Writes Camilla Long in "The ascent of a lowlife like Andrew Tate proves that misogyny is baked into our everyday lives" (London Times).
A friend’s son told me he knew Tate was an idiot and sexist but found his spats “jokes”. He said the self-styled “elite player” was popular because many boys felt “attacked” by girls: post #MeToo, they feel the “need to fight” and “stand together”. He described Tate’s approach as a “new wave of toxic masculinity”, which, as far as I can see, is like the old wave of toxic masculinity except more self-flagellating and ascetic.... I have never come across anyone who is this openly proud of his hatred of women....Why did he happen? I think I have the answer — because people are so used to misogyny, it has become dull.....
पोस्ट्स
१५४ टिप्पण्या:
Teenage boys have an inherent need to push boundaries. If you put up an electric fence, be sure a group of 15 year olds will come and touch it.
I don't think women really understand this, unless they were mothers of boys already.
Hence the allure of people like Tait.
It's impossible to understand. By the time he becomes a teenager, a young man has spent ten years in school, an environment staffed by women, organized by women, managed by women, and saturated with feminist ideology.
By the time he becomes a teenager, he's been carefully taught about how full of toxic masculinity he is. He's been taught to see that leadership and strength are contemptible, that achievement is a mirage, that all the real heroes are victims.
It just demonstrates how awful males really are. Ten years of feminist indoctrination and males still don't get it!
Labeling healthy masculinity as toxic was bound to eventually create real toxic masculinity.
Young men have been left behind by an educational establishment dominated by women. It evolved in the name of equality, but ended up being a form of revenge.
On the opposite end of Mr. Tate are the Greta Thunbergs. Fawned over fake-ly. A propaganda puppet used to further push America and the children of the world into accepting and obeying totalitarian orders.
Telling children there is only ten years to “fix the planet” is evil. She’s a little witch. Just like Elizabeth Warren and AOC.
Why? Two words:POOR PARENTING
If your article does not mention Trump, it won’t be posted. That’s a bit toxic, too.
Where do we go with this?
I didn't know this guy from Adam, so I looked him up.
1. Parents split when he was 12 years old, and he was taken to England with his English mum, away from his black American chessmaster father. (why are these white people persecuting this black man like this now, one might ask)
2. from Wiki - Romanian police allege that victims were coerced into creating paid pornography for social media through false displays of affection, called the "loverboy" method. - How would this differ from the grooming displayed by, say, gangs of Muslim lads in Rotherham back in the day? Is this inconvenient to point out? Didn't this guy say he was Muslim now? Did he find a way to monetize these groomer wannabees while saying "it's OK, go ahead, here's how"? What does this say about the feral nature of aimless young men?
3. Is there a lot of anger on display here? To whom is that anger directed, and why do you think that is the case? What is the value of having a physically dominant, caring male in the house when these boys go through puberty and adolescence in teaching them how to live as men in civilized society? What happens when this strong hand is removed?
Not much talk of "safe spaces" in this particular world. What kind of impact is Tate having on American university campuses? - not snark, genuine question. You can see why he's the center of attention - it's too convenient, just like slipping a key into a lock - turn the key and see if the door opens up. More beatings to improve the morale, and eastern Europe is a well-proven lab for this kind of activity.
I slept through the end of the game. How did Georgia win, again?
One more unkind addition - is the author of the Times piece a template for the image of Titania McGrath?
It's been 50 years since I was a teenager, but back then we opened doors for the girls, carried their books home, and generally felt that it was our job as males to protect them.
Strange what 50 years of feminism has accomplished.
As women gain power in governments, courts and other institutions (The WI Supreme Court will more than likely be all female next year) people are going to disagree with them. They can then claim victimhood and scream misogyny if you resist their power.
Where is the healthy place for young men? Female dominated public schools push transgenderism, drag queen shows, body mutilation, masking, vaccine poison,...and they even stock books in the grade school libraries on the art of sucking dick.
Thus...you get over the top, unhealthy pushback from guys like Mr. Tate.
Now let’s all watch the feminists freak out over Andrew Tate and show ZERO interest in the Epstein client list. This is also why Mr. Tate exists. If you think about it, he is the extreme opposite of the powerful men who fucked young girls on Epstein’s Island. Neither are good. None of it is.
P.S.
This isn't toxic masculinity, it's toxic feminism.
This is easy. Boys need male role models. If they don’t get them in their personal/family life they will seek them out elsewhere. Since they are seeking that model in a societal vacuum, sometimes they end up in the wrong place.
I swear, there is a segment of the media that does not own a mirror. They identify a shocking problem and, because they have no mirror, they do not see themselves as the cause.
For reference see homeless/California state governance, inflation/insane public money drops, ad infinitum.
It analogous to Fox News. He identified an unserved demographic of about half the population and decided to serve it.
I never heard of him until he tweaked Greta. Thanks media for adding to his notoriety like you do with mass murderers, giving them the rush they need.
I don't know who he is. If he physically committed crimes, the law should punish him. But if it was just words, how is that different from the tidal wave of toxic feminist misandry not just permitted but celebrated and embedded and institutionalized in academia and the media?
If he's a bad example, the speech question still stands.
The reaction of feminists to the popularity of Tate is of a piece with the inability of liberals to understand why Trump happened and isn't going away. If you abuse a particular population long enough (men and boys, "deplorables"), eventually they will strike back, often indirectly by supporting someone whom you regard with horror. They will seek and follow a leader, or a role model, who speaks to their pain and rage. When all masculinity becomes toxic masculinity, you have lit the fuse.
I suspect like Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and SBF; he was a darling of the progressives until he wasn't.
“He's the first cool guy I've ever been friends with in my whole life. You know, it's a different world when you're with a cool guy. He's not afraid of anybody. You should hear the way he talks to waitresses. He gets free pie!”
— George Costanza, Seinfeld, "The Stall," S5:E12.
BillR is happy to excuse this behavior, blaming society for causing boys to embrace people like Tate.
His tacit approval of Tate and his message is clear. Author's claim is likely to be shown true many times in this comment thread.
Males are hopeful that a good deal is still possible, females are telling them that it's not.
The two kinds of men are those who have dismissed that hope and those who have not. All the men are now wary.
Good deal = both sides come out ahead. Scott Adams has recently concluded that it's not possible. Women are too self-centered. It's like blacks today : there's no getting along with whites until whites give them more stuff.
Why are today’s men never the strong silent type?
She got Donald Trump in there. She's a thinker.
Trump is the worst of the worst, isn't he? Just the worst. Really, really bad. Just say his name, and you get a laugh because he is so evil. Mammas, don't let you babies grow up to be Trumpsters.
Trumpsters like smoky old pool rooms and clear mountain mornings
Little warm puppies and children and girls of the night
Them that don't know him won't like him and them that do
Sometimes won't know how to take him
He ain't wrong, he's just different but his pride won't let him
Do things to make you think he's right
"Globular"? Does she mean "global"? He doesn't look particularly "globular" to me.
But I never heard of the guy until I saw teachers whining about him on Reddit.
Take the loaf out of your own eye, Ms. Long. There's plenty of misandry being baked these days as well and it's reach and scope far exceeds one asshole on TikTok.
This article isn't even about women's rights. It's about scaring people into supporting censorship.
Extending on Bill R-
You can only grind people down for so long until anyone who offers them relief from the grinding starts looking good, no matter how misogynistic. The next few years may get interesting (in the Chinese sense) indeed!
People aren't "used to misogyny," they are used to accusations of misogyny. The global managerial class because used to hurling accusations of misogyny and racism any time someone questioned the assumptions underlying their orthodoxy or dared to point out some truth about the world that didn't align with what they had promised. In such an environment, a willingness to say controversial things and take the slings and arrows becomes admirable, and any truth in what you say gets amplified, while the bullshit gets ignored.
The system created Andrew Tate. It created the global communications system which gave him a platform, the branding techniques he employed, the interlinked global economy which made him rich, and the weak, ineffective weapons which made him appear invincible.
The gratuitous reference to Trump robs this article of any credibility that it might have had. Only in a world informed by TDS is Trump the epitomy of misogyny.
"...misogyny is baked into our everyday lives..."
Why, it's structural misogyny! Just like racism!
