Mediaboss Marketing

Analysis

07:15

by Greta Aurora

The King of Toxic Masculinity. Andrew Tate/Instagram

Former kickboxer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate was banned from Facebook, Instagram and TikTok this week. Unfortunately, cancelling him is unlikely to change his fans minds about women and the world.

Few people embody misogyny quite as well as Tate. Theres video evidence of him assaulting his ex-girlfriend, and he often speaks disparagingly about women.

The majority of Tates 4.7 million Instagram followers were young men. What drew them to a worldview like Tates in the first place?

Messages that positively encourage men are thin on the ground in the mainstream media. Jordan Peterson did help fill some of this vacuum, but his message is often tough, urging people to find meaning in hard work and sacrifice. Many men have good reason to suspect that Petersonian work and sacrifice will never be valued by a society that pathologises masculinity.

Unlike Peterson, Tate doesnt deliver theological lectures which many may find hard to follow. He does not preach that sacrifices will be rewarded. Instead, he emphasises physical self-perfection and a domineering attitude, while downplaying the importance of intelligence. (He once made fun of a young boy for reciting pi to 200.)

What could be more appealing to a generation of young men looking for uncomplicated advice on how to be good at life?

These same young men can compare Tate to a feminist zeitgeist that accuses them of oppressing women not just in the present, but throughout history. The feminist answer is for young men to take a backseat and give way to their female peers. In many areas of life, such as higher education, this has already occured. Tate then, is the beneficiary of a culture almost designed to generate resentment in these boys.

Feminists generally fail to consider all the ways in which men may feel powerless. At the same time, women have more choices than ever before. Our culture glorifies conventionally masculine traits in women remember the girlboss? while labelling these same traits in men as toxic. In this perplexing environment, its unclear what the new male role should be.

If Tates popularity signifies anything, it is that some young men want to end this confusion by embracing the rules of the jungle again. In nature, physical strength is essential for victory, and this is exactly what Tate espouses. He is merely offering insecure men who feel invisible a way of being seen. Its no coincidence that depression in men may manifest as anger and aggression.

Lecturing men on how to be less toxic and silencing the few voices that address male hopelessness (however inappropriately) is not going to bring peace between the genders.

If we genuinely want to cultivate a healthy relationship between the sexes, we must acknowledge the pain and confusion men may feel as a result of their ambiguous roles in contemporary society.If more of us were willing to hear them and offer them encouragement, obnoxious figures like Tate would become much less appealing to this generation of lonely young men.

Read more:
Andrew Tate and the lost boys - The Post - UnHerd

Earlier today, TikTok banned Andrew Tate, an influencer known for spreading extreme misogyny. Meta and Instagram had done so earlier last week and so did Twitter, after he claimed that rape victims should bear responsibility for their attacks. Other hot takes of Tate include describing women as property, while calling them lazy, and saying they belong inside the house. He might be banned now, but the damage has already been done. Tates reach is unfathomable on TikTok, he has over 11 billion views.

Gods and fathers with a capital G and F have been a cultural fixation myths extol them, and legends uphold their role as the disciplinarians of society. They are patriarchs; men who style themselves after them, represent our most base histories in exclusion, violence, and prejudice. Theyre generally shunned in polite society, but on the Internet, they enjoy cult status. And so, it has come to be that Andrew Tate represents a dangerous father figure for a new generation.

The phenomenon points to an unsettling Internet trend where growing progressivism is met with a scarily effective pushback in the form of the cult of father figures who style themselves as the resistance. In reinforcing the most traditional norms around gender, they validate the supremacy of men and endorse a kind of masculinity that can only exist in tandem with misogyny by putting down women and those existing outside the gender binary.

Although Tate is more openly hateful in his views about women, his popularity lies in the way he instructs young men on how to behave providing them with a ready playbook for several milestones in their lives. Its the same way that another cultural father figure Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson acts as a benevolent patriarch while pitting impressionable people against others who are far more vulnerable.

