Uper end of the millenial spectrum here. Zoomers are alright. They might seem weird because they are young and young people are all weird like that. But their core values and beliefs? Man they are gonne be really nice people.
“The survey revealed that just one in five young people have a positive view of Tate, though young men were significantly more likely to have a positive view of him – 32 percent of them – than young women – 9 percent. Heterosexual young people were more likely to have a positive view of him; nearly a quarter of them said so, compared to just 5 percent of LGBTQ individuals.”
One in five is quite a bit. To make an extreme example: If one in five people on the street were looking to stab you, you’d be thinking there’s a lot of people wanting you dead.
Also it’s ca. one in three among the young men, which is terrifying. And if the “more favorable among heterosexual” holds true for only the male half (I see no reason why it wouldn’t), that’s even higher among that demographic.
Man, nearly one-in-two people on the street have positive opinions of other right-wing chuds who are equally as vile. As far as I’m concerned, 1-in-5 is probably as close to a win as it’s humanly possible to get considering our current society.
Ironic that Tate is a millenial. Also generations aren’t like monolithic blocks of culture. The reason Tate is popular is because literally everyone is failing young disenfranchised men. Sure we get women as heroes now (good ones and very prominent bad ones … ahem WW84)
The reason we get a backsliding is because (imo) we focus on elevating women too much. It is so so devastating for young men that just get nothing. No recognition, no support and no opportunities. Couple that with the fact that until men hit their mid to late 20s the dating power dynamic is asymmetricly shifted towards women. And you get hammered by the media “women support here, women support there” and if any young teen dares to ask “well what about us boys?” They just get shushed, that it’s not their place, male privilege etc. They don’t see that “privilege” everyone else speaks of. So you just get mounting aggression because no one is confirming their struggles. And eventually it ferments and turns to hate and then you can serve them whatever lies you want, if you give them the prospect of control over their life they will eat it up. And that’s what Tate did. He promised them power and success.
literally everyone is failing the young disenfranchised men
ftfy. your whole comment is just an example of the fact that when ‘you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression’. I know thats not what these men want to hear but there’s no other way to deal with. I live in a country that just removed rights to a safe abortion , and billionaires are fucking over the entire working class women and men, but please tell me more about how ‘women having too much power’ is the problem
you are specifically talking about young men with outdated ideas about labor division based on gender. They want their bang maid and they are pissed they don’t get it. Guys who accept that everyone has to work, so everyone has to do housework don’t have trouble dating. Straight women are dating someone. So either young men and women are struggling with dating, or the struggles of one demographic of men (white conservatives) are vastly overblown (by them).
edit: a few people are really dedicated to being mad about this take, but rich people drank your milkshake, not women. And no amount of taking things from women will get you back the shit the rich guys took.
you are specifically talking about young men with outdated ideas about labor division based on gender. They want their bang maid and they are pissed they don’t get it.
That is not the source of their problems, they were not born like that, they were usually not brought up like that. It’s where they end up because society sucks, they’re in search of solutions, and by and large the only people at least promising solutions, at least pretending to lend a hand, are grifters.
You know what saying “So men have problems, tough luck, their fault, fix it yourself, everyone helping them is sexist and hates women and wants to outlaw abortions” is called? Toxic masculinity. Stop being part of the problem.
The reason we get a backsliding is because (imo) we focus on elevating women too much
Here’s where you crossed the line from ‘helping men’ to ‘blaming women’. These mens problems are their own, not the fault of women. And you saying that women are the reason they aren’t getting enough attention is exactly the type of sexist shit that leads to incels.
If you want me to point to a big (but not sole) cause then it’s in the lack of male role models available to boys, as well as those who are available having to tip-toe around the issue. Like, try being a male teacher in a female-dominated educational environment and argue that the boys need to roughhouse: Instead of learning, under supervision, how to do so safely and without causing interpersonal conflict down the line, to learn to control their energy, there’s, in my perception, this desire from lived feminism to “train the shopping cart race energy out of boys”. Which won’t ever work, what you instead get is pent-up energy without any skill in directing it in productive ways.
Said grifters take the boys’ indignation about being bereft of that aspect of their development, and that energy, and fuck them up even more. It’s literally that simple.
The issue is not elevating girls, the issue isn’t even not investing energy into the boys, the issue is spending all that energy on having them sit still in class until their bored brains ooze out of their ears… and even if they manage to do that you get statistics like boys needing to be significantly better in class to get equal grades. And then educators complain about lack of respect. The issue is the energy investment causing the problem because, and now I am going to blame women: Feminism at large doesn’t get men. Never has. Never was willing to listen. To be edgy: The best it gets is academic Karens psycho-analysing their own animus and thinking it’s actual men. That combined with educational systems being female-dominated and engaging in toxic masculinity in the “men can’t raise children their input isn’t even necessary when it comes to boys women understand better” gets you a system which fails the boys, allowing characters like Tate to succeed.
