Andrew Tate: a very modern misogynist
The influencer exhibits the privileges of manhood with none of its responsibilities
Seeing Andrew Tate sent to jail as part of a convoluted story involving sex trafficking, Greta Thunberg and pizza would have been the perfect way to close out 2022. Alas, it seems not to be true, at least not entirely.
It is true that Thunberg has been swapping jibes with the British-American former kickboxer and Internet personality on Twitter this week — he boasted about his many cars, she accused him of having a small penis — and that on Wednesday Tate posted a video in response in which he was dressed in a bathrobe and smoking a cigar with a box of pizza in front of him. Gleeful internet sleuths have suggested that it was the branding on the pizza box that allowed Romanian authorities to locate Tate in Bucharest and take him into custody last night on suspicion of human trafficking, rape, and forming an organised crime group alongside his brother Tristan. The siblings have been under criminal investigation in Romania since April.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
Although the pizza box detail may be too good to be true, Tate’s detainment is still a remarkable news event. This is a man who has cultivated a public persona as a misogynistic gangster, and whose recent rise to fame has been enabled by his wit, good looks, and his apparent wealth — wealth that, it now turns out, may have been generated by trafficking women into the sex industry. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that what looked so much like a LARP may not have been a LARP after all. In the words of Oprah, “When people show you who they are, believe them!”
Although this may spell the end for Tate as a public figure, this will not be the end of the wider phenomenon of which he is a part. The Great Awokening has produced a widespread desire for irreverent, anti-woke content. This is particularly true among young men, who are both significantly more Right-wing than their female peers and also legitimately unhappy about their grim economic prospects. Tate is not the only figure offering such content, but he is one of the most compelling. And unlike, for instance, Jordan Peterson, Tate is explicitly anti-Christian, which makes him even more counter-cultural.
And yet, on one point in particular, Tate is very much running with the cultural grain: just like everyone else in the contemporary West, he is obsessed with gender. The mass entry of women into public life in the second half of the twentieth century, and the consequent blurring of socioeconomic gender roles, has not led to the withering away of masculine and feminine archetypes. Rather, our culture now encourages us to constantly probe at our gender identities, playing with and worrying over the different elements of masculinity and femininity, then mixing and matching those we like best.
The trans activism movement is the purest expression of this trend, but it is also to be found elsewhere on the political spectrum. “Male-to-male transsexual” is a term to which I was recently introduced by the UnHerd writer Katherine Dee, and which describes Tate perfectly, since he has deliberately undergone a transition (albeit not a medical one) to become a hyper-masculine caricature.
Importantly, this masculine role that he craves is a strangely modern one, since it cuts away so much of what constitutes historic manhood. Traditional masculine and feminine roles contain both privileges and obligations: for instance the protective principle of ‘women and children first’ comes with the expectation that women will perform caring and domestic work, while the status conferred on male warriors is conditional on physical self-sacrifice. But Tate’s pick ’n’ mix gender narcissism is all about rights — to dominance, strength, and “bitches” — without any of the duties to family and community. He is unmarried, with an indeterminate number of children from various mothers, and claims he does not even pay his taxes in the UK.
While his detainment suggests that Tate’s thuggish misogyny is not in the least bit fake, there is still something distinctly artificial about his public persona. But it is an artificality that seems to scratch a cultural itch, and which is therefore unlikely to disappear with the man himself. As long as gender narcissism of every political flavour prevails, there will be plenty more Andrew Tates.
Another weak take-down/analysis of Tate. So much of the analysis of him seems to have either not really listened to him, or have willfully misunderstood him. The man has hours and hours of content online, it’s not that hard to actually find some of his interviews and listen to him.
Just one example, this article says that he is anti-Christian. Even the linked video disproves this, in which he states that he supports the Orthodox Christian church in Romanian. He has stated recently that he is a Muslim, but that does not automatically make him anti-Christian. He seems to be overall supportive of religion in general.
Everyone in the West in obsessed with gender because the future of our society depends on our ability to hold together at the most basic level- the family – the coming together of man and woman. The gender war is a war that we are ALL losing right now, and we need to find some way to course correct. Tate has said over and over that he thinks men and women need each other and that we are all better off when men and women work together. He has certainly expressed many views about gender relations that can be considered traditionalist, but to call him a misogynist is misguided.
Tate is extremely popular because what he says resonates with the experiences of millions of men across the world. Even if you find some of what he says disagreeable, having the curiosity and empathy to try to understand why he is so popular by actually listening to his interviews would be valuable. He has certainly created a hyperbolic internet persona, but it’s fascinating that in a world where we are all glued to screens all the time we are in constant need of a scapegoat, someone that we can project all the evils of society onto. Meanwhile we’re completely unable to recognize the psychopathic behavior that our society rewards over and over again.
Tate is like the Beast from Beauty and the Beast – on first glace he seems horrifying, but in the end I do think that he has society’s best interests at heart. Once he is gone, who will the next witch hunt take us after?
As ‘cause-celebs’ go you are picking a pretty poor one here JP which is self-diminishing. Nobody has taken him down but himself and his own choices. You’d have thought his creed of personal responsibility would at least recognise that even if it’s lost on you.
No proper man holds his views about women. What a pathetic bully.
Christian or even religious? – I’m not a follower but I can’t see anything in how he conducts himself that adheres to the best tenets of the primary faiths. It’s a just a desperate attempt to increase his ‘ker-ching’ takings.
Everyone in the West isn’t obsessed with gender. A tiny proportion at either end of the spectrum get in a proper tissy about it. The rest of us got more important things to be worrying about. (Just for the record – my view is if you went through puberty as a man you can’t compete in a women’s sport and if you’ve male appendage you stay out of women’s changing rooms etc, that aside crack on and live how you want).
“No proper man holds his views about women. ”
Which views are we talking about here? Genuinely curious, because I haven’t bothered to listen to him (his talking style is a bit too rant-y), and I mean genuine comments, not words put in his mouth.
Well, find out for yourself then get an opinion! What a bizarre comment when you admit you can’t be bothered to listen to Tate’s “rants” yourself!! WTF?!!
Samir asked a perfectly reasonable question.
He’s a con artist, but a very entertaining one. A bit like Logan Paul. I wish everyone could just ignore Tate, for the vacuous non entity that he is.
To quote Matty D, “spot on”.