Related on The Swaddle:

Meat and Masculinity: The Tired Trope That Wont Go Away

These men ply in what they call logic, facts, and histories that the woke left wants us all to forget. They emphasize what they deem to be the natural state of things hierarchies, biological sex, and gender roles. Where Jordan Peterson speaks in vocabulary that sounds right but isnt, Tate is the other side of the same coin that says it like it is. Peterson speaks to disaffected millennial men, validating their prejudices about feminists and serving as a surrogate father figure, wrote Nathan J Robinson, about how our current political landscape has given rise to figures like him.

Petersons rise to cultural prominence especially among men should have been a warning, then, for the way it could potentially pave way for others to succeed him. He frequently attacks social justice discourse as postmodern Marxism (a coinage that itself makes no sense) and is notorious for undermining trans rights, and opposing legislation that upholds them.

In other words, hes the Internets red pill a term that describes a distortion in someones understanding of the world, usually for the worse, and leads to a nihilistic, cruel, and often misogynistic outlook thereafter. The term has its origins in The Matrix, where the protagonist Neo is offered a choice between taking a blue pill, that would allow him to remain content in ignorance, or the red pill, that would show him a life-altering truth about the world. And Andrew Tate, incidentally, preaches to his mostly male followers about escaping the matrix along with giving them pro tips on how to treat women and find masculine communities.

Their influence also spans countries speaking to the lowest common denominator of patriarchy everywhere. Because their worldview is so deceptively simple, it has a wide appeal every society has been born out of unequal social orders, especially along gendered lines, and every society has seen some form of resistance against these arbitrary hierarchies. But the Petersons and the Tates of the world cement an arbitrary connection between the longevity of an ideology, and nature. In other words, because something has been a certain way for a long time, that must make it natural. This, in turn, means that men can reclaim their authority on this basis making the father figures in essence the flag-bearers for a return to a disquieting status quo.

Here is the original post:
How the Rise of Internet Father Figures Bolsters Patriarchy - The Swaddle

When Will screamed at Mike and said "I have been a total third wheel all day, it's been miserable," in Stranger Things, I bet everyone who has been the third wheel at some point was able to relate. To see two of your friends in a relationship usually makes us happy.

However, sometimes when there is an issue between them, the usual third-wheeling can take an even more awkward turn. After all, what are you supposed to do?

About a year ago, I had to deal with this situation where two of my friends were struggling to communicate freely in their relationship, causing continued misunderstandings and an overall sense of resentment. When asked, all I could tell them was to have an honest conversation with each other.

What I have learnt from my experience is that your friends will often not listen to you, even if they were the ones asking for your advice in the first place. Since this is an emotionally tumultuous time for them, they might not want to listen to any logic or reason. Thus, it is safest to lend an ear and keep your opinions to yourself.

In such situations, it is important to remember it is not your responsibility to fix things for them, the most you can do is offer a trusted ear and a shoulder to cry on. You may feel like you have to take sides if things get worse, but that only leads to further misunderstandings and blame games. Before you know it, you are now a part of this fight.

In any case if the situation ultimately calls for you to become the mediator, make sure you only do it if they have asked you to do so. Again, this is truly not your responsibility, and what you are doing is out of the goodness of your heart. Try to limit your contribution to making them see each other's points of view, and introducing the concept of reason, at best. If they truly want to proceed with fixing things, they will put in the effort required.

Don't try to be the hero here, it is not going to make things better but rather take a turn in the opposite direction and go downhill. For all parties involved.

You want the best for your friends, but if the worst happens and the relationship ends, try to keep away and allow space for both perspectives. Give them some time to heal from the aftermath.

At the end of the day, you want your friends to be genuinely happy, no matter the state of their involvement. Remember to prioritise your own mental health and wellbeing too.

Angelina Nodee Francis enjoys cracking self-deprecating jokes and running away from her problems. Send her memes at angelinafrancis004@gmail.com

View original post here:
Caught in the middle of a lovers' quarrel - The Daily Star

Social media is filled with over-sharers, but expressing at least some of your thoughts plays an important role in emotional and psychological health.

