Ask Lemmy

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.

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.

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.

It's what uneducated men do when they end up making society so hostile to women that women don't want to date anymore.

A more extreme version of this happened durning the Arab Spring.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The right wing has easy answers for complex problems, so it's easier for them to recruit frustrated, average people.

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.

Hasn't this always been the case? Men flocking to an idolized image of masculinity with a sense of superiority over women?

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.

Lack of father figures mixed with a regressive world that is admittedly going to shit, whereas millennials and genx were raised thinking they'd be something, with teen angst and rebellion also in the mix. Don't forget a heaping-helping of Hollywood and mainstream media taking a focus entirely away from men in the last 20 years and replacing it with nothing. Fill in the voids with some toxic masculinity influencers and shake vigorously...

And there you have it, a misogynist that blames everyone else for their problems, with a good chunk of those problems actually being valid.

I can't help but feel that the amount of people following the likes of Tate did not change much, they just got an opportunity to get more vocal, being less afraid of a pushback.

They are a now vocal minority, similar to how there was a rise in Neo-Nazi speech, for example.

Because it's all too easy to abdicate responsibility, let other people look after you and be a shit. If we empower any sort of crappy behaviour, that behaviour grows.

One teacher said she’d had 10-year-old boys “refuse to speak to [her]…because [she is] a woman”

Does this come from Tate? This could also be a child from a family with partiarchal values. Tate is not the only source of influence. But one incident shouldn't be part of an article because it is an exception.

What is the general reason for social development? The elite is creating the cirucumstances for change. Why? Divide and conquer.

On an individual level, masculinity makes sense because going to the gym and being confident makes life much more simple than trying to feel compassion with everybody. For boys, masculinity is the common denominator among all cultures. So in a multicultural society, that's what is going to be established as the fused culture of the next generation.

Girls have the same problems, but their answer, being pretty and doing makeup, doesn't cause trouble and is thus ignored.

To change this, new forms of education must be developed because math and geography don't teach the necessary skills to deal with this complex world.

https://youtu.be/AV59O9H7-KM

This video by Jimmy The Giant explains it better than I can in words.

Some backward guys can't cope with women thinking for themselves, and long for the "good old times" when a wife 100% depended on her husband.

Any idiot promising to bring those "good old times" back will find interested listeners among this crowd.

If I were female, I would run for the hill if I noticed someone with interest in Tate's fairy tales.

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.

Kids are being exposed early to social media, the boys watch "stuff for men" and learn "how a man should be". With that and the help of algorithms, what other out come could someone expect?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I'd abstract it to "losers in a shameless culture".

Generally our society would have time to correct itself and face saving would be important enough to contain the losers in their own circles. However the current western culture is completely shameless and incredibly fast meaning that being a loser is kinda ok and easily justifiable. This leads to a bunch of losers getting together and cognitive dissonance themselves into some sort of dumb pointless ideology that's wouldn't be sustainable otherwise. Add money into the mix and you've got yourself real growth.

I lived in Japan for a while and still come back there every now and then and its such a good illustration of this concept. It's an extreme face saving culture. So you have this Tate-like world of Japanese incels hiding under internet anonymity but if you are not Japanese you will never see this because the losers are contained as they'd never dare to display themselves in public.

That being said, I'm quite optimistic and I think cancel culture and western face will come back from the current slump and restore some balance eventually.