their husbands and partners becoming radicalised,” says Nigel Bromage, a reformed neo-Nazi who is now the director of Exit Hate Trust, a charity that helps people who want to leave the far right.
“Wives or partners become really worried about the impact on their family, especially those with young children, as they fear they will be influenced by extremism and racism.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Occasionally my partner does or says some things that remind me of the “manosphere” aka 4chan neckbeards.
And when it happens, we talk about it. I don’t pretend or let it go as “he doesn’t mean it” or “he doesn’t know what he’s saying”. I don’t get mad and he doesn’t get mad. We have an adult discussion and I’m careful not to talk down to him.
A perfect example was that he sometimes says “females” when he means “women”. I explain that it’s not a swear word but it’s still derogatory. I explain why. Once I did, he understood and stopped doing it.
It doesn’t have to be a big deal! Communication is key!
As long as you also made sure that if he does say it again he has to pronounce it like tamales
I laughed at this and now I’m going to do that in my head whenever I see that word
Communication is key
Sure, but honestly it sounds tiring if this kind of discussion is a recurring thing.
Yeah, why can’t he just agree with you on everything right out the gate?
Agreed! But for me it’s not all that often, luckily.
Good luck with that. A red flag is a red flag.
I think it depends on how often they’re coming up with dubious takes, and how often there are repeats.
Like if you have to explain that gay people are just trying to live life, and that’s fixing misinformation they got as a youth, fine. Good, even. But if you have that talk and then have to have to again a month later because they “forgot” or picked up more bad ideas? Concerning.
Friend of a friend was always getting talks to patch up his dicey world view, but then he’d go back to the same YouTube or shitty friends and come back two weeks later with a fresh batch of bad ideas. Really have to get to the root of the problem
I appreciate that he is willing to learn and grow. We all make mistakes. If you understand why it’s offensive and keep doing it, yeah red flag.
I think the ability to change with new information is admirable.
It is admirable and increasingly rare.
I’m sure this person really appreciates this warning about a person that they know and you don’t
It’s similar to how I appreciate your reply.
So, are you agreeing that your first comment was useless or that the comment you’re replying to isn’t? Can’t have it both ways.
I’m guessing you’re single.
Everyone, keep in mind, there’s a lot of losers on the internet who will never find love and don’t want you to find love, either.
Don’t end up like them unless you want to.
removed by mod
No. Stop treating people like livestock.
removed by mod
You can go fuck yourself dude, trans women are women. For all social and identity purposes they are female.
i don’t know how could anyone watch Star Trek DS9 and still call women “females” like a Ferengi
serious answer: by consistently running and reading experiments that refer to male and female patients.
I try my best, but if I’ve read three-four papers in a day about a topic and all of them use male and female, probably gonna accidentally say female.
Funny you say that! He doesn’t do it anymore but I just sent him this meme from [email protected]!
it’s still derogatory
It logically isn’t. While you think that, and anyone spending their future with you should mind it, it doesn’t make it true.
Language isn’t always about logic. Discussing things in terms of male/female is fine in many contexts but is often done when discussing science or medical topics. Ex: the male pelvis has a different, narrower shape than the female pelvis. It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.
In daily life, most people use men/women for non-scientific discourse. The women’s restroom. A group of men at the restaurant. Etc.
But here’s the thing. Male/female are used for any species (a male beetle), but man/woman are only used for humans.
Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females because it can be dehumanizing to women. When you say female you could be talking about an insect, but a man is human. It’s a succinct example of their philosophy. That’s why people consider it derogatory.
I think we grasp cognitive meaning & emotive force in language. I think we also understand the concept of twisting words, have likely rolled our eyes witnessing it, and generally agree that a fair, reasonable person should resist it.
The claim is the word itself is derogatory. It’s an argument roughly of the form:
- Someone mentioned female humans.
- They used the noun “female”.
- The noun “female” is derogatory.
- Therefore, their statement (regardless of message) is derogatory.
These look like errors of reasoning: a persuasive definition (a definition biased in favor of a particular conclusion or point of view) and a type of straw man fallacy. While it can be used in a derogatory way, that’s not the general, conventional meaning.
Language isn’t always about logic.
Yet you attempt to defend the claim by a (specious) logic language doesn’t follow, either. Language does follow a standard (of sorts): convention. By that standard, the claim is false.
Natural language gains conventional meaning through collective choices of the language community. This general acceptance is reflected in responses of native speakers (not niche online opinions who don’t decide for the entire language community).
If (as reported) native speakers require frequent “correction” on a word’s meaning, that indicates the proposed meaning isn’t generally accepted. A longstanding definition (like “female” as a nonderogatory noun) holds more weight than a novel reinterpretation recognized by fewer.
If the “corrections” aren’t, then what are they? At best, a proposed language change—an attempt to push the idea that the noun “female” is derogatory and change the way allies speak.