MONTREAL (PRWEB) August 20, 2022

Twitter users eviscerated psychologist and author Jordan Peterson when he tweeted his distaste for Sports Illustrateds use of a plus-size model for their cover. A male firefighter from Toronto, upset with a proposal to hire more female firefighters, posted a tweet about women having many defects, including their weak arms. In a world where people often feel the need to voice their unabashed opinion even when its not solicited, its hard to imagine that there could be many benefits to wanton self-disclosure. Yet, a recent study from PsychTests.com reveals that people who openly share at least some of their thoughts are happier, more confident, and are more emotionally healthy than those who dont.

Analyzing data from 3,781 people who took the Big Five Personality Test, PsychTests researchers compared the personality, attitude, and behaviors of people who candidly share their thoughts (Uninhibited sharers), those who share some of their thoughts (Partial sharers), and those who keep their thoughts to themselves (Non-sharers). Heres what PsychTests study revealed:

NON-SHARERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO STRUGGLE WITH UNPLEASANT EMOTIONS

NON-SHARERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO STRUGGLE WITH CONFIDENCE ISSUES

IN CONTRAST, UNINHIBITED SHARERS:

We certainly dont recommend sharing your innermost thoughts without any filters, but we are strong proponents of self-disclosure. Keeping things to yourself, especially your worries or frustrations, becomes emotionally and psychologically overwhelming, explains Dr. Ilona Jerabek, president of PsychTests. This is why a lot of the Non-sharers also happened to struggle with mental health issues - if you dont vent, all that unpleasantness remains simmering inside, leading to problems with depression, anxiety, and stress as well as relationship issues.

Of course, its not surprising that many people find it hard to self-disclose, continues Dr. Jerabek. It requires a willingness to be vulnerable and the ability to accept the potential for backlash, anger, mockery, and even betrayal. Imagine sharing something personal only to have it used against youit can be traumatizing. In fact, 48% of Non-sharers have trust issues, likely stemming from regretful instances where their divulgences were used to hurt them. That being said, it is clear from our study that the price of keeping everything to yourself can be quite costly as well. And although 39% of Uninhibited sharers admitted that their tell-all approach to life has offended people, they still tend to be better off emotionally and psychologically. This doesnt mean you need to share every thought that pops into your head, but some self-disclosure is healthy, for yourself and your relationships.

Want to assess your personality? Check out the Big Five Personality Test at https://testyourself.psychtests.com/testid/4059

Professional users, such as HR managers, coaches, and therapists, can request a free demo for this or other assessments from ARCH Profiles extensive battery: http://hrtests.archprofile.com/testdrive_gen_1

To learn more about psychological testing, download this free eBook: http://hrtests.archprofile.com/personality-tests-in-hr

About PsychTests AIM Inc.PsychTests AIM Inc. originally appeared on the internet scene in 1996. Since its inception, it has become a pre-eminent provider of psychological assessment products and services to human resource personnel, therapists and coaches, academics, researchers and a host of other professionals around the world. PsychTests AIM Inc. staff is comprised of a dedicated team of psychologists, test developers, researchers, statisticians, writers, and artificial intelligence experts (see ARCHProfile.com).

Share article on social media or email:

See the article here:
Penny for your thoughts - New study looks at the many downsides of a lack of self-disclosure - PR Web

Recently, I had the privilege of sitting down with Lex Fridman for a wide-ranging two-hour conversation. Lex is a professor of robotics and artificial intelligence at MIT and anextremely popular podcaster. In this latter capacity, he has spoken to significant players in a number of fieldsJoe Rogan, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Sam Harris, to name just a few. Though his main interests are in the arenas of science and technology, he is quite open to discussing matters of a more philosophical and even religious nature. Fridman has a very engaging stylenot argumentative and confrontational, but rather curious, inquisitive. In the course of our two hours together, we talked about God, Jesus, life after death, morality, modernity, Nietzsche, Jordan Peterson, the Bible, faith, and the meaning of life.

