The Problem with Andrew Tate (and Incel Radicalization)

[Ifreann]

Are you also confused by "gay rights"?

Gay rights has little to do with what I said.

But are you confused by the term? Do you see people advocating for gay rights or for LGBT rights and think "They shouldn't use such a one-sided term"?

[El Lazaro]

~SNIP~

Polls about ideological buzzwords do a poor job representing what people actually believe. According to a Pew Research Center poll, 42% of people view “socialism” positively while 55% view it negatively. This doesn’t mean 42% of the population actually opposes capitalism, but socialism has been associated with popular social democratic policies. On the other hand, most racists (even many Klan members and Nazis) claim they are not racist because the word is viewed negatively. Seeing as feminism has been the main subject of culture war attacks, many people with de facto feminist beliefs likely do not identify as feminists.

[Queen Yuno]

You're talking to an open misogynist my dude. Why are you surprised that he agrees with a fellow misogynist?

I don't agree with Tate and view him negatively. I've also pointed out that i'm on the moderate end of this spectrum, but aware of my place within a broader context of power relations. I'm also aware of where radicals draw their support from and why the radicalization occurs.

You're basically here whining that I've pointed out that if you just listened to black people, they wouldn't be burning down cities. And then you're accusing me of "Agreeing with Nat Turner" because I had the temerity to point out the obvious consequences of your behavior.

I don't agree with them. But I understand them and think it's an inevitability so long as there is continued obstinance on the topic of mens issues. I'm also aware that functionally, by continuing to moderately advocate for men and continuing to get histrionic reactions like yours, I serve as a vehicle for radicalization, and think more people should cotton on to that fact if they're afraid of the radicals. I point this out because that's the topic.

No point listening to male misogynists demanding sex.

If you don't give them sex, they beat you.

If you give them sex, they beat you, and impregnate you. Then as a result, you become trapped, either with them (for more beatings,) or trapped paying for their kid while they're gone.


What's there to listen to? I'd rather reject sex and get beat, than give sex and get me and my future baby beat.


Also, women DID listen to men "in the good old days" from your grandma's era. They still got beat. They have come to the same conclusion that I have.


Better to reject a misogynist and get beat, than accept a misogynistic and get a future child beat.

[Ostroeuropa]

Something like "egalitarianism" is a better term for gender equality as a whole anyway than "feminism", since it is gender-neutral as opposed to being one-sided like the latter. Feminism being treated as the default term for gender equality has always seemed somewhat regressive to me.

Are you also confused by "gay rights"?

Implicit in your question is an erasure of mens issues and experiences by suggesting that the dynamic between men and women is comparable to that between LGBTQ and Heterosexuals. We don't call welfare "Welfare for whites" and then adopt the tone you have here if somebody points out how silly a term that is.

That's assuming we allow you to pretend feminism is about one thing or the other (Either womens rights, or gender equality in general), rather than a movement that vascillates between the two as most convenient to womens interests.

So let's nail you down to one. Is feminism about women, or about both sexes.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't agree with Tate and view him negatively. I've also pointed out that i'm on the moderate end of this spectrum, but aware of my place within a broader context of power relations. I'm also aware of where radicals draw their support from and why the radicalization occurs.

You're basically here whining that I've pointed out that if you just listened to black people, they wouldn't be burning down cities. And then you're accusing me of "Agreeing with Nat Turner" because I had the temerity to point out the obvious consequences of your behavior.

I don't agree with them. But I understand them and think it's an inevitability so long as there is continued obstinance on the topic of mens issues. I'm also aware that functionally, by continuing to moderately advocate for men and continuing to get histrionic reactions like yours, I serve as a vehicle for radicalization, and think more people should cotton on to that fact if they're afraid of the radicals. I point this out because that's the topic.

No point listening to male misogynists demanding sex.

If you don't give them sex, they beat you.

If you give them sex, they beat you, and impregnate you. Then as a result, you become trapped, either with them (for more beatings,) or trapped paying for their kid while they're gone.


What's there to listen to? I'd rather reject sex and get beat, than give sex and get me and my future baby beat.


