youtube.com/shorts/9nTP-t2Zhrs?feature=share
Is Andrew Tate doing damage control on his reputation?
youtube.com/shorts/9nTP-t2Zhrs?feature=share
Eh... I think it's more like he is just recognizing that you have to be really careful when you're talking about women in today's society. Tate is a remarkably well-spoken and polished man (he wouldn't have the phenomenal interactions with women he does, if he weren't genuinely a good and respectful guy), but none of that eloquence would come through when he was making horrible jokes and phrasing things aggressively. That stuff scares people, whether they actually have reason to be scared, or not.
I personally felt that the world's reaction to Tate was inappropriate, but I did understand why it was happening.
The reality is that men need to step up their game and be the kind of people women can respect, but women have got to understand that they need to get out of the way to make that happen. There are great men out there, like Jordan Peterson, who have garnered a lot of respect from men and women alike, who get absolutely shat on by the internet because the feminist culture of today has a reflexive freak out everytime something involving men doesn't make appeasing women the central focus.
For the most part I respect Peterson, but he’s going to have to get better at having his opinions rejected by the public opinion majority. When he said that SI model wasn’t beautiful, it’s like so what who cares what you think about her, cuz she’s thriving regardless. Now I’m sure he received a lot of vitriol for many of his opinions which I also think is wrong but that’s just part of free speech.
Agreed. In that case, I think people need to stop conflating pretty and healthy. That model is gorgeous, but she’s also not especially healthy. Peterson was trying to make the point that that woman isn’t actually thriving because she is unhealthy. Whether she is beautiful is a side point to the fact she isn’t healthy as a matter of medical fact.
No I he is doing the best possible thing to do in that situation which is to ignore it most of the content that people see about him is clipped most of the people who don’t like him don’t even listen to his streams notice how everyone who says they don’t like him says the exact same thing “Misogynist” that’s the first thing that pops up on google when you google Andrew tate you don’t see clips of when he says women are the most precious people and should be protected and it’s so hypocritical because women make misandrist content all the time and it’s widely accepted all of Drew Afualo content and post are just her talking shit about men and putting men down does she get banned no all Andrew tate is trying to do is help young men because apparently nobody else cares
Yes but they aren’t powerful like how men are powerful
Only respectful people should be respected it’s not a matter of gender
Tate is very respectful
I never heard of him till he got banned.
So i know he really was goin hard on women.
But i also heard his video he made and i think jake paul posted it.
He admitted it was an act, and was feeding off the angry bitter women hating men because they were paying the bills. He got rich off of lying to them by telling them what they wanted to hear.
He said he has a plenty of women in his family who he loved and respected. But since he can't capitalize off them anymore he had no reason to pretend anymore.
I think after that video it's kinda hard to go back to bashing women, when you just admitted it was an act to sucker the women haters
What you're describing sounds like he's been rejected a lot. He must not be very good in bed. Narcissists usually aren't.
Opinion
15Opinion
I don't see any damage control anywhere in his speech, nor change of his narrative -- it rather depends on what he's asked and what's the topic of the discussion. He was consistent that a woman has an effect on a man, but it depends on what kind of woman that is beside a man.
Thing is that lately plenty of folk cut some small speech out of his 1h-2h-3h interview/debate/podcast that's focused on relations where he legitimately criticizes the delusion, lack of accountability, double-standards and mistakes of plenty of modern women, and then some people get triggered by it (typically those who actually fall under the criticism; if you youtube reactions and carefully *listen* to what those who criticize him have to say, you'll realize they pretty much make his words true, without even realizing it. It's often highlighted in comments to such videos, unless comments are closed or are heavily moderated).
Yes, they're one out of 2 most powerful forces on this planet. One force is man, another force is woman. Both forces rely on each other for continual existence.
If one of the forces is trying to transform itself into pretty much becoming another force (e. g. woman becoming more and more masculine and losing every good aspect of itself in the process), shouldn't it be called out and prevented from happening, as because of that both forces are at risk?
