I’ve always been a sucker for the underdog. I want to see the little kid beat the bully, I want the unpopular kid to make some friends, and I want marginalised groups, all marginalised groups, to be heard. Especially those groups that society doesn’t want to listen to.
The logic Diane uses is indistinguishable from the thinking of cops who indiscriminately pull over Black people for the "crime" of "driving while Black." Or that of the suburbanite who calls the police on a Black man for the "crime" of innocently standing on a street corner in a white neighborhood.
I would say her anger is justified but not useful since it pushes her to hyperbole - which means she can't see things clearly. I used to be like this. I gained wisdom and compassion as I aged and now am able to engage in critical thought.
The tendency of the brain to stereotype/shortcut complex issues is a huge problem that I don't think we train our children to handle very well - we don't teach them critical thinking skills. Plus, I would say that schools are doubling down on reinforcing stereotyping these days, which will just make it worse.
Diane shot holes in both feet with that part about the unfairness of girls denied makeup and miniskirts in school. I am not carrying any signs in any marches for the right to amplify sexual allure in classrooms. The purpose of school is education, not projecting attractiveness.
Quite the contrary, I think students should have school uniforms. That would level the disparity between poor kids wearing hand-me-downs and wealthier ones wearing expensive fashionable outfits. And it might tamp down some of the clique tendencies that buttress self-destructive fads like "trans."
In Vietnam all school students wear uniforms, exactly the same everywhere but for the school name on a tag. It makes sense.
"Diane shot holes in both feet with that part about the unfairness of girls denied makeup and miniskirts in school. I am not carrying any signs in any marches for the right to amplify sexual allure in classrooms."
Haha, yep, I think she was just casting about for any example of women's oppression she could find. I'm sure, in another context, she'd have been talking about how wrong it is that young girls are sexualised. Agreed on school uniforms. There are lots of benefits to them. For example, poorer kids don't have to try to keep up with fashion at school which reduces the chances of bullying.
Diane seems seriously confused. Doesn't she expect teen boys to be aroused past control by the girls' legs? Make up your mind, lady.
Uniforms: the schools have their own laundry; get muddied on the playground and you can swap in a new uniform right away and leave the other to be washed. This isn't hyper-communitarian Japan but I taught here for six years and never heard a student complain about being made to wear a uniform. In the USA there would be riots/
I can't read Dianne's responses without feeling really sad for her. Imagine living in her head, and constantly recycling the themes, images, and attitudes she expresses - seeking out the most horrific examples and assuming they are typical of (in her words) over 99% of men. Trusting nobody. Always thinking "what's the worst that could happen?" and keeping your amygdala on high alert.
I was glad to see Penny's response, which was empathetic but also dead on:
> "Dianne is only punishing herself, not men. She is poisoning her own experience of life."
I hope there is healing for her someday.
It's hard to imagine that she would be healthy in her interactions with women either (not impossible, just unlikely).
And I hope she does not have much power over other humans, until she does more healing.
"Trusting nobody. Always thinking "what's the worst that could happen?" and keeping your amygdala on high alert."
Exactly this. As I've mentioned before, I see the same thing amongst some black people, and it's horrifying to see how much this mindset is encouraged in trans discourse. The most popular trans accounts can't go five minutes without some kind of rhetoric about "hate" or "genocide" or "horrifying rates of persecution."
People online are being actively radicalised to believe that entire identity groups hate them and that the most horrific isolated incidents are a daily occurrence. How is it even possible to avoid mental illness when you're operating under these conditions? It's one of the many reasons why discourse is so difficult.
Penny gets extra points from me for her compassion and wisdom. She's been through the wringer and survived. The fact that she can be compassionate is absolutely amazing.
I grew up in a strange and violent home. The perpetrator was my very intelligent, extremely emotionally disturbed mother, who was also a prescription drug addict. The focus of her hatred towards men was taken out on my father, an ordinary good hearted man who totally supported my mom, me and my 2 half sisters who he adopted. (My mom didn't work outside the home until I was in highschool.) Without going into the horrific details, suffice to say he had scars all over his body and a trail of humiliation from that woman. He stayed because of us kids. Until she locked him out of the house and took him 'to the cleaners' in a divorce. He was born in 1930. Men of that generation didn't talk about being abused. He later said he had no idea there were people like my mom and that he never hated her. Amazing! I want people to know and hear the men's side of a story. Abused and marginalized men are out there a plenty. May they find a safe place to speak. May we open our hearts and listen.
I truly feel for men in this position. Because, as well as their own issues with speaking up, there is so little room for them to be heard. Some people, who are compassionate in many other contexts, will struggle to even hear a story like this without turning it into some kind of competition. So many many just don't bother.
Thank you for listening Steve. Would it be ok to publish this or a similar writing on Medium? I'm not sure of the etiquette of publishing a comment as a new story.
I've got a friend who was married to an abusive and physically violent woman. When the cops showed up it with the assumption that he was the bad guy and he's even been placed in the back of a squad car in handcuff before they figured out the issue was her. He wasn't a man who would use violence with her. They ended up divorced which was tough on him as a devout catholic.
Unfortunately, I feel that even in today's world men abused by women are uncomfortable speaking out. Other men might judge them. Yet I believe it happens often.
I have no idea how common it is and my friend did not widely discuss it. I do suspect that it may be more of a two way street than is openly discussed.
The strangest case I witnessed was a couple that was friends with my wife and me. We were following them down Racetrack Road in Ft Walton Beach fifty years ago. They pulled over to the side of the road. I pulled in behind them thinking they had car trouble. They both got out of the car and started Kung Fu fighting! Seriously, fists and feet. Their marriage didn't last.
We went back several years after we moved away to visit another couple. She had a big black eye. He had been out messing around and when he came home she hit him in the head with a frying pan. When he came to he punched her in the eye. Another failed marriage. They had two beautiful children.
As a side note, so much for the myth of the subservient Asian woman. Both women were Thai.
Steve, I was reading some of this article aloud to my partner (she agrees with you that Dianne needs help).
