As America becomes more stratified, are we seeing more "throuple" relationships? Should we?

[Mike302]

The young women I know (my daughter, nieces, co-workers, etc..) STILL want to marry, still want a family but ALSO want to have careers where they make the same as men. And that is obviously to be lauded. No woman wants to be a financial captive in their relationship or marriage. ..They've seen that w/ prior generations and want no part of it.

But they don't want to date a young man who lives in their parents basement spending an inordinate amount of time gaming, smoking pot and eating junk food - and I know a LOT of parents whose sons are doing just that. The young women aren't being overly picky for passing these young men over, they're just showing good discretion.

And they probably don't want to date a young man who only wants to hook up and whose notion of sex has been mostly formed by watching Pornhub.

So how do we change those men who are basically useless?

How do we not create more like them?

 

[Mike302]

I don't accept this premise at all. There is still an income gap b/w men and women and we still far fewer female COO's than male. And women while a woman's job is held while on maternity leave, they have a much harder task making up for the time they where gone and not ascending the corporate ladder. In my career many people I work with had NO idea I had three kids...meaning it had ZERO impact on my career. Try doing that as a woman. Women continue to pay a higher price for bringing children into the world - something everyone agrees is a societal necessity.

And what tax breaks do women get? Do you mean to begin a business?

And no woman I've ever met regarded a man's role as merely to fertilize an egg than to get lost. ..I'm not sure if you're being serious or just trying to be provacative.

1. There will be an income gap until as many men stay home with the young children as women do. Most women will choose to be with the kids instead of work? Who wouldn't? And they will make the final decision, not the man. So this is unlikely to ever change.

2. The COO issue goes to that 1% group, that I'm not discussing here, because that's another world.

3. Yes, women get tax breaks such as starting businesses. And fund raising events, etc.

4. I didn't say the woman wanted the man to get lost, but they commonly do.

 

[LMWM321]

So how do we change those men who are basically useless?

How do we not create more like them?

If I were advising a son or nephew?

• Don't look for work-from-home jobs. ..Go to a place of business where you're seen and people get to know you.
• Play in mixed gender golf (expensive), pickle-ball, tennis, volleyball, curling, bowling leagues. ..Or if sports aren't your thing take cooking, art, etc.. classes at a local community college. Basically, seek to meet women ANYWHERE other than on dating apps
• Get off of social media; have a basic profile but that's it. Social media and algorithm driven news apps are toxic and lead one down these horrible Red Pill paths...
• Be meticulous about your cleanliness and grooming. You can't control all aspects of your appearance, but smelling bad, having a bad (or no) haircut, yellow teeth, etc... are totally unforced errors. You can control these. Show you care about your appearance. No one wants to date an overly vain dude, but nor do they want to date a guy who doesn't care about his appearance

added: Ask friends for honest (if painful) feedback about your mannerisms and personality. You may be surprised to find that your argumentative or talk too much or close-talk, etc... Maybe you avoid eye contact, or maintain TOO much eye contact. Or (A BIG ONE!) talk about yourself too much and never show an interest in who you're conversing with.

I don't know. I'm not a dating coach. But I'd tell my son/ nephew to be a little self-critical and honest with himself. ..And ask friends to do the same.

 

[Otis_Ravelli]

There will be an income gap until as many men stay home with the young children as women do. Most women will choose to be with the kids instead of work? Who wouldn't? And they will make the final decision, not the man. So this is unlikely to ever change

And there's the misogyny. "Who wouldn't?" Men according to you which is why they will always be paid more. If I am extrapolating this argument correctly a woman will get paid less than a man for doing the same job because she might have children at some point and will leave the job to raise them. Like they are having a uteruses tax deducted from their salary.

Oh, there is a problem. Several. The population is crashing. People aren't having enough kids to pay for the older generation and keep the nation going. Many of the single women have support from society and will be okay. The younger men do not have this support and are not okay.

Women run the lower 99% of society in the US. I've never said that it's a good or a bad thing, it just is.

There are "High-value" men and women. They will judge each other. That's nature.

I've never said women had to accept anything. You must have read that from someone else. I've probably said some will need to lower their expectations somewhat if they want a relationship / family. So do some of the men. That's completely fair. Don't project things you've read elsewhere onto me.

Where are you getting your information?

Again, I and others have pointed out how women don't run the lower 99% percent of society but you keep saying it like it's true, it isn't.

The grants etc that you keep using as evidence of this exist to give young women equal and equitable opportunities as young men. You see young women being given something young men aren't and stating that it puts men at a disadvantage. When the purpose of these things is to give women access to the same opportunities that men have without such things. If you're already tall enough to reach the top shelf you aren't being disadvantaged by someone else getting given a stepladder.

There's no such thing as high value men and women outside of the rhetoric of redpill, incel doucebags. That isn't nature at all. Don't bother trying to make that poorly thought out pseudo anthropological argument that because some animals seek a strong mate that's the same thing is applying an value on a person based on looks, salary, and willingness to put up with your bullshit. There is no such thing as an alpha male, even the guy who first came up with that idea now accepts that he was wrong.

 

[LMWM321]

Great post Otis.

One thing that gets little mention that I think contributes to young women's skittishness with dating these days is Porn. ..Now understand I enjoy porn myself and don't believe it to be inherently wrong. ..But nowadays everyone w/ an iPhone has taken at least a peak at PornHub to see what all the fuss is about. ...I'd have to imagine it's quite unsettling for a young person whose not yet sexually active, particularly a girl, to see unrealistically gorgeous women and men doing outrageous stuff like Gang bangs, choking/ gagging BJ's, double-penetration, etc.. The excess and glaring misogyny must leave young people wide-eyed, intimidated and thinking, "is this what sex is!?" And because young women are at a size and strength disadvantage and therefore less able to defend themselves against a boy who won't take no for an answer, it really raises their apprehension about sex and the dating that leads to it.

Porn is here to stay... But parents need to teach their kids that Porn is to sex what Marvel movies - where people can fly and carry a runaway train to safety - is to normal life. It's pure fantasy. But to young people looking at Porn, particularly young women, it might look like an expectation. Blech...

 

[policywank]

The young women I know (my daughter, nieces, co-workers, etc..) STILL want to marry, still want a family but ALSO want to have careers where they make the same as men. And that is obviously to be lauded. No woman wants to be a financial captive in their relationship or marriage. ..They've seen that w/ prior generations and want no part of it.

But they don't want to date a young man who lives in their parents basement spending an inordinate amount of time gaming, smoking pot and eating junk food - and I know a LOT of parents whose sons are doing just that. The young women aren't being overly picky for passing these young men over, they're just showing good discretion.

And they probably don't want to date a young man who only wants to hook up and whose notions of sex are what he sees on Pornhub. Blech.

Agreed. And if women do choose to hook-up (as we sometimes do) we want to do so with a man who is discrete and respectful.

I think of the old time notion of a woman being seduced by a man and just how much that has distorted gender relations. I mean seriously just how delusional is a man to think that he is in the driver's seat when it comes to sex. Instead of behaving as though he has achieved some kind of conquest he should be thankful that the woman agreed to have sex with him.

We see the same in porn today. It isn't just the extreme nature of the sex acts and the physical characteristics of the actors. There is a fundamental misrepresentation of female desire and the power balance in sexual relations. It portrays women as being the supplicant so enthralled with some dude's cock that she is willing to let him treat her in a disrespectful manner.

I am reminded of a scene in the show Californication where a guy asks the lead character "why don't bitches like me" and he responds "well, have you tried not calling them bitches?". The guy was just that clueless in a way that seems to be increasingly widespread amongst the disaffected young men we are talking about.

Contrary to what some guys will say, I don't think that it is a matter of women needing to have our asses kissed or assert control. But maybe we aren't as willing as we once were to genuflect to the male ego. The fact of the matter is that if some dude is chatting me up at the bar he is working on getting into my pants. It's not me working on getting into his pants. And it is me who will decide how it ends up going. Is it too much to ask that if I do decide to have sex with him that he not talk shit or disparage me afterwards?

