Is Andrew Tate's popularity among young men a result of male bashing?

rich people that wanted to buy a product (to put it nicely), no valid societal message there that I am aware of

No one is defending Tate, just saying he has tapped into a class of victims that are unheard by society, and letting them know it's ok to speak out and push back, is Tate the best messager for it, nope

 

Tate conning men and women was a valuable societal message? And you'd be defending Epstein if he had given some self-help speeches? I call bull ****.

 

pushing back on Misandry is a message that many young men resonate with - yes - is Tate the best messenger, no

 

How is it "pushing back against misandry" to treat women as property, beat women, rape women, cheat women, and cheat men? That's what Tate does. How is that pushing back against misandry?

You talk about the need to push back against misandry. In what way does Tate qualify at all as an ambassador for that?

 

that is not the message, some seem to be trying to make that the message to silence the victims of misandry

 

Just curious, as to why Tate fans would target the online dating efforts of your young friends.

 

Well you say it is as bad-- and I say you don't know what you're talking about. You're line about my "not helping," is funny, though. So, in your mind, the way to keep young men, from supporting "P.O.S." role models, is to cater to their victimization fantasy, that they are as oppressed as women? Interesting theory. I think, though, that would only lead to one soon needing to tell them they are being more oppressed than are women, in order to be "helpful." Except this road seems to lead right back to misogyny.

Here's an idea: since this chatroom doubles as a political debate forum, why don't you actually argue your case, that misandry is currently as, let's use the word "oppressive" towards U.S. males, as misogyny is to American females? When you say it is "as bad," that leaves itself open to interpretation. I'd thought you had merely been maintaining that, whether directed against a male or female, any given act would be equally as bad. But apparently you have the delusional idea, that misandry affects men, on the same scale as women are affected by misogyny. I will point out that I had started off, asking you to clarify that very point, and you only danced around it, in a noncommittal way, wondering why we even needed to discuss it. More recently, you'd said you would've thought that we were in complete agreement-- which is odd, considering that I have not been disguising my opinion, at least, saying all along that misogyny is a worse problem, overall, than misandry. So if you are now going to cast me as a misandry denier, for having that opinion, and say that I'm "not helping"-- in a way that sounds like you're really saying that I am part of the problem (maybe in a couple more pages, you'll start saying what you mean, here, as well)-- then that would be why, we have cause to discuss this. I find your belief that the scope and depth of misandry, matches that of misogyny, to be hyperbolic exaggeration. So prove me wrong.

I'll just remind you, I have already cited one way that misogyny blows away misandry, in its severity, in its manifested attempt by men to control women's physical bodies-- forcing them to carry a fetus to term and birth it, in numerous states, if they haven't recognized their pregnancy and terminated it by the 6th week. So that seems a good place for you to even up the debate, by showing the mechanism through which misandry has a comparably "oppressive" effect on men.

 

playing it down again...

I think we beat this horse to death.... we will have to agree to disagree

 

Playing nothing "down;" just showing the truth of how it is. You didn't even let me get to women's still not making as much money, for the same work, or to the way that teachers have been shown to favor, & to more encourage, boy students, over girls.

But don't feel bad, that misandry doesn't stack up-- misogyny had a very big head start.

 

Dude, you are literally the one playing down misogyny to play make believe that misandry is an equal problem. Misandrists aren't out there committing acts of terrorism. Misogynists are. Misandrists aren't killing men. Misogynists are killing women. Misogynists are far, far more violent. And you want to pretend that doesn't matter. Feel free to live in your fantasy world.

But here, in the real world, you can't find a misandrist that is as bad as Andrew Tate is. And he's celebrated for it -- he is the biggest manosphere influencer in the world. There is nothing comparable to this among misandrists.

 

It is an equal problem. You just don't care about men. They are objects to you

Misandrists use the government to kill men.

I can find way worse. all Tate does is say words that ruffle your jimmies. family court is particularly brutal toward men and boys. way worse than Tate hurting your little feelings.

Except the military that kills loads of men. the court system that separates men from their children. yeah Tate is a puppy dog compared to the meat grinder that thrives on the blood of men.

 

Your assertions about Yardmeat, are laughably devoid of any basis. So, whatever.

If I were to say, "and you are not even human, but just a robot," it would be just as supported by evidence, as your allegations.

Yet, if we can refrain from the preposterous, and personal, pretense, that we know the inner heart of our co-debater, I will offer you the argument, which Fresh Air has declined to take, to defend your position that "it is an equal problem." Balderdash!

Umm... is that your idea of a compelling argument? Sounds like BS, to me. Maybe if you explained the (hopefully) factual predicate for the phrasing of your charge, I'd at least have some idea of what you refer to, here, and perhaps be able to follow how you see that, as meaning that misandrysts use the government to kill men; and so then, assess how ridiculous or not, it is to present it, as you do.