Just look at those phallic ys dangling from that word misogyny. We have to acknowledge that those ys are up to something. They want to go somewhere and do something. They are probably waiting to take advantage of some unsuspecting oogle or even a simple look.
By the time he becomes a teenager, a young man has spent ten years in school, an environment staffed by women, organized by women, managed by women, and saturated with feminist ideology.
..It just demonstrates how awful males really are.
yet in Today's World (the world of 2023) many (MOST?) young "girls" are desperately TRYING to become boys.
Go figure THAT! Go Ahead.. I'll wait
Writers like this cannot manage to leave Trump out of anything..
What's the female equivalent of incel?
What's the female equivalent of misogyny?
How often is the term "toxic femininity" used?
How often do men file for divorce?
How many single mothers are using the government as husband and father of their children?
What percentage of college students are men?
When society is telling you you are evil and unneeded, many will accept the role and attempt to fill it.
Yes, he's ludicrous and hateful. But much of social justice culture is about hatred of men ("oh, no, we don't hate men, only the patriarchy that they established and maintain."). After 9/11, many people said that we should ask ourselves, "Why do they hate us?" Camilla Long should ask herself the same question. Alas, she just doubles down on the hatred.
You mean like 95% of male rappers…….
And prince andrew is in jail right along with all the other johns
Evidence schmevidence
How can she not recognize markle is drab and awful,
Andree Tate's misogyny is so dull. We're so used to it. What's more interesting is the misogyny of Henry Cavill. Denying a woman the lead role in the upcoming Warhammer 40K film he's producing? That is more topical. An excellent example of how we are surrounded by misogyny everyday, the kind of misogyny that fails to position women for success everytime all-the-time.
How dare us.
In a lowlife culture, misogyny is only one of many offenses that are rewarded.
"Baked in" or "baked into" is probably a phrase we could do with out.
It can take "top of mind" with it.
Is he as bad as Donald Trump, or worse? Be careful, now....
Why do we not hear about his protected black classification? Is it somehow inconvenient to the story? I thought successful blacks were to be celebrated and excused from criticism.
In a culture where the word 'misogyny' reigns supreme as a cudgel of powerful influence in shaping the education and entertainment of young children (boys and girls alike), why is it we never hear the word 'misandry' articulated, even though we see the product of its handiwork every single day?
Why do we never hear about female incels? Is it because there aren't any?
people are so used to misogyny, it has become dull.....
If misogyny has become so common it’s boring—well, that’s just dumb. If it were boring, it wouldn’t make Tate rich.
Illogic aside, if misogyny is so common it’s dull, it’s because these boys are raised to be misogynistic and, as so many here have pointed out, who is raising these boys? Mostly women. They are brought up in a thoroughly feminized atmosphere and it has made them disrespect and even hate women. That’s not dull; it’s kind of fascinating in a very depressing way.
The woke crowd gets 100% of the credit for this. Their hectoring, finger-pointing, neck-snapping scoldathons are producing a rich sewage of openly expressed racial and gender animosity in response. I think that has been their intention all along. More unrest means more Marxist solutions.
- Krumhorn
I've had female bosses, female co workers, female subordinates.
They've never complained about misogyny or toxic masculinity.
Where do I see these complaints come from?
Female dominated industries (journalism, academia etc).
(I was in a male dominated industry)
Hmm.
Maybe Andrew Tate is doing comedy? Some sexist jokes from W.C. Fields --
It was a woman who drove me to drink, and I never had the courtesy to thank her for it.
Marry an outdoors woman. Then if you throw her out into the yard on a cold night, she can still survive.
I believe in tying the marriage knot, as long as it’s around the woman’s neck.
These sort of jokes are no longer okay and a lot of feminists want to censor these sorts of jokes and, more broadly, misogynistic speech online (and everywhere else). One rationale for the censorship -- "sexist men have a higher proclivity to rape after reading sexist jokes told by a woman." This is more words are violence stuff...
https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/sexist-humor-and-rape-proclivity-moderating-role-joke-teller-gender-and-severity-sexual-assault
Men, women, and "our Posterity" are from Earth. Feminists are from Venus. Masculinists are from Mars. Social progressives are from Uranus. #HateLovesAbortion
Social progressives have their fucking... pecking order, where trans/homosexuals are being deprecated in the victim cascade in favor of trans/sims. First, they came for the babies... fetal-babies. #WarOfTheWorlds
>Ann Althouse said...
Why did he happen? I think I have the answer — because people are so used to misogyny, it has become dull.....<
On the contrary, it's because unhappily unfulfilled boys are so used to 50yrs of organized, praised, and legally sanctioned misandry...
I've seen a lot of Tate's comments. Sort of like a train wreck, you sometimes have to watch.
For the record very little of what he says demonstrates any form of misogyny. In fact he's on record describing himself as a troll. He deliberately says fairly common sense things in the most provocative way, knowing it will prompt a strong reaction. Then when someone angrily disagrees with them, he can point out the basic logic of his point, disarming them and making them look bad and him smug.
For the record, he is an arrogant a-hole. Probably no where near as rich as he claims, certainly promoting a lifestyle to which he's clearly already becoming jaded. From his description of the sources of his income, they seem at best unsavory with strong hints of con games. No idea whether the current accusations are true, conceivably but not necessarily. His outrageous profile would inevitably make him a target.
Again, most(but not all) of what he says would have been common sense only a few years ago and still is in the "red pill" community, that most women are attracted to high status men and bad boys, few modern men know how to be what women really want, modern feminism seems on track to create a generation of women who will reach the end of their child bearing years alone and unhappy, and no one seems to be benefiting from it except a small percentage of men who take advantage of it all and make the rest of men seem toxic.
I'm probably twice Camilla Long's age, and I could kill her with my bare hands.
There is no way I would do that; I have never purposely hurt anyone in my 7 decades of life, and I'm not going to start now.
Ms Long would benefit from recognizing that her safe existence, her lofty position in life as a columnist, and her lovely lifestyle, continue only because men like me allow it.
Men allowed women to begin voting, to get educations, and then to dominate the educational industry. Same for law, same for medicine. Men changed the laws so that women are legally equal to, and in some cases privileged over, men.
That can all change in a heartbeat.
I have always defended and protected women from misogyny and unfair treatment. I have physically defended women on rare occasions, and professionally defended and promoted them, on numerous occasions.
Reading screeds like the one here opens one's eyes. If I serve on her jury, I'll now be skeptical. If I learn that she's getting picked on or bullied, I'll turn the other cheek.
I'm not yet at the point where I will actively try to take her down yet, but she might want to tone it down.
Wait… there’s ‘an influencer’ worse than Trump?
If Trump was worse than Hitler… what does that make the worse than Trump guy?
The Pill knocked the sub structure of marriage out from under the institution. The rot, is slow, but unrelenting.
No fault divorce, moms getting full custody ~+95% of the time. Female single head of household. ~95% elementary teachers are female.
Starting the see a thread here?
NOT blaming moms, they are doing the best they can, with what they have. But anthropologically we cannot raise males, without male role models. That starts with 2 parents, one female, one male. Support from married uncles, and grandfathers. A law to get a minimum of 50% elementary teaches as male, even if that means paying males more. Carry through to Principles and guidance counselors. I had great role models in school, Principle, shop teacher, science teacher. All male role models with different strengths.
We have been ignoring this failing for 50? years now?. Pretending FOX news, and Justice Scalia were the problem.
Fix the family. We have 100,000 years of history telling us what works. Like reading, its not really that hard to teach.
How does a man like SBF become a billionaire guru for adult men and women? For Presidents and Senators? Journalists and financial experts?
This happens all the time. At all levels.
"... a globular kickboxing star and former Big Brother contestant."
glob·u·lar. /ˈɡläbyələr/
adjective
1. globe-shaped; spherical. "plants with distinctive globular blooms"
2. composed of globules.
Actually from the pictures I've seen of him he's quite fit. My how standards have fallen at the The Times!
"I have never come across anyone who is this openly proud of his hatred of women....".
Have you never heard the relentless drum beat of the man haters?
Or "...because people are so used to" denigrating men, "...it has become dull".
Roe and Casey enabled two generations of males to become irresponsible couch-sitters, among othe things. Make men responsible for all their actions. That will erase misogyny.
