‘There were no warning signs’: what happens when your partner falls into the ‘manosphere’?
With surveys reporting that an increasing number of young men are subscribing to these beliefs, the number of women finding that their partners share the misogynistic views espoused by the likes of Andrew Tate is also on the rise. Research from anti-fascism organisation Hope Not Hate, which polled about 2,000 people across the UK aged 16 to 24, discovered that 41% of young men support Tate versus just 12% of young women.
“Numbers are growing, with wives worried about their husbands and partners becoming radicalised,” says Nigel Bromage, a reformed neo-Nazi who is now the director of Exit Hate Trust, a charity that helps people who want to leave the far right.
“Wives or partners become really worried about the impact on their family, especially those with young children, as they fear they will be influenced by extremism and racism.”
‘There were no warning signs’: what happens when your partner falls into the ‘manosphere’?
More and more men are being sucked into parts of the internet that circulate misogynist content, leaving their families to deal with the wreckageMaya Oppenheim (The Guardian)
like this
osaerisxero
in reply to HellsBelle • • •like this
xep, KaRunChiy, NoneOfUrBusiness and PokyDokie like this.
blakenong
in reply to osaerisxero • • •like this
RandomStickman, KaRunChiy and osaerisxero like this.
HellsBelle
in reply to osaerisxero • • •merc
in reply to HellsBelle • • •You don't need to stay with a devil at all.
Some women are apparently terrified of being single. I've known some who have never been single for more than a few days since they turned 15 or something. I know it can sometimes be more complicated than that, but it's a contributing factor.
HellsBelle
in reply to merc • • •I would argue that being single equates to being alone ... and women who are alone are vulnerable as hell.
So (at least sometimes) the devil you know is safer than the devil you don't.
Refurbished Refurbisher
in reply to HellsBelle • • •merc
in reply to HellsBelle • • •I know one woman who, from her 60s to her 80s, lived in a building that she co-owned with two good friends. Each one had her own full apartment. But, they were able to support each-other. I also know plenty of younger women who have roommates.
I don't think being single necessarily means being alone. Although, it's true that modern western society makes the coupling up option much more low-friction than other ones.
null_dot
in reply to osaerisxero • • •Yeah I don't really understand this claim.
My partner and I disagree on a lot of things, but I can predict with near certainty where she stands on things because she my partner, we have shared a life together, and I know her.
Rimu
in reply to HellsBelle • • •like this
KaRunChiy, NoneOfUrBusiness and PokyDokie like this.
Ledericas
in reply to Rimu • • •Necroscope0
in reply to Ledericas • • •triptrapper
in reply to Necroscope0 • • •Necroscope0
in reply to triptrapper • • •grrgyle
in reply to Ledericas • • •Weirdly, I know of more women who listen to joe rogan than men (okay, the numbers are 2 to 0, so not that mindblowing). I don't fucking get it.
It was the same thing with friends who liked Elon Musk before he went fully mask off after buying Twitter. Who he was, and the function he provided, was so completely obvious to anyone who was paying attention. I don't get how anyone could miss it.
Refurbished Refurbisher
in reply to grrgyle • • •People missed it because they chose to "not pay attention to politics", leading to right wing indoctrination.
Turns out everything is political.
Evotech
in reply to Rimu • • •BillyTheKid
in reply to Rimu • • •biofaust
in reply to BillyTheKid • • •BillyTheKid
in reply to biofaust • • •biofaust
in reply to BillyTheKid • • •I believe him to be of Russian descent, and playing hard on the American stereotype of that.
He has had a troubled academic career due to a faulty paper trying to prove Tesla's Autopilot to make people more attentive.
He has a long standing podcast in which he interviews mostly techbros and politicians such as Musk, Carmack, Trump, Modi and the like for hours at a time.
He never really challenges them and lets them speak on whatever they bring up, turning his podcasts into hours-long PR stunts.
Probably a Russian asset, given that in to his conversation with Zelensky he reiterated Trump/Vance talking points.
I have noticed that people who later reveal themselves to be into Joe Rogan and the like first test the waters by asking you if you listened to the latest Fridman podcast. I work in a tech consultancy so I have quite a sample, but it could also be a bubble.
Andrew Rousso made a spot on imitation of the guy here, as usual. It's worth listening to a Lex Fridman podcast intro just to enjoy Rousso's imitation.
- YouTube
youtube.comBeardedGingerWonder
in reply to biofaust • • •Refurbished Refurbisher
in reply to BeardedGingerWonder • • •biofaust
in reply to Refurbished Refurbisher • • •biofaust
in reply to BeardedGingerWonder • • •vga
in reply to BillyTheKid • • •blakenong
Unknown parent • • •Mothra
in reply to HellsBelle • • •like this
KaRunChiy, NoneOfUrBusiness, PokyDokie, AGuyAcrossTheInternet and BlueKey like this.
Not_mikey
in reply to Mothra • • •like this
KaRunChiy, NoneOfUrBusiness, PokyDokie and AGuyAcrossTheInternet like this.
Mothra
in reply to Not_mikey • • •like this
AGuyAcrossTheInternet likes this.
Saleh
in reply to Mothra • • •I think this is ambigous. When people are asked "do you support the views of Andrew Tate?" How many actually know these in particular? What if individual views are asked and then if more than 50% are answered with "support" it is considered to support his views overall?
I've read enough news to know that Tate is a terrible person and probably a serious criminal. But i would not be able to describe his views, nor do i want to find out what his views are exactly.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
ijedi1234
in reply to Saleh • • •HellsBelle
in reply to ijedi1234 • • •And rapist, human trafficker, scammer, etc etc etc.
Scumbucket for short.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Mothra
in reply to Saleh • • •NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
HellsBelle
in reply to Saleh • • •Here are three of the research pieces the article uses ...
hopenothate.org.uk/2024/07/24/…
hopenothate.org.uk/2024/07/24/…
hopenothate.org.uk/2024/07/24/…
Saleh
in reply to HellsBelle • • •I looked at the one for mysoginy
... show moreI looked at the one for mysoginy
I think the source provides a nuanced picture and offer suggestions how to combat his influence that got lost in the short notion in the guardian article.
barsoap
in reply to Saleh • • •Speaking of,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGAqIFxl43Q
FarceOfWill
in reply to Saleh • • •The raw numbers maybe obscure this but aren't the popularity levels are really about how far along the radicalisation they are?
People start watching for the lifestyle and fitness then end up believing the other stuff and watching for that.