Is it a good proposal?
Would defining the noun “female” as derogatory weaken sexist ideologies? Unlikely: extremists like Andrew Tate wouldn’t adjust their rhetoric because of a vocabulary. They wouldn’t need to adjust a single word.
Is it just? Justice requires targeting wrongdoers narrowly—discrediting problematic messages, condemning extremist ideologies, promoting deradicalization. Blanket condemnation based on a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers. Antagonizing nonoffending parties alienates potential allies rather than foster change.
The result? A reductive purity test that challenges & penalizes allies instead of challenge wrongdoers. That is neither right nor beneficial.
Would making the noun “female” a dysphemism suggest to society that femaleness is wrong/taboo? That seems misguided.
Why that word? The assumption appears to be that usage by sexist extremists taints the word itself as if the word is to blame for their rhetoric. It’s roughly an argument of the form
- Sexist extremists use the noun “female”.
- Sexist extremists derogate female humans.
- Therefore, the noun “female” is inherently derogatory: anyone who uses it derogates female humans.
First, is premise 1 true: do figures like Andrew Tate even use the noun “female” disproportionately? I’ve only seen it among socially awkward individuals: not the same crowd.
More crucially, this argument is invalid: it’s a genetic fallacy (guilt by association).
Thus, the proposal doesn’t advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned: it’s not good in any sense.
often done when discussing science or medical topics
or legal or technical or any context for impersonal abstraction. Such language has appeared in classified ads for apartment rentals: there’s even a movie about it. Not derogatory. Context matters.
It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.
While US policing has serious issues, this claim seems forced: impersonal terms are standard in legal settings.
Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females
Recalling an earlier question: do they?
Though interesting if so, that alone doesn’t make the word in general derogatory. Nonderogatory instances are common (as you’ve identified). If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (not the word) is responsible.
The use of a word in a derogatory message doesn’t make it derogatory. That would require an unattainable level of purity (ie, never appear in derogatory messages) for nonderogatory words.
Your argument really shows the people who “consider it derogatory” misattribute an entire rhetoric to a word.
Final thought: humans don’t need constant reassurance that they’re humans to know they aren’t being demeaned (unless they’re painfully insecure).
tl;dr The claim that noun “female” is derogatory is false according to conventional meaning established by the language’s community, corroborated by the frequent need to “correct” native speakers. Moreover, the claim doesn’t advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned.
It is if you say “man” and “female” instead of “male” and “female”. While it can be a noun, it’s mainly used as an adjective to describe sex.
It’s like saying “A black owns the shop.” Instead of “A black man owns the shop.”
Notice how calling someone “a black” is kinda icky?
I was going to comment that, a while ago, I saw someone on Lemmy make almost exactly this comment.
Now I wonder if the person I saw was you or, alternatively, whether you saw the same person.
I don’t recall where it came from. I definitely read it somewhere and didn’t come up with it on my own. Probably here on Lemmy or on Reddit before that! It was the first example I saw that was able to articulate why it doesn’t feel right to say “female” as a noun when referring to a person.
Well, good on you for your progressive perspective and your willingness to express it.
if you say “man” and “female” instead of “male” and “female”.
That’s extra cringe if they do: that person needs to sort out their words. Is it not derogatory if they say “male” and “female”?
Notice how calling someone “a black” is kinda icky?
It’s hard cringe & awkward: certain to provoke odd looks.
Referring to someone as an instance of their gender could be icky & cringe. That it’s also derogatory doesn’t follow: the easiest counterexample is “a male”.
What makes you the ultimate authority on what terms a woman can consider “derogatory”? Where do you get the power to decide what words other people should use to describe their own feelings? What makes your opinion about it more valid than those of others?
Have you considered that the same word can make two different people feel two different ways? Unless you’ve got the power to know exactly what another person is feeling, there is nothing that makes your thoughts more valid than the thoughts of others in this matter. Doubling down that “derogatory” isn’t the right word to use gives the impression that you don’t believe “female” actually feels derogatory to a lot of women. Gotta wonder why that might be.
What makes you the ultimate authority
Where do you get the power to decide
What makes your opinion about it more valid
I don’t need to be or decide it and it’s not my opinion: the language community is the ultimate authority of their language. Their collective choices establish observable conventions. Linguistics is dedicated to that approach.
What makes your opinion about it more valid than those of others?
Have you considered that the same word can make two different people feel two different ways?
Subjectivist fallacy: your opinion/feelings don’t make claims true. Up doesn’t mean down because someone feels that way.
Language has conventional, established meanings.
Another comment fully argues, explains, & criticizes your argument, which I won’t bother to rehash here.
Way to absolutely miss the point.
I don’t need to be or decide it and it’s not my opinion: the language community is the ultimate authority of their language. Their collective choices establish observable conventions. Linguistics is dedicated to that approach.
