they can’t find a girl because of deeply rooted, misogynistic beliefs that turn people off
People aren’t born with misogynistic beliefs. They also aren’t taught them in school.
also like to see your citation for wage stagnation affecting men more than women
I’m not going to google search for you, but it’s pretty easy to see that
wage stagnation affects men more because traditionally, men are expected to be the provider for the household and women have traditionally had the option of not starting a career and just finding a man instead. I’m not saying that women are not affected, but they have an economic “out” that men generally don’t have.
I know many, many men who aren’t the strong hunter gatherer type and have loving wives or girlfriends. The difference is those guys aren’t assholes.
I’m willing to bet that they also have stable jobs. Also, if you’re one of them of course you’d know a bunch of other men who are similar; this says nothing about a large swath of men that the grandparent comment is referring to.
I am not defending the manosphere, and I think that the rampant misogyny you see in these online subcultures is downright alarming.
People aren’t born with misogynistic beliefs. They also aren’t taught them in school.
I’d say it gets passed around by word-of-mouth. A lot of the problematic stuff I was exposed to earlier in life definitely came from fellow pupils at school, who likely picked it up from their families. The rise of social media only makes it easier to find problematic stuff, especially since it’s proliferated so much on TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
Social media companies are to blame for getting people hooked on this crap, and we are to blame for happily lapping it up and preaching the words of people like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Sneako, etc like they’re gospel.
Tate is meant to be banned from mainstream social media, yet I see his videos all the freaking time on YouTube, Instagram, etc. And that’s because these media giants cannot be bothered to purge the thousands of affiliate accounts (linked to his MLM) that are regurgitating his content.
I’m not going to google search for you, but it’s pretty easy to see that wage stagnation affects men more because traditionally, men are expected to be the provider for the household and women have traditionally had the option of not starting a career and just finding a man instead. I’m not saying that women are not affected, but they have an economic “out” that men generally don’t have.
That, and women are generally treated more favourably in cases of family/divorce law, are able to far more easily go into modelling/adult entertainment, get far greater maternity leave rights (at least in the UK), etc.
Online dating (I am referring exclusively to the heterosexual experience and cannot speak for other experiences) is also a very good example of this. Men struggle to even get any matches or replies that aren’t from scammers, spam bots or people on the other side of the world unless they look like Ryan Gosling or Josh Hartnett, while women are inundated with matches and have to be far more selective.
Then again, I also subscribe to the theory that online dating is designed to be such a soul-crushing experience because how else are Match Group going to lull you into spending over triple the price of a WoW subscription on a premium account?
People aren’t born with any beliefs. What’s your explanation for racism, homophobia, fascism, and other hateful views and behavior? People learn that stuff by their environment growing up, and there’s an awful lot of toxic masculinity.
And you’re argument about poverty and wage stagnation would make more sense if there weren’t so many poor people in happy marriages.
No, I hear your argument, but it doesn’t seem to hold water to me. The simpler answer is that some men are taught to believe shitty things growing up. Those shitty things lead to shitty behaviors that cause people not to be around them. The worst ones are the ones who believe men should be dominant over women, but are also timid or introverted, making them angry pressure cookers.
I think his point was that it’s ok for a woman to not earn much without it impacting her attractiveness to men, while the reverse isn’t true. There is a reason why rich millionaire falling in love with poor woman is a romance novel trope while not so much the other way around.
Finances are part of the attraction in a male if looking for actual relationships. You ain’t not gonna impress a woman flipping burgers at McD while men don’t care what a woman’s job is if she’s pretty and fun to be around.
And you’re argument about poverty and wage stagnation would make more sense if there weren’t so many poor people in happy marriages.
This doesn’t invalidate the argument at all. Of course it’s not a all-or-nothing situation. Elliot Rodger was from a wealthy family and had plenty of economic prospects.
The simpler answer is that some men are taught to believe shitty things growing up. Those shitty things lead to shitty behaviors that cause people not to be around them.
This is not the simpler answer because Andrew Tate’s following is a relatively new phenomenon. People hear a LOT of things growing up; what sticks with them is a product of their environment. Something like this would not have caught on in the 80s or 90s, even if the zeitgeist was more misogynistic than it is today. I’d wager every man has some kind of misogynistic influence growing up, but what matters is whether they take that to heart. When the economic situation is dire (they know they will never attain the traditional ideal of a provider) it becomes really easy to blame the “other.”
This is not the simpler answer because Andrew Tate’s following is a relatively new phenomenon.
The age of social media influencers is also a relatively new phenomena. Tate realized he could tap into all those angry pressure cookers to make money. He posed as something he wasn’t, renting cars and places to make him look rich and paying women to pretend to be infatuated with him to give credence that his brand of misogyny makes men successful with women. And it worked. How would one do that 50 years ago?
