Is Andrew Tate's popularity among young men a result of male bashing?

Are you trying to avoid the question, or just missing the point?

Yes, racism goes both ways-- for whose benefit, do you think you are stating this? With whom, do you think your saying this, might win you some points? I had asked which you thought was more common. This was meant as an analogy to what you were contending, about misandry being "more widespread" than misogyny. I'd thought it appropriate because, historically, in both cases, the reverse has been true.

Going back for millennia, misogyny is the far more prominent, with misandry barely a footnote. You are asserting, nevertheless, that this pattern has achieved a complete reversal, yet state it, as if it is not an incredible thing to be claiming. Hence, and sans any supporting sources cited by you, I am guessing that your impression is a highly subjective assessment. What I believe you've failed to consider is that, as a man, you are undoubtedly more attuned to noticing misandry, and more unaware if not also oblivious, to misogynistic attitudes and practices.

So, if you want to skip the black/white analogy, I could just ask you directly for your evidence of this historic shift in the misandry/misogyny paradigm. But I 'm nearly certain that the best you'll come up with, to support it, are a few anecdotal stories.

 

I answered the question, and yes, I agree, in the past, misogyny was more accepted, that was wrong... in today's society misandry is more accepted and that is also wrong

as for the racists.... I believe both groups of racists need to be addressed, both need to be outcasts in society (regardless of the race of the racist)

do you disagree?

 

I will just include the last paragraph of my post, which you'd quoted before I'd finished (my posting had been accidental).

It is a straw man concept that you are putting forth, that anybody is saying that misandry (or anti-white racism) is acceptable. The question was over which is, as an overall phenomenon, the bigger problem. You seem to think that it is misandry. So I am asking for you to run down your list of examples of this. Seems simple. Can you do it?

 

both are bad, but it sure makes some upset if you point that out

it's a fact that misandry is more 'accepted' by society today then misogyny - one would get you canceled, the other many people would shrug, even attack them as being misogynistic for pointing out the misandry

both are a problem... you're the one calling one a "bigger problem" than the other... not me, your words, not mine


"Misandry is as socially dangerous as misogyny"

https://dailytitan.com/opinion/misa...cle_3b09a32a-1ca6-54f7-b158-033a02470c12.html

"Misandry, defined as the hatred of men, is the counterpart to the more well-known term misogyny, though both have proven to be equally damaging. Yet, while misogyny is generally condemned, misandry is much less admonished, despite both behaviors impeding the goal of equality. "

 

And some, who will say quite quickly, that misandry is "more widespread" than misogyny, will do a whole lot of dancing around, if you ask for the basis of their contention:

So you are saying that you base your statement, on this article. The worst it seemed to allege, was that women criticize elements of maleness. Hello! Men don't do that, about women? Oh yes, but then it is seen as misogyny-- depends on whose listening, to be honest about that-- but the nasty statements about men are NOT SEEN AS MISANDRY!
Well boo-hoo! Men can't handle a little bit of name calling any more, I guess. Good thing they don't have to give birth.

I'm not saying, of course, that people should hate entire sexes, or races, or ethnicities, or members of particular religions. I'm saying that you seem without much of a clue, as far as the oppression of women goes, if this is your idea of misandry being a greater problem in the country than is misogyny-- which seemed to be what you were implying, or else, from context, I don't know why you would have brought it up. Yes, I know-- you keep going back to that point about it being "more accepted"-- but that doesn't make it the bigger problem. Maybe there is even a relation, between those two things.

<Snip>
A large part of the feminist rhetoric used today has gone beyond the limits that differentiate criticism in regards to sexist beliefs. It has come to criticize men themselves by focusing on individual behaviors, such as the way men speak, the way men interact socially, and even the way men sit in public spaces.

Certain characteristics of masculinity are often arbitrarily seen as absolute defects, and men are condemned for such traits, along with any woman who dares to object to the idea that masculinity is detrimental to society.

