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 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…
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On the playground kids would follow other kids who they felt were confident or charismatic, not who had the best ideas or were most concerned with fairness or equity. It’s just childish, naive notions of importance that are leaking out into the broader society due to social media, culture of celebrity, etc.
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.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.
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.
Something I rarely see brought up is specifically the edgelord to right wing pipeline. When I was a kid, it was essentially standard for any boy online to try to be super edgy. Adolescents and teens just have a natural urge for rebellion.
The problem comes when kids think edgy and shock value humor is their favorite thing, but more mature online users reject that behavior and exclude these kids. These kids feel misunderstood and are drawn to figures and role models that accept what they like.
I’ve met a bunch of younger, “conservative”, incel types recently and they’ve all been edgelords who found their own little community instead of growing up. They largely have no ideology in the beginning but slowly absorb manosphere bullshit and over time they become less “ironic”.
The thing that got me to stop being edgy was joining the swim team and having my friend group go from edgelords to gay swimmers. I developed a ton of respect for them and they were my teammates; it completely changed my mind without me having to “conform” to the things I wanted to rebel against. I don’t really know how to get that across to some many kids that get sucked up into this madness though.
I call this Shadow the Hedgehog darkness. When something wants to look dark and mature from the outset, but it’s really a form of childishness. Same appearance takes effect for a lot of “dark” anime, where people are routinely betraying and causing pain, and “At its heart most of humanity just wants chaos” blah blah.
I do think there’s a lot of horrible stuff in the world, but it’s usually far more banal than anything these edgelords envision. When put face to face, people usually want to be kind to each other. But we’re not put face-to-face often enough.
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.
I think at some point in time, I might have been a little bit more susceptible to this. I’ve had a very hard time getting a girlfriend, in part because of a terrible dating sphere - ironically, very much caused by rapists like Andrew Tate. So really, the men frustrated by lack of attention should be blaming Andrew Tate, not worshipping him, but the same situation is true for, say, businesses suffering from government regulation joining lobbying groups, etc.
Loneliness combined with the requisite image of male strength kind of forces people to either admit to being a loser, or “taking charge” in a way that demonizes the rest of the world. Being turned down repeatedly denies them a lot of power, so they’re eager to steal some back in any way they can, even if it’s for a cause that doesn’t actually help them.
As for why I never fell in there; I had good parents, and a financial cushion. If I was always starved for cash, chances are mental stress like that might’ve actually pushed me into very poor choices.
Because people in the far left attack masculinity as toxic. This is blowback.
Can you expand on what you mean?
The last decade has seen many people openly criticize masculinity like it’s some form of toxic waste. This is what they grew up hearing. That there’s something wrong with being manly or a man. When somebody like Tate comes along and tells them it’s okay they gravitate to it to make them feel less worthless. Btw why do we never hear about toxic femininity? 😉
I don’t agree. I think what was originally dubbed masculine, was thinly veiled stoicism. It was a philosophical approach to how one should live a good life. It was be a hard, strong, quiet man that takes it all on the chin because you know that your work will come back and benefit you in the long run. Masculinity was akin to boomer-isms of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps,” or “work hard and you’ll be rewarded.”
But through the lack of social economic reforms over the last half century, there is a profound disconnect between hard work and wealth. Wealth generated passively from capital has surged, while earnings from actual hard work has dried up. Young men are not so stupid that they don’t see this. So what happens when someone swoops in with seemingly a massive fortune, that is selling a new version of masculinity? He’s selling a new philosophical approach to the dire economic hardship of today, and it’s basically one of the gangster. The same people that idolized Al Pacino in Scarface, now, instead, worship online toxic figures selling similarly thought out get-rich quick schemes.
His philosophy could be surmised into “Use everyone around you in order to accumulate wealth.”
It’s really just a terrible philosophy that destroys lives, but within it, he offers the same snake-oil that most religions do, “it’s not your fault.” Which is the barb that sticks in people. “It’s not your fault, it’s XYZ (whether that’s the woke or women or immigrants or whatever, it doesn’t matter who they blame, so long as they blame someone else for your problems).”
So, instead of focusing on figures of true positive masculinity (Steve Irwin, Mr. Rogers, Arnold Schwarzenegger), they flock to the simpler, easier answer. They can imagine how to use people, how to sell drugs or prostitute women, because they see it depicted in movies, and think that they could do it. It’s far more difficult and far more convoluted to grow into a fully realized man that values others, and works hard despite not garnering massive wealth. To live a life of charity and humility isn’t sexy, and doesn’t make one a millionaire. So why would they flock to it?
Fix wealth inequality, and you’ll fix a LOT of issues we have today, including (I think) the rise of toxic male influencers.
There are plenty of healthy ways to perform masculinity. If all you’ve managed to understand from that discourse is “all masculinity is toxic” then I’m afraid you just haven’t been paying attention. Toxic masculinity is when young men are taught that the only way to be a man is to be strong, outgoing, possessive, stoic, unemotional and tall (among other things). Toxic masculinity is when men that don’t fit those stereotypes are beaten down, verbally, but often physically, because they don’t conform. Because they’re gay, have “effeminate” hobbies, are short, weak, empathetic, dress sharply, you name it. It’s also harmful to women, but more than anything it’s men hurting other men for nonconformance.
Btw why do we never hear about toxic femininity?
Because it’s not a deeply structural societal issue? Before I transitioned, I faced the effects of toxic masculinity every single day, dozens if not hundreds of times a day. Meanwhile, yeah, my conformance to femininity has absolutely been questioned post-transition, but nowhere near as much. Women and girls have spent the last two centuries working through the toxic and smothering nature of traditional femininity, as much as the patriarchal nature of society had allowed us too.
This is exactly the explanation that causes them to rebel.
Believe what you want to believe. I’m just glad I don’t live somewhere this is a problem on the level of the U.S. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This.
Okay bros
Wait
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?