> That highly depends on the specifics
What kind of specifics? Biology? Natural tendencies?
> Women by nature have certain traditional masculine energy
I beg to differ. They don't have it naturally (or "traditionally", as I highly doubt you'll find any culture that encouraged women to be masculine without googling, except mystical amazons). Only in last few decades women began to be encouraged to be more masculine, and such time period is a pitiful grain of sand in comparison to all the time of the existence of humankind.
> and it’s not anything that needs to be prevented
Oh, it does. Imagine magnets. One is a ➕, another is ➖. They attract each other and hold together strongly. However, 2 ➕ being put together push each other away. Same goes for 2 ➖ being put together, they push each other away.
So since we both require each other for continual existence, it'd make sense to call out men becoming more feminine (which is strongly promoted lately), or women becoming more masculine (which is strongly promoted by feminism), because otherwise it'd result in tons of unhappy marriages (that are already on the rise), or outright tons of lonely folks (which is also what's happening lately).
Just what everyone needs, another swindling echobot emotionally manipulating vulnerable, broken people
That didn't make any sense.
There’s light feminine energy and dark feminine energy inside every woman. Light feminine energy are things like nurturing, compassionate, intuitive, collaborative, etc. Dark feminine energy is powerful, seductive, fearless, independence, ambitious, etc. Women need to express a healthy balance of the two energies. However, traditionalism has suppressed a lot of dark feminine energy in women, and since the rise of feminism, we’re seeing it come out in a chaotic manner (otherwise known as wounded feminine energy) which looks like manipulation, codependent, passive aggressiveness, spitefulness, etc.
> Dark feminine energy is powerful, seductive, fearless, independence, ambitious, etc.
I'd agree with seductive and manipulative as female traits, but "fearless, independent, powerful, ambitious" is plain nonsense. These traits aren't innate in women.
Why do I say so? If that'd be true, then feminism would appear thousands of years ago at the dawn of mankind (and there'd be no such term as "modern woman"). However, it only appeared about a century ago at the dusk of an Age of Enlightenment (which was started by men; there were extremely few women involved in it), and women were GRANTED rights (and it was men that GAVE them rights) instead of TAKING them (like USA TOOK independence of British via victory in war). Thus it's definitely not natural, it all can be traced to the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment (it also should be noted that these rights can be taken away by men in the blink of an eye if men would want it -- take a look at Afghanistan now and just how quickly Taliban got women under the thumb without women being able to do anything of a significance).
2/2
No "dark feminine energy" nonsense is coming out, but instead girls are just being influenced to act in a certain pattern. College campuses in the West are pretty much indoctrination camps, promotions of being a hoe on onlyfans is left and right as an "easy way to make money to spend", "yas queen" mentality being spread on social media that she can do no wrong (and won't ever have to deal with consequences), are told to chase a degree (that is seldom useful or relevant, which typically results in bitching about income inequality myth; how many women you see in STEM?) etc.
However, when being put in natural habitat without this artificial nonsense, no such "energy" is shown whatsoever, as exposed on those "survival reality shows", where men and women are separated on 2 different islands and eventually crews would have to interfere to save women as they were incapable of providing for themselves and would just starve to death. If those made-up nonsensical terms like "dark feminine energy" or "wounded feminine energy" would exist, this wouldn't have happened. It's just women facing a world without all the amenities that men provide for them.
Woman can always take power over men if they know what they’re doing. However, they were manipulated into thinking they couldn’t, or shouldn’t. However, there was zero chance of that lasting forever and there’s zero chance of our society going back to that, Once they were tired of living that bullshit, that is when feminism happened and that is why now, decades later, it remains unstoppable. Yes, in some ways it has overcorrected. There’s no need for women to hate men. Women instead need to learn how to reward good behavior in men and punish bad behavior without burdening themselves with anger or hate. Women thrive best when they in their natural abundance and powerful state, when both light and dark feminine energies are balanced in the way they see fit, no one else. Some women such as myself thrive best in their dark feminine. I’m not nor will I ever be happy in a traditionalist housewife/mom role. Tried it, not for me. I’m much happier when I’m being independent, ambitious, leading, etc. I’ve found the man that enjoys and appreciates those traits in men. Some men are happier being more passive and nurturing, and that’s fine. They need to find women who can properly lead them.
