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.
Because young men have problems that aren’t taken seriously. Then someone like Tate comes along and (quite literally) sells the “solution.”
If a cult leader can swoop in and radicalise a whole lot of people, then there is an unaddressed or ignored problem going on. This is the kind of way someone like Hitler got so much support.
People who are educated, and live secure, fulfilling lives would be able to see Tate for the twat he is.
This is probably not the whole reason but in my opinion it is the primary one. Young men are indirectly being told their problems don’t matter because when they are raised they get slapped down for trying to take attention away from women’s issues, and that leaves a very sour taste in their mouths that makes it easy for charlatans like Tate to take advantage of. Especially low-status white men getting hit with the double whammy of being assumed to be just fine because everyone knows how easy it is to be a white man, right? Thanks, apex fallacy.
The times where men have tried to form positive social support structures like the MRA/MGTOW movement, they are derided as being misogynistic, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as the outside attacks reinforce those assumptions. If you look at these groups today, they are absolutely infiltrated by misogynist and racist voices, but that’s not how they started. Gamergate is another example of this phenomenon.
I’m not trying to invalidate the issues women face or trying to claim that men have it worse. It seems we collectively treat this as a zero sum game instead of getting folks the help they need for the specific problems they face, and it creates a situation where people who could otherwise be saved are radicalized by assholes who are all too willing to capitalize on that and radicalize them. Worse, the continuing polarization makes it very difficult for anyone left of center to walk back and try to address men’s issues without immediately being beset upon by a mercilessly vocal minority of feminists who see any attempt to help men as a distraction from their own issues.
Remember that each person parroting Tate’s rhetoric isn’t some hyper-privileged fratboy who is looking for an excuse to do violence to women. Some of them certainly are, but I would bet that a majority of them are low-status men who don’t see any other options.
One thing that I really wonder is if things have at all improved amongst men. It’s gone downhill with any Andrew Tate fans but like, if a group of 18 year olds watched Animal House or Revenge of the Nerds today, how many would be outright appalled?
They were popular in the day. Specifically among men. I just feel like it would be a fascinating experiment that could demonstrate some progress is being made. Perhaps people can breathe a bit easier.
Because society simply has mixed standards and very little empathy for men.
Our culture has (thankfully) shifted very far from the idea of the male role as sole protector and provider for the family. While that’s great for women’s independence, society hasn’t changed the expectation that men should still primarily fill that role.
Young men are still expected to grow up to be financially successful, physically fit, willing to sacrifice their lives and happiness for their future families all while being completely emotionally invulnerable about all of it. Society is clear (and correct) that women can do any or all of that if they so choose, but it’s totally also fine if they want to be a “traditional” woman.
We’re at this halfway point where (compared to our traditional/conservative past) young women can choose any path they desire and it’s acceptable and celebrated (which is a great thing). We just need to have that same expectation for young men, and make it clear.
When young men have problems, they very often are told to man-up or change themselves in some way (get a job, go to the gym, buy an expensive car)in order to fix it, when they need to be told it’s okay to be upset, it’s okay to share your feelings, it’s okay to be vulnerable.
We can’t send mixed signals that women are primarily attracted to rich, ripped, emotionally invulnerable soldiers. We’ve got to stop only celebrating men who are billionaires or professional athletes. Boys need to see their nerdy English teachers or average looking artists as role models.
I don’t know how we can get there, but until we do our young men are going to continue this regression into toxic masculinity and far right ideologies.
This ended up way longer than intended, lol.
I don’t think our brains have caught up with our society lol…
I remember reading somewhere that in Nordic countries where the gender equality rates are highest in the world, women tend to take on More gender stereotypical jobs and roles than they do in less gender equal countries, even though they generally have more opportunities to do whatever they want compared to other less equal countries.
There are billions of us on this planet and none of us fit into that average cog, but I’m fairly certain that in general and among cis people men are attracted to traditionally “feminine” women and women are attracted to traditionally “masculine” men… obviously we are (hopefully) more enlightened as far as our acceptance of lgbtq and other non cis lifestyles etc, but part of what makes academic sociology so interesting is looking at stuff like this…
The main problem we all have is income inequity and the wealth gap.
For example, it’s a fact that when more people are covered by Medicaid and Medicare in a region, that region has lower crime, and the Medicare coverage is a better predictor of crime rates than police funding by a very large degree.
Honestly, I think because it’s comfortable. Andrew Tate and the like say that there is nothing wrong with you and it’s society/women’s fault. It doesn’t challenge anything, not even the harmful standards for men (ex: High value = certain look/body, status, income, etc.). Dating has gotten harder for men. Women have a lot more options and choices, and I don’t just mean in which man to marry, but even if they will marry at all. That means men have to offer more than just being the provider, as many women also have to work. And I don’t think we set men up to be good partners. Providers? Sure. But to be caring, empathetic, loving and loved members of society? I don’t think so.
