Sunday, January 15, 2023
The male response to Andrew Tate
I suppose it is obvious that Tate is a product of feminism. Feminists have so devalued men and masculinity that there had to be a backlash among men. That Tate has gone to an opposite extreme is also obvious.
The sadness is that the attitudes to women among men were once much more benign -- kind and courteous. But feminists destroyed that as "paternalistic", as "chavinistic". Opening car doors for women became "oppression". I still do it but I am old.
Daisy Turnbull below thinks that the onus is on women to repudiate Tate. I agree in part but I think there is a greater need for feminists to repudiate toxic feminist attitudes towards men. If feminist thought became rejected insofar as it is anti-men, Tate's ideas would be deprived of the energy that is driving them
It’s easy to hate Andrew Tate. Rebuking his rantings as misogynistic and violent is not difficult because they are. But me telling you this is not going to change young men’s adoration of him. There is a more difficult question: where are other men on this?
It makes sense that Tate has attracted the admiration of so many young men. He speaks to the generation after the devotees of “podcast bros” Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan: males who feel feminism has done them wrong, who believe that women gaining more rights has taken away theirs.
Not every boy will think Tate is right, as this article showed. Some may “test out” his ideas around family or friends and be so shocked by the reaction that they never mention him again.
But for those that do get hooked on his ideas – and see his problems with modern life as their own – we need to ask ourselves why? How can he become a de facto mentor to so many young men?
It is easy to say that what we are lacking for young men are male role models. It might be argued this has been caused by an increase in the proportion of female teachers (over 71 per cent in 2019), or by absentee fathers working too hard or being constantly distracted on their phones. But the fact is there are many male role models around for young men – whether it be in sport, politics, business, media or even on social media.
The problem seems to be the silence of these role models. Where are the men discrediting Tate? When I Googled Tate’s name, I found dozens of articles criticising his toxic masculinity. But only a handful were written by men. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of criticism and discrediting of Tate comes from women.
Why is it on Greta Thunberg and podcasts like The Guilty Feminist to discuss these issues? Although hilarious, being “murdered” on Twitter by Thunberg doesn’t help young men see how objectionable and destructive Tate is. While it sings to the choir of his objectors, it does not speak to the young men who follow him. Ultimately, it galvanises his base.
As a vertically challenged teacher, I know I don’t have the same ability to project my voice across an oval to tell students they need to go back to class as some of my colleagues. I also know that as a mother, there are some things I won’t be able to communicate as effectively to my son as his father, grandfathers, or other men in his life. I don’t see this as a failing on my part, but part of life. Young boys need strong male role models.
Part of that role modelling must help them understand how corrosive someone like Tate really is. There are two ways this needs to be done.
The first is explicitly – men must tell their sons, students, nephews, family friends, and their broader communities that what Andrew Tate says is wrong, violent, misogynistic and unacceptable. Explain why it is so, have awkward conversations. Lean on the “how would you feel if someone spoke about your sister/mother/friend like that?” if you must: whatever you need to do to get the message across.
One friend told me his teenage daughter made it clear that she and her friends would have absolutely nothing to do with a guy who spouts Tate’s ideas, even as a joke. Because as we all know, in every joke there is a grain of truth.
Young men need to know that it doesn’t matter if Tate’s workouts are good, or his points about getting a job or starting a business are somewhat inspiring because they come from the same person who says women can be owned by their partners. They come from an alleged human trafficker. Everything he says must be coloured by that.
Just as we shouldn’t go to politicians held hostage by the gambling lobby for advice on helping families bankrupted by poker machines, we shouldn’t go to Andrew Tate for relationship advice.
The second way is implicitly – support women in equality, and in authority. When young men hear their male role models use derogatory language about young women in the media, (like that the woman is being “harpy”, “shrill” or “bossy”) it can echo what Tate has said, surrounded by takeaway pizza boxes when apprehended by Romanian police.
Instead, promote the women around you. Support equality; follow female sports teams as well as their male counterparts; discuss these issues with your sons.