Also, women DID listen to men "in the good old days" from your grandma's era. They still got beat. They have come to the same conclusion that I have.


Better to reject a misogynist and get beat, than accept a misogynistic and get a future child beat.

That isn't the argument i've made.

I pointed out that not listening to men when they articulate their own experiences, how feminism is a sexist movement that has not accounted for them, what's wrong with it, and how it actually is to be a man, has resulted in male radicalization.

You have engaged in the fundamental feminist error here;

Also, women DID listen to men "in the good old days" from your grandma's era. They still got beat. They have come to the same conclusion that I have.

Listening to men about what a dominance relationship should look like, is not the same as listening to men about what form equality should take. I'll quote the "Immigration" Satanic verses section here as I find it personally resonates pretty well with me in terms of how I view this.

Make no mistake. We are here to change things. I concede at once that we shall ourselves be changed; african, carribean, indian, pakistani, bangladeshi, cypriot, chinese, we are other than what we would have been if we had not crossed these oceans, if we our mothers and fathers had not crossed the skies in search of work and dignity and a better life for their children. We have been made again; but I say this to you once more; we shall be the ones to remake this society, to shape it, from the bottom to the top. We shall be the hewers of the dead wood and the gardeners of the new. It is our turn now.".

Women need to come to terms with this. The discourse on what gender equality looks like has been overwhelmingly decided and written by women. Now that men are interested in equality, we shall be the hewers of the dead wood and the gardeners of the new. Failure to accomodate for that, failure to actually offer equality to us, but instead "Womens equality", is what leads to male radicalization.

You have made the fundamental error of confusing mens discourse on how women should behave to be submissive, to mens discourse on how women must behave if they are our equals.

That discourse involves the hewing of the dead wood, and the gardening of the new. Women who cannot handle that and fear unfamiliar change, have been extremely obstinate. They dislike men identifying which parts of the discourse on equality are unfit for purpose and must be removed, and which new elements must be added to make that a truly shared discourse. They want to remain sole authors.
But, It is our turn now. The discourse of equality shall be remade by men, from the bottom, to the top. That is the nature of us migrating to this discourse as new arrivals. And, it is not to say that what women have written before will not alter us as we go about it, but that's about the extent of the relevance womens opinion on the matter has, or indeed should have given the lack of inclusion of males prior to this.

Failure to recognize it, means there is no equality to be had. Only a struggle for domination.

One of the primary things men seem to have decided, is that feminism is not fit for purpose. Its rhetoric, many of its concepts, its very name, is dead wood to be hewn.

[Kurnugia]

if you really want to address the issues that concern men on a material basis, you wouldn't go towards the MRA's who are just interested in perpetuating the cultural ideas that lead to worse outcomes in these specific issues.

You especially wouldn't listen to Jordan Peterson.

[Queen Yuno]

Are you also confused by "gay rights"?

Implicit in your question is an erasure of mens issues and experiences by suggesting that the dynamic between men and women is comparable to that between LGBTQ and Heterosexuals. We don't call welfare "Welfare for whites" and then adopt the tone you have here if somebody points out how silly a term that is.

That's assuming we allow you to pretend feminism is about one thing or the other (Either womens rights, or gender equality in general), rather than a movement that vascillates between the two as most convenient to womens interests.

So let's nail you down to one. Is feminism about women, or about both sexes.

Feminism is a VERY BROAD scope.


There are feminists who want equal rights as men. There are men react and say "Equal rights means EQUAL FIGHTS! If women want equal voting rights as me, I should be allowed to PUNCH women like I punch men, without any scandals."

There are feminists who say "since we're the underclass, historically oppressed (forced female circumcision, forced arranged marriages, forced no rights to have a job to earn money to feed ourselves and having to rely on a man paying for our food so they man can do anything he wants to us since our life is in his hands), we should punch above our weight now! Let's out-earn and outeducate men, to bring women back up!"

There's feminists who say "women should have sex with everyone because that's sexual liberation" and there's feminists who say "women should NOT have sex with anyone (much) because that puts the women's life at risk, the liberal feminism that women should have sex with everyone is misleading young girls, and is corporate brainwashing that only benefits men. Since women getting accidental pregnant suffer more physical consequences than men who suffer no physical consequences to their body."

