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.”
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.
Toxic masculinity, feeding itself, empowered by the forces of capital who desires culture war above class war.
God damit this sentence makes me want to blow my brains out. It’s too fucking thick in bullshit. You ever notice how the right will just call someone a pedo or gang member and that really works. It’s not like they go " he’s just socioeconomic poverty based victim of modern prison system" like just get to that point. Andrew is a grown man who targets children.
That’s… Their point? Either you misread what they said or you wrote your response wrong.
I love just saying “toxic masculinity” anywhere online, even if you’re deep in the bowels of Lemmy, you will get a few reactionary turds who just see the term and lose all cognitive ability to think and mash the downvote button between heated breaths and tears streaming down their faces.
^ This reply shows me you don’t understand what men like Andrew Tate are selling. He’s selling validation to these boys and men, and you’re providing a perfect marketplace for that product to sell like hot cakes.
When you reply like that to these people, the mental picture of grown men having hissy fits and “mashing downvote buttons with tears in their eyes” might feel good in the moment, but those men and boys aren’t actually reacting like that. Instead, the message they get is they were right the whole time, that people like you really do just hate men and masculinity, and that people like Andrew Tate are the ones “on their side”.
I get that it feels good to trigger people you don’t like, but all you’re doing is making Andrew Tate’s job easier. Don’t you think he’s already making enough money as it is?
Well said. Looking down on impressionable men with this sort of smug contempt is how we go further down the path.
Thank you, and I fully agree. I truly hope we’re not so far down that path that bringing these boys back to sanity is impossible. Liberal western society spent a lot of time neglecting these boys, and that’s ruined a ton of trust these boys once had in society.
Literally all that right-wing extremists like Tate had to do is tell these boys, “Hey, everyone seems to think you’re the problem. I’m here to tell you that you aren’t a problem - rather, they are the problem, and here’s how to deal with them and get yourself ahead” and before you know it, they were eating out of the palm of his hand.
It’s pretty clear to me that looking at boys as “the problem” instead of as human beings has a lot to do with the mess we’re in right now.
Can I look down on them with disgust instead?
Can I look down on them with disgust instead?
Andrew Tate would probably thank you for doing so. Without contempt and disgust from folks like you, he wouldn’t have nearly as large of an audience, nor such an obscene amount of money.
If they need validation from the likes of grifters and scumbags like Andrew Tate then they are already too far gone.
He’s a fucking tool, and I have no idea why he appeals to young men. There’s so many other, manlier, kinder folks out there who can provide that same validation.
I disagree. Maybe if they received validation from their families and community, they wouldn’t need validation from grifters? I think it says quite a bit about society when people feel the need to purchase the same kind of validation that they used to receive for free from their own communities in ages past.
Nobody likes being told they’re worthless, they’re a loser, they’re an incel, or a “stupid bro”, or that all of their struggles aren’t valid. If everyone around them is telling them those things - Including you - Then validation becomes a rare and valuable commodity… A commodity that someone like Tate can make a lot of money selling to people.
There’s so many other, manlier, kinder folks out there who can provide that same validation.
And yet, those “other, manlier, kinder folks” are not out there doing that, are they? Instead, many of them are calling these people losers and incels and lost causes beyond all redemption, just like you are right now.
Why should they listen to those “other, manlier, kinder folks” when they aren’t acting very kind to them?
Maybe they’re too far gone, but you’re talking about impressionable young boys, like 10-16. At those ages we as a society agree that a lot of all childrens personalities aren’t dictated by their own choices since they lack the life experiences and cognitive abilities to function as an adult. Instead they’re highly impressionable, influenced by their social sphere and nowadays their social media feeds.
So sure, maybe you could say they’re fucked from the jump, but understand that they are not taking as active of a role in who’s forming their thought processes like a 25 year old getting hooked on Tate is.
I’ve been a 10-16 year old boy. At no point was anyone like Andrew Tate “cool” to me. He’s not witty, he’s not talented, he’s done nothing XTREME. He’s clearly putting up a massive front to pretend to be interesting and for some reason - microplastics, smart phone addiction, whatever - it’s working.
Back in the 90s we would have called him “poser.”
Tate just talks into a microphone with his stupid friends. If that’s what is considered “cool” to today’s teenagers then they’re definitely too far gone.
I honestly don’t even know what to say lol. How do you think anyone forms an identity ever? We have - I was going to type decades - but centuries of case studies and writing about why people get roped into cults of personality and insane belief systems despite looking like lunatics from the outside.
What do you even think is happening to these people? Based on your previous reply the answer is “I have no idea” which should tell you you should look a little deeper into what’s happening.
Isn’t tate already old news for the manosphere?
The article illustrate the Hypergamy concept. The men in that case might feel inadequacy after leaving the traditional role of breadwinner, which caused cognitive dissonance in his leftist views and make him vulnerable to the propaganda.
witch caused cognitive dissonance
Ahhh it was the witches all along
Before we rush to judgment about witches. We really should test them to make sure that they are witches.
Ooh maybe some sort of test in the water?
We have to see if the witches float!
I’ll get the giant scale
I’ll find a duck.
YES! A swimsuit competition!
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?
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.
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.
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.’
To answer the headline: divorce, I hope.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you just translate the figures to “41% of young men, 12% of young women are stupid assholes”, they make a bit more sense.
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 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.
I support Tate…
…Being locked in prison for the rest of his life.
But first I would really like him to receive a serious public ass-beating, recorded for posterity. I feel like that would be worse for him than the prison time.
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 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.
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. 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.
No one implied that.
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.
My daughter won’t even talk to guys who in any way support Andrew Tate or MAGA influencers. They aren’t incels, they choose to be celibate by openly displaying their hatred for women.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 mean, probably the ones who have an internal locus commit suicide at some point unfortunately. The fluidity of relationships today and people connecting by tech significantly increased the transactional aspect of modern life.
Gender wars are the easiest form of manipulation, you just need to get the extreme cases make a straw-men argument and generalize for both men and women to radicalize new people.
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.
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.
Maybe they’re gay
EDIT: and won’t admit it so they overcompensate
Nothing wrong with being gay, there is something wrong with being repressed. People who can’t be themselves lash out at others. Men with repressed femininity hate women and out gay men for being openly feminine.
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 understood how it happened.
Andrew Tate is absolutely the sort of guy that would shoot Kevin Spacey in American Beauty
Isn’t shooting Kevin spacey a good thing?
Lol imagine downvoting the shooting of a serial abuser.
Haha right? He’s a pedo
That’s what I meant. Apologies if that wasn’t obvious
There’s nothing wrong with being repressed, there’s something wrong with taking it out on others in a negative way.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When I date people, I don’t allow myself to go forward without completing a mutual background check. I ask questions and talk about politics, tell about situations I’ve encountered and listen attentively.
I want to know about the other person’s world views, decision-making and problem-solving methods - and to inform them about my own. I want to know how they tell apart truth from a lie, what they think about state and centralization, wealth and poverty, science and religion, civil rights and minorities - and to inform them about what I think, so they could make informed decisions.
Ironically, I don’t wish to know what party they vote for - because the selection is shitty and I laugh about my own past choices. :)
Recalling situations where world views mismatched - I’ve had to part ways with one person because she was too spiritual. Two people subscribed to odd conspiracy theories. One person’s goals in life warned me about excessive self-interest and lack of care about others.
P.S.
Trying to switch perspective and step into the shoes of a woman, I think it can be a warning sign if the other person gives excessive gifts or feels “obligated to take care” - one should inquire about the reason. I would also be wary of people who eagerly accept me as the new centerpoint of their life - it might indicate an obsessive tendency and severe symptoms if the relation should break. If the other person exhibited jealousy about friends or controlling behaviour, that would be a definite warning sign to me.
P.P.S.
As for social media, yes, it can corrupt people’s perception of reality. How to pull them out of the bog, no idea. As for how to avoid them getting there: no algorithmically steered social media.
How to pull them out of the bog, no idea.
For my part I’ve just confessed my ignorance of what’s going on on the commercial web, and shared with them the kinds of conversations I’m have on the non-commercial parts (fedi, email, chats, smol web, etc), which are usually nicer and more productive.
Although to certain extent I still consider this here a form a social media… and I’m not actually sure that it’s good for us past a certain number of people. It might be “more cacophony than community” to quote one of Matthew Graybosch’s blog posts.
It is better here than on the mainstream social medias, though. That’s for sure for sure.
EDIT anyway, that’s a total aside. I just couldn’t help picking up that one thread. Good comment. I love your approach.
gives excessive gifts
Huge red flag. Becomes a tool of control (I was married into a wealthy family.)
The big thing is that they can change their personality after marriage - once you are trapped. There were red flags there, which I shouldn’t have ignored, but it was like night and day.
Mine started getting interested in stuff like religion - noticed that his pastor friend got to play WoW all day while the wife basically did everything.
I think it’s a good strategy but it’s not fool proof. They’ll tell you what you want to hear and then slowly start pushing your boundaries. Or they’ll pretend to be one way only to get what they want out of you.
Sure, but I don’t think it’s meant to be foolproof, it sounds like a great way to start
“Do you regularly watch videos by Jordan Peterson?” kinda needs to become one of those before-first-date screening questions.
either that or: ben shapiro, or joe roegan videos.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
I think the main problem is “regularly watch”
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.
Alt-Right playbook needs to be required reading for everyone online.
Very direct. They could lie about it. Better to ask conceptually I think.
“What can you tell me about jungian archetypes?”
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?
Not really into the manosphere I think, but he is definitely a tech solutionist.
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.
You needs to screen your partners SoMe algorithm
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!
Removed by mod
No. Stop treating people like livestock.
Removed by mod
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]!
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’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.