Judging from the thousands of comments, the general reaction from his largely tech-oriented audience was quite positive. Many observed that they were pleased to hear a serious conversation about matters that went beyond what the sciences can describe. However, I dont want to focus on the encouraging reactions, but rather on the critical onesand there were plenty of them toofor they tell us a good deal about what young secularists are thinking in regard to religion.

Without a doubt, the most common negative reaction was that I was speaking gobbledygook, or tossing an unimpressive word salad, or using lots of words to say nothing at all. Much of this critique was focused on my opening exchange with the interviewer. Lex asked me very simply, Who is God? I responded, not sentimentally or piously, but rather in the technical language of philosophy. I said that God isipsum esse subsistens(the sheer act of being itself), in contradistinction to anything other than God, in which essence and existence are distinguished. I went on to clarify the meaning of these terms in the manner of Thomas Aquinas, attempting to be as precise and technically correct as possible. To be sure, there are many ways to talk about God, but I chose, with Lexs audience in mind, to use a more intellectual approach.

What most struck me in regard to my critics is that none of them actually engaged the argument I was making or endeavored to formulate a counter-position; they simply pronounced that what I was saying was gibberish. Anyone even vaguely acquainted with the Western philosophical tradition would know that I was, in point of fact, operating out of a system of thought developed by some of the most brilliant thinkers in the tradition: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, Plotinus, Bonaventure, and yes, Thomas Aquinas. It was, to be sure, not scientific speech, but it was perfectly rational, philosophically disciplined speech. That so many in the comment boxes simply did not know what I was talking about was a sobering reminder of how narrow and cramped our educational system has become. In my responses to some of these critics, I said, Would you accuse a theoretical physicist, who was using the technical language of his discipline, of word salad, if you did not immediately understand him? Wouldnt you perhaps summon the humility to admit that you had a lot to learn? I am reminded of something Cardinal Francis George used to saynamely, that before we can even broach the question of the relation between science and religion, we have to reintroduce people to philosophy, the rational discipline that effectively mediates between them. Sadly, many in the Lex Fridman audience didnt know what to do with the sort of philosophical language in which much of our doctrine of God is expressed.

The second most common criticism was that my very Catholicism effectively disqualified me. How can you listen to a representative of the most corrupt institution in history? complained one commentator. Religionespecially the Catholic religionis responsible for the deaths of millions, said another. Here is my favorite: Of all the differing variations of Christianity, Catholicism is by far the most cynical, repugnant, crass variant. Its done more harm to the human species than any other religion, its kept us back from progressing. Um ... just off the top of my head: how anyone, after the murderous secularist and atheist regimes of the twentieth century, which piled up tens of millions of corpses, can, with a straight face, argue that Roman Catholicism is the source of the greatest corruption in history simply beggars belief. This sort of canard can only be construed as the result of the intentionally distorted recounting of history far too typical in our colleges and universities. Secondly, this is such a cheap trick of our woke era: identify your opponent as a member of a supposedly oppressive group, cancel him, and thereby conveniently avoid any obligation to make an argument or respond to one. Thirdly, even if we grant (as we should) that lots of Catholics have behaved badly in the course of a two-thousand-year history, what precisely does this prove? That Catholicism is essentially corrupt? That its doctrines, sacraments, liturgies, saints, and culture are fatally compromised? Hardly. That human beings are a bad lot? Sureand in point of fact, the Catholic teaching regarding the ongoing effects of original sin even in those who are baptized would lead us to expect as much. In a word, this sort of criticism is little more than a red herring, an intentional distraction from the issue at hand.

Over the years, I have made a slew of suggestions as to how we religious people canimprove our evangelical strategies, but I wonder whether I might offer a challenge to those too ready to dismiss religious claims out of hand. First, dont cavalierly characterize philosophy as word salad, and perhaps even try to study it. And second, drop the woke posturing and have the courage to enter into real argument with those who dont share your worldview.

See the rest here:
Some critics of religion need to pick up their game - Angelus News