Teachers describe a deterioration in behaviour and attitudes that has proved to be fertile terrain for misogynistic influencers
“As soon as I mention feminism, you can feel the shift in the room; they’re shuffling in their seats.” Mike Nicholson holds workshops with teenage boys about the challenges of impending manhood. Standing up for the sisterhood, it seems, is the last thing on their minds.
When Nicholson says he is a feminist himself, “I can see them look at me, like, ‘I used to like you.’”
Once Nicholson, whose programme is called Progressive Masculinity, unpacks the fact that feminism means equal rights and opportunities for women, many of the boys with whom he works are won over.
“A lot of it is bred from misunderstanding and how the word is smeared,” he says.
But he is battling against what he calls a “dominance-based model” of masculinity. “These old-fashioned, regressive ideas are having a renaissance, through your masculinity influencers – your grifters, like Andrew Tate.”
“A lot of it is bred from misunderstanding and how the word is smeared,”
The same could be said about “communism” and “socialism”. The words have been turned dirty, such that people shy away from what is objectively a good thing when done honestly and to the letter of the principle.
Kind of like Critical Race Theory. If properly understood and applied, people would benefit from the knowledge and empathy.
Pretty much exactly the same, except CRT got knocked down before it even had established itself as a positive thing.
It was already established. It’s just a theoretical framework in various social studies. It was deliberately bastardized by the right as they were seeking something to hate. It wasn’t even in the public consciousness, just something academics used and that get taught in some higher ed classes. It’s a very useful framework but it’s not something that you’d actually teach a kid.
It was an academic term for a relatively short period, it was never established in common language - not in the same way that socialism and communism were.
Yes, unsurprisingly, a term that’s been around for 20 or 30 years is less pervasive than a couple that have been around for over 100.
I bought the actual book because it was on sale and because I thought it would be hilarious to put out on my coffee table for when my conservative dad came to visit my house. I also figured I’d try to read it, because I should be informed about what it is so that I can argue for it, right?
Holy shit, it’s a lot of dense legal theory. I knew it was graduate material, but the book is a collection some of the most complex ideas, studies, and legal theory that I’ve ever read. I’m not going to lie that I won’t even make it a third of the way through it.
Anyone who argues that CRT is being taught in elementary schools and is being used to brainwash children hasn’t seen how high-level the material actually is and has no idea what they’re talking about.
In reality, the material is not that controversial. What I have read of it has been quite unbiased.
We need to stop teaching the children nuclear physics.
I know very little about CRT beyond some very general idea so idk if there’s a point to call it that specifically, but the naming choice is so bad that the first time I read it I assumed it’s some nazi thing and had 0 doubt about it.
Funnily, Capitalism could work too but I don’t expect billionaires to be honest or have any principles apart from hoarding for themselves.
I mean you could also say that Capitalism is a dirty word in some circles. And yet, it addresses many of the aspects of trade, which are needed through all societal systems.
Trade existed before capitalism.
You’re proposing Mercantilism or Feudalism as alternatives?
Whatever works best for the degrowth with need because of climate change. A circular or planned economy.
give it 50 years and the arms race of language will have its own sub arms race
you’ll coin a politically charged term, someone will coin an antonym, the original will shift to change the subject, the antonym will change to match the new, someone will point out the process and both sides will deny its happening
Double plus ungood.
So much strife comes from bickering over the definitions of words.
It would be helpful if people knew the definitions and context of words. Maybe some type of education could help.
Granted, Lemmy is a relatively safe place to do it, but bold move, walking out into public and describing Communism as “objectively good”.
It is a wonderfully good idea. Except for one tiny, insignificant variable. Humans. Humans ruin it every time.
Communism is a very decent idea. It’s the transition to it that always tends to be spoiled by incumbant powers. Writers of Communist theory recognised this somewhat, and their solution was to have a violent revolution that would hopefully come end with the new system they devised. Now, however, the word is basically lost - there are/have been too many “Communist” countries that don’t really operate in that manner, with too many people that have suffered under that name.
Socialism doesn’t have quite the same level of stigma, but still a good deal. However, when you think about it, a significant portion of any government is “Socialist” - we pay taxes, our taxes fund roads, schools and various other social services. Socialism, or more specifically socialist policy, is that which benefits society as a whole rather than any specific group. When you see it like that, it’s hard to paint it as a bad thing, not without being completely selfish that you or your group aren’t getting an exclusive benefit.
People refuse to look at things with their core and correct definitions. They always bring their baggage along. Or, they twist it into their own framing for their own point of view.
It’s such a bummer.
I would say lemmygrad is the only safe place to do this
My remedy to the poisoning of those words is to refer to then as “economic democracy,” and just state communist/socialist policy without the buzz words.
Depends, I was chatting with someone without using any charged terminology, then he blurted out “but that’s socialism!!”
Those who aren’t ignorant about actual socialist policies that can feasibly and easily be implemented in a modern society and yet still loathe them truly bewilder me. And I’m not talking about rich folks or power brokers, just normal, working class people. The indoctrination over the last century has been quite effective.
Yeah I was a little bit speechless with that, it was one of those situations where all the right things to say came much later.
To be fair, the term “feminist” was highjacked by the radical feminist movement. They very much do not believe in equality, their motto is “kill all men”
I think it’s easy to see why that would turn people away. Hence why I describe myself as an equalizer, not a feminist.
