The older men pied pipering these young men away are entirely doing it out of grievances about economic status, which has family units falling apart as a side effect (most men can’t afford to support a stay at home partner).
Tate is a multi-millionaire. Status is actually his whole thing and frankly speaking I don’t think he cares about family I have the heavy suspicion he’s gay. As said: Angry Chihuahua syndrome. The man can’t operate without an inflated ego and looks pathetic to any man older than 20 and not himself an angry Chihuahua. But he certainly has the funds to do pretty much anything he wants to do (thanks to his grift). IIRC (this is from an article about him which I certainly won’t be able to find on the net right now): He was born in low economical status, saw some cool sports car or the other and how the driver treated a parking attendant with dismissive disgust, and then and there decided that he’s going to be the one, not the other. Not very bright, the guy, thinking that those are the only two options (and kicks to the head during his MMA “career” didn’t help, either).
The young men are buying it, and joining right-wing organizations which prop up the economic status quo for the rich, hurt their own economic prospects, and do nothing to solve the root problem.
Yes. They’re clueless. Counter-question: Why is the left so bad at convincing people to act in their own self-interest?
You seem to get close to the truth when you admit the thing about “capitalism not giving a fuck about externalities”, but I can’t tell if you think that’s okay because of a naturalistic fallacy, or if you’re admitting that women’s labor is systemically undervalued by capitalism and it needs to be addressed.
I’m an Anarchist, capitalism needs abolishment. But yes addressing things is a perfectly valid step on that path, all anarchism is gradualist anyway.
it’s always funny to hear men focus on the education part of the equation, which pays nothing, and when its shown that women statistically do better they see as ‘unnatural’ / ‘needing fixing’ …
… but ignore or dismiss the career part of the equation, which makes up the majority of adult life, is the portion that generates resources via pay, and is the portion that men statistically do better at.
Wait what where are we right now. The reason I’m focussing on education in this instance is because Tate fans simply aren’t old enough to have careers. They just have a feeling that their career portion of life is fucked before it even started, and not necessarily because they can’t get a high-status job, but because without a high-status job they won’t be respected, and won’t get a partner. In reality there’s plenty of cashiers perfectly willing to be wonderful mothers of the kids of my example baker. That “you’re not worth anything if you don’t rake in money” is another reason why capitalism must go. Not to mention that realistically the only way to make serious money without being a fraud is to be born rich. The other way is to be a one in a bazillion inventor or something.
But, again: While abolishing capitalism would probably solve the issue in itself, addressing it is a perfectly valid step on that path. And addressing it requires not denying the perspective of those kids, or countering it with “but other systemic issues kids have no control over”, which is pretty much all that I’m trying to get out of you here.
Also, back to capitalism: I said before that the education thing was a big, but not sole, reason for Tate having fans. Another reason is youth unemployment over here in Europe and it got better but we had over 50% youth unemployment in Greece and Spain, Greece and Italy still were at over 30% in 2019, down to 20% by now. That right there is a damper on career prospects, now isn’t it?
Maybe its a side effect of the young men complaining basically having not had experienced all their privileges yet, because they’ve been in the education phase.
What privilege does an unemployed man have? Aside from economical issues you have psychological ones, not contributing to the tribe means lack of self-esteem and you’re on a downward spiral into alcoholism, anger, or both. In terms of evolutionary psychology it’s men self-outcasting by reading the room, then thinking “wait I actually do have something to contribute” and if that’s not reciprocated, they aren’t told “well yes how about this thing which allows you to lead a dignified life” or something to that effect, voila you have a neurosis.
And there I was, thinking that feminism accepted that patriarchy hurts men…
But, again: While abolishing capitalism would probably solve the issue in itself, addressing it is a perfectly valid step on that path. And addressing it requires not denying the perspective of those kids,
attacking capitalism. Addressing it requires attacking capitalism, and some men would rather attack women.
Coddling their perspective is also not required. They must wake to the fact that the rich stole their future, not women.
It’s SO IRONIC that you typed all that shit about Tate, who you admit was poor and economically struggling and WEAPONIZED men’s hatred of women to make himself RICH, but then say he’s not an example of an older man pied pipering younger men into hating women out of a desire to solve his economic woes. It sounds to me like thats exactly what he did and you typed it out yourself. We just see things from opposite perspectives entirely.
edit:
I’m being combative now but I don’t care:
Counter-question: Why is the left so bad at convincing people to act in their own self-interest?