I guess women stall out more because who could believe that kind of stuff about themselves?
pablodaniel
in reply to Saleh • • •This is it. People like Trump, Tate, Musk, and West all know how saying provocative yet ambiguous statements causes people to talk about them.
It's really an art at this point, and I'm wondering if they've been working on making it a science.
WhyJiffie
in reply to Not_mikey • • •mythical simple past but they wouldn't put down the fucking phone. anything but the phone!!
(regardless of gender)
pablodaniel
in reply to WhyJiffie • • •sparky@lemmy.federate.cc
in reply to Not_mikey • • •Necroscope0
in reply to sparky@lemmy.federate.cc • • •pablodaniel
in reply to Not_mikey • • •I'm reminded of the inspiration behind the Rust programming language.
"Rust is very much a language inspired from the past to save the future from itself."
Sorry, rampant consumerism has been detrimental to our species as a whole. Now no matter how much we have, it's never enough.
I'm glad people are fighting back against this 'new normal' that really only exists to funnel as much money as possible to the people at the top.
Also, if you leave Western nations you'll see that this "mythical simpler past" is still alive and well. The rest of the world is looking at the West like we're crazy, and most of us are. It's called hysteria.
modeler
in reply to Mothra • • •Almost every survey will get 6-10% of people answering yes to the most extreme or batshit crazy option, no matter what.
Probably the main reason is that people are pissed off that they are being approached by survey takers and punish the survey for revenge.
And there are some batshit crazy people out there.
Blackmist
in reply to modeler • • •KernelTale
in reply to modeler • • •MonkderVierte
in reply to KernelTale • • •Madzielle
in reply to Mothra • • •These would be the "pick me's" whether they realize it or not
Women who are raised by misogynists but can't see past it. Women who have insecurities and can't see past it.
They are latching on to the same order for security cuz it's all they know.
Just a guess
pablodaniel
in reply to Mothra • • •You must be new to the world, then.
Getting everyone to agree on anything is nigh-impossible.
scarabic
in reply to Mothra • • •I once sat next to a couple on the plane and the young woman was showing her bf a video of Tate talking about how men should be stoic and never complain because no one wants to hear that pussy bullshit. She was saying things to him like “You know how you freak out and bitch at me? You should be like him.”
So yeah… there are women out there who like him. They like hardcore traditional gender roles, is probably the base of it, and want a man doing cliche man shit like Tate preaches. Some women are dealt a great hand by traditional standards: big tits, blond hair, nice face, and they would rather settle into being provided for than fuss with all that feminism stuff. It’s idiotic but people believe whatever’s in their interests. And surprise surprise, these women don’t want men to have emotional needs.
Mothra
in reply to scarabic • • •jagermo
Unknown parent • • •peoplebeproblems
Unknown parent • • •Ah, see, i knew there was a trad wife catch.
Private schools. shudders
chemical_cutthroat
in reply to HellsBelle • • •100_kg_90_de_belin
in reply to chemical_cutthroat • • •Strawberry
in reply to chemical_cutthroat • • •Max
in reply to Strawberry • • •Strawberry
in reply to Max • • •yoshman
in reply to peoplebeproblems • • •Yermaw
in reply to HellsBelle • • •like this
AGuyAcrossTheInternet, NoneOfUrBusiness and Quantumantics like this.
BillyTheKid
in reply to Yermaw • • •w3dd1e
in reply to HellsBelle • • •Occasionally my partner does or says some things that remind me of the “manosphere” aka 4chan neckbeards.
And when it happens, we talk about it. I don’t pretend or let it go as “he doesn’t mean it” or “he doesn’t know what he’s saying”. I don’t get mad and he doesn’t get mad. We have an adult discussion and I’m careful not to talk down to him.
A perfect example was that he sometimes says “females” when he means “women”. I explain that it’s not a swear word but it’s still derogatory. I explain why. Once I did, he understood and stopped doing it.
It doesn’t have to be a big deal! Communication is key!
like this
themadcodger and Quantumantics like this.
lmmarsano
in reply to w3dd1e • • •It logically isn't.
While you think that, and anyone spending their future with you should mind it, it doesn't make it true.
w3dd1e
in reply to lmmarsano • • •It is if you say “man” and “female” instead of “male” and “female”. While it can be a noun, it’s mainly used as an adjective to describe sex.
It’s like saying “A black owns the shop.” Instead of “A black man owns the shop.”
Notice how calling someone “a black” is kinda icky?
lmmarsano
in reply to w3dd1e • • •That's extra cringe if they do: that person needs to sort out their words.
Is it not derogatory if they say “male” and “female”?
It's hard cringe & awkward: certain to provoke odd looks.
Referring to someone as an instance of their gender could be icky & cringe.
That it's also derogatory doesn't follow: the easiest counterexample is "a male".
Glide
in reply to lmmarsano • • •Male's haven't been actively repressed as a result of their gender for thousands of years. Simply switching the genders does not work because they're not equitible terms. Systematically speaking, they come from different backgrounds and expectations.
I take your point that "female" as a durogatory term is relative to the context it's used in. But we can't pretend we've lived in a world of equal opportunity that treats men and women, males and females, equally in trying to make that point.
lmmarsano
in reply to Glide • • •While I agree with the first part, that is not implied or necessary to refute the argument as presented.
They argued the same reasoning applies to "male" (literally).
It clearly doesn't.
Therefore, whatever the reasoning could be, their argument isn't it.
Basic logic.
If a sound argument exists, we should present that.
Otherwise, we're pretending to reason.
exception to a proposed general rule
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)While I agree with the first part, that is not implied or necessary to refute the argument as presented.
They argued the same reasoning applies to "male" (literally).
It clearly doesn't.
Therefore, whatever the reasoning could be, their argument isn't it.
Basic logic.
If a sound argument exists, we should present that.
Otherwise, we're pretending to reason.
w3dd1e
2025-04-20 14:23:42
Whats_your_reasoning
in reply to lmmarsano • • •What makes you the ultimate authority on what terms a woman can consider "derogatory"? Where do you get the power to decide what words other people should use to describe their own feelings? What makes your opinion about it more valid than those of others?
Have you considered that the same word can make two different people feel two different ways? Unless you've got the power to know exactly what another person is feeling, there is nothing that makes your thoughts more valid than the thoughts of others in this matter. Doubling down that "derogatory" isn't the right word to use gives the impression that you don't believe "female" actually feels derogatory to a lot of women. Gotta wonder why that might be.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
Dictionary.comlmmarsano
in reply to Whats_your_reasoning • • •Filtered word: nsfw
I don't need to be or decide it and it's not my opinion: the language community is the ultimate authority of their language.