Edit: my statement was very reasonable and I’m willing to engage in discussion about what I have witnessed. If you think I’m pushing an agenda or trying to convince others of anything, feel free to check my post history. However, if you accuse me of pushing an agenda or lying or anything else, you are engaging in false faith and will be blocked. I have a long history of supporting women’s rights, as evidenced by several posts I have made. But I will not stand for being accused of being a right winger.
I think again that was one that was actually hijacked by the right wing. There is far more fearmongering about hardcore feminists than there are hardcore feminists.
While your second statement is true, there are still far too many extremists. I find it very difficult to believe that all the hatred I viewed from feminists on Tumblr and r/FemaleDatingStrategy and many other sources(like my ex who fell into that stuff) were right wingers. Just like one incel is too many(and you don’t hear people claiming incels don’t exist), one person calling for the death or enslavement of half the planet is too many.
Fwiw, I haven’t met a single real person who espouses the viewpoint you described. I’m not saying they don’t exist. I’m saying that until evidence is presented otherwise I doubt there are as many as you think there are.
Assuming you are male, it makes sense that you wouldn’t have met many, as they presumably take steps to avoid interacting with men. The only person like that I’ve talked to IRL would be one of my exes, and her friend group. She went off the rails after we broke up.
This is most likely an effect of recency bias for you which is unfortunate.
Somebody’s mad they can’t get laid whenever they want.
So much misinformation.
comments like this are what’s hijacking it.
Fuckin lmao, you are so full of shit. You know damn well you’ve seen so many Tumblr posts, tshirts, and other bullshit that says the same things. “Kill all men” “All men are evil” “Low value men”
I guarantee you’ve seen all of that, it’s not at all uncommon. You choose to ignore it because you don’t like it. But that’s not how the world works. Other people, surprise surprise, don’t want to be associated with a movement calling for their death.
Enjoy your narrative, but welcome to the real world
I haven’t. And now I believe you even less and think you are intentionally spreading rumors or lies because you have an agenda.
Communism kind-of smeared itself. Everywhere where communism has been tried on a national scale, it has become authoritarianism.
Maybe it would be a good thing if done to the letter of the principle, but just like Libertarianism or Anarchism, it seems to be incompatible with human nature, at least so far.
But, socialism isn’t even a foreign idea. A lot of US institutions are socialist. The mail delivery is done by an arm of the government. Streets are paved by the government. Firefighters are government employees. The water delivered to your house is almost certainly by a government-run entity. People retiring without having saved enough are taken care of by the government. There’s medicare and medicaid.
A full capitalist system would have nothing done by the government that could be done by a business. No FDA, Pinkertons instead of Police, most army functions handed over to private contractors, every road privately owned and maintained, etc.
I agree with just about everything you’ve said. Communism has had too many failures that have affected too many people, the word is tainted.
To grossly oversimplify it, capitalism is the way of business and trade, while socialism is the way of society and governance. The two things are separate, but the issue we have is that businesses are dictating policy to governments in their exclusive interest, rather than the other way around with governments focusing on the overall good of society.
If you don’t want to parent your own son, there is someone out there willing to do it for you. They will not do a good job.
This is a really great point, but notably in this article there’s a guy trying to “do it for you” with at least good intentions telling young men about feminism.
IMO, he’s doing a pretty terrible job of it though. You’re not going to reach tate followers by telling them about feminism.
And yet, it’s not like anyone’s child will grow in a bubble decoupled from society; people like Tate can influence even “parented” young men due to the disproportionate amount of reach they have. And it’s not like they would know better, they are kids after all.
deleted by creator
Underrated comment.
deleted by creator
It did not have 105 when I made that comment. lol
deleted by creator
In all honesty, 3rd wave feminism chased away a lot of male allies. Like a whole lot.
But I don’t think that’s what led to Andrew Tate, that is no failure of feminism.
Andrew Tate is the product of hyper capitalistic individualism being held up in all forms and media and real life as ‘the ideal lifestyle’, a rich, aggressive asshole that has enough clout that most people can’t back them down.
The Tates, Trumps, Elons of the world are having their day because our current generation conflates wealth with competence.
And it’s going to ruin our world.
That said, feminism as it stands now is far more welcoming and inclusive to men than it has been in 25 years and I applaud the change.
I’ll probably be downvoted to hell.
TLDR: If your legs are broken and you treat one and ignore the other you’ll fall eventually. That’s women’s and men’s rights. True equality is unachievable without both being fully recovered.
Full achieving women’s rights while putting minimum input into issues men face. Rarely ends well for either. High suicide rates, homelessness, alcoholism, etc. Those who try to find hope turn to their jobs, religions, and terrible role models.
Both sides have them but most people ignore the truth. People like Andrew Tate become influential because the underlying problem is ignored. More bad role models (BRM) will pop up until you treat the cause instead of the symptoms.
It doesn’t help that theres plenty information including studies that highlight the problem and proves the points made by BRM.
This is reinforced by several instances where someone wants to bring awareness to the Men issues being harassed, facing death threats and etc. This also happened when the first and only DV shelter for was opened. The staff and everyone involved faced a huge backlash that they ended up closing it.
deleted by creator
I know it isn’t much, but you should look up Hasanabi interviewing Tate. He gets clapped and his reactions pierce through that tough guy, strict father model persona of his, and it’s glorious. I was in Romania recently. I should’ve paid him a visit to taunt him.
