There's no such thing as an independent female

[Yoyodiet]

I'm so wound up! Earlier, DP said to me he thinks I would benefit from signing up to Andrew Tate's academy course or whatever it is (I like learning about making money online, more out of interest than actually doing it myself). I said probably, but I wouldn't want to fund him as I don't like him. He asked why and I said he's not very nice to/about women. He was aghast and we went back and forth, defending him for the most part when I was reading bits off to him from a BBC article to prove my point. I read the following -

In that same video, he described women as "intrinsically lazy" and said there was "no such thing as an independent female".

...and he was like 'yeah, no women can be independent, you need men'. I couldn't believe it! I won't bore you with the heated discussion that ensued but he genuinely believes that not just I would crumble without a man (him), but all women on the planet if men suddenly disappeared. We would apparently perish in good time because we 'cannot hunt, do electrics, fix a roof or change a tyre'. (To add insult to injury I have qualifications in electrical installation and engineering, I'm pretty sure I could also change a tyre if push came to shove).

Also, I said I think there would be less wars without men - he said there'd me more because women are bitchy?? I said I'm pretty sure men have started a lot more wars than women in history. He pointed in my face and told me women didn't even fight in wars til recently. I reminded him that men made those rules.. 😂

He genuinelyyyyyy believes I'd fall apart without him. Our relationship has been rocky lately but this really made me see a different side to him. He really made me feel like a lesser person and it's made me feel really disappointed since. AIBU to be lying in bed awake stewing over this???

@Euro24

The point Tate is trying to make is that encouraging men to be overly emotional and being in touch with their feminine side is no good at all when dangerous jobs and fighting wars need to be done.

Yes, men being in charge of fighting wars has famously gone well over the years hasn't it.

Never heard of Winston Churchill who protected us from Nazi invasion? It would seem so.
And this is not about being in charge of wars it's about fighting them.
The bottom line is that it is men who willingly choose to fight wars not women.
Fact.
Why even argue about something that is obviously true?

@Euro24

If those who disagree with me want men to be just like women than that's up to them.

Literally nobody has said that on here.

Though tbh I'd rather a man was 'just like a woman' than a sex trafficker accused of multiple rapes, who has been recorded asking a female partner to count the bruises he gave her and whipping her with a belt.

Each to their own.

@Euro24

The bottom line is that it is men who willingly choose to fight wars not women. Fact. Why even argue about something that is obviously true?

But men have overwhelmingly started wars.

Naming individuals doesn't change the trend. You mention Churchill as a defender but Hitler was a man too...the Nazi decision makers were almost exclusively men.

Do you congratulate arsonists on their bravery if they put out a fire they've started?

Men willingly fight wars, yes. As a sex class they willingly start them, too.

Female is a biological sex, men can’t be ‘more female’. Do you mean more feminine? What qualities are you defining as feminine?

Most wars are also started by men and their emotions, how do you explain that? And war is hardly the only danger humans face, I’ll ask you again, were the women Tate trafficked not facing danger?

Except women do choose, now we have that choice, are you unaware of history and the fact women didn’t used to be allowed, thanks to men?

Men start wars because some things are worth defending.
I cannot believe that in as little as 60 years we have lost sight of this.
Sneering at brave men who have lost their lives for a greater good- I find it to be disgraceful.

Is he dumb? It's gullible men like your DP who are paying for Tates lifestyle.
Tate is a grifter, selling an idea.

Let's not glofify sacrifice. So many wars are ended at the conference table not a battlefield. Harry Patch one of the last WW1 veterans described it as legalised mass murder. Men deserve better than that.

More jaw jaw less war war please.

Like Putin and Hitler?! Sure….

I'm not seeing a lot here to change my view that AT admirers must be rather dim.

But that isn't simplistic enough. Everybody knows there's no such thing as nuance and that human beings aren't the least bit complex. ;-)

I mean if all the men disappeared tmo yes we'd have a problem but the same would be true if all the women disappeared. But that doesn't mean that individual women can't lie without a man. If he idolises Tate, I suspect he was always a misogynist, not to mention a bit thick. Sorry OP.

*can't live

Dump his misogynistic arse. The first mention of Tait and I’d be out. Massive red flag.

