The cancelling of Andrew Tate is uncalled for. He is not a misogynist.

Author: RationalMadman
RM
Cancel Culture
andrew tate
masculinity
FreeTate

Posts

Total: 79
#61
bronskibeat
bronskibeat's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 54
0
1
4
bronskibeat's avatar
bronskibeat
0
1
4
-->
@RationalMadman
Tate has never been against the idea of high value women following his advice. The difference is that if you are a woman, you can focus primarily on being attractive, healthy, emotionally intelligent and loyal and you already spiral in value. In constrast, men who have focused on that have only become medium value at best, you can deny it or face reality, a man has to focus on more variables to be high value. 
I think this is a bit simplistic. Most people don't fit solidly into any particular stereotype. If you look at the real world (not the TV or the internet), most people are just average across the board or below average in some area of their life. They find people who they click with, and they get married. I know a lot of slobs with average jobs who are married to slightly more attractive women with average jobs. I know conventionally attractive, nice guys, with not so impressive jobs who date/marry women who are also attractive and have slightly better jobs (they usually have interests in common as well), attractive women with ok jobs who marry less attractive men with nicer jobs. It's not black and white. What I don't see as often are less attractive women with more attractive men.

Dating is hard for young guys because, in a heterosexual context, they are often expected to make the first move. That leaves them in a vulnerable position which causes them to overthink strategies they deem "biology-proof" to make them feel a bit safer about the whole thing when they really should be developing themselves as individuals.

So cancel it rather than debate it because your side are a bunch of cowards. Sure.
I mean, I do agree, I wish there were more debate on larger levels. But your man said that he keeps a machete by his bed for any woman who accuses him of rape so...that might be past the point of debate.
#62
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,700
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@RationalMadman
I simply wouldn't care. If they are both pilots then they are certified to fly me
Topic's author
#63
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Vader
You'd make a bad poker player then. Probability isn't the same as possibility.

There is actually a countercase though, considering that female pilots had to battle more subtle obstacles to get to where they are (proving more), they are arguably more assuredly competent, for instance to my knowledge all crashes gone wring had male pilots at least as the lead pilot.

Regardless, there are arguments on both sides, it is not worthy of banning and cancelling the guy for saying he would rather a male pilot in an emergency scenario.
#64
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Vader
I simply wouldn't care. If they are both pilots then they are certified to fly me
Bruh even if the stats don't show much differences. Like say women are about 0.001% to crash a plan and men 0.00099999

Than you would be stupid to take the extra risk. 
Topic's author
#65
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bronskibeat
I think this is a bit simplistic. Most people don't fit solidly into any particular stereotype. If you look at the real world (not the TV or the internet), most people are just average across the board or below average in some area of their life. They find people who they click with, and they get married. I know a lot of slobs with average jobs who are married to slightly more attractive women with average jobs. I know conventionally attractive, nice guys, with not so impressive jobs who date/marry women who are also attractive and have slightly better jobs (they usually have interests in common as well), attractive women with ok jobs who marry less attractive men with nicer jobs. It's not black and white. What I don't see as often are less attractive women with more attractive men.

Dating is hard for young guys because, in a heterosexual context, they are often expected to make the first move. That leaves them in a vulnerable position which causes them to overthink strategies they deem "biology-proof" to make them feel a bit safer about the whole thing when they really should be developing themselves as individuals.
You literally proved me right.

Women have these as factors:
  • How hot they are
  • How healthy they are
  • How emotionally intelligent they are
  • How loyal they are reputed to be
  • Being popular

Men have all kinds of factors, this is both an advantage and a disadvantage because if they lack in the looks department and even in EQ on top of that, they can compensate well. Loyalty is actually much less a factor for men, it's nearly nonexistent as a competing factor, it just matters they're honest if they are poly much more so than that they're known to be sexually loyal.

  • How 'achieved' they feel while interacting with them (cocky vibes without overt arrogance)
  • How difficult it feels to impress them (they should be difficult to impress, not impossible)
  • How interesting and intelligent they are when conducting conversation (men have to lead conversations, they need both good questions and good answers to hold a woman's intrigue)
  • How reliable they seem, financally, emotionally and physically. This is why a man needs a decent job and body, it's about reliability, if he seems weak and flimsy in any way it turns the women off quite rapidly, depending which form of reliability the woman wants more. He should also be competent at staying calm and reliable emotionally but also not seem 'dead' emotionally, it's a complex mix.
  • Also being attractive
  • Also being emotionally intelligent
  • Also being healthy
  • Loyalty less important, being totally honest about urges and desires more important. Women would ultimately rather an honest playboy over a shady guy who's overall known for 'loyalty', though their preference there differs per woman in severity.
  • Having an aura that 'turns heads' even if it comes with being hated. Women need to be likable to be attractive, men need to be noticable and can cope with being disliked and maintianing value quite easily with a jaded antihero vibe.