He’s literally a ponce. He lives on the proceeds of women who do ‘sex work’. He might not be involved in prostitution (we’ll see) but his webcam empire is just poncing in the Internet age. Who cares what his opinions are
You criticise Louise Perry’s piece as “a weak take-down” and imply poor research by stating it’s “not that hard” to find online content posted by and about Tate. Josh P then goes on to say there’s not much evidence that Tate is a Muslim because he publicly supports Islam but also the Romanian Orthodox Christian church. Perhaps you should do a bit more research yourself because then you would know that footage of Tate praying in a mosque has been doing the rounds online. The guy is an experienced liar & manipulator who says & does whatever necessary to make money. Adding to his $355+ million is his chief obsession rather than gender, and he has found that adopting his hyper-macho, self-regarding peacock role extremely useful in many ways. Modern society, especially in America, is ready to forgive most transgressions, or turn a blind eye, to people who make millions. They are dazzled by it and see the person as having achieved the American Dream to the max. How they got it doesn’t seem to matter. It’s telling that you, a man, is not in the slightest bit concerned that Tate amassed his wealth, for the most part, through facilitating online prostitution. His attitude towards women is that of a pimp. But you say: ” to call him a misogynist is misguided”.
Are you aware of what pimps do? There’s nothing ‘cool’ or ‘super fly’ about them. They are parasites who exploit, beat, physically, mentally and emotionally terrorise women, usually vulnerable young women and girls, to make money out of them. That’s how manly these people are. Tate and his ilk promote an attitude towards women that denigrating, dismissive and one of usary. Do you have a mother, a sister, a female you love and whose well-being is important to you? Would you like her to be in Tate’s company or on his ‘books’? To plead for “understanding’ towards Tate is as offensive as it is laughable. Why not ask the black man about to be lynched to have understanding for the ‘misguided’ citizens cheering round the tree? To end your reply stating “I do think that he has society’s best interests at heart” displays a naivety so incredible that I can only feel immense sadness that modern Western society has created the likes of you and your fellow “millions of men” to whom Tate’s ‘philosophy’ “resonates.” Meanwhile, he’s crying (not) all the way to the (offshore) bank. Do me a favour Josh: if you do have a mother, father, siblings, please show her this article by Ms Perry, your response and all the others, including mine, and do get back to us with their reactions. I’m genuinely interested to hear as would, I’m sure, many others.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a deeper understanding of ourselves.” – Carl Jung. I agree with much of what you said. But I still believe that there is a lot that Tate is offering that is incredibly positive for our society. Am I allowed to do that? The world is not black and white.
There is a dark side to human nature that exists to some degree in all of us. Our society’s need to scapegoat right now is profoundly disturbing.
I disagree with his materialistic outlook, however there is much that Tate says that is desperately needed right now in a society that is pushing all of us deeper and deeper into digital and financial slavery, and ripping apart our connections to family, community, and each other in the process. Tate’s advice for men to step into their own strength and principles outside of the garbage morality that our culture sells to us is spot on. Ultimately it is a message about freedom. I happen to disagree with Tate that the best path to freedom is through financial success, but the message of freedom is one we desperately need right now. Freedom is a spiritual value.
As I mentioned, there are hours and hours of Tate’s interviews available online. With so much content people are going to latch onto what confirms their initial biases about him. Those who hate him will emphasize all that backs up that view and those the love him will do the same. The truth lies in the middle, and our ability to see across that divide and not project all the negativity in our own hearts onto ONE human being is a valuable exercise. Equally valuable is my ability as someone who sees a lot of positivity in what he’s doing to acknowledge that there are (many) valid criticisms of him.
Well, Josh, I agree also with much of what you say in your reply to my reply! Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your comments here appear far more measured and thoughtful than your initial rather angry-sounding reaction to Ms Perry’s piece. Looking on Twitter today, it’s depressing to see how many men have triumphantly tweeted about Andrew Tate’s NFT, about how they have deliberately clicked onto the video that’s embedded within a Tate tweet, repeated illegally (according to Twitter’s rules) umpteen times by bots all over the platform, a tweet that’s engendered a lot of angry complaints about its’ being a money-making con because one isn’t charged for clicking onto a vid or link, unless it’s made very clear. However, many have been charged, unknowingly, after clicking on out of curiosity. Then there’s the legions of brave boyos crowing about how proud they are to fill Tate’s groaning offshore coffers, demonstrating that they think they’re making some sort of defiant political gesture. It’s heartbreaking, it really is. Also, it proves that both you and I were correct two days ago, when we saw this coming in our several individual replies. Tate’s in it for the money, and to watch how easily he’s manipulating a generation of men is deeply disturbing. I can’t bear to see how, ideas and nascent policies, well-meaning and righteous (for the most part) at their inception, have been hijacked by a minority of minorities, with their knee-jerk, liberal-minded, champagne socialist, gullible army in tow, and to observe the full weaponisation and poisonous misuse in a continuous attack that shores up this now accepted societal norm of punishing, marginalising and criminalising anyone who doesn’t go along with it. It’s just the other side of the 1930s fascist coin, struck and implemented during the Nazi party’s rise to power. It’s insidious and completely wrong. The aforementioned woke-afraid/woke-seduced army are complicit in the same way as the townspeople with the ’emperor’s new clothes’ syndrome. So, you’ve got a group using it to play their victim cultured, label loving, reparations-seeking, historically-inaccurate blame game on one side, and the manipulative, oleaginous money-making exploiters including Tate on the other. Stuck in the middle of it is a generation of angry young men who don’t know how to act or think anymore as anything they do is instantly decried. I get it, I do. The internet porn boom combined with a fundamentally dishonest ‘woke’ agenda has created a totally fucked-up Western society where scum rises to the surface in the form of the Tates (because, lest we forget, this global online prostitution business is a family affair). Dreadfully sick, dreadfully sad. But I don’t believe intellectual arguments justifying Tate’s behaviour is helpful either because it furthers both agendas. And that’s not the healthy or honest way forward in this war for not only hearts and minds, but pockets, too..
“It’s telling that you, a man, is not in the slightest bit concerned that Tate amassed his wealth, for the most part, through facilitating online prostitution.”