The less I consider this man the better my general outlook on humanity is, and it’s pretty fuckdamn low these decades so let’s not add more erosion to that tiny bitter flake remaining.
I actually things those people are the last straw of that system. They are the final product of this system and everyone hates it, sooner or later. Your average traditionalist will not recognize himself in Tates lack of manners nor will the liberal capitalist due to his authoritarian tendencies. He is the final product of a terminally ill system and the full displays of all of its flaws. I’m quite hopeful since his downfall because it likely means people will move on from that system
Oh no my friend, it’s going to get much, much worse. There is no ‘he is brutal enough as leader’, there is only 'who can be more brutal and have the power to get away with it.
I wish I could believe in your optimistic view. In my experience the first part is right, but instead of everyone hating it, they will double down because NOW it’s part of their identity and you don’t threaten someone’s identity. People will move mountains to keep their worldview intact.
I actually agree… We simply ignore the needs of men who are suffering. When was the last time you read a story about a male domestic abuse victim who WASN’T laughed at.
Or like how Google has a doodle for international women’s day but never international men’s day. Not to be dismissive or insensitive to women’s issues, but I’ve seen boys and young men talk about how little things like that give them the impression that their thoughts and feelings are not valid.
There are ofc men’s issues still like how the overwhelming majority workplaces deaths are men or how more men die from suicide than women. Men are more likely to be homeless than women etc
The sexes are supposed to compliment one another. Not compete against one another. We can acknowledge that there are issues for both sides while still being sensitive and respectful.
There’s more to then even that. Fight Club predicted it. Mass media pushing this expectation onto young boys, but then as teenager and young adults, they have no outlet for machoism. No wood to split, no animals to kill for food, no fascists to kill(yet). Hollywood pushes the Action Hero, and neglects the Science Hero and the Guile Hero.
BTW, isn’t it sad that the stand-in for toxic masculinity in fiction is still more positive then real life toxic masculinity symbols. But fiction has to be believable.
Toxic masculinity is the reason for that as well. Being the victim is seen as being less masculine, which is seen as worthy of ridicule.
Toxic masculinity hurts everyone.
When men do bad things: “this is toxic masculinity”
When women do bad things: “this is also toxic masculinity”
When men don’t get the support they need. Or are ridiculed for feeling emotions other than anger. And don’t feel they can cry without being judged.
Women can absolutely be abusers. That’s called shitty people and has nothing to do with masculinity, toxic or otherwise.
Most men cry in front of a woman exactly once.
That’s not toxic masculinity. It’s toxic femininity and NO ONE is addressing it in a systemic way.
In feminist theory “masculinity” and “femininity” don’t mean “what men do” and “what women do” but value systems floating through society affecting people.
So in that sense yes woman can exhibit toxic masculinity, if they reinforce those shitty norms. Likewise men can exhibit toxic femininity… say, comparatively harmless example, by discouraging a tomboy from skating.
It’s just one of those gazillions of instances where feminist terminology sucks absolutely donkeyballs because you need to read theory to understand it, which practically noone who calls themselves a feminist actually does, it’s all vibes and signals very little analysis they abuse those terms just like the rest of the population. The rest of the population at least has an excuse, they’re using the dictionary definition.
In this particular instance, “toxic (male) gender norm” would be much better.
It’s just one of those gazillions of instances where feminist terminology sucks absolutely donkeyballs
I mean, to get a little meta here, but if feminist theory essentially says “bad things are (toxic) masculinity, good things are femininity (feminism)” that betrays a deeper problem about the attitudes of feminist theorists, doesn’t it? Sure, it’s a terminology problem, but it’s also a problem that those are the terms.
Calling something women do a “toxic male gender norm” is just as problematic.
Sure, it’s a terminology problem, but it’s also a problem that those are the terms.
I’ve talked to academic feminists about this and their reaction was pretty much “there were good reasons to chose those terms, doing it this way makes sense in the overall theoretical framework, it’s an academic term and not for general use, academic terms always get misunderstood that’s not a thing limited to feminism”. When asked whether, as an academic subject having its own political movement, and being, in the wider sense, sociologists, they shouldn’t at least study the societal implications of their terminology: Crickets.
And I can’t really blame them. The ones I talked with about this definitely have their heart in the right place, acknowledged all the issues but truth be told if one of them goes against those established terms which are oh so useful equivocations for many a catty bitch they’ll get skinned alive by exactly those catty bitches.
It’s called feminist studies - they’ll never say the thing they’re studying is or can be toxic. It’s always the masculine that’s bad, because the very subject name demands it.
I don’t think we ignore the needs of men. They’re just sometimes overshadowed because of other pressing matters like not being able to afford a roof over your head or to feed your family, then whose more likely to get into substance abuse? Men, trying to provide for their families but the debt is mounting and school is basically unachievable. Work wages are stagnating inflation is rising because the corpos have us all by the balls. Is there a culture that tries to pigeonhole men to bottle up their emotions in America? Absolutely. I just think the greater fight is improving these lychpins of society, and we can do that and also address men’s problems, but in a lot of ways, aren’t women’s lack of equality a big part of men’s problems in the first place? If women were paid equally and treated equally by men and other women, and society as a whole, they could take care of themselves better, provide more for their families, not feel like they have to choose between a family and a career, etc etc etc. All of it is inter-related dammit. I do get what the person in the original article is trying to say. I just don’t think that they did a particularly good job of expressing it in a relatable way.
As a (formerly young) man myself, I can say with experience that boys are gullible. If something just had a veneer of plausibility, then that was good enough for me!
Still, this hit hard, because it’s so true:
He says [about boys]: “It’s not showing that emotional weakness. It’s also the expectation to always be right. Like you are not able to show that you can fail; that there’s more shame in doing something and making a mistake than there is just sort of sitting it out or dropping out.”
He stresses that many of the men he deals with have positive attitudes to women and feminism, but he says some can feel they are being stereotyped, or blamed for others’ actions.
I faced a lot of pressure to be “tough” and “perfect” (I’m not sure where that pressure came from. My parents weren’t the problem). I also misunderstood that feminism only means fairness and equality. “Fortunately”, I was trying to control an anger management issue, and I only recently realized that the experience had the side effect of teaching me that imperfections are normal and nothing to be ashamed of. Being fair was, well, only fair, so although I didn’t notice it, I never had an issue with basic feminism. I didn’t know much about it, but I wasn’t against it, and recognized that guys who were proudly anti-feminist were almost always jerks that I didn’t want to emulate.
I think a lot of it comes from schools, and in particular physical education and competitive sports. There is nothing wrong with competitive sports but the attitudes around it in schools can be so toxic, and in particular it can be used to create hierarchies. The idea of being good at sports and that being masculine was something I certainly experienced a lot at school. Also people who weren’t as academic but thrived in sports were lauded.
My school had various sports teams and clubs, and fuck all academic activities. Sports aren’t toxic but the attitudes around them can be, and particularly adults who feed in toxic attitudes and values around it.
He is a bad response to a real problem, as is the toxic misandrist movement that seems to pull people away from productive feminism these days.
But as long as reactions to these extreme positions keep us from discussing the underlying problems or reasonable solutions to them, we’ll never find any real solutions.
What “real problem” is he a response to?
Boys feeling they don’t have a voice and people are not listening to them? It’s right there in the article
Personally this is why I think people should be amplifying the messages of worker rights as much as possible. Improving worker rights in this country would make so many people feel heard including many young men.
Or, we could not hijack it and actually focus on making sure young men are heard
People hyperfocus on the 1% of crazy feminists instead of the other 99% who are actually normal and reasonable. Sadly that 1% are doing more harm to the public image of feminism than good.
We live in an age of twitter screenshot outrage and that pathetically emboldens some peoples beliefs so the root cause really is social media. Nothing more nothing less.
The only time I ever hear about that 1% is from the conservative propaganda machine, or MSM rebuttal. They hold zero power outside of the conservative cinematic universe.
At this point I consider it nothing more than manufactured outrage.
deleted by creator
every time I open xitter
Well there’s your problem right there
deleted by creator
Their enemies are shadows on the wall, shadows of their own minds.
I mean there’s TERFs, they speak for feminism, no?
People keep forgetting that until recently, TERF used to be the default position of feminism
When recently? Because if you mean 30 years ago, yeah. But by the 00s it wasn’t anymore. And before the 80s it wasn’t yet. It was a powerful force in the second wave.
So Andrew Tate is a human trafficker scum of the earth, and we are trying to combat his message. That’s alright, I agree, he’s not a disease but a symptom.
Tate is taking an existing problem, which is the fact that young boys feel left out by society at large with feminism being mainstream. Don’t get me wrong, go and empower women, but when boys have “a growing sense that somehow they must be mistreated and hated because they are boys and men” and “some can feel they are being stereotyped, or blamed for others’ actions”, and things like “My son is reluctant to go to school due to bullying by a group of girls, he feels that there is a big power difference in schools, where boys are always punished, not listened to, and not believed.” happen, then that’s a problem separate from the problems that feminism wants to solve.
Telling boys to help solve women’s issues in response to them telling you they have problems of their own is what’s causing this. And it’s either you listening to them, or it’s going to be people like Tate or Trump.
Don’t get me wrong, go and empower women, but when boys have “a growing sense that somehow they must be mistreated and hated because they are boys and men” and “some can feel they are being stereotyped, or blamed for others’ actions”, and things like “My son is reluctant to go to school due to bullying by a group of girls, he feels that there is a big power difference in schools, where boys are always punished, not listened to, and not believed.” happen, then that’s a problem separate from the problems that feminism wants to solve.
The Me Too movement opened a lot of eyes to just how widespread sexual violence against women is. And how women see men, justifiably, as threats until proven otherwise.
But as the person who is perceived as a threat and isn’t, that doesn’t feel good. Thinking that my gender makes me a horrible scary monster would definitely fuck a boy up.
The Me Too movement opened a lot of eyes to just how widespread sexual violence against women is. And how women see men, justifiably, as threats until proven otherwise.
But there is another truth not mentioned: Males who were victims of sexual violence and rightfully thought the MeToo movement would help bring that to light as well were instead ridiculed and thrown out. Male victims of both male and female sexual violence are still not heard, which should have been part of the movement’s focus. The recent reminder post about the man who tried to found a shelter for male victims but ended up broke and his efforts ignored and eventually disbanded should have been a strong ally for the movement, so the push for feminism rings somewhat hollow for those victims, even as they do support the message presented, but will not benefit from the movement’s successes.
I remember reading a post once that pondered on why there are so many gentle giants, why a lot of naturally tall muscular men seem so chill.
A gentle giant on the chain responded “it’s because you’re taught from a very young age that if you pop off and lose it there’s a really good chance you’re going to kill someone”
I think men need to understand they are threats, in general it’s not their fault they’re threats, in general nobody is really expecting them to go ape on anyone, but ultimately men are threats.
The problem isn’t new at all either. Someone on the right, just figured out how to create the incel culture and weaponize it. It’s sexism all the way down on both sides when there shouldn’t be sides at all. It’s the culmination of the social construct known as gender.
The problem is not just that someone on the right talks to men. The problem is, nobody on the “left” does. Tell me, what is the “left’s” ideal of a happy and successful man?
Freedom from work
Men would have time to make friends, cultivate hobbies, and meet girls if they weren’t working multiple jobs with odd hours or taking as much overtime as they can.
Liberals don’t want to talk about reducing the amount of work men have to do to keep up, though. They only want women to work more!
Yeah, may the almighty line keep going up.
But that’s beside the point, work is one side of it, my point is that there is no “ideal man” picture out there, nothing to aspire to. The ideal male identity is only described in context of how they treat women. Which is important sure, being kind to everyone, but still, what makes a man these days?
Kids are asking these questions, looking for role models, and all they see answering is Tate. Everyone else in the mainstream just tells them that their ideal is “not to be a rapist”.
Why don’t boys look up to their fathers? I’ll tell you! It’s because daddy is always at work.
Girls have the same problem with their mothers also working, but the schooling system has actually (partially) solved the problem. Teaching, especially pre-K, is dominated by women. Even if class sizes are too large for any one female teacher to fulfill the role of a model they still have a huge field to choose from and I think that helps a lot. We need men to become teachers if we aren’t going to liberate men from work.
Women hate it when men have anything to do with young children. Try being a dad and taking your own child to the park in this country. There’s a good chance you’ll have to prove which child is yours to a cop, because parenting while male isn’t acceptable behavior. And you want a man to accept the liability of existing near 30 children that aren’t his, possibly without one of his own around? That’s just asking to get SWATed.
No, society hates it when men have anything to do with young children and we are products of that society. Women didn’t make caring for young children into “women’s work”, society did that. Women didn’t make men having a life outside of work unacceptable, society did that.
Don’t blame women for what is a societal problem. That’s incredibly reactionary.
Although, I’m skeptical that male kindergarten teachers get SWATed all that often at school 🙄
I get your point. I am not saying I didn’t cry a bit the first time I actually listened to Cats In The Cradle’s lyrics. Or the other times.
Also, I’d rather have my kid have their own role model, not to have to share a government issued one with 30 other kids. Fuck.
In that case, men need to work less so we don’t have to use pre/elementary/middle/high schools to replace the parental figure.
Also maybe abolish the nuclear family and go back the premodern gens (i.e. extended family community) so that boys have lots of men in their family to look up to. Even if they don’t have a dad they might have an uncle, grandpa, or one of their 20 older cousins to look up to.
Bingo. Well said
I see feminism as a logical first step towards true egalitarianism. As in: the patriarchy is/was a real thing, and women are/were impacted. Modern feminism is in some ways an over correction (but as a movement is completely justified). Hopefully future societies will bring the needle closer to even/fair/just than ever, and we are currently witnessing temporary (but significant) backlashes.
Edit: not sure why downvote? I clearly acknowledged the importance and validity of feminism, while sharing my opinion that an egalitarian society is the goal state, where all persons are respected regardless of what they are. Is that not the goal? To live in a world where specific groups don’t need to fight for rights, visibility and respect?
Not the person downvoting, but my comment was mostly about that boys and men do experience their own problems, and they are not being listened to. I am specifically saying “feminism is all good, but has nothing to do with this, and does not even aim to solve this”.
You then went, “well yeah, but first feminism before we get there”. It’s like as if there was a piece about feminism and someone went, “First we have to solve climate change, then we can talk about women’s issues!”. The problem is that men are getting left behind. Not with rights or visibility or anything like that. It’s more about having a voice, ideals and support.
The point is, this is not about feminism. Feminism is not a be all end all answer. And people keep pretending it is.
Feminism is not the end all be all is the core of my point as well.
I referred to the current backlash of boys seeking people like tate as a symptom of ongoing progress towards a more egalitarian future.
The whole thing is that this is not about feminism in any way. Viewing these boys’ problems only through a lens of “how does this relate to feminism” is the problem. These boys’ problems are not about feminism. This is not about women or women’s issues.
The reason it becomes that is that both the right, which only listens to them to exploit them, and the left, which refuses to listen to them at all, says that their problems are about women.
Men and men’s issues exist outside of the context of feminism as well.
Right! And it would be great to arrive at a societal level where we address everyone’s needs!
Due to obvious reasons, the challenges of feminism are center stage currently.
I’m talking about decades long societal progress, where we arrive at a place where everyone is getting their needs met. We aren’t advanced enough in our education or discourse or healthcare to provide that to everyone at once.
What I’m hearing from you is that men are a desirable sacrifice on the altar of equality.
You’re risking serious social stability problems by justifying the ignoring of men’s issues. There can be no equality as long as the problems of one sex are more important than the problems of the other.
Absolutely untrue. You are assuming my opinion, when I’m stating my observation.
I’m not ignoring men’s issues, or suggesting that is good to do. In fact, I’m saying/agreeing it’s absolutely true that men are currently being forgotten.
I’m saying humanity is not unified. Social respect is a system in hysteresis. A pendulum swinging. There is no eternal agenda, but hopefully a trend towards a healthy center. Previously, women and minorities were forgotten. Now, in a different way (and not surpassing the injustice.of the past, but still critically Important), men are not being discussed to a sufficient level.
I hope the future frees us of this. I am discussing decades past. And decades future
I also blame CBC and other supposedly legit sources for giving this fuck air time and even asking him about the Israel/Palestine war as if his opinion matters.
Also so called journalists like this who remove all responsibility from Tate for being a rapist piece of shit
When did the CBC give this guy air time? I looked for it, and all I found are articles critical of him by the CBC.
Perhaps the user meant BBC. Someone from there did an interview
I still choose to blame the Canadians
They’ve been too nice for too long, something’s fishy, I’m keeping an eye on them
Every year, they preform a dark ritual and cast their nastiness into their geese before the geese migrate south for the winter.
Never ask a Canadian why they no longer have an Airborne Regiment.
Or their Residential Schools.
deleted by creator
Citations please.
YouTube Algorithms, facebook Algorithms, etc. make them all publishers responsible for their content.
the algorithms just rewards “shocking” content; it generates conversation.
I forget who I heard it from, but some bigger YouTuber mentioned that when talking to someone at YouTube about “the algorithm” and the person who worked at YouTube suggested rather than always thinking about it being the algorithm that drives what’s popular, that it’s the users who engage with that content. In the “line goes up” capitalist mindset, the algorithms at these companies are really just designed around engagement, and keeping people hooked. The “algorithm” is just what it thinks the audience wants.
And while I think a lot of us would like to think better of ourselves, I think we all have a strong tendency to engage with ragebait, and “shocking” content. Which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad trait in a pre-internet world. But in the world where the shareholders always need the line to go up infinitely, all of our media gets filled with the garbage that makes the line go up the most.
In the short term, we can all try more to engage less with the kind of content, showing the algorithms that we don’t actually want that content.
In the long term, we should probably de-couple our media from the infinite-growth investor-first capitalism that has formerly-respected publications writing articles about what 5 random people said on Twitter that they can ragebait people into engaging with.
Yes people like stuff that’s not good for them, violence focused “journalistic” shows were all the rage during the early millenium since they did get a big viewership, but nowadays they are mostly over with only a few left, we should demand change from those that have the power to do it.
People also need to be responsible in what they choose to believe though.
Yes but…I try ink media literacy is something that isn’t necessarily intuitive. It can and should be taught in elementary and secondary schools.
That’s true but unregulated internet access at a young age exists
Engineering controls are always the most effective way to limit contact with harmful substances.
True, but imagine if we gave everyone an automatic weapon and told people they need to be responsible for what they choose to shoot. True, but we probably shouldn’t have given out so many weapons.
It’s a terrible metaphor, but there’s an intersection between personal, collective, corporate, and technological responsibility that we need to consider, and it’s hard to articulate in a few sentences. IMHO we’re all in an ouroboros of thought and action, internally and externally.
The thing is it’s really not hard to fact check things you see.
If you do that, kiss the Fediverse goodbye.
I feel like a lot of people confuse feminism for straight up misandry. #killallmen? #maletears? These were started by so called “feminists” but this is the definition of misandry.
And people wonder why young men don’t like feminism when this might have been their only exposure to it.
And how much of that is actually created to stoke anti-feminist attitudes?
Almost none of it is created to stoke anti-feminist attitudes, but it is certainly spread to do so.
There was this great tumblr post a couple years ago that I can’t seem to find anymore about how when feminists spread phrases like ‘all men are trash’, even if in context it doesn’t seem offensive or bigoted, people who dislike feminism will spread it to people offended by it without the additional context and say “look, see! Feminists hate all men! They hate you! Why would you as a man want to help people who hate you unconditionally?!”, and unfortunately the people most vulnerable to that type of manipulation are teenage boys, who aren’t exactly likely to seek out the context that’s been removed
The problem is that people aren’t familiar with what feminism actually is, so that leaves room for that kind of nuttery to get pushed.
There was a video awhile back of a “feminist” combating the practice of “manspreading” on trains by dumping water mixed with bleach onto men’s crotches. Outage naturally ensued, but later it was revealed to be a Russian psyop.
The group’s website claimed the video was designed to provoke a backlash against feminism and further social division in Western countries.
So, yeah, some of this stuff is manufactured to produce rage and sow division. How much? Who knows?
Of course, we both understand how “all men are trash” could be said without bigotry within the right context, but for everyone else that doesn’t understand, would someone mind explaining or clarifying?
Gladly! I’ll use an example that I myself witnessed (and helped pull me out of the alt right pipeline, funnily enough) but unfortunately no longer have the link to corroborate my story, as it was deleted by the original post author some time afterwards, I’ll also include a timeline of how it gets into the right wing circles and gets spread around, bolded part for those who just want to know the context:
A young feminist makes a post on a personal blog that includes the text “all men are trash” as part of a larger critique on masculine culture and how it negatively everyone, including men. IIRC it was something like “all men are trash, they do bad things [other examples, leading paragraph type stuff]” and then continues in the next couple of lines “That’s what men are supposed to be and are lead to be under a patriarchy, but these values are harmful to everyone, them included, that’s why the men who don’t end up like this, and end up kind and nice, are demonized by those men who did end up evil and cruel, they disprove the need for a patriarchy, [the rest of the article]” (again, this is just what I remember, it may not be fully correct)
Effectively, the author was pointing out that a patriarchal masculine society demonizes men who are kind and help others, while rewarding men who are ruthless and cruel, with the statement “all men are trash” probably being used as an inflammatory statement to make the reader keep reading.*
At some point in the following year, someone in the alt right circle of twitter picks up on this blog and screenshots the paragraph with “all men are trash” and some other minor details that don’t include the part about how the feminist actually critiques the negative influences on men
This screenshot then spreads to right wing indoctrinators, who happily run with it and use to to paint a picture of how feminists hate all men and think they are trash, so as a man you shouldn’t be a feminist, and should hate feminists because they hate you!
Fringe right wing content creators see the indoctrinators takes on this and edit it together with similar examples, some of which are genuine ‘hate all men’ people, others are also taken out of context.
Right wing & right wing adjacent content creators release videos using the edited content to make videos with titles like “FEMINISTS think ALL MEN are trash?!”, where it eventually reaches me,
I find the original blog in order to try to understand why they could possibly think I’m trash and read the rest of the article, I question why the content creator left this out and then start questioning what else they lied to me about, I start watching left wing content creators for alternate perspectives and end up the way I am now: hard core left wing gay guy who cringes at the fact I was ever even right wing adjacent
Thanks for explaining! Let me explain why I disagree with this in general. I’ll share a personal anecdote, bear with me please.
So, a feminist friend shared with me a book on human trafficking for sexual exploitation written by a group of investigative journalists that she had helped translate to Serbian. It was thoroughly researched and well documented. Reading it left a mark on me and taught me things about the world that shatter the childish worldview (this was decades ago, I was a young teenager at the time).
Now, the Serbian translation was prefaced by my friend’s fellow activist who was clearly a misandrist. The preface was filled with slurs and general assumptions of complicity and guilt about exclusively men, despite the fact that even the very book the preface was for stated that men also get trafficked (though less), and that women themselves are not rarely involved in the illegal trafficking chains of operation (think Ghislane Maxwell).
Reading that preface made me feel unjustly attacked and I would have dropped the book and never got to the good, educational part, had it not been for my friend’s highest recommendation (I’m glad I stuck with it). It turns out the woman who wrote this had had bad experiences with men in her life, and used this otherwise well researched book as a vessel to vent her personal hate for men, which was borne out of her own trauma.
While it can be considered “justified” that she feels this way, this damaged greatly the overall message of the Serbian translation, which clearly took a lot of effort to research, document and write, and than translate and publish in my country. Its educational impact was greatly diminished by the editor’s choice (out of activist camaraderie, I’m assuming) to include the hateful text at the very beginning, which unjustly attacks the very audience who would most benefit by learning from the unbiased body of the book. It’s a tragically missed opportunity.
While social media exacerbates these issues (all this happened long before social media existed), and bad faith actors attempt to skew positive feminist messages, I think we shouldn’t excuse the feminist movement for some of its own failings.
To conclude, I’m a male feminist, but I think writing “all men are thrash” or “all cops are bastards”, or “all <broad group> are <slur>” in general in the public sphere is irresponsible.
Thank you for your response! I must apologize firstly for the late reply (I do my best to be on social media as little as possible lately) and secondly for giving off the impression that I am in favor of using terms like “all men are trash”, I am against them entirely, not only do they create situations that are easy to manipulate and spin, but they also tend to give power to genuinely awful groups within the feminist movement (TERFs, anti-masc homophobes, misandrist, etc)
My response was intended to give an example where the phrase could be taken out of context to be more negative than its original context.
Believe me, I know the hate all men type feminists exist, and it’s baffling to me that they aren’t called out more often by people who care about equality
Ah, ok, I was having a hard time imagining how it could be just taken out of context without just being entirely misquoted. I was making the mistake of trying to imagine the author saying that themselves rather than saying it as a hypothetical quote to then criticize. And perhaps it’s even possible the other way, too.
I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate. At times, I haven’t been too sure what any given “ism” most generally means when different people might misunderstand or even deliberately skew the meaning, and, at least for me, this helped me see a really good example of how that’s done in the context of misrepresenting feminism, in particular. Even without referencing an original source, it’s helpful to see examples to learn how to recognize that when it does happen.
I agree with most things you wrote, but one thing confuses me. You seem to suggest that writing ‘all men are thrash’ is ok in some contexts, but when spread without that context can radicalize boys?
However much is intentionally inflammatory controlled opposition, it will never catch up to the work of people like Dworkin, Solanas, or more recently Julie Bindel.
There are plenty of established, respected feminists, who you could never in a million years claim are a psyop, whose work is taught in academia on a regular basis and whose contents would immediately get me banned off of most social media platforms if I were to swap the genders they’re talking about and post an excerpt.
And this is just the theory aspect.
Let’s not forget the revolutionary additions to the legislative side of things like the primary caregiver standard, or the Duluth model for domestic violence.
There is a reason “feminism” is not called “egalitarianism”.
Yes more modern waves have put some token effort into at least presenting a path for men to improve their lot in society, but let’s be real, conservatives do that for women too, it’s hardly in good faith and it’s fundamentally useless because the focus of the ideology isn’t to improve the lot of everyone.
It can’t be, because it starts from the presupposition that men’s lot is the best lot, and women’s needs to catch up to men’s.
Even when it nominally factors in facts like men being expected to put themselves in harm’s way and die for society it also handily blames men for making the choices that, for instance, lead to war, and it implies that therefore it’s not as important because the fact that the person sitting at a desk sending men to get shot on the front lines also happens to have a penis somehow makes it less problematic.
So yeah, there’s plenty to criticise.
Feminism has some very valid complaints, hell, a lot even, but there’s also a shitton of reasons why your average man can look at your typical feminist and ask himself “why the fuck would I ever side with you?”
George Orwell, before he wrote 1984, wrote a treatise on the weaponiziation of language. It seems like he was right to warn people.
To clarify my post: the thought of what the word “feminism” or “feminist”, etc could be twisted into, reminded me of Orwell’s treatise, and how someone could easily get it in their heads that feminists have an overarching agenda to feminize everyone,. I’d imagine this is especially true for young boys,/menn. The anti-trans and anti gay movement or has pretty much always been framed that way, like the existence of them is going to affect Cis people or some other nonsense that is most assuredly a talking point of the alt right and GOP,. This becomes even easier to achieve if bad actors are being depiberately obtuse to manipulate a populace of young and misguided men, who’ve been left by the wayside by earlier generations who have regressive, “fuck you, I’ve got mine” attitudes.
☝️👏👏
The mis-characterization of feminists into “feminazis” started with Anita Saarkesian. I remember gamers coming after her hard during gamergate for literally no reason at all. If you go back and watch old Feminist Frequency episodes she wasnt saying anything insane at all. They were all solidly rational observations about the way women were portrayed in games.
The term feminazi began long before gamergate and the movement was a genuine protest against the relationship between game studios and the people pretending to be journalists and honest reviewers.
I watched as the incels and right wing nut jobs rolled in and made it about who Zoe Quinn was fucking. What people don’t remember is that she was a narcissistic sociopath who ruined anyone who crossed her and got actual feminists chased off the internet. Reframing the debate to be about slut shaming allowed the incels and the faux feminists to hijack any meaningful dialogue and all the reasonable people distanced themselves from the issue.
Oh no some people were mean on the internet, better throw out all of feminism!
As we all know what small numbers of people on twitter say defines entire groups, that’s how we know all gamers are nazis…
I think slacktivist corporate feminism is an easy punching bag which makes it an easy case to dismiss the message.
That and with internet allowing every village idiot a voice, it is very easy for someone to say something incredibly batshit insane which becomes a punching bag for the rest of the people.
I get the basic idea of “slacktivist corporate feminism”, but can you give me some specific examples as I’m very interested in this idea.
Not OP, but:
Susan G. Komen pink on everything once a year, #girlboss, 9000 stock photos of women being women at business, bragging about a high percent of the company being women while all of the top 10% earners are men, making a Big Deal about international women’s day on social media while quietly fucking with insurance to drive up the cost of women’s healthcare, etc. etc.
I really think that tate is an imbecil, and his fanbase are just being manipulated.
It is sad to see that boys think that this idiot is someone who deserve attention.
They equate money with competence ignoring the fact that a lot of his money was illegally made.
Money == sex.
As long as women keep throwing themselves at people like Andrew Tate, men are going to look up to him.
He’s a human trafficker and a rapist. The women in his videos don’t have a choice but to do what he says.
You’re not wrong. But it shifts the blame to women when the onus should be on men to to be responsible.
It’s not about being “responsible.” Andrew Tate isn’t “responsible” and women throw themselves at him.
It’s about money. Andrew Tate has a lot of it, so he gets a lot of sex.
It’s what encourages men to be as shitty as possible in order to make as much money as possible.
I don’t feel like explaining. It’s capitalism. Patriarchy serves capitalism.
Umm, then why do women prefer to have sex with wealthy men over regular ones?
How Patriarchy and Capitalism Combine to Aggravate the Oppression of Women. If people had the time to read more, a lot of these problems would go away.
A big problem - for ages now - is, that young men just don’t have fathers. There’s a male around, often, but these are rarely “fathers” that convey a whole picture of a male person. I grew up without one, and I can tell you, how confusing that can be. You attach yourself very easily to ideas other male persons have. Thinking for yourself is another skill that’s kinda rare, not only today, it was at any time. It’s hard to navigate these years.
I grew up without a dad and prefer it to having a shitty dad, which is what most people have.
Most people have shit dads? Really?
I have doubts, but I’m sorry you feel that way.
Absolutely. A good father is hard to come by.
A lot of them end up clipping the wings (and foreskins) of their children because their wings (and foreskins) were clipped, too.
These kids then go through life thinking that’s how they should treat others if they love them. It creates a lot of confusion that could be assuaged by acknowledging most fathers are shit.
While I’m against circumcision (it’s genital mutilation, fight me) you are spouting some fucking weird nonsense.
Generational trauma is a motherfucker and until enough people break the cycle we’re stuck on this rollercoaster of periodic facism.
This is the reason for a very brief period of time, in my late 20s, I almost fell for Jordan Peterson’s schlock. In my opinion he’s the more dangerous one. I am a pretty level headed person and was then, but because of my upbringing I was vulnerable. Tate can suck eggs in hell though.
They also are looking for a place to belong. Incels need love too
Is it really that hard not to be a fucking cunt?
For a teenager, yes. That’s why this is important.