#66
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,700
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@RationalMadman
I would agree
#67
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Men have all kinds of factors, 
regardless of sex,

this all boils down to

"social status"
Topic's author
#68
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
No, not really.

Social status is perhaps a direct factor for men and can definitely be compensated for if you properly read tbe variables I said.

If you are dirt poor and struggling though, it is better to indeed slightly up your social status before dating of any sort.
#69
bronskibeat
bronskibeat's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 54
0
1
4
bronskibeat's avatar
bronskibeat
0
1
4
-->
@RationalMadman



Women have these as factors:
  • How hot they are
  • How healthy they are
  • How emotionally intelligent they are
  • How loyal they are reputed to be
  • Being popular
Most women don't fit the mainstream societal expectations of "hotness" or "healthy" body shape. So, there's a lot of women who are out of the "high value " arena just based on genetics alone. I find that some young guys who are inexperienced with dating tend to have the perception that women have it easier because these guys are only considering conventionally attractive women. They're not  considering the most women only the women they find attractive. 

But, also, being "popular"? Popularity becomes a lot harder to quantify as you get older and are in the real world. There's a lot more social groups in the real world than high school, and all having contradicting measures of social success. So, a cool hipster type in the city won't be perceived the same way in the suburbs. A gym-rat with a car obsession will be popular among like-minded people, and will do well in certain social circles, but would probably not fit in with a more urban intellectual/cultured group. I'm going to assume "likability" would be a more accurate factor to consider (and that can be pretty subjective depending on what social circles you hang around with).

Men have all kinds of factors, this is both an advantage and a disadvantage because if they lack in the looks department and even in EQ on top of that, they can compensate well. Loyalty is actually much less a factor for men, it's nearly nonexistent as a competing factor, it just matters they're honest if they are poly much more so than that they're known to be sexually loyal.
I don't see the disadvantage with having more factors to have the ability to work on. Especially if many of those factors don't come down primarily to genetics, but are things that any person can develop over time.

And I would argue that loyalty is a similar factor for both men and women in that neither party tolerates infidelity, but if they are interested in polyamory for themselves then they have to be interested in it for their partner as well. For straight couples who were in "poly" or "open" relationships, it was women who were more likely to initiate those types of relationships as opposed to the men in those relationships (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/magazine/is-an-open-marriage-a-happier-marriage.html), and women were more likely than their male partners to have sexual relationships outside of their primary one. 

I imagine Andrew Tate is the type of guy who believes that only men should be able to sleep around while a relationship, I'd be a little impressed if i'm wrong though.


  • How 'achieved' they feel while interacting with them (cocky vibes without overt arrogance)
  • How difficult it feels to impress them (they should be difficult to impress, not impossible)
  • How interesting and intelligent they are when conducting conversation (men have to lead conversations, they need both good questions and good answers to hold a woman's intrigue)
  • How reliable they seem, financally, emotionally and physically. This is why a man needs a decent job and body, it's about reliability, if he seems weak and flimsy in any way it turns the women off quite rapidly, depending which form of reliability the woman wants more. He should also be competent at staying calm and reliable emotionally but also not seem 'dead' emotionally, it's a complex mix.
  • Also being attractive
  • Also being emotionally intelligent
  • Also being healthy
  • Loyalty less important, being totally honest about urges and desires more important. Women would ultimately rather an honest playboy over a shady guy who's overall known for 'loyalty', though their preference there differs per woman in severity.
  • Having an aura that 'turns heads' even if it comes with being hated. Women need to be likable to be attractive, men need to be noticable and can cope with being disliked and maintianing value quite easily with a jaded antihero vibe. 
The funny thing is, any person who says they "never apologize" because they are "never wrong" is not emotionally intelligent. Any person who says or even jokes about smashing a woman's face in with a machete if she accuses him of sexual assault, is not in control of their emotions.

But Andrew Tate aside. A lot of those list pertains to both genders. For example, "should be difficult to impress, but not impossible" is the type of stuff women's magazines would tell women they needed to be in-order to get boyfriends. But, again, most people don't play games like that in-order to find dates. It's really easy to tell the difference between an authentic interactions, and someone who is trying to go over a mental checklist of how to maintain what they think is a desirable romantic dynamic.

I would also argue that what constitutes as physically "attractive" is broader for a man than for a woman. You have the recent obsession with "dad bods" for example, or the "silver fox" aesthetic as men age to consider. You have the androgyny of Harry Styles, Maneskin, Tokyo Hotel, etc. The physical "ideals" for women are much more narrow than that. 

The idea that a man has to lead a conversation is a bit off too, while I do appreciate the acknowledgement that men should ask good questions, the reality is a good conversation is about the ability to connect in a sincere and mutual way. I don't know any woman that wants a man to "lead" a conversation, but wants a man who knows how to listen and contribute in a meaningful way to a conversation. Again, the mind game attempts are silly and unnecessary if you're pursuing a healthy and honest relationship.

But really, how have you implemented this in your dating life? What kind of women are you after? Do you find that these factors are how you define yourself and what you want in a partner, or do you have more specific characteristics based on your personality that you place greater importance on?
Topic's author
#70
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bronskibeat
It isnt just about me.

You want to make this about me? I am not gonna discuss my love or sex life nor specifics of where I am.

I do not idolise Tate, that would defy everything he teaches. Tate-stans are not living by Tate's philosophy. He is a strong man who knows what he wants and, until this cancelling, got what he wanted. I do think he has solid outlook on things.

You preach all this stuff and in your profile you list as female so let me ask you honestly, why are you pushing this on me and my personal life? Are you in denial that you have power over your looks, especially in 2022? All sorts of stylists, fashion designers, makeup experts, fitness experts and in worst case scenario, plastic surgeons exist. You can find me disgusting for what I just said but I find it more disgusting to deny genetically ugly women the right to compete by hard work and determination. Why did i say 'ugly' because not that I am insensitive but that I would not ever disrespect the agony of women who are unfairly born visually offputting by using a cleaner term that would not signify the severe suffering they experience. The one advantage that ugly women have is that they know for sure that their friends and lovers either enjoy their personality or at least genuinely enjoy(ed) their company. That is something I am sure many hotties envy, lowkey.

Being low value is not a reason to hate yourself, it is a reason to push yourself and get the lovelife and genetically blessed offspring (by the partner you reproduce with) that you will be proud of.

I have no reason to sugarcoat anything here. I am not a misogynist and I think us humans are too proud to enjoy our animalistic aspects and meaning of life so much so we reach depression and agony trying to find a meaning beyond the lust, emotions, fulfillment from defeating rivals and raw animalistic thrill of life.

I was a depressed nobody that was bitter and blamed everyone else. You want me to get personal, I will leave it at that. I was more misogynistic before, when I blamed women for rejecting me, blamed them for leading me on and breaking my heart. Blame, blame blame, then I woke up and took the red pill and asked myself... dude, why would high value women desire the loser you were or are? Would you, as a woman, actively want to date you, fuck your skinny ass and enjoy your petty arrogance?

And you know what I realised? The answer wasnt just no, rather it was a hmm I would if he just toned this down or accentuated this etc.

So I stayed bitter and channeled it to myself. Every day I try to live my life as I want and blame nobody for what comes of it. If I choose to spend my time debating online, less women will dig that answer to hobbies esp if I refuse to tell them the RM account that is my passionate hobby so ofc they find me blander. No shit.

I learned how to get other hobbies, how to be interesting way beyond any one thing (I learned that before this website though, it was a metaphor). Do you think women will get wet around a man who does not feel like he has a handle on his life and emotions? No woman, no matter what, enjoys a crybaby. They empathise and slowly they sympathise and then suddenly you're their burden and not their alpha or sigma strong man.

I have seen it in couples I know/knew. It is up to me to be a strong man and a disciplined man because if I fail to be it, I sure as hell will fail to be a good and strong father to my children and that is an unacceptable failure, one they will pay the price for.

You think Tate is this and Tate is that ? I do not care. Cancelling him just proves what a sensitive bitchfest this modern generation is becoming, yes the 'men' too.

Being a man is about more than being a boy aged X years, a man needs to define himself, strengthen himself and aspire to be great or he can choose to wither. I withered repeatedly, gaming is fun, porn is fun and I like some Netflix and Spotify. The question isnt zero pleasure, it is can I prioritise and build myself or not.

Change the porn addiction to a passion for seeking women.

Change the gaming addiction to a passion for poker and other games that garner money, perhaps stocks and shares.

Change the spotify and netflix to a small reward. It isnt easy. None of it is.

