**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs


I gave his stuff a listen expecting a "pc gone mad" situation but he genuinely just is a nob. Low IQ, sloping brow


He is intelligent, but only in very specific ways. He is a narcissistic manipulator. He was the Indiana state chess champion at the age of 5 (which is a testament to his tactical intelligence). He has created a clever Multilevel Marketing (MLM) method of getting his name out there and making shed-loads of money in the form of "Hustler 2.0". He gets vulnerable guys to sign up to the MLM, so that they can get an affiliate code to get others to sign up. These guys then each create their own TikTok/Instagram/YouTube accounts in which they clip material of Tate and share it around. They often will utilise multiple accounts/be part of a group of guys who have accounts who share the content around. These accounts then have affiliate links to Hustler 2.0 to try and get new people to sign up and help perpetuate the grift. It is very much a calculated move on his part to appeal to the kind of vulnerable guy who feels down on their luck, possibly a bit angry at the world, and who thinks they need to learn "how to hustle to make more money". This is a clever, but evil, way of manipulating vulnerable young men into giving him money.


Someone being good at chess does not mean they are tactically intelligent it means they are good at chess Like i swear no one would jerk people off like this for being good at a video game or any other board game but it’s basically the same shit A practiced complete moron would trounce a newbie genius every time




>He was the Indiana state chess champion at the age of 5 (which is a testament to his tactical intelligence). No doubt pushed by his father, also lol at tactical intelligence at 5? All the other stuff is basic Marketing, anybody in a company's marketing department could do that, and a whole lot more.


Indiana is a small rural state, it's a pretty low bar to clear. Bet you anything he was playing against other 5 year olds in an exhibition match.


Did you just use mlm seller as a sign of intelligence? And because they're able to set up social media accounts on tiktok and Instagram? Every karen and her grandmother can do that You sound like you're simping for him


I wouldn’t say “just a nob” though. That’s an understatement. I think he’s incredibly dangerous.


He's definitely not low IQ. He's very smart and using a character he's making a lot of money by exploiting desperate, lonely men. He knows exactly what he's doing and what he's saying


I saw him in a debate - brain dead. Exploiting people is not difficult


Agree. I don’t think he meticulously designs what his public image is or every word he says. He genuinely was a douchebag in Big Brother clips which are resurfacing. TV just was not the best platform to highlight his misogyny because reality shows won’t interview on his dating preferences and history. Internet podcasts just brought that side out of him the most.


>in a debate. I’ve watched countless interviews with him in. Stats and facts don’t make a difference to him since he takes his anecdotal evidence as pure fact. Like his opinions on women being worser drivers than men, but the entire insurance industry which exists to make a profit has men at higher premiums due to being involved in more crashes / accidents… Edit: Just want to make a quick edit here, I am wrong on this. Women are involved in more accidents, but men are involved in more fatal crashes/write offs. Which is why mens insurance premiums are always higher than women premiums


Yeah. That was the one I was thinking of. "You're an American." "I'm Turkish." "...that's not the point!"


I believe that’s the one with HasanAbi If I’m correct. Not a huge Hassan fan, but holy fuck it was funny watching that interview


Me neither but Hasan won that one hands down


Underestimating people like him is a huge mistake. Of all the things I would call him, stupid is not one. He is a master manipulator and very articulate and quick thinking, which puts people on the back foot when arguing with him. He is a massive liar though. I guarantee you he doesnt have the amount of money he claims.


I'm not underestimating him but we live in an age of lost, and frankly thick, people who are ripe for the picking. Cult leaders 100 years ago did not have TikTok


Charles Manson would've done quadruple digits with TikTok.


Christ. Imagine it. Teenage girls committing murders across Europe, NA and the Middle East for "Charlie"


He'd have millions of followers to say the least. If people like Andrew Tate can amass followers, he'd have an actual army.


He'd have had literally millions of followers and a world-wide cult of thousands. It really doesn't bear thinking about.


>which puts people on the back foot when arguing with him. Except that he only debates teenage Fortnite streamers and influencers. It's not like he's debating anyone of any notable intellect. I've noticed he gets very quiet and then incredibly dismissive when he is faced with any resistance, as if he can't stick to his script so it throws his mind into disarray.


I haven't seen much to suggest he's quick thinking. He's just loud and says his thing with a lot of confidence. Which makes people think he's won the argument, because how could he have lost if he's so confident? What puts people on the backfoot, is that there is nothing you could say to change his views. Hes like talking to a brick wall, it's not that he's super smart or well spoken, he's just brash, over-confident and doesn't care about offending anyone. And some people are drawn to that for some weird reason.


A lot of people have an unfortunate mental shortcut that confident = knowledgeable. It's wrong, obviously, but it's a human thing and nobody is fully immune.




How fragile of you to attack me for an observation when I'm openly calling him a liar and a manipulator. Calm down. Seriously.


Manipulating idiots and un-informed teenagers isn't exactly difficult. He's playing a character to get people to join his MLM. There's nothing smart about that, he can't make money from an actual skill so he chose crime (trafficking) and selling crappy "courses".




See people say this all the time, that the grifters are secretly smart, they aren't. Manipulating people is easy, manipulating a specific demographic is even easier, all it takes is for you to lack any sort of conscience or morality. That's what makes these grifters different from normal people, they aren't smarter, they're sociopaths. Same as most CEOs aren't smarter than most people, but they do have a tendency towards psychopathy because it makes decisions that affect thousands of people easier for them to handle, because they don't think about them as people.


The target demographic of insecure men has got to be one of the easiest to exploit. This guy has money, women and seems in shape. So insecure guys will flock to hear his secrets. It's all a bunch of toxic man garbage.


Low IQ + low animal cunning.


I think that's the model for most cult leaders isn't it.


'Desperate, lonely men" Lol if they agree with the shite he spouts it's on them as far as I'm concerned


He's not using a character he's a literal sex trafficking rapist.


Brain is as smooth as his head


He's a symptom of a larger problem. Guys like Peterson, Shapiro, Alex Jones, or the hundreds of others out there are all just different flavours of the same thing. Content that is algorithmically pushed at young, vulnerable 12-35 year old men. I'm sure some of them sniff their own farts but a lot are just straight grifters. There is a real problem with the radicalisation of our young men and nobody is talking about it.


So glad to see you put Peterson in with this lot. He’s such a dangerous guy because he appeals to smart young men too.


What makes Peterson truly dangerous is that there’s some genuinely good speeches that are completely isolated from his political thoughts. Once you start buying into his motivational stuff slowly, you get into his political radicalisation. For those with little awareness, I imagine it’s easy to be caught up in his shit


I was one of those people. I'm currently struggling with depression and found a some of his insights in psychology lectures really interesting. I also agreed with his initial point of not compelling speech and bought his first book. I've since read an op-ed by one of his former friends and colleagues plus seen some of his chats on environmentalism and he's gone well off the rails. He's turning into an alt0right demagogue. I don't listen to him anymore but I almost got swept up by him because he's so engaging! But that's all he is! He's a great speaker, but when you analyse some of what he's saying - it's bullshit!


Congrats, you followed and liked a new person then decided some of there stuff was good, and some was bad. There's no problem with that. A critical mind will do that, I have the same with Sam Harris. Its not about being swept up, if you are blindly following anyone then you are an idiot. Blindly following someone like Peterson that shot to fame and did Joe Rogan 3 hour interviews is a bit different. He changed over time, big deal. Find me someone who hasn't, or someone who hasn't had a bad take.


I bought and read his book "12 rules for life" too and thought it made a bunch of sense. Really felt it was a grift when he wrote another book with another 12 rules. That felt a little opportunistic to me. Turned me off.


>What makes Peterson truly dangerous is that there’s some genuinely good speeches that are completely isolated from his political thoughts. Jordan Peterson's speeches are like one of the alien/Nazi conspiracy "documentaries" on the History channel. They start off rooted in sound logic and then before you know it Aztec temples are blasting off into space or a high ranking member of the SS is actually a 4th dimensional being.


That's what alot of their strategy. They'll say some stuff that's generally undisputed and correct in order to legitimise the more radical aspects of what they're saying


A close friend of mine started down the Q pipeline via Peterson. Thankfully he came to his senses (he is a very smart man) but even now he can't follow stuff like r/QAnonCasualites because it hits too close to home. I really feel for the young men that do see the truth and feel hurt and betrayed by the lies. These young men are victims of a con and they are entitled to feel hurt, betrayed and even traumatised by it. All this just to say, yeah, I agree with your comment 100%.


thats it. this, he is very easy to use a radicalization tool because not every speech is about how bigotted he is but rather very useful motivational shit so seeps into your mind and before you know it ur agreeing its happened a few times wher eive gone hmm then snapped back to reality and blocked the channel or whatever im watching.


That’s it exactly!


I remember when I was going through a really shit time, and I came across a few of his speeches about socialisation. This was when I already knew his political stuff and didn’t want to hear him at all. Nevertheless I gave it a try, and he made some very simple but elaborate and inspirational points. I did find them useful for myself — but that’s all. It’s how it is, sometimes good people do bad shit and other times someone with some radical discourse like Peterson have very insightful takes about general well-being. For someone who doesn’t think too much and is led along the wave of his wordy craftsmanship, they will end up in the echo chamber of angry young men who think Peterson is their father and they should believe his every word


Yeah I liked his book and his early lectures. Problem is even if you watch some of his "good" interviews it'll go onto an ad by Nigel Farage or some diet pill scam or one of his horrible political interviews and jeez...


Jordan Peterson is every angry older academic who got mad because someone who they’ve spent all their time looking down at is being treated with dignity and respect. There are a dime a dozen of these guys in academia, he just knew how to leverage a platform from his grift.


Is he dangerous to anyone? He's solidly middle-of-the-road conservative if anything surely? Argues against radical behaviour on the left and right, pushes a pro, but not fanatical Christian religious angle from what I've seen. Not sure he's all that original, but I dunno about dangerous.


Mmmm I think it's definately there. I actually really found his book useful and some of his early lectures. But there's a few really toxic things about him. Firstly, he's weaponised by the alt-right - top Youtube results are stuff like "Peterson HUMILIATES feminists on live TV". Nasty divisive stuff. Next, he does appear to be creeping towards the Alex Jones stuff, with references to illuminati, world order stuff. And he had a full-blown breakdown with the Benzodiazapenes and the coma and Russia and stuff. I do think while he started out as a middle of the road conservative lecturer, he's metamorphised into this weird ranting icon that's now more about lashing out than self-improvement.


Weaponized by the alt-right? He is alt-right. Cultural Marxism is a neo-Nazi rehash of the Nazi conspiracy theory of Cultural Bolshevism. And then there's all the shit he says about women, hierarchies, and victim blaming. In his book 12 Rules For Life, he outright calls one of his patients a whore for being raped multiple times.


He argues deadly seriously that women are asking for rape by wearing short skirts


Can you provide a link please.


Well he’s a bit of a dick to trans people and tends to make up grand narratives and theories which say ‘things are the way they are because it’s the way they should be…so just live with it’, he suggested men and women shouldn’t work together, his attitude to climate change etc Some more news did a recent thing: https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo


>things are the way they are because it’s the way they should be This is where I think so many of his followers went wrong. You can point to stats that show various gender inequalities tend to happen automatically, rather than through purposeful discrimination. Ok, right. But I think people fail to follow through and ask "well is that the world we want to live in, or can we do better?". ​ The same way the UK's murder rate is not zero, but we don't accept there will be a few thousand murders each and stop enforcing the law because "that's the way humans behave". We push for improvement, we don't tolerate things that are wrong. So yeah, you can show me stats about how "natural" gener inequality is, my first question will be "why aren't we trying to do better?".


I'm not sure about Peterson as I've not read a huge amount of his stuff, but he did attend a debate event at Oxford Uni as a speaker that I believe was well regarded and attended. I highly doubt Oxford will be inviting any of those other loonies or Andrew Tate anytime soon...


Tommy Robinson has spoken at Oxford before. You don't have to be well regarded or even intelligent, just interesting.


At the University or the local magistrates Court?


Once someone has sufficient media attention you would be surprised at the places they can go. See Trump. Tate is also incredibly full of shit about this net worth and accomplishments. A dead giveaway is the poor acting skills of his entourage who cannot keep up the same rhythm as Tate. That's when you realise how scripted and rehearsed the whole thing is. Tate is a good actor and speaker though. So he can sell this horseshit vision to unsuspecting incels.


I’ve said for a long time we’ve got an Incel problem and now with Tate everyone is seeing the issue. Unfortunately I don’t know what the solution is here. At the end of the day these young men just want to feel they belong and are valued that’s what they get from people like Tate. Just hope this doesn’t escalate to an actual cult.


> At the end of the day these young men just want to feel they belong and are valued Nail. Head. Everyone's over here bleating on about incel this radical that in what appears to be a particularly masturbatory way. Meanwhile the demographic that's actually affected is just completely lost. And what doesn't help is that with these figures often there is a sprinkling of truth in there among the horseshit, or at least something that speaks to young men and their personal life experiences. There is something drawing them in and it is *not* misogyny no matter how much people would like to say so. Nobody seems to be willing to admit this, absolutist thinking will get us nowhere.


The best way to lie is to start with a mutually agreed truth and just keep twisting layers on layers. Happens everywhere and the most insidious part is that we come to associate the base truth with the lie. There are lots of examples of this but race’s relationship to crime is one that sticks out to me. It’s a fact, but when we hear this we mistake the statistic for the snake oil it comes with so often.


One question I have is say you are a lonely, angry, young man what options do you have? What is the healthy route? GPS and the NHS have no resources, schools are stretched and not trained, parents and friends often don't know how to help. Is it really at all surprising there isn't a solution when we're literally not trying anything at all?


It's not going to be an easy fix, at least on the large scale. Young men and boys feel like they need to be in a relationship or having sexual experiences to be a whole person, a proper adult who belongs. In reality I don't think any of us really felt some huge difference between life before and after the first time you get your hole, but it sure doesn't feel like that when you haven't and it seems like everyone else around you is. Then someone like Tate comes along promising all the answers - and really, all he teaches you to do is influence women into dubiously consensual hook-ups or sketchy manipulative relationships. But hey, it's better than nothing, and these types always make it out to be some kind of movement or brotherhood or whatever, so you're surrounded by other gadgies doing the same thing, and you're taught to ignore your "blue-pilled" friends who might try to convince you otherwise, so maybe it doesn't seem so bad in the moment. So really, I think the "proper" fix would require a complete change in how our culture treats masculinity and sex and relationships and how that message gets conveyed to young people. Which... is a lot. On the small scale, at least, if you have any male friends or family members who you think might be struggling with this kind of thing, consider reaching out. If you're older than them, think about if you're in a position to be a positive role model to show them a more positive image of masulinity/adulthood than whatever grifters like Tate are selling them.


It’s already is a cult. Tate has a ‘Hustler University’ where he sells online courses and he’s made lots of money from desperate boys and men. If those boys and men have issues, they need therapy. Not looking up to a literal human trafficker.


>There is a real problem with the radicalisation of our young men and nobody is talking about it. That's because the problem lies in economic disenfranchisement combined with lack of institutional trust. And there is no political or social appetite to address these issues. It's much easier to rage about horrible incels than it is to devote political energy towards analysing how material conditions produce extremism.


Totally agree. Societal failures leave a void that is easily filled by agenda driven populist that give you a target.


Exactly, random incoherent misogyny (or whatever else) like that exhibited by Tate is just the post-hoc rationale adopted by people abandoned by society for problems which have already infested their lives.


It can't help that the dating climate for men is absolutely terrible right now. I tried some dating apps like Tinder and OKCupid, spent hours building a good profile and looking for good matches. I got very few matches out of the hundreds of likes I've been sending away. I later discovered some statistics with dating apps: the vast majority of users are men and that 90% of women on those apps only go for the most attractive 10% of the men. So I got nothing out of dating apps and gave up feeling drained and like a worthless unlovable piece of shit. Yeah, I got angry at having wasted my time. I can easily imagine a vulnerable person feeling angry with it to but illdirecting their anger at the woman on there. Meeting people out in the real world would be better then, but it's just so hard to meet new people as an adult. Most young adults are moving from town to town and don't know the people there. I remember as a kid, how my neighbors would go to each others houses for chats and parties. Nowadays, there's almost nothing. There's barely any sense of community anymore. Everybody is a stranger.


Dating is hard for everyone. Maybe women get more matches, but they have to wade through misogynistic bullshit and guys who send them dick pics.


I don’t want to pile on with the “boohoo me”, but I find that the rise of tinder has also caused women to treat people approaching them outside of tinder as suspicious. I know someone here is going to claim that it’s because I’m a creep or something, that’s how the internet is, but it’s just an observation.


The last few weeks I’ve been looking at some of the crazier conspiracy sub reddits for a laugh, just to see how crazy they are (spoiler: they are extremely crazy). I now have Reddit adverts targeting me with Jordan Peterson stuff. They know who they are targeting while pretending to be legitimate voices of reason.


>There is a real problem with the radicalisation of our young men and nobody is talking about it. Who else is willing to talk to them without calling them privileged or generally shitting on them for being straight and cis? I think that's where much of the problem lies, when half the political sphere isn't willing to take straight men's issues seriously, all of that ground gets ceded to people who will and they are the Peterson's, Shapiro's, Crowder's and so on.


> Guys like Peterson, Shapiro, Alex Jones, or the hundreds of others out there are all just different flavours of the same thing. I keep getting content from these self proclaimed "alpha male" hardmen type bellends with made up names like Decca Heggie, Ben Hatchett, The Real Danny Christie, Tommy Fury, Daniel "Living in London" Lazaar, Dougie Joyce, etc. I've no clue what they're all about, all claiming to be ex gangsters or bare knuckle boxers or some bollocks. Always calling each other out for fights but then never turning up. It's compulsive viewing in the same way as we all love to call aggressive drivers wankers, until we end up sat next to them at the next set of lights and don't say a word whilst we pretend to fiddle with the radio.


They always have some shady shit in their past as well, most often domestic violence, and then spend their time portraying themselves as a "warrior".


Well where’s the alternative?




This is a good point. As life is more online and local communities aren't as active, there are fewer good male role models/mentors etc. There are attempts with things like scouts/cadets etc, but limited reach perhaps. Its only in the past few years I've seen dads and mens groups appear in the community, where mums groups have been around forever (seems like it anyway).




Issues though: Feminism is at its core saying women should be treated equally to men…not that men should be treated worse of below them The issue is not ‘men’s rights’…but rather men’s rights activists tend to be against women/are actively misogynistic. I can want right and equality for men and women, it’s not an us vs them/zero sum situation Aren’t we all in favour of ‘smashing the patriarchy’—a society where men have an ‘unfair’ amount of power? I can totally agree with you about needing more good role models—many tv shows are trying to do so but there are few in the ‘blogger’/talking head sphere which do so




>Yes that's Feminism - but it's still wrapped in layers of empowerment. That same kind of empowerment doesn't exist for men This is genuinely really interesting to me as a gay guy. I find a lot of empowerment in the same areas that it's expressed for women. I'm not in any way 'feminine', but from what I can tell there is absolutely a border of expected masculinity that stops men from accessing that kind of empowerment. Currently, the social idea is that for men to be empowered they have to identify with a masculine figure. >Meanwhile you do have toxic feminism and 'man hating' too - but it's not given the same rep. It absolutely is. There are countless 'toxic feminist' YouTube compilations, entire forum dedicated to it and it's talked about often in the mainstream. The difference is 'man-hating' feminism, like the actual extremist, radical feminism isn't what people frame as 'man-hating feminists'. That's typically misrepresenting someone with relatively tame opinions. The biggest problem with MRA as a group is that it's split into two distinct strains, Pro and Anti-feminism. Sadly the antifeminism group gained more traction because of its alignment with conservatism, which also put a lot of time and effort into radicalising young men. Leading to MRA groups being more likely to have misogynistic members with figureheads like Tate and Peterson who share conservative ideas of patriarchal power and 'traditional' family dynamics. As strange as it is to say but Gamergate was a huge conduit for the current problems with MRA's. Which funnily enough ends up with more extreme 'man hating' feminists and anti-feminist MRA's agreeing on quite a lot of things. Over time a lot of the pro-feminist MRA's have either been silenced by the anti-feminist groups or absorbed into feminism. I personally believe the first step in getting men those pillars of support is to remove the expectation of masculinity, which people like Tate aren't helping because their entire business is dependent on it.


OK, I think you're mixing up rights and responsibility/mentoring. MRA (from what I've seen) tends to be about eroding women's choice to say no, women's boundaries etc. Women's rights (again, only from experience) have been around equal pay, ending maternity discrimination. Its absolutely ok to support men, to have male only groups, to have male mentoring programmes etc. Male role models are great, there are already lots of great ones around, its how to build practical support systems into everyday life. There should be more support, less stigma and better mental health awareness provision etc...


>MRA (from what I've seen) tends to be about eroding women's choice to say no, Absolutely not for me personally. I'm subbed to the MRA reddit and although you get some toxic people the main focus is on keeping things balanced. For example, I made a long post there a few months back because my local NHS Trust refuse to treat men with EUPD (BPD). A clear breach of the Equality Act 2010 which I complained to the Trust about. They bounced me back saying "it's mostly an issue in women, so we don't treat men with the condition". Is that fair? I certainly don't see any feminists fighting for my right to get treatment. That's why I personally believe in MRA. To fight for these particular issues. Men are more likely to die from suicide and EUPD can often lead to suicide. Being on/off suicidal the past 20 years it's a subject close to my heart. Male homelessness and the preferential treatment of women who may become homeless is another area I've got personal experience with. I've got a mother who's spent her entire adult life on benefits and she's always been given a home to stay in by whatever council she's lived in. When I had a nervous breakdown last year after 20yrs of solid work I had to fight everyone and everything for the right to have a roof over my head and get the benefits I'd paid for. To suggest MRAs don't have a genuine reason to exist is naive at best. We absolutely do. I know there's toxic MRAs but there's toxic feminists too. I've heard avowed feminists suggest putting men in reserves and milking them for semen! I don't use that experience to disregard all feminists. There's posts and comments on the MRA subreddit that verge on woman-hating that I just don't engage in. But that doesn't mean all MRAs or the MRA movement is bad. Please don't be one of those feminists who think men don't have issues worthy of their own fights for equality. Erin Pizzy the first woman to establish a refuge for battered women in the UK became an MRA after radical feminists took over her organisation when she established the first mens refuge. She's still there as far as I know.


Sorry I hope you don't mind but I went back through your profile to find the post you made about the BPD treatment and then I looked it up on the manchester NHS website again and it looks like it's open to everyone with a diagnosis now, not just women: https://www.gmmh.nhs.uk/manchester-psychotherapy-dbt I notice you made a complaint about the service being women only, so maybe they listened to you and realised it should be open to all. Another thing to consider is that as the condition is still quite 'new' (in terms of how medical history understands it), the treatment methods available for it are still few and far between and there's still loads more research that needs to be done. In the past, whenever a medical condition has been predominantly diagnosed in men, all new research into symptoms, biology, and treatments for it were also done with boys / men in mind (think ADHD). It took a long time for the NHS to acknowledge the symptoms of autism and ADHD are different in women in girls and take that into account during the diagnosis process. Like when I got diagnosed as being neurodivergent about 7 years ago, the doctor told me that all the latest research was showing that emotional dysregulation was one of the biggest and most impactful symptoms of ADHD but it would be another 5 years before emotions were asked about as part of the diagnosis process on the NHS. So it's very possible that back when you first approached the NHS, they were making the same mistake. Maybe they didn't have enough male patients being diagnosed with it for them to conduct research. Maybe research was in progress. Maybe, like in my case, it was already known about but it took years for them to update the NHS diagnosis and treatment programme to fit with what modern research shows. I sincerely hope that modern medical research takes a more balanced approach on how conditions manifest differently among different demographics and adjust treatment plans accordingly if need be. Not even just from a sex point of view, but ethnicity, age, overall health etc.


r/menslib is actually focused on helping men rather than shitting on women, it's so much better.


>MRA / Male Right's Activist is most commonly used as a pejorative online. Probably because MRA forums are typically rife with misogyny. Aside from child custody, which is very much biased toward mothers, what rights are they actually fighting for? Things like men's mental health advocacy groups or men's sheds don't have the same kind of stigma attached, because they don't come with the same kind of sexist baggage. Also, spend five minutes on MRA forums and you'll see plenty of people using "feminist" as a pejorative.


>what rights are they actually fighting for? Suicide rates, equal treatment in mental health provision, homelessness (women get preferential access to housing), child custody, alimony (US), school achievement (boys now lag behind girls at every level of education but there's still positive discrimination for girls), recognition of DV against men (Erin Pizzy got shut out from her refuge organisation after she established refuges for men). "Feminism" is used as a pejorative because most feminists will claim it means "equal rights for all" while completely ignoring the above issues. I agree that some MRAs are toxic but there's definitely Mens Rights issues that need sorting and to say there isn't is playing into the hands of the sexist MRAs.


[Just to preface this with saying sorry that I wrote you such an essay! I didn't mean for it to get so long so I don't blame you if you don't read it all. If you do though, I'd love to know your thoughts xx) >Suicide rates This is a topic close to my heart, having lost three male friends to suicide and having two suicide attempts of my own last year (I'm a woman for context). I briefly worked with the charity CALM who were one of the first to engage with male suicide rates at a national campaign level. So what's interesting, although incredibly sad however you look at it, is that men and women seem to make suicide attempts at the same rate. The data and figures (from the Samaritans) explain that it's very hard to get an accurate view on the situation though because men are more likely to choose more lethal methods of suicide (like hanging) and women are more likely to choose 'softer' methods like taking an overdose. They believe one of the reasons for this could be because women are more likely to be found by one of their children, and so they choose a method that would be less traumatic for the child to discover. Another reason could be because men are more likely to have the equipment available and height required to 'set up' a hanging. Sorry, I know this is an awful thing to picture - one of my friends hung himself and I *hate* picturing it too. However, if you are 'successful' in a suicide by overdose, it's apparently very common for that suicide to be labelled as an accidental overdose / accidental death unless there was a suicide note. Whereas something like hanging is less questionable in its intent. And this applies to men who choose to kill themselves by overdose too btw - one of my friends killed himself that way and despite us all knowing it was suicide, it wasn't ruled that way on the medical records because he did it with illegal substances. Anyway, my point is - the data we have about suicides and demographics is unreliable. But going off data from people who *survive* suicide attempts, the gender split is not so significant. Some years there are slightly more women making suicide attempts, other years slightly more men. Either way, it's a huge problem. You're probably wondering why on earth I've decided to lecture you with all this, **so let me start by saying that it's genuinely not because I want to minimise the severity of male suicide rates.** It's actually because I think that the NHS / government / charities / society in general might be making a huge mistake by making suicide into a gender issue when the data isn't entirely backing that up. The campaigns trying to raise awareness of male mental health issues and suicide rates say things like - "Men should be able to express their emotions more" - "Men shouldn't be afraid to ask for help" - "Men bottle it up inside when they need to talk to someone." Maybe those things are true. But women are apparently already doing those things and hey, guess what the data shows? Women are *still* trying to kill themselves. So let's pretend for a minute that these campaigns make huge progress and we now live in a world where men always ask for help when they need it and they're completely free to express their emotions, talk about their pain, and no one ever judges them for it. What if that happens and men are *still* trying to kill themselves? Men can ask for help, but if the NHS is not equipped to give them that help and support, then it won't matter. Men open up about their emotions and talk to people when they're struggling, but if the people they reach out to are also at breaking point and don't have the strength or resources they need to support someone else too, then it won't matter. Suicide will still kill men. And that's not right. We need to unite behind this, regardless of gender, sex, race, class, political leaning etc. We are at breaking point. Our friends and family are. Our colleagues are. This world is fucking hard to live in and if you decide you can't live in it anymore, there just aren't enough capable and available hands out there ready to reach out and grab you before you fall. It used to be that as friends or as a community, we could rally together to support the one or two people close to us who we saw struggling. But these days, I don't know a single person who isn't going through some kind of crisis or recovering from something traumatic. We are on our own. It's terrifying to me :(


Long this post may be, but it’s excellent. Thank you.


omg thank you - after I hit send and saw how long the comment was, I genuinely didn't expect anyone would actually bother <3 I guess it's something I've been mulling over a lot recently and once I started writing the flood gates opened! :)


It's interesting the amount of things made into gender issues when they're not when the data is looked at properly. Also interesting is how much this fact favours one group over the other, and how any attempt at properly analysing the data will have one labelled all sorts of pejorative terms. Great post though regardless. Certainly something I've seen many times any time the issue of male suicide rates are brought up though


Fucking shame as it's the worst possible thing that could happen to genuine men's rights issues. Framing it as anti-feminist and a zero-sum game just gaurantees it's made even more taboo and toxic.


It's such a shame because there are genuine men's rights issues, but you can't bring it up without a bunch of cunts jumping on it and immediately redirecting it as an anti-feminist weapon. And the irony is the worst thing you could do for men's rights would be to make it untouchable and discredited as a misogynist movement. And that's exactly what they've done. Incels have managed to lock themselves in a prison of their own making.


There's also a dearth of male teachers nowadays which I think will be having a huge impact on lads. I remember my best teachers in high school were the strict male teachers who took no shit. They were scary but you felt driven to impress them. I learnt so much more academically and socially from my male teachers than I did female teachers.


Highly recommend the movie "Everything Everywhere all at once". It has one of the few good male role-model characters I've ever seen in a movie. The majority of male characters, in literally anything either are solve-problems-with-violence, or nerdy-underdog-who-eventually-learns-to-bully-someone else. It's so incredibly rare to actually find a good male role model in damn near any media. Virtually every single marvel character, every action movie hero, every underdog high school coming of age story - there's virtually no character that if you modeled yourself after good things would come. I think that's part of and a symptom of the root problem.


100% agree. From Captain Picard to Robbie Williams to (I hate to say it) Tony Blair, I had plenty of men I saw every day who were doing their best to be steady, ethical and upstanding. And I think that's been really undermined, I struggle to point to anyone in the public eye that isn't "at it" in some way. Trust and straightforwardness has been undermined with paid subscribers and sponsored content and personal enrichment so you cannot really tell the difference between truth and monetisation. I do worry about what this does to the fabric of society - when all the men you look up to are also manipulating you and being insincere, it's no wonder that it's becoming more normal to behave like that yourself.


The alternative isn't easily digestible, it doesn't fit into 30 second sound bites that can game the social medoa algorithms. It's a move away back towards society that act for the benefit of everyone, not just a small number of rich people. How can you do that when you're fighting against algorithms that endlessly push this stuff into the heads of our kids?


Wel that's bollocks. Peterson shot to fame among younger people because he did long form interviews. Same with Shapiro, there is an element of "Shapiro owns college kid", but thats not the content he is pushing. Those two that you have mentioned embrace long form conversation at every turn.


>Same with Shapiro, there is an element of "Shapiro owns college kid", but thats not the content he is pushing. Those two that you have mentioned embrace long form conversation at every turn. Ben Shapiro only debates people he knows he'll be able to "own", look how badly the Andrew Neil interview went. He's just another right wing grifter.


Lemme gish gallop a bunch of presuppositions and call it high level debate. Then idiots mistake winning at talking for finding the truth.


Do you need an alternative? Fuck me there’s not a single male I actively look up to and I don’t feel lost. Is that the excuse? No one else?


I experienced this when I was about 13-15 in secondary school. Right wingers like Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, and Steven Crowder have a way if appealing to uneducated and vulnerable people and especially teenage kids. Thankfully I got out of that, but I know a lot of people won’t.


I'd like to add Russell Brand to that list, he has become one of those peddlars of bullshit as well, all disguised as enlightenment for the politically jaded.


I wouldn’t put brand in the same vein as Tate. He’s an anti-establishment conspiracy theorist sure, but a woman hating grifter? Nah




You'd also think he'd be bigger than that and have a physique good enough to admit steroid use. He looks like someone that's been hard at the gym for a couple of year rather than someone who pushed far beyond their natural genetic limit with AAS. He should feel embarrassed EDIT: Gonna put this here since it seems to be missed and missed in the comments. This is not a serious take. This is being facetious and playing on a common gymbro type of comment. It's probably even less apparent if you're not one who lives in the temple of iron or spends long enough hanging around on /r/bodybuilding


This is most steroid users tbh, you'd be surprised how many average looking people at the gym use them. Most steroid users are doing it to be lazy rather than to be big.


Don’t like the guy but tbf he’a not a bodybuilder but a kick-boxer so getting really massive muscle wise would be disadvantageous. His physique is pretty much ideal for his sport. Plenty of martial artists do take steroids but it’s not with the intention of getting huge but improving strength and speed and overall performance (muscle size doesn’t correlate directly with strength or athletic performance). I know people who bodybuild as a hobby who look as good as him but no chance they would beat him in a fight


I don't expect the soys of reddit to know this


Body shaming is one of the main sources of toxic masculinity. I don’t like this guy or anything he stands for, but this kind of bullshit pushes men beyond the brink.


Most people on gear , don’t look like they are on anything


Well he said that he doesn't go to the gym and just does 500 press ups a day. Although he's such a bullshitter that I'd take any of his claims with a grain of salt


He is/was a kickboxer that had a weight class to meet.... And idk, he's pretty jacked for a guy that's appeared to spend the last few years on webcam


His physique is average for a fit bloke. No steroids here, stupid argument. Focus on the shit that comes out of his mouth.


I don’t really know much about him, if anything. But I don’t think he’s taking steroids, I’ve seen people on roids and it’s very obvious


Here come the usual army of incels of r/UK to either: A. Defend/praise this prick B. Blame feminism for people like this prick getting a platform As is tradition


I’ve been reading this thread for 10-15 minutes and literally nobody is saying either of those things


It's easier to dismiss people by creating a boogyman


> Here come the usual army of incels of r/UK to either: There are 3 posts as I write this. "Andrew tate is a bellend", "but he genuinely just is a nob", and "You'd think a dude mainlining so many steroids might have a chin". You appear to have made an incorrect assumption.






Fair enough, now at 29 minutes and one more has been added saying "Who the fuck is this guy? Is he famous for something?"


Now we have a guy showing disbelief that the steroids have apparently removed this mans chin. The original poster must be a reverse nostradamus.


I'm no incel, think Tate is a prick etc, but you're unsurprisingly shockingly wrong. Problem is that whenever we talking about this problem in this subreddit, some inflammatory prat always comes along and puts their foot in it because you don't understand men - particularly young men who are in a situation where they might follow these "life coaches". The young men who are being predated upon by Tate and by outrage farms like Infowars and previously the counter-culture crowd are able to do so because of huge amounts of lost, aimless young men who have never had strong and respectable male role models directly in their lives. Branding everyone who is desperate for any sort of direction who feels aimless, lost or lonely an incel not only solves nothing, it makes the problem worse because in entrenches people. It proves the counter-culture leaders right, that you are against them just because you don't understand them, hate them etc.


That's some real nail-on-the-head stuff. I am someone who's intentionally single, I have been since I was dumped out of a 5 year relationship a couple of months into covid. Do I want to be single? Not really. Problem is my self-esteem took a hell of a hit in that last relationship, I suffered single and alone for a while through lockdown when I should have been meeting up with friends and getting drunk in tacky bars, I'm depressed, and I don't feel like I can afford to date or settle down, let alone support a relationship and family properly. Do I consider myself an incel? Hell no. I didn't even know who Andrew Tate was until a few weeks ago. Do I tick all the boxes of what the media is describing as these lonely angry men? Absolutely. Thing is, 99% of these young men and boys watching the likes of Tate and Shapiro are just like me: lost, depressed, aimless, with good-to-passable reasons to be single. We need to help them, not carry out Twitter witchhunts where you 'find men you know who follow Andrew Tate on Instagram and disown them' like I saw in one Twitter thread last week. The longer I am single, the longer I worry that a female friend will call me out for being an incel and 'one of them'. They continue to ask me, puzzled, why I refuse to touch online dating and refuse to even try to date anyone, to them it doesn't make sense. It's been a while since they've brought it up, and with the recent Andrew Tate bandwagon it's starting to raise awareness, and part of me does worry that I could get accused of being part of one of these communities when in reality I just want to be on my own. I am certainly not defending Tate or Shapiro et al. We just need to find a healthier output or support network for these young men. Attacking them when they're entrenched in these communities is one way to reinforce these communities. Instead of poor online rolemodels, I chose to throw myself into my work - and yes, my depression means I often struggle with sleep and a couple of unhealthy addictions like gaming and social media. It might not be healthy, but it's certainly healthier than being in a /r/FemaleDatingStrategy esque echo chamber. If only access to mental health resources was easier.


Why do people come to a prominent forum with thousands of users and get upset that some people have a different opinion to them?


Newsflash: not many people are here to actually deal or at least discuss the real problem. Most are here for the drama.


Comment so brave


First I've heard of him. Sounds like a cunt and that he could have followers says a lot about how low grade some people are.




There are SIGNIFICANTLY more and larger groups of male incel movements than female ones


Well it's much harder for a female to be an incel.


How many terrorist attacks have they committed? They suck but they're hardly the same. One is a lot more dangerous Edit : I can't believe someone brought up the suffragettes in the comments as if they're the same as incels. Please [have a read ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogynist_terrorism) before subjecting me to your braindead takes


They’re both awful, but we’re yet to see these female groups commit mass murder or be added to a list of terrorist threats.


Or promote sex trafficking, violence against men and say men are women's property like Andrew has about women.


Yeah, people who complain about FemaleDatingStrategy and feel the need to bring it up when incels are mentioned, are the same type of people who "both sides" every political debate. "Yes, people on the right want to take away people's rights and are responsible for far more violence, but a feminist was rude to me so they're equally bad". People on FDS might be encouraging dickhead behaviour but it's not like they're condoning/encouraging rape or violence.


>FemaleDatingStrategy is back on Reddit with nearly 250,000 subs Not really back though, it's just one account mostly advertising their podcast. They fucked off to their own griftsite


I once took a wander through there having seen folks mention it so much and it's just weird. I did see a post that suggested that there is a large cross-over between FDS and dating over thirty and dating over 40. I should ask the wife if I'm a LVM or HVM.....




It's a good rule of thumb to assume any story on reddit is either massively distorted or just outright bullshit.


He's a symbol of a larger set of ideals. The Mail ran a story today regarding the surplus of single men on dating apps. There are 1400 comments underneath of the 'yeah well women are bitches ' I'll, or 'just ignore them and they'll come to you coz they're slags' or 'I've been single 40 years even though I'm such a nice guy, guess I'm not rich enough for the gold diggers'. A number seemed just written for clicks, the usual 'women should know their places and stop getting ideas like taking men's jobs' type. I mean, I guess they were just written for clicks? You'd be surprised, really, how many 'nice' men start saying simar after a drink or two. 'You know, it's women's fault, since they joined the workforce, that house prices are so high...'


Ironically saw this play out on Twitter recently. A guy was well regarded in a fandom community, but would occasionally post about his difficulty finding love, that he thought he was unloved.etc despite being (from what I could see) an in shape, generally physically attractive person. Then one day he got drunk and just started going off on a woman in the same community for no reason calling her attention seeking.etc and there was a collective 'Oh that's why'.


What does this have to do with this sub? Stop giving this cunt attention by spreading his name.


Because he’s British and no doubt with schools restarting in less than a month they’ll be a boatload of stories coming out about some of the vile things impressionable schoolboys have been doing


Because he's a Brit, that's why we post Rowling and Rushdie on here as well


My mistake, I assumed he was American because I’ve only ever Googled him which says he was born in Chicago. I’ve never actually bothered listening to the shit he spews to save my sanity.


> What does this have to do with this sub? For one if he has a large following in the UK, it would tell us something is wrong with society in the UK that has led to many angry lonely men in the first place. So its a reflection of things we should be looking into and not ignoring.


He's a personality cultist. Same as most of these grifters, their advice is isolate yourself from your friends and peers, they have their followers cut themselves off from the outside world so they only listen to them. I think he's also been accused of rape and human trafficking.


He was investigated by the FBI for human trafficking but they didn't find anything. He has said that the reason he moved to Romania is because the police don't care about sexual assault though, so the rape thing seems pretty likely.


With the moving to Romania thing, what he said more precisely was that 40% of the reason he moved to Romania was because he believed false accusations of rape held too much power in the West. You can infer from that what you will.


Who the fuck is this guy? Is he famous for something?


He was on big brother a few years ago and now rants online about misogynistic shite.


Don't you mean Crime Watch?


He’s just so fucking unimpressive. I watched a few videos of his smoking in a fake first class seat today pretending to be edgy. He’s just a not very clever, insecure little prick, preying on less clever insecure pricks.


He does Kickboxing and he manages a cam girl website similar to chaturbate




Andrew Tate has learnt how to game the algorithms of Instagram/YouTube/tiktok, so his shit will just appear in your "recommended" section. Hitting the "not interested" button is a continual game of whack amole.


>a continual game of whack amole I think it’s spelt guacamole


No, he hasn’t. Stop acting like these people are smart. The algorithm is designed to push people like this to the top because, as Tate himself has said, they generate controversy but also popularity simultaneously. It was the same deal with Hitler - he piggybacked on his cronies to get to where he was, and he failed multiple times. There were probably hundreds of others like him, but they didn’t have the luck or stamina to become the ultimate bastards. Hitler also wasn’t at all healthy and suffered numerous head injuries through his life, he endured trauma in a war, and he was an abuser of numerous drugs, so I doubt the guy was intelligent. He didn’t even understand Nietzsche and his work is rudimentary to say the least. Stop acting like these fascists have anything going for them - the system is designed in such a way that pricks like these can succeed.


I didn't say he was smart. I said he gamed the system. >The algorithm is designed to push people like this to the top because, as Tate himself has said, they generate controversy but also popularity simultaneously. So we agree, he gamed the system. Excellent And then you go off on a weird tangent about Hitler that I am not touching with a barge pole.


My theory, as an old man, is this. Unlike when I was young, it is now possible to derive your personality and beliefs entirely from things you read online, with no actual person-to-person contact. This is, or can be, incredibly dangerous. The internet is a vast series of interconnecting echo chambers. If you can find one, so can enough other people who feel similarly, that you can find justification and reinforcement for anything. There's a thread elsewhere in this post about how hard it is to find male role models. On the internet, maybe - as that's not where they tend to hang out. But go out into the real world and you can find them. How about a Lewis Hamilton, or a Gareth Southgate, or a Stormzy. Or the teacher at your school, or the guy who runs the local youth centre, or the hard-working guy at the local store who gives you a holiday job. Youtube or Reddit are not good places to look for role models!


Supposedly this guy ran off to Romania to get away from multiple sexual assault and abuse investigations in the U.K. He then got his home raided in a sex trafficking investigation by Romanian police, who are known for being quite lax on that kind of thing. Edit: Apparently Tate himself said he moved to Romania because “police are less likely to pursue rape allegations. I’m not a rapist but I like being able to do what I want.”


This clown is all over my YouTube feed; I’ve diligently been asking YouTube not to recommend anything with his name on it but it’s like playing a game of whackamole at this point. I genuinely think he’s got nothing good to offer the human race, vile character that oozes a warped desperation to be accepted in some way.


>This clown is all over my YouTube feed; I’ve diligently been asking YouTube not to recommend anything with his name on it but it’s like playing a game of whackamole at this point. That's weird. I've never come across his content on any social media platform.


It's spawned from a complete lack of understanding on the issue. The moment "incel" became a popular mainstream insult for men who even looked at this stuff because they felt lost, unfulfilled or lonely, you lost any chance of preventing a major societal issue. The completely lack of nuance when it comes to discussing the different types of counter-culture leaders that people are gravitating towards and the branding of all people involved as hateful or whatever negative adjective you can think of, just entrenches people.


He's the next in the long line of Dan Bilzerian-esque characters that go away if you stop writing fucking articles about them


Except this guy doesn't go away, he has an army of fans uploading his content everywhere.


>Except this guy doesn't go away, he has an army of fans uploading his content everywhere. Because he's existed in public for like 15 minutes. Of course he hasn't faded out yet, how tf would he. If you get a cut it takes time to stop bleeding, you can't act shocked that in the immediate moment after you got the cut, blood is coming out.


People keep focussing on Tate and not the real issue at hand. How come there is + 1 billion people who viewed and followed his content in the first place. He's a symptom of some underlying issue of society not the other way around. Why is there so many lonely angry men thats the bigger question. They were not born lonely and angry boys - they became it as they got older... thats a societal problem. Something is making them that way. That seems far more dangerous to ignore than spending time stating the obvious stuff like calling Tate a prick.


If the answer isn't "a pyramid scheme" then the article is incorrect. The aesthetic is secondary to the practical mechanism he or someone else discovered to organise real guerilla marketing, only serving to provide the deceptive value upon which the pyramid scheme is based. He's also a sex trafficker who moved to Romania because he found it easier to bribe the police there.


A couple of my friends listen to/watch this guy and are able to quote him ad verbatim. I think (hope) they’re only doing it ‘ironically’ or tongue-in-cheek as they’re both well-adjusted, intelligent people, but I’m wary of the fact people like this can drag in ‘normal’ types and turn them into walking, talking sexism machines.


The far right has a way of starting out "ironic" and humorous, and then gradually morphing into serious positions of bigotry and hatred. That's one of the ways they recruit and radicalize people. This guy may be doing the same, so keep an eye on those friends.


I *genuinely* don't understand this guy or the fuss around him. Maybe it's age, maybe it's too much Sacha Baron-Cohen, Chris Morris, and Armando Iannucci, but I can't work out - a) how this isn't satire b) whether satire or genuine, why anyone would take it seriously. Like, I understand the angry incel thing, and have tried relentlessly to help a few out personally, but I don't even understand how or why this would appeal to them. I know some are *very* stupid, but I don't get what the appeal would be to even them. This guy seems like a more extreme and unfunny version of Dom Mazetti (BroScienceLife) on Youtube, which is obviously and clearly meant to be a pastiche of the braindead gym-rat.


The guy supports Laxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson) that alone should tell you he is complete bell end.


I really want to stop seeing this guy on my feed but he's just inescapable, he's just sooo toxic and sexist but there are too many accounts so the YT algorithm is like here have MORE


The only reason dickheads like this get to where they are because they have articles like this written about them. Stop paying attention to them and let them fade off into obscurity, I only know about this chinlet because of articles like this and people being outraged at his stupidity, just ignore him. If we did that with the likes of these people e.g. Farage, we wouldn't have had Brexit or entice the country to be more openly racist.


He’s huge on social media, people write articles about him because he’s noteworthy, not the other way around


Andrew Tate is already popular/infamous even without these articles. He’s somehow managed to crack the algorithm and appear on millions of peoples home pages on social media at least once.


The strange thing to me is that everyone is patting themselves on the back for identifying that these influences are bad and these men influencing these people are bad for society and that incels are bad for being incels and poorly adjusted, disaffected young men are bad, but nobody seems to be considering what the cause is or how that cause can be remedied to fix the issue at its root. Has this come out of nowhere? Is there something society is doing/not doing to exacerbated this? Are there groups of people in society that we are ignoring causing them to be pushed to extremes? Is there an element of....gleeful schadenfreude at the sight of these people suffering which causes them to be a problem in society in the first place? It's juts very strange to me how we're approaching this. It's like starting a story in the middle.


Never heard of the guy, but he's clearly just a troll who craves attention, which this article has just given him. I do have a problem with the final paragraph though. >You can see how Andrew Tate could seem aspirational to a certain kind of man. If you are not particularly clever, funny, informed or attractive – if, for instance, the best anyone can say for you is that you’d almost certainly come third in a Pitbull lookalike contest – then capitalising on your ability to project a horrible personality will have to do. There's no need to bring people's appearances into this, if a man had wrote that paragraph referencing women he would be rightly ridiculed. Theres no need for it.


He moved to Romania in 2017 after British police charged him with 11 cases regarding sexual assault. He is also under investigation for human trafficking. This is who young British boys and men are looking up to, by the way. If you have a young son, PLEASE monitor their social media activity.


Why do all these thugs have shaved heads with rubbish beards? Never heard of him before, but one look at his photo tells me he's an absolute knob!


> Why do all these thugs have shaved heads Because it looks better than looking like David Ellery.


Andrew tate is a bellend. But there is a point here that being a man or masculine is somehow now synonymous with misogynistic or sexist or whatever else. Society tells men porn is ok, endless masturbation is fine and to stfu and consume. Young men need and are looking for role models. This clown pops up in the vacuum and siezes the ground. And ofc the media jump in and see an audience as the sum of the speaker. In the same way me liking a specific party policy doesnt make a member, finding merit in something someone says doesnt turn you into a cultist. Isnt the real problem why there are so many lonely young men, why suicide is the leading cause of male death under 40?


> Society tells men porn is ok, endless masturbation is fine Not sure about that.


Pornhub has it's own reddit engagement account.


I don't think I've encountered anyone suggest masculinity is the same thing as mysogyny. Give your comments about maturation and semen are you sure you're not in the thrall of another, equally nonsensical, Internet personality, just of a different flavour?


I think we need to get to the bottom of why there is such insecurity that surrounds 'masculinity'. I think the very concept that young men need to worry about their male identity, what it means to be a 'man' or what masculinity is weird. There are toxic and positive interpretations of it but I find even the latter, by focusing so much on it, can make people feel insecure. I know friends who post constantly on Facebook about it and frame whatever they're doing into some weird quasi-self-improvement shtick as if everything in their life needs to be measured and quantified with their masculinity at the centre of it. I don't understand why it's so important to them. I have many insecurities but never do I worry if I am a man or not. I literally am one. I've never cared if that is meant to mean anything more than that. Society is screwing over young men by trying to tell them it is, that there is a role in society they're meant to live up too and they're a failure if they don't.


I think it's because young people are very insecure. In modern society that insecurity is amplified by both social media and the portrayal of men in traditional media. You can combine that with the slow decline of wages and opportunities for younger people and what you get is a lot of men with the general sense that something isn't right. I think most people feel this to some extent, we don't feel totally confident in ourselves and something about society just feels wrong, it isn't working. That's where guys like Tate come in. They promise a very convenient and easy to understand solution. They give you an enemy who is responsible and ways to stop them. Just get rid of the lefty woke feminist LGBT people and you'll be a big tough man and everything will be good again. That message then gets ruthlessly pushed by algorthims which makes it very convincing. Imagine a 17 year old with few job prospects and no luck with women going online and seeing nothing but this shit pushed at them over and over. It's radicalisation and it's happening on a global scale and it's fucking scary that nobody is talking about it.


It's very seductive to hear there is nothing wrong with you, and it's all someone else's fault. Add to that the swirling mass of hormones that is a teenage boy and you've got trouble.


> But there is a point here that being a man or masculine is somehow now synonymous with misogynistic or sexist or whatever else. > Society tells men porn is ok, endless masturbation is fine and to stfu and consume Where is this written then? I’ve never encountered either argument! I mean porn isn’t the stigma it was when I was a teenager but that was the era of Page 3 and Razzle.


>Society tells men porn is ok, endless masturbation is fine and to stfu and consume. >Young men need and are looking for role models. This clown pops up in the vacuum and siezes the ground. Its all the same in virtue though: commodifying male insecurity. Products are not role models. Tate is a product.


It's never been easier to become a grifter. Social media, algorithms, social and political discourse has combined to make a perfect storm for snake oil saleman selling a lifestyle or ideology to the insecure and gullible. The internet is flooded with an assortment of grifters "let me tell you the secret of my success" types \*insert name here\* owned the libs/right wingers types "I'm an Alpha male and I hate me too/feminism/woke stuff" types Conspiracy theory deep state paranoia types Lifestyle brand instagram types


Never even heard of this guy until maybe a month ago, and now I can't go to any corner of the Internet without seeing his name. Weird. Or maybe I had seen his name before but just never realised until the last few weeks when all these news articles keep getting made about him. Either way, he seems a complete and utter prick from the little I've unwillingly seen.


This guy is a complete bellend. How he's getting a platform and people buy into is bull shit I'll never know.