I also don't think the rise in ADHD, and Oppositional Defiance Disorder, closely tied to the absence of fathers/male role models is a coincidence.
with chauvinist progress... unthinkable, unpredictable:
Out, damned spot! out, I say!--One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.--Hell is murky!--Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power to
account?--Yet who would have thought the old man
to have had so much blood in him.
with social progress:
O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.
Deny thy sex and refuse thy gender... and I'll no longer be a woman.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Brutus and Caesar: what should be in that 'Caesar'?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
Write them together, yours is as fair a name;
Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well;
Weigh them, it is as heavy; conjure with 'em,
Brutus will start a spirit as soon as Caesar.
CASSIUS addresses human rites, political congruence, diversity, inequity, and exclusion.
Albinophobia was another banner achievement of social progress... one step forward, two steps backward. Now, they lament their choices. Life is but a... moron.
I went looking for the worst than Trump guy and found a video of him commenting on Jordan Peterson, who happens to be in the company of the worse of the worst.
Link to Tate on J Peterson video
Warning ⚠️ this video contains words and images some viewers may find disturbing. Viewers discretion is advised.
technochitlin said...
You can only grind people down for so long until anyone who offers them relief from the grinding starts looking good...
Sadly, a lot of history is predicated upon the inability of soi disant "intellectuals" with degrees from "good schools" not being able to understand that simple principle.
And so it goes.....
Actually from the pictures I've seen of him he's quite fit. My how standards have fallen at the The Times!
By “globular” maybe they mean “globe trotting”, but they can’t use “globe trotting” because that will make the subject sound like a playboy, confusing the algorithms, not to mention hinting at the idea some women might find the monster attractive. Can’t have that.
Ann- i know you out these posts up without your own comment so we can figure it out on our own.
But this is too disturbing to put up without your own take on this whole article- including the worse than Trump part.
Please ?
Its what happens when you don't recycle your pizza boxes! locked him up
"It's impossible to understand. By the time he becomes a teenager, a young man has spent ten years in school, an environment staffed by women, organized by women, managed by women, and saturated with feminist ideology.
By the time he becomes a teenager, he's been carefully taught about how full of toxic masculinity he is. He's been taught to see that leadership and strength are contemptible, that achievement is a mirage, that all the real heroes are victims.
It just demonstrates how awful males really are. Ten years of feminist indoctrination and males still don't get it!"
This whole comment is a fever dream, the paranoid imaginings of someone terrified of women.
Feminists, in collusion with masculinists, sacrificed virgins, boys and girls, men and women, for their religious order, normalizing transhumanism, misandry, and misogyny, and they are still not respected.
There are plenty of skeevy Americans, including a lot of scammers and criminals, of whom I know nothing even their name. This latest object of lefty media’s obsessive interest is one such person. When i was young i used to think Rolling Stone was “the future of journalism” but instead of going gonzo straight news transitioned into a nightmarish mashup of People and National Enquirer.
I thought all criticism, racial or not, of bi-racial Americans who are half-Black was “systemic racism” (see Meghan Markle). Until Tate crossed that line with him trolling Greta Thunberg, I had never heard of this dude. I am guessing the critics are ignoring that fact and consider him a British, white Caucasian so they can go after him on the human trafficking charges. Every day, I no longer know the unwritten rules as to who can be criticized and who is off-limits. Just like Black on Black violence can’t be investigated as that falls under, I think, “systemic racism” and is ignored by Black Lives Matter and their supporters, especially in the White Regressive (TM) community.
Isn't this the guy that a commenter mentioned a few days ago? Didn't Scott Adams younger wife allegedly run off on a fling with this guy? Aren't some women attracted to 'Bad Boys"? Don't some women find the mixture of disagreeableness, physicality, and danger alluring? If this guy is providing an amalgamation of what some women actually desire, isn't he a Feminist? Or is this another case of Schrodinger's Feminism where Women are people with agency capable to make their own decisions in life except when those decisions don't work out in which case they are objects subject to the whims of the Patriarchy.
He spoke against the lockdowns nect question
I admire the moral grandeur of many who post here, but his toxic masculinity is not the problem. The problem is that so many women are attracted to men of such toxic masculinity. When he pulls up to the club where all the hot chicks hang out in his Ferrari, with his hyperfit body and with his flashy bankroll, a certain proportion of the women in attendance will pay attention. They will feel that with the moderating influence of a good woman most of his more objectionable aspects could be easily tamed or, anyway, it's worth attempting tonight... You, however, when you pull up to the club in your Volvo with your beatific face framed by a receding hairline will not have any such impact.....We're all stuck with reptilian brains that are more responsive to sexual magnetism than to moral grandeur. Toxic masculinity is a Darwinian play that works. The beat goes on.
How does "globular" make it into that essay?
The only thing that has become dull is all the misandry boys grow up with today. Had I been in elementary school during the 2000s rather than the 1970s, I would have been given a prescription for mood altering drugs, along with all my non-female friends. I shudder to think about what my life would have been like had I been born 3 decades later than I was, and without a father to boot (I had a great father, by the way).
Andrew Tate and his followers (I had never heard of this guy before last week), are the fields of grain we have been sowing for a long, long time now. It isn't going to get better, either. Tate is a counter-reaction to our society's decisions, and I promise you that you won't like what is coming to replace him if we don't change course in a drastic way.
Hegel smiles.
Shes a real shrieking violet
https://web.archive.org/web/20130129083609/http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Magazine/Interviews/article856056.ece
What kind of impact is Tate having on American university campuses? - not snark, genuine question.
Women were complaining about the behavior of young men at colleges before Tate became a thing. It seems that among other things, the gender imbalance in higher education has produced a reversal of roles. There are so few men, especially "desirable" men, on campus that the women are openly competing for them and the men are reacting with rude and boorish behavior.
I'll begin considering criticizing Tate when some Libs begin criticizing the absolute hateful, racist and anti-American among their lot.
I'll wait.
Marcus B. THEOLDMAN
Agreed that anyone who inserts DJT into a post, essay or article, immediately demonstrates that they are stupid beyond belief and not to be read further.
'Toxic masculinity'.
There was a time, early in my life, when it was posited that the world would be a better place if it was run by females instead of males. Not an unreasonable conjecture. Well, that experiment has been run and the data are in. It's worse. Much worse.
I bet there are those who would call Mr. Tate a splooge stooge.
Sort of related:
The odious Keith Olbermann came out of the closet announcing that he had been mentally and physically abused by newsreader Katy Tur when they lived together. He claims that she once hit him hard enough to cause him to be hospitalized for a burst appendix. He has been ashamed, he says, for the past 15 years to speak out. He is speaking out now, he says, because Tur has bullied her current husband into getting a vasectomy because of the Dobbs decision.
I've pointed out before that physical violence by women against their husbands has long been a staple of jokes in the comic pages of newspapers (Andy Capp, Maggie and Jiggs, Blondie, Snuffy Smith). Not just violence but violence with a weapon (Pocketbook, rolling pin, umbrella, skillet).
We hear all about toxic masculinity and violence by men against women. We seldom hear about toxic femininity and physical violence by women against men. Both happen at about the same rate.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
John Henry
Despite having a (very distinguished) black father, he made the mistake of not marketing himself as a standard issue Black man. Had he gone full Black in his persona , he would have been a lot harder to attack. I just became aware of him after recently joining Twitter, and I assumed he was a swarthy / very tan rich British / Arab.
Actually, I dismissed him as an insufferable asshole and wondered why his name kept popping up.
I was also amazed to see him described as "globular".
Is Tate the modern version of Andrew Dice Clay?
How does a man like this become a 'trillionaire' guru to teenage boys?
Feminists.
I Don’t think this has a lot to do with women running elementary schools or even the lack of fathers in the home, directly. Young men want a sense of power and achievement, they look up to men who show strength, success, power. I bet many boys with a good father at home are still attracted to a guy like this. He is playing on that need for young men to feel like they can be powerful, too. This would be true even in non feminist cultures because boys are fighting for relevance against the inertia of society no matter what. However, the misogyny is directly related to feminism as it gives a focus to some of the frustration they have and the wearing down of their psyche because of constant attacks on their very nature. Others have already said it. This guy is successful because the good masculine role models have been derided, and many good men will not fight they culture because it creates a conflict that they would be against in principle. Eventually, as can be seen by such a strong reaction by males in this post, that men will stop being nice guys. What good has it done them so far? Eventually they will realize that the fight will be necessary. I know I am reaching that breaking point.