 

[Yarglenurp]

If I were advising a son or nephew?

• Don't look for work-from-home jobs. ..Go to a place of business where you're seen and people get to know you.
• Play in mixed gender golf (expensive), pickle-ball, tennis, volleyball, curling, bowling leagues. ..Or if sports aren't your thing take cooking, art, etc.. classes at a local community college. Basically, seek to meet women ANYWHERE other than on dating apps
• Get off of social media; have a basic profile but that's it. Social media and algorithm driven news apps are toxic and lead one down these horrible Red Pill paths...
• Be meticulous about your cleanliness and grooming. You can't control all aspects of your appearance, but smelling bad, having a bad (or no) haircut, yellow teeth, etc... are totally unforced errors. You can control these. Show you care about your appearance. No one wants to date an overly vain dude, but nor do they want to date a guy who doesn't care about his appearance

added: Ask friends for honest (if painful) feedback about your mannerisms and personality. You may be surprised to find that your argumentative or talk too much or close-talk, etc... Maybe you avoid eye contact, or maintain TOO much eye contact. Or (A BIG ONE!) talk about yourself too much and never show an interest in who you're conversing with.

I don't know. I'm not a dating coach. But I'd tell my son/ nephew to be a little self-critical and honest with himself. ..And ask friends to do the same.

All these are fine, but I think it’s way more basic than that… have a purpose and overall goal that gives you hope for your own future. When I was working a job I hated along a path I didn’t believe had any real value to me, I had a hard-as-hell time with finding a long-term partner despite going to the gym, being clean, having a “good” career, etc. They could tell I was not happy, and that unhappiness made me more bitter and less reliable. When I left that career and started a new one doing something I did believe in, I was able to attract my life partner.

My diagnosis for incel-type guys is that they are not happy with themselves. They see (their lack of) external markers of success as the reason for their misfortune, but it’s fundamentally not about that. They could be super-fit, have lots of material goods, and still they’d not attract a worthwhile woman because, fundamentally, they’d not be in an emotional place for making a partner feel confident. The problem now is that they are consuming media (especially alt-right media) that hijacks that process of growth and development. It tells them that they are lonely because they don’t have those markers of wealth and status. Instead of working hard to make themselves happier long-term, they then drop into a self-destructive cycle of never working to achieve long-term goals and then blaming others for their lack of planning/execution.

 

[policywank]

When we think about equality (gender, racial, whatever), the reality is that achieving it requires more than just passing laws. There is also the inertia of the status quo that requires that we put our thumb on the scale just a bit to ensure constituencies historically left out have a chance. That obviously raises the question of how much to tip the scales and at what point have we gone too far. Using equal outcomes as a gauge of how far to go is flawed in my view. It ignores fundamental differences in interest and aptitude between groups. And by using this gauge we have created a situation wherein historically privileged groups have some basis for claiming that they are now being disadvantaged.

I am not saying they are right and I am not saying that efforts towards equality have gone too far. But I am saying that the fundamentally flawed assumption that equal opportunity will lead to equal outcomes raises the prospect that at some point we will have gone too far. That in turn gives disaffected young men something to grasp at as evidence that they are being disadvantaged. And I think that one of the most toxic things we can do to any young person is to give them reason to believe that someone or something else is to blame for the things that aren't working out for them. Even if it is true they are much better off if they take ownership of those things themselves rather than using it as an excuse to wallowing in self-pity (as many of us are inclined to do as we face the challenges of the real grown-up world).

When it comes to gender dynamics we have the added factor that many of these disaffected young men have had something taken away from them. By empowering women we took away the ability of men to oppress us and compel us into behaving in the manner that they want. It was never fair that men had that ability so they have no right to lament the loss of it. But it is a loss nonetheless. And the rise of certain elements within social media has convinced some of these young men that they should have gender supremacy, albeit dressed up as traditional values (I see nothing wrong with traditional values as long as they are elective rather than imposed).

This combination of factors seems to have lent some legitimacy to the view that these disaffected young men have been disadvantaged or that the odds are against them.