If such accusations were made toward women, the accuser would be seen as a misogynist, without hesitation.
<End Snip>

Heavens to Betsy!
Women complain about the way men sit? Now that really gets my shorts in a bunch! That's got men's executing women as witches, beat by a mile. And criticizing the way we speak and interact socially-- has any woman ever known such abuse?

If these things even make their list-- much less, top it-- unless this was a much, much, much, much longer article, tells you right there, that the misandry problem is not as bad, by a longshot, as that of misogyny. Sure, it's not nice to say mean things. But how many women have raped men? What are the annual statistics? Not saying that it hasn't ever happened, but we are talking scale of the problem, now. Same with beating women. I'm sure the reverse situations occur, but when we look at the aggregates, which problem is "more widespread?" As men are still the more physically dominant sex, I'm gonna say it's them, who do more of the physical dominating and abusing. If you have research that indicates otherwise, I'd love to see it.


What is a little disconcerting, getting back to your article, is that it goes on to seem to almost justify misogynistic views, pointing out that if men don't like what we're hearing, "women will suffer." And hey, that's only fair. The article also advocates a turning of our attentions away from the "misconduct of individuals." So, since women can be misandrysts, we should ignore those troublemakers, who say that so & so, beats his wife-- I mean, where does this petty faulting of one another, really get us? In the end, we're all a little guilty.

<Snip>
... By supporting ideas that are prejudiced against men, women seeking equality will suffer since men will think feminism is hateful and vindictive against them.

The antagonism between sexes does not contribute to the promoting of social equality. Obsessing over the misconduct of individuals from either sex diverts the attention that should be focused on bigger issues, such as implementing institutional changes that create equitability toward women’s needs, or accommodations for men raising a family as a single parent...

The evolution of these feminist complaints occurred in the ‘70s, with the ascent of radical feminism promoting the idea that “the personal is political.” During this time, it seems that many feminists portrayed men as barbaric soldiers defending the patriarchal structure of society, yet few understood, or even considered, that the patriarchal ideologies after which society was structured harmed countless men as well.
<End Snip>


PITY PARTY!

This genuinely is, though, an interesting corroboration with the attitude of victimization, we see on the MAGA Right.



<Snip>
Patriarchy upholds a standard regarded as absolute when it comes to appearances and behavior and when men do not resemble that standard, they are judged discriminately, often condemned by both sexes under the pretense that they need to “man-up.”

A man who disregards the societal criteria of masculinity or fails to assimilate to the alpha role exposes himself to the rejection of men and women alike.
<End Snip>

You're not seeing this, yet, as a pathetic comparison? Not saying that these are not valid points; but on a relative basis...



<Snip>
Not all men are evil, and while men are not always considerate of those who are discriminated against, not all men discriminate. It is important to remember that men, too, are the victims of social pressures and have expectations put on them by society. It’s time to stop accusing one another and come together to fight for equal pay, equity as guardians and recognition of intellect and strength.
<End Snip>

OK, before I forget-- let's get a round of applause for men, because not ALL of them, discriminate! Even if men are often not considerate of those, who are discriminated against. Sure, we usually don't help the victims, but we don't all jump on the pile, so to not give us credit for that, it's basically just as bad as discriminating against us.

It is easy for the dominant, most privileged group, to call for working together for equal treatment for everyone. Most men, however, will see nothing in that, for them. This really does put me in mind of the things I hear from some members here, on the topic of racism. Everything has not only reached racial equality, but has surpassed it-- doncha know-- so that now racism against whites is the bigger, and "more widespread," problem. The answer, is for all of us to just decide to ignore any individual cases of racism, and resolve to just roll up our sleeves and join hands to make sure that all's fair for everybody (but without supplying any money for assistance to any particular race).

Just as convincing an argument, as well.

 

Some broken men seem to defend Misandry.

But if your female partner assaults you, you still will be the one arrested. If you are falsely accused on Twitter, you still will lose your career. That is oppression.

