Is Andrew Tate's popularity among young men a result of male bashing?

I didnt say he is ok, I said his hatred for women isnt anywhere near the hate speech, literature and attitude a lot of feminists spreaded in the last decades. And did he really rape anyone and admitted it on tape? Afaik the investigation is still running and he denies these allegations.

 

Please name one misandrist who even comes close to approaching his extremism and has as many followers as he has. Just one. And since your new shifting of the goalposts is that they have to be criminally convicted, throw that in as well. I understand you don't care that he admitted to rape on tape, but I do.

 

I was talking about feminists in the last decades and the influence isnt to measure in terms of followers. You cannot measure the influence of Andrea Dworkin or Gloria Steinem in terms of followers. I am by the way no expert in Andrew Tate, if he openly encouraged rape he would be more extreme than I thought, up to now I didnt hear of such statements.

When it comes to the influence of misandrist, I can refer e.g. to the success of hastags like #menaretrash, the uncontroverted support e.g. Amber Heard still gets today although she is guilty of domestic violence, the very same persons oftentimes who wanna get Johnny Depp cancelled for pure allegations, I could refer e.g. to most online platforms which explicitly ban misogynist content, while they encourage misandrist content, etc., which makes it clear for me the woke side was successful in establishing their hate pictures of men.

 

Or simply write "Men Are Trash" and "Women Are Trash" on a number of platforms and see which one gets censored on more of them, which one gets more agreement, and which one gets more ire. I think I know which it will be.

 

Heard doesn't produce daily content dedicated to misandry and hasn't become famous and influential for doing so. Girls in school aren't going around trying to mimic Heard the way that young boys idolize Tate. It's a **** comparison. And, I'm sorry dude, but you don't sound like you are willing to have an honest discussion. With Heard, you claim she is guilty of domestic abuse, despite the fact that she hasn't been convicted of domestic abuse . . . a different standard than the one you held Tate to. Why should they be held to different standards? Also, you now admit you don't know much about Tate, and I appreciate you acknowledging that, but you came in swinging saying I was spreading untruths about him and that I am just saying this stuff because I hate successful businessmen. I'm a business owner. I have an MBA. I'm probably to the right of you on economics. I coach entrepreneurs both professionally and on a volunteer basis. I love it when people become wealthy by providing value. What I can't stand are con men who capture value without building value.

Since you don't know how Tate "earned" his fortune, I'll let you in on it. I think I've already posted videos about this on this thread. This is ALL coming straight from Tate's videos. Even if you just want to brush his demonstrable rape and physical abuse to the side, there's still the con he ran that made him rich to begin with. He was in serious debt during his fighting career. He was desperate for money and has not-so-subtly hinted that the people who he owned money to are the type of people that can make you disappear if you don't pay it back. So, he sat back and tried to figure out what assets he had that he could use. The only thing he could think of is that he had hot several girlfriends all over the world from his fighting career, and that maybe he could use them to make money. (These women, of course, didn't know about each other). So, he flew all of his girlfriends to London and said he was setting up a camgirl business and he wanted them to work for him. From what I remember, three girls left, angry to find out about the other girlfriends and not wanting to **** themselves on camera for tips. Two girls stayed, though one later left.

Tate then started recruiting more girls. He used something called the "loverboy method," common among pimps (which he openly admits to being inspired by). He would pretend to love the girls and want to marry them, eventually convincing them to move to another country with him. He's tried this on girls at least as young as 16, by the way, but I guess "grooming" is okay when it is Tate doing it. He goes into explicit detail about the ways in which he would manipulate them, isolate them from friends and family with lies, never actually marry them, and convince them to become cam girls. He says publicly that he split the money with the girls 50/50, but in his training videos he admits this isn't the case and gives advice on how to lie to girls that you recruit about this and take far more than 50% of what they are getting on camera.

He didn't think the girls were good enough at private chat, so he would actually pretend to be the girl while at the keyboard while the girl was on camera typing on an unplugged keyboard. He brags about how he would manipulate men into giving him more and more money, often using elaborate lies about how "she" (again, this was all actually Tate typing) was planning to move to the country the guy was from and to marry him. Tate would ask for money for legal fees for a passport, have the girl pose for photos at the embassy to make it look like they were actually serious, and then come up with excuses and further manipulate the man. He even brags that he had men selling their houses over this lie of his.

You can think all you want that this is a legitimate way to do business, but we will never be on the same page about that. And no, "buh, buh, misandry" is no excuse.

 

Start a podcast dedicated to misogyny and giving tips on how to emotionally abuse women and another one about misandry. Which one will be more popular? We already know the answer.

 

Tate is a man who gets many views due to notoriety. He has many more detractors than supporters. The mainstream hates him (for good reason). That makes him something for rebellious boys to latch onto, as a middle finger to the mainstream and to misandrists talking down to and villifying them, so he has gained a large following.