Feminism is VERY BROAD and cannot be stereotyped as 1 single thing. In the end, all they share in common is "wanting better for women" such as not wanting misogynist anti-female hate-content everywhere on the internet and social media. Even something as simple as that, would be considered feminism. Also, plenty of fake feminists

[Stellar Colonies]

Gay rights has little to do with what I said.

But are you confused by the term? Do you see people advocating for gay rights or for LGBT rights and think "They shouldn't use such a one-sided term"?

The concept of gay rights was crafted in an environment where cisheterosexuality is the norm, and everything else is perceived as fringe defects to be corrected. Ergo, an umbrella movement has gradually developed for those various groups to work together to achieve equality with the dominant supermajority demographic.

Gender inequality is a more complex affair in which both men and women receive both benefits and injustices, and misandry and misogyny often existing together. Feminism was crafted with the simpler, easier to understand idea of the situation being a one-sided affair of it being men oppressing women and little else. This allowed for a focus on women's rights, which was very beneficial in multiple ways, but having feminism as the default for the gender equality movement creates a fundamental flaw in which problems affecting men are often overlooked or mistakenly interpreted as issues harming women through convoluted means with the troubles affecting men as an incidental side effect, which triggers the formation of a reactive 'men's rights movement' which struggles to balance genuinely trying to solve those issues affecting men, tries to clean up issues caused by feminism blindly trying to solve female problems by making male ones worse, or just angrily barking and clawing at feminism. A better approach would be a gender-neutral umbrella movement as the default with both feminism and the male equivalent as wings collaborating on solving issues, instead of trying to dethrone the other as the petty king/queen organization of the gender equality movement, although doing so would be rather challenging with how absurd the situation has gotten. As part of that reactive men's movement, you get dangerous developments such as incels and Mr. Tate.

The two situations are somewhat different.

[Ostroeuropa]

Implicit in your question is an erasure of mens issues and experiences by suggesting that the dynamic between men and women is comparable to that between LGBTQ and Heterosexuals. We don't call welfare "Welfare for whites" and then adopt the tone you have here if somebody points out how silly a term that is.

That's assuming we allow you to pretend feminism is about one thing or the other (Either womens rights, or gender equality in general), rather than a movement that vascillates between the two as most convenient to womens interests.

So let's nail you down to one. Is feminism about women, or about both sexes.

Feminism is a VERY BROAD scope.


There are feminists who want equal rights as men. There are men react and say "Equal rights means EQUAL FIGHTS! If women want equal voting rights as me, I should be allowed to PUNCH women like I punch men, without any scandals."

There are feminists who say "since we're the underclass, historically oppressed (forced female circumcision, forced arranged marriages, forced no rights to have a job to earn money to feed ourselves and having to rely on a man paying for our food so they man can do anything he wants to us since our life is in his hands), we should punch above our weight now! Let's out-earn and outeducate men, to bring women back up!"

There's feminists who say "women should have sex with everyone because that's sexual liberation" and there's feminists who say "women should NOT have sex with anyone (much) because that puts the women's life at risk, the liberal feminism that women should have sex with everyone is misleading young girls, and is corporate brainwashing that only benefits men. Since women getting accidental pregnant suffer more physical consequences than men who suffer no physical consequences to their body."

Feminism is VERY BROAD and cannot be stereotyped as 1 single thing. In the end, all they share in common is "wanting better for women" such as not wanting misogynist anti-female hate-content everywhere on the internet and social media. Even something as simple as that, would be considered feminism. Also, plenty of fake feminists

I think this is ultimately irrelevant, because all feminism can rightly be said to have both a history and elements in common which make it unacceptable as an equality movement. You cannot reasonably consider yourself a male ally if you don a costume indistinguishable from people you would readily concede are their enemies and beg them not to view people wearing that costume as a threat. It is self-absorbed and gynocentric and without consideration to the burden you are placing on men, and partially responsible for the lopsided contributions to feminist discourse which ensure a predominantly female perspective on what constitutes equality.

