I am aware the following response may be a bit jumpy, here and there, but I wrote this after 24hrs at work. I have cut short the initial long reply.
Andrew Tate doesn't represent society as a whole; he is an abhorrent figure riding the wave of toxic masculinity, using his platform to promote an aggressive, materialistic, and domineering version of what it means to be a man to a minority of vulnerable young men. It's important to note that this is not just a modern phenomenon, degenerates like Tate use social media to amplify it.
When you mention feeling like you've let your kids down because others are taking their families to places like Disney World, these feelings are a reflection of external pressures, not personal failure. Success and being a good parent aren't defined by expensive trips or luxury items.
Expressing masculinity in ways that are loud or assertive isn't inherently negative, but it's essential to balance that with self-awareness and respect for others, especially so if the feedback you receive is that you come across as aggressive. It's about understanding that masculinity can be expressed in diverse ways, and that empathy, emotional intelligence, and responsibility are equally valid and important aspects of being a man.
In terms of where men have failed, we must address the outdated stereotypes that have historically defined masculinity and contributed to the objectification and marginalisation of women. For centuries, cultural and religious influences shaped the worldview where men’s worth was tied to rigid roles whilst women were seen as objects, whether as property, symbols of status, or mere caretakers within the home. On a good day they were seen as a prize to be won.
Men frequently denied women basic rights and autonomy, treated them as possessions rather than individuals with their own voices and choices. Reinforced by patriarchal structures that placed men in positions of power and control, not only in the household but also in wider society. Women were relegated to passive roles, their identities and worth defined by their relationships to men, whether as daughters, wives, or mothers.
The consequences have been profound. Women have been systematically denied opportunities for education, leadership, and independence, leading to widespread inequality that persists today. Children, too, have suffered under these dynamics, growing up in environments where relationships were based on authority and control rather than mutual respect and collaboration.
These failures are already being addressed, I can see a vast difference between the 'lad culture' I grew up in during the 90s and the present day. There is still work to be done, progress has been made in expanding our understanding of masculinity and promoting equality, but the influence of religion in many societies continues to reinforce traditional gender roles. Even in more secular communities, the structures and ideals that have long objectified women and denied them opportunities are still present.
It's funny, but your post ebbs and flows with things I agree and disagree with. The 'Tates' of this world aren't borne from nowhere. In fact the 'red pill' community of today's representation has hijacked and skewed much of what was being said 10 years ago. Except that's the thing, isn't it; how real opinions are ceased upon and morphed into caricatures over time? This enables people with agendas to use the distorted version [from people that use those real problematic issues for outlandish fame/ notoriety] and punish the people who have genuine suffering/ problems to address.
And "...the outdated stereotypes that have historically defined masculinity..." means what, exactly? Are men not 'hunter-gatherers' by nature? Are you suggesting to bend the natural impulse of men to provide and protect?
'Most' men have this natural raw guttural instinct to of himself for his 'territory' however you might perceive that word. But, in context, it is for love and family, which extends beyond that in times of crisis. By stripping this natural way of being for men, you shape society in a negative way; men go into depression, become lonely, are repressed, can't follow the natural instinct to protect and more besides.
And I, highly, dispute your assertion that women were seen as "passive" or "being denied education". I think you're, purposely, conflating a world of women rather than secluded sections of the world. The broadbase Western culture is highly different than other cultures of the globe. Your jibe is proposing Western culture is 'better'.
In whose eyes...? Do you speak for the women that much prefer men to lead and be the revered matriarch that binds the family? Are you placing your value on them...?
As for the "vast difference" you see today? Sure, the 'laddish' culture is pretty much gone. But, with that has gone the ability to approach females and leading young men to be less assured in being 'masculine' enough to cold approach a female they like, and those men, more often than not, to not explore outside of their comfort/ safety zones.
Let me ask you a question; should domestic violence be treated exactly the same between relationships regardless of whom is the aggressor or as a tier system...??
I asked you this very simple question that you chose to ignore. I asked you because I could see the post you made coming.
Much like in what happened in the thread about the skirmish at the airport where a female officer got her nose broken, the question is do you (as someone that wants to do away with the differences between men and women) support women being in the front line for all aspects of physical roles that men do?
You cannot have it both ways when claiming women are not equal under the law.
So, in my opinion, your assertion that there is "...widespread inequality that persists today" is a misstatement.
In which way are Western women not equal?? Name a right they are denied in this day and age. And nobody can record the personal lives of any couple on a day-to-day basis and administer findings as a whole to society.