Yet when we read the toxic bile coming out of these incel groups, it is almost comical (if it weren't so tragic) that they would question why women don't want them. Concepts like "free use" women where all women are obliged to fuck any guy who asks, anywhere, any time. That is about an appealing to women as castration is to men. I know this is the extreme, but it is symptomatic.

Lots of women are looking to get married, have productive relationships and yes sometimes have casual sexual encounters. And no we aren't all looking for mister perfect. But we want nothing to do with misogynist attitudes and guys who long for the good old days when some were oppressed. By all means get out of your parent's basement and get a job, but even more important is to update your attitudes toward women.

There is a Family Guy episode where Peter and his family go back in time to a 50's era diner. He walks in making some comment about how wonderful it was back in the good old days. Then his black friend Cleveland walks in and gets blasted with a fire hose that pushes him right back out the door. Yet Peter is oblivious to the fact that his idea of the good old days weren't good for everyone.

Women aren't going back to those days when our sexuality was defined by men. But nor have we really found a new equilibrium. men who don't want to be shut out are going to have to work it out with us.

 

[LMWM321]

When it comes to gender dynamics we have the added factor that many of these disaffected young men have had something taken away from them. By empowering women we took away the ability of men to oppress us and compel us into behaving in the manner that they want. It was never fair that men had that ability so they have no right to lament the loss of it. But it is a loss nonetheless. And the rise of certain elements within social media has convinced some of these young men that they should have gender supremacy, albeit dressed up as traditional values (I see nothing wrong with traditional values as long as they are elective rather than imposed).

Damn.. another great post PW.

But help me understand the above. ..These kids (Incels, Red Pills, etc..) are only in their 20's - the never knew a time like Peter in Family Guy. They never lived during a time when the "bad" girls couldn't refuse and the "good" girls had to be virgins to be marriage worthy. Indeed, most of the kids I know still living in the parents basement have Moms who are successful professionals, including Doctors. ..So I don't think they are lamenting the loss of a time when they could oppress women as you describe. The early 2000's weren't perfect but they weren't like the 50's

 

[Yarglenurp]

When we think about equality (gender, racial, whatever), the reality is that achieving it requires more than just passing laws. There is also the inertia of the status quo that requires that we put our thumb on the scale just a bit to ensure constituencies historically left out have a chance. That obviously raises the question of how much to tip the scales and at what point have we gone too far. Using equal outcomes as a gauge of how far to go is flawed in my view. It ignores fundamental differences in interest and aptitude between groups. And by using this gauge we have created a situation wherein historically privileged groups have some basis for claiming that they are now being disadvantaged.

I am not saying they are right and I am not saying that efforts towards equality have gone too far. But I am saying that the fundamentally flawed assumption that equal opportunity will lead to equal outcomes raises the prospect that at some point we will have gone too far. That in turn gives disaffected young men something to grasp at as evidence that they are being disadvantaged. And I think that one of the most toxic things we can do to any young person is to give them reason to believe that someone or something else is to blame for the things that aren't working out for them. Even if it is true they are much better off if they take ownership of those things themselves rather than using it as an excuse to wallowing in self-pity (as many of us are inclined to do as we face the challenges of the real grown-up world).

When it comes to gender dynamics we have the added factor that many of these disaffected young men have had something taken away from them. By empowering women we took away the ability of men to oppress us and compel us into behaving in the manner that they want. It was never fair that men had that ability so they have no right to lament the loss of it. But it is a loss nonetheless. And the rise of certain elements within social media has convinced some of these young men that they should have gender supremacy, albeit dressed up as traditional values (I see nothing wrong with traditional values as long as they are elective rather than imposed).

This combination of factors seems to have lent some legitimacy to the view that these disaffected young men have been disadvantaged or that the odds are against them.

Yet when we read the toxic bile coming out of these incel groups, it is almost comical (if it weren't so tragic) that they would question why women don't want them. Concepts like "free use" women where all women are obliged to fuck any guy who asks, anywhere, any time. That is about an appealing to women as castration is to men. I know this is the extreme, but it is symptomatic.

Lots of women are looking to get married, have productive relationships and yes sometimes have casual sexual encounters. And no we aren't all looking for mister perfect. But we want nothing to do with misogynist attitudes and guys who long for the good old days when some were oppressed. By all means get out of your parent's basement and get a job, but even more important is to update your attitudes toward women.

There is a Family Guy episode where Peter and his family go back in time to a 50's era diner. He walks in making some comment about how wonderful it was back in the good old days. Then his black friend Cleveland walks in and gets blasted with a fire hose that pushes him right back out the door. Yet Peter is oblivious to the fact that his idea of the good old days weren't good for everyone.

Women aren't going back to those days when our sexuality was defined by men. But nor have we really found a new equilibrium. men who don't want to be shut out are going to have to work it out with us.

I agree with you on most points, but really want to emphasize that it’s important to note the guys you are talking about are outliers. Most dudes, single or coupled, aren’t devolving into incel-hood. In a sense, we’re letting the weirdos dictate our perception of a lot of normal people who just happen to share the same genitals.

The average guy doesn’t wake up and think, “I am disenfranchised and it’s all women’s fault.” It’s the guys who have nothing going for them and refuses to do anything about it who does that. One of the big problems with social media is that these types of guys are chronically online and thus most able to voice their opinions on a constant basis. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to say these guys are really outliers.

 

[policywank]

I agree with you on most points, but really want to emphasize that it’s important to note the guys you are talking about are outliers. Most dudes, single or coupled, aren’t devolving into incel-hood. In a sense, we’re letting the weirdos dictate our perception of a lot of normal people who just happen to share the same genitals.

The average guy doesn’t wake up and think, “I am disenfranchised and it’s all women’s fault.” It’s the guys who have nothing going for them and refuses to do anything about it who does that. One of the big problems with social media is that these types of guys are chronically online and thus most able to voice their opinions on a constant basis. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to say these guys are really outliers.

I agree and I'm sure you noticed that I acknowledged that the incels are the extreme.

I don't really know what proportion of guys have nothing going for them and refuse to do anything about it. The ability to sit in their basement and commiserate with other guys on the internet while they all blame women for their plight is not particularly healthy. But I don't think there is an epidemic of those guys. That said I am not in their age bracket so I probably wouldn't know anyway.

However, some of the sentiments that drive their behaviour - the sense of being disadvantaged in the sexual marketplace and having lost the ability to compel certain behaviour from women - is more widespread. Most guys aren't dumb enough to let that lead them down the incel road, but it doesn't mean they are entirely free of those sentiments. I think that there is a much larger contingent of men who aren't blaming women, but are nonetheless at a loss as to how to attract a partner in a changed world where women are not as aggressively compelled towards monogamy.

It is certainly valid to suggest that guys do the obvious things to make themselves more appealing. However, I think that updating their actual attitudes towards women would be a big help. When I say that I am not just talking about the obvious dickhead misogynists. I am also talking about the many other minor things that decent guys might not even be aware that they are doing or attitudes they hold that are so ingrained they aren't even aware of it.

There are a litany of little behaviour dynamics that women have to consider before going on a date with a guy, that men really don't need to consider. If a guy goes out on a date with a woman, there is really very little downside to him no matter how the date goes. And what downside there might be is fairly manageable if he acts prudently. There is very little a woman can do to mitigate the risk of clingy stalker guy or violent guy or slut shame guy who tells lies to boost his ego or status or simply lacks discretion - the list goes on and on. The risk of us dating one of those guys is directly linked to prevailing attitudes about female sexuality. And our only defence is to screen them more thoroughly in the first place or simply opt out altogether.

To the extent that some guys get more women than others, I also tend to feel that that has at least as much to do with their attitude towards women as it does with their superficial qualities.

 

[Mike302]

And there's the misogyny. "Who wouldn't?" Men according to you which is why they will always be paid more. If I am extrapolating this argument correctly a woman will get paid less than a man for doing the same job because she might have children at some point and will leave the job to raise them. Like they are having a uteruses tax deducted from their salary.


Where are you getting your information?

Again, I and others have pointed out how women don't run the lower 99% percent of society but you keep saying it like it's true, it isn't.

The grants etc that you keep using as evidence of this exist to give young women equal and equitable opportunities as young men. You see young women being given something young men aren't and stating that it puts men at a disadvantage. When the purpose of these things is to give women access to the same opportunities that men have without such things. If you're already tall enough to reach the top shelf you aren't being disadvantaged by someone else getting given a stepladder.

There's no such thing as high value men and women outside of the rhetoric of redpill, incel doucebags. That isn't nature at all. Don't bother trying to make that poorly thought out pseudo anthropological argument that because some animals seek a strong mate that's the same thing is applying an value on a person based on looks, salary, and willingness to put up with your bullshit. There is no such thing as an alpha male, even the guy who first came up with that idea now accepts that he was wrong.

Yes, time away from a job means you get paid less than someone who didn't take a break.

Most women would rather take off work to raise the kids as much as possible. Many men would, too, but not as many. In the cases they both would like to take the time off work the woman is going to get her way and stay home. Matriarchy at work.

Which information are you referring to?

Yes, there are high-value and low-value people. If you're a liar and can't keep a friend or a job because people can't stand you? You're low-value to others and society. Some people are worth more than others. Physicality comes into play, too.

In large organizations / companies there is every incentive for them to hire women to the reduction of men. Government jobs, too. There is only so much help to go around and when it's given to some it's taken from, or at minimum not given to, others.

You think men are doing okay? Why are there so many women who can't find men, especially young men, with good jobs / careers / homes of their own? Because there are so few of those men. Is this because of the environment these men are trying to come up in or is it because these guys are lazy and / or dumb?

This is what I hear from young guys I talk to. They feel like society does nothing for them. If they complain too loudly they get called incells and not just disregarded but hated.

The lower 80% of young men are either being disregarded by society and have legitimate grievance, or they are failing on their own being inadequate / ignorant / lazy / dumb / proud / foolish. Or the combo.

Young men need more help / guidance / support if the women want more choices / opportunities for men / a family. Helping men can help women.

 

[Otis_Ravelli]

Which information are you referring to?

You keep quoting percentages like they are real statistics. If that's the case where are you getting those numbers from?

 

[Mike302]

You keep quoting percentages like they are real statistics. If that's the case where are you getting those numbers from?

Some of the numbers were prison statistics found on government websites. The 99% came from my butt.

I agree it's not accurate because some fields are male-centric / managed. Mechanics, road work, roofing, sports, oil rigs, stuff like that. And there are some households, especially religious ones, with a patriarch. I think I can dial the number down to about 70%.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Yes, time away from a job means you get paid less than someone who didn't take a break.

Most women would rather take off work to raise the kids as much as possible. Many men would, too, but not as many. In the cases they both would like to take the time off work the woman is going to get her way and stay home. Matriarchy at work.

Which information are you referring to?

Yes, there are high-value and low-value people. If you're a liar and can't keep a friend or a job because people can't stand you? You're low-value to others and society. Some people are worth more than others. Physicality comes into play, too.

In large organizations / companies there is every incentive for them to hire women to the reduction of men. Government jobs, too. There is only so much help to go around and when it's given to some it's taken from, or at minimum not given to, others.

You think men are doing okay? Why are there so many women who can't find men, especially young men, with good jobs / careers / homes of their own? Because there are so few of those men. Is this because of the environment these men are trying to come up in or is it because these guys are lazy and / or dumb?

This is what I hear from young guys I talk to. They feel like society does nothing for them. If they complain too loudly they get called incells and not just disregarded but hated.

The lower 80% of young men are either being disregarded by society and have legitimate grievance, or they are failing on their own being inadequate / ignorant / lazy / dumb / proud / foolish. Or the combo.

Young men need more help / guidance / support if the women want more choices / opportunities for men / a family. Helping men can help women.

I think the young guys you talk to are the opposite of the young guys I talk to. TBH, I trust the young guys I talk to more because they’re going to college or working. They don’t spend their time considering themselves “lower tier,” they’re busy getting shit done. Most of them come from poor or middle class backgrounds too.

The thing is, you talk about real problems in society for young people (not just men, because women need housing and cheap shit too), but then you veer off into blaming women. You talk about quotas for hiring women when the bigger question is “why are they hiring fewer people in high-pay, stable positions despite their stock price being sky-high and the C-level bonuses being so huge?” No one would give a shit about hiring for women if the men were still being hired… and our society has, as a whole, gotten so much richer. There really would be enough for everyone if the rich only owned 50% of the wealth instead of 90% of it.

The fundamental problem I have with your arguments is that you see an unfair structure and then hit at the ones who do not control the system instead of the ones who do. It’s the same story as the laborers who blamed the immigrants for taking their jobs instead asking how the boss cpuld afford to buy another vacation house. Instead of focusing on the actual cause of suffering, you blame women because their suffering is proportional a bit lower.

As a man, I deny the logic of this view. I will not accept that for me to gain, women must lose, or that the converse holds true. The ultra-wealthy own everything, and if someone should be blamed for this mess we’re in, I choose to blame the fuckers who’ve been in control of society instead of our mothers, sisters, and daughters.

 

[KatieDoes]

Oh, no it’s quite real. I just don’t think OP is part of that audience.

He’s literally quoting the Andrew Tate playbook verbatim, and you don’t think he’s part of that audience?

 

[KatieDoes]

Can't disagree with that. Thankfully I'm not one of them.

But hey, some of them are just learning. Shouldn't put down an eager student for not having graduated to the next grade, yet.

I don’t believe, for one second, that any woman is spending her time with you on purpose. I simply don’t believe it.

That being said. My kid has been emptying the trash bin since he was like 10 years old. How embarrassing to be an entire adult and still need instructions.

 

[Yarglenurp]

He’s literally quoting the Andrew Tate playbook verbatim, and you don’t think he’s part of that audience?

The closest I’ve gotten to watching Andrew Tate is watching the Meatcanyon parody, so I can’t really say. I mean, if he is, then that’s not great, since Tate is a literal enslaving rapist.

 

[Otis_Ravelli]

Some of the numbers were prison statistics found on government websites. The 99% came from my butt.

I agree it's not accurate because some fields are male-centric / managed. Mechanics, road work, roofing, sports, oil rigs, stuff like that. And there are some households, especially religious ones, with a patriarch. I think I can dial the number down to about 70%.

Feel free to adjust the arbitrary number you dreamed up but I'm still not going to take you or your position seriously. You invented a statistic based on nothing to make it look like your position has some evidence to back it up when it's actually based on nothing but bad faith arguments and 1950s sexism.

There might actually be some real statistics somewhere out there that might, might, back you up but you couldn't be bothered to check and just thought you'd make some up and expect to be taken at your word. It's lazy, and you've let yourself down.

 

[KatieDoes]

Damn.. another great post PW.

But help me understand the above. ..These kids (Incels, Red Pills, etc..) are only in their 20's - the never knew a time like Peter in Family Guy. They never lived during a time when the "bad" girls couldn't refuse and the "good" girls had to be virgins to be marriage worthy. Indeed, most of the kids I know still living in the parents basement have Moms who are successful professionals, including Doctors. ..So I don't think they are lamenting the loss of a time when they could oppress women as you describe. The early 2000's weren't perfect but they weren't like the 50's

There was a recent study in the UK that showed 60% of young men had listened to Andrew Tate enough to be familiar with him, and 17%-25% (varied by age) agreed with him. That’s a horrifying statistic.

It’s important to remember that Tate and those like him are predators. As much as they prey on young women and girls, they also prey on boys and young men who feel isolated and alone. A LOT of kids lost really important socializing time during the worst of Covid. While it was challenging for everyone, it was disproportionately difficult for kids who are, say, under 24ish. They lost a year plus of when they would have been learning how to interact with each other. It made many of them very vulnerable to the likes of Tate, and the vast number of horrible men with microphones and podcasts that spew the most misogynistic things you could imagine.

I’ve seen the shift here, even with the demographics of this place leaning so much older than that. There aren’t many, but the attitude this OP is displaying is not unique to him. It’s spreading, and it won’t end well for men if it continues.

 

[LMWM321]

@KatieDoes

An excellent explanation. Thanks!

..My kids are slightly older so they thankfully missed any influence that horrifying prick might have had on their developing sensibilities.

 

[policywank]

Damn.. another great post PW.

But help me understand the above. ..These kids (Incels, Red Pills, etc..) are only in their 20's - the never knew a time like Peter in Family Guy. They never lived during a time when the "bad" girls couldn't refuse and the "good" girls had to be virgins to be marriage worthy. Indeed, most of the kids I know still living in the parents basement have Moms who are successful professionals, including Doctors. ..So I don't think they are lamenting the loss of a time when they could oppress women as you describe. The early 2000's weren't perfect but they weren't like the 50's

Sexism and the double standard are still very much alive. And these kids are surrounded by influences (and so called influencers) espousing those views. In my silly example Peter from the Family Guy didn't need to have lived in the 50's to idealize that period of time. That kid's mom who is a doctor had to and still deals with sexism and would still be judged by a double standard if she were not to comply with the prevailing sexual expectations. The social media these kids are immersed in is rife with people advocating for the double standard and repeating garbage evolutionary psychology theories to justify it.

KatieDoes touched upon the Andrew Tate dynamic with some rather alarming statistics. It is helpful to think about what is happening there. A significant proportion of men are convincing themselves or being convinced to adopt deeply misogynist attitudes. These attitudes are deeply offensive to women and which we are no longer compelled to put up with them, yet these guys wonder why they can't get a girl. It is a bit like my other silly example of the character saying "why don't bitches like me?". The answer is right there in the question.

Still these influencers will prattle on about gold digging women or women with unreasonably high expectations (of which there are some) without ever considering the prospect that most women maybe just want a guy who doesn't get his gender perspective from his cave man ancestors.

 

[Yarglenurp]

These ideas of the alt-right are ancient. In a sense, misogyny is part of a broader aspect of human behavior, which is to either enslave or destroy that which is weaker. Women are weaker and cannot defend themselves, so they are enslaved. Men enslave each other, so why would they treat women any differently?

The alt-right is no more than a more recent veneer on the ancient idea of enslavement. To make themself more palatable, they attach themselves to other, less-coercive themes, like fitness, sexual prowess, and personal wealth. In a sense, one of the greatest mistakes made by broader society is letting the enslavers attach themselves to these things without argument. They appeal to strongest selfish desires a man can possess and one of the great mistake of modern feminism was to let this happen.

The alt-right does point out a very real flaw though… most humans need a story of a better future to work towards. Children no longer see real success as achievable by following the normal paths… everything takes too long and costs too much. Instead, they turn to these grifters and peddlers of “hidden” secrets. It is the very loathsome-ness of Andrew Tate that they find appealing… a rapist who enslaves his “wives” and holds his own children hostage, having no real formal education or skill, is rich. They see in real-time there is an easier path, so long as you are loathsome and shameless enough.

The children cannot simply be told “thou shalt not.” They must be given a path forward into a better future.

 

[LMWM321]

KatieDoes touched upon the Andrew Tate dynamic with some rather alarming statistics. It is helpful to think about what is happening there. A significant proportion of men are convincing themselves or being convinced to adopt deeply misogynist attitudes. These attitudes are deeply offensive to women and which we are no longer compelled to put up with them, yet these guys wonder why they can't get a girl. It is a bit like my other silly example of the character saying "why don't bitches like me?". The answer is right there in the question.

..Not so silly an example, actually. Quite apropos.

The amount of pessimism i see being expressed by today's young people is startling. It's affecting both genders of course, but in young men the pessimism is more apt to lead the most toxic behaviors including the aforementioned misogyny and... as we just experience here in the US yet again... gun violence.

Sadly, this thread reads at times like a thread I started in the Politics forum about our country fetishizing AR style weapons.

 

[Mike302]

He’s literally quoting the Andrew Tate playbook verbatim, and you don’t think he’s part of that audience?

I've heard the name, never read his work, that I'm aware of. Sounds like it gets repeated alot.