I keep seeing posts mentioning this phenomenon more and more often.
For instance:
‘Andrew Tate phenomena’ surges in schools - with boys refusing to talk to female teacher
Like, why? Why now? Why even? I really wish I had a time machine where I could go to the future and ask them what the general reasons were for this social development. But I feel like I’m looking for the specific thorn on a cactus that popped my balloon.
I think the answer is obvious: Tate tells them “you’re awesome”. No one else is doing that. People seek validation.
This is the short of it. Tate explains in no uncertain terms that society is to blame for the insecurities they feel, and provides an easy answer on how to fix it that kind of works, because it emulates self-confidence.
I mean it’s right wing politics in a nutshell
Dupe fools with simple, comforting lies over complicated, uncomfortable truth. If people don’t understand reality they can’t change it.
And organized religion, as well.
they’rethesamepicture.jpeg
I think it’s another message. Tate says “The world is fucked up” and then proceeds to say “I have the secret, if you want to make it in this fucked up world you have to be tough, uncompromising, domineering, cheat, and act like me” and “you’re a sucker and a cuck if you don’t do what I say”. First message sets up the world, 2nd sets up a “”“”“solution”“”“” to success that only a “few” people know, and the final thing is him attempting to make anyone who believes otherwise look weak which gives any of his followers the ability to a) feel a sense of superiority and b) make fun of others for being “weak” or “cucks” or “betas” or whatever.
A lot of young men frustrated with the lack of community, the fleeting chance of making good money, buying a home, etc. are looking for something/someone to blame. Misogyny and xenophobia are easy escape hatches for difficult times.
This is pretty much the most accurate response here. People like Andrew Tate are a symptom of a problem we have in society as a whole. The cure isn’t to block the symptom, because the disease is still there. The solution involves hard work & holding our own politicians accountable.
A lot of young people.
I mean, yeah. Young people of both genders are doing really poorly. Some people want to really naval gaze it and throw pity parties about how men are just so put upon and lonely, but so are the gals and theys.
It’s just that the boys are being offered a solution of basically a heirarchy-cult (read: fascism) where instead of being shat on like the rest of us, they are—in this narrative—meant to be elevated above us.
It’s the same bullshit that got the white poor rednecks voting for billionaire grifters.
Part of it is that women have achieved an educational level as a group that allows them to make better choices. They no longer have to choose which is the nicer wife beater in their town.
The incels seem to have a problem with this. The idea of having to compete based upon personality, likability and in general the ability to treat another person as a human being bothers them.
And if we let this follow the path it’s on, they’ll try to put us in burqas rather than working to become better people.
The incels
Weaponizing shaming like this is part of the issue. Young boys and men are bullied and called incels because they don’t conform to whatever BTS image girls and women fantasize about these days. They’re not given a chance to come out of their shells, and being shamed, won’t ever try to.
It’s a shame that body shaming boys is in vogue and perpetrated by those who support big models and HAES.
I think you have incel confused with something completely different.
It’s musk’s used melon, what do you expect?
I’ve heard young women call men “incels” as an insult, what are you talking about?
An incel is someone wbo claims ro be involuntarily incelibate, as in no one wants to fuck them. The incels claim it is based on looks, but it is because they have shitty, hate filled personalities where they blame women for their problems.
It doesn’t have anything to do with looks. It might have something to do with dressing like an Tate fanboy though.
I’ve been incel for years and never hated or blamed women. I was aware of hateful incels but I avoided them.
I wish people would stop generalizing.
Incel has never been a label without the part about hating and blaming women, although it has expanded to hating men too over time. It has always been about not getting laid and expressing frustration and anger. There isn’t some neutral meaning to reclaim or anything like that.
If you don’t blame the gender(s) that isn’t having sex with, you are not an incel. That just means you haven’t successfully found someone which can be for a wide variety of reasons, most of which can be addressed by changing behavior and how one tries to connect with the desired group.
Yes that is the definition.
However, it’s now being used as an insult as well. I’ve been called this even though I’ve been married 20 years with children, by a 40 year old spinster.
Calling someone a spinster in that context gives off incel vibes.
And you don’t think it may have had more to do with what you were saying / the way you were behaving than your looks? I don’t doubt that incel may be thrown around more as a basic insult these days - it’s just reaching that level of ubiquity in everyday speech - but I have more often heard it used towards men who are saying or doing things that are misogynistic. The same kind of misogyny that betrays a deeper insecurity has long been common in adolescent boys who are going through puberty and dealing with feelings they don’t know how to deal with yet, and the word incel has become a convenient way to call it out, but I do feel that when it comes to adolescents there should be some charitability and understanding. Andrew Tate and the rest of the Manosphere are giving these kids the opposite of what they need, though.
Oh it wasn’t used aptly which pissed me off even more.
Being called an incel to an awkward teenage boy has an equal but opposite effect to an innocent teenage girl being called a slut.
I’m advocating neither term should be used to either of them.
Young men have problems in their lives, like everyone else does, maybe less, maybe more than other groups in society but that does not matter because for them it’s the most vivid problems. He talks to specifically them and their problems.
I don’t know how the media in your country sounds*, but here every time there is an issue discussed it tends to be: women, minorites, whatever have a problem, men are the problem.
If the mainstream does not talk about young men’s issues, you will hand over the attention of young men to someone who does.
*In a news article, or a political speech try switching the word man/woman black/white immigrant etc for their opposite. Some of them sound absolutely absurd when you do.
every time there is an issue discussed it tends to be: women, minorites, whatever have a problem, men are the problem.
This can’t be overstated. There are a lot of loud misandrists posing as feminists, broadly painting men as The Problem just for being men. Speaking up is automatically condemned as condescension, sitting comfortably is encroaching on women’s space, striking up conversation is harassment, glancing at someone in the gym is sexual assault, a drunk hookup is rape.
Of course, there are problematic men who are guilty of these accusations, but the majority are normal people being baselessly lumped in with actual offenders for no other reason than being male. Women get unwavering support for just being women, men get trashed for just being men. That by itself is demoralizing.
Then you combine that with the fact that a large percentage of women want an assertive “manly” man. The boys who err on the side of respectfulness watch the aggressive dudebros succeed sexually and romantically where they fail.
If respect loses to toxic masculinity so often, then it’s only reasonable to think that maybe the guys pushing toxic masculinity know what they’re talking about. And if they’re going to be demonized for being men anyway, they might as well live up to the condemnation and at least get something out of it.
Edit: let me specify, I don’t find Tate compelling, I’m only speaking of the mental state that would bring young men into his influence.
“women minorities whatever” ???
did you not know that racial minorities can be men or is this a dog whistle for “white male persecution”?
why not just say “women have a problem, men are a problem”? too on the nose, too obvious? yes misogyny is a problem. but if you’re trying to speak to the importance of male issues, you gotta stay focused
I feel like there’s always been a culture of boys and young men who didn’t respect women, there’s just never been podcasters actively promoting it.
The internet allows idiots to broadcast their message worldwide and social media promotes the most controversial stuff in order to drive engagement and, more recently, to promote a culture war that keeps the populus divided.
there’s just never been podcasters actively promoting it.
Before podcasts, we had a bunch of AM radio, grindhouse movies, pulp fiction, skin mags, and incel blogs. Joe Rogan is an archtype that echoes through the ages.
I remember when every friend group had a stoned uncle who lived in Grandma’s basement and would spout alien hotep lost city of z under water bullshit.
Some asshole at Spotify gave one a podcast and here we are.
Because young men have problems that aren’t taken seriously. Then someone like Tate comes along and (quite literally) sells the “solution.”
If a cult leader can swoop in and radicalise a whole lot of people, then there is an unaddressed or ignored problem going on. This is the kind of way someone like Hitler got so much support.
People who are educated, and live secure, fulfilling lives would be able to see Tate for the twat he is.
This is probably not the whole reason but in my opinion it is the primary one. Young men are indirectly being told their problems don’t matter because when they are raised they get slapped down for trying to take attention away from women’s issues, and that leaves a very sour taste in their mouths that makes it easy for charlatans like Tate to take advantage of. Especially low-status white men getting hit with the double whammy of being assumed to be just fine because everyone knows how easy it is to be a white man, right? Thanks, apex fallacy.
The times where men have tried to form positive social support structures like the MRA/MGTOW movement, they are derided as being misogynistic, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as the outside attacks reinforce those assumptions. If you look at these groups today, they are absolutely infiltrated by misogynist and racist voices, but that’s not how they started. Gamergate is another example of this phenomenon.
I’m not trying to invalidate the issues women face or trying to claim that men have it worse. It seems we collectively treat this as a zero sum game instead of getting folks the help they need for the specific problems they face, and it creates a situation where people who could otherwise be saved are radicalized by assholes who are all too willing to capitalize on that and radicalize them. Worse, the continuing polarization makes it very difficult for anyone left of center to walk back and try to address men’s issues without immediately being beset upon by a mercilessly vocal minority of feminists who see any attempt to help men as a distraction from their own issues.
Remember that each person parroting Tate’s rhetoric isn’t some hyper-privileged fratboy who is looking for an excuse to do violence to women. Some of them certainly are, but I would bet that a majority of them are low-status men who don’t see any other options.
One thing that I really wonder is if things have at all improved amongst men. It’s gone downhill with any Andrew Tate fans but like, if a group of 18 year olds watched Animal House or Revenge of the Nerds today, how many would be outright appalled?
They were popular in the day. Specifically among men. I just feel like it would be a fascinating experiment that could demonstrate some progress is being made. Perhaps people can breathe a bit easier.
From around 2022 until just recently YouTube Shorts was heavily pushing Tate on me (an almost 50 year old man).
No matter how many times I disliked and/or blocked the poster, the YouTube algorithm just kept throwing more Tate at me. I don’t know what I did to make YouTube think I’d be interested in that clown.
On the plus side, it made me a lot more aware of what’s going on, hence my efforts to get Google out of my life. I can spot someone trying to manipulate me, but I have young sons who might not.
It used to be that women couldn’t open their own bank accounts. Depending on how far back you go, they couldn’t even own property. In this context, women really needed to get married if they wanted to do anything. For this and many other reasons, the bar was lower, men could get married with less effort. Nowadays women can do anything and the only reason for them to want a man is if they want to, so you actually have to put in effort now.
Also, gender roles are changing and there’s no clarity as to what being a man is supposed to mean in 2025. If it’s not protecting and providing, if it’s not dying in war, then the purpose of men is undefined as of now, and there’s a tendency to want to return to the older gender roles.
And late capitalism is stressful, and men aren’t going to college as much these days. There’s lots of reasons but this is what i can remember in five minutes
To add to this: The internet has increased the reach of propaganda to heights it could only dream of. It used to be that you could just stop your kid from hanging out with the local neonazi group, now they can reach them right in their bedroom.
it’s so weird that people find life purpose in their gender… like I really dont get it…
Not really plenty of tradwife woman still exist, id say 50/50 wanna just find someone decent and setltle down so they can pop out kids becuase god wants them to, athiesm isnt as popular as yall think ppl are still religious and get arranged marriages (or basically the equivalent) You gotta be ugly, no money, just give up on life to be alone. Or insanely picky.
Now if you’re a liberal man who wants an independent woman, your pool of potential partners is way lower and they have standards like you said, good luck finding that
So much more social, educational and financial support for girls’ development and nothing for boys except for sports. If you’re not into sports, you’re out of luck.
Band, theater club, math club, chess club, computer club, to just name a few. Outside of school there’s Kiwanis, boyscouts, YMCA, big brother program, there is no shortage of programs directed at boys. They’re all underfunded in the inner city and rural ag counties. But the Tate heads mostly live in the safe suburbs. They’re usually white and those programs tend to be better funded in those places.
The US government is defunding all research and programmes that include the word “female” and “women”. No more research into uterine cancer. No more including women in studies (and they were badly represented already).
When you’re used to privilege, equality feels like discrimination.
This is a stupid and shitty decision.
You seem to mistake that I meant the women’s rights should be negated. I never said that. I said that development of boys should be encouraged the same way that girls are. I’m totally against taking women’s rights away.
Honestly, I think because it’s comfortable. Andrew Tate and the like say that there is nothing wrong with you and it’s society/women’s fault. It doesn’t challenge anything, not even the harmful standards for men (ex: High value = certain look/body, status, income, etc.). Dating has gotten harder for men. Women have a lot more options and choices, and I don’t just mean in which man to marry, but even if they will marry at all. That means men have to offer more than just being the provider, as many women also have to work. And I don’t think we set men up to be good partners. Providers? Sure. But to be caring, empathetic, loving and loved members of society? I don’t think so.
I think women need to be taken out of the equation all together when it comes to the male lonilness epidemic because that seems to cause the spiral. If it was focused on how men could foster good relationships, in general, I think it would be better. Focus on how to join/find/form social clubs, make it okay to talk to the boys about how you’re feeling, make it okay for them to need help. A lot of articles seems to boil down to more men are single, but I think it should be more of why don’t men have friends? If men are single, that means there are single women out there as well, but they don’t inspire these posts because women are allowed to foster platonic, deep relationships and we kind of tell me you either get a spouse for that or you just have to deal with it.
That’s what happen when identity politics mark a group as less important and the enemy.
It happens when right wing do identity politics an the marginalized minorities group together against it.
Left wing for some reason decided to use exactly the same strategy as the right wing and took identity politics as a way to do politics and they are having exactly the same result. The “marginalized” identity turned against them.
Surprised Pikachu face.
Yep…
A lot of young men are lacking role models and community these days.
More kids are growing up without fathers around now (single parenthood is up from 9% in the 1960s to about 25% today).
Most people’s source of community used to be church, but since the advent of the internet, people are rapidly moving away from organized religion. I think this has disproportionately impacted men, who tend to be less social on average.
And I think in general, a lot of young men feel like nobody cares about their personal struggles.
So, even some toxic dude like Andrew Tate can show up and say “Hey, you’re great. Here are the reasons why things are bad for you and what you should do, and here’s a community of like-minded people to interact with.” and these guys are going to dive in head first.
70 years ago a guy could graduate high school, get a job that allowed him to buy a car, buy a home and support a family, including college for his kids. They were too busy living a decent life. Then Reagan and the Republicans came to power.
Now, thanks to the vast economic disparity, guys have a very bleak future that makes them easy targets for hate-blaming almost any group of people except the rich who are responsible for their miserable lives.There is a darker secondary element to that time period, freedom of choice for women. 70 years ago if a young woman wanted to leave home and setup on her own she really needed the financial support of a husband or other male relative, even if to just cosign agreements. You were properly tied to having a husband, expected to as well. The pressure from all angles to marry meant women would settle for some pretty shitty men in much larger numbers, and for longer as it was much harder to divorce.
As time has gradually removed this pressure, women no longer need to marry to get independence in the same numbers, so shitty men no longer luck into marriage. The rise of no fault divorce as a valid choice, and even not having to be married to have kids or live together as a socially acceptable choice further squeezes them out.
The whole trad wives movement is founded on restoring the power back to men in relationships.
Regan sucks and Republicans even more so, but it’s not accurate to blame it all on them.
It’s the concept of neoliberalism that took hold in the 70s and has been steadily draining the working class to the point we are now where all power and wealth are concentrated on the few at the top.
Democrats, especially the Democratic presidents since Clinton, are also neoliberals. While they hold much better social views, they are still in on the policies that keep their donors rich and the working class desperate.
Life is hard and confusing. Many people are frustrated with the way that the social landscape has changed: relationships, jobs, and economic prospects have all shifted for the worse in developed countries. Young people are the most affected. Every time this happens, a con artist comes along and starts offering easy answers. Sometimes it’s a politician, sometimes it’s a religious leader. Nowadays, it’s often an influencer.
Tate tells men, “it’s not your fault that your life sucks,” and he is right (to a point). After all, people who don’t own houses can’t be blamed for the state of the housing market, right? So who is to blame? According to Trump, it’s brown people. According to RFK Jr., it’s vaccines or food colouring or some shit. According to Tate, it’s women. He tells young men that feminism is surely the reason they are unhappy: the Woke Left is trying to emasculate you! Be an alpha! Follow my simple formula for abusing women and accumulating money and your problems will go away.
Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. This is not a truth that all people can accept. We can fix some of the problems that we are facing, but it will take time, effort, and cooperation. In the meantime, many men are comforted by Tate’s message: women are the reason you are unhappy, and everything can be fixed by returning them to bondage! If you are very young (or just a little stunted), this message is much more palatable than the admittedly challenging option of actually fixing things.
Men and women basically make up 50% of the population each, more or less.
As long as we keep trying to blame society’s problem on one sex or the other, we’re never going to solve anything.
I personally think most problems in society, however, are more related to class than either gender or even race. If we can find a way to reduce income inequality (specifically between the rich and the poor) then I honestly think a lot of these issues would work themselves out naturally.
I feel like people have known this since like the 1800s. But dividing people over race and gender doesn’t threaten the rich in the way wealth distribution does, so huge amounts of money and influence are poured into preventing society from advancing by exacerbating poverty and race/gender conflicts.
The algorithm pushes them that direction.
On YouTube I’m constantly one video away from “owning the woke libs” content because I turned my view history off.
Yo the second I turned off personalized ads I got so many ads for erectile dysfunction medication. It felt like they were trying to embarrass me into turning personalized ads back on.
That’s both funny and very insulting.
It hasn’t stopped and I’m wearing down.
