Andrew Tate - The Real World

[MikeHo]

dobbo_ said:

AceRockatansky said:

So consent is withdrawn, he he hasn't tried to rape her, no touching or assault, so what is aggression exactly? Did he bare his teeth?

Again, are you really asking this? I mean, really? The dude is jacked and is a kickboxing champion. Does he need to touch her? ALSO there is literally video footage of him beating a woman but sure, you do you.

Is that the video that she said was consensual and she loved it?

[QJumper]

MarkwG said:

And, do we have an data that shows whether his supporters come from any particular family demographic?

I believe that there's some US data pointing to incels often coming from single parent households, but not specific to Tate.

The trouble is that Tate appeals to a wider group than just incels. He's taken a mixture of stuff from the old pick up artist days and combined it with methods of financial gain, and added a touch of victimhood, thereby widening the scope of people who might be drawn to it. The appeal of the victimhood approach is that it puts the blame for one's problems on someone else but, when you couple it with things like how to get women and money, it gives the appearance of providing a way to fight back and be successful.

It's a genuine problem that society needs to address, but one I think it tends to handle badly (albeit for good reasons), by attacking his followers, which only serves to confirm and stengthen the victimhood narrative. It's pretty hard to steer someone from an uhealthy path without offering not only a healhy alternative, but one that provides equal benefits. Unfortunately it instead tries to instill healthy ideas, where the benefit is felt elsewhere. For example, trying to teach young men not to be jerks is obviously a good thing. However, it's often pitched as it being a benefit to women. That's a good thing too, but it's hardly a huge incentive for young men, especially when women aren't particularly put off by jerks and bad boys.

The current trend seems to be aimed at things like moderating elements of masculinity, and trying to change male behaviour. All noble goals, but simply telling men how to behave is somewhat pointless. The decent men will understand and take it on board, but the jerks will just ignore ignore it and still be jerks. Even worse is that it allows room for the likes of Tate to teach others, who might be fundmantally decent but unsuccessful, that being a jerk might bring them success.

In my view, any teaching needs to be not just aimed at men, but women too. In fact, if women want men to behave differently, they don't need to teach men anything at all. All they need to do is stop dating men with such characteristics, and date nice guys instead. I've worked in online content, including dating, and pretty much every survey shows that on average women favour men with more masculine traits, even to the extent of a touch of aggression, arriogance, and even what might be perceived as sexism. Logically one can argue that these aren't good things, but it's pretty hard to win the emotional argument when women appear to favour those traits.

I think there needs to some honesty when it comes to addressing what can be seen as unwanted behaviours. If women want to socially condition men out of them, then they need to look inwards too. People will no doubt criticise me for saying that feminism has failed women in this regard but, whilst it righly points out that certain male behaviours are unwelcome, it only sees it as a male problem, and ignores that some of those behahiours exist largely because a lot of women favour them. Sure, point the finger of blame at men and toxic masculinity, and even seek to teach men and boys not to behave that way. Equally though, teach young girls not to reward such behaviour by continuing to favour men with those characteristics.

I suppose that brings things back to the original point about familty structure and positive male influences. This not only gives young men healthy male role models to live up to, but also gives young girls a grounding in what are healthy masculine traits, which are worthy of favouring; and which ones should be roundly rejected. Without that then both boys and girls are at a disadvantage, and open to the likes of Tate to exploit those vulnerabilities.

[Rh14n]

QJumper said:

MarkwG said:

And, do we have an data that shows whether his supporters come from any particular family demographic?

I believe that there's some US data pointing to incels often coming from single parent households, but not specific to Tate.

The trouble is that Tate appeals to a wider group than just incels. He's taken a mixture of stuff from the old pick up artist days and combined it with methods of financial gain, and added a touch of victimhood, thereby widening the scope of people who might be drawn to it. The appeal of the victimhood approach is that it puts the blame for one's problems on someone else but, when you couple it with things like how to get women and money, it gives the appearance of providing a way to fight back and be successful.

It's a genuine problem that society needs to address, but one I think it tends to handle badly (albeit for good reasons), by attacking his followers, which only serves to confirm and stengthen the victimhood narrative. It's pretty hard to steer someone from an uhealthy path without offering not only a healhy alternative, but one that provides equal benefits. Unfortunately it instead tries to instill healthy ideas, where the benefit is felt elsewhere. For example, trying to teach young men not to be jerks is obviously a good thing. However, it's often pitched as it being a benefit to women. That's a good thing too, but it's hardly a huge incentive for young men, especially when women aren't particularly put off by jerks and bad boys.