This is not comparable to the widespread mainstream misandry (nor the remaining misogyny) in modern society.

 

I encourage you to talk to any woman working in education today. They will disagree with you. Tate and people like him are ENORMOUSLY influential. Hell, you regularly have the right coming out to defend him. And if you think that misogyny is just some "remaining" thing, I encourage you to talk to women about it for a bit. My wife can't even go out for a run without getting harassed. And people on this forum have told me I should be PROUD of that. Misogyny is THRIVING.

 

How about a man working in education today? Oh. Right. Hard to find. Education is one of many areas now tailored to girls over boys, in both staffing and in teaching methods.

Sure. So was Howard Stern. It isn't the dominant social force. It is counter culture. It is a way to rebel. I bet those teachers, the school board, and the vast majority of the parents discourage rather than encourage these boys to listen to Tate. The society is against him, not with him.

Regularly? I don't. A few extreme speakers, yes. "The Right"? Absolutely not. Not for his abusive and hateful messaging. Some will, and should, defend him if and when he says something sensible.

I have. I live with multiple.

She gets harassed every time she goes for a run? I find that extremely hard to believe, unless you live in a very different society than I do. I asked, and none of the women I live with or work with experience that on a daily basis. Every now and then, sure. But every time they go for a run? No.

Here mere accusations of harassment can get men in serious trouble, so many walk on figurative eggshells. Maybe there are regional differences.

 

You think men aren't working in education because they can't get in? Really? I call bull ****. And, yes, female runners get harassed all of the time.

 

males in a gym get harassed by women all the time too, sad, but there are bad people in this world, male and female

there was a blind guy that got kicked out of the gym cause a woman thought he was looking at her - it's that crazy

 

Not what I said. Men usually don't want to get into early childhood education, and often for a rather obvious reason. Same reason many men won't have one on one meetings with female coworkers behind closed doors anymore.

What I was also getting at is that childhood education teaching methods are now geared very much towards girls and leave boys struggling.

I call bull****. Sometimes, sure. Not all the time. If a woman claims it's all the time she is likely reading it in even where it isn't. That does happen sometimes with some women and is part of misandry.

It is why so many men walk on eggshells nowadays, and why many don't want to be alone with women. It has affected some women's ability to find mentors.

 

That's equally sad and hilarious.

 

I dont know if this topic is too emotional for you, maybe you can at least try to apply basic logic and reading skills on the comments? I dont like to answer to fantasies or projections or anything like that.

1. The fact that Amber Heard was cheered by feminists and woke people although or maybe of we are honest because she violently attacked Johnny Depp doesnt mean she did it for misandristic reasons. I try to make it more simple in case its too abstract for you.

If a bank robber killed a female employee he most likely wouldnt do it for misogynistic reasons. If a commentator comments this with "Cool, he killed a woman, love it!", thats a misogynistic comment.

So back to our example, Amber Heard most likely didnt hurt Johnny Depp with a bottle for misandristic reasons, but I take the reacttions by feminist commentators and the solidarity with her as an example for the misandry in the modern society. It would be nice if you dont reply to statements I didnt make like that Amber Heard is a man-hater and a very important influencer spreading misandry.

2. The fact that Andrew Tate is a business man who benefits from the atmosphere of hate spread by feminists and the woko-Haram doesnt mean I like his methods to make use of this situation. If I take the water here, fill it in bottles, make some esoteric rituals and make use people who believe me that this is holy water now which will give them Karma points and protect them from evil and I sell it for 10-20 dollar/euro per liter via the internet, I am a business man, but my business isnt in anyway ethical or honourable.

So maybe thats the next basic fact that you can take into consideration before you again accuse me of nonsense. Andrew Tate's business is imo unethical, which doesnt change anything about the fact that its a business and he a business man. I could give you hundreds of examples for legal business activities I consider to be unethical, but still business. What you wanted to use to embarrass me confirms 100% what I said. He just cares about himself, his well-being and he doesnt care if he abuses men or women for it, he is just a business man.

 

I disagree with the claim that con men are legitimate business men. Abusing men and women to make your fortune makes you a thief at worst and a con man at best. Can you explain why you disagree or do you just think that business and theft are the same thing?

 

Yes. Making an honest living and not cheating people for your "living" is an emotional issue for me. It's called an ounce of integrity. Some of us have an attachment to it.

I'm sure you are just doing a parody here and not actually meaning what you just typed, but anyone who actually typed that and meant it wouldn't be a true business man. They'd be a con artist. Just like the "man" you are defending.

 

I dont know if you are really unable to understand that I gave you examples as your comments before showed already an astonishing lack in understanding the context of comments. For that I tried to give you examples for businesses which are unethical. I used a conditional sentence elemetary school kids could understand and you confront me now stating I do, what I gave you in an example. Unreal.