Maybe its because the left is more likely to be women, and men have a hard fucking time listening to women for some reason. Maybe it’s not a problem with ‘the left’ at all. Do you need some statistics to back this up?
But in reality its because right-wing is associated with authoritarian attitudes so it’s just easier to get a right wing person in line than a left wing person.
It’s SO IRONIC that you typed all that shit about Tate, who you admit was poor and economically struggling and WEAPONIZED men’s hatred of women to make himself RICH, but then say he’s not an example of an older man pied pipering younger men into hating women out of a desire to solve his economic woes.
Oh I misread you then, and, looking back, to no fault of yours.
But I still contend that Tate going for disaffected young boys is incidental to his character: In another situation, he would’ve taken up another grift. Tate as the public phenomenon we’re witnessing is contingent on his victims, without those he would’ve become a drug dealer or something. Pimp, human trafficker, defendant, yes all that – but not figurehead. Characters like him have existed through the ages, also in the age of the internet, but never was there so much of a following. Fuck I had one of them as a neighbour.
Coddling their perspective is also not required.
It’s SO IRONIC that just one sentence previously you advocated for coddling their perspective: That their fears about their life being fucked before it even really began are valid and should be addressed.
Now, my sorry ass isn’t going to bring down capitalism any time soon. Teaching that it’s not women but fat cats who are at fault also won’t help, at best you get actionism – why would a couple of hot-heads without experience succeed were generations of leftists failed. What I can and do do though is teach martial arts, and with that exactly that what those youngsters are missing, and that is the capacity to navigate the fucked-up state we find ourselves in: There’s no “art” in martial art without mastery of your emotions, without training your capacity to observe, to defuse, broadly speaking without increasing your capacity to adapt to whatever situation you find yourself in in a self-directed manner – if you adapt without that self-direction you’re being controlled and will hate yourself for it because you will have to sacrifice core values and human social instincts. That is what I teach those boys real men do: Live up to the challenge, and teach others how to do the same. And that even if a gal becomes (usually verbally) abusive, the most you do is tickle her until she lost that train of thought. You know, proportional self-defence.
Occasionally news reaches me of a mother of a friend of a guy not wanting them to attend. Something something Karen not wanting “her little boy to learn violence”. That, right there, is a future Tate fan and yes I blame Karen for failing her son, for preferring being an ism over being a mother, though not publicly. Wouldn’t do any good.
…unless doing what Karen is doing is what you meant by coddling. Then, by all means, don’t do it, boys resent it anyways, even if they humour you by appearing dependent they’ll look anywhere but that place to form their actual character. But it’s also not a thing I ever mentioned much less advocated.
You know what Spartan mothers did? When their sons came of age and thus militiamen, they’d hand them the family shield, telling them “come back with it or on it or don’t come back at all”. Now I don’t advocate the militarism but as an archetypal image it still symbolises the necessary break in the mother-son relationship, female confirmation of manhood, splendidly, just take the crassness with a grain of salt. And you know what without that supposition of dependence looming over him he’s even likely to enjoy coming over for dinner.
Maybe its because the left is more likely to be women,
Marginally, at best, especially with AfD voters being like 2/3rd protest votes in the east by people who previously voted anything else, but initially hard left. They just ran out of options because they can’t get their asses up and participate actively to make sure that their actual concerns are addressed because having a political opinion, much less advocating for it, was never a thing in the GDR. 30 years of re-unification with a socialist country full of actual socialists and the federal republic became less social. WTF. But I digress.
and men have a hard fucking time listening to women for some reason.
Pot, kettle. This is capitalism, if you want someone who listens you hire a therapist.
It’s SO IRONIC that just one sentence previously you advocated for coddling their perspective
Where?
My whole fucking point is that these guys shouldn’t be coddled. If I made a typo somewhere saying they should be, I want to fix it. But I think you may have misread again.
Attacking capitalism is coddling their perspective by validating that they are getting hurt instead of descending into “shush your fault for being you” territory. I was just playing a semantic gotcha game at that point.
