‘Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism
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.”
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.
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.
Every one of these words was boogeymanned as a deliberate political move
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.
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.
do you think it makes sense to distinguish between the kind of radical feminism you're talking about, and the dry academic stuff that's also called radical feminism by the people who are engaged in it at least?
it's tricky, i can't deny there aren't spaces which are predominantly women where a bunch of unfair or negative stuff about men is said.
thing is, radical, which in math is another term for getting the 'root' of something, like a square root, and also means like 'fundamental' does have more than one meaning. when you use it, that's one use of the word which makes sense, another which is the one i first learned and the places i go to use to describe themselves is rather dry academic, philosophical, and artsy (artsy in the way which is confusing as heck to me) and they are also radical.
so often i am confused because it's not as though when you use the word you're making anything up. other commenters will likely treat you like you invented that use of the word, people always police language. it'd be way nicer if we could understand each other better i really think you and i and the commenters which probably gave you a downvote all have way more in common than not.
TBH I've never heard of any other type of radical feminism, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying radical feminists were the original feminists?
no i don't think they were "the original", where i see it now, they are in academic institutions (like the philosophy dept at my school, a few in women's studies) and publications (here's one from radical philosophy, she wrote for the london review of books which i really like and i thought the title was interesting, i thought it was a good piece that i'll have to revisit at some point.
you'll note there isn't really any provocative language. you mentioned female dating strategy, that's not a pleasant place to be. i browsed it a bit then noped out when all the acronyms started to come out, i checked the sidebar and thought yeah this is not a place which wants me...
Radical feminism is 4th or 5th wave feminism.
So much misinformation.
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.
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.
… well, yeah… but symptoms can kill you, too.
Underrated comment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
i thought it's cuz their aero industry died?
Nah its known as the Somali incident.
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:
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
If you read online about current discussions regarding nature VS nurture, people are actually influenced more by a combination of peer pressure and media/cultural influence than their parents.
Sadly this also means that it's unlikely that, as a parent, you have much of a chance to work against those influences.
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.
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 are " 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.
Yes, imho it's in the exact same area as All Cops Are Bastards, where it's a critique of a system (in this case the patriarchy) that corrupts every willing and even unwilling participant through privilege and toxic expectations.
Not every cop is literally a bad person, not every man is figuratively trash. But every cop participates in an unjust and toxic system and every man benefits from certain privileges while having toxic societal expectations many suffer under placed on them.
It's an expression for a need to change the system not a condemnation of all who fall under it's umbrella, but it is presented as the latter by removing the context for propagandistic purposes or simply through an intellectual lazyness that wants to feed their own biases.
There is a big difference between something you can choose and something you cannot choose. Your two examples are not analogs. Cop isn't a sex or race it's a job and you must choose to do that job.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The Fantastic Masculinity of Newt Scamander
Bingo. Well said
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.
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.
so yes men do get laughed at for this kinda stuff, by men and also by women. when men do it, i noticed it doesn't bother me as much truthfully.
i'll say when i'm in more women-friendly, radical feminist spaces (journals, magazines, irl events) there really isn't this negativity around. something like the scumm manifesto does say stuff that can be hurtful or seem hateful (i'd agree it is hateful; i'd also agree it's completely justified and rational given the circumstances) and honestly so much of the tension seems to me to be due to the online nature of this stuff.
are there women-only spaces where a bunch of negative things about men are said? obviously, and i can't for the life of me figure out why it's held to a different standard than other groups outside of the patriarchy being the explanation.
i think treating and seeing women as equal is accepting there are women who have awful takes. women as a group will be like many other groups, they might appear homogeneous and their's a wealth of differences between them.
i'm ok believing some men are toxic, as am i for some women, what i don't do is share that opinion with others if the circumstances aren't appropriate. i think that's where "think before you act" or "think before you talk" comes in.
The leaders of the movement are publishing this shit though. It’s not fringe if it’s the leaders of the movement.
That’s Andrea Dworkin for you. Even though she’s dead, her followers still run the show.
yeah, think my response was responding to something non-existent (like i made up a take to argue against), appreciate your comment. one needs to take the complaints and grievances seriously if they wanna understand or have a meaningful affect.
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.
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.
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.
Is it really that hard not to be a fucking cunt?
For a teenager, yes. That's why this is important.
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.
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.
Not necessarily. If it only applies to sites with algorithmic feeds (i.e. specifically ones that serve individualized streams to each user based on what they specifically have liked in the past), companies who choose to be in control of what content they show are held to account and smaller platforms are safe.
Or do what the EU did with the DMA.