Being disciplined means having the courage to love yourself enough to pity and resent the wretched loser you currently were and/or are.

That is the core message Tate taught and for that reason he got that massive following. His cancellation is just proof what a joke our current generation is.


#71
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Social status is perhaps a direct factor for men and can definitely be compensated for if you properly read tbe variables I said.
there are many paths to "social status"

what you describe is merely one of those possible paths
Topic's author
#72
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Thanks for your baseless tautology
#73
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Thanks for your baseless tautology
thanks for your purely objective and scientifically verifiable guidelines
Topic's author
#74
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
As if you have studied dating and heterosexual love more than the experts
#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
As if you have studied dating and heterosexual love more than the experts
i do absolutely love an incredibly vague argumentum ab auctoritate
#76
bronskibeat
bronskibeat's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 54
0
1
4
bronskibeat's avatar
bronskibeat
0
1
4
-->
@RationalMadman
It isnt just about me.

You want to make this about me? I am not gonna discuss my love or sex life nor specifics of where I am.
I don’t want you to share information you’re not comfortable with sharing. I think my point is that, usually when I have conversations with people about their actually lived experiences, they don’t align so nicely with these stereotypes and expectations on men vs. women. There’s far too much nuance in reality. And usually, once people have their own experiences with dating and all that, they develop more nuanced understanding of who they are in a relationship and what specifically they are looking for. There’s no universal desire.

I have a lot of guy friends, and a lot of women friends, and what they are looking for in a partner varies all over the place. There’s no “women want this, and men want that” in the way that people like Andrew Tate present it. What I do see, is that there is safety in thinking relationships and people are black and white like that. And when something like dating give you anxiety, you are going to seek that safety out.


I do not idolise Tate, that would defy everything he teaches. Tate-stans are not living by Tate's philosophy. He is a strong man who knows what he wants and, until this cancelling, got what he wanted. I do think he has solid outlook on things.
See, when you originally said you were not a Tate-stan I thought that meant that you only casually check out his stuff and weren’t like super into him. But you’re saying the reason you don’t idolize him is because he wouldn’t want that. That doesn’t make you a stan, that makes you an uber-stan. And it would appear you are putting him on some sort of pedestal to listen to his teachings that closely.


You preach all this stuff and in your profile you list as female so let me ask you honestly, why are you pushing this on me and my personal life?
Again, I’m questioning the desire from Andrew Tate and his followers to generalize people and their experiences by making them so black and white. He preaches that there is a right and wrong way to exist, and I don’t agree with that. If you’re saying that you as an individual decided that you like going to the gym, wanted to become independent, get a nice job, and work on you emotional intelligence, I would give you a hi-five. If you’re saying that you want to do those thing because Andrew Tate preaches it and it’s the only right way to exist as a man, then I don’t think that’s a healthy mindset, and it won’t sustain you in the long-run.

Are you in denial that you have power over your looks, especially in 2022? All sorts of stylists, fashion designers, makeup experts, fitness experts and in worst case scenario, plastic surgeons exist. You can find me disgusting for what I just said but I find it more disgusting to deny genetically ugly women the right to compete by hard work and determination. Why did i say 'ugly' because not that I am insensitive but that I would not ever disrespect the agony of women who are unfairly born visually offputting by using a cleaner term that would not signify the severe suffering they experience. The one advantage that ugly women have is that they know for sure that their friends and lovers either enjoy their personality or at least genuinely enjoy(ed) their company. That is something I am sure many hotties envy, lowkey.
Full disclosure, I’m very into fitness, and bettering myself as an individual. I think that investing in yourself is the best thing you can do. So I think that you and I fundamentally agree there.

I’m not denying that people can’t change themselves, and if they want to do it then they should. I’m arguing against the idea that women have to put less work into getting a partner. When it comes to things like fitness, it takes longer for women to loose weight and build muscle than it does for men. I know women who have been going to the gym for years, and they are still technically considered “over-weight.” Different bodies respond differently to fitness and diets and all that. When you factor is female hormones it gets a bit more complicated with weight fluctuations.

But my point in that was to say, that it’s not easy for either gender to reach “high value” status by how Andrew Tate defines it and that men do have more variables that they can consider and control in becoming more attractive by societal standards (which while still difficult, would make it a bit easier).


Being low value is not a reason to hate yourself, it is a reason to push yourself and get the lovelife and genetically blessed offspring (by the partner you reproduce with) that you will be proud of.