Without reading the drivel that compares a guy with every negative male stereotype to Donald Trump, I'll make a guess as to why boys would be attracted to someone like him. Because he is projecting a masculine male image! Boys have always wanted to be men. Big, strong, powerful, decisive, those are attributes they see in men and they want them for themselves.
I have twin 2 year old grandsons. Having been the dad of an only-child daughter (their mom) I have never been around boy infants and toddlers. The difference is astounding. Where mom was attracted to role playing with dolls and my little pony her sons can watch a tree trimming crew or construction workers for hours. They love to watch videos on YouTube of garbage trucks. Anyone who believes boys and girls are assigned their inborn behaviors haven't raised actual children - or they're either crazy or lying or both.
Streisand effect; I never knew who he was before the idiot pizza box meme...
I suggest the author read this.
Where is the healthy place for young men? Female dominated public schools push transgenderism, drag queen shows, body mutilation, masking, vaccine poison,...and they even stock books in the grade school libraries on the art of sucking dick.
The feminists created this dystopia.
Blogger iowan2 said...
The Pill knocked the sub structure of marriage out from under the institution. The rot, is slow, but unrelenting.
No fault divorce, moms getting full custody ~+95% of the time. Female single head of household. ~95% elementary teachers are female.
Yup. Well said.
"My how standards have fallen at the The Times!"
Brits are amazingly ignorant and sloppy writers.
How many men are making millions on Onlyfans?
The problem is not that stories in the media preferred narrative form, can't single out an individual for bad/toxic behavior. It is the problem that the media abuses that nebulous format to advance agendas. The toxic Masculinity agenda for example. So, whenever there's a new target, my natural inclination is to say wait a minute, if this is worth my time, I got to take a close look at what the claims are, what the facts are. I'm not accepting the making of a new boogie man on a narrative's say so.
If that makes me toxic, so be it.
@RideSpaceMountain said: "An excellent example of how we are surrounded by misogyny everyday, the kind of misogyny that fails to position women for success everytime all-the-time."
"How dare us."
1/1/23, 8:56 AM
As J. R. Ewing's dad once said to J.R.'s brother Bobby, "Power isn't something somebody gives you. Power is something you take."
my new years eve reading brought me to a James Howard Kunstler blog, whom I am not familiar with but found helpful in its sum up of our moment, and one part was about our women leadership that I thoroughly agree with:
"Another thing had changed along the way: the Democratic Party became dominated by activist women, who exhibited two outstanding behavioral tendencies: they tended to make decisions on the basis of emotion… their feelings about this-and-that; and they were much more ruthless in political battle than men — their emotions eclipsed age-old principles, such as the idea of fair play. In short, they resorted almost automatically to dirty fighting.
That is probably at the heart of what is most confounding and vexing about the great political division in America these days. We are under a vile spell of pervasive dirty fighting. Dirty fighters have no respect for reality or for principle; they do whatever they can do to win the fight. Bad faith is the order of the day."
So True.
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/what-its-really-about/#.Y7CXS0C7RFs.twitter
I can answer her question. He is trolling you.
He is popular because public feminists are often shrill and irritating, and so oblivious that they can't spot a troll, even when he tells them he is a troll.
She should Google Tom Leykis and shock herself at how the ideas she is freaking out about have origins among her fellow travelers.
"How does "globular" make it into that essay?
The essay was written by a moron whose IQ is lower than her shoe size?
"coerced into creating paid pornography for social media through false displays of affection, called the "loverboy" method. "
Coercion through false affection is illegal? Some sort of reverse pimp thing?
"He gave me false affection. I had no choice!"
"say worse things than Donald Trump"
Impossible!
Yancey Ward said...
How does "globular" make it into that essay?
--
Reaching beyond her actual vocabulary.
Hmm.
I remember that women of her ilk also are losing their shit over Jordan Petersen trying to teach young men to be ethical and strong human beings.
So it is a FRIGGING MYSTERY to me why men think that there is nothing that will satisfy misandrist feminists who seem to be in charge. I am not seeing 'normal' women telling these harridans to chill out.
So why should I say the same to boys?
How many of those 11 million views are based on the TikTok algorithm, which you wrote about yesterday? Even if not that many people went seeking out his videos, it's easy to imagine them being served up to a teenage boy who thought, "Hey, that's kind of funny," and watched just long enough for the system to keep sending him more and more.
(Or if I believed the conspiracy theory that a certain government was secretly influencing the algorithm, I would then wonder what the benefit would be of making these videos so popular in other countries. Do they make their young men stronger and more confident, as it might appear at first glance -- or do they actually have a destabilizing effect on society?)
Norm =A pattern of behavior considered acceptable or proper by a social group
Can anyone say that there is a broad consensus on the norm for boys and men in today's America? Lots of us continue to promote the traditional norms as providers to the family, father teachers, leaders within the family on agreed upon areas, protectors of females, and innovators/inventors in the world.
That is my norm. But it is only a norm, not a mandate for compliance.
Boys need to see how they can express themselves better within this norm that outside it, IMHO. Does it limit some behavior? Life is full of choices and some choices preclude certain actions. That is human agency at work within a moral code.
Guys like Tate are filling a vacuum with whatever sells to boys hungry for guidance in life. There is better guidance out there, but the loudest voices among females and leftists do not want that guidance to be known. They are practicing real violence on boys and society.
Misogyny = hatred of women. Does Tate "hate" women? No.
I wish we could ban this dumb leftwing insult label, but its an easy crutch for dummies. We have racist, we have homophobe, we have xenophobe, so we have to have one for the victim group called Women. Even though women are 1/2 of the human race. Funny how there's no common insult label for hatred of Christians. Or hatred of Men. Or hatred of white men.
Tate is just a harmless internet troll selling teenage boys fake macho. Look at the beautiful babes, fast cars, 6-pack abs, cigars and martial arts belts. He also trolls the professional feminists, and they both get clicks with their fake fights.
"There was a time, early in my life, when it was posited that the world would be a better place if it was run by females instead of males. Not an unreasonable conjecture. Well, that experiment has been run and the data are in. It's worse. Much worse."
How do you know? When was "that experiment...run...?" Males still rule the world.
(BTW, I do not assume women would be any less murderous or merciless than men typically are in their management of governments or any other organizations.)
I've been a fan of Kunstler for a while, and have recommended his blog here and elsewhere. (Mind you, I think he's wrong on some things, but he sees a lot clearly, and writes well.)
One good thing about guys like Tate (or Goad) is that they flush out the manly galahads, who may agree on nothing in all the world except that women need protecting from other men (men who aren't them), and from themselves.
We see it here all the time.
Me, I'm going to let it play out according to the principles of Truth, Justice, and the Romanian Way.
The Times doesn't want me to read that screed, and I'm OK with that. But what's this "misogyny" consist in? It sounds like he likes women. Some of them, anyhow. Has he suggested that he might divorce one or something?
It is as if someone has taken every type of woman-hater you can think of — a footballer, an incel, an Arab sheikh, the Tinder Swindler — and rolled them into one menacing, manscaped action doll
That would be a no-no if you or I said it. Come to think of it, what is this list of offensive male stereotypes but a catalogue of "baked in" misandry? The stupid jock, the nerd, the foreigner, and whatever a Tinder Swindler is.
I also didn't get "globular." It was amusing to hear someone described as a "globular globalist" (Henry Kissinger?), but it doesn't really fit here.
_
It's not that misogyny has become "dull." It's that we live in an "up the ante" society in which plain speaking isn't enough. What you say has to be amped up, pushed further, taken to the next level.
What's true of male backlash (if that's what this is), is also true of feminism, LGBTQIA+, identity politics and many other things. You don't make an impression if you don't create a sensation.
Looking at Congress right now, it does seem like women are more equipped to play the avenging furies than men are. I don't know why that is, but the ladies are more passionate and less comical than Adam Schiff or Eric Swallwell or Adam Kinzinger or Jamie Raskin or Matt Gaetz or the average male representative. The not so old White guys didn't turn out to be any more impressive than the old White ones they wanted to replace. Many of the women may be awful but they do have more energy and conviction than their male counterparts.