Their collective choices establish observable conventions.
Linguistics is dedicated to that approach.
Subjectivist fallacy: your opinion/feelings don't make claims true.
Up doesn't mean down because someone feels that way.
Language has conventional, established meanings.
Another comment fully argues, explains, & criticizes your argument, which I won't bother to rehash here.
lmmarsano
2025-04-22 08:34:15
Whats_your_reasoning
in reply to lmmarsano • • •Way to absolutely miss the point.
A not-insignificant amount of women think using the term "female" is derogatory. Women who feel that way are part of the "language community." You're talking like we're some outsider group, whose use of English is less valid than yours.
... show moreLanguage is alive - it evolves, it changes. As well, English famously doesn't have an established body to define meanings. Rather, English words are based on common usage. Women commonly experience the usage of "female" in a derogatory sense. We didn't designate it this way - all we're doing is pointing out that it's used in this way. Just because you don't feel a derogatory sense from a given word doesn't mean those that experienc
Way to absolutely miss the point.
A not-insignificant amount of women think using the term "female" is derogatory. Women who feel that way are part of the "language community." You're talking like we're some outsider group, whose use of English is less valid than yours.
Language is alive - it evolves, it changes. As well, English famously doesn't have an established body to define meanings. Rather, English words are based on common usage. Women commonly experience the usage of "female" in a derogatory sense. We didn't designate it this way - all we're doing is pointing out that it's used in this way. Just because you don't feel a derogatory sense from a given word doesn't mean those that experience it that way are wrong.
If you had gone out to research the usage of "female," including how people perceive it in different contexts, you'd see just how many anglophones disagree with you. But those people would probably, by and large, be those who've experienced that word in a derogatory way - in other words, they'd be women. So how about we stop acting like this is a semantics issue and get to the point you're really saying, which is that women's experiences and opinions are somehow worth less than yours.
lmmarsano
in reply to Whats_your_reasoning • • •Filtered word: nsfw
And a nonsignificant amount don't.
That doesn't establish a generally accepted convention of the language community.
True: still not a conventional definition per earlier remarks.
Exactly: convention.
Incomplete evidence or composition fallacy.
Nope, not implied & it's not about my use, either.
It's about observed, established convention: see earlier remarks (notice a pattern yet?).
The lack of consistency across usages indicates that derogatory meaning is not a convention.
And plenty of innocuous instances exist as discussed before.
That doesn't make a word itself derogatory:
I don't deny derogatory instances.
Do you deny nonderogatory instances?
It's simple overgeneralization: people can draw wrong conclusions about their observations, especially if they disregard conflicting observations (incomplete evidence fallacy).
Observing derogatory uses while disregarding nonderogatory uses doesn't justify any conclusion about a word's conventional definition.
It varies by message, so it's not the word itself.
Straw man fallacy.
Not implied.
Maybe you follow the logic I wrote, but the conclusion still feels wrong, so you're unwilling to accept it.
Let's unpack that feeling.
The conventional definition that the noun "female" isn't derogatory feels wrong, because sexists use that word in an ugly way, and opposing that would feel relieving.
What can we do with these feelings?
Here's one idea: even though it's not generally accepted, let's make the noun "female" an official dirty word.
Let's accept the premise of their sexism that "females" are lesser and take it further than they did: spread it to the broader community, normalize it into the official language so everyone accepts the noun for an entire gender is a dirty word.
The sexists might even be grateful.
Would that feel better?
If so, then extraterrestrial anthropologists studying you might reasonably conclude you're a misogynist.
Otherwise, you might want to tell your feelings "Fuck you, feelings! Stop making me do stupid shit!".
Alternatively, understand your feelings & guide them better.
lmmarsano
2025-04-22 08:34:15
toynbee
in reply to w3dd1e • • •I was going to comment that, a while ago, I saw someone on Lemmy make almost exactly this comment.
Now I wonder if the person I saw was you or, alternatively, whether you saw the same person.
w3dd1e
in reply to toynbee • • •toynbee
in reply to w3dd1e • • •EndlessNightmare
in reply to w3dd1e • • •SacralPlexus
in reply to lmmarsano • • •Language isn’t always about logic. Discussing things in terms of male/female is fine in many contexts but is often done when discussing science or medical topics. Ex: the male pelvis has a different, narrower shape than the female pelvis. It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.
In daily life, most people use men/women for non-scientific discourse. The women’s restroom. A group of men at the restaurant. Etc.
But here’s the thing. Male/female are used for any species (a male beetle), but man/woman are only used for humans.
Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females because it can be dehumanizing to women. When you say female you could be talking about an insect, but a man is human. It’s a succinct example of their philosophy. That’s why people consider it derogatory.
... show moreLanguage isn’t always about logic. Discussing things in terms of male/female is fine in many contexts but is often done when discussing science or medical topics. Ex: the male pelvis has a different, narrower shape than the female pelvis. It’s also used in situations where people are deliberately ‘othering’ people. Watch any police bodycam footage and you’ll see that cops frequently say “male/female” when discussing non-police individuals.
In daily life, most people use men/women for non-scientific discourse. The women’s restroom. A group of men at the restaurant. Etc.
But here’s the thing. Male/female are used for any species (a male beetle), but man/woman are only used for humans.
Assholes like Tate push a twist in this dynamic so that men are called men but women are called females because it can be dehumanizing to women. When you say female you could be talking about an insect, but a man is human. It’s a succinct example of their philosophy. That’s why people consider it derogatory.
lmmarsano
in reply to SacralPlexus • • •I think we grasp cognitive meaning & emotive force in language.
I think we also understand the concept of twisting words, have likely rolled our eyes witnessing it, and generally agree that a fair, reasonable person should resist it.
The claim is the word itself is derogatory.
It's an argument roughly of the form:
These look like errors of reasoning: a persuasive definition (a definition biased in favor of a particular conclusion or point of view) and a type of straw man fallacy.
While it can be used in a derogatory way, that's not the general, conventional meaning.
... show moreYet you attempt to defend the claim by a (specious
I think we grasp cognitive meaning & emotive force in language.
I think we also understand the concept of twisting words, have likely rolled our eyes witnessing it, and generally agree that a fair, reasonable person should resist it.
The claim is the word itself is derogatory.
It's an argument roughly of the form:
These look like errors of reasoning: a persuasive definition (a definition biased in favor of a particular conclusion or point of view) and a type of straw man fallacy.
While it can be used in a derogatory way, that's not the general, conventional meaning.
Yet you attempt to defend the claim by a (specious) logic language doesn't follow, either.
Language does follow a standard (of sorts): convention.
By that standard, the claim is false.
Natural language gains conventional meaning through collective choices of the language community.
This general acceptance is reflected in responses of native speakers (not niche online opinions who don't decide for the entire language community).
If (as reported) native speakers require frequent "correction" on a word's meaning, that indicates the proposed meaning isn't generally accepted.
A longstanding definition (like "female" as a nonderogatory noun) holds more weight than a novel reinterpretation recognized by fewer.
If the "corrections" aren't, then what are they?
At best, a proposed language change—an attempt to push the idea that the noun "female" is derogatory and change the way allies speak.
Is it a good proposal?
Would defining the noun "female" as derogatory weaken sexist ideologies?
Unlikely: extremists like Andrew Tate wouldn't adjust their rhetoric because of a vocabulary.
They wouldn't need to adjust a single word.
Is it just?
Justice requires targeting wrongdoers narrowly—discrediting problematic messages, condemning extremist ideologies, promoting deradicalization.
Blanket condemnation based on a word punishes nonoffenders instead of actual wrongdoers.
Antagonizing nonoffending parties alienates potential allies rather than foster change.
The result?
A reductive purity test that challenges & penalizes allies instead of challenge wrongdoers.
That is neither right nor beneficial.
Would making the noun "female" a dysphemism suggest to society that femaleness is wrong/taboo?
That seems misguided.
Why that word?
The assumption appears to be that usage by sexist extremists taints the word itself as if the word is to blame for their rhetoric.
It's roughly an argument of the form
First, is premise 1 true: do figures like Andrew Tate even use the noun "female" disproportionately?
I've only seen it among socially awkward individuals: not the same crowd.
More crucially, this argument is invalid: it's a genetic fallacy (guilt by association).
Thus, the proposal doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned: it's not good in any sense.
or legal or technical or any context for impersonal abstraction.
Such language has appeared in classified ads for apartment rentals: there's even a movie about it.
Not derogatory.
Context matters.
While US policing has serious issues, this claim seems forced: impersonal terms are standard in legal settings.
Recalling an earlier question: do they?
Though interesting if so, that alone doesn't make the word in general derogatory.
Nonderogatory instances are common (as you've identified).
If a word requires a particular message to be derogatory, then the message (not the word) is responsible.
The use of a word in a derogatory message doesn't make it derogatory.
That would require an unattainable level of purity (ie, never appear in derogatory messages) for nonderogatory words.
Your argument really shows the people who "consider it derogatory" misattribute an entire rhetoric to a word.
Final thought: humans don't need constant reassurance that they're humans to know they aren't being demeaned (unless they're painfully insecure).
tl;dr The claim that noun "female" is derogatory is false according to conventional meaning established by the language's community, corroborated by the frequent need to "correct" native speakers.
Moreover, the claim doesn't advance (and may undermine) a good cause, is unjust, may rely on incorrect premises, and is poorly reasoned.
form of stipulative definition which purports to describe the true or commonly accepted meaning of a term
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)the_q
in reply to w3dd1e • • •w3dd1e
in reply to the_q • • •I appreciate that he is willing to learn and grow. We all make mistakes. If you understand why it’s offensive and keep doing it, yeah red flag.
I think the ability to change with new information is admirable.
starman2112
in reply to the_q • • •the_q
in reply to starman2112 • • •Steve Dice
in reply to the_q • • •pablodaniel
in reply to the_q • • •I'm guessing you're single.
Everyone, keep in mind, there's a lot of losers on the internet who will never find love and don't want you to find love, either.
Don't end up like them unless you want to.
DefederateLemmyMl
in reply to w3dd1e • • •Sure, but honestly it sounds tiring if this kind of discussion is a recurring thing.
w3dd1e
in reply to DefederateLemmyMl • • •pablodaniel
in reply to DefederateLemmyMl • • •Match!!
in reply to w3dd1e • • •w3dd1e
in reply to Match!! • • •djsoren19
in reply to Match!! • • •serious answer: by consistently running and reading experiments that refer to male and female patients.
I try my best, but if I've read three-four papers in a day about a topic and all of them use male and female, probably gonna accidentally say female.
w3dd1e
Unknown parent • • •It has also seeped into every aspect of male culture. You want to watch a YouTube show about cars? Sure. The first couple episodes are normal and then they start sliding in dumb shit.
You listen to a podcast about working out? Same thing goes. It’s little stuff here and there. Sometimes it starts as a reoccurring joke, but it keeps happening until they actually believe.
I also find there are a lot of young people who aren’t comfortable on computers and basically believe whatever they see on the internet, much like an older generation.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
mineralfellow
in reply to w3dd1e • • •scintilla
in reply to w3dd1e • • •Blackmist
in reply to HellsBelle • • •like this
Quantumantics likes this.
Lyrl
Unknown parent • • •MonkderVierte
Unknown parent • • •perestroika
in reply to HellsBelle • • •When I date people, I don't allow myself to go forward without completing a mutual background check. I ask questions and talk about politics, tell about situations I've encountered and listen attentively.
I want to know about the other person's world views, decision-making and problem-solving methods - and to inform them about my own. I want to know how they tell apart truth from a lie, what they think about state and centralization, wealth and poverty, science and religion, civil rights and minorities - and to inform them about what I think, so they could make informed decisions.
Ironically, I don't wish to know what party they vote for - because the selection is shitty and I laugh about my own past choices. :)
Recalling situations where world views mismatched - I've had to part ways with one person because she was too spiritual. Two people subscribed to odd conspiracy theories. One person's goals in life warned me about excessive self-interest and lack of care about others.
P.S.
Trying to switch perspective and step into the shoes of a woman, I thin
... show moreWhen I date people, I don't allow myself to go forward without completing a mutual background check. I ask questions and talk about politics, tell about situations I've encountered and listen attentively.
I want to know about the other person's world views, decision-making and problem-solving methods - and to inform them about my own. I want to know how they tell apart truth from a lie, what they think about state and centralization, wealth and poverty, science and religion, civil rights and minorities - and to inform them about what I think, so they could make informed decisions.
Ironically, I don't wish to know what party they vote for - because the selection is shitty and I laugh about my own past choices. :)
Recalling situations where world views mismatched - I've had to part ways with one person because she was too spiritual. Two people subscribed to odd conspiracy theories. One person's goals in life warned me about excessive self-interest and lack of care about others.
P.S.