(I’ll leave the issue that that kind of attitude is officially called toxic masculinity to another rant, feminism has a terminology problem).
What confuses me is that you read a comment chain where a man told a woman that the reason that men are suffering is that women have too many resources, which I rebutted. And that made you want to argue with ME.
Why let the sexism slide from your fellow man but try to police my response to it?
The thing I was policing was the “but what about women on the other side of the Atlantic” attitude, as well as specifically blaming clueless erm Halbstarke1 for the system that made them that way.
Rebutting undercomplex analysis like that doesn’t exactly help the issue, displacing rightful anger about US politics onto the backs of failed youth. Supreme Court justices are old enough to know better, Tate fans on average barely have pubes.
1 German for “half-strong” for (immature) post-puberty boys to up to early 20s or so, in the sense of “yep they have physical strength, but no strength of wisdom or, for that matter, knowing WTF they’re doing”. “Yob” captures some of the meaning, but it’s very very approximate.
“Privilege is when equality feels like oppression.” When “straight white cis male” is the default, all resources are “male” resources. All history is “male” history. Not sure how that’s so unfair.
There are men-only 12 step meetings. There are men-only homeless shelters (way more than there are for women or LGBTQ folks actually). Men-only recovery programs. Men-only church groups and support groups. A few years ago a domestic violence org in my hometown changed from being women-only to accepting all genders, including straight cis men, and it certainly can’t be the only one in the US. And of course men had to create a male counterpart to International Women’s Day. There’s a million resources and groups for prostate cancer and testicular cancer (because I’ve literally heard men complain about the amount of recognition breast cancer gets - not that breast cancer only affects women…) Plus your “no nut/no shave November.” And of course, any space, organization, or institution that is not gender specific to begin with generally becomes dominated by straight white cis men. Maybe you just aren’t looking hard enough for these “male resources.”
Uper end of the millenial spectrum here. Zoomers are alright. They might seem weird because they are young and young people are all weird like that. But their core values and beliefs? Man they are gonne be really nice people.
I wouldn’t get your hopes up.
Andrew Tate is insanely popular in that demographic.
“The survey revealed that just one in five young people have a positive view of Tate, though young men were significantly more likely to have a positive view of him – 32 percent of them – than young women – 9 percent. Heterosexual young people were more likely to have a positive view of him; nearly a quarter of them said so, compared to just 5 percent of LGBTQ individuals.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bbd8/andrew-tate-young-people-support
One in five is quite a bit. To make an extreme example: If one in five people on the street were looking to stab you, you’d be thinking there’s a lot of people wanting you dead.
Also it’s ca. one in three among the young men, which is terrifying. And if the “more favorable among heterosexual” holds true for only the male half (I see no reason why it wouldn’t), that’s even higher among that demographic.
Fuck that’s scary.
Man, nearly one-in-two people on the street have positive opinions of other right-wing chuds who are equally as vile. As far as I’m concerned, 1-in-5 is probably as close to a win as it’s humanly possible to get considering our current society.
Totally agree with you, how are we supposed to think these are positive numbers, it’s insane.
Ironic that Tate is a millenial. Also generations aren’t like monolithic blocks of culture. The reason Tate is popular is because literally everyone is failing young disenfranchised men. Sure we get women as heroes now (good ones and very prominent bad ones … ahem WW84)
The reason we get a backsliding is because (imo) we focus on elevating women too much. It is so so devastating for young men that just get nothing. No recognition, no support and no opportunities. Couple that with the fact that until men hit their mid to late 20s the dating power dynamic is asymmetricly shifted towards women. And you get hammered by the media “women support here, women support there” and if any young teen dares to ask “well what about us boys?” They just get shushed, that it’s not their place, male privilege etc. They don’t see that “privilege” everyone else speaks of. So you just get mounting aggression because no one is confirming their struggles. And eventually it ferments and turns to hate and then you can serve them whatever lies you want, if you give them the prospect of control over their life they will eat it up. And that’s what Tate did. He promised them power and success.
ftfy. your whole comment is just an example of the fact that when ‘you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression’. I know thats not what these men want to hear but there’s no other way to deal with. I live in a country that just removed rights to a safe abortion , and billionaires are fucking over the entire working class women and men, but please tell me more about how ‘women having too much power’ is the problem
you are specifically talking about young men with outdated ideas about labor division based on gender. They want their bang maid and they are pissed they don’t get it. Guys who accept that everyone has to work, so everyone has to do housework don’t have trouble dating. Straight women are dating someone. So either young men and women are struggling with dating, or the struggles of one demographic of men (white conservatives) are vastly overblown (by them).
edit: a few people are really dedicated to being mad about this take, but rich people drank your milkshake, not women. And no amount of taking things from women will get you back the shit the rich guys took.