“…worse than Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump…”
Same old shit, different year.
some men treat women poorly. Some men have a low opinion of all women.
Some women treat men poorly. some women have a low opinion of all men.
blah blah blah.. insert obligatory juicebox media rant about Trump.
Well, JFK is still a hero to many and his name adorns all sorts of buildings, streets, and stuff. Weinstein was worshipped by Hollywood elites. Tate just lacks progressive myth making.
He's abhorrent but so are many of those featured in cultured magazines and such.
They didn't like Men Going Their Own Way. They also don't like this guy.
There really is only one model that will satisfy such people, and that involves castration and a leash.
they even stock books in the grade school libraries on the art of sucking dick.
Sucking dicks seems to have taken the place that dating and courting used to occupy in our culture. Did the women who now rule our educational establishment think this would produce a better class of men?
Tik Tok’s viewership is overwhelmingly female.
If Little Man Tate has 11 billion views, how many of them are teenage boys?
I’m skeptical of any claim about Social Media Messiahs.
People just like entertainment and this guy appears to deliver it. Confusing outrageous humor for clicks with proselytization is a stale way to make a living.
Robert Cook said...
How do you know? When was "that experiment...run...?" Males still rule the world.
you're a stupid, old, man robert..And to top it off.. You're Really sad (to experience)
I Hope you have a better year this year.. So that you could lose some of your pathetic bull.
Actually, i guess i'm just not reading you right.. I GUESS, you're Actually, HILARIOUS
..Males 'still' rule the world..
Yep, you've missed your calling; you should be a court jester
Men think they exist to have a good time. Women think they exist to prevent that.
So, Tate preaches basically the exact opposite of the steps Jordan Peterson suggests for men to become their best selves. And yet, it's Peterson who dumb bunnies like Olivia Wilde chastise as being the "hero to the incel community." Well, which is it, ladies? What is it you want? Who do you want influencing the boys? The professor who tells men to grow up, learn how to make their bed, and become the kind of person a woman would pick for a mate? Or do you want the flashy fame-whore asshole and his pimp hand, getting rich for telling the girls to sit down and shut up?
If you're so horrified by the misogyny of the latter, maybe it would be wise to lighten up a little on the former, as he seems to be doing a lot more good for the world despite your best efforts to shame him.
@Narr
"Men think they exist to have a good time. Women think they exist to prevent that."
"Men want women so they can have a future. Women need men so they can survive."
- Martin Van Creveld (The Privileged Sex)
Paraphrasing your comment with that quote: Women's manipulative efficacy is reduced when men are having fun.
Again, men failing to position women for success. Many such cases!
@Bobby
"There really is only one model that will satisfy such people, and that involves castration and a leash."
Lots of women are already doing that. They're called dogs.
Now keep going with that logic. If so many women's satisfaction level with relationships is better-served with a neutered canid on a leash than a man, what does that tell you about about the kind of man they really want?
I know the Tate family from decades ago. Andrew was a thoughtful, serious boy at the time. His dad Emory was one of the most unique individuals I’ve ever met: idiot/savant (I know, not Pc but precise for him). I watched him replay three chess games in real time a half hour after he played them, him only getting one minute total time for each game, his opponent — my son — getting 5. The games were played at a blistering pace and Tate was able to reconstruct each one without thinking. I once asked him to give a lecture to my high school English class on decision-making skills he could generalize from chess and it was one of the most insightful lectures I’ve ever heard.
But it was, like all of Emory’s communication output, full of bombast. Andrew learned that from dad and inherited much from his father but one thing he learned counter to dad’s way was how to turn your talents into dollars. Emory was too addicted to chess to ever make it in the financial world.
Andrew and brother Tristan — who my wife taught piano to — are being railroaded by the Dr. Evils of the hive mind conspiracy … or as Andrew would say, by the matrix. If they have real anything on him I’ll be very surprised. His mother, I wish to add, is a sweet, very decent British woman who my wife was quite attached to. His sister, like the whole family, very smart and precocious.
I don’t ascribe to all of Andrew’s schtick but I believe him to be a good man who will be exonerated. That’s at least what I’m hoping to be true.
I have twin 2 year old grandsons … Where mom was attracted to role playing with dolls and my little pony her sons can watch a tree trimming crew or construction workers for hours. They love to watch videos on YouTube of garbage trucks.
I will also watch hours of You Tube videos of men felling trees; large, specialized machines implementing their function; ships challenging harsh oceans; wood turning and the train track filmed from the front window of a speeding locomotive. And I am 73 years old! Have I never grown up? Is this a safe place for me to confess the following: I want my mommy?
On reading the following I "knew" what it's priorities are:
It is as if someone has taken every type of woman-hater you can think of — a footballer, an incel, an Arab sheikh, the Tinder Swindler — and rolled them into one menacing, manscaped action doll, given them loads of guns, money and cars and made them say worse things than Donald Trump.
"Males still rule the world."
In name only.
It's a vicious circular thing...
Women like "Bad Boys" and reward them sexually. Men and boys observe the results, and take up "Bad Boy" behavior. Which means that women get exactly what they asked for. I don't feel a hell of a lot of sympathy for their collective plight.
They say, as a collective group, that they want one thing: The "Sensitive new-age man", the beta-male that they spend so much effort effeminizing and training. Then, offered up a "Bad Boy", they drop that beta's ass in a heartbeat, 'cos he doesn't actually trip their heartstrings.
I've watched this crap go on all around me, most of my adult life. It's one reason I swore off the opposite sex, because they signal one thing with their words, then demonstrate the exact opposite in actions. Women in the aggregate really don't want what they say they do; if you try to give it to them, they'll abandon you the moment some other male offers them what they really want but will never voice: Abuse.
There are exceptions to that rule, but they're rare. I can think of very few that I've run into, over the years.
Of course, clarity of vision means I must be a misogynist. I prefer the term "realist", because I've observed this shit time after time after time. Women are, in general terms, very much like horses in a burning barn: You can try to drag them out of the fire, but they'll go back to it, every single time. I've one acquaintance who we rescued from her POS first real boyfriend, the one who put her into the hospital. Then, after helping her recover and get back on her feet, what did the silly bint do but go out and find another just like him, ignoring the warnings of nearly everyone who knew her. I pretty much wrote her stupid ass off, after the second time Boyfriend #2 put her into the ER and she refused to press charges, going home with him.
Women like to rail about male misbehavior, but they fail to recognize that they're entirely complicit with most, if not all of it. If they didn't wet their panties at guys like Tate so consistently and predictably, other males who wanted sexual intimacy wouldn't be noting that fact and following his lead. Men like Tate don't exist in a vacuum; they exist because that sort of behavior got rewarded. Every Epstein has their Maxwell; note the female remoras that Tate had with him, leading other women into his sway. Disbelieve me? Look at NXIVM or Carla Homolka. It's all about power, for a lot of women; that's why they're there on the sidelines, helping the abusers out. You'll rarely find an all-male situation in these cases.
Y'all pretty much get that which you want. Although, you'll never admit to it.
"Without reading the drivel that compares a guy with every negative male stereotype to Donald Trump, I'll make a guess as to why boys would be attracted to someone like him. Because he is projecting a masculine male image!"
You think Donald Trump projects a masculine male image, a positive male image?! Jeezus!
He presents as a vain, preening braggart, a self-seeking dick who rates the worth of others according only to their degree of worldly success, as measured by wealth and their ability to take advantage of others rather than be taken advantage of. He sees others only as "winners" or "losers." He is manifestly bereft of honor, honesty, integrity, courage, or empathy for others, especially for those he sees as lesser than him. His "masculinity," so-called, is counterfeit, as is his concern for others, the brittle facade of a damaged narcissist.
Same women who feel threatened here felt threatened by Jordan Peterson and Donald Trump. Stereotypes abound.
"Well, which is it, ladies? What is it you want?"
Watched a comedian do a routine on this about 20 years or so ago. Paraphrased...
"Women say they want a man with personality and a sense of humor. By that, they mean Mel Gibson telling knock-knock jokes."
Men think they exist to have a good time. Women think they exist to prevent that.
The reason there are so many breakups and divorces?
