Toxic masculinity is a thing and it needs to be addressed by these large media companies.
My 13 year old was joking about “Andy Tate” in a neutral way so I asked him where he was hearing that name. He couldn’t give me an answer but I know he’s on discord and YouTube primarily. I know I’m constantly blocking channels with Joe Rogan content (wtf is with the dozens of highlight channels of his drivel?).
I understand freedom of speech but to young impressionable minds this shit is dangerous and I don’t think without strong punitive measures these people will stop.
“I’m just asking questions bro”
“Broseph I don’t hate women but maybe the hunter/gatherer relationships are important”
“Maybe things were better when things were simpler”
Preying on impressionable minds is what they’re all doing without providing any context to their bullshit.
Beyond that, the boys ain’t alright. The world continues to shift away from historical patriarchal control and many men are threatened by this and right or wrong many of them feel they’re being left behind.
Look at post secondary enrollment numbers by gender trended over the decades. Boys are checking out of the system. It’s an uphill battle for me as a father and as a man trying to provide positivity to young boys knowing the ecosystem around them routinely portrays them in an unrealistic light on both spectrums.
I’m not 13, I’m 53, and very much on the rational left side of the political spectrum, but I get Tate and Peterson clips suggested to be constantly. They especially are in YouTube Shorts. Occasionally I block the idiocy, but they game the system on more and more channels. I would imagine that teens are more directly targeted with this crap.
The reason Andrew Tate clips get spammed so much is because one of the first things he tells his lemmings to do to “break out of the matrix” is to repost at least one of his clips a day. He even explicitly tells them that the more controversial the clip is, the better
No, it’s caused by Reddit
Hey now, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Balthazar Peterson, and other ‘manosphere’ ghouls deserve blame too
Looking through that paper, it’s not something to be held up as a particularly good source. I don’t disagree with the conclusion, but it feels like it was written not necessarily with the intent to create this conclusion in particular, but definitely to create a conclusion that makes a good headline.
I just gave it a skim. It’s a terrible paper. It’s badly written - that intro is far too long and is out of place - and the methodology is terrible.
I’m not even sure that the question they’re answering (“Given N misogynists, how many are incels?”) is what they should be asking (“Given N incels, how many are misogynists?”).
No one has said that being a misogynist means you’re an incel. The hypothesis is that inceldom and misogyny are correlated. I mean, how many papers have been written about the pickup artist culture and its relation to misogyny? The incels are the ones with their noses pressed against the metaphorical window reading about how there’s a male subculture that is openly misogynistic and still has sex, with an inferred causal relationship there (“If you treat women like crap, they will have sex with you”).
I’d give it a closer read if I had to review it, but even their selection criteria (Amazon Turk volunteers) is bad. If anyone made it further than I did I’d be happy to hear that the analysis is okay or something, but I’d reject this paper.
Yeah, I made it about as far as you did.
