Maybe but his family isn't. I'm trying my best to protect him, which is why it was so shocking when I checked his internet usage.

The most you can do to protect him is the same that people do in hostile regimes throughout the ages: make sure that by a certain age he understands that there’s a difference between what’s actually right and wrong and what the powers that be expect him to adhere to. It’s okay to make a stand but only if you’re very sure that the upside is worth the costs. The people blasting anti-feminist content under their real identity, to no personal or societal gain, are idiots.

Thank you for your incredible service in the culture war.

We are blessed to have so many extremely online reactionaries that drown out forums like this. Leave no stone unturned.

Happy to be at your service.

Are you a single mother? If so perhaps he is just looking for a male role model that tells him he is valued as a man and that its ok to be strong? Sometimes kids look for a stereotypically male role model. Someone that represents strength. I'm not defending all the bile that Tate puts out but dude is a well known figure that advocates for men to be manly. On the other hand, maybe he was just checking him out due to curiosity.

Happily Married. His father/ My husband and I do our best to spend time with him, take him to little league, etc. We tightly control television time, monitor internet usage, and videogames, but I doubt it will ever be enough.

Anyone with little kids knows, they absorb social messaging about gender roles, rank and hierarchy like sponges.

Andrew Tate seems wildly popular on discord, tiktok, roblox, minecraft, and youtube comments right now. I think you are right, my son and his friends are looking for someone to teach them to be strong "manly" men.

I don't think we've been teaching him how to physically and mentally strong. We've been pushing things more in line with our tech careers ...

Thank you for your comment. It's really given me something to think about.

Protect him from what, exactly?

People who aren't looking out for his best interests or use him as fodder for their various agendas.

Some people on hackernews think I need to educate my son on being guilty for being born male. Some men like Andrew Tate would just grift off of him. Some women on twitch would try to leech money from him.

I want to protect him from all the things that would destroy him.

https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-ga... Yes, the anti-male prejudice is just awful. /s

It can be true that entrenched systems favor males in some areas, and new social and cultural phenomena disfavor them in others at the same time.

My wife has made the observation that there seems to be so much more media, events, toys, etc., targeted at girls in a positive way than for boys. We have two boys, and she has been quite the feminist in the time I’ve known her. As a guy I tend to err on the side of being skeptical of my own initial reactions to women who remark about the sexism rampant in our society. So when she brought this up it certainly carried more weight.

The pay scales seem to indicate that we are pretty damn far from having a general problem with anti-male prejudice. Media events targeted to girls, like the super bowl, Mardi Gras, military conflicts, just naming a few. Sorry, I'm missing it. What media events favored women.

> The pay scales seem to indicate that we are pretty damn far from having a general problem with anti-male prejudice

No they don't indicate that at all. Equal pay day is in fact anti-male propaganda. It's the opposite of meritocracy to expect people to earn the same regardless of career and life choices and that's exactly what the equal pay day would require. The controlled pay gap is at 1% (based on the same source you linked).

I seem not to have communicated my point clearly: inequity in one direction can exist in some areas (e.g., payscales) and in the other in other areas (e.g., social validation in the form of the availability of positive media, toys, and events such as birthday parties, etc.).

So, yes, payscale inequality is a thing. That doesn't mean we haven't "overcorrected" in the opposite direction in other areas.

> The controlled gender pay gap is $0.99 cents for every $1 men make

Your link argues women make 99% of what men make if you control for career choice, is that what you are intending to say?

I'm not sure that link is actually helping your point. From the link:

> The controlled gender pay gap is $0.99 cents for every $1 men make, which is one cent closer to equal but still not equal. The controlled pay gap tells us what women earn compared to men when all compensable factors are accounted for — such as job title, education, experience, industry, job level, and hours worked. This is equal pay for equal work. The gap should be zero. It’s not zero.

> In other words, women who are doing the same job as a man, with the exact same qualifications as a man, are still paid one percent less than men at the median for no attributable reason.

Given these circumstances and given the development of recent years, I can't help but hear their clear agenda and it's very likely that this development is partially attributable to overcorrections as in the context discussed here.

Also, since male/females have some differences due to our different biology (especially thinking about hormones influencing behavior to some degree, e.g. causing males to be more aggressive in salary negotiations), the notion of it having to be zero and "no attributable reason" doesn't seem rational to me, but again just underlining their agenda.

I think that link is actually a good example for the current anti-male societal tendencies.

You're correct, I didn't pick a good link. I picked one that admits the problem and then downplays it. Please note that no evidence exists on the page for the controlled gender pay gap.

> Please note that no evidence exists on the page for the controlled gender pay gap.

What are you trying to say with this? The controlled gender pay gap is the actual relevant indicator. That women make other life choices than man can have a multitude of reasons and I strongly disagree that striving for equal ratios across career and life choices is a desirable goal. Man and women should have equal opportunities. Them making the same choices is not a consequence of that.

edit: Looking at their prime example of jobs with a controlled gender pay gap:

The controlled gender pay gap between male and female waitresses is at 82%. I can't help but feel this isn't properly controlled. A waiter at a higher class restaurant is likely to earn more than at your regular dinner place and though this is purely anecdotal, I tend to see nearly exclusively male waiters in fine dining restaurants. If these are grouped together with all waiters, differences in career and life choices are again not controlled for. There is a big difference between a "career waiter" (such as those you encounter in fine restaurants) and someone working in that job as a means to an end, often on a temporary basis.

(direct link to that section: https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-ga...)

edit2: also considering there is quite a number of jobs significantly below the median of 0.99, I would be curious to see the jobs where women are paid more than men and how big the differences are there. Afterall, the topic at hand isn't that female discrimination exists (it does, no question there!), but that male discrimination (often as a correctional method) becomes more and more of a problem that gets wilfully ignored or is even socially acceptable and encouraged! Discriminating men to solve female discrimination isn't a solution, meritocracy and equal opportunities are the solution.

Wage gap is easily one of the most significant bits of disinformation believed by the vast majority of the population.