A not-insignificant amount of women think using the term “female” is derogatory. Women who feel that way are part of the “language community.” You’re talking like we’re some outsider group, whose use of English is less valid than yours.
Language has conventional, established meanings.
Language is alive - it evolves, it changes. As well, English famously doesn’t have an established body to define meanings. Rather, English words are based on common usage. Women commonly experience the usage of “female” in a derogatory sense. We didn’t designate it this way - all we’re doing is pointing out that it’s used in this way. Just because you don’t feel a derogatory sense from a given word doesn’t mean those that experience it that way are wrong.
If you had gone out to research the usage of “female,” including how people perceive it in different contexts, you’d see just how many anglophones disagree with you. But those people would probably, by and large, be those who’ve experienced that word in a derogatory way - in other words, they’d be women. So how about we stop acting like this is a semantics issue and get to the point you’re really saying, which is that women’s experiences and opinions are somehow worth less than yours.
A not-insignificant amount of women think using the term “female” is derogatory.
many anglophones disagree with you
And a nonsignificant amount don’t. That doesn’t establish a generally accepted convention of the language community.
Language is alive - it evolves, it changes.
True: still not a conventional definition per earlier remarks.
English words are based on common usage.
Exactly: convention.
Women who feel that way are part of the “language community.”
Incomplete evidence or composition fallacy.
whose use of English is less valid than yours.
Nope, not implied & it’s not about my use, either. It’s about observed, established convention: see earlier remarks (notice a pattern yet?). The lack of consistency across usages indicates that derogatory meaning is not a convention.
all we’re doing is pointing out that it’s used in this way
And plenty of innocuous instances exist as discussed before. That doesn’t make a word itself derogatory:
I don’t deny derogatory instances. Do you deny nonderogatory instances?
Just because you don’t feel a derogatory sense from a given word doesn’t mean those that experience it that way are wrong.
It’s simple overgeneralization: people can draw wrong conclusions about their observations, especially if they disregard conflicting observations (incomplete evidence fallacy). Observing derogatory uses while disregarding nonderogatory uses doesn’t justify any conclusion about a word’s conventional definition.
It varies by message, so it’s not the word itself.
get to the point you’re really saying, which is that women’s experiences and opinions are somehow worth less than yours.
Straw man fallacy. Not implied.
Maybe you follow the logic I wrote, but the conclusion still feels wrong, so you’re unwilling to accept it. Let’s unpack that feeling.
The conventional definition that the noun “female” isn’t derogatory feels wrong, because sexists use that word in an ugly way, and opposing that would feel relieving. What can we do with these feelings? Here’s one idea: even though it’s not generally accepted, let’s make the noun “female” an official dirty word. Let’s accept the premise of their sexism that “females” are lesser and take it further than they did: spread it to the broader community, normalize it into the official language so everyone accepts the noun for an entire gender is a dirty word. The sexists might even be grateful.
Would that feel better? If so, then extraterrestrial anthropologists studying you might reasonably conclude you’re a misogynist. Otherwise, you might want to tell your feelings “Fuck you, feelings! Stop making me do stupid shit!”. Alternatively, understand your feelings & guide them better.
Male’s haven’t been actively repressed as a result of their gender for thousands of years. Simply switching the genders does not work because they’re not equitible terms. Systematically speaking, they come from different backgrounds and expectations.
I take your point that “female” as a durogatory term is relative to the context it’s used in. But we can’t pretend we’ve lived in a world of equal opportunity that treats men and women, males and females, equally in trying to make that point.
But we can’t pretend we’ve lived in a world of equal opportunity that treats men and women, males and females, equally
in trying to make that point.
While I agree with the first part, that is not implied or necessary to refute the argument as presented.
They argued the same reasoning applies to “male” (literally). It clearly doesn’t.
Therefore, whatever the reasoning could be, their argument isn’t it. Basic logic.
If a sound argument exists, we should present that. Otherwise, we’re pretending to reason.
The rule of thumb I use is that you shouldn’t use adjectives as nouns when talking about people. The adjective needs a noun to describe.
Im in a bubble where these guys are like the most laughable parody of themselves so maybe I’m biased but… I mean nobody is taking this kind of stuff serious right? I mean cool, free speech and such but dumb behavior had consequences, right?
They definitely are, more and more, it’s the same as every popular movement. They pad the propaganda with legitimately good advice and some controversial but easily supportable facts. That makes the more controversial items easier to swallow.
People absolutely take this stuff seriously. The problem is the most bone headed guys are the ones likely to fall for this stuff. Once they’re sucked in it’s hard to convince them otherwise.
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Yeah, I’m studying to be a teacher and have had several internships during my education.
Young teen boys, 12-15, are into it. They aren’t a majority, but they exist. One of the students came to me and asked if I knew what the matrix was. He was really into redpill shit! Had many conversations with him and hope he hasn’t gone deeper.
