July 12, 2023 - 5:30pm
Tucker Carlson’s two-and-a-half-hour interview with Andrew Tate on Tuesday evening was wide-ranging, but the core theme was hard to miss: masculinity in crisis. Opening with a theatrical monologue, Carlson implored audiences to imagine themselves as sixth grade boys: “What are you hearing right now? […] Female qualities are virtuous. Masculine qualities are oppressive. That’s the message. […] The male body itself is shameful. […] It amounts to mass conversion therapy.” It’s pretty scorching as hot-button media issues go, but what is interesting is that many of these discussions hark back to similar conversations black Americans were having decades previously.
A few weeks ago, I stumbled across a 1991 PBS interview with an African American writer named Shahrazad Ali. In the video, Ali fiercely defended the importance of family, squarely placing the blame for the breakdown on black women (and by extension, feminism’s influence on them). In her view, black Americans were living under a dysfunctional matriarchy. Evoking the image of the entitled black “welfare queen”, it was her opinion that African American women were promiscuous, often single mothers who had no respect for black men and routinely emasculated them.
Her prognosis of the situation echoed that of the then-often cited Moynihan Report, a controversial 1965 study contending that the prevalence of single-parent households, particularly those headed by black women, was a significant factor in both the cycle of poverty and social problems within the black community. Moynihan also suggested that the absence of father figures and the consequent lack of male role models had negative consequences for the wellbeing of black children.
Ali’s solution was that black women would have to clean up their act. Her advice on how that would be done — which included “wisdom” such as submitting to your husband and accepting that they would cheat because that’s how men are — horrified the interviewer. To me, she sounded exactly like today’s white anti-feminist influencer H. Pearl Davis (sometimes dubbed the female Andrew Tate), who has, in fact, used a similar line.
Ali fit into a larger tapestry of black writers and thinkers who form the roots of what today is known as the “black manosphere”. These writers and thinkers largely agreed with the Moynihan Report: black masculinity needed to be revitalised. According to online personality Man of Tomorrow, methods for rebuilding the foundation of black masculinity differed: some were more nihilistic, encouraging men to treat women like the “hoes” they were or to at least “correct” them. Others, meanwhile, sounded like “socially conscious” dating gurus in preaching a more traditional pro-family message.
But most of them shared one core belief that distinguished them from more mainstream black figures like Thomas Sowell or Barack Obama, who have also rhapsodised about the importance of family stability: namely that the root of the problem, first and foremost, was women. It would be wrong to say that there was no contemporaneous white equivalent, and in fact, as writer Nicole Young notes in her Elle article “My Brush With the Black Manosphere,” many black men in this community share talking points that originated in white communities.
However, today’s most popular (and most mainstream) figures seem more influenced by the black manosphere in content, style, and form. One key example is Tate himself, the face of pro-masculinity content. He is neither fully white nor fully American, so his influences will, naturally, be different. Another is that anytime content is successful — like that of Kevin Samuels — imitators are bound to follow.
But there’s another factor here, too: the issues addressed by the black manosphere — such as widespread emasculation, single motherhood, the absence of positive male role models, and the perception of women as promiscuous and untrustworthy — now have broader resonance beyond the black community. These problems, which were initially perceived as specific to black men, are now seen by some as challenges faced by all men. And what better evidence than Tucker Carlson’s interview with Andrew Tate, which, at the time of writing, had 13 million views.
Katherine Dee is a writer. To read more of her work, visit defaultfriend.substack.com.
default_friend
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe state replaced the father.
The state replaced the father.
Watching the interview, I can see why the globalist establishment wants Tate silenced, in prison or dead. To them, he is very dangerous. Much like in a different way Assange was/is.
Can’t stand Tate, but he is a symptom of the issues facing young men rather than the main problem. I think the media and progressives in government, education etc know this, but refuse to confront it as it’ll be an admission of failure on their part.
Agreed, well said.
Absolutely, I find myself watching some of these people hoping for a reasonable critique on the poor behaviour some of women and supporting men and boys but all we seem to get is rather macho and boring understanding of how people can live together.
Bill Burr had a line explaining that he recognised that women faced genuine problems and unfairness but at least they were taken seriously. I have an image of a British MP, Jess Phillips laughing while another suggested that, maybe, parliament should recognise International Men’s Day.
Of course, young men turn to these people who offer them some guidance, do not idolize women and do not condemn them for being men.
Agreed, well said.
Absolutely, I find myself watching some of these people hoping for a reasonable critique on the poor behaviour some of women and supporting men and boys but all we seem to get is rather macho and boring understanding of how people can live together.
Bill Burr had a line explaining that he recognised that women faced genuine problems and unfairness but at least they were taken seriously. I have an image of a British MP, Jess Phillips laughing while another suggested that, maybe, parliament should recognise International Men’s Day.
Of course, young men turn to these people who offer them some guidance, do not idolize women and do not condemn them for being men.
More info is out now. From this video info Tate appears to be a horrible person… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHAmpUyfyy4
Can’t stand Tate, but he is a symptom of the issues facing young men rather than the main problem. I think the media and progressives in government, education etc know this, but refuse to confront it as it’ll be an admission of failure on their part.
More info is out now. From this video info Tate appears to be a horrible person… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHAmpUyfyy4
Watching the interview, I can see why the globalist establishment wants Tate silenced, in prison or dead. To them, he is very dangerous. Much like in a different way Assange was/is.
Enjoyable interview. There is much truth to what Mr. Tate says, which is mutually exclusive to whether he is, on balance, a “good” person, guilty of what is being alleged, etc.
Enjoyable interview. There is much truth to what Mr. Tate says, which is mutually exclusive to whether he is, on balance, a “good” person, guilty of what is being alleged, etc.
The only ‘Masculinity Crisis’ I see is that to society of disengagement of Males. Many truly are not even remotely interested in it. It isn’t about positive role models, they are doing exactly what they want to do because they can ignore the previous societal pressures to be a ‘man’ in society’s image. The greatest gift of feminism was setting men free.
In truth, feminism has been of great benefit to men.
Unfortunately, the majority of men are so beaten down and emasculated they don’t understand how to capitalize on the advantages. In many cases they have been so brainwashed by matriarchal societal pressure that they don’t even recognise that there are advantages and if they did they either wouldn’t feel it right to avail themselves of them or wouldn’t know how to.
Maybe with time the opportunities presented by feminism will slowly dawn on the simping masses.
You were a young man before the 2000s. Your peers could be cads so long as they spouted progressive pieties. That’s a much more dangerous game today. The “opportunities” that our feminised (not feminist) society offers to young men are embodied by the trans chaps.
I think you might be missing the point that many men really want to have a wife and kids. The “free agent” model of masculinity might be just right for some men, but not for many others.
Your characterisation of these men as “beaten down and emasculated” is a give away: you haven’t considered the future at all, at least not past next weekend.
Human relations are always complicated, often suprising and usually very private. Simple theories never even begin to explain anything worthwhile.
What are these “benefits” and “opportunities” that feminists, in particular, have graciously conferred on men? The hedonism that began with reliable contraception and abortion-on-demand to masquerade as sexual equality? The kind of identity that has become synonymous with either a “feminine side” or archetypal villainy? The cynicism that feminist ideologues took from Marxism and have now passed on to wokism? The respect for due process that was crumbling even before #MeToo and has since become the feminist contribution to legal codes and institutional policies?
You were a young man before the 2000s. Your peers could be cads so long as they spouted progressive pieties. That’s a much more dangerous game today. The “opportunities” that our feminised (not feminist) society offers to young men are embodied by the trans chaps.
I think you might be missing the point that many men really want to have a wife and kids. The “free agent” model of masculinity might be just right for some men, but not for many others.
Your characterisation of these men as “beaten down and emasculated” is a give away: you haven’t considered the future at all, at least not past next weekend.
Human relations are always complicated, often suprising and usually very private. Simple theories never even begin to explain anything worthwhile.
What are these “benefits” and “opportunities” that feminists, in particular, have graciously conferred on men? The hedonism that began with reliable contraception and abortion-on-demand to masquerade as sexual equality? The kind of identity that has become synonymous with either a “feminine side” or archetypal villainy? The cynicism that feminist ideologues took from Marxism and have now passed on to wokism? The respect for due process that was crumbling even before #MeToo and has since become the feminist contribution to legal codes and institutional policies?
It is not that they can ignore previous societal pressures it is more that they have no incentive to comply with them
Free to be what? Assistant mothers? Honorary women? Public enemies?
In truth, feminism has been of great benefit to men.
Unfortunately, the majority of men are so beaten down and emasculated they don’t understand how to capitalize on the advantages. In many cases they have been so brainwashed by matriarchal societal pressure that they don’t even recognise that there are advantages and if they did they either wouldn’t feel it right to avail themselves of them or wouldn’t know how to.
Maybe with time the opportunities presented by feminism will slowly dawn on the simping masses.
It is not that they can ignore previous societal pressures it is more that they have no incentive to comply with them
Free to be what? Assistant mothers? Honorary women? Public enemies?
The only ‘Masculinity Crisis’ I see is that to society of disengagement of Males. Many truly are not even remotely interested in it. It isn’t about positive role models, they are doing exactly what they want to do because they can ignore the previous societal pressures to be a ‘man’ in society’s image. The greatest gift of feminism was setting men free.
Many of today’s influencers whether of the Andrew Tate/Koch Bros kind, or the Mermaid/Stonewall sort are a kind of astroturfing. Both pretend to be ‘of the people for the people’, but are actually from a tiny minority for a tiny minority (themselves); both are adept at democratic capture through media manipulation. I hope that, despite their successes, both will eventually fail, crumpling under the contradiction between what they say they are and will do, and what they actually and have done.
Many of today’s influencers whether of the Andrew Tate/Koch Bros kind, or the Mermaid/Stonewall sort are a kind of astroturfing. Both pretend to be ‘of the people for the people’, but are actually from a tiny minority for a tiny minority (themselves); both are adept at democratic capture through media manipulation. I hope that, despite their successes, both will eventually fail, crumpling under the contradiction between what they say they are and will do, and what they actually and have done.
There’s plenty of material on the internet now advising men on how to adapt to a changed situation. Andrew Tate is part of this. But most of it is socially destructive (eg. Women aren’t trustworthy, so it’s best to treat them as transitory playthings; only a tiny fraction of women are marriage material; risks of marriage are too high – don’t do it) and not scaleable (become a millionaire, build muscle, buy a Lamborghini).
Even today some clot berated me in a YouTube comment section for being married and tried to turn it into a monetary type arrangement. If someone sees marriage like that, then no wonder they’re miserable.
This advice, when cultivated as an ism (such as “the manosphere”), can indeed be destructive. This, revenge, is what happens after decades of cultural captivity by any ideology. I say that not to condone ignorance, let alone malice, but to explain the phenomenon in its historical context. We have a long way to go before men and women actually listen to each other instead of ranting at each other–especially in view of the woke proclamation that justice is synonymous with revenge.
Agree – it’s reactive. I’m not sure all the blame can be laid at the door of feminism, though some of it reflects its influence. Without rampant female entitlement and narcissism, the technologies which feed it and an anti male animus which saturates our culture, there would be no Andrew Tates.