I think women need to be taken out of the equation all together when it comes to the male lonilness epidemic because that seems to cause the spiral. If it was focused on how men could foster good relationships, in general, I think it would be better. Focus on how to join/find/form social clubs, make it okay to talk to the boys about how you’re feeling, make it okay for them to need help. A lot of articles seems to boil down to more men are single, but I think it should be more of why don’t men have friends? If men are single, that means there are single women out there as well, but they don’t inspire these posts because women are allowed to foster platonic, deep relationships and we kind of tell me you either get a spouse for that or you just have to deal with it.
The right wing has easy answers for complex problems, so it’s easier for them to recruit frustrated, average people.
And the left is often paralyzed by the “complexity” of a solution and offers little no refuge for those in need. Sadly making those half baked ignorant simple solutions the only thing offered.
Lots of stuff. One has to do with modern feminism that has attempted to redefine the female gender role to become more independent and to adopt some traits that were traditionally masculine. This leaves some men clueless in their own identity, as traditional gender roles are a crutch for both women and men to kinda know their place in society. Now women refuse to fit their traditional role, so men have to redefine themselves too instead of relying on how it’s been done in previous generations.
This cluelessness is frustrating and we’ve seen it pop up in different ways in the last decades. However with a more modern image of a woman manifesting, teens who have to figure out anyway who they are in society are affected more, especially young boys who are welcomed to society with no clear “default instructions” because the old gender role is demonized by a society that has largely accepted the new gender role for women, but is still clueless what men are.
Men may be the provider, but women now must be able to work too. Men could be more emotional and may take caregiver jobs, but women are considered better at them anyway and men are not trusted with kids or not taken seriously as caregivers. This is also not easy on women who now have children and need to care about a career. No wonder we have fewer children. And this also gets confusing for young men who go on dates, when they still need to pay for the bill at dates, their income still plays a role, even though women may make a lot of money (or even more than them) too now.
I hope this doesn’t read as a rant, because I see feminism as a positive development even though I acknowledge the new challenges it provides.
Based on this background young, impressionable boys are sucked in by social media algorithms and confronted with the frustration and backlash of these men like Tate, that promote a return to the old gender roles. Many things he says could be something they said to your great granddad. Social media also leads to content and community bubbles, which are harder to penetrate for alternative ideas, so once you are “red pilled” you won’t get off your track.
Additionally social media is not just content, it also publicizes and quantifies your social status and connections with followers and likes. Social status is hugely important for teens who are looking for their place in society. Even when you move, you don’t have a chance to try again with a new group of mates: you still have your account and your status follows you everywhere. This increases the stakes and leads to more extreme behaviors.
I think that’s all the reasons I can think off. Sorry it’s so long.
I love this deconstruction, it captures quite a few of my own thoughts. Thank you!
I still don’t think the argument has ripened fully in my head yet. I’m glad I read “The Game” in my 20s and not earlier and that nobody asked about my Insta in highschool. I had the chance to move and leave some social dynamics in the past with several fresh starts.
Do we have a best of lemmy community yet?
Men and women basically make up 50% of the population each, more or less.
As long as we keep trying to blame society’s problem on one sex or the other, we’re never going to solve anything.
I personally think most problems in society, however, are more related to class than either gender or even race. If we can find a way to reduce income inequality (specifically between the rich and the poor) then I honestly think a lot of these issues would work themselves out naturally.
I feel like people have known this since like the 1800s. But dividing people over race and gender doesn’t threaten the rich in the way wealth distribution does, so huge amounts of money and influence are poured into preventing society from advancing by exacerbating poverty and race/gender conflicts.
In the 1950s men ruled the home, earned the money, and were kings of their castles. Since then gender rules have been torn up and rewritten. Women have carved out new spaces for themselves with the support of allies. But there hasn’t really been a new consensus of what a man’s role is any more. The result being that lots of men see their domination being eroded by the new order of things.
Shitstains like Tate prey on this by offering stupid but simple answers or solutions. “It’s not your fault that you’re a failure, it’s the [random mysogenistic term]'s fault. It’s them, they’ve done this to you. They’re cheating your out of your rights.” It’s the same rhetoric as Hitler blaming the Jews and Trump blaming immigrants and Musk blaming the ‘woke mind virus’.
It gives young men an out. “This guy’s winning at life and owning the [random mysogenistic term]! I should do what he does!”
70 years ago a guy could graduate high school, get a job that allowed him to buy a car, buy a home and support a family, including college for his kids. They were too busy living a decent life. Then Reagan and the Republicans came to power.
Now, thanks to the vast economic disparity, guys have a very bleak future that makes them easy targets for hate-blaming almost any group of people except the rich who are responsible for their miserable lives.There is a darker secondary element to that time period, freedom of choice for women. 70 years ago if a young woman wanted to leave home and setup on her own she really needed the financial support of a husband or other male relative, even if to just cosign agreements. You were properly tied to having a husband, expected to as well. The pressure from all angles to marry meant women would settle for some pretty shitty men in much larger numbers, and for longer as it was much harder to divorce.
As time has gradually removed this pressure, women no longer need to marry to get independence in the same numbers, so shitty men no longer luck into marriage. The rise of no fault divorce as a valid choice, and even not having to be married to have kids or live together as a socially acceptable choice further squeezes them out.