Does that make the Wachowskis some kind of prophets to them?
No, the Wachowskis are trans and therefore bad.
X-pill has transcended the artist’s intent, much like Pepe the Frog. Feelsbadman
Isn’t the manosphere pretty transphobic? I would assume they have pretty much divorced all Matrix concepts from the Wachowskis by now.
The redpill shit can look really innocent at first. They start off with a lot of talk about self improvement, and that’s great and all. It’s just not too many steps away from the gaslight your bitch stuff.
Taking the red pill means different things to different people.
I hope one day we can have psychologists seriously study and analyze the meaning behind such an idea and how it can be such a powerful tool.
You caught on early, and rejected it. There are plenty of new recruits introduced every day, who are taking it seriously.
It’s probably 50/50.
50% of the people are using it as entertainment and laughing at/encouraging those who take it seriously. We can call them the ‘trolls.’
50% of the people are actually taking it seriously and don’t know any better. We can call them the ‘tools.’
Just based on what I see women doing around me all the time, there were probably some warning signs. Looking for a dude that’s “traditional” or whatever is asking for a dude that’s going to see you like a form of livestock. It’s partly a politics thing, but largely an assholes thing.
41% of young men support Tate versus just 12% of young women.
WTF those are both shockingly high.
If you just translate the figures to “41% of young men, 12% of young women are stupid assholes”, they make a bit more sense.
There are many different ways to be a stupid asshole, and you can even do it while at the exact opposite end of the political spectrum.
Confirmed. Sometimes I start a sentence and don’t even know what my point is until I get to the end of it! I am a total fool. But at least I’m not a fuckin chud.
Yup. In the last week or two, I managed to snort shampoo. I wasn’t trying to get high; I’m just operating at that level of organisation.
I’m not personally a left-wing asshole, although that’s more of a show thing than a tell thing. But, I’ve gotten to know plenty. The point being that thinking Andrew Tate is cool is a very specific kind of dumb and/or mean.
Still, 41% sounds absolutely critical level, like we need to stop all society and have a conversation, because that is so uncool.
Fucking 41… Like that is a plurality. That is a whole fucking lot of wrong people. That is entirely too many bros. I’m not sure I can impart just how disappointing that number is.
It is disheartening but still tracks with how I’ve seen older boys / younger men for decades.
There isn’t anything wrong with a traditional worldview but it certainly doesn’t fit most modern relationships. Either way I think all young men go through an idiot phase where it’s easier to complain about the systems in place then to be introspective and improve yourself. I’m saying most people usually go through a redpill phase and if they are able to sympathize then it’s usually a short phase. The bigger worry for me is that it seems a larger and larger amount of men are unable to sympathize with others.
Depends what you mean by “traditional worldview”. I’ll go ahead and say young earth creationism shows a lack of openness to objective reality when it’s not personally convenient.
In the context I mean, what gets justified with tradition is behavior like putting on a fake persona when dating, pushing boundaries, disregarding the rights of strangers around them and generally being an entitled, eventually controlling dickwad. They’ll say that’s what men have always done, and boys will be boys or whatever, but I’m certain nobody had to “twist their arm”.
When I see one of those dudes dragging a girl around, I have to wonder if she’s chasing a kink. That’s not how you go about it, if so. 50 Shades of Grey was fiction.
I want to say that’s a young person thing but I’m not really sure. I know the world would be a much better place if say Alan Watts was a household name instead of Andrew Tate.
I had to look it up, but it sounds like he was a new age/counterculture personality. I don’t really see the connection.
The bigger worry for me is that it seems a larger and larger amount of men are unable to sympathize with others.
Not unable, unwilling. It requires them to be ‘weak’ and concede that they may be part of the problem. I say this as a man that had to work through some of this shit when I was young.
So, we should only listen to one party’s complaints?
No one said that.
Right, it was implied though.
Essentially, we shouldn’t listen to the men complaining but the men should listen to you complaining?
No one implied that.
No. We’re saying you should look inward and address your own short-comings and poor behaviors before looking to blame external sources for your issues. No one is saying anything about what men should listen to.
I agree on the “weak” part, being able to empathize with orders requires that you be able to admit your own faults, but I think empathy is actually a high-intellect ability. It’s deeper than being just uninformed.
I disagree.
Usually it’s the ‘modern’ women who have been convinced to be treated like livestock. Nothing very traditional about going to raves or wearing pasties.
There’s green-tea smelling book clubs too if that’s more their speed, but a lot of people think raves are fun. Same for the pasties; they’re an option, but it sounds like hipsters in a version of full Victorian dress are just as much of a thing. The central fact being that they get a choice.
The various cultures around the world have many, often contradicting versions of traditionalism. My own tells a good story about women having “respect”, but it’s a version of respect that doesn’t require much from men.