“… an anti male animus which saturates our culture …”
Before retiring in 2017 (thank God!) I worked as a full-time senior lecturer in a UK university. The bulletin boards and walls of that institution were weekly covered in notices advertising lectures, workshops, publications, film screenings, book readings, etc. relating to the theme of ‘toxic masculinity’ or similar. Lecture and seminar material was replete with feminist perspectives (e.g. seminar exercises which highlighted discrimination against women by men in the workplace). The young male students had a tendency to be effete, more withdrawn than the female students (who formed a substantial majority) and absorbed without demur the aggressive feminism of female students and staff (the majority women) whose conversation and teaching was constantly peppered with misandry and snide digs (‘pale, male and stale’ was a favourite cliché) at the negatives associated with men generally. It was an unpleasant, threatening working environment for men. I was very glad, and fortunate, to have been able to exit with no regrets.
I agree. Not all the blame can be laid at the door of feminism; but without this aggressive, Marxist revolution in our midst the anti-male animus would be out there on the margins, not embedded in every facet of our daily existence, including managerial and executive job recruitment. The Woke division of our western democracies into The Oppressed vs The Oppressors owes much to the malign influence of feminism in its current 21st Century form.
And the choice this gives to young men is: lie down and take a constant beating; or start watching Andrew Tate.
And the choice this gives to young men is: lie down and take a constant beating; or start watching Andrew Tate.
“… an anti male animus which saturates our culture …”
Before retiring in 2017 (thank God!) I worked as a full-time senior lecturer in a UK university. The bulletin boards and walls of that institution were weekly covered in notices advertising lectures, workshops, publications, film screenings, book readings, etc. relating to the theme of ‘toxic masculinity’ or similar. Lecture and seminar material was replete with feminist perspectives (e.g. seminar exercises which highlighted discrimination against women by men in the workplace). The young male students had a tendency to be effete, more withdrawn than the female students (who formed a substantial majority) and absorbed without demur the aggressive feminism of female students and staff (the majority women) whose conversation and teaching was constantly peppered with misandry and snide digs (‘pale, male and stale’ was a favourite cliché) at the negatives associated with men generally. It was an unpleasant, threatening working environment for men. I was very glad, and fortunate, to have been able to exit with no regrets.
I agree. Not all the blame can be laid at the door of feminism; but without this aggressive, Marxist revolution in our midst the anti-male animus would be out there on the margins, not embedded in every facet of our daily existence, including managerial and executive job recruitment. The Woke division of our western democracies into The Oppressed vs The Oppressors owes much to the malign influence of feminism in its current 21st Century form.
Agree – it’s reactive. I’m not sure all the blame can be laid at the door of feminism, though some of it reflects its influence. Without rampant female entitlement and narcissism, the technologies which feed it and an anti male animus which saturates our culture, there would be no Andrew Tates.
Even today some clot berated me in a YouTube comment section for being married and tried to turn it into a monetary type arrangement. If someone sees marriage like that, then no wonder they’re miserable.
This advice, when cultivated as an ism (such as “the manosphere”), can indeed be destructive. This, revenge, is what happens after decades of cultural captivity by any ideology. I say that not to condone ignorance, let alone malice, but to explain the phenomenon in its historical context. We have a long way to go before men and women actually listen to each other instead of ranting at each other–especially in view of the woke proclamation that justice is synonymous with revenge.
There’s plenty of material on the internet now advising men on how to adapt to a changed situation. Andrew Tate is part of this. But most of it is socially destructive (eg. Women aren’t trustworthy, so it’s best to treat them as transitory playthings; only a tiny fraction of women are marriage material; risks of marriage are too high – don’t do it) and not scaleable (become a millionaire, build muscle, buy a Lamborghini).
If you can’t see beyond the end of your nose then, yes, the problem is defined as “women.” If you can see further than your snot dripper you might notice that there has been a long march (several centuries) whereby today’s condition(s) became inevitable.
For convenience’s sake let’s start with the Industrial Revolution, where machines replaced muscle power with steam. From then on there has been continual replacement of men by machines not only in factories but most notably in agriculture/logging/mining, which 150 years ago, accounted for 50% of all employment. These were all, shall we say, manly jobs. Today it is less than 10%
At the same time, jobs required more brains than brawn, women won the right to vote as well as being more formally educated. The birth control pill created far more planned pregnancies, all of which led to the Women’s Movement, an inevitable result of all that had gone before. So, no, women are not responsible for the men’s emasculation.
This isn’t to say that emasculated men are not a societal concern, because they are. Healthy cultures require healthy men, which we don’t have today. We can either wring our hand over this, or we might accept that on a historic scale, this occurred with a speed that exceeded our ability to adjust, adapt and integrate men’s new role, whatever it may be.
My oldest great-grandson, who just graduated from high school, has one possible answer. With his parents concurrence he is now enrolled in a linesman school which, upon graduation and an internship, will have him climbing power poles, electrical towers, working through the night following storms, etc. When you compare the cost of higher education to what his earnings will likely be in four years it is hard to argue that this is a poor choice. May there be many more like him.
If you can’t see beyond the end of your nose then, yes, the problem is defined as “women.” If you can see further than your snot dripper you might notice that there has been a long march (several centuries) whereby today’s condition(s) became inevitable.
For convenience’s sake let’s start with the Industrial Revolution, where machines replaced muscle power with steam. From then on there has been continual replacement of men by machines not only in factories but most notably in agriculture/logging/mining, which 150 years ago, accounted for 50% of all employment. These were all, shall we say, manly jobs. Today it is less than 10%
At the same time, jobs required more brains than brawn, women won the right to vote as well as being more formally educated. The birth control pill created far more planned pregnancies, all of which led to the Women’s Movement, an inevitable result of all that had gone before. So, no, women are not responsible for the men’s emasculation.
This isn’t to say that emasculated men are not a societal concern, because they are. Healthy cultures require healthy men, which we don’t have today. We can either wring our hand over this, or we might accept that on a historic scale, this occurred with a speed that exceeded our ability to adjust, adapt and integrate men’s new role, whatever it may be.
My oldest great-grandson, who just graduated from high school, has one possible answer. With his parents concurrence he is now enrolled in a linesman school which, upon graduation and an internship, will have him climbing power poles, electrical towers, working through the night following storms, etc. When you compare the cost of higher education to what his earnings will likely be in four years it is hard to argue that this is a poor choice. May there be many more like him.
What do you mean by Tate not being ‘fully white’. He’s mixed race. His father is an African-American.
What do you mean by Tate not being ‘fully white’. He’s mixed race. His father is an African-American.
I agree with Jordan Peterson’s analysis of the popularity of Andrew Tate: ”He doesn’t bend the knee easily, that is not because of his stellar moral character. His appeal is like that of a violant rapper.” He rightly calls him a pimp and questions his morals and values.
I agree with Jordan Peterson’s analysis of the popularity of Andrew Tate: ”He doesn’t bend the knee easily, that is not because of his stellar moral character. His appeal is like that of a violant rapper.” He rightly calls him a pimp and questions his morals and values.
Question:
How come [heterosexual] men are reviled for being promiscuous as there must have been equally promiscuous women to enable this to occur (rape aside)?
Question:
How come [heterosexual] men are reviled for being promiscuous as there must have been equally promiscuous women to enable this to occur (rape aside)?
Its true that many men are sick of being represented as a problem, but why are so many black Americans [and British] growing up in a matriarchy? It’s because their fathers have ditched their responsibilities and buggered off
Its true that many men are sick of being represented as a problem, but why are so many black Americans [and British] growing up in a matriarchy? It’s because their fathers have ditched their responsibilities and buggered off
Wouldn’t it be nice if — female or male — we quit navel-gazing and simply used birth control when engaging in an act that might create a new life? Couldn’t we just stipulate that as a core human responsibility, regardless of race or sex? Then we could indulge in endless self and societal analysis without having done harm to children who never asked to be born, and who are apt to be harmed by our cluelessness. Is that too much to ask?
This writer isn’t qualified to write about men.
If Unherd want a column about men, I recommend they find a man to write it.
Nonsense. Unherd can publish articles by both men and women about men, just as they can publish articles by both men and women about women. Trying to establish the kind of exclusivity you require isn’t in the least helpful in seeking to understand each other better.
Pandering is not a good look.
Pandering is not a good look.
First, I don’t see why. Second, you are reinforcing the idea that only women can have opinions on issues such as abortion.
I can understand what you say as t*t for tat, but it’s not the way we should go.
The way we should go, that particular horse bolted a long time ago.
Do you seriously think any male journalist could write an article that was critical of women or anti-abortion and get away with it?
Of course unborn children have sole entitlement to opine on abortion… Oh, wait…
But it would be nice if any of these people gave a d@mn about kids. It seems to me this comes down to sticking it out for the sake of children. It’s as if we’re all Peanuts characters and the only trace of adulthood is the occasional large shoe in the background!
As a former foetus, I certainly have the right to discuss abortion.
The way we should go, that particular horse bolted a long time ago.
Do you seriously think any male journalist could write an article that was critical of women or anti-abortion and get away with it?
Of course unborn children have sole entitlement to opine on abortion… Oh, wait…
But it would be nice if any of these people gave a d@mn about kids. It seems to me this comes down to sticking it out for the sake of children. It’s as if we’re all Peanuts characters and the only trace of adulthood is the occasional large shoe in the background!
As a former foetus, I certainly have the right to discuss abortion.
Nonsense. Unherd can publish articles by both men and women about men, just as they can publish articles by both men and women about women. Trying to establish the kind of exclusivity you require isn’t in the least helpful in seeking to understand each other better.
First, I don’t see why. Second, you are reinforcing the idea that only women can have opinions on issues such as abortion.
I can understand what you say as t*t for tat, but it’s not the way we should go.
This writer isn’t qualified to write about men.
If Unherd want a column about men, I recommend they find a man to write it.
Until the advent of the Pill, men could be, and were, promiscuous and as often as not “get away with it” whilst women and children suffered the consequences. Now, whinging by men that “women are promiscuous and untrustworthy” is both laughable and pathetic. Of course, the consequences are just as bad in both cases, but the simple fact is that human beings have an imperative to reproduce with the best partner(s) they can find. If women now decide to do what men have always done, men had better get used to it since nature will take its course however many men wail into the ‘manosphere’.
Men are so beaten down that many actually think it wrong or don’t know how to take advantage of the women who now are “doing what men have always done”.
In their defence, everything they hear, except from a few individuals who are cast as far right extremist and misogynists, is reinforcing the matriarchal mantra. Schools are trying to re-educate boys and young men to hate their masculinity and get in touch with their female side. Mothers, alarmed by what their sons are listening to online are frantically indoctrinating them with female values.
If men are “beaten down”, that makes them exactly how i described them, pathetic.
However, there are plenty of men who aren’t “beaten down”, but able to stand tall amongst both men and women, respectful and understanding of both.
I think you mean boys’ “feminine” side (ie gender) no boy will ever be female and that’s the obfuscation that transideology has found so useful!!
If men are “beaten down”, that makes them exactly how i described them, pathetic.
However, there are plenty of men who aren’t “beaten down”, but able to stand tall amongst both men and women, respectful and understanding of both.
I think you mean boys’ “feminine” side (ie gender) no boy will ever be female and that’s the obfuscation that transideology has found so useful!!
It’s before my time but I do wonder why, if men could be as promiscuous as you say, they bothered to get married at all? Let alone so young, by today’s standards. And were not the women, in your imagining, also promiscuous? (Or else, who were the men sleeping around with?)