Write a law specifically for megacorps and only megacorps. It's possible and it works.
arent up- and downvotes pretty much just that?
Not if algorithmic feeds are defined as ones that show individualized feeds to each user, like I said in my comment
I think you'd have to dig into the definition of an algorithm.
Defined in the law, doofus
Yeah, the definition in the law would have to be based on what constitutes an algorithm. That's what I meant, doofus
What specific algorithms the law applies to does not have to be all pieces of code that could be conceivably classed as an "algorithm". The law can use a different word if it makes you feel better
Gotcha. Forgot the legal system doesn't like logical speech lol
If you cannot name, let alone quote, a single piece of feminist literature, are you really against feminism, or are you just railing against your own fucked up projections?
Against, in my opinion, because you hold women back even if it is unwittingly.
But they’re also far from unreachable. Ignorance has a solution.
Since Parent choice is apparently all the rage, I demand that my children and their peers all be taught The Second Sex by 6th grade or so.
This shit stain can be both.
Came to say the same thing. A symptom can also be a cause. Trump is also both a symptom and a cause of 'anti-feminist attitudes'.
Though, I prefer the term misogynist attitudes myself.
Andrew Tate himself is absolutely a problem, that doesn't preclude there from also being other, related, broader, problems. Usually, when you see an argument in the form of "X thing (small, defined, addressable) isn't the problem, Y thing (large, nebulous, intractable) is the problem!" Then what is happening is someone is re-framing the debate from a cognizable issue to an unsolvable issue, to defuse any actual action. It's a great tactic!
I agree about the tactic, but I don't feel this particular article aims to use it (though I concede the wording of the title is a bit clumsy). The final paragraph clarifies the clickbait (as it happens nowadays):
“There are already three or four influencers jockeying for position if he goes down,” he says. “He’s a symptom, not the problem.”
Lack of actually good and well-known male role models leads to scum filling the vacuum. Disproportional push in favor of girls and to the detriment of boys is also to blame. Doesn't look like it's gonna fix itself anytime soon though.
Boys traditionally are taught from a very young age that uncompromising, and 'unfeeling' toxic males are what we need to look up to. So that's what they gravitate towards. It's a whole other discussion about unburdening and unpacking toxic views in men that is the core issue actually at play.
Women pushing for equal rights isn't to blame for men not unpacking their own toxic baggage. If no one is standing up for boys look at the men. It's not girls' fault that no one is trying to reachout to troubled boys. The ones who are reaching out are toxic gross assholes like Tate or Rogan who are using these boys as a means to line their bank accounts.
Social inequality is never going to fix itself. There isn't a single issue in the world that is going to just fix itself.
You forgot Peterson in this Unholy Trinity of Toxic Masculinity
How anyone heard this man's voice and decided he was one of their "Alphas" is a mystery.
Also these nut jobs like to pretend that these mythical heroic figures built civilization with their bare hands instead of being lucky enough to be born with a whip in their hand and slaves to use it on.
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.
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.
Hm I don't understand, could you explain? I had a different experience so it's a bit difficult for me to get. My dad wasn't around until a bit later and by then I didn't respect him all that much. My mom raised me and told me to be nice with my dad and show him affection, otherwise I wouldn't have interacted with him as much. I think I've taken on characteristics from my mom as a result. What does it look like for someone to have a man or masculine kind of person around?
They also are looking for a place to belong. Incels need love too
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.
Men benefit significantly from feminism, through the breakdown of male stereotypes, and the expansion of how normative masculinity is defined. Not that benefiting cishet men is necessarily the most important thing in the world, but the idea that feminism puts men on the losing end of some zero sum game is simply wrong.
Honestly it could not be more clear in my own experience. There is a ton of diversity in the human experience, and the masculine experience is part of that. You deny your own freedom when you put yourself and others in a conformity pigeonhole. And you additionally deny yourself access to this diversity of experience when you do it to others. But I also kind of understand why this nuance is initially lost on children, and suspect that experience plus education will help immensely.
My current and previous job were traditionally not open to men. So I'm quite thankful feminism works to break down such gender norms, and it absolutely benefited me.
I'm not going to list my specific jobs for privacy reasons, so here's a list of possibilities instead:
Education is where we all in America are going to lose this battle. looks at the GOP
I’ve always felt like these things are cyclical in a way - just in that people are constantly rebelling against the last generation.
When I went to high school in the early 2010s there was this huge movement of like… positivity and sunshine and wellness and feminism and good times for all. Bob Ross was on everyone’s mind and Pharrell’s “Happy” blasted on the stereo, people wore really bright and mismatched and often gaudy outfits.
This was seemingly “in response” to that mid 2000s emo/grunge/depressed aesthetic which was very dark and moody. And now, in response to that 2010s positivity we seem to get this really jaded, “actually, feminism sucks and becoming a ‘trad catholic’ is chic” movement.
It’s annoying, and I’m sure we’ll see an opposite shift again in 5 years.
weird cause I got really depressed around that time because I was an unemployable highschool dropout during a recession so I fucking hated that happy song.
Same bro. I thought about suicide very often and leaned heavily into substance abuse. What a fun time.
That implies that it's somehow a natural cycle, but this is dangerous because it ignores and "Laissez-faire" the fascist propaganda that is blasted deliberately into our global society. It started with fox news and talk radio where funding from fascists helped spread "misinformation" and now continues on social media, where the same funding takes place. The strategy behind this funding is that fascism works when socio-economic circumstances get worse and worse, and allow further exploitation.
Additionally, controversial viewpoints are rewarded by more engagement and clicks - and so become part of the strategy of AI algorithms.
You should absolutely not assume it gets better on it's own, without enough people pushing back against it and without the rules of how the system is allowed to work being changed. Gen Z is just as susceptible to propaganda as Boomers.
Yeah, but I think a lot of it is just high schoolers trying to be different than the last generation. I don't think that Fox News was in charge of people getting really into Bob Ross 10 years ago.
I respect your thoughts on this as they're very fleshed out and sound like something that could be accurate, but the big problem i see is that your experiences in high-school are extremely biased by your age and limited experience with the wider world at the time. I'm not singling you out btw, because my saying this is based on my own self-reflection of earlier years. Before you are fully integrated into society and also, your frontal lobe is literally still developing until you're in your mid twenties, it is hard to assess the state of things imo. There is definitely a capitalist/media centered cultural zeitgeist that pervades everything, and I'm sure has profound effects, I just can't buy being able to fully grasp it in highschool or earlier. I look forward to your reply.
I hear you, I just want to reiterate that the discussion at hand (from the OP down) is specifically talking about that specific high school age bracket, which is why I’m invoking it so much. Culture is obviously going to be different between age groups, and a lot of that difference is imo a direct “opposition” of that previous group.
Just very anecdotally, I remember seeing a goofy little post, very clearly made by a gen-z individual, stereotyping millennials as this kind of chronically depressed, down on themselves type. Which I thought was kind of funny. Even something like the “trend” of “being depressed” the next generation will recognize and (consciously or subconsciously) change their own behavior based on it.
I don’t think there’s too much to say. I am largely just spitballing on a pattern I’ve noticed at least with fashion and “aesthetics” in that age group over time.
Appreciate the conversation as well. I’m new on the site and it really is like night and day compared to trying to have a polite little conversation on Reddit.
Jeez, you must have gone to high school in a rich neighborhood
For most people 2009-2015 or so was an impoverished hellhole. Everyone was recovering from the great recession. Societal outlook was fucking BLEAK.
I did not. You can have poor economic conditions but still a cultural zeitgeist focused more on positivity, inclusion, and “wellness” than usual
Not saying it's impossible, but I've never seen it
How many schools did you sample to come to this conclusion?
7 if you count a couple of high schools I "toured" but never went to. That was just one day at each though.
3 different states, but all in poor Southern areas.
If it helps you, imagine the following - as I believe your personal experience may be clouding things slightly .
Directly prior to the very “Emo / goth / punk / skinny jeans” time of around 2004-2010 was the early 00s. Now, in some ways the early 00s were very bleak. It was post 9/11, the economy did not like the possibility of a major war, and simply put many people genuinely thought it was some end of an empire time where further attacks on US soil might become common. At the same time, it was still the era of boy bands, brightly colored and flashy technology and clothing, blonde hair, and going to the mall + beach with your friends. Bad things were occurring, but the cultural zeitgeist for that age demographic was still in a “bright and positive” phase
If men and boys are finding current models of masculinity to be difficult - which is what Tate et al prey on - perhaps they have more in common with feminists. The patriarchy harms everyone.
It's actually not all that difficult to respect women. Which will work well in 99% of scenarios.
The other 1% are interactions on the internet which has a tendency to magnify the weirdos. The "you gotta do this and this and this to even go on a date with me" types are internet weirdos. Most women aren't actually like that. But it's the internet, so a woman saying "just respect me as a person, and we're cool" isn't going to gain traction in the algorithms.
So guys like Andrew Tate are weirdos that gain traction as a reaction to the the other weirdos.
Go outside, touch grass, respect women as people, and everything will be alright.
In that respect ("this is a problem") yes, we have commonality with feminists.
But then, feminists will say "you men need to sort your own shit out", which is not at all helpful. We need help. And if you're refusing to help us, while also ridiculing us for needing help, well is it any wonder men don't identify as feminists?
I think the difficulty stems from the growing disparity in wealth. As it continues to grow, fewer women are available for most men. They just gravitate towards the top.
It's why we have people like Andrew Tate having sex with literally thousands of women while regular men kill themselves.
Instead of emancipating from dehumanising and rigid gender norms for men, it seems like these Tate fans and red pillers and sigma, alpha men are trying to turn back the clock.
You want to tell them: "Stop, you are running into the wrong direction!"
contemporary feminism (and the wave immediately before) have done a lot more for me than how men have told me I 'ought' to act. fine, I'm not as manly or a man as far as some are concerned. what is really annoying is the apathy and close-mindedness of most of these men who interacted with me negatively.
asking a few questions is enough to make them emotional (which is fine when they do it and not ok when others do it in a way unlike their own) and more intensely emotional than nearly all women i've interacted with. that too is fine, it becomes a pain when i'm taken to be some kind of enemy or other by standards it seems like they cannot apply to themselves.
i want to say they are gaslighting, only, i really don't think it's intentional. there's a genuine misunderstanding and that's annoying as heck.
A patriarchy has been around for as long as civilization has, and its most harmful effects have clearly diminished over the past 100 years. This does not explain the issues that young people deal with that their parents and grandparents didn't.
What does this have to do with anything?
Deductive Reasoning
Dang bro almost got it
You did?
Most things come down to people don't want to unlearn things. Con-men like Tate pick up on that empty void for young men since there isn't much guidance and lead them down the wrong path. It isn't the end of the world to learn the way you're brought up thinking may have been bad or harmful, and do better in the future.
Any teachers here that want to share their stories - like does this sound exaggerated or more realistic do you think?
How about 5th graders that are hard at work using YouTube pickup artist techniques to start ‘dating’ girls. It is the bane of the playground and the source of many tears. Their parents didn’t seem to care.
The parents probably were the ones watching it to begin with.:-P
Sometimes the symptom can also be the thing exacerbating the problem and much worse of an issue than the root problem
Or, why I can’t get laid.
I pretty much have a 4 year degree in this article. Love this shit!
Read the comments if you want to be disappointed. Or, see it as an opportunity.
I don't hate myself that much today lol
While feminism is far from perfect, especially smaller circles that want to have unfair divorce rights for women or whatever, people like Andrew Tate are both the problem (as in, spreading the classic incel rhetoric) and the symptom (why young adults and teens follow people like him).
Though not only him, but also a lot of right-wing youtube channels are pushing false narratives in order to get outrage clicks and to radicalize people against things like feminism. You have youtube videos that say how "feminism is trying to ruin men" or "crazy feminists want to remove sexy girls from video games" or "feminists don't care about men", and given the amount of right-wing youtube videos that get hundreds of thousands and not millions of views, a lot of people do believe it. In reality, however, men do have issues and feminists are acknowledging them and are trying to do something about it (for example, toxic masculinity being responsible for male loneliness for instance), but also things like patriarchy, discrimination and so on.
Hating feminism and/or women isn't going to solve male loneliness. Actual societal-level change, something that feminists are striving for, is the answer.
Yeah I see a ton of comments on youtube that are obviously from troll farms but it hardly ever gets called out. In their minds those are real thoughts people have, maybe they don't always agree but the next time they have a shit thought they think its not as extreme.
So in other words, it's working. Russia has done an amazing job at mindfucking the states I would fucking clap if it wasn't so dumb and lame
I see this on my school campus quite a lot. When the male teachers direct students from using an exterior door, they usually just say ok and then around. When the female teachers are on duty and day the same things, they get verbally abused. If I'm out there with the female teachers, there aren't any issues.
Sadly, this is even an issue at university. As a lecture assistant I will just get ignored or not taken seriously by some groups of young male students. They will talk loudly, ignore my request to not talk during lecture or exercise. My male colleagues don't have such issues and it angers me more each year...
Do you have the authority to do anything more about the talking or is a verbal warning it?
In theory I can always do a short verbal test. But apart from the shock effect that doesn't have any consequences...
That seems like it'd be a factor in people not taking you seriously; if you don't have any authority to do anything about misbehaviour.
My male colleagues are in the same situation but they don't have this issue. It's also not all or the majority of students, but each semester there will be a group of young man behaving this way.
Isn't that headline just rage bait? Or is that just incompetence?