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???

The poster you were replying to made the point (I think) that wars are caused by a small minority and driven by money and power and I was trying to illustrate those themes, though I suppose it depends on how you judge what the "cause" of a conflict is and also how you judge whether or not they meet the definition of "just" war etc. The tipping point is not the whole picture obviously, but just so that I am clear, you wrote "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" and you then referred to a "just" war - so were you saying that you think that Hitler didn't cause WWII, but notwithstanding this, the person/party who caused it was indeed pursuing a "just" war? Just interested, really.

What exactly was Hitler defending when he started WW2?

Clearly, Hitler caused WWII in the sense he marched into Poland. But the causes are diverse and partly lie in the Treaty of Versailles, the treatment of Germany after WWI (reparations etc.) and the depression caused by inflation in the Weimar Republic. But it was Britain that declared war - so no ego involved there, just law. Hitler thought the UK would sit on its hands since a war in Europe would be ruinous and thus not worth the candle. I am saying no more than that. I am a medievalist, not a modern historian, so my view is fairly shallow.

I think the cause is the most relevant thing, not the tipping point usually, but I agree that causes were diverse. What is a medievalist?

I just read this to my husband - as soon as I finished the first line where he mentioned Andrew Tate he was saying you need to get out now

Sorry, brain fog - I see that a medievalist is a specialist in medieval life/history!