The only form of equality movement worth taking seriously is one where both sexes have contributed their input at proportional rates, and feminism is no longer capable of fulfilling that role. A feminist who genuinely wants equality between men and women and mens issues resolved too is nonetheless willfully choosing to place themselves in an environment where their perspective is limited because that environment is hostile to males and their contributions.

As an analogy to drive at the point and make it clearer, Let's suppose The KKK costume was also worn by civil rights campaigners, who also flew the confederate flag. How many black people do you think would decide "I should go to that barn I just saw a bunch of hood wearing folk walk into with a giant confederate flag painted on the side. They might be interested in hearing about my perspective on civil rights.".

Almost none.

How would you perceive it if those campaigners told black people to ignore their own wellbeing and approach that situation? If the black person retorted "Take off the costume if you're interested in hearing about our experiences. If you don't, I can safely assume you're just deluding yourself and aren't actually interested."?

Suppose that campaign group came out with a platform. How actually representative of black people do you think it would be, if they adopted that approach? How many black people would have contributed? Would they be a representative portion of the black population?

You freely concede your costume is worn by people who hate men. You are limiting your ability to understand men and their lives by wearing it. You are doing so willfully. We can thus draw a conclusion about feminism.


It's not actually all that diverse. It's all gynocentric, some as a result of malice, and some as a result of comical self-absorption and lack of consideration for mens experiences and their importance to the topic.

[Queen Yuno]

Dumb it down because I have no idea what you just said. You're making KKK comparisons to Feminism.

[Queen Yuno]

Also, even if you're mad that some feminists are punching above their weight, those feminists never have gotten as much of a platform as Andrew Tate, PewdiePie, and the likes.
I dare you to pull up a name of a feminist who's gotten as much clout and mentions as Andrew Tate.

[Ostroeuropa]

Dumb it down because I have no idea what you just said. You're making KKK comparisons to Feminism.

Okay i'll dumb it down.

As a feminist, you are not capable of being pro-equality, only anti-male and pro-woman. Equality is not available to you because the information available to others, is not available to you. The people testifying as to that information will not approach you in the numbers necessary for it to be otherwise. This is a form of epistemic injustice, which I can explain further if you don't understand the term. Your view of equality is based on a disastrously incomplete set of epistemic resources, leading to epistemic injustice.

This is because, fundamentally, it is *manifestly unreasonable* to ask say for example, abused men to talk to someone who *might* hate them and tell them it never happened or they must have been the abuser, but also *might* not be that, because apparently the abused male apparently owes it to that self-absorbed woman to "Not view feminists as a monolith" rather than the feminist owing it to him to take off the costume so as to ensure his testimony is available to her and she can better inform herself of how to achieve equality.

This is where the KKK comparison comes in. If you acknowledge some people wearing the klan hood are obviously hateful racists, but insist to black people that "Not everyone who wears it is and some of us are interested in ending racism", you're going to have *no fucking clue how to do that, because almost no black people will want to talk to you*.

You might THINK you're trying to end racism, but you aren't, because you lack the information necessary to do it. And the reason you lack it, is you are wearing the costume of an enemy and refuse to take it off.

We can see the broader impact of this on feminist identification figures. Overwhelming supermajorities of both sexes say they support gender equality, and yet almost 9/10 feminists are women.

This changes what feminist discourse is, and causes it to overrepresent female perspectives, worsening the problem. If you derive your understanding of equality from feminist discourse, you're deriving it from an epistemically polluted source that doesn't have an adequate representation of male perspectives, and furthermore will never get that adequate representation, because it is manifestly unreasonable to expect men to subject themselves to constant verbal abuse out of some obligation not to write off every feminist as "Anti-male". Which we can conclude they necessarily are, because the act of identification as a feminist signals a complete lack of consideration for mens wellbeing and their ability to equally participate in the discourse. It is a hilarious self-absorbed viewpoint. "Well, I'M fine, so you should go up to people in Klan hoods and talk to them. It's not fair to ME for you to judge ME on the basis of what I CHOOSE to wear when apparently seeking out equality.".