But she pointed out a small factual error which I have to confess that I missed (despite being one of the things I make an attempt to notice), and which you might want to take into account before re-publishing your calculations.
You used ANNUAL rape figures as your base, so your derived calculations compute the generous figure for the fraction of men who commit rape PER YEAR, not a lifetime percentage. (For lifetime calcs, you probably can't make such generous assumptions or you might wind up calculating that half of men commit rape in their lifetime).
In no way does this contradict or invalidate your basic points or course, but as I say, you might want to rethink or recalculate or rephrase before using that particular bullet point before using again.
-----
Have I ever mentioned how much I really like being in a partnership where we help each other avoid errors, including checking for our own confirmation bias? We've been side by side on the journey of recent years, evolving from lifelong progressive liberals to independents, sharing links, taking in podcasts together while we walk (thanks Bluetooth), evaluating sources, talking and exploring ideas for hours.
And reading your substack - even occassionally aloud to each other.
"(For lifetime calcs, you probably can't make such generous assumptions or you might wind up calculating that half of men commit rape in their lifetime)."
Hmm, I don't think this follows. Firstly, unless you extend my choice to assume that there were no repeat offenders for the next fifty years, you won't keep adding one percent to the figure every year.
But secondly, the category of "man" isn't a closed system. Men are dying and coming of age and going in and out of prison and immigrating/emmigrating every year. So if I say that every year, 1% of men commit rape, I don't think that's the same as saying that over their lifetime (assuming 50 years of sexual activity), 50% of men will commit rape. There's a churn in the category that makes that figure much harder to calculate (also, I inflated the numbers to exclude toddlers and octogenarians so I'd need to divide by 3 if I were even attempting to calculate lifetime figures).
Does that make sense? It's been a while since I did any statistics, but I'm pretty sure my logic holds here.
PgbR> "(For lifetime calcs, you probably can't make such generous assumptions, or you might wind up calculating that half of men commit rape in their lifetime)."
A similarly generous assumption (in line with your other calculations) would be that rape perp numbers are dominated by non-repeated rapes (ie: most don't reoffend), so @ 1% per year, the lifetime total would be in the range of half of all men, more or less.
If you scaled it back to guess that the lifetime average was 2, that could wind up calculating that 1/4 of all men were rapists sometime in their life - as compared to 1/6 of women being sexually assaulted in a lifetime. I don't think that's a good estimate.
Whatever multiplier you use to convert annual to lifetime, the lifetime figure is the most relevant to end your calculation with, not the per-annual estimate.
But I think the 1%/yr figure is likely substantially inflated to begin with, so any lifetime totals calculated atop that would be suspect as well. I understand the rhetorical reason to use generous assumptions, *if* one can show that EVEN IN THAT EXTREME CASE the final number is still tiny - but when calculated for a lifetime it's not so tiny and so could lead to your argument backfiring on you, so a more realistic annual rate is needed.
Churn doesn't come into this.
(Aside: as a confounding issue, some commenters use "sexual assault" as if it was synonymous with rape, but many states distinguish that as a separate offence with a far broader definition, to include even such things as briefly but deliberately brushing against a clothed female breast. They have different laws for sexual assault and for rape. So stats about prevalence need to be very carefully parsed for the definitions being used. Activists will use this confusion to distort people's understanding. Do you know which your 1%/year is attempting to estimate? ie: which crime's stats did you use as a base?)
The CDC reports:
> "Sexual violence is common. Over half of women and almost 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. One in 4 women and about 1 in 26 men have experienced completed or attempted rape. About 1 in 9 men were made to penetrate someone during his lifetime. Additionally, 1 in 3 women and about 1 in 9 men experienced sexual harassment in a public place."
How strict or loose do you think they needed to make the definitions to get these numbers?
“ A similarly generous assumption (in line with your other calculations) would be that rape perp numbers are dominated by non-repeated rapes (ie: most don't reoffend), so @ 1% per year, the lifetime total would be in the range of half of all men, more or less.”
Right, that’s what I was saying. In order to just keep adding 1% every year, you first of all need to keep assuming that there are no repeat offenders over the course of 50 years. This is a poor enough assumption over one year (I made it in order to leave no room for quibbles about my final figure), but over 50 years it’s ridiculous.
And the 1%/yr isn’t *likely* dramatically inflated, it’s *deliberately* and clearly inflated, by me, to make a point. You can see the inflations I make at each point in the calculation. So if making a lifetime calculation, you can’t start from that dramatically inflated point (the figures came from Statista.com which seems to estimate above FBI figures based on past years).
But yes, churn comes into this because the category of man isn’t static. So even if you *were* trying to make a lifetime calculation from that inflated point, you couldn’t get there by simply multiplying by the number of years, right? Otherwise, if we found that 2% of men committed rape in a given year, and tried to calculate over 50 years, wed discover a serious problem.
And at the very minimum, you’d need to start with a (still dramatically inflated) figure of 0.27% of men per year.
Fair point on annual statistics but the assaults more likely come from the same people in other years. I doubt there’s anything like “your turn, I beat up my ex last year.”
Steve’s generous inflation of the statistics covers your point, I would wager.
The main point is that if we are discussing "what portion of men are rapists?", then ending your calculation with a per-annum estimates doesn't answer that question.
You HAVE TO to compute all the way out to lifetime estimates to be meaningful.
I think you will find that if you try to complete the calculations, you'll come up with a larger portion than is credible - especially if you continue to extend similarly generous assumptions on the final step to those extended in the earlier steps. But even if you don't.
I certainly get the point that any overly large product of the final per-annum to per-lifetime calculation could probably be reduced by recalculating the overly exaggerated earlier figures. And the need do to exactly that recalculation from the start of the chain is exactly the point I was making.
But don't take my word for it. Do the math, using assumptions you are ready to defend, and see if you think the per-lifetime figure still conveys the point you intend to make. What's your complete calculation of the portion of adult men who have or will commit rape?
It's not very rhetorically effective to say "well, according to my (now completed) calculations, a very large minority of men commit rape, but we should assume that my calculations are actually wrong because I made overly generous assumptions". It's better to make more realistic assumptions all along the way.
"Her Andrew Tate recruitment campaign is going nicely. I hope he's paying her a good commission."
😅 Yep, as I said, a lot of people use identity politics in curiously selective ways. I also wonder how she'd have reacted if I started saying she, a white woman, was racist for arguing with a black man. I could have quoted plenty of statistics and anecdotes about "white women's tears."
Doesn't she understand the historical dynamics of our interaction and how, by disagreeing with me, she's perpetuating a cycle of racial harm that has been inflicted on black by whiteness for centuries??!
God, now I'm outraged that I was subjected to this racist attack! I'm literally shaking over here!!
What I have to wonder at this point is why you continue to engage with people when you know they aren't in a position to respond to you with equanimity. It's beginning to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
"What I have to wonder at this point is why you continue to engage with people when you know they aren't in a position to respond to you with equanimity."
Because people who disagree, especially online, rarely speak to each other with equanimity. I wish this weren't the case, but it is. But Dianne isn't really attacking me, she's actually quite happy to recognise where her generalisations don't apply to me. She's just defending a generalised view of men that is inaccurate and, as Penny eloquently points out above, only really hurts her in the end.
I don't expect people to change their minds in real time. Even if I make an absolutely airtight case, all that usually happens is that the person stops responding. Ego and all that. But I do believe that calm, reasonable arguments persuade people over time. And sometimes the cumulative effect of many people pointing to the flaws in arguments
I've seen this many, many times amongst my own readers and in general. So I guess I'm taking a longer term view. And lastly, the comments also get a lot of views. So even if Dianne is unreachable, somebody else might not be.
Although I love your work, I haven't subscribed because I don't see the value in The Commentary, which tends to get redundant, that I do in your Medium articles. Provide them here, too, and I'll subscribe. You need to replicate them *somewhere in case they ever kick you off.
(BTW: Deplatforming #3 for me yesterday - CounterSocial, a Twitter alternative. They didn't say why of course, but the night before I'd posted an article about the lack of science behind gender-affirming care).
This is what Steve does. And he does it respectfully. The enemy is still human and you never know when he might reach someone and help them to their next step of understanding. You should check out the work of Daryl Davis if you want another example of how patient compassion can literally change people's minds: https://www.fairforall.org/profile/daryl-davis/
It's not helpful for us to think of people as "enemies" and thereby justify dehumanizing them - not speaking to them, etc. I prefer to think of people who I feel are misguided as just that - misguided. Of course, everyone has the right to not engage with whomever they choose. But, I respect Steve for engaging these people.
"I’ve already overpaid my mental people dues." Get same feeling, some-a things I read. I couldn't read this one. Just didn't take. But great article. I don't mean that.
"So in my article, Andrew Tate And The Male Empathy Gap, I spoke up for a demographic most people don’t see as underdogs; men. Or more specifically, young men."
I'm unable to read it since I don't sign into Medium, however "conservative" (with emphasis on con) commentators like Tucker Carlson, Jedidiah Bila, and others who are cheerleading for Tate and otherwise giving him platforms to bloviate on to the mainstream, are either innocently clueless about this guy (hard to believe that would be the case), or they are purposely covering for him. Tate doesn't give a damn about young men or any men. In fact, he runs an entire illegal business model on extracting as much money from them as possible and laughing as they sell their homes and lose everything and hand it over to him. He has specifically stated this and more, much, much more, which is why he is being indicted and investigated.
For starters I would view criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers' video analysis (he has several) of Tate's legal situation with regards to his sex industry business model. Start with this one;
Yeah, I'm well aware of who Tate is. My article is in no way a defence of him. It's a partial analysis of the culture that sees some young, desperate men feeling drawn to him.
That some young men are lost enough to see Tate as a heroic figure should set of alarm bells of self-reflection in our society. But sadly, all it does is give the usual suspects an excuse to scream at each other.
"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.
So Steve, in discussing this with Diane, you wanted her "strategy" for making men better? The same men who take her agency away? The same men who Weinstein women behind closed hotel doors (apologies to all the good Weinsteins, rape, pillage, plunder and steal (h/t to Pirates of the Caribbean for dat), start wars, pay women 20-25% less than men...you mean, THOSE men?
Yes, of course, THOSE men are in the minority. But what do you want women to do? Take up arms? Bobbit-tize the bad men? Nighttime torch raids, what? Yeah, I'm a man and proud of it. However, I'm more proud of how I raised my kids, esp. my boys -- to respect and honor women. And at least make it to marryhood, where we all know that not listening or obeying the wife has dire consequences.
"The same men who take her agency away? The same men who Weinstein women behind closed hotel doors (apologies to all the good Weinsteins, rape, pillage, plunder and steal (h/t to Pirates of the Caribbean for dat), start wars, pay women 20-25% less than men...you mean, THOSE men?"
I'm not sure where you're coming from here. I obviously haven't suggested anything like this😅
These kinds of men might be unreachable, but as I said, and as I'm sure is obvious to you, most men aren't in this category. I just think one of the key failings among these broadly decent men is that they don't empathise with women and the ways in which their lives might differ. Unfortunately, if the women speaking to them speak like Dianne, these men are far less likely to listen.
The "trans debate" is an excellent example of this. I'm frequently astounded by how many men don't understand why a woman might be uncomfortable with somebody with a penis in a private space like a changing room or a rape crisis centre, for example. "I'd be fine," the men think to themselves, "so why aren't women?" This is just one of many examples.
I think an honest, compassionate, non-confrontational dialogue between men and women would be so transformative as far as men understanding why women react in certain ways and women understanding why men act in certain ways. The men idolising Andrew Tate need this just as much as women like Dianne.