Well, that’s my other point that I was trying to make in my other post, I don’t really believe in the “low-value” and “high-value” thing. At-least, not how it’s presented by Tate. So, of course, no one should hate themselves and they should mould themselves into who they want to be. But who they want to be might not be someone that Tate would consider to be of “low-value” anyway. 

For example, when I was in high school I dressed in the more conventionally attractive way, I was very preppy. I did it because everyone else did it. So, preppy/popular people tended to be more open to me. Though I envied the way the more “indie” kids dressed, but there weren’t many of them at my school and I was scared of being different. Then one day, I finally got to talk to one of them, and I told them what music I was into and they said, “wow, would have never guessed, you don’t seem like the type.” And that moment I decided it was more important for me to dress how I want, and connect with people I have things in common with than just dress to impress the popular kids. I learned how to play guitar, I read more books, I went out to more shows, I got to meet more interesting people, etc. I got to move to cool city, and work with interesting people because I prioritized my own sense of self and not being perceived as "high value."

One of my good friends, a dude, was a skinny pimple-faced soft-spoken metalhead growing up. All he did was play guitar. He met a girl, they connected over the same hobbies/interests, and they're happily married now. What I'm saying is, you shouldn't have to rely solely on someone else's template for your life to find success.


I have no reason to sugarcoat anything here. I am not a misogynist and I think us humans are too proud to enjoy our animalistic aspects and meaning of life so much so we reach depression and agony trying to find a meaning beyond the lust, emotions, fulfillment from defeating rivals and raw animalistic thrill of life.

I was a depressed nobody that was bitter and blamed everyone else. You want me to get personal, I will leave it at that. I was more misogynistic before, when I blamed women for rejecting me, blamed them for leading me on and breaking my heart. Blame, blame blame, then I woke up and took the red pill and asked myself... dude, why would high value women desire the loser you were or are? Would you, as a woman, actively want to date you, fuck your skinny ass and enjoy your petty arrogance?

And you know what I realised? The answer wasnt just no, rather it was a hmm I would if he just toned this down or accentuated this etc.

So I stayed bitter and channeled it to myself. Every day I try to live my life as I want and blame nobody for what comes of it. If I choose to spend my time debating online, less women will dig that answer to hobbies esp if I refuse to tell them the RM account that is my passionate hobby so ofc they find me blander. No shit.

I learned how to get other hobbies, how to be interesting way beyond any one thing (I learned that before this website though, it was a metaphor). Do you think women will get wet around a man who does not feel like he has a handle on his life and emotions? No woman, no matter what, enjoys a crybaby. They empathise and slowly they sympathise and then suddenly you're their burden and not their alpha or sigma strong man.

I have seen it in couples I know/knew. It is up to me to be a strong man and a disciplined man because if I fail to be it, I sure as hell will fail to be a good and strong father to my children and that is an unacceptable failure, one they will pay the price for.

You think Tate is this and Tate is that ? I do not care. Cancelling him just proves what a sensitive bitchfest this modern generation is becoming, yes the 'men' too.

Being a man is about more than being a boy aged X years, a man needs to define himself, strengthen himself and aspire to be great or he can choose to wither. I withered repeatedly, gaming is fun, porn is fun and I like some Netflix and Spotify. The question isnt zero pleasure, it is can I prioritise and build myself or not.

Change the porn addiction to a passion for seeking women.

Change the gaming addiction to a passion for poker and other games that garner money, perhaps stocks and shares.

Change the spotify and netflix to a small reward. It isnt easy. None of it is.

Being disciplined means having the courage to love yourself enough to pity and resent the wretched loser you currently were and/or are.

That is the core message Tate taught and for that reason he got that massive following. His cancellation is just proof what a joke our current generation is.
I don’t disagree with any of this really, and think that it’s really great you went out and worked on yourself like that. I don't think being anti-Andrew Tate means that you are anti-the things you mention here. But the things you arguing for are not the reasons why Andrew Tate got cancelled, and the good does not cancel out the bad in the things that he has said.

And i'm sure he'll be fine, he has a lot of money.
Topic's author
#77
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bronskibeat
and the good does not cancel out the bad in the things that he has said.
yes they do lol,

there is literally nobody else being banned for saying the shit he said nobody. It's one fucking comment. 

KSI called him out and still has rape jokes (serious rape jokes with proper acting and everything) still out there, even aimed at his friend's sister who years later he finds and flexes is hot and he wants to bang.

He isn't banned and was able to call Tate out, it's pathetic.

48 days later

Topic's author
#78
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
What do people think of his Piers Morgan interview?
#79
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9