5 ms·

This sounds like they're not really taking into account boys needs, with the idea that we shouldn't be "gendered" when relating to them. This made me think of

This sounds like they're not really taking into account boys needs, with the idea that we shouldn't be "gendered" when relating to them. This made me think of Andrew Tate, who is a douchebag, but has a huge following with young men, apparently because he has found a way to appeal to them emotionally. Anyone who is looking at how to push boys in the right direction should look at what appeals to them and meet them where they are, not try to push some idea of emotional help that will only preach to the choir, which is what I see society doing. I definitely agree this role is best filled by fathers.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
AFAICT there is nothing good in Tate's message, except perhaps that one doesn't have to be ashamed of strength. Yet Tate seems to promote strength, power, and confidence as silver bullets for all ones problems -- mixed with a lot of get-rich-quick BS that boils down to "pay me to teach you to selling teaching to others". And this from a guy who got rich pressuring women into camming and taking a huge cut. Boys and men need nuanced male role models (even modestly flawed), not one dimensional grifters.
- anon291 3y ago
  > Boys and men need nuanced male role models (even modestly flawed), not one dimensional grifters All individual people are nuanced and flawed people when you interact with them one on one (even Tate I imagine). What's toxic is social media and it's ability to portray a life that doesn't exist.
- selfmodruntime 3y ago
  Tate fills a gigantic void that exists because rational people in that space are haunted and shouted down
enragedcacti 3y ago
> This sounds like they're not really taking into account boys needs, with the idea that we shouldn't be "gendered" when relating to them. I'm not really sure how you got that from the article, practically the entire piece is citations of how boys are different from girls, just not in the way that we think they are culturally.
seabird 3y ago
Tate has a following because anybody more mild or less delusional will just get shouted down by vocal radicals who have no concept of why lost men gravitate toward people like Tate in the first place. Anybody that exists in the space he does will be called an incel-adjacent far-right radical regardless of how reasonable what they're saying is, and the only winning move there is to just say that detractors are agents of the NWO that want to destroy them for telling the truth. If the terminally online people that lose sleep over Tate could stop equating somebody disagreeing with them with that person being a piece of irredeemable human dogshit, he would be a nobody.
- plewd 3y ago
  I think Jordan Peterson is doing a decent job at this though, his stance on helping young men is quite similar to Tate's, albeit less delusional.
  - EatingWithForks 3y ago
    Jordan Peterson's focus on trans people/fat women instead of men's issues is hella distracting though
    - seabird 3y ago
      It is, but part of being a man (and more importantly, a good person) is understanding that there's a limit to how much you should be looking up to somebody. At some point, the sense of right and wrong you have developed in your life needs to override the mental influence somebody has over you, at which point you can appreciate and continue doing the good that they do without perpetuating the bad. Somebody who has developed as a man probably first experiences this with their parents (or parent figures), and continues experiencing it multiple times throughout their life. There's no reason somebody can't do it first with Peterson. It's a valuable lesson.
    - bradlys 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - 3y ago
at_a_remove 3y ago
There's a segment who function with the idea that the emotional needs of boys, teen guys, and men can go unmet and that they will just somehow crumble and be okay with it. This is not true. People with unmet needs will seek to meet those needs; if something healthy is not provided, it ought to be no surprise when unhealthy means are found as a substitute. Instead, boys are discriminated against academically, emotionally, in terms of support and scholarships and these people who are in charge of starvation are shocked, shocked! when a guy like that appears to meet their needs. If someone asked me an obscure sin, something that went unrecognized but was none the less heinous, I would say that attempting to inculcate the innocent with self-loathing, to saddle them with Original Sin, and to more or less attempt to have that hatred internalized, that would be a mortal sin, if for no other reason than there's simply a finite capacity you can find in humanity for that self-abnegation and past that point, one or more will snap, will turn on you, and it will always be in a way you most dread. Most dread because these ground-down types will have an endless flood of hearing the particulars of what another would like that they can simply do the opposite.
- BoxOfRain 3y ago
  >If someone asked me an obscure sin, something that went unrecognized but was none the less heinous, I would say that attempting to inculcate the innocent with self-loathing, to saddle them with Original Sin, and to more or less attempt to have that hatred internalized, that would be a mortal sin, if for no other reason than there's simply a finite capacity you can find in humanity for that self-abnegation and past that point, one or more will snap, will turn on you, and it will always be in a way you most dread. As someone raised in a hardline Calvinist worldview I couldn't agree with this more, claiming someone is fundamentally disgusting and contaminated on a basic level simply for existing can do awful things to them whether the beliefs stick or not.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
n4r9 3y ago
On my reading, the article is explicitly taking into account boys' specific needs. It cites research showing that infant boys are more sensitive. need greater emotional scaffolding, and are more vulnerable to the effects of bullying. Perhaps you're referring to the line > Fathers and mothers use far more emotionally rich language with toddler-aged daughters than sons, for instance. Fathers are also more likely to sing to and soothe their toddler daughters at night when they cry. I interpret this as a call to resist specific gendered parenting behaviours that propagate harmful norms. Not that gender should be excluded from consideration.
erenyeager 3y ago
If you look past the surface and pomp, a lot of Tate’s takes have a degree of sensibility in the absurd culture we exist in. For example, his take on how hookup culture is damaging & the motivations of men & women differ was very insightful. He noted, men feel honor in their wives being chaste, and women feel happy in being protected & provided for by men, but culture distorts these underlying biological realities. Many of his ideas are presented in an inflammatory manner but dig deeper and more insight wells.
6D794163636F756 3y ago
I think this nails the heart of the problem. We've empowered women and assumed men would be able to continue an as we always have. The issue is that the world has changed but none of the education has. No one is sitting down young boys and teaching them to be better. I only developed emotionally because my parents were smart and got me therapy. When we focus on teaching girls since we've been neglecting them that we've failed to extend that to boys. Just as society has historically dissuaded women from pursuing stem it has historically dissuaded men from growing emotionally. We've started to tackle that first element but I truly believe that the second one is the next breakthrough. As it is, men like Andrew Tate are trying to fill that void. I think this is because we as a society have failed to lift up boys and give them healthy role models

paulryanrogers 3y ago

AFAICT there is nothing good in Tate's message, except perhaps that one doesn't have to be ashamed of strength. Yet Tate seems to promote strength, power, and confidence as silver bullets for all ones problems -- mixed with a lot of get-rich-quick BS that boils down to "pay me to teach you to selling teaching to others". And this from a guy who got rich pressuring women into camming and taking a huge cut. Boys and men need nuanced male role models (even modestly flawed), not one dimensional grifters.

anon291 3y ago
> Boys and men need nuanced male role models (even modestly flawed), not one dimensional grifters All individual people are nuanced and flawed people when you interact with them one on one (even Tate I imagine). What's toxic is social media and it's ability to portray a life that doesn't exist.
selfmodruntime 3y ago
Tate fills a gigantic void that exists because rational people in that space are haunted and shouted down

enragedcacti 3y ago

> This sounds like they're not really taking into account boys needs, with the idea that we shouldn't be "gendered" when relating to them. I'm not really sure how you got that from the article, practically the entire piece is citations of how boys are different from girls, just not in the way that we think they are culturally.

seabird 3y ago

Tate has a following because anybody more mild or less delusional will just get shouted down by vocal radicals who have no concept of why lost men gravitate toward people like Tate in the first place. Anybody that exists in the space he does will be called an incel-adjacent far-right radical regardless of how reasonable what they're saying is, and the only winning move there is to just say that detractors are agents of the NWO that want to destroy them for telling the truth. If the terminally online people that lose sleep over Tate could stop equating somebody disagreeing with them with that person being a piece of irredeemable human dogshit, he would be a nobody.

plewd 3y ago
I think Jordan Peterson is doing a decent job at this though, his stance on helping young men is quite similar to Tate's, albeit less delusional.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  Jordan Peterson's focus on trans people/fat women instead of men's issues is hella distracting though
  - seabird 3y ago
    It is, but part of being a man (and more importantly, a good person) is understanding that there's a limit to how much you should be looking up to somebody. At some point, the sense of right and wrong you have developed in your life needs to override the mental influence somebody has over you, at which point you can appreciate and continue doing the good that they do without perpetuating the bad. Somebody who has developed as a man probably first experiences this with their parents (or parent figures), and continues experiencing it multiple times throughout their life. There's no reason somebody can't do it first with Peterson. It's a valuable lesson.
  - bradlys 3y ago
    [flagged]
- 3y ago

at_a_remove 3y ago

There's a segment who function with the idea that the emotional needs of boys, teen guys, and men can go unmet and that they will just somehow crumble and be okay with it. This is not true. People with unmet needs will seek to meet those needs; if something healthy is not provided, it ought to be no surprise when unhealthy means are found as a substitute. Instead, boys are discriminated against academically, emotionally, in terms of support and scholarships and these people who are in charge of starvation are shocked, shocked! when a guy like that appears to meet their needs. If someone asked me an obscure sin, something that went unrecognized but was none the less heinous, I would say that attempting to inculcate the innocent with self-loathing, to saddle them with Original Sin, and to more or less attempt to have that hatred internalized, that would be a mortal sin, if for no other reason than there's simply a finite capacity you can find in humanity for that self-abnegation and past that point, one or more will snap, will turn on you, and it will always be in a way you most dread. Most dread because these ground-down types will have an endless flood of hearing the particulars of what another would like that they can simply do the opposite.

BoxOfRain 3y ago
>If someone asked me an obscure sin, something that went unrecognized but was none the less heinous, I would say that attempting to inculcate the innocent with self-loathing, to saddle them with Original Sin, and to more or less attempt to have that hatred internalized, that would be a mortal sin, if for no other reason than there's simply a finite capacity you can find in humanity for that self-abnegation and past that point, one or more will snap, will turn on you, and it will always be in a way you most dread. As someone raised in a hardline Calvinist worldview I couldn't agree with this more, claiming someone is fundamentally disgusting and contaminated on a basic level simply for existing can do awful things to them whether the beliefs stick or not.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

n4r9 3y ago

On my reading, the article is explicitly taking into account boys' specific needs. It cites research showing that infant boys are more sensitive. need greater emotional scaffolding, and are more vulnerable to the effects of bullying. Perhaps you're referring to the line > Fathers and mothers use far more emotionally rich language with toddler-aged daughters than sons, for instance. Fathers are also more likely to sing to and soothe their toddler daughters at night when they cry. I interpret this as a call to resist specific gendered parenting behaviours that propagate harmful norms. Not that gender should be excluded from consideration.

erenyeager 3y ago

If you look past the surface and pomp, a lot of Tate’s takes have a degree of sensibility in the absurd culture we exist in. For example, his take on how hookup culture is damaging & the motivations of men & women differ was very insightful. He noted, men feel honor in their wives being chaste, and women feel happy in being protected & provided for by men, but culture distorts these underlying biological realities. Many of his ideas are presented in an inflammatory manner but dig deeper and more insight wells.

6D794163636F756 3y ago

I think this nails the heart of the problem. We've empowered women and assumed men would be able to continue an as we always have. The issue is that the world has changed but none of the education has. No one is sitting down young boys and teaching them to be better. I only developed emotionally because my parents were smart and got me therapy. When we focus on teaching girls since we've been neglecting them that we've failed to extend that to boys. Just as society has historically dissuaded women from pursuing stem it has historically dissuaded men from growing emotionally. We've started to tackle that first element but I truly believe that the second one is the next breakthrough. As it is, men like Andrew Tate are trying to fill that void. I think this is because we as a society have failed to lift up boys and give them healthy role models