Even spending a single minute trying to occupy a male perspective and thinking through what it actually is they are asking men to do, should be enough for them to stop identifying as feminists.

Do you think male rape victims should talk to feminists? Yes or no? Have you considered what it is you are asking them to do given how """Diverse""" you say feminism is?

If you concede that it's unreasonable to ask them to do that, then how on earth do you think you're ever going to know as much about male rape victims as you would if you stopped being a feminist?

Also, even if you're mad that some feminists are punching above their weight, those feminists never have gotten as much of a platform as Andrew Tate, PewdiePie, and the likes.
I dare you to pull up a name of a feminist who's gotten as much clout and mentions as Andrew Tate.

Mary Koss is the obvious one, who was platformed by the senate to argue that it isn't rape if a woman does it to a man and the law should reflect this.

[Queen Yuno]

Also, even if you're mad that some feminists are punching above their weight, those feminists never have gotten as much of a platform as Andrew Tate, PewdiePie, and the likes.
I dare you to pull up a name of a feminist who's gotten as much clout and mentions as Andrew Tate.

Mary Koss is the obvious one, who was platformed by the senate to argue that it isn't rape if a woman does it to a man and the law should reflect this.

None of my male friends or no men I know, have heard of her. They've all heard of Andrew Tate and know what he looks like, and what he sounds like.

So which one has the bigger impact?

Also real feminists are against rape no matter the gender. Can you post proof of Mary Koss's prorape argument?

[Christian Confederation]

So this Tate Guy was an angry guy who couldn't get laid and had a large fallowing? It sounds to me like another effect of Feminism and it's consequences on the western world.

[Ostroeuropa]

Mary Koss is the obvious one, who was platformed by the senate to argue that it isn't rape if a woman does it to a man and the law should reflect this.

None of my male friends or no men I know, have heard of her. They've all heard of Andrew Tate and know what he looks like, and what he sounds like.

So which one has the bigger impact?

Also real feminists are against rape no matter the gender. Can you post proof of Mary Koss's prorape argument?

Well one helped write laws so I think this is a silly question.

What do you mean "Real feminists", didn't you just get through talking about how diverse feminism is?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... ld-support

"“How would [a man being raped by a woman] happen… how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen? I would call it ‘unwanted contact.’”

[Queen Yuno]

Regardless, the incel rhetoric and telling men to beat women and do sexual harassment and violence, and taking away women's resources, isn't the correct reaction.

Men who worry about male victims should open more shelters for male victims. Not waste those resources to target women specifically. As there's also lots of male predators who target male victims too, not just women.

So directing that money to shelters and resources for male victims is better, than wasting money campaigning to just get women enslaved or generate content-hatred and misogyny which will lead to misogynistic abusers to lash out even more.

[Queen Yuno]

None of my male friends or no men I know, have heard of her. They've all heard of Andrew Tate and know what he looks like, and what he sounds like.

So which one has the bigger impact?

Also real feminists are against rape no matter the gender. Can you post proof of Mary Koss's prorape argument?

Well one helped write laws so I think this is a silly question.

What do you mean "Real feminists", didn't you just get through talking about how diverse feminism is?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... ld-support

"“How would [a man being raped by a woman] happen… how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen? I would call it ‘unwanted contact.’”

She said that 1 line in 1987, it's 2022 now, Biden has said equally bad shit decades ago and reneged, cite an actual law she wrote.
Also, you say she helped write laws, okay post some prorape laws she wrote. Exactly, you can't. Meanwhile there's actual misogynists and rapists who wrote laws against women (not merely helped write.) Anyway, it looks to me like you're digging back to 1987 one liners that NO male in their 20s has ever heard of. Meanwhile anyone who opens their social media feed will see the Misogynist content creators all over their faces.

[Ostroeuropa]

Regardless, the incel rhetoric and telling men to beat women and do sexual harassment and violence, and taking away women's resources, isn't the correct reaction.

Men who worry about male victims should open more shelters for male victims. Not waste those resources to target women specifically. As there's also lots of male predators who target male victims too, not just women.