Men get married and they think this woman will never change.
Women get married and they know they can change this man for the better.
They are BOTH wrong.
So after learning a bit about Tate from commenters, I found a few YT vids of various appearances and interviews.
The first one was of him expressing the conviction that there is no reason for young men to get married under present circumstances. (I mean, no reason unless desire for traditional genetic offspring is overpowering.)
Seems like a reasonable thing to say. In fact I've said it myself for years.
I'll look at some more eventually.
Anything that effectively promotes Greta Thunburg and her causes can't be all bad.
gilbar said...
"Robert Cook said...
How do you know? When was "that experiment...run...?" Males still rule the world."
...
..Males 'still' rule the world..
Yep, you've missed your calling; you should be a court jester
Cook is right. The world is still ruled by a very small set of males.
They have just change the shapes of their Harems. Women now occupy positions of influence because they like and support predatory males.
Kamala Harris is the perfect example of the Female "leader" that we are currently afflicted with. Hillary Clinton is another great example.
In History there has always been a way that a small group of men get most of the women, treat them very poorly, and then cast them aside when they are no longer attractive and useful.
Older Women always managed the Harems for the ruler. Nobody can be meaner to women than other women.
Harvey Weinstein and Oprah showed how this dynamic works in modern times.
The modern feminist agenda has always been about separating women from male protectors who are typically family/husbands and feeding them to predatory males who abuse them and cast them aside when used up. They become bitter angry feminists who hate men.
The modern feminist agenda was created and is supported by a relatively small group of men. The modern feminist agenda serves about 20% of the male population and makes life worse for everyone else.
Ann is an intelligent woman. She has a husband. But she supported the system that fed as many fatherless women to predatory men as possible for decades.
There is a biological imperative involved here.
RSM-- I know some of van Creveld's works but not the Privileged Sex. I know I've encountered the notion elsewhere and it's not original to me.
His recent posts at "As I Please" about the war in Europe are worth reading. (English is not his first language so his blog musings don't get the editing his published books with big houses do. I've read both his Kindle offerings also--the 20th C from tyrants' p.o.v.)
Women in the aggregate really don't want what they say they do
Not much different from men, many of whom have one type of woman in mind to marry and yet will seek a different type of woman for sex on the side. The main difference is that the men are seeking just sex while the women who pair up with bad guys are seeking to tame them (it’s my opinion that women with low self esteem fall into this trap because they’re addicted to the ego boost of being seen as the woman who caught the guy who was wanted by every other woman.)
Luckily these stereotypical women and men exist in the aggregate but many if not most individuals defy the stereotypes. I hear men complain about women who go for bad boys all the time but none of the women I know in real life are like that at all, and none of their husbands to my knowledge are philanderers. People have primal sexual desires but mature people are capable of finding a balance between sexual chemistry and actual love and compatibility.
lane ranger said...
"If you abuse a particular population long enough (men and boys, "deplorables"), eventually they will strike back, often indirectly by supporting someone whom you regard with horror."
Poor you. You were "abused" for so long.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
You think Donald Trump projects a masculine male image, a positive male image?! Jeezus!
He presents as a vain, preening braggart, a self-seeking dick who rates the worth of others according only to their degree of worldly success, as measured by wealth and their ability to take advantage of others rather than be taken advantage of. He sees others only as "winners" or "losers." He is manifestly bereft of honor, honesty, integrity, courage, or empathy for others, especially for those he sees as lesser than him. His "masculinity," so-called, is counterfeit, as is his concern for others, the brittle facade of a damaged narcissist."
True- but on the other hand for 4 years he kept Black people from moving in next door.
I had never heard of this person until the other day when he showed up in memes for getting into an argument with that kid who's always pissed off about the weather.
True- but on the other hand for 4 years he kept Black people from moving in next door.
The standard of living for Black people rose more under Trump than any other president since Lincoln.
Anything that effectively promotes Greta Thunburg and her causes can't be all bad.
Just mostly.
Retards following retards.
(retard is a scientific term)
(retard is a scientific term)
Yes, retard perchance to abort... a process.
Mutaman said...
lane ranger said...
"If you abuse a particular population long enough (men and boys, "deplorables"), eventually they will strike back, often indirectly by supporting someone whom you regard with horror."
Poor you. You were "abused" for so long.
Seems like a typical leftist response to a conservative making an argument the leftist doesn't like. Instead of attempting to refute the point, Mutaman makes an ad hominem attack on the speaker. Be better.
CStanley said:
"Luckily these stereotypical women and men exist in the aggregate but many if not most individuals defy the stereotypes. I hear men complain about women who go for bad boys all the time but none of the women I know in real life are like that at all, and none of their husbands to my knowledge are philanderers. People have primal sexual desires but mature people are capable of finding a balance between sexual chemistry and actual love and compatibility."
I really wish that you were right, but I'm afraid that the fantasy-land view you have of "most individuals defy(ing) the stereotypes" simply doesn't match up with my experienced reality. I would say that there's maybe about thirty percent of all of us who're rational actors in the arena of gender relations and sexual behavior. The other seventy percent? LOL...
That seventy percent figure ain't arrived at randomly, either. I have the misfortune of being able to account for roughly ten instances of incest or other intra-family sexual abuse surrounding my family's circle of friends and acquaintances. In those ten cases, there were roughly seven of the wives or other female authority figures within the family were either complicit or actively involved. This figure matches up with my past experiences in the military, dealing with the same sort of thing.
I've watched women go running back into the burning barn on multiple occasions. Horses are smarter, in that once you get them out and away, they'll usually let you keep them away from the barn. Women will actively fight you, and if you jail the bastard or kill him, they'll just find another abuser. I have no idea why, but that's my observation of my experiences.
There's an adage in fights; "Don't listen to what they say; watch their hands..." When you're trying to understand the female of the species, don't listen to the words, watch what they do. I honestly don't understand what they get out of a lot of these relationships, but whatever it is, it's obviously as addictive as heroin or crack. And, the bad thing about a lot of that is that the successful cad models behavior for other males, who note their success, and then decide "What the hell... Being Mr. Nice Guy ain't getting me anywhere..."
I've seen that play out with a bunch of guys I know. Women say "I don't want to be treated like a piece of meat...", but then they go out and reward the men who look at them that way with sexual gratification. It's really impressive, sometimes. I watched a "nice guy" who tried the usual strategies women say they want and failed miserably. He started hanging out with one of the "playas", copied those behaviors, and started getting laid on the regular. Think that convinced him women were worth respecting? Or, do you suppose, as I have to from observing his behavior after all of that, that he lost respect for them and started treating them like so much meat on the hoof?
There's an obverse to that coin, as well: Ever wonder what women are learning from their "Sugar Daddies"? They start trading sex and outward expressions of love for economic rewards, what do they learn to do but treat men as convenient appliances, disgorging toys and money every time they pull the arm? You want love and affection, and try to buy it with money? Hmmm... Like that's a good long-term strategy. Profoundly NOT.
Tends to screw up other women, too, who observe and mimic just like the boys do. Do not, I repeat, do not involve yourself with a daughter of one of these sorts of families; she won't have a healthy viewpoint on men, at all, having watched her mother and father play those games.
(cont)
There's a huge swathe of the human species whose sexual behaviors are simply self-gratifying garbage. It's not a "tiny fraction"; it's a strong majority. Look at modern media and what is being modeled there. I mean, seriously? You guys are going after this Tate character, and you're the same people who make thong panties for pre-teens something we advertise in the Sunday supplements? Christ, go wander through the clothing sections for little girls, and then tell me that you're all worried about men like Tate "exploiting" them in later life. Really? What the hell have you been conditioning those girls to do, from toddlerhood forward, if not be sexual playthings for men like him? I mean, you've been dressing her like a harem slave, so why are you surprised when she gravitates towards one?
This clown Tate is merely the tip of the iceberg. I'm really hard-pressed to think of too many really healthy balanced relationships that I'm observing, these days. Whose fault is that? Well, ya get what you reward. Men don't like to be treated like checkbooks, and women don't like to be treated like meat, but what the hell do they all seem to default to? "Oh, I'm a good provider..." and "I look hot!!!"