Trying to switch perspective and step into the shoes of a woman, I think it can be a warning sign if the other person gives excessive gifts or feels "obligated to take care" - one should inquire about the reason. I would also be wary of people who eagerly accept me as the new centerpoint of their life - it might indicate an obsessive tendency and severe symptoms if the relation should break. If the other person exhibited jealousy about friends or controlling behaviour, that would be a definite warning sign to me.
P.P.S.
As for social media, yes, it can corrupt people's perception of reality. How to pull them out of the bog, no idea. As for how to avoid them getting there: no algorithmically steered social media.
aceshigh
in reply to perestroika • • •AscendantSquid
in reply to aceshigh • • •andros_rex
in reply to perestroika • • •Huge red flag. Becomes a tool of control (I was married into a wealthy family.)
The big thing is that they can change their personality after marriage - once you are trapped. There were red flags there, which I shouldn’t have ignored, but it was like night and day.
Mine started getting interested in stuff like religion - noticed that his pastor friend got to play WoW all day while the wife basically did everything.
grrgyle
in reply to perestroika • • •For my part I've just confessed my ignorance of what's going on on the commercial web, and shared with them the kinds of conversations I'm have on the non-commercial parts (fedi, email, chats, smol web, etc), which are usually nicer and more productive.
Although to certain extent I still consider this here a form a social media... and I'm not actually sure that it's good for us past a certain number of people. It might be "more cacophony than community" to quote one of Matthew Graybosch's blog posts.
It is better here than on the mainstream social medias, though. That's for sure for sure.
EDIT anyway, that's a total aside. I just couldn't help picking up that one thread. Good comment. I love your approach.
Madzielle
in reply to w3dd1e • • •I opened a new YouTube account and watched some videogame videos. Rust if you're curious. I'm a woman and this game is played by mostly men.
At some point my husband was struggling with his mental health, we were in gridlock so I tried to look up male perspective mental health videos to see if i could understand him better or reach him in a new way.
Those two searches alone, unlocked a flood of bullshit into my feed. I couldnt believe the garbage I was bombarded with.
It is akin to how women are pummeled with beauty ads and standards (buy this to be pretty!) since we are young.
They figured out how to market this same insecurity to men.
Wild stuff
Edit: except they aren't just selling "self care" like they do to us, they're selling hate-
w3dd1e
Unknown parent • • •HellsBelle
in reply to Lyrl • • •Ickabod Kobain
in reply to HellsBelle • • •grrgyle
in reply to Ickabod Kobain • • •CanadaPlus
in reply to HellsBelle • • •Just based on what I see women doing around me all the time, there were probably some warning signs. Looking for a dude that's "traditional" or whatever is asking for a dude that's going to see you like a form of livestock. It's partly a politics thing, but largely an assholes thing.
WTF those are both shockingly high.
Bytemeister
in reply to CanadaPlus • • •I support Tate...
...Being locked in prison for the rest of his life.
whodrankarnoldpalmer
in reply to Bytemeister • • •thisisnotgoingwell
in reply to CanadaPlus • • •CanadaPlus
in reply to thisisnotgoingwell • • •Depends what you mean by "traditional worldview". I'll go ahead and say young earth creationism shows a lack of openness to objective reality when it's not personally convenient.
In the context I mean, what gets justified with tradition is behavior like putting on a fake persona when dating, pushing boundaries, disregarding the rights of strangers around them and generally being an entitled, eventually controlling dickwad. They'll say that's what men have always done, and boys will be boys or whatever, but I'm certain nobody had to "twist their arm".
When I see one of those dudes dragging a girl around, I have to wonder if she's chasing a kink. That's not how you go about it, if so. 50 Shades of Grey was fiction.
thisisnotgoingwell
in reply to CanadaPlus • • •CanadaPlus
in reply to thisisnotgoingwell • • •lightnsfw
in reply to thisisnotgoingwell • • •Not unable, unwilling. It requires them to be 'weak' and concede that they may be part of the problem. I say this as a man that had to work through some of this shit when I was young.
pablodaniel
in reply to lightnsfw • • •lightnsfw
in reply to pablodaniel • • •pablodaniel
in reply to lightnsfw • • •Right, it was implied though.
Essentially, we shouldn't listen to the men complaining but the men should listen to you complaining?
BeardedGingerWonder
in reply to pablodaniel • • •lightnsfw
in reply to pablodaniel • • •thisisnotgoingwell
in reply to lightnsfw • • •vga
in reply to CanadaPlus • • •CanadaPlus
in reply to vga • • •grrgyle
in reply to CanadaPlus • • •CanadaPlus
in reply to grrgyle • • •Yup. In the last week or two, I managed to snort shampoo. I wasn't trying to get high; I'm just operating at that level of organisation.
I'm not personally a left-wing asshole, although that's more of a show thing than a tell thing. But, I've gotten to know plenty. The point being that thinking Andrew Tate is cool is a very specific kind of dumb and/or mean.
grrgyle
in reply to vga • • •Still, 41% sounds absolutely critical level, like we need to stop all society and have a conversation, because that is so uncool.
Fucking 41... Like that is a plurality. That is a whole fucking lot of wrong people. That is entirely too many bros. I'm not sure I can impart just how disappointing that number is.
vga
in reply to grrgyle • • •blarghly
in reply to CanadaPlus • • •Yeah....
pablodaniel
in reply to blarghly • • •I mean, it's a tale as old as time.
Shitty males buy females thing to avoid being held accountable.
pablodaniel
in reply to CanadaPlus • • •I disagree.
Usually it's the 'modern' women who have been convinced to be treated like livestock. Nothing very traditional about going to raves or wearing pasties.
CanadaPlus
in reply to pablodaniel • • •There's green-tea smelling book clubs too if that's more their speed, but a lot of people think raves are fun. Same for the pasties; they're an option, but it sounds like hipsters in a version of full Victorian dress are just as much of a thing. The central fact being that they get a choice.
The various cultures around the world have many, often contradicting versions of traditionalism. My own tells a good story about women having "respect", but it's a version of respect that doesn't require much from men.
Listen to a random country song. There's a party with cheap beer, where the women are just potential bedpost notches, but the protagonist goes to church on Sunday and feigns piousness, so they still get to be One of the Holy Ones™. A girl's dad shows up and defends her "honour", but it's implied he did the exact same shit when he was young, and at no point are her preferences considered at all. The song ends with a thinly veiled plug for the pickup truck company sponsoring the artist.
It's easy to see why dudes who hew to that are just looking fo
... show moreThere's green-tea smelling book clubs too if that's more their speed, but a lot of people think raves are fun. Same for the pasties; they're an option, but it sounds like hipsters in a version of full Victorian dress are just as much of a thing. The central fact being that they get a choice.
The various cultures around the world have many, often contradicting versions of traditionalism. My own tells a good story about women having "respect", but it's a version of respect that doesn't require much from men.
Listen to a random country song. There's a party with cheap beer, where the women are just potential bedpost notches, but the protagonist goes to church on Sunday and feigns piousness, so they still get to be One of the Holy Ones™. A girl's dad shows up and defends her "honour", but it's implied he did the exact same shit when he was young, and at no point are her preferences considered at all. The song ends with a thinly veiled plug for the pickup truck company sponsoring the artist.
It's easy to see why dudes who hew to that are just looking for a way to justify how shitty they always were, underneath it all. Because in practice I see that all the time, living where I do.
Spacehooks
in reply to HellsBelle • • •Hmm. Follow the money people!
This seems like a ploy by therapists and divorce lawyers! Who else has to gain by this level of stupidity?
I mean i guess gene stealer cultist...But besdies them!
merc
in reply to Spacehooks • • •Spacehooks
in reply to merc • • •whodrankarnoldpalmer
Unknown parent • • •Sineljora
Unknown parent • • •chunes
in reply to HellsBelle • • •iknowitwheniseeit
in reply to chunes • • •Can you give some examples? Do you mean the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage in 2015? The #metoo movement in 2017? Black Lives Matter protests in 2020?
What do you think has gone too far?
pablodaniel
in reply to iknowitwheniseeit • • •I agree with him, but I also respect his decision not to answer.
Unfortunately, people like you can't stand when someone says something you don't like so you constantly try to pull them into a debate.
Not everyone is worth replying to, regardless of how much they beg for a response.
Steve Dice
in reply to pablodaniel • • •chunes
in reply to iknowitwheniseeit • • •I applaud legalized gay marriage and BLM protests.
No, it pretty much just comes down to demonizing men, constantly, to the point that they are not even allowed to stand up for themselves. Just standing up for men when they get generalized is enough to get you censored now.
That's why you've lost gen z men. It's not some mystery.
Ledericas
in reply to HellsBelle • • •pablodaniel
in reply to Ledericas • • •Agreed.
It's clear though what kind of males fall for these influencers; the ones without good male role models or father figures in their lives.
Why don't they have good male role models or father figures? I think it's because they feel they can only choose between 'cuck' and 'chad' so when their insecurity flares up, they instinctively go with 'chad.'
Balance is lost among men in our society. There's no 'firmness' anymore. Either men are pensive emo teens, or they're boisterous blowhards like tate.
Anyone in between is ignored and forgotten about.
Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to Ledericas • • •DozensOfDonner
in reply to HellsBelle • • •CalipherJones
in reply to DozensOfDonner • • •People absolutely take this stuff seriously. The problem is the most bone headed guys are the ones likely to fall for this stuff. Once they're sucked in it's hard to convince them otherwise.
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Grizzlyboy
in reply to CalipherJones • • •Yeah, I’m studying to be a teacher and have had several internships during my education.
Young teen boys, 12-15, are into it. They aren’t a majority, but they exist. One of the students came to me and asked if I knew what the matrix was. He was really into redpill shit! Had many conversations with him and hope he hasn’t gone deeper.
Corkyskog
in reply to Grizzlyboy • • •pablodaniel
in reply to Corkyskog • • •Taking the red pill means different things to different people.
I hope one day we can have psychologists seriously study and analyze the meaning behind such an idea and how it can be such a powerful tool.
BeardedGingerWonder
in reply to Grizzlyboy • • •nickiwest
in reply to BeardedGingerWonder • • •BigPotato
in reply to BeardedGingerWonder • • •No, the Wachowskis are trans and therefore bad.
X-pill has transcended the artist's intent, much like Pepe the Frog. Feelsbadman
pablodaniel
in reply to DozensOfDonner • • •It's probably 50/50.
50% of the people are using it as entertainment and laughing at/encouraging those who take it seriously. We can call them the 'trolls.'
50% of the people are actually taking it seriously and don't know any better. We can call them the 'tools.'
Barbecue Cowboy
in reply to DozensOfDonner • • •TrackinDaKraken
in reply to DozensOfDonner • • •vga
in reply to HellsBelle • • •carbonari_sandwich
in reply to vga • • •parrhesia
in reply to carbonari_sandwich • • •ReiRose
in reply to parrhesia • • •Naevermix
in reply to vga • • •lightnsfw
in reply to Naevermix • • •RedPostItNote
in reply to lightnsfw • • •l0ngest
in reply to RedPostItNote • • •IMO this is basically how society works. As soon as you rally more than a few people together under any singular form of identity (brand, activity, social movement), it turns toxic. So, by the time the label carries any meaning (e.g. MGTOW or even something like Feminist) the "voice" of the group becomes abrasive very quickly, and the internal ranks are filled with crazies that have so little meaning in their life that they actually enjoy forming their whole identity around a specific subject.
So you like cars and go to a car meet. You'll meet a few cool folks. But the people there are just from the general population, with only one thing in common. If you find that you typically only really like 1/50 people you meet, you're not going to find a higher ratio just because everyone likes cars, unless you literally value cars over all the other sociocultural aspects of your life. As a group, they'll push ideals and causes that go overboard to support the thing they like. Maybe anti-biker or anti-evironmentalist sentiments, want more roads instead of better mass transit, etc.. al
... show moreIMO this is basically how society works. As soon as you rally more than a few people together under any singular form of identity (brand, activity, social movement), it turns toxic. So, by the time the label carries any meaning (e.g. MGTOW or even something like Feminist) the "voice" of the group becomes abrasive very quickly, and the internal ranks are filled with crazies that have so little meaning in their life that they actually enjoy forming their whole identity around a specific subject.
So you like cars and go to a car meet. You'll meet a few cool folks. But the people there are just from the general population, with only one thing in common. If you find that you typically only really like 1/50 people you meet, you're not going to find a higher ratio just because everyone likes cars, unless you literally value cars over all the other sociocultural aspects of your life. As a group, they'll push ideals and causes that go overboard to support the thing they like. Maybe anti-biker or anti-evironmentalist sentiments, want more roads instead of better mass transit, etc.. all sorts of things the average person who just "likes cars" may not be comfortable getting behind.
HellsBelle
in reply to l0ngest • • •Tbf I suspect a lot of this developed from people moving from a "we" mindset during WW2 to the "me" mindset that came out of Reaganomics.
When humanity can no longer look at our neighbour and simply respect them - no matter their skin colour, religion or political viewpoint - that's when the shit hits the fan.
And politicians have seen fit to feed this sickness rather than work towards unity ... because peace doesn't pay (or play) as well as divisiveness.
Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to l0ngest • • •People are a problem.
And the more people the more problem.
Naevermix
in reply to lightnsfw • • •ameancow
in reply to Naevermix • • •Social identity is one of those things we never talk about, it's something most people don't even believe exists. But it's so fundamental to who we are as a species that when it's taken away, people will lose the will to live entirely even if they're not depressed or have any mental illness. This has been researched to a great degree and we've made laws pertaining to how we treat prisoners because we've collectively determined that to take someone's social identity away is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.
Meanwhile, we have all built an interconnected palace to finding ways to dismantle our own social identities online. It doesn't matter how "introverted" you think you are or how reclusive you feel, you need a social identity to survive, you need other people, you need to define yourself in relation to others. It's hardwired.
And scrolling on the internet doesn't fill this gap. You can't get that self-inflection from reading other people's thoughts in your own head. You have to engage with others to find yourself, and if you don't,
... show moreSocial identity is one of those things we never talk about, it's something most people don't even believe exists. But it's so fundamental to who we are as a species that when it's taken away, people will lose the will to live entirely even if they're not depressed or have any mental illness. This has been researched to a great degree and we've made laws pertaining to how we treat prisoners because we've collectively determined that to take someone's social identity away is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.
Meanwhile, we have all built an interconnected palace to finding ways to dismantle our own social identities online. It doesn't matter how "introverted" you think you are or how reclusive you feel, you need a social identity to survive, you need other people, you need to define yourself in relation to others. It's hardwired.
And scrolling on the internet doesn't fill this gap. You can't get that self-inflection from reading other people's thoughts in your own head. You have to engage with others to find yourself, and if you don't, you slowly become more and more withdrawn and distant and you start to blame these dark feelings on everything else, because how do you even identify a cause or a syndrome that we don't even have language for in most cases? How many 18-year-old boys who don't know how to talk to girls are thinking "I need to exercise my social capacity to better find my own values"? When it's so much easier to find a forum that says you're the one who's right and true and honest, and the world is against you.
ameancow
in reply to lightnsfw • • •There's an old adage that you should never make life policy decisions based on how you feel in the moment. The MGTOW guys, even the "best" of them are stuck in a perpetual reaction state and thus their policy and mission statement are less actual tactics for finding comfort and peace, and more a reaction designed to elicit a response from other people.
It's a tantrum. They're all throwing a tantrum.
If you're actually making your own decisions about if you want to date or not, you just do it, you don't need to wear it like a uniform, you don't actually need community support outside of whatever actual social circle you [should] already have in life. The MGTOW movement, even in the most charitable possible light, is massively performative and expecting some kind of attention. This is why they get increasingly vocal and toxic, they're like the 11-year-old kid who packed all his favorite belongings in a checkerboard bindle over his shoulder and is at the front door shouting "I'M REALLY RUNNING AWAY NOW! FOR REAL! YOU'RE ALL GONNA BE SORRY!"
lightnsfw
in reply to ameancow • • •For me the interest was in having a group to talk with that was of the same mindset and knowing I wouldn't have to deal with people complaining about their relationship issues or changing plans because of spouse/kids. Which is not something I have in life. I have individuals who I can talk with like that but if we get more than 3-4 of us together someone's going to start bitching about relationship stuff.
Yeah though the vibe of that community was exactly as you described and not what I was looking for at all.
blarghly
in reply to lightnsfw • • •ReiRose
in reply to vga • • •Yes. It is worth trying to address issues first, especially with kids/finances involved, but if nothing works divorce still does.
I would no longer recommend marriage tbh
garbagebagel
Unknown parent • • •Jakeroxs
in reply to HellsBelle • • •Naevermix
in reply to HellsBelle • • •ameancow
in reply to Naevermix • • •I love just saying "toxic masculinity" anywhere online, even if you're deep in the bowels of Lemmy, you will get a few reactionary turds who just see the term and lose all cognitive ability to think and mash the downvote button between heated breaths and tears streaming down their faces.
edit: and it continues, very predictable. Seriously guys, just be honest if the term makes you feel shit, you will find truth by pursuing those feelings and the questions around them, literally you will figure out why you're actually unhappy. Don't pull back, push through. Yes, I am provoking, and if it's provocation that has an effect on you, that's a HUGE sign that you can figure out a big truth about yourself and the world if you spend like, 30 minutes in uncomfortable silence asking yourself "why" about things and being painfully honest in your replies until you hit bedrock.
TheFudd
in reply to ameancow • • •^ This reply shows me you don't understand what men like Andrew Tate are selling. He's selling validation to these boys and men, and you're providing a perfect marketplace for that product to sell like hot cakes.
When you reply like that to these people, the mental picture of grown men having hissy fits and "mashing downvote buttons with tears in their eyes" might feel good in the moment, but those men and boys aren't actually reacting like that. Instead, the message they get is they were right the whole time, that people like you really do just hate men and masculinity, and that people like Andrew Tate are the ones "on their side".
I get that it feels good to trigger people you don't like, but all you're doing is making Andrew Tate's job easier. Don't you think he's already making enough money as it is?
Welt
in reply to TheFudd • • •Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to Welt • • •TheFudd
in reply to Boomer Humor Doomergod • • •Andrew Tate would probably thank you for doing so. Without contempt and disgust from folks like you, he wouldn't have nearly as large of an audience, nor such an obscene amount of money.
TheFudd
in reply to Welt • • •Thank you, and I fully agree. I truly hope we're not so far down that path that bringing these boys back to sanity is impossible. Liberal western society spent a lot of time neglecting these boys, and that's ruined a ton of trust these boys once had in society.
Literally all that right-wing extremists like Tate had to do is tell these boys, "Hey, everyone seems to think you're the problem. I'm here to tell you that you aren't a problem - rather, they are the problem, and here's how to deal with them and get yourself ahead" and before you know it, they were eating out of the palm of his hand.
It's pretty clear to me that looking at boys as "the problem" instead of as human beings has a lot to do with the mess we're in right now.
Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to TheFudd • • •If they need validation from the likes of grifters and scumbags like Andrew Tate then they are already too far gone.
He's a fucking tool, and I have no idea why he appeals to young men. There's so many other, manlier, kinder folks out there who can provide that same validation.
Donkter
in reply to Boomer Humor Doomergod • • •Maybe they're too far gone, but you're talking about impressionable young boys, like 10-16. At those ages we as a society agree that a lot of all childrens personalities aren't dictated by their own choices since they lack the life experiences and cognitive abilities to function as an adult. Instead they're highly impressionable, influenced by their social sphere and nowadays their social media feeds.
So sure, maybe you could say they're fucked from the jump, but understand that they are not taking as active of a role in who's forming their thought processes like a 25 year old getting hooked on Tate is.
Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to Donkter • • •I've been a 10-16 year old boy. At no point was anyone like Andrew Tate "cool" to me. He's not witty, he's not talented, he's done nothing XTREME. He's clearly putting up a massive front to pretend to be interesting and for some reason - microplastics, smart phone addiction, whatever - it's working.
Back in the 90s we would have called him "poser."
Tate just talks into a microphone with his stupid friends. If that's what is considered "cool" to today's teenagers then they're definitely too far gone.
Donkter
in reply to Boomer Humor Doomergod • • •I honestly don't even know what to say lol. How do you think anyone forms an identity ever? We have - I was going to type decades - but centuries of case studies and writing about why people get roped into cults of personality and insane belief systems despite looking like lunatics from the outside.
What do you even think is happening to these people? Based on your previous reply the answer is "I have no idea" which should tell you you should look a little deeper into what's happening.
TheFudd
in reply to Boomer Humor Doomergod • • •I disagree. Maybe if they received validation from their families and community, they wouldn't need validation from grifters? I think it says quite a bit about society when people feel the need to purchase the same kind of validation that they used to receive for free from their own communities in ages past.
Nobody likes being told they're worthless, they're a loser, they're an incel, or a "stupid bro", or that all of their struggles aren't valid. If everyone around them is telling them those things - Including you - Then validation becomes a rare and valuable commodity... A commodity that someone like Tate can make a lot of money selling to people.
And yet, those "other, manlier, kinder folks" are not out there doing that, are they? Instead, many of them are calling these people losers and incels and lost causes beyond all redemption, just like you are right now.
Why should they listen to those "other, manlier, kinder folks" when they aren't acting very kind to them?
ameancow
in reply to TheFudd • • •Yah I used to one-on-one real-life coaching and mentoring, I've done my time, I've done my service, I've had several boys who became men send me letters thanking me for "saving their life" so I disagree about ALL of this, we shouldn't be expecting anything with our stupid online chatter. This whole post is useless compared to actually getting out and talking to people, making an actual impact on someone's life. The one thing that NOBODY wants to actually do. None of you readers out there want to talk to some incel and listen to their problems and give them actual help.
You want to bury men like Tate? You start getting boys off the internet entirely.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to Naevermix • • •Donkter
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •nutsack
in reply to HellsBelle • • •ameancow
in reply to nutsack • • •Ideally, you have these "arguments" well ahead of time before you marry someone who has fucked up attitudes about anyone, anywhere.
People can absolutely change and "wake up" to realize that the shit they're holding onto is going to cost them their future and they will absolutely change for the better when they care for someone else and want a better future. But not everyone is willing or capable of self-examination, and many are also not willing or capable of making changes.
Find out before you both have your names on a mortgage or carton of eggs together.
ReiRose
in reply to ameancow • • •I have for almost my entire life been entirely too accommodating of other people. My husband has some issues, but a lot of them are small, lack malice or unintentional. Such is human interaction.
He is a self declared feminist, however its taken a few years of us being together before he started doing half the cleaning and things like his own laundry. We both work full time. Such is society.
He smokes 🌳 daily, i smoke 🚬 infrequently. He hates that I do, says he wants a divorce if he catches me and is quite controlling about it tbh. So I've always hidden it from him, I usually smoke 10 a week when I'm smoking and when I dont smoke I go 3-24 months without one. Last night I realized I'm a grown ass woman being treated like a child and I'm enabling the behavior. So I told him I was going outside to smoke. He kicked up his normal fuss, but this morning he initiated a conversation about it calmly and we spoke about it like adults.
In the same way that the patriarchy harms both men and women, misogyny is upheld by both men and women. Not to equal levels of co
... show moreI have for almost my entire life been entirely too accommodating of other people. My husband has some issues, but a lot of them are small, lack malice or unintentional. Such is human interaction.
He is a self declared feminist, however its taken a few years of us being together before he started doing half the cleaning and things like his own laundry. We both work full time. Such is society.
He smokes 🌳 daily, i smoke 🚬 infrequently. He hates that I do, says he wants a divorce if he catches me and is quite controlling about it tbh. So I've always hidden it from him, I usually smoke 10 a week when I'm smoking and when I dont smoke I go 3-24 months without one. Last night I realized I'm a grown ass woman being treated like a child and I'm enabling the behavior. So I told him I was going outside to smoke. He kicked up his normal fuss, but this morning he initiated a conversation about it calmly and we spoke about it like adults.
In the same way that the patriarchy harms both men and women, misogyny is upheld by both men and women. Not to equal levels of course on either count, but im so proud of all the people, men and women, who can call this shit out. It took me entirely too long in this example.
(Also lol at the carton of eggs joke)
in4apenny
Unknown parent • • •Lightor
Unknown parent • • •merc
Unknown parent • • •That's also bad. You regularly hate-watch him? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
It should only take you about 15 minutes of watching him to understand his gimmick. He used undefined and undefinable terms like "cultural marxism". He cherry picks out of context sciencey stuff to back up his point of view. He acts super serial all the time to make people think he's a serious person. That's it. You don't need to watch any more.
MehBlah
in reply to HellsBelle • • •pablodaniel
Unknown parent • • •The fuck is traditional about any of that?
Are you one of those people who sees a movie about rich people in the past and assume that's how you would've lived?
scarabic
in reply to HellsBelle • • •In the old days when you disappeared into a cult, you physically went to live with them and everything.
These days it’s “cult to go.” Good luck intervening and cutting off their link to the cult when the cult is speaking to them from their pocket.
Taleya
in reply to scarabic • • •Clent
in reply to Sineljora • • •I've been deep diving into right wing propaganda for a decade and still not an incel. Still laughing at the fools and their weak beta energy.
Being able to speak their language is far more impactful. Not for the right wing tool spreading propaganda but rather for the lurker who has doubts.
merc
Unknown parent • • •etuomaala
in reply to HellsBelle • • •Headofthebored
in reply to Lyrl • • •