So directing that money to shelters and resources for male victims is better, than wasting money campaigning to just get women enslaved or generate content-hatred and misogyny which will lead to misogynistic abusers to lash out even more.

I've already pointed out that male radicalization is a consequence of help for men being resisted and blocked at every turn by the broader feminist movement. Moreover, the framework by which to address mens issues is vilified and rejected by the broader feminist movement who insist upon using a framework not suited for that purpose, constructed almost entirely from female perspectives.

The response to that from many men has been "Well, if we destroy womens agency, then they can't behave that way anymore, and then we can solve mens issues.". Individuals like Tate exploit a general dissatisfaction with "Womens equality" (Aptly named, by the way, but not for the reasons many think) and exploit the same confusion that feminism is reliant upon.

That womens equality = equality, rather than a malformed and epistemically polluted form of it that is not inclusive of mens perspectives and experiences. If womens equality = equality, as both the feminist and the incel believe, then the incel is entirely right to turn to male domination in response, because equality is tantamount to female domination.

It is only when we recognize that feminism is malformed that the alternative presents itself.

[Ostroeuropa]

She said that 1 line in 1987, it's 2022 now, Biden has said equally bad shit decades ago and reneged, cite an actual law she wrote.
Also, you say she helped write laws, okay post some prorape laws she wrote. Exactly, you can't. Meanwhile there's actual misogynists and rapists who wrote laws against women (not merely helped write.) Anyway, it looks to me like you're digging back to 1987 one liners that NO male in their 20s has ever heard of. Meanwhile anyone who opens their social media feed will see the Misogynist content creators all over their faces.

Koss wrote US rape laws...

If you want a more modern example, how about Ellen Pence? In 2006 she designed the duluth model, which presupposes female victims and male abusers, and is still the most common form of domestic violence training in the country.

Meanwhile anyone who opens their social media feed will see the Misogynist content creators all over their faces

There's a lot of BLM on social media too. And yet the laws remain what they are. You're seeing a lot of male anger at you because society is stacked against men and people are still clinging to feminism as an explanation of sexism, thus perpetuating the problem. Hence the radicalization. Individuals like Tate exploit the same confusion feminists have in order to present male supremacy to people, as I said above.

I'll grab the Straughan post because I can see this will take a while and you said the words "Real Feminism".

So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".

That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.

Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.

But I want you to know. You don't matter. You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."

You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.

You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.

You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.

You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.

You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.

You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.

You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.

You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."

You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.

And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.

You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.

- K. Straughan, Honey Badger, and one of the most prominent MRA's.

[Queen Yuno]

Regardless, the incel rhetoric and telling men to beat women and do sexual harassment and violence, and taking away women's resources, isn't the correct reaction.

Men who worry about male victims should open more shelters for male victims. Not waste those resources to target women specifically. As there's also lots of male predators who target male victims too, not just women.

So directing that money to shelters and resources for male victims is better, than wasting money campaigning to just get women enslaved or generate content-hatred and misogyny which will lead to misogynistic abusers to lash out even more.

I've already pointed out that male radicalization is a consequence of help for men being resisted and blocked at every turn by the broader feminist movement. Moreover, the framework by which to address mens issues is vilified and rejected by the broader feminist movement who insist upon using a framework not suited for that purpose, constructed almost entirely from female perspectives.

The response to that from many men has been "Well, if we destroy womens agency, then they can't behave that way anymore, and then we can solve mens issues.". Individuals like Tate exploit a general dissatisfaction with "Womens equality" (Aptly named, by the way, but not for the reasons many think) and exploit the same confusion that feminism is reliant upon.

That womens equality = equality, rather than a malformed and epistemically polluted form of it that is not inclusive of mens perspectives and experiences. If womens equality = equality, as both the feminist and the incel believe, then the incel is entirely right to turn to male domination in response, because equality is tantamount to female domination.

It is only when we recognize that feminism is malformed that the alternative presents itself.

I'm not sure what you're expecting the women to actually do.

Men are the ones with all the Wealth + Resources + Money + Land, and Political Power, and Company ownership, and Govenrment seats. All the billionaires in the West are majority male.