The current trend seems to be aimed at things like moderating elements of masculinity, and trying to change male behaviour. All noble goals, but simply telling men how to behave is somewhat pointless. The decent men will understand and take it on board, but the jerks will just ignore ignore it and still be jerks. Even worse is that it allows room for the likes of Tate to teach others, who might be fundmantally decent but unsuccessful, that being a jerk might bring them success.

In my view, any teaching needs to be not just aimed at men, but women too. In fact, if women want men to behave differently, they don't need to teach men anything at all. All they need to do is stop dating men with such characteristics, and date nice guys instead. I've worked in online content, including dating, and pretty much every survey shows that on average women favour men with more masculine traits, even to the extent of a touch of aggression, arriogance, and even what might be perceived as sexism. Logically one can argue that these aren't good things, but it's pretty hard to win the emotional argument when women appear to favour those traits.

I think there needs to some honesty when it comes to addressing what can be seen as unwanted behaviours. If women want to socially condition men out of them, then they need to look inwards too. People will no doubt criticise me for saying that feminism has failed women in this regard but, whilst it righly points out that certain male behaviours are unwelcome, it only sees it as a male problem, and ignores that some of those behahiours exist largely because a lot of women favour them. Sure, point the finger of blame at men and toxic masculinity, and even seek to teach men and boys not to behave that way. Equally though, teach young girls not to reward such behaviour by continuing to favour men with those characteristics.

I suppose that brings things back to the original point about familty structure and positive male influences. This not only gives young men healthy male role models to live up to, but also gives young girls a grounding in what are healthy masculine traits, which are worthy of favouring; and which ones should be roundly rejected. Without that then both boys and girls are at a disadvantage, and open to the likes of Tate to exploit those vulnerabilities.

So, what you're saying is that women are to blame for the way Tate et al behaves. Very good!

[moorx]

I believe men (and women) need positive role models, and that these can be both male and female.

I would say my mum and dad were equally important to myself (as a female) and my brother in teaching us how to treat other people, including those we were in relationships with, and how we should expect to be treated. My dad was a very 'masculine' man and of an older generation, but he treated women with respect, felt that they should do whatever career they wished, and would detest someone like AT.

I realise that others aren't as fortunate to have the strong family unit we had.

[Backtobasics2]

Gareth79 said:

simon_harris said:

Backtobasics2 said:

Has he been found guilty yet? No matter who it is I really despise trial by media. This direction worries me far more, it’s so indiscriminate as well, almost planned in its unplanned nature.

Totally different example, I remember a teacher hitting a horse and it appeared in newspapers/media. She had death threats, lost her job and left her house and I don’t think her life fully recovered. A few weeks later, a famous equestrian personality did the same thing, hardly made the news, all feels a bit strange to me how things are turning out.

That one was even worse in the end, she was cleared of any wrong doing at all in the end

She was found not guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to the animal, because it could not be proven that the horse experienced bruising, or more than minor discomfort. Two vets appeared in court and gave opposing views. I think even she accepted that what she did was in general wrong and unacceptable treatment.

Useful to know, so trial by media came to an incorrect conclusion. Wonder how many times we’ll see that……..

[asfault]

Rh14n said:

QJumper said:

MarkwG said:

And, do we have an data that shows whether his supporters come from any particular family demographic?

I believe that there's some US data pointing to incels often coming from single parent households, but not specific to Tate.

The trouble is that Tate appeals to a wider group than just incels. He's taken a mixture of stuff from the old pick up artist days and combined it with methods of financial gain, and added a touch of victimhood, thereby widening the scope of people who might be drawn to it. The appeal of the victimhood approach is that it puts the blame for one's problems on someone else but, when you couple it with things like how to get women and money, it gives the appearance of providing a way to fight back and be successful.

It's a genuine problem that society needs to address, but one I think it tends to handle badly (albeit for good reasons), by attacking his followers, which only serves to confirm and stengthen the victimhood narrative. It's pretty hard to steer someone from an uhealthy path without offering not only a healhy alternative, but one that provides equal benefits. Unfortunately it instead tries to instill healthy ideas, where the benefit is felt elsewhere. For example, trying to teach young men not to be jerks is obviously a good thing. However, it's often pitched as it being a benefit to women. That's a good thing too, but it's hardly a huge incentive for young men, especially when women aren't particularly put off by jerks and bad boys.

The current trend seems to be aimed at things like moderating elements of masculinity, and trying to change male behaviour. All noble goals, but simply telling men how to behave is somewhat pointless. The decent men will understand and take it on board, but the jerks will just ignore ignore it and still be jerks. Even worse is that it allows room for the likes of Tate to teach others, who might be fundmantally decent but unsuccessful, that being a jerk might bring them success.

In my view, any teaching needs to be not just aimed at men, but women too. In fact, if women want men to behave differently, they don't need to teach men anything at all. All they need to do is stop dating men with such characteristics, and date nice guys instead. I've worked in online content, including dating, and pretty much every survey shows that on average women favour men with more masculine traits, even to the extent of a touch of aggression, arriogance, and even what might be perceived as sexism. Logically one can argue that these aren't good things, but it's pretty hard to win the emotional argument when women appear to favour those traits.

I think there needs to some honesty when it comes to addressing what can be seen as unwanted behaviours. If women want to socially condition men out of them, then they need to look inwards too. People will no doubt criticise me for saying that feminism has failed women in this regard but, whilst it righly points out that certain male behaviours are unwelcome, it only sees it as a male problem, and ignores that some of those behahiours exist largely because a lot of women favour them. Sure, point the finger of blame at men and toxic masculinity, and even seek to teach men and boys not to behave that way. Equally though, teach young girls not to reward such behaviour by continuing to favour men with those characteristics.

I suppose that brings things back to the original point about familty structure and positive male influences. This not only gives young men healthy male role models to live up to, but also gives young girls a grounding in what are healthy masculine traits, which are worthy of favouring; and which ones should be roundly rejected. Without that then both boys and girls are at a disadvantage, and open to the likes of Tate to exploit those vulnerabilities.

So, what you're saying is that women are to blame for the way Tate et al behaves. Very good!

You really didnt read any of that properly did you?

[QJumper]

Rh14n said:

So, what you're saying is that women are to blame for the way Tate et al behaves. Very good!

You'd have to be pretty desperate to shoehorn in such a claim, as I said nothing like that at all. In fact I'm on the side of women when it comes to bad behaviour by men, and am saying that they have at least some power to change it.

What I not on the side of though is those who claim to support women, but then infantilise them by saying that their outcomes are solely dependent upon the actions of men. We could of course take the virtue signalling path of trotting out claims of victims blaming, and saying that women's outcomes are entirely in the hands of men. That might work, it's also called patriarchy. Alternatively we could treat women like fully functioning adults, who have the ability and intelligence to make their own choices, and that the choices they make allow them to independently affect their outcomes, without either help or influence from men. The latter seems more like empowerment to me than the former.

When it comes to Tate's behaviour, specifically regarding women, he doesn't act that way because of how men behave, he does so because a proportion of women will chase after men who appear to have money and power, and will accept a degree of bad behaviour in pursuit of it. No amount of teaching men how to behave will change that. Many such women do so because they have weak boundaries, poor role models, lack confidence or self esteem, or are otherwise vulnerable. It would seem to me far more beneficial to them, and women as a whole, to provide them with support and guidance, in order for them to be independent, rather than keep them dependent upon wishful thinking and the goodwill of men.

Of course that doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach men to behave better, that's a given. Nor should we not blame men who treat women badly, that's a given too. But we should also teach women that they too have some power and control over how they're treated, and that their choices affect their outcomes. Teaching people how to be responsible for those choices is not blaming them for the actions of others, it's teaching them how to be independent, and how to make healthy choices that lead to healthy outcomes.

To think otherwise you'd have to think that women were incapable of being responsible for their own choices, and utterly helpless without the goodwill and protection of men. It assumes that women emerge from the womb as some perfect, delicate, finished article, and that all their problems stem from men being born with a series of flaws that need to be fixed. It's patronising, and removes all power and agency from women. I don't think that, and instead believe that we're all born ignorant, and need the right guidance in order to know not only how best to treat others, but ourselves too. I also think that women have far more power and control over their outcomes than that, and that they should be supported, taught and encouraged how to use that to their benefit.

