‘Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism

Pretty much exactly the same, except CRT got knocked down before it even had established itself as a positive thing.

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.

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.

Double plus ungood.

So much strife comes from bickering over the definitions of words.

Every one of these words was boogeymanned as a deliberate political move

It is a wonderfully good idea. Except for one tiny, insignificant variable. Humans. Humans ruin it every time.

I would say lemmygrad is the only safe place to do this

Depends, I was chatting with someone without using any charged terminology, then he blurted out "but that's socialism!!"

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.

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.

So much misinformation.

comments like this are what's hijacking it.

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.

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.

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 think there's a lesson in there about teaching people that weren't around for the formation of a movement about why targeted movements exist.

It's not just with kids but with people that are tuned out... I think too many people fall through the cracks into white power, toxic masculinity, incel groups, etc because on the surface the questions are of course...

"well why don't I have a support group for X? what makes that group of people special? why do they get their own day?"

Like yeah, if nobody's ever explained what women have historically faced to you, feminism and girl power are especially strange concepts to confront.

Maybe having a more positive masculinity movement actually wouldn't be a bad idea just to help people that are feeling a little lost and prevent them from finding "answers" in the wrong places(?)

do you know if there is one for movember? i always felt that international mens day wasnt really popular because it wasnt 'themed' if you get what i mean. during movember in high school the girls would get those like moustache cutouts and wear them and it all raised awareness for men and boys and there was funding for like, i think it was prostate cancer?

When men do bad things: "this is toxic masculinity"

When women do bad things: "this is also toxic masculinity"

The leaders of the movement are publishing this shit though. It’s not fringe if it’s the leaders of the movement.

Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies.

Any man will follow any feminine looking thing down any dark alley; I've always wanted to see a man beaten to a shit bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth, sort of the pig with the apple; it would be good to put him on a serving plate but you'd need good silver.

That’s Andrea Dworkin for you. Even though she’s dead, her followers still run the show.

These stereotypes are a problem and feminism is trying to get rid of them.

Are they though? I've never seen any evidence of feminists reining in their fellow feminists

The difference between All Lives Matter and this is that there really are gender-specific issues affecting men, and from their side, they feel as if they were All Lives Matter-ed. Think of it as not backlash to feminism, not a zero-sum game. Boys are just now getting to be against feminism because both the mainstream and idiots like Tate tell them that that's what this is about, and they have no better ways to cope with it.

Because historically bearing rare exceptions, the Feminist Movements have largely been anti-male, anti-trans, and anti-gay (Unless it's lesbians of course)

Seriously look into the Vagina Monologues, it's considered THE definitive feminist piece... in it a woman and a man having consensual sex is considered this great tragedy, but an older woman turning a CHILD into a lesbian by traumatizing her with sex (I know, that's not how that works, but it's how the play says that works) is said to be a good thing.. even including the line "If it was rape it was good rape"

The Feminist Movement simply aren't the good guys (no pun intended), even if we do owe it for Women's Liberation

Their enemies are shadows on the wall, shadows of their own minds.

I mean there's TERFs, they speak for feminism, no?

i do read that stuff, well, i don't consider it as such but it's been told to me to be as such. i still don't know why as i never got a chance to ask for an explanation

Feminist and women are not synonyms. Feminism is a political movement. Every political movement needs to advocate for itself. That is the way politics works.

i think the cool stuff the suffragettes did would be labeled way more negatively now. the civil disobedience was rad.

I really dislike the way you’re portraying feminism as a brand and trying to assign responsibility onto individuals for the public perception of that brand

Feminism is a brand in the same way civil rights are. There's a reason why MLK succeeded where Malcolm X failed, Gandhi successfully took back India, Obama won the 2008 election, etc. This all has to do with how they're perceived to people not part of their movement. Without a good brand none of these movements would have ever succeeded. And yes it is up to the leaders and each individual member of these movements to uphold a generally good perception. Thinking otherwise is ridiculous. You have to win over the population, always.

It’s not the responsibility of any woman to convince men that they deserve rights, that they deserve fair political power and representation. If someone is dissuaded from supporting women’s rights because someone said something they didn’t like or agree with, that person is a misogynist and unlikely to have ever actually supported women’s rights in any meaningful capacity.

In an ideal world no, but we are not in an ideal world. If someone is a mysgonist what is so wrong with sitting down with them and discussing topics like normal human beings and showing them why that's wrong? Just completely shutting them out like how you're describing is exactly how you embolden an opposition group. Imagine someone on twitter was actually just simple minded and based their opinions on one tweet and didn't actually hear the other side properly? A lot of people like that exist. And if your attitude is "oh they're misogynistic and never cared so I shouldn't even bother" then you're just digging your own hole.

The caricature of the “crazy feminist” is also in and of itself misogynistic, and is used to silence feminist activism all the time. Not that there aren’t legitimate extremist parts to the movement, particularly in the 60s 70s and 80s when feminism had yet to make many major strides towards female liberation. Just that the label is often used to dismiss things like the pink tax, the wage gap, and discussions of rape culture and intersectionality.

See what I, and I'm sure many others dislike is the way you derive misogyny from a simple example. A lot of people simply don't see anything wrong with calling out the "crazies" of a group. Am I islamaphobic for calling out terrorists? No. Am I anti-christian for calling out the Westboro Baptist church? No. Am I misogynistic for making fun of clearly unhinged people on twitter? No. Extreme examples of course, but you get the picture. The instant jump to misogyny when genuinely crazy, unhinged, insane feminists get made fun of is ridiculous. Like I said, >99% of feminists are completely normal and sane. There is nothing wrong or hateful for calling out the crazy people in any group.

i mentioned in another comment in this thread; i like physical activity, just not intense sports (even 'amateur' or 'casual' floor hockey/basketball was intense), would like it if there were more options. i just ended up working out and that was good for getting the physical activity i needed. it's only, i wanna do stuff outdoors sometimes and there aren't as many convenient options as a gym.

What "real problem" is he a response to?

Perhaps the user meant BBC. Someone from there did an interview

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 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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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?"

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 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.

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.

Money == sex.

As long as women keep throwing themselves at people like Andrew Tate, men are going to look up to him.

It's not difficult for sane people to respect women.

These aren't sane people.

These are people who long for the days when women were property.

It's the same misunderstanding about 'alpha wolves', they believe that a powerful self-actualized person is one who acts like wolves driven to mental illness by captivity.

So much of our media glorifies the 'hypercompetent power broker' image, the 'great man' concept of Napoleon's image that in many circles if you do NOT idolize that radioactive image as a goal for self-transformation, you are considered irrelevant and weak.

It's all regressive, it's all a response to stress and shrinking opportunity.

Humankind only got to where we are now by cooperation, almost zero humans today are truly self-sufficient, yet these chucklefucks think the only worthy person is one who takes advantage of everyone around them to their own self-benefit.

It is literally the polar opposite of what has lifted man out of naked apes in the savanna.

'return to monke' is a really terrifying meme if you understood the emotion it harnessed and the direction it flings it.

Dang bro almost got it

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.

Same bro. I thought about suicide very often and leaned heavily into substance abuse. What a fun time.

I did not. You can have poor economic conditions but still a cultural zeitgeist focused more on positivity, inclusion, and “wellness” than usual

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.