Im surprised you would make a statement like this, considering your comments that you feel you’re being targeted because you’re a woman. There’s nothing telling about Josh’s comment that would lead anyone to think he’s not even slightly concerned that Tate earned his wealth through prostitution. You’ve put words in his mouth so as to judge him. Josh, in the one comment, has contributed more to the discussion than all of yours. Instead of looking at his character he’s looked at the relationship he has with society at large.
This is from his comment:
”Tate has said over and over that he thinks men and women need each other and that we are all better off when men and women work together.” Josh would seem to agree with this sentiment. Do you?
The proof of Tate’s misogyny lies in the fact that he operates a webcam business out of Romania. Digital prostitution might not be illegal but it immoral and damaging in its participation in reducing women to sex objects that perform for the pleasure of men. His defense of both christianity and his declared muslim status both seem fake considering his business practices. Whats more, I have listened to Tate. And there are truths in what he says. Plenty of them. Especially when it comes to the current culture discouraging the kind of masculinity that is essential for the mental health of men – that based on competence. But the attitude that money and sex with many beautiful women is what the pineacle of masculinity is – which is the one he embodies – is a viciously damaging one. Evolutionarily, this is the trap that is most likely to catch men. Their high sex drive and biological imperative makes it seem that being “top G” when it comea to female mate selection is a ideal. The dopaminaergic rush is undeniable. But that way of life is damaging to the individuals involved as well as society. Firat, not all men can be attractive and successful. The ones who adopt this ideology while biologically deficient physically and intellectually, will suffer. The ones who can see success in this way will start seeing the error of their ways as their 50s and 60s reveal the meaninglessness inherent in it. All the while, women – who need stability, commitment and family structurea to feel valued will end up damaged as well with the result of this damage more visible in the short term. How about that? What refutes that “take down” of Tate?
Pretty much agree with everything you said. Although I would not call it a “take down” since you fairly acknowledge some of the positives that Tate is offering while also presenting valid criticisms.
Regarding the web cam business that he USED to operate years ago – I agree this is an immortal business. But it’s funny that we don’t have the vicious outcries and calls for cancelling for others who continue to profit on the massive online pornography industry (Bernd Bergmair of Mindgeek comes to mind). Only Tate, because he has made himself into a massive public figure, has become the focus the massive scapegoating campaign. People are out with their pitchfork in force after him.
I have mentioned in a comment above what I believe are Tate’s most positive contributions, mainly his championing of Freedom in a society that is very quickly enslaving all of us.
“just like everyone else in the contemporary West, he is obsessed with gender”
Well, I’m not. In fact, I’d like to propose that for its New Year’s resolution Unherd stops publishing these endless articles about trans arguments on Twitter. They really are very niche.
But the niche is being leveraged with phenomenal success and inveigling its way into education of the young; universities; media; crime; protection of women; and the general establishment.
You couldn’t find a better example of successfully expanding a tiny issue into a general assault to change society. They should use this in textbooks! Underestimate it at your peril.
It’s nothing to do with trans. It’s about women worldwide and male attitudes towards and exploitation of, which is getting worse, not better, despite thousands of years of subjugation and suffering. In this enlightened modern age, the internet is just another tool to help men do that. There’s 4000 billion women at last count. Is that figure niche enough for you?
Who says feminists can’t do maths? Abbot-esque grasp of numbers.
I’m not a feminist and I’m insulted that you should call me one. It’s a bad tell on your side too. The other bit you’ll have to explain as I’m too feminine to grasp it. Who the heck is Abbot?
“There’s 4000 billion women at last count.”
Does that include trans women?
I have no idea, probably not. It’s just the latest (Nov 22) world population figures by gender. Add maybe 50,000 worldwide for trans women (a generous estimate) as it depends what criteria you’re using to define trans. The likes of Eddie Izzard don’t cut it.
“It’s about women worldwide and male attitudes towards and exploitation of, which is getting worse, not better”
Does this mean things were better back in the fifties or the thirties, the 19th century? If so should we be looking back to those social norms for direction? Or is it that you just make statements to suit your current mood? Maybe it’s not altogether worse. Trans women are definitely imposing their views on women, but they’re a very small minority. Those countries with extreme views on women have not changed for better or worse. What makes you think things are worse here in the West?
He’s an embodiment of what a lot of young men feel about the contrast between the world they’re told about and the world as they experience it. This is being demonstrated as I write by the BBC interviewing a woman about his misogyny, as they did yesterday. The thought of interviewing a man that finds some resonance in what he says and trying to understand why is completely beyond the comprehension of the media. I find his hyperconsumerism distasteful at least, but then I didn’t come from something like poverty like Andrew Tate. But his general message seems to me to be that you’re very likely to be left behind as a man in these days of positive descrimination and demonisation of masculinity, and women are quite likely to have some antipathy to you if you’re weak, ‘emotionally available’ and romantic, whatever you might be told by the cultural narrative. But you can find your own satisfaction in life by fully engaging with your masculinity, warts and all. If you’re mentally and physically strong you might find you don’t really care about women’s or society’s rejection. I’ve come to that conclusion myself, and this has led me to a very different lifestyle than Andrew Tate – growing vegetables rather than a fleet of supercars – but I understand where he’s coming from.
You only have to listen to the narrative currently going around about him to have at least some suspicion about the veracity of the accusations he’s facing when so many people are desperate for him to be taken out of the public narrative, as always demonstrating why cancelling and demonising someone for parts of what they say, taken out of context, only ever serves to make their voice stronger. Of course he’s got into shady industries so he’s got himself to blame to some degree and perhaps he is guilty, but the narrative we’ve been fed only serves to give credibility to the idea he’s been set up to the people that find some resonance in what he’s been saying.
Jake, you sound like a lovely young man. Unfortunately, this is the modern world and money is the be all and end all of everything, far above any organised religion. Try not to be so influenced by mainstream media (unreliable and politically partisan now, sadly, and disgracefully) or TV, especially reality TV, which has a lot to answer for in its insidious influence over the last 20 years. Read! Listen to the radio. Enjoy nature. Cultivate thoughtful, interesting, sensitive, open-minded friends of all ages. Tate is a revolting man, end of. He’s an appalling role model. Tbh, he makes my skin crawl just looking at him – the arrogance and smug self-satisfaction oozes from every pore. Ugh, I need a shower after watching one of his self-produced interviews online! He’s just a big greasy-faced, 5-o’clock-shadowed bag of wind. Everything he is and stands for does, or should, repulse any man or woman with a heart or soul. Growing up poor, well, from my research (I was a journalist for many years), his narrative is exaggerated and unreliable. But even if he was born dirt-poor, that’s no excuse. If anything, it should make him more sensitive to the exploitation of others. He knows what he’s doing is vile but he likes the money too much. God blessed him with a good brain which he’s using to distract people by focusing on the discussion in hand. Can’t you see how cleverly he’s exploiting you guys too? He’s using the understandable confusion and resentment that the modern discourse and pc agenda is causing young men. You’re being given mixed messages constantly; a natural attraction is turned into being one step away from sexual assault etc etc. I feel for you, I really do. But girls are affected too. They’re bombarded with messages saying they have to look like porn stars to be fancied. It’s a sad sick world and frightening how quickly it took off in just 2 decades. Might sound like a long time to you but really it’s very fast historically for society to change so much in less than a generation. Anyway, Jake, a romantic guy who grows vegetables sounds the right direction for us all to be going in. I don’t know where the “weak” idea comes in, because you’re obviously not, and clearly you’re intelligent. Just protect yourself. Still be “emotionally available” but don’t let everyone in so quickly, not until you’ve known them a while and have some idea of what their character and spirit is like. A compassionate, sensitive, intelligent, romantic, vegetarian cultivator? Sounds like my kind of guy and I’m not the only one out here. Stick with it kid. Thank God there’s young men like you around, it’s good to know; the opposite to the likes of Andrew Tate, a player whose gangsta pimp persona screams insecurity at a fundamental level. If being obscenely rich through obscene and inhumane methods makes him a man any woman wants to be with for anything other than his $$$, then I’ll eat my Dutch cap. (Sorry this reply is so long).
Thank you for a great post.
Thank you for taking the time to read it. The open honest debates on here are brilliant in my opinion.
Most patronising comment of the year so far. Off to a flying start.
Oh well, can’t please ’em all, I suppose. Sad how you pabel my sincere response praising a young man on here as being “patronising.” Interesting to see you edited your own comment soon after posting. I wonder what you wrote initially that you thought better of being seen by everyone…
“wonder what you wrote initially that you thought better of being seen by everyone…”
I think I put in a full-stop instead of a comma.
Well thanks for a considered, and flattering, reply. I’m afraid I’m not as young as you think. There are many things about him that repulse me the same as you, and I’m generally more inclined to dislike him seeing his – or I assume his management’s – response to his arrest by selling more of their BS courses. I think what I still find refreshing is that he doesn’t even slightly pretend to be something he’s not, i.e. he’s a manipulative, greedy consumerist. The thing that sickens me more than anything that I find to be everywhere is hypocrisy. I worked for many years in the renewable energy industry, and the hypocrisy of the snouts in troughs is absolutely mind blowing, to the point I have no doubt that the whole climate catastrophe issue is a massive social manipulation. Likewise the response to Covid I found to be a terrifying display of the quick reversion to authoritarianism that society will sink at the first sign of threat. I also found I was able to think my way out of depression and I hate the defeatist narrative regarding mental health that we’re fed, which I believe does a lot of harm to many people that could actually drag themselves out of their quagmire given the right guidance. These are three of the biggest issues of recent times, I promise you I came to my own mind on them, not in any material way manipulated by Andrew Tate or any other ‘influencer’, with which I share the same view as Andrew Tate. I suppose what I might say is that despite thinking he’s a manipulative slimeball, I’m still glad anyone that promotes those sorts of views is getting some exposure, because they’re things that you’re not even really allowed to say in polite society, so if it takes a slimeball egotist like him to say it, we should perhaps reflect on who is really to blame for it. If we really maintained open discussion on complex issues you would have ordinary considerate people making these points rather than caricatures like Andrew Tate.
Young, schmung. It’s all in the mind anyway, as demonstrated ably by some people of the male persuasion on here! Whatever, my response to you was completely sincere and I’m glad you took it in the spirit in which it was meant, and not as “patronising”, according to one contributor. I think it’s so sad that, just by virtue of my being a woman, I’m automatically ‘the enemy’ in some mens eyes. To think we’ve got to this point so quickly. None of this was going on 10 years ago. Well, most of it wasn’t. What a world! I still think you sound like a lovely considerate and considered man. Hopefully, not a dying breed.
“I think it’s so sad that, just by virtue of my being a woman, I’m automatically ‘the enemy’ in some mens eyes.”
Its not that you’re a woman. Nor are you the enemy. But you are antagonistic and you don’t have a lot to contribute except that you don’t like Tate. Men who do that are pulled up just the same. In the end you become entertaining and easily triggered. I’m afraid I like teasing people and it’s so easy with you.
“Young, schmung. It’s all in the mind anyway” Yet Jordan Peterson is a man of ‘a certain age’.
“ And unlike, for instance, Jordan Peterson, Tate is explicitly anti-Christian, which makes him even more counter-cultural.”
What does Jordan Peterson have to do with this excuse for a human being? And exactly how is Peterson counter-cultural? Seems to me (having read some of his work) that he draws deeply from his inherited (and largely still-prevailing) culture. Lazy juxtaposition: I think you can do better.
Next, the reference to Oprah – when people show you who they are, believe them! – well that came back to bite her recently, I think. She’s not the first person I’d be looking to reference for anything credible. It’s been a long time since she was anything other than a “right-on” shill for the latest faddish cause.
Finally, when it takes wee Greta to do the police’s job for them, we really are scr*wed, aren’t we? I only hope the case is made to stick so that Tate gets what he deserves, the women get some justice and the internet sheds an infinitesimal of its total stupidity. Not much, but a start nonetheless.
Second article in unherd this week to compare Jordan Peterson to this clown. They don’t really know anything about Peterson except that he’s somehow a threat to be neutralized with these lazy put-downs.
Yes, the Jordan Peterson link was baffling and indeed lazy.
JP is a giant of an intellect with sound values. The fact that JP could get 5,000 people to watch him live having a two and a half hour debate with Sam Harris in Vancouver… oh but he is similar to this sleazy Tate person most hadn’t even heard of until last week.
Have listened to Jordan Petersen a lot, and never managed to listen to this man. I am sure there is a huge difference in content, but the way Petersen presents is also hugely impressive and different league.
The reason why they might be grouped together is purely because of the ideology of those who would be critical of both. Because of their blind hatred for anyone disagreeing with leftist talking points, and the standard ad hominem tactics thry use irrespective of the target. Calling Tate a misogynist loses its impact when you have spent years calling Petersen a misogynist.
Oh, now I get it. This must be a Canadian site because I haven’t a clue who this Jordan Peterson person is and had to Google him. He’s just another one of ‘those’: a frightened frustrated man who’s using his academic ‘credentials’ to give him some credibility and a viewpoint that guarantees publicity. Yawn. Please don’t do what the American’s do and write everything from a UScentric stance, assuming that everyone in the world agrees, or even knows, the American POV on everything. Or even cares about it for that matter. I have enjoyed reading some good independent well-informed writing on here. The trans angle can seem a little obscure to tackle this subject but, actually, a lot of sex workers are trans, or I should say, a lot of trans are sex workers, not by choice but through necessity because it’s the only work most of them could get. A girl’s gotta eat, ya know… I say three cheers for Ms Perry, we need as many female voices heard as possible. How predictable that men are sqawking so loudly trying to drown out the female response. Happy New Year everybody. It’s 2023. Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.
If you had no clue who Jordan Peterson is, you must have just recently entered from outside every possible media bubble that exists. I suggest you don’t use Google searches to shallowly dismiss what you have no idea about. Peterson has been called, “The most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now.” He doesn’t just influence other intellectuals, he influences the public, in a very huge way. Also, men do not ever try to drown out the female response, not on a forum like this. It’s a perfectly level playing field, by design. Objective fact.
Well, he’s not influencing the British public in a “very huge way.” I did the right thing, I checked him out because I can’t stand contempt prior to investigation. Obv, not one of your problems. Also, what’s a “public” intellectual? That really made me LOL. Sorry to be chuckling at your expense but it’s your fault for being so funny!
Hmm. How did I ‘show contempt before investigation’? ‘Public intellectual’ is a common term for scholars or academics who make an effort to communicate broadly rather than to their peers. Noam Chomsky. Carl Sagan. As for not influencing the British public in a big way, his most famous viral interview was with Cathy Newman on Channel 4. He was invited to be a resident lecturer by Cambridge University. He has written for the Telegraph on the topic of Why I Love Great Britain. So I think he has just a little impact. Again, it’s rather astounding that you were unaware, and are now claiming there’s nothing to be aware of. Goodness.
ps. Cathy Newman interview on YouTube – 42 million views.
“Oh, now I get it. This must be a Canadian site because I haven’t a clue who this Jordan Peterson person is “
”Read! Listen to the radio. Enjoy nature. Cultivate thoughtful, interesting, sensitive, open-minded friends of all ages.”
That’s exactly what I did. Can’t YOU read? How the hell do you think I discovered that he’s Canadian? Duh!
If you were what you expected from others then you would have already known who Jordan Peterson was. But you said you”haven’t a clue” who he is. Still, at least you got some benefit from sharing your ignorance.
Sorry to be UScentric, but don’t you mean a lot of trans are hookers?
Childish. Go back to your tube sock, dear.
I thought you’d appreciate that the term “sex worker” actually conceals the real circumstances of women, or men, having to sell their bodies to survive.
“But Tate’s pick ’n’ mix gender narcissism is all about rights — to dominance, strength, and “bitches” — without any of the duties to family and community. He is unmarried, with an indeterminate number of children from various mothers,…”
What then separates this character from any one of the hundreds of professional American football or basketball players, or the hundreds of rap stars that live the same values?
I found this article fascinating, not about Tate, but about the writer, and as Unherd used her to write this story, about the state of the Western thinking on humans, now utterly pervasive in 2022. Nu-Humans I guess, as it is completely at odds which all which has gone before in history.
10,000 years since we made the first urban life in Iraq, settling down to village life, giving up the wandering nomad up, making rules, law, social contracts of complex society… Ten thousand years where a remarkably uniform system was established over the millennium from Aztecs to China, Eskimos to Londoners, Baghdad to Moscow…
One where man and woman filled masculine and feminine rolls, and by doing so raised the next generations, and maintained society that it prospered. The writer says:
”and the consequent blurring of socioeconomic gender roles, has not led to the withering away of masculine and feminine archetypes. Rather, our culture now encourages us to constantly probe at our gender identities, playing with and worrying over the different elements of masculinity and femininity, then mixing and matching those we like best.”
haha – sure. Society has done all it can to destroy the family by the artificial process told above, to destroy mankind in essence, make us into neutered sheep – and largely is is working in the West where the Postmodernist sickos own the entire education, MSM, Media, Social Media, and political class – but it only works because the huge energy put into keeping this artificial weirdness in effect. In the ME, Asia, S America, most of USA, East Europe, Africa, Far East, China… this weird and twisted pathology is not taken over. They still get Tate’s hyper Masculinity there, like they still understand the classic Feminine. The writer is such a product of modernist-liberalism she thinks modern-Liberal Western thought is normal, not artificial and engineered.
”’ Tate is explicitly anti-Christian,,”’ I watched this link from above. He is NOT anti Christian, he is Christian, he just is against the passive, relative morality, modernist way it is now. As are almost all people because they are giving it up wherever Christianity becomes this feminized thing it is in UK – this Welbizied secular woke mess. He admires Islam – actually same as I do, because they still have Moral Law ingrained, they will not compromise on some things. In the West we are situationally moral, Ethically relative, and have a totally flexible code of honour. Tate calls that out as being weak in every way, hypocritical, and it is. ”Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.”
If you do not understand Tate you do not understand humanity. You may not like it – but it is what it is. Males always had some of what he sells, it is in us, and that is why he was fallowed, because it has been so demonized.
You might like Jonah Goldberg’s “Suicide of the West”, and it’s curious compliment, Matt Ridley’s “The Rational Optimist”.
I found this article fascinating, not about Tate, but about the writer,…
I too often read articles that I find are imbued more with the writer’s personality inclinations than with the subject matter.
And since Jordan Peterson is mentioned – mischaracterised in this case IMO – his emphasis on the role of typical personality traits governing behaviour might be apropos here?
“Tate is explicitly anti-Christian, which makes him even more counter-cultural.”
There is nothing countercultural about hostility to Christianity: quite the opposite. In fact Christianity is now probably the most countercultural and transgressive thing out there. Even non-Christians like me – at least those of us who have their eyes open – can see that.
“In the words of Oprah”?? … And you expect to be taken seriously?
That’s where we are these days.
As a Romanian expat, good riddance of that slime of a man. And I’m not saying that just because he preyed on Romanian women, but on any woman.
Having no insight into this man other than the odd YouTube recommendation of my feed, you may be right. And if you are, good riddance.
Its just that I can’t help feeling it’s slightly strange how Andrew Tate is so quickly found to have “preyed” on women, but it’s stupendously difficult to find Epstein’s client list or the BBC executives who covered up for Saville.
It’s just another instance where just an initial allegation or arrest tends to be sufficient proof if the person is not sufficiently left wing. Trump, the Jan 6th “insurrectionists” (who, unlike BLM, managed not to kill anyone and didn’t even have any guns), etc.
And yet there is a large number of people who hate Trump and Tate, and who would also be delighted to see the party most responsible for Rochdale etc come back to power in 2024.
Led by a man responsible for brushing it all under the carpet.
I would love to see anyone who exploited Epstein’s victims be arrested and put on trial. However, Epstein and Tate have been caught in different jurisdictions with different political motives. I’m not sure Romania has much to do with internal American affairs.
Whatever anyone thinks about Tate–I had never heard of him–he illustrates something that I’ve said and written many times, even in UnHerd. Men have a dangerous identity problem, and it’s partly (but not only) due to the fallout from decades of feminist misandry.
Everyone needs a healthy identity. No one can have a healthy identity, whether personal or collective, without the possibility of contributing something to society that is (a) distinctive, (b) necessary and (c) publicly valued. That’s becoming more and more unlikely for men, because there is almost nothing worthwhile that any man can do now that any woman can’t do (if not for herself, then with help from the state). The one exception is becoming fathers, and many women (but also some men) would argue even for that. And why not, if they believe that fathers are assistant mothers (or walking wallets) at best and potential molesters at worst? The obsolescence of men (and replacement by the state) did not happen overnight. It happened gradually over ten thousand years due to a series of technological and cultural revolutions. But feminist hostility has both accelerated and exacerbated the problem.
What happens to people who lack healthy identities? Among them are way too many boys and young men. Some of them abandon a society that has no room for them as men by dropping out of school or resorting to drugs. Others attack society either by ridiculing and defying cultural norms or by turning to crime. Still others reject life altogether by taking their own lives. The statistics should speak for themselves. These people are in big trouble, which means that everyone is in big trouble.
I’d say, judging from what I’ve read on this blog, that Andrew Tate is one of these men (and so are his followers). Like him or dislike him, but ignore him at the peril of our society.
Excellent points! One thing, though. It may be true that there’s almost nothing worthwhile that men can do that women can’t, but there are still lots of things women won’t do, such as all the hard and dirty jobs that maintain the modern built world, from transportation to sanitation to the electrical grid to the production of steel and cement and energy to defense, etc. etc. Well above 90% produced and maintained by men, and that women depend on. And given female preferences as a whole, it is not likely to change any time soon. That this is not recognized, ie. ‘publicly valued’ is a massive injustice and another significant peril to society.
Excellent points, well made.
Who the heck is Andrew Tate and why should I care?
Many of the groups who style themselves as anti woke (not that I agree with the identity politics of the woke crowd) hold him up as a a kind of figurehead and somebody who speaks the truth. Turns out he’s a people trafficker
“Turns out he’s a people trafficker”
Alleged. Don’t spin out yet.
Ok, he’s an alleged people trafficker. No doubt many of his fans will still defend him though, simply because he’s their enemies enemy
You’re absolutely right. What a sad indictment of our times.
I’m viscerally anti-woke and can’t stand the thug.
He is the thought leader of people like you. Get used to it old man
I’m the female version of you. Agree 100% but he’s so revolting that I can’t not comment on him and how he made his $355+ fortune. PS. Insults from the likes of Muckneil are not worth responding to. He’s beneath you. Literally!
He’s no-one. And, if you haven’t heard about him already, I wouldn’t waste your time or poison your mind reading about him. Just another scumbag that’s been picked up on by the media because he, cleverly, and quite deliberately, picked an online Twitter fight with everyone’s eco-warrior darling. Sadly for him, he was overly ambitious because it’s backfired on him in one way, not in others. As long as we’re all talking about him, someone, somewhere, is making money, some of which will find it’s way into the pocket of this cartoon gangsta, muscle Mary, online super pimp. God bless you (your God of choice) (!) if you really don’t know. Keep it that way. Happy New Year!
Why is everyone you haven’t heard of ‘no one’, therefore simply to be dismissed. Tate. Jordan Peterson. Agree or disagree with them, they have considerable social reach, so they need to be contended with. It doesn’t have to be you doing the contending, but telling others to just ignore such people is ridiculous.
I simply think that Buena Vista, and anyone else lucky enough not to have heard of him, has better stuff to focus on than Tate. I wish I’d never heard of him. A week ago, I was blissfully unaware of him. As for Peterson, I did research him, immediately upon reading of him in the first response to Ms Perry’s article, which I then made clear in my first response. I can’t help it if you can’t understand plain English. I’m not impressed by Peterson as there are many “public intellectuals” like him in the UK. We’ve got loads of them. He’s just another egotistical academic of a certain age desperate for a last hurrah before he shuffles off this mortal coil.
“He’s just another egotistical academic of a certain age”
Hes 60. What’s age got to do with it? Of course he wasn’t always 60. And what age should someone be for you to consider their work?
Um, he does have something to say. Presumably different from other ‘intellectuals’. He’s not a category. Are you a category? Are you just “one of” many? Or perhaps you have something to say as well. But nah, you’re also of “a certain age” (somewhere between 0 and 100) aren’t you? Best to caricature and ignore. Wow.
“to become a hyper-masculine caricature.”
Anyone willing to get into a ring against an opponent that’s trying to kick you in the head seems authentically masculine to me.
Or just dumb.
I don’t think there’s anything genuinely masculine about engaging in violence to no purpose. That’s more like brutishness. No one looks at the drunken yobs brawling outside a pub and says “There are some real men!”. Making a “sport” of it doesn’t elevate it much.
Manliness is to only use violence in self defense, or defense of others. I see no reason to use violence against anyone I don’t need to seriously hurt. And if I need to, I won’t be looking for a fair fight.
Problem is male aggression is very real. And unlike women, its dominant mode of expression is physical. It can’t be eliminated but it can and should be socialized or channeled in productive ways. Such physical sports are productive in that they are not truly ‘violent’ in the real sense, and in fact develop the skills to be really violent when it is actually necessary, as in self defence or defence of others. I know women who train in kick boxing, by your definition ‘violent’, for that very reason among others. By your logic, we’d have a nonviolent society lacking the skills to defend itself. Good luck with that. But worse, without such sports, we’d also have a whole cohort of men with no avenue to channel their male energies. You know where that can lead, don’t you? Within reason, we need such outlets. I’d rather watch a ‘brutish’ man in a ring than meet one on the street.
I used to box a bit in my younger days, and know many lads that did or still do. None act like this caricature
I suspect on reflection in his cell he will be far more frustrated for being owned by Greta than arrested for rape and trafficking women.
I’m not a fan of Greta Thunberg but that was one hell of a brilliant put-down.
The new persona for Thunberg, because the other one wasn’t going anywhere.
But, really, every comment here is unnecessary.
Perhaps you are unnecessary. It’s beginning to look increasingly likely.
It’s a very old insult is’nt it in response to aggressively bombastic behaviour in a man, which suggests that behaviour is compensatory for him feeling unsure of himself and his potency, ie, the insult is more about psychology than the actual size of his appendage.
Yes, who doesn’t like a good p***s joke? Just wondering though – if you reverse the genders – let’s say there’s a feminist who seems to enjoy offending men a bit too much (hard to imagine, right) – would it be funny to joke about her ability to sexually please men? Or would that be misogyny?
Your comment has only just appeared, since being moderated this morning I’m guessing.
See my reply to Sanford/Galeti/ Aaron/Jonas above.
I am not a feminist and I do not go round whingeing about misogyny as a rule. As far as I am concerned misogyny means an irrational hatred of women, as defined in the OED, not the ongoing battle between the sexes.
You seem to be adopting and reversing feminist tactics with your argument, if you want to do that that’s up to you, but I think the spat between Tate and Thunberg is not worth taking seriously. He was provocative with her and she slapped him down, it’s the kind of banter I remember from the school playground between teenagers.
I’m not taking it seriously, and the reversal of feminist tactics was intended as irony. Ultimately I accept the double standard and that we treat women more gently than men.
He’s right, you know. (I’m a woman so I can say that).
That was a joke, fool. (not you, Jim R)
You have a point there, Jim. Maybe not a big point, but a point nonetheless.
Another joke going unappreciated by the same very touchy, humourless man. So sorry, I didn’t mean to hit a nerve.
If we’re pulling “nasty comments about the physical appearance of people of the other sex” back out of the box then that’s interesting. Very rad.
I thought it was rather childish myself and disappointed that she stooped to his level. To be fair, he had been taunting her for days. Her twitter bio says she’s autistic and there’s quite a few claims that her father is really the person writing it. I have no idea but it seems unusual behaviour altogether for a truly autistic young 19 year old woman. I wish she’d ignored him because he loves publicity and he didn’t pick her randomly. He knew exactly what he was doing. A week ago, I had no idea who this revolting individual was. His stay in jail will be worth it to him because, a) he’s got plenty of money to ease his time there, and b) everyone and his horse will want to interview him when he comes out. Either way, it’s a win for Tate. To his adoring 14 year old schoolboy fans, he’s even more macho now and SO gangsta for going to prison, Romanian, no less, plus he’ll coin it in upon release and add to his $355+ offshore pile. Why do you think he moved to Romania? He’s moved about a lot, living from one country to another. It’s classic criminal behaviour when you’re hiding money, laundering money, looking to avoid paying tax. Tate’s a creep, but a clever creep. Get ready for ‘My Romanian Jail Hell’ coming soon to a good bookstore near you.
Interesting article. A couple of points. Making fun of someone’s anatomy, whoever they are, whichever part and however true, is not fair and it’s not funny. Secondly, Tate makes most of his money through Hustler’s University. 100k subscribers at $50/ month = big bucks. It’s a complete [email protected] But it is targeted at those alienated people identified in the article. The events of this week will further boost his profile, and his profits.
Again, I concur on all points. Tate is not a man to make fun of a person’s private parts, he is a man who makes money out of a person’s private parts. Everything he does is a scam. He’s a hustler full stop. He’s made $355+ million from his hustles. Sadly, disturbingly, this country is becoming more Americanised by the day and we now adopt the American POV that anything goes if it makes you obscenely rich.
People like Tate only care about themselves. The funny thing is that whether they are right wing or left, they all have their own formula for garnering applause. Whether they truely care about what they are saying or not is irrelevant, as long as they benefit, everyone else is a target to further their own ego and bank balance. Good riddance
I agree. I think his political leanings are totally irrelevant. So, I suspect, does he. Tate will swing whichever way the wind blows if it’ll make him money.
Weird how only the right wing seems to create creatures like Tate and Trump. Truth is, they are the leaders of whatever the conservative has become. You should be ashamed.
Which part didn’t you understand this time?
No serious, thinking person could ever be a fan of Andrew Tate. Which is precisely why he is so popular.
Ha, very droll. Sadly, very true.
This is becoming fascinating, in a depressing sort of way. Every time I agree with a comment posted on here by a man, another ‘man’ comes along and gives me the thumbs down! How telling that one of the male commentators in this thread, is more intent on criticising me, a woman, than he is in supporting his fellow men. What’s your opinion on this one, Brett H?
What’s my opinion? I’d like to know how you know which sex gives you the thumbs down.
I might add, the other women who make comments leave you for dead.
Arrogant nonsense. His fans take themselves to be serious thinking people, as does basically everyone, despite your judgment that they are not. It’s just calling people you disagree with names.
Tait is an unpleasant man, and not one with whom I identify remotely. But what an easy target for feminist misandrists!
Juxtaposing Tait with Jordan Peterson in such a discussion is intellectually immature as is the failure to criticise (condemn) Greta Thunberg for resorting to puerile referencing of her opponent’s genitalia, let alone for not maintaining a dignified silence in the face of Tait’s provocation. No surprise there! The misandrist vs the misogynist!
Misogyny and misandry pervade the 21st Century discourse in equal measure; but the majority of decent, ordinary people is seldom, if ever, celebrated.
If you are going to engage with an odious creep like Tate then mocking and humiliating him is the appropriate way to do it. Dignifying his clownish opinions with an argument is not required.
Greta absolutely owned him in the kind of terms he and his incel followers can understand.
The second part of your concluding sentence doesn’t make sense! However, re the first half: C21st misandry is the result of thousands of years of misogyny. I don’t agree with either but without the first, we wouldn’t have the other. It’s predictable, but sad, as well as ineffably stupid, that this is the male response. No desire to change behaviours, just get angry at the crop you sowed and reaped in the first place. Solution: even more virulent misogyny. It’s simply unfair and wrong not to treat anyone else as you wish to be treated yourself.
Which part didn’t you understand?
Thanks for asking Graeme. It was the missing out of a word, accidental I’m sure, that threw me. I thought Julian Pellat’s points were well made in that post, and, upon re-reading my reply, I see I could be misunderstood too. Just to clarify: I was agreeing with his comment about misogyny and misandry. That what I meant when I wrote “I don’t agree with (misogyny and misandry)”, not that I didn’t agree with Mr Pellat. Hope that’s cleared that up! I still stand by my belief that we wouldn’t have the latter, a relatively new phenomenon, without the former.
The part that didn’t make sense to you is let’s not tar everyone with the same brush.
You’re getting tiresome now. Anything I say, you fall over yourself in a rush to downgrade and disagree. That’s fine. Even arseholes have opinions. However, I see you hate anything put forward that doesn’t agree with your own POV, but you only condemn the female commentators on here, therefore, you prove everyone’s point about misogyny and I shan’t waste any more of my time trying to explain, humour or reason with an unreasonable person. Ta ta luv.
The current victims of this misandry, boys and men, for the most part, did NOT sow and reap the misogyny you speak of. You say you don’t ‘agree’ with it, but have no problem blaming men as a class (‘you’) for their own victimization.
Er…pot, kettle, Black, methinks.
Yes, we really are right down there in the schoolyard now.
I would if I had any idea why he’s picking on me!
Do we really have to make everything about trans people? Trans people didn’t cause the f*****g dinosaurs to go extinct. Not everything is about big bad trans activism.
Wouldn’t you think the question is what’s behind all these young men being driven into the arms of Tate?
Yes, it wasn’t true that fearless Greta was the cause of the ‘takedown’. I wonder if those describing Tate in very negative terms have even watched a few minutes of any of his online videos/postings? I did and found it very interesting. He was talking about how if you are rich, covid restrictions (in terms of travel) made very little difference to your life. So those promoting them did not have to suffer them (a bit like climate change people coming in their private jets to discuss ways that the movement of ordinary people may need to be restricted). He also mentioned that he had been arrested (with his brother) and their house searched. So this is part of an on going investigation. Who knows? Maybe he has been set up.
The bloke is a piece of shit. The worst of everything packed into one ego. Love him if you want.
I’m impressed that you were able to put those few sentences together. It can’t have been easy.
Is he black?
Has that made you feel better?
a vulgar, toe curlingly ghastly, self publicity addicted, weapons grade oik, reflecting the depressing values of todays meeja zombie proletariat….I’m only surprised that he hasn’t married into The Royal Family, so as to allow the Saxe Coburg Gotha beardie PR machine to crow ” inclusive/ modern/diverse”, given that he makes even the Middletons look smart. Perhaps a next hubbie for Meghan?
Utterly predictable. This clown couldn’t make a nickel without exploiting other people. I hope he rots in a Romanian jail for a very long time.
The bigger problem is the utter desolation of conservative thinking to the point where the likes of this moron and the buffoon at Mar a Lago are now leaders of that movement. It appears that a willingness to boast like a fool and say literally anything to “own the libs” is enough for the right these days.
Andrew Tate is the future of conservative politics. God help you.
”the likes of this moron and the buffoon at Mar a Lago”
haha, go watch Brandon give another stack of billions to some corrupt cause and sign in more anti Constitution laws, and promote more luggage stealing Nuclear waste officials and dress wearing Admirals…and work to get inflation back to double digits….
From St. Croix.
I am no lover of Trump, but he is a giant of a leader in comparison to Biden. (BTW buffoon is such a trite overused word – bit of a trigger to indicate nonsense to follow 🙂
Trump is a clown. Your willingness to follow him is your humiliation.
If Trump hadn’t become President then Hillary Clinton would have been. Brash and coarse perhaps but not a clown. And I really don’t think being brash or coarse is the worst one can be when compared to the rest of the pack. His term exposed a lot about the corruption behind the platitudes, just by being there. That’s all he had to do and they felt threatened. The humiliation is in living under those lies for so long.
And your inability to frame a coherent argument is yours.
If you want to be taken seriously avoid ad hominem attacks on other people commenting on Unherd articles; and desist from hurling puerile insults at public figures you hate. Furnish objective arguments of substance that people may respect, even if they may yet disagree with you. You might even persuade some to your viewpoint. Playground bullies end up being ignored.
Thanks for dealing with Graeme the teenager.
Let me know when the “dealing with” starts – sounds rather fun!
Go away, child.
Quite right, Julian Pellat dispatched of him beautifully so no need for this! His “old man” comment really got under your skin, didn’t it? I don’t approve of name-calling but it does tell one volumes about the person making it. However, ‘Graeme the teenager’ is the only person in replies so far who has mentioned the Trump connection, which is true and a valid point, imo. The immediately heated Republicans slap down isn’t relevant at all. Trump was simply brought up because of his connection with Tate. The party political broadcasts, note plural, in response are not. This entire thread has wandered off point. Thank you everyone for the interesting discussion and Louise Perry for her thought-provoking article. Good night and a Happy New Year to you all!
“His “old man” comment really got under your skin, didn’t it?”
I doubt that it did. Perhaps like me, he is tired of the dumbdown level of debate that GM promotes. The Yellow Man – The whole world in a nutshell. Yeah, innit.
Trump supporters are, by definition, too stupid to comprehend any objective arguments I may choose to make.
Quod erat demonstrandum!
Tu certus quod?
Too right, GM. Just look at their fearless leader. Stupidly terrifyingly bonkers.
Perhaps if he, or you, could provide an example of a (non-Ukrainian) leader who is not “Stupidly terrifyingly bonkers” then we would be able to attempt a comparison.
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.Subscribe