If women had tons and tons of money , they could afford to research and investigate ALL male victims, but as of now, they barely (or don't) even have enough money to help most female victims.

What are the rich men doing for male victims with all their money? Hating on women, that's all.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not sure what you're expecting the women to actually do.

Men are the ones with all the Wealth + Resources + Money + Land, and Political Power, and Company ownership, and Govenrment seats. All the billionaires in the West are majority male.

If women had tons and tons of money , they could afford to research and investigate ALL male victims, but as of now, they barely (or don't) even have enough money to help most female victims.

What are the rich men doing for male victims with all their money? Hating on women, that's all.

Stop demanding female privilege, stop making things worse, start listening when men discuss their own issues instead of telling them they have to do it in a way that fits with your ideological preconceptions, and start advocating for actual equality with us. What's the problem there? I think it's interesting you're focused on "Men as the problem" rather than "Sexists as the problem.".

I also think it's a pretty silly understanding of how lobbying works to mention all the men with power (And we can get into the feminist conception of power being broken for the same reasons if you like). Which mens issues lobby exists in the country with millions of dollars to throw around? A womens lobby certainly exists, does it not? NOW for example?

[Saiwania]

So this Tate Guy was an angry guy who couldn't get laid and had a large fallowing? It sounds to me like another effect of Feminism and it's consequences on the western world.

He's probably had sex before, or has some women available for relationships or otherwise. He's a former kickboxer who is more like a pick up artist or grifter. He thinks he's all that and is using his cult of personality to scam/con men who're not successful. He's very different from just an Elliot Rodger who is whining about nothing being fair. He is more like the replacement for what RooshV was 5 to 10+ years ago. He's merely the next in line for that sort of mantle in manosphere.

[Ostroeuropa]

So this Tate Guy was an angry guy who couldn't get laid and had a large fallowing? It sounds to me like another effect of Feminism and it's consequences on the western world.

He's probably had sex before, or has some women available for relationships or otherwise. He's a former kickboxer who is more like a pick up artist or grifter. He thinks he's all that and is using his cult of personality to scam/con men who're not successful. He's very different from just an Elliot Rodger who is whining about nothing being fair. He is more like the replacement for what RooshV was 5 to 10+ years ago. He's merely the next in line for that sort of mantle in manosphere.

There's a lack of people who actually give a shit about men offering dating advice because the general attitude among those of us who care is that there's bigger fish to fry, unfortunately, which opens up men to grifters like this. It's somewhat difficult to convince people to listen after "You shouldn't care about this thing you care about, follow me and i'll explain why" when someone else is piping up "You should care and I have the solution, follow me.".

Tensions between MRAs and redpillers are pretty high over this sort of stuff. I think broadly there is space for "Maximize your power and agency within your society" discourse with nods towards "This will help with dating" alongside "And also, use it to make society less misandrist if you can.".

But I have *severe* disagreements with red pillers on their conception of that. Male fashion for example is something they deride rather than view positively as a form of power and agency. They default to "Lift weights", which is not a great way to ensure access to the type of woman you want to meet unless you want to meet a gym bunny or a superficial woman. There is *some* degree of universal appeal in that muscles signal ability to commit to a project, but there's other ways of signaling that. The thing is it's a simple solution and that's what a lot of people want.

If you tell them "If you want real success, i'm going to need you to turn to page 35 on the philosophy of fashion, please cross-reference with Men Magazine as we go" they're going to give up and go lift weights. Something as simple as accessorizing will vastly improve your attractiveness and substantially more so than lifting weights in my experience.

A good pocket watch is a god-send, especially if you can find one that is personally appealing to you and offers you an opportunity to explain your aesthetic tastes to people when they ask about it.

[Juristonia]

This is going to be another 20 pages of Ostro raging against feminism, till everyone else gets bored and the thread dies, isn't it?

[Dumb Ideologies]

This is going to be another 20 pages of Ostro raging against feminism, till everyone else gets bored and the thread dies, isn't it?

Lesser posters cannot outcompete the Ostro grindset. Long known.