A pox on the collective houses on each side of the sex line. I really don't think any of us are blame-free in this crap, but what absolutely sets me off is the unbalanced way that these issues are approached by a lot of the posters here, including the host. The mentality that "Men are bad, 'mmmkay?" is so deeply engrained that there's zero self-awareness or responsibility taken for these things, and any awareness that women actively contribute to the dysfunction in their own way is apparently unthinkable. Sorry, ladies: You've always been at least half the problem, if not more. Where the hell do you think men and boys get these ideas, when you're the primary caregivers in early childhood? You've molded those men when they're at their most plastic; if they're not modeling the behavior you really want, whose fault is that?
I find the whole thing really maddening. It's like the abortion issue; American women are constantly conditioning the men in their lives to be protectors of the weak and all that jazz, but when it comes to their own convenience, all of a sudden it's "Don't protect that life... I don't want that one, it's OK to kill it..."
And, they're completely oblivious to the cognitive dissonance that that sets up in the male mind observing this. You can't have that sh*t both ways; you want the guys to go running into the burning house, or watch the lifeboats leave without them during a Birkenhead-drill event, then tell them that "Yeah, hey... This one is OK to kill, 'cos I've got other plans..."? You're gonna have a hard time getting their respect. Or, compliance.
I repeat: Don't listen to a word they say. Watch what they do. From observed behavior, I want nothing to do with the average woman I've encountered in my time on this planet. And, since I am apparently sh*t at distinguishing that sort of creature from the ones who're "not that way", I'm just sitting on the sidelines over here, observing all of you on your merry way to a hell of your own making. American women? As a collective whole? You're getting that which you precisely deserve, because you're entirely complicit in creating it. That sad fact will never be admitted, however.
What'd be nice is if all these types would wear hats, so decent people of each sex could identify them easier, because it's been my observation that there's usually a lot of mismatch in who hooks up with who. Every Tate deserves his Jodi Ann Arias, but they never seem to find each other. Instead, they prey on the unsuspecting, making their lives miserable.
Unfortunately, the problem is not Tate.
The problem is access to Tate.
And that is insoluble w/o an electromagnetic pulse bomb.
Blogger Mutaman said...
Blogger Robert Cook said...
You think Donald Trump projects a masculine male image, a positive male image?! Jeezus!
He presents as a vain, preening braggart, a self-seeking dick who rates the worth of others according only to their degree of worldly success,
Spoken like a typical worldly failure. Much of leftism is envy, as you illustrate so well.
This is the gal who ask Fassbender about his reportedly large penis.
Blogger Gahrie said...
" The standard of living for Black people rose more under Trump than any other president since Lincoln."
Link please.
lane ranger said...
Seems like a typical leftist response to a conservative making an argument the leftist doesn't like. Instead of attempting to refute the point, Mutaman makes an ad hominem attack on the speaker. Be better.
lane ranger whines, gets called out on his whining, and then whines about that. Poor little snowflake.
Someone really needs to explain how it is that they would vote for Bill Clinton twice, and find what Tate does objectionable. The only real difference between the two of them is that Clinton successfully masked his behavior for decades, and Tate was entirely upfront with who he was and what he did.
Epstein's client list is still unpublished. All of his trove of protection evidence remains locked up in the vaults. We know that luminaries like Bill Clinton and Bill Gates both were on the manifests for multiple flights to his little tropical paradise, so what's the beef with Tate? Is it that he's too open about what he is?
It's really amazing to watch the utter lack of self-awareness for most people in this regard, as well as the inherent hypocrisy. You want Tate behind bars; why aren't you asking for Epstein's client list and all the evidence he kept to be made public? Would that shatter the image you've built up of all these so-called "great men"?
I'd laugh, but I'm really not all that amused. Apparently, what it takes for you to be immune from criticism or prosecution is to be of the correct political orientation and to keep on mouthing the same pious lies as the ones everyone else wants to make believe are true.
Believe me on this: There are a lot more Tates out there that are being ignored because they're untouchably aligned with the proper ideas.
@ takirks
I don’t have time to respond in full but wanted to make a few comments. First, our main differences in outlook are based on how prevalent bad behaviors are, and it’s possible or probable that this reflects our immediate environments. I come from an intact family with no abuse except for my mother using a wooden spoon for discipline. As an adult I associate with people in long term, outwardly healthy marriages and seek out these stable social connections for my kids. I see the dysfunctional stuff around me, if course, and encounter it with some degrees of separation from my everyday life.
A second point of difference is in assigning group blame. I generally find that problematic because there are always innocent victims and I can assure you there are many women who find themselves navigating the mess who don’t deserve it.
On this:
I repeat: Don't listen to a word they say. Watch what they do. From observed behavior, I want nothing to do with the average woman I've encountered in my time on this planet. And, since I am apparently sh*t at distinguishing that sort of creature from the ones who're "not that way", I'm just sitting on the sidelines over here, observing all of you on your merry way to a hell of your own making. American women? As a collective whole? You're getting that which you precisely deserve, because you're entirely complicit in creating it. That sad fact will never be admitted, however.
I would just point out that a lot of the women who repeatedly enter abusive relationships probably have the same difficulty you have in discerning good character in the opposite sex. I suppose you might say they should learn that lesson and also decide, as you have, to stay out of the game altogether but they may not yet have reached that decision or they may psychologically be unable to accept a solitary life.
"Women will actively fight you, and if you jail the bastard or kill him, they'll just find another abuser. I have no idea why, but that's my observation of my experiences."
You had a good argument until you stated your experience killing an abusive man, when it became clear you were full of bull crap.
@Mark,
I apparently didn't make it clear enough for someone of your reading comprehension that I was speaking of general terms. I've never killed someone for spousal abuse myself, but I've watched from the sidelines as someone else did, and went to jail for it.
The woman in question promptly found another abuser. Horse, burning barn, some self-assembly did occur.
It's not a certainty, because there are women who can learn from experience and who won't keep looking for love in all the wrong places, but there are enough that I'm dubious of the proposition that it'd be worth going to jail over. She'll just find someone else to do the beating she craves, for whatever dark and dysfunctional reasons she wants it. I'm really past caring about the whys and wherefores, all I know is that it's a fool's game trying to play white knight in these cases.
@CStanley,
I think you missed that the entire reason I made these posts stemmed from the "broad brush group blame" being assigned to men in general.
It's a constant, here: Men are bad, 'mmmkay? They're just... Wrong. Evil. Nasty. Oppressive. Everything is filtered through that by the host. Remember the other day, when the assertion was made that because another woman failed to be supportive and encouraging, it was somehow the fault of the "Evil Patriarchy" that she didn't get the support and encouragement to take calculus?
This shit is pathologic around here, and the raw fact is that it is demonstrative of the imbalanced and entirely out-of-touch with reality worldview that's the party line.
Men like Tate don't happen in a vacuum. They exist because everyone that was involved in raising them and interacting with him made that guy happen. That's the point I'm making, because I'm not saying this is all on women any more than it is on men.
But, the constant whinging heard is how it's men's fault that men like Tate exist, and that we're all collectively responsible for his abuses of saintly, helpless women.
Who were likely bought thong panties by their loving mommas, who also paid for their prepubescent piercings, while they watched as Mommy threw Daddy out of the house and took nearly everything from him...
There's a systemic dysfunction going on here, and blaming one side or the other ain't helping to fix it. I don't want men like Tate in my world any more than you likely do, but the culture and the zeitgeist of our times is creating more and more of his like. That's what needs to be fixed, and the incessant assignment of blame to men in general is not going to help.
I keep wondering where the hell these guys are coming from. Is there a secret patriarchal cult of parthenogenesis I don't know about? Were there no women involved in Tate's birth and upbringing? Were none of the women that participated in his spiritual degradation possess the slightest amount of agency, let alone responsibility?
You don't get creatures like him without significant encouragement, and if he wasn't getting the sexual access and gratification he was, then that behavior wouldn't have grown into the monstrosity that it has. And, again: Who rewarded that? He's not gay, so it wasn't other men that exchanged sexual intimacy and gratification for that abuse...
Repeat after me: Rewarding the behavior means that it is successful behavior. Don't want guys like Tate? Quit rewarding him. If he wasn't answering something inside the feminine soul, he wouldn't be successful, and he wouldn't be doing what he has been. Neither would all of his wannabe emulators. If you want wholesome and boring, you've actually got to reward wholesome and boring. As opposed to walking right by it, on your way to Mr. Bad Boye.
