"Lost young men" is a common theme throughout history.
"... set of alarm bells of self-reflection in our society. "
People are spoiled. They are living in the most prosperous time in human history and all they can do is complain. A large amount of the issues plaguing these "lost young men" rests solely with them. There is no dearth of oppo…
"Lost young men" is a common theme throughout history.
"... set of alarm bells of self-reflection in our society. "
People are spoiled. They are living in the most prosperous time in human history and all they can do is complain. A large amount of the issues plaguing these "lost young men" rests solely with them. There is no dearth of opportunity to get out there, meet people and become a part of something larger than yourself. They are choosing not too. They just want to lay about online all day and complain.
"There is no dearth of opportunity to get out there, meet people and become a part of something larger than yourself. They are choosing not too. They just want to lay about online all day and complain."
On this point, not sure if you've already read it, but I direct you to this post:
The opportunity to claim I'm cherrypicking is always there, but I've seen countless posts along these lines on the internet. That you think these young men are *choosing* not to find connection out of some kind of laziness is a symptom of how unseriously we think about and empathise with them.
"The opportunity to claim I'm cherrypicking is always there, but I've seen countless posts along these lines on the internet. That you think these young men are *choosing* not to find connection out of some kind of laziness is a symptom of how unseriously we think about and empathise with them."
Tate's misogyny is so blatant that it's hard to "empathize" with anyone who would be into him. And make no mistake about it, it's his misogyny that attracts these types of boys and men. They think it's "edgy". Otherwise, like already stated, there is a plethora of self-help gurus and motivational speakers online that they could follow who don't spew hateful misogyny. Who give actual practical tips on how to improve lives and make money that bypass the idiotic drop-shipping 2 pimping pipeline. These boys will be in for a rude awakening when and if they ever do try to connect with girls and women. They will be ghosted and totally iced out of the mating pool. Let's see what happens 5 years from now when these awkward teen boys get out there in the real world and try to spew this crap . If you think they're lonely and desperate now - just wait.
Also, why is it the responsibility OF WOMEN to solve this problem? There's this thing called "the Manosphere". For years now they sat online complaining about a "matriarchal gynocracy" where the global system was built by and for women. Really? Complaining that there are no "domestic violence shelters" for men. Complaining about the "male empathy gap" (which by the way, originally meant that there was a gap in men expressing empathy, but they twisted the meaning). Complaining that there was a lack of concern for men and boys.
OK. Let's say all this is true. So what has "the Manosphere" done about it in all these years? Well the majority of Manosphere have been volunteering in Big Brothers Big Sisters. They've been out feeding homeless men at shelters. They've been busy opening domestic violence shelters across the world for men. They've been opening their homes up to fostering and adopting baby boys and teens.
Oh wait, they've not done any of this you say? Mmm hmmm. They've done nothing but sit on their butts complaining on the internet. All. These. Years.
"And make no mistake about it, it's his misogyny that attracts these types of boys and men."
No, it's you who's making the mistake here. You are seemingly determined to believe this. In which case, it's probably a waste of my time repeatedly giving you examples of why it's not true. But I'll make one last try.
Yes, many of Tate's fans are probably misogynists. But when a 15-year-old is a misogynist, it's not some deeply held belief in women's inferiority, it's the poorly thought out, simplistic view of a child who hasn't learned better.
Telling this child he's complicit in the actions of men who lived and died before he was born, or telling him he just isn't trying hard enough to find connection, is not going to inspire him to think more carefully. He'll meet this simplistic thinking with simplistic thinking of his own. But talking to him with compassion, listening to him, trying to understand is experience instead of simply asserting that he's just not trying to find connection or he's just drawn to misogyny, will undoubtedly lead to better results. You might also learn something.
You stating that there are lots of people offering better guidance doesn't make it true. It's not true. At least in my experience. I'm happy to be proven wrong, of course, but I can't think of anybody even close to the fame of Peterson or Tate giving young men good advice. Especially not on the topics that matter to them. Can you?
Young men in general aren't "the manosphere." They're just people. Childish collectivist terms like these are the excuse lazy people Gove to not examine their lazy thinking. They're exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, the same type of nonsense as the incels who can only think of women as bitter, man-hating, "feminazis" or hypergamous, sluts riding the "cock carousel." Therms like these are used to avoid recognising the individual humanity of people and instead, to lump them under a banner that you are comfortable demonising.
Lastly, I didn't say it was the responsibility of women to solve this. The amount of projection I constantly have to bat way in discussion like these is exhausting. We're talking about the next generation. The children who will eventually become leaders and parents and activists.
*All* of us adults therefore, men and women, have a responsibility to help *all* the members of the generation, boys and girls, to maximise their potential and navigate their struggles. Men and women aren't these distinct silos in society with no overlap. There aren't, in any sane person's mind, women's responsibility and men's responsibilities.
But we do, as a society, seem much more willing to listen to and focus on the issues girls face. That's not to say we always solve them. Clearly we don't. But you don't have to have a two-day long conversation to try to convince somebody that teenage girls are worth of empathy and aren't responsible for the mistakes of every other woman throughout history.
"They are living in the most prosperous time in human history and all they can do is complain."
I mean, this is a little reductive. First of all, the men I'm talking about aren't just complaining. They're looking for answers and meaning. Unfortunately, they're doing it in terrible places, because they're young and inexperienced and not always very bright.
But regardless, you can make the same case for absolutely every group complaining about their lot in life at the moment. Prosperity is relative. And it's not unreasonable for people to want to have their struggles taken seriously. And even less unreasonable for them to hope not to be demonised and mocked for talking about them.
The fact that the problems young men face are treated with such disdain is part of the reason why they're drawn to people like Tate. They'll take even the pretence of solidarity from wherever they can find it.
"The fact that the problems young men face are treated with such disdain is part of the reason why they're drawn to people like Tate. They'll take even the pretence of solidarity from wherever they can find it."
These are the same people, or they listen to the same people, who complain about school being "feminized" because teachers and staff are supposedly teaching kids to "get in touch with" and "work through their feelings".
So what is it then? Do they want their feelings and problems to be taken seriously and worked with or not?
The reason any boy or man would be drawn to Tate is because of his misogyny. Otherwise there is a plethora of "self help gurus" and "motivational speakers" in every corner of the internet. Some of them very good, very positive and with better plans for people than drop-shipping or "pimping".
"These are the same people, or they listen to the same people, who complain about school being "feminized" because teachers and staff are supposedly teaching kids to "get in touch with" and "work through their feelings"."
As is tragically common in this area, you're using examples of the worst of men to cover every single man, young or old, struggling in society. Many young men, I suspect a majority, are genuinely struggling with loneliness and a lack of a sense of their place in society. They're not bad people. But for various reasons, it's hard for them to talk about what they're going through.
And when they *do* try to talk about it, it's hard for them to be taken seriously. Because they're reflexively lumped in with all the worst men in society. They're immediately presumed to be "the same people" who do whatever awful thing the listener can imagine. Or, at least, to have committed the crime of listening to those people.
So no, misogyny is far from the only reason a young man might be drawn to Tate. This is a uselessly simplistic and ultimately dismissive analysis. And actually, no, I don't think there is a plethora of people these boys can turn to. I've been thinking a lot about this lack actually, and what could be done about it. If there were more positive, effective, relevant advice for young men, they'd be far less likely to be taken in by idiots like Tate.
There are men and boys drawn to Tate and there are men and boys not drawn to him. The difference is the draw to misogyny. And yes, there is a plethora of self-help and motivation online. Some of it hokey, but there's some really good content too. The algorithm made Tate visible. His popularity has been on the decline and hopefully soon he will fade into oblivion.
No. Again, this is extraordinarily simplistic. This isn't to say that none of the people drawn to Tate are misogynists, it's to say that there's a vast array of experiences of being a man and trying to find your way in society. The difference could be how good looking you are. Or how confident you are. Or how funny are. Or how socially skilled you are. Or just some combination of dumb luck.