There are some amazing men who are already doing this work – including Zac Seidler at Movember, Darren Saunders, and Steve Biddulph, but we need more men to speak up now so the next generation hears them.
It is only when a teenager watches an Andrew Tate video and sees it as diametrically opposed to everything in their daily lives that his irrelevance will become obvious, and they will happily scroll to the next clip.
**********************************************************
Relationships are the key to happiness
If someone asked you which of the following choices would make for the most pleasant train ride possible which would you choose—spending your commute keeping to yourself or striking up a conversation with one of the unpredictable strangers in the seat next to you?
Many of us would choose to sit back with our headphones in because the thought of having to converse with someone we don't know is scary. We assume the worst, Dr. Robert Waldinger, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School at Massachusetts General Hospital and co-author of the new book The Good Life, tells Fortune.
His book uses this question to illustrate how we expect social interactions to be negative based on the uncertainty that comes with connection. However, in a study from the University of Chicago, people who decided to strike up that conversation rated their commute as more pleasant than normal, ultimately surprising themselves, Waldinger and his co-author Marc Schulz write.
“We seem particularly bad at forecasting the benefits of relationships,” the co-authors write. “A big part of this is the obvious fact that relationships can be messy and unpredictable. This messiness is some of what prompts many of us to prefer being alone.”
In The Good Life, Waldinger and Schulz distill what makes people find happiness from a study beginning in 1938 following the lives of 724 Harvard students and low-income boys from Boston in the world’s longest scientific study of happiness to date, according to the researchers. The ongoing study, which has expanded to include the spouses and children of the original participants, consists of over 2,000 people.
The researchers gathered participants’ health records every five years, conducted DNA tests along the way, and received questionnaires about their lives and well-being every two years. Roughly every 15 years, the researchers met the participants in-person for an interview. The researchers followed the participants' lives in hopes of finding the key to happiness and found that it wasn’t, in fact, good health.
One thing instead became irrefutable: strong relationships most accurately predicted people’s happiness throughout their lives. They are “intrinsic to everything we do and everything we are,” the authors write.
Now, that doesn’t mean you must strike up a conversation on a busy train car to have a happy life. Waldinger says he wants to instead show how easily, and subconsciously, we bypass the chance to connect when swept up by the hustle of life.
When the participants in the happiness study were asked how they overcame adversity—illnesses, war memories, and losses—their connections always remained a cornerstone of hope in their lives, whether they recalled the person who lent them money when they didn’t have anywhere to turn or their fellow soldier who kept them afloat when they fought (many of the participants served in war). As they aged, the participants who shared regrets mainly bemoaned how little time they spent with family and friends and how much they cared about the seemingly trivial—success and money.
“It's not that accomplishment isn't important and satisfying. It is,” Waldinger says. “But when we sacrifice our [relationships], that's when we end up regretting it, and living a life that isn't as good as we might have.”
If you feel uneasy about the quality of your connections, you’re in luck because the researchers say it's never too late to improve your relationships, whether it be a new friend or someone we reconnect with from our past.
“Social fitness” is the ability to take stock of your relationships and work on them through time, Waldinger says. Which ones energize you? Who do you appreciate and how can you incorporate them into your life in new ways? Do you want to make new connections? Even the people we consider close friends can begin to slide down the priority list as we age.
“We grow. We change. Our lives change,” Waldinger says. “But some of it is that we can be intentional, saying, ‘this person I want to keep in my life.’ That's the intentional part that I want to point to.”
The best way to improve your “social fitness” is to schedule time to build relationships into your week, as you would a session at the gym or a work meeting. Waldinger and Schulz aren’t only co-authors but friends, and they talk every Friday at noon.
“We talk about our work and we talk about writing this book, but we talk about our kids and we talk about things that are bothering us in our personal lives. We talk about everything,” he says. “That phone call is automatic, and we actually have to cancel it if there's a reason. It’s a huge factor in how we’ve been able to stay close.”