I was just playing a semantic gotcha game at that point.
at least you can admit it.
As for the difference, I wouldn’t call validating the perspective that capitalism is fucking us ‘coddling’ soley because of the fact that I think it’s true and actionable
As opposed to the fictions being presented by PUAs that women are meant to be dominated, which I obviously find untrue thus the term ‘coddling’.
Shame we’re fighting each other instead of the rich, is my point.
It isn’t context-dependent. Try to make it such, meaning look for it in a particular place, and all you’ll see is ocean from horizon to horizon. Land appears as opportunity dictates in the moment, be ready to see it, seize a beachhead without thought, without intention or doubt. Then decide whether you like the local cuisine.
…and yes I may be 100% in martial arts teacher mode now, my apologies, I know it can be annoying. Have some Bruce Lee.
Tate is a multi-millionaire. Status is actually his whole thing and frankly speaking I don’t think he cares about family I have the heavy suspicion he’s gay. As said: Angry Chihuahua syndrome. The man can’t operate without an inflated ego and looks pathetic to any man older than 20 and not himself an angry Chihuahua. But he certainly has the funds to do pretty much anything he wants to do (thanks to his grift). IIRC (this is from an article about him which I certainly won’t be able to find on the net right now): He was born in low economical status, saw some cool sports car or the other and how the driver treated a parking attendant with dismissive disgust, and then and there decided that he’s going to be the one, not the other. Not very bright, the guy, thinking that those are the only two options (and kicks to the head during his MMA “career” didn’t help, either).
Yes. They’re clueless. Counter-question: Why is the left so bad at convincing people to act in their own self-interest?
I’m an Anarchist, capitalism needs abolishment. But yes addressing things is a perfectly valid step on that path, all anarchism is gradualist anyway.
Wait what where are we right now. The reason I’m focussing on education in this instance is because Tate fans simply aren’t old enough to have careers. They just have a feeling that their career portion of life is fucked before it even started, and not necessarily because they can’t get a high-status job, but because without a high-status job they won’t be respected, and won’t get a partner. In reality there’s plenty of cashiers perfectly willing to be wonderful mothers of the kids of my example baker. That “you’re not worth anything if you don’t rake in money” is another reason why capitalism must go. Not to mention that realistically the only way to make serious money without being a fraud is to be born rich. The other way is to be a one in a bazillion inventor or something.
But, again: While abolishing capitalism would probably solve the issue in itself, addressing it is a perfectly valid step on that path. And addressing it requires not denying the perspective of those kids, or countering it with “but other systemic issues kids have no control over”, which is pretty much all that I’m trying to get out of you here.
Also, back to capitalism: I said before that the education thing was a big, but not sole, reason for Tate having fans. Another reason is youth unemployment over here in Europe and it got better but we had over 50% youth unemployment in Greece and Spain, Greece and Italy still were at over 30% in 2019, down to 20% by now. That right there is a damper on career prospects, now isn’t it?
What privilege does an unemployed man have? Aside from economical issues you have psychological ones, not contributing to the tribe means lack of self-esteem and you’re on a downward spiral into alcoholism, anger, or both. In terms of evolutionary psychology it’s men self-outcasting by reading the room, then thinking “wait I actually do have something to contribute” and if that’s not reciprocated, they aren’t told “well yes how about this thing which allows you to lead a dignified life” or something to that effect, voila you have a neurosis.
And there I was, thinking that feminism accepted that patriarchy hurts men…
attacking capitalism. Addressing it requires attacking capitalism, and some men would rather attack women. Coddling their perspective is also not required. They must wake to the fact that the rich stole their future, not women.
It’s SO IRONIC that you typed all that shit about Tate, who you admit was poor and economically struggling and WEAPONIZED men’s hatred of women to make himself RICH, but then say he’s not an example of an older man pied pipering younger men into hating women out of a desire to solve his economic woes. It sounds to me like thats exactly what he did and you typed it out yourself. We just see things from opposite perspectives entirely.
edit: I’m being combative now but I don’t care:
Maybe its because the left is more likely to be women, and men have a hard fucking time listening to women for some reason. Maybe it’s not a problem with ‘the left’ at all. Do you need some statistics to back this up?
But in reality its because right-wing is associated with authoritarian attitudes so it’s just easier to get a right wing person in line than a left wing person.
Oh I misread you then, and, looking back, to no fault of yours.
But I still contend that Tate going for disaffected young boys is incidental to his character: In another situation, he would’ve taken up another grift. Tate as the public phenomenon we’re witnessing is contingent on his victims, without those he would’ve become a drug dealer or something. Pimp, human trafficker, defendant, yes all that – but not figurehead. Characters like him have existed through the ages, also in the age of the internet, but never was there so much of a following. Fuck I had one of them as a neighbour.
It’s SO IRONIC that just one sentence previously you advocated for coddling their perspective: That their fears about their life being fucked before it even really began are valid and should be addressed.
Now, my sorry ass isn’t going to bring down capitalism any time soon. Teaching that it’s not women but fat cats who are at fault also won’t help, at best you get actionism – why would a couple of hot-heads without experience succeed were generations of leftists failed. What I can and do do though is teach martial arts, and with that exactly that what those youngsters are missing, and that is the capacity to navigate the fucked-up state we find ourselves in: There’s no “art” in martial art without mastery of your emotions, without training your capacity to observe, to defuse, broadly speaking without increasing your capacity to adapt to whatever situation you find yourself in in a self-directed manner – if you adapt without that self-direction you’re being controlled and will hate yourself for it because you will have to sacrifice core values and human social instincts. That is what I teach those boys real men do: Live up to the challenge, and teach others how to do the same. And that even if a gal becomes (usually verbally) abusive, the most you do is tickle her until she lost that train of thought. You know, proportional self-defence.
Occasionally news reaches me of a mother of a friend of a guy not wanting them to attend. Something something Karen not wanting “her little boy to learn violence”. That, right there, is a future Tate fan and yes I blame Karen for failing her son, for preferring being an ism over being a mother, though not publicly. Wouldn’t do any good.
…unless doing what Karen is doing is what you meant by coddling. Then, by all means, don’t do it, boys resent it anyways, even if they humour you by appearing dependent they’ll look anywhere but that place to form their actual character. But it’s also not a thing I ever mentioned much less advocated.
You know what Spartan mothers did? When their sons came of age and thus militiamen, they’d hand them the family shield, telling them “come back with it or on it or don’t come back at all”. Now I don’t advocate the militarism but as an archetypal image it still symbolises the necessary break in the mother-son relationship, female confirmation of manhood, splendidly, just take the crassness with a grain of salt. And you know what without that supposition of dependence looming over him he’s even likely to enjoy coming over for dinner.
Marginally, at best, especially with AfD voters being like 2/3rd protest votes in the east by people who previously voted anything else, but initially hard left. They just ran out of options because they can’t get their asses up and participate actively to make sure that their actual concerns are addressed because having a political opinion, much less advocating for it, was never a thing in the GDR. 30 years of re-unification with a socialist country full of actual socialists and the federal republic became less social. WTF. But I digress.
Pot, kettle. This is capitalism, if you want someone who listens you hire a therapist.
Where?
My whole fucking point is that these guys shouldn’t be coddled. If I made a typo somewhere saying they should be, I want to fix it. But I think you may have misread again.
Attacking capitalism is coddling their perspective by validating that they are getting hurt instead of descending into “shush your fault for being you” territory. I was just playing a semantic gotcha game at that point.
at least you can admit it.
As for the difference, I wouldn’t call validating the perspective that capitalism is fucking us ‘coddling’ soley because of the fact that I think it’s true and actionable
As opposed to the fictions being presented by PUAs that women are meant to be dominated, which I obviously find untrue thus the term ‘coddling’.
Shame we’re fighting each other instead of the rich, is my point.
What’s more revolutionary: Swimming against the stream, or getting out of the water?
I have no idea what that analogy means in the context of this conversation.
It isn’t context-dependent. Try to make it such, meaning look for it in a particular place, and all you’ll see is ocean from horizon to horizon. Land appears as opportunity dictates in the moment, be ready to see it, seize a beachhead without thought, without intention or doubt. Then decide whether you like the local cuisine.
…and yes I may be 100% in martial arts teacher mode now, my apologies, I know it can be annoying. Have some Bruce Lee.