Listen to a random country song. There’s a party with cheap beer, where the women are just potential bedpost notches, but the protagonist goes to church on Sunday and feigns piousness, so they still get to be One of the Holy Ones™. A girl’s dad shows up and defends her “honour”, but it’s implied he did the exact same shit when he was young, and at no point are her preferences considered at all. The song ends with a thinly veiled plug for the pickup truck company sponsoring the artist.
It’s easy to see why dudes who hew to that are just looking for a way to justify how shitty they always were, underneath it all. Because in practice I see that all the time, living where I do.
I support Tate…
…Being locked in prison for the rest of his life.
Rachel, who is in her 30s and lives in London, met her partner on the popular dating app Hinge, and was struck by his generosity. He insisted on buying her gifts and giving her cash to spend. She thought her now ex-partner was a “normal, decent guy”.
Yeah…
I mean, it’s a tale as old as time.
Shitty males buy females thing to avoid being held accountable.
The culture war swung too far in a certain direction between 2012-2023 and this is the inevitable result. I saw this coming from a mile away.
Can you give some examples? Do you mean the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage in 2015? The #metoo movement in 2017? Black Lives Matter protests in 2020?
What do you think has gone too far?
I agree with him, but I also respect his decision not to answer.
Unfortunately, people like you can’t stand when someone says something you don’t like so you constantly try to pull them into a debate.
Not everyone is worth replying to, regardless of how much they beg for a response.
I’m a bigoted asshole and I have good reason. No, I won’t elaborate. No, nevermind that my name is Pablo.
I applaud legalized gay marriage and BLM protests.
No, it pretty much just comes down to demonizing men, constantly, to the point that they are not even allowed to stand up for themselves. Just standing up for men when they get generalized is enough to get you censored now.
That’s why you’ve lost gen z men. It’s not some mystery.
I literally just blocked an NSFW lemmit of misogynygonewild and it blew my mind it was even a thing. Fucking trash.
Cesspits like that should be cleansed with fire
What is a lemmit?
I believe a bot/site that mirrors reddit subreddits to Lemmy communities. It’s anything @lemmit.online
Ah I see, thanks
deleted by creator
Maybe they’re gay
EDIT: and won’t admit it so they overcompensate
deleted by creator
Andrew Tate is absolutely the sort of guy that would shoot Kevin Spacey in American Beauty
Isn’t shooting Kevin spacey a good thing?
Haha right? He’s a pedo
I’ve known men who were kind, gentle boys but were forced into ‘tough boy’ roles by either their parents or their peers/bullies. They become angry and violent and everyone around them never understands how it happened.
There’s nothing wrong with being repressed, there’s something wrong with taking it out on others in a negative way.
That’s what I meant. Apologies if that wasn’t obvious
The Patriarchy has always been homoerotic. Even society’s choice of male sex symbols, the Hemsworth type, was made by men. Turns out what women actually like is scrawny Koreans.
Nuh uh, fuck that sweety, that’s some straight boy shit for sure.
I have a cousin who was really obnoxious and macho. Then he came out of the closet and dropped all that shit. When people can’t be their authentic selves, they tend to lash out in strange ways. Homophobia was drilled into my cousin at a young age so it was really hard for him to accept who he is.
Yeah as a lesbian I’ve seen gay boy misogyny and this ain’t it
What I mean is maybe they’re gay and unable to admit it so they overcompensate.
Back in my day when I was living on the street we called them volcels. And by back in my day I mean a few years ago, and by the street I mean discord.
All incelularity is self-inflicted. They put up all the barriers. I mean, it’s obvious on the face of it; there is obviously no conspiracy to keep this one guy celibate. If there are factors that are keeping him celibate, they are entirely his own.
If there are factors that are keeping him celibate, they are entirely his own.
Though not entirely, that’s no reason to become an incel, either. No girl got to hop on anyone’s D ever.
Agreed, having no luck getting sex and being an incel are totally different things.
I’m not trying to defend them, but the lonely guy to incel pipeline is a real thing. They are targeted, propagandized, and monetized. I believe people are responsible for the decisions they make, so I’m not saying they aren’t to blame for that, but I am saying it’s more complex than just that.
Couple that with the fact that it’s getting harder and harder to go out and socialize with real people due to everything getting more expensive (except wages). People are losing their third space and are replacing it with these grifter online forums, it’s far more affordable than going to a bar or social place, more and more people are staying home these days.
There was a great interview with a woman who had written a book on the Manosphere and she said that it’s “funnel-shaped,” which is to say that the first stages are nowhere near as extreme as the ones they lead to. It starts off by talking to lonely young men and telling them that their feelings are valid and that they have value, both of which are things that young men very much do need to hear! But the pipeline then moves them from that to “Your feelings of isolation aren’t your fault” to “Your negative feelings are women’s fault,” and then you’re off the primrose path to “Women aren’t people” and “Women deserve any horrible treatment you can think of.”