 

you're gonna keep playing down Misandry it seems... people should be against both - neither our daughters nor our sons should be subject to either

and your strawman that if one points out one is more acceptable to society, is nonsense, not sure what to say

"more 'accepted'" does not equal "bigger problem" as you keep trying to spin it - it means both are a problem, just some don't see it or care about one, which your post seems to show, why is this something we are even arguing over, both are equally bad

"but the nasty statements about men are NOT SEEN AS MISANDRY!
Well boo-hoo! Men can't handle a little bit of name calling any more, I guess. Good thing they don't have to give birth."

really? that seems to be an attack on men that speak out against misandry, imagine if a man said that about a woman complaining about misogamy

 

Strawman concept? That doesn't make sense. A strawman fallacy is when somebody misrepresents your argument to attack their misrepresentation as though it was your argument.

It wouldn't be a concept it's a logical fallacy.

For example if I was to say "so you're saying men are evil in should be hated?" That's a strawman because you didn't say something that ludicrous.

 

I'm not playing it down-- I went through the whole article; did I leave out anything of crucial importance? I had only commented, at the start of this, at your apparent equating of the two, as equally grievous, thereby making misandry worse-- and the one you emphasize-- because it is more accepted. I'd asked on what, you'd based the assessment that misandry was as bad or worse of a phenomenon, than misogyny. And the things in your article, are just not the equal to misogynistic complaints.

But rather than accept that opinion, you are falsely portraying me as not being against misandry, which is not true, and nothing I wrote supports that idea. So, if I said that murder was worse than rape, would you take that to be my saying that I wasn't against rape? I mean, that argument sucks.

Of course both are objectionable, as I've already said-- but misogyny is a much longer standing, and more serious problem. Nothing in your article suggests otherwise, as far as I
could tell.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to say, here. What is my straw man: if a person points out that one of those is more acceptable to society, then what is the rest? Then, he's implying that it's the worse of the two? If so, then that is not "nonsense," at all.

Now, if you'd said "misogyny is the more pernicious, but misandry is the more written off, by society," you would have made clear that you were not saying that misandry is the more serious problem. But you've been given many opportunities, first by yardmeat, and now by me, to clarify your view, yet all you seem willing to do is put the two in the same boat, then add, of misandry, that it is treated as "acceptable." And yes, that special emphasis on misandry makes it appear that you consider it the one most in need of addressing. And your refusal to say that misogyny is a worse, overall, problem, obviously sends the signal, that you do not believe that to be the case. So I asked about this evidence, and you gave me an article that was mostly about women talking smack, about men, writ large. I'm sorry, but misogyny runs much deeper than that.

Well there you go! Both are "equally as bad," but only one gets serious consideration as being bad, so the one that is ignored, if it is just as bad as misogyny, would be the worse problem, in that view. That is why we are discussing this, because I think that is a crazy thing to think-- even moreso, after seeing your evidence.

First off, we can see how much you care about misogyny, in your not even knowing how to spell it.

Second, my words were not an attack on men that speak out against misandry," but rather a mocking of men who belittle misogyny, by rating their own, less substantial complaints-- that derogatory statements about men, are not usually attacked as hate speech-- on a par, with the ways that misogynistic attitudes affect women.


<Snip>
DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS OF MISOGYNY ON MENTAL HEALTH

California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
August 29, 2022

Discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal in the United States, but the dismantlement of legal discrimination is a relatively recent phenomenon. Roughly fifty years ago, marital rape and intimate partner violence was legal in some states, while in some states the possession of birth control by single people was illegal. The legacy of a patriarchal legal system remains powerful; gender inequality persists in the workplace, politics, culture, and most other arenas of American life.

Sexism and misogyny continue to act as a barrier to the full and equal participation of all people, regardless of gender, and to impact the mental health of historically disadvantaged and marginalized groups, especially women, women of color, nonbinary individuals, and LGBTQ+ people. By conceptualizing women’s subordination to men, traditional gender relations, and the gendered division of labor as natural, sexism justifies and reinforces discrimination on the basis of gender and unequal gender relations.

Recent philosophical examinations of misogyny have offered a useful distinction between misogyny and sexism. Whereas sexism works by making social hierarchies appear to be a reflection of the natural order, feminist theorists have proposed that misogyny functions more as “the ‘law enforcement’ branch of a patriarchal order.”1 Specifically, women and girls who violate norms and expectations of feminine-coded behavior are policed and punished; they are subjected to hostile treatment on a spectrum which ranges from blaming and shaming and objectification, to harassment and physical and sexual violence.

For therapists, it is important to recognize that women and girls can face misogynistic punishment in the family, the workplace, and the public arena for failing to conform to gendered expectations. Online and social media platforms, particularly, have emerged key sites for hostile and toxic misogyny. Thus, women and girls who violate expectations of loving caregiving or assert for themselves the right to masculine-coded behavior—for example, by speaking out or occupying a position of power and authority—are frequently subjected to misogynistic policing.

Women’s experiences with sexism and misogyny start at an early age and continue throughout their lives. These day-to-day experiences can often be internalized by women, as a way of coping with discrimination and misogyny. Examples of this phenomenon include selfobjectification, passive acceptance of traditional gender roles, victim-blaming, and even devaluation and distrust of women.2 Internalized sexism is a coping mechanism that is implemented to deal with societal stressors and that further risks women’s mental health.3 Feminist psychotherapists have found a clear relationship between sexism internalization with depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and low self-esteem.4

The normalization of sexism in institutions and societal interactions (interaction at the family level, school, work, etc.) can reinforce the internalization of sexism such that it is passed down to the next generations. Thus, women do not only carry trauma from sexist events throughout their lives, but they might carry the trauma of generations before them. In families in which a parent is a trauma survivor, research based on feminist therapy theory suggests that girls may be more susceptible to inter-generational trauma.5
<End Snip>

https://www.camft.org/Membership/Ab...rimental-Impacts-of-Misogyny-on-Mental-Health


So, you see, your entire point that misogyny is always recognized, but that misandry is accepted, is a crock o' bull.

 

"So, you see, your entire point that misogyny is always recognized, but that misandry is accepted, is a crock o' bull."

again, I never said that, what I said is Misandry is more accepted by many in society these days, it should not be, it needs to stop

 

I see what you're saying, but Fresh Air was misrepresenting some of our arguments, to be that misandry is fine, to discredit our arguments that misogyny is the more serious problem, of the two. So that makes it a straw man-- misrepresenting others' arguments.

 

I did no such thing, I said Misandry is more accepted by many in society these days

I also made very very very clear that both Misandry is more accepted by many in society these days

I also made very clear over and over that both misogyny and misandry are bad, so who is misrepresenting others' arguments?

 

I would say, it was you:

 

you literally said

""but the nasty statements about men are NOT SEEN AS MISANDRY!
Well boo-hoo! Men can't handle a little bit of name calling any more, I guess. Good thing they don't have to give birth.""

is that not attacking those men complaining about misandry

would you say the same about a woman complaining about misogyny?

 

As I have already told you, I was admittedly mocking those who were equating male suffering, due to these "nasty statements about men (in general)," with the effects on women from the institutional misogyny, which permeates society. A woman complaining about that cultural affliction, has far more serious manifestations of this pathology to cite, than name calling. Just for one example, of which you might have heard, is the control of their bodily autonomy, in decisions about abortion-- which is not an issue that we have aged out of, as a society, as opposed to your suggestion that misogyny only used to be the worse problem, but that now it is misandry.

One can certainly "complain about misandry," without needing to imply that it is worse, than what women have been experiencing, from time immemorial. It is only that aspect of their complaints, which I feel are deserving of mockery.

As your other, unfounded accusations-- that I "don't see or care" about misandry, and that I am "playing (it) down"-- attest, it is you who places an inordinately greater emphasis on, and has a disparately large concern with, misandry, as compared to misogyny. Clearly, there is a vast difference in our impressions of the overall severity and scale of these two things, in their effect on people and on society. What seems obvious to me is that such men are only far more sensitive to these criticisms from women because, unlike for countless generations of women, men were not raised to expect this sort of thing. It is a new phenomenon to them, since they have apparently taken little note of similar treatment, and much worse, bestowed upon the other sex.

 

you were playing down misandry, just like some men play down misogyny

I never said it's worse, I said society is more accepting of misandry

both are bad and should be equally condemned

I am surprised we even have anything to disagree with on this

 

I was not "playing down misandry." I was denoting its appropriate place, relative to misogyny. And I would also contest your argument's droning assertion, that misandry is more accepted, by society. What you really mean, is that the type of misandrous criticisms, to which you allude, are more accepted-- with which statement I would agree. But there are many other forms of misogyny which are either not recognized as such, or are widely accepted, as well.

 

Here's another video, this time from a conservative YouTuber calling out Andrew Tates for being a piece of **** conman and his hedonistic materialism message. He also specifically calls out Tate for bragging about treating men like **** and conning them by pretending to be a woman himself and using the man's loneliness to convince him to sell his house and go into tens of thousands of dollars in debt for fake promises . . . which any person who actually respects men in any way would call misogynist:
Andrew Tate: Persecuted Dissident OR Subversive Degenerate? - YouTube

 

Tate is more popular than any other male influencer . . . society (especially the one Tate is promoting) is IMMEASURABLY more accepting of misogyny.

 

Look, I'm just going to go into hardcore mode because so much of this intersects with some of my current volunteerism, my family, and my work. The videos I've provided so far cover most of this, in Tate's own words, but flag anything you want more details on.

Who is Tate?

Tate started off his career as a kickboxer, but found himself in enormous debt to people that he vaguely hints to be the mafia. After a failed attempt to make money on reality TV, he had to turn to something else. He tried gambling to get the money together he owed this "dangerous people" and to get himself a home, but gambling only put himself in further debt.

So what did he do next?

He decided he needed to put together his "assets" to see how to leverage them for the money. He owned no real estate. He had a car. But, most importantly, he had 5 girlfriends. He decided these girlfriends could be a moneymaking asset. He briefly considered pimping them on the streets, but he didn't want to share his girls with another man. Then he saw an ad online where you could pay money to watch a woman masturbate on camera, and he got an idea.

Tate flew all five of his girlfriends (who didn't know about each other at the time, by the way, thinking the relationship was exclusive). He proposed that they masturbate on camera for cash and split the money with him. Three girls left immediately, two stayed, but one left shortly after.

So how did he grow his business?

Through something pimps call the "lover boy method." He would start dating a woman, have sex with her, convince her he was in love with her, and then start pressuring her -- he'd complain they didn't see each other enough because they were both always working and he was always travelling. But, hey, wouldn't it be great if she could just move in with him and work for him? She'd ask what his business was, and when he mentioned cam girls, she'd most often refuse. But he would invite her out to dinner to talk about it and tell her she should talk to one of the other girls who worked with him.

When the three of them were at dinner, he'd let his "bottom bitch" do the selling . . . after being coached, she'd tell this new girl how awesome camming was and how much money she was making and how much her old job used to suck. If things went well, they'd go back to the hotel for a threesome and the new girl would be working the next day.

Wait, surely it doesn't get any shadier . . .

It sure as **** does. For one thing, there were allegations of physical abuse and even rape on Tate's part. Some of this physical abuse is caught on tape and he even talks about raping a girl in a recording and strangling her. One of those girls came forward and said it was a just a kinky game, so every other girl's case was dropped. Some of this actually happened back during the whole failed reality TV thing, but some of happened after. It played a role in Tate moving from England (where he admits to committing tax crimes) to Romania (where . . . he also admits to committing tax crimes). He likes to talk about how Romania has a lower age of consent and has tried to recruit 16 year old girls. By his own math, he started dating one of his girls when they were only 15.

Of course, all of these girls (as traditional for the lover boy method) would quickly find out they were not going to be given the life they were promised, and that Tate never really saw them as girlfriends. It was all just a tool for controlling them.

Tate told the women he would split their earnings 50/50 since he would take care of the taxes and handle other business details. He's admitted in videos that he was lying about this and was manipulating them. The true cut was closer to 70/30, and sometimes less than that.

It was bad for men as well

When the girls were in the chat room, they could easily respond to public chats. But men could also pay to send private chats. The girls would then type on a keyboard as if they were responding . . . but it wasn't actually them responding. Tate needed them to concentrate on their performance. Tate was the one responding, pretending to be the woman.

And it wasn't just talking to them and pumping them for more tips here or there. They actually told these men that these women were thinking of leaving the country and coming to marry them . . . they just needed money for a passport. And, oh, shoot, there was a complication with the passport and now they need more money. And, oh, here's a picture of the woman at the embassy showing they are serious! Oh, but she felt really sick the day of the next appointment and couldn't go. They would then guilt the guy if he responded in any negative way and keep the con going. Again, Tate has admitted to ALL of this. He'd even fake (or have one of his new writers fake) having an interest in WWII history to keep WWII veterans hooked on this scam.

Well, what else?

While he kept his pimping business going, Tate started a program called the PHD (Pimping Hoes Degree) where he trained other men to do the same. He talks extensively about how to deceive women (and, yes, this is how he characterizes it) into thinking that they need you so that they don't go off and start working on their own and so you can keep the fake 50/50 split.

He no longer runs the PHD and has moved on to two other programs: Hustlers' University and The War Room. Hustlers' University involves him selling access to a private Discord server for $50 a month for extremely basic (and often disastrously wrong) online money-making schemes. He's selling a fantasy about how you can realistically make six figures online and quit your day job, and some of the methods he talks about might even work, but most won't. Most of the people making money from this program are the ones RE-SELLING this program. I mean, this dude tries to sell you on the idea that you can make six figures drop shipping (a TERRIBLE idea for reasons I can get into if you want) or copywriting (nearly impossible to even make the mid five figures that way). He also tries to get you into crypto and day trading. Some day traders have taken the course to try it out and have shown that it is one of the worst day trading courses you could possibly buy.

You can get better info on any of the money-making methods above for free. Easily.

So that brings us to The War Room. It's some kind of "exclusive fraternity" that you pay a few thousand dollars to join and have to fly across the globe a few times per year to face "tests" that Tate has put together for you. The only test I know of that has been made public is that he asks you to step into a MMA ring with a professional fighter and, if you refuse, you have to write an essay about why you chickened out. Again, most of the people making money from this program are those selling referrals.

Why do I care?

Because there actually IS a masculinity crisis and, though being the biggest voice for it, Tate is the worst possible "solution." Because I've had to listen to my neices cry after being verbally assaulted by kids their age who have been influenced by this misogynistic garbage. Because some of my friends in their twenties and thirties have given up on dating from the harassment they've received from Tate fans when they get out there and try to meet new people. Because I've seen relationships ruined when hurt men cave and become this guys fanboy. Because some of the people I coach on entrepreneurship are talking to me about taking out an extra loan to pay for this bull ****. Because some people on this forum are willing to turn a blind eye to all of this.

 

lol, that *IS* playing it down, misandry is equally as bad as misogyny

this is why so many young men are supporting a pos like Tate, you're not helping

 

men are pushing back against misandry, just like women pushed back against misogyny - even women are joining in on this fight as they do not want their sons treated that way

 

What Tate is doing is not "just like" that. And that's the topic. I look forward to responding to you again when you respond to the topic. There's a reason you can't discuss Tate.

Women who push back against misogyny post some TikToks you don't like and you can't even name any of them without looking them up and you can't name anyone who has even heard of them.

If what Tate is doing is "pushing back against misandry," then pushing back against misandry means beating, raping, and sex trafficking women while training men to treat women as property and using them to cheat elderly men into selling their homes so that you can get fancy cars. So, yeah, that's worse.

 

the point is, Tate would not be popular if there was not an issue affecting many young men in our society - that is what the thread was about

Tate is not the only messenger, there will be many more, he is just the first to really push back

 

This is the equivalent of saying the, hey, at least Epstein gave young women jobs, and he wouldn't have been popular if young women weren't looking for jobs.