Christ on a bike.

Wars are started for things worth defending?

The men who start wars are often defending their egos, power, money and position. Men without those things do the dirty work and women and children are just collateral damage.

Wars are started to gain territory and resources and defend them. Occasionally there may be a principle or two being defended as a by product, but money and power are the prime reasons for war.

Your "romantic" ideals about brave strong men are the result of propaganda. War is an economic bean feast for the wealthy and a tool of oppression of both sexes who are not economically secure. War causes misery and suffering and death and untold psychological damage to both sexes. FFS put down the military Mills and Boon.

@Euro24

Men start wars because some things are worth defending.

Well in the case of Churchill, the war started because of Hitler... not Churchill.

So in fact it's accurate to say that men start wars because some of them want complete and total power and the annihilation of those they see as 'others'.

And then men fight the people who start the wars because some things are worth defending.

WWII was started because a country that had treaties with other specific countries fulfilled its obligation when those specific countries were invaded by an aggressor. Not sure where this fits in with men's egos.

I believe the agressor in that case was a man with a rather large ego...

He was. But it was not him who declared the war which became WWII, he just marched his army into another state and said it belonged to him. It was the treaty partner, who declared war because of obligation, having bought enough time to re-arm, knowing a war was coming. My point was that some wars are 'just' which is a legal term.
All wars are much worse than we can imagine.

I'd tell him he was embarrassing his own brain cells.

Tate is so lazy he can't even fix himself a cup of tea or clean his own home. He's so lazy he has to get women to prostitute themselves so he can live off their earnings.

Is your partner capable of understanding what DARVO is?

Show him what would happen if you were actually lazy and stopped earning money, raising the children, cooking, cleaning, shopping. Get him to ask politely you to do something before you lift a finger again. Tell him you are a woman and therefore too lazy to do it. As a big, capable He-Man he will have to take manly charge of operating complex machines such as stoves, washing machines, dishwashers, cars, lawnmowers from now on. And he mustn't trust your little marshmallow brain with the responsibility of childcare either. Get him to increase his salary, like real men with big balls do, so he can afford to hire a Manny to save them from your idle feckless femininity.

The British were hopeless from WWI onwards in relation to diplomacy and were more focused on how much money came from building the machines of war - if you look up David Lloyd George and why he did not want to try to achieve peace with Germany in 2017, after Germany had asked for peace talks you will see that financial benefits of war featured high. This thinking continued up to WWII - very fudgey diplomacy, confused interests - the reason why Hitler was supported and appeased was because he was anti Bolshevik and therefore the better bet for the monied classes.

Another effect of WWII was that Churchill aligned the UK to US financially and in terms of foreign policy, making us far more dependent on them ever since. Churchill was capable beyond doubt, during WWII the UK faced starvation because 60 percent of our food came from outside the UK, and Germany was preventing any reaching us - he completely changed farming practices to ensure we were producing enough flour to support everyone in the UK - it was fantastic - he also brought in other positive social practices which kept people safe - but after the war all of this was dropped like a lead balloon - it could have led to a much more balanced and society but it was dropped. Look also at how the British caused and then handled Palestinian issues from WWI onwards. It wasn't the British who liberated Europe from Nazis once and for all.

It is all a little more complex than first appears.

Tate is wrong - have emotional intelligence helps us to both avoid conflict and to resolve conflict. Being emotionally aware is fundamental to being human.

This is very simplified - the workings of diplomacy in the period between WWI and WWII was a lot more complicated than this. If you are talking about Sudentanland, there were a lot of diplomatic opportunities missed because of slowness and confusion on the part of Britain and France. If you are talking about Poland, other countries had offered assistance and were refused by Poland. Hitler had talked about Lebensraum and the "Jewish question" from the 1920s, there was not much doubt about his stated aims for a long period of time. Britain did not fly in with a cape to save everyone!

Sorry, 1917, not 2017

I was talking about Poland, which was the tipping point because the UK had treaty obligations. I do not need to have explained to me that I have given a simplified description of diplomacy between the wars since I was not giving a history lesson but only commenting on whether wars are always caused by some male's huge ego. I don't think they are - that is much too simplistic.