> Woman can always take power over men if they know what they’re doing
How? At best, they can lobby for unfair laws in court that are relationship-related (such as unfair advantages in divorce), but keep in mind it's only upheld as long men uphold it by the threat of force (e. g. police, army etc.). It seems like women nowadays have totally forgotten about savagery and brutality that men are innately (not artificially implemented) capable of and take the civilized world for granted. I gave a perfect example of Taliban as a VERY recent history, and you apparently don't even take it into an account.
> and there’s zero chance of our society going back to that
I disagree; should any *hard* societal collapse come (nuclear war, apocalypse, economic collapse etc.), things such as "tolerance" or "rights for women" will fly almost immediately out of the window. It's an amenity that's provided by men and sustained by men.
> Once they were tired of living that bullshit, that is when feminism happened and that is why now, decades later, it remains unstoppable
So it took them hundreds of thousands of years and in relativity of human history you're claiming a century-old movement "unstoppable"? That's a very far-reaching statement.
It happened because men allowed it to happen, as men were driven by reasoning as one of the core things that Age of Enlightenment was promoting.
I repeat again: women didn't take shit. They were GRANTED it. Why it's so hard to admit it?
> There’s no need for women to hate men. Women instead need to learn how to reward good behavior in men and punish bad behavior without burdening themselves with anger or hate
I agree. Should work in reverse as well, however, yet apparently plenty of women get pissed off when they're told about it.
2/2
> Some women such as myself thrive best in their dark feminine. I’m not nor will I ever be happy in a traditionalist housewife/mom role. Tried it, not for me. I’m much happier when I’m being independent, ambitious, leading, etc. I’ve found the man that enjoys and appreciates those traits in men. Some men are happier being more passive and nurturing, and that’s fine. They need to find women who can properly lead them.
Fair enough, however such attitude is an exception to the rule. Besides, you've just nailed on the head what I said about magnets without apparently realizing it; you've attracted who you've described as a "passive" and "nurturing" man (what I'd call a "pussy") by becoming more masculine yourself. But most men aren't like that and it's against their nature to be like that, thus by becoming more masculine it lowers the chances for a woman to find a man that naturally normal.
Besides, whether you're actually happy with and respect this dude (or you're type of "hotwife" IYKWIM😅, then it's another story) is something I don't expect you to answer honestly. Remind me in a decade about the debate we had, we'll see the outcome.
My man and I have been together for 15 years, far longer than most. We’ve beaten our parents AND grandparents but learning from the errors of their old world order dynamics. Of course, I’m always told I’m the exception. I love how so many people are willing to tell me I’m a special snowflake in order to maintain their generalizations.
> Smart women understand that everything men do in life is for women
I agree to an extent, but I'd like to make a small correction; to get sex from women, not for women in particular.
> I just hope we can learn to work together instead of driving men into inceldom
Women should be more worried (and hardline feminists already are) about being replaced by artificial intelligence, e. g. sexbots. Hence why the smartest of them screech like banshees about sexbots. Obviously they use buzzwords like "dehumanizing women", "chasing 'sex workers' (why such a problem to call them by what they are -- prostitutes?) out of business" yadda-yadda, but the real reason why they're up-in-arms is that they comprehend the following: what men want from women is significantly less complicated and much easier to please than what women want from men.
Those hardline feminists comprehend that their only weapon (access to pussy) can be replaced and go into frenzy about it.