My sentiments exactly. Violence against womens ends when *we* decide, not men. But we'll need greater numbers than we've got, and the handmaids of patriarchy aren't just on the right, they're on the left, too - the women who collaborate with rape culture by not reporting, and discouraging other women from reporting ("They won't believe you"), those who argue in favour of chronic victimhood, and those who *give permission* to men to continue hurting them by not leaving them tout de suite.
Reading a book right now on OJ's & Nicole's relationship because she's a textbook case on what women do wrong and how they *allow* abuse to continue by doing whatever they have to to be with their man, as Nicole did. Not to mention all of OJ's enablers since he was 'OJ'. He's an extreme example - most batterers and murderers aren't famous people - but I get why the police get fed up sometimes with women they save one night, who they see with the guy the next day, as though nothing is wrong.
Many *feminists* resist talking about female responsibility for one's self and safety.
Female responsibility has arrived if all the hulaballoo over "sexless men" and plummeting birthrates is to believed, I think it's already happening. Women are dropping out. Young women don't aspire to marriage and motherhood anywhere near the numbers their mothers' generation did, what to speak of their grandmothers'. Older divorced and widowed women are enjoying having their space and being single again.
Agreed. Both sexes are falling short. I think the Internet Generation - what Jonathan Haidt calls iGen - have been harmed in many ways by the online world. Even before mobiles and social media, kids spent way too much time on the computer. They became unable to have a real F2F conversation with anyone. I'm not so sure not aspiring to parenthood is all that terrible, frankly, in a world with eight billion people, but let's also remember part of the reason why young people have to opt out is because they don't have the job opportunities their parents had. Hence all the angry, abusive people online (both sexes) with nothing better to do with their days.
Part of that might have had to do with the old messaging of "men want respect, women want love" generations past were fed. Because love is vague and largely indefinable this messaging allows a man to beat his partner and still come back with, "I'm sorry baby, you know I love you but I just lose my temper sometimes." And she forgives him because love is vague and indefinable. So sure, he *might* "love" her but nobody, not even she, would say he respects her.
But this is all coming to an end if all the hullaballoo over sexless men and plummeting birthrates is to believed. Young women of today are much, much, much less interested in marriage and motherhood than women of the past. So they will be less likely to put up with being long-term annoyed by a man, forget about abuse!
Why do you think "conservatives" are crying all over mainstream, alternative and social media about "sexless young people" when just a decade ago they were crying over young people having *too much* sex?
There is nothing that grates so much on my nerves as that particular, "But I luuuuuuuv him!"
I suspect it is, Chris. In Nicole Brown's case, like a lot of women of my generation, they didn't really quesiton what was going on. Nicole's mom wasn't abused, but she was controlled, he was quietly dominant. She never taught her daughter that it was never acceptable for a man to hit or otherwise assault a woman, probably because she didn't know it herself. Many women accept that "Well that's just how men are," thing. Well, look around you. Not *every* woman is getting the shit kicked out of her by the man she loves. What are those other women doing (or not) that you don't know about?
I was lucky enough to have a mother who drilled it into my head what was acceptable, and unacceptable behaviour in a man. "Nicole, the first time he hits you is his last! You leave him! You never look back!" I've never been hit by a male partner. I don't tolerate it. I don't *allow* controlling, denigrating, abusive behaviour, out of his mouth or from his fists.
I don't know what the evolutionary function this serves but it probably has something to do with keeping the family together - at least until their children are old enough to function on their own. But I'm just guessing.
I get really, really aggravated with 'feminists' who refuse to acknowledge how much victims can collaborate in their own abuse. The abuser is always 100% responsible for his behaviour but every time she goes back to him she gives him permission to hurt her again. I tell feminists....
Thankfully today's young women are much less likely to put up with even being annoyed by a man for very long, abuse is out of the question. That's what's got "conservatives" all riled up crying over "sexless men" and "plummeting birthrates".
True, but not enough yet. I'm trying to figure out how to get young women, possible future mothers, to understand they should never accept abuse in a relationship and to teach their daughters never to tolerate it. I'm also curious as to the dynamics behind the reverse - men abused by female partners. I'm pretty sure the dynamics are different since these guys can almost always defend themselves against violence, unlike the reverse, but they don't for legal reasons (or because they were taught never to hit a girl - which happened to my ex - who never hit back his physically abusive then-wife).
If all the hulaballoo over "sexless men" and plummeting birthrates is to believed, I think it's already happening. Women are dropping out. Young women don't aspire to marriage and motherhood anywhere near the numbers their mothers' generation did, what to speak of their grandmothers'. Older divorced and widowed women are enjoying having their space and being single again.
I couldn't agree more. I don't know why certain women work against their own (and other women's) self-interests in this day and age. Why a woman would believe that God and God's emissaries here on earth (men, of course) know best for what women need is beyond me. I'm not religious, but if I were a woman, I wouldn't want a man outside of the husband having anything to do with the decisions I would make as a woman -- esp. those concerning my own body.
While there are groups and subgroups that are unfairly judged to a point that it's members start to embrace victim mentally, I think it unwise to join their ranks. That leads to whole groups becoming enemies. We know where that leads
"Luckily, through observing the behaviors of men who truly loved and protected the women in their lives, I began to heal from the need self protective hatred."
I always love reading your insights Penny. This is so true. And is necessary wisdom for so many people lost in their identity groups.
The logic Diane uses is indistinguishable from the thinking of cops who indiscriminately pull over Black people for the "crime" of "driving while Black." Or that of the suburbanite who calls the police on a Black man for the "crime" of innocently standing on a street corner in a white neighborhood.
"Get thee to a nunnery," Diane. Good riddance.
"The logic Diane uses is indistinguishable from the thinking of cops who indiscriminately pull over Black people"
I will never understand how more people don't see this. There's a brilliant conversation from the archives that captures this disconnect.
https://steveqj.substack.com/p/its-a-battle-between-you-women-to
I would say her anger is justified but not useful since it pushes her to hyperbole - which means she can't see things clearly. I used to be like this. I gained wisdom and compassion as I aged and now am able to engage in critical thought.
The tendency of the brain to stereotype/shortcut complex issues is a huge problem that I don't think we train our children to handle very well - we don't teach them critical thinking skills. Plus, I would say that schools are doubling down on reinforcing stereotyping these days, which will just make it worse.
Diane shot holes in both feet with that part about the unfairness of girls denied makeup and miniskirts in school. I am not carrying any signs in any marches for the right to amplify sexual allure in classrooms. The purpose of school is education, not projecting attractiveness.
Quite the contrary, I think students should have school uniforms. That would level the disparity between poor kids wearing hand-me-downs and wealthier ones wearing expensive fashionable outfits. And it might tamp down some of the clique tendencies that buttress self-destructive fads like "trans."
In Vietnam all school students wear uniforms, exactly the same everywhere but for the school name on a tag. It makes sense.
"Diane shot holes in both feet with that part about the unfairness of girls denied makeup and miniskirts in school. I am not carrying any signs in any marches for the right to amplify sexual allure in classrooms."
Haha, yep, I think she was just casting about for any example of women's oppression she could find. I'm sure, in another context, she'd have been talking about how wrong it is that young girls are sexualised. Agreed on school uniforms. There are lots of benefits to them. For example, poorer kids don't have to try to keep up with fashion at school which reduces the chances of bullying.
Diane seems seriously confused. Doesn't she expect teen boys to be aroused past control by the girls' legs? Make up your mind, lady.
Uniforms: the schools have their own laundry; get muddied on the playground and you can swap in a new uniform right away and leave the other to be washed. This isn't hyper-communitarian Japan but I taught here for six years and never heard a student complain about being made to wear a uniform. In the USA there would be riots/
I can't read Dianne's responses without feeling really sad for her. Imagine living in her head, and constantly recycling the themes, images, and attitudes she expresses - seeking out the most horrific examples and assuming they are typical of (in her words) over 99% of men. Trusting nobody. Always thinking "what's the worst that could happen?" and keeping your amygdala on high alert.
I was glad to see Penny's response, which was empathetic but also dead on:
> "Dianne is only punishing herself, not men. She is poisoning her own experience of life."
I hope there is healing for her someday.
It's hard to imagine that she would be healthy in her interactions with women either (not impossible, just unlikely).
And I hope she does not have much power over other humans, until she does more healing.
"Trusting nobody. Always thinking "what's the worst that could happen?" and keeping your amygdala on high alert."
Exactly this. As I've mentioned before, I see the same thing amongst some black people, and it's horrifying to see how much this mindset is encouraged in trans discourse. The most popular trans accounts can't go five minutes without some kind of rhetoric about "hate" or "genocide" or "horrifying rates of persecution."
People online are being actively radicalised to believe that entire identity groups hate them and that the most horrific isolated incidents are a daily occurrence. How is it even possible to avoid mental illness when you're operating under these conditions? It's one of the many reasons why discourse is so difficult.
Penny gets extra points from me for her compassion and wisdom. She's been through the wringer and survived. The fact that she can be compassionate is absolutely amazing.
I grew up in a strange and violent home. The perpetrator was my very intelligent, extremely emotionally disturbed mother, who was also a prescription drug addict. The focus of her hatred towards men was taken out on my father, an ordinary good hearted man who totally supported my mom, me and my 2 half sisters who he adopted. (My mom didn't work outside the home until I was in highschool.) Without going into the horrific details, suffice to say he had scars all over his body and a trail of humiliation from that woman. He stayed because of us kids. Until she locked him out of the house and took him 'to the cleaners' in a divorce. He was born in 1930. Men of that generation didn't talk about being abused. He later said he had no idea there were people like my mom and that he never hated her. Amazing! I want people to know and hear the men's side of a story. Abused and marginalized men are out there a plenty. May they find a safe place to speak. May we open our hearts and listen.
Wow, what a story. Thank you Ruth.
I truly feel for men in this position. Because, as well as their own issues with speaking up, there is so little room for them to be heard. Some people, who are compassionate in many other contexts, will struggle to even hear a story like this without turning it into some kind of competition. So many many just don't bother.
Thank you for listening Steve. Would it be ok to publish this or a similar writing on Medium? I'm not sure of the etiquette of publishing a comment as a new story.
Hi Ruth, yes of course! Feel free.
I've got a friend who was married to an abusive and physically violent woman. When the cops showed up it with the assumption that he was the bad guy and he's even been placed in the back of a squad car in handcuff before they figured out the issue was her. He wasn't a man who would use violence with her. They ended up divorced which was tough on him as a devout catholic.
Unfortunately, I feel that even in today's world men abused by women are uncomfortable speaking out. Other men might judge them. Yet I believe it happens often.
I have no idea how common it is and my friend did not widely discuss it. I do suspect that it may be more of a two way street than is openly discussed.
The strangest case I witnessed was a couple that was friends with my wife and me. We were following them down Racetrack Road in Ft Walton Beach fifty years ago. They pulled over to the side of the road. I pulled in behind them thinking they had car trouble. They both got out of the car and started Kung Fu fighting! Seriously, fists and feet. Their marriage didn't last.
We went back several years after we moved away to visit another couple. She had a big black eye. He had been out messing around and when he came home she hit him in the head with a frying pan. When he came to he punched her in the eye. Another failed marriage. They had two beautiful children.
As a side note, so much for the myth of the subservient Asian woman. Both women were Thai.
Steve, I was reading some of this article aloud to my partner (she agrees with you that Dianne needs help).
But she pointed out a small factual error which I have to confess that I missed (despite being one of the things I make an attempt to notice), and which you might want to take into account before re-publishing your calculations.
You used ANNUAL rape figures as your base, so your derived calculations compute the generous figure for the fraction of men who commit rape PER YEAR, not a lifetime percentage. (For lifetime calcs, you probably can't make such generous assumptions or you might wind up calculating that half of men commit rape in their lifetime).
In no way does this contradict or invalidate your basic points or course, but as I say, you might want to rethink or recalculate or rephrase before using that particular bullet point before using again.
-----
Have I ever mentioned how much I really like being in a partnership where we help each other avoid errors, including checking for our own confirmation bias? We've been side by side on the journey of recent years, evolving from lifelong progressive liberals to independents, sharing links, taking in podcasts together while we walk (thanks Bluetooth), evaluating sources, talking and exploring ideas for hours.
And reading your substack - even occassionally aloud to each other.
"(For lifetime calcs, you probably can't make such generous assumptions or you might wind up calculating that half of men commit rape in their lifetime)."
Hmm, I don't think this follows. Firstly, unless you extend my choice to assume that there were no repeat offenders for the next fifty years, you won't keep adding one percent to the figure every year.
But secondly, the category of "man" isn't a closed system. Men are dying and coming of age and going in and out of prison and immigrating/emmigrating every year. So if I say that every year, 1% of men commit rape, I don't think that's the same as saying that over their lifetime (assuming 50 years of sexual activity), 50% of men will commit rape. There's a churn in the category that makes that figure much harder to calculate (also, I inflated the numbers to exclude toddlers and octogenarians so I'd need to divide by 3 if I were even attempting to calculate lifetime figures).
Does that make sense? It's been a while since I did any statistics, but I'm pretty sure my logic holds here.
PgbR> "(For lifetime calcs, you probably can't make such generous assumptions, or you might wind up calculating that half of men commit rape in their lifetime)."
A similarly generous assumption (in line with your other calculations) would be that rape perp numbers are dominated by non-repeated rapes (ie: most don't reoffend), so @ 1% per year, the lifetime total would be in the range of half of all men, more or less.
If you scaled it back to guess that the lifetime average was 2, that could wind up calculating that 1/4 of all men were rapists sometime in their life - as compared to 1/6 of women being sexually assaulted in a lifetime. I don't think that's a good estimate.
Whatever multiplier you use to convert annual to lifetime, the lifetime figure is the most relevant to end your calculation with, not the per-annual estimate.
But I think the 1%/yr figure is likely substantially inflated to begin with, so any lifetime totals calculated atop that would be suspect as well. I understand the rhetorical reason to use generous assumptions, *if* one can show that EVEN IN THAT EXTREME CASE the final number is still tiny - but when calculated for a lifetime it's not so tiny and so could lead to your argument backfiring on you, so a more realistic annual rate is needed.
Churn doesn't come into this.
(Aside: as a confounding issue, some commenters use "sexual assault" as if it was synonymous with rape, but many states distinguish that as a separate offence with a far broader definition, to include even such things as briefly but deliberately brushing against a clothed female breast. They have different laws for sexual assault and for rape. So stats about prevalence need to be very carefully parsed for the definitions being used. Activists will use this confusion to distort people's understanding. Do you know which your 1%/year is attempting to estimate? ie: which crime's stats did you use as a base?)
The CDC reports:
> "Sexual violence is common. Over half of women and almost 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. One in 4 women and about 1 in 26 men have experienced completed or attempted rape. About 1 in 9 men were made to penetrate someone during his lifetime. Additionally, 1 in 3 women and about 1 in 9 men experienced sexual harassment in a public place."
How strict or loose do you think they needed to make the definitions to get these numbers?
“ A similarly generous assumption (in line with your other calculations) would be that rape perp numbers are dominated by non-repeated rapes (ie: most don't reoffend), so @ 1% per year, the lifetime total would be in the range of half of all men, more or less.”
Right, that’s what I was saying. In order to just keep adding 1% every year, you first of all need to keep assuming that there are no repeat offenders over the course of 50 years. This is a poor enough assumption over one year (I made it in order to leave no room for quibbles about my final figure), but over 50 years it’s ridiculous.
And the 1%/yr isn’t *likely* dramatically inflated, it’s *deliberately* and clearly inflated, by me, to make a point. You can see the inflations I make at each point in the calculation. So if making a lifetime calculation, you can’t start from that dramatically inflated point (the figures came from Statista.com which seems to estimate above FBI figures based on past years).
But yes, churn comes into this because the category of man isn’t static. So even if you *were* trying to make a lifetime calculation from that inflated point, you couldn’t get there by simply multiplying by the number of years, right? Otherwise, if we found that 2% of men committed rape in a given year, and tried to calculate over 50 years, wed discover a serious problem.
And at the very minimum, you’d need to start with a (still dramatically inflated) figure of 0.27% of men per year.
Fair point on annual statistics but the assaults more likely come from the same people in other years. I doubt there’s anything like “your turn, I beat up my ex last year.”
Steve’s generous inflation of the statistics covers your point, I would wager.
The main point is that if we are discussing "what portion of men are rapists?", then ending your calculation with a per-annum estimates doesn't answer that question.
You HAVE TO to compute all the way out to lifetime estimates to be meaningful.
I think you will find that if you try to complete the calculations, you'll come up with a larger portion than is credible - especially if you continue to extend similarly generous assumptions on the final step to those extended in the earlier steps. But even if you don't.
I certainly get the point that any overly large product of the final per-annum to per-lifetime calculation could probably be reduced by recalculating the overly exaggerated earlier figures. And the need do to exactly that recalculation from the start of the chain is exactly the point I was making.
But don't take my word for it. Do the math, using assumptions you are ready to defend, and see if you think the per-lifetime figure still conveys the point you intend to make. What's your complete calculation of the portion of adult men who have or will commit rape?
It's not very rhetorically effective to say "well, according to my (now completed) calculations, a very large minority of men commit rape, but we should assume that my calculations are actually wrong because I made overly generous assumptions". It's better to make more realistic assumptions all along the way.
Hmmm. I wonder how committed she is to stopping male violence against women when it comes to transactivists. Just an aside.
I bet she loses her shit if anyone suggests all black people should be defined by the minority that commits crimes.
Her Andrew Tate recruitment campaign is going nicely. I hope he's paying her a good commission.
"Her Andrew Tate recruitment campaign is going nicely. I hope he's paying her a good commission."
😅 Yep, as I said, a lot of people use identity politics in curiously selective ways. I also wonder how she'd have reacted if I started saying she, a white woman, was racist for arguing with a black man. I could have quoted plenty of statistics and anecdotes about "white women's tears."
Doesn't she understand the historical dynamics of our interaction and how, by disagreeing with me, she's perpetuating a cycle of racial harm that has been inflicted on black by whiteness for centuries??!
God, now I'm outraged that I was subjected to this racist attack! I'm literally shaking over here!!
She is literally committing genocide against all black men!!!
Shut up with your rational arguments!!!!
What I have to wonder at this point is why you continue to engage with people when you know they aren't in a position to respond to you with equanimity. It's beginning to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
"What I have to wonder at this point is why you continue to engage with people when you know they aren't in a position to respond to you with equanimity."
Because people who disagree, especially online, rarely speak to each other with equanimity. I wish this weren't the case, but it is. But Dianne isn't really attacking me, she's actually quite happy to recognise where her generalisations don't apply to me. She's just defending a generalised view of men that is inaccurate and, as Penny eloquently points out above, only really hurts her in the end.
I don't expect people to change their minds in real time. Even if I make an absolutely airtight case, all that usually happens is that the person stops responding. Ego and all that. But I do believe that calm, reasonable arguments persuade people over time. And sometimes the cumulative effect of many people pointing to the flaws in arguments
I've seen this many, many times amongst my own readers and in general. So I guess I'm taking a longer term view. And lastly, the comments also get a lot of views. So even if Dianne is unreachable, somebody else might not be.
Although I love your work, I haven't subscribed because I don't see the value in The Commentary, which tends to get redundant, that I do in your Medium articles. Provide them here, too, and I'll subscribe. You need to replicate them *somewhere in case they ever kick you off.
(BTW: Deplatforming #3 for me yesterday - CounterSocial, a Twitter alternative. They didn't say why of course, but the night before I'd posted an article about the lack of science behind gender-affirming care).
This is what Steve does. And he does it respectfully. The enemy is still human and you never know when he might reach someone and help them to their next step of understanding. You should check out the work of Daryl Davis if you want another example of how patient compassion can literally change people's minds: https://www.fairforall.org/profile/daryl-davis/
It's not helpful for us to think of people as "enemies" and thereby justify dehumanizing them - not speaking to them, etc. I prefer to think of people who I feel are misguided as just that - misguided. Of course, everyone has the right to not engage with whomever they choose. But, I respect Steve for engaging these people.
Seconded. Time is our most precious resource, three score and ten is a gyp already.
When people announce their unreachableness, why waste any more time on them. Some fell on rocky ground. Use your talents on the more promising.
If you want to get men on your side, don't insult or demean them. That's a sure fire way for them to ignore you.
People like Diane don’t want men on their side. They cannot conceive of men as allies. Men “can’t possibly understand.”
It was hard for me to not stop reading after that 99+% absurdity. I’ve already overpaid my mental people dues.
"I’ve already overpaid my mental people dues." Get same feeling, some-a things I read. I couldn't read this one. Just didn't take. But great article. I don't mean that.
As soon as I saw that 99% figure I knew she didn't actually believe her arguments.
Haha, yeah, I was giving her the benefit of the doubt there. Hyperbole is the language of the internet.
"So in my article, Andrew Tate And The Male Empathy Gap, I spoke up for a demographic most people don’t see as underdogs; men. Or more specifically, young men."
I'm unable to read it since I don't sign into Medium, however "conservative" (with emphasis on con) commentators like Tucker Carlson, Jedidiah Bila, and others who are cheerleading for Tate and otherwise giving him platforms to bloviate on to the mainstream, are either innocently clueless about this guy (hard to believe that would be the case), or they are purposely covering for him. Tate doesn't give a damn about young men or any men. In fact, he runs an entire illegal business model on extracting as much money from them as possible and laughing as they sell their homes and lose everything and hand it over to him. He has specifically stated this and more, much, much more, which is why he is being indicted and investigated.
For starters I would view criminal lawyer Bruce Rivers' video analysis (he has several) of Tate's legal situation with regards to his sex industry business model. Start with this one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=872s
Yeah, I'm well aware of who Tate is. My article is in no way a defence of him. It's a partial analysis of the culture that sees some young, desperate men feeling drawn to him.
That some young men are lost enough to see Tate as a heroic figure should set of alarm bells of self-reflection in our society. But sadly, all it does is give the usual suspects an excuse to scream at each other.
"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.
So Steve, in discussing this with Diane, you wanted her "strategy" for making men better? The same men who take her agency away? The same men who Weinstein women behind closed hotel doors (apologies to all the good Weinsteins, rape, pillage, plunder and steal (h/t to Pirates of the Caribbean for dat), start wars, pay women 20-25% less than men...you mean, THOSE men?
Yes, of course, THOSE men are in the minority. But what do you want women to do? Take up arms? Bobbit-tize the bad men? Nighttime torch raids, what? Yeah, I'm a man and proud of it. However, I'm more proud of how I raised my kids, esp. my boys -- to respect and honor women. And at least make it to marryhood, where we all know that not listening or obeying the wife has dire consequences.
"The same men who take her agency away? The same men who Weinstein women behind closed hotel doors (apologies to all the good Weinsteins, rape, pillage, plunder and steal (h/t to Pirates of the Caribbean for dat), start wars, pay women 20-25% less than men...you mean, THOSE men?"
I'm not sure where you're coming from here. I obviously haven't suggested anything like this😅
These kinds of men might be unreachable, but as I said, and as I'm sure is obvious to you, most men aren't in this category. I just think one of the key failings among these broadly decent men is that they don't empathise with women and the ways in which their lives might differ. Unfortunately, if the women speaking to them speak like Dianne, these men are far less likely to listen.
The "trans debate" is an excellent example of this. I'm frequently astounded by how many men don't understand why a woman might be uncomfortable with somebody with a penis in a private space like a changing room or a rape crisis centre, for example. "I'd be fine," the men think to themselves, "so why aren't women?" This is just one of many examples.
I think an honest, compassionate, non-confrontational dialogue between men and women would be so transformative as far as men understanding why women react in certain ways and women understanding why men act in certain ways. The men idolising Andrew Tate need this just as much as women like Dianne.
My sentiments exactly. Violence against womens ends when *we* decide, not men. But we'll need greater numbers than we've got, and the handmaids of patriarchy aren't just on the right, they're on the left, too - the women who collaborate with rape culture by not reporting, and discouraging other women from reporting ("They won't believe you"), those who argue in favour of chronic victimhood, and those who *give permission* to men to continue hurting them by not leaving them tout de suite.
Reading a book right now on OJ's & Nicole's relationship because she's a textbook case on what women do wrong and how they *allow* abuse to continue by doing whatever they have to to be with their man, as Nicole did. Not to mention all of OJ's enablers since he was 'OJ'. He's an extreme example - most batterers and murderers aren't famous people - but I get why the police get fed up sometimes with women they save one night, who they see with the guy the next day, as though nothing is wrong.
Many *feminists* resist talking about female responsibility for one's self and safety.
Don't BE the victim!
Female responsibility has arrived if all the hulaballoo over "sexless men" and plummeting birthrates is to believed, I think it's already happening. Women are dropping out. Young women don't aspire to marriage and motherhood anywhere near the numbers their mothers' generation did, what to speak of their grandmothers'. Older divorced and widowed women are enjoying having their space and being single again.
Agreed. Both sexes are falling short. I think the Internet Generation - what Jonathan Haidt calls iGen - have been harmed in many ways by the online world. Even before mobiles and social media, kids spent way too much time on the computer. They became unable to have a real F2F conversation with anyone. I'm not so sure not aspiring to parenthood is all that terrible, frankly, in a world with eight billion people, but let's also remember part of the reason why young people have to opt out is because they don't have the job opportunities their parents had. Hence all the angry, abusive people online (both sexes) with nothing better to do with their days.
I've wondered for half a century why women return to abusers. Black eyes, broken nose, missing teeth:
"but I 𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒 him!"
Is this another malfunctioning evolutionary trait? Like religion?
Part of that might have had to do with the old messaging of "men want respect, women want love" generations past were fed. Because love is vague and largely indefinable this messaging allows a man to beat his partner and still come back with, "I'm sorry baby, you know I love you but I just lose my temper sometimes." And she forgives him because love is vague and indefinable. So sure, he *might* "love" her but nobody, not even she, would say he respects her.
But this is all coming to an end if all the hullaballoo over sexless men and plummeting birthrates is to believed. Young women of today are much, much, much less interested in marriage and motherhood than women of the past. So they will be less likely to put up with being long-term annoyed by a man, forget about abuse!
Why do you think "conservatives" are crying all over mainstream, alternative and social media about "sexless young people" when just a decade ago they were crying over young people having *too much* sex?
There is nothing that grates so much on my nerves as that particular, "But I luuuuuuuv him!"
I suspect it is, Chris. In Nicole Brown's case, like a lot of women of my generation, they didn't really quesiton what was going on. Nicole's mom wasn't abused, but she was controlled, he was quietly dominant. She never taught her daughter that it was never acceptable for a man to hit or otherwise assault a woman, probably because she didn't know it herself. Many women accept that "Well that's just how men are," thing. Well, look around you. Not *every* woman is getting the shit kicked out of her by the man she loves. What are those other women doing (or not) that you don't know about?
I was lucky enough to have a mother who drilled it into my head what was acceptable, and unacceptable behaviour in a man. "Nicole, the first time he hits you is his last! You leave him! You never look back!" I've never been hit by a male partner. I don't tolerate it. I don't *allow* controlling, denigrating, abusive behaviour, out of his mouth or from his fists.
I don't know what the evolutionary function this serves but it probably has something to do with keeping the family together - at least until their children are old enough to function on their own. But I'm just guessing.
I get really, really aggravated with 'feminists' who refuse to acknowledge how much victims can collaborate in their own abuse. The abuser is always 100% responsible for his behaviour but every time she goes back to him she gives him permission to hurt her again. I tell feminists....
"He can't hit a woman who isn't there!"
Thankfully today's young women are much less likely to put up with even being annoyed by a man for very long, abuse is out of the question. That's what's got "conservatives" all riled up crying over "sexless men" and "plummeting birthrates".
True, but not enough yet. I'm trying to figure out how to get young women, possible future mothers, to understand they should never accept abuse in a relationship and to teach their daughters never to tolerate it. I'm also curious as to the dynamics behind the reverse - men abused by female partners. I'm pretty sure the dynamics are different since these guys can almost always defend themselves against violence, unlike the reverse, but they don't for legal reasons (or because they were taught never to hit a girl - which happened to my ex - who never hit back his physically abusive then-wife).
If all the hulaballoo over "sexless men" and plummeting birthrates is to believed, I think it's already happening. Women are dropping out. Young women don't aspire to marriage and motherhood anywhere near the numbers their mothers' generation did, what to speak of their grandmothers'. Older divorced and widowed women are enjoying having their space and being single again.
I couldn't agree more. I don't know why certain women work against their own (and other women's) self-interests in this day and age. Why a woman would believe that God and God's emissaries here on earth (men, of course) know best for what women need is beyond me. I'm not religious, but if I were a woman, I wouldn't want a man outside of the husband having anything to do with the decisions I would make as a woman -- esp. those concerning my own body.
While there are groups and subgroups that are unfairly judged to a point that it's members start to embrace victim mentally, I think it unwise to join their ranks. That leads to whole groups becoming enemies. We know where that leads
"Luckily, through observing the behaviors of men who truly loved and protected the women in their lives, I began to heal from the need self protective hatred."
I always love reading your insights Penny. This is so true. And is necessary wisdom for so many people lost in their identity groups.