I keep seeing posts mentioning this phenomenon more and more often.
For instance:
‘Andrew Tate phenomena’ surges in schools - with boys refusing to talk to female teacher
Like, why? Why now? Why even? I really wish I had a time machine where I could go to the future and ask them what the general reasons were for this social development. But I feel like I’m looking for the specific thorn on a cactus that popped my balloon.
I think the answer is obvious: Tate tells them “you’re awesome”. No one else is doing that. People seek validation.
To me his message is closer to “you’re a useless piece of shit, but i will help you become the strong man that women love. If you listen to me and work hard you will have a family and be happy. Fuck the world and society they lie about what you need to do to keep you docile and weak.”
He also has a lot of stuff about embracing all the masculine traits that society hates like aggression and psychopathy. Then just general unhinged statements that contradict his core message and no one notices because cult
I feel like the contradictions are the point. The most desirable trait of people like Tate or Trump is their impunity. They keep getting away with heinous shit, it’s the one thing that makes them demonstrably powerful, despite being disgusting, unimpressive scumbags.
This is the short of it. Tate explains in no uncertain terms that society is to blame for the insecurities they feel, and provides an easy answer on how to fix it that kind of works, because it emulates self-confidence.
I mean it’s right wing politics in a nutshell
Dupe fools with simple, comforting lies over complicated, uncomfortable truth. If people don’t understand reality they can’t change it.
That was a conversation I just had with someone today. They did not appreciate my saying so.
And organized religion, as well.
they’rethesamepicture.jpeg
I think it’s another message. Tate says “The world is fucked up” and then proceeds to say “I have the secret, if you want to make it in this fucked up world you have to be tough, uncompromising, domineering, cheat, and act like me” and “you’re a sucker and a cuck if you don’t do what I say”. First message sets up the world, 2nd sets up a “”“”“solution”“”“” to success that only a “few” people know, and the final thing is him attempting to make anyone who believes otherwise look weak which gives any of his followers the ability to a) feel a sense of superiority and b) make fun of others for being “weak” or “cucks” or “betas” or whatever.
I feel like there’s always been a culture of boys and young men who didn’t respect women, there’s just never been podcasters actively promoting it.
The internet allows idiots to broadcast their message worldwide and social media promotes the most controversial stuff in order to drive engagement and, more recently, to promote a culture war that keeps the populus divided.
there’s just never been podcasters actively promoting it.
Before podcasts, we had a bunch of AM radio, grindhouse movies, pulp fiction, skin mags, and incel blogs. Joe Rogan is an archtype that echoes through the ages.
I remember when every friend group had a stoned uncle who lived in Grandma’s basement and would spout alien hotep lost city of z under water bullshit.
Some asshole at Spotify gave one a podcast and here we are.
Part of it is that women have achieved an educational level as a group that allows them to make better choices. They no longer have to choose which is the nicer wife beater in their town.
The incels seem to have a problem with this. The idea of having to compete based upon personality, likability and in general the ability to treat another person as a human being bothers them.
And if we let this follow the path it’s on, they’ll try to put us in burqas rather than working to become better people.
Referring to men in general as “wife beaters” is exactly the kind of rhetoric that fuels Tate’s popularity.
It’s also pretty dishonest to lump his followers in with incels. Tate openly despises incels - he sees them as quitters. His whole message is about power, self-discipline, and taking control of your life. Incels, on the other hand, are rooted in despair and nihilism. They believe the game is rigged, that the problem is in their genes, and that there’s nothing they can do to change it. It’s a fundamentally different mindset.
Referring to men in general as “wife beaters” is exactly the kind of rhetoric that fuels Tate’s popularity.
They are referring to the fact that it was common in the past for society to force women to get married so strongly that at least some of them had to put up with the wife beaters just to exist. They didn’t mean men in general.
Also. When a legal system, religion, and political parties undermine women’s humanity, domestic violence in a population goes up.
The incels
Weaponizing shaming like this is part of the issue. Young boys and men are bullied and called incels because they don’t conform to whatever BTS image girls and women fantasize about these days. They’re not given a chance to come out of their shells, and being shamed, won’t ever try to.
It’s a shame that body shaming boys is in vogue and perpetrated by those who support big models and HAES.
I think you have incel confused with something completely different.
I’ve heard young women call men “incels” as an insult, what are you talking about?
An incel is someone wbo claims ro be involuntarily incelibate, as in no one wants to fuck them. The incels claim it is based on looks, but it is because they have shitty, hate filled personalities where they blame women for their problems.
It doesn’t have anything to do with looks. It might have something to do with dressing like an Tate fanboy though.
Yes that is the definition.
However, it’s now being used as an insult as well. I’ve been called this even though I’ve been married 20 years with children, by a 40 year old spinster.
Calling someone a spinster in that context gives off incel vibes.
And you don’t think it may have had more to do with what you were saying / the way you were behaving than your looks? I don’t doubt that incel may be thrown around more as a basic insult these days - it’s just reaching that level of ubiquity in everyday speech - but I have more often heard it used towards men who are saying or doing things that are misogynistic. The same kind of misogyny that betrays a deeper insecurity has long been common in adolescent boys who are going through puberty and dealing with feelings they don’t know how to deal with yet, and the word incel has become a convenient way to call it out, but I do feel that when it comes to adolescents there should be some charitability and understanding. Andrew Tate and the rest of the Manosphere are giving these kids the opposite of what they need, though.
Oh it wasn’t used aptly which pissed me off even more.
Being called an incel to an awkward teenage boy has an equal but opposite effect to an innocent teenage girl being called a slut.
I’m advocating neither term should be used to either of them.
I’ve been incel for years and never hated or blamed women. I was aware of hateful incels but I avoided them.
I wish people would stop generalizing.
Incel has never been a label without the part about hating and blaming women, although it has expanded to hating men too over time. It has always been about not getting laid and expressing frustration and anger. There isn’t some neutral meaning to reclaim or anything like that.
If you don’t blame the gender(s) that isn’t having sex with, you are not an incel. That just means you haven’t successfully found someone which can be for a wide variety of reasons, most of which can be addressed by changing behavior and how one tries to connect with the desired group.
It’s musk’s used melon, what fo you expect?
Stupidity
Part of it is that propaganda works. A lot of people are trying to make fascism happen and this type of content fits right in.
But also, there’s a growing issue of men not knowing how to act around women, and there isn’t much non-misogynist competition for Tate. It seems like for a lot of people (both men and women) it’s harder to make personal connections these days than it used to be, and apps like Tinder exarcerbate the issue.
Social media algos are creating this. This is why a lot of 20-38 year old young boys are turning to conservatism. This is how the rich wealthy elites are overthrowing the last few remaining democries. UK is currently their main target. They were successful with Germany and they are now expading. In 3-6 years, the world will have completely shifted to the right.
This is why a lot of 20-38 year old young boys are turning to conservatism.
As far as I know, there’s only been a slight shift toward conservatism among young men. For the most part, their political views haven’t changed all that much - it’s actually women who have shifted much more noticeably to the left and thus widening the gap between them.
It differs by Western country at least as well. Australian Gen Z men for instance are shifting left, just not as quickly as women.
To be honest, the whole narrative about Gen Z is overly focused on men, and the seismic shift of Gen Z women to the left should not be ignored. But belittling and undermining the views of young women is certainly not a new thing.
I think the decline of misogyny is the reason. As it’s not as normalized as it once was, yet still a very powerful lingering thread in our culture, men are seeking validation for it where they would have otherwise found validation for misogyny, unasked for and unconditionally, in their everyday social circles in previous eras.
Tate is the very personification of misogyny. Are you saying misogyny is the default state of CIS/HET men?
I’m saying misogyny is, culturally, hundreds of generations deep.
Yes and the patriarchy harms all genders including males.
But you’re not answering my question directly.
Uh, then ‘no’.
Cool thanks for the clarification. So it sounds like you’re saying Tate is a symptom of the last gasps of misogyny. Is that a close enough approximation? Not trying to strawman your argument just looking for clarity.
“Last gasps” is a strong word, but symptomatic of a weakening of misogyny in general society, yes. Time will tell if this weakening is another step towards crushing that particular bigotry, or if it’ll experience a second wind in these sickened circumstances.
The world around them is collapsing. Tate promises to have the solution. For whatever reason, his solution makes sense to them. So they follow him.
A lot of young men frustrated with the lack of community, the fleeting chance of making good money, buying a home, etc. are looking for something/someone to blame. Misogyny and xenophobia are easy escape hatches for difficult times.
A lot of young people.
I mean, yeah. Young people of both genders are doing really poorly. Some people want to really naval gaze it and throw pity parties about how men are just so put upon and lonely, but so are the gals and theys.
It’s just that the boys are being offered a solution of basically a heirarchy-cult (read: fascism) where instead of being shat on like the rest of us, they are—in this narrative—meant to be elevated above us.
It’s the same bullshit that got the white poor rednecks voting for billionaire grifters.
This is pretty much the most accurate response here. People like Andrew Tate are a symptom of a problem we have in society as a whole. The cure isn’t to block the symptom, because the disease is still there. The solution involves hard work & holding our own politicians accountable.
Social atomization is another huge aspect of this.
The world is falling appart around us. Men don’t have community, often lack education and don’t see a real future anyway.
Two of the most obvious results of this are loneliness and lack of opportunity. Andrew Tate and many of the other right wing grifters flaunt having (at least superficially) both of these in spades. Its no wonder that those who are desperate or stupid (or both) would follow him.
https://mediachomp.com/teenage-boys-being-indoctrinated-online/
Edit: I’d imagine the issue is exacerbated by the ease with which every flavor and speed of pornography over broadband internet is available to auto-objectify women, misdirect post-auto-orgasm oxytocin, and misrepresent intimacy.
Yup, the massive investment in engagement algorithms is why these hateful messages are amplified.
Why? Simple. Young men now have to compete for the attention of women in a way that they never did. In times past, if there was competition for a woman’s attention or time, it was with another man - someone they saw as an equal, a better, or someone to be defeated. Now the competition is with the woman herself. It’s not just a matter of putting on the act of shaving, buying a suit, going to church, spending time with her instead of sporting events, and so forth - for the purpose of courtship only. Most of that could be shut off immediately after the marriage license was signed and the rest after the birth of the first child.
Generally speaking, society is applauding women for competing with men like that, and telling men that they have to ‘be better’ - while not giving clear objectives on what “better” is. Add to that ongoing social friction (especially now after the lockdowns), and the situation for many young men is looking rather bleak.
Along comes Andrew Tate (and a slew of other MR activists), who tell these disappointed, depressed guys that what they’re experiencing is not their fault (which is what they already believe, but are afraid to say). They provide clear, simple answers - do this, achieve that. And it works, especially the basic things. Why wouldn’t they listen to people who tell them that they’re not the problem? Or who tells them what they can do to solve the problem? Of course young men listen to it and heed it. But because they’re so caught up in a cult of personality, they don’t know how to speak a new, less toxic voice into existence.
Because unfortunately the President of the United States is a misogynist which makes lot of young men go “if the president can behave like that, why can’t I?”
Obviously this is a very reduced take that is informed by very current affairs, but I think you can extrapolate the larger point here. There are people in positions of power - world leaders, parents, educators, pundit, grifter, etc. - who make it their entire platform to tell men “it’s OK to be pieces of shit because you are better than everybody.” It’s then buoyed by the seemingly absurd statement: “Systemic [racism/sexism/bigtory/etc] isn’t real. But if it is, it’s happening to YOU.”
When some group is trying to manipulate people, they don’t just boost content from that topic, they generate fake 2nd hand interest. Fake 3rd hand interest. They aren’t trying to boost it a little bit, they’re trying to create an artificial fad. Create the fake appearance of a whole social movement happening that you just happened to stumble upon. When people want to manipulate a whole society, manipulate their culture, in ways that sew distrust and divisions and make it self distrust, they do this to people like him. He’s probably getting boosted by Russia just as Trump removed all the protections against Russia tampering and influencing American social media. His message is hateful and harmful and pro far right, which is exactly where the interests of Russia and maga align.
