the press I wanted to sound the alarm: sexism is in vogue in Quebec schools. Even more, a nasty influencer, Andrew Tate, would be a huge hit with teenagers.
the press is perplexed: how to explain its popularity? How can we explain that young people find him a source of inspiration?
I’ll say it from the start, in case there are people who want to give me a bad case: I have no sympathy, I really have no sympathy, for this Andrew Tate, who offers a degraded and caricatured version of manhood, and who, on top of that, he acts like a jerk, a bully, and an upstart, and that’s without even mentioning his trouble with the law. His discourse on the revaluation of traditional masculinity is accompanied by an objectively repugnant discourse on the devaluation of women. He even suggests that the first is inseparable from the second, which is not the least of the things he can be criticized for.
Boy in a skirt!
But having said that, it’s not too hard to understand why so many young men are turning to a ‘role model’.
Those who just say they are “depressed” when they read this are missing the point.
You just have to read the three articles of the press to understand.
I quote the first of the three articles.
Red flag! Does the journalist realize that here she is equating the fact of wearing a skirt to school to mark adherence to ideological feminism with the registration of “moderate” opinions? He realizes that he is normalizing here, and even more so, that he is valuing, what generations and generations of men and women would have equated to demeaning behavior for a man, who here becomes at best a beast ?carnival? Does she realize that she is enthusiastic about those who wanted to destroy masculinity in boys? Does he realize that the ideology he professes is largely responsible for the angst and exasperation that drives so many towards Andrew Tate?
The journalist says more about young Felix’s journey.
“Sophie still smiles as she thinks of those four words, written in marker on her little brother’s fragile thighs. It was three years ago. Across Quebec, boys showed up to school in skirts to denounce the strict dress codes imposed on girls. Sophie didn’t even need to convince her brother to join the cause. “She put on my skirt. He passed others on to his friends. He even wrote ‘Are my thighs bothering you?’ in the legs,” she says. Sitting cross-legged on the bed, the 17-year-old lowers her head. (…) Today, her younger brother – we’ll call him Félix – believes that a woman’s place is at home . That his duty is to raise children, to cook well. That a man’s job is to provide for his family, to protect it. What happened in 3 years? Two words: Andrew Tate.
This passage is lunar, and yet there is nothing surprising about it. It says a lot about the dominant morality of our societies and its blind spot.
Boys evolve in an environment where, under the pressure of neofeminism and gender theory, we constantly seek to deconstruct their identity and masculinity. We even write neo-feminist slogans on our thighs!
We want to devirilize boys, we constantly tell them that masculinity is toxic, we celebrate boys who say they are no longer men, and who believe they are emancipating themselves from their anatomy and biological truth by embracing non-binarity, the we push adopt all the symbols and signs of the feminine, and assimilate to the most atrocious horror those traditionally associated with masculinity… and we are very surprised that one day, some will revolt, turning to the speeches and figures that openly denounce the company of deconstruction and reeducation to which we wanted to subject them?
It’s the same people, I guess, who haven’t understood that it’s when the conservative parties collapse and make a pale left-wing speech that the populist parties emerge.
Nature is not an ideological fiction, and when we repress it, it revolts. Is it that hard to understand?
The demonization of masculinity and the neurotic celebration of blue-haired men wearing fuchsia nail polish are part of an operation to psychologically destabilize younger generations, transformed into generations of guinea pigs for a new vision of the ‘new man, supposedly to release. ourselves from nature and traditions, to become an individual with a fluid and elusive identity, conforming to the demands of the cultural left and globalized capitalism.
In other words, if you destroy masculinity and masculinity, you end up with masculinity, that is, a terribly degraded claim to male identity.
When young people recognize Andrew Tate, they hear a speech that calls for an uninhibited reconstruction of their masculinity, and that affirms that masculinity is not a pathology. This is what they hear and what turns them on beyond the provocations and horrors that accompany this speech.
If we deconstruct the constructed and civilized masculinity, we will eventually find the most degraded and primitive masculinity, which is often confused with the worship of brute force and a morbid fascination with violence. Andrew Tate, to return, is the unexpected child of neofeminism and gender theory.
In this world that does not like masculinity and, above all, that finds Western men detestable, it will be necessary to rebuild a strong and legitimate masculinity. It’s about reconnecting with a tradition by reinventing it and combining it with the demands of gender equality.
There is nothing degrading for a man to want to protect and care for his family, there is nothing degrading to want to undertake exceptional ordeals, there is nothing degrading for a boy to enjoy “boy” activities.
What if manhood had its rights?
It will be necessary to rebuild the figure of the self-confident, responsible, courteous, elegant man who knows how to hold back tears, and who does not believe that expressing himself publicly will be authentic. It will be necessary to reconstruct the figure of the knight, as proposed by Hugo Jacomet, whose advice goes beyond the requirements of masculine elegance, and in fact they are a plea for the reconstruction of civilized masculinity. Not because his videos are so successful.
The man who refuses to be deconstructed, and who may have committed himself to rebuilding himself, may be an athlete, a politician, a manual, an intellectual, a scientist, an artist, or many other things: doesn’t come in a model. It can be urban, suburban or rural. He adds that each country has also developed its own version of the virile man throughout history.
But one thing is certain, this presupposes reconnecting with a simple idea: man is not a woman, who is not a man, and this difference, which is not a pure social construction, is fundamental to every civilization.
By writing this, I feel like I’m stating the absolute obvious. But this is a lost test.