Because the pressures and challenges faced men when it comes to dating or finding connection in general are very different to those on women. Not necessarily greater or anything like that, just very different.
I spoke to a really nice guy, in person, a week or so ago. He'd been dating a woman for about seven months, who he really liked and who he thought there was a future with. He was very nice to her, they were about to do the parents meeting thing, and out of nowhere (at least from his perspective) she broke it off.
His immediate perspective, "I need to be less 'nice' to women."
He thought that because he'd been very straightforward about how much he liked this woman and how happy he was to be with her, that he'd driven her away. And that the answer was to withhold his feelings more. Again, this is just one example of the experience of many boys and men. And they look at a guy like Tate, with his money and fame and the appearance of women flocking to him, and they wonder how he does it.
Not because they're misogynists, but because for many men who aren't especially socially skilled or confident or good-looking, it's really, really hard to find connection with women.
Tate's popularity is on the decline, as it was always going to be eventually. He's a bottom feeder. But there'll be somebody else to take his place. The internet *has* caused a lot of problems. But this problem is the result of many other things too. Not least the lack of empathy and careful thought I'm trying desperately to point out to you.
"Tate's popularity is on the decline, as it was always going to be eventually. He's a bottom feeder. "
So then you agree with me that appeals to the bottom?
"I spoke to a really nice guy, in person, a week or so ago. He'd been dating a woman for about seven months, who he really liked and who he thought there was a future with. He was very nice to her, they were about to do the parents meeting thing, and out of nowhere (at least from his perspective) she broke it off.
His immediate perspective, "I need to be less 'nice' to women."
He thought that because he'd been very straightforward about how much he liked this woman and how happy he was to be with her, that he'd driven her away. And that the answer was to withhold his feelings more. "
He could be wrong about this. There's no way he can know for certain what caused her to withdraw and so it's all just speculation.
I stand by what I say about Tate's appeal to the bottom, most base characteristics in the more testosteroned sex, and by the way you reference Tate, you agree.
Some boys and young men are driven by a dominance fantasy and Tate appeals to that in the most crass way.
You still have not addressed why all these years have passed and the Manosphere has done absolutely nothing practical to help boys, like adopting them. Nor have they pooled together to do anything about male homelessness.
"So then you agree with me that appeals to the bottom?"
Well, it depends how you define "bottom." Happy, content, confident, well-adjusted men are obviously not drawn to a man like Tate. But there are many reasons men might nor be happy and confident and well-adjusted.
Tate says a lot of things. He also advocates for men to be strong and driven and find purpose. This isn't bad advice in itself. It's the way one pursues these things that matters. So again, if men feel lost, they'll gravitate towards a man who says, "this is how to not feel lost." And they, like almost everybody, are willing to overlook some things they disagree with if they agree with other things.
Again, none of what I'm saying is a defence of Tate. Literally the very first thing I said to you was that I'm not defending Tate. I'm speaking against this, in my view ridiculous, habit of blaming young men for the worst actions of a few of them throughout history.
"He could be wrong about this."
Yeah, absolutely. I strongly suspect he *is* wrong. A sudden breakup could have many causes, many of which probably have little to do with him. But it's also human nature to try to find an explanation for painful things to avoid a repeat of that pain in future.
And it's true that many women don't want a man to be too "nice." Especially younger women. This puts young men in a difficult position. They're the ones expected to do 90% of the pursuing, following rules that the young women around them set, but that are very difficult for many of them to understand. And, of course, are different for each woman.
I'm pretty confident every man you know can relate to this on some level. Even those who are evolved enough to see through Tate's bullshit.
Pain makes people especially vulnerable to bad ideas. Because they're desperate to avoid that pain again. And it also makes them especially sensitive to attacks. Especially attacks that make absolutely no sense. So again, the point I'm making is that this failure to even try to understand why some young men are struggling, in part, drives some of them towards men like Tate. I'm not saying it's right or good, I'm saying it's inevitable. And frustratingly enough, quite easily avoidable.
"Lost young men" is a common theme throughout history.
"... set of alarm bells of self-reflection in our society. "
People are spoiled. They are living in the most prosperous time in human history and all they can do is complain. A large amount of the issues plaguing these "lost young men" rests solely with them. There is no dearth of opportunity to get out there, meet people and become a part of something larger than yourself. They are choosing not too. They just want to lay about online all day and complain.
"There is no dearth of opportunity to get out there, meet people and become a part of something larger than yourself. They are choosing not too. They just want to lay about online all day and complain."
On this point, not sure if you've already read it, but I direct you to this post:
https://steveqj.substack.com/p/im-mourning-the-loss-of-a-privilege
Also this post by crane-among-celandines (scroll down):
https://crane-among-celandines.tumblr.com/post/680138348780765184/i-am-reminded-of-a-moment-which-blew-my-mind-a-few
The opportunity to claim I'm cherrypicking is always there, but I've seen countless posts along these lines on the internet. That you think these young men are *choosing* not to find connection out of some kind of laziness is a symptom of how unseriously we think about and empathise with them.
"The opportunity to claim I'm cherrypicking is always there, but I've seen countless posts along these lines on the internet. That you think these young men are *choosing* not to find connection out of some kind of laziness is a symptom of how unseriously we think about and empathise with them."
Tate's misogyny is so blatant that it's hard to "empathize" with anyone who would be into him. And make no mistake about it, it's his misogyny that attracts these types of boys and men. They think it's "edgy". Otherwise, like already stated, there is a plethora of self-help gurus and motivational speakers online that they could follow who don't spew hateful misogyny. Who give actual practical tips on how to improve lives and make money that bypass the idiotic drop-shipping 2 pimping pipeline. These boys will be in for a rude awakening when and if they ever do try to connect with girls and women. They will be ghosted and totally iced out of the mating pool. Let's see what happens 5 years from now when these awkward teen boys get out there in the real world and try to spew this crap . If you think they're lonely and desperate now - just wait.
Also, why is it the responsibility OF WOMEN to solve this problem? There's this thing called "the Manosphere". For years now they sat online complaining about a "matriarchal gynocracy" where the global system was built by and for women. Really? Complaining that there are no "domestic violence shelters" for men. Complaining about the "male empathy gap" (which by the way, originally meant that there was a gap in men expressing empathy, but they twisted the meaning). Complaining that there was a lack of concern for men and boys.
OK. Let's say all this is true. So what has "the Manosphere" done about it in all these years? Well the majority of Manosphere have been volunteering in Big Brothers Big Sisters. They've been out feeding homeless men at shelters. They've been busy opening domestic violence shelters across the world for men. They've been opening their homes up to fostering and adopting baby boys and teens.
Oh wait, they've not done any of this you say? Mmm hmmm. They've done nothing but sit on their butts complaining on the internet. All. These. Years.
"And make no mistake about it, it's his misogyny that attracts these types of boys and men."
No, it's you who's making the mistake here. You are seemingly determined to believe this. In which case, it's probably a waste of my time repeatedly giving you examples of why it's not true. But I'll make one last try.
Yes, many of Tate's fans are probably misogynists. But when a 15-year-old is a misogynist, it's not some deeply held belief in women's inferiority, it's the poorly thought out, simplistic view of a child who hasn't learned better.
Telling this child he's complicit in the actions of men who lived and died before he was born, or telling him he just isn't trying hard enough to find connection, is not going to inspire him to think more carefully. He'll meet this simplistic thinking with simplistic thinking of his own. But talking to him with compassion, listening to him, trying to understand is experience instead of simply asserting that he's just not trying to find connection or he's just drawn to misogyny, will undoubtedly lead to better results. You might also learn something.
You stating that there are lots of people offering better guidance doesn't make it true. It's not true. At least in my experience. I'm happy to be proven wrong, of course, but I can't think of anybody even close to the fame of Peterson or Tate giving young men good advice. Especially not on the topics that matter to them. Can you?
Young men in general aren't "the manosphere." They're just people. Childish collectivist terms like these are the excuse lazy people Gove to not examine their lazy thinking. They're exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, the same type of nonsense as the incels who can only think of women as bitter, man-hating, "feminazis" or hypergamous, sluts riding the "cock carousel." Therms like these are used to avoid recognising the individual humanity of people and instead, to lump them under a banner that you are comfortable demonising.
Lastly, I didn't say it was the responsibility of women to solve this. The amount of projection I constantly have to bat way in discussion like these is exhausting. We're talking about the next generation. The children who will eventually become leaders and parents and activists.
*All* of us adults therefore, men and women, have a responsibility to help *all* the members of the generation, boys and girls, to maximise their potential and navigate their struggles. Men and women aren't these distinct silos in society with no overlap. There aren't, in any sane person's mind, women's responsibility and men's responsibilities.
But we do, as a society, seem much more willing to listen to and focus on the issues girls face. That's not to say we always solve them. Clearly we don't. But you don't have to have a two-day long conversation to try to convince somebody that teenage girls are worth of empathy and aren't responsible for the mistakes of every other woman throughout history.
"They are living in the most prosperous time in human history and all they can do is complain."
I mean, this is a little reductive. First of all, the men I'm talking about aren't just complaining. They're looking for answers and meaning. Unfortunately, they're doing it in terrible places, because they're young and inexperienced and not always very bright.
But regardless, you can make the same case for absolutely every group complaining about their lot in life at the moment. Prosperity is relative. And it's not unreasonable for people to want to have their struggles taken seriously. And even less unreasonable for them to hope not to be demonised and mocked for talking about them.
The fact that the problems young men face are treated with such disdain is part of the reason why they're drawn to people like Tate. They'll take even the pretence of solidarity from wherever they can find it.
"The fact that the problems young men face are treated with such disdain is part of the reason why they're drawn to people like Tate. They'll take even the pretence of solidarity from wherever they can find it."
These are the same people, or they listen to the same people, who complain about school being "feminized" because teachers and staff are supposedly teaching kids to "get in touch with" and "work through their feelings".
So what is it then? Do they want their feelings and problems to be taken seriously and worked with or not?
The reason any boy or man would be drawn to Tate is because of his misogyny. Otherwise there is a plethora of "self help gurus" and "motivational speakers" in every corner of the internet. Some of them very good, very positive and with better plans for people than drop-shipping or "pimping".
"These are the same people, or they listen to the same people, who complain about school being "feminized" because teachers and staff are supposedly teaching kids to "get in touch with" and "work through their feelings"."
As is tragically common in this area, you're using examples of the worst of men to cover every single man, young or old, struggling in society. Many young men, I suspect a majority, are genuinely struggling with loneliness and a lack of a sense of their place in society. They're not bad people. But for various reasons, it's hard for them to talk about what they're going through.
And when they *do* try to talk about it, it's hard for them to be taken seriously. Because they're reflexively lumped in with all the worst men in society. They're immediately presumed to be "the same people" who do whatever awful thing the listener can imagine. Or, at least, to have committed the crime of listening to those people.
So no, misogyny is far from the only reason a young man might be drawn to Tate. This is a uselessly simplistic and ultimately dismissive analysis. And actually, no, I don't think there is a plethora of people these boys can turn to. I've been thinking a lot about this lack actually, and what could be done about it. If there were more positive, effective, relevant advice for young men, they'd be far less likely to be taken in by idiots like Tate.
There are men and boys drawn to Tate and there are men and boys not drawn to him. The difference is the draw to misogyny. And yes, there is a plethora of self-help and motivation online. Some of it hokey, but there's some really good content too. The algorithm made Tate visible. His popularity has been on the decline and hopefully soon he will fade into oblivion.
The internet has caused a lot of problems.
"The difference is the draw to misogyny."
No. Again, this is extraordinarily simplistic. This isn't to say that none of the people drawn to Tate are misogynists, it's to say that there's a vast array of experiences of being a man and trying to find your way in society. The difference could be how good looking you are. Or how confident you are. Or how funny are. Or how socially skilled you are. Or just some combination of dumb luck.
Because the pressures and challenges faced men when it comes to dating or finding connection in general are very different to those on women. Not necessarily greater or anything like that, just very different.
I spoke to a really nice guy, in person, a week or so ago. He'd been dating a woman for about seven months, who he really liked and who he thought there was a future with. He was very nice to her, they were about to do the parents meeting thing, and out of nowhere (at least from his perspective) she broke it off.
His immediate perspective, "I need to be less 'nice' to women."
He thought that because he'd been very straightforward about how much he liked this woman and how happy he was to be with her, that he'd driven her away. And that the answer was to withhold his feelings more. Again, this is just one example of the experience of many boys and men. And they look at a guy like Tate, with his money and fame and the appearance of women flocking to him, and they wonder how he does it.
Not because they're misogynists, but because for many men who aren't especially socially skilled or confident or good-looking, it's really, really hard to find connection with women.
Tate's popularity is on the decline, as it was always going to be eventually. He's a bottom feeder. But there'll be somebody else to take his place. The internet *has* caused a lot of problems. But this problem is the result of many other things too. Not least the lack of empathy and careful thought I'm trying desperately to point out to you.
"Tate's popularity is on the decline, as it was always going to be eventually. He's a bottom feeder. "
So then you agree with me that appeals to the bottom?
"I spoke to a really nice guy, in person, a week or so ago. He'd been dating a woman for about seven months, who he really liked and who he thought there was a future with. He was very nice to her, they were about to do the parents meeting thing, and out of nowhere (at least from his perspective) she broke it off.
His immediate perspective, "I need to be less 'nice' to women."
He thought that because he'd been very straightforward about how much he liked this woman and how happy he was to be with her, that he'd driven her away. And that the answer was to withhold his feelings more. "
He could be wrong about this. There's no way he can know for certain what caused her to withdraw and so it's all just speculation.
I stand by what I say about Tate's appeal to the bottom, most base characteristics in the more testosteroned sex, and by the way you reference Tate, you agree.
Some boys and young men are driven by a dominance fantasy and Tate appeals to that in the most crass way.
You still have not addressed why all these years have passed and the Manosphere has done absolutely nothing practical to help boys, like adopting them. Nor have they pooled together to do anything about male homelessness.
"So then you agree with me that appeals to the bottom?"
Well, it depends how you define "bottom." Happy, content, confident, well-adjusted men are obviously not drawn to a man like Tate. But there are many reasons men might nor be happy and confident and well-adjusted.
Tate says a lot of things. He also advocates for men to be strong and driven and find purpose. This isn't bad advice in itself. It's the way one pursues these things that matters. So again, if men feel lost, they'll gravitate towards a man who says, "this is how to not feel lost." And they, like almost everybody, are willing to overlook some things they disagree with if they agree with other things.
Again, none of what I'm saying is a defence of Tate. Literally the very first thing I said to you was that I'm not defending Tate. I'm speaking against this, in my view ridiculous, habit of blaming young men for the worst actions of a few of them throughout history.
"He could be wrong about this."
Yeah, absolutely. I strongly suspect he *is* wrong. A sudden breakup could have many causes, many of which probably have little to do with him. But it's also human nature to try to find an explanation for painful things to avoid a repeat of that pain in future.
And it's true that many women don't want a man to be too "nice." Especially younger women. This puts young men in a difficult position. They're the ones expected to do 90% of the pursuing, following rules that the young women around them set, but that are very difficult for many of them to understand. And, of course, are different for each woman.
I'm pretty confident every man you know can relate to this on some level. Even those who are evolved enough to see through Tate's bullshit.
Pain makes people especially vulnerable to bad ideas. Because they're desperate to avoid that pain again. And it also makes them especially sensitive to attacks. Especially attacks that make absolutely no sense. So again, the point I'm making is that this failure to even try to understand why some young men are struggling, in part, drives some of them towards men like Tate. I'm not saying it's right or good, I'm saying it's inevitable. And frustratingly enough, quite easily avoidable.
Young men and women are struggling for the same reasons. But they blame it on different things.