Never has any blog so motivated me to watch Pride and Prejudice instead of making my wife watch it by herself as has been my usual habit. Don't know if that makes me a Darcy but certainly not a Tate!
Check out Art of Manliness' podcast with the guy that studies it. There was a group of men in the trenches during WW1 that read her novels for the comfort and found it profound. I believe it also influenced the writer of Lonesome Dove.
Fantastic piece and great writing. My mother wrote historical romance and the pattern was set. The man was of means, principled, and willing to use violence to defend his love, whom he had inadvertently compromised within the first 50 pages. The target audience was, apparently, professional women with at least one degree reading on the NYC subway 😉
I am a 77 year old woman who really enjoys listening to Andrew. For years I have watched woman try and turn their boys into girls. Andrew seems to understand the problem men are having and is trying to undo the damage. You forgot to mention he has a sister and is a very good chess player himself. I always when watching him have to remind myself that he is talking to males not females.
Especially this segment: "Monogamy had always been fragile and enforced on wayward men by a woman’s male relatives, and there was tolerance if marriage happened before a child’s birth. No harm, no foul, and everyone moved on, but marriage was the bottom line."
It's very strange to mention 'wayward men' while overlooking the women who went out of their way to be impregnated by men their fathers and brothers disapproved of... half the analysis is missing, out of a misplaced deference towards women.
Young men will continue to admire thugs like Andrew Tate when men such as yourself are so reluctant to be honest about the uglier aspects of sexual dynamics.
Not trying to be rude to you. Your analysis was extremely brilliant, I learned a lot, and it makes sense this essay was written with your daughter as the intended audience. This Substack essay is as good as anything I have ever read, it's very perceptive, insightful, well-structured, fast-paced, and fluidly written.
My bigger point is not so much about an individual essay. It's that Andrew Tate exists because he taps into a key market inefficiency, which is violation of social taboos on examining the defect-defect equilibrium game theory of sexual marketplace, and the ways in which women extract value/offload costs onto men.
/
Men are biologically designed to sacrifice themselves on behalf of women and children. Men naturally have a romantic or naive perspective on women, as reflected by chivalry of King Arthur and his knights of Camelot. The perfect kingdom of Camelot was brought down by sexual infidelity, as the queen cheated on the King for a warrior who was a bigger alpha.
/
It's very illuminating that Andrew Tate is not as rich as he says he is, that his sports cars and mansions are promotional expenses, and he blackpills lonely young men by exaggerating the problem and claiming his solution is unique. All genius observations on your part.
Men are (justifiably) reluctant to resort to traditional methods of female suppression, such as:
1.) stoning adulterous women
2.) burning witches at stake
3.) putting women in convents as nuns
4.) Letting single mothers and their illegitimate children starve
/
All very rough stuff, nobody wants to return to this, but of course traditional marriage was propped up by punishment and reward incentive structure that even TradCon Christians are afraid to discuss, much less to restore and implement.
/
Andrew Tate will continue to have a unique economic niche and a powerful market inefficiency for as long as men ignore half of the sexual equation, which is the ugly truths about female sexuality.
I was reminded of Genesis 34 where Jacob's sons are not punished for avenging the rape of their sisters. Further while Simon and Levi lead the killing all the sons participated and all were later blessed without reprimand. God doesn't bless murders ergo its is perfectly moral to avenge a female family member.
"Ultimately, strength wins, and those who can maintain structured monogamy will eventually rule over those who do not" - THAT, is a big assumption. Chaos, can and could potentially endure for a very long time. The problem with modern marriage (especially in the West), is that it bears very little resemblance to marriage of the past. The problem is as much legal as it is cultural. In the past, when a woman married she came under the authority of her husband as is dictated in the Bible ... it's God's as well as the natural order of things. Egalitarians have worked tirelessly through modern legalese to eliminate that authority (mission accomplished). So what we see now in society are the fruits of that labor ... broken families and a joke of a marriage structure. In this sense, Tate is spot on. If a man does not have authority over his wife, he becomes a slave to her emotional whims. This is the dynamic you see playing out on a mass scale thanks to the laws.
Tate's view of women is informed by Muslim cultural and doctrinal influences. I have recommended his podcast to my SIL but with a caveat: his relational advice, if followed completely, would never lead a man into an intimate, long-term and stable pairing. Tate's efforts at returning men to the World of Men, however, I find admirable and helpful..
Never has any blog so motivated me to watch Pride and Prejudice instead of making my wife watch it by herself as has been my usual habit. Don't know if that makes me a Darcy but certainly not a Tate!
Every man should read Jane Austen to better understand social dynamics between the sexes, and people generally.
Check out Art of Manliness' podcast with the guy that studies it. There was a group of men in the trenches during WW1 that read her novels for the comfort and found it profound. I believe it also influenced the writer of Lonesome Dove.
I actually really quite enjoyed Austin when I read it. It's funny and speaks to very real truths. A real shame it became a "girl's book".
