5 ms·

While you’re right, and the guy is an incel, I want to mention that for longer periods of time women were forced into living with men just because it usually wa

by bilqis 4y ago

While you’re right, and the guy is an incel, I want to mention that for longer periods of time women were forced into living with men just because it usually was the only way of survival. After emancipation, many men basically lost the single attractive trait they have - having a salary. So many men who are now experiencing problems with finding a partner now, say due to being a nasty/abusive/uninteresting/unintelligent/ugly, 80-100 years ago would be able to land a wife just by being the only person in the family who could provide. So in 2023, when they have to date equals, who are financially independent, they are experiencing “celibacy”.

bradlys 4y ago
This is such tired, trite, and inaccurate take on the dating market. Talk to more young men. If you think 60% of young men are nasty/abusive/unintelligent/ugly to the point of not deserving any partners - you're clearly insane.
- zamnos 4y ago
  We must be talking to a different 60% or have different opinions on what constitutes abuse then. Andrew Tate is plenty popular with a certain subset of boys.
  - roarcher 4y ago
    Like all meme influencers, Andrew Tate is popular with a subset of the subset of people who spend way too much time on the internet. If you think that's 60% of men/boys, then perhaps you're part of the subset that spends too much time on the internet. I've never heard anyone even mention his name IRL.
    - zamnos 4y ago
      All the kids spend too much time online, so I'm not sure casting shade at them really gets us anywhere. If that's not the case for your kids, I'd love to hear how you're getting that to work. If you're not talking to boys about Andrew Tate because it hasn't come up (because it would be too cringe, as the kids say), don't worry, YouTube (reposts) have got you covered.
      - roarcher 4y ago
        > All the kids spend too much time online, so I'm not sure casting shade at them really gets us anywhere. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If anything I was "casting shade" at you for your remark about how terrible young men are. You're the one defending someone calling them "nasty/abusive/uninteresting/unintelligent/ugly". > If you're not talking to boys about Andrew Tate because it hasn't come up (because it would be too cringe, as the kids say), don't worry, YouTube (reposts) have got you covered. I talk to men in their early 20s to 40s mostly, the guys who go to my BJJ gym. I can promise you not one of them gives a shit about Andrew Tate's "HoW To bE aN aLpHa MaLe" grift. Half of them have probably never even heard of him.
        zamnos 4y ago
        [flagged]
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        I don't think gym ownership is a reasonable assumption when someone says "my gym" because from my experience they're usually discussing the gym that they go to. I think you're assuming that the vocal minority of men who spend too much time on the internet is bigger than it is proportionally to the rest of the population
        roarcher 4y ago
        I don't own a gym. "My gym" means "the gym I go to". Anyway, this is a pattern I see weirdly often on HN--person A casually insults a large group of people, and person B calls them out on it. A proceeds to clutch pearls about "guidelines" being violated as if they didn't just say something vitriolic. Also, I'm not sure how suggesting you spend too much time online is "calling names". Back to the point: using social media like HN isn't evidence of spending too much time online. Being unaware that Tate is a nobody outside of the internet is. > I don't get how you can claim that they don't care about his shit if you've never actually brought him up with any of them. Hence my accusation. The answer to this is obvious if you spend time around real people. How do you know your friends aren't flat earthers? Because those ideas appeal to a certain type of person, and they aren't that type (presumably). There's a certain segment of the male population: insecure, awkward young guys who think that if only they can emulate the right behaviors, they'll "be a man", and for some reason their ability to get laid while displaying maximum disregard for their partner is the sole yardstick by which they measure their success. This is Tate's target audience. Ever heard of the "manosphere", internet personalities teaching guys "game" and how to "spin plates" and whatnot? Tate is just the latest iteration of that. He's not some new phenomenon. I've known guys who follow that stuff. They're socially awkward, usually posturing, and have a thinly veiled resentment towards women. The guys at my gym are normal, fairly well-adjusted dudes. Relaxed, usually cracking jokes, supportive of their classmates both male and female. I know they don't follow Andrew Tate because he has nothing to offer them, and they don't act like the guys who are typically into that nonsense. > Even then, if your using "people at your gym" as your final dataset then you've got a biased sample and your data's inaccurate, at best. Imagine that, the guy who claims that 60% of men are $LIST_OF_SUBJECTIVE_NEGATIVE_THINGS expects only the most rigorous data from his opponents. Where's your data coming from? In your highly scientific analysis, precisely how "uninteresting" or "ugly" does a poor chap have to be to fall in your 60%? SI units only, please.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    You're likely taking symptom for cause. Andrew Tate is the reaction to what's happening. For some people, radicalization is the response to rejection, not just by women, but by society. That's what you're seeing with those kinds of grifters who tap into that.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- bilqis 4y ago
  Of course, people don’t date that much not only because of some of their traits. Right now it’s a symptom of a much larger social-economic situation, with growing social isolation and poverty

by bilqis 4y ago

bradlys 4y ago

This is such tired, trite, and inaccurate take on the dating market. Talk to more young men. If you think 60% of young men are nasty/abusive/unintelligent/ugly to the point of not deserving any partners - you're clearly insane.

zamnos 4y ago
We must be talking to a different 60% or have different opinions on what constitutes abuse then. Andrew Tate is plenty popular with a certain subset of boys.
- roarcher 4y ago
  Like all meme influencers, Andrew Tate is popular with a subset of the subset of people who spend way too much time on the internet. If you think that's 60% of men/boys, then perhaps you're part of the subset that spends too much time on the internet. I've never heard anyone even mention his name IRL.
  - zamnos 4y ago
    All the kids spend too much time online, so I'm not sure casting shade at them really gets us anywhere. If that's not the case for your kids, I'd love to hear how you're getting that to work. If you're not talking to boys about Andrew Tate because it hasn't come up (because it would be too cringe, as the kids say), don't worry, YouTube (reposts) have got you covered.
    - roarcher 4y ago
      > All the kids spend too much time online, so I'm not sure casting shade at them really gets us anywhere. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If anything I was "casting shade" at you for your remark about how terrible young men are. You're the one defending someone calling them "nasty/abusive/uninteresting/unintelligent/ugly". > If you're not talking to boys about Andrew Tate because it hasn't come up (because it would be too cringe, as the kids say), don't worry, YouTube (reposts) have got you covered. I talk to men in their early 20s to 40s mostly, the guys who go to my BJJ gym. I can promise you not one of them gives a shit about Andrew Tate's "HoW To bE aN aLpHa MaLe" grift. Half of them have probably never even heard of him.
      - zamnos 4y ago
        [flagged]
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        I don't think gym ownership is a reasonable assumption when someone says "my gym" because from my experience they're usually discussing the gym that they go to. I think you're assuming that the vocal minority of men who spend too much time on the internet is bigger than it is proportionally to the rest of the population
        roarcher 4y ago
        I don't own a gym. "My gym" means "the gym I go to". Anyway, this is a pattern I see weirdly often on HN--person A casually insults a large group of people, and person B calls them out on it. A proceeds to clutch pearls about "guidelines" being violated as if they didn't just say something vitriolic. Also, I'm not sure how suggesting you spend too much time online is "calling names". Back to the point: using social media like HN isn't evidence of spending too much time online. Being unaware that Tate is a nobody outside of the internet is. > I don't get how you can claim that they don't care about his shit if you've never actually brought him up with any of them. Hence my accusation. The answer to this is obvious if you spend time around real people. How do you know your friends aren't flat earthers? Because those ideas appeal to a certain type of person, and they aren't that type (presumably). There's a certain segment of the male population: insecure, awkward young guys who think that if only they can emulate the right behaviors, they'll "be a man", and for some reason their ability to get laid while displaying maximum disregard for their partner is the sole yardstick by which they measure their success. This is Tate's target audience. Ever heard of the "manosphere", internet personalities teaching guys "game" and how to "spin plates" and whatnot? Tate is just the latest iteration of that. He's not some new phenomenon. I've known guys who follow that stuff. They're socially awkward, usually posturing, and have a thinly veiled resentment towards women. The guys at my gym are normal, fairly well-adjusted dudes. Relaxed, usually cracking jokes, supportive of their classmates both male and female. I know they don't follow Andrew Tate because he has nothing to offer them, and they don't act like the guys who are typically into that nonsense. > Even then, if your using "people at your gym" as your final dataset then you've got a biased sample and your data's inaccurate, at best. Imagine that, the guy who claims that 60% of men are $LIST_OF_SUBJECTIVE_NEGATIVE_THINGS expects only the most rigorous data from his opponents. Where's your data coming from? In your highly scientific analysis, precisely how "uninteresting" or "ugly" does a poor chap have to be to fall in your 60%? SI units only, please.
- luckylion 4y ago
  You're likely taking symptom for cause. Andrew Tate is the reaction to what's happening. For some people, radicalization is the response to rejection, not just by women, but by society. That's what you're seeing with those kinds of grifters who tap into that.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
bilqis 4y ago
Of course, people don’t date that much not only because of some of their traits. Right now it’s a symptom of a much larger social-economic situation, with growing social isolation and poverty