In any event men are quite clearly “getting used to” women’s liberation, and women do indeed think they are “deciding to do what men have always done”, heaven knows why. I wonder which outcomes specifically you approve of?
Again it’s before my time but I’ve heard that following the advent of the pill, so many women were coerced into accepting “free love”. If you participated in that moment of liberation, perhaps you witnessed such behavior?
Men whinging is of course pathetic. Maybe, encouraged by the pervasive sentimentalism that has followed women’s increased role in public life, they’re also deciding to do “what women have always done”?
“…the consequences are just as bad in both cases…”
Which part of that statement didn’t you understand?
“I do wonder why, if men could be as promiscuous as you say, they bothered to get married at all?”
That’s an excellent question, Paul. In earlier times (and in other places), most men–and women–married because their communities expected them to do so but also because they wanted to do so. Very few people could see themselves as footloose and fancy-free individuals, understanding even without being bribed or intimidated that families and communities rewarded interdependence. Almost all people understood that they were indebted to earlier generations and responsible for future ones. But marriage offered great rewards, too, both public and personal. And in religious communities, marriage was definitely not merely “a piece of paper.”
“…the consequences are just as bad in both cases…”
Which part of that statement didn’t you understand?
“I do wonder why, if men could be as promiscuous as you say, they bothered to get married at all?”
That’s an excellent question, Paul. In earlier times (and in other places), most men–and women–married because their communities expected them to do so but also because they wanted to do so. Very few people could see themselves as footloose and fancy-free individuals, understanding even without being bribed or intimidated that families and communities rewarded interdependence. Almost all people understood that they were indebted to earlier generations and responsible for future ones. But marriage offered great rewards, too, both public and personal. And in religious communities, marriage was definitely not merely “a piece of paper.”
With fertility rates far below replacement levels it appears that human beings in the West feel less and less imperative to reproduce at all. And if parents – of either sex – are promiscuous and untrustworthy, children had better get used to it, with all the devastating hurt and social harm which comes from that. Being untrustworthy and promiscuous is nothing to celebrate, and societies which accept it without stigma will not thrive.
As with another comment, you’ve (wilfully?) misinterpreted mine. At what point did i either celebrate or recommend promiscuity? I simply stated the perfectly well understood biological imperative to find the best partner to mate with – and if the opportunity arises to “get away with” mating with more than one, to do so. I’m fully aware of the consequences for children, thanks.
Yes, but you’re using ideas drawn from evolutionary psychology to justify actions which in psychological terms would be seen as signs of an underlying problem. Narcissism, most obviously.
Managing our impulses is essential to being fully human and grown up. To fail to do so consistently, and without guilt, and remorse for the damage you have done is to fall short.
Yes, but you’re using ideas drawn from evolutionary psychology to justify actions which in psychological terms would be seen as signs of an underlying problem. Narcissism, most obviously.
Managing our impulses is essential to being fully human and grown up. To fail to do so consistently, and without guilt, and remorse for the damage you have done is to fall short.
As with another comment, you’ve (wilfully?) misinterpreted mine. At what point did i either celebrate or recommend promiscuity? I simply stated the perfectly well understood biological imperative to find the best partner to mate with – and if the opportunity arises to “get away with” mating with more than one, to do so. I’m fully aware of the consequences for children, thanks.
I suspect that these behaviours are just as prolific now as then and the only real difference is that people are more open about it with less shame being bandied about. Much of it was hidden in the past due to the shame factor. Today society seems to think it’s preferable to shame men for being men (unlucky in love men probably face more shame mongering than those considered players) than women for being promiscuous.
I very much doubt it. It was not just shame. Fear of pregnancy would hve been a very effective contraceptive
Things we don’t really have so much of today, that we used to have; shotgun marriages, orphanages/orphans and homes for unmarried mothers. Oh and condoms were invented in 1855.
Yes, and that fear applied to both women and men. The latter worried (to the extent of their maturity) about having to drop out of school and get married so that they could support their families. This explains, at least partially, the fact that many millions of men demand the legalization of abortion-on-demand.
Things we don’t really have so much of today, that we used to have; shotgun marriages, orphanages/orphans and homes for unmarried mothers. Oh and condoms were invented in 1855.
Yes, and that fear applied to both women and men. The latter worried (to the extent of their maturity) about having to drop out of school and get married so that they could support their families. This explains, at least partially, the fact that many millions of men demand the legalization of abortion-on-demand.
Sure, people are more “open about it” now, in this age of Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil, than ever before. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that nothing has changed. On the contrary, tearing down the wall between private and public behavior has indeed changed and even encouraged “it.” The rising numbers of unwed mothers and single-mothers-by-choice or single-mothers-by-default say this, according to hard stats, loudly and clearly.
But I agree with your concluding statement: “Today society seems to think it’s preferable to shame men for being men (unlucky in love men probably face more shame mongering than those considered players) than women for being promiscuous.”
Agreed, I may have exaggerated somewhat with my use of the word prolific. My point really was that the behaviour has always been there, it’s just more normalised today without the same level of shame attached.
Agreed, I may have exaggerated somewhat with my use of the word prolific. My point really was that the behaviour has always been there, it’s just more normalised today without the same level of shame attached.
I very much doubt it. It was not just shame. Fear of pregnancy would hve been a very effective contraceptive
Sure, people are more “open about it” now, in this age of Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil, than ever before. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that nothing has changed. On the contrary, tearing down the wall between private and public behavior has indeed changed and even encouraged “it.” The rising numbers of unwed mothers and single-mothers-by-choice or single-mothers-by-default say this, according to hard stats, loudly and clearly.
But I agree with your concluding statement: “Today society seems to think it’s preferable to shame men for being men (unlucky in love men probably face more shame mongering than those considered players) than women for being promiscuous.”