Well, Joan and my girls are kind enough to watch P&P when I am absent, or during Tax season :)
I guess I will have to join them next time..
I’d like to thank your daughter for asking you to write this. It’s such a brilliant and thorough perspective.
The most balanced and perspicacious discussion of Tate I’ve read, wonderful writing!
He’s a shyster, a pleb and a pimp, but his success cannot be dismissed—it sadly being a consequence of the current sorry state of Western society.
If you haven’t read Dalrymple, I think you'll enjoy his analysis of the welfare state and its impact on the (ever growing!) British underclass: https://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-Underclass/dp/1566635055.
Yes, I've read him, very astute observer of the cultural decline.
I second the recommendation of Dalrymple.
Fantastic piece and great writing. My mother wrote historical romance and the pattern was set. The man was of means, principled, and willing to use violence to defend his love, whom he had inadvertently compromised within the first 50 pages. The target audience was, apparently, professional women with at least one degree reading on the NYC subway 😉
Excellent!
Feminism needs to be eradicated.
I am a 77 year old woman who really enjoys listening to Andrew. For years I have watched woman try and turn their boys into girls. Andrew seems to understand the problem men are having and is trying to undo the damage. You forgot to mention he has a sister and is a very good chess player himself. I always when watching him have to remind myself that he is talking to males not females.
His sister won't talk to him and he's lied about his chess record.
Banger
This is overall an excellent analysis but in many respects it overlooks key criticisms of women.
Especially this segment: "Monogamy had always been fragile and enforced on wayward men by a woman’s male relatives, and there was tolerance if marriage happened before a child’s birth. No harm, no foul, and everyone moved on, but marriage was the bottom line."
It's very strange to mention 'wayward men' while overlooking the women who went out of their way to be impregnated by men their fathers and brothers disapproved of... half the analysis is missing, out of a misplaced deference towards women.
Young men will continue to admire thugs like Andrew Tate when men such as yourself are so reluctant to be honest about the uglier aspects of sexual dynamics.
Fair objection to the phrasing, but shotgun marriage was imposed on both parties for the sake of children and family reputation.
Not trying to be rude to you. Your analysis was extremely brilliant, I learned a lot, and it makes sense this essay was written with your daughter as the intended audience. This Substack essay is as good as anything I have ever read, it's very perceptive, insightful, well-structured, fast-paced, and fluidly written.
My bigger point is not so much about an individual essay. It's that Andrew Tate exists because he taps into a key market inefficiency, which is violation of social taboos on examining the defect-defect equilibrium game theory of sexual marketplace, and the ways in which women extract value/offload costs onto men.
/
Men are biologically designed to sacrifice themselves on behalf of women and children. Men naturally have a romantic or naive perspective on women, as reflected by chivalry of King Arthur and his knights of Camelot. The perfect kingdom of Camelot was brought down by sexual infidelity, as the queen cheated on the King for a warrior who was a bigger alpha.
/
It's very illuminating that Andrew Tate is not as rich as he says he is, that his sports cars and mansions are promotional expenses, and he blackpills lonely young men by exaggerating the problem and claiming his solution is unique. All genius observations on your part.
Men are (justifiably) reluctant to resort to traditional methods of female suppression, such as:
1.) stoning adulterous women
2.) burning witches at stake
3.) putting women in convents as nuns
4.) Letting single mothers and their illegitimate children starve
/
All very rough stuff, nobody wants to return to this, but of course traditional marriage was propped up by punishment and reward incentive structure that even TradCon Christians are afraid to discuss, much less to restore and implement.
/
Andrew Tate will continue to have a unique economic niche and a powerful market inefficiency for as long as men ignore half of the sexual equation, which is the ugly truths about female sexuality.
I was reminded of Genesis 34 where Jacob's sons are not punished for avenging the rape of their sisters. Further while Simon and Levi lead the killing all the sons participated and all were later blessed without reprimand. God doesn't bless murders ergo its is perfectly moral to avenge a female family member.
"Ultimately, strength wins, and those who can maintain structured monogamy will eventually rule over those who do not" - THAT, is a big assumption. Chaos, can and could potentially endure for a very long time. The problem with modern marriage (especially in the West), is that it bears very little resemblance to marriage of the past. The problem is as much legal as it is cultural. In the past, when a woman married she came under the authority of her husband as is dictated in the Bible ... it's God's as well as the natural order of things. Egalitarians have worked tirelessly through modern legalese to eliminate that authority (mission accomplished). So what we see now in society are the fruits of that labor ... broken families and a joke of a marriage structure. In this sense, Tate is spot on. If a man does not have authority over his wife, he becomes a slave to her emotional whims. This is the dynamic you see playing out on a mass scale thanks to the laws.
Tate's view of women is informed by Muslim cultural and doctrinal influences. I have recommended his podcast to my SIL but with a caveat: his relational advice, if followed completely, would never lead a man into an intimate, long-term and stable pairing. Tate's efforts at returning men to the World of Men, however, I find admirable and helpful..