I’m an old guy, and I knew incel types when I was a kid, but there wasn’t an easily accessible community of people telling them that their beliefs were valid. Instead of telling them that their trouble was that they weren’t a big enough asshole, the people around them told them to tone it down.
People aren’t born with misogynistic beliefs. They also aren’t taught them in school.
I’m not going to google search for you, but it’s pretty easy to see that wage stagnation affects men more because traditionally, men are expected to be the provider for the household and women have traditionally had the option of not starting a career and just finding a man instead. I’m not saying that women are not affected, but they have an economic “out” that men generally don’t have.
I’m willing to bet that they also have stable jobs. Also, if you’re one of them of course you’d know a bunch of other men who are similar; this says nothing about a large swath of men that the grandparent comment is referring to.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I am not defending the manosphere, and I think that the rampant misogyny you see in these online subcultures is downright alarming.
I’d say it gets passed around by word-of-mouth. A lot of the problematic stuff I was exposed to earlier in life definitely came from fellow pupils at school, who likely picked it up from their families. The rise of social media only makes it easier to find problematic stuff, especially since it’s proliferated so much on TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
Social media companies are to blame for getting people hooked on this crap, and we are to blame for happily lapping it up and preaching the words of people like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Sneako, etc like they’re gospel.
Tate is meant to be banned from mainstream social media, yet I see his videos all the freaking time on YouTube, Instagram, etc. And that’s because these media giants cannot be bothered to purge the thousands of affiliate accounts (linked to his MLM) that are regurgitating his content.
That, and women are generally treated more favourably in cases of family/divorce law, are able to far more easily go into modelling/adult entertainment, get far greater maternity leave rights (at least in the UK), etc.
Online dating (I am referring exclusively to the heterosexual experience and cannot speak for other experiences) is also a very good example of this. Men struggle to even get any matches or replies that aren’t from scammers, spam bots or people on the other side of the world unless they look like Ryan Gosling or Josh Hartnett, while women are inundated with matches and have to be far more selective.
Okcupid did a trend analysis of their user data and found that women rated 80% of men below-average in terms of attractiveness. This link is obviously archived, because after Okcupid got acquired by Match Group (same people who own Tinder, Match.com, Hinge, POF and a lot of other dating apps), they deleted the blog post because these kinds of statistics hurt their bottom-line.
Then again, I also subscribe to the theory that online dating is designed to be such a soul-crushing experience because how else are Match Group going to lull you into spending over triple the price of a WoW subscription on a premium account?
People aren’t born with any beliefs. What’s your explanation for racism, homophobia, fascism, and other hateful views and behavior? People learn that stuff by their environment growing up, and there’s an awful lot of toxic masculinity.
And you’re argument about poverty and wage stagnation would make more sense if there weren’t so many poor people in happy marriages.
No, I hear your argument, but it doesn’t seem to hold water to me. The simpler answer is that some men are taught to believe shitty things growing up. Those shitty things lead to shitty behaviors that cause people not to be around them. The worst ones are the ones who believe men should be dominant over women, but are also timid or introverted, making them angry pressure cookers.
I think his point was that it’s ok for a woman to not earn much without it impacting her attractiveness to men, while the reverse isn’t true. There is a reason why rich millionaire falling in love with poor woman is a romance novel trope while not so much the other way around.
Finances are part of the attraction in a male if looking for actual relationships. You ain’t not gonna impress a woman flipping burgers at McD while men don’t care what a woman’s job is if she’s pretty and fun to be around.
This doesn’t invalidate the argument at all. Of course it’s not a all-or-nothing situation. Elliot Rodger was from a wealthy family and had plenty of economic prospects.
This is not the simpler answer because Andrew Tate’s following is a relatively new phenomenon. People hear a LOT of things growing up; what sticks with them is a product of their environment. Something like this would not have caught on in the 80s or 90s, even if the zeitgeist was more misogynistic than it is today. I’d wager every man has some kind of misogynistic influence growing up, but what matters is whether they take that to heart. When the economic situation is dire (they know they will never attain the traditional ideal of a provider) it becomes really easy to blame the “other.”
The age of social media influencers is also a relatively new phenomena. Tate realized he could tap into all those angry pressure cookers to make money. He posed as something he wasn’t, renting cars and places to make him look rich and paying women to pretend to be infatuated with him to give credence that his brand of misogyny makes men successful with women. And it worked. How would one do that 50 years ago?
I’m an old guy, and I knew incel types when I was a kid, but there wasn’t an easily accessible community of people telling them that their beliefs were valid. Instead of telling them that their trouble was that they weren’t a big enough asshole, the people around them told them to tone it down.