But the earliest stages are ones of finding young men that aren’t having their emotional or structural needs met, and filling that vacuum in.
It starts off by talking to lonely young men and telling them that their feelings are valid and that they have value, both of which are things that young men very much do need to hear!
That sort of thinking just made me overly emotional and hot-tempered. Just feeling the feelings was a good thing, so the more I felt it the better, right?
Hearing that I needed to temper my feelings so that I can figure out what I need and how to communicate those needs was a lot more helpful. And made me a better person overall.
And they seem to be the only ones talking toyoung boys so…
You become an incel the moment you externalize all the blame. It is their defining characteristic, that their celibacy is every- and anyone’s fault but their own.
Perhaps, but maybe it doesn’t matter. I want to live in a society where people are kind to one another, where they listen to one another, and where they have the opportunity to be prosperous. From my experience the place I was born, (BC, Canada), is trending away from that. I believe helping these lost youngsters become better people would help reverse that trend, and I think one of the first steps towards helping them is to have more empathy.
Lots of people have an external locus of control and I don’t know if that’s easily changed, but I do know it doesn’t mean that they have to be hateful.
I believe that process starts with identifying, and then aiding. But we can’t break through to any of these people so long as our digital landscapes are just stomping grounds for this idealogy. I honestly can’t believe hate and bigotry have caught this much fire after Tolkein created the perfect archetypes for men to follow.
Just use a manometer.
“Do you regularly watch videos by Jordan Peterson?” kinda needs to become one of those before-first-date screening questions.
What if the answer is yes, but I’m laughing at him the whole time?
Editing this dumb two day old throwaway comment to point out if you want to actually overcome the rhetoric you disagree with, then you need to pay enough attention to it to actually interact with people who take it seriously, because apparently I’m still getting replies.
What’s about him is in the least bit funny or entertaining?
Still shows that you’ve got a whole lot of time to waste and that you might be susceptible to eventually fall down the rabbit hole
I think you have right attitude. No one is immune to propaganda, and you really need to be careful in choosing what you consume.
I’ve been deep diving into right wing propaganda for a decade and still not an incel. Still laughing at the fools and their weak beta energy.
Being able to speak their language is far more impactful. Not for the right wing tool spreading propaganda but rather for the lurker who has doubts.
Ah yes, ridicule famously being a small step from endorsement.
You can ridicule it all you want, if you keep watching it you’re one message you agree with away from starting to consider that “hey, maybe what he’s saying isn’t all wrong” and then down the spiral you go.
There’s tons of people who were on the left that lived an event that traumatized them and they then turned to the right.
I think the main problem is “regularly watch”
Views = money/support for them. Doesn’t matter if you’re laughing or not.
That’s also bad. You regularly hate-watch him? Don’t you have anything better to do with your time?
It should only take you about 15 minutes of watching him to understand his gimmick. He used undefined and undefinable terms like “cultural marxism”. He cherry picks out of context sciencey stuff to back up his point of view. He acts super serial all the time to make people think he’s a serious person. That’s it. You don’t need to watch any more.
Don’t you have anything better to do with your time?
As opposed to replying a two day old throwaway comment?
That took seconds, listening to everything Jordan Peterson puts out takes hours and hours.
You needs to screen your partners SoMe algorithm
Very direct. They could lie about it. Better to ask conceptually I think.
Ask about Lex Fridman: at least for tech geeks it is the antichamber to Joe Rogan and the pandemonium thereafter.
Ok. Tell me about Lex Fridman. I’ve never read that name before.
I believe him to be of Russian descent, and playing hard on the American stereotype of that.
He has had a troubled academic career due to a faulty paper trying to prove Tesla’s Autopilot to make people more attentive.
He has a long standing podcast in which he interviews mostly techbros and politicians such as Musk, Carmack, Trump, Modi and the like for hours at a time. He never really challenges them and lets them speak on whatever they bring up, turning his podcasts into hours-long PR stunts.
Probably a Russian asset, given that in this comment to his conversation with Zelensky he reiterated Trump/Vance talking points.
I have noticed that people who later reveal themselves to be into Joe Rogan and the like first test the waters by asking you if you listened to the latest Fridman podcast. I work in a tech consultancy so I have quite a sample, but it could also be a bubble.
Andrew Rousso made a spot on imitation of the guy here, as usual. It’s worth listening to a Lex Fridman podcast intro just to enjoy Rousso’s imitation.
Hol’up is Carmack a manosphere weirdo?
I’d also like to know. Carmack, unlike most tech bros, is actually intelligent. I wouldn’t have taken him to be a Nazi, especially since one of the games that made him rich was about killing Nazis.
I don’t think he is a Nazi, but if you think that is what would save you from being a Nazi, you haven’t been following the last 80 years of developments in Palestine.
Not really into the manosphere I think, but he is definitely a tech solutionist.
“What can you tell me about jungian archetypes?”
either that or: ben shapiro, or joe roegan videos.
Does UFC count as watching Joe Rogan videos even if his commentary annoys the shit out of you and you wish he had no part in it? Because he already pisses me off this would be the last straw.
I groan every time they announce he’s on the commentary team. It’s clear he doesn’t actively watch the sport anymore, and he simply can’t avoid hyperbole.
Seriously, I have learned to ignore him so well that last time he was not on the team it took me half the fight to realize "Where is that annoying fucking Rogan has he really not said shit this whole fii… oooohhh sweet. lol
Weirdly, I know of more women who listen to joe rogan than men (okay, the numbers are 2 to 0, so not that mindblowing). I don’t fucking get it.
It was the same thing with friends who liked Elon Musk before he went fully mask off after buying Twitter. Who he was, and the function he provided, was so completely obvious to anyone who was paying attention. I don’t get how anyone could miss it.
People missed it because they chose to “not pay attention to politics”, leading to right wing indoctrination.
Turns out everything is political.
In the old days when you disappeared into a cult, you physically went to live with them and everything.
These days it’s “cult to go.” Good luck intervening and cutting off their link to the cult when the cult is speaking to them from their pocket.
I miss those days, they’d go be weird on their own and not drag the rest of us into this crap
Its the Boisphere. No men are involved.
Isn’t tate already old news for the manosphere?
To answer the headline: divorce, I hope.
Yes. It is worth trying to address issues first, especially with kids/finances involved, but if nothing works divorce still does.
I would no longer recommend marriage tbh
Divorce is in many case the trigger. The MGTOW-community was/is a lot of divorced men who feel mistreated by society, and blame women for it.
I remember being excited and thinking maybe I had found my people when I first heard about MGTOW thinking it would be dudes who realized maybe dating wasn’t for them and instead were just focusing on improving themselves. Then I looked at their subreddit and no, just a shitton of misogyny.
Self improvement is a trap and misogyny is the scapegoat. “I have a nice car/house/job/makes lots of money now but still women won’t fuck me, they must be evil!”. It’s always all about becoming some übermensh but never about finding a social context, which is what these men actually need.
Social identity is one of those things we never talk about, it’s something most people don’t even believe exists. But it’s so fundamental to who we are as a species that when it’s taken away, people will lose the will to live entirely even if they’re not depressed or have any mental illness. This has been researched to a great degree and we’ve made laws pertaining to how we treat prisoners because we’ve collectively determined that to take someone’s social identity away is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.
Meanwhile, we have all built an interconnected palace to finding ways to dismantle our own social identities online. It doesn’t matter how “introverted” you think you are or how reclusive you feel, you need a social identity to survive, you need other people, you need to define yourself in relation to others. It’s hardwired.
And scrolling on the internet doesn’t fill this gap. You can’t get that self-inflection from reading other people’s thoughts in your own head. You have to engage with others to find yourself, and if you don’t, you slowly become more and more withdrawn and distant and you start to blame these dark feelings on everything else, because how do you even identify a cause or a syndrome that we don’t even have language for in most cases? How many 18-year-old boys who don’t know how to talk to girls are thinking “I need to exercise my social capacity to better find my own values”? When it’s so much easier to find a forum that says you’re the one who’s right and true and honest, and the world is against you.
Yeah, on paper I’m a mgtow. After about 2 seconds I was like “wait, these people are losers.” Turns out I’m a relationship anarchist.
That’s the worst part of MGTOW. It’s a nice premise, and then they just dumped toxic waste on it.
IMO this is basically how society works. As soon as you rally more than a few people together under any singular form of identity (brand, activity, social movement), it turns toxic. So, by the time the label carries any meaning (e.g. MGTOW or even something like Feminist) the “voice” of the group becomes abrasive very quickly, and the internal ranks are filled with crazies that have so little meaning in their life that they actually enjoy forming their whole identity around a specific subject.
So you like cars and go to a car meet. You’ll meet a few cool folks. But the people there are just from the general population, with only one thing in common. If you find that you typically only really like 1/50 people you meet, you’re not going to find a higher ratio just because everyone likes cars, unless you literally value cars over all the other sociocultural aspects of your life. As a group, they’ll push ideals and causes that go overboard to support the thing they like. Maybe anti-biker or anti-evironmentalist sentiments, want more roads instead of better mass transit, etc… all sorts of things the average person who just “likes cars” may not be comfortable getting behind.
People are a problem.
And the more people the more problem.
Tbf I suspect a lot of this developed from people moving from a “we” mindset during WW2 to the “me” mindset that came out of Reaganomics.