Was that your basis for the last quote (these statements of yours, were not adjacent, in your post)? Regardless, how is this "misandry?" I guess you might contend that the traditional stereotype of men doing the fighting, is a misandryst idea. And, of course, it is really an idea that is held by much of society, not just "misandrysts," so you should present it that way. IOW: you should rightfully call this misandry in society, or as a concept, not lay all the soldiers who are killed in action, at the feet of "misandrysts." That would just be deceptive demonization.

To cut to the chase, though, women are now allowed in the military. Yes, I know that their combat involvement is limited, but they do not want it to be. Plus Feminists, and others you would label as those practicing and/or fostering misandry, generally support women being able to serve in all the same roles as men. It is, in fact, those who are misogynists, who are most likely to want to keep women out of the military. So that lets all the air out of your hopes, of being to pin this, on Misandry. Ironically, you would need attribute these deaths, besides to machismo, partly to misogyny.

Again, you are referencing a very long tradition, not something that could in any way be attributed to some, at all recent, rise in misandry. But I will wait until you present your evidence for this charge, hopefully including statistical data to be able to guage the size of divorce settlements, along a timeline. Also, please explain the meaning of your words, "brutal towards...boys." Did you mean, by awarding custody to the mothers? That would be a very dubious thing to attribute to misandry. You would have to prove, also, that the custody of the father, is much better for a boy, than that of the mother, which I seriously doubt that you could successfully show.

I will note, however, the logic behind these, let's call them "misandryst" settlements, would be directly tied to the marriage roles slated to women, because of stereotypes which could just as defendably called misogynist. Do you see the irony, there?

That is why I predict what we will see, in the data, is that settlements were larger for women in the 1950s and '60s, when they were not expected to work, outside of the home, and eventually began coming down, as women better established themselves not only in the workforce, but as being paid salaries, and being hired for positions, which would require less financial supplementation, from a former husband.

 

For people who actually care about men and want to break out of the Tate matrix, you can start here (link below). I'd also suggest the TV series Ted Lasso, which has a better and more (despite being a fictional show) more realistic male role model than Tate. See also: Bob's Burgers and Brooklyn 99. Good male role models in media are out there. Don't let rapists like Tate win:

Secondhand Lions - Uncle Hub's speech - YouTube

 

Good movie but basic advise more for children than men

 

I doubt it has anything to do with male bashing and everything to do with young males who feel pathetic because they are pathetic. Same dynamic as the incel groups.

 

I am sure that is some of it, no different from some pathetic young females joined the feminist movement, doesn't mean either movement doesn't have merit though

 

I'm not sure what merit Tate's part of the movement is supposed to have. It's a bit like saying "Hey, at least John Wayne Gacy was good at making balloon animals."

 

doesn't matter, many people join the movement, Tate is just one to join in, feminism wasn't all good women, but it was still a movement

sure pathetic young people (males and females) joined both movements, doesn't mean either movement doesn't have merit though

 

Of course it matters. You are trying to compare a specific person to thousands of other people, cherry picking the worst among them to try to create a blatantly false comparison. The fact is he's a criminal. He's admitted to being a criminal. He treats both women and men like dog ****. He has poisoned a generation. I know you can't confront any of these facts, but they still exist no matter how much you hide from them.

 

you're the one trying to do that, I am saying it's a movement, I am answering the question in the title

sure pathetic young people (males and females) joined both movements, doesn't mean either movement doesn't have merit though

 

Did you notice the name "Tate" mentioned in the title?

There is no merit to Tate's movement. You can fit the "merit" of the rest of the red pill idiots on the back of a stamp. Again, this is the equivalent of defending John Wayne Gacy by saying, hey, at least he made great balloon animals.

 

I did, and the question was

"Is Andrew Tate's popularity among young men a result of male bashing?"

and yes, I think that is part of his popularity to some, that is not endorsing the man, just saying it's why some have tuned into his message

now you're putting down the entire movement, that would be like putting down all feminists, do you do that too? I think both movements have some merit

 

I agree. Tate is very much the result of the constant anti-male screed that has come to dominate much of modern media. His popularity was mostly backlash to that.

 

I think you've got the topic wrong. The topic isn't Tate. The topic is if Tate and his popularity is backlash to misandry. I think its pretty clear that it is, and that rising misogyny in general is, of which he is just one example. These things tend to be cyclical.

 

This is a pretty good summary, but you missed MGTOW. Men Going Their Own Way. These are men who are so tired of dealing iwth women, often men who were burned bad in a divorce, who have decided to forgo dating and are living for themselves and not having a relationship. At least that's what some of them are and what they all claim to be. But some of them are so bitter that they can't stop talking about women and thinking about women, which isn't actually going their own way.

MRA, red pill, blue pill, black pill, and even incels all have in them some men who do not hate or speak harshly about women. Thought I should point that out lest you give the impression that these groups are inherently misogynist. They are not. They just attract some bitter men who do express misogyny.

They often do all get broad brushed and dismissed as misogyny (I am not saying by you), and doing so is actually an act of misandry.