It’s never too late to start finding that time to carve in a quick weekly phone call with someone you miss and appreciate. Waldinger also encourages making a friend at work, by asking someone to hang out and getting to know them over a shared interest or by solving a professional issue together.
For people who want to make new connections, Waldinger suggests putting yourself into more positions where that may be possible. It can be trickier if you’re working from home, moving to a new city, or navigating a dynamic where you don’t have a close point of contact, but putting ourselves out there is still in our control, Waldinger says. Join a local book club or intramural team, call a friend even for a short amount of time weekly or monthly, or plan your next visit to someone who lives far from you.
Use technology to your advantage
Technology can bring people together who wouldn’t otherwise cross paths, like my mom and one of her best friends who connected in an online support group for those grappling with chronic pain. They now make an effort to have calls monthly and even travel to each other’s hometowns once in a while. But technology can also dilute the image of happiness, capturing the luxurious and unrealistic highlights of people’s lives.
“We get messages all day, every day, about things that are supposed to make life good that turn out not to make life good,” Waldinger says, mainly around products and success.
Social media isn’t going anywhere, although it will inevitably take new forms, Waldinger says. Ask yourself how to be an active consumer over a passive one—which can help you avoid the feelings of FOMO and use technology to cultivate relationships rather than feel more distant from them. Check in with yourself after 10 minutes online, and ask yourself how you feel, he says. Notice if you feel more energized and excited by connecting with others or depressed and more lonely. It will give you an indication of which types of media benefit you and your relationships.
Cultivate the power of attention
One of Wadlinger’s Zen teachers once said, “Attention is the most basic form of love.” Giving someone our attention seems simple, but it can easily be something we sidestep for more short-term mood boosts like a notification ding.
“The most precious thing we can give to somebody else is our undivided attention, but it's much harder to give that these days,” Waldinger says.
Stop, listen, and give eye contact when you’re engaging with someone. Waldinger says to eliminate the pressure of trying to perfectly understand someone or solve their problem. Listening without the need to jump in shows the other person we care more than we may think, he says.
Don’t be afraid to ask for help
Making new connections and cherishing old ones means accepting the vulnerability that comes with caring about someone and leaning on them when needed. If the greatest joys in life come from our memories with others, we can't forgo the chance to have someone by our side because we never want to open up or seem like we ask for too much.
“One of the harder things for some people to learn is how to give help, and—even harder for others as they grow older—how to receive help,” the authors write. “...as we age, we become concerned both that we’re too needy and that people won’t be there for us when we really need them.”
Relationships are complex, and they take vulnerability to sustain. It makes sense why we sometimes stray from genuine connection out of fear, but The Good Life reminds us that they are worth keeping and finding—at any age.
“Relationships don't keep us happy all day, every day because nobody's happy all day, every day,” Waldinger says. “What they do is they build a bedrock of well-being. They build a safety net. They build a sense that I got people in my life when I need them.”
*******************************************************
Woke witch hunt in psychology? In defence of scientific integrity and due process
Woke intolerance has penetrated peak scientific associations in psychology. There is a rapidly developing scandal around the recent dismissal of Klaus Fiedler, the Chief Editor of the prestigious journal Perspectives on Psychological Inquiry by the executive of the Association of Psychological Science.
Fiedler was accused of racism and was summarily removed from his editorship by the association. This appears to have occurred without any due process, proper investigation, or independent assessment of the charges against him. Many distinguished psychologists learnt of this injustice with a sense of outrage, resulting in a spate of resignations and protests.
Fiedler has been an eminent professor at the University of Heidelberg with an outstanding research record over four decades. He is also a highly experienced editor who served the discipline with great distinction and dedication on the boards of several leading journals.
He is widely recognised in the field as not only not a racist, but one of the most fair-minded and decent scientists with an impressive track record of supporting and mentoring young scientists from every background.
Indeed, on his appointment, APS praised Fiedler for bringing a broad body of research and knowledge as well as significant editorial experience to its flagship journal, as the first chief editor appointed from outside North America.
