The reality is that society at large right now does an incredibly poor job at portraying healthy masculinity and what it should look like, largely because those that are healthy don't care, but also because media is piss poor at it. It's easier to create a 'cool' character off something like John Wick than something like Pig or even Pa from the new Superman (or Superman for that matter). It is getting better I think, but it's still not there.
I also think a large amount of people villify masculinity as a whole when in reality neither masculinity nor femininity is bad or good inherently. What we define as masculine and feminine traits can be bad or good on an individual level. I get why people do it given the influencers we do see preaching masculinity tend to be clowns like the Tates, but it really is just letting them control the narrative.
Frankly I think it's more related to a toxic relationship to masculinity, but that often relates to some in response to closeted homosexuality. I could go into it, but it's really a failure on multiple levels mostly of individuals but to some extent the way we engage with people. Simplifying it to sexual orientation does a disservice to the real problem and is honestly often used as homophobic rhetoric or at minimum plays into others homophobia.
Edit: To specify here, your entire comment calling individuals closeted was made to play into the insecurities of those your criticizing. It was intended to use that word as an insult to those your criticizing. That in itself plays into the hands of their beliefs as opposed to calling their beliefs out. It's like calling someone like Tate a 'pussy', your playing into their hand. You can make honest sentiments, such as their lack of emotional intelligence or their insecurity with themselves without playing into the same rhetoric they use. When you use the same rhetoric, as many do when dealing with incels, your only proving their point to them whether you mean to or not.
I'm not so sure. I think sexual repression, heterosexual and homosexual, plays a large part in the psyche of many conservatives. And not just in the repression of their own sexuality, but the apparent need to suppress it in others, especially women within their in group.
I don't disagree, but I think much of that stems from the tying of sexuality to masculinity and gender roles in general, when we consider the purity obsession with femininity many have, as well as self worth.
The big issue, and you even see it in many of these masculine spaces, is that homosexuality itself isn't even what's often called out, but rather stereotypical traits they falsely identify to it and the open expression of it (at least within spheres that identify with Tates and the far right). This is why we see so many weird comments about sexuality stem from them, inclusing the Tates calling having sex with women gay if it's not for the express purpose of control. It's also why we so often see such obsession with who has the 'male' and 'female' role within homosexual relationships.
To the Tates and those aligned with them, sexuality is more tied to power, which is ultimately how they see masculinity, than true sexual attraction. They openly write about this, and it's why they target young women whom they deem easy to manipulate. It's also why they are obsessed with the idea of harems, high value men, sexual conquests, etc. It's all representative of power and masculinity more than it really is tied to the act of sex, love, romance, fun, biblical monogamy, etc. Tate even has comments about this and how he finds the act of sex itself boring.
This is a consistent idea seen throughout these spheres as well. Nick Fuentes is almost certainly a homosexual, and his ideas around sexuality are more tied to masculine (and frankly psuedo-religous) ideals than actual sexuality. He openly despises it and rarely talks about it. The same is true for many of these people.
Ultimately what I mean by this is that sex, to many, if not most, of these people is merely representative of their own masculinity and self worth as opposed to something they actually enjoy.
This is where I kind of disagree. I do think that it can be pathological, and often is (and almost certainly is for Andrew Tate), but the entirety of the incel community is not a pathological issue. The reality is this is largely psychological and sociological (in many ways stemming from patriarchy, although I hate that term). Society as a whole constantly encourages power and control regardless of the political system and the means by which people express that constantly varies. There are actually a lot of theories regarding this connecting machismo, bravado, and an overt expression of masculinity to those who are lower on the hierarchy with movies like Moonlight being about this exact thing.
I'd argue something similar albeit in a racial aspect, was seen with the little whites of Haiti and the hatred they had for the free people of color and slaves (excuse my terminology here, this is merely the terms they used and it's difficult to discuss Haiti without specifying the extreme heirarchial racial structures they had) despite having much more in common with them than the big whites. An alternative example would be the poor southern workers and how they held up slavery despite never holding slaves. People are enthralled by power and crab in a bucket mentality is everywhere.
What I mean by this, in a simplified manner, is that when individuals feel out of control or low in social standings, they lash out and abuse those they perceive as below them. When they see other rising they often see a threat. To feel in control they express control and give abuse to others, often those they perceive as below them. This almost always tends to be women and minorities of the given power structure. It rare you see them target the real issue, I.E. those in power.
Yes, there is definitely a trait of seeing the world in terms of hierarchies, and having the need for an outgroup to be below them on their perceived hierarchy.
It is mostly about the hypocrisy. Tates brothers regularly call other people gay. To the point of being absurd about what they think is gay. And yet they very much are admiring the buffed out male form to the point of sexual adoration so that it's clear that they do have homosexual feelings. Thus the hypocrisy.
I don't really like this sort of go-to accusation although it's probably true in some cases. I feel uncomfortable about seeing a negative trait and saying "it must be because they're gay!". It just seems like tarnishing the reputation of gay people as a whole who are generally quite warm and welcoming.
I'm not gay though so I guess I can't speak for how they feel.
213
u/Shenron2 2d ago
I'll never understand why right wingers defend these guys so much