1y ago

Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism

www.theguardian.com ‘Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism

Teachers describe a deterioration in behaviour and attitudes that has proved to be fertile terrain for misogynistic influencers

Despite the triggering headline, this is a pretty good article that talks about how younger men are falling for this horseshit

News @lemmy.world

MicroWave @lemmy.world

1y ago

‘Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism

www.theguardian.com /society/2024/feb/03/andrew-tate-symptom-not-problem-why-young-men-turning-against-feminism

569 404

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

77 comments

I don’t know where you live to have such a narrow definition of it.
I didn't give you a definition of feminism to beginn with, so not sure what you are talking about. I gave you an example of an aspect of feminism that clearly benefits men.
And some of them are definitely not open to men.
Sure, and some feminist believe that all piv sex is rape and than some others that trans-women are not women. Like you said, feminism is diverse and there are fringe opinions and genuine crazy people. But don't you think it's rather biased to define the whole movement by the most fringe elements of it?
When you can read that the heterosexual couple must end because it’s based on domination and it enforces patriarchy, a
Do you think that is a popular opinion with people considering themselves feminist or do you think it's rather radical extreme position hold by a few and refuted by the majority?
- I don't know the sociology of the people who consider themselves feminists. I read and talk quite some with people, women in fact, who are activists. A published article that defend or promote feminist is activist by definition.
  I've never seen a moderate feminist article. Would you have one that I can read?
  Notice that I didn't say every feminist was extremist. Some are obviously more moderate than others. But by its nature, feminism is radical. The problem is that men are generally considered allies at best. They're not included. They're often excluded.
  If some feminists include men, I'll very gladly learn about them, because I've never have before. And I consider myself informed.
  
  If some feminists include men, I’ll very gladly learn about them, because I’ve never have before. And I consider myself informed.
  You are not. There is a long tradition of feminist thought that makes very clear that feminism is inclusive of men. What's more, feminism very explicitly advocates for the betterment of men in the form of freeing them from oppressive gender roles. I suggest you check out works like Feminism Is for Everybody by bell hooks for an introduction into this pillar of feminism.
  
  I'm curious where you live, since your experience is rather wildly different then mine.
  What is a moderate feminism for you? Need to know before I go searching.
  Also I'm curious what being included means for you - is considering men allies including them? What would satisfy for you the criteria of men being included?
  
  These are the wrong questions. The question is how do men and women love each other after metoo? That is the question Andrew tate and the fascists are answering, in a reactionary way.
  And Barby (the movie) is a good example of the feminist stance on this: feminists are basically saying "I don't want to be your doll, fuck off, dont try to love me". And while the first part is perfectly reasonable and sound, the second part is missing the point. And I realise here that it's not just me that are abandoned but also women here.
  The feminist stance is understandable I guess: they don't want men to tell them what to be, so they won't tell men what to be either. But that's missing the point, the question that's being asked: how do men and women love eachother after metoo?
  People want models, both to understand what to aim for, and to have something to dream about. There are strong women models now all over movies and games. But men are still the old one, and there's nothing but the old philosophy to answer the question of how do men and women love eachother after metoo. Because feminists abandoned this question.
  And it cannot be either men or women to answer it. It must be discussed and agreed. Because women must like what men will be, and men must accept what women want. There is as much work to do on women than there is on men.
  Final point: the answer cannot be a negative one. It cannot be "don't be a dick". Because after metoo most reasonable men understand that. The question is, if we're not to be dicks, what will we be? And I'm talking about seduction and romantic relationships here. The question the far right is answering. The question that matter when it comes to men and women relationships. Because no one cares if you want to be an astronaut or a fireman.
  
  It's very concerning that you don't understand that you've just made an overall feminist argument.
  Because feminists abandoned this question.
  This is most certainly not true.
  Because after metoo most reasonable men understand that. The question is, if we’re not to be dicks, what will we be? And I’m talking about seduction and romantic relationships here. The question the far right is answering.
  The far right is answering with "let's just be dicks"?
  
  Is this a rethorical question?
  
  The question is how do men and women love each other after metoo?
  Sure we can switch the topic.
  fuck off, dont try to love me”.
  What the hell are you talking about? That has nothing to do with feminism and I struggle to understand how you arrived at the conclusion that after metoo women don't want to be loved anymore. Women don't want to be raped, harassed and then dismissed when they try to get help. That was the point of metoo.
  how do men and women love eachother after metoo?
  Respecting each other, here I gave you the answer.
  But men are still the old one,
  There are tons of positive role models for men out there that fit feminist bills. From Argagorn in LOTR to Aang in Avatar, if you are interested I can keep on going.
  nd there’s nothing but the old philosophy to answer the question of how do men and women love eachother after metoo.
  Yeah, because as I said metoo was about not being raped, harrassed and not dismissed - some rather basic things for a relationship. What answers do you exactly need?
  And it cannot be either men or women to answer it. It must be discussed and agreed. Because women must like what men will be, and men must accept what women want.
  But that is an individual question. There is no answer for everyone besides - respect others and their boundaries and then anything goes. There is no one archetype of men that all women find attractive and never was.
  Final point: the answer cannot be a negative one. It cannot be “don’t be a dick”. Because after metoo most reasonable men understand that. The question is, if we’re not to be dicks, what will we be? And I’m talking about seduction and romantic relationships here.
  You just misunderstood the answer. Again it's not about not being a dick, no one cares. It's about not raping, harassing and than dismissing women. And the answer the left is giving: consent. Make sure the other side is into what ever is going on and than you are free to do what ever you two want.
  
  So we're back at square one: you don't understand, and either you don't care or you don't see the problem.
  I guess you're left blaming men and social networks for turning young men mysoginistic fascists.
  
  Sure, if pushback and arguments is not understanding and not caring in your book. You could also try to explain your opinion, if you believe I misunderstood you. That's up to you buddy.
  guess you're left blaming men and social networks for turning young men mysoginistic fascists.
  That is not my opinion at all. Except that social media is defenetly playing a role in spreading populist idea. But there is also an underlying reason for those ideas to become popular in the first place.
  
  You wrote it yourself, you don't understand what I'm talking about eventhough I explained at length. It's not up to me. I explained at length already.
  I understand the statistics the article is talking about. And I think I understand why. If you want to understand, you'll need to make the effort.
  
  You wrote it yourself, you don’t understand what I’m talking about eventhough I explained at length. It’s not up to me. I explained at length already.
  No, I wrote that I pushed back and made arguments. It's your personal assessment, that I didn't get your point. If you were genuinely interested in a conversation - you would try to understand my point and where the misunderstanding might be.
  I understand the statistics the article is talking about. And I think I understand why. If you want to understand, you’ll need to make the effort.
  And other people have other opinions on why and discuss those opinions. That's why we are here. You can try making an effort to be understood and try to understand others or just be upset why nobody agrees with you.
  For example you wrote:
  guess you’re left blaming men and social networks for turning young men mysoginistic fascists.
  Wich is clearly misunderstanding of my opinion. So I just corrected you. It's not that hard.
  
  You only answered one sentence in my whole comment and ignored the meaning of everything else. That's what I mean. You even started with saying that I was sidetracking the conversation when I was actually refocusing it.
  If you want to make this an actual discussion, write your point instead of making it a quote ping pong.
  
  Sure, if you are interested in my personal opinion I will gladly share. Just to be sure we are on the same page: we are talking about why the new right and conservatives are able to reach young men and where and why progressives fail to do so? Agree or did I miss something?

77 comments