Utter tosh. It was and is the case that very few men had the opportunity to be promiscuous.
Steve, did you ever hear of “shotgun weddings” or “breach of promise” laws? Parents tried very hard to prevent their daughters from becoming pregnant before marriage–and just as hard to hold their boyfriends accountable after the fact. They usually relied not only on persuasion or bribery but also on intimidation–that is, the cultural and religious sanctions of close communities. Any man who was even rumored to be cad (except for isolated men in big cities) faced ostracism. And any man who was identified as a cad, publicly, faced legal action. Only in very recent times, since the hedonistic 1960s have promiscuous men (or women) been able to “get away with it.”
I acknowledge the statistical and general validity of your claims, Paul. However, a certain few unchastised Casanovas, at once reviled and celebrated, envied and feared, have been around forever. Also, in in earlier times there were rogue men of higher status who had profilic, often “rapey” relations with women of lower status, with little adverse consequence beyond their own growing depravity and possible sense of guilt. Or an STD. John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester (1647-1680)–who is known to have gone “a-whoring” with a disguise-wearing King Charles II–was one such person. He died of his dissolute ways very young though, so…adverse consequences for him. (They say he repented just in time, on his deathbed).
This conversations seems to have thus far skipped over the rude category of the “whoremonger” or frequenter of prostitutes. That gross “passtime”, while not affordable nor appealing to every man, was more available than other forms of rampant promiscuity. Of course “the clap” put somewhat of a clamp on that.
Also I think many a roughly-charming, passing-though-town player, from ancient minstrels to 1950s bad boys–before the 1960s cut-off your assert–would have engaged in serial dalliances. Certainly they would risk a forced wedding or violent death, but a touch of discretion and fast enough legs, horses, or wheels might have set them safely on the road in time.
These are my exceptions to your valid general points. Many men are quite happy to live with one best girl forever, and always have been. Others have youthful exploits then settle down (far less permissible for most women until very recently, and sometimes still). And some can’t even get a legitimate taste of that stuff.
I think Nietzsche was one such unfortunate until he took to prostitutes and contracted the syphilis that caused or hastened the total madness, then stupor of his final years. While it is not necessary or helpful to mock these so-called “incels” of any era, I agree with those who observe that the fault, in most cases (barring severe disability, etc.), is with such men themselves. And it should go without saying that it is never the “fault” of any woman who says “no thanks buddy”. (Superfluous disclaimer? Maybe).
The behaviour you described was almost entirely the province of the upper classes who could afford their indulgences.
The laws, rules and cultural pressures protected the lower classes and it is lower classes that have paid the price for their erosion.
I basically laid that out. Middle class people, prosperous upstarts and spendthrift peasants could get an occasional trollop-for-hire though. And a handsome troubadour might very well have persuaded a virtuous maiden or three. I am talking about uncommon but non-anomalous realities, as I understand them from readings and documentation that includes period diaries and nonfictional accounts. (*I’ll just add that so-called
b*****d–word censored so “out of wedlock”– children were not rare in the olden days)((**And wars provided ample chances for opportunistic soldiers)).I agree that sexual abandon is a net negative for all involved, though I think many men and women value the choice to do or not to do, and not all of them abuse it.
The “morality laws” of earlier centuries were often well-intended, or even effective, but they were also about control, with significant strains of “good for me, not for thee”, causing erosions of natural liberty motivated rather more by concern for convenience and expense on the part of the upper classes or moral/legal arbiters in question. And perhaps a concern for their poor souls too.
Also, though the scale was different, there were previous times and places of relative abandon: the late Roman Empire, the period of upheaval around the Black Plague, or 1890s Paris. I also think we tend to greatly overestimate the purity and conformity (and sometimes the depravity, as with Rome) of earlier eras, in a general sense.
I basically laid that out. Middle class people, prosperous upstarts and spendthrift peasants could get an occasional trollop-for-hire though. And a handsome troubadour might very well have persuaded a virtuous maiden or three. I am talking about uncommon but non-anomalous realities, as I understand them from readings and documentation that includes period diaries and nonfictional accounts. (*I’ll just add that so-called
b*****d–word censored so “out of wedlock”– children were not rare in the olden days)((**And wars provided ample chances for opportunistic soldiers)).I agree that sexual abandon is a net negative for all involved, though I think many men and women value the choice to do or not to do, and not all of them abuse it.
The “morality laws” of earlier centuries were often well-intended, or even effective, but they were also about control, with significant strains of “good for me, not for thee”, causing erosions of natural liberty motivated rather more by concern for convenience and expense on the part of the upper classes or moral/legal arbiters in question. And perhaps a concern for their poor souls too.
Also, though the scale was different, there were previous times and places of relative abandon: the late Roman Empire, the period of upheaval around the Black Plague, or 1890s Paris. I also think we tend to greatly overestimate the purity and conformity (and sometimes the depravity, as with Rome) of earlier eras, in a general sense.
There have always been some people who were clever or devious or powerful enough to get whatever they want, but they hardly represent ordinary people.
You refer to Casanova and to the “roughly-charming, passing-though-town player.” Casanova was a romantic figure for men, who not only admired his prowess and boldness but also his envied his astonishing good luck in avoiding the dire consequences that could easily have been his fate. But he was a romantic figure for women, too, in a different way. In fact, he was the literary prototype of so many rich and handsome but also mysterious and vaguely sinister heroes that you can find in every modern romance novel. And those novels are written both by and for women. As for Casanova’s modern equivalent, think of Marlon Brando as Johnny in The Wild One (Stanley Kramer, 1953). He was definitely the kind of rebel who attracted both men and women. And this was before the Pill.
You refer also to what I presume is the medieval “droit de seigneur” (a right of lords to rape the daughters of their serfs). According to Wikipedia, that might or might not have been legally established. It might have entered later folklore as a way of intimidating the peasants. A more common problem among the aristocrats of late-medieval France, from out point of view, was “courtly love.” This scenario, publicly celebrated in ritual, is about a knight who falls in love with a married lady, and she with him. He flirts with her and she with him. He wears her colors in a jousting tournament, becoming her champion, and wins. But what then? The story continues, either implicitly or explicitly, with adultery. These romantic stories, too, seldom represented reality, a society that respected, at least in theory, the sacrament of marriage. Rather, they represented a combination of wish-fulfillment and, more important, the early stirring of individualism (and the distant precursor of romanticism).
As for prostitutes, you don’t say precisely what the problem is. You could oppose the exploitive and dangerous ways in which this ancient institution has been organized as an industry. To oppose it on other grounds, however, would be much more difficult–except from a specifically religious point of view. Western theologies understand the body as an image of God and sex as a venue of the sacred, after all, within the sacramental context of marriage. And those who consort with prostitutes are not married to them.
From a secular perspective, I see nothing inherently wrong with paying for sex, either straight or gay, which would be no different from any other transaction. Most customers, being either grossly ugly or unhappily married, have no other access to sex. It’s true that prostitutes can compete with spouses, but they don’t necessarily do so, because people marry for many reasons and with various expectations. Unless you find something inherently wrong with consensual sexual behavior per se, straight or gay, I don’t see how this could be a moral problem per se.
It’s true that many or most incels blame women for their isolation, not themselves. They are clearly inadequate, either socially or physically or both, which is of course why women reject them. But we could think of these incels with compassion, or at least pity, rather than virtue-signaling outrage. They need help. Where can they find that?
It is true I mostly eschewed analysis and moralization in my last post. I thought most fellow subscribers who bothered to read what I wrote might actually enjoy a break from my moral pronouncements!
I acknowledged up front that my reply was more about qualifications and exceptions than any general rejection of your points. You focused on what was prevalent and common, I tried to “nuance” or qualify that.
I personally do think that paying for sex is inherently imperfect, a cheapening of sorts, though hardly society’s greatest worry. However, a free-for-all “sex market” can lead to greater exploitation, or continued exploitation (trafficking, coercion, Tate-like manipulation) that is then considered pretty much fine–after all, it’s legal and voluntary, right?
I guess better fathers and more personal responsibility would help reduce (not erase) the number of incels there are to begin with. A sense of purpose or moral consequence might also help even hard-to-break-free lifelong virgins treat their predicament with less anger and blame–it could even help many of them get laid, or maybe find a long-term partner of great patience and charity, in a carnal sense.
I’m glad to see you use the word compassion without “scare quotes”, showing that it is not always a red herring or trojan horse (often it is, I admit). Pity tends to have a very pejorative meaning nowadays (that wasn’t always the case), but it’s a good start, compared with mockery and contempt anyway.
It is true I mostly eschewed analysis and moralization in my last post. I thought most fellow subscribers who bothered to read what I wrote might actually enjoy a break from my moral pronouncements!
I acknowledged up front that my reply was more about qualifications and exceptions than any general rejection of your points. You focused on what was prevalent and common, I tried to “nuance” or qualify that.
I personally do think that paying for sex is inherently imperfect, a cheapening of sorts, though hardly society’s greatest worry. However, a free-for-all “sex market” can lead to greater exploitation, or continued exploitation (trafficking, coercion, Tate-like manipulation) that is then considered pretty much fine–after all, it’s legal and voluntary, right?
I guess better fathers and more personal responsibility would help reduce (not erase) the number of incels there are to begin with. A sense of purpose or moral consequence might also help even hard-to-break-free lifelong virgins treat their predicament with less anger and blame–it could even help many of them get laid, or maybe find a long-term partner of great patience and charity, in a carnal sense.
I’m glad to see you use the word compassion without “scare quotes”, showing that it is not always a red herring or trojan horse (often it is, I admit). Pity tends to have a very pejorative meaning nowadays (that wasn’t always the case), but it’s a good start, compared with mockery and contempt anyway.
The behaviour you described was almost entirely the province of the upper classes who could afford their indulgences.
The laws, rules and cultural pressures protected the lower classes and it is lower classes that have paid the price for their erosion.
There have always been some people who were clever or devious or powerful enough to get whatever they want, but they hardly represent ordinary people.
You refer to Casanova and to the “roughly-charming, passing-though-town player.” Casanova was a romantic figure for men, who not only admired his prowess and boldness but also his envied his astonishing good luck in avoiding the dire consequences that could easily have been his fate. But he was a romantic figure for women, too, in a different way. In fact, he was the literary prototype of so many rich and handsome but also mysterious and vaguely sinister heroes that you can find in every modern romance novel. And those novels are written both by and for women. As for Casanova’s modern equivalent, think of Marlon Brando as Johnny in The Wild One (Stanley Kramer, 1953). He was definitely the kind of rebel who attracted both men and women. And this was before the Pill.
You refer also to what I presume is the medieval “droit de seigneur” (a right of lords to rape the daughters of their serfs). According to Wikipedia, that might or might not have been legally established. It might have entered later folklore as a way of intimidating the peasants. A more common problem among the aristocrats of late-medieval France, from out point of view, was “courtly love.” This scenario, publicly celebrated in ritual, is about a knight who falls in love with a married lady, and she with him. He flirts with her and she with him. He wears her colors in a jousting tournament, becoming her champion, and wins. But what then? The story continues, either implicitly or explicitly, with adultery. These romantic stories, too, seldom represented reality, a society that respected, at least in theory, the sacrament of marriage. Rather, they represented a combination of wish-fulfillment and, more important, the early stirring of individualism (and the distant precursor of romanticism).