The whole trad wives movement is founded on restoring the power back to men in relationships.
Regan sucks and Republicans even more so, but it’s not accurate to blame it all on them.
It’s the concept of neoliberalism that took hold in the 70s and has been steadily draining the working class to the point we are now where all power and wealth are concentrated on the few at the top.
Democrats, especially the Democratic presidents since Clinton, are also neoliberals. While they hold much better social views, they are still in on the policies that keep their donors rich and the working class desperate.
Life is hard and confusing. Many people are frustrated with the way that the social landscape has changed: relationships, jobs, and economic prospects have all shifted for the worse in developed countries. Young people are the most affected. Every time this happens, a con artist comes along and starts offering easy answers. Sometimes it’s a politician, sometimes it’s a religious leader. Nowadays, it’s often an influencer.
Tate tells men, “it’s not your fault that your life sucks,” and he is right (to a point). After all, people who don’t own houses can’t be blamed for the state of the housing market, right? So who is to blame? According to Trump, it’s brown people. According to RFK Jr., it’s vaccines or food colouring or some shit. According to Tate, it’s women. He tells young men that feminism is surely the reason they are unhappy: the Woke Left is trying to emasculate you! Be an alpha! Follow my simple formula for abusing women and accumulating money and your problems will go away.
Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. This is not a truth that all people can accept. We can fix some of the problems that we are facing, but it will take time, effort, and cooperation. In the meantime, many men are comforted by Tate’s message: women are the reason you are unhappy, and everything can be fixed by returning them to bondage! If you are very young (or just a little stunted), this message is much more palatable than the admittedly challenging option of actually fixing things.
The USA had expansion as an escape valve for most of its existence. Now that’s gone. There’s no future. Our politicians don’t talk about anything great ahead anymore. The rest of our existence will be capitalism crushing people. Hence, despair and cynicism.
I think the answer is obvious: Tate tells them “you’re awesome”. No one else is doing that. People seek validation.
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.
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.
From around 2022 until just recently YouTube Shorts was heavily pushing Tate on me (an almost 50 year old man).
No matter how many times I disliked and/or blocked the poster, the YouTube algorithm just kept throwing more Tate at me. I don’t know what I did to make YouTube think I’d be interested in that clown.
On the plus side, it made me a lot more aware of what’s going on, hence my efforts to get Google out of my life. I can spot someone trying to manipulate me, but I have young sons who might not.
Thanks for protecting your sons from that shit
This needs much more attention. I had the same impression, especially also about Tate. Why can google push topics without the general public feeling the threat for democracy? Who decides which topics are pushed and what is their agenda?
Google and every other tech company say they keep their algorithms secret for commercial purposes, but that’s a bit convenient isn’t it? I certainly don’t trust any capitalist to be responsible with that much unchecked power.
It’s because many young people are not very media literate.
They aren’t aware that an algorithm pipeline is funneling them into being monetized by “men’s rights alpha male” bullshit.
Young men have problems in their lives, like everyone else does, maybe less, maybe more than other groups in society but that does not matter because for them it’s the most vivid problems. He talks to specifically them and their problems.
I don’t know how the media in your country sounds*, but here every time there is an issue discussed it tends to be: women, minorites, whatever have a problem, men are the problem.
If the mainstream does not talk about young men’s issues, you will hand over the attention of young men to someone who does.
*In a news article, or a political speech try switching the word man/woman black/white immigrant etc for their opposite. Some of them sound absolutely absurd when you do.
every time there is an issue discussed it tends to be: women, minorites, whatever have a problem, men are the problem.
This can’t be overstated. There are a lot of loud misandrists posing as feminists, broadly painting men as The Problem just for being men. Speaking up is automatically condemned as condescension, sitting comfortably is encroaching on women’s space, striking up conversation is harassment, glancing at someone in the gym is sexual assault, a drunk hookup is rape.
Of course, there are problematic men who are guilty of these accusations, but the majority are normal people being baselessly lumped in with actual offenders for no other reason than being male. Women get unwavering support for just being women, men get trashed for just being men. That by itself is demoralizing.
Then you combine that with the fact that a large percentage of women want an assertive “manly” man. The boys who err on the side of respectfulness watch the aggressive dudebros succeed sexually and romantically where they fail.
If respect loses to toxic masculinity so often, then it’s only reasonable to think that maybe the guys pushing toxic masculinity know what they’re talking about. And if they’re going to be demonized for being men anyway, they might as well live up to the condemnation and at least get something out of it.
Edit: let me specify, I don’t find Tate compelling, I’m only speaking of the mental state that would bring young men into his influence.
“women minorities whatever” ???
did you not know that racial minorities can be men or is this a dog whistle for “white male persecution”?
why not just say “women have a problem, men are a problem”? too on the nose, too obvious? yes misogyny is a problem. but if you’re trying to speak to the importance of male issues, you gotta stay focused
My guess is hating others for being different is WAY easier than looking inside yourself and learning to forgive and love yourself for all the trauma you’ve been carrying around.
