Patrick Bateman is not an example of a Sigma male. The act of manufacturing and performing a personality is the most unsigma like thing a person would do. When one hears the definition of a sigma male, even by the group that coined the phrase aspiring for it doesn't seem a bad thing as there is one non-fictional public figure that most people agree is the living embodiment of it and that is actor Keanu Reeves. The thing is most people trying to be a sigma could never be one, because it's not something you can really strive for unless you forget about hierachies, power and control and simply live a good, happy life without the distractions of the world throwing you into coniptions which means that by default you could care less about being a sigma male. If you define yourself as a sigma male then to put it simply; you are not.
The director and writer of the film unintentionally, and by extension your video, are correct in that there are gender roles at play but have fundamentally put the cart before the horse. Patrick Bateman does not represent toxic masculinity. Patrick Bateman unwittingly represents toxic femininity. He is a man who is being forced unnaturally by his Corporate social environment to behave and compete in ways that are traditionally feminine. Batemans vanity and Obsession about his looks, his only way to climb the social ladder through absurd displays of social connection such as what restaurants he frequents, or by competing about something as inane as who has the better calling card, and his pathetic frustration for being physically mistaken for another co-worker that he is secretly jealous of. These are all forms of toxically feminine 10 packing and would not be seen as manly by anyone in their right mind. It is precisely to that end that Patrick Bateman takes up fantasies of becoming a serial killer, because in a warped mind his domination through violence of women is the only way he can regain some semblance of masculinity
That's a very interesting analysis, and one I've never heard put forth before. I'd really like someone to do a video essay from that angle, but I don't think we'll ever see it as that's not a take that fits the narrative this film has been given.
Feminity and masculinity are interwoven, just like emotions and logic. So what you wrote doesn't exclude the fact that Bateman is in fact a toxic masculine character, even if he expresses toxic feminine traits.
It's very hard to make any type of media that has an actual message and be subtle about it, because in a society that fosters unstable thinking your message will always be subverted by people that just didn't get it. Achie Bunker, for example was never meant to be a role model, and yet a huge demographic identified with him.
@@NelsonStJamesFALLING DOWN. Every brain dead Gen Xer I know says "I GET Defense now that I'm older" and... Jesus it just went all over your head, didn't it? Ditto NETWORK. "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" isn't supposed to be a rallying cry, it's the expression of a man having a psychotic break, which then gets commodified by corporate American media.
i agree 100%. Same with Andrew Tate. Weak men need their Trump/Bateman/Tate to feel empowered because they are too afraid to act out their thoughts in real life.
I really like most of your analysis and agree/admire your approach and opinion on many points, but I very much dislike the implied politicization and generalization about those who voted trump into office and the discussion of how dangerous trump is. I am a young conservative guy and I very much dislike this “sigma” idea that is present on some social media outlets. I think the idea of having a “sigma” to look up to is stupid, but choosing people like Patrick Bateman, Dexter, Walter White, Andrew Tate etc. are very poor choices and reflect a primal and immoral attitude towards masculinity. These people believe that masculinity is congruent with wealth, violence/murder, extravagant spending, narcissism, dressing/acting and looking “cool”, and lots of sex. It’s not, it’s mental illness and it’s made quite clear in the film, so it’s puzzling and disturbing to me that people idealize someone who is supposed to be a monster. That being said, I am quite disappointed that you associate these people with trump voters, as while it is possible that many of these “sigma guys” may be conservative (but there is no concrete way to prove this), I highly doubt many conservatives would subscribe to this way of thinking, at least I don’t. So I feel like that comparison and then the following claim that trump is a monster, as well as implying that the “rise” of right wing politicians is a problem or somehow due to or related to people idealizing Bateman or Bateman like people. I find that quite disingenuous and politically charged, it essentially is demonizing people you don’t agree with and labeling them dangerous. Another thing, there really is no “rise” of right wing politicians either, they’ve always been here and I don’t think one election is indicative of a rise. I mean our current president is liberal, so is that a “rise” of left wing ideals? No. I’d argue that if anything, in the last 23 years, left wing ideas, or rather “woke” ideals have become exceedingly popular. This reveals a layer of bias, in my opinion, because it seems like you are only focusing on those who you seem to disagree with, hence why you would call the election of a conservative president indicative of a rise of an ideology. All of this makes me trust your other commentary less. Another commenter here pointed out something that I find very interesting and correct. Bateman, while at work, displays toxic feminine traits, while off of work he displays toxic masculine traits. It’s an interesting dichotomy that I think warrants discussion. Anyway, like I said I enjoyed the other parts of the video and the critique of this “sigma culture” but I really did not like the end, make of that what you will
Thanks for a great conversation starter. I'm going to answer by category! About association: Linking together Trump and the themes of the video is a risk. As Trump is such a large character of modern society, he symbolizes and influences people on a multitude of different areas. Trump can be understood through many individually fitting lenses, which is one the reasons why his populism is so appealing. Finding an “objective Trump” is impossible, especially because he’s in politics - all politicians act somewhat incoherently, that’s in the nature of modern democracy. Associating some of the values of the “sigma culture” with Trump is meant to only show a particular overlapping. This overlapping does not mean that all Trump voters are within that area, but only shows that some are. Basically, this could’ve gone either way! I’m sure some of the people in the sigma movement are politically inclined to the left. Why focus on the right-wing then? Because of potent thematic similarity. The association begins from Ellis’ pen. It’s carried onto modernity not with a coherent community, but through a similar reactivity. Modern society poses a lot of threats, which are countered and dealt with multiple ways. One way to react to a modern threat is through Trump; another way is the “sigma male movement”. And let’s be clear, one way to react is also through conservatism, which is not what Trump fundamentally is - it’s something that Trump also only overlaps with. Nonetheless, the way some of Trump supporters and some of the sigma male movement react to modern threats is very similar, especially through it’s anti-establishment ideals. Shining light on this similarity is risky, since opinions and ideals from the entire subject areas are included, not only from the overlapping area. So, in a way, you are very right: highlighting the association can and will be seen as politically charged, not due to the content itself, but because of the millions of opinions involved. This does not mean that one should refrain from highlighting the thematic similarities. About the rise of the right wing: You’re right, right-wing politics have been around for a long time, that’s not what I mean. I’ll elaborate: in a global political spectrum, there has been a very measurable rise in far-right-wing politics. Trumpism is generally seen as the American political variant of far-right politics. But like I said, Trump’s populism overlaps in a multitude of areas. He can be seen as conservative, protective, progressive, nationalistic, anti-constitutional - basically as many ways as there are interpreters. Through this, one can create an argument that Trump’s values, or right-wing values have always been around. But one election can be very much indicative of a rise. Group this election with a measurable rise in right-wing media, grassroot movements such as the Tea Party, social media grouping and influence, voting patterns, global diplomacy and liaison - the question on whether right-wing politics became more popular in the mid 2010’s is a no brainer to empirical analysis. The current president being a “liberal” can be grouped into other phenomena, such as societal polarization, which was increased by the previous election. About bias: The most interesting one! Grouping and associating politicians with anything can and will be seen as disingenuous, politically charged and biased. This is, like I said, risky, but also done with intention. The intention of pointing out the themes in this video aims to widen the discourse surrounding Trump by critiquing his influence. This is not meant to downplay conservatism, nationalism or other overlapping ideologies. It is merely a showcase of extremely ironic similarities, which aim the viewer to think about what Trump is about in entirety, not only in slices. Like it or not, what is said in the video is fundamentally true: Trump and Bateman share a lot of similar values. It’s a state of cognitive dissonance to believe that Bateman’s values are dangerous, but Trump’s couldn’t be. That doesn’t mean that Trump can’t be seen as something else, on the contrary, it’s his populistic aim to be understood from as many different outlooks as possible. It’s only to say that that’s one part of Trump, and voting for him means implicitly voting for the other part as well. Also, I find the link between movies and politics incredibly interesting, and when I see something fitting, I enjoy talking about it. You’ll be sure to see some videos on this channel discussing harmful leftist ideologies as well. I’m mostly paraphrasing peer-reviewed sources in the channel, and by any means I do not aim to show only one-sided debates. It seems that this video can be seen like that, thanks for pointing that out. Anycase, thanks for your comment once again! It got me thinking and I wanted to answer thoroughly!
I want to point out that Trump has been conservative since 2016 election cycle. Before that, he supported the Democratic party. So he is a postmodern conservative , not a real one, with real conservative values. The man paid off a prostitute to keep quiet about his affair with her and went to Epstein island.
Nice to see TH-cam recommended me a video from a small, independent content creator for a change. Great video, hope it goes viral.
Precise analysis, valid argumentation
People out here unironically taking the Sigma Male meme seriously?
People out here pretending people take them seriously so they have a strawman to shoot at.
Patrick Bateman is not an example of a Sigma male.
The act of manufacturing and performing a personality is the most unsigma like thing a person would do. When one hears the definition of a sigma male, even by the group that coined the phrase aspiring for it doesn't seem a bad thing as there is one non-fictional public figure that most people agree is the living embodiment of it and that is actor Keanu Reeves. The thing is most people trying to be a sigma could never be one, because it's not something you can really strive for unless you forget about hierachies, power and control and simply live a good, happy life without the distractions of the world throwing you into coniptions which means that by default you could care less about being a sigma male. If you define yourself as a sigma male then to put it simply; you are not.
Great video! Thank you for this analysis! Yes, I think you're on point with these ideas
Thanks a billion!!
Well Done ! Very Gret Message and Editing . You earned a sub
sigma male is a meme
TH-cam just recommended me your video and I love it! I'm so happy to see that more content creators are analysis Sigma media through a gender lens ❤
I can tell by just the title that Man Carrying Thing is going to love this video.
I was following your arguments most of the video, but you lost me when Trump gets introduced.
he's in the title.
@@plasticweapon I mean his connection between Bateman and Trump is ridiculous.
Blame the author then, since Trump is in the original book American Psycho and Patrick idolizes him.
@@marokanetc well it indeed says about author more than about Trump. And fair enough, he was a communist.
@@marokanetcYes trump is in the book but not in the movie.
Really liked this great job.
The director and writer of the film unintentionally, and by extension your video, are correct in that there are gender roles at play but have fundamentally put the cart before the horse. Patrick Bateman does not represent toxic masculinity. Patrick Bateman unwittingly represents toxic femininity. He is a man who is being forced unnaturally by his Corporate social environment to behave and compete in ways that are traditionally feminine. Batemans vanity and Obsession about his looks, his only way to climb the social ladder through absurd displays of social connection such as what restaurants he frequents, or by competing about something as inane as who has the better calling card, and his pathetic frustration for being physically mistaken for another co-worker that he is secretly jealous of. These are all forms of toxically feminine 10 packing and would not be seen as manly by anyone in their right mind. It is precisely to that end that Patrick Bateman takes up fantasies of becoming a serial killer, because in a warped mind his domination through violence of women is the only way he can regain some semblance of masculinity
So in the end ,him killing women is toxic masculinity. Because he has repressed his true emotions for too long, he has to lash out .
That's a very interesting analysis, and one I've never heard put forth before. I'd really like someone to do a video essay from that angle, but I don't think we'll ever see it as that's not a take that fits the narrative this film has been given.
Feminity and masculinity are interwoven, just like emotions and logic. So what you wrote doesn't exclude the fact that Bateman is in fact a toxic masculine character, even if he expresses toxic feminine traits.
@@HobanProduction how is flaunting his wealth toxic masculinity?
@marokanetc No one hates women more than other women so no its still feminine
Didnt Kubrick also wanted Full Metal Jacket to be anti-war movie and now wannabe marines watch it religiously?
That's true! The irony!
It's very hard to make any type of media that has an actual message and be subtle about it, because in a society that fosters unstable thinking your message will always be subverted by people that just didn't get it. Achie Bunker, for example was never meant to be a role model, and yet a huge demographic identified with him.
@@NelsonStJamesFALLING DOWN. Every brain dead Gen Xer I know says "I GET Defense now that I'm older" and... Jesus it just went all over your head, didn't it? Ditto NETWORK. "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" isn't supposed to be a rallying cry, it's the expression of a man having a psychotic break, which then gets commodified by corporate American media.
🥲👏👏👏👏👏 well said sir, well said
Jokin' phoenix 💀😂
Close enough 😅 next time I'll nail it!
i agree 100%. Same with Andrew Tate. Weak men need their Trump/Bateman/Tate to feel empowered because they are too afraid to act out their thoughts in real life.
Tbh huge bias but atleast the video is not braindead like others.
I really like most of your analysis and agree/admire your approach and opinion on many points, but I very much dislike the implied politicization and generalization about those who voted trump into office and the discussion of how dangerous trump is. I am a young conservative guy and I very much dislike this “sigma” idea that is present on some social media outlets. I think the idea of having a “sigma” to look up to is stupid, but choosing people like Patrick Bateman, Dexter, Walter White, Andrew Tate etc. are very poor choices and reflect a primal and immoral attitude towards masculinity. These people believe that masculinity is congruent with wealth, violence/murder, extravagant spending, narcissism, dressing/acting and looking “cool”, and lots of sex. It’s not, it’s mental illness and it’s made quite clear in the film, so it’s puzzling and disturbing to me that people idealize someone who is supposed to be a monster. That being said, I am quite disappointed that you associate these people with trump voters, as while it is possible that many of these “sigma guys” may be conservative (but there is no concrete way to prove this), I highly doubt many conservatives would subscribe to this way of thinking, at least I don’t. So I feel like that comparison and then the following claim that trump is a monster, as well as implying that the “rise” of right wing politicians is a problem or somehow due to or related to people idealizing Bateman or Bateman like people. I find that quite disingenuous and politically charged, it essentially is demonizing people you don’t agree with and labeling them dangerous. Another thing, there really is no “rise” of right wing politicians either, they’ve always been here and I don’t think one election is indicative of a rise. I mean our current president is liberal, so is that a “rise” of left wing ideals? No. I’d argue that if anything, in the last 23 years, left wing ideas, or rather “woke” ideals have become exceedingly popular. This reveals a layer of bias, in my opinion, because it seems like you are only focusing on those who you seem to disagree with, hence why you would call the election of a conservative president indicative of a rise of an ideology. All of this makes me trust your other commentary less. Another commenter here pointed out something that I find very interesting and correct. Bateman, while at work, displays toxic feminine traits, while off of work he displays toxic masculine traits. It’s an interesting dichotomy that I think warrants discussion. Anyway, like I said I enjoyed the other parts of the video and the critique of this “sigma culture” but I really did not like the end, make of that what you will
Thanks for a great conversation starter. I'm going to answer by category!
About association: Linking together Trump and the themes of the video is a risk. As Trump is such a large character of modern society, he symbolizes and influences people on a multitude of different areas. Trump can be understood through many individually fitting lenses, which is one the reasons why his populism is so appealing. Finding an “objective Trump” is impossible, especially because he’s in politics - all politicians act somewhat incoherently, that’s in the nature of modern democracy. Associating some of the values of the “sigma culture” with Trump is meant to only show a particular overlapping. This overlapping does not mean that all Trump voters are within that area, but only shows that some are. Basically, this could’ve gone either way! I’m sure some of the people in the sigma movement are politically inclined to the left. Why focus on the right-wing then?
Because of potent thematic similarity. The association begins from Ellis’ pen. It’s carried onto modernity not with a coherent community, but through a similar reactivity. Modern society poses a lot of threats, which are countered and dealt with multiple ways. One way to react to a modern threat is through Trump; another way is the “sigma male movement”. And let’s be clear, one way to react is also through conservatism, which is not what Trump fundamentally is - it’s something that Trump also only overlaps with. Nonetheless, the way some of Trump supporters and some of the sigma male movement react to modern threats is very similar, especially through it’s anti-establishment ideals. Shining light on this similarity is risky, since opinions and ideals from the entire subject areas are included, not only from the overlapping area. So, in a way, you are very right: highlighting the association can and will be seen as politically charged, not due to the content itself, but because of the millions of opinions involved. This does not mean that one should refrain from highlighting the thematic similarities.
About the rise of the right wing: You’re right, right-wing politics have been around for a long time, that’s not what I mean. I’ll elaborate: in a global political spectrum, there has been a very measurable rise in far-right-wing politics. Trumpism is generally seen as the American political variant of far-right politics. But like I said, Trump’s populism overlaps in a multitude of areas. He can be seen as conservative, protective, progressive, nationalistic, anti-constitutional - basically as many ways as there are interpreters. Through this, one can create an argument that Trump’s values, or right-wing values have always been around. But one election can be very much indicative of a rise. Group this election with a measurable rise in right-wing media, grassroot movements such as the Tea Party, social media grouping and influence, voting patterns, global diplomacy and liaison - the question on whether right-wing politics became more popular in the mid 2010’s is a no brainer to empirical analysis. The current president being a “liberal” can be grouped into other phenomena, such as societal polarization, which was increased by the previous election.
About bias: The most interesting one! Grouping and associating politicians with anything can and will be seen as disingenuous, politically charged and biased. This is, like I said, risky, but also done with intention. The intention of pointing out the themes in this video aims to widen the discourse surrounding Trump by critiquing his influence. This is not meant to downplay conservatism, nationalism or other overlapping ideologies. It is merely a showcase of extremely ironic similarities, which aim the viewer to think about what Trump is about in entirety, not only in slices. Like it or not, what is said in the video is fundamentally true: Trump and Bateman share a lot of similar values. It’s a state of cognitive dissonance to believe that Bateman’s values are dangerous, but Trump’s couldn’t be. That doesn’t mean that Trump can’t be seen as something else, on the contrary, it’s his populistic aim to be understood from as many different outlooks as possible. It’s only to say that that’s one part of Trump, and voting for him means implicitly voting for the other part as well.
Also, I find the link between movies and politics incredibly interesting, and when I see something fitting, I enjoy talking about it. You’ll be sure to see some videos on this channel discussing harmful leftist ideologies as well. I’m mostly paraphrasing peer-reviewed sources in the channel, and by any means I do not aim to show only one-sided debates. It seems that this video can be seen like that, thanks for pointing that out.
Anycase, thanks for your comment once again! It got me thinking and I wanted to answer thoroughly!
I want to point out that Trump has been conservative since 2016 election cycle. Before that, he supported the Democratic party. So he is a postmodern conservative , not a real one, with real conservative values. The man paid off a prostitute to keep quiet about his affair with her and went to Epstein island.