The unsubstantiated accusation of racism against Fiedler was brought by Steven Othello Roberts, a self-identified race scholar who objected to Fiedler’s handling of critical reactions to his controversial paper on Racial Inequality in Psychological Research.
Commentators of Roberts’ work argued that it was ideological and not scientific (Hommel), that he introduced identity politics into the discipline (Stanovich), that racial representativeness is not relevant to establishing universal psychological principles (Stroebe), and that Roberts’s emphasis on racial diversity is selective and unscientific (Jussim).
Critical comments on scientific papers are nothing unusual. What Roberts objected to, and what he implied was evidence of racism, was that the reviewers happened to be ‘all senior White men’, apparently confirming his belief that:
‘…systemic racism exists in science. There is a racialised power structure that marginalises research by (and about) people of colour.’
One can always question the fairness of editorial choices, but as far as one can see, there is no evidence of racism in anything Fiedler has done. Indeed, it could be argued that the only race-based commentary on display here is by Roberts, as it was he who raised the racial status of the reviewers as problematic and claimed that their critical remarks were ‘unsound, unscientific, ad hominem, and racist’. The details of this appalling case have been impressively documented in the recent Editorial by the online magazine Quillette.
Accusing Fiedler of racism based on his choice of reviewers and his handling of a manuscript has no substance as far as one can see. Reviewers should always be chosen based on their expertise and merit, and not their racial or identity status.
As a scientist, it was Fiedler’s duty to disregard ideology and evaluate papers based only on their scientific merit and to select reviewers solely based on their expertise. This he has done. The race or identity of an author or reviewer can play no role in such decisions. Roberts’ accusation that the reviewers’ race may be a factor in their critical reactions could easily be considered a racist position.
The far more troubling issue is how leading professional associations in a scientific field have now been corrupted by Woke ideology to a degree where unsupportable and unexamined accusations of racism can result in the immediate dismissal of an outstanding editor, and the gratuitous slandering of the good name of a serious and decent scientist.
Fiedler’s case illustrates a growing trend among scientific associations of adopting activist policies and ideological control in violation of the most basic principles of fairness and scientific values.
Various other psychological associations now demand that scientific papers must be prefaced by statements about how they advance diversity, equity, and inclusiveness. Once prestigious journals, like Nature Human Behaviour, now reserves the right to refuse articles it deems to be socially problematic, irrespective of their truth or scientific merit.
The procedures adopted by APS amount to a shameful denial of procedural and natural justice. Interestingly, European associations appear more resistant to Woke ideology. The German Psychological Association rebuked its American counterpart, stating that ‘it is not our understanding of procedural justice to condemn a person without giving him or her an adequate hearing’.
Many distinguished scientists also expressed their support of Fiedler. Joachim Krueger, a senior researcher, and editorial board member resigned and wrote:
‘APS has placed ideological mandates before science and has thereby begun to throttle it. I do not know how you might recover from this … In time, someone will write the story of these recent events, and the APS leadership is not likely to star in a heroic role.’
Those like me who lived in totalitarian societies will recognise that such a summary condemnation and punishment of individuals accused of ideological trespasses without due process is the hallmark of totalitarian institutions. They should not be tolerated in our professional associations.
Hard-working and decent scientists like Fiedler should not be condemned on the say-so of a disgruntled author who dislikes the way his manuscript has been handled. Such scurrilous accusations of racism should not remain unchallenged, and the scientific community cannot remain silent without compromising the foundational values that inform our enterprise.
It is critically important that scientists should protest against such shameful injustice. Writing to the APS executive (Contact Us – Association for Psychological Science – APS), resigning from this association, and demanding fairness and due process for Fiedler are available options. The injustice perpetrated by APS against one of our most decent and fair-minded colleagues should not remain unchallenged. If we let this pass, we can no longer pretend that our professional associations continue to represent the noble traditions of scientific inquiry.