As for prostitutes, you don’t say precisely what the problem is. You could oppose the exploitive and dangerous ways in which this ancient institution has been organized as an industry. To oppose it on other grounds, however, would be much more difficult–except from a specifically religious point of view. Western theologies understand the body as an image of God and sex as a venue of the sacred, after all, within the sacramental context of marriage. And those who consort with prostitutes are not married to them.
From a secular perspective, I see nothing inherently wrong with paying for sex, either straight or gay, which would be no different from any other transaction. Most customers, being either grossly ugly or unhappily married, have no other access to sex. It’s true that prostitutes can compete with spouses, but they don’t necessarily do so, because people marry for many reasons and with various expectations. Unless you find something inherently wrong with consensual sexual behavior per se, straight or gay, I don’t see how this could be a moral problem per se.
It’s true that many or most incels blame women for their isolation, not themselves. They are clearly inadequate, either socially or physically or both, which is of course why women reject them. But we could think of these incels with compassion, or at least pity, rather than virtue-signaling outrage. They need help. Where can they find that?
I acknowledge the statistical and general validity of your claims, Paul. However, a certain few unchastised Casanovas, at once reviled and celebrated, envied and feared, have been around forever. Also, in in earlier times there were rogue men of higher status who had profilic, often “rapey” relations with women of lower status, with little adverse consequence beyond their own growing depravity and possible sense of guilt. Or an STD. John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester (1647-1680)–who is known to have gone “a-whoring” with a disguise-wearing King Charles II–was one such person. He died of his dissolute ways very young though, so…adverse consequences for him. (They say he repented just in time, on his deathbed).
This conversations seems to have thus far skipped over the rude category of the “whoremonger” or frequenter of prostitutes. That gross “passtime”, while not affordable nor appealing to every man, was more available than other forms of rampant promiscuity. Of course “the clap” put somewhat of a clamp on that.
Also I think many a roughly-charming, passing-though-town player, from ancient minstrels to 1950s bad boys–before the 1960s cut-off your assert–would have engaged in serial dalliances. Certainly they would risk a forced wedding or violent death, but a touch of discretion and fast enough legs, horses, or wheels might have set them safely on the road in time.
These are my exceptions to your valid general points. Many men are quite happy to live with one best girl forever, and always have been. Others have youthful exploits then settle down (far less permissible for most women until very recently, and sometimes still). And some can’t even get a legitimate taste of that stuff.
I think Nietzsche was one such unfortunate until he took to prostitutes and contracted the syphilis that caused or hastened the total madness, then stupor of his final years. While it is not necessary or helpful to mock these so-called “incels” of any era, I agree with those who observe that the fault, in most cases (barring severe disability, etc.), is with such men themselves. And it should go without saying that it is never the “fault” of any woman who says “no thanks buddy”. (Superfluous disclaimer? Maybe).
Men are so beaten down that many actually think it wrong or don’t know how to take advantage of the women who now are “doing what men have always done”.
In their defence, everything they hear, except from a few individuals who are cast as far right extremist and misogynists, is reinforcing the matriarchal mantra. Schools are trying to re-educate boys and young men to hate their masculinity and get in touch with their female side. Mothers, alarmed by what their sons are listening to online are frantically indoctrinating them with female values.
It’s before my time but I do wonder why, if men could be as promiscuous as you say, they bothered to get married at all? Let alone so young, by today’s standards. And were not the women, in your imagining, also promiscuous? (Or else, who were the men sleeping around with?)
In any event men are quite clearly “getting used to” women’s liberation, and women do indeed think they are “deciding to do what men have always done”, heaven knows why. I wonder which outcomes specifically you approve of?
Again it’s before my time but I’ve heard that following the advent of the pill, so many women were coerced into accepting “free love”. If you participated in that moment of liberation, perhaps you witnessed such behavior?
Men whinging is of course pathetic. Maybe, encouraged by the pervasive sentimentalism that has followed women’s increased role in public life, they’re also deciding to do “what women have always done”?
With fertility rates far below replacement levels it appears that human beings in the West feel less and less imperative to reproduce at all. And if parents – of either sex – are promiscuous and untrustworthy, children had better get used to it, with all the devastating hurt and social harm which comes from that. Being untrustworthy and promiscuous is nothing to celebrate, and societies which accept it without stigma will not thrive.
I suspect that these behaviours are just as prolific now as then and the only real difference is that people are more open about it with less shame being bandied about. Much of it was hidden in the past due to the shame factor. Today society seems to think it’s preferable to shame men for being men (unlucky in love men probably face more shame mongering than those considered players) than women for being promiscuous.
Utter tosh. It was and is the case that very few men had the opportunity to be promiscuous.
Steve, did you ever hear of “shotgun weddings” or “breach of promise” laws? Parents tried very hard to prevent their daughters from becoming pregnant before marriage–and just as hard to hold their boyfriends accountable after the fact. They usually relied not only on persuasion or bribery but also on intimidation–that is, the cultural and religious sanctions of close communities. Any man who was even rumored to be cad (except for isolated men in big cities) faced ostracism. And any man who was identified as a cad, publicly, faced legal action. Only in very recent times, since the hedonistic 1960s have promiscuous men (or women) been able to “get away with it.”
Until the advent of the Pill, men could be, and were, promiscuous and as often as not “get away with it” whilst women and children suffered the consequences. Now, whinging by men that “women are promiscuous and untrustworthy” is both laughable and pathetic. Of course, the consequences are just as bad in both cases, but the simple fact is that human beings have an imperative to reproduce with the best partner(s) they can find. If women now decide to do what men have always done, men had better get used to it since nature will take its course however many men wail into the ‘manosphere’.