The toxic wave.

Through a few scrolls in the most popular social media and content-creating platforms, we will see countless videos from people that I could easily categorize as a movement of extreme social conservatism and anti-progressive thinking. Their ideas happen to be so oppressive and extremist that sometimes can be compared with ultra-Islamic views of women being always escorted by a man while being outside, for their "own" safety, as well as, on how respectful a woman should be, compared with how man partners she had in her timeline.

Should we take immediate legal measures against them?

I personally am not a pro-Platonic philosopher. I do not believe that "dangerous" ideas or forms of art that promote or even show violent ideas and topics should be completely erased. Nor do I believe that someone should deny the right of freedom of expression to these people. On the contrary, I believe that everyone has the right to express their own opinions, with reasonable barriers, implemented by the law, in cases such as politicians promoting acts of open violence or anti-democratic actions, like calls for genocide, for example. Or people promoting or showing acts of paedophilia or rape on public platforms. In other words, I believe in the existence of regulations for extreme acts or calls of terrorism and open violence. So, as long as these people do not openly call for such extreme actions, I think any legal measure against them, might escalate the situation worse, providing them with the fame of being anti-systemic and creating a form of pseudo-hero out of them.

What should we do then?

I think that we should carefully observe and examine their ideas and intentions, before making any conclusions. Especially if we want to consider ourselves different from those people who rush to extreme conclusions and oppressive ideas for the sake of a common good or for the sake of some form of a system of beliefs.

Starting from the King

Well, the king of this movement, as I see the movement's hierarchy is Jordan Peterson. I have to say at this point that Peterson is maybe the most moderate of all these people. His ideas are mostly concentrated on "so-called" self-reliance, as well as bringing back the heroic masculinity from the previous century. It is not random though that those who see the past with a nostalgic eye, are usually delusional about the past or deliberately misrepresent it, for their own reasons. I think the truth about Peterson lies in the middle of these two. While he is an academic in psychology, his topics have to do with a science that he is not familiar with, and that is Philosophy. Especially philosophy requires knowledge of politics, economics and ethics, and not just psychology.

Self-reliance?

Peterson, I believe, willingly chose to be a part of the alt-right alliance of Trump apologists and anti-woke culture. He chose to be a part of this movement willingly, as he had every right to do so. On the other hand, I do not believe that he chose to be the inspiring figure for people like Andrew Tate, I think his words and promotion marketing that led people of more extreme ideas to quote some of his speeches and follow his "teachings".

In addition to this, I find his belief in self-reliance, such a delusional and problematic concept, that I believe the cause of him becoming the most prominent leader of the toxic movement is the similarity in toxicity between blaming only the people in their hardships and misfortunes to the equally problematic thinking of denying any form of inequality between genders, as something natural or exaggerated.

His most known phrase is that" people should tide up their room, before changing the world". A phrase such idiotic, that the first reaction that anyone has after hearing it is laughter. In other words, according to Peterson, somehow tidying up your room plays an important role in changing the world. Well, my answer to this phrase is this. Yes having a clean room could help you focus better on your work, whatever your work may be, but does not play any role in changing the world. It is one more individualistic call, because according to people like Jordan Peterson, the average person, should not be able to influence the world. According to him, such right should exist only for the financially affluent one percent. So normal people, the other 99% that spends their time watching his videos, should emphasize on stuff like cleaning their small rooms or doing their job adequately or they should find their lost power. Since they do not have any power in their society, he calls for men to find their power into the relationship that they have with their partners, or even with their children.

The hunt for a lost masculine dynamic

The shocking fact on this call is that, even though he is a psychologist, he seems to ignore the danger of encouraging men to exercise abusive power in their families and relationships. The thing is that there is no power vacuum in men's role in family or society, at least not from the gender role argument that he is creating. Things in the most civilized and developed countries, have been evolving and progressing to create and equal a safer environment for families, women children and men. This call for the hunt for a lost masculine dynamic, can only be compared to the call for more abusive and oppressive men with their families. Something that could bring society back into problematic and traumatic behaviours, as well as, a nostalgic call for inequality in marriages. Back in the old days when men were supposed to be "respected" by having absolute control over their children and women. While women had limited role of taking care of the family as their only duty, without being able to be financially independent and while having no political rights. Being unable to vote or decide over different careers. If they were allowed to have a career in the first place.

The case of self-hatred

The title of this paragraph, is about a youtuber, that under normal circumstances I would not have to spend a sentence, writing about. But as we can all see, we do not live under normal circumstances.

In this case, on the contrary, we have to enter the realm of surrealism. We are talking about an individual that recognizes herself as a female, and at the same time, openly hates and degrades women, objectifying them, and even blaming victims of rape. In one part of her videos, she says that a woman that wanders around a "dangerous" area, with high criminality rates, holds the responsibility for anything that might happen to her. In other words, if someone gets raped, it is their fault for walking in their city or neighbourhood, while according to her the rapist comes on a second role, or maybe might not be responsible at all. As she and her followers like to say "she was looking for it" while referring to the victim. The stupidity and audacity to make statements like that, usually or normally should get you excluded and marginalized from the rest of the people. Apparently, these days, statements like that can give you fame and a wide following.

The same youtuber has made hundreds of toxic statements, like how women should not choose what to do with their bodies, or how the husband has the only right on dictating to women what to do, as a form of reparation for providing safety to the female. As you can see, many of these statements often promote or justify rape. Even her most moderate statements describe women as objects of value. With the value depending on how many partners they had in the past.

Homo Capitalismus

Kickboxer Andrew Tate, a previous contestant on Big Brother, was expelled from the reality series in 2016 after video of him punching a woman in the face with a belt and tweeting homophobic and racist things surfaced.

Tate's assertions are not novel, which is one point on which we can all agree. These blatantly anti-feminine beliefs, along with destructive notions of what masculinity is, are profoundly ingrained in capitalism. They support the status quo and serve to defend the system's inequity.

In some of his worst monologues, claims in another interview that victims of rape "must shoulder some responsibility." The 35-year-old also freely discusses his penchant for dating ladies who are 18 and 19 years old since they are simpler to "imprint" on. He also thinks that although women aren't even allowed to talk to other men, men are allowed to cheat on their female relationships.

The key takeaway is that the environment we are so strongly opposed to did not simply arise from Andrew Tate. Rather, it was already present. Statements like that in Andrew Tate's case result in revenue, enable additional marketing, and increase public awareness. Speaking to a group of people, Andrew Tate is reinforcing false notions. The system of Andrew Tate takes advantage of people's hopes, desires, and anxieties to appeal to them with even his heinous statements.

Conclusion

I guess this is the ideal nostalgic past that Peterson is dreaming of. And I hope that the readers of this article do not need me to explain to them why the past oppression of women, as well as the abusive behaviour in families, has dreadful societal consequences and leads to undemocratic oppressive societies, like the ones we see in the middle east, with the example of Iran.

The rise of this movement of extremist influencers, should not be treated like an individual problem, it is just the surface of a society of hate. Behind them are thousands or even millions of angry and misguided crowds, looking for something, or someone to hate.

Written by Sergios Saropoulos