Thus with relatively well-tuned sexbots that clean, cook, hold a decent conversation and fuck at a moment's notice without denying it ever (fuck anything but brains, should I add), A LOT of men would prefer a sexbot over a real woman, effectively rendering women useless to a lot of men, which would quickly result in women not getting shit from men.
I mean, if you disagree with what I said, just imagine if women would suddenly lose boobs and vaginas, how many men would be even remotely interested in them?
So I agree on working together (since I actually love them, believe it or not), but it's not even remotely about inceldom; it's about not to render women pointless for anything but being incubators.
> My man and I have been together for 15 years, far longer than most
> traditionalist housewife/mom role. Tried it, not for me
So 38-15=23; by the age of 23 you've already tried all those options? Sounds a bit sus to me, but whatever.
> I’m a special snowflake in order to maintain their generalizations
I don't recall calling you snowflake; I called such attitude & union an exception, and then called it into question with some speculations on some details.
And there's nothing wrong with generalizations, as that's how the world works: we adopt what's suitable for most, not for least after all 🤷♂️.
> I’m not worried about sex bots or the like
With your taste in men + your age (being past prime), I agree -- you personally don't have to worry about them.
> First of all, most men can’t afford them
Well, just like all new innovations, at first they weren't available for everyone: cellphones, laptops, computers, you name it. Check a decade later and everyone can afford these things 🤷♂️
> aren’t the type of men I’d recommend women ever enter into relationships with anyway
Well, considering that you prefer feminized men (by having one; this isn't an assault on him, it's just the way I see it), it's fair to say that your recommendations wouldn't sit well with the majority of women to begin with 🤷♂️
Thus it'd be very beneficial for both sexes to get a better education on each other and get appropriately rewarded/punished for their behavior (I absolutely agree with this statement), regardless of how pleasant or unpleasant it is. And guys like Tate *are* useful in this regard, as they do call out negative traits in both men and women. Difference is that men, upon hearing being constructively and logically criticized, typically have the dignity to admit their faults (not necessarily to work on them, but at least to admit them).
With nowadays generation of women being indoctrinated with self-destructive degeneracy by feminism, social media and such, it's becoming significantly harder to reach them without them instantly becoming hostile.
It’s not just about myself or my tastes. As a relationship consultant, I advise women on what to look out for in terms of a man’s attitude, behavior, and personality and vet properly according to their goals. Most women are interested in harmonious long term relationships with men where they are valued and respected by the men they are with, and I work with them on achieving that. I will confront their own traits that stand in their way of that. It becomes easier to have an impact when you work with those who’ve already made investments towards success.
Tate is definitely a personality type I’d warn women against, as he shows signs of NPD like we already know his father was diagnosed as. There are also signs of antisocial and histrionic patterns, at least, in the way he presents himself publicly. Though, I do believe some of his behavior and points of view are exaggerated for impact.
I personally can't take female "relationship consultant" seriously, as generally women seldom know what men want, or get deluded into thinking that what women think a man wants is actually what a man wants (reaching levels of delusions like thinking "what a man *should* want in a woman", which is generally even further away from reality). Honest discussion quickly shows true colors on this matter. After all, women don't necessarily require to understand men in order to get sex and/or relations (not comittment though) from them, while men most definitely require to understand women in order to even get their remote attention.
> what to look out for in terms of a man’s attitude, behavior, and personality and vet properly according to their goals
I won't even comment on that 😅
> Though, I do believe some of his behavior and points of view are exaggerated for impact
Most likely, but it doesn't nullify the core message and reasoning behind what he's saying. In any case, time will tell. But considering current trends in the West, it's a sound decision to invest into pet food, as there'll be millions of lonely cat/dog ladies in the future.
What men want isn’t the focus of my work. It’s quality over quantity and the common ground between what women want and what quality men respect. I focus on the distinction between good, quality man asks and toxic personality asks. That’s why I study Tate and the red/black pill and manosphere communities because they are good examples of toxic personality traits and can easily be pointed out and illustrated. While they’re are single modern women who are lonely, there are a rising number of single and lonely men according to the recent article by PsyD Greg Matos, and, as he also alludes to in his piece, women are more likely to seek professional or healthy assistance and solution options, whereas men are more likely to turn to things like porn, drugs, video games, violence, suicide.
