August 24, 2022 - 7:15am
Former kickboxer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate was banned from Facebook, Instagram and TikTok this week. Unfortunately, cancelling him is unlikely to change his fans’ minds about women and the world.
Few people embody misogyny quite as well as Tate. There’s video evidence of him assaulting his ex-girlfriend, and he often speaks disparagingly about women.
The majority of Tate’s 4.7 million Instagram followers were young men. What drew them to a worldview like Tate’s in the first place?
Messages that positively encourage men are thin on the ground in the mainstream media. Jordan Peterson did help fill some of this vacuum, but his message is often tough, urging people to find meaning in hard work and sacrifice. Many men have good reason to suspect that Petersonian work and sacrifice will never be valued by a society that pathologises masculinity.
Unlike Peterson, Tate doesn’t deliver theological lectures which many may find hard to follow. He does not preach that sacrifices will be rewarded. Instead, he emphasises physical self-perfection and a domineering attitude, while downplaying the importance of intelligence. (He once made fun of a young boy for reciting pi to 200.)
What could be more appealing to a generation of young men looking for uncomplicated advice on how to be good at life?
These same young men can compare Tate to a feminist zeitgeist that accuses them of oppressing women — not just in the present, but throughout history. The feminist answer is for young men to take a backseat and give way to their female peers. In many areas of life, such as higher education, this has already occured. Tate then, is the beneficiary of a culture almost designed to generate resentment in these boys.
Feminists generally fail to consider all the ways in which men may feel powerless. At the same time, women have more choices than ever before. Our culture glorifies conventionally masculine traits in women — remember the ‘girlboss’? — while labelling these same traits in men as toxic. In this perplexing environment, it’s unclear what the new male role should be.
If Tate’s popularity signifies anything, it is that some young men want to end this confusion by embracing the rules of the jungle again. In nature, physical strength is essential for victory, and this is exactly what Tate espouses. He is merely offering insecure men who feel invisible a way of being seen. It’s no coincidence that depression in men may manifest as anger and aggression.
Lecturing men on how to be less toxic and silencing the few voices that address male hopelessness (however inappropriately) is not going to bring peace between the genders.
If we genuinely want to cultivate a healthy relationship between the sexes, we must acknowledge the pain and confusion men may feel as a result of their ambiguous roles in contemporary society. If more of us were willing to hear them and offer them encouragement, obnoxious figures like Tate would become much less appealing to this generation of lonely young men.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
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.
SubscribeI guess we shouldn’t be surprised someone like Tate came along. As a society we have been attacking masculine traits and men as a whole for some years now and it was always going to lead to a large number of men doing everything possible to distance themselves from said society. Today, it is young men, tomorrow it may well be white people which should be interesting.
I don’t think Tate’s popularity has more significance than young lads like seeing a chap putting up two fingers to the prevailing social orthodoxy. Of course they don’t take his message seriously. It is just an entertaining fantasy. Someone who is shocking the conventional has appealed to youth throughout time. Epater le bourgeois – as the French say.
Besides, I rarely see hot, young women in the arms of thick-glassed nerds, who can recite Pi. More tend to flock to powerful, physically attractive specimens. Evolution can be inconvenient, I guess.
Has the author looked at the wives of famous athletes? Perhaps Hollywood needs to include more flip-flop wearing, latte-sipping, pasty white, fat men as the hero, to change the minds of young women?
Human nature has been hugely underrated or ignored by the aggressive progressive left today. It’s why they will ultimately fail in their quest for a utopian world. That among other things.
I think there is more risk to the situation than people care to notice. Men and women are fundamentally different, and men reactions are more definitive – just look back at history for reference, if you need one. I don’t think that the wholesale dissociation of young men from society that has been ignited by feminism will be something that can be fixed. It does not matter that the whole society will ultimately pay for it – there is no way to “undo” it now. Power comes with responsibility, and unfortunately the power that was granted to feminism was abused beyond redemption. It will cost us all.
Andre, how many misogynistic, white supremacist statements can you put in 1 comment. (Yes, I’m being facetious.) Let’s see…
“Men and woman are different” — Not possible, since a man can become a woman by simply stating that he is one.
“men reactions are more definitive” — You’re saying that the arbitrary category called “woman” is somehow more wishy washy than the arbitrary category called “man”. How dare you?
“just look to history” — History is the narrative of white, imperialist colonizing poor, benighted POCs. Looking at it without Critical Theory glasses gives you cooties. Plebs are unable to property interpret History.
“power comes with responsibility” — You’re insinuating that the known power deficit that POCs have is because they are less responsible? White supremacy straight down the line.
(Again, I am being facetious if it’s not obvious. I just couldn’t resist.)
We pathologise masculinity in schools, the mainstream media demonises positive role models like Jordan Peterson, then we wonder why we end up with Andrew Tate. I’ve written more about this here for those who are interested …
http://adamjwolstenholme.blogspot.com/2021/08/while-men-cant-find-encouragement.html
Fair points raised, glad they’re getting an airing.
Feminism, in my understanding, was to encompass equality of opportunity for women and that always sat perfectly comfortably with me. What now passes for feminist discourse, I no longer understand. Mostly, it bores and frustrates me with its adolescent overtones: how on earth young men are to navigate this mess I really don’t know.
Demonising half the world’s population was never going to end well. Though I keep getting told that’s all in my head; nobody’s saying that. There’s a word for that behaviour, I believe: “gaslighting”, anyone? Or is that another uniquely male sin?
Okay, rant over, I’ll go back to doing some constructive work. Thanks to those who took eye trouble to read this.
Feminists getting the taste of their own medicine. Absolutely love it.
Not saying he is a great guy but Andrew Tate’s message at its core is very beneficial to young men.
Stop making excuses, gain personal freedom through working hard and making money, train hard and be able to stand up for yourself in a fight, there are differences between men and women and women generally want a man that will take care of them financially and keep them safe.
This message was very obvious 100 years ago but today it is denied.
Feminism is chivalry on steroids. Mysoginists like Tate are just as bad. Mirror images. There have been many promoters of moderate positive masculinity that have been totally ignored, cancelled and villified. True equlity will see women being held accountable. Judging by the increasing numbers of children, women and men being killed by females in The West whose actions would have been termed as ‘mounterous’ by the press and law authorities had the perpetrater been a male, there is no chance of equality or harmony anytime soon.
Great article. Thanks
I have to take exception to the statement that “feminism is chivalry on steroids”. Modern feminism is just a misogyny that’s anti-man instead of anti-woman (I’m sure there’s a name for that, but I’m too lazy to find it). Neither philosophy is “pro-” anything.
Chivalry is a recognition of the beautiful differences between men and women. Feminism today insists that such differences do not exist. In that sense, they are polar opposites.
Misandry is the word you’re after.
Which is why thinking & caring women should shun feminism.
Feminism takes that (natural ?)beauty and the behaviours it illicits to enforce far greater sacrifices from men then opening doors or having mud splashed over you. Feminism says men are accountable for all ills and women for none and so men’s bank accounts and wallets are now opened and all types of mud are thrown that stick, with or without evidence. Feminists have demanded more and more from men, including thier identity and persona. So i will stick with my steroids analogy.
See the Wikipedia article on Men Going Their Own Way. In the middle of the last century it was still possible to identify a common life pattern – a secure job, marriage, kids, buy your own car and house, then retire. People who deliberately stepped outside this paradigm were ‘weird’.
The importance these things has been challenged by events and people with activist visions. Most people still make the best of it for themselves, but it is hardly surprising that the disenchanted (men and women) choose to go their own way.
This is exactly what those pulling the strings want. Have always wanted. Divide the populous. Treat people very differently so they behave differently. Simple reward and punishment.
“Petersonian values” include positive outcomes. Try mentioning them occasionally.
More flies with honey, etc.
Not one of the Tates who were at Ampleforth?
Tate is cancelled on social media while scores of feminists freely post their misandrist messages and write books such as I Hate Men.
Despite the blatant double standard the rise of feminism has been good for men; primarily by revealing true female nature and shining a light on the jealousy, resentment and outright hatred with which many women view men. There are many other ways in which feminism has benefitted men:
– Men are no longer expected to be the family breadwinner because feminism says that women should be self sufficient and not rely on a man.
– Men have been freed from the expectation of marriage because feminism tells women it is good to delay having children so they can have a career.
– Men find it easy to have one night stands without obligation because feminism tells women that it is alright to have casual sex with as many men as they want.
Traditional men who still believe in chivalry and marriage are clinging to a past that no longer exists. In that sense, Tate, and others like him, had a message that young men need to hear.
I’m guessing that there are myriad so- called feminists who would jump at the chance of a decent, even traditional man paying attention to them. But they’ve lost the art of flirting – it’s just not in their skill set by definition.
Only a man who is either stupid, desperate or brainwashed would take on the very risky prospect of a feminist wife.