********************************************************
Australia: A big backlash against political correcness
Prize money for greyhound racing in NSW has close to doubled in the five years since the state government tried to ban the industry, as online gambling markets drive record income from punters who have never watched a race.
Betting agency fees – known as “race field information use fees” – paid to Greyhound Racing NSW increased from $24.5 million in the 2017-18 financial year to $68.8 million in 2021-22, the organisation’s annual reports show, while its sponsorship and rights income increased from zero to $10 million.
Ads for online betting services, such as Ladbrokes and Sportsbet, blanket Greyhound Racing NSW’s livestreaming website, thedogs.com.au.
The presence of the gambling industry extends to dogs in each race wearing “rugs” colour-coded to match eight gambling websites, following a sponsorship deal brokered last year.
Greyhound Racing NSW’s overall income increased from $67 million to $121.5 million during the same period, in a financial performance described by CEO Robert Macaulay as its best on record. The sport’s prize money rose from $26.4 million to $46.3 million in a third successive year of record profits.
“The sport of greyhound racing is thriving in NSW and this has filtered through as an economic benefit to the regional and rural communities of NSW,” Macaulay said, noting 75 per cent of participants lived outside metropolitan areas.
“The reality is that greyhound racing would not exist without the massive amounts of money wagered by punters online.”
Joanne Lee, Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds
But greyhound welfare advocates told The Sun-Herald it was shameful that the local industry was thriving off gambling cash when countries abroad had shunned the sport.
Australian races are already attracting gamblers in overseas markets such as in the US and Asia, where the practice has been largely outlawed, with Sydney fixtures featured on betting websites abroad.
Joanne Lee from the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds said arguments that greyhound racing was a community sport seemed weak when so much of its income came from people who only viewed races as lists of odds on betting websites.
“The reality is that greyhound racing would not exist without the massive amounts of money wagered by punters online who will never attend a race. Given the dramatic reduction in racetrack attendance, there is virtually no money made through community engagement,” she said.
NSW recorded its first greyhound racing fatality of 2023 last week: a dog racing at Wentworth Park, in Glebe, was euthanised after colliding with other animals on the track on Thursday. Eight dogs died at the track in 2022, in addition to two at Richmond and one at Potts Park, in Yagoona.
“The rest of the world has seen the writing on the wall and is rapidly moving away from greyhound racing — the grubby greyhound gambling industry in NSW is lapping up the profits as a result,” said state Greens member Abigail Boyd.
“In recent years, we have seen the NSW greyhound racing industry change race times to suit people betting in real time overseas, regardless of the inconvenience caused to participants and race officials and the additional risks it adds from an animal welfare perspective.”
Asked if running races earlier in the morning was influenced by international markets, Macaulay said the organisation was “considering its options” to engage viewers overseas but the bulk of its revenue was from Australia.
Greyhound racing was set to be outlawed in NSW from July 1, 2017 due to animal welfare concerns, but former Liberal premier Mike Baird overturned the decision just three months after it was passed, instead promising to clean up the industry.
However, critics say state government interventions to improve safety and regulation, as well as taxes on gambling, have contributed to greyhound racing’s wealth.
The state government invested $30 million into track safety upgrades in 2021, a cost which opponents say saved expenses for the racing industry.
In 2018, NSW established an independent regulator, the Greyhounds Welfare Integrity Commission (GWIC). Before the 2021-22 financial year, the regulator was funded by Greyhounds Racing NSW, which critics said compromised its independence. It is now funded mostly by the state government’s 10 per cent point of consumption tax on online wagering (while racing’s share of money gathered from that tax has also increased).
“The greyhound racing industry is funded by the gambling industry and state governments. Without these two revenue streams, the industry would be unviable,” said Lee.
In a statement, NSW Minister for Hospitality and Racing Kevin Anderson said “animal welfare is at the heart of the NSW government’s support for the greyhound industry”, declining to answer questions about whether it had facilitated an increase in Greyhound Racing NSW’s income.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment