Society/Culture The Manosphere - Andrew Tate, the PUA grift, and other such nasties.

[phantom13]

I mean clearly there are economic advantages that mean a guy from Australia can go to the Phillipines to "get a wife". Whether you'd call this "forcing" the woman into it, I don't think you can. Perhaps they might get pressure from their family to do so, I don't know.

My uncle did this in the late 80s (still married), I do know he has to send money back there every year. Don't know how much but he apparently built them a massive house for under 10 grand one year.

To be clear, I'm not saying women should * blokes to keep them happy. I am saying that blokes who have a loving partner are probably less likely to be out in the street king hitting blokes, assaulting women, the ordinary s**t that directionless blokes get up to.

I mean id say going to places where women are heavily pressured into getting a husband and then isolating them from family/friends and essentially making them a maid with benefits is pretty close to forcing. At the absolute minimum its explotative.

Having seen a number of these partnerships youre referring to, none of them looks very loving to me. Its a deal born out of convenience for one party and necessity for the other. Id say rather than yet again being reliant on a woman to keep a man in check we should probably be encouraging said men to work on themselves, deal with their emotions, get some therapy, join a gym etc.

 

[the_interloper]

I mean id say going to places where women are heavily pressured into getting a husband and then isolating them from family/friends and essentially making them a maid with benefits is pretty close to forcing. At the absolute minimum its explotative.

Having seen a number of these partnerships youre referring to, none of them looks very loving to me. Its a deal born out of convenience for one party and necessity for the other. Id say rather than yet again being reliant on a woman to keep a man in check we should probably be encouraging said men to work on themselves, deal with their emotions, get some therapy, join a gym etc.

I agree with that bit for sure (and a lot of these Manosphere types would too I'd suggest)

 

[barreness]

That’s a ridiculous assertion that goes against the data.

Being single does not make it more likely that you would assault women. The data/stats point to the opposite.

It goes to very old data that colonial settlements in the american wild west were rather lawless places until women got there in almost equal numbers later. Almost a trope

We live in a very different world, and a close to gender equal country at that

 

[Carringbush2010]

Define forced. The second part of this, the whole “better than an angry lonely guy causing trouble” is almost word for word what Jordy has said before that sounds an awful lot like “women should just * blokes to keep them happy”.

To be clear, I'm not saying women should * blokes to keep them happy. I am saying that blokes who have a loving partner are probably less likely to be out in the street king hitting blokes, assaulting women, the ordinary s**t that directionless blokes get up to.

Looks like we're going down the primal nature path here.

'Me man, me need to *, or I'm gonna kill somebody'

I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest the solution to stopping lonely guy getting angry and disrupting society is to ship himself off to a 3rd world country to buy a relationship that wouldn't have otherwise taken its course naturally / organically.

The problem starts with the societal construct (religion and their stupid ideas again) that humans are expected to pair bond for a lifetime, if you wanna get primal, humans and by extension mammals aren't designed for lifetime pair bonding.

Yet we must have a nice good looking wife and 2.3 kids with our 4 bed 2 bath on a 600+ sqm block until death do us part, otherwise you've lost in life.

On top of that, getting back to the point of Interloperer 's (if I may assume), it seems that some blokes are just not up to the 'expectations' constructed by our modern liberal society.

Another societal construct of our liberal society, 'has to be 6 foot or taller, handsome, have a very well paying job, and is a good protector'.

Sure this isn't the norm thinking of normal women looking for a partner, this is the thinking of the superficial women (like incels are superficial because of constructed expectations) that wants a trophy partner that provides everything 'so I don't have to work and can look after the kids and show off my husband in social settings'

That's where incels come from, the impression of what a women wants from a partner seems to be driven by the superficial from our society. And not just incels, seems most things we humans are / do should be the 'ideal' otherwise no good.

So the bloke who isn't 6 ft tall, is on the dole or working poverty, isn't going to get the woman that he wants, so bitterness and jealousy at the world ensues. Societal construct and expectations.

 

[the_interloper]

Looks like we're going down the primal nature path here.

'Me man, me need to *, or I'm gonna kill somebody'

I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest the solution to stopping lonely guy getting angry and disrupting society is to ship himself off to a 3rd world country to buy a relationship that wouldn't have otherwise taken its course naturally / organically.

The problem starts with the societal construct (religion and their stupid ideas again) that humans are expected to pair bond for a lifetime, if you wanna get primal, humans and by extension mammals aren't designed for lifetime pair bonding.

Yet we must have a nice good looking wife and 2.3 kids with our 4 bed 2 bath on a 600+ sqm block until death do us part, otherwise you've lost in life.

On top of that, getting back to the point of Interloperer 's (if I may assume), it seems that some blokes are just not up to the 'expectations' constructed by our modern liberal society.

Another societal construct of our liberal society, 'has to be 6 foot or taller, handsome, have a very well paying job, and is a good protector'.

Sure this isn't the norm thinking of normal women looking for a partner, this is the thinking of the superficial women (like incels are superficial because of constructed expectations) that wants a trophy partner that provides everything 'so I don't have to work and can look after the kids and show off my husband in social settings'

That's where incels come from, the impression of what a women wants from a partner seems to be driven by the superficial from our society. And not just incels, seems most things we humans are / do should be the 'ideal' otherwise no good.

So the bloke who isn't 6 ft tall, is on the dole or working poverty, isn't going to get the woman that he wants, so bitterness and jealousy at the world ensues. Societal construct and expectations.

I don't disagree with you in general. Though I'd suggest that the bolded is generally what most women would want, I wouldn't call all of that superficial. If a woman has a kid with a bloke she wants to make sure the future is secure, so a good job and being able to protect certainly makes sense.

And this is not a new thing constructed by a modern liberal society either, I'd say this has been the case forever.

But yeah whether it's social construct or actually biology at play, either way that's the landscape incels face I guess.

 

[phantom13]

I don't disagree with you in general. Though I'd suggest that the bolded is generally what most women would want, I wouldn't call all of that superficial. If a woman has a kid with a bloke she wants to make sure the future is secure, so a good job and being able to protect certainly makes sense.

And this is not a new thing constructed by a modern liberal society either, I'd say this has been the case forever.

But yeah whether it's social construct or actually biology at play, either way that's the landscape incels face I guess.

I think that its not actually what women want but rather what men perceive women to want.

 

[barreness]

I don't disagree with you in general. Though I'd suggest that the bolded is generally what most women would want, I wouldn't call all of that superficial. If a woman has a kid with a bloke she wants to make sure the future is secure, so a good job and being able to protect certainly makes sense.

And this is not a new thing constructed by a modern liberal society either, I'd say this has been the case forever.

But yeah whether it's social construct or actually biology at play, either way that's the landscape incels face I guess.

I've got a theory about this, ever since we got the ability to use ranged weapons the gender differences become almost nil(from rocks to spears to guns to nukes). A lot of our social issues stem from fragile masculinity, we're bigger but it only counts if women can't throw rocks

Now you'll probably say but women are constantly scared of rape/murder, and yeh it does happen, but why?
Fragile masculinity, we still haven't got over the psychological challenge of ranged weaponry.

Sling classes for mail order brides, arm the masses(with rocks)

I'm morning drinking but its holidays and the crickets on soon, I'll nap at lunch

 

[the_interloper]

I think that its not actually what women want but rather what men perceive women to want.

Hard for me to speak for all women of course, maybe some aren't after that guy. But every guy i know who fits that bill has always been very successful with attractive females.

I've got a theory about this, ever since we got the ability to use ranged weapons the gender differences become almost nil(from rocks to spears to guns to nukes). A lot of our social issues stem from fragile masculinity, we're bigger but it only counts if women can't throw rocks

Now you'll probably say but women are constantly scared of rape/murder, and yeh it does happen, but why?
Fragile masculinity, we still haven't got over the psychological challenge of ranged weaponry.

Sling classes for mail order brides, arm the masses(with rocks)

I'm morning drinking but its holidays and the crickets on soon, I'll nap at lunch

Perfect!

 

[phantom13]

Hard for me to speak for all women of course, maybe some aren't after that guy. But every guy i know who fits that bill has always been very successful with attractive females.

Seems problematic. I thought it was about a loving relationship?

Im not picking on you but this is one of the many issues with this "a woman for a man makes him not violent". Men feel entitled to a woman they consider conventionally attractive, regardless of how they themselves look/earn/lift/whatever.

We (men) think that its still the 50s and the most important thing is height, jawline and money. That might be true for some women but not all, so when a dude hits on a supermodel and gets rejected he assumes its because the Chad down the road is better looking/whatever when in reality it could be any number of things.

 

[the_interloper]

Seems problematic. I thought it was about a loving relationship?

Im not picking on you but this is one of the many issues with this "a woman for a man makes him not violent". Men feel entitled to a woman they consider conventionally attractive, regardless of how they themselves look/earn/lift/whatever.

We (men) think that its still the 50s and the most important thing is height, jawline and money. That might be true for some women but not all, so when a dude hits on a supermodel and gets rejected he assumes its because the Chad down the road is better looking/whatever when in reality it could be any number of things.

Of course, but really looks will get you interested as a bloke first, then you might try and figure out whether they are worth hanging out with further.

The irony of me trying to explain what picks up chicks isn't lost on me by the way, I was never a lothario ha ha

 

[phantom13]

Of course, but really looks will get you interested as a bloke first, then you might try and figure out whether they are worth hanging out with further.

The irony of me trying to explain what picks up chicks isn't lost on me by the way, I was never a lothario ha ha

Oky… think about this is a different way. Women are also visual creatures. Why aren’t we talking about how all those angry women who can’t bang Ryan Gosling need a man to just settle for them so they’ll stop king hitting people on king street?

The problem isn’t about what people can or cannot have, it’s what men feel they’re entitled too.

The solution proposed is akin to saying “if women didn’t go out after dark they wouldn’t get attacked” in its simplest form it seems like it would solve the issue (it wouldn’t fyi) but even if it did, it’s not a fair solution.

 

[Gralin]

The problem starts with the societal construct (religion and their stupid ideas again) that humans are expected to pair bond for a lifetime, if you wanna get primal, humans and by extension mammals aren't designed for lifetime pair bonding.

that's not entirely true, mammals are not one size fits all, some are social and some are not, some mate for life, some live with extended families their entire lives, it varies from species to species

Yet we must have a nice good looking wife and 2.3 kids with our 4 bed 2 bath on a 600+ sqm block until death do us part, otherwise you've lost in life.

this is just patriachy

On top of that, getting back to the point of Interloperer 's (if I may assume), it seems that some blokes are just not up to the 'expectations' constructed by our modern liberal society.

its got nothing to do with liberalism
again its patriachy
the expectations haven't really changed either as far as what is being discussed here

Another societal construct of our liberal society, 'has to be 6 foot or taller, handsome, have a very well paying job, and is a good protector'.

this again is not about liberalism, its about patriarchy and the idea of the "ideal" man, welcome to toxic masculinity

Sure this isn't the norm thinking of normal women looking for a partner, this is the thinking of the superficial women (like incels are superficial because of constructed expectations) that wants a trophy partner that provides everything 'so I don't have to work and can look after the kids and show off my husband in social settings'

look at you supporting the grift by saying the problem with men is really women and liberalism

like that is what your argument boils down to, if we'd stuck to conservative values and women didn't have a say in who they marry this problem wouldn't exist

That's where incels come from, the impression of what a women wants from a partner seems to be driven by the superficial from our society. And not just incels, seems most things we humans are / do should be the 'ideal' otherwise no good.

no incels come from groups of guys angry at the world getting together and telling each other the problem is everything but themselves, but mainly women for not having sex with them

So the bloke who isn't 6 ft tall, is on the dole or working poverty, isn't going to get the woman that he wants, so bitterness and jealousy at the world ensues. Societal construct and expectations.

patriarchy my dude

 

[Gralin]

and liberalism isn't the answer to patriarchy it still supports it

but the issue isn't specifically liberalism

or feminism but they do love to say that also

which is again blaming women for not wanting to * shitty men

the whole going overseas for a bride that meets traditional values is just saying, nah the shitty men don't have to change they just have to find women that haven't learned they don't have to marry shitty men

 

[Chief]

I learnt a new term this week, "passport bros". These are men who have given up on women in their country and use their "passport" to go overseas and find a woman.

I hadn't heard the term, but I saw something about it in a video. Dudes who already did it saying "If you're an unlikeable slob who can't get girls in England, you're going to be the same in Romania."

 

[barreness]

that's not entirely true, mammals are not one size fits all, some are social and some are not, some mate for life, some live with extended families their entire lives, it varies from species to species

Yeh also humans express both pair bonding and tournament mating behavior, seems to depend on environment and culture. Very grey area mammal, probably our strength but also why tate gets followers ya know

 

[Carringbush2010]

that's not entirely true, mammals are not one size fits all, some are social and some are not, some mate for life, some live with extended families their entire lives, it varies from species to species


this is just patriachy

its got nothing to do with liberalism
again its patriachy
the expectations haven't really changed either as far as what is being discussed here


this again is not about liberalism, its about patriarchy and the idea of the "ideal" man, welcome to toxic masculinity


look at you supporting the grift by saying the problem with men is really women and liberalism

like that is what your argument boils down to, if we'd stuck to conservative values and women didn't have a say in who they marry this problem wouldn't exist


no incels come from groups of guys angry at the world getting together and telling each other the problem is everything but themselves, but mainly women for not having sex with them


patriarchy my dude

'Patriarchy' is not intended to be 'toxic masculinity'.

Seems we have different definitions of what patriarchy should be.

Patriarchy is not intended (or should not) to be oppressive or exploitative.

I agree in a simplistic sense that yeah 'toxic' masculinity is well toxic, 'masculinity' should not be toxic and shouldn't termed toxic. In short 'masculinity' should not be viewed as a or used as a 'bad' on its own.

'The ideal man' was brought about what society views as ideal, 'girls want him and guys wanna be him', if anything is toxic it is looking for the 'ideal' and rejecting anything else.

And it's not the just the 'ideal' man, young impressionable pre teens and teens are swamped with social and msm to strive to be that ideal. Toxic ideals.

look at you supporting the grift by saying the problem with men is really women and liberalism

Nup, you've misinterpreted my post that way. There's nothing in there to suggest that I'm blaming women , I'm suggesting that society itself has a penchant for striving for unrealistic ideals, as I've explained in this post.

 

[Engimal v3]

I learnt a new term this week, "passport bros". These are men who have given up on women in their country and use their "passport" to go overseas and find a woman.

I thought we already had a term for these guys: losers

 

[Gralin]

'Patriarchy' is not intended to be 'toxic masculinity'.

oh it absolutely is my guy
patriachy means men are better and men run the world
its a society where men are on the highest social status run
where everything is framed in terms of male traits being good and required to do things of value

(we talk about mothers and giving birth and caring for people but as a society we don't actually value those contributions)

Seems we have different definitions of what patriarchy should be.

who gives a *, we're talking about what it is, not what it should be

Patriarchy is not intended (or should not) to be oppressive or exploitative.

disagree, hard disagree, all of our systems are, they are setup for the people at the top to exploit and oppress those below them

patriarchy hurts everyone

I agree in a simplistic sense that yeah 'toxic' masculinity is well toxic, 'masculinity' should not be toxic and shouldn't termed toxic. In short 'masculinity' should not be viewed as a or used as a 'bad' on its own.

in a simplistic sense? in a literal sense carrie
that is the point of calling it toxic masculinity and not something else

you're arguing that we shouldn't call it toxic masculinity because masculinity alone is not toxic when the entire conversation is about the kind of idea of masculinity that is toxic

like you're just playing word games to avoid the conversation

'The ideal man' was brought about what society views as ideal, 'girls want him and guys wanna be him', if anything is toxic it is looking for the 'ideal' and rejecting anything else.

what are you even arguing here

And it's not the just the 'ideal' man, young impressionable pre teens and teens are swamped with social and msm to strive to be that ideal. Toxic ideals.

again what are you even arguing

look at you supporting the grift by saying the problem with men is really women and liberalism

Nup, you've misinterpreted my post that way. There's nothing in there to suggest that I'm blaming women , I'm suggesting that society itself has a penchant for striving for unrealistic ideals, as I've explained in this post.

you're just doing that whole its everyone's fault so its no one's fault thing

forgot who I was talking too

 

[Carringbush2010]

oh it absolutely is my guy
patriachy means men are better and men run the world
its a society where men are on the highest social status run
where everything is framed in terms of male traits being good and required to do things of value

(we talk about mothers and giving birth and caring for people but as a society we don't actually value those contributions)



who gives a *, we're talking about what it is, not what it should be


disagree, hard disagree, all of our systems are, they are setup for the people at the top to exploit and oppress those below them

patriarchy hurts everyone


in a simplistic sense? in a literal sense carrie
that is the point of calling it toxic masculinity and not something else

you're arguing that we shouldn't call it toxic masculinity because masculinity alone is not toxic when the entire conversation is about the kind of idea of masculinity that is toxic

like you're just playing word games to avoid the conversation




what are you even arguing here



again what are you even arguing

you're just doing that whole its everyone's fault so its no one's fault thing

forgot who I was talking too

Seems you're back on the world is dystopian bent, and probably never left it. Forgot who I was talking to.

This is why I don't converse with you much, your worldview is bleak and irrecoverable.

And you just get into arguments flying the flag for the world is phukd, and you end up infracting and / or you just end up ignored. I really hope one day you find true reality (hint the bulk of the people in it are actually kind, caring and loving)

I'll leave you to it, I won't reply to you again, please give me the same courtesy.

 

[Cyber_punk]

--------------------


Dipping his toes in Holocaust denial now. Guess it was the always the natural devolution

 

[Engimal v3]

--------------------


Dipping his toes in Holocaust denial now. Guess it was the always the natural evolution

What an idiot. Of course history is written by the victors, but Germans also have a pretty negative view on Adolf Hitler these days lol

 

[Jazny]

--------------------


Dipping his toes in Holocaust denial now. Guess it was the always the natural devolution

Shilling for Hamas and Russia now

 

[Gough]

Shilling for Hamas and Russia now

The real mystery is why would anyone listen to this kid.

 

[Jazny]

The real mystery is why would anyone listen to this kid.

He is the Hasanabi of the right. Just an audience full of embarrassing dude bros with no idea.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Not sure what's up with the YouTube algorithm because I don't think my recent history can explain this but I'm seeing Andrew Tate everywhere on YouTube in the last week, sometimes Insta, often get Joe Rogen reels pop up.

I did start an Insta account just for Bigfooty but mostly been getting spammed from the get go with drifting videos.

And I haven't even looked up anything that fits the Tate narrative, not even anything political.