I can give you another example for an unethical business.

If I was unable to understand written language on elementary school level but labeled myself as a business coach nevertheless I would do unethical business because its very clear I dont have the skills to coach them.

Nevertheless, I wont answer to your comments as you lack either the ability to discuss or you are just trolling and lack the willingness.

 

Yet you want to pretend that Tate's camgirl buisiness wasn't unethical. Unbelievable.

Sure you can: Tate's camgirl business. Glad we finally agree.

I have turned down clients before if I thought their business plan was unethical. Some of us work for more than money. Not all of us share your beloved Tate's lack of integrity. And you shouldn't give language lessons when you can't even understand that Tate has been recorded admitting to rape and physical assault.

Translation: you jumped to Tate's defense and made false accusations about me and when called out you realized you had no way to back up your previous claims. Cool. White flag accepted.

 

Again, it's a dishonest comparison. For reasons already provided and evaded.

Heard didn't make a living off of misandry. Tate has made a living off of misogyny. The comparison is dishonest. And, again, you have a double standard when it comes to accusations of abuse. Men are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but women are not. It's sickeningly pathetic. I can share some ideas with you if you'd like to develop some consistency here.

You literally claimed that I was going against him because I hate successful businessmen. I'm sorry you can't understand that honest businessmen have a problem with dishonest ones.

Psst: that's a shitty way to do "business." That's a conman, not a legitimate businessman. I'm sorry you are upset that I called him out for that.

 

Then you now understand why your observation was completely nonsensical given the context. And women dominated education well, well before any of this stuff was even an issue, so even the excuse you provide is vapid. And it doesn't explain why men still dominate educational administration.

What's more common: false accusations of assault and harassment or actual incidences of assault and harassment? This should be an easy question to answer.

Then why aren't more men getting into education to fix that?

You really think catcalling is that uncommon? You are smarter than that.

I'll ask again. What's more common: false accusations of assault and harassment or actual incidences of assault and harassment? This should be an easy question to answer.

 

The translation is, that although I condemned his business several times here in this thread you just spread lies that I called them ethical. I wrote several times I dont think that his content is a problem for society you just spread lies that I am his ally going against you because of support for him.

It shows only what a hateful ideology feminism is, its a complete waste of time to discuss with someone like you. Its the same as if you are about to argue/discuss with pro-Hamas guys, their ideology is just as deep their hatred is just as deep. Its a cancer of society you have to cut it out. Tate is just a businessman who takes advantage of young men full of anger due to that, he monetarizes the natural backlash.

I am not going to answer to your paranoid self-pity anymore.

 

Your initial attack against me was that I was just going against him for being a successful businessman. Read that on repeat until it finally sinks in.

Why are you so upset that someone would condemn a conman making money off of hateful misogyny?

You claimed (after learning what he actual stands for) to condemn his business . . . but you are raging about me condemning his business. But, hey, I guess only pro-Hamas people have a problem with rape, physically abusing a partner, and conning men and women with misogyny. Weird take, dude.

 

Again, no answer to your paranoid self-pity, your fantasies and lies.

Again, no answer to your paranoid self-pity, your fantasies and lies. You are unable to even read my comments here.

If you read carefully what I wrote you could have realized I was critical of his business from scratch. I tried to make clear to you that a business man is not by definition a good businessman, you just seemed to believe that. The fact that I called Andrew Tate a businessman doesnt neither mean I like his business methods nor that he is a decent human being otherwise. In fact I made it clear from scratch that I dont agree with his business. Because you are a hateful ideologically driven feminist you turned it upside down numerous times now, stating I was a fan, I agreed with his methods, said he was an ethical businessman.

Just sink down in your bubble of feminist hate pictures you will never get out again but stop trying to make me your projection area for your paranoid and self-pitiful world view. I accept that no matter how often I call Andrew Tate a doubtful character and his business methods unethical, you will just lie and state the opposite. You cant have an honest conversation anymore because you are to deep down the feminist bubble. So goodbye.

You are just another perfect example what the ideology of feminism leads to.

 

Yes. I think it is less common than all the time and every time a woman goes running. You've made the extreme claim, not me. And I've proved it wrong to myself by simply asking some women around me.

Irrelevant and impossible to know, since so many cases are he says vs she says. Are we to presume guilt or innocence? No, I don't advise that we always simply "believe women". And it would also probably depend on how harassment is defined.

 

There's a reason she now has me track her routes on an app. As for your later sentence, I don't think you get the point. If ACTUAL assault is far more common than fake accusations of said assault (and the current research suggests just that, to put it mildly), then it tends to show that misogyny is a more significant problem in both frequency and severity.