I don’t mind helping men with relationship within the scope of my education and expertise, but they need to have a strict level of trust, cooperation and humility with me, otherwise they become too entitled or stubborn for me to work with.
You seem to enjoy hating and frankly your language and tone supports some of his conclusion. Do you think people remain stationary? you may. but most do not. He's a sneaky old bastard up to dethrone whatever Feminist thing that you protect, through Dislike, in your head...
How about embracing Change without an assumption of it being overly calculated. Frankly, you strike more a a cancel culture and no free speech proponent unless it fits your agenda.
Just a thought...
The only time I have ever heard Tate speak was on Piers Morgan's show. I don't necessarily agree with what he said but I think if he worded it a little differently, I would be more in favor.
For example, he says that men have "authority" over the women. Now, Piers took that to mean that men must be tyrants which isn't what Tate meant once he explained further, but I think that misunderstanding could have been avoided if he used "responsibility" instead.
He also said that depression isn't real or something like that, which is as oversimplified of a solution to depression as it gets. After explaining his reasoning, he really means that, when you are depressed, you are not as helpless and hopeless as you think you are. Depression is a solution that you can solve yourself, no therapy or drugs are necessary. I agree with this to an extent, the problem is the solution to depression heavily depends on the person.
it's not really damage control. he's always had content that focus on general success, business, economic and relationship advice.
his content on modern women is only a small proportion of what he puts out but due to it being so controversial, people want to blow it out of proportion. even then he's technically not wrong in his assessment on modern women even if you disagree with his solutions and outcomes.
The guy is a business man, what do you want from him?
The guy decided to be a muslim because its good for business being friendly with gulf states.
I’m a muslim and let me tell you, nothing about what he does is allowed in islam.
The guy owns clubs for fks sake, thats like putting everything that is forbidden and mixing it in a mixture.
i think on past he intentionally try draw people attention by being as controversial as possible ,
he is famous now , so he didn't really need to push so hard anymore,
like many popular influencers , i would say he is good "actor"
i believe he had only one intention from beginning , to make money
Of course. He already came out and said he realises he could have formulated his options better and given better advice. So he's moving on and changing up some of his ideas, that's expected.
isn't that a tactic...
build through controversy... then slowly lose the audience, when you actually try to do something, lol
So what’s the point of this question when it’s biased?
It’s so funny how triggered y’all got with him. He must have really been dropping some truth bombs to get you so riled up.
And you gave him exactly what he wanted.
You’re giving him free advertising.
Of course not, he’s making bank and you’re just complaining about him on the internet.
Oh, so the fact that he's charging men $5,000 to be in an internet chat room is a truth bomb.
What has he said that every other red piller hasn't already says? He's not special or unique. He's a fucking parrot.
I don't understand how anyone is convinced he's successful. If he were on a dating site, most of his followers would get more dates than he would. He's bald and he's technically unemployed. I mean sure, he would say "entrepreneur" on his profile, but if anyone asked him what he actually is an entrepreneur of, he'd give them a vague response and they'd move on.
He also has really stiff personal gestures that are not Chad. Finally, anyone that obsessed with Fight Club gives me Marvel fan vibes. They want to be the really cool hero that they saw on TV, and they're grown men. He's at the lower end of beta.
@fembotnpc777 appropriate account name, lol.
Too late and meaningless anyway. Every sane and decent person already knows what an absolute psychopath that guy is.
No surprises there.
No. He's got his fame, and is now branching out into something more profitable.
All them MGTOW boys are moderating themselves. It's necessary for the industry to survive. MGTOW is industry. Soon to be federally subsidized.
I don't know, I don't pay attention to him.
lolㅤ
You can also add your opinion below!