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 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
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
12% of young women support Tate? That’s way higher than what I expected :( I can’t understand why would any woman support someone who makes a fortune out of exploiting and abusing women openly
I once sat next to a couple on the plane and the young woman was showing her bf a video of Tate talking about how men should be stoic and never complain because no one wants to hear that pussy bullshit. She was saying things to him like “You know how you freak out and bitch at me? You should be like him.”
So yeah… there are women out there who like him. They like hardcore traditional gender roles, is probably the base of it, and want a man doing cliche man shit like Tate preaches. Some women are dealt a great hand by traditional standards: big tits, blond hair, nice face, and they would rather settle into being provided for than fuss with all that feminism stuff. It’s idiotic but people believe whatever’s in their interests. And surprise surprise, these women don’t want men to have emotional needs.
Please tell me that was before it was well known that he was a criminal
You must be new to the world, then.
Getting everyone to agree on anything is nigh-impossible.
Tradwife content is on the rise for women as well, more and more young people are buying into this mythical simpler past as the world gets more complex, alienating and difficult.
I’m reminded of the inspiration behind the Rust programming language.
“Rust is very much a language inspired from the past to save the future from itself.”
Sorry, rampant consumerism has been detrimental to our species as a whole. Now no matter how much we have, it’s never enough.
I’m glad people are fighting back against this ‘new normal’ that really only exists to funnel as much money as possible to the people at the top.
Also, if you leave Western nations you’ll see that this “mythical simpler past” is still alive and well. The rest of the world is looking at the West like we’re crazy, and most of us are. It’s called hysteria.
I can understand that but how come being a webcam girl and endure physical and psychological abuse fit in the “tradwife” narrative? It’s particularly support for Tate what I can’t understand
I think this is ambigous. When people are asked “do you support the views of Andrew Tate?” How many actually know these in particular? What if individual views are asked and then if more than 50% are answered with “support” it is considered to support his views overall?
I’ve read enough news to know that Tate is a terrible person and probably a serious criminal. But i would not be able to describe his views, nor do i want to find out what his views are exactly.
This is it. People like Trump, Tate, Musk, and West all know how saying provocative yet ambiguous statements causes people to talk about them.
It’s really an art at this point, and I’m wondering if they’ve been working on making it a science.
Here are three of the research pieces the article uses …
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2024/07/24/plugged-in-tate-misogyny-2/
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2024/07/24/plugged-in-tate-religion/
I looked at the one for mysoginy
One in four of the young people who have heard of Tate have a favourable opinion of him, but there is a clear gender divide: only 12% of female respondents have a positive view, compared to 41% of young men.
We asked young people what they liked about Tate. The top three reasons overall are: “He’s not afraid to push back against ‘woke’ ideology” (24%), “He wants men to be real men” (22%) and “He tells it how it is” (20%). Although it is commonly thought that Tate’s opulent lifestyle, cars and fitness are an entrypoint through which young people become interested in his content, admiration for lifestyle (14%) and humour (11%) do not rank as highly. This suggests that the main pull of Andrew Tate for young people is his hateful activism.
That said, younger Tate supporters aged 16-17 and female respondents are more likely to admire his lifestyle, at 20% and 18% respectively. Putting Tate’s motivational and fitness content within a wider context of his divisiveness and hatefulness, as well as signposting other figures who produce similar lifestyle content without the underlying misogyny, could be an important step in combating his influence on younger, female audiences.
I think the source provides a nuanced picture and offer suggestions how to combat his influence that got lost in the short notion in the guardian article.
The raw numbers maybe obscure this but aren’t the popularity levels are really about how far along the radicalisation they are?
People start watching for the lifestyle and fitness then end up believing the other stuff and watching for that. I guess women stall out more because who could believe that kind of stuff about themselves?
Tate’s motivational and fitness content
Speaking of, let me present to you the anti-Tate
All I know about Tate’s views are that he’s a male supremacist of some sort.
And rapist, human trafficker, scammer, etc etc etc.
Scumbucket for short.
Fair enough, so there is a possibility that this article (or the surveys it’s based on) are being somewhat misleading. I hope you are right
mythical simple past but they wouldn’t put down the fucking phone. anything but the phone!!
(regardless of gender)
I guess they never had new technology in the past.
Sorry if a dumb question but what is a “tradwife”? (Not a native speaker)
It is a shortening of “Traditional wife” as in a wife who complies with the old male/female value system. IE the man works and provides for and protects the family while the woman stays at home, cooks, cleans the house, watches the kids, does not talk back to her man because he is the head of the family and runs shit. Her job basically is to make life easier for him and raise his kids.
Almost every survey will get 6-10% of people answering yes to the most extreme or batshit crazy option, no matter what.
Probably the main reason is that people are pissed off that they are being approached by survey takers and punish the survey for revenge.
And there are some batshit crazy people out there.
The Lizardman Constant.
And then there are elections.
Same mindset.
These would be the “pick me’s” whether they realize it or not
Women who are raised by misogynists but can’t see past it. Women who have insecurities and can’t see past it. They are latching on to the same order for security cuz it’s all they know. Just a guess
