‘There were no warning signs’: what happens when your partner falls into the ‘manosphere’?
a year ago by HellsBelle to c/world
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
Very direct. They could lie about it. Better to ask conceptually I think.
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.
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.
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.
And they seem to be the only ones talking toyoung boys so...
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.
Andrew Tate is absolutely the sort of guy that would shoot Kevin Spacey in American Beauty
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.
Nuh uh, fuck that sweety, that's some straight boy shit for sure.
Yeah as a lesbian I've seen gay boy misogyny and this ain't it
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.
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.
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.
Here are three of the research pieces the article uses ...
https://hopenothate.org.uk/...
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.
I guess they never had new technology in the past.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You must be new to the world, then.
Getting everyone to agree on anything is nigh-impossible.
Spoilers: there were signs
Sometimes it's easier to stay with the devil you know than chance the devil you don't.
You don't need to stay with a devil at all.
Some women are apparently terrified of being single. I've known some who have never been single for more than a few days since they turned 15 or something. I know it can sometimes be more complicated than that, but it's a contributing factor.
I would argue that being single equates to being alone ... and women who are alone are vulnerable as hell.
So (at least sometimes) the devil you know is safer than the devil you don't.
I'd argue that women who are in abusive relationships or relationships with potential manosphere abusers are less safe than if they were single.
I know one woman who, from her 60s to her 80s, lived in a building that she co-owned with two good friends. Each one had her own full apartment. But, they were able to support each-other. I also know plenty of younger women who have roommates.
I don't think being single necessarily means being alone. Although, it's true that modern western society makes the coupling up option much more low-friction than other ones.
Yeah I don't really understand this claim.
My partner and I disagree on a lot of things, but I can predict with near certainty where she stands on things because she my partner, we have shared a life together, and I know her.
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!
Funny you say that! He doesn’t do it anymore but I just sent him this meme from !tenforward@lemmy.world!
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.
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?
You can go fuck yourself dude, trans women are women. For all social and identity purposes they are female.
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.
I'm sure this person really appreciates this warning about a person that they know and you don't
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'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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
You want a trad wife? Get your sorry ass to work buying her cars, clothes, houses, furnishings so she can focus on making your home. Kids in private school, high class vacations, all of it.
Provider is a title that is earned and I doubt even a thousandth of these blowholes are up to the task of being a trad husband.
A lifetime of experience has taught me the fastest way to poke through someone's hubris is to take their bullshit deadly seriously.
Ah, see, i knew there was a trad wife catch.
Private schools. shudders
As long as it's mutually wanted. One of the women interviewed for the article started building her career later in the marriage, and cites her husband's anger at her increasing independence as a major factor in their divorce.
That is something I'll never understand. Like, if I became incredibly ill or died or lost my fucking mind or something, I would be happy knowing my partner or spouse wasn't suddenly completely fucked and could manage without me on their own if it came to that. I think honestly that's what alot of what this comes down to. These selfish dudes are mad that women are now in a position to take or leave a relationship and hunt for one that will be a positive addition to their life instead of needing to be in one to be allowed to survive, which men, as a whole, have nearly universally only had the sole privilege of in society, and some apparently can't deal with that going both ways.
One of my (social work) profs advised us this could happen. And then it did to me.
Not in that economy, no. That you can't afford a family with a single income anymore is one of the forces that lead to changing role models. Not that i think it's a bad thing.
Kids in private school, high class vacations, all of it.
The fuck is traditional about any of that?
Are you one of those people who sees a movie about rich people in the past and assume that's how you would've lived?
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.
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.
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-
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, we should only listen to one party's complaints?
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.
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.
^ 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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Does that make the Wachowskis some kind of prophets to them?
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.'
You caught on early, and rejected it. There are plenty of new recruits introduced every day, who are taking it seriously.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
When economic independence is rare, divorce is rare.
Before we rush to judgment about witches. We really should test them to make sure that they are witches.
We have to see if the witches float!
I have for almost my entire life been entirely too accommodating of other people. My husband has some issues, but a lot of them are small, lack malice or unintentional. Such is human interaction.
He is a self declared feminist, however its taken a few years of us being together before he started doing half the cleaning and things like his own laundry. We both work full time. Such is society.
He smokes 🌳 daily, i smoke 🚬 infrequently. He hates that I do, says he wants a divorce if he catches me and is quite controlling about it tbh. So I've always hidden it from him, I usually smoke 10 a week when I'm smoking and when I dont smoke I go 3-24 months without one. Last night I realized I'm a grown ass woman being treated like a child and I'm enabling the behavior. So I told him I was going outside to smoke. He kicked up his normal fuss, but this morning he initiated a conversation about it calmly and we spoke about it like adults.
In the same way that the patriarchy harms both men and women, misogyny is upheld by both men and women. Not to equal levels of course on either count, but im so proud of all the people, men and women, who can call this shit out. It took me entirely too long in this example.
(Also lol at the carton of eggs joke)
Hmm. Follow the money people!
This seems like a ploy by therapists and divorce lawyers! Who else has to gain by this level of stupidity?
I mean i guess gene stealer cultist...But besdies them!
They have a monocle and a white mustache!
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 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 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.
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
"Do you regularly watch videos by Jordan Peterson?" kinda needs to become one of those before-first-date screening questions.
save