That is not the source of their problems, they were not born like that, they were usually not brought up like that. It’s where they end up because society sucks, they’re in search of solutions, and by and large the only people at least promising solutions, at least pretending to lend a hand, are grifters.
You know what saying “So men have problems, tough luck, their fault, fix it yourself, everyone helping them is sexist and hates women and wants to outlaw abortions” is called? Toxic masculinity. Stop being part of the problem.
Oh please, don’t project on me.
Here’s where you crossed the line from ‘helping men’ to ‘blaming women’. These mens problems are their own, not the fault of women. And you saying that women are the reason they aren’t getting enough attention is exactly the type of sexist shit that leads to incels.
I never said that, you’re quoting someone else.
If you want me to point to a big (but not sole) cause then it’s in the lack of male role models available to boys, as well as those who are available having to tip-toe around the issue. Like, try being a male teacher in a female-dominated educational environment and argue that the boys need to roughhouse: Instead of learning, under supervision, how to do so safely and without causing interpersonal conflict down the line, to learn to control their energy, there’s, in my perception, this desire from lived feminism to “train the shopping cart race energy out of boys”. Which won’t ever work, what you instead get is pent-up energy without any skill in directing it in productive ways.
Said grifters take the boys’ indignation about being bereft of that aspect of their development, and that energy, and fuck them up even more. It’s literally that simple.
The issue is not elevating girls, the issue isn’t even not investing energy into the boys, the issue is spending all that energy on having them sit still in class until their bored brains ooze out of their ears… and even if they manage to do that you get statistics like boys needing to be significantly better in class to get equal grades. And then educators complain about lack of respect. The issue is the energy investment causing the problem because, and now I am going to blame women: Feminism at large doesn’t get men. Never has. Never was willing to listen. To be edgy: The best it gets is academic Karens psycho-analysing their own animus and thinking it’s actual men. That combined with educational systems being female-dominated and engaging in toxic masculinity in the “men can’t raise children their input isn’t even necessary when it comes to boys women understand better” gets you a system which fails the boys, allowing characters like Tate to succeed.
(I’ll leave the issue that that kind of attitude is officially called toxic masculinity to another rant, feminism has a terminology problem).
You’re right, I now see what was someone else.
What confuses me is that you read a comment chain where a man told a woman that the reason that men are suffering is that women have too many resources, which I rebutted. And that made you want to argue with ME.
Why let the sexism slide from your fellow man but try to police my response to it?
The thing I was policing was the “but what about women on the other side of the Atlantic” attitude, as well as specifically blaming clueless erm Halbstarke1 for the system that made them that way.
Rebutting undercomplex analysis like that doesn’t exactly help the issue, displacing rightful anger about US politics onto the backs of failed youth. Supreme Court justices are old enough to know better, Tate fans on average barely have pubes.
1 German for “half-strong” for (immature) post-puberty boys to up to early 20s or so, in the sense of “yep they have physical strength, but no strength of wisdom or, for that matter, knowing WTF they’re doing”. “Yob” captures some of the meaning, but it’s very very approximate.
It’s not that deep. It’s just misogyny.
“Privilege is when equality feels like oppression.” When “straight white cis male” is the default, all resources are “male” resources. All history is “male” history. Not sure how that’s so unfair.
There are men-only 12 step meetings. There are men-only homeless shelters (way more than there are for women or LGBTQ folks actually). Men-only recovery programs. Men-only church groups and support groups. A few years ago a domestic violence org in my hometown changed from being women-only to accepting all genders, including straight cis men, and it certainly can’t be the only one in the US. And of course men had to create a male counterpart to International Women’s Day. There’s a million resources and groups for prostate cancer and testicular cancer (because I’ve literally heard men complain about the amount of recognition breast cancer gets - not that breast cancer only affects women…) Plus your “no nut/no shave November.” And of course, any space, organization, or institution that is not gender specific to begin with generally becomes dominated by straight white cis men. Maybe you just aren’t looking hard enough for these “male resources.”
As someone who’s part of Gen z, I’ve only met two people ever who have genuinely supported Andrew Tate, and I know a lot of people my age.
Stop ruining things for me :/
Pewdiepie?