So no, I'm saying that Tate is to blame for the way that Tate behaves but, unless women are taught how to recognise and reject bad behaviour, and helped and supported in ways that prevent them from being vulnerable to it, then no amount of teaching men how to behave will eliminate the likes of Tate and his ilk.

[Al Gorithum]

I think Tate preys on desperate people. Males for the grift, and females for the promise of money/better life. No amount of education is likely to change any of the three IMO.

Could be wrong though, and hope to be.

[g3org3y]

Rh14n said:

So, what you're saying is that women are to blame for the way Tate et al behaves. Very good!

You are Cathy Newman AICMFP.

[paulguitar]

g3org3y said:

Rh14n said:

So, what you're saying is that women are to blame for the way Tate et al behaves. Very good!

You are Cathy Newman AICMFP.

One of the most blatant Newmanisms ever seen here.

[AKjr]

Sheets Tabuer said:

AKjr said:

paulguitar said:

Well, at the risk of invoking Godwin's law, to be fair, Hitler was good with dogs.

He had his doctor test poison on Blondi.....

Ok then, Jimmy Saville did a lot for charity.

[paulguitar]

[Hoofy]

The current documentary about him and his "generals" is interesting. Control and abuse, and not just of women but of the vulnerable males he snares in his marketing trap. I came away feeling sorry for his fans as well as the women whom his fans and "students" abuse and take advantage of.

I think dealing with these types of extreme scammers can only be dealt with by decent parenting of males before they get to the point where they're drawn in by it all.

Wondering if it's too late to get his fans to realise what's going on.

Edit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m001q1nf/an...

Edited by Hoofy on Sunday 17th March 12:45

[Gareth79]

Backtobasics2 said:

Gareth79 said:

simon_harris said:

Backtobasics2 said:

Has he been found guilty yet? No matter who it is I really despise trial by media. This direction worries me far more, it’s so indiscriminate as well, almost planned in its unplanned nature.

Totally different example, I remember a teacher hitting a horse and it appeared in newspapers/media. She had death threats, lost her job and left her house and I don’t think her life fully recovered. A few weeks later, a famous equestrian personality did the same thing, hardly made the news, all feels a bit strange to me how things are turning out.

That one was even worse in the end, she was cleared of any wrong doing at all in the end

She was found not guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to the animal, because it could not be proven that the horse experienced bruising, or more than minor discomfort. Two vets appeared in court and gave opposing views. I think even she accepted that what she did was in general wrong and unacceptable treatment.

Useful to know, so trial by media came to an incorrect conclusion. Wonder how many times we’ll see that……..

The trial by media said that she behaved like a piece of st to her horse. That is still correct.

[Shiv_P]

I met Andrew Tate in Bucharest on Sunday.
Dare I say it, he was a nice bloke...

[Rh14n]

You were fooled. He is not a 'nice bloke'.

[Chimune]

Shiv_P said:

I met Andrew Tate in Bucharest on Sunday.
Dare I say it, he was a nice bloke...

Are you female? No?
Well that explains that then...

[Al Gorithum]

Shiv_P said:

I met Andrew Tate in Bucharest on Sunday.
Dare I say it, he was a nice bloke...

Interesting. Can you share more?

[LRDefender]

Shiv_P said:

I met Andrew Tate in Bucharest on Sunday.
Dare I say it, he was a nice bloke...

Please tell us more.....

In what capacity were you meeting tate? Were you aware of him and the allegations he faces before your meeting?

I was at a friends bar over the weekend and an English guy, late 30's I guess, was pestering an attractive local woman in her early 20's. The guy then tried to force food into the young womans' mouth. She was visibly upset and got out of her seat and she pushed past the 'pest' and ran behind the bar. The pest didn't take this well at all and started screaming at the young lady to fight him (screaming at her that if she wants to throw testosterone around, then she needs to have it thrown back in her face!!). He had to be restrained and invited to leave the bar. Where this kind of attitude and behaviour towards women comes from is anyones guess but I have my suspicions.....


QJumpers posts above are interesting and thought provoking, thank you for taking the time to share your opinions.

[Shiv_P]

It wasn't a 'meeting', just spotted him outside a hotel in his SF90. I am absolutely not Romanian mafia to have a formal meeting with him