Misogyny and the “Manosphere”:

How Mr. Tate’s online presence has shone a light on the lack of healthy male role models.

Harry Stone

Therecent arrest of Andrew Tate has given me the opportunity (and quite frankly, willpower), to explore the legacy and impact of the “Top G”. Before the summer of this year, you’d be hard pressed to find many; with the exception of kickboxing enthusiasts and echo-chamber inhabitants who knew of Tate. Yet, within the span of weeks, he had more google searches than Ukraine, Taylor Swift and Eminem. He arguably revolutionised the use of YouTube Shorts and TikTok, with millions of boys and young men viewing his controversial content, the likes of which echoed the ‘gamergate’ era back when my interest in current affairs was just emerging.

These clips, however, were not new. They had re-emerged from the aforementioned era (201517) as a result of Tate’s “Hustler’s University”; a pyramid scheme which effectively pays those who share his content with those who may be susceptible to the messages. It allowed for the mass dissemination of his “wealth creation” techniques, with frequent political commentary. At the core of this, is the view that the west has been undermined by feminist thought, and only through traditional ‘toxic masculinity’ can it be restored. Living in Eastern Europe, Tate utilises the traditional social values, and lack of economic regulations to establish himself as the self-appointed “King of Toxic Masculinity”.

To his supporters, Mr. Tate is a bastion of free speech, standing up to “the matrix”, or political establishment, which he believes is not only out to destroy him, but the very ‘values’ in which he espouses. In such a politically polarised year, this has seen him align with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, alongside other right-wing characters; viewing Ukraine’s supporters as part of this “woke” system. However, it does not take long to realise (for any genuine advocate for free expression) the glaring hypocrisies in this line of argument.

If you check social media, you will see conservative influencers, and Tate supporters arguing that the ongoing trafficking investigation is nothing more than the ‘cancelling’ of a figure that “they” (typically an antisemitic trope) dislike. Yet, they will more than happily accuse a minimum wage drag queen of “grooming children” with far less proof.

Tate’s rise to fame is also part of a wider trend of ‘inceldom’, which not only perplexes many within the media, but poses a genuine threat to the safety of women, and frames the discourse around men’s issues in a starkly “we are not feminists” fashion. Masculinity, thus, has to take on a toxic foundation, with attempts to hark back to an era where gender roles were more rigid (women were economically and socially subservient).

However, this does not need to happen. Masculinity is not an inherently toxic concept. The material conditions which have enshrined patriarchal values within our society serve to benefit the men who have “made it”, yet for the majority of men, toxic masculinity continues to ridicule, shame and disempower their aspirations. Tate professes to helping men, yet will deny the existence of depression (which affects one in eight men). His lack of manners, and disregard for the individual experiences of women has helped to cultivate a following of men who, because of a lack of other role models, will find meaningful romantic or platonic connections all but impossible.

Consequently, feminist men with large platforms must bridge a void in the ‘men’s issues’ discourse, by understanding that men will experience masculinity in different ways. Encouraging all people to work out is not a negative or toxic view, but if we want to truly combat the surge in ‘Incel Kings’, an alternative message promoting healthy interactions between genders must be offered.