There's always two sides to every one of these situations: You don't get an Epstein without there being a Maxwell or two, lurking in the background.
None of this crap happens because "just men" are behind everything, and it's well past time we acknowledge that sad fact.
Takirks,
I didn’t miss that you are responding to the group blame assigned to men by feminists, I’m just reacting with, for want of a better expression, “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
I accept and agree with your points on culpability of many women in creating monstrous men. I believe though that in these instances, the portion of blame that should get assigned to men is for their absence. You and others, for instance, speak of how much influence women have over boys because the ex-wives raise the boys as single mothers after the divorce court grants them custody, and because most teachers are female. Even if those situations are difficult or impossible for men to change, they as individuals make decisions that lead to estrangement from their children. For every woman making the stupid decision to pair up with an abusive guy there’s a guy making stupid decisions to mate with a woman who lacks the character to remain committed to life-long marriage and raising children with his influence as a father. And then there’s the people who stay married but the father is mostly in absentia anyway. This has been going on for a few generations now so naturally things are getting worse as all the boys raised without fathers are now fathers themselves and women raised without fathers are mothers. The boys and girls who lacked the influence of a good male role model during their formative years both gravitate toward nasty pseudo men like Tate.
That there are these conditions in our culture making participation in child rearing very difficult for men is inarguable…but that mirrors the situation for conservative women who also want to swim upstream of the toxic waste.
In case it hasn't been clear, my vantage point is as a prolife, conservative Catholic woman. I oppose abortion, artificial birth control, and no fault divorce (personally opposed to divorce altogether.) None of these problems are of my making and the fault is on liberals both male and female who created these conditions. I would like to make common cause with men who see the destruction wrought by the changes advocated by liberal feminists and liberal proponents of the sexual revolution, and I find much agreement with your comments but find some of it off putting. I do accept your explanation of reacting to a milieu of feminist ideology that colors Ann’s posts, but the comment section here tends to run quite far in the other direction.
@CStanley,
There's a thing here that we're both wrong about: There really is no monolithic "male" or "female", and to frame things in that way is entirely wrong. I react against the construct that "men are always wrong", and you react against the construct "women are always wrong". The reality is that there's dysfunction spread across both sexes and their interlocking ways of dealing with their opposites and the world around them.
I doubt you're one of the women buying her tween daughter thong panties, and then wondering why she and all the boys around her think of her only in sexual terms; the problem is, I'm afraid, that both you and I are in the miniscule minority, here.
The current situation extant in Western Civilization, particularly here in the US mainstream, is untenable and unsustainable. What comes to replace it, and it will be replaced, is unlike to be any more tenable or sustainable, so long as we keep on with the delusion and the conflict--At least some of which is likely deliberately created.
I'm not much of a believer in anything even vaguely resembling a "men are superior" or "women are superior". I'm a pragmatist and a realist; I observe that which does not work, and call it out. If all this new-age LGBTWTFBBQ crap actually worked, I'd ignore it and move on with my life. I don't care what other people do in their bedrooms, and if getting railed by another male anally makes you happy? So be it. But... At the same damn time, I also recognize that the people who go in for that sort of thing are generally not very happy people, and they also generally exhibit a whole constellation of other mental disorders. Which is why I'm not a fan of the idea of normalizing any of that, in general society--It's like saying "Oh, paranoid schizophrenia is a lot of fun to be around! Let's let them out and leave them unmedicated..." Oh. Wait... We're doing that.
(cont)
The real question going forward is this: What works? Does it work to tell young women to eschew children and family formation during their most fertile and healthy years? Does it work to tell them that embracing the sexual values and behaviors of edge-case males is suitable for their lives as women?
Functionally, and in the interests of society, it does not. We're paying the price for that set of decisions, in so many ways.
I totally get that the underlying conditions behind much of the old value system and its attendant mores shifted; the dramatic downturn in female morbidity associated with childbirth militated for change, but the problem is, nobody looked at it and realized "Hey, wait a minute... If we change this, then that's going dramatically change a bunch of other things..." Second- and third-order effects were ignored; damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead into making over young women into young men, with the same trajectories and life-patterns.
What was ignored was this: The old days, we used male morbidity out in the real world as a selection tool; if you were successful, and lived into your late twenties and early thirties, you then got married to a much younger woman. Who usually died having your kids, and then you married again. And, again. The death rate for both sexes dropped sharply after Semmelweis figured out it was a good idea to have clean hands and instruments that didn't pass on childbed fever from patient to patient, which was something that a lot of old-school midwives had already figured out. This changed things, immensely. But... We didn't think through the social implications.
We also didn't think through the implications of saying to young women that they should follow their brother's life paths, either.
Something had to change, and I agree that there were inequities for women in the old days. What I disagree with vehemently is that there weren't also an equal set of inequities for the men, or that we did the right thing in trying to set everything up such that women became men in that context, because of the sad fact that in our sexually dimorphic species, they're never going to be anything other than smaller, second-class males. The reality is that we needed to balance things in some other fashion, following some other path that fully addressed making better lives for women and men, at the same time recognizing that the one was never going to be the same as the other.
The metric for success should not be "She was good at being a man...". It should be, quite the contrary, that "She was good at being a woman..." And, vice-versa; I'm never going to bear children, but I have my contribution to make. The recognition of these truths is something we've signally failed to do, across our society.
Well said, takirks. As an orthodox Christian believer, I see a spiritual dimension (and remedy) that’s lacking in your analysis, but otherwise our views are similar.
I leave spirituality out of things because the moment you inject them into the discussion, people automatically shut you down when your version of spirituality doesn't line up with their own.
And, most of the things I'm trying to get at can be discussed in purely pragmatic and mechanistic terms without injecting the divisiveness brought in by people's religious or non-religious belief system, because those are just that: Belief systems. You don't need to be a believer in Yahweh, Christ, the Gautama Buddha, or the Great Satan to say that much of modern society isn't answering the functional mail, these days. I would rather argue the purely mechanistic pragmatisms than get lost in the weeds of whose belief system is better.
In fact, I think a lot of our problems stem from just this sort of argument: "Women belong in the home because the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever says they do...", which leads to people rejecting the idea entirely. Whereas, when you sit down and lay out the societal effects of not having mom at home with the kiddies growing up, or a father around? Then show the work, in terms of statistics and effects in later life?
You have a much harder time arguing that issue. I'm not sure that we ever should have framed the question as "Women belong at home...", either. What it should have been framed as would be "Children need their mothers...", and leave it at that. The injection of divine guidance and approval automatically gets some people's hackles up, and perhaps justifiably so.
And, given the pluralistic nature of our religious lives in this country, you're really better off framing things in isolation from religion, no matter how much any of them might agree with you.
I think the major problem with a lot of what we're doing as a society stems from this very problem of not approaching things in a cold-blooded and rational manner, determining why things were traditionally done that way and then working forward from that based on things that changed in the underlying conditions that drove those traditions. I'm a big believer in Chesterton's Fence, and if you can't tell me why something was done a certain way, I am absolutely not in favor of changing it "just because". Traditional societies evolve their values and mores through a long process of trial and error; what works stays, what doesn't gets abandoned. Or, the society dies.
I'm also a big believer that whenever you do make a change, it ought to be tentative, clearly stated with regards to the reasoning behind it, and it ought to include "victory conditions" for determining whether or not it's working, with a path back to the status quo if it doesn't succeed.
In other words, when you propose a major change like legalizing marijuana, you should lay out your premises, state the change you're making clearly, and then lay out what benefits you expect. Coupled with an "experimental sunset", where you will re-examine the situation in a set period to see if you're really fixing anything. If not, then back we go. Or, adjust fire...
You want to make changes to the basic principles that a society is based on, the ground assumptions? You don't do it will he; nil he, at all. You do it slowly, in incremental terms, and then ensure you can work back if need be.
I'll point out that any time we've tried doing these massive all-at-once reforms, we've wound up causing a catastrophe like the Prohibition or Obamacare. You don't reform something like the health care system, which is the result of decades of legislative and regulatory mismanagement, with some single bit of massive legislation that nobody really understands or has even read before voting on it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा