36
votes
A handful of influencers are trying to turn the tide on toxic masculinity. But can they get anyone to listen?
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Meet the anti-Andrew Tates
- Authors
- Hannah Ewens, Brit Dawson, Rosecrans Baldwin, Will Coldwell, Murray Clark, Oliver Franklin-Wallis, Patrick Sproull, Adrian Clark, Rhalou Allerhand, Jack King, Zak Maoui
- Published
- Oct 9 2023
- Word count
- 4538 words
As a gay man y’all have no clue who pointless this discussion is. People who subscribe to anything manosphere have their priorities backwards and are compensating for a perceived lack of some quality which they claim women impose on them when they actually impose on each other.
Nothing is manly except doing things that women can’t: aka certain acts of fitness. Relationships, fashion, voice, height, hobbies, social comfort— none of these are unique to men nor do they form an equation of your likelihood to attract a partner. Confidence is one of the sexiest things out there, and trying actively too perfofm a role that makes one attractive is inherently an act of unconfidence..
Yes, this is what sort of irritates me about the whole online discussion about "no alternative to toxic masculinity, what do we do?" and there's always this subtext that, because feminists criticize toxic masculinity, they should for some reason give men a better gender role and definition. But the fundemental problem with toxic masculinity is that it is a definition of being a man that someone else gives you, as if there's some kind of rules you need to follow to be a man.
But consider the flip; a feminist woman would never waste time telling another woman "what a real woman is" and "you need to act like this to be a good woman" because the point of feminism is to break down the oppressive gender roles created by society so that women can be who they are as individuals without being told who they need to be because of their gender. Feminism has not created a definition of womanhood, only dismantled the existing ones because that's all that's needed.
What these dicussions about men sound like is people asking "But if you don't want me to try and fit that toxic, rigid cookie cutter mould, what cookie cutter mould am I suppose to be using?"
Like, don't use a mould at all. Don't try to build an identity based on your gender at all, that's the entire point. Accept other men for who they are, encourage them to be true to themselves and to be good as people, not meet some artificial gender standards for good or bad.
You probably already know this, but conservative women and the entertaiment and fashion industry contribute toward the stew of toxic social expectations aimed at women.
The concern is whether and how much most youth of both genders need or benefit from gendered versions of models for ethical behavior and success in social relationships. The argument is that in the absence of a model that is gendered, youth will gravitate toward a gendered extremist such as Peterson or Tate and internalize their teaching, to the detriment of society. I don't think the author pays close enough attention to the role of social media algorithms in pushing and spreading extremist content to drive engagement by viewers.
See this thread.
https://tildes.net/~tech/1b6a/meta_in_myanmar_part_1_the_setup
...I mean, I'm sure this exists to an extent. Conservative women who advocate for regressive gender roles are a thing but I think you're overestimating the amount of control they specifically have over the fashion and entertainment industry. Even when women are the ones in control in those industries, which is less often than you'd think, they're at worst carrying on a status quo from when those industries were nigh-exclusively controlled by men (which is within living memory).
I'm not the type to argue that women are inherently good or are somehow inherently better than men, I think those arguments are their own form of insidious sexism and bioessentialism. But I think it's quite strange to respond to a comment that focused on how feminism intends to free both women and men from gender roles that harm them with "conservative women contribute to social expectations aimed at women". At best it's irrelevant and at worst it's an attempt to undermine feminism by pointing out that there exist women who participate in misogyny.
I think gendered framing of how to be a good person can be valuable for young people to an extent but the idea that feminists are obligated to construct a new better version of male gender roles is taking that too far. I don't think it's particularly likely that young men who would be swayed into Tate's camp would be likely to listen to women on this issue anyway (as evidenced by a great number of the comments on any post in which a feminist woman does attempt to address this issue, even here on Tildes).
Perhaps I wasn't clear. My experience growing up as a woman was that one set of oppressive gender expectations came from conservative women and a somewhat different but also overlapping set of oppressive gender expectations came from industries that profit from women's desire to be attractive and socially acceptable. It was both and, not that the two sources are the same at all. There were also other sources of oppressive gender expectations that I did not mention.
I was hoping that life.men might be interested in talking about this male influencer, or about fighting the influence of Peterson and Tate on social media, so I am going to stop talking about women's experience for now.
Ahhhh okay that makes much more sense, I definitely misinterpreted your comment then! I definitely agree with that on the whole.
I wonder what Nietzsche would say. He spent his era worrying that people only acted ethically because religion told them to. And that in an age of reason we would behave because it's right.
It's quite a step backwards if today we only behave (or misbehave) because our gender roles tell us to.
I mean I think the question is, is there a developmental point at which most young people feel the need of and seek out gendered models? I think many people grow out of this or never need it, but one argument is that Tate is so popular because he leans into gender roles and we need healthier more ethical men to step into that role for those who need or want it.
I suppose that is the question. Are gendered models something we biologically need at some point? Or do we simply seek structure, answers, a way to make sense of our world and our place in it?
Sure, social media charges-up toxic ideas and has been weaponized by the right, but the patriarchal heirarchy that is at the root of both genders' problems (including the ones you mention promoted by conservative women) has been around long before social media. People like Tate and Peterson are just the latest mouth-pieces of a very old philosophy that was even more entrenched in the previous centuries, they're attempting to revive that philosophically bankrupt belief system with modern tools.
Young people don't naturally tend towards toxic gender tropes, it has been people like Peterson who have deliberately manufactured an artificially inflated need amongst young men for "masculine role models" to begin with, they've built a narrative that young men have been disenfranchised due to the breakdown of conservative gender roles (brought about by the advent of feminism), this is a backhanded way of them trying to place the blame for young men's issues at the doorstep of feminism, when in reality the opposite is actually true; young men are isolated from one another and oppressed under the unrealistic and unhealthy expectations of patriarchal heirarchy.
The very notion that it's critical for young men to have a well-defined "masculine identity" and specifically male role models in order to be an ethical and confident man is a conservative idea. There are young men who are raised by women who are perfectly able to live as upstanding, conscientious men, it does not diminish their masculinity. I would argue that you cannot diminish a man's masculinity at all, you can only make him feel it's been diminished by tying his masculinity to the notion of social status and then taking away that social status when he doesn't conform. A man grows into a good man by emulating those who are good, be they men or women.
Hopefully this doesn't come across as attacking you, I just think it's important be accurate when discussing causes, since there's a lot of rhetoric used in men's rights kinds of circles (intentionally and unintentionally) that sounds fair on its face but is a misdirection.
Just to add a bit of nuance: studies so show that children who have teachers that look like themselves, tend to do better.
This makes sense - representation matters - and this representation extends to having positive male models as well. I speak as a male in the traditionally female world of early childhood education. I see firsthand that young children react differently to people who are more like them vs less like them.
Hohh boy where do we even begin. When a feminist bullies another women, they immediately temporarily drop the feminist label designation because it's too much of a cognitive dissonance to still keep being a feminist while lambasting other women.
I don't think a Reddit thread that comes across as Rage bait is a good basis to form your views against feminist.
I pulled the below qoute that is somewhat concerning:
@boxer_dogs_dance touches on this a bit in their comments on media, but I want to dive into this videogame thing. There's some games that approach it sarcastically like GTA (5 sorta lost its way story wise, but wow does 4 have a great one) where it's part of a surreal-ridiculousness that adds to world they are building, but then other games have like straight-up sexualized young looking girls or ridiculous body proportions. Think boob-armour or characters being called Booba due to the ridiculousness. I'd say these types of games push some disturbing sexual beauty standards that shape men's expectations of women. When the concept of "the wall" is floated around, it's commonly joked older men go after younger women, and then you see the entertainment marketed towards male audiences tip-toes into lolli; yeah feminists would say something. Because that type of content impacts the interactions you have with those who choose to consume it; they tend to act misogynistic towards women or treat them more like commodities.
I know this runs afoul with the whole no true scottsman fallacy, but the thread you linked is using a small pool of talking head personalities that are just there to drive rage/views as representative of the feminist movement as a whole. I don't think it's a fair take to use it as evidence that feminist accept bullying when that subreddit has had some controversies in the past. It seeks to allow a debate regarding Red Pill, but I would argue inceldom and Red Pillism is such a toxic ideology that it does not deserve being normalized through debate to validate it.
Yes, if she drops the label due to cognitive dissonance it's because the two concepts are fundamentally contradictory. To make sure I'm clear; my implication was not that feminists or people who apply the label are perfect people, it was a commentary about the ideal and the philosophy -- bullying other women (and men for that matter) is anti-feminist, even when a feminist does it, it's a failure to adhere to the principle. Which happens, since humans are fallible.
I'm sure many of those already down that path are too late to "deprogram", or at least too late for something as simple as a different social media influencer to do so, but what about the whole pipeline of misogynist radicalisation that's setting teen boys off in that direction in the first place?
They start off scared, confused, angry, directionless, without community - as so many of us do during those difficult formative years - and the Andrew Tates of the world come along to promise them security, prosperity, easy answers, and that the blame lies with others. They flash their wealth and sex life as credentials: "it must work, just look at me", and they use that as evidence for the ideology they're pushing.
If there's an alternative, a community of men who can embody similar (or at least similarly desirable to the average teen boy) "credentials", they can be an alternative starting point - an on-ramp to a different pipeline, one that doesn't end in radicalisation at all, but in a productive and prosocial society. So yeah, I have doubts about this doing too much for people already within the manosphere just as you do, but I'd call the discussion anything but pointless: it's an opportunity to offer a decently large subset of boys a positive alternative on their own terms before those awful views get cemented by the loudest voices currently out there.
In a vacuum, I'd totally agree with you. In reality, people's interactions with the world, the expectations placed upon them, the conscious and unconscious ways that others judge them, are all massively influenced by gender as a whole and by an individual's specific presentation of that gender.
"Manly" isn't static, it isn't simple, and embodying it isn't a requirement for a happy or successful life as a man. But speaking as someone who doesn't really embody a lot of male-coded qualities and doesn't have a particular interest in doing so: set expectations of masculinity absolutely exist, even in the most progressive spaces, and to act as if it's a blank slate is to deny the reality of what men experience when deviating from them.
You're right that those might not form some magical complete formula for attraction, but every one of them is important in different measure (and to different potential partners). To distil masculinity to those kind of superficial things and then dismiss them seems unfair, though, because yeah, those are all things that I would broadly agree can be replaced with sufficient confidence and charisma.
But what about expectations of strength, stability, protection? Of course all of those are largely universal positives, but a man who presents as "weak" (not necessarily just physically, but perhaps emotionally or socially) is often treated as a figure of pity and disgust, not a man at all. A generalisation, yes, but one that matters if it impacts how, say, 80+% of society will actually interact with someone.
Hell, even the example of confidence - again, it's a positive that people of all gender identities strive for, but for most men in most situations it's enforced as a social requirement, exactly as it is in your post. A straight man lacking confidence is, on average, worse off than a straight woman lacking it. Similarly, a straight woman lacking physical beauty is, on average, worse off than a straight man lacking it. Both qualities matter in both situations, but the relative impact differs significantly.
I don't like any of this. I'd desperately love to live in a world where we each get to forge our own path without having to acknowledge and weigh up the tradeoffs of how that path interacts with gendered expectation and will make our lives easier or harder. But saying nothing is manly rather than nothing should be manly doesn't mesh with the world I see around me.
That is quite reductive.
Gender is performative. What I consider manly is whatever is in accordance with my own stipulation of masculinity. Anyone can, if they so choose, stipulate a masculinity that is inspired by that of others. That would be an expression of their freedom to define gender roles on their own according to whichever criteria or frame of reference they choose. I am very happy that you found a way to perform gender that is unique to you and is conducive to your happiness. However, I don't see why you, or anyone else, should constrain anyone's identity or gender expression. And that is, essentially, the tone of your comment.
It is so interesting, to me, how we seem incapable of opposing a hegemony without implicitly suggesting an hegemony of our own. Freedom is such an elusive concept.
Freedom is not isolation, it is the permission for me to bound myself to whatever I want and in my own terms.
It's entirely possible for someone to exercise their freedom to stipulate their own identities without implying that others must follow their own stipulations.
Please read the edit to my comment.
Look, this kind of reasoning of yours go round and round. I don't really like it. Always sound circular to me.
Culture is inescapable because culture produces a state in which culture is inescapable... I suspect there's a tautology there.
It also shows a lack of appreciation for individuality, which is just as real as culture.
You are working with a concept of freedom that's too pure and idealistic, and your view of culture is way too global and pessimistic. And the concept of individuality doesn't get a place in the sun.
That line of thinking doesn't produce much hope or escape points. Which makes sense since it is highly deterministic.
Anyway, that is what I feel reading your comment. I don't really see a way to conciliate our positions, unfortunately.
One of the things that limits and shapes our experience is our chemical physiology and brain development. We are learning a lot that we didn't know about how we culturally shape gender but also how it shapes us. The insights of anthropologists, primatologists (chimps vs bonobos) brain physiologists, child development specialists and many more are all relevant to this conversation. Culture is hugely important and we should do our best to shape it to be egalitarian and ethical but it is not the only constraint.
And as @lou points out, we are each individual and make our own choices of how to respond to our culture, physiology and environment.
After reading the last thread and deleting a full essay instead of posting, I've got to say something oddly simple to me.
Both this and the last article floundered for me. I've not clarified anything great or had any great insights and, just to put it plainly, I think that's the problem. The question that's repeated over these last two threads is "What is masculinity" and the answer is "it's cultural."... Or maybe innate?
Much like another recent thread, well it was specifically about black men in America so I'm going to use African Americans as the term but, the 'way forward' so to speak for African Americans needs to be defined by that community. I feel like, even though this focuses on men trying to find that way forward, it's still looking from a woman's (the author's, specifically) perspective.
I don't know that there can be a person to speak for the correct way forward for even smaller sub groups, let alone someone who can for as generic a concept as "men."
As an aside, I spoke with a relatively successful Iraqi man who told me the secret to a stress free marriage is to have a girlfriend on the side. I laughed and told him that life wasn't for me because I'd just risk having two women annoyed with me. He asked me why I'd be worried if they were annoyed, after all, I could always find a new girlfriend! I simply told him that one good woman will have your back and support you and she might nag but it keeps you from slipping... Plus, I didn't want to bother trying to chase women if I've got one I like already. He waved his hand towards the tea and pastries and said "Must be a Western thing." We both understood that our cultural understanding of a man's role was different. Neither of us had to lose any face.
But, I'm glad to see there are helpers out there trying to speak to the impacted... Just the publicity surrounding it reads, to me as a man, as more of that female focused content Hurst was talking about. Does Hurst want to be known as the anti-Tate that your parents will bring you to? Hell no. Because kids don't want what their parents are bringing them... Unless they're some weenie nerd. What's with the infantile imagery with their faces on rainbows like it should be plastered on a daycare when she mentions that one of the people mentioned looks like a walking tank? Is this article for women to feel good next time they think "Well, all men aren't bad."?
This reminds me of the post about a feminist working really hard to find negative things to say about young men looking for positive role models: https://tildes.net/~life.men/17xq/positive_masculinity_is_overrated.
Thanks for linking to that insightful conversation.
I honestly wish GQ had given this writing assignment to a man. Women are directly impacted and harmed by the influence of Tate and Peterson among young men on social media, but that doesn't mean we should be the primary voice discussing how best to counter those toxic influences.
Intelectual activists are usually trained to problematize, and will sometimes do so without inquiring why.
Sometimes they miss the mark. It comes with the territory.
I thought this would be an interesting follow up to the previous discussion. I am not attached to the perspectives of the author but thought the article was good food for thought.
It really is. I've personally really struggled and still do to understand who I am. I do know that I like being emotionally connected. I've struggled greatly with empathy (wasn't taught it at all or to think about it). I went through the phase of trying to act like an ass hole.. I didn't like it. But I've also struggled a lot with personal self worth, confidence and conflict. Things my Dad (love him) never displayed and my mom was very hardcore and needed things a certain way. I saw my dad just bend the knee and lay low so that's what I've done/learned. It's impacting my current relationship and I need, for myself, to find a way to have that confidence, strength, but the emotional side as well.
I'm generally confident in my career, but struggle to the point of absolute panic with conflict and if I don't figure out how to have a healthy relationship with it, it will cost me a lot.
Thanks for this article, it gave me a lot to think about.
Sounds like you're very self-aware which is probably the single most valuable trait for a human to have. I can relate to a lot of the things you've said. Keep truckin' my friend. We'll figure it out together.
I think it takes all kinds of messages but I think the influencer who comes across as the “nice guy that women want to be around” could be like pouring gasoline on the fire when it comes to some of the most persistent and pernicious incel ideologies.
The British YouTuber who calls himself “Wheat Waffles” agrees with Jordan Peterson that 80% of woman are attracted to 20% of the guys and there is a certain kernel of truth to that (talk to a woman about the various “pills” and she will laugh but bring up the heightpill, “would you date a guy three inches shorter than you?”, she will pause and then laugh a different laugh). I’ve seen young men stuck in that belief system and been unable to talk them out of it and what I know is the last person they want to hear from is someone who is “living life on tutorial island.”
All of these discourses (anti-incel, incel X-maxing, seduction movement, etc.) are quite similar to the (so called) “anti-feminist” messages aimed at women that say they have to do this or do that to be attractive to men. There is commonly a homosocial element in that something which is allegedly about “being attractive to the opposite sex” is really a discussion between people of the same sex about competition between members of the same sex.
I really don’t know the answer but my experience is this: (1) I was born with a biological difference schizotaxia that led to me being bullied mercilessly in elementary school and developing the personality complex of schizotypy (only figured this out 40 years later!) and graduated from elementary school the same way Ender Wiggin did, (2) I was home schooled for a few years but when I got back to high school I fit in a lot better but came home crying every night because I knew my biological difference (which I understood better than all the professionals who failed to put a label in it, though that label was known in 1962) meant I might never be able to compete with other guys to get a mate, (3) I went through waves of despair about it but I did pair up with somebody who is great in so many ways and loyal enough to put up with the bullshit I put her through because of my condition.
I would have been very vulnerable to incel propaganda, in fact I heard the word “incel” on USENET circa 1993 and thought it was a label that applied to me. Boy I was looking for answers as a teen and checking out 10 books a week from the library and was very interested in pop psychology such as Eric Berne but I would have blown off anybody as upbeat and positive as the guys described in that article as “advice that might work for other people but wouldn’t work for me” because I had found so much advice was like that.
Thanks for your honest reply. Imho this is exactly the kind of conversation that should be happening. There is a significant problem. Figuring out possible solutions is a different challenge than identifying the issue, and much more difficult.