People aren’t born with any beliefs. What’s your explanation for racism, homophobia, fascism, and other hateful views and behavior? People learn that stuff by their environment growing up, and there’s an awful lot of toxic masculinity.
And you’re argument about poverty and wage stagnation would make more sense if there weren’t so many poor people in happy marriages.
No, I hear your argument, but it doesn’t seem to hold water to me. The simpler answer is that some men are taught to believe shitty things growing up. Those shitty things lead to shitty behaviors that cause people not to be around them. The worst ones are the ones who believe men should be dominant over women, but are also timid or introverted, making them angry pressure cookers.
I think his point was that it’s ok for a woman to not earn much without it impacting her attractiveness to men, while the reverse isn’t true. There is a reason why rich millionaire falling in love with poor woman is a romance novel trope while not so much the other way around.
Finances are part of the attraction in a male if looking for actual relationships. You ain’t not gonna impress a woman flipping burgers at McD while men don’t care what a woman’s job is if she’s pretty and fun to be around.
I understood the point, but my counter was that there are loads of poor people in living relationships. Are there women who aren’t interested in a man who isn’t “successful?” Absolutely, just like there are men who aren’t interested in a woman who doesn’t look like a supermodel. But is it too the point where, if you aren’t a wealthy man, you can’t get a date or find love? No, that’s bullshit.
And you’re argument about poverty and wage stagnation would make more sense if there weren’t so many poor people in happy marriages.
This doesn’t invalidate the argument at all. Of course it’s not a all-or-nothing situation. Elliot Rodger was from a wealthy family and had plenty of economic prospects.
The simpler answer is that some men are taught to believe shitty things growing up. Those shitty things lead to shitty behaviors that cause people not to be around them.
This is not the simpler answer because Andrew Tate’s following is a relatively new phenomenon. People hear a LOT of things growing up; what sticks with them is a product of their environment. Something like this would not have caught on in the 80s or 90s, even if the zeitgeist was more misogynistic than it is today. I’d wager every man has some kind of misogynistic influence growing up, but what matters is whether they take that to heart. When the economic situation is dire (they know they will never attain the traditional ideal of a provider) it becomes really easy to blame the “other.”
This is not the simpler answer because Andrew Tate’s following is a relatively new phenomenon.
The age of social media influencers is also a relatively new phenomena. Tate realized he could tap into all those angry pressure cookers to make money. He posed as something he wasn’t, renting cars and places to make him look rich and paying women to pretend to be infatuated with him to give credence that his brand of misogyny makes men successful with women. And it worked. How would one do that 50 years ago?
I’m an old guy, and I knew incel types when I was a kid, but there wasn’t an easily accessible community of people telling them that their beliefs were valid. Instead of telling them that their trouble was that they weren’t a big enough asshole, the people around them told them to tone it down.
People aren’t born with any beliefs. What’s your explanation for racism, homophobia, fascism, and other hateful views and behavior? People learn that stuff by their environment growing up, and there’s an awful lot of toxic masculinity.
And you’re argument about poverty and wage stagnation would make more sense if there weren’t so many poor people in happy marriages.
No, I hear your argument, but it doesn’t seem to hold water to me. The simpler answer is that some men are taught to believe shitty things growing up. Those shitty things lead to shitty behaviors that cause people not to be around them. The worst ones are the ones who believe men should be dominant over women, but are also timid or introverted, making them angry pressure cookers.
I think his point was that it’s ok for a woman to not earn much without it impacting her attractiveness to men, while the reverse isn’t true. There is a reason why rich millionaire falling in love with poor woman is a romance novel trope while not so much the other way around.
Finances are part of the attraction in a male if looking for actual relationships. You ain’t not gonna impress a woman flipping burgers at McD while men don’t care what a woman’s job is if she’s pretty and fun to be around.
I understood the point, but my counter was that there are loads of poor people in living relationships. Are there women who aren’t interested in a man who isn’t “successful?” Absolutely, just like there are men who aren’t interested in a woman who doesn’t look like a supermodel. But is it too the point where, if you aren’t a wealthy man, you can’t get a date or find love? No, that’s bullshit.
This doesn’t invalidate the argument at all. Of course it’s not a all-or-nothing situation. Elliot Rodger was from a wealthy family and had plenty of economic prospects.
This is not the simpler answer because Andrew Tate’s following is a relatively new phenomenon. People hear a LOT of things growing up; what sticks with them is a product of their environment. Something like this would not have caught on in the 80s or 90s, even if the zeitgeist was more misogynistic than it is today. I’d wager every man has some kind of misogynistic influence growing up, but what matters is whether they take that to heart. When the economic situation is dire (they know they will never attain the traditional ideal of a provider) it becomes really easy to blame the “other.”
The age of social media influencers is also a relatively new phenomena. Tate realized he could tap into all those angry pressure cookers to make money. He posed as something he wasn’t, renting cars and places to make him look rich and paying women to pretend to be infatuated with him to give credence that his brand of misogyny makes men successful with women. And it worked. How would one do that 50 years ago?
I’m an old guy, and I knew incel types when I was a kid, but there wasn’t an easily accessible community of people telling them that their beliefs were valid. Instead of telling them that their trouble was that they weren’t a big enough asshole, the people around them told them to tone it down.