When humanity can no longer look at our neighbour and simply respect them - no matter their skin colour, religion or political viewpoint - that’s when the shit hits the fan.
And politicians have seen fit to feed this sickness rather than work towards unity … because peace doesn’t pay (or play) as well as divisiveness.
There’s an old adage that you should never make life policy decisions based on how you feel in the moment. The MGTOW guys, even the “best” of them are stuck in a perpetual reaction state and thus their policy and mission statement are less actual tactics for finding comfort and peace, and more a reaction designed to elicit a response from other people.
It’s a tantrum. They’re all throwing a tantrum.
If you’re actually making your own decisions about if you want to date or not, you just do it, you don’t need to wear it like a uniform, you don’t actually need community support outside of whatever actual social circle you [should] already have in life. The MGTOW movement, even in the most charitable possible light, is massively performative and expecting some kind of attention. This is why they get increasingly vocal and toxic, they’re like the 11-year-old kid who packed all his favorite belongings in a checkerboard bindle over his shoulder and is at the front door shouting “I’M REALLY RUNNING AWAY NOW! FOR REAL! YOU’RE ALL GONNA BE SORRY!”
you don’t actually need community support outside of whatever actual social circle you [should] already have in life.
For me the interest was in having a group to talk with that was of the same mindset and knowing I wouldn’t have to deal with people complaining about their relationship issues or changing plans because of spouse/kids. Which is not something I have in life. I have individuals who I can talk with like that but if we get more than 3-4 of us together someone’s going to start bitching about relationship stuff.
Yeah though the vibe of that community was exactly as you described and not what I was looking for at all.
When economic independence is rare, divorce is rare.
I guess getting rid of no fault divorces helps that too
Seriously I’ve already had this conversation with my husband. If no-fault divorce seems imminent we are divorcing preemptively.
Get a new partner… they’re gone
Even if they come back. It’s not worth the labour to hold their hand through that shit. Maybe their mom or dad can talk some sense into them, but I sure as shit wouldn’t want to live with someone like that while they figure out how to screw their head back on straight.
It’s surprising to me that married people are falling for this shit. I thought it was just incels desperate for anything that might give them a chance or an excuse.
it isn’t about being single, its about the modern hell world instilling extreme helplessness in vulnerable people, and they seek any answers whatsoever. the manosphere happily provides ‘answers’ in exchange for money
It has also seeped into every aspect of male culture. You want to watch a YouTube show about cars? Sure. The first couple episodes are normal and then they start sliding in dumb shit.
You listen to a podcast about working out? Same thing goes. It’s little stuff here and there. Sometimes it starts as a reoccurring joke, but it keeps happening until they actually believe.
I also find there are a lot of young people who aren’t comfortable on computers and basically believe whatever they see on the internet, much like an older generation.
There are people at my work place that I thought that I got along with and then all of a sudden they come out with the most bigoted things that I have ever heard. I straight up do not trust any man my age at this point there are just too many of them that are “hiding their powerlevel”
I opened a new YouTube account and watched some videogame videos. Rust if you’re curious. I’m a woman and this game is played by mostly men. At some point my husband was struggling with his mental health, we were in gridlock so I tried to look up male perspective mental health videos to see if i could understand him better or reach him in a new way.
Those two searches alone, unlocked a flood of bullshit into my feed. I couldnt believe the garbage I was bombarded with.
It is akin to how women are pummeled with beauty ads and standards (buy this to be pretty!) since we are young.
They figured out how to market this same insecurity to men. Wild stuff
Edit: except they aren’t just selling “self care” like they do to us, they’re selling hate-
Yeah, I was enjoying some videos about dumb Steven Seagal movies, but then I realized that every single one would have jokes about women being bad drivers, being overly emotional, etc. At first I took it as a humorous way to look at Seagal’s misogyny, but then it became apparent that it was being applied in other cases where it didn’t make sense. It was subtle, in the context of the rest of the videos, but a definitely present part was the manosphere mentality.
There are actors building influence who benefit by more males being this way. They target ladies too, but in different ways. They are determined and focused.
there was plenty of warning signs for Years, even before the pandemic. if you look at how pickup artist operate, and then go on youtube. Tate isnt even a new phenemon, hes a culmination of the above problems. hes just the latest symptom, as was JOE ROGAN.
Agreed.
It’s clear though what kind of males fall for these influencers; the ones without good male role models or father figures in their lives.
Why don’t they have good male role models or father figures? I think it’s because they feel they can only choose between ‘cuck’ and ‘chad’ so when their insecurity flares up, they instinctively go with ‘chad.’
Balance is lost among men in our society. There’s no ‘firmness’ anymore. Either men are pensive emo teens, or they’re boisterous blowhards like tate.
Anyone in between is ignored and forgotten about.
Yeah but in the olden days they were on a print ad in the back of Popular Mechanics, not the leading talk show in the nation.
